posted 02-27-2003 08:58 PM            

Take this thread for instance. Both Feeling Kocky and CANEX have been tying themselves in knots to make the case that the persistent trails observed in the SF Bay Area on 21 Feb, 2003 were perfectly normal.

At 10:59 PM last night CANEX finally shows up and posts, "Sorethroat,
What did you look at on the "Esteemed" contrail forecast site? DId you check out 250 mb at efficiency of 0.3 for 1600 - 2300 UTC for Feb 21? I just checked it out and Frisco should have had contrails out the wazoo. Maybe you have not been using it correctly."

Out the wazoo he says! I'm not using the model correctly.

So what do I do, I go check it out using the very parameters that CANEX himself provided.

Remember, his statement about "out the wazoo".

Well guess what? The NASA modeling program of "The Esteemed" Dr. Patrick Minnis indicated that there should have been NO PERSISTANT CONTRAILS in the western US that day.

So now here's where it gets REALLY interesting. I post at 11:27 PM telling CANEX that he's blown it....and I go on to upload a link to the image gallery...#1776.

When I try to link that image to this thread it turns out that's it's impossible to reach the board...as it was this morning...in fact I couldn't get back in until nearly noon my time.

You with me..OK so what to my surprise to I find when I finally get back in ??

1. Mark Sky has successfully posted the link to the image I sent him showing no contrails in the western US from the Minnis model. Thank You Mark!

and....drumroll,

a new post from CANEX at 11:19 PM last night WHICH PRE-DATED MY POST...and which wasn't there last night.

"Sorethrote,
My mistake. I can't figure out to use that darned forecast thing. I am still living in 2002. The RUC model was apparently a suc model on the 21st. Remember, there are no soundings upstream of the west coast, so they rely on even worse sounding data from satellites if they use any moisture data at all. The water vapor imagery for that day suggests that the RUC should have had more water vapor at high altitudes."

SO what we have is the famed CANEX admitting that he made a mistake, with a model that he is presumably very familiar with..and an ego so fragile that he somehow managed to get that on the board in front of mine....and that the board was inaccessible for nearly 12 hours.

Just how did that happen Thermit?

Who really controls this board?

And when will the simpering sycophants come rushing to CANEX's defense?

...and one final question... after CANEX made his first post on this thread at 10:59 PM talking about contrails up the wazoo...how many of you actually think that the famed CANEX...on his own, went back to check his work BEFORE I posted my response?

If you think it actually happened that way, I've got some wazoo to sell you.

Among the many things that this thread should make you think about is who is actually in control of this board.

posted 02-27-2003 10:09 PM            

canex

posted 02-26-2003 10:59 PM

"Sorethroat,
What did you look at on the "Esteemed" contrail forecast site? DId you check out 250 mb at efficiency of 0.3 for 1600 - 2300 UTC for Feb 21? I just checked it out and Frisco should have had contrails out the wazoo. Maybe you have not been using it correctly."

Sore Throat
Senior Member

posted 02-26-2003 11:27 PM

"So here's what I did CANEX. I returned to the Contrail Forecast site, http://enso.larc.nasa.gov/sass/contrail_forecast/contrail_prediction.html#REALTIME

and I entered the following parameters,

Archive Data: check

Year 2003
Month Feb
Time 1600
0.3 efficiency at 250 mb

Sorry... no circles over San Francisco"

This line is quite interesting..."DId you check out 250 mb at efficiency of 0.3 for 1600 - 2300 UTC for Feb 21?" and I am guessing that canex is somehow able to track where people visit at his site? and the data they type in?

Either that or some freaky time warp thing???

>>Among the many things that this thread should make you think about is who is actually in control of this board.<<

Well it sure isn't canex if that is what you are implying. With the 12 hours of difficulty you have had reaching this site, and all the other members who've had difficulties, and Thermit explained the WHY--server problems--it is apparent to me that the new host/server is actually in control of this board!!!

posted 02-27-2003 10:25 PM            

Not surprisingly, Lulu is missing the point.

It's not just machines, it's not just "server" problems that just happen coincidently to crop up...

it's the people that run them.

You don't think your system can be hacked?

"Pride cometh before the fall".

Like I said, no surprises here.

None!

