Are They Spraying Anything?

reply to post by BillfromCovina

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I said that when I spot checked I didn't see any. Now I see two.

Yes, based on the Vandenberg 12Z sounding, contrails would be predicted.

Looking at the soundings from San Diego there was a drying trend. The relative humidity at 250mb dropped from 38% at 4AM to 15% at 4PM. When it dried out there is no way of knowing but the contrail believer in me would say it happened early in the day.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina

 

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I said that when I spot checked I didn't see any. Now I see two.

Yes, based on the Vandenberg 12Z sounding, contrails would be predicted.

Looking at the soundings from San Diego there was a drying trend. The relative humidity at 250mb dropped from 38% at 4AM to 15% at 4PM. When it dried out there is no way of knowing but the contrail believer in me would say it happened early in the day.

edit on 3/8/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I did a spot check at 1:30, and I see 72% relative humidity at the hgt of 10570m at Vandenberg. Much different from what you are claiming. Please don't misrepresent the numbers because you are so wrong in the predictions again. You have been using Vandenberg numbers but you now want to go to San Diego. San Diego weather is always very different from Los Angeles.

Soundings

reply to post by BillfromCovina

Yes. I said, that based on the Vandenberg 12Z (4:00 AM California time) sounding, contrails would be predicted. I did not misrepresent what you said, I supported it.

What I added is that:
a) The 12Z (4:00 AM California time) sounding from San Diego showed much drier conditions than Vandenberg. Somewhere in between the two locations the conditions changed.

b) The 00Z (4:00 PM California time) sounding from San Diego showed that the conditions were even drier yet. At some time in the twelve hours between soundings the conditions changed. Since you saw no contrails, it probably happened early in the day.

Isn't San Diego closer to LA than Vandenberg? I referred to San Diego because 2 daily soundings are taken there so the 12 hour variation can be seen. Vandenberg only does one.

reply to post by Phage


So in other words you want to use which ever sounding will support you. I have no problem using a median between the two. The problem is that if the data does not support you, you will always fall back on the argument that we can never be sure.

I see that you did not respond to my post on assumptions. Do you now agree with my post, "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."

reply to post by BillfromCovina

No. If the soundings from both locations were the same it would have been a problem because it would be a strong indication that the conditions over LA were similar. If Vandenberg had a 00Z sounding that did not show a drying trend it would have been a problem because it would be an indication that the conditions had not changed. I "fall back" on all the available data I can get.

Taking a "median" is not much use because the differences between locations can occur quite abruptly rather than being a smooth transition. This can be seen in situations where contrail production ceases even when aircraft stay at the same altitude. There is no way to know exactly where in that 200 mile span the transition occurs.

No, I don't agree with your post on assumptions. I see consistent descriptions of persistent and spreading contrails from decades ago. I see scientific papers describing persistent and spreading contrails from decades ago. I see images of persistent and spreading contrails. I see movies with persistent and spreading contrails in them. I realize that my recollection of my personal perceptions from 20 years ago can be wrong.

reply to post 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.

I'm not sure why people keep bringing up WW11..
Totally different planes, different engines,different fuels..

It's really been since the late 60's, early 70's that passenger jets have been around in any numbers..

reply to post by backinblack


the point is EXACTLY that persistant contrails formed with internal combustion engines despite the different fuel - because the process is EXACTLY the same.

It doesn't matter what hydrocarbon you burn, you get excess Hydrogen, which combines with Oxygen in the atmosphere to create water.

that is pure science - roughly year/grade 12 chemistry I think.

it's a problem the chemtrailers need to explain, because it does not help their cause!

reply to post by backinblack


You truly are this dense? Really?? (I am having trouble believing it anymore, sorry. I sense another agenda.....):

WW11..
Totally different planes, different engines,different fuels..

(.....didn't know there have been eleven World Wars?)....

But, anyhow....setting aside ways to write "WW II".....NONE of that is relevant!!!! The fuels are not relevant. The different engines are not relevant. The airplanes certainly are just your own red herring.

"different" all of that, doesn't matter because the contrails are the SAME!!

Heat. Water vapor. Proper temperature. Equals. Contrails.

Piston propeller engines produce great amounts of heat. Even the AvGas of the day has the same basic chemical structure of hydrocarbons!! "hydro" is hydrogen. The "H" in H2O!! "O" is oxygen. Take a deep breath. Yeah, that stuff, it's in the air, ya know!

H + H + O = H2O

It is that basic.




Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina

 

No, I don't agree with your post on assumptions. I see consistent descriptions of persistent and spreading contrails from decades ago. I see scientific papers describing persistent and spreading contrails from decades ago. I see images of persistent and spreading contrails. I see movies with persistent and spreading contrails in them. I realize that my recollection of my personal perceptions from 20 years ago can be wrong.

edit on 3/8/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

This is not what I am saying. It would be an assumption to take a picture from 1930 in the middle of BFE under who knows what kind of conditions and say that is the same thing that is happening over Los Angeles. Would you agree?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Aloysius, I see that you have not posted any relevant data from WW2 about the skies over Los Angeles. Lets try the 1980's. Pictures and relevant data please.

