Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Rosalind Peterson: no evidence of chemtrails

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Thorazine
 





contrails often persist and spread and can cover the sky in haze of cirrus cloud...? So, how can you tell the difference


Prove it.


Okay, but I'll need a little cooperation from you first. Can you explain what your understanding is of the difference between supersaturation of air with respect to water and supersaturation of air with respect to ice. Because the proof will involve those, and we need to be on common ground.

Here's some reference:
en.wikipedia.org...

And while we are providing the evidence FOR persistent spreading contrails, perhaps you could supply the evidence AGAINST, so we can compare them, and see where the weight is.
edit on 23-7-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thorazine

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Thorazine
 





contrails often persist and spread and can cover the sky in haze of cirrus cloud...? So, how can you tell the difference




Prove it.


I trust (hope) you do not find decades of scientific research "nonsense" ??

for example- read this paper from 1972- Right the first paragraph it says:

"...and entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours.."

ciresweb.colorado.edu...

That is but one of 100s written in the last 40yrs that clearly identify and explain how contrails often persist, spread and cover the sky: have a look a wealth of information regarding this topic:

scholar.google.com...

Contrails can and often do persist, spread and cover the sky in a haze of cirrus clouds...its called "contrail cirrus"- research that term..

Is that enough proof?


Ah HA! the tactics of a shill/disinfo agent! Bringing science to a chemtrail argument! We will have none of that here good sir! The magic you call 'science" is only a smokescreen to the real issues! Why we have chemtrails, bigfeet, and that damn Loch Ness Monsta! Damn that monsta!

Just because they admit contrails can spread out, doesn't mean they have to believe it when it's not convenient. I mean, why let common sense get in the way of a perfectly good fantasy?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorazine
 





That is but one of 100s written in the last 40yrs that clearly identify and explain how contrails often persist, spread and cover the sky: have a look a wealth of information regarding this topic:


I have read the Colorado University study before but not your second link.

This is one of many papers (i doubt hundreds) that has studied contrails ..... a lot of studies done after the CU one seem to leech off of the original Colorado study.

Also.... the studies may use the word "persist" but they aren't using adjectives like "hazy" "blankets they sky" "spreads out"

Unlike a lot of posters in this forum ..... I look at both sides of what is happening.

- I don't ignore they many patents on devices that release aerosols into the atmosphere
- I don't ignore the fact that many of these patents are owned by major Defense Contractors/Airlines
- I don't ignore the real time activity in the sky on certain days
- I don't ignore people's observations just because they don't hold a degree in science
- I don't ignore where the money goes to in the Geo-Engineering industry from people like Bill Gates
- I don't ignore the methods "suggested" by geo-engineers to mitigate Solar Radiation
- Most of all .... I don't ignore my gut instinct and use of logic even though shills (not referring to you) tell me to

So, on that note... we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole "contrails spreading out covering the entire sky" thing.
edit on 23-7-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-7-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


Also.... the studies may use the word "persist" but they aren't using adjectives like "hazy" "blankets they sky" "spreads out"

Are you sure?
From 1970:

The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

journals.ametsoc.org...


I don't ignore they many patents on devices that release aerosols into the atmosphere

But you do ignore the fact that there are many patents which are never used.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Thorazine
 





That is but one of 100s written in the last 40yrs that clearly identify and explain how contrails often persist, spread and cover the sky: have a look a wealth of information regarding this topic:


I have read the Colorado University study before but not your second link.

This is one of many papers (i doubt hundreds) that has studied contrails ..... a lot of studies done after the CU one seem to leech off of the original Colorado study.

Also.... the studies may use the word "persist" but they aren't using adjectives like "hazy" "blankets they sky" "spreads out"

Unlike a lot of posters in this forum ..... I look at both sides of what is happening.

- I don't ignore they many patents on devices that release aerosols into the atmosphere
- I don't ignore the fact that many of these patents are owned by major Defense Contractors/Airlines
- I don't ignore the real time activity in the sky on certain days
- I don't ignore people's observations just because they don't hold a degree in science
- I don't ignore where the money goes to in the Geo-Engineering industry from people like Bill Gates
- I don't ignore the methods "suggested" by geo-engineers to mitigate Solar Radiation
- Most of all .... I don't ignore my gut instinct and use of logic even though shills (not referring to you) tell me to

So, on that note... we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole "contrails spreading out covering the entire sky" thing.
edit on 23-7-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-7-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)


Why do you disagree when I showed decades of research show conclusively that contrails do persist, spread and "blanket the sky"?

They aren't using words like "spreads out" ?? Did you READ the first link- they very first paragraph says this:

"It is often observed that contrails spread considerably...Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed...If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails."

"spreads considerably...a spread of kilometers is observed" is the same thing as "spreads out"

"an entire overcast" is the same thing as "blankets the sky"

...and thats just the one paper...the second link was to show that yes, 100s of papers have been written- did you actually LOOK at the link?

You are simply in denial if you do not look at the scientific and historical data proving that contrails spread and can cover the sky in a haze of cirrus cloud. Seriously - here is yet another link to 100s of papers on "contrail cirrus"

scholar.google.com...

