Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NASA Appleman Chart - Real contrail science

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Near the close of WW2 jets were used. It was, of course, very important for these jets to avoid detection. NASA and the USAF began to research methods of predicting the occurrence of contrails. 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.


NASA Appleman Chart


Using these reports and observations of temperature, pressure and relative humidity, 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.

Due to the inaccuracy in predicting YES contrails with the appleman chart, we should focus solely on the 98% accurate prediction of NO contrails.

Used in combination with triangulation and atmospheric sounding data, it becomes trivial to predict whether one should be seeing contrails over their city or whether the trails seen are in fact chemtrails.


Chemtrail Debunker: "This chart was made in 1953! The science is 60 years old!"

Do you think the laws of physics have changed since then? The chart was reviewed in 1992, here. You will find that the review was done to better predict the occurrence of YES contrails and the 98% accurate prediction of NO contrails was never found to be inaccurate.


Chemtrail Debunker: "Atmospheric sounding is unreliable."

Readings are taken twice daily, sometimes hourly. The closer you are to the station and the time of reading the more accurate your results. If you are a pilot, you can use live atmospheric readings in-flight.


Chemtrail Debunker: "You can't know the conditions up there. There are tiny pockets of vastly dissimilar air, accounting for trails appearing to start and stop, etc."

This does not make good sense, especially when the atmospheric conditions are completely un-supportive of contrail formation to begin with. I challenge you to support your claims.


Chemtrail Debunker: "Newer engines could make it more likely for there to be contrails."

Yes they may, just as some newer engines might be less likely to form contrails. Such variables are mentioned in the 1992 review of appleman chart contrail formation science. In my view, the change will be negligible (perhaps a few thousand feet and a degree or two celcius) and the appleman chart will be enough to show glaring differences in what we should be seeing and what we are seeing.

If you intend to prove or debunk chemtrails being created by "planes", be sure that you use legitimate NASA USAF contrail formation science such as the appleman chart!

If you catch someone denying chemtrails and they aren't familiar with and actively promoting this chart (or updated contrail-formation science as shown), it would be wise to suspect their motives.




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Well done.

too many people claiming that every single odd trail in the sky is a contrail.

there is something that is going on behind the scenes in the sky.

question is, what is it?



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by sandwiches
 


Sandwiches.....

You have simply run away from this thread.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

.....because it was shown that you don't understand your own material, specifically the chart upon which you have based this thread.

I think everybody would be better off if this discussion continued where you started it.....in that thread.

I also note that I expect I am still on ignore, based on the fact you said you put people on ignore who argue with you & disagree with you.

Regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sandwiches



Chemtrail Debunker: "Atmospheric sounding is unreliable."
Readings are taken twice daily, sometimes hourly. The closer you are to the station and the time of reading the more accurate your results. If you are a pilot, you can use live atmospheric readings in-flight.


Twice daily, Im one of the guys that actually does this (at Perth Met Office in Western Australia. I dont know which person told you that atmospheric soundings are unreliable, because they are. If you check my contrail/chemtrail research thread, everytime someone thought there was a chemtrail, the weather data from balloon soundings represented that of contrail appearance conditions


Chemtrail Debunker: "You can't know the conditions up there. There are tiny pockets of vastly dissimilar air, accounting for trails appearing to start and stop, etc."
This does not make good sense, especially when the atmospheric conditions are completely un-supportive of contrail formation to begin with. I challenge you to support your claims.


Again, I dont know who said thyis, but we use our weather balloon soundings to determine the weather conditions up there. Its the whole basis of ding it. Without the data, it would be difficult for forecasters to provide a forecast. Its done twice daily because the weather changes do often.



If you intend to prove or debunk chemtrails being created by "planes", be sure that you use legitimate NASA USAF contrail formation science such as the appleman chart!


I did that in my thread. Its a sticky thread so if you want to, observe some contrails (or chemtrails in your opinion) and we will see if the weather conditions represent the contrail condiitons. As of yet, not one contrail has been disproven. All observations were exactly what the weather balloon data suggested they would be
.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
No-ones running away from anything, hence creation of this thread. This is a thread for discussion about the appleman chart specifically.
Here we will prove once and for all it's validity, unless you can show otherwise.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


OzWeatherman.....

It's always a pleasure!


I've directed the op to your material several times now.

He refuses to consider it.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Thanks mate


Ive got a sticky thread running which uses real life observations and the appleman chart OP. Its in my signature. I am also one of the people across the world that releases balloons for data across the world.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Twice daily, Im one of the guys that actually does this (at Perth Met Office in Western Australia. I dont know which person told you that atmospheric soundings are unreliable, because they are.

