Textbook Disinformation: “Weather Studies”

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


You never answered my question.

Are you seriously saying that


Jet engines do not produce condensation trails except under extremely rare conditions, and these will be too short and too high to be seen from the group. In fact, most people will never see a true condensation trail in their entire lives


Yes or no?




posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 





You never answered my question.


I don't know if I want to see that answer...


On the other hand I am intrigued as to what that answer will be....



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Here's a soundings map of the USA - you can check the atmospheric soundings taken at hundreds of stations all around the world back several years and see what sort of humidity and temperature figures there can be at altitude.

The information is presented in a tabular format - here's some for today from "MAF Midland "
Altitude(m) Rel Humid (%)
338.0 8778 -29.5 -33.3 70 0.69 241 23 332.2 334.8 332.3
335.1 8839 -30.0 -33.3 73 0.69 235 24 332.3 334.9 332.4
330.0 8949 -30.9 -33.3 79 0.70 239 24 332.5 335.2 332.7
321.0 9144 -32.2 -34.9 77 0.62 245 25 333.3 335.7 333.4
305.0 9505 -34.7 -37.8 73 0.49 253 27 334.8 336.7 334.9
300.0 9620 -35.7 -39.4 69

I hope the columns come out - the figures 70-69 are relative humidity % and are high enough for contrail formation. the altitudes in meters are the 2nd column, temperature is the 3rd column, dewpoint the 4th, relative humidity the 5th.

Relative humidity measured here is, of course, for water. The relative humidity relative to ice is commonly higher at low temperatures and can apparently be calculated using the Goff-Gratch equations - but it's been a couple of decades since I did much math!!

However it seems that a common rule of thumb is that 67% RH equates to about 100% RHI at -40 deg C and about 75% at -30 deg C - see this paper (150kb download)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


You never answered my question.

Are you seriously saying that


Jet engines do not produce condensation trails except under extremely rare conditions, and these will be too short and too high to be seen from the group. In fact, most people will never see a true condensation trail in their entire lives


Yes or no?


I did not write the article, the person that wrote the article seems to think that statement is accurate. There are many factors to consider before I would conclude it has any accuracy. I have read the article and it draws some very specific conclusions. Are they saying that what jets produce is more of a dirty condensation trail? If so then that would be accurate, they are not 100% condensation trails.

Here is what I understand from the article........
1) They imply that jets very rarely produce condensation trails
2) They imply that 100% of the trails you see ARE IN FACT "chemical aerosols being sprayed from jets."

Those are very bold statements and although I believe "spraying" happens, I can't say with any accuracy when, where, or how often it takes place.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 





..2) They imply that 100% of the trails you see ARE IN FACT "chemical aerosols being sprayed from jets." ...


Ah, there is the rub. They cannot possibly be sprayed. I believe that many believers misunderstand how very large contrails are. When you see a 'trail from horizon to horizon, it is about 200 miles lone. Consider how often the jet is almost invisible because it is so far away, and the trail is much larger than a jet....several hundred feet. Then these can spread. So what you see as a fairly thin line is actually huge.

A single cumulus cloud, of average size, what you would see on a nice summer day has 550 tons of water in it. If you extrapolate that amount to a 200 mile cloud, or even a mile long cloud, you would need an entire fleet of tankers to spray just one. Even if only the videos and pictures posted daily are considered, there would need to be so many planes, flying so many routes, which would require so much material, and so many people to make, move, store, maintain, fuel, and fly that it could not be done.

Sometimes you don't need to know much about the actual chemistry, aviation, atmosphere, or logistics to understand why it won't work. You just need an open, critically thinking mind. Ask good questions, like "how big is a 'trail?" Or "how long is a 'trail?" Or better still, "how the heck can that much stuff come out of a single plane?" When you don't even think about what you are seeing, you will never get beyond just believing.
And by not thinking critically, you are only believing what you are told.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


Since this is your thread, I am curious. Do you believe what is being said in your OP? Do you believe that all the lines in the sky are chemtrails and contrails rarely form?

Thanks in advance for your reply.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I just answered that 2 posts up......



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


Your not sure if it's "accurate".

Did you believe it when you used it in your OP?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
reply to post by network dude
 


I just answered that 2 posts up......


Thanks, I had to re-read that a few times to understand your position. (it's still a bit fuzzy.)
I hope they won't flop on their position and say something like all contrails contain exhaust which has chemicals, therefore....... (that would be a massive cop out)

Contrails exist and are very common as they have existed since powered flight itself.

I just must be missing the point as to why you posted this. It's got to be one of the craziest claims made about chemtrails. I would think even the hardest of hard core chemtrail believers might question the logic here.

What are your thoughts as to the statement that contrails do exist and are common. Do you agree or disagree?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Objection your honor......asked and answered........object sustained ........



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 





There are many factors to consider before I would conclude it has any accuracy.


And did you consider those factors before you started this thread?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 





..2) They imply that 100% of the trails you see ARE IN FACT "chemical aerosols being sprayed from jets." ...


Ah, there is the rub. They cannot possibly be sprayed. I believe that many believers misunderstand how very large contrails are. When you see a 'trail from horizon to horizon, it is about 200 miles lone. Consider how often the jet is almost invisible because it is so far away, and the trail is much larger than a jet....several hundred feet. Then these can spread. So what you see as a fairly thin line is actually huge.

