|
|
Foolsbane
tagged & banned
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 174
|
 Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:33 am
|
 |
|
Marked looked up and said:
"Maybe I have this wrong. If a sundog is a natural phenomenon, then why do they need persistent contrails to manifest. I regard persistent contrails as man-made.
I also regard sundogs formed from persistent contrails that manifest when atmospheric conditions will not support them, anything but a natural phenomenon.
I still believe my above post is acurate. But then, I also don't think clouds smile."
Sun Dogs do not "need" contrails...they occur because of some of the same reasons persistent contrails appear- it has to do with the level of ice in the atmosphere...for more info check this site out- some very cool pictures:
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/
Persistent contrails are indeed un-natural...and there is a lot of concern about their effects- radiative effects and global dimming...but that is a far cry from a nefarious campaign of deliberate spraying. |
| |
|
|
Cloudy Skies
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 122
Location: UK |
|
Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:09 pm
|
|
|
Yes. Sundogs normally appear when there is thin cirrus cloud around
more aircraft = more persistent contrails = more sundogs
Persistent contrails being, simply, manmade cirrus clouds
PAK: "That the mainstream meteorologists will not discuss the arial spraying is because they work for the central government"
'Mainstream meteorologists' are too busy investigating the impacts of these so-called 'chemtrails' on climate, and looking at ways to reduce them. Something they've been doing since at least 1970....
quote:
The spreading out of jet contrails into cirrus cloud is a common sight
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0469/27/6/pdf/i1520-0469-27-6-937.pdf |
| |
|
|
marklookingup
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Posts: 503
|
|
Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:35 pm
|
|
|
My whole point in getting involved in this thread revolves around this one point, and no one else is here is addressing my concern. This issue is why CTC exists:
"I also regard sundogs formed from persistent contrails that manifest when atmospheric conditions will not support them, anything but a natural phenomenon." |
| |
|
|
Cloudy Skies
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 122
Location: UK |
|
Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:10 pm
|
|
|
Agreed.
If atmospheric conditions will not support the presences of cirrus - whether natural or manmade - and yet a sundog is visible, then clearly something is amiss.
One could of course also argue that any sundog that forms as a result of any contrail (shortlived or persistent) is also not natural.
Indeed, given the amount of air traffic, it might in fact be difficult to show that any sundog is purely natural these days! |
| |
|
|
Louis Aubuchont
tagged & banned
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 946
Location: Parsonsfield, Maine |
| DELETED
Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:57 pm
|
|
|
DELETED DUE TO THE POLICY OF CTC IN LETTING THE DEBUNKERS AND TROUBLEMAKERS LIKE "FUIwon'tDoWhatUTellMe" AKA, "MAY41970' OVERRUN THE SITE.
FOR THAT REASON I WILL NOT HAVE MY POST ARCHIVED HERE AND I NO LONGER WISH TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE
Last edited by Louis Aubuchont on Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
| |
|
|
Foolsbane
tagged & banned
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 174
|
|
Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:20 pm
|
|
|
Good point Louis!!
that is why it is bascially impossible to look up in the sky and tell whether or not you are seeing a "chemtrail" or a supersaturated persistent contrail....
...and why "chemtrail' folks do a great dis-service to themselves by posting a picture and claiming it is a "chemtrail"
All the supposed observable behaviour of "chemtrails"- persistence, spreading, morphing into cirrus clouds, creating sun dogs and other refraction events...are known, observable, documented behavior of contrails...not disinfo...just well researched facts dating back to the 1950s...
...and the persistence of a trail has more to do with the level of ice in the atmosphere than the level of humidity...Moreover, studies are finding that new types of fuels and engines are creating persistent trails at lower altitudes and higher temps than previously experienced.
The only way to truly determine if a trail is in fact a nefarious mixture of powdered aluminum or whatever is to take a sample "in situ" - that is in its environment ideally within seconds or minutes from being expelled from the plane...
Standing on the ground and taking "samples" and claiming they are from the trails overhead is an act of futilty that shows tremendous lack of knowledge. One needs to understand Fall rates and dispersal theory to know that anything - ie; particles of the size contained in trails- will not fall on you below but will drift for hundreds and thousdands of miles...