I stated that as the words of a chemtrail debunker. If your experience is indeed true, and I have no information either way, then that is good to know, thanks.

If you check my contrail/chemtrail research thread, everytime someone thought there was a chemtrail, the weather data from balloon soundings represented that of contrail appearance conditions

A small possibly biased subset of results means nothing. Did you use the appleman chart and sounding data, or... ?


I did that in my thread. Its a sticky thread so if you want to, observe some contrails (or chemtrails in your opinion) and we will see if the weather conditions represent the contrail condiitons. As of yet, not one contrail has been disproven. All observations were exactly what the weather balloon data suggested they would be.

I have done this myself and discovered chemtrails. I created this post so others can easily learn the science, where to get readings and observe it for themselves.

Just because your results showed one thing doesn't mean we shouldn't get more results! I don't care about being right. I just want the truth beyond reasonable doubt.

Thanks



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
Ive got a sticky thread running which uses real life observations and the appleman chart OP. Its in my signature.

Your thread mentions the appleman chart on page 6. The appleman chart is the focus of my new thread here.

You seem to have too quickly assumed that "Max T Persistence" on the chart means indefinite. This is incorrect.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sandwiches
A small possibly biased subset of results means nothing. Did you use the appleman chart and sounding data, or... ?


Since when is 25 pages of observations form both sides of the argument a small biased set of results? I only provide the weather data from their area. I am not able to manipulate or twist the data at all.

And yes, I used real weather sounding data, and the appleman chart. In fact our entire organisation (Bureau of Meteorology) uses it.



I have done this myself and discovered chemtrails. I created this post so others can easily learn the science, where to get readings and observe it for themselves.


How do you indiacte they are chemtrails? And where exactly do you get your sounding data from?



Just because your results showed one thing doesn't mean we shouldn't get more results! I don't care about being right. I just want the truth beyond reasonable doubt.


No, my results show exactly what conditions are expected for what the observations are. I dont provide the observations, only the data for the people that posted. Its easier to remain unbiased that way.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman


Since when is 25 pages of observations form both sides of the argument a small biased set of results?

I never said they were! My intention is not to attack your thread, but to raise awareness of good science and continued analysis of this popular phenomenon.


And yes, I used real weather sounding data, and the appleman chart. In fact our entire organisation (Bureau of Meteorology) uses it.

Again, I'll have to take your word on that.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by sandwiches
[Your thread mentions the appleman chart on page 6. The appleman chart is the focus of my new thread here.


The appleman chart is what I used for every observation



You seem to have too quickly assumed that "Max T Persistence" on the chart means indefinite. This is incorrect.


Can you clarify? Im not sure what you mean when you say "indefinite"



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by sandwiches
You seem to have too quickly assumed that "Max T Persistence" on the chart means indefinite. This is incorrect.

Can you clarify? Im not sure what you mean when you say "indefinite"

"Max T. Persistence" does not necessarily mean indefinite persistence. From what I've seen in documentaries by pilots & investigators and online in journalist tests, 30s-2 mins is normal. (Must dig up links) Taking into account what we know about contrail and cloud science, including exhaust particulate, humidity, pressure and temperature, it would seem obvious that the conditions for indefinite persistence with a given engine are quite specific.

Further, remember that the prediction of YES contrails by the appleman chart is only correct 25 - 35% of the time. So predicting when a contrail will persist with any accuracy is impossible.

I would presume you would need to learn about the updated method ETACFCST to be able to predict the occurrence of YES contrails successfully.


[edit on 2010-5-30 by sandwiches]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
You are also using misleading information in your OP



Using these reports and observations of temperature, pressure and relative humidity, the USAF found that the forecasts using the Appleman method were correct about 60 to 80 percent of the time.


So using the appleman chart in conjunction with observations, contrail forecasts were correct up to 80% 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!


And using the same method, contrails not occuring was correct almost all 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.


And because of that figure, the appleman chart actually underpredicts contrail appearance, which is a good indication that from some source, there is extra mositure being put into the atmopshere. The burnign of hydrocarbon fuel in jets only has 2 end products, water and dust.

And this is a huge problem concerning military aircraft, as contrail presence alerts enemy observers to activity oand direction of aircraft travel. Thats why this whole experiment is done! Because the appleman chart underpredicts contrails...not over predicts



[edit on 30/5/2010 by OzWeatherman]

[edit on 30/5/2010 by OzWeatherman]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by sandwiches
 


You also have to remember that these reports are all based on clear sky conditions, with no existing natural or man made clouds.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman

If you are indeed familiar with contrail prediction science and atmospheric data, I think you will agree that contrails rarely if ever form at all below 10,000 ft (or above -35C, but I digress).