As one on this board is so fond of saying,

posted 02-27-2003 11:36 PM            

A day when the NASA modeling programs says shouldn't support such a dramatic atmospheric display?

Why that day?

And while your at it, what is so unique about conditions that we haven't seen ANY since then? None!

What happpened to your "humidity bias" crutch?

Plenty of clouds in our sky today...plenty...not even close to "bone dry" conditions that Feeling Kocky demands...and yet, not a single lasting contrail.

So what gives...where is the consistency in your position?

posted 02-28-2003 08:01 AM            

-----Begin
Hidden Clouds May Help Shape Climate

LONG BEACH, California, February 12, 2003 (ENS) - Hard to detect clouds and water vapor, hidden until now from most atmospheric sensors, could be helping to shape global climate, a new study suggests.
An instrument package developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has detected layers of moisture, indicative of high level cirrus clouds, that were missed by standard weather balloons and other instruments. The findings were presented on Tuesday by NCAR scientist Junhong Wang at the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in Long Beach, California.

The undetected moisture and clouds, located between about five and nine miles high (8-14 kilometers), probably have little effect on daily weather forecasts, but their omission may be corrupting scientists' view of long term climate, Wang said. On average, cirrus clouds tend to warm the planet, as they allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere while trapping radiation emitted from the ground.

"Even small amounts of water vapor and cirrus clouds at these heights are extremely important for climate, as they strongly affect Earth's radiation budget," added Richard Anthes, president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, which operates NCAR.

Anthes notes that radiosonde data are often used in computer models to predict the weather, and that the resulting weather analyses are then used for analyzing climate, including the calibration of models that simulate previous and future climates.

"It is possible that decades of climate records have underestimated the amount of cirrus clouds in the global atmosphere," Anthes said.

Wang's study analyzes humidity data collected from the lowest few miles of the atmosphere by radiosondes, or weather balloons. More than 1,500 radiosondes are launched each day around the world, forming the backbone of the planet's weather observing system.

Wang and colleagues compared readings from the two inexpensive humidity sensors commonly used on radiosondes with data from Snow White, a high quality sensor developed by the Swiss firm Meteolabor AG.

Snow White is part of a reference radiosonde package developed at NCAR and deployed in the International H20 Project (IHOP2002), a collaborative study led by NCAR last spring.

In the cold air from about 26,000 to 42,000 feet high, the team found that standard sensors nearly always showed relative humidities ranging from about 10 percent to 30 percent. In contrast, more than half of the Snow White deployments showed areas of moisture at these altitudes with relative humidities from 90 percent to 100 percent - a strong sign of clouds.

In one of these cases, a NASA ground based lidar - laser based radar - taking part in IHOP2002 analyzed air near the track of a Snow White deployment. The lidar confirmed that high clouds were present.

"Both ground based observers and space based satellites have trouble distinguishing these clouds," according to David Carlson, head of the NCAR Atmospheric Technology Division.

Wang and colleagues hope that their reference radiosonde system, which includes Snow White, will help improve the quality of radiosondes used for day to day observing. It may also help scientists correct the data from years past.

"If developed and deployed soon," Wang said, "a reference radiosonde could help repair and improve data records over time and space."
-------End

Enjoy,

posted 02-28-2003 09:13 AM            

quote:

---

It's not just machines, it's not just "server" problems that just happen coincidently to crop up...

it's the people that run them.

You don't think your system can be hacked?

"Pride cometh before the fall".

Like I said, no surprises here.

None!

---

posted 02-28-2003 08:12 PM            

If the atmosphere could be perfectly measured and modeled, we wouldn't need any research, would we? All the meteoroogists would need to do would be to take the measurements and put them in the model and, voila, they make a perfect diagnosis and forecast of every variable of any concern. But it doesn't work that way. A bunch of uncertain measurements are used in a crude mathemetical representation of the atmosphere and we still get decent weather forecasts, sometimes. But other times, we don't. The reasons why we do and don't are many and varied. And if you are really interested (if you were, you would not be insistent on jumping to the outrageous conclusion that contrails are chemtrails), you would seek to learn about the intricacies of weather modeling and forecasting. It ain't arithmetic, Hoss, it's complex and involves a lot of dedicated and hard working people. Anybody who has a clue about how difficult it is to measure and model the atmosphere would not be the least bit surprised that the upper level humidity in the RUC analysis or any other model analysis is wrong on some days. The dry bias is no more of a crutch than the law of gravity is a crutch for explaining why bodies attract each other. It's simply a well-known aspect of current operational humidity sensors.

