Debunking the Chemtrail Debunker.

reply to post by cutbothways

Some research would be nice before you chime in to debunk.

oh I'm sorry, I thought this was a forum open to free debate and input...I guess I was wrong. I was only sharing my experiences with frequent travels via flying is all and asking a simple question not trying to debunk nor verify either way. No offence intended. I didn't know I needed a science degree to share my two cents.



[edit on 7-5-2008 by QBSneak000]

[edit on 7-5-2008 by QBSneak000]

Originally posted by cutbothways
Some research would be nice before you chime in to debunk.

Quoted for irony...


This thread is pure entertainment.

I'd like to see the evidence you have collected that the contrails are silver iodide. How did you collect the sample, and where are the results posted to peer review?

cutbothways is simply trolling the thread now. Has nothing to offer and is willfully ignoring the contributions of serious members.

Quit feeding him.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman


If it is such a bother to you that you think my credentials are bogus and you dont care about chemtrails/ contrails stuff, then why bother posting?

SO, YOU'RE ACKNOWLEDGING CHEMTRAILS EXIST? I'M NOT SURE ABOUT YOUR CREDENTIALS. THATS WHY I'M QUESTIONING THEM.

You have not contributed to either side of the argument at all. Just complained about everyone else saying stuff

DID YOU CHECK MY LINKS? WHO'S EVERYONE? YOU? MOD?

So unless your going to contribute, why dont you just climb back into the corner and put on your gas mask

NICE ONE.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by kaspermartyrphantom]

Originally posted by neformore

Does the same not apply to you? He's workign off accepted science - what are you working off?

DID YOU READ MY LINKS? SOME ARE RELATED TO SILVER IODIDE, SOME TO OCCURRENCES OF YELLOW POWDER. THE OCCURRENCES AREN'T PROOF OF ANYTHING, JUST POSSIBILITIES.

If your sole purpose is to discredit something, then you aren't here to learn, which is why I find

DID YOU READ WHAT I WROTE? HERE TO DISCREDIT THE PEKACHU FOLLOWERS? DO YOU FOLLOW PEKACHU? I AM HERE TO LEARN. THE TRUTH. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way - its just that the thread is about chemtrails, not about cloud seeding. It had already been established in the thread earlier that there are differences between the two, and that cloud seeding for weather modification was a practice recognised by both sides of the debate as something that happens in regular practice.

The thread is about someone claiming that they have proof that persistent contrails don't occur, that they are man made and that regular spraying occurs as a counter argument to a post that Ozweatherman made. Thats why I asked.

Or are you claiming that chemtrails are all Silver Iodide? If so, with the amound of silver sprayed into the air, why are we not seeing persistent and sustained die backs of animals, insect species, plant species, crop failures and massive - way beyond what is actually experienced - health problems in the general populous?

I AM CLAIMING THAT CHEMTRAILS ARE SILVER IODIDE. NOT ENTIRELY, AS OTHER INGREDIENTS MAY BE MIXED IN. WE ARE SEEING ALL OF THE ABOVE. CHECK MY LINKS.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by kaspermartyrphantom]

[edit on 7-5-2008 by kaspermartyrphantom]

reply to post by dAlen


Although they may produce some cooling effect on a summer's day, the overall net effect of cirrus clouds is believed to one of cooling. For this reason contrails - how and why they form and how to prevent them forming - is currently being studied as part of the whole range of climate change / global warming science.

See for example:

www.nasa.gov...

www.imperial.ac.uk...

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by MrPenny
cutbothways is simply trolling the thread now. Has nothing to offer and is willfully ignoring the contributions of serious members.

Quit feeding him.

You get five stars for this?

I don't get paid for what I do. I'm a hard working, tax paying electrician who
has a right to express his concern, without some scientists and their pocket lining buddies coming in and saying I can't read, I'm a troll, I'm a liar,

yet I get the 1000 pt deduction by yeahright, who dislikes me because of my dislike of the Masons,

Well, I got 500 point for starting the thread. So what?