Aloysius post,

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.

Bill never made any absolute claims. I responded to a challenge by ZombieJesus who then ran off to look for someone he could handle. Phage took up his fight. All the data has been from his sources. Bill did state that you were better off flipping a coin than using the Appleman Chart in predicting contrails. The Appleman Chart is supposed to have a 98% effectiveness in the no contrail range. That is the only way to check but you guys will always make up excuses no matter what. That is already proven. I see Wacky has returned after being in hiding for a few days.

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Aloysius, I see that you have not posted any relevant data from WW2 about the skies over Los Angeles. Lets try the 1980's. Pictures and relevant data please.

Oh a strawman argument - how original - asking for something that you know pewrfectly well I dont' have.

Are you going to conclude that my lack of data for 1980's LA proves that contrails could not exist then and there?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Oh a strawman argument - how original - asking for something that you know pewrfectly well I dont' have.

Are you going to conclude that my lack of data for 1980's LA proves that contrails could not exist then and there?

I don't know what you have. You made the claim that I was ignoring comparative data from WW2, videos and still evidence. I asked for it. You ignored me so I gave you an easier target. Comparative data would include the same city, altitude, and humidity. I would be happy with just your pictures. Otherwise run along.

Aloysius Post,

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 COMPARITIVE DATA at all.

popular science february 2011in the uncommon knowledge article page 46. thay talk about china starting it and the us has no choice but to step in as a partner , if only to stabilize the delivery and geographic dispersal of the particals,
it doesant say anything about being real or not just a maybe i think but good read.

reply to post by weedwhacker

But, anyhow....setting aside ways to write "WW II".....NONE of that is relevant!!!! The fuels are not relevant. The different engines are not relevant. The airplanes certainly are just your own red herring.
"different" all of that, doesn't matter because the contrails are the SAME!!
Heat. Water vapor. Proper temperature. Equals. Contrails.
Piston propeller engines produce great amounts of heat. Even the AvGas of the day has the same basic chemical structure of hydrocarbons!! "hydro" is hydrogen. The "H" in H2O!! "O" is oxygen. Take a deep breath. Yeah, that stuff, it's in the air, ya know!
H + H + O = H2O
It is that basic.

Do you practice being rude weedwhacker??

Jet engines have become far more efficient over time..
All I'm saying is you can not compare contrails of fuel guzzling, inefficient WWII bombers to those made by present day airliners...

If you can't see that then it ain't me that's dense.

reply to post by BillfromCovina

An assumption perhaps, but an educated and reasonable one considering all the knowledge and evidence behind it. Your assumption is based on your recollection of your perceptions of 20 years ago. A recollection which may very well be colored by what you've been hearing for the past 10 years.

Contrails form now under the same conditions they formed then. The general causes were known in the 1930's. By 1953 it was better understood (Appleman). Here's a study from 1972 which goes into great detail about those conditions and notes that Appleman missed some things.
journals.ametsoc.org...
And they're still learning about them. But the basic ideas haven't changed.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post 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.

I'm not sure why people keep bringing up WW11..
Totally different planes, different engines,different fuels..

It's really been since the late 60's, early 70's that passenger jets have been around in any numbers..

Yes, and with air traffic increasing greatly through the 90s especially - hence the increase in contrails. Whereas 30 years ago 1 aircraft might fly over every 10 minutes, now it's more like 1 every minute.

Are They Spraying Anything?

Yes Stadis 450 : Barium and Aluminium.

reply to post by Arken


In which case, we should be able to readily prove it by comparing chemical analysis of recent snowfall in Greenland and Antarctica with older ice core samples from the same locations - the latter will contain greater quantities of barium and aluminum than the former. QED.

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Arken

 

In which case, we should be able to readily prove it by comparing chemical analysis of recent snowfall in Greenland and Antarctica with older ice core samples from the same locations - the latter will contain greater quantities of barium and aluminum than the former. QED.

Difficult to find data...

But a fast research about BARIUM levels: aircrap.org... show this......
In this case The levels for barium were 150 mcg - more than 13 times acceptable levels.

By Bridget Lewison for KTOX. GOLDEN VALLEY- Al DiCicco hasn’t been well for a while. The disabled Golden Valley man recently had some blood work done at his doctor’s office and the results have him alarmed. Al’s blood plasma levels for the chemical element barium were 150 mcg; the maximum reporting level for barium is 11 mcg. With levels more than 13 times acceptable levels, Al’s doctor has referred him to the Poison Control Center for treatment.

Exposure to small amounts of barium, dissolved in water, may cause a person to experience these problems:
1. Breathing difficulties
2. Increased blood pressure
3. Heart rhythm changes
4. Stomach irritation
5. Muscle weakness
6. Alterations in nerve reflexes
7. Damage to your brain, liver, kidney and heart

And an interesting video about BARIUM high toxic levels

reply to post by BillfromCovina

I responded to a challenge by ZombieJesus who then ran off to look for someone he could handle.

Well excuse me for having a real life

I made the offer to interpret the data from soundings using the appleman chart, Phage got to it first. What is the point of me posting the same data twice?