Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

chemtrails over Florida 01-01-2012

page: 11
30
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by onecraftydude
 


Well, you can add my opinion to the list of things you have wrong. And don't ever presume to tell me whether I can post or not, it ain't your place,




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by onecraftydude
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


See my rebuttal to defcon for your answer.

BTW, did you copy and paste his answers?


Seems unlikely - since the replies are not actually cut and paste copies of each other. If you think they are then I think you have identified your problem - very poor reading skills!!


However I think you are just trying a little ad hominem attack...and made yourself look silly.

Your answers to Defcon fail to address factual information - so since you send me to them I presume you actually have no factual or verifiable information at all - you are just repeating hearsay - like all the chemtrail arguments for the last 15 or however many years.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by onecraftydude
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


See my rebuttal to defcon for your answer.

BTW, did you copy and paste his answers?


Seems unlikely - since the replies are not actually cut and paste copies of each other. If you think they are then I think you have identified your problem - very poor reading skills!!


However I think you are just trying a little ad hominem attack...and made yourself look silly.

Your answers to Defcon fail to address factual information - so since you send me to them I presume you actually have no factual or verifiable information at all - you are just repeating hearsay - like all the chemtrail arguments for the last 15 or however many years.


I suggest you read what I wrote. I addressed each part individually. What "Facts" did you need to know about me driving a car or buying food at the grocery store?

I guess showing a video of sky turds is hearsay? I would get some "Factual" samples of the exhaust if I could, but I have not spent enough time worrying about that yet. Either way you are on one side of an argument and will not listen to anyone you think is on the other side.

For me this topic is not as simple as agreeing with one side or the other. I am trying to stay neutral here, but I am being pushed by contrail supporters to defend myself. To me that seems like an attack. Either way I am just sick of sky turds. I don't care what they are other than what I need to know to get rid of them.

So please feel free to attack my manhood or whatever else you need to do to make yourself look important and I will continue to say I hate sky turds and want them out of the sky in my general vicinity.











posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by onecraftydude
 


You're in Florida, correct?

As I suggested, a year-long diary of observations eliminate the natural Human memory bias, when it comes to a person's "pet peeves" on any annoyance.

But, barring that Herculean effort, why not just look at what others have already compiled, at in general, for the State of Florida?:

Days of Sunshine Per Year in Florida (average)

Here, someone compiled a number of U.S. cities, in descending order of days of Sun:

World Facts and Figures


Here's another version, with one column showing the many decades (one instance over a hundred years) of data sets to compile the results --- but only through 2004:

RANKING OF CITIES BASED ON % ANNUAL POSSIBLE SUNSHINE IN DESCENDING ORDER


Also, when you think about it, contrails are long and thin....hardly seems likely they'd have such a deleterious effect on Solar PV panels..........



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by onecraftydude
 


You're in Florida, correct?

As I suggested, a year-long diary of observations eliminate the natural Human memory bias, when it comes to a person's "pet peeves" on any annoyance.

But, barring that Herculean effort, why not just look at what others have already compiled, at in general, for the State of Florida?:

Days of Sunshine Per Year in Florida (average)

Here, someone compiled a number of U.S. cities, in descending order of days of Sun:

World Facts and Figures


Here's another version, with one column showing the many decades (one instance over a hundred years) of data sets to compile the results --- but only through 2004:

RANKING OF CITIES BASED ON % ANNUAL POSSIBLE SUNSHINE IN DESCENDING ORDER


Also, when you think about it, contrails are long and thin....hardly seems likely they'd have such a deleterious effect on Solar PV panels..........



I only know what I have observed and what others have posted as evidence as far as detrimental effects of sky turds on solar panels. I really don't see what the number of days of sunshine have to do with contrails. If the sky was clear before an airplane left a sky turd that won't go away then statistics about the number of days of sunshine are irrelevant.

This is a simple argument: Airplanes leave sky turds and they are detrimental to solar power output. That statement cannot be denied and in my solar testing video I showed some of the effects of the sky turds on my panel power output. I noticed after making the video just how much the panels were losing as the clouds formed fully. This was 100% sky turd clouds which are not normal and directly traceable to the airplanes flying overhead. That has nothing to do with normal cloud formation or natural occurrences and is 100% man-made. That means since we made them we can get rid of them and that is my argument in a nutshell.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by onecraftydude
That has nothing to do with normal cloud formation or natural occurrences and is 100% man-made. That means since we made them we can get rid of them and that is my argument in a nutshell.


