New Chemtrail Pictures!! (or is this just a Natural Phenomenon?)

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Shivering Coward
 


My head fits just fine anywhere I go, thank you.

Your comment is also off-topic.
Which science fact do you disagree with?
How much do you know about the processes involved?
Why is knowing science an "ego" thing?




posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JonInMichigan
 


I saw you mention, above, something about "seeing" "Chemtrail sprayer"airplanes....and I just cringed in pain, because I have an idea of which photos you might be referring to...and IF they're the ones I think, then it's time to really check them out, again.

There ARE "khemtrail konspiracy" websites out there that keep using these photos (that I'm thinking of) and calling them "proof", when in fact, they are NOT what the websites claim them to be.

And, I have the proof that those photos are being misused (either intentionally, to defraud and hoax the gullible) or innocently, ou of pure ignorance. Or, a little of both....


Well, I searched youtube last night to refresh my memory on the so called planes. The plane pictures were flatly refuted to be scientific measurment planes. Looking at the so called "nozzels" on the wings, the first thing I thought is that they were sensors, not nozzels.

I didn't post to correct my off-hand comment as it was a cloudy memory but yes, I believe you are right. Cringe indeed.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Here's something else for all you "chemtrailers" to think about:
How much water is in a cloud?

A single cumulus cloud, or for those who don't appreciate my ego, puffy white cloud, contains 550 TONS of water. In order to spray a single cloud would take 50 tankers.
Look at all the lines in the pictures. Certainly there is a large volume of visible material there.
Has anyone reported a fleet of tankers flying over Michigan? Or anywhere else for that matter?
They would be hard to miss.
You don't need tankers because water you see in the pictures is atmospheric water as ice crystals, triggered by the release of water vapor from exhaust. It's not sprayed at all. It was already there.
And for the crowd who feel they are spraying something, you would need actually much more than a simple spray of "chem-". You would need a medium for delivering the tons of materials, so additional tons added to a payload.
So phyisically, "chemtrails" looks to be impossible.
Add in all the planes and people involved in maintaining, loading and flying those planes, and all the material, equipment, and people needed just to make and store the "chem-".
Logistically, "chemtrails" looks to be impossible.
And add in all the people who mistake clouds and contrails as "chemtrails" everyday all over the nation. You would need similar people, material, and planes for each "sighting".......see where I'm going here?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
i'm from wayne county. aint been home in awhile but will be moving back there in the next week or so, i'd be down to start taking pictures .



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
If this chemtrailing is being done right in front of everyone's eyes, why are there never any pictures of the planes doing it? Those trails look great and all but they prove nothing.

Sure, there's the fuzzy/grainy/out-of-focus pics out there. I'm talking hi-res, HD, 10mp+ CLOSEUP pics of these jets. How about some time-lapse stuff as well?

(commence incoming barrage of ad nauseum YouTube links)

edit on 18-10-2010 by TXRabbit because: spelling



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by Shivering Coward
 


My head fits just fine anywhere I go, thank you.

Your comment is also off-topic.
Which science fact do you disagree with?
How much do you know about the processes involved?
Why is knowing science an "ego" thing?


Just be honest stars, you're not really here to debate anything, You're just here to name-call and insult people.

Your sig speaks volumes of your true intent here.
---

Nice pics Jon. I have a pretty good collection spanning the past 11 years.
Have you checked sounding data for that day? The best tool for a layperson to use to see if a trail is con or chem is called an Appleman chart. It's a fairly good predictor for when there should and should not be persistant trail formation.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Shivering Coward
 


Yes....very good. It's a starting point:


The best tool for a layperson to use to see if a trail is con or chem is called an Appleman chart.


The Appleman Chart has been around since the early1950s.

However, merely standing on the Earth's surface, and gazing up wide-eyed at the sky doesn't provide you with the data you need to "plug into" the Chart....as you can see, you need to know the pressure levels (altitude) of the airplane flying overhead, as well as the atmospheric conditions at those pressure levels. The link to the Chart, there above, has in it a link to such atmospheric soundings data.

Some people (who have already made up their minds about the "fact" of "chemtrails" may not care to actually follow links, and read them --- and that would be tragic. So, a few snippets of importance:


The first published reports of contrail formation appeared shortly after World War I. At first, scientists were not sure how contrails formed.


