It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are They Spraying Anything?

page: 19
50
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deja`Vu
reply to post by weedwhacker
.
.
.
Have they already admitted it


No - read what you quoted - sulphur WOULD BE one way - the potential is well known - there are already millions of tons of sulphur in the air from natural sources & it has been studied a lot.

Geo-engineering is under discussion all around the world in many public forums - there's a wiki page on it - and Solar Radiation Management has one too - the use of sulphur in the atmosphere is a well known potential application for it.

But that's all...so far at least - it has been suggested.

As with all the other chemtrail theories (population reduction, magnifying HAARP, etc) there's no evidence at all that anyone is carrying it out.




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 


The humidity is at the altitude the aircraft are - the humidity at ground level is completely irrelevant...unless the aircraft is also at ground level!



If you read their posts you will see they are well aware of the effects of altitude on weather...



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

You are reading the chart incorrectly. The persistence line is for temperature, not humidity.
"Max. T for persistence".



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

Here's this morning's data.


281.0 9915 -43.5 -52.5 36 0.11 299 83 330.1 330.5 330.1
267.0 10057 -52.5 -60.5 37 0.04 263 86 321.8 322.0 321.8
250.0 10690 -50.3 -59.3 34 0.05 305 86 331.1 331.4 331.2
232.0 11171 -54.5 -64.5 28 0.03 310 89 331.9 332.1 331.9
224.0 11393 -56.7 -64.7 36 0.03 313 91 331.9 332.0 331.9
217.3 11582 -57.9 -65.4 38 0.03 315 92 332.9 333.0 332.9
200.0 12100 -61.3 -67.3 45 0.02 310 73 335.5 335.6 335.5


Here's yesterday's.


269.2 10058 -48.6 -55.5 45 0.08 290 111 326.7 327.0 326.7
251.0 10514 -52.9 -64.9 22 0.02 285 104 326.9 327.0 326.9
250.0 10540 -53.1 -65.1 22 0.02 285 104 327.0 327.1 327.0
211.9 11582 -62.9 -69.3 41 0.02 290 102 327.6 327.6 327.6
209.0 11668 -63.7 -69.7 44 0.02 283 98 327.6 327.7 327.6
208.0 11697 -63.9 -69.9 44 0.01 280 96 327.7 327.8 327.7


You need to pay attention to the alitudes as well as temperature and humidity. This morning the favorable altitude started at 267mb (33,000 feet). Yesterday it was too warm at that level and drier above that until getting up to 211mb (38,000 feet). The reason I said there would probably be contrails yesterday was those cold temperatures at 251mb.

It's tricky. And remember what I said about room for error.

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. 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.

It works quite well when predicting contrails will not occur. Not so well when predicting that they will. My record so far seems to be following that pattern.

So, again, if you often see contrails when the Appleman chart says they shouldn't be there it's something to pay attention to. I did say this early on.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ticklemytweeder
 


I just wanted to come back here for a moment and say,

"Welcome to ATS friend." I hope you enjoy your stay.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


There's plenty of "evidence," but, its evidence that you will consistently deny regardless of how factual or well researched. HAARP isn't my specialty, so, I could really care less. I've done enough research on it to know that it has many applications as ionospheric heating has a multitude of possibilities including "weather control," which many will say is "impossible, preposterous, silly, etc." However, if we can bring rain with cloud seeding, we can probably do TONS more with atmospheric heating, as our weather is based heavily on the ionosphere (ionization.)
Anyone who says otherwise knows very little about how the ionosphere operates.

I have a question though...why on earth did HAARP get brought into this discussion in the first place? And WHY? This is a theme that is often used to discredit people, and the majority of this thread has been relatively HAARP free.
edit on 6-3-2011 by Qcuailon because: to add



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

Contrail formation starting somewhere above 35,000 feet.


