|
Author
|
|
Topic: The David Travis interview tonight in vancouver. | Topic page views:
|
|
Sore Throat
Senior Member
x
736 posts, Sep 2000
|
posted 06-06-2002 10:02 PM
  
And the squeaker chimes in with more worthless drivel.How about squaeker...you know it all. Is 5% of 31 days equal to 1.55 days? And by the way, those who follow Deborah's efforts know that she consistently produces an unending stream of solid, relevant, on topic, references. Something that becomes increasing apparent is that the squeaker is one who has never learned that it's not what you have, but what you do with it.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 06-06-2002] 
|
theseeker
One moon circles
Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3403 posts, Jul 2000
|
posted 06-06-2002 10:07 PM
throat, I'll answer your worthless question when deborah answers mine....And by the way, those who follow Deborah's efforts know that she consistently produces an unending stream of solid, relevant, on topic, references. really throat ! how many did she author ? you make it too easy for me.... btw, did you know the globe has been warming since the last ice age... ------------------
T/S
[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 06-06-2002]
|
KrissaTMC2
Never Surrender!
Greenwich, CT, USA
472 posts, Feb 2002
|
posted 06-06-2002 10:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by canex:
It would be interesting if some objective person (not many there) on this and, possibly, other boards would actually compare the number of sightings over several different locations around the country during July & August from this and previous years and compare them to, say, the number of sightings in those same locations during April-May, January February, and October-November.
Well Mister Canex, I would like to do that but, prior to November of 2001, I can only think of two or three times that there were persistant trails in my little part of Connecticut. I spend a great deal of my time outdoors now as I did from 1997 to 1999 and we didn't have the persistent trails back then that I've been seeing here since November. It's June now and I'm still seeing persistent trails and thick haze. I've also seen these jets make trails at certain altitudes while normal commercial traffic traveling at higher and lower altitudes are not making any trails and in a few cases, I have also seen normal commercial jets traveling at almost the same altitudes while these jets were spraying that did not make any trails. Now I might not have Flight Explorer or access to any sophisticated equipment, but I do have copies of flight maps and these jets are not traveling on the normal vectors for this area and I spent enough time as a grunt to know that these jets are not commercial. Oh well, it's almost midnight here and so I'm off to bed.
|
WiseQuakker
Senior Member
Mt. Vernon, WA, USA
141 posts, Aug 2000
|
posted 06-06-2002 11:40 PM
quote:
...search engine research does not make you an authority on atmospheric science....
And I suppose that a Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences is a guarantee that a lay person, or someone with a lowly bachelors degree, is never going to paint you into a corner with questions for which you have no answers. “Hey Hot Shot, send some money and I'll research it for you.” That quote ring a bell, Seeker...???Get real, Seeker, these people are not gods. Should a “need” arise, those in possession of “professional credentials” are every bit as capable as the next person — if not more so — when it comes to abusing their positions of “authority”. Ike said so. Deal with it. “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.” What part of his warning don’t you understand...??? And your attempt at demoralizing people with cheap shots doesn’t say very much with regards to your own credentials. Indeed, the bulk of your “wizdom” is certainly search engine driven. Those brutes at the debunkatorium have been giving you a pretty rough time, lately, haven’t they. Well, don’t come over here and take it out on the people posting at this board, okay...???
_____________________________
“We should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organisation of society.” ---
Albert Einstein, May 1949......
[Edited 1 times, lastly by WiseQuakker on 06-06-2002]
|
theseeker
One moon circles
Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3403 posts, Jul 2000
|
posted 06-07-2002 12:25 AM
quak, I felt deborah's comment was out of line, and the way I read canex's text was for the folks that would be *here* to independently do a study...and thus deborah, the consummate over~reactionary took it as a *slap* and popped off in a negative fashion....
