Chemtrail pics 11-10-06, page 3

Originally posted by Essan
So what area of atmospheric science were you involved in 20 years ago?

Non and i just read what was said at the time ( and actually till very recently) which lead me to the conclusion that this was in fact not a issue back then.

Only all the meteorologists I know who've been in the profession for 20 or more years consider these persistent contrails totally explicable ....

Scientist in any particular field considers their science without major problems until it's resolved at which point no one looks stupid as no one discussed the issue openly. The fact that this is not natural and recently introduced means they have no power to explain it and will thus simply avoid talking about it as is the scientific habit when it comes to public discourse about nagging unresolved issues in their particular fields.

The only thing they can't explain is why some seemingly intelligent people think there's anything unusual about them.

Becuase there is something unusual about them and official denial of reality has never before worked in the long run?

Are the RMetS liars or just part of the conspiracy?

The resulting trails of ice crystals persist and spread if the atmosphere at contrail level is moist enough. Contrails (and water droplets) form when the saturation vapour pressure with respect to liquid water is exceeded. They persist when the air is saturated or supersaturated with respect to ice.

www.royal-met-soc.org.uk...

See how everyone simply assumes that the air were moist enough ( VERY unlikely as the conditions for relative persistent contrails- lasting many minutes- are quite unique) but that non of these so called experts will tell you just how unique and unlikely these persistent contrails would be if what we observed were evn loosely related to normal every day commercial traffic?

Whoever typed that article is either part of the conspiracy or more likely doing his best to explain what he observes by employing the best science he can. How often do you hear professional scientist say that they simply can't explain something on radio or Tv or for that matter in journals? The aim of science estalbishment seems to be to explain what is observed by means of the knowledge currently available ,which may or may not have anything to do with objective reality, as long as nothing serious is every questioned without overwhelming proof or untill the leaders who defends it all died out

. What do you want these meteorolgist to say about chem trails? "We don't know where they came from and we don't have any idea how they form?" Please?

And either way, why? Why would an independent organisation like this deceive the public?

INDEPENDENT?"Royal Meteorological Society" is 'independent? Do you understand what the dictionary has to say about the word 'independent? What is indepedent about this 'society'?

My question as always remains why people started observing this in American skies right after Teller proposed that spraying chemicals ( thus aiding in persistence) into the atmosphere could negate any effects human industrial activity might have in terms of warming the planet? Do you not find that odd and why did he bother mentioning additional substances ( to be put in the fuel) if regular contrails were already persistent on any regular basis?

Probably the best-known of the aerial geoengineering proposals was that put forward in 1997 by Edward Teller and entitled ‘Global Warming and the Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change’ subsequently popularised in the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled ‘The Planet Needs a Sunscreen’.

Teller proposed deliberate, large-scale introduction of reflective particles into the upper atmosphere, a task he claimed could be achieved for less than $1 billion a year, between 0.1 and 1.0 percent of the $100 billion he estimated it would cost to bring fossil fuel usage in the United States back down to 1990 levels, as required by the Treaty of Kyoto.

Characteristic of the politics of Teller is the fact that he both ridiculed the idea of global warming and at the same time put forward what he represented as a solution to global warming. ‘For some reason,’ Teller observed sarcastically, ‘This option isn't as fashionable as all-out war on fossil fuels and the people who use them.’

www.spectrezine.org...

----------

Teller says that cooling caused by volcanic eruptions shows this technique would work. For exmaple, the erruption of Mexico's El Chichon in the 1980s cooled the Northern Hemisphere by about one-quarter as much as the average prediction for global warming expected by 2100.

According to Teller, the director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's Coordination Office has been promoting such geoengineering for three decades, and one National Academy of Sciences report a few years ago commented on "the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented."

Teller and his colleagues presented their proposal for geoengineering at the 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies in August 1997.

www.ncpa.org...

So i am asking you why did he propose this in 1997 which corresponds with the start of people observing strange happenings in American skies?

