Chemical Trails: Are we being sprayed?

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by L.J.C

hmm well it's a warm sunny day, humidity is low & it's defintely not miles high.

It doesn't really matter much what the weather conditions at the surface are. It's the conditions at the altitude at which the aircraft are flying that matters.

I'm not sure how you are determining the altitude of the contrail you photographed but according to the upper air soundings from Camborne, the air temperature at 30,000 feet (a very typical altitude for transatlantic air traffic) is -40.3ºC and the relative humidity is 79%. Persistant contrails will form readily under these conditions.

Camborne

Sorry, not cold enough. NASA uses the Appleman chart, and it debunks you.

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

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6964ac829c78.jpg[/atsimg]

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.

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

And if you think you are smarter than NASA, you should take your disinfo attempts to them.

reply to post by Udontknowme


Why not look at the data in the link Phage provided, then at the 'Appleman Chart" (which, BTW, was devised in 1953!!! NASA uses it out of nostalgia, probably. It's a nice beginning reference, but there are far better modern computer models available).

Anyway, perhaps you don't know how to read a chart in the form of a graph??

Take, just for example, the Met readings at 258 hp (about 10,433 meters altitude). They fall well inside the 'Appleman Chart's range for contrail formation. I really don't understand your confusion. AND, I really don't understand your attitude towards another ATS member who has more knowledge in his left pinky finger than most of us do in our entire bodies.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Udontknowme

 

Why not look at the data in the link Phage provided, then at the 'Appleman Chart" (which, BTW, was devised in 1953!!! NASA uses it out of nostalgia, probably. It's a nice beginning reference, but there are far better modern computer models available).

Anyway, perhaps you don't know how to read a chart in the form of a graph??

Take, just for example, the Met readings at 258 hp (about 10,433 meters altitude). They fall well inside the 'Appleman Chart's range for contrail formation. I really don't understand your confusion. AND, I really don't understand your attitude towards another ATS member who has more knowledge in his left pinky finger than most of us do in our entire bodies.

Well, I'm not one of you.

Read the chart. They found when using the Appleman chart, any time the temp was to the right of the red line, persistant contrails could not form. It's interesting that the chart came out about the same time Vonnegut figure out CO2 and silver iodide for weather modification.

reply to post by L.J.C


Clear indications of a frontal system approaching - which indeed is the case (or was the case - it's clouded right over and is now raining in Kent).

Maybe you should compare you observations with the photos or commercial aircraft contrails in the link in my signature?

Incidently, many of the aircraft you see flying over and leaving contrails will be transatlantic flights between Europe and N America.

reply to post by Udontknowme

Read the chart.

Yes. I did.

258 mb is the same as FL340 (34,000 feet). That is a very typical altitude for a jet cruising Westbound. Temp is -48C. That falls within your "Appleman Chart" parameters. BTW, remember when he made the chart?? 1953. When do you think the first passenger jets came into use?

When do you think the first high-bypass turbofan jet engines were put into use?

The "Appleman Chart" doesn't account for all variables that exist today, (over five decades later) in terms of contrail persistence prediction.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Udontknowme

 

Read the chart.

Yes. I did.

258 mb is the same as FL340 (34,000 feet). That is a very typical altitude for a jet cruising Westbound. Temp is -48C. That falls within your "Appleman Chart" parameters. BTW, remember when he made the chart?? 1953. When do you think the first passenger jets came into use?

When do you think the first high-bypass turbofan jet engines were put into use?

The "Appleman Chart" doesn't account for all variables that exist today, (over five decades later) in terms of contrail persistence prediction.

You really don't understand the chart, do you.

258.0 10433 -48.3 -56.4 39

Temp is cold enough, but RH is 39%. RH% needs to be at least 60% according to the chart.

Phage originally posted -40.3C

300.0 9430 -40.3 -42.5 79

RH% is high enough for persistant trails to form, but it's not cold enough.

reply to post by Udontknowme

You really don't understand the chart, do you.

I read and understand it perfectly. YOU don't.

Temp is cold enough, but RH is 39%. RH% needs to be at least 60% according to the chart.

NO. Look at the legend. It shows what each line is depicting, in terms of RH, based on the style of the line. Can you not see that?? Or, do NOT want to see it?

