Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chemtrails: Debunking the Peristent Contrail myth

page: 8
25
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Lack of data?


According to the many scientist in question, yes.


We launch 2 sondes a day into the upper atmosphere her in Oz. We have 42 stations nation wide that do it twice a day which equates to 84 upper air soundings per day. Multiply that by the the other 10,000 upper air observations around the world and see how many measurements happen on a daily basis.


Sources please!


And if that isn't enough information for these so called experts, what is?


I have no idea is i am not in fact claiming to be a expert at anything other than reading very large volumes of material and coming to conclusions that many people do not like for reasons they can not ever seem to explain by resorting to facts and figures.


Originally posted by OzWeatherman
All that information is false and misleading.


And while i might be using the information in a misleading way ( it happens even to experts) i am not sure which parts are 'false' or according to who


Not one document you have privded so far is recognised by the WMO or adheres to their guidlines.


How do you know that the world meteorological organization does not recognize those articles ( how does that work any ways?) or the information in them? What sources will you introduce to dispute what is contained in the 'official' sources i have worked from so far?


If radiosondes get a humidity of over 100% in any flight, they are automatically considered faulty and another one is launched.


How can that be and considered faulty and by who?


The lower the humidity value the drier the air, and the more potential the air has to hold moisture. A common misconception is the belief that if the humidity is 100% it must be precipitating. (i.e. raining or snowing). Actual there are quite a few instances in the morning when it is clear and calm when the humidity is 100%. The moisture had to be produced, but where is it ? A dense fog or more likely a heavy dew is the answer. Along that line of reasoning the humidity does not have to be 100% before it precipitates. If there is a big rain or snowstorm usually the humidity is between 90 % and 100 %, but not always 100 % . Many times in the winter when there is a cold, dry airmass already in place over our area the humidity during the day may be only 35 %. As clouds move in and moisture increases the humidity will slowly rise. As precipitation gets closer and closer and then is finally overhead it may evaporate before reaches the ground. Precipitation aloft is known as ' virga ', and may actually show up on radar but not on our lawns. When it does finally begin to snow the relative humidity may only be 75 % . If the storm is intense, and lasts 6 - 12 hours the air will become more and more saturated until the humidity is between 90 % and 100 % .

www.wusatv9.com...



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...



To persist, contrails and cirrus require RHI > 100%. Because of negative biases in the relative humidity measured at cold temperatures (Miloshevich et al. 1999), RHI infrequently exceeds 100% in
the USA radiosonde record. Furthermore, the RUC model adjusts and smoothes the RHI field so
that it differs from the radiosonde measurements. While the older version of the RUC used here
(discontinued 18 April 2002) yields RHI > 100% more often than the radiosondes, it is still biased
low. Thus, it is necessary to increase the RHI from radiosonde measurements for T < 0°C or set an
artificially low value of RHIt.


www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...



Like natural cirrus clouds, contrails can impact
climate through their radiative effects. Persistent
contrails often form in air with relative humidities with
respect to ice (RHI) exceeding 100% but with relative
humidities with respect to water (RH) less than 100%.
Cirrus cloud formation generally requires RH > 100%.
Thus, contrails can form clouds in conditions that would
not support the formation of most natural cirrus. Cirrus
coverage over the USA grew by 0.010/decade between
1971 and 1996, while declining over other land areas
with minimal air traffic 0.017/decade.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...



According to the classical contrail formation theory,
contrails can persist when the ambient air is supersaturated
with respect to ice (that is, the environmental
relative humidity with respect to ice (RHI) is greater than
100 percent), but not with respect to water. In Sausen
et al. (1998), the use of ECMWF reanalysis data
required a contrail parameterization to compute contrail
coverage since the RHI in the ECMWF forecast model
rarely exceed 100 percent.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...



The RUC model data are representations of the complete 3-dimensional structure of wind, temperature, and humidity over the USA at a resolution of 25 mb and 40 km. The horizontal resolution has been degraded to 1° latitude x 1° longitude to facilitate the computations. Because they are based on a sparse number of actual in situ (balloon sonde) data taken every 12 hours and satellite measurements, the RUC data are not a perfect representation of the various meteorological parameters, especially water vapor. The model humidity at upper levels of the atmosphere is often too low, reflecting the current biases known to exist in our measurement system. Persistent contrails require a relative humidity with respect to ice (RHI) that exceeds 100%. We know that contrails are sometimes observed in areas where estimates of the RHI are less than 100%. The existence of contrails in those locations highlights the "dry-bias" in the humidity fields.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...


