|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
 Fri Mar 07, 2003 11:18 am
|
 |
|
That's highly-skilled transient, mister. And everything I post can be verified (see above).
And don't think you've seen anything yet.
I haven't spent four years on this issue to have some NASA PR man blow smoke up my (and everyone else's) wazzoo.
Once again, this is rumor control. Here are the Facts:
David Leith, an environmental engineer at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health in Chapel Hill, is developing instruments to measure the density of JP-8 aerosols. In a trial in Alaska, the plume created by a jet exceeded 200 milligrams per cubic metre of JP-8 - the maximum his device could register. The effects of exposure to aerosols and spills on children and pregnant women have yet to be studied. But when pregnant mice are exposed, Harris recently discovered, up to 70 percent of offspring die and surviving pups have abnormal white blood cells...
http://eces.org/earth_crash/showarticle.php?id=291
Of course, NASA isn't 'interested' in aerosols. The only thing they are interested in is sending some used car salesman into the public forum to loudly proclaim that there are "no health hazards" associated with these aerosol trails that they are not intertested in. And that we're all cRaZy to be concerned with these aerosol trails that we shouldn't be surprised to see at least 57% of the time. In fact, if it's not 'bone dry' up there, we shouldn't be surprised at all to watch these aerososl trails blanketing the sky at least 57% of the time under a high pressure system. And BTW, did we tell you that there are no health risks associated with exposure to these JP8 aerosols we're so decidedly not 'intersted' in? Unless you're a lab rat, that is. Then you're pretty much SOL.
I may not have a doctorate under my belt, but I've somehow managed to keep the drool off the front of my shirt long enough to learn how to discern when someone is selling me a bill of goods (and being a remarkable asshole on top of it), Mr. K.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to find an alley to set up my card board box in so I can get some sleep before tomorrow's double shift of dumpster-diving and ditch digging.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Chem11 on 03-07-2003] |
| |
|
|
Feelin Kocky
Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 537
Location: Underground Weather Control Bunker |
|
Fri Mar 07, 2003 3:29 pm
|
|
|
>>I may not have a doctorate under my belt, but I've somehow managed to keep the drool off the front of my shirt long enough to learn how to discern when someone is selling me a bill of goods (and being a remarkable asshole on top of it), Mr. K.<<
Well I'm glad to know I'm not the only asshole around here.  I will clean it up if you guys do.
>>Meanwhile, Steven Kornguth of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, has exposed mice to aerosols containing 1,000 or 2,500 milligrams of JP-8 per cubic metre for an hour a day over one week. Compared to control animals, their retinas and cerebellums contained up to five times as much glutathione S-transferase, an enzyme that detoxifies many harmful substances. This raises the possibility that JP-8 could disrupt vision and proprioception - the sense of where one's body is in space.<<
Do you know if this study was done on JP8 exhaust or was it "raw" fuel? Either way, I'd find it very difficult to believe any person would ever be exposed to this concentration of jet fuel/exhaust for ten seconds, let alone hours and days like they did with the mice. Even so, fossil fuels are inherently hazardous when in high concentrations. Notice the cancer hazard signs when you are at the gas pump? Handling motor oil is even hazardous if you do it for long periods of time.
The 200mg/M^3 found over Alaska. How long after the jet laid out the contrail was this concentration measured? After an hour or so, 200mg/M^3 probably becomes a billionth of that depending on the wind. IMO.
F.K. ~~~ Will try and be nice(er) |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:55 am
|
|
|
William (sic) Teller ? ! ?
Well, I suppose we're finally in agreement CANEX...
William Teller (whoever he is),is completely irrelevant to this debate.
I think you need a break... either that or you've been spending too much time trying to figure out how to properly work that NASA Contrail Forecast Model.
My advice...
Get help before it's too late.
....
That isn't the sound of laughter is it?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 03-07-2003] |
| |
|
|
canex
Joined: 26 Oct 2000
Posts: 164
Location: USA |
|
Sat Mar 08, 2003 5:43 am
|
|
|
It's too late. You guys are all the help I need. A little laffter goes a long way. Was that Joebob Teller?
And just when I thought chemii was my friend, he gets ornery. They have plenty of people studying aerosols in NASA. My agency? I wish! Anyway, all you gotta do is contact them.
PS. When you call me a non-moronic incompetent, please spell it right so it has more effect. Or, are we still talking? 57% of the time? |
| |
|
|
FLKook
Joined: 28 Apr 2001
Posts: 710
Location: East Central Florida |
|
Sat Mar 08, 2003 6:13 am
|
|
|
Man Chem11, when you get fired up you're a hoot! Bout spit my Aquafina all over my monitor.
From my very unscientific observsations we had beaucoup sky covering long lasting technocolor trails on a regular basis throughout June, July, and Sept.(Since I was up in Maine getting sprayed like eyesopen in August I'll skip that one)
Many many.
