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.

 

NASA says; Clouds will NEVER form from contrails.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
The Appleman chart is studied by military pilots, because leaving a contrail will get you shot down in a jet fighter aircraft.

The truth is, that natural contrails rarely, very rarely form behind jet aircraft, at any level.

Usually, the temperature is too warm, or the humidity is too low, and when the conditions exist for a contrail to form, the chances of seeing it from the ground are even rarer, because the same conditions required to form contrails are conducive to extensive cloud cover, i.e. 100% saturation.

Now the scientists and meteorologist will all try to tell you differently, because they are in on the game. The game is the End Game, where all the useless eaters are eliminated slowly through the poisoning of our atmosphere, but not before making us all sick and sucking up all our assets through corrupt doctors inventing diseases to explain your sickness so that you will spend all you money on highly invested pharmaceuticals.

Meanwhile, hooking kids, the elderly and anyone else they can get their greedy paws on through fix all, cure all snake oils.



First of all there are the business strategies that have created illnesses out of what used to be facts of life, labeled them as syndromes, and have hooked customers into long-term use of medication to cure them. (Detrol, the obnoxiously advertised cure for what its manufacturer calls “overactive bladder,” is a case in point, especially since it can cause hallucinations that resemble symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease.) Second, there are the economics of creating chronic consumers for marginally necessary drugs.

www.nytimes.com...


But the point is, NASA says



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...

Yet day after day, I see these "experts" tell you people that those stringy gray clouds left behind those plume pumping aircraft are perfectly normal, and you should go back to work so you can pay your taxes to cover the interest owed on the national debt to the criminal federal reserve.

Will people wake up, or continue dying from enlarged hearts due to intentionally polluted atmospheres?

If I can help it, yes. At least I will go down trying.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by Manasseh]




posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Day after day I see our beautiful skies full of this.



And this



And they leave neat little oil slick like rainbow colors like this



Read my signature.

It's time to stop worrying about if you have a bigger screen tv than your neighbor, and start worrying about the wrath to come.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I haven't seen a deep blue sky in years. Everything is hazy.



I don't know, what do you think, another day in paradise.

I call it Pair of Dice, because we are gambling with our very existence.

Rub your finger across the top of the crease where your ear attaches to your head, and smell it.

That is what they are spraying on us.

They will burn in hell for their arrogance.

I am here to tell you the truth.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by Manasseh]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

The truth is, that natural contrails rarely, very rarely form behind jet aircraft, at any level.


You are basing that statement off this claim: The combined moisture from the jet exhaust and the atmosphere will never be enough for the mixture to produce a cloud.

Funny how you missed or misinterpreted 98% of the remaining text. I'll make it clear for you. In short, the text claims that to the right of the dashed lined labeled '100% RH' there will never be a contrail. To the left of that line there might be contrails, and to the left of the solid line there will always be contrails



It's easy to see that the probability of seeing a contrail is higher than 'very rarely'.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by daniel_g]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


Don't bother, he's a troll.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He's going to go all circular on you.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I dont think you really got any idea about meteorology. If you had you would of mentioned the low vapour pressure found at heights at which contrails form. In fact the mere mention of the Appleman chart has proved yourself wrong, and when you couple that with data from the thousands of radiosondes launched each day, it is quite obvious that conditions of the upper stratosphere are very good for contrail development

Again if you looked at radiosonde data, you would realise that 100% humidity is not always required for cloud to form. If you take normal cirrus cloud, like that in your second picture, and look at radiosonde data, you will probably notice that the humidity is not usually very high, yet it still forms naturally. If you can prove that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, then I ask you to prove it here

And just to add, the third picture of yours is of irisation, caused by water droplets in the atmosphere diffracting sunlight. Again if you can prove that sunlight when diffracted does not cause colours to appear, then I might think that all my meteorology training is flawed. While you're at it, try and disprove, rainbows, fog and thunderstorms

www.atoptics.co.uk...

Then again, as you so blatantly put it, working for the Australian Met Bureau I must be on it



Edit- looks like this user is trolling, based on the previous thread about rockets, thanks to the guy above me


[edit on 14/8/2008 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by daniel_g
 


Don't bother, he's a troll.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He's going to go all circular on you.


lol I know, but I also wouldn't want him misleading other people by the fact that he's got NASA 'proof'.

hmmm wonder if the lines on the graph meet at absolute zero...
[gets busy with excel]

EDIT: Excel says the lines meet at around -150C, however I forgot how to calculate uncertainty for this kind of data so meh, close enough


[edit on 15-8-2008 by daniel_g]



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
The Nasa statement says



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. The combined moisture from the jet exhaust and the atmosphere will never be enough for the mixture to produce a cloud. Temperature profiles to the right of the 100% line will never form a contrail. For temperatures between the 0% and 100% lines, the possibility of a contrail forming will depend on the atmospheric moisture, represented on the chart as relative humidity. A contrail may or may not form when the temperature is between the 0% and 100% lines.

-bold added by me-
asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

The statement doesn't give any conditions. It makes the statement. And IF you read the rest of the excerpt, you will see that the rest says that contrails are rare to form, that is, if you can interpret it as it is meant.

I challenge you to come up with a sounding in the US 25,000ft to 32,000 ft (heck, any level for that matter) where the conditions exist for the potential formation of contrails.

Then, even if you do find one, then I will refer you to this statement from the same website.



