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.

 

why doesnt my con-trail last long in winter behind my car??--chem-trails are real

page: 9
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ateuprto
reply to post by itsawild1
 


Wow man, just wow. That is exhaust at ground level from a vehicle traveling at slow speeds. I would begin to link you to places where you can do research, but I mean Jesus....are you 10?

Use google. Your car has never had a contrail.


Don't need to use google. The principle is the same. Cold air is denser, therefore holds less moisture (the molecules are closer together, therefore not leaving much room for moisture).

When warm, moist air is cooled to saturation, you see it in the form of visible moisture. That is what causes contrails; it's what makes it so you can see your breath and causes fog. The identical process! . The principle is the same; warm, moist air being cooled to saturation. Period. It isn't any more complicated than that so stop trying to filibuster with your rhetorical, pointless questions and insinuations. The speed of the vehicle has nothing to do with it. Sometimes, you will see very SHORT vapor trails off the wingtips of fighter jets, when in a high-speed turn, but they are very short and gone almost instantly.

Direct me to ONE meteorological website that says anything about speed or velocity.




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Well it could be argued to go as fast as a jet aircraft do, required a lot of power and therefore lots of exhaust by products such as water. And a slow moving car requires little power to move, therefore less water from the combustion, and that water is released in a relatively warmer environment in thicker air.

Not sure I would go along with your statement that dense air holds less water than thinner air. If that were true, the capacity of air to hold water, would increase with altitude as the air thinned, and thats not true



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by General.Lee
The speed of the vehicle has nothing to do with it. Sometimes, you will see very SHORT vapor trails off the wingtips of fighter jets, when in a high-speed turn, but they are very short and gone almost instantly.

Direct me to ONE meteorological website that says anything about speed or velocity.


contrail.gi.alaska.edu...


Besides atmospheric parameters, aircraft characteristics such as air speed, engine type, fuel consumption and sulfur content of the fuel are of importance [...] The duration of a contrail was a function of decreasing temperature, increasing relative humidity, decreasing mixing ratio deficit and increasing wind speed, [...] The higher wind speeds for very long lasting contrails are not unexpected, as they facilitate the spreading.


Faster plane = longer lasting contrail. The difference is due to the way the exhaust gasses mix with the cold air. It changes the curve through (temp, humidity) space, allowing a faster drop in temperature with less reduction in humidity, so bigger ice crystals. See this chart:

asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...



The gases mix from point B to point A (ambient temp and humidity). The faster they do it, the more ice will form in that time, and the longer the contrail will last.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by itsawild1
 


So how much exactly do you know about upper air meteorology?

Because Im confused as to why your only comeback is that everyone that isnt a chemtrailer is labelled as a disinfo agent? Thats a pretty piss weak argument


Only thing i can be sure of at this moment is that from the page 1 to 5 you provided only "you dont knowzz" or "lol troposphere is not your friendzzz" .

Seriously, what the purpose in camping a thread to say stuff like this repeatedly ?

I sure dont know a thing about troposphere or any of its friends, thats why i come and read threads like that.

So please, either you share informations with other people (its called a forum ya know) or you just refrain yourself from posting several useless posts.

I hope i didnt sound harsh.

edit : perfect example of an interesting post Uncinus ! thanks for the share.

edit on 24-5-2011 by Fedge because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by itsawild1
 


I just spewed Mt. Dew out of my nose when I read the title to your thread. Thank you...funniest thing I've read in months.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I would like to chime in. My perspective might be valuable to some. Maybe.

I was one of the people that I guess were shocked to wake up one morning in 1997 and freak out over the 'Chemtrails'. I have lived in my home state my whole life except for 4 years in the service. I was in the Infantry at Fort Bragg so I got the usual soldier's education in observing aircraft in the sky. I actually have been a sky watcher since early youth; I am just wired like that.

So there I was in '97 driving down the freeway when my windshield gets splattered with some liquid. I figure it is the sprinklers on the big berms of the freeway so I hit the wipers and this greasy goo gets spread all over to the point that I have to pull over. So like a scene out of a sci fi movie there I am on the side of the Freeway trying to wipe this crap off the windscreen and I have this dawning realization so I look up and there are the 'trails' and the aircraft that are apparently laying them down.

