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: 20
50
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

I've known about the weaknesses of the Appleman chart for a while. That's why I said this three days ago.

Would you agree to a slight change in your proposition? How about you tell us when you see contrail activity. We can (or better yet, you can) check the upper air data and see if the conditions are indeed conducive to contrail production. Actually there was an attempt to do just that but unfortunately it didn't get too far.



Regarding persistence, did you read this post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
The persistence curve represents temperature, not humidity. The temperatures were quite low enough for persistence.
edit on 3/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


The sulfur idea HAS been considered, and then discarded. "I realize that the idea of injecting sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere by jet fuel emissions is controversial and has been brought up before (26), but the implementation approaches mentioned by Crutzen and Wigley in their recent papers are poorly described and leave a misleading impression as to the practicality of the concept in general. Using potentially millions of balloons and 10,000-20,000 new, dedicated aircraft to deliver hydrogen sulfide or sulfur dioxide is infeasible. Likewise, developing new chemicals that would not exacerbate ozone depletion might take too long or not be possible at all." See. www.global-warming-geo-engineering.org...



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Yes I did read your post but did you read mine. NASA's site says in order for PERSISTENT contrails to form you need humidity greater than 60%. Contrails can form just from the temp. but you need a certain humidity level in order for the contrails to be persistent. That is what you skeptics are claiming. Persistent contrails require humidty > 60% and temp < -40 deg. It does not require planes to be flying at any level. If you disagree please back up your statement with a link and ref.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Yeah I wasn't suggesting that it was a practical current thought....just trying to make the point that pretty much everythign has actually been discussed and isnt' actually secret and regardless of what it is there's still no evidence of any of it actually happening!


I think we are in agreement with each other...just not with a few other ppl



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

Yes, you're right The Appleman chart webpage says:

usually between 60% and 70% relative humidity



The Appleman chart is a rough guide. It does not take all factors into account and there are "holes" in the data. You can see gaps in the altitudes at which the soundings are made. Vandenburg is more than 100 miles away from LAX, far enough for conditions to be different. The sounding is made at 4:00 AM, conditions change over time. Excuses? Maybe, but they are also the reality of the situation. There are factors that the Appleman chart does not consider. There is room for error.


Here is one example of the efforts to improve contrail forecasts.

Another factor complicating the prediction of persistent contrail occurrence is that
other variables (including vertical velocity and the atmospheric lapse rate) may affect the formation and the development of persistent contrails.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



The Appleman chart is a rough guide.


Makes it very hard to prove or disprove chemtrails going by that chart....



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

Yes, you're right The Appleman chart webpage says:

usually between 60% and 70% relative humidity



The Appleman chart is a rough guide. It does not take all factors into account and there are "holes" in the data. You can see gaps in the altitudes at which the soundings are made. Vandenburg is more than 100 miles away from LAX, far enough for conditions to be different. The sounding is made at 4:00 AM, conditions change over time. Excuses? Maybe, but they are also the reality of the situation. There are factors that the Appleman chart does not consider. There is room for error.


My point in all this is that the science is not as definitive as all the chemtrail critics have maintained. The problem with all the critics is that they are starting with assumptions. Good science can not start that way. The first assumption is that the trails have to be normal contrails. Even if I document a case for a critic with 0% humidity and -20 deg, they would still maintain that these were contrails. Is it possible that big oil along with the refineries and chemical plants are cheaply disposing of their waste by mixing it with the jet fuel. Possible and from what I know about big business, probable. It doesn't even need government involvement, but that is possible too.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

The science is fine. It's the data that's lacking.

It might be a good idea to produce that data before predicting what critics will say. Good science requires good data. If you documented such a case (and it would have to be well documented) it would be strong evidence that it was something other than a contrail. But you can bet that the critics will look for problems with it. That's what science does.

If you're talking about pollution, yes, planes pollute. In that case cars, boats, trucks, and buses produce chemtrails too.

If you're talking about anything but highly refined kerosene (containing small amounts of additives just as any petro fuel does). I think you'll find that jet turbines don't like "waste" products and neither do those who buy it.
www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com...



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I have no problem with the science. I have a problem with the critics who are starting with assumptions and a closed mind. It is almost a religious belief that these trails have to be contrails. Even when the data does not fit the science, which is most of the time. If the data fits the science of contrails, then I have no problem with admitting contrails. No matter what data I show I already know the excuse for Los Angeles. The soundings are too far away. With what you are now claiming, you can never prove that any airplane trail is a definitive contrail or chemtrail. So how can anyone believe chemtrails are a hoax or untrue.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

Which is the greater assumption? (And we're talking basic assumptions).

1) The contrails seen today are no different than the ones that have been seen for almost 100 years so there is no reason to think they are any different.

2) I never saw persistent contrails before so they must be spraying something now.

Before you react to #1, please see this post if you have not already done so.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

Which is the greater assumption? (And we're talking basic assumptions).

1) The contrails seen today are no different than the ones that have been seen for almost 100 years so there is no reason to think they are any different.

2) I never saw persistent contrails before so they must be spraying something now.

Before you react to #1, please see this post if you have not already done so.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Your first assumption is greater. Very few people have been observing contrails personally for a hundred years. I could not assume that the details or circumstances of my observation today matches the circumstances occurring by a different person 100 years ago. If I have been living in a city for 40 years it is not really an assumption to say that my observations are different today than 20 years ago and something is not normal.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

Which is the greater assumption? (And we're talking basic assumptions).
1) The contrails seen today are no different than the ones that have been seen for almost 100 years so there is no reason to think they are any different.
2) I never saw persistent contrails before so they must be spraying something now.
Before you react to #1, please see this post if you have not already done so.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


What about a third option..