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.


Oz, you are not the "expert" you seem to think you are. But you will be judged for your statements.

daniel g. Don't know what your problem is. Work for the gov. maybe?

Phage. Get a life, what little you have left.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manasseh

I challenge you to come up with a sounding in the US 25,000ft to 32,000 ft (heck, any level for that matter) where the conditions exist for the potential formation of contrails.


Here you go then

www.rap.ucar.edu...

And for your information, I never said I was an expert, I just work in the upper air field. And you shouldnt add to or edit sources, it becomes less credible




posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Manasseh
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.





Persistent contrails:

Some contrails are short, and last for only a few seconds. Other contrails are very long, and continue to grow long after the jet airplane has passed. Why do some contrails remain in the sky so long? Let's go back to the example of the cloud forming on your breath during the winter. Such clouds usually disappear as soon as you take your next breath. The relative humidity of the winter air at the surface is usually well below 100%, and cannot sustain a mixing cloud for a long time. The relative humidity at the altitudes where airplanes fly can sometimes be as high as 90%. 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.


The paper you provided as evidence (which is a student exam paper) also goes on to prove your assumption wrong.

You did read it all, didn't you?




As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


[edit on 15/0808/08 by neformore]



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manasseh
The Nasa statement says



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. The combined moisture from the jet exhaust and the atmosphere will never be enough for the mixture to produce a cloud. Temperature profiles to the right of the 100% line will never form a contrail. For temperatures between the 0% and 100% lines, the possibility of a contrail forming will depend on the atmospheric moisture, represented on the chart as relative humidity. A contrail may or may not form when the temperature is between the 0% and 100% lines.

-bold added by me-
asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

The statement doesn't give any conditions. It makes the statement.


Oh God, give me patience.

I'll break it down for you:

Condition: "If the atmosphere were warmer than the temperature indicated by the 100% line"

Consequence: "a contrail could not form even if the relative humidity of the atmosphere were 100 percent. The combined moisture from the jet exhaust and the atmosphere will never be enough for the mixture to produce a cloud."

See, the statement you put in bold is not a stand alone statement, it is ruled by the preceding condition. Else it would be outside or, at most, at the end of the given paragraph as a general conclusion, but never in the middle right in between two conditions.

Hint, the other two conditions are:
1- "For temperatures between the 0% and 100% lines"
2- "If the atmosphere were colder than the temperature indicated by the 0% line"



[edit on 15-8-2008 by daniel_g]



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Manasseh
 


Wow, yet another person that when confronted with good scientific evidence that makes his original statement less than accurate, goes on the attack.



daniel g. Don't know what your problem is. Work for the gov. maybe?




why is it that when ever people bring out good evidence to disprove people like you in debate, the fist thing you do is throw out insults or label them "gov workers" or disinfo agents instead of providing good scientific evidence yourself.

Booouurnnns



[edit on 15-8-2008 by QBSneak000]



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 



The paper you provided as evidence (which is a student exam paper) also goes on to prove your assumption wrong.


I thought I would show it in a form that you may be able to understand.

When was the last time you exhaled on a cold day, and your breath stuck around and formed a cloud??

If that were the case, on cold days, we would all walk around in a fog.

Yet thats what we are to believe? The jet exhales hot air, and since it's so cold up there, even during the summer, those jet exhaust just decide to stick around and form into clouds. They call em cirrus clouds, but they look nothing like cirrus clouds.

But it's such a serious issue, that "scientists are claming these extremely harmful water vapors are contributing to global warming, and that if we just changed the altitude of the aircraft, we could almost completely eliminate this problem we have created for ourselves.

HOGWASH!!!



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Manasseh
I thought I would show it in a form that you may be able to understand.


Oh how patronising of you.

Maybe now you've tried to be clever, you could explain to us why you chose to only present one aspect of a paper that suits your argument, and then tried to deflect away from discussing the fact that the same paper proves you argument completely wrong just a few paragraphs after the part you cherry picked to quote.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


It's amazing to me. For a moderator, you never have anything useful to say.

But thanks for proving my point.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
What a bunch of liars, I have seen it with my own eyes and they do at times form clouds. Again my theory is that they are testing a cloud making chemical in order to shelter us from the suns rays which will increase out of control before too many more years.

So proly no conspiracy other than not wanting you to know they have your best interests at heart. Ditto on the UFO Mars things!!!



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by Manasseh

I challenge you to come up with a sounding in the US 25,000ft to 32,000 ft (heck, any level for that matter) where the conditions exist for the potential formation of contrails.


Here you go then

www.rap.ucar.edu...

And for your information, I never said I was an expert, I just work in the upper air field. And you shouldnt add to or edit sources, it becomes less credible



I checked out that sounding



Where is lat 60 long -161 anyways? Not in the continental US, now is it.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manasseh
I haven't seen a deep blue sky in years. Everything is hazy.







Words are nothing compared to the picture.

OPEN your EYES and you can SEE.

Common sense is as valuable as all your fancy measurements and words.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
What is a contrail? It is water vapor that has condensated.

What I'm unsure of is whether other chemicals in the jet exhaust can also condensate?

Other than that, mystery solved.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Your breath on a cold day is condensation. Hope that cloud doesn't hang around.

No offense intended, as I appreciate any input. Keeps the thread goin, know what I mean?



[edit on 15-8-2008 by Manasseh]



new topics




 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join