The LEFT side of the chart says "Always Contrails", yes?

The dashed red line is what "Appleman" decided is the cut-off for persistence.

It's hard, I don't have the bloody chart in front of me, as I type, so I go from memory. Sheesh, I could sit next to you and point to it, it'd be so much easier.

(You do know that -60 Celsius is colder than -40 Celsius, right?)

Look at the legend, see what each line represents in terms of RH...I think you're looking at the chart in reverse.

edit: Look again at the RH values in the Camborne chart, in the mb ranges just below 258. Quite a jump, eh? NOW, are these readings taken EXACTLY in the location where the airplanes were flying? NO!! (Unless you wish to risk a collision with the sounding equipment and a commercial jet).

The atmosphere is NOT homogenous, and these readings are just for general impressions, they can't define EXACT conditions in avery region. The formation of the contrails is the evidence, actually --- not the other way 'round.

[edit on 1 August 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
reply to post by ChemBreather

 

Crack me up!!!!!!!!

Yes, the chemtrails DO EXIST. Has anyone ever died from them??? Look at people's health rates steadily declining throughout the world. I think around 50% of people die of cancer now. It didn't used to be that way. Same for the jets I have no clue how old Phaige, or Weedwhacker are, but I remember jets from 25 years ago, and they didn't leave chemtrails that muddied up the entire sky.

I've heard that not only are they trying to make us sick, change our DNA, but to also be used in somekind of Project Bluebeam........should they 'need' an enemy from above..........Or I guess that'd possibly be the second coming... Who knows.

Way to go holding your ground chembreather!!!

To The OP. Star, and Flag.

Exaclty, these people are lecturing on contrails , what is up with that : look here , look damn it , water , look then !!

This just happend NOW when I was uot shopping, today the sky have been blu , with long stripes of clouds, within 10 minutes, by the time it took for me to drive the few Km's home, the sky had turned to soup, what is that about ??

reply to post by ChemBreather

...within 10 minutes, by the time it took for me to drive the few Km's home, the sky had turned to soup, what is that about ??

It's called changing weather. It would help if you'd look at weather forecasts for your area:

Extended Forecast

Updated: 8:00 AM CEST on August 01, 2009
Saturday Night
Partly Cloudy. Low: 48 °F . Wind SSW 2 mph .

Sunday
Chance of Rain. Partly Cloudy. High: 68 °F . Wind SE 6 mph . Chance of precipitation 20% (trace amounts).

Sunday Night
Rain. Low: 53 °F . Wind NE 8 mph . Chance of precipitation 70% (water equivalent of 0.24 in).

Monday
Rain. High: 66 °F . Wind ENE 11 mph . Chance of precipitation 80% (water equivalent of 0.48 in).

Monday Night
Chance of Rain. Overcast. Low: 55 °F . Wind ENE 6 mph . Chance of precipitation 40% (water equivalent of 0.09 in).

Oslo Weather

reply to post by Udontknowme

You're correct.

The Appleman chart did not indicate the formation of contrails at 300hPa. I should have consulted it before I posted.

However using the Appleman chart does indicate that contrails will form (and possibly persist) at altitudes at and above 34,908 feet (250hPa). For example; at 246.0hPa the chart shows that contails will form if the temperature is less than -50.4º when the RH is 30%. In this case the RH is greater and the temperature is lower than required to produce contrails.

250.0 10640 -49.9 -58.9 34
246.0 10744 -50.6 -59.5 34
241.0 10877 -51.6 -60.2 35

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/99ab6f6d5dcc.png[/atsimg]

The Appleman chart is only a rough estimation though. As has been pointed out there are factors other than ambient air pressure, temperature and humidity involved in determining whether contrails form. The science has become more refined.

The early effort in this general area (Appleman 1953) provided an algorithm that has been utilized with considerable success since that time. This was recently modified (Hanson and Hanson 1995) to better include the effects of high-performance jet aircraft flying at increased altitudes. This modification involves the determination of the critical temperature, that temperature at which contrail formation will occur for a given set of atmospheric parameters. The algorithm needed to determine this parameter is given below:

Source


[edit on 8/1/2009 by Phage]

The argument that such plumes are normal contrails is now for me (if not already before) completely & utterly redundant & I sincerely question the integrity of anyone that continues to profusely claim otherwise.

