? How come CHEM TRAILS are 'condensing', coming during WARM afternoons ?

[RJSV]

   There they are, it's 2 pm and very warm today.
Carefully laid down, right in front of (our) noses.
Some folks will ask: ..."...oh not this again...".
Well, yeah, I see it, again.

   Condensation of water is associated with cold mornings, plus these wide and wider 'Sky Obstructions'
(I like to create descriptive slang terms),
aren't that high, altitude, or are they ?

   The tight little grey line(s), all mostly parallel, run in approx a NorthWest- SouthEast line, could be a ...wait for it:  A Legitimate Air Flight to / from Oakland, Ca.
But any one chemtrail never shows an altitude change.
   What's wrong with this picture?  To take the reverse argument, why not a bunch of contrails, from water, on an excessively COLD morning, 5:30 am ?  We are getting a lot of those, thru March and April.

   It's just so obvious, to comment on, but at risk of ridicule.  'They' are hiding some shet, ...or NOT hiding it.
   Sorry, if chemtrails talk irritates you...I was basically raised, as a kid, by watching 'The Simpsons'.
That 1990's show had some clever sarcasm,  a preferred method of delivery 'Somethings Up.'

[artag]

Cold days are characterised by cloud cover : the sun doesn't warm you.
Contrails are hard to see in cloudy conditions.

[SiliconWizard]

Well, and at 10,000 meters high, even when it's a warm afternoon on the ground, it's still pretty cold up there.

[newbrain]

Another one bites the list.

[sleemanj]

I suggest you just make yourself a cup of really strong tea and read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

[HighVoltage]

So, some people believe in Chemtrails from airplanes and their fuel.
Interestingly others claim that airplanes fly without fuel.
Maybe these two groups should meet.

We are living in a very strange world.
Sometimes I think it is time to leave the planet.
But ooops that will not work, there are chemtrails in the way.

[jpanhalt]

@sleemanj
I don't believe "contrails" are due to engine exhaust as stated in that Wiki link.  They are due to condensation of water in the atmosphere caused by local cooling.

Contrails can happen at any altitude.  I have seen the effect when rotating during takeoff on a humid morning in the Summer; although, they do not persist long at that altitude.

[sleemanj]

@sleemanj
I don't believe "contrails" are due to engine exhaust as stated in that Wiki link.

It's not "smoke" if that's what you are thinking, and that's not what the Wiki link describes.  I suggest you read it again more carefully this time.

Here is the dearly-departed Mirya producing some trails, how many engines did Mirya have, how many trails do you see...


Here is an A380, how many engines, how many trails....


Here is a 737 and a 747 at the same time, again, how many engines, how many trails...

[jpanhalt]

1) I did misread the contrail comment. "produced by aircraft engine exhaust" had me thinking in the wrong direction.

2) Chemtrails are a different thing ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory ).  Maybe the TS will clarify whether he really meant chemtrails in the title or contrails.

[RJSV]

Actually, my thoughts are oriented towards environment, and global temperature.  Not the alarmist approach, (for whatever political gain), or to 'signal' my wisdom (few of blog members know me). But that the temperature/climate thing has been showing, locally.
(SF Bay Area is in '2nd' phase of big changes).
  The 'unsaid' theme, is maybe too complex, to have left out: That is, that perhaps, there are quiet efforts, to control the rising temperature thing, PLUS a confidence that "Those chumps will NEVER question a great big SKY BLOCK,...right under their noses...".
  "At best; anyone daring to suggest so...will be ridiculed, endlessly...".
   So there's that dynamic. Actually, literally, a lot of 'Climate Alarmism' is fake, but then that's dangerous as a real series of calamities can await.
I had been hearing a lot of alarm, "Such and such, 32 feet rise, by 2020,...", but that was like, 1997.

   Going back, to suggested explanations, those trails I see, expanding, often 3 or 4 clear, tight trails, get to persist, over 2 hours, and literally occupy 60 % of sky dome, above Oakland and San Jose, seemingly parallel to California central coastline.
To do that kind of travel path, a commercial flight, say out of San Jose, (Silicon Valley), would have had to take off, fly south, and assume the North-West line, all parallel, then fly across the entire SF area, over Marin County and then Pacific Ocean.  Maybe, but the odd felling aspects just stack up.  Why not at 6 or 7 am, when it's really cold, at sea level.
Why, so often the warm, even record breaking 'winter' day, say March 3rd.
   But, surely, any concealed planning would include a component of thinking, "No way, this is going to get questioned, legitimately."
   "Chumps" is the phrase, I believe, used in California prisons.
  'A person, usually victim, who tends to side with perpetrators, somehow excusing some outrageous acts'.
  I figured, try the question, ...wait and see, maybe, I hope, actually, to be proven wrong.
Thanks folks, I appreciate your views.

