posted 10-19-2000 08:33 AM              

"The ice mass, meanwhile, grows with the volume of the plume as
moist ambient air is mixed in."

"While the B747 contrail has a larger
total ice mass than the B737 for high ambient supersaturations, we have for RHice
= 110% that the B737 eventually produces as significant a contrail as the B747
even though it consumes only about 20% as much fuel per meter of flight path."

"We note in particular that because
of (4) the assumption often made that the ice mass in a contrail for given ambient
conditions is proportional to fuel usage is not supported by these results."

Of course, these results are model-based, not empirical..

The authors say: "Any comments
or questions can be addressed to us via email."

Sounds like an invitation to me..........

posted 10-19-2000 03:01 PM            

Jay, here is a pop quiz for you if you have time:

This morning in Houston there were no clouds of anytype visible, there are definately no cumulus clouds. My question is, using whatever weather tools you like, do you expect:

a) no contrails
b) contrail formation
c) contrail persistence

and why...just soaking your brain...oh, and altitude isn't that important, we'll just say the latter choices override earlier choices.

Here is the sounding for Lake Charles today (10/19), it is farther away from Houston than I'd like, but it's the closest textual data I've found.

posted 10-20-2000 08:23 PM              

Really, you folks that think skeptical debunking is bad really puzzle me.

Do you REALLY want to be taken by what are called "bunk-o artists"?

posted 10-21-2000 03:39 PM            

quote:

---

I don't feel qualified to predict contrail formation or persistence. Ask a real meteorologist, please.

---

Okay, fair enough, the answer was "c", contrail persistence.

posted 10-22-2000 09:17 AM              

You are welcome to believe what you like, but will eventually come to the same conclusion as I, given the fullness of time.

Sometime over the last week I noted a comment by you regarding your false belief that ice crystals are "opaque" and can thus not produce refraction or scattering of light.

You are incorrect.

A large number of such effects are produced by normal ice crystals formedin naturally produced cirrus and contrails.

These effecetsare fairly well documented over the last 400 years and cannot be denied to exist. The following references are relevant:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/opt/ice/halo/22.rxml
http://ast.leeds.ac.uk/haverah/spaseman/halos.shtml
http://www.allthesky.com/atmosphere/atmosphere.html
http://www.meteoros.de/indexe.htm

Much more can be found sing these keywords:
22°-halo
Parhelia
Upper tangent arc
Lower tangent arc
Circumscribed
halo
Upper sun pillar
Lower sun pillar
Circumzenith arc
46°-halo
Parhelic circle
Lowitz arc
Upper Lowitz arc
Anthelion
120°-parhelia
Supralateral arc
Infralateral arc
Circumhorizontal
arc
Parry arc
9°-halo
18°-halo
24°-halo
Subsun
Subparhelia
Wegeners arc

How's that for debunk, cy?
The "oily rainbow" is one of the oldest myths regarding putative "chemtrails", and is a fine example of the perpetuation of myth as a direct result of the failure of "chemtrail"
believers to develop information regarding normality.

See, I explained these optical effects, giving the same references, one and one-half years ago. Rather than disproving these facts, or even considering them as possibilities, they were summarily rejected as "disinformation" and ignored.

I do not recall any "chemtrail" website which even references these facts, thus the false idea persists, and believers such as yourself are kept in ignorance, no progress is made.

There are probably many reasons why this is so. For to offer this information is to risk being labeled as a heretic, debunker, disinfo agent, etc. Such rejection is simply too risky for most chemnoids to take. Besides the threat of ostracism, there is the loss of pride when admitting one is wrong that takes real courage to confront.

Having now been shown these facts, where do you stand, cy? What say you now?

posted 10-22-2000 10:27 AM            

quote:

---

I do not recall any "chemtrail" website which even references these facts

---

Great Halo of '99, South Pole

quote:

---

There are many unique visual phenomena that are produced by nature, from the rainbow to more esoteric effects like the anthelic cross or Parry's arc. But unusual sightings are being reported and photographed more frequently and spraying activity is often observed in conjunction with these displays. These effects, like sundogs, for example, can be very striking under the right conditions and could even be disconcerting, if not understood. Some of these light phenomena, and the conditions that produce them, are discussed below...

---

You know it used to be that Halo researchers would head to Finland or the South Pole to observe these rings and other visual formations, but there isn't really a need for this anymore. Just come on down to Houston and you will see it on our heaviest spray days, I saw one just last week towards the end of the day. People got so freaked out seeing one of these Sun Rings over LA that KABC felt compelled to address it on the 11 o'clock news (5/11). Too bad they tried to use dust as the explaination.

posted 10-22-2000 02:11 PM              

I do give you credit for mentioning the normality first. Looks like both Cy and myself need to look at all your pages closer.

By the way, who all is involved with deciding what to put on these pages?
Do you accept submissions?
Do you actually lend credence to the channellings of spirits regarding "chemtrails"?