Dec. Jan. Feb not so much. |
| |
|
|
Cutlass80R2
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 37
|
|
Sat Mar 08, 2003 8:02 am
|
|
|
Hey guys,
Sorry I haven't had time to wade through everyones in-depth meteorological explanations, but the basic question here seems to be: why is our skywatcher in San Fran seeing fewer contrails than last summer? Well, lets see... since those contrails are 90% created by commercial airliners, and commercial airlines have DRAMATICALLY cut their flight schedules since that time... I think you have your answer.
Now, I'm new to this whole "chemtrail" concept, and frankly was stunned to see that it had such a large following on the net. A fellow airline pilot told me about it and I was sure he was joking. However, I respect anyone's beliefs, and even though I may not agree with what ya say, the old saw applies, "I will defend with my life your right to say it." With that in mind, can I respectfully ask someone to explain to me why they think the condensation trails they're seeing are actually chemical trails? Every single picture I've seen on this site is nothing but a garden-variety contrail. And, I mean, that's just my opinion, but I do spend every day making them, watching other aircraft make them, and flying through them. I'm sure you know the theory; you all seem well-versed in meteorology: particles, simple by-products of combustion in jet engine exhaust, provide condensation nuclei that water vapor can condense on in an environement that is otherwise too dry. Same reason you see power plants making clouds on a dry, cold winter day. Is it the differing appearance of these trails? Some days they appear ragged because of upper-level winds, some days they stay tight for hours. Some days they will actually precipitate, and you'll see virga streaming off of them. It's all just water, though. Or is it their frequency of occurrence in certain areas? Of course you know that commercial aircraft use pre-defined routes in and out of busy airports. That avatar that one poster has, of several trails all crossing at the same point, making a huge asterik? That happens all the time over the Joliet VOR near my house; it's both an arrival and departure fix for O'Hare.
So, no flaming please, I'm just wanting someone to explain their views on this.
Respectfully,
Joe
|
| |
|
|
X marks the spot
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Posts: 13
|
|
Sat Mar 08, 2003 12:11 pm
|
|
|
Cool! Another "soft touch" debunker... er... I mean... ahem... pilot.
Isn't that cute? He just recently heard about chemtrails.
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but if I thought for one minute that all these "pilots" on the boards were for real, I would never fly again!
Yeeeeeessshhh!
------------------
A deceived person does not know that they are deceived. If they did, then they wouldn't be deceived. A deceived person may be sincere, but sincerely wrong. |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Sun Mar 09, 2003 12:36 am
|
|
|
Canex, if you insist on expressing yourself like some third-rate J. Reynolds wannabee, then I will humbly suggest that you frequent Maverick's Viper's Nest; their you will find a vast array of like-minded simpletons who insist on lowering all discussion elements to their lowest common denominator. I have no desire to be part of some weird debunker cloning project, I'm afraid...
Expect it when you least expect it, eh Florida? 
I learned years ago not to casually swill down anything while cruising these boards. My spacebar still sticks from the grape Nehi I purged all over my keyboard while reading one of Don's flamefest rebuttals.. 
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Chem11 on 03-08-2003] |
| |
|
|
canex
Joined: 26 Oct 2000
Posts: 164
Location: USA |
|
Sun Mar 09, 2003 3:49 am
|
|
|
hmmm?
|
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Sun Mar 09, 2003 7:06 am
|
|
|
I believe this is the what Canecks was referring to (RE: German experiments with low sulfur fuels). Well, the first part anyway... 
Contrails at threshold conditions appear to be formed for very low (2 ppm) fuel sulfur content in the same manner as for average fuel sulfur content (260 ppm) (Busen and Schumann, 1995), but their properties differ measurably for larger fuel sulfur content (Schumann et al., 1996).
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/035.htm#3242
Apparently, if you raise the aerosol content of the trail past 260ppm, the properties of said trail begin to 'differ measurably' from a normal contrail.
And what are the properties of a contrail? About the only two that are relevant to this report that I can think of are it's ability to form under a given set of circumstances and/or it's ability to persist and turn into artificial cloud cover.
But Canex sez:
quote:
quote:
It has been found in several different experiments that the aerosols formed from the exhaust products play little or no role in contrail formation
Well, to be charitable, I'll call this a difference of opinion. But what is intersting is that Canex's opinion is based on the very same study that contradicts him... |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Sun Mar 09, 2003 7:14 am
|
|
|
More:
Contrail ice crystals evaporate quickly when the ambient air is subsaturated with respect to ice, unless the particles are coated with other species such as HNO3 (Diehl and Mitra, 1998). Simulations suggest that a few monolayers of HNO3 may condense onto ice particle surfaces and form NAT particles in stratospheric contrails (Kärcher, 1996). These particles would be thermodynamically stable and longer lived and would cause a different chemical perturbation than would short-lived stratospheric contrails composed of water ice.
volatile particles may contribute considerably to ice crystal nucleation at temperatures below the contrail threshold value. This result is supported by observations of contrails and their microphysical properties for different fuel sulfur levels (Petzold et al., 1997)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/035.htm#3242
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Chem11 on 03-09-2003] |
| |
|
|
Cutlass80R2
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 37
|
|
Sun Mar 09, 2003 7:41 am
|
|
|
X,
It's ok... you can call me a "debunker" if you want! I've been called worse...
