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.

 

Chemtrail pics 11-10-06

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Ok then, why and how are they modifying the weather?




posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55
Ok then, why and how are they modifying the weather?




www.abovetopsecret.com... -


And there is this function on the www. called google that you might find useful.

If you are just trying to be argumenative; I'm busy!

[edit on 18-12-2006 by whaaa]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55
I'm sorry to post twice in a row but:


Well feel free to include the response i made to the above post in your next post.


StellarX, what are you talking about?


Claiming that something is impossible because you are a ignorant of the evidence of it is hardly a intelligent way to conduct yourself on this forum...


What conspiracies?


The the the world's banks are owned by private investors instead of the governments they should supposedly serve?

The suppression of various free energy technologies?

The fact that the last half dozen major European wars were brought about by the same group of European bankers?

How many hundreds of history books have you ready to come to your conclusions about the absence of conspiracies?



What do I not understand?


Apparently not very much.


It is ridiculous!


So was the claim that the world were round to the uninformed.


Utter madness! You talk about these issues as they are fact - but the main problem is they aren't.


They are fact and some are them are surprisingly well documented.


The real problem with the "Chemtrail" (they are actually contrails) issue is that everyone debates whether they are spraying us or not - but the conspiracy theorists never say with what they spray us and for what reason. Come on, I challenge you - tell me!


Because there is uncertainty as to how many different substances are in use and when they are being employed. I am sure if you go look you can find some sources but that specific part of the chem trail issue is not very interesting to me as i already know that it's mostly conductive materials...


Do you imply that the aviation fuel industry is in on this then?


Possibly but i suppose it can be bought and mixed at whatever sites are deploying these planes...


If the "Chemtrails" stay for days do you think they are oblivious to wind?


Well some of these Chem trails do last for a day or even longer (given the right wind conditions) and that is why people are so concerned...


Ha! You are just SO wrong, but your dillusions make you think your right.


Well i have been wrong before and i might be wrong about some aspects of the chem trail issue but delusional i have never been and you saying as much wont affect me at all.


You actually think you are being sprayed by the Government!


IF they can put fluoride in your drinking water, dump chemical weapons residue off the coast while in sight of cities,spray biological agents over whole cities, irradiate thousands of troops to check what happens and generally send to death tens of thousands of their citizens to die in foreign countries fighting to suppress liberation movements i wonder why you think them trying to actually predict America's weather by means of chem trails is such a odd thing. You can research the other conspiracies ( they can be called that) as there is good documentation on all those issues.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Well, if it’s something that is in the gas, perhaps you can explain these two things to me.

1)Why did the weight per gallon of the fuel not change between the two times, years apart, which I worked on aircraft?


I have no idea whether they have changed or have not changed but see no reason why the mixture chosen for use in civilian spraying ( I'm not yet sure that this is in fact being doing by civilian aviation) should be heavier or lighter. Should we assume that the people who can bomb Laos in almost complete secrecy at the time ( they managed to drop more on that country than on Germany during WWII) while lying to the civilians that were supposed to oversea military forces? Is there any reason to suspect that the people involved are not actively trying to keep this as much a secret as they can by doing what they can?


2)Considering that all the diesel equipment is pit fueled from the same ground pits that are used to fuel the aircraft (diesel equipment runs on Jet-A as both are kerosene); then why is the ground support equipment not putting out Chem trails behind them when they are operating?


Because the compounds in these chem trails are 'activated' by EM waves in the atmosphere where they are sprayed? It may not seem so to you but i do attempt to keep my theory internally consistent with reality as i understand it. I may be wrong but as far as my evidence goes things still seem to fit together.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

If sheets of cirrostratus started forming under conditions in which sheets of cirrostratus would not normal form, questions would be asked .....


Why would questions be asked? I mean what would one meteorologist say to the other one: " Say, have you noticed how those cirrostratus are forming under impossible conditions?" Scientist SHOULD focus on the contradictions in their area of science but few ever bother to ask questions that might undermine their life's work as there is no grants for that kinda thing.

Assuming questions are asked what would the discussion look like and why would they not just assume that it's caused by normal contrails or conditions they do not yet understand? Why should they assume a vast conspiracy to explain what they in their educated minds could probably find a less controversial excuse or reason for? Does the history of the sciences now prove that most scientist avoids , at least in public, the problems with their various disciples and focus on what solutions are being proposed by the established authorities in their fields? Why are breakthroughs so frequently made by mavericks with no formal training in the sciences?