Points smoints.

I do this because I simply refuse to only care about what happens to me and my immediate family, and I'm willing to stick my neck and my reputation out on the line, whilst you people belittle me, a guy you would never dare speak to that way to my face.

I do have the power of the angels behind me. You will see.

2700 views in three days.

That's what it's about. Getting
as many people as possible to
look into this stuff before it's
too late.

I could care less about the points
the stars, the flags.

As long as people read all the info
that I have spent a great deal of time
assembling from what people consider
credible sources.

People have no reason to treat me
with hostility, unless THEY have something
to hide.

I don't hold a poker face well. My emotions and
thought are just that. Honesty, integrity. Nothing
more, nothing less. Simply want people to read
what I'm finding out,

and I want the spraying to stop. I may already be
decades before we can reverse the damage, and at
the current rate of polution, whether you want to call
it contrails causing global warming (change cruising altitude
to 20,000 ft if this is really the problem), or if it really is
more sinister, which it is because it involve big money and
government, we need to stop it NOW.

Originally posted by cutbothways
2700 views in three days.

That's what it's about. Getting
as many people as possible to
look into this stuff before it's
too late.

I could care less about the points
the stars, the flags.

I want people to read what I'm finding out, and I want the spraying to stop.

Thank you for the effort and information you have put forth in this thread. I find it useful and I very much agree with what you said about regardless of what is happening, be it cloud seeding, different jet fuel, spy or radar applications, etc...... What ever it is it is neither healthy or normal to fill the air/sky with white cloudy looking stuff~!

Have a flag and a star!

Originally posted by Essan
See for example:

www.nasa.gov...

www.imperial.ac.uk...

I'll add:

www.ipcc.ch...

It's nice to see actual reports available to be read, isn't it?

reply to post by cutbothways


Your dislike of the Masons is completely irrelevant to me. You're more than welcome to post your thoughts and beliefs in any thread you like as long as you don't violate the Terms and Conditions of the site.

You'll find that your message is seen and understood a lot more readily if you can convey it without being abusive.

The thread topic is "Debunking the Chemtrail Debunker".

For any info you require about site protocol please feel free to u2u me or any member of staff, or submit a Complaint/Suggestion from the Member Center that will be reviewed by all staff.

Thanks and back to topic.

More info for those that care.

In this generator, a nose cone is mounted in the inlet of a cylindrical combustion chamber. Openings in the cone's surface admit combustion air into the chamber, and slots around the cone's base establish a boundary layer airflow along the chamber wall. A fuel injection nozzle mounted in the apex of the nose cone sprays an acetone solution of a silver iodide-sodium iodide complex into the chamber, where the resulting vapor is ignited. The combustion temperature and hence the vaporization of the complex is controlled by a choke that terminates the combustion chamber. A shell mounted around the combustion chamber ducts preheated air into a heat-insulated, choked chamber where the air quenches the growing nuclei. The resultant dispersion is expanded by a diverging tail portion of the shell.

www.freepatentsonline.com...

Over our heads continually flow great rivers of water. Scientists estimate that these rivers carry six times as much water as those that flow on the ground. But these aerial rivers spill extremely little as they pass-less than one drop in ten.

There is, however, a way to make these sky rivers give up a little more water as they pass.

The nuclei that become the hearts of raindrops can be put into the rain-bearing clouds artificially. Several things may be used. By far the best is silver iodide. When vaporized, silver iodide yields about 600,000 billion particles per gram, each a potential raindrop. (There are 450 grams in a pound.) Only a few grams of silver iodide may affect many hundreds of cubic miles of cloud in a brief time.

Silver iodide provides a kind of tap for turning on the water in clouds where it's too warm for nature's own nuclei to be effective. Silver iodide begins to work when the tempera ture in the cloud is twenty-five degrees, whereas little happens with natural nuclei until the temperature is much lower.

Since most of the water is in the part of the cloud where silver iodide works-about three quarters of the cloud- silver iodide improves on nature's means for making rain.

www.weathersage.com...