“Hey Hot Shot, send some money and I'll research it for you.” That quote ring a bell, Seeker...???
yep remember it well...I don't work for free either....how bout choo ? Get real, Seeker, these people are not gods. don't disagree with you,I've always found canex very cordial, and explains things in context that is relative to layperson(s), NASA and the DOD are 2 different things... Those brutes at the debunkatorium have been giving you a pretty rough time, lately, haven’t they. Well, don’t come over here and take it out on the people posting at this board, okay...??? lol...yah...don't have many friends in this issue...that's 4 sure...this person you are referring to was a meanspirited sort that see's things on a 2 dimensional plane...I try to treat those the way they treat me, x2...I've never been out to win any popularity contest quak...you know that...just answers, hold the mayo.... anyway I hope kreskin's prediction tonight comes true...which says a bit about my character...and lot of some others... ------------------
T/S
|
Deborah
Take It To The Limit
Flagstaff, AZ
700 posts, Jul 2000
|
posted 06-07-2002 01:14 AM
Seeker wrote:.....and thus deborah, the consummate over~reactionary took it as a *slap* and popped off in a negative fashion.....
.
.
.
Frankly, I think I'm rather restrained, all things considered. I was trying to point out that possession of an advanced degree is not a prerequisite for *objectivity*. It is you, Seeker, who likes to expand upon people's succinct and direct observations and distort them into the realm of the absurd. I'm hardly "popping off." I'm simply - and I think pretty matter-of-factly - not allowing you to put words in my mouth. If you have a problem with that, too bad. Thanks for derailing this thread. I'm sure you didn't mean to, jumping in out of nowhere and all. 
|
theseeker
One moon circles
Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3403 posts, Jul 2000
|
posted 06-07-2002 01:58 AM
I was trying to point out that possession of an advanced degree is not a prerequisite for *objectivity*.certainly in thought but not in practice...on this level...the ability to understand you are correct on, but you must remember not too long ago when all these jets spraying were said to be below 20,00ft...I think we know better now....like canex knew then...dig ? It is you, Seeker, who likes to expand upon people's succinct and direct observations and distort them into the realm of the absurd. I'm an equal opportunity offender...reference what quak's talking about.... I'm hardly "popping off." I'm simply - and I think pretty matter-of-factly - not allowing you to put words in my mouth. never tried to, read the post again and you decide.... Thanks for derailing this thread. I'm sure you didn't mean to, jumping in out of nowhere and all. damn...I can't find that nowhere man midi....anyway...your welcome deborah...but I can't take the credit derailing this thread....duncan deleted the original post, and he deserves all the credit.... grins
------------------
T/S
|
Deborah
Take It To The Limit
Flagstaff, AZ
700 posts, Jul 2000
|
posted 06-07-2002 08:05 AM
.....I'm an equal opportunity offender.....
.
.
.
Something to be proud of, I'm sure.Carry on, by all means. As long as enough people enjoy *watching* this kind of thing your type will do quite nicely in this world. No hard feelings. As it turns out, this little diversion has actually been instructive enough to have made any unpleasantness worth the valuable insight gained.
|
canex
Senior Member
USA
164 posts, Oct 2000
|
posted 06-07-2002 09:54 PM
Excuse me for forgetting why posting on this board is such a waste. Penumbra was the only person who actually responded to my simple suggestion about taking an objective look at all of the sightings (real sightings, not strange looking clouds or odd colors of stormy skies). Who said squat about a PhD or being the only peson who is objective? Sorethroat had some comments about the Minnis study showing 5% persistent contrail frequency over the US during July. (that includes the whole country, BTW) and had some doubt about it. I was just suggesting that you check him out even if you can't do it scientifically (that's not a slight, it's the truth because sightings or lack thereof on this and other boards are not reported regularly at the same time of day at a variety of locations and they do not report how many times you look and see a CT and how many times you look and do not see a CT and how many times you look and see what you call a "normal" contrail? To do it right you have to look regularly and report yes or no, not just yes. Make sense?). Based on my own anecdotal readings of this and other boards for the last 2 years or so, the reports fade through August and start picking up again in the fall. But I never formally counted them and I don't plan to. I thought some one without some ax to grind would do the counting. Instead, the thread turns into the usual snipe fest. Again, pardon my intrusion. My memory is too short.BTW. There is such a thing as rounding in arithmetic. Or, one could take hourly readings and round to a different decimal point if you don't want to use days.