300.0 9460 -38.9 -41.6 75 0.33 270 73 330.4 331.8 330.5
274.5 10058 -44.0 -49.0 57 0.16 275 73 331.5 332.1 331.5
264.0 10321 -46.3 -52.3 50 0.11 277 76 331.9 332.4 331.9
250.0 10680 -49.3 -55.3 49 0.08 280 80 332.6 333.0 332.7
226.0 11337 -55.1 -59.6 57 0.05 278 84 333.5 333.7 333.5
212.0 11744 -58.5 -62.0 64 0.04 276 86 334.4 334.6 334.4
200.0 12110 -61.1 -66.1 51 0.03 275 88 335.9 336.0 335.9



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qcuailon
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


There's plenty of "evidence," but, its evidence that you will consistently deny regardless of how factual or well researched.



Thansk for making my mind up or me.

Atually I'm more likely to say "what is the back up for that?", or "How do we know that?"

I rarely deny that people see what they see, or read what they read - it is the conclusions that they draw that earn my ire - the lack of actual connection between them and the premise that ar presented as "support". And crap science - crap science is devinitely deniable.

Did you know you can visit HAARP on it's open days, and that no part of eth complex is off limits??


I've done enough research on it to know that it has many applications as ionospheric heating has a multitude of possibilities including "weather control," which many will say is "impossible, preposterous, silly, etc." However, if we can bring rain with cloud seeding, we can probably do TONS more with atmospheric heating, as our weather is based heavily on the ionosphere (ionization.)
Anyone who says otherwise knows very little about how the ionosphere operates.


Very few people know much about how the ionosphere operates at all - that is why HAARP exists.

I have little doubt that given enough resources we probably could do a lot with the weather - as you say there are "possibilities".

I am interested in the evidence that hte"possibilities" are "actualities" that so many people say they are - whether it be HAARP, chemtrails, reptiloids or holographic moons.


I have a question though...why on earth did HAARP get brought into this discussion in the first place? And WHY? This is a theme that is often used to discredit people, and the majority of this thread has been relatively HAARP free.


I suspect it is because people who believe in 1 conspiracy theory often believe in many of them, and so they all get mixed up - in the minds of people in both "camps".



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Interesting points have been made, and I like the fact that people are willing to dig into subjects deeper. This is always a good thing.

However let us be cautious when we enter subjects with pre-conceived notions, as most people tend to do on this subject in particular. For example many people come in assuming that something is being sprayed, while others come in assuming it isn't happening. I consider both of these angles of approach incredulous.

Rather, I remain open minded yet skeptical. I am willing to entertain the possibility that it could be happening, but we do need further investigation and a more solid evidence base to arrive at any veritable conclusions.

I do concede that I am also making an assumption, and that assumption is that we do not have clear answers to this yet at this time. I admit that I am not omnipotent so it is impossible for me to know the truth without having seen it first hand in it's entirety.

I do commend people for doing diligent research however, and I hope that we can find the solution to this nagging controversy.

But look on the bright side folks, there are far more absurd and asinine subjects permeating the fabric that is ATS, and this is by far one of the lesses evils we must contend with at present.

I hope that solid answers can be concluded at some point in the future, although it may be the distant future rather than any time soon.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

Contrail formation starting somewhere above 35,000 feet.


300.0 9460 -38.9 -41.6 75 0.33 270 73 330.4 331.8 330.5
274.5 10058 -44.0 -49.0 57 0.16 275 73 331.5 332.1 331.5
264.0 10321 -46.3 -52.3 50 0.11 277 76 331.9 332.4 331.9
250.0 10680 -49.3 -55.3 49 0.08 280 80 332.6 333.0 332.7
226.0 11337 -55.1 -59.6 57 0.05 278 84 333.5 333.7 333.5
212.0 11744 -58.5 -62.0 64 0.04 276 86 334.4 334.6 334.4
200.0 12110 -61.1 -66.1 51 0.03 275 88 335.9 336.0 335.9




So why don't airlines allow for that and merely fly at 33,000 feet?
Clear skies and less global warming due to artificial cloud formation.
edit on 6-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

Depending on the conditions, contrails can form at significantly lower altitudes.

Flying lower means flying less efficiently. It means burning more fuel.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack
 

Depending on the conditions, contrails can form at significantly lower altitudes.

Flying lower means flying less efficiently. It means burning more fuel.


Do contrails not need cold, humid air to form.??
Would a jet engine not perform better with less humidity??

I don't see how moisture would aid efficiency of a jet engine, in fact I'd think it was the opposite..