What's wrong with the way nature did it in the first place.

: Let me first say that the cost of silver iodide is a fairly minor part of the total cost. The aeroplane is expensive; we have staff costs and the like. So we end up paying about $1-million a year, or a bit more now probably, to run a successful cloud-seeding program. But how we do it, is really quite simple. The aeroplane is fitted with two tanks, which have at the rear end of them, a burning chamber, very much like a blowtorch. And we dissolve the silver iodide in acetone, and spray it out through these blowtorch-type devices and light it up with a sparkplug, so the acetone is burned away, the silver iodide is left in the cloud in tiny, tiny crystals, they’re quite microscopic. But only tiny amounts of silver iodide are necessary to start the rain falling process. So in a whole day of cloud seeding, we might only use two or three kilograms of silver iodide, and that’s spread over many thousands of square kilometres of cloud.

www.abc.net.au...

3 kg = 6.6 lbs per day.

453 grams in 1 lb

6.6 lbs = 2989 grams of silver iodide per day.

600,000 billion particles per gram.

600,000,000,000,000,000 per x 2989 grams per day.

179,380,000,000,000,000,000 particles per day if only 3 kg is used, from one aircraft.

What if it was being dispersed in tonnes??

Alexandra de Blas: How well does it pay?

Ian Searle: Cloud seeding pays quite handsomely. While I was active in the role of manager of the cloud-seeding group, we would spend about $1-million a year running the program, but it was worth, by my estimation, about $20-million extra to the company, in extra water storage or extra energy generated through the power stations.

Need I say more?




[edit on 8-5-2008 by cutbothways]

[edit on 8-5-2008 by cutbothways]

reply to post by cutbothways


I saw your post this morning before all the post since have been added. Didn't have time to respond then, have a little time now.

You are a person who cares about this, and this is apparent from your thread statements and the passion in your arguments. You don't know me or anyone else in this thread from Adam, just who we are by posting. You can look at my profile and see what I do.

I hire engineers as well as electricians, and many other trades and professionals. Not because I can't engineer a project or even wire something, but because these are skilled or educated positions. They may offer something that I don't have knowledge of. It's not a man issue, its an educational issue.

You have opened a very technical thread, regardless of what you think it is. In particular, you state you can debunk the debunkers. This is a very large statement. There are paid professional people who read some of these threads and offer serious advice and free services. A smart person would listen to them and learn.

A person who really wanted to learn, would listen to these people and ask very pointed questions. Not shotgun something or even take it personal. You need to learn more, and that is a good thing.

Ask questions and if it is above your level, ask for the layman's explanation. Once again, this is how you learn. It's truly not a manhood issue.

The proof I have shown, say that persistant contrails
cannot exist without nearly 100% RHi, and then the
temperature has to be just right.

I've also shown that ice particles form to the DUST in the
exhaust, and not from the hot air hitting cold air, creating
a harmless water vapor.

I know what I see in the sky.

I don't need someone who spends their time in a comfy lab,
trying to figure out how to beat God,
to tell me everything is well in the world, when millions of
us know it's not.

I was a flight engineer on P-3 AC, meaning I was a flying mechanic, having knowledge of every system on that plane. I was also a Plane Captain, performing high power tests, and signed the card to release the aircraft for flight. I took every school the Navy offered, and there were a bunch.

My specialties were airframes, hydraulics, and later, engines and electronics. I wanted further knowledge of electricity after I got out of the Navy, so I became an electrician. Now, I carry a Master Electricians license.

I do a great deal of experimenting, study and hands on work with some VERY sophisticated systems for mines, airports, ski area, etc. I've built several stand alone solar systems, so I know they work.

While all you where sitting in college, I was living it, getting paid instead of
borrowing my tuition.

Be pretty tough to go out to dinner without dishwashers, wouldn't it.

Be careful who you look down your noses at.

The meek inherit the earth.

Originally posted by cutbothways
The proof I have shown, say that persistant contrails
cannot exist without nearly 100% RHi, and then the
temperature has to be just right.

