It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anthropological Effects: From acid rain to chemtrials and the mediation methods

page: 10
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   

totallackey

MagnumOpus

totallackey
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 



MagnumOpus
reply to post by totallackey
 


Another one of your short sighted fits of non-sense. You don't cover the Persistence for Chemtrails with that copy and paste nonsense.


How do you know the car exhaust does not contain boron, as if that has anything to do with my question.

Once again, I simply ask you to answer my question, which is:

How long do you think the exhaust trail of the automobile would be if the air temperature was -45 and the relative humidity was 80 percent?

As far I am concerned, I have no reason to doubt the exhaust plume would be at least as long as that car traveled and would last as long as those conditions were prevalent where it was driving.

Can you prove me wrong?
edit on 11-3-2014 by totallackey because: brevity and conciseness of response, along with feelings of fatigue in dealing with such nincompoopery...



You can not even get the starting point correct. at -45 degrees there won't be 80 percent humidity.

Go back to school and learn something.


Okay, let us agree that my original numbers are wrong (even though you offered no definitive proof they even might be wrong)...

Try these numbers : TEMPERATURE = -50.7 degrees FAHRENHEIT/DEWPOINT = -55.2 degrees FAHRENHEIT/ RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 59 percent

Current Conditions over Davenport, Iowa at typical flight altitude
edit on 11-3-2014 by totallackey because: added source of reference



Try something practical. My Honda. -20 degrees. Observed plume ---- one car length----disapated in 10 seconds.

The theme is Jet Chemtrails------not car exhaust pipes.




posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

MagnumOpus
[
You can not even get the starting point correct. at -45 degrees there won't be 80 percent humidity.


Firstly, it was "relative" humidity

Secondly yes you can


Radiosonde relative humidity (RH) measurements are known to be unreliable at cold temperatures. This study characterizes radiosonde RH measurements from Vaisala RS80-A thin-film capacitive sensors in the temperature range 0° to −70°C. Sources of measurement error are identified, and two approaches for correcting the errors are presented. The corrections given in this paper apply only to the Vaisala RS80-A sensor, although the RS80-H sensor is briefly discussed for comparison.



Go back to school and learn something.


thirdly......pot, kettle, meet black



I've run my little Honda at -20, and the fog plume was 10 ft and disappeared quickly.



And lastly, so what?


More utter nonsense. Just because a sensor can detect RH does not mean nature provides that condition for a car at ground level.

Labs can make that condition, but outside isn't inside a lab. Nor up in a cloud in the sky where that sensor application applies.

More impractical nonsense.


Get back on the Jet chemtrails theme. This isn't the car plume discussion zone.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 





Try something practical. My Honda. -20 degrees. Observed plume ---- one car length----disapated in 10 seconds.

The theme is Jet Chemtrails------not car exhaust pipes.


And I have simply asked you to exercise some critical thinking and translate things you have experienced first hand to those things you observe around you. If that is not being practical, then we must agree to disagree on the definition of the word practical.

So, once again, even at ground level, utilizing these figures: TEMPERATURE = -50.7 degrees FAHRENHEIT/DEWPOINT = -55.2 degrees FAHRENHEIT/ RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 59 percent

How long would the exhaust plume be from your little Honda in these conditions?


Further edification on the difference between relative humidity and humidity:




What's the difference between Humidity and Relative Humidity?
Submitted by uk.sci.weather on Wed, 17/01/2007 - 12:50pm.
Absolute Humidity, often just referred to as 'the humidity', is a measure of the actual amount of water vapour in a particular sample of air: measured as a partial pressure (vapour pressure/hPa or millibars); a mixing ratio (gm water vapour/kg of dry air), dew point etc.

Relative Humidity - expressed commonly as a percentage value, is the ratio of the actual amount of water vapour present in a sample (the Absolute Humidity) to that amount that would be needed to saturate that particular sample.

The two terms are not interchangeable and can lead to confusion; e.g. on a cold, raw winter's day close to the east coast of England, the dew point might be 1 degC and an air temperature of just 2 degC. This would give a RH of 93%; a 'high' Relative Humidity, yet few would refer to such conditions as 'humid'. Conversely, on a hot summer's day, with a dew point of 18 degC, and an afternoon temperature of 30 degC, that's a RH of 49%; a 'low' Relative Humidity, but high Absolute Humidity.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

MagnumOpus

More utter nonsense. Just because a sensor can detect RH does not mean nature provides that condition for a car at ground level.


you just said you can't have 80% humidity at -45 degrees - here is the post - www.abovetopsecret.com...

and I showed a link that says that you can.