[jpanhalt]

Ordinary contrails can last a long time depending on turbulence and of course can move or not move depending on the winds.  Along the California coast, the land heats much faster than the water.  That uplift over the land is responsible for cooling breezes from the ocean.  It would also tend to move contrails from over the ocean (San Jose and SFO are very busy) to over the coast.  At night, particularly in the near desert areas (like Santa Anna), the breeze can reverse and the area is heated by winds off the desert.

As for further discussion of climate change, I think that topic clearly is in the same category as some others that have been locked.  If you had actual data to present (e.g., timed pictures), discussing persistent contrails might be a different story.  I have seen contrails last what seemed like hours in very stable air.  However, I never actually time them as they are no concern to me.  Our sky in Cleveland gets quite a few considering the traffic into and out of the Boston to DC metroplex. 

[RJSV]

Thanks.
   Virtually all, of the trails I've noted, run roughly North South, with little streamers starting to be carried perpendicular, I'm assuming carried by wind, that's approx West to East, that would be coming landward from ocean.
  Today, the whole entire sky dome appears completely blue, with now, noon, only a couple of vague wisps, having no linear looking qualities. That's a kind of anti-point, meaning that why today completely clear looking while other similar days have a lot, to see and note.
   If you want a comprehensive report, I cannot supply that.  But I have noted, on the days these visible effects are present, it is often maybe 3 existing 'lines', and one partial line, being laid out right then, all parallel.
Uhh, I'd love to get disproven, and admit it, however...
Why then, nothing today ?
   (Those longer lasting, ever expanding 'ribbons' of grey always retain the linear structure, crossing the whole 'dome' visible.)
If I said more than 2 hours, you want 'more specific', but I'm mentioning generalities. Say '2 hours', typically;
That could be 120 minutes, plus or minus a lot.  I suppose, it might be helpful, to track that better, especially to get a view, way out, say at 4 hour point, as now I have curiousity where those linear grey clouds end up. Nice idea!
   Also, wondering what folks in Europe or elsewhere think. It's all a minor distraction today, except, like I said, when it happens, it often 'expands' to more than typically 60% of sky dome.  If you need better numbers I can try, but 'more than 60% covered sky, in otherwise completely blue', is a good metric.
That means there are not really any typical wispy clouds around, to confuse matters, just the ever-expanding linear things.

[NiHaoMike]

So, some people believe in Chemtrails from airplanes and their fuel.

Seems like so much work to release them far away from people, if there really is a conspiracy to release such chemicals, wouldn't it be a lot easier to release them on the ground? Oh wait, that was exactly the case, see leaded gasoline...

[RJSV]

Partially correct, but my flaw is assume way too much, before concluding.  (I'm a better 'back room' researcher, including pocket protector, calculator in holder.)
   My premise being that 'SKY BLOCK' is only for the one day, for reducing SUN influx by shading.  Poisoning and all that, is not, at least, right there, like I said, often expands, in absence of any other real haze, to over
 50 % of so-called 'Sky Dome',...that just means horizon to horizon.
   This thread also, involves personal 'BS' detection.  That's both a innate talent, and learned, plus intuition.
Being from Engineering background, I tend to dabble in 'statistics', like casually measuring, on the clock, how many minutes your kid takes, to complain 'Dog ate that...', or what percentage of interview question, a news anchor spends prefacing with slanderous commentary, before subject person gives 3 second answer...
   "You know, CEO John Smith, the discredited former suspected drug dealer/smuggler puppy killer, who looks like he might get away with his crimes....."
Then, the 3 word answer, from guy being interviewed.

[RJSV]

Oops. Sorry, also meant to say: some other reply mentioned 'poisoning' as yet another "flawed theory", probably innocently changing to original topic..., (unless we are just generalizing this thread, into "All Tricky things ever done, up there in the sky.). This is one specific thing.  Barium  poisoning ? That's another topic, relating a little.
   Oh, I get it:. The two subjects are related because they are deeply flawed and not to be believed.
Heads up: more distracting commentary relating to 'up there in the sky' likely.
I'm too busy today, like many of us, viewing war news.