3) I see persistent contrails in the air but the atmospheric conditions say they shouldn't be there..

That's what people are trying to prove but the debunkers keep moving the goal posts..



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

So you assume that the historical accounts and scientific studies of contrails from before the mid 1990's are invalid? Upon what do you base that assumption? Do you have reason to believe something different is being described; cloudy trails which last for hours, spread, and form cirrus decks.

Well, actually something is different. There are more of them now. That has a lot to do with the number of aircraft.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

So you assume that the historical accounts and scientific studies of contrails from before the mid 1990's are invalid? Upon what do you base that assumption? Do you have reason to believe something different is being described; cloudy trails which last for hours, spread, and form cirrus decks.

Well, actually something is different. There are more of them now. That has a lot to do with the number of aircraft.


This more contrails BS is really nothing to do with the chemtrail theory..

Yes, there are many times more contrails today, pretty obvious with more planes flying..
But who's to say they are ALL real contrails?
What better place to hide chemtrails than amongst thousands of contrails?

I'm on the fence but your logic just doesn't pan out...



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
[
Yes, there are many times more contrails today, pretty obvious with more planes flying..
But who's to say they are ALL real contrails?


who's to say they aren't all extragalactic sylphs here to create peace and harmony in the mid-east?

come on - that's not an rational objection to anything!




What better place to hide chemtrails than amongst thousands of contrails?


Clouds are a much better place to hide something - 'cos it's hard to see through clouds.


I'm on the fence but your logic just doesn't pan out...


well there's no logic in your objections so it is really quite difficult to see what your problem with someone else's logic might be!!



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

Which is the greater assumption? (And we're talking basic assumptions).
1) The contrails seen today are no different than the ones that have been seen for almost 100 years so there is no reason to think they are any different.
2) I never saw persistent contrails before so they must be spraying something now.
Before you react to #1, please see this post if you have not already done so.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


What about a third option..

3) I see persistent contrails in the air but the atmospheric conditions say they shouldn't be there..

That's what people are trying to prove but the debunkers keep moving the goal posts..


No, that's exactly where the goalpost lie. Just no-one who believes in chemtrails has come anywhere close to even shooting a ball in the right direction at goal as yet. It should be easy, but ...... they keep kicking the ball into the stands. Or their own goal. Or running with it and hitting it with a bat into a hoop. On horses. Whilst they have a truck shifting the goalposts to a different playing field every time anyone even tries touching the ball (which might not even be a ball). Anything but play the game.

edit on 8-3-2011 by Essan because: added comment



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Phage
 



The Appleman chart is a rough guide.


Makes it very hard to prove or disprove chemtrails going by that chart....


Indeed - the chart is really only a guide to what sort of conditions often produce contrails.

And the various soundings that people show only show that there are/were conditions that were or were not conducive to contrail formantion at the place and time the soundings were made. there is a reasonable assumption that they are at least within a buls roar of soncitions in hte general area & time - but that's not proveable.

Thus Bill's absolute claim of contrail formation where conditions were not right is unsustainable, and similarly absolute claims that conditions were suitable are aslo not proveable.

However in the absence of anything at all in the way of actual evidence that anything else if going on, the formation of a contrail is itself primae fasciae evidnce of conditions where the contrail is made on the basis of the studies that have been made over the decades into contrail formation.

Bills' objection that no-one has seen contrails from 100 years ago to compare with today is spurious - there is plenty of video & still evidence from WW2 - 70 years ago now.

And lastly his claim to be interested in the science is an obvious crock - sorry Bill - the fact that he can so blithely ignore WW2 evidence shows that he is not actually interested in collecting comparative data at all.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 

So you assume that the historical accounts and scientific studies of contrails from before the mid 1990's are invalid? Upon what do you base that assumption? Do you have reason to believe something different is being described; cloudy trails which last for hours, spread, and form cirrus decks.

Well, actually something is different. There are more of them now. That has a lot to do with the number of aircraft.

No I did not assume that historical accounts or studies are invalid. I stated that it is more of an assumption to state that what I observe today is the same as what someone else observed 100 years ago. Why? If you present a picture from 1920 or 1940 without the temp readings, or humidity, I have no details to make the claim that I am observing the same thing. You become the one making the assumption.

If I have lived in a city for over 40 years with the heaviest air traffic in the country at all levels, it is not an assumption to state my observations.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Bills' objection that no-one has seen contrails from 100 years ago to compare with today is spurious - there is plenty of video & still evidence from WW2 - 70 years ago now.

And lastly his claim to be interested in the science is an obvious crock - sorry Bill - the fact that he can so blithely ignore WW2 evidence shows that he is not actually interested in collecting comparative data at all.


First of all Aloysius, before you get into scientific discussions that are over your head, please learn how to read and observe correctly. I never stated that no one has seen contrails from 100 years ago. I would like to know when I ignored WW2 evidence. If you have WW2 evidence of contrails over Los Angeles with comparative data, I would like to see it. If you have WW2 evidence from any city with comparative data ( temp, humidity, height), I would love to discuss it with you.
edit on 8-3-2011 by BillfromCovina because: response showed up in quote box



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Today had the best readings so far from Vandenberg AFB. Not a cloud all day in all directions. The humidity was at its highest compared to all other postings by Phage, and temp < -50 deg. A perfect day for PERSISTENT contrails. I am happy to report that the sky was clear in all directions all day long. We had plenty of flights at the heights I am talking about. So many flights it is a burden to report on all of them. If anyone wants to do a spot check, I am sure they can find at least 1 at all times even later on at night. I am sure Phage, you no longer want to make the claim that there are no flights above 33,000' or have not been.

Flight Aware




top topics



 
50
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join