So now all you need do is show that persistent contrails occur when such conditions do not occur

Had you done so from the start we might have avoided several pages of altercation

Edit: of course you could have simply posted to this thread and saved us a load of trouble

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Essan]

Since my thread Contrails cannot form clouds (proof!) was closed, I will post the information here.

The combined moisture from the jet exhaust and the atmosphere will never be enough for the mixture to produce a cloud.

asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...


Now I am going to debunk the scientists that claim the contrails forming into clouds and gray haze above your heads is normal, jet exhaust polluting our atmosphere.

And I'm going to do it by using a chart, the above website.

The chart is called the Appleman Chart. And it looks like this.

Background: Military planners have been interested in condensation trail (contrail) forecasts since World War II. Contrails can make any aircraft easy to locate by enemy forces, and no amount of modern stealth technology can hide an aircraft if it leaves a persistent contrail in its wake. In 1953, a scientist named H. Appleman published a chart that can be used to determine when a jet airplane would or would not produce a contrail. For many years, the US Air Force Global Weather Center used a similar chart to make contrail forecasts.

Now, the purpose of this thread is to show that PERSISTENT contrails forming into a cloud, is a myth.

Furthmore, I will show you the science. If you see a PERSISTENT contrail, then you can go to this website;
weather.uwyo.edu...
and on the map, click on the city nearest you, and it will give you the
most recent sounding of the atmosphere.

atmosphere sounding. Satellite Meteorology. Methods for retrieval of atmospheric temperature and humidity profiles.

Now the chart will look like this
(current Denver, CO sounding)

384.0 7538 -33.5 -36.9 71 0.42 237 36 315.0 316.6 315.1
379.4 7620 -34.1 -37.8 69 0.39 235 35 315.3 316.7 315.4
362.8 7925 -36.5 -41.2 62 0.29 235 34 316.2 317.3 316.2
303.4 9144 -45.9 -54.7 36 0.08 235 40 319.5 319.8 319.5
300.0 9220 -46.5 -55.5 35 0.07 235 40 319.7 320.0 319.7

We're only interested in the first 5 columns.

1st column;
is the atmospheric pressure or hPa on the left of the Appleman Chart.

2nd column;
is the metric height.

Most commercial jets fly between 8 and 12 km (26,000 and 39,000 feet, or roughly 350 hPa to 200 hPa).

30,000 ft = 9144 m. You can use this chart to do the conversion.

3rd column;
is temperature in c. It's roughly about the same as f at that temp.

If the atmosphere were warmer than the temperature indicated by the 100% line, a contrail could not form even if the relative humidity of the atmosphere were 100 percent

4th column;
is dewpoint. This is the point at which vapor will condense into water.

5th column;
Relative Humidity. Very important. According to NASA;

Both the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere help to determine whether a contrail can form. As the relative humidity in the atmosphere increases, the atmosphere is able to supply more moisture into the jet aircraft exhaust plume, and a contrail is more likely to form. The temperature of the atmosphere does not have to be as cold to form contrails at 60% relative humidity compared to 0% relative humidity.
...
Surprisingly, at cold temperatures ice clouds (including contrails) can form and persist at humidities lower than 100%. The red line (dash-double dot line) in the Appleman chart shows at what humidities contrails can persist (usually between 60% and 70% relative humidity). Thus, if the air is moist enough, and colder than (temperature profile is to the left of the red line), then the Appleman chart indicates that persistent contrails can form.

(bold added)

So, what it boils down to, is that on a clear day, it's very, very unlikely that a contrail would form, let alone persist.

And I've already shown that NASA said it is impossible for clouds to form from contrails.

Last but not least.

the USAF found that the forecasts using the Appleman method were correct about 60 to 80 percent of the time. Looking more closely at the data, they found that when no contrails were forecast, the forecast was correct 98 percent of the time! However, when contrails were forecast to occur, the forecast was correct only 25 to 35 percent of the time, and often failed to predict the occurrence of contrails.

