Chemtrails Over Los Angeles

Simple: the temperature and humidity at the altitude of the higher aircraft was not conducive for a more persistent contrail to form. As I'm sure you are well aware, such conditions can vary over even a few hundred feet in the upper troposphere.

Edit: This web page may help you understand it more.

Alternatively, you may wish to provide empirical evidence that Dr Ackerman is erroneous in his assertions.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by Essan]

DING DING DING
finally an intelligent answer. it's about time.
the only problem is his graph which is actually an incomplete scale only because temprature's are missing. the temp is very much relative to the saturated air and visa versa , but we will go with his info anyway's just for the sake of discussion.
nowhere does he indicate that along any exact flight path a lower aircraft with an obviously higher ambient air temp surrounding it would be within more saturated condition's than one at a higher altitude with a lower ambient air temp within that short of a time and distance from the lower aircraft..
the balance between ambient air temp and the saturation of the air is not so random that what is in the photo and the parameter's that i have set forth with the photo (i.e. the alt of aircraft #2 being higher and the duration of approx 30sec between aircraft) that there wouldn't be a persistant contrail from aircraft #2..
looking from a side cross hatch view of air saturation, again it's not so random ,, more like viewing salenity in a body of water. sure there will be dips and then it will rise again .but that only indicates that the higher aircraft along the same flight path at that short of a time factor and distance would only experience more saturated air at a lower ambient air temp. therefore even more likely to leave a persistant contrail behind it than the lower aircraft..

so even though your response was of the very intelligent type ,,,it un fortunatelly did not explain away what the photograph has depicted. if you would like to do this again but with the pertinate information detailing this particular situation ,, i would love to study it and i would bet everyone else would also.

When exactly was the picture taken?

The only way to get to the bottom of this is to obtain a sounding as close as possible to time and location and see how the humidity and temperature changed over altitude and use an Appleman Chart to calculate contrail probability.

Here's a typical example of sounding data from San Diego

weather.uwyo.edu...

Note that at higher altitude the temperature starts rising again - typical of circumstances under which a lower aircraft will produce a contrails whilst a higher one will not.

this small exerpt is taken from the centennialofflight.gov web site and it will explain that your temp theory does not apply in the case of the aircraft in the picture...

The Earth's atmosphere is divided into different levels or regions primarily by temperature. The lowest region of the atmosphere is the troposphere, which begins at the Earth's surface and extends to an altitude of approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers), or 55,000 feet—about 10.4 miles (16.8 kilometers), above sea level at the equator. Around the North and South Poles, the troposphere is only a little more than 5 miles (8 kilometers), or 28,000 feet (8,805 meters), deep. The temperature of the troposphere decreases about 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit per 1000 feet. Humans live in the troposphere and most weather occurs here.


the temp does not start to rise until approx 52,799.894 feet. in otherwords the stratosphere. currently we do not have commercial aircraft since the concord is no longer in service that fly in the stratosphere. anyway the camera that i shot the picture with is only a cheap cannon powershot and couldn't take a picture of anything smaller than mount everest at a distance of 52,799.894 feet with it anyway.
so your theory of the temp being higher for the second aircraft is now debunked.
as for the higher aircraft not leaving a so called persistant contrail because it does not have enough humidity on the same flight path just seconds after one that has at a lower altitude ,is going to be highly doubtful and highly irregular.
please read more on the subjects that dont please your way of thinking , and low and behold you might discover that closed minded thinking might just become open to other avenues. science has been proven over and over again not to always be correct thats why new theories come to light and new discoveries are being made on a daily basis. it's called openminded thinking or in short pulling your head out......
next i would like to see a graph that tells me that the patent i posted the link for yesterday is wrong also......

So you dispute the soundings data I linked to? Your comment really just demonstrates how little you've studied the subject. You clearly don't study meteorological charts and atmospheric data on a regular basis

I wonder how temperature inversions work then - when the temp at 5,000ft is higher than that at sea level?



Well, my point was that temp may well be higher, but humidity may also be the relevant difference. But why do you think it's highly doubtful and irregular? Presumably you have information that casts doubt on many decades of meteorological records?



I might well say the same to you Of course, I have read a lot on these subjects, I suspect you've simply read a couple of conspiracy websites.



Indeed. But science is normal proven wrong as a result of empirical fact, not the opinion of those who have not studied the subject



Why?

Instead I'd like you to post some evidence that supports your apparent assertion that hundreds of radiosondes a day are producing totally erroneous information and have been doing so for decades - ie that temperature and humidity profiles in the troposphere do not allow for contrails to be persistent at some altiudes but not at others.



