Chemtrail Debunkers....

reply to post by djcarlosa

they all lack one vital bit of information about the length of time a contrail will last for.

No way will you get that...
They conveniently don't know....

reply to post by pianopraze


How can I show something when it doesn't exist?

There's nothing but his word showing they won't persist and if the chart is a typical example, well it shows ideal conditions for contrails to persistent.

reply to post by backinblack


Convenient?

Like how long is a piece of string or how big is a cloud.

You know it can't be answered, so stop being a smart arse.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by backinblack

 

Convenient?
Like how long is a piece of string or how big is a cloud.
You know it can't be answered, so stop being a smart arse.

Smart arse??
That's so below you Chad..

I'm only stating facts..
Argue them, not me mate..

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

Ok, re-watched video and read your links; thank you for the info.

He is saying that on many days he observed contrails, the humidity was "well below 60 percent" That graph is basically an explanation of what he asserted not the observations themselves (the graph is reprinted here in black and white). All the papers I could find agree with the assertions of the maker of the video.

So with all that information, you have still not shown how contrails could form when the conditions do not exist. You have only made me understand the video, much better.

Totally off topic... I love the NASA educational papers for school children I found researching this post which only reference other propaganda papers

priceless...

ETA. I'm going to be busy this weekend volunteering so I'll check back in Sunday. It's 4:35 am so I'm going to bed now

edit on 25-3-2011 by pianopraze because: (no reason given)

It's kind of a long documentary about an hour. But this interview with Rosalyn Peterson talks about the SCOOL program. She says that she offered to help with the observation project but was turned down. I guess NASA thought school kids were more reliable.

This documentary is about the chemtrails in my area of California.

Rosalind Peterson of California Skywatch was a certified U.S.D.A. Farm Service Agency Crop Loss Adjustor working in more than ten counties throughout California. She now spearheads a watchdog group that monitors uncontrolled experimental weather modification programs, atmospheric heating and testing programs, and ocean and atmospheric experimental geoengineering programs Peterson is at the forefront of the chemtrail research field and how the unexplained patterns that scar our skies are "causing detrimental human health effects and environmental degradation."

reply to post by Chadwickus


I have found a source for time span I won't quote it here yet but I can tell you its not 4 to 5 hours and my source is not so easy to debunk but you can keep up with the lies if you want to :]

reply to post by backinblack


That's OK I do have a source that say's exactly how long a normal contrail will last for and the main factors which also puts to rest how you can extend the length a contrail can last for and believe me it can't be debunked and that's why I'm being ignored.

reply to post by djcarlosa


Lies?

Get off your high horse mate, you can't predict how long a contrail will last, just the same as you can't predict how long a cloud will last or a snowflake.

If you got something to prove this wrong, post it up!

reply to post by Chadwickus
[more
do your own research bud I won't post the link I have because it may well vanish from the web and I don't want that to happen till I have a hard copy.
I will say though that it goes into great detail about ice particle size and the time span needed before it would no longer be visible as a contrail.
when the time is right I will make it available to everyone here :]
And after all its strange how i asked for verification of the facts I posted and no one answers not even the mighty phage

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by backinblack

 

That's OK I do have a source that say's exactly how long a normal contrail will last for and the main factors which also puts to rest how you can extend the length a contrail can last for and believe me it can't be debunked and that's why I'm being ignored.

The Appleman chart, for one, shows the conditions under which contrails in general can best persist. However, there are so many variables involved that it is probably very close to impossible to say how long a particular contrail could last.

For example, when a trail forms, it begins to fall and/or move to different parts of the sky, plus local conditions in any one part of the sky can change. Depending on many variables (such as size of the frozen particles, wind speed, the depth of the air column that is conducive to trail persistence), any particular persistent trail may last for an hour or maybe a few hours.

The short answer is that (basically) a trail can persist for as long as it can remain in an area of the atmosphere that allows trails to persist**, and I think the variables are too great to be able to predict that.