I could go on but i believe i made my point and would just like you to explain why you disagree with all of those statements. I AM interested because if what you say is true that just further undermines the claims that contrails are well understood and that we are likely to find anything as persistent, as i observed, on a more than once or twice yearly basis.


Any radiosonde that gives data of a high humidity at the height at which cirrus forms is automatically considered suspect and therefore not used.


By who and what papers have they published to show up the false data that so many other scientist and organizations seems to be using?


The typical humdity at cirrus heights is normally around 35% ,to in extreme cases, 50% (if cirrus is present of course). Anything over that is crap, and yes I have years and years of upper air soundings to prove that. And when sondes reach a temperature of -60 degrees celsius,


All that the data that you can introduce to support your claims will get as fair a evaluation as i can make! I have no vested interested in believing in chem trails and i would much rather be wrong ( i little 'ego' involved here and i can easily afford being proven wrong) about them than being forced to accept their reality based on my current evidence and observations.


the humidity is no longer measured because the producers of them (vaisala) have proven the humidity probes will not accurately provide information at such a low temperature.


That seems like a claim you can easily support by quoting from the manufacturers page and it will certainly leave relatively large holes in the credibility of the people who wrote the papers i cited. Any sourced claims you can provide can but help me closer to the 'truth'!

Stellar

[edit on 30-10-2007 by StellarX]




posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


I work for The Australian Bureau if Meteorology at Darwin Meteorological Office. If you dont believe me I can post a link to our webpage and will U2U my work email and IP address so you can check it out. Launching upper air weather balloons is my job. Everything we do has to adhere with World Meteorological Organisational Guidelines. So know disrespect but I know a hell of a lot more about upper air weather than most people on this site



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Any by the way I dont disagree with all your data. I retract what I said about it all being crap. I went a little over the top and some of what I said was confusing (I also confused myself), and i apolgise to you for that. The contrail explanation you quoted was perfect. Here's our Aviation departments explanation and some of my own added input

Water vapour in air chages constantly. It condenses into water droplets and the water droplets evaporate. When evaporation exceeds condensation, the air becomes clear and dry. When condensation exceeds evaporation, clouds form. The rate of evaporation is related to the temperature as, when the temperature falls, so does the evaporation rate. Eventually a temperature is reached where two rates are the same, this is called dewpoint and at this temperature we have 100% humidity and the air is supersaturated.

Sometimes the air is clean and there are very few nuclei onto which the water particles can condense or freeze. So enter one aeroplane with engines pumping out billions of particles in exhaust gases (mainly water particles, which is the main by-product of aviation fuel) and instant condensation therefore forming clouds

The winds at the heights that jets fly is very strong, sometimes in excess of 200knots in jet streams. So if someone was pumping poisons or chemicals into the air if byu some miraculous chance they fell to the earth, the chemicals would land a very long way way from the release point. For example, something rleased above Sydney on the East coast of Australia would probably land over the ocean or somewhere in New Zealand. Its more likely to be dispersed in the air than even reach the ground which in my opininon is a very inefficent way of poisoning someone



posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Chemtrails or just a lot of folk flying in to London from the USA?

(taken 07.20z 3rd Nov)





A close up taken half an hour later:




[edit on 3-11-2007 by Essan]



posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
I work for The Australian Bureau if Meteorology at Darwin Meteorological Office. If you dont believe me I can post a link to our webpage and will U2U my work email and IP address so you can check it out.


I am happy simply looking at the data you present; working in a given field does not make your assumptions the 'truth' any ways.


Launching upper air weather balloons is my job. Everything we do has to adhere with World Meteorological Organisational Guidelines.


I suppose it should if they are going to be measuring world wide climate change so why are you telling me what is automatically presumed? Does the WMO dictate to you what the current climatic 'truth' is and how your standards should be adapted to come up with the same measurements?


So know disrespect but I know a hell of a lot more about upper air weather than most people on this site


Knowing more about a given subject matter is a great start but if much of the knowledge you have is based on 'standards' that were handed down to you it is NOT a guarantee of anything.


Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Any by the way I dont disagree with all your data. I retract what I said about it all being crap.


It's not MY data your disagreeing with but since apologies are so rare i'll claim this one.



I went a little over the top and some of what I said was confusing (I also confused myself), and i apolgise to you for that. The contrail explanation you quoted was perfect. Here's our Aviation departments explanation and some of my own added input


We are all prone to becoming a little fanatical when we are acting in defense of standards and facts we have never had reason to question. Thanks for admitting that are in fact human.