[edit on 20-2-2008 by Essan]

o.k. here we go
1. your comment was and i quote "Note that at higher altitude the temperature starts rising again - typical of circumstances under which a lower aircraft will produce a contrails whilst a higher one will not."
as usual you are all over the map again
my answer to that was taken directly from a .gov site sir....
2. it's highly irregular and highly doubtful because because the seperation in altitude will not be very much due to atmospheric and weather conditions being most suitable and constant for the traveling commercial aircraft. that's how they do it here on earth, they don't have aircraft at random altitudes that they just pull out their hat.
also i have yet to determine that you are even qualified to comment on decades of meteorological records. as i have already stated ukweather.com doesn't solidify your expertise on chem , con or persistant contrail's in any way shape or form. official sounding url's are a dime a dozen here in cyberspace..
3. the only conspiracy site's that i visit are limited to only,,, TAA DAA,,and here we are. as you can tell i tend not to belive self proclaimed experts on any subject on this ( my only ) conspiracy web site.
4. (why) because that patent is a substantial piece of evidence leading to contrails being something other than condensation. thats why..
5. i didn't come on this thread trying to prove you wrong you came here to prove the creator and several other people including myself who posted here on this thread wrong.
now as for the radiosondes, To speed the transmission process, the RAOB operator encodes only the temperature and dewpoint data for significant pressure levels along with the mandatory pressure levels. so who's to say that the dew level and the temp level were so much different at those altitudes as to not leave a persistant contrail. i can sit here almost any day of the week and point out aircraft after aircraft starting with the lowest one giving a persistant contrail and every one after that with a higher altitude will also give a persistant contrail. the humidity will not vary as much as you are trying to make it out to be, especially along the exact flight path at a higher altitude.. plus no ather aircraft were leaving persistant contrails anywhere in the sky for as far as the eye could see..
now what?? we belive what we see with our own eyes and can read just as well as you can but still don't belive what you are saying.
the patent that was linked here says it all and don't try to say that thats new stuff that would mean your lying. there has been cloud seeding for various reasons in various forms for a long time now. hell they were even portraying them in cartoons back in the 20's and 30's dude..........

In other words, you won't believe anything I say, nor anything those who spend their lives studying such phenomena (like Pat Minnis) because we don't say what you want to hear.

You provide no evidence in support of your assertions other than websites produced by those who support you conclusions.

You ignore decades worth of research because it doe not support your assertions.

Provide me one irrefutable piece of evidence that a persistent contrail as observed from the ground is anything but a persistent contrail -as studied in detail since the 1960s.

For info:

ams.allenpress.com...

contrailscience.com...

www.pbs.org...

reply to post by Essan

---

pal , list all of the web sites you want but anything with a dot com or dot org at the end of it is one that any joe could own. as for you listing pbs that's not what i would consider a realible news source . pbs has to answer to someone in order to continue to maintain their fcc liscense.
my sugestion to you is to start using websites with a .gov at the end of it , decifer thru the B.S. you'll find there and find where they have released info contradicting themselves..
as for you spending your life studying such phenomena you are not doing a very good job at it if you have to start dropping names like your directly associated with them. that leads me to even further belive that your more of a fraud than previously suspected.

"Provide me one irrefutable piece of evidence that a persistent contrail as observed from the ground is anything but a persistent contrail -as studied in detail since the 1960s."
what an ignorant statement that is.
my freind thats why it's called a conspiracy.
dude your a YOYO and a fake who uses threads like this to promote your ukweatherworld web site half assed subliminally in your signature. and by having it in your signature without the .COM on the end of it shows that your trying to act like something your not or trying to be sneaky about it.

"You provide no evidence in support of your assertions other than websites produced by those who support you conclusions. "
what other websites would i use to support my assertions? one's that dont support my conclusions??????

brother you have obviously run out of intelligent things to say , so this is the point when i shake that stinky mackerel off of the hook , turn the boat to find a fishing ground with quality fish in it ..
good luck to you and ukweatherworld DOT CONMAN.
i beg you to please never to respond to any post's that i might make here on ATS.
GOOD DAY SIR

[edit on 20-2-2008 by ironman433]

Ok. Binoculars.... I don't know how you can tell the height of aircraft with binoculars.. but OK.

Let me just say that the minimum altitude diferance between two aircraft in cruise heading in the same direction is 2000 feet. Unless the aircraft were of similar type, then the distance would most likely be larger than that.


You've been here for a few days, so don't pretend to understand what 4 years worth of posts is.