Thus getting sick from trails overhead is highly dubious. |
| |
|
|
Louis Aubuchont
tagged & banned
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 946
Location: Parsonsfield, Maine |
| DELETED
Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:07 am
|
|
|
DELETED DUE TO THE POLICY OF CTC IN LETTING THE DEBUNKERS AND TROUBLEMAKERS LIKE "FUIwon'tDoWhatUTellMe" AKA, "MAY41970' OVERRUN THE SITE.
FOR THAT REASON I WILL NOT HAVE MY POST ARCHIVED HERE AND I NO LONGER WISH TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE
Last edited by Louis Aubuchont on Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
| |
|
|
Foolsbane
tagged & banned
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 174
|
|
Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:43 pm
|
|
|
Louis wrote:
”I would not say that it is "Impossible" to tell normal contrails from Chemtrails, people are doing it quite regularly and there observations are being born out as truth when tracking programs such as Flightaware reveal that the aircraft that are making said trails do no show up on the near real time tracking plots, this combined with Upper Air Sounding Data and Aviation Weather Data on Ice Saturation areas leads one to conclude with nearly 100% accuracy that something other than "Normal contrails" is being made.”
*-“Nearly” 100 percent accuracy is very optimistic if not laughable. Flightaware is a useful tool- but as it says it only has “most” flights…and only civilian- surely not every military aircraft is spraying?? Why can’t a benign military flight leave a persistent contrail?
The number of variables involved in any given contrail formation- from level of ice, ambient temperature, ambient wind speed, ambient humidity, temperature of the plume on exit, size of the condensation nuclei, content of the condensation nuclei, size of the ice crystal that gets formed, shape of the ice crystal that gets formed, altitude of the plane, speed of the plane, even weight of the plane, type of engine, type of fuel and more….is such one cannot look at some incomplete snapshot of atmospheric data on a website…determine if a contrail is possible or not…the Upper Air Soundings are but single point snapshots… They are soundings are done only at 12 hour intervals at stations spaced 300 miles apart. Contrail formation is usually a far more accurate indicator of the upper atmospheric conditions than you get from the weather stations. The NOAA data on icing is only an indication not a solid data point that ice supersaturation exists or that a persistent contrail will or will not happen. The icing indicated by that data page is icing found within existing clouds and yields no information about clear air ice supersaturation- which is when most persistent contrails are formed. The finite parameters for all observed behavior of persistent contrails is in fact still in question- …and there are a lot studies currently under way to try and determine just that :
http://tinyurl.com/2mubr5
You wanted to source to the assertion that different types of engines produce contrails at different altitudes and temperatures:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/002.htm
“As aircraft engines become more fuel efficient, contrails will form more frequently at lower flight levels because exhaust plumes of more efficient engines are cooler for the same water content (see Section 3.2.4.1). The overall efficiency h (Cumpsty, 1997) with which engines convert fuel combustion heat into propulsion of cruising subsonic aircraft was close to 0.22 in the 1950s, near 0.37 for modern engines in the early 1990s, and may reach 0.5 for new engines to be built by 2010 (see Figure 3-22). An increase of h from 0.3 to 0.5 in a standard atmosphere increases the threshold formation temperature of contrails by about 2.8 K (equivalent to 700-m lower altitude) (Schumann, 1996a).”
The Appleman chart is but a rough guide and not an absolute.
Louis said:
I believe that taking photos of suspected "Chemtrail Spraying" that are time / date stamped goes to evidence of same given that the atmospheric data can be checked for the time and dates indicated on the photos, discounting photographic evidence would be like a criminal prosecutor just throwing our photos of a crime scene because the defense says that they do not matter.