I really DO hope people read, and understand the importance of this fact, when they attempt to make the claims of "chemtrails"...they have been terribly misinformed, in just the last few decades....regularly occurring contrails, MISTAKEN for something else...when, they are just that -- contrails.

Some more info to ponder:


...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. 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.


Essentially, Appleman's chart is ONE tool, but by no means the BEST in all cases.


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.


Relative Humidity!!!

(Think back to those days in High School when you weren't bored to tears by the lessons....you might have remembered that term, from back then?? In Science classes??)

Further Reading -- with videos!!

And, a special treat for the OP, JonInMichigan, a HotLink to those bogus "chemtrail airplane" photos, with explanations for all of them. (More even than I've managed to hunt down....
).



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   


Where's the trail.
Looks like an exhaust and thats it.
Also can't determine movement without a trail helping to mark the movement.
How about an old time Ghost Rocket UFO from the 40s being tested again.
ED: Also we can't id these 'planes' and probably won't get any answers from
authorities for asking about them. Thus an unknown, a UFO even if you
say contrails or I say exhaust for a short distance without a long trail.
edit on 10/18/2010 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I am kind of on the fence with the whole chemtrail issue. On one hand I always have been interested in looking at the sky, and I don't remember seeing lines all over the sky like I have been seeing lately. I used to like in NY, and there were times I have seen planes that looked to me like regular jets, but leaving 4 contrails behind.On the other hand I can't explain it, I am not a scientist or a plane expert. I look forward to going through all the links put up later when I have some free time. A lot of interesting stuff to read at this site, I think I am going to enjoy being a member here.

Peace
edit on 18-10-2010 by TKDRL because: corrected some spelling



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


YOU have very good eyesight....


....that looked to me like regular jets, but leaving 4 contrails behind....


You saw a four-engined commercial jet. A B-747, (or a DC-8, but most of them are long gone, today) or if recently, could have been an Airbus, model A-340 (or even the A-380). O r, the USAF flies four engined KC-135 tankers....they have been re-engined with newer high-bypass turbofan engines, so (like all high-bypass fans) make bigger contrails, nowadays, than in decades past....when they had straight turbojet engines.

Four contrails, one forms behind each engine...because it is the HOT engine exhaust which causes the contrails to form. They may tend to merge, on each side, due to proximity and size, and conditions. I've been flying for over three decades professionally, some years prior too, before that, and to me they're old hat. Seen more than my fair share. That's why, each and EVERY photo I see, it is instantly recognizable to me as a normal contrail.

Back to your four-trails....here, a Boeing 747 (over the North Sea) ahead of another airplane, as the pilot behind films it:



~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even a (I assume) non-pilot, from the passenger cabin, knows it's a CONtrail:



~~~~~~~~~~~~
B-747s normally cruise faster than B-737s...as seen here:



~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here, on the North Atlantic Tracks. (Somewhere else I have a LOT of time observing too, myself):



~~~~~~~~~~~~
Listen to the audio....I don't know the airline OF the videographer, but you can hear, in the clip, the crew is listening to the "common" air-to-air frequency we use, on the NAT tracks....a United flight 903 is giving his Track ("Charlie") and altitude (35,000 feet), and location ("approaching 30 west" --- that's 30W longitude---) to let others behind him on the same track know of the turbulent "ride" in his area:



Oh,....and, the contrails too....that was the point.


A common theme, also, with those I selected?? Contrails being formed over the oceans, or the "Great Australian Blight", etc. Because, contrails form, irrespective of any control being exerted by pilots....they just HAPPEN!!

(PS...I know someone earlier bemoaned that "YouTube videos" might "show up"...didn't want to disappoint anyone...and, they ARE short!).



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Just a plain old exhaust might not be harmful but mixed with a fuel and any
unburned portion or corrosion of the plane, or if an unknown that sheds off
metal slag or minute particles, then some sort of pollution should happen
especially with un monitored planes as some of these flying machines seem
to be.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by weedwhackerit seems as though it the same posters that go to these threads just to call "hoax"
 
you would think they would go to the ones that they believe in. I don't know I thought I was on a conspiracy site?



What, you mean those of us who are meteorologists, pilots and scientists?