Certainly the post was in reference to one on cars - but your claim is that that combination cannot exist - you "can't have that starting point"

And since contrails form at low temperature and high relative humidity those figures are completely appropriate for a discussion of such.


Labs can make that condition, but outside isn't inside a lab. Nor up in a cloud in the sky where that sensor application applies.


tell that to the people who use those sensors in meteorological balloons - the paper is about radiosonde sensors - those are the ones used in weather balloons - not laboratory equipment.

And since you apparently don't know about the basic equipment of meteorology I find your remarks about other people not knowing what they are talking about to be more than a little ironic.

you might also find this paper a bit of an education - how to calculate relative humdity at temperatures below zero.


More impractical nonsense.


no - it is evidence based on science - not the baseless assertions you use.



Get back on the Jet chemtrails theme. This isn't the car plume discussion zone.


At -45 degrees and 80% humidity there is a pretty good chance of getting a contrail.

and those temperatures and humidity CAN actually exist at sea level too.

Barro, Alaska, gets well above that humidity and temperatures very close to -45 - and when conditions are right ice fog can occur at ground level - which is "persistent contrail" formed mostly by vehicle and industrial exhaust.
edit on 11-3-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   

totallackey
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 





Try something practical. My Honda. -20 degrees. Observed plume ---- one car length----disapated in 10 seconds.

The theme is Jet Chemtrails------not car exhaust pipes.


And I have simply asked you to exercise some critical thinking and translate things you have experienced first hand to those things you observe around you. If that is not being practical, then we must agree to disagree on the definition of the word practical.

So, once again, even at ground level, utilizing these figures: TEMPERATURE = -50.7 degrees FAHRENHEIT/DEWPOINT = -55.2 degrees FAHRENHEIT/ RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 59 percent

How long would the exhaust plume be from your little Honda in these conditions?


Further edification on the difference between relative humidity and humidity:




What's the difference between Humidity and Relative Humidity?
Submitted by uk.sci.weather on Wed, 17/01/2007 - 12:50pm.
Absolute Humidity, often just referred to as 'the humidity', is a measure of the actual amount of water vapour in a particular sample of air: measured as a partial pressure (vapour pressure/hPa or millibars); a mixing ratio (gm water vapour/kg of dry air), dew point etc.

Relative Humidity - expressed commonly as a percentage value, is the ratio of the actual amount of water vapour present in a sample (the Absolute Humidity) to that amount that would be needed to saturate that particular sample.

The two terms are not interchangeable and can lead to confusion; e.g. on a cold, raw winter's day close to the east coast of England, the dew point might be 1 degC and an air temperature of just 2 degC. This would give a RH of 93%; a 'high' Relative Humidity, yet few would refer to such conditions as 'humid'. Conversely, on a hot summer's day, with a dew point of 18 degC, and an afternoon temperature of 30 degC, that's a RH of 49%; a 'low' Relative Humidity, but high Absolute Humidity.



You go prove this by your own experiment. Get your car---get the instruments to measure the RH in real time----video the plume behind the car and the RH and Temp indicator.

If you were anywhere close to reality----then every car in Alaska would be wrecked by zero visibility in winter.


Reality Speaks---no plumes



You have zero common sense.

Otherwise, this isn't the car exhaust show.

What part of No did you miss. Stop the nonsense and go BS somewhere else.


edit on 11-3-2014 by MagnumOpus because: 1



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


You never pay attention when evidence does exist - why do you expect anyone to pay attention when you don't provide any evidence and keep changing the topic??

All hydrocarbon combustion exhaust contains water - whether it be petron in a car or kerosene in a jet engine - therefore if the temperature and humidity are appropriate car exhaustwill form a contrail just as jet exhaust does.

Sorry that that screws with your fantasy about boron or whatever you have changed it to now - but that's reality.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


You never pay attention when evidence does exist - why do you expect anyone to pay attention when you don't provide any evidence and keep changing the topic??

All hydrocarbon combustion exhaust contains water - whether it be petron in a car or kerosene in a jet engine - therefore if the temperature and humidity are appropriate car exhaustwill form a contrail just as jet exhaust does.

Sorry that that screws with your fantasy about boron or whatever you have changed it to now - but that's reality.


Then show the world that a car's exhaust, with water, fogs up a city. OK, the neighborhood. Else, you show cars don't make persistent fogs. See any contrails behind the cars in Alaska? No? Opps-----no practical example again.