That would mean the end of commercial and military aviation. Even if you believe in chemtrails, planes made persistent contrails long before the chemtrail conspiracy came about. Take a look at these photos.

contrailscience.com...

There's pictures of gasoline radial engine powered squadrons of WWII bombers producing persistent contrails for cripes sake. Were they adding barium and aluminum to the gasoline back then in an attempt to geoengineer the Earth's atmosphere? I doubt it, because they were to busy fighting the Germans.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by onecraftydude
 


Sigh....

When contrails tend to persist, on those certain days, then you were STILL going to get clouds of high cirrus developing anyway.

It is weather.

Your impression of "cause and effect" is way off base, and terribly skewed. Since of course, the vast majority of contrails (when they form) are not persistent. There are, for any given airliner in the air, far FEWER contrails made, per flight, at all. As mentioned, people just do not remember all the clear days, when they see no contrails....they focus their futile anger at the memories of days with contrails.

And, the same air traffic is up there, day after day....NOT making contrails.

People also don't seem to understand the winds at high altitudes, how they vary in direction and velocity, day after day....even hour-by-hour. And, too often, if you aren't aware of that, and of approaching weather fronts from hundreds of miles away (a look at extensive weather maps would be "illuminating" and educational), then they wrongly continue to attribute the contrails they did see that got made, and persisted.....not realizing that very normal and natural cloud cover was going to move in anyway.....

edit on Thu 5 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by onecraftydude
But it was never my intention to debate the exhaust gasses.

Then you’ve lost me because I thought you were complaining about the pollution that comes from jet engines and claiming it was more then just water vapor. You are technically correct, jets also have the same emissions that all fossil fuel burning does. However, they have nothing to do with the vapor trail of water that is left behind from the burning process.

The point is though that there is nothing more sinister about contrails then there is about running your car engine. If you hoisted your car up to those altitudes it would probably leave trails behind it as well. As a matter of fact, down in Antarctica you can see aircraft leave persistent contrails on the ground.





Originally posted by onecraftydude
Then why not say that instead of what you said? If you claim to be accurate and intelligent being a debunker then at least be accurate?

If your worried about the soot, then you better avoid the rain/snow:

physics.aps.org...
Raindrops begin forming when water vapor condenses on micrometer-sized particles of dust floating in the atmosphere. The dust particles grow to millimeter-sized droplets, which are heavy enough to begin falling. As they fall, the droplets accumulate more and more moisture, until they become the large raindrops that we see here on the ground.

that’s all soot really is after all. It’s minute particles of dust, ash, and byproducts of burning all fossil fuels. You get a lot more soot in the atmosphere from the number of cars and factories running in this country then you do from aircraft.

en.wikipedia.org...
Soot is a general term that refers to impure carbon particles resulting from the incomplete combustion of a hydrocarbon. It is more properly restricted to the product of the gas-phase combustion process but is commonly extended to include the residual pyrolyzed fuel particles such as cenospheres, charred wood, petroleum coke, and so on, that may become airborne during pyrolysis and that are more properly identified as cokes or chars.

I think you do need to clarify what your claiming though because your swinging back and forth between talking about normal pollution and chemtrails, and seem to be trying to relate the two together. The two are not related, and have nothing to do with each other outside of the vapor trails being a normal byproduct of burning fossil fuels in a cold, humid, environment.

On a side note, it’s nice that you lead such a “green” life, and I personally wish I had the money and space to do all that myself.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

The point is though that there is nothing more sinister about contrails then there is about running your car engine. If you hoisted your car up to those altitudes it would probably leave trails behind it as well. As a matter of fact, down in Antarctica you can see aircraft leave persistent contrails on the ground.



Good example - because in this video you can see contrails from both an aircraft AND a truck, side by side, at about 5 minutes IIRC -

edit on 6-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


…And that puts the final nail in the coffin of this whole theory.




“Hey Harry what’s that in the sky?”
“Looks like the end of the chemtrail debate to me…”



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Ok debunkers, you have lambasted me into agreeing that airplanes leave trails behind them in cold moist air. I will assume that every time I see a contrail persist it is cold and moist in the air even if we are under a huge high pressure system, whatever. I refuse to argue about it anymore.

I still want the trails gone in my airspace. There must be a way to do it. I can think of one right now that would solve this problem and it involves rerouting traffic. You will disagree with this idea because it will inconvenience you or the airlines. I understand that since I am inconvenienced by THEM all the time.

