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.

 

Debunking Chemtrails

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
What he is talking about is normal pollution, same as you get from your car, not chemtrails.
[edit on 10/22/2008 by defcon5]


Normal pollution, plus any particulates from airplane exhaust actually does help with the growth, creation and persistance of contrails. Water molecules cling on to particulates quite well, and with the introduction of exhaust into such an environment at high altitude, it increases the chance of visible contrails as the ice increases in size. The bigger the ice particle, the more visible the cloud/contrail.

Volcanic eruptions are a great example of this. In fact noctilucent clouds were first dicovered after Mount Krakatoa erupted in the late 1800's. Tons of ash were spewed into the high atmosphere, causing an increase in cirrus clouds and the intorduction of super high altitude noctilucent clouds




posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BoboIsBlue
 

The charts further down the page, with captions like "Mid-Latitude Summer" are just showing representative data points as examples. You need to plot the sounding data for a particular day to determine whether contrail formation is likely according to the chart.


Quite right! I wanted the reader to see the standard data set reference for perspective, unless you have a problem with that.

And as anyone can see Phage, 3 out of 11 "representative data points" for the Mid-Summmer chart are NO CONTRAILS. That's 27% of the time. Try telling people in Chicago there are no chemtrail/contrails over 1/4 of the summer days! By the way, the Summer is when the Appleman chart predicts the least number of contrails.

Ha!


Originally posted by Essan

The Appleman Chart is 50 years out of date. Science moves on.


So you and Ozweatherman are now claiming that the NASA and USAF's claim of the Appleman Chart being correct 98% of the time when predicting NO CONTRAILS is... incorrect? (USAF still uses Appleman Chart predictions for combat mission planning)

Perhaps there is a Nobel prize in store for you two geniuses? I mean, if you are smarter than NASA, then Oprah should book you... yes?

HAHA!! This reminds me of Spies Like Us, the movie. Very funny indeed!



[edit on 17-1-2009 by BoboIsBlue]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BoboIsBlue
 

You may be confused about how to read the chart. The vertical axis is altitude (expressed as atmospheric pressure) and the horizontal axis is temperature. Data points which occur to the right of the 100% humidity line will not produce contrails. Data points to the left of the 0% line will always produce contrails. Those in between might produce contrails.

The sample actually shows that there may be contrails formed above 260hPa which corresponds to an altitude of about 32,000 feet. It also shows that there will always be contrails at altitudes of 38,000 feet and higher and that persistent contrails can form at altitudes of 37,500 feet (or higher). Transcontinental flights are often made at 32,000 feet and higher, 39,000 feet is not at all unusual. These flights often fly over the Chicago area.

It would be helpful if you could provide the dates and times (and the station) for the soundings that showed no possibility for contrail formation last summer.

[edit on 1/17/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BoboIsBlue
 

You may be confused about how to read the chart. The vertical axis is altitude (expressed as atmospheric pressure) and the horizontal axis is temperature. Data points which occur to the right of the 100% humidity line will not produce contrails. Data points to the left of the 0% line will always produce contrails. Those in between might produce contrails.

The sample actually shows that there may be contrails formed above 260hPa which corresponds to an altitude of about 32,000 feet. It also shows that there will always be contrails at altitudes of 38,000 feet and higher and that persistent contrails can form at altitudes of 37,500 feet (or higher). Transcontinental flights are often made at 32,000 feet and higher, 39,000 feet is not at all unusual. These flights often fly over the Chicago area.

It would be helpful if you could provide the dates and times (and the station) for the soundings that showed no possibility for contrail formation last summer.


I am not confused.


Before I comment, I just want to be sure I have you straight...

1) Ok, I admit temperature usually decreases with altitude (increases likelihood of contrails).. but only up about to 17,000 feet at which point temperature usually increases slightly through the maximum FAA rated altitudes (say 45k feet if you include using oxygen masks).

2) but pressure DECREASES with altitude (decreases likelihood of contrails)... If you want to boast these lofty altitudes above 35k feet, pressure is VERY low. In fact, usually in the single digits hPa (points at which the Appleman charts indicate NO CONTRAILS) right?

3) I quote you, "there will always be contrails at altitudes of 38,000 feet and higher".. you are saying that the Appleman Chart supports this? Do you at least want to limit that claim to the Winter months or areas of high pollution? I mean REALLY? Are there not a huge number of instances across the country of temperatures hotter than -40 degrees and pressures of less than 250hPa in the typical and even the higher range of cruising altitudes? Really????

I think three is enough to expect you to keep track of. Confirm ALL three for the record please, then I will respond accordingly. Take your time. Get some help from the others first. Don't misstep here. Don't change course.

I really don't see how the anti-debunkers did not serve you your shorts years ago.

***********************
Note: Oh, and I love your signature Phage! "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."

It's apropos! (look that up)
Must you be so blatant?



[edit on 18-1-2009 by BoboIsBlue]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by BoboIsBlue

I am not confused.


Before I comment, I just want to be sure I have you straight...

1) Ok, I admit temperature usually decreases with altitude (increases likelihood of contrails).. but only up about to 17,000 feet at which point temperature usually increases slightly through the maximum FAA rated altitudes (say 45k feet if you include using oxygen masks).
Ambient temperature tends to decrease with increase in altitude due to the decrease in pressure/density. The rate of decrease is variable. The decrease in temperature continues to the limits of the flyable atmosphere. Temperature inversion layers show as intermittent deviations to the trend but do not occur at any definitive levels.

I don't know what "FAA rated altitudes" are. In non-pressurized aircraft FAR part 121.329 requires supplemental O2 to be used by the flight crew at altitudes at and above 10,000 feet but I fail to see the relevance to contrail formation.