I guess it was fate because I then go in to overdrive and start evangelizing this to all of my friends and family. And that is my introduction to chemtrails.

So about thirteen years go by with me just utterly convinced that we are being doused with a killer cocktail of chemicals.

Then some things happened. First it was the Clifford Carnicom 'Red Wine Test'. I tried it at home and of course I freaked out. So I call my most skeptical friend hoping to challenge him with this new-found evidence. He was able to use Google to debunk the test while we were on the phone and taliking in about 3 minutes.

Well that got my attention. I don't like to be fooled by fools.

Then the Jerusalem UFO happened and I logged on to ATS and got my head straightened out on that and things have just progressed from there. Now I often find myself contributing to the debunk on stuff that would have had me jacked up just a few months ago.

Then I finally went to Contrail Science and laid out my whole bag of bulls$!t so that members there could help me sort myself out. And boy did they. I had known enough from high school Biology to take the information that they gave me and then start straightening myself out.

Here is the deal. I can't look at these things and say that they are normal. I just can't. I know that something has changed and it did so very abruptly in 1997. The kind folks from Contrail Science and the debunkers here at ATS have us in a stalemate. Face it.

It is going to take some monumental sized evidence to convince anyone any longer that these things are as we see them; aerosolized chemicals that are being intentionally sprayed in our skies for unknown reasons.

I am so sorry that it has all come down to this. I am afraid our compasses are broken. I don't ever think I have seen two groups more polarized over any issue in my life. I just don't think either side is going to get anywhere definitive by grinding the same old axes every time this comes up. It just turns in to folks spitting at one another across a mutually defined line.

For me; I know something changed. I wish that I could shake the feeling but I can't.

How does that Radiohead song go? "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there.

Someone is going to be eating Crow Pie at the end of this whole thing. I have mine in the freezer ready to go. How about you, Debunkers?






edit on 24-5-2011 by Frater210 because: Ah, nuthin'



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Frater210
 


What a story.

Oh, and I've had gunk on my windshield, too. But, NOT from something released from a passenger airliner cruising at 35,000 feet. It came from something else.

And yes....in your case, may have been from an airplane, like it could even have been a jet dumping fuel, that perhaps you didn't see. The "causal" relationship, and false connection, was the observance of normal contrails, and missing the actual culprit.

Now then, saying that, let's look at this:


I know that something has changed and it did so very abruptly in 1997. The kind folks from Contrail Science and the debunkers here at ATS have us in a stalemate. Face it.

It is going to take some monumental sized evidence to convince anyone any longer that these things are as we see them; aerosolized chemicals that are being intentionally sprayed in our skies for unknown reasons.


The "abrupt"-ness isn't because it is abrupt, it is just your exposure to the hoax and mythical stories, THAT is the abrupt change.


Secondly --- by all means, don't take the word of anyone on the Internetz, go search out the proof.

You said it, yourself here:


It is going to take some monumental sized evidence to convince anyone.....



You mention "aerosolized chemicals" being sprayed? OK, then challenge: Go find the evidence. And, whilst at it, find a way for the physics of atmosphere, and terminal velocity of falling objects, and the reality of weights and aircraft performance and additional equipment installed (pumps, reservoir tanks, plumbing, etc) and all of that.....those are by no means the only aspects that make this myth implausible.


PS: What is that "red wine test"? Missed that one, somehow...as an oenophile, it sounds interesting.



edit on Tue 24 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
PS: What is that "red wine test"? Missed that one, somehow...as an oenophile, it sounds interesting.


Second test here, not as nice as it sounds.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





The "abrupt"-ness isn't because it is abrupt, it is just your exposure to the hoax and mythical stories, THAT is the abrupt change.


This is just hilarious. Do you practice putting this stuff together or have you just got a repository of it now on your computer from logging on to these threads to 'debunk' them?

That was an awfully assumptive thing to say. This happened to me in '97. The 'Chemtrail' thing had just kicked off. I had not been previously exposed to any information regarding 'Cemtrails'. I simply looked up in the sky and saw something I had never seen before and had a normal reaction to it.

I am not going to get into this with you because I have already gotten in to it to my satisfaction over at CS.

Here. you might want to get a look at one of these so you know what to shop for...



Just sayin', be prepared. You never know when this will be on the menu.


Here you go, man...message.snopes.com...