Nothing to see here, move along now.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drew99GT

Originally posted by onecraftydude
That has nothing to do with normal cloud formation or natural occurrences and is 100% man-made. That means since we made them we can get rid of them and that is my argument in a nutshell.


That would mean the end of commercial and military aviation. Even if you believe in chemtrails, planes made persistent contrails long before the chemtrail conspiracy came about. Take a look at these photos.

contrailscience.com...

There's pictures of gasoline radial engine powered squadrons of WWII bombers producing persistent contrails for cripes sake. Were they adding barium and aluminum to the gasoline back then in an attempt to geoengineer the Earth's atmosphere? I doubt it, because they were to busy fighting the Germans.



Take a chill pill Drew, I never said stop all airplanes. I said reroute them to areas such as your house or some of the other people who like them. I suppose you would appreciate the pretty patterns and the extra shade from them, more power to you.

I feel like you debunkers are stuck back in the 40's. You think that airplane engines will always do what they are now because you have no vision. How do you think technology takes a leap? Do you think it happens when people defend the status quo for no better reason than "It has always been this way"? You are part of the problem even if you are well meaning because you prevent anything new from being implemented.

I am identifying a problem and showing REAL results from the formation of clouds that are directly traceable to airplanes and the argument is that they have always been that way so it is fine, move along. Can you see how that attitude can prevent moving forward with answers and innovation? Probably not.

So in the big picture you 40's types may defend the status quo and make everuy attempt to make anyone not fitting into your idea of reality look like a fool because that makes you feel better about yourself supporting something you know to be bad, but have no idea how to get rid of it.

You won't admit that the problem is too big to wrap your mind around so you cling to what you know "It's always been this way". That is not a solution.

A good example of what I am talking about is seen in computer engineering. Back in the 70's people were amazed at a dot that could be controlled on the screen with a handheld joystick. Then they were amazed when there was an operating system that allowed a user to move from one computer to another and operate it the same way. Leaps and bounds were made through innovation and vision by people who were driven to find solutions to problems.

I am simply identifying a problem and challenging others to find solutions to it. That may be a different engine design or different fuel or even a different airframe. I will leave that up to the people who want to take on this task and have the background to make improvements in designs.

I predict that one day we will travel without leaving a trail. There will be a huge fight leading up to this in which the supporters of the status quo will defend their position tirelessly for no better reason than "It has always been this way". Those who eventually prevail and are responsible for changing the status quo will be despised by industry at first and then celebrated as geniuses after about 20 years. Think of Tesla. People hate change.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by onecraftydude
 


Well you could move to someplace that's not under a flight path...difficult if you're in Europe or USA.

Planes could fly lower to drop into air that is not conducive to contrails forming but this will decrease fuel efficiency and will make flying more expensive as the airliners will pass on the extra cost to the customer.

Or get used to it, if you're concerned about pollution, jet exhaust isn't a concern compared to all of the exhaust and smog created on ground level.

If it makes you feel better, I don't live under a flight path and the sky is beautiful here!

Damn tourists this time of year are a pain in the butt though!



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by onecraftydude
 


Don't fall for it . If Dan Akroyd knew his pic was being used as an avatar for someone who won't admit that something is being released other then moisture intentionally from the back of planes?

He would ban them from ever being allowed to buy his Crystal Skull Brand Vodka. I'm not promoting the brand.

I'll see if I can contact him about his position about Geoengineering and chemtrails before he bans someone from buying his vodka.

Cheers! In other words... Don't take the argument too seriously. I got bunched up about 2 years ago.

They exist. Move on. Or, have fun like naysayers.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by onecraftydude
 


Planes could fly lower to drop into air that is not conducive to contrails forming but this will decrease fuel efficiency and will make flying more expensive as the airliners will pass on the extra cost to the customer.

Or get used to it, if you're concerned about pollution, jet exhaust isn't a concern compared to all of the exhaust and smog created on ground level.


And of course it needs to be remembered that flying lower means more fuel is burned, means more pollution, means more H2O in the atmosphere and I can't help but wonder if that would mean more "natural" cirrus cloud??



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by onecraftydude


I feel like you debunkers are stuck back in the 40's. You think that airplane engines will always do what they are now because you have no vision. How do you think technology takes a leap? Do you think it happens when people defend the status quo for no better reason than "It has always been this way"? You are part of the problem even if you are well meaning because you prevent anything new from being implemented.