|
Chem11
megasprayer news
The Homeland
1366 posts, Apr 2001
|
posted 06-07-2002 10:31 PM
Ah... Canex. I've been meaing to ask you something (actually I already did, but the post went un-answered so I'll ask again. Forgive my tenacity).Regarding that "Hot on the Contrails of Weather" article that recently appeared in Wired (and Dr. Minnis): We actually found a much greater change in temperature range for parts of the country that normally get the greatest contrail coverage," said David J. Travis, of the University of Wisconsin in Whitewater. His team presented their results at an American Meteorological Society conference in Portland, Oregon. Large contrails, he said, only form when the cruising-altitude atmosphere is both sufficiently moist and sufficiently cool (somewhere in the range of minus 40 to minus 65 degrees Celsius). The skies above the Southwest are typically too dry, and the skies above the deep South are too hot for extended contrail coverage. ...Patrick Minnis of NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, said Travis' results confirm previous statistical studies Travis had published on climate variability and contrails. I have emphasized what I consider to be a major discrepancy in this article, and I'm sure you see the problem I have with the under-scored statement, as it relates to obsrvable reality; I live in Florida. The Deep South. I observe 'large' and highly persistent trails an average of five days out of the week. If the experts are to be believed (and I think they are with regards to contrail formation in this area and the Southwest), then what, exactly am I seeing on an almost daily basis (if not contrails)? Are the experts greatly confused on this aspect of the issue? Are they somehow unaware of the reality of artificial cirrus cloud cover over the deep south and the clock-work like regularity with which it occurs (all as a result of 'emmissons' from jet aircraft)? Are they aware that this reality utterly and completley contradicts the referenced statement? If not, what then?
|
canex
Senior Member
USA
164 posts, Oct 2000
|
posted 06-08-2002 11:53 PM
I am not exactly sure what Travis meant. He was talking about last September in the Wired article, so I assume that he was referring specifically to the South and southwest during summertime (July - September) when contrail formation conditions are much less frequent than during the remainder of the year (see the article by Minnis that Sorethroat was talking about). If he was referring to that part of country during the entire year, then I would doubt that he knows all that much about contrails. Maybe someone should ask him for a clarification because the press often quotes people incorrectly.
|
Dan Rockwell
Hoka hey! - heyokas!
Stamford, CT, USA
1750 posts, Dec 2001
|
posted 06-09-2002 05:52 PM
Well Canex since you're here, perhaps you can explain why we are still seeing anything but a normal clear blue sky. I can understand the conditions being right for the formation of contrails occasionally. However, as Krissa mentioned, prior to November, we only had a few days where there were persistent trails. However, since November, we've had several days where we have seen what is pictured in the images below.   
The above pictures were taken last week and the two pictures below were taken 6/8/02  
[Edited 3 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 06-09-2002]
|
Chem11
megasprayer news
The Homeland
1366 posts, Apr 2001
|
posted 06-09-2002 06:42 PM
Thanks for the reply, Canex. Regardless of the context of the quote, one can infer that a theoretical study of observed 'trail' activity for the months July-September in my area of the Deep South should result in sightings for no more than 13% of the time the study is conducted. I'm taking this 13% from the NASA contrail frequency Report of 1993/1994;The mean annual frequency of occurrence in unobstructed viewing conditions is 13 percent for these sites...Although nocturnal observations are not available, it appears that the contrails have a dirunal variation that peaks during mid morning over most areas This numer is based on annual frequency, of course. And represents reports from various locations across the US. One would surmise that I should expect to see trails far less than 13% of the time, because I live in the deep south and the study would be conducted during the summer months. Correct? If I am incorrect, then please give me a ballpark figure of what to expect. What percentage of contrail frequency would be considered normal (for my location and the time period in question)? Less than the nationwide annual 13% (which, as I understand it, refers to all contrails, regardless of persistence. Correct me if I am wrong)?
| |
Chemtrail Central Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 