It's all over the web. I can't believe there is still no definitive page debunking it. The effect has to do with protein enzymes present in the mouth...Not 'Chemtrails'.




edit on 24-5-2011 by Frater210 because: Add



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Oh, LOL!!

Hey.....when my gums bleed, because of slacking off from good dental hygiene,and flossing (periodontal disease) and I use Listerine ® and spit in the sink I see "fibers" too!!

LOL....clotted blood, forming in the alcohol/saliva solution. My dentist also says I have "stringy" saliva. Many people do.

WoW! People fall for that nonsense?



edit on Tue 24 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Frater210
 


Very interesting story (I'm one of the folk from contrailscience.com). The one comment I'd add is the date, 1997 in your case, seems to vary a lot with different people. This does not really seem to support the theory of something changing in 1997 - and more tends to support the theory that that's just when you first noticed it. The amount of trails in the sky could have been building up for many years before you first noticed them.

Especially considering 99.5% of people have STILL not noticed them.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Frater210
 


I'd be very happy to admit error, but you neglected to respond to the challenge....posted above.

Evidence.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
WoW! People fall for that nonsense?


It's from Carnicom. He also now thinks that besides the usual reasons, chemtrails are for "surveillance", and "detecting UFOs". At 0:32:10 in this video


Direct link to 32:10
www.youtube.com...

And to complete the circle, the guy he's talking to is Alfred Webre, author of Kucinich's HR2977 Chemtrail bill.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Cars technically do release chem trails. A trail of obnoxious and nauseous gases known as greenhouse gasses.
Planes do as well, so we can consider than the increase in flights and jet use by itself is contributing to these weather changes. Also, has someone tested how contrails form in high pressure and low pressure conditions? I look up at the sky and see some planes have short contrails while others may be leaving behind massive white trails of clouds. Some days, they don't show up at all. Perhaps we need more studies rather than lame and countless "i swear its true" claims.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Thank you, Uncinus. You are one of the folks that directly helped me over there. Between you and I, friend; do you really think I did not notice them? After years in the Military and just being a natural sky watcher?

Could it be the other way around? That all of you CS guys and debunkers did not think to look up in the sky until we started making a rukus and then you noticed the phenomenon and set out to debunk it? Could it possibly be the other way around? Is it now going to come down to who is more qualified to look at the sky?

Also, wouldn't any material that came out of the back of a plane that was able to stay airborne and persist be subject to the same physics and mechanics that clouds are?

There was a period during the seventies when there were a lot of trails in the sky (I think some 'chemtrailers' have even 'discovered' that the govt. was doing tests of some kind then) I was about 5 or 6 and would always point them out to my parents. They told me they were the 'sky-writers'.

I guess you will just have to take it as anecdotal but if the 'grid networks' and such had been present pre-'97 I am sure I would have noticed it.

You yourself told me on CS, Uncinus, that there is exponentially greater air traffic over the last decade then ever before. I believe you and left CS with the impression that it really is due to much greater air traffic and the resulting pollution. Did I get that wrong?

Sorry I am such a hard case but I just have to go with my gut. We can call it a stalemate for now. But you must realize that someone is going to end up being wrong. This issue is not going to stabilize as it is now simply due to Ashby's law. So I don't think it will be long before something turns a corner and we are going to find out who is going to be having what for dinner. But it ain't gonna get ground out on these threads like this anymore. It is just pointless.

I swear I wish Carnicom would shut the hell up. It is like watching a slow motion train wreck.
edit on 24-5-2011 by Frater210 because: Freakin' Carnicom



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frater210
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Thank you, Uncinus. You are one of the folks that directly helped me over there. Between you and I, friend; do you really think I did not notice them? After years in the Military and just being a natural sky watcher?


I'm sure you noticed them, but they were less frequent, you did not pay them much attention, and you just did not remember them.

I'm sure I've noticed spots of gum on the sidewalk during the 1990's. But I don't remember seeing any. Now I look for them I see them everywhere.



Could it be the other way around? That all of you CS guys and debunkers did not think to look up in the sky until we started making a rukus and then you noticed the phenomenon and set out to debunk it? Could it possibly be the other way around? Is it now going to come down to who is more qualified to look at the sky?