[SiliconWizard]

As with a number of other current and controversial topics, there's the bullshit and then there are some facts.

While the majority of what you can see in the sky are just con trails, geoengineering is a reality. Cloud seeding is a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding
Thing is, apart from noticing an unexpected local change in the weather - if you were a weather specialist - you would probably not notice it. Cloud seeding usually doesn't look anything like con trails in the sky, although I'm certainly no specialist of that.

So, if the question is, do we disperse substances in the air using planes for changing the weather for instance, the answer is definitely yes. On some occasions.
Is that being considered for "reversing climate change". Again, the answer is yes.

But is what you currently see in the sky an indication of that? Likely not. Is it being done often? At the moment, probably not so much. And is that done for willingly poisoning people? Probably not either, although as the article says, there are definite health and environment concerns.

[RJSV]

Yes, thanks for clarifying.
Not a thread discussing poison.
   I'm saying, it's looking like weather manipulation by way of shading.  Motivation perhaps, to avoid panic, (over runaway climate temperature rise). Or speculating; To avoid changing industry, much.
But part of my angle, here, is, ignorance, by way of public schools, and a new'ish habit, of applying dismissive 'labels', to someone commenting on 'weird seeming timing'.
   One reply, here, suggests 'Barium Poisoning' was a theory, for things from the sky.  Then 'more' replies wanting to 'discredit' the 'poison theory'...aggggggrrrrh
  (I'm surprised somebody doesn't mention "poisoning isn't happening...so relax...")
   Point is, that wasn't the TOPIC.   That's some similar sounding thing...similar enough to muddy the waters.
We started on 'Sky blocked at odd times', that being warmer mornings, when colder mornings would be more likely, at those low'ish (and steady) altitudes.

   Plus, if that's happening in Europe, then perhaps just condensation, where a couple thousand feet up it's very cold, regardless of sea level temps.
A commercial pilot might give some good answers.
A 'conspiracy theory' is, really, just a 'nicer' and useless dismissal.  Like a 'poisoning' theory.
    Now, go ahead, let's have a whole bunch more dismissals, but please, no discussion, off topic, concerning 'theories about poison'....

[james_s]

Have you had a mental health evaluation any time recently? Many of your posts recently suggest you may be unwell.

[AVGresponding]

Have you had a mental health evaluation any time recently? Many of your posts recently suggest you may be unwell.

Such comments are unconstructive and also off-topic.



On topic, it has been mooted a few years ago that synthetic clouds could be used to reflect a portion of the suns energy in order to reduce global warming, but I'm not aware of any practical ideas regarding implementation.
Contrails would not be practical for two obvious (to me) reasons; they are too small, and the aircraft that create them burn a lot of kerosene making them, adding to rather than subtracting from the problem.

Bear in mind also the the "sky dome" you are referring to is very tiny in comparison to the planet's surface, being the area of sky visible to an observer at ground level? I think you'd need a very large number of sky domes covered in cloud to noticeably affect the planetary climate.

[RJSV]

Actually, (Avg responding, nice defense, so soon, thank you), I'm accepting of most commentary, as this particular blog Web site seems to 'monitor' the various postings quite well, and promptly, while simultaneously
being pretty darn permissive, (in absence of gross personal insults).
   So, thank you, and I would add, replies are often scarce, so I (EVEN) appreciate a slightly off-base comment. I've issued worse.  I'm what others might call a 'Harmless Weirdo', but, well, a LOT of us creative types get that, sometimes.
   No problems here, as long as no Racial or ethnic stuff gets involved.
   Now, as to the topic, I think the central theme, is that the timing, of those observations, is odd.  Ever view the TV show, 'MONK' ?  He acts like this, displaying a sort of 'instinct'.
    I'll work on my deficiencies, not so worried, about fellow blog posters.
Thanks, again, folks.

[NiHaoMike]

On topic, it has been mooted a few years ago that synthetic clouds could be used to reflect a portion of the suns energy in order to reduce global warming, but I'm not aware of any practical ideas regarding implementation.

Build pipelines to send seawater into deserts, where the water will evaporate and become clouds. But it would be a lot easier to paint every building roof white (unless it's solar or "green") in hot climates.

[AVGresponding]

On topic, it has been mooted a few years ago that synthetic clouds could be used to reflect a portion of the suns energy in order to reduce global warming, but I'm not aware of any practical ideas regarding implementation.

