This is not a chemtrail! Atmospheric Phenomenen explained

Originally posted by mortalengine
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

I dont know what the big issue with Chemtrails is, we know that they're doing it - they admitted it. It's fine aluminium particles that theyre putting up there to try and prevent the warming of the planet that is currently happening because of the changes ocurring in our solar system.

Except these so called 'chemtrails' are causing warming. And besides, why only spray such particles from airliners on the days when those airliners would be producing persistent contrails anyway? wouldn't it be better to spray them all the time?

[edit on 14-3-2008 by Essan]

Originally posted by mortalengine
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

I dont know what the big issue with Chemtrails is, we know that they're doing it - they admitted it. It's fine aluminium particles that theyre putting up there to try and prevent the warming of the planet that is currently happening because of the changes ocurring in our solar system.

You know they are doing it....why because Art Bell, Jeff Rense and others say so, because you have seen it on the internet. Come up with a reliable unbiased report, backed up by logic, and prove it for once

I have no idea if those images you posted are caused by chemtrails or by natural phenomenon or not, to be honest I dont really care.

They are natural phenomenen. I never said they were chemtrails.....it was chemtrail believers that changed this thread topic to talking about chemtrails.....if you dont care why even bother to post on the thread

Duh

Either way they are beautiful to look at, regarding the chemicals they're putting up there... well theres nothing to chat about - it's constitutionally correct and they are 100% allowed to do this according to the American constitution.

Oh, so they allow it in America do they? What about the rest of the world like the UK, Germany, France etc....its not allowed there. Again why bother posting here if there is nothing to chat about

The real interesting thing in the matter is that aluminium IS a neurotoxin, whether there's a correlation between what they're trying to do to prevent global warming and dumb-down the public is unknown to me, but aluminium is very readily available and it's light and easy to transport.

Yes, aluminium is light, all the more reason to suggest that chemtrails are an unplausible concept. The winds at high altitude are extremely strong, like the jetstream for example. Explain how aluminum can sit in the sky for "hours" without being effected by winds in excess of 200mph.

It might be conspiratory or it might just be a coincidence, either way we have been left out of tye choice loop. But the major issue with the chemtrail conspiracy is that it's a very haphazard and retarded way of "dumbing-down" the public, for the simple fact that we all share the same air and skies. They would in all honesty be dumbing themselves down too... not very smart, and not very likely.

Exactly. Another good reason why they are not spraying anything in the sky, its an unrealistic way to affect people. Give me water supply posioning any day (not that I want it)

Originally posted by Pilot
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a picture I took in Feb, probably about 40 degrees outside that day, see the X formation? Those were jet trails made about 30-45 min before I took the picture of the little trail near the middle of the X...now could one of you experts explain how the jets make the trails that splay out all over the place and the shortys in the same span of time?? WHY does this happen? What makes the difference??

After that I'll shut up about it.

Its simple, verying heights, wind direction, temperature and pressure changes, weather patterns. Have you actually read the rest of the thread?

I assure you its been discussed a few times already

Originally posted by utmostbastard
This action of course went against any jet stream since there were several natural clouds, go figure, to use as a guide. Also my favorite was watching normal aircraft leave a contrail, which as usual dissipated within 15 seconds, as CONTRAILS do.

Several natural clouds at the same height? So you're an expert on clouds now.....I seriously doubt that because you dont even know a slight bit atmospheric conditions, thermodynamics, and you call anything you see in the sky (that you obviously dont understand) a chemtrail

Finally the irony that we must have a weatherman and pilot on every thread immediately telling you what you don't see. Seriously guys the tag team effort makes this operation more ominous to Joe public. Some of us can still think for ourselves believe it or not.

Yeah, isnt it strange when proffesionals with weather knowledge and experience get on here and try and debunk chemtrails. Suspicious how we provide backing up evidence and unbiased links. Isn't it ironic that the whole chemtrail conspiracy was created and spread by nutcases Art Bell, Jeff Rense and Dr Deagle....hmmm....thinking for yourself indeed

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Have you heard of the term supersaturation?

Yes and basically it means that the conditions for persistent contrails very rarely arises.

You are right winds do disperse (and or shear) clouds. But it doesnt always lead to the destruction of clouds. Supersaturation occurs when you add more water into an already moist environement. (ie, water vapour products from aircraft exhaust).

Actually i'm not sure what your claiming but here is what i believe.

Moreover, it turns out that the initial ice particle concentration and radiative processes are of minor importance in the evolution of contrails, at least during the 30-min simulation period.

Keeping these caveats in mind, the following major results have been obtained from the model simulations described in this paper.