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 


The humidity is at the altitude the aircraft are - the humidity at ground level is completely irrelevant...unless the aircraft is also at ground level!



That is what I am talking about. The relative humidity above 30.000' not ground level. As you see Phage decided not to post his numbers and just make a claim and run off. The relative humidity was very close to the day before at those levels. The most important numbers in the soundings are the temp and relative humidity. You can have 0% humidity and still make contrails. In order to have PERSISTENT contrails according to the Appleman Chart, you need to have relative humidity above 60%. This is the point. Persistent contrails is what Phage is claiming that people are seeing. You can make contrails close to the ground if the temp is colder than -35 deg C. The reason the altitude is important is because at those heights the temp is always very cold and within the range.

Here are the numbers from yesterday March 5, 2011.

Vandenburg


327.0 8872 -33.9 -48.9 21 0.14 295 78 329.3 329.8 329.3
314.4 9144 -36.4 -49.1 26 0.14 290 78 329.6 330.1 329.6
300.9 9449 -39.1 -49.3 33 0.14 290 81 329.8 330.4 329.9
300.0 9470 -39.3 -49.3 34 0.14 295 82 329.9 330.4 329.9
281.0 9915 -43.5 -52.5 36 0.11 299 83 330.1 330.5 330.1
250.0 10690 -50.3 -59.3 34 0.05 305 86 331.1 331.4 331.2
232.0 11171 -54.5 -64.5 28 0.03 310 89 331.9 332.1 331.9
224.0 11393 -56.7 -64.7 36 0.03 313 91 331.9 332.0 331.9
217.3 11582 -57.9 -65.4 38 0.03 315 92 332.9 333.0 332.9
200.0 12100 -61.3 -67.3 45 0.02 310 73 335.5 335.6 335.5
187.5 12497 -64.5 -69.6 49 0.02 300 67 336.7 336.8 336.7
178.4 12802 -66.9 -71.3 53 0.01 290 79 337.5 337.6 337.5


If we look at the reading at 11582 meters you see that the humidity is 38% that is less than the day before at the same height.
edit on 6-3-2011 by BillfromCovina because: missing figure



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

You are reading the chart incorrectly. The persistence line is for temperature, not humidity.
"Max. T for persistence".



I'm sorry Phage, you posted all your soundings and reply's, while I was writing mine. You are incorrect not me.

NASA Appleman Chart

If the atmosphere were colder than the temperature indicated by the 0% line, a contrail would form even if the relative humidity of the atmosphere were zero. By itself, the airplane will supply enough moisture to make the contrail, and no moisture is necessary from the atmosphere to form the cloud.


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.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack
 

Depending on the conditions, contrails can form at significantly lower altitudes.

Flying lower means flying less efficiently. It means burning more fuel.


Do contrails not need cold, humid air to form.??
Would a jet engine not perform better with less humidity??

I don't see how moisture would aid efficiency of a jet engine, in fact I'd think it was the opposite..


IIRC it is the air density at lower altitude that results in more fuel burn, and nothing to do with humidity.

Back in the old days water injection was used to increase engine thrust by cooling the incomng air charge, making it denser, hence craming more oxygen into a given volume, which meant you could burn more fuel - this was for both IC and turbine engines. Sometimes the water was mixed with methanol or water or methanol were used alone - hence Germany had methanol injection in many WW2 piston engines, RR Dart turbo-props had 50/50 water/methanol, some othet jet engines used straight water.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



IIRC it is the air density at lower altitude that results in more fuel burn, and nothing to do with humidity.


I'm talking a few thousand feet, hardly any real difference..
The rest of your post is a little dated..But interesting anyway..



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
[
That is what I am talking about. The relative humidity above 30.000' not ground level. As you see Phage decided not to post his numbers and just make a claim and run off. The relative humidity was very close to the day before at those levels. The most important numbers in the soundings are the temp and relative humidity. You can have 0% humidity and still make contrails. In order to have PERSISTENT contrails according to the Appleman Chart, you need to have relative humidity above 60%. This is the point. Persistent contrails is what Phage is claiming that people are seeing. You can make contrails close to the ground if the temp is colder than 35 deg C. The reason the altitude is important is because at those heights the temp is always very cold and within the range.