However these are my thoughts of which I'm entitled & I urge anyone to take some time to watch this film & decide for themselves:

Google Video Link

Okay, one more time. Chemtrails aren't Contrails. This is all taking place at lets say 35,000ft, and above.

25 years ago the jets did not leave trails that became clouds, and then fogged the entire sky.... Nope didn't happen.

Now the chemtrails become clouds; by the end of the day, or within hours the sky is pee soup.

It's becoming such a wide spread occurance that movies commonly have the things in their scenes.......... again finding such things in older movies is all, but impossible.

Again, I don't know how many of ya'll have seen the space shuttle streak across the sky. I have, and the contrail from it was MASSIVE. It was also apparently hot; as it glowed a little.................It disappeared within 20 minutes.

I am surprised there is the same ole' argument. Why no solutions? People are getting sick on a record basis now. It seems every time one looks people are dying of 'oddities'.

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
Okay, one more time. Chemtrails aren't Contrails. This is all taking place at lets say 35,000ft, and above.

25 years ago the jets did not leave trails that became clouds, and then fogged the entire sky.... Nope didn't happen.

Now the chemtrails become clouds; by the end of the day, or within hours the sky is pee soup.

It didn't happen 25 years ago? How about 40 years ago?

The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

ams.allenpress.com...
(Manuscript received 6 March 1970)


[edit on 8/1/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by L.J.C


L.J.C., perhaps we should ask you your field of study, and expertise?

Because, no offence, but without the experience of the various ATS members here your questions and musings about "chemtrails" would simply be parroted back to you, with bobble-headed fervour.

Speaking only for myself, I have over three decades life experience in aviation ( very nearly four decades, now... ).

23 years of that was with a major US passenger airline. I have seen a lot, but NEVER anything out of the ordinary. I know what contrails look like, how they are formed, why they form,and how they behave. I have flown through others' contrails, I have seen the shadow of my own, behind me, when the angle of the Sun is just right. The overall larger numbers of contrails is directly attributable to the ever-increasig amount of air traffic, and the introduction of the modern high-bypass turbofan engine, which is almost exclusively in use today.

Because of high oil prices, and subsequently fuel prices, the drive to ever-better fuel economy and efficiency is driving engineers to design engines that, simply, make more contrails. It is a function of the engine design, and the temperature and flow of the resulting exhaust gases that make the difference, compared to, say, the 1960s, 1970s and most of the 1980s, when the majority of jets used the earlier technology turbo-jet designs for propulsion.

This is not fantasy, nor imagination, it is widely known by people in the various fields that stem from aviation, and its knowledge bases.

Unfortunately, it is very easy for scam artists to prey on the lack of training and experience in the layperson's mind, and insinuate these "chemtrail" notions. The rise of the Internet has only exascerbated the problem...the Internet is like an ocean of good information, readily available at your fingertips, but it is also polluted with junk, occasionally.

Shame, really.

reply to post by Phage

. 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.

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

98% correct when predicting contrails would NOT form

25-35% correct when predicting they would form.

So, even if the chart shows contrails COULD form, theres still a 70% chance
they WON'T.

Are we beginning to understand how rare contrails are?

reply to post by Phage


ha ha ha, okay, I don't know about 40 years ago, but your buddy El weedwhacker says they didn't exist in the 60's, 70's, or 80's. Does that answer the statement, or I think question you had? From the 60's would be close to 50 years ago.

Okay, so I'm understanding weedwhacker correctly....... That when planes were 'inefficient' they didn't pollute the skies, but now that they are 'EPA' friendly they pollute the skies? Which means that somewhere in there that with improvements he's claiming all jets leave chemtrails because of engine modifications........... Sure at this, or that altitude....blah blah blah.

Okay, so now that I've got my thinking cap screwed on correctly.... that chemtrails are contrails, and they are naturally occurring, and clouding the entire sky, I know the New World Order loves me!! I'm off to get my vaccine shot; maybe ya'll could go with me?