What, therefore, will explain these low altitude trails?




^ Jump to 1:52

Your thread has been rendered obsolete. It should be un-stickied, IMO.

[edit on 2010-5-30 by sandwiches]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by sandwiches
 


And how exactly can you confirm that those are low level trails? There's no information there to suggest the height they are at.

And contrails normally form at plane crusing altitiude, and rarely below 10,000ft. The only places that occurs, is near the poles, and in places such as Alaska (a member living on a military base can confirm that), where its cold near the surface. Still then the vapour pressure is not low enough for them to persist.

And seeing as we are throwing out questions....are you aware of the hundreds of variations in wind speed and direction, and the possibnility of jet stream winds, and their effect on anything dropped from a height? They wont exactly be landing on a target


And, no the threads is still going...it isnt obsolete. If you have an issue with it being a sticky, take it up with a mod

[edit on 30/5/2010 by OzWeatherman]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
Ahh, we can exist together.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by sandwiches
Thanks for the helpful tips, but I would have thought it painfully obvious the altitude will be different at the South Pole.


Well duh

Altitude isnt the important factor when dealing with aircraft near the poles, its the temperature. Obviously the ground temperature is colder in these places, so the the as the temperature decreses when it gets colder, meaning the min temperature for contrail formation is at a lower altitiude.


See, first obs taken from Antartica



89571 Davis Observations at 00Z 30 May 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRES HGHT TEMP DWPT RELH MIXR DRCT SKNT THTA THTE THTV
hPa m C C % g/kg deg knot K K K
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1000.0 -156
978.0 22 -13.7 -22.7 47 0.64 75 15 261.1 262.9 261.2
932.0 380 -15.5 -22.5 55 0.68 49 26 262.9 264.9 263.0
930.0 396 -14.5 -21.5 55 0.74 48 27 264.1 266.2 264.2
925.0 436 -14.9 -20.9 60 0.79 45 28 264.1 266.3 264.2
892.0 708 -17.1 -20.7 74 0.83 35 31 264.5 266.9 264.6
861.0 973 -19.3 -20.5 90 0.87 42 25 264.9 267.5 265.1
850.0 1069 -19.1 -19.4 97 0.97 45 23 266.1 268.9 266.3
846.0 1104 -19.1 -19.1 100 1.00 45 21 266.5 269.4 266.6
843.0 1130 -19.3 -19.3 100 0.99 45 19 266.5 269.4 266.7
795.0 1561 -22.7 -22.7 100 0.78 25 14 267.4 269.7 267.6
763.0 1863 -25.1 -25.1 99 0.65 45 12 268.0 270.0 268.1
752.0 1970 -25.9 -26.0 99 0.61 54 16 268.2 270.1 268.3
741.0 2078 -22.3 -23.8 88 0.76 64 21 273.3 275.6 273.4
740.0 2088 -22.2 -24.0 85 0.75 65 21 273.5 275.7 273.6
729.0 2198 -21.3 -26.3 64 0.62 66 22 275.6 277.6 275.8
709.0 2403 -22.1 -32.1 40 0.37 69 23 277.0 278.1 277.0
700.0 2497 -22.7 -33.7 36 0.32 70 23 277.3 278.4 277.4
683.0 2677 -24.0 -36.2 32 0.25 75 23 277.8 278.6 277.8
672.0 2795 -24.9 -37.9 29 0.22 64 24 278.1 278.8 278.1
668.0 2838 -25.3 -38.0 29 0.22 60 25 278.2 278.9 278.2
596.0 3655 -32.1 -40.1 45 0.20 51 23 279.5 280.1 279.5
585.0 3785 -33.3 -41.5 44 0.17 50 23 279.6 280.2 279.6
563.0 4053 -35.7 -44.3 41 0.13 55 22 279.8 280.3 279.8