Go to the South Pole and the track vehicles there----show us the persistent fog plumes that will keep them from seeing how to get back home. They don't exist. All properly tuned cars/vehicles, running normal fuels, have rapid dissipation fog plumes.

Case closed. Ignorance lost again.


The chemtrail folks show the lingering chemtrails. So, show the world a lingering car trail.



edit on 11-3-2014 by MagnumOpus because: -111



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 





If you were anywhere close to reality----then every car in Alaska would be wrecked by zero visibility in winter.

You have zero common sense.

Otherwise, this isn't the car exhaust show.

What part of No did you miss. Stop the nonsense and go BS somewhere else.


I wasn't sure but now I am beginning to see you are only here to get reactions from other members.

You don't care to check links but you sure are happy discussing others common sense without even using your own, why is that?



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 

Not that it makes any sense to reply but:
Nice video here (starting at about 4:00 in particular). Persistent contrail in Antarctica at ground level.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 





The chemtrail folks show the lingering chemtrails.


No, what they show are persistent contrails...

Here is where that common sense thing comes in.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 

Not that it makes any sense to reply but:
Nice video here (starting at about 4:00 in particular). Persistent contrail in Antarctica at ground level.




I suppose nobody is supposed to notice the plane is sitting on snow skis and the whole runway is loose snow.


What a fraud claim. It is a prop plane blowing snow up in the air behind it.

Really obviously ignorant people attempt such BS.


More fake nonsense.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 

Magic levitation snow that doesn't fall. Right.
It's ice, not snow. Snow is rare in Antarctica.
And the contrail continues after takeoff.


Like I said, I knew there was no point in replying.

edit on 3/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 





The chemtrail folks show the lingering chemtrails.


No, what they show are persistent contrails...

Here is where that common sense thing comes in.



Start with a car-----show us a persistent car trail plume, from one not running special additives.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

MagnumOpus
[Then show the world that a car's exhaust, with water, fogs up a city. OK, the neighborhood. Else, you show cars don't make persistent fogs. See any contrails behind the cars in Alaska?



How about the City of Fairbanks FAQ


What is ice fog?
When warm water vapor meets very cold air the vapor crystallizes into tiny, microscopic ice particles. The already super cold air cannot absorb these particles and this collection of ice crystals accumulates to form a thick, dense, cloud called ice fog. It usually occurs around minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit or colder. Car exhaust, power plant cooling ponds and even exhaled breath from pets and humans all contribute to the problem.


Or Fairbanks Ice Fog:




No?


Yes



Opps-----no practical example again.


Oops - just showed you exactly what you asked for!!





Go to the South Pole and the track vehicles there----show us the persistent fog plumes that will keep them from seeing how to get back home. They don't exist. All properly tuned cars/vehicles, running normal fuels, have rapid dissipation fog plumes.



tuning is completely irrelevant to the presence of water in exhaust - it is straight chemistry - hydrocarbons + O2 create various CO/CO2 + H2O


Case closed. Ignorance lost again.


Indeed




The chemtrail folks show the lingering chemtrails. So, show the world a lingering car trail.


Done



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 





Really obviously ignorant people attempt such BS.


Well it took long enough, but you are doing exactly what all other chemtrail believers do when they run out of BS they call evidence...Start calling names.

Good Job...



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 

Magic levitation snow that doesn't fall. Right.
It's ice, not snow. Snow is rare in Antarctica.
And the contrail continues after takeoff.


Like I said, I knew there was no point in replying.

edit on 3/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



When they were waiving bye at the last-----just a faint fog plume------and it lasted how long in the video---20 seconds.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 

How do you know that?
The contrail is behind the plane. The camera follows the plane.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   

MagnumOpus

What a fraud claim. It is a prop plane blowing snow up in the air behind it.


Did you not notice the difference between the blown ice and het engine exhaust - for example eth blown ice stops when the aircraft takes off - the contrails from the engine do not.

Or the truck in shot much of het time that has its own small contrail from its exhaust - I guess you didn't see that either?? Possibly because you did not actually look at the video??


Really obviously ignorant people attempt such BS.

More fake nonsense.


How about this one then....again:




posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 





Really obviously ignorant people attempt such BS.


Well it took long enough, but you are doing exactly what all other chemtrail believers do when they run out of BS they call evidence...Start calling names.

Good Job...



Referring to non-sense of the information as BS speaks to the non-sense of the validity of the info.

It appears you don't know there is a difference.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 

How do you know that?
The contrail is behind the plane. The camera follows the plane.



The camera follow the plane for 20 seconds.

It is up to you to show the persistence of the trails for hours.

Else, it is nonsense.




top topics



 
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join