So are you suggesting that chemtrails are only laid under the correct atmospheric conditions for cirrostratus to form, thus making them wholly indistinguishable from normal contrails and naturally forming cloud formations?


I am saying that we should never observe such persistent contrails without some evidence of Cirrus formations.


Contrail formation typically occurs in the upper Troposphere between nine and twelve kilometers is height with temperatures ranging between -35ƒC and -55ƒC (Jensen e. al. 1998, Schrader 1997). Most contrails last on the order of seconds to a few minutes and only a small minority will last for hours as in the contrails photographed (Jensen et. al. 1998). A newly formed contrail will be approximately one kilometer wide and one-half a kilometer tall. As a contrail evolves, it grows greatly in the horizontal plane sometimes extending over 20 kilometers in width (Spinhirne et al. 1998). Examples of this horizontal evolution is shown in the photograph. Contrails can also be 100ís of kilometers long given the right atmospheric conditions and a plane on a steady course.

Long lasting contrails like the ones observed usually occur in parts of the sky that have preexisting patches of cirrus clouds. Since the cirrus clouds are formed of ice crystals like the contrails, cirrus clouds in a region of the sky suggests supersaturation with respect to ice and sufficient heterogeneous nuclei for ice crystals to form (Jenson et al. 1998). The GOES-8 satellite photographs, Figure 3 and Figure 4, taken at approximately at the same time as the contrails were present shows significant cirrus clouds around the Norman area providing a condition necessary for contrail persistence.

students.ou.edu...


So while i disagree with the statement that they can last 'hours' under almost any naturally occurring atmospheric conditions ( based on other evidence i have seen and quoted earlier) the absence of Cirrus should be a very specific indication of how long a contrail should be able to persist. Long lasting 'contrails' ( The distinction is in the fact that one kind lasts hours) are not supposed to be able to persist in clear blue skies to speak nothing of appearing and persisting in lower altitudes in American and European skies.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   
great scot what a shot, the first ive seen in that area Despite the many times my feet have fell there, there's a large Unsettling feeling over the horizon, where does Subliminal truth lie, is it fact or Philosophy, neglect in the name of selfish pride. my mouth tatstes like gun metal, death is in the air...the red sun rises

-ahox



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I got a question for you. If these so called "chem trails" which really just look like regular Altostratus undulatus to me personally, then why don't they brainwash you so you can't conspire this kind of stuff? Or why not brain wash you to love the president and government? Then apparently it is only working on like 30 % of the nation.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
I have no idea whether they have changed or have not changed but see no reason why the mixture chosen for use in civilian spraying ( I'm not yet sure that this is in fact being doing by civilian aviation) should be heavier or lighter.


Jet fuel has a specific weight per gallon (with slight variances for temperature and barometric pressure, which change its density/volume) of 6.84. When a jet is fueled it is done by weight (the aircraft gauges are in weight) and totaled to match the gallons on the Hobbs Meter of the pump. The two numbers have to sync up. Both the weight and gallons are presented to the pilot on a service ticket by the fueler so he can check that on his weight and balance prior to departure. This is all tracked very precisely because it not only effects the weight and balance of the aircraft, but also because it has to be billed by the tank farm to the appropriate airline by flight number.


Originally posted by StellarX
Is there any reason to suspect that the people involved are not actively trying to keep this as much a secret as they can by doing what they can?


Well considering that you can go to your local airport and buy a couple of gallons of the exact fuel that is used on the aircraft, what would be the point?

Try it yourself, either go to a small local airport that receives their fuel from the same source, or try the tank farm at a major airport. The only problem your might find with a major airport is that they are gong to want to sell it in a greater volume as its not really worth their time over a few bucks. Truth be told though the gas at your local puddle hopper airport is going to be from the same source as your local major airport. Most smaller airports are shipped fuel from the major airport, which receives that fuel from a port and stores it in a tank farm.

So go track down a gallon or so, and have it tested. If you want to save the time, money, and effort, though: Jet A



JET A

Jet A is a similar kerosine type of fuel, produced to an ASTM specification and normally only available in the U.S.A. It has the same flash point as Jet A-1 but a higher freeze point maximum (-40°C). It is supplied against the ASTM D1655 (Jet A) specification.

AVIATION FUEL ADDITIVES

Aviation fuel additives are compounds added to the fuel in very small quantities, usually measurable only in parts per million, to provide special or improved qualities. The quantity to be added and approval for its use in various grades of fuel is strictly controlled by the appropriate specifications.

