Debunking the Chemtrail Debunker.

reply to post by Clearskies


Ok now I have been asked to provide SCIENTIFIC proof or research \ by Cutbothways before I "chime in" on this post....which I feel I have done but where is the scientific proof from the chemtrails people....so far I haven't seen squat from that camp other than a few balloon soundings.......which doesn't prove anything.

show me the money!!

[edit on 9-5-2008 by QBSneak000]

Perhaps, the discussion for ‘chemtrails’ belongs in a new ‘Peerless Forum’, whereby scientific proof or evidence to support these alleged aerial anomalies is not yet obtainable due to the nature of these nefarious activities. And y’all know that those ‘in the know’ are not going to come out of the woods and become ‘whistleblowers’ with their research and data just to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that contrails are not normally formed naturally out of the rear ends of certain aircrafts.

[edit on 2008-5-09 by pikypiky]

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the apparent lack of input from our dear friend weedwhacker?? is he on holiday or is there something here hes affraid of??

it is very rare for a thread like this not to attract his attenion...

Don't speak of the devil or he may appear!

This isn't a one-liner -- Look over there!!! --->

*poof*

I'll tell you what I have noticed.

No-one seems to be reading, and instead they simply seem to be reacting.

Its been stated, over and over again, that the atmosphere over any given point is fluidic in nature, and therefore locations seperated by distance may not reproduce the same conditions and that the conditions at ground level are no where near what they are at 25-30,000ft.

Its also been stated that the half an hour figure banded about is incorrect, and that NASA admitted as such.

So how about people READ whats been written, instead of just chipping in with more stuff.

Instead of simply trying to debunk and attempt to tarnish the reputations of meteorologists, someone on the "pro" chemtrail side needs to actually point us to a properly conducted, scientific analysis of the exhaust of one of these jets, showing the wind dispersal at altitude on the day it occurred, what kind of particulate it was, how long it persists in the atmosphere and where it ended up - and also how it was supposedly tracked, because NOTHING dropped at altitude comes straight down - so how can these supposed "correlations" be made?

All I'm seeing is spurious allegations and bad science from the "pro" chemtrail side.

[edit on 10/0508/08 by neformore]

reply to post by neformore


I'm seeing alot of bias from the moderator.

What your cut?

Again, here is my proof.

The combined moisture from the jet exhaust and the atmosphere will never be enough for the mixture to produce a cloud.

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

Now, prove NASA wrong.

This isn't my statement.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by cutbothways]

Originally posted by cutbothways
I'm seeing alot of bias from the moderator.

Ohh! Cheap shot.

Moderators are people (and they have opinions to)

The only difference between what you post, with your opinion, and what I post, with mine, is that it says "Moderator" under my name.

As for

What your cut?

That gets treated with the contempt it deserves.

Now then as for,

Now, prove NASA wrong.

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

However, when contrails were forecast to occur, the forecast was correct only 25 to 35 percent of the time, and often failed to predict the occurrence of contrails. Thus, the Appleman chart tends to underpredict the occurrence of contrails and to overpredict the non-occurrence of contrails. For this reason, the USAF is actively investigating better ways to compute contrail formation.

and

Some contrails are short, and last for only a few seconds. Other contrails are very long, and continue to grow long after the jet airplane has passed. Why do some contrails remain in the sky so long? Let's go back to the example of the cloud forming on your breath during the winter. Such clouds usually disappear as soon as you take your next breath. The relative humidity of the winter air at the surface is usually well below 100%, and cannot sustain a mixing cloud for a long time. The relative humidity at the altitudes where airplanes fly can sometimes be as high as 90%. Surprisingly, at cold temperatures ice clouds (including contrails) can form and persist at humidities lower than 100%. The red line (dash-double dot line) in the Appleman chart shows at what humidities contrails can persist (usually between 60% and 70% relative humidity). Thus, if the air is moist enough, and colder than (temperature profile is to the left of the red line), then the Appleman chart indicates that persistent contrails can form.

The bold emphasis, is of course, mine.

If you want to cherry pick your information, be prepared to have the same thing quoted back at you. I initially thought you'd read the whole thing, but it seems that either you didn't, and you chose to misquote the paragraph out of context.

