This weeks "Chemmy" special.A study on contrails turning into clouds. (WARNING::Too much data)

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I'm a little puzzled here. The 'study' cited by liejunkie01 claims it is studying 'contrails'. Fair enough. I never did like the term 'chemtrail' and to call one streak a 'chemtrail' and another one a 'contrail' isn't very useful scientifically and really only clouds (ahem) the issue.

A quote from the study:

"It is based upon the fortuitous occurrence of an unusual set of essentially parallel contrails and the unanticipated availability...." hmmmmm...... fortuitous and unusual.... ok

Let's take a closer look at this from a scientific point of view and just start with this first item. What is the chemical composition of the 'trails' cited in this study and how do we know first of all. How much carbon do they contain? How about any other fuel by products? What exactly is the chemical compostion of the fuel that was used to produce them and how can we be sure? Maybe they really have enough chemicals etc. in the fuel to be more of what some might call 'chemtrails'. This needs to be fully established before anything further can be determined as to how a contrail/chemtrail acts.




posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte

Let's take a closer look at this from a scientific point of view and just start with this first item. What is the chemical composition of the 'trails' cited in this study and how do we know first of all. How much carbon do they contain? How about any other fuel by products?


Bloody good questions - Star.

You'd think someone with a real concern for this subject would have organised some sort of sampling programme to go collect this.




What exactly is the chemical compostion of the fuel that was used to produce them and how can we be sure?


Well you can buy jet fuel from Mobil, Shell, BP, etc. There is a standard for civil jet fuel and you can get some analysis done to see if the samples meet the standard.

You can also probably get some sort of samples from hte aircraft tanks before or after flight if you made it a proper scientific study and asked the airlines nicely enough.

Again no-one seems to have done so.


Maybe they really have enough chemicals etc. in the fuel to be more of what some might call 'chemtrails'. This needs to be fully established before anything further can be determined as to how a contrail/chemtrail acts.


Maybe indeed - and if a proper study found that then it would be case closed......but no-one wants to go do it.

There's certainly money being mad out of the theory, and you'd have to figure that a public appeal for funds to study the questions you asked would raise a reasonable amount if people really do believe there's something to be found.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I have to offer just my opinion on this, that the reason we are seeing so many pseudoscience 'studies' like this one and so much effort now being put into trying to brainwash the herd that 'nothing is going on' is because actually SOMETHING IS going on as regards efforts to manipulate our skies amd atmosphere.

As you mentioned, really the only way to get a handle on this is for some group of people with deep pockets and interest, to start collecting atmospheric samples and having them analyzed in an open and above board fashion that will tell us once and for all what is really being dispersed into our skies. Until this is done there will always be doubt and those whom I feel are doing these manipulations can always remain cloaked in plausible deniablity. I'm really surprised someone who is impartial and cares about this and has the resources hasn't done the needed sampling already.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 

Indeed. With the "chemtrail" conspiracy being carried out since the mid 1990's and the thousands of "researchers" who insist that they have proof...why isn't there any?

The article in the OP is hardly pseudoscience. It is observation.
edit on 3/25/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte
I have to offer just my opinion on this, that the reason we are seeing so many pseudoscience 'studies' like this one and so much effort now being put into trying to brainwash the herd that 'nothing is going on' is because actually SOMETHING IS going on as regards efforts to manipulate our skies amd atmosphere.


This study is pseudo science?? What sort of study qualifies as "real" science for you then?

Here's the authors of it:

Contrails to Cirrus—Morphology, Microphysics, and Radiative Properties

David Atlas - Laboratory for Atmospheres, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
Zhien Wang* - Goddard Earth Science and Technology Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
David P. Duda - National Institute of Aerospace, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia


The * next to Wang is because his current affiliation at hte time of publicatoin was different -

* Current affiliation: Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming


Looks pretty serious science to me - and there are an awful lot of papers out there similarly by people with lots of letters after their names on atmospheric science that run counter to the chemtrail theory.