Sometimes the air is clean and there are very few nuclei onto which the water particles can condense or freeze. So enter one aeroplane with engines pumping out billions of particles in exhaust gases (mainly water particles, which is the main by-product of aviation fuel) and instant condensation therefore forming clouds


I would appreciate it if you can tell me which parts of the last three paragraphs are 'official' and which parts were added by yourself. As i understand Patrick Minnus, a senior research scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center, the amount of water is very significant :


"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...


But the following gives me pause :


Moreover, it turns out that the initial ice particle concentration and radiative processes are of minor importance in the evolution of contrails, at least during the 30-min simulation period.

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



The winds at the heights that jets fly is very strong, sometimes in excess of 200knots in jet streams. So if someone was pumping poisons or chemicals into the air if byu some miraculous chance they fell to the earth, the chemicals would land a very long way way from the release point. For example, something rleased above Sydney on the East coast of Australia would probably land over the ocean or somewhere in New Zealand. Its more likely to be dispersed in the air than even reach the ground which in my opininon is a very inefficent way of poisoning someone


Presuming that the chemicals are primarily intended to reach the ground to achieve the desired result. You may not know what i think the purpose of chem trails are but i can assure you that any health effects are in my opinion incidental to the primary motivation.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Still waiting for someone to debunk these photos of persistent contrails and show that they are really chemtrails (or else, explain the difference
)

Taken 08z this morning:








posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Contrails or chemtrails?

This is the scene half an hour later (08.30z). Looks like those contrails are spreading out across the sky .....




posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:10 AM
link   
I'd post some photos of Malaysian "chemtrails" too, but it's the monsoon season right now (actually it's almost always monsoon season) so there are more cumulus clouds than there are cirrus.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


I'm not educated in this field, but my concern with the trails is that they form deliberate patterns. These don't seem to have been created by commercial aircraft over my area, because we don't have that much traffic. I've observed these trails being crafted over my city sometimes for an entire day, then nothing for a few days, then they're back. Just makes me wonder...



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


now, normally, i'm one of the first to say, "thats just a contrail"

BUT

I know that a company close to where I work develops wargame solutions using a powdered metal instead of the much larger chaff, and I also know from talking to a friend who works for the Met office that these war games off the south coast of the UK often show up suddenly as a very dense cloud formation and then dissapear completely within 20 minutes dependant on other weather factors...

I think the problem with the whole chemtrails phenomena is that a lot of people just don't know what the hell they're looking at and because of this they assume its something really bad, where in reality, perhaps 1 time in 1000 ( I don't have a basis for that figure) they are seeing someone doing some dodgy chemical discharge - probably just to see where it goes!

The thing we need to establish here is:

what *is* a chem trail.

a)are we going to call anything coming out of a plane that isn't an actual contrail a chem trail? (be it fuel, water, chaff, micro chaff, wee(?) paratroopers)

or

b) does it have to be a specific act of spraying some noxious chemical deliberately into the air for nefarious reasons as yet unknown?


If we call it a) then yes, i'll hold my hands up and say that chemtrails are common

if we call it b) then i'm going to stand my ground here and say that no, i don't believe chemtrails are common enough to warrant any mass concern.


[edit on 8/2/08 by rat256]



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Actually, Jet A is basically kerosene not diesel.

You can run Jet-A in a diesel engine though with no issues, which is how we fueled our diesel ramp equipment.


hmmm... a company around here got a *major* wrist slapping a while ago for doing a 50/50 cut jetA with a low grade heating kero!!! they were putting it in passenger planes too! Thats terrifying!



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
First, it comes to mind that if these are simply a persistent version of a jet contrail, then it means something has significantly changed in the composition of our upper atmospheric layers. To investigate this idea, it would then necessitate an enquiry into global models built on sampling data and recorded temperatures et cetera inter et alia and see if something could explain "persistence", "billowing", and "doubling" of the contrail volume.

Most are unware of the direct, semi-direct, and indirect 'air campaigns' that are going on, and they are most likely (a) what people are seeing in the 'chemtrail' phenomena or (b) a clever cover for the nefarious purposes of world elites -- which is nothing new really, as the British government engaged in aerial spraying of all sorts of horrible stuff upon the Queen's subjects and her realms of England, Scotland, and Wales. Common knowledge now, but for years people raised a cry about the same only to be told that spraying was not happening or accusations were made that the observers were either insane, troublemakers, or communists. No, in the end, it was revealed that the British government was engaged in the insane causing great trouble and hardship for the ordinary people and demonstrated themselves to be a far greater threat that any communist every had been.