For those who haven't looked at the whole thing, here is the paragraph in question

The two most important lines on the chart are the 0 percent relative humidity line and the 100 percent relative humidity line. If the atmosphere were colder than the temperature indicated by the 0% line, a contrail would form even if the relative humidity of the atmosphere were zero. By itself, the airplane will supply enough moisture to make the contrail, and no moisture is necessary from the atmosphere to form the cloud. According to the chart, contrails will always form when the temperature profile is to the left of the 0% line. If the atmosphere were warmer than the temperature indicated by the 100% line, a contrail could not form even if the relative humidity of the atmosphere were 100 percent. The combined moisture from the jet exhaust and the atmosphere will never be enough for the mixture to produce a cloud. Temperature profiles to the right of the 100% line will never form a contrail. For temperatures between the 0% and 100% lines, the possibility of a contrail forming will depend on the atmospheric moisture, represented on the chart as relative humidity. A contrail may or may not form when the temperature is between the 0% and 100% lines.

What its saying is that, given the specific conditions described in the paragraph a contrail won't form.

Its there in black and white (or whatever colour you choose to have it displayed in). You cherry picked.

You have the rare ability to mine a quote without considering its context:

If the atmosphere were warmer than the temperature indicated by the 100% line, a contrail could not form even if the relative humidity of the atmosphere were 100 percent. The combined moisture from the jet exhaust and the atmosphere will never be enough for the mixture to produce a cloud. Temperature profiles to the right of the 100% line will never form a contrail. For temperatures between the 0% and 100% lines, the possibility of a contrail forming will depend on the atmospheric moisture, represented on the chart as relative humidity. A contrail may or may not form when the temperature is between the 0% and 100% lines.

That's your source.

You're really not serious are you? You see that it references a section of the Appleman Chart, not the entire sky, right? You take this paragraph to mean a contrail will never form? And project that belief on NASA?


[edit on 10-5-2008 by _Del_]

Here is a summary citing nine separate peer-reviewed studies. Please read it.
IPCC 3.4.3

www.ipcc.ch...

At plume ages between 1 min and 1 h, contrails grow much faster horizontally (to several km width) than vertically (200 to 400 m), especially in highly sheared environments (Freudenthaler et al., 1995, 1996; Sassen, 1997). Young contrails spread as a result of turbulence created by aircraft vortices (Lewellen and Lewellen, 1996; Gerz et al., 1998; Jensen et al., 1998a,b,c), shear in the ambient wind field (Freudenthaler et al., 1995; Schumann et al., 1995; D�rbeck and Gerz, 1996; Gierens, 1996), and possibly radiatively driven mixing (Jensen et al., 1998d).
...
Aged contrails often cannot be distinguished from cirrus

Hahahahaahahahaa. I stayed away from this thread because it has gotten me into trouble before. Good to see the regulars come out and give the old weather phenom bs and terse commentaries. So predictable. We know the real deal cutsbothways and so do alot of others. Especially liked Oz's 'you know what I do?' Look at my appendage. What a piece of work.

reply to post by neformore


Again, you skew my argument, for nefarious purposes. It's so obvious you are in on this whole thing, it makes me sick.

I never said contrails cannot form. What I will say, is a persistant contrail, is EXTREMELY rare, and you will only see this in very cold, wet conditions, where clouds already exist. If the conditions for persistent contrails exist, one should be worried about doing some de-icing on the AC leading edges.

Maybe we need to take this one step at a time. From the quote, which YOU added bold to.

The red line (dash-double dot line) in the Appleman chart shows at what humidities contrails can persist (usually between 60% and 70% relative humidity)

Contrails, can persist between 60% and 70%

Now, originally OZ came out and said humidity has nothing to do with it.
Why would he say something like that?

The SkewT chart was developed in 1947. The Appleman chart was developed in 1953.

I would say, if NASA is teaching students about the Appleman chart, that is the one accepted by pilots, because 98% of the time it is right in predicting contrails WILL NOT occur, which is what a military pilot wants.

Then, the quote goes on to say

Thus, if the air is moist (RH%) enough, and colder than (temperature profile is to the left of the red line), then the Appleman chart indicates that persistent contrails can form.