2) but pressure DECREASES with altitude (decreases likelihood of contrails)... If you want to boast these lofty altitudes above 35k feet, pressure is VERY low. In fact, usually in the single digits hPa (points at which the Appleman charts indicate NO CONTRAILS) right?
Pressure decreases with altitude. There is no direct relationship between pressure and contrail formation. Ambient temperature and water vapor content must also be considered.

Single digit hPa values are reached at levels of about 100,000 feet. The Appleman Chart does not extend to these pressures/altitudes, its limit is 100 hPa (on the vertical axis, equivalent to about 52,000 feet).




3) I quote you, "there will always be contrails at altitudes of 38,000 feet and higher".. you are saying that the Appleman Chart supports this? Do you at least want to limit that claim to the Winter months or areas of high pollution? I mean REALLY? Are there not a huge number of instances across the country of temperatures hotter than -40 degrees and pressures of less than 250hPa in the typical and even the higher range of cruising altitudes? Really????
According to the data points in the sample chart you asked me to use, Temperature Profile: Mid-Latitude Summer, contrails will always form at altitudes of 200hPa and higher (corresponding to an altitude of about 38,000 feet).




I think three is enough to expect you to keep track of. Confirm ALL three for the record please, then I will respond accordingly. Take your time. Get some help from the others first. Don't misstep here. Don't change course.

I really don't see how the anti-debunkers did not serve you your shorts years ago.

***********************
Note: Oh, and I love your signature Phage! "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."

It's apropos! (look that up)
Must you be so blatant?



[edit on 18-1-2009 by BoboIsBlue]


[edit on 1/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by BoboIsBlue

1) Ok, I admit temperature usually decreases with altitude (increases likelihood of contrails).. but only up about to 17,000 feet at which point temperature usually increases slightly through the maximum FAA rated altitudes (say 45k feet if you include using oxygen masks).


No, temperature decreases with altitude throughout the troposphere. It does then increase in the stratosphere above about 60,000ft - but aircraft do not fly that high.

apollo.lsc.vsc.edu...



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

“There is no direct relationship between pressure and contrail formation.”


You are dead wrong. Pressure is just over ½ of the equation in the Appleman Chart (it’s the entire vertical axis). I cannot believe you even said this since you contradict yourself in the next quote.


Originally posted by Phage

"The Appleman Chart does not extend to these pressures/altitudes, its limit is 100 hPa (on the vertical axis, equivalent to about 52,000 feet)."


The equation behind the Appleman chart can accept any data. In fact, here it is with 0-1000 hPa pressure. Pressure at 32,000 – 52,000 feet is not “fixed”. And, fyi pressure of 150hPa is common at 42,000 feet. So if you run the numbers, it stays just at the edge of predicting "persistent contrails" most of the time, not ALWAYS PERSISTENT CONTRAILS AT ALL!!!


Appleman Chart Extended to Earth's Surface with 0-1000hPa
asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...



[edit on 18-1-2009 by BoboIsBlue]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by BoboIsBlue
 


The Appleman chart is a very basic simplification devised in 1953 - these days we use these new fangled things you may have heard of called computer models
There's a lot more than just temp and RH involved - as we've found from decades of research.

And pressure varies at every altitude - contrails can form at sea level.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BoboIsBlue

Originally posted by Phage

“There is no direct relationship between pressure and contrail formation.”


You are dead wrong. Pressure is just over ½ of the equation in the Appleman Chart (it’s the entire vertical axis). I cannot believe you even said this since you contradict yourself in the next quote.


Originally posted by Phage
I did not say there is no relationship. I said there is no direct relationship. If there were a direct relationship between pressure and contrail formation, contrails would always form (or not) at a given pressure/altitude. This is not the case. If the temperature is too high at a given altitude/pressure, contrails will never form. If the temperature at that same pressure is less than the cutoff temperature and the humidity at that altitude is high enough contrails will form (this is the area between the 0% and 100% humidity lines). If the temperature is lower still, contrails will always form regardless of the humidity. The Appleman Chart represents a simplified model which takes into account only those three variables, there are more. My next statement makes no reference to any relationship between pressure and contrail formation. How can there be a contradiction if two statements are unrelated?




"The Appleman Chart does not extend to these pressures/altitudes, its limit is 100 hPa (on the vertical axis, equivalent to about 52,000 feet)."


The equation behind the Appleman chart can accept any data. In fact, here it is with 0-1000 hPa pressure. Pressure at 32,000 – 52,000 feet is not “fixed”. And, fyi pressure of 150hPa is common at 42,000 feet. So if you run the numbers, it stays just at the edge of predicting "persistent contrails" most of the time, not ALWAYS PERSISTENT CONTRAILS AT ALL!!!

If you notice, the version of the chart which I linked (the version you asked me to use) is limited to 100 hPa. This is the chart I was talking about.

Yes, pressures of 150hPa do occur at 42,000 feet. I never claimed otherwise. Nor did I say the sample chart indicates persistent contrails would always form. I said it indicates that contrails will always form.


[edit on 1/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I think what's obvious is that even though the elites may also be breathing in the chemicals they are spraying, they don't believe the chemicals are harmful. Their interest is masquing global warming. It's like millions of people don't think the chemicals they drink in soda or the processed food they eat are harmful and the politicians and elites that support the industrial agriculture giants attest vehemently that these chemicals are not harmful to our bodies despite the studies. They actually believe they are ok. That's why they have been approved by the FDA. Think about it. They still put fluoride in our water [snip]

 


deleted insult to a portion of the ATS membership

[edit on 24/1/09 by masqua]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join