** although, over time, it may sublimate

reply to post by djcarlosa


Why would it disappear off the net?

Is contrails science a big secret now?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


YOU have posted that silly Rosalind Peterson video before ... many times already. Haven't you been told, just as many times, that she is ...well, there are many monikers that could apply, but I'll just call her "wrong"? She is wrong about everything she "claims". She is just one of the handful of others (full-blown crackpots) in similar *groups* around the USA.

Have you visited the website(s) she's affiliated with?? I have. They are a hodge-podge of the same old, same old recycled "chem"-trail nonsense. It is painfully obvious, just from reading (and, of course, watching her make a fool of herself in the video) that she has NO IDEA what she's flapping her gums about!

Her biggest so-called "revealing evidence"? The "flight paths"?? She holds up those charts, with the yellow lines (plastic-covered, glaring in the camera lights) .... and doesn't understand what they are really showing.

She may mean well, may not be a deliberate HOAXER....but, then it is even more sad that she has a level of obvious intelligence, yet can be so gullible, and fooled so easily.....

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


That is not the case my friend there was an experiment done that showed how long contrail's persist for and the major factor that allows them to persist so an increase of one factor allows the contrail to last longer and its why i asked phage to verify the key factors which allow contrail's to persist.

reply to post by djcarlosa


Contrail persistence varies just as cloud persistence varies. There may be a computer algorithm that can determine how long a contrail should last under given conditions, but I'm not sure what the point would be since atmospheric conditions do not remain static. A contrail may form in conditions conducive to persistence of 45 minutes, but 3 minutes later conditions changes and the contrail disperses.

I suppose in theory, with sufficient real time weather data, it might be possible to predict duration? Whether the military are that bothered to fund such research I don't know. It's probably a lot easier to work on not producing a contrail in the first place - since the one thing we do know is that if there's no contrail, it can't persist!

reply to post by Chadwickus

It should first be noted that there is no upper air sounding station named "LN" so I'm not sure where he pulled that skew-T chart from.

You're reading the chart right but a skew T chart doesn't display relative humidity, it displays dew point. Dew point is of no use in determining persistence, it is just the temperature at which water vapor will condense into water droplets. There is no way to directly extract the relative humidity from the chart.


@djcarlosa
I thought I did answer your questions about the factors involved with contrail formation and persistence. How long can a contrail last? The same amount of time any cirrus cloud can last. It is a cirrus cloud.

reply to post by Phage


so you agree that those 4 factors i posted are the only main factors that determine how long a contrail will last ?
just want a yes or no please.
many thanks
djc

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by djcarlosa

 

Contrail persistence varies just as cloud persistence varies. There may be a computer algorithm that can determine how long a contrail should last under given conditions, but I'm not sure what the point would be since atmospheric conditions do not remain static...

Thanks Essan. As you said, atmospheric conditions don't remain static. I would add to that (and as I said in my post) that the conditions relative to the the location of the trail are not static either. What I mean is that the trail could move to an area of differing conditions. It could move from an area that it is likely to persist and into an area that it is likely to dissipate.

I don't think this movement could be easily predicted, and that's one reason (among other reasons others have mentioned) that the duration of persistence cannot easily be predicted.

As Phage pointed out: contrails are the same as cirrus clouds. Therefore, if a cloud could persist, then why not a contrail? However, and as Essan indicated, I don't know if anyone could say with conviction exactly how long a cirrus cloud could persist. It could be 30 minutes or it could be a few hours; there are too many variables.

reply to post by djcarlosa

Yes... he said redundantly.

As far as the persistent claim (pun intended) that 60% humidity is required for contrail persistence, it just is not true. I think it comes from misreading the Appleman chart. The relative humidity values provided by radiosondes are RHW (relative humidity over water). Persistence is determined by a different value, RHI (relative humidity over ice). So again, as with attempting to use dew point from the skew-T charts (or radiosonde data), no direct comparison can be made. In fact, ice saturation can occur with RHW values of less than 60%

Radiosonde data can only be used as a guide. The instruments themselves have known inaccuracies when recording relative humidity levels.