The answer to your question about why Feb 21 for the models to fail? Because that was the day the model happened to fail. Why haven't you had any contrails since then? Because the conditions were not conducive to contrail formation above San Francisco , sorry, Frisco, at that same time that airplanes were above the city. But there have been contrails over Frisco or in the vicinity since then. A perusal of AVHRR satellite imagery 4-5 data would reveal to youwhen such events took place. In order to see all contrails from the ground, you would either need to be looking all the time or photographing the sky constantly. Evn then, you would not see them all because of lower-level clouds obscuring your view of the flight altitudes. For starters, check out Feb 23, 0503, 1441 UTC (you must have been sleeping) or Feb 24, 0200 and 1000 UTC.
And you probably did not see the contrails that came down from the northwest today. They might have been obscured by lower level clouds or they may have dissipated. Check out the image: http://www-angler.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/avhrr/search_hrpt?SAT=N12&YYYYDDD=2003059&GMT=1311&ICHAN=c4-5&IPID=8040059&ISAT=n12&MON=02&DAY=28&YYYY=2003

posted 03-02-2003 05:09 PM            

Such situations can of course arise when either, or both, parties have a vested interest in promoting their personal agenda.

It is my OPINION, that in the past four + years, there has been an abrupt qualitative and quantitative change in the persistence of contrails in the skies over America.

While I agree that humidity at altitude can promote the persistence of normal air craft exhaust, there are numerous occasions where ALL measured atmospheric data would indicate that conditions were not even marginal for the persistence of contrails...and it is for that reason that I hold the OPINION that these trails are not simply composed of crystalized exhaust vapors.

Now you take people like CANEX and Feeling Kocky (NASA and NOAA respectively) who BELIEVE that all such contrails are perfectly normal...nothing unusual going on here.

Why it would take a "bone dry" day for FK to even consider questioning what might be an "abnormal occurance".

And CANEX, now there's a case. Notice how quickly he was ready to shove his NASA modeling data down my throat to explain contrail persistence on Feb. 21st...."out the wazoo" he says.

Then, when confronted with HIS ERROR, he does an abrupt about face and states, "that was the day the model happened to fail".

How convenient.

When confronted about why no comparable contrails were observed on days with atmospheric conditions more favorable for persistence, he states "Because the conditions were not conducive to contrail formation above San Francisco , sorry, Frisco, at that same time that airplanes were above the city".

Right, all air traffic stopped...just for him. And the data from THE SAME SOURCES that they use to justify contrail persistence, well when it's in conflict with their BELIEFS, then obviously these same data are unreliable.

So that's the situation we're in conversing with these debunkers. They'll pick and choose, twist and warp, to fit THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM, which is that all contrails are perpectly normal.

And for those observant people, who have bothered to pay attention to what's been happening in our skies, why they are simply paranoid.

What would ever lead them to believe that their own government would be undertaking a black, clandestine project without the knowledge and consent of the affect population?

I suppose in CANEX and FK's BELIEF system, there no basis for such a concern.

And in their BELIEF system, all the discussions about geoengineering and atmospheric modification is just that...only talk, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that anyone would actually be undertaking such projects.

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001723.html

Although, giving them the benefit of the doubt, it would be safe to assume that these NASA and NOAA atmospheric scientists are at least passingly aware of such issues as global climate change, ozone depletion, etc.

Nevertheless, in their BELIEF system, it would be paranoid to believe that any form of mitigation program might be underway.

Likewise for the military application of atmospheric modification. In their BELIEF system, there is no chance that anything is occuring without the knowledge and consent of the American public.

The more I think about it the more I realize what could very well be at work here.

I know that I haven't benefitted a dime for the position I've taken on this issue.

I wonder if they could say the same?

posted 03-02-2003 10:10 PM            

"It is my OPINION, that in the past four + years, there has been an abrupt qualitative and quantitative change in the persistence of contrails in the skies over America."