A few additives in common use are as follows:

1. Anti-knock additives reduce the tendency of gasoline to detonate. Tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) is the only approved anti-knock additive for aviation use and has been used in motor and aviation gasolines since the early 1930s.

2. Anti-oxidants prevent the formation of gum deposits on fuel system components caused by oxidation of the fuel in storage and also inhibit the formation of peroxide compounds in certain jet fuels.

3. Static dissipator additives reduce the hazardous effects of static electricity generated by movement of fuel through modern high flow-rate fuel transfer systems. Static dissipator additives do not reduce the need for `bonding' to ensure electrical continuity between metal components (e.g. aircraft and fuelling equipment) nor do they influence hazards from lightning strikes.

4. Corrosion inhibitors protect ferrous metals in fuel handling systems, such as pipelines and fuel storage tanks, from corrosion. Some corrosion inhibitors also improve the lubricating properties (lubricity) of certain jet fuels.

5. Fuel System Icing Inhibitors (Anti-icing additives) reduce the freezing point of water precipitated from jet fuels due to cooling at high altitudes and prevent the formation of ice crystals which restrict the flow of fuel to the engine. This type of additive does not affect the freezing point of the fuel itself. Anti-icing additives can also provide some protection against microbiological growth in jet fuel.

6. Metal de-activators suppress the catalytic effect which some metals, particularly copper, have on fuel oxidation.

7. Biocide additives are sometimes used to combat microbiological growths in jet fuel, often by direct addition to aircraft tanks; as indicated above some anti-icing additives appear to possess biocidal properties.

8. Thermal Stability Improver additives are sometimes used in military JP-8 fuel, to produce a grade referred to as JP-8+100, to inhibit deposit formation in the high temperature areas of the aircraft fuel system.

POWER BOOSTING FLUIDS

It used to be commonplace for large piston engines to require special fluids to increase their take-off power. Similar injection systems are also incorporated in some turbo-jet and turbo-prop engines. The power increase is achieved by cooling the air consumed, to raise its density and thereby increase the weight of air available for combustion. This effect can be obtained by using water alone but it is usual to inject a mixture of methanol and water to produce a greater degree of evaporative cooling and also to provide additional fuel energy.



[edit on 12/18/2006 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by wswbkbroiler
I got a question for you. If these so called "chem trails" which really just look like regular Altostratus undulatus to me personally, then why don't they brainwash you so you can't conspire this kind of stuff?


Well if you think those contrails look like 'Altostratus undulatus' it's you who need the help and not me! They do 'brainwash' people but not by direct means as that is as far as i understand quite energy intensive ( equipment and personal involved) with very real problems... Is it not far easier to just deny it while changing scientific understanding and knowledge to hide this new program? That's they way they have always done it before and considering past success why involve something as elaborate and inefficient as direct tampering with the brain?


Or why not brain wash you to love the president and government? Then apparently it is only working on like 30 % of the nation.


Because people are not complete idiots and will always have a innate distrust of all power structures. Few Americans really love the president and it's his appeal to American citizens to 'love America' , and thus presumably the actions of it's governing bodies, that plays on feelings and convictions that have been carefully cultivated by decades of persistent and consistent perception altering propaganda.

While we are at it do you have any evidence that 'brainwashing' ( physically as in chemically/electrically altering brain chemistry and thinking patterns ) on such a large scale are in fact scientifically possible and that it can be done without very real medical and mental problems resulting in a harder to control population? I have not really looked into that and i think their current tried and tested methods, of simply altering perception by controlling the flow of information, are still working pretty well...

Anyways!

Stellar



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
My oh my, what pretty clouds.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Well if you think those contrails look like 'Altostratus undulatus' it's you who need the help and not me!


Apparently not very much.

You love throwing insults at people don't you?


Why do they want all those new tankers if the old one's are as brand new as their official flight hours supposedly indicate they are?

They're 41 year old KC-135's.




We KNOW that these persistent contrails are not normal

Why aren't they normal? What suggests they aren't normal?


KC-135�s are B707 based aircraft.

Dash80*


Yell and insult members, then are never seen again until chem/con is mentioned again.

Uh. Uh.



I am sure if you go look you can find some sources but that specific part of the chem trail issue is not very interesting to me as i already know that it's mostly conductive materials...

You're talking about the "Aerosol Crimes and Cover-ups' website right? If so that test is highly inaccurate and dosn't say much about persistant contrails.


Why can't Contrails persist!?



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR

KC-135�s are B707 based aircraft.