It will be noted that in October of 1997 a change in the reporting system of visibility data was reduced from a former maximum of 40 miles to a limit of 10 miles. It is a reasonable question to ask as to why that change was made, and whether or not it was made in anticipation of certain events to follow that involve large scale aircraft aerosol operations over large scale geographic regions.

It is observed that there are highly significant degradations in the visibility data immediately following this change in the reporting method. Immediately after this change, the dramatic increase in visibility reports of less than 10 miles is quite apparent.

The graphs shown are taken from climatic archive data available for Santa Fe, NM from Jan 1994 to Mar 2001. Three different time periods are shown to aid in demonstrating the magnitude of change which has occurred in visibility. The first graph shows all data available inclusive from Jan 1994 to Mar 2001. The second graph shows the transition zone during which the visibility standards were altered. This graph showns a period from Jan 1996 to Dec 1998; the change in reporting standard was made in Oct 1997. The third graph shows recent data, where visibility below 10 miles is now a regular occurrence. This graph shows the period from Jan 1999 to Mar 2001.

www.carnicom.com...

Why did they change the mean visibility expectations in the same year? What were they expecting to take place?

Why have you not addressed the claims made in the following two sources i have repeatedly provided you with?

The condensation trails (contrails) that form in the wake of high-flying jets are another interesting example. These cylindrical clouds have variable lifetimes and water concentrations depending on environmental conditions. In some cases the contrails can persist for many minutes. But they do slowly diffuse, much like the smoke plume emitted by an acrobatic aircraft.

www.sciam.com...

One unique type of cloud is manmade. Contrails occur when exhaust from jet engines condenses. A narrow line of moisture makes up the contrail. Winds eventually dissipate it; in some instances conditions permit the contrail to survive for many minutes (their straight lines do distort). Contrails are believed to affect weather by raising both short and long-term temperatures (one estimate is for about a third of a degree per decade). Here is a MODIS image taken over the southeast U.S. on January 29, 2004 showing a large number of contrails (at times more than 2000 planes are over the North American continent at any one time):

rst.gsfc.nasa.gov...

So why do they suggest here that contrails could last ( not should or would but sometimes can ) 'many minutes' and not hours when they do last for hours?

Keeping these caveats in mind, the following major results have been obtained from the model simulations described in this paper.

* Long-lived contrails cannot be explained by the amount of water emitted by the aircraft. Although we have not performed a simulation in an atmosphere that is subsaturated with respect to ice, it is quite obvious (in comparing results from runs 3 and 8) that persistent contrails can only form in an atmosphere that is supersaturated with respect to ice.

ams.allenpress.com...(1998)055%3C0796:LESOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Why do these authors suggest that the introduction of additional water vapour by aircraft will not affect the persistence of the contrail?

Minnus said that contrails are formed in air below -39 Celsius when the air is supersaturated with ice.

Due to the physical structure of ice, the humidity level actually has to be higher, about 150 percent humidity level, than it would be for the air to be supersaturated with water.

"The exhaust (jet engine) injects a lot of water into the air," Minnus said.

"The water droplets immediately freeze and you wind up with a contrail."

Minnus said once the contrail is formed in supersaturated air, larger ice particles become nuclei and begin to grow, collecting other ice particles from the surrounding air.

As the particles get heavier, they begin to fall out of the contrail, spreading it vertically, wind shear spreads the contrail horizontally as it continues to collect ice from the atmosphere.

www.journalnet.com...

Why do this supposed scientist then suggest that the water content matters? Can you resolve this blatant and open contradiction? How often do we find himidty factors of 150% at commercial air traggic altitudes so that the air may become supersatured with ice in the first place?

If it seems like i have more answers than questions i am going about this in the wrong way and all i ask is that those who pretend to understand reality live up to my expectations and actually answer some of my questions without just introducing more unknowns that they refuse to consider.

I still have many responses to type up from last week ( related to this issue) but my plate is full and i can only spend so many hours studying source material on one topic before i must move on to all the other subject matters that remains so you all will just have to be patient and consider coming up with more than just reasurances that 'everything is ok' as i am long long past being able to believe such vapid nonsense.

Thanks.

Stellar