Here is a link to one of the arial aersol spraying campaign websites: A.R.M. - Field Campaign



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   


The thing we need to establish here is:

what *is* a chem trail.

a)are we going to call anything coming out of a plane that isn't an actual contrail a chem trail? (be it fuel, water, chaff, micro chaff, wee(?) paratroopers)


Well, the real problem is that everything coming out of a place that is an actual contrail is called a chemtrail - hence the ongoing problem of how to identify a chemtrail when alleged chemtrails always look and act exactly the same as normal contrails.



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
The spectrographic analysis of Contrails confirms that they are actually
"chemtrails" and not just water vapor or ice crystals as the persistent
debunker's claim.

omega.twoday.net...

portland.indymedia.org...

[edit on 11-2-2008 by whaaa]

[edit on 11-2-2008 by whaaa]



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I think we could safely say that no-one says chem trails don't exsist. but when people read about chemtrails, look up and see real contrails they panic. that isn't helpful and is sending parts of this board into hysteria.

can we just say that 99% of 'things you see in the sky coming out of planes' are con trails and largely harmless and 1% are something else for reasons yet unknown.

people shouldn't stop enquiring, but should stop panicking.

please?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   
You cant debunk the TRUTH. Chemtrails are real... but they arent Chemical... they are glass!

Chemtrails: The Truth Is Here!



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Once again, anything that comes out of the tailpipes of these aircrafts and is being left behind in our atmosphere as ‘persistent’ contrails should be investigated and tested to make sure ground-level is safe, too. But I do not know of any scientific data to debunk this persistent contrail myth. I wonder why. Hmmm.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky
Once again, anything that comes out of the tailpipes of these aircrafts and is being left behind in our atmosphere as ‘persistent’ contrails should be investigated and tested to make sure ground-level is safe, too. But I do not know of any scientific data to debunk this persistent contrail myth. I wonder why. Hmmm.


Not sure what you mean? There is a lot is scientific research into persistent contrails and means of preventing them from forming. They don't affect the ground (they're 6 miles above our heads and subject to strong jet stream winds) but they do affect our climate and possibly our weather - inadvertently though it may be.

ie www.livescience.com...



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by rat256
 


Kerosene, Diesel, and Jet Fuel are pretty much interchangeable as they are all different cuts of Kerosene anyway. The biggest difference is that Jet Fuel has additives to prevent gumming, static electricity, icing, and bacteria. It would not be a good idea to use normal Kerosene or diesel in a jet, but you can certainly use Jet fuel in a Diesel. If I recall correctly the main difference in many of the dyed Kerosene’s is the sulfur content and the taxes. You can guess which one the government got upset over:

The red dye was added to heating oil at the mandate of the federal government, to assist the Internal Revenue Service and state taxation authorities in the enforcement of motor fuel taxes. Prior to the addition of the dye, it was easy to convert to taxable use fuel which had been purchased for non-taxable uses such as heating. Government agents are authorized to inspect fuel tanks of trucks and fueling locations; the presence of dyed fuel in tanks intended for taxable use is evidence of fuel tax evasion.




posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
The average temp in the U.S.( also known as the diurnal range) went up a little bit more than one degree at one point during the time when all the planes were grounded for the three days after 9/11.

P.S. that one degree in three days is staggering.

This suggests that contrails/chemtrails have a dimming affect (blocking out the sun). And that they are helping to cool the earth.

So, therefor the earth should be getting much cooler because of this but its not it is getting hotter for some reason.

When they took samples of the upper atmosphere they found that the reason why its not getting cooler is because of pollution. All those particles in the air collecting bits of water, holding in heat like a green house effect.

So it goes like this contrails/chemtrails are trying to cool the earth and pollution is trying to warm the earth and the pollution is winning.

This is why I believe the government is spraying chemtrails.

1. They want to slow or control global warming

2. The government knows that contrails cool the earth.

3. Contrails would be way more effective if they could stay in the atmosphere much longer.

Therefore they create long lasting contrails called chemtrails in order to achieve this.

Prof. Veerabhadran Ramanathan is considered to be the leading climatologist in the world. He won the Buys Ballot Medal in 1995 The prize is awarded around every ten years to an individual that has made significant contributions to meteorology.

Here is what he has to say about this. Global Dimming

[edit on 4/14/2008 by Alien Abduct]





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join