Here's a question. I've talked to several people that have individually noticed the chemtrailing is worse a few ***days*** before rain. why?

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
reply to post by Phage

 

Okay, so I'm understanding weedwhacker correctly....... That when planes were 'inefficient' they didn't pollute the skies, but now that they are 'EPA' friendly they pollute the skies? Which means that somewhere in there that with improvements he's claiming all jets leave chemtrails because of engine modifications........... Sure at this, or that altitude....blah blah blah.

Okay, so now that I've got my thinking cap screwed on correctly.... that chemtrails are contrails, and they are naturally occurring, and clouding the entire sky, I know the New World Order loves me!! I'm off to get my vaccine shot; maybe ya'll could go with me?

Good one. I get it now. They are intentionally polluting the skies, but don't worry, cause it's just water vapor.

That's why contrails don't show up on water vapor satellite images.

Chem-trails...STUPID...think about it...why would a government, or any enitity allow MASS chemicals to be released 15, 20, 30 thousand feet in the SAME AIR THEY BREATH????????????? COMMON SENSE people...thats all you need to see this conspiracy has always been boggus!!!

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones


Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....why do I try, when people won't actually READ???

I don't know about 40 years ago, but your buddy El weedwhacker says they didn't exist in the 60's, 70's, or 80's.

Are you not reading, but just skimming?? Would you please point out anything even approaching what you claim I wrote?

Okay, so I'm understanding weedwhacker correctly....... That when planes were 'inefficient' they didn't pollute the skies, but now that they are 'EPA' friendly they pollute the skies?

Obviously, you don't understand, or else you would not have written that inane statement.

Which means that somewhere in there that with improvements he's claiming all jets leave chemtrails because of engine modifications...........

See my responses, both times, up above....sheesh!!!

Okay, so now that I've got my thinking cap screwed on correctly.... that chemtrails are contrails, and they are naturally occurring

Yes. Naturally occuring BEHIND a passenger jet with engines throwing out hot exhaust. (and the various unburned hydrocarbons...THOSE are chemicals....) I suppose you could say that if we never invented the airplane, then contrails would not occur naturally, ermmmm???

...and clouding the entire sky I know the New World Order loves me!!

You see??? In your slobbering rush to demean and ridicule, you got it wrong yet again!!! ***sigh***

CONTRAILS do not always form, it depends on the atmospheric conditons!

WHEN contrails form, some dissipate very quickly, again because of atmosphereic conditions at altitude.

SOMETIMES the contrails will linger, because of the atmospheric conditions. You see, there are these things called "clouds" that form, all by themselves. Happens quite often, perhaps you've noticed occasionally?

The contrails, once formed by the passage of a machine that artificially produses them, wil sometimes increase and spread, and merge with, cirrus "clouds" that will be forming naturally, anyway, as part of (usually) an approaching weather front, or other change in the equilibrium of the atmosphere at the time.

NOW, is that understandable yet? Because, a little due diligence on your part --- I.E., cracking open a book or two, would teach you a lot more about the meteorology of what I just described.

Here's a question. I've talked to several people that have individually noticed the chemtrailing is worse a few ***days*** before rain. why?

BECAUSE it's not **chemtrailing**, but high-level cirrus is an indication of approaching weather, as mentioned above. It happened this way before airplanes were invented, too.

It would behoove you to pay attention to places that have weather prediction information. You might learn something...

reply to post by Udontknowme

Are we beginning to understand how rare contrails are?

As I said, the Appleman chart provides a rough estimation. But the statement you quoted has nothing to do with how common contrails are. It is about the accuracy of the Appleman predictions.

Maybe you should have included this part of the statement, it makes it more clear.

Thus, the Appleman chart tends to underpredict the occurrence of contrails and to overpredict the non-occurrence of contrails. For this reason, the USAF is actively investigating better ways to compute contrail formation.

Underpredicting the occurance means that the formation of contrails happens more than predicted. Overpredicting the non-occurrence means that the non-formation of contrails happens less than predicted. The occurrence of contrails occurs more than the chart predicts and the non-occurrence happens less than the chart predicts. Contrails happen when the Appleman chart says they shouldn't.

[edit on 8/1/2009 by Phage]