Build pipelines to send seawater into deserts, where the water will evaporate and become clouds. But it would be a lot easier to paint every building roof white (unless it's solar or "green") in hot climates.

I would guess the solid/semi-solid residues left behind by such a process to be considerable and an impediment to continuing function. The painting of roofs is probably the most practical (if semi tongue-in-cheek) suggestion I've personally seen (sorry, you weren't the first to say it!), but would still require a good deal of legislation to compel it with private properties etc.

[RJSV]

I gave up my CAR, 2009.  Walk everywhere. BART trains require, basically 1 mile each way...about 45 minutes.
Not that I'm a saint... more like, a CHEAP-SKATE!

   The world still would need a better deodorant, plus, I'm the 'only' skinny dude in family, I know.
   "You're working for your car, man !"...(fr some movie)

[Rick Law]

First, how I think contrail form as I understand the physics of it:

Warm air has more capacity to hold moisture than cold air.  As hot air (leaving from the engine) cool down, it lost some of its moisture holding capacity forcing the moisture to condense out as water droplet from the air.  Since the hot air is pushed out of the engine as a trail, the water droplets is in a trail too - thus contrail.

This effect is not just the jet of jet engines, it is the hot meeting the cold.  Like a cold glass of drink coming out of the cold fridge into a warm room, moisture is condensed out on the surface of the cold glass.

Even internal combustion engine can cause contrails because it too is hot.   Hot meeting cold is what cause the condensation -- read on, an example is cited in a later paragraph.


Contrail's impact on temperature:

While moisture in the air itself accounts for most our warming, that is not how contrail affects climate.  Cloud cover (reflecting sunlight away) from the ground and it's blanket effect are the main course of contrail's impact to climate.

Contrail affected climate change has definitely been reported.  There were unintended "experiments".  Some of us were around during the 9/11 terrorist attack in the USA.  It resulting in air space closed for about 3 days (no contrail).  Further back, there were the WW II air raids (lots of airplane exhaust hot air - ie: contrails).

This is the reported impacts climate-wise quoted from the article "Empty skies after 9/11 set the stage for an unlikely climate change experiment"^[1]:

... ...About a year after the attacks, Carleton, David Travis, a geographer at the University of Wisconsin, and another colleague argued in a paper that thin clouds created by contrails reduce the range of temperatures. By contributing to cloud cover during the day, they reflect solar energy that would otherwise have reached the earth’s surface. At night, they trap warmth that would otherwise have escaped. ... ... The effect during the three days that flights were grounded was strongest in populated regions where air traffic was normally densest. The increase in range came to about two degrees Celsius.

Other studies have tended to back up the research. In 2011, British scientists wrote that an air raid in May 1944 involving over 1,400 aircraft measurably lowered daytime temperatures in England. In that case, the situation was the reverse of 9/11 – large-scale air travel was unknown, and dense concentrations of large planes were rare. ... ...
[ RL: Bold added. ]

Note that the observation is a 2 degree change due to 9/11's three days of no contrail.  If we double the air traffic, we would double the contrails and that should do a hell of a lot more in lowering global temperature than reducing carbon emission, which I recalled is fractional degree in a couple of decade.  While Carbon Dioxide is responsible for as much as 80% of the warming if you exclude water vapor and cloud, but water vapor and cloud is clearly dominant over Carbon Dioxide.  Wikipedia has water vapor/cloud responsible for 36% to 72% of the warming and Carbon Dioxide for merely 9% to 26% of the warming^[2].

So, I suppose that is why the Climate Activists are flying private jets to climate summits.  Want a cooler earth, fly more, not less.

References:
[1]  The contrail climate affect are quoted from this article:
https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/

[2]  Wikipedia's percent of warming caused by different gases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

EDITS: Minor wording change for grammar/typo correction.  No substantive change.

[ebastler]

Note that the observation is a 2 degree change due to 9/11's three days of no contrail.  If we double the air traffic, we would double the contrails and that should do a hell of a lot more in lowering global temperature than reducing carbon emission,

I think you have misunderstood the source you quoted. It describes that there were stronger day-to-night variations in temperature without the cloud contributions from aircraft trails: Warmer during the day, cooler at night. As emphasized by yourself, with additional italics added:

thin clouds created by contrails reduce the range of temperatures. By contributing to cloud cover during the day, they reflect solar energy that would otherwise have reached the earth’s surface. At night, they trap warmth that would otherwise have escaped. ... ... The effect during the three days that flights were grounded was strongest in populated regions where air traffic was normally densest. The increase in range came to about two degrees Celsius.