Personally if I was totalling up Bravo-Sierra "studies" to decide which side was trying to hide something I'd go no further than you tube....and that would be me settled that chemtrails are busted!!


I'm really surprised someone who is impartial and cares about this and has the resources hasn't done the needed sampling already.


Anyone who is "impartial" probably doesn't see the need to bother.

And if someone like that did do a study and found no such thing as chemtrails hen they'd be denounced as a shill & a secret disinfo agent anyway.

As I said - there is only 1 "side" can do this and persuade anyone of any thing - the chemtrail believers.
edit on 25-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tecumte
 

Indeed. With the "chemtrail" conspiracy being carried out since the mid 1990's and the thousands of "researchers" who insist that they have proof...why isn't there any?


It depends upon what level one would consider 'proof' vs evidence. I think the only way to 'prove' this issue is to get to 25k to 30k feet and start taking samples and having them analyzed. Though it is scientifically feasible I'm not sure what the logistics would be that would be required and too there is the issue of cost. Anything short of that can always be plausibly denied regardless of how accurate.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 

My guess is that such sampling could be done for a few thousand dollars. Considering the heinous nature of what is generally being alleged that would be a small price to pay to save us all.

Oh wait. Someone tried that already. Apparently they didn't raise enough. I wonder what became of any money they did collect. Do you suppose they returned it to the donors?
www.chemtrailcentral.com...


edit on 3/25/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
"What sot of study qualifies as "real" science for you then?"-ATG

First before someone calls a jet trail either a 'contrail' or a 'chemtrail' we have to get an accurate definition of what either is. As I don't think this exists, then to use those terms I think only serves to cloud the issue. I agree.

Really what we are talking about is to what degree does any one trail 'pollute', obviously not all exhausts from any given planes might be equal as to their pollution potential. We simply don't know. So we are left observing the EFFECTS from the exhaust of any given plane, hence the use of the inaccurate terms.

So first we need to establish a baseline what is 'normal' so to speak, under what condtions does a plane leave only the quickly disapating vapor trail that most have come to refer to as a 'contrail' and under what condtions does a plane (or large group of planes) leave trails that block out the entire sky horizon to horizon with smokey white looking exhaust.

Some would say it is only the altitude that makes a difference and that when one sees a plane leaving only a quickly disipating vapor trail that 'appears' to be next to one that leaves a huge smokey looking brillant white trail that looks like it has a masssive ring problem, that it is only the altitude that makes a difference. But from my years of personal observations I am more inclined to come to the conclusion that it is more a difference in the actual 'exhaust' that the plane is leaving and I think the obvious question should be what is different in the makeup of the exhaust and why. This would be the best place as far as I'm concerned to focus any study on. Until we know these answers concretely we ALL have only theories and speculations. I don't claim anything more than that (as fact anyway just opinion and maybe hypothesis) and I would hope nobody else would either.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Chad, that's great we can take an analysis from a 'typical' plane just like we could take an analysis from a typical car, but for the sake of science that really doesn't give us what we are looking for. If we were to conduct a truly representaive science based study we would have to be sure EXACTLY what was in the exhaust of the GIVEN plane we were studying. Just because we can say we know what comes out of one plane leaving a quickly disapating contrail that in no way tells us what might be coming out of another plane that may be releasing something entirely different. We simply have no way of knowing conclusively what was coming out of the planes that were in the 'study'. If you asked many people who follow the chemtrail/contrail topic many likely would say that the trails that were studied were in fact *chemtrails* vs 'contrails' so the whole study is based on a bogus premise.
edit on 25-3-2011 by Tecumte because: spelling



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by itsawild1
 





Wake up people its a global dimming project for global warming--
if ya heat up the atmosphere the inside of the planet would absorb some of that heat--plus the heating of the air around the world would act as insulation for the furnese inside of the planet!!!!!!!! EXPANSION!!!!!
this would cause expantion and plate lifting which then we will get earthquakes and increased volcano activity --ARE WE NOT SEEING THIS NOW???
If your young you are F***ed


Well the only thing I can say to this is. DONT FLY.

