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.

 

World's biggest jet engine about to get bigger, quieter ..and make more contrails

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi
The school children were not collecting upper tropospheric humidity data.

edit on 5/31/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 31 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi




Relating observations of contrail persistence to numerical weather analysis output

(That would be the school children.) - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Why are you having trouble understanding it?



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: luxordelphi
And the measurement is of the density of?

A) Ice crystals

B) Propaganda

( I don't get the references to the children. Is that something in particular? )


Optical density.

(The school children are having a look see in order to note occurrence of persistence and outrageous persistence - contrail to cirrus - so that their data can then be used to determine humidity i.e. persistence exists; therefore humidity!)



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi
No.

Meteorological data from the high-resolution, hourly RUC-20 analyses and ARPS analyses and forecasts provide information on temperature, humidity, pressure, and vertical velocity that is matched with each of the surface and satellite observations.


www.atmos-chem-phys.net...

edit on 5/31/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Humidity data was based, in part, on the school children's observations of persistence and outrageous persistence i.e. if they see persistence; it must be humidity!



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi

No. Humidity data was from hourly RUC-20 analyses and ARPS analyses and forecasts.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi

Phage already got this one.

I'm still searching the paper for the 'outrage'.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: luxordelphi
No.

Meteorological data from the high-resolution, hourly RUC-20 analyses and ARPS analyses and forecasts provide information on temperature, humidity, pressure, and vertical velocity that is matched with each of the surface and satellite observations.


www.atmos-chem-phys.net...


Yes. Satellites were also used because the school children were handicapped in not being able to see above cloud tops. Satellites were used in the same way as the school children: to detect persistence. Because radiosonde returns too many dry areas which don't correlate with trashed skies.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi
The surface and satellite observations of contrails were compared to humidity data from hourly RUC-20 analyses and ARPS analyses and forecasts.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Forecasts were announcing dry areas. Dry areas were producing persistence. That's why school children and satellites were marshaled. Do you understand what the word 'compare' means?



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi


Because radiosonde returns too many dry areas which don't correlate with trashed skies.

I don't know where you got that from but it's apparent you are actually asserting that commercial passenger planes can spray 'clouds' that are hundreds of miles long and increase in density as they spread.

When will the outrageous insistence of chemtalers end?



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi

Forecasts don't talk about the upper atmosphere where planes fly usually, unless they're mentioning the jetstream.

The students in this study were only counting, and identifying contrails from the ground. Their observations had nothing to do with humidity, they were only observing. The satellite data was then correlated to their observations to determine the model that most accurately predicted the types of contrails most seen for that time period. The satellites were the only thing detecting humidity, not the school kids.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation




When will the outrageous insistence of chemtalers end?


Now that is cute. And clever!

Siriusly, it will end when the NSA gets out of science and doesn't let the door hit them on their way out. It will end when there is a scientific explanation for outrageous persistence and we can do away with fudging data or, in this case, making stuff up to explain trashed skies.


edit on 31-5-2014 by luxordelphi because: correct spelling



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi

So you're saying that they have been fudging data since 1918? They've been seeing "outrageously persistent contrails" since then. So they must have been spraying us since then.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Because persistence is observed doesn't mean humidity is proper for that persistence. Tweaking models, based on
observation (and then extrapolating from that what the humidity MUST be) in order to get them to return humidities in line with trashed skies is a forecast - yes...but it's not based on actual humidity. Or actual anything for that matter.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi

And you have proof that scientists the world over are faking data right? Actual real, honest to god proof, besides "I watched a weather report and they forecast dry spots, and we got trashed skies"? Proof that the NSA is forcing hundreds of atmospheric scientists to lie about contrails?

Because I for one would love to see that proof.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

There's nothing faked about this data. It just doesn't exist. Not the humidity part anyway, not as humidity data except for isolated cylinders spaced very far apart.

In my mind, you just can't back into it like this. Not if you want a real explanation.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi


Now that is cute. And clever!
Thanks, I thought you might like that one.



It will end when there is a scientific explanation for outrageous persistence
Ok, that one has been checked off the list.



and we can do away with fudging data or, in this case, making stuff up to explain trashed skies.
Fudging what data? Please give the evidence for that belief. As for making stuff up? "Trashed skies" seems a bit of an exaggeration to me. IIRC, I've read that contrails cover about 0.1% of the sky. I'll look for the source on that.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi




Forecasts were announcing dry areas. Dry areas were producing persistence.


Now were these dry areas for the ground or were they for 35000 ft?



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi


Forecasts were announcing dry areas. Dry areas were producing persistence.
Are you talking about the paper? Because it doesn't say that.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join