Minimum temp for contrail persistence at roughly 4053m


Now my data from this morning balloon



94610 YPPH Perth Airport Observations at 00Z 30 May 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRES HGHT TEMP DWPT RELH MIXR DRCT SKNT THTA THTE THTV
hPa m C C % g/kg deg knot K K K
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1018.0 20 10.4 4.4 66 5.18 55 9 282.1 296.7 283.0
1004.0 130 14.8 4.8 51 5.40 36 12 287.6 303.1 288.6
1000.0 162 15.2 4.2 48 5.20 30 13 288.4 303.4 289.3
992.0 230 16.4 3.4 42 4.95 25 13 290.2 304.7 291.1
980.0 334 18.2 2.2 34 4.60 18 14 293.0 306.7 293.9
925.0 823 14.2 1.2 41 4.53 345 18 293.8 307.3 294.6
893.0 1117 11.4 0.9 48 4.61 345 11 293.9 307.7 294.8
874.0 1297 9.8 0.8 54 4.66 340 7 294.0 307.9 294.9
862.0 1413 8.7 0.7 57 4.69 315 6 294.1 308.0 294.9
850.0 1530 7.6 0.6 61 4.72 290 8 294.1 308.1 294.9
837.0 1657 6.5 0.6 66 4.80 285 11 294.2 308.5 295.1
824.0 1785 5.4 0.6 71 4.87 296 13 294.4 308.9 295.3
813.0 1895 5.6 -4.4 49 3.41 305 14 295.7 306.1 296.4
778.0 2253 3.0 -12.0 32 1.97 334 18 296.7 302.9 297.0
772.0 2316 4.0 -19.0 17 1.11 340 19 298.4 302.1 298.6
766.0 2379 3.9 -20.4 15 1.00 345 20 298.9 302.2 299.1
743.0 2626 3.3 -25.6 10 0.64 350 19 301.0 303.2 301.1
738.0 2681 3.2 -26.8 9 0.58 346 19 301.4 303.4 301.5
705.0 3050 0.8 -25.8 12 0.67 320 20 302.7 305.0 302.8
700.0 3107 0.4 -25.6 12 0.68 320 21 302.9 305.2 303.0
662.0 3553 -2.1 -28.1 12 0.58 324 22 304.9 307.0 305.1
582.0 4565 -8.3 -44.3 4 0.13 334 24 309.1 309.6 309.2
536.0 5196 -13.9 -31.9 20 0.50 340 26 309.9 311.6 309.9
531.0 5268 -14.5 -30.5 24 0.57 333 26 309.9 312.0 310.0
519.0 5443 -10.3 -51.3 2 0.07 315 26 317.0 317.3 317.0
502.0 5699 -11.2 -56.7 1 0.04 290 27 319.0 319.1 319.0
500.0 5730 -11.3 -57.3 1 0.03 290 27 319.2 319.3 319.2
461.0 6347 -15.3 -58.3 1 0.03 279 35 321.7 321.8 321.7
449.0 6544 -16.8 -55.0 2 0.05 275 37 322.2 322.4 322.2
413.0 7166 -21.7 -44.7 11 0.17 282 43 323.7 324.4 323.8
400.0 7400 -24.1 -44.1 14 0.19 285 45 323.6 324.4 323.6
398.0 7436 -24.4 -44.2 14 0.19 285 45 323.6 324.4 323.7
338.0 8600 -34.3 -46.3 29 0.18 273 52 325.6 326.4 325.7
326.0 8851 -36.5 -44.5 43 0.22 270 54 326.0 326.9 326.0
316.0 9065 -37.9 -43.9 53 0.25 272 56 326.9 327.9 327.0
300.0 9420 -40.7 -48.7 42 0.15 275 60 327.9 328.5 327.9
295.0 9533 -41.6 -49.5 42 0.14 275 61 328.1 328.7 328.1
268.0 10181 -47.1 -54.1 45 0.09 281 59 329.3 329.7 329.3
252.0 10587 -49.9 -58.7 35 0.06 285 57 330.9 331.2 331.0
250.0 10640 -50.3 -59.3 34 0.05 285 58 331.1 331.4 331.2
242.0 10852 -51.9 -58.9 43 0.06 283 62 331.9 332.1 331.9
224.0 11350 -54.1 -67.1 19 0.02 279 71 335.9 336.0 335.9


The minimum temp for contrail persistence is at 11350m's (plus the humidity levels represents the fcat that I have cirrus clouds right now)

Undestand my point now?



Good for the unthinking - sometimes debunkers throw around videos like this and call it a persistent contrail...


More like a particulate cloud and no evidence of persistence


And some chemtrailers throw videos around like this and claim its from chemtrails or HAARP




[edit on 30/5/2010 by OzWeatherman]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman


Altitude isnt the important factor when dealing with aircraft near the poles, its the temperature.

I never said altitude was the important factor and, in fact, see little need for such posts here. I am very familiar with the few variables involved.


Understand my point now?

Nope. Are you saying contrails form above -35C? (That was the claim I made about temperature) How is that supported by the appleman chart?

[edit on 2010-5-30 by sandwiches]





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join