I do not contribute to this because I have never flown in my life. Wake up and take the Amtrak. Airtraffic is expanding. How is this a global conspiracy? People want to complain and moan(to say it nicely), but how many of you chemtrailers fly with the airlines? If you do you are contributing to this problem. So please, those who fly, put your money where your mouth is.(not necessarily talking about you. I do not know if you fly or not).

Not trying to sound like I am upset, or grouchy. All of the airtraffic is making people think that TPTB is spraying everything including themselves.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tecumte
 

Indeed. With the "chemtrail" conspiracy being carried out since the mid 1990's and the thousands of "researchers" who insist that they have proof...why isn't there any?

The article in the OP is hardly pseudoscience. It is observation.
edit on 3/25/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



Thank you for stopping by for a look Phage.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Good info on the particulates.


Second line.
edit on 26-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: spelling



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


It is.

And serves a good benchmark for any subsequent testing too, even if it is to see if more modern engines are burning cleaner which they should be.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Again, the study posted by the OP IS psuedosciene or better yet very POOR science, it takes a trail of unknown composition, attempts to label it a 'contrail' and then tries to explain it's behaviour as 'normal'. One could just as easily assert the trails in question were potentially full of pollutants/chemicals/carbon etc. (chemtrails) and that what one was seeing was the typical behaviour of what many have come to call 'chemtrails'. I have already explained how a properly valid study needs to be set up in order to overcome this inherent bias. The study design IMO is very poor and really proves little other than that some trails do appear to spread out in a behaviour pattern similar to what many attribute to 'chemtrails' and that possibly the trails in the study should be put into that category.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


With all do respect.

I have yet to see any such science to back up your chemtrail theory. You people want to dismiss any information that does not go along with your theory. I think the study in the op is in more detail than I have ever seen on a "chemmy" post. You are going to have to better than that. You offer no scientific study of your own to refute the scientific studies. Your arguement is moot my friend. You cannot counteract numbers with, It is all "bunk," types of statements.

I would personally like to see some real information that contradicts these studies. Please do not get the information from a second hand "chemmy" source. You want to talk about pseudoscience, that is all "pseudoscience". Not trying to sound like a jek here, but I think you are confused on this whole subject of pseudoscience. Once again the source in the op was other than Contrailscience that all of you guys hate so much. Are all scientific studies no good?

What is your definition of "real" science anyways?
edit on 26-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: spelling



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Well with all due repect to you as well, if the study in question cannot address the actual composition of the trails being observed it has no way of telling in the first place whether they were actually (for lack of better terms) 'chemtrails or contrails'. In a scientifically valid study this would have to be addressed first, it is the basis from which the observations themselves conclude what are the actions of 'contrails, and I'm frankly surprised that anyone who looked at this logically and fairly wouldn't understand this. Is this not self evident?



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


Well then. I can see we are beating the dead horse again. It is a contrail study not a chemtrail study. I believe it was talking of ice particles. Not napalm.

Thank you for replying.
edit on 26-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
" It is a contrail study not a chemtrail study."

I guess we are, beating a dead horse lol, as that assertion is simply not proven at all, as one last time, the 'anomolous and fortuitous' trails that were observed may actually have been 'chemtrails' themselves which invalidates the whole premise of the study.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 





So first we need to establish a baseline what is 'normal' so to speak, under what condtions does a plane leave only the quickly disapating vapor trail that most have come to refer to as a 'contrail' and under what condtions does a plane (or large group of planes) leave trails that block out the entire sky horizon to horizon with smokey white looking exhaust.


Check this out and you may find answers to your questions.

www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu...

Hope it helps.





top topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join