* Long-lived contrails cannot be explained by the amount of water emitted by the aircraft. Although we have not performed a simulation in an atmosphere that is subsaturated with respect to ice, it is quite obvious (in comparing results from runs 3 and 8) that persistent contrails can only form in an atmosphere that is supersaturated with respect to ice.

ams.allenpress.com...(1998)055%3C0796:LESOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

The extra water attaches itself to the already present water nuclei increasing the mass and creating a larger ice crystal. Air moves those ice crystals and gathers more as it moves, hence increasing the ice crystal size and creating a layer over the sky, turning it into a cloud known to us weather guys as, cirrostratus.

Again that's not entirely accurate according to what i have read.

Long lasting contrails like the ones observed usually occur in parts of the sky that have preexisting patches of cirrus clouds. Since the cirrus clouds are formed of ice crystals like the contrails, cirrus clouds in a region of the sky suggests supersaturation with respect to ice and sufficient heterogeneous nuclei for ice crystals to form (Jenson et al. 1998). The GOES-8 satellite photographs, Figure 3 and Figure 4, taken at approximately at the same time as the contrails were present shows significant cirrus clouds around the Norman area providing a condition necessary for contrail persistence.

students.ou.edu...

The ice needs to be there already...

So you are half right on the dispersion thing. If there is not enough water vapour in the air, then the contrail will not spread, but be dispersed or not from at all.

If the atmosphere is not supersaturated contrails wont persist AT ALL.

Persistent contrail formation requires air that is ice-supersaturated (Brewer, 1946).

Agreed

Ice-supersaturated air is often free of visible clouds (Sassen, 1997) because the supersaturation is too small for ice particle nucleation to occur (Heymsfield et al., 1998b).

As my previous quote indicates that is not the norm.

Supersaturated regions are expected to be quite common in the upper troposphere (Ludlam, 1980). The presence of persistent contrails demonstrates that the upper troposphere contains air that is ice-supersaturated

a Clear case of petitio principii ( just begging the question by presuming what you trying to prove) and unless evidence is offered i have no reason to believe that the observation of chemtrails PROVES that the conditions for contrails exists or exists so often that visibility standards had to reduced overnight to explain away the change.

The proposed revisions address two categories of particulate matter: fine particles (PM2.5), which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller; and inhalable coarse particles (PM10-2.5), which are smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter but larger than PM2.5. EPA has had national air quality standards for fine particles since 1997 and for coarse particles 10 micrometers and smaller (PM10) since 1987

EPA last revised the particulate matter standards in 1997. Under terms of a consent decree, EPA agreed to propose whether to revise the particulate matter standards by December 20, 2005; and committed to finalizing any revisions to the standards by September 27, 2006.

Proposal to Revise the National Ambient Air Quality

but will not form clouds unless initiated by aircraft exhaust (Jensen et al., 1998a).

Aircraft exhaust has no significant ability to force conditions for contrail formation.

Aircraft initiate contrail formation by increasing the humidity within their exhaust trails, whereas local atmospheric conditions govern the subsequent evolution of contrail cirrus clouds.

And even in those circumstances the RH can in some instances be observed to be nowhere near sufficient to create the persistent contrails that are actually observed during the atmospheric measurements!

Like natural cirrus clouds, contrails can impact
climate through their radiative effects. Persistent
contrails often form in air with relative humidities with
respect to ice (RHI) exceeding 100% but with relative
humidities with respect to water (RH) less than 100%.
Cirrus cloud formation generally requires RH > 100%.
Thus, contrails can form clouds in conditions that would
not support the formation of most natural cirrus. Cirrus
coverage over the USA grew by 0.010/decade between
1971 and 1996, while declining over other land areas
with minimal air traffic 0.017/decade.