The range (i.e. the amplitude) of temperature fluctuations has increased with the reduced cloud cover, according to the study you quoted. I cannot see any statement that the average temperature would have been affected.

[Rick Law]

No, I did not misunderstand it.  That it can vary the temperature by 2 degree (actually, the article rounded up, it was 1.8 degree) is a big delta and it was immediate.   The observation thus shown it as an effective means of atmospheric and global temperature manipulation.

Contrail by itself will not do enough when things are averaged out - after all, the atmospheric water amount didn't change, just the distribution.  And in fact, we added heat to the atmosphere by engine heat making the contrails.  The only impact that could last longer than the contrail itself is the heat lost due to reflected light.  If we create a thousands and thousands of say blimp like balloons using solar power to move and heat the air as it circles around...  That may have a nice impact -- but plenty of studies and evaluations to be done before a judgement can be made there.

Pointing out contrail's temperature manipulation ability is just an excuse, may be...  Who can resist the opportunity of mocking the Activists!  (want it cooler? fly more private jets)   Besides, if we do reduce Carbon Dioxide, what do we do about the plants dying?  We took away their food.

Personally, I rather move to higher elevation with a greener planet than staying at our current shore line and watch the planet turn brown as plants die off.  Either way, I am an old guy, so I wont be around to see whether we run out of veggie to eat, or having to swim from the house to the office to get to work.

[AVGresponding]

No, I did not misunderstand it.  That it can vary the temperature by 2 degree (actually, the article rounded up, it was 1.8 degree) is a big delta and it was immediate.   The observation thus shown it as an effective means of atmospheric and global temperature manipulation.

Contrail by itself will not do enough when things are averaged out - after all, the atmospheric water amount didn't change, just the distribution.  And in fact, we added heat to the atmosphere by engine heat making the contrails.  The only impact that could last longer than the contrail itself is the heat lost due to reflected light.  If we create a thousands and thousands of say blimp like balloons using solar power to move and heat the air as it circles around...  That may have a nice impact -- but plenty of studies and evaluations to be done before a judgement can be made there.

Pointing out contrail's temperature manipulation ability is just an excuse, may be...  Who can resist the opportunity of mocking the Activists!  (want it cooler? fly more private jets)   Besides, if we do reduce Carbon Dioxide, what do we do about the plants dying?  We took away their food.

Personally, I rather move to higher elevation with a greener planet than staying at our current shore line and watch the planet turn brown as plants die off.  Either way, I am an old guy, so I wont be around to see whether we run out of veggie to eat, or having to swim from the house to the office to get to work.

I think you'll find that plants did just fine at pre-industrial levels of CO₂.

[Rick Law]

...
I think you'll find that plants did just fine at pre-industrial levels of CO₂.

Actually, plants and trees did not do just fine.  We know that plant and tree deaths will be wide spread at about 150ppm.  Modern day technology estimated pre-industrial age CO2 to be about 180ppm.  Of course, looking back, we do not know exactly why and how, but plants were dying.  Some would attribute plant deaths to be due to pollution and no doubt part of that would be true, but we also know that 180ppm is too close to 150ppm for comfort which would be brown earth territory.

We also know that today's 400ppm is not healthy enough for plants, hence plant growers use liquid CO2 in a green-house to supplement -- Check omafra.gov.on.ca (Ontario, Canada).  Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, food, and Rural Affairs is not exactly run by "right wingers" yet they recommend supplement liquid CO2 for green house plant growth at 1000ppm to 1300ppm.

Rates of carbon dioxide supplementation are dependent on the crop response and economics. Flower and vegetable growers may take somewhat different approaches. In general, carbon dioxide supplementation of 1,000 ppm during the day when vents are closed is recommended.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#suppl

I am sure some would push it higher still for higher worth crops, as long as crop income exceeds the cost of liquid CO2.

To me, attacking was what is superficial is a bad habit I engage in too -- change the fuse and that's that.  But we here all know that changing the fuse may not be an adequate solution.  So on the one hand, I am mocking hypocrites who just address superficial symptoms (flying around in private jets yet telling others to reduce carbon foot print), but on the other hand, I am reminding myself and others, merely changing the fuse ain't enough.  Look under the cover and see...  May be it is, may be it is not.  But surely replacing the fuse alone is not enough.

EDIT: corrected a typo ("was" should be "what")

[AVGresponding]

...
I think you'll find that plants did just fine at pre-industrial levels of CO₂.

