Are They Spraying Anything?

reply to post by BillfromCovina


Last I checked, bill, you aren't my boss.....

And Wacky, please stay out of it. You have no science either.

I have all of the science, in my head, and hip pocket. You seem to only have fallacies and nonsense beliefs.

MY experience...a life's career cannot be conveyed adequately....but, using that knowledge I can adequately read and interpret the science, and and equate what I know also.... the logistics and reality and mechanisms and details....and be assured, without any doubt, that "chem"-trails (as those normal contrails are being mistakenly called) are nothing other than what the rational people on this planet keep telling the irrational ones.......

reply to post by BillfromCovina

Like I said, there may not have been any planes high enough (34,000+) to produce contrails. The only planes that high over your area would be overflights, not planes bound for or taking off from one of the LA airports. Seeing no contrails doesn't really demonstrate much. If, on the other hand, you see contrails when there shouldn't be any, it's a different matter.

Ok. We can continue to try it your way but if you don't allow some room for error it's a little disingenuous. The tools at we (us guys, ATS members) have at our disposal are a little crude. We use this, the appleman chart.
asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

The upper air data is produced twice a day. I'll give it a shot when the next one comes out.

reply to post by BillfromCovina


"He noted low clouds" ?? What is that supposed to mean, doesn't make any sense. Are you referring to what Oz wrote in this post?:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


IF SO....read it and understand it better...he was saying that, based on the LOWER altitude radiosonde readings, he expected the prevalence of low-level stratus that would visually obscure the contrails, as attempted to be viewed from the ground....

Try, try to remember this basic fact: The conditions of the atmosphere at low altitudes, in the lower troposphere, have no direct relationship to the conditions at altitudes where contrails form. Entirely different animals.


Ya know....just think about how many days out of the year your sky may be hazy, foggy, low clouds covering the sky completely....YOU can't see above them. But, very often, contrails will still be there, up at altitude.

If you flew more often, you'd see this occur more often. It's that simple. The contrails aren't "made on purpose"....they just are. They are an inevitable fact of physics, and technology and the nature of our atmosphere.

You might as well yell at your car's exhaust pipes, and blame them for spreading "chemtrails" on cold days, for making that water vapor so obvious.....

reply to post by BillfromCovina

So, in other words you have no science.

Not unless the definition of science has changed.

Let's see.



Science

Nope, still looks the same to me

Nobody can predict the weather 100%. How many times has your local weather man on the evening news been wrong? From my experience it is quite often, and don't forget they are getting the data from actual meteorologists.

That's why predicting contrails can be difficult. The best we can do is look at the data available, interpret it and make an educated guess.

If the weather supports it and there is a lot of air traffic, you should have your contrails.

In a nutshell, yes. If the conditions in the upper atmosphere are conducive to contrail formation, and air traffic is heavy, you are more than likely going to see contrails.

You want to have the option to say that there is no way to know.

It would be great if forecasting technology was at the point that weather can be predicted 100%, but it's not, so the option to say "I don't know" is on the table, and not just for me, but anybody interpreting the data.

The tools we have as civilians and hobbyists are limited. We (debunkers ) have upper atmosphere weather soundings, and the appleman chart, and thats about it.

That is not science.

Yes it is.
One of the most important parts of science IS being wrong, that's how you learn.

After looking at the data, you should be able to say on what days contrails were visible.
I am willing to let you do it after the fact.

Thank you for your permission, I was getting nervous if you were going to let me do that

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina

 

Like I said, there may not have been any planes high enough (34,000+) to produce contrails. The only planes that high over your area would be overflights, not planes bound for or taking off from one of the LA airports. Seeing no contrails doesn't really demonstrate much. If, on the other hand, you see contrails when there shouldn't be any, it's a different matter.

Ok. We can continue to try it your way but if you don't allow some room for error it's a little disingenuous. The tools at we (us guys, ATS members) have at our disposal are a little crude. We use this, the appleman chart.
asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

The upper air data is produced twice a day. I'll give it a shot when the next one comes out.

edit on 3/3/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I will observe from the 4th to the 10th. If I see contrails when their shouldn't be, will you change your view or will there be a new excuse? There are many days during the year when the temperature is warmer and drier (upper atm) and the sky is a checkerboard and it ruins an otherwise perfect day.

reply to post by ZombieJesus

You want me to accept that you are right no matter what even if the science does not back you up. You have to be willing to say that there is a possibility you are wrong. You guys keep offering this challenge but when someone accepts you then back off.

reply to post by weedwhacker

He said "all" he was getting is low level moisture, not high level. Please pay attention, and just because you have experience hand cranking the propeller does not mean you are correct.

reply to post by Phage

Cloud seeding does not manipulate climate.

I can't believe you said that Phage..

If making it rain isn't manipulating climate then I don't know what is...

reply to post by BillfromCovina

Yes.

I think his point was that he didn't understand how anyone could have observed contrails through the thick cloud deck.