Absolute drivel. It is actually the MORE efficient engines around now that are part of the problem - they generate MORE contrails than the old engines of 30 or more years ago.

And here seems little reason to expect that trend will change AFAIK.


I am identifying a problem and showing REAL results from the formation of clouds that are directly traceable to airplanes and the argument is that they have always been that way so it is fine, move along. Can you see how that attitude can prevent moving forward with answers and innovation? Probably not.


No hte argument is NOT that they have "always been that way"


The argument is that we know what causes it, and it isn't some no-evidence crackpot series of looney conspiracy theories that even the believers can't agree a single position on!



A good example of what I am talking about is seen in computer engineering. Back in the 70's people were amazed at a dot that could be controlled on the screen with a handheld joystick. Then they were amazed when there was an operating system that allowed a user to move from one computer to another and operate it the same way. Leaps and bounds were made through innovation and vision by people who were driven to find solutions to problems.


A typically inane analogy - contrails are not computers - they are not subject to inventing new code to make them vastly different to what they were 30 years ago.


I am simply identifying a problem and challenging others to find solutions to it. That may be a different engine design or different fuel or even a different airframe. I will leave that up to the people who want to take on this task and have the background to make improvements in designs.


You think that in the multi-billoin dollar world of aircraft design, manufacture and operation that no-on is doing this already?


I predict that one day we will travel without leaving a trail.


Yeah - when we invent teleportation perhaps



There will be a huge fight leading up to this in which the supporters of the status quo will defend their position tirelessly for no better reason than "It has always been this way".


What a load of carp!

I would be delighted to have pollution-free travel - but I'm not expecting it to be created out of fairy dust and magic like you, and I understand that fossil fuels are going to remain the only method of providing the energy density to fly aircraft for a long time yet.

I'd be delighted to be proved wrong - I love new technology - but it'll take more than baseless assertion and supposition to make it happen.

edit on 7-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: get quotes right



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
If anything, as engine technology advances we are more likely to see more trails, rather than less.

It should be noted that trails were smaller and less obvious when older, less efficient types of engine were more prevalent on all aircraft.

The worlds first bypass turbofan engine in service was the Rolls Royce Conway which powered several types of transport and even a strategic bomber, and is still used to power the VC-10, retired as an airliner in the 1980's and currently being retired from the tanker role by the RAF. with its bypass ratio of 0.25:1 it can be seen that far less air was routed around the engine than passed through it. it's direct replacement in the tanker role with the RAF is the Airbus Voyager, a type in very widespread commercial service as the A330. This aircraft is powered by the R-R Trent, which has a bypass ratio of 8.7:1.

That ratio is proportional to the engine size so when you also factor in that the Conway had a thrust of 17,000lb while the Trent produces 72,000lb, you can see that's a vastly bigger amount of air, containing moisture naturally already, before combustion of fuel within the engine adds to it.

This vast mass of air is then subject to massive pressure change and sudden temperature drop as it exits the back of the engine. This causes a visible trail of condensation that quickly freezes into ice crystals to be left that may or may not persist according to the RH level at a given point. It's not technology, it's physics.

In the most recent round of talks between the airlines, when the airlines dictate what improvements will tempt them to replace their current fleets, the engine manufacturers and the airframers, a worthwhile improvement in engine efficiency is promised for service around 2015 and so Airbus and Boeing are hoping to reap that benefit with their latest A320 and 737 models. Will that bring a further increase in visible trails?

The idea of applying technology to stop trails is looking at it backwards.

edit on 7-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by niceguybob
 


??????


If Dan Akroyd knew his pic was being used as an avatar for someone who won't admit that something is being released other then moisture intentionally from the back of planes?





oh.....rolling on the floor this is the funniest stuff I've seen in a while!!

OK.....(sigh).....going to rent another movie, need another comedy......I can't stop laughing......




any....
suggestions???
edit on Sat 7 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I woke up to a nice string of chemtrails this morning in Keizer, OR. The sky was littered with them. I was taking my kid to school and was like, "Look mommy, x marks the spot." Grrrr. Here is one of the pics I took. I couldn't get the other images to load, but there were three x's total.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bottlenoze
 


Those are perfectly normal CONtrails.

NO different from cirrus clouds in composition. This is an opportunity to teach your child the facts and science, not the myth and hoax of so-called "chemtrails".





new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join