Off to catch a train shortly, so can't work through the numbers sorry - but I think it is wrong to say that there' an exact point at which persistant contrails start and finish - what is persistant? 10 minutes? 20? 30? 60? 120? I guess at 60 minutes most of us would call a contrail persistant.....but what about 20 minutes?

What is "short lived? 30 seconds? 10 minutes?

The notes I have for the Appleman chart do not state what criteria it uses for persistance - perhaps someone else does have such?

However the notes I have seen say that the Appleman chart regularly under-predicts contrail formation (see asd-www.larc.nasa.gov... which I suspect you have)

And of course teh problem with the soundings is that they are probably not actually from the bit of space where the aircraft flew - the Appleman chart does a 60-80% job of predicting contrails.......and soundings show that humidity and temperature vary with altitude and give some likely ranges....

But if a particular sounding shows that persistant contrails "could not form", and one does nearby.....then it isn't actually evidence of anything mysterious unless you are sure the sounding includes the exact path of the contrail!

sorry about that.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

Contrail formation starting somewhere above 35,000 feet.


300.0 9460 -38.9 -41.6 75 0.33 270 73 330.4 331.8 330.5
274.5 10058 -44.0 -49.0 57 0.16 275 73 331.5 332.1 331.5
264.0 10321 -46.3 -52.3 50 0.11 277 76 331.9 332.4 331.9
250.0 10680 -49.3 -55.3 49 0.08 280 80 332.6 333.0 332.7
226.0 11337 -55.1 -59.6 57 0.05 278 84 333.5 333.7 333.5
212.0 11744 -58.5 -62.0 64 0.04 276 86 334.4 334.6 334.4
200.0 12110 -61.1 -66.1 51 0.03 275 88 335.9 336.0 335.9




I take it these numbers are for today. The sky is overcast and a storm system appears to be moving in. That would explain the humidity. Not a good day for contrail or chemtrail pictures.

As you yourself now realize, the Appleman Chart is not good at predicting contrails when conditions are ripe. As low as 35% accuracy according to the Air Force. This is worse than flipping a coin. The chart is good at predicting when they shouldn't form. Up to 98% accuracy. The only true way to test would be for low humidity and high temperature. The humidity, according to your source, in the previous days has not been conducive to PERSISTENT contrails. I should not have had them.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



IIRC it is the air density at lower altitude that results in more fuel burn, and nothing to do with humidity.


I'm talking a few thousand feet, hardly any real difference..
The rest of your post is a little dated..But interesting anyway..


Well I did say "way back when"!!


A few thousand feet do matter - jets these days regularly step their altitude upwards as they burn off fuel and become lighter.

This thread - www.airliners.net... - discusses some fuel burn figures at differing altitudes for older 747's - you are talking thousands of kg/hr for a difference of about 10,000 feet as it gets lighter - from 13,000 kg/hr to less than 10,000kg/hr.

So I expect a couple of thousand feet will result in a few hundred kg/hr extra burn.

when you are flying thousands of hours per year with dozens or hundreds of large jets, it adds up to a huge amount of money.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Off to catch a train shortly, so can't work through the numbers sorry - but I think it is wrong to say that there' an exact point at which persistant contrails start and finish - what is persistant? 10 minutes? 20? 30? 60? 120? I guess at 60 minutes most of us would call a contrail persistant.....but what about 20 minutes?

What is "short lived? 30 seconds? 10 minutes?

The notes I have for the Appleman chart do not state what criteria it uses for persistance - perhaps someone else does have such?

However the notes I have seen say that the Appleman chart regularly under-predicts contrail formation (see asd-www.larc.nasa.gov... which I suspect you have)

And of course teh problem with the soundings is that they are probably not actually from the bit of space where the aircraft flew - the Appleman chart does a 60-80% job of predicting contrails.......and soundings show that humidity and temperature vary with altitude and give some likely ranges....

But if a particular sounding shows that persistant contrails "could not form", and one does nearby.....then it isn't actually evidence of anything mysterious unless you are sure the sounding includes the exact path of the contrail!

sorry about that.


I think when people are talking about persistent, they usually mean more than 20 min. We are usually talking about all day and spreading. This is the phenomenon of chemtrails.




top topics



 
50
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join