Gee, I wonder why it is always these groups of people
since your the man with all knowledge please enlighten me what is exactly in jet exhaust?and do you believe that there is no negative effects from people breathing this and this doesn't effect the weather at all?......thanks.................oh and one other thing, I thought this was the one website that you could openly discuss conspiracies without apprehension and discrimination?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Here whacker you forgot one...




posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Shivering Coward
 


No, my signature clearly states my purpose here. I have knowledge, from study, of the science involved. I understand it, and know how to research parts I don't so I can learn. What I can't understand and learn, I let the professionals speak about.
I can find out the science and show it. I can answer questions on many parts of the theory from science. That is not ego. It's applied study.
Since when does an intelligent answer require being blasted for having that intelligence?

Weedwacker does a great job clarifying the Appleman chart above.
It has no bearing on chemical content, though. You are assuming that there are both "chemtrails" and contrails. Do you have a test that proves your claim of "chem-"?
I've read the studies, down to the composition and dilution of the chemicals in any additives. Given the immense quantity of atmospheric water in a contrail, anything in it is incredibly dilute.
This incredibly diluted exhaust plume is then diluted even more by the atmosphere itself when a trail sublimes, spreads, or is blown away by the wind. The vast majority of any chemicals in the air we breathe is from ground level sources, not from jet exhaust.
All the stuides I read are easily found online. Just look for the scholarly published work on contrails. The oldest I've found online is from observations made during WWI, about 90 years ago. There's been lots of work done since.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Shivering Coward
 


I guess you haven't look at all the links I provided??

"Contrail Science" covers the fraud videos, and features THAT ONE FIRST!!!!

It didn't start out as a fraud...it was posted by YouTuber in the USAF, crewman on the KC-10 tanker.

He thought it'd be a fun joke, to rile up the "khemtrail krowd". It worked (he's has since taken it down from his channel, but not before it was copied, spread around by all the "true believers").

The YouTuber "tankerenemy" (if that's the version YOU posted) is Italian....and it's been suggested that he didn't grasp the concept of SARCASM in the dialogue, English not being his first language, when the guys are JOKING about the "chemtrails"....




posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWILITE22
since your the man with all knowledge please enlighten me what is exactly in jet exhaust?

You dont know the end product of the burning of hydrocarbons? Well FYI its water and dust



and do you believe that there is no negative effects from people breathing this and this doesn't effect the weather at all?


Contrails affect the weather, yes. They reflect heat away from the surface and trap it in during the night. There's hundred of studies done on this, mainly on the 2 days proceeding 9/11 when all aircraft were grounded, and no contrails were observed on satellite imagery. Consequently the diurnal temperature differences (difference between max and minimim thermometers) were the greatest in year for some locations.

And I dont understand how people breathe in something thats released at 30,000ft, into dozens of different wind speeds and directions, not to mention a lengthy encounter with the 150 knot winds encountered in the jetstream. Seriously, anything released above you will end up hundred of kilometeres out over the Atlanctic


edit on 18/10/2010 by OzWeatherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Shivering Coward
 


Golly, that was discussed, debunked and already give the ATS once over weeks ago. It's a hoax, done by the pilots. You can hear them laughing about putting a "chemtrail" video on YouTube. They know what they were filming, and it was not "chemtrails".

Former Thread



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by TWILITE22
since your the man with all knowledge please enlighten me what is exactly in jet exhaust?


You dont know the end product of the burning of hydrocarbons? Well FYI its water and dust



and do you believe that there is no negative effects from people breathing this and this doesn't effect the weather at all?


Contrails affect the weather, yes. They reflect heat away from the surface and trap it in during the night. There's hundred of studies done on this, mainly on the 2 days proceeding 9/11 when all aircraft were grounded, and no contrails were observed on satellite imagery. Consequently the diurnal temperature differences (difference between max and minimim thermometers) were the greatest in year for some locations.

And I dont understand how people breathe in something thats released at 30,000ft, into dozens of different wind speeds and directions, not to mention a lengthy encounter with the 150 knot winds encountered in the jetstream. Seriously, anything released above you will end up hundred of kilometeres out over the Atlanctic


edit on 18/10/2010 by OzWeatherman because: (no reason given)
as that is not my field of expertise no I did not know that but thank you for the info.....but would some of that get trapped in the clouds and rain down on us??