The Red Line represents about 65% RH.

If, the air is at least 60%-70% or higher, AND cold enough, a persistant contrail COULD form. Remember, the Appleman chart is at best, 35% accurate when
predicting a contrail WILL form.

The height at which the pressure is 500 hPa roughly divides in half the atmosphere vertically, half the mass of air being above and half below that height. In terms of height, 500 hPa is about 5,500 metres (18,000 feet) above the ground.

www.franksingleton.clara.net...

The Appleman chart, at 500 hPA shows the red line (65% RH)
at -41C.

The Appleman chart, is saying, a persistant contrail can form at 18,000 ft
IF the Relative Humidity (RH) is at least 65%, AND the temperature is -41C.

(greater than)65%RH + -41C (or colder) = 35% (or less) chance PERSISTENT contrail will form @ (18,000 ft / 5486 m (500hPa))

Now, lets look at 300hPA on the Appleman chart.



At 300 hPa the chart says that at 65% RH the temperature must be -46C

(greater)65%RH + -46C (or colder) = 35% (or less) chance PERSISTANT contrails will form @ (30,000 ft / 9144 m (300hPa))

So, when I check a sounding, like Denver, for example,

72469 DNR Denver Observations at 00Z 10 May 2008
306.0 9144 -43.4 -55.6 25

it is telling me, at 9144m(30,000ft) the temp is -43.4 and the RH is 25%
(no chance persistent contrails will form, temp is close, but RH is way to low)

Now, even ESSAN is admitting my calculations are correct, by agreeing that the atmosphere wouldn't support contrails over Nottingham, and that is why he didn't see any, when I did the sounding for "that day". (read the thread)

Now, there is something not right with the Appleman Chart.
According to it, the LESS humidity the greater the chance for
a contrail.

According to NASA, the MORE humidity, the greater the chance
for a contrail, which would make sense, since clouds form when
the air reaches saturation level (100% RH), or dewpoint.

So, I put the data, from the Appleman chart red line, and punched
it into a spreadsheet, and had Works make a chart for me.

Then, I drew a chart, based on that chart, made it easier to read, and
put in in .jpg so I could post result on the original, and do a "save as"

This is the result.



Hopefully, the world will accept is as free gift, and use it.

I reversed the humidity scale, and used NASA's science and other sources for background reference to support the reversal.


(i changed "less than" to "greater than" in the two formulas)











[edit on 10-5-2008 by cutbothways]

[edit on 10-5-2008 by cutbothways]

[edit on 10-5-2008 by cutbothways]

reply to post by cutbothways


k...I am missing something.
Your post says reply to neformore, or whatever...dont see any user with that name posting, at least on this page.

Anyway, maybe I skipped over a post or something...I do see a few post from a _Del_, are they connected?

Peace

dAlen

- ah, I see, they are on my ignore list...for some reason.
I wanted to add, nothing personal against you neformore, didnt even remember putting you on the list as you can tell by the post.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by dAlen]

reply to post by dAlen


Posts # 5 and 7 on this page.

How could you miss that avatar??


I get it.



[edit on 10-5-2008 by cutbothways]

I challenge ESSAN to a debate
in a fresh thread, moderated
by two moderators,

one each of our choice, as
long as ATS and mods approve.

Originally posted by cutbothways
Again, you skew my argument, for nefarious purposes. It's so obvious you are in on this whole thing, it makes me sick.

What is obvious here is that you are displaying huge ignorance, and cannot form an argument without resorting to an ad hominem attack, and claiming something about me of which you have no proof.

If you want to damage your own credibility that way, then thats your problem.

I would suggest that, by choosing this course of action, you have invalidated any point in anyone discussing the issue with you further. You don't want to discuss, you want to dictate.

reply to post by neformore


You, are dictating, by closing my threads.

I tried to start a new thread, bringing the new chart, and
my explanation for it to the forefront, instead of being
buried on page 6.

You, decided to smugly close it, stating

Cutsbothways seems to have forgotten that this was already being discussed in this ongoing thread that he started Debunking the chemtrail debunker

As such there is no need to start a new thread on the subject - the old one will do just fine.