I am not ignoring patents- it just that doesn't prove anything other than a patent exists...doesn't mean it works, or is in use or even has anything to do with "chemtrails"

Fully aware the SRM is one of a myriad of potential GE options that have been discussed over the last 30yrs. Doesn't mean a persistent contrail is evidence of its implementation.

I encourage to use you gut instinct and logic...just be fully informed. Knowing how the atmosphere works and understanding the basic physics involved in contrail formation, persistence and spreading.. will help your gut and logic figure things out.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
Unlike a lot of posters in this forum ..... I look at both sides of what is happening.

- I don't ignore they many patents on devices that release aerosols into the atmosphere
- I don't ignore the fact that many of these patents are owned by major Defense Contractors/Airlines
- I don't ignore the real time activity in the sky on certain days
- I don't ignore people's observations just because they don't hold a degree in science
- I don't ignore where the money goes to in the Geo-Engineering industry from people like Bill Gates
- I don't ignore the methods "suggested" by geo-engineers to mitigate Solar Radiation


I dont' know anyone who ignores any of those things.

However I do know that you ignore scientific evidence, historical evidence, logic, the lack of physicial evidence for "chemtails", and the fact that research and theory is not practice.


- Most of all .... I don't ignore my gut instinct and use of logic even though shills (not referring to you) tell me to


I prefer to use logic and reasonable inference to "gut instinct". Gut instinct has historically proved unreliable as an arbiter of fact vs fiction - for example most people have a "gut instinct" fear of werewolves, ghosts, alien abduction and the boogey man.

Reasonable inference tells me that nothing you have listed above amounts to any sort of proof" that something has happened to contrails since the mid-late 1990's to make them any different to what they were before then.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorazine
 





You are simply in denial if you do not look at the scientific and historical data proving that contrails spread and can cover the sky in a haze of cirrus cloud. Seriously - here is yet another link to 100s of papers on "contrail cirrus"


I'm not in denial.... I can see a lot of historical paperwork has been done on contrails..... Yeah dude ...I read through some of those papers (alot of which want you to pay $ for the entire paper) and some references are lacking and some are not ..... most of the papers are just repeating each other.

A lot are "acknowledged" and supported by the Air Force and NASA. Nothing wrong with that I suppose.

Just as I have not read every word of your stack of papers .... it appears you haven't even looked at any patents.

Some of those patents describe the process and creating a trail behind a plane and even name the chemicals used ....... which match up almost exactly with what has been seen and tested.

Yes, I will ignore the patent of some weird skateboard that was made by a 10 year old.

I will not ignore patents owned by multimillion dollar corporations that have uncanny details in them.

Also ..I'm not discounting your hundreds of papers but lets be clear ..... the scientific method was not used in any those .....except for the Colorado University one where they actually had test aircraft.

edit on 23-7-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 



Some of those patents describe the process and creating a trail behind a plane and even name the chemicals used ....... which match up almost exactly with what has been seen and tested.


Now this line is particularly interesting. I know we've both agreed and disagreed in the past but I'd be more than fascinated to see more about this, not simply the patents, of course we've seen those, but this suggests proof, or at least evidence, tying at least one of them to actual usage., especially regarding tests.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Thorazine
 





You are simply in denial if you do not look at the scientific and historical data proving that contrails spread and can cover the sky in a haze of cirrus cloud. Seriously - here is yet another link to 100s of papers on "contrail cirrus"


I'm not in denial.... I can see a lot of historical paperwork has been done on contrails..... Yeah dude ...I read through some of those papers (alot of which want you to pay $ for the entire paper) and some references are lacking and some are not ..... most of the papers are just repeating each other.

Some of those patents describe the process and creating a trail behind a plane and even name the chemicals used ....... which match up almost exactly with what has been seen and tested.



Also ..I'm not discounting your hundreds of papers but lets be clear ..... the scientific method was not used in any those .....except for the Colorado University one where they actually had test aircraft.

edit on 23-7-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)


Really- the scientific method was not used "in any of those"?

Oy.

Any chance you could point out specifically which of the 100s of papers written over the last 40yrs did not use the scientific method?

The physics of contrail formation and persistence are well known, understood and based on the results of repeated studies based on the scientific method. Observed, tested, repeated, verified, peer-reviewed studies of contrail persistence and spreading...over decades...and still you cannot seem to Believe it.

Its quite simple- if the air is dry the contrail will dissipate, if the air is humid it will persist...not that hard to understand.

Persistent, spreading contrails have been observed from the ground, from satellites, with a myriad of other sensors (LIDAR, spectrometer etc..), they have been sampled directly in the atmosphere and they have been replicated in labs...

You said the papers were not using word like 'spread" and "blanket "- I showed they were..

I can show you decades of photographs and historical accounts that match the science directly...but something tells me you would dismiss that...

Can you tell us which patent "match up almost exactly with what has been seen and tested"

oh...and what has been "tested" and what are the results?

here is a more recent paper- it studies several persistent contrails- even their falls streaks...even identifies which commercial airplanes they came from...Does this relate in any way to you what see in the sky? Does it use the scientific method? check out the pics at the end....

journals.ametsoc.org...
edit on 23-7-2012 by Thorazine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
The original video was removed - but it is still around:






new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join