Dash80*


Your kind of splitting hairs on this one…


The 367-80 and the 707 are almost the exact same aircraft. Kind of like the difference between a 737-300 and a 737-400, but more people know what a 707 is opposed to a 367.




The 707 was based on an aircraft known as the 367-80. The "Dash 80", as it was called within Boeing, took less than two years from project launch in 1952 to rollout on May 14, 1954. The prototype was the basis for both the KC-135 Stratotanker, an air tanker used by the United States Air Force, and the 707.


However, you are technically correct.



[edit on 12/23/2006 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
You love throwing insults at people don't you?


No love involved in that specific process and it's mostly a question of some people doing so much to earn them.


They're 41 year old KC-135's.


with less than three hundred hours worth of flying hours per year.


Why aren't they normal? What suggests they aren't normal?


Nothing in the atmospheric sciences twenty years ago deals with the type of persistency we now see daily.


You're talking about the "Aerosol Crimes and Cover-ups' website right? If so that test is highly inaccurate and dosn't say much about persistant contrails.


No i am not and referring to the active campaign of weather warfare against the US. The conductive materials dispersed in these 'contrails' are being used to help mark the areas in the sky where energy extraction or input is suspected of happening so that the directions may be noted and patterns discovered by means of satellites or, i presume, AWACS.



Why can't Contrails persist!?


Why can they, so suddenly, in the last decade?

Stellar



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Why can they, so suddenly, in the last decade?


Because, as I pointed out above, in the last decade, the airlines changed their main workhorse aircraft from the B-727 to other more fuel efficient aircraft with different engine layouts and designs…


Though to be honest, there have been persistent contrails since the beginning, but there was also much less air traffic, there are WWII photos showing this.

So now we have new aircraft, new engines, and many more of them.

[edit on 12/28/2006 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Because, as I pointed out above, in the last decade, the airlines changed their main workhorse aircraft from the B-727 to other more fuel efficient aircraft with different engine layouts and designs…


And so suddenly we have instead of contrails that last minutes contrails that persistently lasts hours or sometimes days? What exactly in the fuel results in this as Defcon ( getting to your earlier posts but i try find something new contradictions before every response) seems to be quite adamant that these fuels have not changed in some time?



Though to be honest, there have been persistent contrails since the beginning,


Not like these and you have not proven otherwise...


but there was also much less air traffic, there are WWII photos showing this.


The world war two photo's did not in fact show that and you admitted as much at that time... What does the amount of air traffic have to do with relative contrail persistency if it's the ice in the atmosphere that is the main 'reactive agent'?


So now we have new aircraft, new engines, and many more of them.


Actually air traffic increases by about 3% per decade if i remember correctly so this sudden change in persistency just can not be explained by sudden increase in air traffic...

Stellar



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
And so suddenly we have instead of contrails that last minutes contrails that persistently lasts hours or sometimes days? What exactly in the fuel results in this as Defcon ( getting to your earlier posts but i try find something new contradictions before every response) seems to be quite adamant that these fuels have not changed in some time?


I think I was pretty clear on the fact that the fuel has not changed any between the times I have worked at the airport, first in the 1980’s and later in the 2000’s. What HAS changed is the type of aircraft being used as main-line carriers, the engines on those aircraft, and the number of flights.

There are pictures of persistent contrails coming from bombers used during WW2, so there is nothing new in that aspect.



Originally posted by StellarX
Not like these and you have not proven otherwise...


There have been plenty of posts showing photo’s on B-17 bombers, during WW2, leaving the same types of contrails. I don’t really feel the need to go scrape them up, I know essan has some he posts.



Originally posted by StellarX
Actually air traffic increases by about 3% per decade if i remember correctly so this sudden change in persistency just can not be explained by sudden increase in air traffic...


If there is a change in persistency it is due to changes in engines, the number only adds to the amount of contrails that obscure the skies.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


Why aren't they normal? What suggests they aren't normal?


Nothing in the atmospheric sciences twenty years ago deals with the type of persistency we now see daily.


So what area of atmospheric science were you involved in 20 years ago?

Only all the meteorologists I know who've been in the profession for 20 or more years consider these persistent contrails totally explicable .... The only thing they can't explain is why some seemingly intelligent people think there's anything unusual about them.

Are the RMetS liars or just part of the conspiracy? And either way, why? Why would an independent organisation like this deceive the public?



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

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



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I think I was pretty clear on the fact that the fuel has not changed any between the times I have worked at the airport, first in the 1980’s and later in the 2000’s. What HAS changed is the type of aircraft being used as main-line carriers, the engines on those aircraft, and the number of flights.