The values of RHI at 225 hPa (~12 km) plotted in
Fig. 4 show one supersaturated area over central OH
and Indiana at 1200 UTC and no areas at 1600 UTC.
Over PA, RHI ranges from 90% at the OH border to
50% at the eastern PA border. Over Pittsburgh (PIT)
underneath contrail A at 1200 UTC, the RUC RHI is
80%, while near Aberdeen, MD (ABD), close to C at
1200 UTC, RHI = 55%. A similar value is found over
Dulles, VA (IAD) near contrail D, while RHI = 80% over
Blacksburg, VA (BLK) near the end of E. These values
are too low for sustaining contrails. To determine if
these values are due to the model assimilation process,
the rawinsonde RHI profiles are compared with the
corresponding RUC values at 1200 UTC. in Fig. 5. The
RUC increased RHI at most levels over BLK and PIT
while smoothing or decreasing RHI over ABD and IAD.
No contrails were observed for RHI < 55%.
None of the soundings show RHI > 72%, despite
the fact that the PIT rawinsonde must have passed
through contrail A on its way to the stratosphere. To
support a persistent contrail, the maximum PIT RHI from
the sonde would need to be increased by 35% or more.
Another sounding taken over western OH yielded RHI =
117% at 225 hPa. Natural cirrus clouds were passing
over the Wilmington, OH station at the time. Because it
is theorized that natural cirrus clouds can only form
adiabatically for RHI exceeding 145% or more (Sassen
and Dodd 1989), the dry bias appears to be consistent
in both clear and cloudy skies. To account for the dry
bias, a correction formula was developed by assuming
that most of contrails observed by Sassen (1997; his
Fig. 5b) should have occurred only in supersaturated
conditions. To include most of his contrail observations
above a new line representing RHI = 100%, it is
necessary to specify that RHI = 100% for the sonde
value of RH = 16% at -70°C and RHI = 100% at RH =
72% and -36°C.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

And cleverly we are now just using 'correction formulas' to hide the fact that what we are observing is different from what we used to see.

Indeed, the ice mass in long-lasting contrails originates almost completely from ambient water vapor (Knollenberg, 1972).

Not true and in fact contrails are admittedly NOT well understood.

Continued

Add to the list of rogues a possible new humanmade factor behind climate change: contrails from high-flying airplanes that spread into larger and longer lasting clouds than researchers had expected. Satellites tracked several contrails over the United States that persisted for up to 17 hours and grew to resemble banks of natural cirrus clouds, according to a report in today's Geophysical Research Letters. If such formations are common, contrails may have a significant impact on climate--especially in areas with heavy traffic overhead.
At high altitudes, particles in jet exhaust become seeds for ice crystals that make up contrails. Ice crystals reflect sunlight during the day, possibly cooling the ground below. They may also trap heat after the sun goes down and make the nights warmer. In the 1960s, scientists proposed that fleets of planes could spawn enough contrails to tweak the climate in industrialized regions. Recent satellite studies over Europe showed that contrails cover about 1% of the sky--seemingly not an important amount. However, those satellites watched only the most obvious contrails: long, narrow streaks, many of which fade quickly. The new research reveals that other contrails can elude detection by mutating into strikingly large, cirruslike clouds.
NASA researchers used geostationary satellites to continuously track three sets of contrails over California and the southern United States in spring 1996. The contrails, floating at altitudes of about 10 kilometers, lasted between 7 and 17 hours and expanded to enormous sizes by catalyzing the growth of a larger cloud with more ice. One cloud reached 35,000 square kilometers--the size of Indiana. At such extents, no satellite or ground-based instrument would recognize the clouds as having arisen from contrails, says atmospheric scientist Patrick Minnis of NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. If more high clouds that look like natural cirrus are old contrails in disguise, Minnis says, "that could have a strong regional effect on climate." Indeed, other studies point to an increase in cirrus clouds during the last 30 years, possibly due to increases in air traffic.
The contrails' tremendous size surprises atmospheric scientist Brian Toon of the University of Colorado, Boulder. "This may make the number of contrails bigger than we thought, but we don't yet know how to quantify that number," Toon says. He adds that jet exhaust may alter existing cirrus clouds by making them denser or triggering precipitation--another poorly understood link between air travel and climate patterns.

apnet.com/inscight/04151998/grapha.htm
climate.dot.gov...

The RUC model data are representations of the complete 3-dimensional structure of wind, temperature, and humidity over the USA at a resolution of 25 mb and 40 km. The horizontal resolution has been degraded to 1° latitude x 1° longitude to facilitate the computations. Because they are based on a sparse number of actual in situ (balloon sonde) data taken every 12 hours and satellite measurements, the RUC data are not a perfect representation of the various meteorological parameters, especially water vapor. The model humidity at upper levels of the atmosphere is often too low, reflecting the current biases known to exist in our measurement system. Persistent contrails require a relative humidity with respect to ice (RHI) that exceeds 100%. We know that contrails are sometimes observed in areas where estimates of the RHI are less than 100%. The existence of contrails in those locations highlights the "dry-bias" in the humidity fields.

The relative humidity data from the RUC 40km model are suspect since 18 April, 2002. Therefore, all contrail forecasts since April 18, 2002 are suspect.To obtain a better estimate of potential contrail formation, examine the 'Individual level (mb)' results. Select a pressure value between 200 and 250 mb for the best estimate. Relative humidity values above 80% are good indicators of contrails in the new RUC data. You can use any pressure level , but the large values may be too warm for contrail formation.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...
climate.dot.gov...