I think all the meteorologists, pilots, sailors, and atmospheric scientists are vastly more qualified than either of us. They seem not to have noticed. There must be millions of them worldwide. What gives?



Also, wouldn't any material that came out of the back of a plane that was able to stay airborne and persist be subject to the same physics and mechanics that clouds are?


Yes. I'm not sure what you are getting at there. But consider clouds form at many different levels, and of different types. Contrails are basically high altitude cirrus clouds.



There was a period during the seventies when there were a lot of trails in the sky (I think some 'chemtrailers' have even 'discovered' that the govt. was doing tests of some kind then) I was about 5 or 6 and would always point them out to my parents. They told me they were the 'sky-writers'.

I guess you will just have to take it as anecdotal but if the 'grid networks' and such had been present pre-'97 I am sure I would have noticed it.

So you saw long trails? Only the grids are new to you?



You yourself told me on CS, Uncinus, that there is exponentially greater air traffic over the last decade then ever before. I believe you and left CS with the impression that it really is due to much greater air traffic and the resulting pollution. Did I get that wrong?

There's certainly a lot more traffic. More routes too. The more traffic accounts for more trails. The more routes would account for some new grids where there were no grids before. I wrote a post about the increase in the number of routes:

contrailscience.com...



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 






I'm sure you noticed them, but they were less frequent, you did not pay them much attention, and you just did not remember them.


Ok, Mesmer. What are you trying to do? Hypnotize me?

Yes. I paid attention to everything in the sky. That is what I am telling you. I did not forget them. I can still remember standing on the playground watching the jets make them.



I'm sure I've noticed spots of gum on the sidewalk during the 1990's. But I don't remember seeing any. Now I look for them I see them everywhere.


I actually do have very specific memories of 2 or 3 phenomenal 'gum-lodes' discovered under desks and that sort of thing.



I think all the meteorologists, pilots, sailors, and atmospheric scientists are vastly more qualified than either of us. They seem not to have noticed. There must be millions of them worldwide. What gives?


OK. Stalemate. And yeah, what gives?



Yes. I'm not sure what you are getting at there. But consider clouds form at many different levels, and of different types. Contrails are basically high altitude cirrus clouds.


What I am getting at is that if it is an intentional cocktail of chemicals that is being aerosolized and sprayed, and the whole system is designed to produce them in such a quality that they would remain airborne and persist, would they not be subject to the same physics and mechanics as clouds and water vapor?

You say yes. So just because the stuff behaves like clouds, POC or water vapor does not mean that they are.



So you saw long trails? Only the grids are new to you?

Yes. I vividly remember the long trails from when I was a child in the seventies.
No, the persistent greasy trails that obliterate the sky are (new).



There's certainly a lot more traffic. More routes too. The more traffic accounts for more trails. The more routes would account for some new grids where there were no grids before. I wrote a post about the increase in the number of routes: contrailscience.com...


This was an awesome post, Uncinus. This is what makes Contrail Science a great site.

Thanks again.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   


Yes. I vividly remember the long trails from when I was a child in the seventies.
No, the persistent greasy trails that obliterate the sky are (new).



Then why has contrail persistence between studied for decades?

greasy trails? and how did you determine they were made of grease? Thats yet another new ingredient, in addition to viruses, funguses, bacterial, chemgoo, strontium, aluminum barium, etc.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frater210


I think all the meteorologists, pilots, sailors, and atmospheric scientists are vastly more qualified than either of us. They seem not to have noticed. There must be millions of them worldwide. What gives?


OK. Stalemate. And yeah, what gives?


I'd not sure I'd class you having noticed something that somehow eluded the entire meteorological profession as a "stalemate". More like "you being convinced something changed in 1997 in the face of irrefutable evidence that it did not."




What I am getting at is that if it is an intentional cocktail of chemicals that is being aerosolized and sprayed, and the whole system is designed to produce them in such a quality that they would remain airborne and persist, would they not be subject to the same physics and mechanics as clouds and water vapor?


If they were water, then yes. If they were powder, or something like jet fuel, then no. They would look different. Powder would not sublime. Non-water chemicals would behave different to water. SPecifically they would freeze different. Here's a plane dumping fuel. It does not look like a contrail or a cloud.




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


You don't need to add grease to your list (do you post that on your fridge?).

I was just drawing an analogy. Freely admitted.







top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join