And i think i was clear in stating that is what you experienced to be true?


There are pictures of persistent contrails coming from bombers used during WW2, so there is nothing new in that aspect.


Look at those pictures again as i did not notice any trails without the aircraft in the distance and once again i have never disputed that contrails can be many miles long as jet travel pretty damn far in 'many minutes' as the sources i have quoted states. At commercial speeds we should expect contrails that can on rare occasions be 10 - 20 km in length before dispersing over a few minutes.


There have been plenty of posts showing photo’s on B-17 bombers, during WW2, leaving the same types of contrails.


I have no problem with contrails as i keep trying to tell you and i saw nothing suspicious or out of the ordinary on those pictutes. Certainly not what we now call chem trails...


I don’t really feel the need to go scrape them up, I know essan has some he posts.


I am pretty good at keeping record of my past activities and statements on any given topic and i know where to find those pictures.


If there is a change in persistency it is due to changes in engines, the number only adds to the amount of contrails that obscure the skies.


There is no corresponding commercial activity increase to explain away the numerous persistent trails and engine layouts as such ( considering your claims that the fuel has not changed) can not make up for that. I have responded to Essan with more details and while i do not mind repeating myself you can just as well study those sources and tell me how so many contradictory statements can be made. The reduced visibility standards is quite interesting in my opinion corresponding with the same year as the start of the public becoming aware of this issue. Did they change that many engines or layouts in one year and who operates this vast new fleets of radically changed aircraft?

Stellar



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
And i think i was clear in stating that is what you experienced to be true?


Yes, what I said about aviation is true. The Chemtrail Hoax started between the two times that I worked an airport job. In the late 80’s to early 90’s there was barely an internet for these topics to be discussed on. Later in 2000 I was not a member of a site such as this, so I did not pay any attention to the topic. Though I had seen it mentioned on one site and dismissed it as some guy that was crazy. What I did not realize at the time was that there was a whole community of folks that believed in this untruth. What I can say for certain is that nothing changed in between those times except what I mentioned. Aircraft types, engines, and amount of traffic.



Originally posted by StellarX
And i think i was clear in stating that is what you experienced to be true?

There is no corresponding commercial activity increase to explain away the numerous persistent trails and engine layouts as such ( considering your claims that the fuel has not changed) can not make up for that.


Well if you can recall everything that has been written on this site about the topic, perhaps you know were to find the chart that either Howard or OTS used to post showing the increase in air traffic. Even if we follow your estimate of 3%, that is 3% over at least 10 years, meaning a 30% increase in traffic.

Another thing that changed is that airlines such as SouthWest sprung up in that time. SouthWest airlines, was a volume carrier, ever at a small airport they add a huge amount to the traffic. Add to that the fact that they only allow 30 minutes ground time (normally 30 minutes is minimum ground turn time on a 737 that has arrived late, what we would call a burn-turn) on every flight and you can see how this is going to exponentially increase traffic. Other airlines started to follow suit to compete offering more flights that cost less and turning those flights faster, meaning more time in the air for that aircraft during the day.



Originally posted by StellarX
I have responded to Essan with more details and while i do not mind repeating myself you can just as well study those sources and tell me how so many contradictory statements can be made. The reduced visibility standards is quite interesting in my opinion corresponding with the same year as the start of the public becoming aware of this issue.


Essan, to my knowledge, has knowledge of meteorology and a limited knowledge of aviation, and I have knowledge of aviation and a limited knowledge to meteorology. Your comparing apples and oranges. So posting questions to me on the subject of anything about the weather would get you an educated guess, but not a fact, you would have to take up that kind of thing with someone like Essan.


Originally posted by StellarX
Did they change that many engines or layouts in one year and who operates this vast new fleets of radically changed aircraft?


Airlines can literally spring up overnight, I have seen it happen: Branif, JetBlue, SouthWest, AmericanWest, Spirit, etc… Branif is a classic example, I have personally seen them file bankruptcy and come back again out of the clear blue multiple times. Then you get airlines that fail and their newer more efficient aircraft are bought off by other airlines to replace an older aircraft. So the short answer is yes, compared to other large companies, airlines can phase out their older aircraft at a surprisingly rapid rate.

Add to this fact that when an airlines starts to fail the first thing that they do is file with the government under re-organization (I think it called chapter 11), at which time the government hands them a huge sum of money to try and upgrade aircraft, retool their image, and make themselves more profitable.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join