The environmental conditions that favor contrail formation and persistence are not well understood primarily due to the limited number of empirical studies. This study presents an empirical model to predict widespread occurrences of contrails (outbreaks), which was developed from a combination of rawinsonde temperature and GOES water vapor information. Environments containing persisting contrails were first identified on Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellite imagery for the United States for January and April 1987 and then analyzed in more detail using Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) satellite digital data. Adjacent clear and cloudy environments not containing contrails were identified to compare with the conditions favorable for contrail persistence. For this purpose, a predictive logistic model was developed through multiple regression analysis.The model performance was evaluated through goodness-of-fit methods and found to be statistically significant across a range of atmospheric conditions. To further evaluate the model and to demonstrate its application on a real-time basis, predictions of the probability of persisting contrails were made for a case day. Comparisons of the predictions to satellite observations of the existing conditions (using AVHRR data) demonstrate good model performance and suggest the utility of this approach for predicting persisting contrail occurrence. Implementation of this model should allow climate researchers to better quantify the influence of contrails on surface climate and natural cloud formation.

adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997JApMe..36.1211T

One factor still not completely understood is contrail formation. A condensation trail, or contrail, forms in the wake of an airplane as a result of water vapor and aerosol emissions perturbing the local atmosphere when it is at conditions very close to forming a natural cloud. Although it is apparent that aircraft-emitted particles provide sites for water vapor condensation, and that these particles may well participate in initial condensation processes, field measurements demonstrate that contrail ice particles growing on entrained ambient particles begin to dominate in the contrail relatively soon.
Currently, global contrail coverage is a few tenths of a percent of the global surface or less, and is highly regional. The radiative impact is unclear because of uncertainties in this coverage and in the radiative effects of the contrails. According to estimates, however, their contribution to the total radiative forcing due to aircraft is comparable to that due to CO2, and thus can be considered to have a critical potential impact. Contrails, like high cirrus clouds, have a positive radiative forcing (warming effect), because they trap thermal radiation emitted from the Earth's surface more than they block incoming solar energy.
Equally important is the evolution of persistent contrails into high cirrus clouds that last for significant periods and have a positive radiative impact. Although individual instances of this phenomenon have been observed, the extent to which aviation increases cirrus cloud cover by this process remains highly uncertain. The effect is potentially one of the largest contributors to aviation radiative forcing. The impact on cloudiness from the accumulation of aviation aerosols at flight levels, whether or not a contrail formed initially, is another potential contributor. At present, the connection between airplane emissions and cirrus clouds is not well understood.

www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=14&ArchiveIssueID=5

Basically what you will find is scientist who keep changing their expectations to explain what i presume they might presume to be naturally changing atmospheric conditions. Why such intelligent people will assume that the atmosphere can just change like that without massive interventions of some kind i don't know but i DON'T have to believe that they are all 'in' on a vast conspiracy of sorts. At best they seem truly confused with a few cheerleaders who are far too smug not to be well paid to be so very confident.

Stellar

Originally posted by Pilot
reply to post by utmostbastard

 

I am not a scientist or meterorologist or climatologist. I just see crap in the sky and know it doesn't look right. No satisfactory explanation has been offered by the so-called authorities, so I am waiting for one, and sorry, no anonymous, self-proclaimed expert/blowhard on the internet is going to convince me what I'm seeing doesn't exist or is by default benign or "natural".

I guess you missed my introduction and completely ignored my signature. I am not a self proclaimed expert....I earned my job position, passed a rigorous training course, was one of nine chosen out of four hundred applicants for the job, and you have the nerve to call me a blowhard.... well you know where you can go

And like you said, you are not a meteorologist (I am) or climatologist.....so how would you know whats going on in the upper atmosphere, oh, thats right....you just assume that every friggin conspiracy that you here about on the internet or C2C, or ATS for that matter, is true.

Who's the blowhard now?

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
I guess you missed my introduction and completely ignored my signature. I am not a self proclaimed expert....I earned my job position, passed a rigorous training course,

What is rigorous training other than you telling them what they told you to tell them? Well done....

was one of nine chosen out of four hundred applicants for the job, and you have the nerve to call me a blowhard.... well you know where you can go

They clearly liked what you said and or how you think; those who best parrot convention is those who will be hired to propagate it.

And like you said, you are not a meteorologist (I am) or climatologist.....so how would you know whats going on in the upper atmosphere, oh, thats right....you just assume that every friggin conspiracy that you here about on the internet or C2C, or ATS for that matter, is true.

Who's the blowhard now?

