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.

 

Chemtrails empirical data tracker - temperature comparisons

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Here are a few pics I took today: first two at 9:00 am, third at 9:20, fourth at 11:45 am.
in Santa Clara, CA looking Southeast toward Lick Observatory. I'm 40 or so miles South of San Francisco, btw

snip pics

(THREE HOURS LATER the very same haze is there... do you really think water vapor behaves that way?)


Just for the obligatory pedantry - water vapour is invisible - the visible moisture your see it is small droplets of water or ice crystals.


Taking it as read that you are seeing moisture or ice particles and not vapour......clouds can certainly hang around for more than 3 hours - I'm sure you have seen them do so - so why not??




posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


the day, ALL DAY, has been entirely pure blue skies except the criss-cross lines 5-10 miles apart, which then turn into haze and remain the only "clouds" in the sky. Watched plenty of planes at varied altitudes and most didn't leave any contrail at all.

I'm not gonna spend much time on defending this... if one plane in the air lays out a contrail and it dissipates in 3-5 minutes, and another plane near it lays out a trail that lasts for 3+ hours there is something going on there.

On the other hand this is just a curiosity for me... I;m well aware that most people in the general public don't give a crap about things like chemtrails or even obvious things why Building 7 fell on it's own on 9/11... people don't care, so it's hardly worth my time getting all passionate about something like this because I can't change anything alone. But... if I see an easy way to collect data that may be useful in the future I'll do it.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 




I'm not gonna spend much time on defending this... if one plane in the air lays out a contrail and it dissipates in 3-5 minutes, and another plane near it lays out a trail that lasts for 3+ hours there is something going on there.

Yes. What is going on is that they are flying at different altitudes, but even a horizontal separation can make the difference between contrails persisting or not, particularly near a coastal environment.

BTW, I was watching Flightaware and the webcam. It was pretty easy to see which flights were creating the contrails.

edit on 9/28/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 





p.s. I choose to believe in chemtrails due to the experiences I saw first-hand. If you choose not to believe in them please consider moving on and leave this for people who want to collect and share data,


I'm located just 20 minutes North/East of San Francisco. I've also seen the planes that leave these trails. I spent the better part of 2 or 3 months playing chemtrail/contrail ping-pong with these debunkers.

Some of these guys have been at it on ATS for at least the past 3 years or more trying to debunk, derail and interfere with any discussion about chemtrails. My personal observations by looking at their profiles and posting patterns. Search past chemtrail threads and you will see the pattern.

I made a similar request in a thread awhile back here..

Chemtrail Debunkers

Just want you to know what you're dealing with..
DEBUNK THIS


The thread I first commented on chemtrails in
dplum's thread that helped create this new forum

A good ATS chemtrail thread from 2009
Chemtrails: US Patent #5003186

Keep looking up


S&F OP



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


All this to and fro and still no proper samples of chemtrails.

Why not?

Why aren't you guys getting the evidence needed to blow this wide open?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 

Hey Thermo ..... So I kind of spoke to soon yesterday. It had been nice weather all week with no Chemtrails but about halfway through the day (27th) they started to spray and kept it up till evening.

Coincidentally yesterday was the last day before a High Pressure system moves in. Not that this is new ..... I have noticed they will spray heavy a day before a High or Low pressure system.

Here is a shot of our local weather and the forecast. Of course.... this is all just information to be looked at objectively.... and can make conclusions later (maybe years) on down the road.

][/url]
edit on 28-9-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



grrrr .... mods ... I couldn't get this link for this pic to work in the "Use in a Post" option
edit on 28-9-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


you may be right, but I'm not convinced yet. The behavior of the trails just seems too different to make sense and I don't recall ever seeing this in my whole life until a few years ago (and I'm 43). I do appreciate your open matter-of-fact statements rather than condescending insults


Until we know for sure I'll keep watching, snapping a few pictures and getting more into atmospheric science.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

I'm not gonna spend much time on defending this... if one plane in the air lays out a contrail and it dissipates in 3-5 minutes, and another plane near it lays out a trail that lasts for 3+ hours there is something going on there.


You might find this report interesting then - The effect of propulsive efficiency on contrail formation

This photo is from it:



On the right is a Boeing 707 with old technology engines, on the left an airbus A340 with much newer technology engines - they are flying at hte same altitude, and 1 is producing contrails the otehr none at all.

Also consider clouds - clouds often come in layers - and just a few feet outside the layer the conditions are not suitable for clouds, so none form - you can be totally inside cloud at some point, and 100 feet away conditions are such that you are totally outside cloud.

Both of these illustrate that it takes very little change to massively affect the formation of contrails.

You really do not know what altitude a/c are at without some help (eg flight aware, a rangefinder, etc), nor what atmospheric conditions are "up there" unless you have a radiosonde in that bit of air at the time.