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWILITE22
as that is not my field of expertise no I did not know that but thank you for the info.....but would some of that get trapped in the clouds and rain down on us??


Not from that height

The water vapour converts straight from a gaseous state to an ice crystal (called sublimation) which is what creates the cloud. Contrails are effectively the same as cirrus clouds, same properites, they just come from aircraft. In terms of meteorological observations, any contrail which persists for longer than 30 minutes is reported as cirrus.

Should mention that cirrus is not a rain bearing cloud, as its composed of ice crystals, and forms at heights between 20,000ft and 40,000ft
edit on 18/10/2010 by OzWeatherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TWILITE22
 


You're referring to what's in the vernacular called "acid rain". Unfortunate choice of terms, because of the mental image....any simple chemistry study will show it's merely a way to describe the pH balance of the rain water, as affected by (mostly) man-made pollutants.

In fact, the MAJORITY of such pollutants are sourced from industrial activities, like factories, on the ground --- when they get into the atmospheric "water cycle"...either from being belched out in smokestacks, into the air....or, discharged into waterways, and then taken up by evaporative processes.

"Acid rain" was first coined, as a term, back in the 1970s....but, the effects of industrial pollution had been seen for centuries prior....


The corrosive effect of polluted, acidic city air on limestone and marble was noted in the 17th century by John Evelyn, who remarked upon the Arundel marbles "miserably neglected, & scattredup & downe about the Gardens & other places of Arundell-house, & how exceedingly the corrosive aire of London impaired them". Since the Industrial Revolution, emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere have increased. In 1852, Robert Angus Smith was the first to show the relationship between acid rain and atmospheric pollution in Manchester, England. Though acidic rain was discovered in 1852, it was not until the late 1960s that scientists began widely observing and studying the phenomenon. The term "acid rain" was generated in 1972.


Read at Wiki, and may Google for other examples of articles.

Jet airplanes spew exhaust the entire time the engines are operating, of course. Even on the ground, at the gate, when engines shut down, the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) is often running, for long periods. It is nothing other than a jet-fuel-burning turbine powerplant, to run certain accessories like electrics and pneumatics, when engines are off. (Many airlines try to curb their use...not because of pollution, but because of the high cost of Jet fuel. Electricity can be supplied when at the gates, either by the poser cords built in to most Jet-ways....or, by stand-alone GPUs {Ground Power Units} that...well, they burn DIESEL fuel in their engines, so again, with the pollution.....)

Still, when you compare the millions and millions of cars, trucks and thousands of railroad locomotives, and ships at see, on lakes, rivers...and gas lawnmowers, weed-whackers (
), leaf blowers, and such --- airplanes account for a SMALL minority of contribution, overall, to air pollution from vehicles and petrochemical-burning machines.

THEN....don't forget the factories! Coal burning power-plants! The list is long......

An article in USAToday, from 2006...."Global Warming" and "Carbon Footprint" were trigger words, so this article talks that up a bit:


Now, aviation is believed to be less a factor in the Earth's warming than power plants or vehicular traffic. But its emissions are considerable. On a New York-to-Denver flight, a commercial jet would generate 840 to 1,660 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger. That's about what an SUV generates in a month.


www.usatoday.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edit here -- thought I'd better add, when people look at that article, and see the Boeing 737 photo that is "Landing in Brazil"....that is condensation forming off the trailing edges of the flaps...areas of low pressure, and very high relative humidity (even down low, it IS Brazil, after all) and you sometimes see such examples. Water condensing from vapor, into visible moisture. Doesn't usually last long.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article goes on to predict "dire" consequences by....(drumroll)....2050!!! Based on expected increases in air travel. Still, in that same forty years, I expect a great deal of effort, and improving technology, to cut emissions, in cars, trucks, airplanes...etc.

As OzWeatherman says, contrails can have an impact on climate....but, there is no way to "turn them off", nor to "turn them on". ONLY alternative is to fly at low altitudes...and THAT is not a viable option.

Fuel burn rates increase significantly, at lower altitudes. Costs more, reduces range capabilities, etc.

edit on 18 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Note





new topics
 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join