<< Isn't that cute? He just recently heard about chemtrails. >>
Now, I gotta say that I'm not so sure why you find this "cute", but, uh, whatever does it for you, man. If we ever end up on the same plane, train, bus etc. just maintain proper male spacing, ok?
<< I don't know about the rest of you guys, but if I thought for one minute that all these "pilots" on the boards were for real, I would never fly again! >>
Guess I don't really understand this, either. I'm not sure what I said to give you reason to doubt me or my flying abilities, but you're entitled to your opinion. But, why in the world would anyone lie about being an airline pilot? It's not exactly a glamorous profession. It seems to me that if you folks are on this board for the purpose of exchanging all information relating to this topic, we'd be your best friends! No one else has the perspective we have, on the sky or the daily goings-on in the airspace system. I imagine you don't like the pilots here because they probably all disbelieve this chemtrail theory. They probably all disbelieve it for the same reasons I do:
1. It's logistically impossible. You guys theorize that a good portion of the contrails you're seeing are really chemtrails. This suggests that, in addition to ALL the commercial and private aircraft in the flight levels, there's room for a secret fleet of military aircraft to operate, similar in size to the civilian fleet. THERE IS NO WAY. Even with airline schedule cutbacks, the national airspace system is operating near capacity. Why do you think you will sometimes hold for half an hour going into a large airport when the weather is good and there's no apparent reason for a delay? Just too many airplanes. There isn't room for a large spraying fleet. ATC could never handle it; there'd be mid-airs and near-misses left and right.
2. If there was something suspicious going on up there, we'd know about it. We'd see it. That's all we do in cruise, sit there and stare out the window (well, ok, sometimes we read the paper). If there were large numbers of aircraft flying strange patterns and leaving unusual contrails, we'd have front row seats to all of it. We're seeing the same things you all are, of course; it's just that they aren't unusual to us because we understand them. And here's a thought: it is not unusual at all to fly through a contrail, indeed sometimes to stay in one for minutes at a time as you follow same-altitude traffic down an airway. Now, if your thinking is correct and a good portion of these are chemtrails, why am I not dead? Why aren't airplanes plunging regularly to earth because their crews and pax were overcome by some concentrated toxic chemicals? If this stuff is bad enough to make people sick and dead after it drifts down and disburses through thirty thousand feet of atmosphere, why doesn't it kill me instantly when I fly through it and it's force-fed into my AC packs??
Just points to ponder. X, your reply to my post was heavy on condescension and dismissal, and very light (completely devoid) of any facts backing up your position. I asked good questions the first time around, and I've asked more now. Do you have any good answers??
Joe
PS. I'll solve another mystery for you. That big picture on your "chemtrail research" page, of all the contrails making a big circle? Nothing unusual about that at all; that's a military air-refueling track. God knows I've seen enough of those. The caption mentioned something about it occurring in the same place in CA every Monday for a month. The military obviously had a big training exercise going on; Red Flag maybe. I don't remember the date; was it late summer sometime?? |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Sun Mar 09, 2003 8:04 am
|
|
|
Cutlass, I find your sudden appearance on this particular thread, and your proclivity for posting off-topic questions and/or baiting participants into deflective arguements to be highly co-incidental.
The topic here is the contradiction between expected sightings of persistant contrails during summer vs. winter and the mechanism that may very well acccount for that contradiction. I am going to respectfully and appreciatively ask that you take any off-topic debates you may wish to encourage to a relevant thread (and there are many)... before Florida winds up losing more of her Aquafina. |
| |
|
|
Cutlass80R2
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 37
|
|
Sun Mar 09, 2003 8:28 am
|
|
|
Chem,
How is my sudden appearance coincidental? I'm a new forum user, and this happened to be the top discussion, that's all. I certainly wasn't "baiting" anyone into a deflective arguement. I was just offering my theory on why our San Fran resident is seeing fewer contrails now. Sure, some of it is no doubt atmospheric, but a large part of it is simply fewer flights. Hacums razor, ya know: the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. I was then promptly personally attacked and scorned by someone with absolutely no justification, and I responded as anyone would. I don't see that I've really posted anything off-topic, but I will gladly be more careful in the future.
Joe
|
| |
|
|
Feelin Kocky
Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 537
Location: Underground Weather Control Bunker |
|
Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:34 pm
|
|
|
Don't bother trying to reason why you are attacked. You don't believe and therefore you are probably one of "them." Just post what your think and don't worry about the condesending attitude you get in return. It is pretty typical treatment of "debunkers" around here. I am learning to ignore it.
Welcome, BTW,
F.K. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 9:27 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
