Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate

page: 34
43
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I've posted twice in this thread early on, the first time here.

The reason I made that post the way I did is that I have a lot of difficulty believing there's still any question about this issue.

As I have mentioned in other threads here at ATS, I live in Ann Arbor, MI, USA, and we've got nearly constant chem-trail activity almost everyday, although today there's only been a few. My sister lives 90 miles east of here, and when we go and visit her it's going on over there too.

I mean it's obvious!.

Like so obvious that at a barbeque last summer I noticed up in the sky, probably at cruising altitude, two jet-liners, both moving in the same direction, more or less, and separated by about 10 or 15-degrees of arc. One was putting out a major chem-trail, while the other one was putting out a regular, old normal con-trail, the kind that disappears after a few minutes ...

I pointed this out to a few of my friends who were present and of course they thought the whole idea was crazy until I pointed out both jets and the completely differing natures of each's respective exhaust plume ... In the final analysis, I don't think they bought the chem-trail conjecture, but they did readily admit, after studying both jets a while, that there was quite an obvious difference in their exhaust patterns ...

Anyway, just the other day, I was driving here in town at about 4 in the afternoon. Prior to that day the weather had been quite consistently in the 20's ( F ), for at least a week. On this particular afternoon the sky was overcast, with a cloud deck at about 6000 feet, and the temperature was about 70 degrees. As I was heading west, right around 4, suddenly I felt warm sunlight on my left side, and when I looked up I noticed basically a large hole in the cloud cover, through which the sun was shining. Not more than five minutes later nothing less than half a dozen jet trails coverged, at high altitude, right in front of the sun ... 20-minutes later, when I checked again just for kicks from my balcony I noticed the sky was completely overcast again ...

I don't know what this all means ... as I say, it's obvious something is going on, and the only thing I can think of to explain it is that the sun is putting out a lot more heat ( as well as other kinds of radiation too ), and these high altitude measures are being taken to somehow compensate for the situation ...

Take it for what it's worth, but IMHO, trying to imagine the situation away with fancy reasoning and rationalizations probably isn't the best of strategies, although as I pointed out in my first post, such a reaction is quite normal, and totally understandible.

I hope these comments are taken in the positive spirit in which they have been intended.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 


And I bet yours eeeing them today to



483.9 5791 -29.8 -32.2 79 0.53 285 20 299.5 301.3 299.6
463.3 6096 -32.0 -34.5 78 0.45 290 23 300.4 302.0 300.5
424.9 6706 -36.4 -39.0 77 0.31 270 31 302.3 303.4 302.4
400.0 7130 -39.5 -42.2 75 0.23 275 39 303.6 304.4 303.6
372.0 7620 -43.0 -47.1 64 0.15 280 49 305.3 305.9 305.3
356.0 7918 -45.1 -50.1 57 0.11 282 55 306.3 306.8 306.4
329.0 8443 -46.1 -51.1 57 0.11 286 64 311.9 312.4 312.0
300.0 9050 -51.1 -57.1 49 0.06 290 76 313.2 313.4 313.2
295.6 9144 -51.6 -57.6 48 0.05 290 76 313.8 314.0 313.8
294.0 9180 -51.8 -57.8 48 0.05 290 76 314.0 314.2 314.0
268.8 9754 -55.1 -61.1 47 0.04 280 66 317.4 317.6 317.4
250.0 10220 -57.7 -63.7 46 0.03 285 71 320.2 320.3 320.2
243.0 10398 -58.9 -64.9 46 0.03 290 72 321.0 321.1 321.0


And I bet you saw them last week



469.0 5997 -25.5 -31.5 57 0.59 265 78 307.5 309.5 307.6
462.6 6096 -26.3 -32.3 57 0.55 265 78 307.7 309.7 307.8
435.0 6537 -29.7 -35.7 56 0.42 263 81 308.8 310.3 308.9
426.0 6686 -30.7 -38.7 45 0.32 262 81 309.4 310.6 309.4
405.0 7043 -33.3 -41.3 44 0.25 260 83 310.5 311.5 310.6
400.0 7130 -34.1 -42.1 44 0.24 260 84 310.6 311.5 310.6
372.8 7620 -38.3 -43.5 57 0.22 260 84 311.4 312.2 311.4
370.0 7671 -38.7 -43.7 59 0.22 260 84 311.5 312.3 311.5
325.4 8534 -45.4 -51.7 49 0.10 260 85 313.8 314.2 313.9
300.0 9080 -49.7 -56.7 44 0.06 255 90 315.2 315.4 315.2
297.1 9144 -50.3 -57.3 43 0.06 255 90 315.2 315.5 315.3
293.0 9234 -51.1 -58.1 43 0.05 255 92 315.3 315.6 315.4
257.6 10058 -56.9 -63.1 45 0.03 260 106 318.6 318.7 318.6
254.0 10148 -57.6 -63.7 46 0.03 260 106 318.9 319.0 318.9