A single cumulus cloud, of average size, what you would see on a nice summer day has 550 tons of water in it. If you extrapolate that amount to a 200 mile cloud, or even a mile long cloud, you would need an entire fleet of tankers to spray just one.


For real world calculations on how much water is in a cirrus cloud induced by a contrail see this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



So for the purpose of this calculation I am going to use a "contrail induced cirrus" that is 100m thick, 1km wide and 100km long - not an unsual size for a persitent contrails - that means it is 100*1000*100,000m = 10,000,000,000 cubic metres (10 Trillion cubic metres).

At the lower figure from the 1st link of 0.02 grams per cubic metre that is 10 Trillion x 0.02 grams, and then divided by 1000 to get Kg, and 1000 again to get tonnes - a "mere" 200 tons of water!



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 





If we are all so stupid to believe in this topic at all, then why do you and others waste so much time and effort in threads like this to debunk our discussion?



Because ignorance breeds more ignorance.

If you would like to remain stupid why do you come to these threads where ridiculous claims of chem-trails are corrected by facts that are available to any person willing to go to a local library or university library, why waste your time trying to promote lies to attack the truth.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


The first contrail was produced in 1915, and the first persistent contrail in the 1920s. Contrails have been around almost as long as aviation has been. New technologies in engines mean more contrails and more persistent contrails. This combined with the sheer number of planes in the air mean people are seeing more contrails and thinking it's something new, when that is far from the reality.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Objection your honor......asked and answered........object sustained ........



What is this?

Are you serious about the matter, joking or have a lack of understanding whats known and whats claimed?

Is this thread what the title says, textbook disinformation that relies on those not willing to verify or simply don't know how to verify or just cannot believe that they have been fooled yet once again by something so nonexistent that it makes fanatical religious folk look tolerant.


Please do not take this as an attack, I am sorry for the way I have articulated this post but its frustrating at times when people who believe are asked questions and discussion proceeds to have a reply filed with implied sarcasm to hide the possibility that what the believer believes in could very well be delusional.

If something is being sprayed, I believe some here that are labeled as debunkers and agents of the Gov. to cover up any attempt to expose these chemtrails would be our best chance at actually expose something if it is occurring.

We have a few pilots and others that worked maintenance, People can go the negative path and think these posters are here for the bad, me, I see intelligence put forth in way one can soak it up and learn something new.

Or call them trolls for pointing out errors instead of saying sorry to troll the boards by posting errors, we are free to have the opinions we hold. its a pity at times.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I think I figured it out..the most truthful comment from the OP in this thread.



This is one article that is going to throw the "debunkers" into an absolute tizzy.


No disrespect to the OP, but I have to ask did you create this thread to get the reaction you allude to above?

Inquiring minds want to know...


Well maybe just mine.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


"Tizzy".........see the post above yours and others...........I don't give a flying leap what the heck any of you believe or not. If people want to discuss this article or any other in a rational matter fine. If me or anyone else happens to believe in this topic either wholly or partially that is our right and if it drives any of you into a "tizzy" too bad. I am under no obligation to answer ANY of your questions PERIOD. If you are going to ask the same question over and over you might get a sarcastic reply. Again if you don't like it too bad. The fact is ANY post placed in this forum in favor of chemtrails sends all of you into a tizzy. Again not my problem..............I do find it EXTREMELY curious how practically any post placed in this forum gets instantly and viciously attacked almost as if the intent is to dissuade ANY discussion of the topic AT ALL. That is blatantly obvious to me and I am sure others here as well.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


You appear to be contradicting yourself. You say you are not obliged to answer any questions (which of course is true) and then immediately complain that you think people are out to stifle discussion. You can't have it both ways. It is incumbent on us all to answer questions for a discussion to be had, is it not?

I asked you two perfectly reasonable questions on the previous page that you haven't responded to. So where is the discussion there? If you don't want a discussion, why post at all?
edit on 5-6-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 





"Tizzy".........see the post above yours and others...........I don't give a flying leap what the heck any of you believe or not. If people want to discuss this article or any other in a rational matter fine. If me or anyone else happens to believe in this topic either wholly or partially that is our right and if it drives any of you into a "tizzy" too bad.


Easy there big boy... A simple yes or no would had sufficed, really...




If you are going to ask the same question over and over you might get a sarcastic reply.


If you would answer a question the first time you wouldn't keep getting asked the same question now would you?

And what question exactly do I keep asking you?



I do find it EXTREMELY curious how practically any post placed in this forum gets instantly and viciously attacked almost as if the intent is to dissuade ANY discussion of the topic AT ALL. That is blatantly obvious to me and I am sure others here as well.


What did you expect with the so called info throwing us into a tizzy?

You know what I find extremely curious is the fact that people believe the crap that is on sites like geoengineeringwatch.org.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 

I do find it EXTREMELY curious how practically any post placed in this forum gets instantly and viciously attacked almost as if the intent is to dissuade ANY discussion of the topic AT ALL. That is blatantly obvious to me and I am sure others here as well.


Of course it is obvious - it is obvious because the new posts invariably say "the same old thing" - it is patently obvious that chemies are not learning anything, and therefore it is obvious that the debunking is repetitive.

if you were actually as curious about science and the atmosphere as you claim to be about patterns of posting on here then you would already know the answers and why the chemtrail hoax is a hoax.





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join