I am a conspiracy theorist myself - that's why I'm here. I am also, open to conspiracies, that's why I look through Chemtrail threads for something with evidence.... but nope, nothing seen.

Second, I said, it's no wonder conspiracy theorists are widely regarded as loonies (You know, tin foil hat?). It's also rather hypocritical that you criticize Essan for providing links when you haven't provided anything.


It's not a conspiracy, it's a straw man theory with no evidence which makes baseless claims.

dictionary.reference.com...

A conspiracy has nothing to do with whether it has evidence or source. But this is Abovetopsecret.com, with a logo of 'deny ignorance', I would expect any conspiracy posted here should atleast, have one source. Yours doesn't.

Oh, and by the way, nice, Ab Hom arguement.


[edit on 22/2/2008 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz

---

oh your another DOTCOM beliver. what is he your boyfreind or something? why is it that every time you chime in it's in the defense of essan? sounds fishy.....

Yes at the equator thats is. Not near LA. The troposphere would have only been 30,000ft.



No, you have not debunked it. You have just contradicted yourself. You said the troposphere is lower at the poles than it is near the equator, which is correct. The troposphere does not stay at 52,799.894ft until it reaches the poles, it slowly decreases. So it is possible the plane was flying higher than the troposphere. I live in tropical Australia, close to the equator and happen to launch weather balloons and radio sonder soundings. So we actually know where troposhere is and that it changes on a daily basis



How do you know this? Did you perform your own weather balloon sounding?

There is no accurate way to determine the airplanes altitude without examining the real time flight data and onboard weather observations



Exactly, open your mind to the possibility that all you are seeing is a contrail. You dont appear to have enough experience with basic meteorology.

[edit on 22/2/2008 by OzWeatherman]

other than your name on here "ozweatherman" show me some credential's and maybe i might tend to belive that what you say has some validity to it.
and if you own or work for some DOTCOM or DOTORG don't bother.and if it is some television station then give me some way to prove that's you..

I am with you. I live in the LA forest foothills and have noticed an increase in spraying lately, these past couple of weeks. Last Sunday (3/2/08) was alarming, and they are at it as I write this, Sunday, a week later. We are being crop dusted, and I want to know what it is and why they are doing it.

I have had enough and am going to start asking questions, and start handing out flyers. If we do nothing, it will never stop. They have been getting us "use to the spraying" for some years now -- and it seems to escalate as time goes on.

There are so many theories (et coverage, weather warfare, protection from harmful rays, depopulation, etc.), but bottom line, spraying and manipulating the atmosphere just plain can't be a good thing to be breathing in, day in and day out. I am looking into Orgone apparatuses as well. I feel I have to take protective action of some kind, because it is being foisted on me without my permission!

www.chemtrials911.com... has some flyers. I have already printed them up, and have begun to pass them out. This "human crop dusting" has got to stop!

To Ironman:

Contrails evaporate quickly. And planes on destinations do not make circles, nor do they make X patterns or basket weave patterns in the sky. You can see a time-lapse video of what these trails of spray do over time. They do not dissipate. They make a blanket of fake clouds in the sky. WHAT is in the material, and WHY are they doing it is all I am asking, which I have not been able to get answers to.

Frankly, the contrail theory is a cop-out. It might give ones mind a way out of thinking that no one could do something sinister, but because of the cover up I think there is something less than honorable going on. What is being obviously sprayed and why? What and why?

A time lapsed view of Chemtrails in action:
www.chemtrails911.com...


[edit on 9-3-2008 by muffet]

check out my Chemtrail pictures, I have seen so many I made a video presentation for it. This is what is hapenning over England.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Check out my Pictures, I have so many that I made video presentations about them, give some replies tell me what you think, all edited and produced by me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not that you will care. LOL But I as a fellow member can vouch for the validity of "OZ" and that he is in fact employed in the job he claims. I have spoken with him off this board numerous times and have his work contact info and have seen pictures of him AT work.

He does not work for some .dot website, nor a media station. He is employed as a meteorologist. Just an FYI

He is who he claims he is....and this is coming from someone who is quite skeptical on people's claims here.



[edit on 12-3-2008 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by greeneyedleo

---

Thankyou Greeneyedleo

And if you must know Ironman, since you seem to question everyone that proves you wrong or disagrees with you:

www.bom.gov.au

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology is my employer. Web address above

I really don't understand how this myth continues. Really, I don't believe in most conspiracies in general, but for me this (along with the 9/11 conspiracies) rank among the most impossible to believe.