posted 06-21-2002 10:53 AM            

quote:

---

You claim that using polarized sunglasses helps you tell the difference between chem clouds and other clouds. Please explain to me how this works.

---

quote:

---

the trails were blatant and apparent on the bright white chem scum with the polarized sunglasses on and less so to the naked eye

---

posted 06-21-2002 11:34 AM            

I am constantly trying to educate people about G.W.E.N. . It's not a theory. It's not a hypotheisis. It's real. I have seen some of the sites. I have done extensive research. We are all saturated in EMF, wether we like it or not. And this doesn't even include all the other RF, MW, or EM signals that are penetrating our cells and organs daily.

posted 06-21-2002 01:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sore Throat:
I might add the the turquoise and magenta colors occur together...mid-day.

Pretty picture squeaker.

Still no answers.

---

I agree, it’s a pretty picture. Was it digital or film? I used to do a lot of amateur photography like that. I found that using polarizing filters with certain types of film, especially in sunset shots like that can cause some strange color shifts. Check out these photography forums devoted to this problem:
http://nature.gardenweb.com/forums/photo/

This one is especially pertinent
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-one-category?topic_id=34&category=Filters

I think it could be said in general that anytime you use a polarizing or other type of lens filter you should have a pretty good idea of the optics involved before you can interpret what you see. For instance, what direction is the light coming from, what time of day is it, what is the orientation of the polarizing lens, etc.

The fact that a polarizing filter can help improve your observation of trails, be they chem or con, only proves that atmospheric haze is present. It doesn’t tell you what the haze is made of. The use of polarizing filters to cut though haze goes back quite a while. I have an Ansel Adams book somewhere where he discusses the technique.

posted 06-21-2002 01:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alpha-Theta:
EMF have been a long debated issue. Many scientists have found that these fields do have an adverse affect on our health.

---

I agree, however, like everything else, the issue is not if EMFs have a health effect, the issue is how much of a risk is it.

One of the problems is that the risk level is right at the lower boundary of our ability to quantify and assess the health effects.

I have studied risk assessment at the graduate level and I can tell you that even if you could calculate or estimate a numeric risk level (1 in a million chance of cancer say), there are a lot of other factors that effect our evaluation of whether that is an acceptable risk or not. We make these kind of decisions for ourselves everyday, what we don’t like is when someone else decides whether a risk is acceptable or not.

posted 06-21-2002 05:22 PM            

Bonehead, I'm tired of trying to explain any observations to you, your circular rhetoric is wearisome.

posted 06-21-2002 08:39 PM            

Great examples of the unique turquoise & magenta colors that occur when the sun shines through mid-day (NOT sunrise or sunset) ChemClouds.

Many others have photo documented this unique event.

posted 06-21-2002 09:27 PM            

Sorry, I couldn't pick any one item to post here but I'm just starting to weed my way through this mountain of info.

posted 06-22-2002 12:37 AM            

And the green and magenta variety.

posted 06-22-2002 01:14 AM            

These are excellent examples of exactly what I have observed on several occasions over the last three years over not only Boston, MA, but Sebastian, FL, Providence, RI and Bethel, ME.

The magenta and turquoise coloration is very distinct - and VERY consistent - in my observation.

Naturally, I notice this phenomenon for the same reason that everyone else here has noticed it - because it is UNUSUAL. To say the least.

And in all the time people have been reporting this particular observation, I have not YET seen a valid, and verifiable, explanation offered by any of the self-proclaimed *experts* and their boot-licking sycophants, who continually orbit the message boards looking for any opportunity to trash the direct observations of the, I feel, justifiably concerned.

Ergo, this phenomenon is apparently yet another one, among many, that we simply "never noticed" prior to 1998-99.

posted 06-22-2002 01:54 AM            

Here's a favorite...

A~T, with all due respect, cell phones pose a much greater risk to human's than weather radar, EMF...whatever...I do not use a cell phone's more than 3 or 4 times a month...and that's too damn much ! warning label's are put on them in europe...

provided you have a sound card...call time and temperature and move the phone steadily closer to your machine...cordless phone's are almost as bad...

warning doing the above could damage your machine...much less your head....anyway...

I have seen magenta and turquoise together before, in association with a rainbow, not before 99'oddly enough...but never here or there as throat seems to indicate...the mushrooms must be good on the west coast...

For what it's worth,and it's probably not much.

great post david !

posted 06-22-2002 04:11 PM            

Near Throckmorton, Texas, May 16, 1973

This is a good one: Wave cloud east of Mt. Mitchell, North Carolina, October 1978, Note the persistent contrail.

Mammatus clouds, Oklahoma
June 1973,

posted 06-22-2002 04:24 PM            

A sunset at Duse Bay, march 1962
Is there enough purple and magenta in there for you?

posted 06-22-2002 04:27 PM            

It's also apparent that these are sunrise or sunset shots.

It should be obvious to all that ANY scientific explanation of these unique mid-day cloud colors are not readily apparent otherwise the debunking crowd would be shoving it down our throats.

They either choose to ignore, or make fun, of this particular atmospheric condition that has been witnessed and documented by many.

Apparently bonehead didn't even bother to look at the link posted by eyesopen which clearly documents the colors being discussed.

Once again, the debunkers are down and out.

posted 06-22-2002 06:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sore Throat:
Not only are the dates wrong bonehead, but so are the colors.