But if we look at the higher level data for that day it shows that conditions above 10,750 meters were conducive to contrails. Cold with excess moisture. They would have been visible through a hole in the cloud deck.

265.1 10363 -46.5 -63.7 12 0.03 250 44 331.1 331.3 331.2
250.0 10750 -49.3 -64.3 16 0.03 245 43 332.6 332.8 332.6
221.0 11547 -55.3 -68.3 18 0.02 238 48 335.3 335.4 335.3
208.0 11932 -56.9 -68.9 21 0.02 235 50 338.7 338.8 338.7
201.0 12148 -56.3 -68.3 21 0.02 235 53 343.0 343.1 343.0
200.0 12180 -56.3 -68.3 21 0.02 235 53 343.4 343.5 343.5

weather.uwyo.edu...

reply to post by BillfromCovina

You want me to accept that you are right no matter what even if the science does not back you up.

It's not about me being right or wrong, it's about providing the data, and interpreting it using the standard method (Appleman Chart) to compare with your visual observations that you haven't even made yet.

Please see your post.

I will back it up with pictures. Please also post the data you are using for each day, and the time. Let us do a week from March 4 to March 10.

post

You have to be willing to say that there is a possibility you are wrong. You guys keep offering this challenge but when someone accepts you then back off.

Last I checked it's not tomorrow yet.

reply to post by backinblack

Weather is not the same as climate.

cli·mate (klmt)
n.
1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

weath·er (wr)
n.
1. The state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

If you can't see the difference...

pre·vail (pr-vl)
intr.v. pre·vailed, pre·vail·ing, pre·vails
[3. To be most common or frequent; be predominant: a region where snow and ice prevail.

reply to post by Phage


Semantics..
Some places seed every season season during a drought..

reply to post by backinblack

Precision of speech.

Cloud seeding does not turn an arid region into a semi-arid region.
Cloud seeding does not turn a semi-arid region into a humid region.

reply to post by Phage

Precision of speech.

Not really..
Just your opinion regarding definitions..

If the climate (prevailing pattern) is in drought and I alter that with cloud seeding to make it rain then IMO I am manipulating the climate..

Semantics, see it as you wish..

reply to post by backinblack

I didn't invent the definitions.

A drought doesn't really define climate either, unless perhaps an area is prone to drought but that would make it arid or semi-arid. Cloud seeding won't change that. Cloud seeding during droughts doesn't seem to work very well.
The cloud seeders don't think so.

Q. Why can’t we start a cloud seeding program in dry years to make sure we get enough rain?

A. This question pops up whenever we have a dry year here. The answers:

1. We can.
2. But it doesn’t work well in our truly dry years, because cloud seeding requires CLOUDS – which were in unusually short supply last winter.
3. And it’s not cheap, either.

appliedclimate.wordpress.com...

Their clients don't think so.

The local cloud seeding program is operated between November 1 and April 30 of most years. Seeding is only possible during those months if there are clouds present that might produce rain. During drought periods, cloud seeding is not effective.

www.countyofsb.org...

The AMS doesn't think so.

2) Precipitation augmentation through cloud seeding should not be viewed as a drought relief measure. Opportunities to increase precipitation are usually few, if any, during droughts; consequently, the cost of mounting a cloud-seeding operation will far exceed the benefits that may be obtained. A program of precipitation augmentation is more effective in cushioning the impact of drought if it is used as part of a water management strategy on a year-round basis whenever opportunities exist to build soil moisture, to improve cropland, and to increase water in storage.

www.ametsoc.org...

reply to post by Phage


Maybe you should tell all that to the Australians..

Our CLIMATE is droughts and flooding rains, apparently in around 10 year patterns..
So what exactly is our climate??

reply to post by backinblack


That's weather.
Your climate depends on where in Australia you are.

The climate of Australia varies widely, but by far the largest part of Australia is desert or semi-arid – 40% of the landmass is covered by sand dunes. Only the south-east and south-west corners have a temperate climate and moderately fertile soil. The northern part of the country has a tropical climate, varied between tropical rainforests, grasslands, part desert.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You need to go back and read the patents. As for the rest of your reply...meh.

reply to post by Phage


My personal definition might as well be as valid as anyone else's since geo-engineering is a relatively new field of study. That's how new strides are made within the scientific community is by observing, testing, hypothesizing, defining, and redefining new and interesting topics and discoveries. If I chose to create a study of my own, it is up to my discretion to create my own "operational definition" of geo-engineering including an operational definition of what I mean to study. That is one of the key elements of the scientific method, and you should already be aware of that. In fact, I am currently in that very process.

My question to you is this, what if you find out that some "random" ATS member totally ended up redefining the entire field of Geo-engineering and wins the nobel prize? What would you say then?

Anything is possible...

reply to post by Phage


Um...those were the links on page 6, and you are already aware of which link I was referring to. Deflection and sleight of hand are your two strongest attributes, too bad it all falls under the category of "deception." Laziness is your worst attribute, and it is something which needs to be improved.