And the week before



500.0 5540 -22.3 -38.3 22 0.28 270 87 305.8 306.8 305.8
482.8 5791 -24.1 -40.8 20 0.22 270 90 306.7 307.5 306.7
462.7 6096 -26.2 -43.9 17 0.17 270 93 307.8 308.4 307.8
400.0 7140 -33.5 -54.5 10 0.06 265 93 311.4 311.6 311.4
390.1 7315 -35.1 -55.6 11 0.05 260 93 311.6 311.8 311.6
380.0 7498 -36.7 -56.7 11 0.05 260 96 311.8 311.9 311.8
373.3 7620 -37.2 -56.8 11 0.05 260 98 312.6 312.8 312.6
328.0 8507 -41.1 -57.1 16 0.05 263 123 319.1 319.3 319.1
306.0 8977 -43.3 -49.3 51 0.14 265 137 322.4 323.0 322.4
300.0 9110 -44.3 -50.3 51 0.13 265 141 322.8 323.3 322.8
298.4 9144 -44.6 -50.5 51 0.12 265 142 322.9 323.4 322.9
272.0 9754 -49.9 -55.1 54 0.08 260 155 323.9 324.2 323.9
265.0 9926 -51.4 -56.4 55 0.07 260 156 324.1 324.4 324.1
250.0 10310 -54.7 -59.2 57 0.05 260 147 324.6 324.8 324.6
236.3 10668 -56.9 -61.5 56 0.04 265 143 326.6 326.7 326.6
219.0 11148 -59.9 -64.6 54 0.03 270 144 329.1 329.2 329.1


And your posts are fine by the way...you're keeping it civil and on topic



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Aaghhhhhhhhhhhh

Double post


[edit on 21/3/2009 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Don't get it, Oz ...

What are these numbers I'm looking at ?



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Well, if I had to guess, I'd guess -

[pressure altitude temperature dew-point ?? ?? ?? ?? ... ]

How'd I do ?


[edit on 21-3-2009 by visible_villain]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
Don't get it, Oz ...

What are these numbers I'm looking at ?


Weather balloon soundings (from Michigan) with data from the most common crusing altitudes of airliners. The most important figures are the height, in the second column (which is in metres, not feet) and the humidity (fifth column) and temperature (in degrees celsius, third column). As a general rule, contrails can persist at -35 degrees C and with humidity over 40%.

Lol, you did very well



[edit on 21/3/2009 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Well, whatever the heck they are - they are definately persistent and most all of the time they turn into these long, weird looking high altitude clouds ... and when there's enough of them they all kind of turn into a homogeneous haze - and it does appear to be at high altitude ...

Can you provide a link to the data-server for what you've posted ?

Also, RH appears to reach a minimum around 7500 - this rather counter-intuitive ... did not know that


[edit on 21-3-2009 by visible_villain]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
Well, whatever the heck they are - they are definately persistent and most all of the time they turn into these long, weird looking high altitude clouds ... and when there's enough of them they all kind of turn into a homogeneous haze - and it does appear to be at high altitude ...

Can you provide a link to the data-server for what you've posted ?


Sure

weather.uwyo.edu...

If you check the South Pacific, and look for Darwin in Australia, you can see my balloon flight which is still in progress


Those high altitude clouds are well know to by the way. ASre you familiar with cirrostratus? Or supersaturation



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 


As I read it contrails are pretty much guaranteed today above 25,000 feet, and persistent above 26,000.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Thanks for the link



Those high altitude clouds are well know to by the way. ASre you familiar with cirrostratus? Or supersaturation


I know virtually nothing about weather science. The reason I even recognized some of the numbers in your tables is that I have worked in the automotive area of air-fuel control systems for internal-combustion engines. They get very interested in the same kinds of numbers ...

Anyway, cirrostratus is definately what they seem to be making around here. These would tend to reflect solar energy, am I wrong ?

And I will do my best to check out your weather balloon, too.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by visible_villain
 


As I read it contrails are pretty much guaranteed today above 25,000 feet, and persistent above 26,000.


Phage you are correct.