---

All of these photos came from the archives of the national weather service. As far as I am concerned, the dates are correct. What makes you think that the dates are wrong?

Ok let’s put the color issue aside for now (I am not conceding the point!, We can get back to it later if you would like) For now let’s look at some B&W photos. These are historic photos of clouds that are shaped suspiciously like some of the "Chemclouds" that I have seen here.

"Typical Forms of Clouds." In: "A Book about the Weather" by Charles F. Talman, 1931. P. 18.

"Cirri ober Ferwolken" In: "Flug Und Wolken", Manfred Curry, Verlag F. Bruckmann, Munchen, 1932.

Altocumulus - bands of altocumulus clouds with cirrus filaments in the center
Date: ca 1960’s

posted 06-22-2002 07:36 PM            

Here are some similar photos. Some are dated, some are not.

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/historic/nws/wea00146.htm

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/llaveder/galerie/html/irisation.htm
http://www.k5kj.net/skyfire.htm

http://www.cosmiverse.com/membergallery/weather/site/cgrohusko3.html

EDIT

Here is a good explanation of the physics involved:

posted 06-22-2002 11:48 PM            

"Plate 31. Iridescence in clouds is a diffraction phenomenon caused by the interaction of sunlight with cloud droplets of very uniform size. In this example, the cloud is at the crest of a wave in the lee of a high mountain. This wave is quite thin so that the colors extend outward from the sun's location and show at least 2 successive sequences of color, the dominant being a light blue. The uniformity of droplet size is typical of a "young" cloud, since the droplets are exclusively the result of moisture condensation. With time, the coalescence of droplets will occur, leading to a part of a corona since it usually appears as a ring of color surrounding the sun. In this instance the cloud is not large enough to provide a symmetrical corona. There is a good chance that a fine glory would be seen surrounding the shadow of an airplane flying over this cloud. While the color in this example is dominatedby blue, purplish reds and pale greens are often seen. The color at any given point is determined by the size of the cloud particles and their angular distance from the sun with respoect to the observer. Its brightness is enhanced by the number and uniformity of the cloud droplets."
*******************************************

On page 132 there are two pictures of jet contrails, one casting a black shadow and the other spreading with streamers.

The original copyright of this book is 1981.
Cover design is copyrighted 1987.

I could not find the actual printing date of the edition I have. It does contain a wealth of information.

posted 06-23-2002 11:08 AM            

These images are very interesting, but are not representative of the very specific **MIDDAY**, exclusively turquoise and magenta cloud coloration being reported in this thread - and very ACCURATELY documented photographically by "eyesopen" above.

posted 06-23-2002 09:59 PM            

The fact of the matter is: irisation can occur at any time of day. In the link above about the physics of irisation, It says:

"The moon or sun when viewed through Cc, Ac, thin As or Sc may be surrounded by a diffraction disc, or aureole of light, of varying size and intensity. The aureole is bluish near the sun or moon, whiter further out with a red/brown periphery. The aureole may be enclosed by rings with blue inner and red outer edges forming a corona. The size of the rings depends on droplet size, smaller droplets produce larger rings. If there is a wide mixture of droplets of varying size then the diffraction rings will be of widely varying size overlapping each other and blurring into a uniform illumination leaving only the aureole visible.

Cloud irisation or iridescence ( Iris = the Greek rainbow goddess ) appears when a cloud element or streak, usually Ac or Cc and sometimes lenticularis, is evaporating around its edges so that the droplet size changes quickly over a short angular distance. Also the entire element or small cloud is contained in roughly the same angular distance from the sun. The diffraction pattern traces blue light around the edge of the cloud where the droplets are smallest and red light where the drops are uniformly larger. The result is iridescent bands, predominantly pinks and blues or greens with pastel shades, appearing along the thinner edges of individual cloud elements, below left. Cloud iridescence is common but the cloud must be within 20° of the sun and thus not readily noticeable, it can occur in thin Sc or As but also in nacreous clouds."

The physics behind irisation is the same as the physics behind sun dogs and halos, the difference is that instead of the diffraction being caused by ice crystals, it is caused by very small water droplets.

If sun dogs and halos can occur around a midday sun, so can irisation.

As to the colors in the photographs. as I stated before, color shifts are a common problem with all photographic media (see here for a discussion on a magenta shift with digital cameras: http://www.robgalbraith.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000062 )

One thing to remember, it is the physical conditions which determine how and if diffraction occurs, not the chemicals. Droplet size, the angle of the light etc.

It is true that different chemicals have different diffraction indexes (a measure of how much they bend light). But this is really only significant for non-aqueous phase liquids (i.e oils). In addition, it would not affect the separation of the light into the various wavelengths.

Now if someone wants to suggest that there are chemicals that are filtering the sunlight, then I would have to ask you this: If there is a sufficient mass of chemicals to effectively filter out a particular wavelength of diffracted light, don’t you think that that would also have a visible filtering effect on the direct light? In other words, the entire cloud would be green (or turquoise if you want). Now looking at Jim’s photos, it appears that the centers of the clouds are still white. In addition, I would think that the effect would last long after the cloud moved out of the proper viewing angle for the irisation effects to occur.

I think that Jim’s photographs are a great example of an unusual and beautiful natural phenomenon, nothing more.