Actually, plants and trees did not do just fine.  We know that plant and tree deaths will be wide spread at about 150ppm.  Modern day technology estimated pre-industrial age CO2 to be about 180ppm.  Of course, looking back, we do not know exactly why and how, but plants were dying.  Some would attribute plant deaths to be due to pollution and no doubt part of that would be true, but we also know that 180ppm is too close to 150ppm for comfort which would be brown earth territory.

We also know that today's 400ppm is not healthy enough for plants, hence plant growers use liquid CO2 in a green-house to supplement -- Check omafra.gov.on.ca (Ontario, Canada).  Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, food, and Rural Affairs is not exactly run by "right wingers" yet they recommend supplement liquid CO2 for green house plant growth at 1000ppm to 1300ppm.

Rates of carbon dioxide supplementation are dependent on the crop response and economics. Flower and vegetable growers may take somewhat different approaches. In general, carbon dioxide supplementation of 1,000 ppm during the day when vents are closed is recommended.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#suppl

I am sure some would push it higher still for higher worth crops, as long as crop income exceeds the cost of liquid CO2.

To me, attacking was is superficial is a bad habit I engage in too -- change the fuse and that's that.  But we here all know that changing the fuse may not be an adequate solution.  So on the one hand, I am mocking hypocrites who just address superficial symptoms (flying around in private jets yet telling others to reduce carbon foot print), but on the other hand, I am reminding myself and others, merely changing the fuse ain't enough.  Look under the cover and see...  May be it is, may be it is not.  But surely replacing the fuse alone is not enough.

We must have different definitions of "fine". Despite humans building large concrete cities, cutting down forests etc, most of the earth's land surface is still covered in plants (barring deserts of various types) and was even more so before. I have a hard time understanding how this can be anything other than "fine" at worst, and "flourishing" for the most part.

Growing plants in an enriched CO₂ environment is like giving growth hormones to cattle; yes they'll grow bigger and get there faster, but they won't die or even fail to grow without them.

[SiliconWizard]

CO2 favors plant growing. Up to a level, that we are still very, very far from. Now if we consider the impact it can have on climate, then plants can be affected in others ways. They can get destroyed by inappropriate climate conditions, but that's not a large source of concern IMO.

We currently destroy hugely more plants and animals not by emitting CO2, but by dispersing all kinds of pollutants, herbicides, and by destroying gigantic areas of forest just to exploit them or the underground, etc. Many species are disappearing altogether every year. That's not due to CO2. Anyway.

[Rick Law]

CO2 favors plant growing. Up to a level, that we are still very, very far from. Now if we consider the impact it can have on climate, then plants can be affected in others ways. They can get destroyed by inappropriate climate conditions, but that's not a large source of concern IMO.

We currently destroy hugely more plants and animals not by emitting CO2, but by dispersing all kinds of pollutants, herbicides, and by destroying gigantic areas of forest just to exploit them or the underground, etc. Many species are disappearing altogether every year. That's not due to CO2. Anyway.

...
We must have different definitions of "fine". Despite humans building large concrete cities, cutting down forests etc, most of the earth's land surface is still covered in plants (barring deserts of various types) and was even more so before. I have a hard time understanding how this can be anything other than "fine" at worst, and "flourishing" for the most part.
...

Yeah, "fine" is a relative and subjective term.  Different location, different points of view.

I am living in New Jersey USA.  I've seen the trees disappearing at an alarming rate for the last few decades.  But we also have other recent factors -- what NJ.COM called "an extinction level event" for our "Ash" trees (9% of NJ trees, 99% expected not to survive) -- due to bugs.  NJ used to have lots of chestnut trees, they are all but wiped out now.

As said, there are always more things under the cover.  More CO2 = more trees = more bugs = more illness = less human =

I think I blabbed enough about this topic.  I think I am merely procrastinate and attempting to avoid doing my income tax due in exactly a week from today.  However painful, I should go do it...

[CatalinaWOW]

Download a copy of Flightracker or similar software and I think you will discover the reason for your observed bias in contrail direction.  At my current location contrails are generally north south which reflects the direction of the major cities from here.  At other locations contrails have been omni-directional, east west or in a couple of places non-existent.  The most interesting contrails came at a place used by strategic bombers as a practice target.  Approached from one direction, sharp turn and then depart in another.