All the 00z flights are currently in progress at the moment, including mine, so will be interesting to see wether the outlook changes in the next hour or so



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
Anyway, cirrostratus is definately what they seem to be making around here. These would tend to reflect solar energy, am I wrong ?

And I will do my best to check out your weather balloon, too.


Yep, cirrostratus will affect incoming long term radiation. There seems to be a stigma imposed by those who believe in chemtrails, that this side of the argument is pro contrail. We are not, becuas exhaust in the upper tropspshere is not a good thing, just like its not good down here at the surface. The build up of cirrostratus stops long wave radiation from reaching the ground, and the also leaving when the earth cools at night.

I think it might have been Essan or someone that showed that temperatures actually increased or something in the week or so after 9/11 when air traffic was halted due to the risk or more terrorist attacks



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
So, are you saying this is your weather balloon ?


94120 YPDN Darwin Airport Observations at 12Z 21 Mar 2009

And why does RH reach a minimum at 7500 and then go back up ? I would have expected it to keep going down, down, down ...

Wait, wait - don't tell me ...
-- because the air gets sooo darned thin above 7500 ?

oh, well --- you can tell me now



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
So, are you saying this is your weather balloon ?

94120 YPDN Darwin Airport Observations at 12Z 21 Mar 2009


That was the one done from last nights shift, not mine. The one I did just burst, it will be the 00z flight. Ive just sent the message off, so it should be in the data base shortly




And why does RH reach a minimum at 7500 and then go back up ? I would have expected it to keep going down, down, down ...

Wait, wait - don't tell me ...
-- because the air gets sooo darned thin above 7500 ?

oh, well --- you can tell me now


Well actually we had quite a significant amount of cirrus observed last night 6/8's of the sky was covered by it. The mid levels near us at the moment are very dry (hence we've been missing out on storm activity for the past few days), but the upper levels are quite most, due to an inflow of moisture.

When the humidity jumps like that, ist a good indication that there is cloud, or the formation of cloud is highly likely



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Well actually we had quite a significant amount of cirrus observed last night 6/8's of the sky was covered by it. The mid levels near us at the moment are very dry (hence we've been missing out on storm activity for the past few days), but the upper levels are quite most, due to an inflow of moisture.

When the humidity jumps like that, ist a good indication that there is cloud, or the formation of cloud is highly likely


Very impressive, Doctor ! Keep up the good work


Well, as long as I have your attention - So, is it possible then for a regualr old con-trail to seed these cirrostratus cloud formatations which then might lead to the hazy conditions we so often see here ?



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
[Well, as long as I have your attention - So, is it possible then for a regualr old con-trail to seed these cirrostratus cloud formatations which then might lead to the hazy conditions we so often see here ?


It certainly is, you will notice on some flights that the wind speeds at theses heights are quite high, especially in the jetstream



365.6 7620 -42.9 -63.8 8 0.02 225 64 307.0 307.1 307.0
341.0 8090 -46.7 -63.7 13 0.02 223 72 307.9 308.0 307.9
300.0 8930 -52.5 -66.5 17 0.02 220 86 311.2 311.3 311.2
290.1 9144 -53.8 -67.0 18 0.02 220 89 312.4 312.5 312.4
250.0 10090 -59.5 -69.5 26 0.01 220 93 317.5 317.5 317.5
245.0 10216 -60.3 -69.3 30 0.01 220 91 318.1 318.2 318.1
229.0 10638 -60.5 -71.5 22 0.01 220 82 324.0 324.1 324.0
227.9 10668 -60.4 -71.9 21 0.01 220 81 324.7 324.7 324.7
200.0 11490 -56.5 -81.5 3 0.00 225 67 343.1 343.1 343.1


The seventh colum is wind direction in degrees and the eight is wind speed in knots, taken from Kelowna airport in BC.

The jetstream position actually proves this too

www.weatherimages.org...

What happens is that, the winds blow the contrail, and as the ice crystals move, they gather more moisture, this causes the ice crystals to become larger and cloud forms again, creating a layer of cirrostratus. A lot of the time cirrostratus is so thin that it cant be seen, but other times it can form a thick layer (when the airs supersaturated) and form a nice thick layer


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
This has all been most informative, Mr. Oz


I thank you very much for your time and your erudition !



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
This has all been most informative, Mr. Oz


I thank you very much for your time and your erudition !




Your most welcome, Im always happy to answer questions...youve been most polite, (which this thread hasnt seen much of
)



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
There is no such word as UNplausible. The correct word is IMplausible






top topics



 
43
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join