Relative humidity measurements in the upper troposphere are particularly challenging due to low temperatures and low water vapour concentrations. Different types of sondes are subject to different error sources, such as time lag, chemical contamination, sensor ageing, etc., resulting in the need for different bias correction methods. For instance, while the more widely-used Vaisala RS80-A sondes show a large temperature-dependent error, this problem is much smaller for the RS80-H sondes used in the UK (Miloshevich et al., 2001, Wang et al., 2002). The main error source for these sondes is the chemical contamination originating from non-water molecules emitted from the packaging material that occupy binding sites in the sensor polymer, leading to a dry bias in the RH measurement.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
"Dry bias", the relative humidity readings tend to be lower than the actual levels.

We know that the radiosondes only sample a limited horizontal area of the atmosphere as they rise but there is a greater problem, the vertical resolution of the data. Let's look at a typical upper air sounding.

300.0 9450 -41.1 -56.1 18 0.06 250 78 327.3 327.6 327.3
289.0 9704 -42.7 -58.7 16 0.05 249 85 328.6 328.8 328.6
267.0 10235 -47.1 -62.1 16 0.03 247 98 329.6 329.8 329.7
251.0 10644 -49.1 -63.1 18 0.03 245 109 332.6 332.7 332.6
250.1 10668 -49.3 -63.3 18 0.03 245 110 332.6 332.8 332.6
250.0 10670 -49.3 -63.3 18 0.03 245 108 332.6 332.8 332.6
216.0 11608 -57.1 -68.1 24 0.02 241 110 334.7 334.8 334.8
206.6 11887 -58.7 -69.7 23 0.02 240 110 336.5 336.6 336.5
200.0 12090 -59.9 -70.9 22 0.01 240 117 337.8 337.8 337.8

As we know by now, the second column is the altitude at which the data was acquired. There are gaps in the data of more than 1,000 feet. A gap of more than 3,000 feet between 34,997 feet and 38,989 feet. Three flight levels in which we have no idea what the conditions are. Does it matter? Yes it does. Studies using high resolution soundings show that thin layers of saturated air can be missed entirely by standard soundings, layers which may have a depth of less than 100 meters.

The distribution of layer-widths has a strong peak at about 50 m and an underlying broader distribution with values up to several kilometres.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
An aircraft flying in such a layer would produce a persistent contrail yet the sounding data would not show that layer at all.

With the inaccuracies inherent in the instrumentation, the limited area of the sampling, the low resolution of the sample, and the fact that weather conditions can and do change in a matter of hours it is apparent that there are limitations of the ability to forecast contrail formation (and persistence) based on standard upper air soundings. It is apparent that using upper data in an attempt to disprove persistent contrails can be no more effective.

Originally posted by Phage
As far as the persistent claim (pun intended) that 60% humidity is required for contrail persistence, it just is not true. I think it comes from misreading the Appleman chart. The relative humidity values provided by radiosondes are RHW (relative humidity over water). Persistence is determined by a different value, RHI (relative humidity over ice). So again, as with attempting to use dew point from the skew-T charts (or radiosonde data), no direct comparison can be made. In fact, ice saturation can occur with RHW values of less than 60%
**snip**
With the inaccuracies inherent in the instrumentation, the limited area of the sampling, the low resolution of the sample, and the fact that weather conditions can and do change in a matter of hours it is apparent that there are limitations of the ability to forecast contrail formation (and persistence) based on standard upper air soundings. It is apparent that using upper data in an attempt to disprove persistent contrails can be no more effective.

None of this data supports your claim contrails don't usually persist below 60 percent humidity, and no one was talking about radar.

A lot of technical jargon which again sidetracks. All this seems like another rabbit hole tangent to confuse the subject.

Data was from weather balloons which went through all layers.

They can form, but all papers I read suggest they are unlikely to persist.

Please present papers showing that they persist at low humidity.

I'm getting ready to leave I will respond later tonight.