[AVGresponding]

CO2 favors plant growing. Up to a level, that we are still very, very far from. Now if we consider the impact it can have on climate, then plants can be affected in others ways. They can get destroyed by inappropriate climate conditions, but that's not a large source of concern IMO.

We currently destroy hugely more plants and animals not by emitting CO2, but by dispersing all kinds of pollutants, herbicides, and by destroying gigantic areas of forest just to exploit them or the underground, etc. Many species are disappearing altogether every year. That's not due to CO2. Anyway.

...
We must have different definitions of "fine". Despite humans building large concrete cities, cutting down forests etc, most of the earth's land surface is still covered in plants (barring deserts of various types) and was even more so before. I have a hard time understanding how this can be anything other than "fine" at worst, and "flourishing" for the most part.
...

Yeah, "fine" is a relative and subjective term.  Different location, different points of view.

I am living in New Jersey USA.  I've seen the trees disappearing at an alarming rate for the last few decades.  But we also have other recent factors -- what NJ.COM called "an extinction level event" for our "Ash" trees (9% of NJ trees, 99% expected not to survive) -- due to bugs.  NJ used to have lots of chestnut trees, they are all but wiped out now.

As said, there are always more things under the cover.  More CO2 = more trees = more bugs = more illness = less human =

I think I blabbed enough about this topic.  I think I am merely procrastinate and attempting to avoid doing my income tax due in exactly a week from today.  However painful, I should go do it...

If the trees are dying due to insect population explosion, that's not directly related to CO₂, though it is indirectly related (usually) in that it's probably due to milder winters not controlling the level of insect population, or allowing them to migrate to areas they couldn't before.

[rob77]

liquid CO2 for green house plant growth at 1000ppm to 1300ppm.

what  liquid CO2 

[james_s]

If the trees are dying due to insect population explosion, that's not directly related to CO₂, though it is indirectly related (usually) in that it's probably due to milder winters not controlling the level of insect population, or allowing them to migrate to areas they couldn't before.

Trees are dying in my region because our summers are so much warmer and dryer than they've been in the past. Even in my lifetime I've seen a rather dramatic shift in the climate, we have had consistently much warmer summers with much longer intervals between rainfall. The total average rain for the year is not far off but it has shifted to large amounts falling during shorter intervals in the winter.

[Rick Law]

I guess I am still procrastinating today...  I promise myself, I will stop procrastinating, but just a bit later...

...
Growing plants in an enriched CO₂ environment is like giving growth hormones to cattle; yes they'll grow bigger and get there faster, but they won't die or even fail to grow without them.[/color][/size][/b]

Actually, CO2 to plant is not like giving growth hormones to cattle.  CO2 It is not a hormone but the carbon molecule goes directly from CO2 into the carbon molecule in ATP during photosynthesis.

So it is a raw material supply (food) rather than a catalyst or acceleration agent.  Like people, the more food, the more they grow; the hungrier they are, the slower the growth.  Stunted growth, but survivable to a point.

liquid CO2 for green house plant growth at 1000ppm to 1300ppm.

what  liquid CO2 

Yeah, I was expecting similar reaction.  While liquid CO2 supplementation has been done for decades, it is not common known that it is done.    Expecting such reaction,  I took the time to find a quotable link (from the official agricultural ministry of Ontario Canada) on CO2 supplementation on my earlier reply that no one should consider "nut cases" but instead it is indeed a common practice.

[rob77]

I guess I am still procrastinating today...  I promise myself, I will stop procrastinating, but just a bit later...

...
Growing plants in an enriched CO₂ environment is like giving growth hormones to cattle; yes they'll grow bigger and get there faster, but they won't die or even fail to grow without them.[/color][/size][/b]

Actually, CO2 to plant is not like giving growth hormones to cattle.  CO2 It is not a hormone but the carbon molecule goes directly from CO2 into the carbon molecule in ATP during photosynthesis.

So it is a raw material supply (food) rather than a catalyst or acceleration agent.  Like people, the more food, the more they grow; the hungrier they are, the slower the growth.  Stunted growth, but survivable to a point.

liquid CO2 for green house plant growth at 1000ppm to 1300ppm.

what  liquid CO2 

Yeah, I was expecting similar reaction.  While liquid CO2 supplementation has been done for decades, it is not common known that it is done.    Expecting such reaction,  I took the time to find a quotable link (from the official agricultural ministry of Ontario Canada) on CO2 supplementation on my earlier reply that no one should consider "nut cases" but instead it is indeed a common practice.

once again and slowly.... liquid CO2 ??  how on earth you get liquid carbon dioxide at atmospheric pressure ? frozen CO2 is called dry ice for a reason... it sublimes directly to gas at atmospheric pressure , there is no liquid CO2 at atmospheric pressure... that's a fact.