Again, the Nasa link is
asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

And the satellite sounding site is;
weather.uwyo.edu...

Thanks.

Yes, probably better we continue here

Originally posted by cutbothways

So, what it boils down to, is that on a clear day, it's very, very unlikely that a contrail would form, let alone persist.

Why? You need to elucidate on this. If atmospheric conditions - temp and RH - at a given altitude are right, then any aircraft flying at that altitude will produce contrails. If not, they won't.

And I've already shown that NASA said it is impossible for clouds to form from contrails.

No you haven't. I think you may have misquoted out of context a report assessing the accuracy of a computer model - in which it was concluded that according to the model, contrails should not have formed, yet in fact it was observed that they did, thus indicating the model was incorrect?

Last but not least.

the USAF found that the forecasts using the Appleman method were correct about 60 to 80 percent of the time. Looking more closely at the data, they found that when no contrails were forecast, the forecast was correct 98 percent of the time! However, when contrails were forecast to occur, the forecast was correct only 25 to 35 percent of the time, and often failed to predict the occurrence of contrails.

So we know that using the appleman chart doesn't always produce accurate results (one reason, btw, why so much research has been carried out on how and why contrails form and persist since appleman devised his chart back in the 1950s - the fact it's not always correct is well known, but it is useful as a general guideline.

Now, how do you propose proving that contrails cannot spread out to form clouds?

Perhaps you could give some examples of occasions when contrails did seem to form clouds but when known atmospheric conditions indicated that this was absolutely not possible?

Which, after all, is all chemtrail believers have ever needed to do

You have an appleman chart as a general guideline and access to atmospheric soundings. Next I'd guess you would need dated photographic evidence of contrails and confirmation of the altitude of the aircraft producing those contrails?

How to find out if they are spraying above your head.

There are parameters for a contrail to form.

The temp must be colder than -38C.

The Humidity level must be above 55%

The warmer it is, the more humidity needed
to form a contrail.

I've made a chart using the Appleman Chart,
and the parameter set by NASA



I challenge anyone to find a sounding in the atmosphere,
between 8000-11,500 meters that fit the parameters to
for a contrail.
weather.uwyo.edu...

below 55%, contrails will not form, according to NASA.
above -38C, contrails will not form.

Since no one has replied, I picked a few cities in North America that represent various temperature and humidity levels, all from today,
@ 30,000 ft / 9144 m

and put them on the chart.

Pickle Lake, Ontario
286.6 9144 -51.8 -69.2 11

Cold enough, but humidity is way below 55%, no contrails will form under
these conditions.

Santa Domingo
321.7 9144 -31.1 -65.2 2

Not cold enough, only 2% humidity, no contrails.

Gray, Maine
304.3 9144 -43.2 -53.5 31

Barely cold enough, below 55% humidity, so, no contrails.

Tuscon, Arizona
315.7 9144 -33.0 -45.2 28

Temp too low, humidity < 55%, no contrails.

No contrails were observed for RHI < 55%.

None of the soundings show RHI > 72%, despite
the fact that the PIT rawinsonde must have passed
through contrail A on its way to the stratosphere. To
support a persistent contrail, the maximum PIT RHI from
the sonde would need to be increased by 35% or more.

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

Increasing 72% by 35% would be 107%, or saturation, to support persistent
contrails.

This is supported by this;

The red line (dash-double dot line) in the Appleman chart shows at what humidities contrails can persist (usually between 60% and 70% relative humidity)

asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

NASA is saying that can't really form below 60%
and the other NASA pdf says no contrails were formed
below 55%

Furthermore, I have already shown where they come right and say

The combined moisture from the jet exhaust and the atmosphere will never be enough for the mixture to produce a cloud.

Please, if I have made a mistake in my calculations and charts, could you show me the data that supports your claim otherwise.

All I want is the truth. Show me the numbers to support persistent contrail formation.

Thanks.




[edit on 9-5-2008 by cutbothways]