Or his read a few things that seems to reflect and validate what his seen happening in our skies? Will you admit that your job requires of you to explain what you observe by appealing to natural forces and that you are simply not being paid ( and most certainly not to investigate) to consider alternatives?

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


The exact same thing can be said for the other side of the fence. Weather patterns do change. I think I'm going to start a new conspiracy. "Last ice age was truly a result of weather patterns changing as a result of previously unknown jets created by cavemen spraying chemicals throughout our upper atmosphere"........

Originally posted by Bugman82
reply to post by StellarX

 

The exact same thing can be said for the other side of the fence. Weather patterns do change. I think I'm going to start a new conspiracy. "Last ice age was truly a result of weather patterns changing as a result of previously unknown jets created by cavemen spraying chemicals throughout our upper atmosphere"........

Dont worry, its clear that he and more so the other chemtrail believers do not have much knowledge of weather patterns and phenomena. That is why as soon as they see something in the air they cant explain they cry government spraying conspiracy

Well on the chemtrail central forum they're trying to convince themselves (with some success!) that 'mackerel skies' are signs of chemtrail spraying. Or possibly HAARP. Or summat. Which just goes to show such devious govt weather control conspiracies have been going on for centuries. Or maybe not!

www.chemtrailcentral.com...

Originally posted by Essan
Well on the chemtrail central forum they're trying to convince themselves (with some success!) that 'mackerel skies' are signs of chemtrail spraying. Or possibly HAARP. Or summat. Which just goes to show such devious govt weather control conspiracies have been going on for centuries. Or maybe not!

www.chemtrailcentral.com...

Haha...are you serious Essan...mackeral skies. My god....it just keeps getting funnier and funnier.



I havent seen a mackeral sky for ages. Hopefully I got a camera next time I see one

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Hey, Oz, and Essan....can you give an American [blowhard] bloke a break and tell me what a 'mackeral' sky is???

Yeah, I know, I could have done this in U2U, but I thought it would help educate the thread to keep it out in the open....

Cheers!!

edited to add 'blowhard' in brackets!!! Thought it's funny!!

[edit on 20-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

Whatever is happening with this atmospheric phenomenon -- call it 'mackerel skies' or HAARP -- the effects (after one day of chem-spraying) may have caused us at ground level to suffer from health-related symptoms ranging from congestion, sneezing and 'coughing' spells. These are my personal observations with people in and around my neighborhood and without relying on expert testimonies, etc...


[edit on 2008-3-20 by pikypiky]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Mackerel sky is a colloquial term - dating back centuries - for bands of altocumulus like this:

australiasevereweather.com...

It's so named because it resembles the markings on a king mackerel.

www.weatheronline.co.uk...

It proves that HAARP has been used in conjunction with chemtrails to cause a small select group of people to suffer respiratory and other health problems since at least Roman times

reply to post by Essan


Essan? [shaking head vigorously, with a surprised expression on my face]....whhaaaaa???

Did you really just assert that HAARP existed 2000 years ago?!?! And that airplanes were spraying chemicals on the Romans?!?! Did I somehow misunderstand?

I certainly hope I read something wrong there, please clarify. And, thanks for clearing up 'mackeral' sky, although I've seen the altocumulus formations many times, never heard the description...quite apt.

I've seen that 'mackerel sky' and just about every other type of cloud formation here myself. It must be a factor of latitude (I'm at 43 south) and seasonal upper atmosphere temperature/humidity because there are no (read zero) high altitude planes flying over my part of the world - just a couple of intrepid ultralight flyers and I doubt they're up to any mischief.

The respiratory symptoms I see associated with the supposed 'chemtrails' sound like plain old industrial atmospheric pollution to me and that's sourced at ground level.

Here's an interesting sunset as seen from my backyard and it's all natural, no artificial ingredients at all. The world's clean air reference is taken here



[edit on 20/3/2008 by Pilgrum]

reply to post by Pilgrum


Pilgrum, that is bleedin' fantastic!! Thanks for that pic!

And, I think it goes without saying, your contribution regarding you location, and lack of flights overhead, should NOT be ignored.

Is everyone listening? Did you understand Pilgrum's point?\

Gosh, I hope so.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Essan? [shaking head vigorously, with a surprised expression on my face]....whhaaaaa???

Did you really just assert that HAARP existed 2000 years ago?!?! And that airplanes were spraying chemicals on the Romans?!?!

Well it must have been!

If HAARP and chemtrails cause clouds and exactly the same clouds were reported 2000 years ago what other conclusion is there? :lol

btw great picture pilgrum

reply to post by Essan


OHhhh! I get it, belatedly....sarcasm!!

OK, color me embarassed!

Carry on!