It is entirely possible that a/c can be flying at the same altitude and have different contrail formation simply due to their engines.

It is also entirely possible that they could be seperated by 1000 ft altitude and have entirely different contrail formation.
edit on 28-9-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: my usual crappy typing



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 

Coincidentally yesterday was the last day before a High Pressure system moves in. Not that this is new ..... I have noticed they will spray heavy a day before a High or Low pressure system.


contrails often form in conditions that favour cirrus cloud formation, and cirrus clouds are well known to precede fronts (google search result) - it is "old lore" that is used by boaties & other outdoors types for a long time & in the 19th century were used to predict hurricanes



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Temperature data:
27 Sep - 79 high, 56 low
28 Sep - 83 high, 58 low
29 Sep - 85 high, 59 low
30 Sep - 85 high, 58 low

I'll post in the next few days if the temperature does go significantly higher than expected.



So it turned out to be 94 today!! The day after all the alleged chemtrail spraying... 11 degrees higher than expected even though (according to Phage) a cold front is moving in.



That's pretty significant error percentage...



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Why is it significant? It is obvious what the % is - that's just math - but what is it that makes it significant?

Significant means that the amount has a meaning - I think you think it is significant becasue you see it as establishing a case that the contrails somehow resulted in a higher temperature - is that right?

The forecast you posted was, IIRC, from 2 days previous - is there any data about how accurate you should expect temperature forecasts for 2 days ahead? Is ther any data about the accuracy of temperatureforecasts at all in fact?

I have no doubt that these things are happening - you did get higher than expected temperatures, and contrails - however it is a common mistake to assume that 2 things happenign at the same time are necessarily related - correlation does not imply causation



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 



contrails often form in conditions that favour cirrus cloud formation, and cirrus clouds are well known to precede fronts (google search result) - it is "old lore" that is used by boaties & other outdoors types for a long time & in the 19th century were used to predict hurricanes


Riiiigghhhhtttttt ......but I was talking about Chemtrails ....silly.

You know.... the ones that clearly happen on purpose. Perhaps you don't... it is possible "they" don't spray in your geographical region.

I never said clouds were forming..... there have been no clouds for at least a week and we have a few more days of of blue sky's.

You continue to prove your lack of understanding simply by refusing to accept basic truths. ......most likely because you haven't seen it with your own eyes.

You base all your knowledge off of words written on the internet ... half of which are most certainly false.

So please, next time I reply to someone other than you about seeing Chemtrails..... try and reject the urge to post your tid bits of internet facts about Contrails.

I'm really not concerned with a little contrail going by.....
I refer to the days when several planes appear in the sky at the same time leaving large trails in a matter of short time. These planes are clearly NOT commercial and do not appear in some internet software program tracking flight paths.




posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


The forecasts I posted were from the date and time of the respective post. Yesterday, when all the chemtrails were sprayed the forecast for today, 28Sep11, was 83, but it turned out to be 94 (as indicated by today's temperature reading).

You're right about "significant" though... how do we determine significant, standard deviation, etc for a weather prediction? so I'll yield on that one
In my opinion however, if you're expecting mid to low eighties and get 94 that's "way off". This is really just gathering data because I noticed a trend; the trend came true again and I'll keep watching.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 



contrails often form in conditions that favour cirrus cloud formation, and cirrus clouds are well known to precede fronts (google search result) - it is "old lore" that is used by boaties & other outdoors types for a long time & in the 19th century were used to predict hurricanes


Riiiigghhhhtttttt ......but I was talking about Chemtrails ....silly.


Yes of course you were...I was just pointing ou the obvious - that you need to be able to present some evidence that suppoerts your contention that some things that look like contrails are not actually contrails.


You know.... the ones that clearly happen on purpose. Perhaps you don't... it is possible "they" don't spray in your geographical region.


Sure "they" do - I have yet to see anyone actually post any evidence of "spraying on purpose" tho - you say they do - but your word is hardly evidence.

I've seen the stuff on Carnicon, rense, on here....all sorts of stuff all over the place -tests of Mt Shasta, What in hte World are they Spraying, etc., etc.

And not 1 single bit of actual evidene that:

1/ any white trail that looks liek a contrail is anything othe than a contrail
2/ anything is being done deliberately by civil airliners....other than carrying people & freight in an attempt to make money


I never said clouds were forming..... there have been no clouds for at least a week and we have a few more days of of blue sky's.


I never said you did say clouds are forming.

But you said "chemtrails" are often seen jsut before a front moves in - not jsut in this case - and I was pointing out reasons why contrails are often seen just before fronts come in - because often the conditions jsut ahead of fronts are conducive to them, and this is often indicated by the presence of cirrus cloud.

It's not always the case, but it is common enough to have been used as an indicator of incoming weather for 100 years or more.



You continue to prove your lack of understanding simply by refusing to accept basic truths. ......most likely because you haven't seen it with your own eyes.