Thread closed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I really don't care about credibility and all that in your eyes.

I care about finding out the truth, which you seem to be happy to clutter with uninformative, opinionated posts, showing your bias towards the government and their cronies who have no problem killing whomever or whatever for financial gain and status.

reply to post by cutbothways


Which part of this, from the Terms and Conditions of Use

did you not understand?

1h.) Spamming: You will not post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.

I would suggest you are being deliberately obtuse at this point. I am an ATS member, and I am also a moderator. I am entitled to my opinion - as you are to yours, and I have also volunteered to help run the site within the T&C.

Now if you have a problem with that, feel free to make a complaint via the complaint/suggestion button on the member centre tab.

It seems to me that the "chemtrail" topic is still one of the most heated debates taking place here on ATS and all around the world.

I started a thread ( www.abovetopsecret.com... ) a month or so ago about a possible connection between the grounded AA planes and these "chemtrails" i had been hearing so much about. It would be a lie to say that I wasnt absolutly amazed by the instantaneous pack raping i received from a select few who appear to be putting a lot of time and energy into trying to disprove the existance of these extaordinary contrails or sprays

I was lucky enough to have been born here in Queenstown, New Zealand where our sky remains unbastardized so i can breath easy (for the time being) and not get too concerend, but as all the air above me tries to reach equilibrium (something that i havnt seen any of our weather experts mention yet...) it will no doubt be bringing to my part of the globe, whatever it is that is in all the photos...

My personal stand on all this, is that it is a waste of time either way!

I mean, we all know what is going on with the governments of the world, how corrupted and manipulated by the bottomless pockets of various multinational corporations (theres a new one, its Monsanto spraying round up! LOL) that regardless of wether they are regular contrails, or something more sinister, we should be putting this time wasting debate to bed, or at least to the bottom of our priority list, and pulling together under one flag (not that blue and white global looking one) and focusing our efforts on the more obvious issues we can use to awaken our fellow man.

yeah?

before any of you try to tear ME a new orifice and force YOUR opinion into it, spend a couple of minutes dwelling on what i have just said...

after all,
united we stand...
...divided we fall

reply to post by Zeus187



Starred last post, Zues.

By the way I was very impressed with the thread you made and the video was amazing.

Hang in there, it is worth the hassle. If we all just fell down in the heat of this debate it would be swept under the rug. You are right about how heated this debate is all over the net and on MANY websites.

All for naught? I don't think so.

And for the Mod who called out the OP for posting the same or irrelevent content in many threads she/he certainly shows alot of favortism for the detractors in these threads. That mod is the only one I have noticed that does it but it is no secret by any means. The same T&C rule should apply to those who bounce from thread to thread laughing at us!!!

Originally posted by cutbothways
reply to post by neformore

 

I would say, if NASA is teaching students about the Appleman chart, that is the one accepted by pilots, because 98% of the time it is right in predicting contrails WILL NOT occur, which is what a military pilot wants.

Again from your source:

Thus, the Appleman chart tends to underpredict the occurrence of contrails and to overpredict the non-occurrence of contrails. For this reason, the USAF is actively investigating better ways to compute contrail formation.

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

it is telling me, at 9144m(30,000ft) the temp is -43.4 and the RH is 25%
(no chance persistent contrails will form, temp is close, but RH is way to low)

I hope you are aware that conditions at FL300 are not always the same as those at FL330 and rarely the same as at FL430. If all flights took place at FL300 your data would be easier to apply to commercial flight. As a rule the higher you fly the better for fuel economy (and turbulence). So all commercial flight doesn't take place at FL300. You don't have enough data to say that contrails can't form over a given city. Only that they cannot form at a specific altitude. You've also neglected air pressure which is important in determining the dew point.

Now, there is something not right with the Appleman Chart.
According to it, the LESS humidity the greater the chance for
a contrail.

You're clearly not looking at the same Appleman Chart I am. Or are reading it incorrectly.

Hopefully, the world will accept is as free gift, and use it.

I suspect that since your graph can't predict dewpoint (because it neglects air pressure) it will be regarded as useless.



[edit on 10-5-2008 by _Del_]