• But Louis…Even if it were possible to look at a photo and determine exactly what the atmospheric conditions were exactly in the spot of the photo at the time of the photo and as well as determine all the variables determined by the plane…how many “chemtrail” believers do you think actually do that before posting a picture on a website and decry it a “chemtrail” The truth is the vast majority of “chemtrail” believers are completely ignorant of persistent contrails…and their ignorance shows when they say that any contrail that lasts more than 5 minutes is a “chemtrail” or when talk about being sprayed on, feeling the effects with hours of the spraying etc…As I said before, it does the them a great disservice. You, yourself stated that:
“Normal persistent contrails form only rarely at high altitudes when atmospheric conditions (temperature -40° C. and 60% + humidity) are just right. “
*some studies have shown that super saturation conditions exist around 40% of the time in the northern hemisphere…hardly “rarely”.
You said:
”Exactly, and it is because of this very accumulation of scientific data over the years on the said formation of those things you mention that we are able to determine that there are distinctive differences between the two, those being normal contrails and what has become known as Chemtrails which started in the mid to late 1990's, so much so that people really started to notice them.”
• Please describe what the observable, empirical differences are. You have claimed that you can tell when a persistent contrail can form and when it cannot- and that any persistent trail in that period must be a “chemtrail”- but what about during ice supersaturation events?? How can you tell a “chemtrail” then ?? Please describe the “distinctive differences between the two”.
Louis wrote:
”Now you do know that in this country at least, it is against federal laws to do what your suggesting (taking samples of contrail in situ – immediately or soon after formation) without first obtaining the proper clearance and necessary federal and state permits to conduct this type of air sampling, as far as I know not even universities doing atmospheric research are allowed to conduct the sampling that you suggest, so how would you propose that we go about this sampling given the laws, procedures and obvious regulations that would prohibit doing it? “
*There are lots of studies being done around the World being done on contrails…they all take in situ samples-…the Univ of North Dakota has an well known study: http://www.agu.org/pubs/abs/jd/1999JD900109/tmp.html
Louis wrote:
”This assumption of "Chemtrail Spraying" material falling as you say "hundreds and thousands" of miles away is quite correct, you have obviously studied the subject of dispersal theory and fall rates thoroughly so you must also know that with a constant injection of matrial into the upper thropsphere and a percentage of the materials will eventually fall, given that we have been observing this "Chemtrail Spraying" activity since the mid 1990's and the injection has continued to date, the real posibility of upper thropspheric saturation exist which equates to a constant percentage of fall of material, not to mention the obvious loss of material during the spraying process due to fall before it has dispersed over a wide area.”
• Perhaps....but when people correlate spraying overhead with relatively immediate sickness- it is exposing an impossibility that undermines the credibility of their claim. Given the random and sporadic temporal and geographic nature of the “spraying” activities it would undermine any saturation or “constant fall” claims.
Louis wrote:
You are certainly welcome to believe what you like with regard to the Chemtral Spraying issue, I believe that it is quite real because of the science of normal contrails and atmospheric physics which has proven to me that Chemtrails are not normal contrails many times now, were it one isolated case I would not be so inclined to believe in the Chemtrail Spraying but with every spraying that I observe I can and have proven it to be Chemtrails and not contrails that I was observing. I have also used the same data to confirm normal contrail formation, so I know the data and scientific methods are sound and that my conclusions are correct_end of story.
• Louis- you cannot prove it. If the behavior of contrails is still being studied and not an absolute…then short of sampling the nefarious spray itself- you cannot “prove” anything. A flt path that is not on flightaware does not prove that the plane is spraying- Do not confuse speculation with proof.
End of story?? How can that be?? Sounds very close minded…clearly the story is not ended…the ignorance pervading “chemtrail” circles with regard to persistent contrails is such that it undermines the credibility of the claims. Standing on the ground- looking up and claiming you see a “chemtrail” is a highly dubious proposition at best…especially when every supposed observable behavior of “chemtrails” – persistence, spreading out, haze inducing, mare’s tails, sun dogs etc…is a known, documented behavior of contrails….
Seems like the story still has ways to go.
|
| |
|
|
Louis Aubuchont
tagged & banned
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 946
Location: Parsonsfield, Maine |
| DELETED
Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:29 pm
|
|
|
DELETED DUE TO THE POLICY OF CTC IN LETTING THE DEBUNKERS AND TROUBLEMAKERS LIKE "FUIwon'tDoWhatUTellMe" AKA, "MAY41970' OVERRUN THE SITE.