I have certainly seen lots of contrails - I have yet to see any "basic truth" that identifies tham as anythign other than contrails.

I've sen lots of people talking about deliberate spraying, etc like you do - but none of them offer any credible evidence to back up their claims.


You base all your knowledge off of words written on the internet ... half of which are most certainly false.


More than half I'd say.

so it takes a bit of thinking to look at information and actually evaluate its credibility - is it supported elsewhere, is it suported by what I know from sources othe than the 'net, is it supported by a wealth of published science from all around the world?

Or is it some guy telling me it must be true because it must be true?


I refer to the days when several planes appear in the sky at the same time leaving large trails in a matter of short time. These planes are clearly NOT commercial and do not appear in some internet software program tracking flight paths.


What is it about them that makes them "clearly NOT commercial"?

And how about soem evidence that they do not show up in any flight info site?

As I pointed out elsewhere, other chemtrail believers ARE identifying aircraft that ARE commercial and ARE visible on flight tracking sites - eg here


edit on 28-9-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


I like the way you are going about this. And I don't believe in chemtrails, but I do believe in science. If you keep data from each day and take some pictures, that would help. Only using data from aircraft you can identify would be a good idea too. That way you are using verifiable data.

And for the record, the debunkers seem to be respectful of the OP's position from my perspective. If everyone keeps an open mind, there is a small chance that something can be learned. Or the whiners can turn this into yet another slagfest. I prefer polite discussion.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
just another thought...

If enough people did this, and chemtrails happen to be sprayed on purpose in a certain area, it could define that area and ascertain if the temperature rise was JUST for that small area, just downwind, or regional.

for example, if I see chemtrails in Santa Clara but 50 miles North they don't get sprayed, what will the resultant temperature increase be.

(for the record I'm just brainstorming on making a scientific analysis/experiment, not making statements that such things are true)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
If enough people did this, and chemtrails happen to be sprayed on purpose in a certain area, it could define that area and ascertain if the temperature rise was JUST for that small area, just downwind, or regional.



You might find the programme linked to in this thread of interest - not specifically about temperature, but certainly about observation...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein


(for the record I'm just brainstorming on making a scientific analysis/experiment, not making statements that such things are true)


That is good news.
Brainstorming is welcome, as that is what makes an idea progress.
As long as such ideas eventually fit within known scientific principles.
When the idea falls outside of known principles, then even MORE evidence is required to gain acceptance to such a claim or idea.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Thanks, I appreciate it



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


These numbers were in your Opening Post, and then repeated in the post I am now "replying" to:


Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Temperature data:
27 Sep - 79 high, 56 low
28 Sep - 83 high, 58 low
29 Sep - 85 high, 59 low
30 Sep - 85 high, 58 low

I'll post in the next few days if the temperature does go significantly higher than expected.


I haven't yet seen anyone mention......the temperatures, there, are meaningless when discussing contrail formation conditions. Because, those are at the surface.

I also noticed a comment that "water vapor doesn't behave like that"....and, it was later correctly pointed out that water vapor is invisible to the Human eye.

Further, I noted in another thread the comment that (paraphrasing) "ice crystals wouldn't spread out and stay there for ours because they would melt".

I see a pattern here of misconceptions. Firstly, the use of surface temperatures is pointless, not sure why it is thought to be relevant. Secondly, at the altitudes where contrails (and cirrus clouds, which are virtually the same thing) are formed it is always, and I mean always well below the freezing point of water. We are talking -30°C to -60°C (or colder) depending on latitude and season.

Is a link necessary to illustrate these facts? Well, here is one, just in case:

apollo.lsc.vsc.edu...


One more, just because it's free:

The video is inside the cockpit of a Boeing 757 at 39,000 feet. You can see the TAT (Total Air Temperature) displayed on the Upper EICAS screen at time 0:07. It is -35°C. That is showing the effects of "ram rise", due to the airspeed,and friction with the air. There is a complicated formula to convert TAT to SAT (Static Air Temperature), but you have to convert the temps to units of Kelvin first, do the math, then convert back. (The onboard Air Data Computer does this for us, and is displayed elsewhere when called up on the correct menu screen). The ram rise is based on the Mach number, which in this case you can read it at about 0:17 --- M 0.793.

Formula for anyone who likes math: TAT(K)/(1+0.2m^2)=SAT(K)

Where (in Kelvin) TAT is divided by the quantity of (1, plus the square of the Mach times 0.2). That gives you SAT, in Kelvin. (0°C = 273°K).

But, a "rule of thumb" estimate that works is to take 10% of your Indicated Airspeed (245 knots, from video) and apply that figure as the amount ram increase. So, -35°C (TAT) - about 25 = -60°C (SAT). Roughly. (Probably would work out to -55° to -57°, in real life, because of built-in variances in the equipment).





edit on Sun 16 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join