[Rick Law]

once again and slowly.... liquid CO2 ??  how on earth you get liquid carbon dioxide at atmospheric pressure ? frozen CO2 is called dry ice for a reason... it sublimes directly to gas at atmospheric pressure , there is no liquid CO2 at atmospheric pressure... that's a fact.

Oh, I was referring to the CO2 supplement part being surprise to some.

Perhaps they mean solid, but they said in their text liquid so I transcribed that without further consideration.  Either way, liquid CO2 can certainly be produced using pressure, and like propane, delivered in pressurized containers.

[AVGresponding]

If the trees are dying due to insect population explosion, that's not directly related to CO₂, though it is indirectly related (usually) in that it's probably due to milder winters not controlling the level of insect population, or allowing them to migrate to areas they couldn't before.

Trees are dying in my region because our summers are so much warmer and dryer than they've been in the past. Even in my lifetime I've seen a rather dramatic shift in the climate, we have had consistently much warmer summers with much longer intervals between rainfall. The total average rain for the year is not far off but it has shifted to large amounts falling during shorter intervals in the winter.

No doubt. My point was merely that pre-industrial levels of CO₂ were perfectly adequate for plants to live and thrive in.

[Rick Law]

...
No doubt. My point was merely that pre-industrial levels of CO₂ were perfectly adequate for plants to live and thrive in.

My point is opinions differs and my opinion is even today's 400ppm is not adequate for healthy plant growth (suggested by the carbon dioxide supplementation) let alone 180ppm (estimated) for pre-industrial level.  And don't forget, immediate pre-industrial age has may be less than 1/3 of today's population.  We understand each other.  We lack hard data to show one way or the other, so we will continue to differ in our opinions, respectfully of course.

Now if we can dome-in sizable pieces of land (multiple each of >  km²) and do some experiments...   Carboniferous period was considered to be most productive period of plants in earth history.  Estimate goes wildly from high of 1500ppm to much higher (2000ppm plus, 2400ppm is the highest I've read) for this period.   Ok, estimation is 150ppm is wide-spread dying, how much?  What kinds of plants will survive adequately and what wont.  May be there be would be enough plants as food at even 150ppm, or not.  What is the delta when we go from 400ppm to 200ppm?  What if we go from 400ppm to 800ppm?  We have a more questions than we have answers today.

[SiliconWizard]

...
No doubt. My point was merely that pre-industrial levels of CO₂ were perfectly adequate for plants to live and thrive in.

My point is opinions differs and my opinion is even today's 400ppm is not adequate for healthy plant growth

Adequate for what? Plants have been happily there on Earth for several hundred millions of years, depending on estimations. So, adequate for what?

(suggested by the carbon dioxide supplementation) let alone 180ppm (estimated) for pre-industrial level.  And don't forget, immediate pre-industrial age has may be less than 1/3 of today's population.

So. What you mean is adequate for our own consumption? If so, better say it upfront rather than first talking about "healthy plant growth". Plants have been "healthily" growing for a very long time before humans were even a thing. Is you definition of plants growing "healthily" that there is enough for our own consumption? If so, that is an odd definition of "health", at least from the plants' point of view.

We understand each other.  We lack hard data to show one way or the other, so we will continue to differ in our opinions, respectfully of course.

I don't get what hard facts exactly you lack. Plants have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
The "opinion" part here seems to be that you put an emphasis *solely* on our own needs as a species, which is not only one-sided, but is in itself circular reasoning. If there were fewer resources, we would just be consuming less and be fewer people on Earth.

But I suspect there is something deeper here, probably on some metaphysic/philosophical or religious level, that doesn't really belong in a technical discussion and is thus one reason why you guys can't agree.

[Rick Law]

...
But I suspect there is something deeper here, probably on some metaphysic/philosophical or religious level, that doesn't really belong in a technical discussion and is thus one reason why you guys can't agree.

I think you probably hit the nail on the head here.

[AVGresponding]

But I suspect there is something deeper here, probably on some metaphysic/philosophical or religious level, that doesn't really belong in a technical discussion and is thus one reason why you guys can't agree.

Indeed, I have little interest in metaphysics, and none whatsoever in religion. Facts are my drug of choice. And alcohol on weekends...