FOR THAT REASON I WILL NOT HAVE MY POST ARCHIVED HERE AND I NO LONGER WISH TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE
Last edited by Louis Aubuchont on Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
| |
|
|
Foolsbane
tagged & banned
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 174
|
|
Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:11 pm
|
|
|
Is that it??
Just write me off as a "debunker" simply because I question some of your assertions?? WTF is that?? Talk about narrow minded.
You can't visibly discern between a persistent contrails and a "chemtrail" and you won't admit it. A sky full of trails from non-flightaware tracked planes still doesn't prove they are spraying anything?? Who is drawing conclusions to fit their beliefs??
How can you really hope to find the truth if you are closed to other points of view and write off errors in your own assertions as a "debunker" ...and thus in typical "I am losing the argument" fashion...you resort to insults...your credibility just tanked...
I called you on several points-
You said you didn't believe different types of engines could result in persistent trails at different temps and altitudes- I showed studies that proved the opposite
You said no one - not even universities- take in situ samples of contrails- I showed you proof to the contrary...
I pointed out errors in your beliefs and all you can reply with are insults and attacks.
Classic.
Good luck with that. |
| |
|
|
Richard Burgeson
tagged
Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 613
Location: Erie,PA |
| Check out this vid
Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:28 am
|
|
|
Hits on a few points
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWcBXwwPBWI&NR=1
I have a picture posted of an anti trail or what ever name it ends up with.
described as jet cutting into chemclouds sorry I don't remember the name of the picture.
_________________
Thomas Jefferson. " Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't." |
| |
|
|
stitcherman
Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 441
Location: jaffrey new hampshire |
| Re: Sun Dogs...
Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:49 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by marklookingup
quote:
Originally posted by Foolsbane
Sun Dogs are a natural phenomenon...and to suggest otherwise is to ignore reality, expose your ignorance...there is so much ignorance purveyed on this site that it is really disheartening...allegations taken as fact, ...complete disregard for rational thinking and the scientific method...
Does anyone know what a contrail cirrus is?? Look it up.
Does anyone know what a supersaturated persistent contrail is?? Look it up.
Here is a picture of a contrail with sundog...from 1983:
http://www.1000plus.com/Imagic/8301sund.htm
must have been a prototype...
______________________________________________________________________
Maybe I have this wrong. If a sundog is a natural phenomenon, then why do they need persistent contrails to manifest. I regard persistent contrails as man-made.
I also regard sundogs formed from persistent contrails that manifest when atmospheric conditions will not support them, anything but a natural phenomenon.
I still believe my above post is acurate. But then, I also don't think clouds smile.
http://www.1000plus.com/Imagic/8301sund.htm
that pic by Tomm Lorenzin in 1983 is not reality. it is manurfactured LOOK AT IT ! Kinda odd he describes what is in the pic for all of us. written below the pic ("Parhelic Arc, Sun Dog, and Contrail Shadows" - chaotic sky, Lake Norman, NC - January, 1983). I have to say what an amazing find by this forum member to come across such a pic. what a load of crap. just my opinion. more govt. tax dollars at work for our own good. you could put that page on television and it would fit right in with the rest of the trash.
oh yeah; "...complete disregard for rational thinking and the scientific method... " and "supersaturated persistent contrail " those terms were MADE UP well after you were born by some @$$ in a white jacket making up fancy words so he can dazzle most people with his made up words. to get the average person to believe about anything. backed with lots of money from think tanks. believe what you like. most people are to full of fear to realize that most truth is a lie. most sheep stay together in a flock mentally. the truth is here in this forum as well as in the box of lies. right there in front of you. hidden in plain site, put there on purpose. people may be concious of there perpetration of deception, or maybe not. it is all about the motive i guess.
stitcherman
_________________
". . . that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God." -- Thomas Jefferson's Last Letter, June 24, 1826 |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 2:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