That is an opinion. However, if you want facts, I suggest that you do some research. A lot of it has already been done for you. First, as as been mentioned a zillion times on this board, there are WWII films showing the sky filled with contrails. But that is anecdotal. Travis et al. performed a study of satellite imagery taken during the 1980's of contrail clusters and concluded that they were occurring quite often. Read the paper (in the Journal of Applied Meteorology) if you want numbers. Degrand et al. (Journal of applied Meteorology 2000) analyzed satellite data taken during the 1970's and were able to determine the seasonal cycle of persistent contrails over the US. Bakan et al. (Annales Geophysicae, 1994) analyzed satellite data taken during the late 1980's and early 90's and found that persistent contrail covered about 0.5% of the sky, on average, over Europe and the North Atlantic. Minnis et al. (1997 NASA report) analyzed surface observations taken over the US during 1993-94 and found that persistent contrails occurred about 10% of the time on average with a strong seasonal cycle. Minnis et al. (Journal of Climate 2002) found that the occurrence of persistent contrails in 1998 and 1999 was less than that during 1993 and 1994 because the upper atmosphere was drier. There are other studies to quote but you're not interested in facts about contrails.
---

"While I agree that humidity at altitude can promote the persistence of normal air craft exhaust, there are numerous occasions where ALL measured atmospheric data would indicate that conditions were not even marginal for the persistence of contrails...and it is for that reason that I hold the OPINION that these trails are not simply composed of crystalized exhaust vapors."

Do you have a case when ALL avaialbale measurements indicated no persistent contrails? Did you have sufficient data available to determine if the conditions were or were not right for contrails? Do you know what sufficent data would be? Have you tried looking at the water vapor imagery as I have challenged you so many times to do? You still have no cases.
----

"Now you take people like CANEX and Feeling Kocky (NASA and NOAA respectively) who BELIEVE that all such contrails are perfectly normal...nothing unusual going on here.

Why it would take a "bone dry" day for FK to even consider questioning what might be an "abnormal occurance". "

It would take a "bone dry day" for me to even question a contrail occurence as abnormal. Your case for Feb 21 2003 is not bone dry. First have a look at the water vapor imagery. (You know where to find it.) The upper atmosphere is quite moist despite what the model says. Then have a look at the Oakland sounding at 00Z, Feb 22 (that is Feb 21, 1600 PST). Not the model sounding, the measured sounding. The temperature between 10.3 km and 12.4 km decreases from -53.2 to -66.3 °C. The measured relative humidity (RH) increases from 35 to 38%. Acording to Miloscevitch et al. (Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 2001), the dry bias correction is roughly 25% at those temperatures. Therefore, the actual RH was roughly 60% between 10.3 and 12.4 km. The RH corrsponding to saturation with respect to ice at -53° C is 59% and is 56% at -66°C. Thus, persistent contrails should have existed over the bay area at that time because the upper atmosphere was above ice saturation.
That does not constitute a bone dry case.
----

"And CANEX, now there's a case. Notice how quickly he was ready to shove his NASA modeling data down my throat to explain contrail persistence on Feb. 21st...."out the wazoo" he says.

Then, when confronted with HIS ERROR, he does an abrupt about face and states, "that was the day the model happened to fail".

How convenient."

Very convenient. First, I confronted myself with the error, your paranoia notwithstanding. Second, my comment about the wazoo was made based on the model output, which was the point of the discussion, not the model correctness. I don't need to repeat the reason for wazoo point. You were the one trying to shove the model results down the reader's throats as evidence that contrails should not have been there. Which way is it going to go? I have no problem saying that the model is right sometimes and wrong other times. If I need to know whether it is right or wrong, I go to other sources like actual measurements or water vapor imagery.
----

"When confronted about why no comparable contrails were observed on days with atmospheric conditions more favorable for persistence, he states "Because the conditions were not conducive to contrail formation above San Francisco , sorry, Frisco, at that same time that airplanes were above the city".

Right, all air traffic stopped...just for him. And the data from THE SAME SOURCES that they use to justify contrail persistence, well when it's in conflict with their BELIEFS, then obviously these same data are unreliable."

Do you know how to read? There were contrails on several days when you didn't see them. Also, you never showed any evidence that there were contrail conditions. Air traffic stopped? No, the conditions when you were looking were not right?
----

"So that's the situation we're in conversing with these debunkers. They'll pick and choose, twist and warp, to fit THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM, which is that all contrails are perpectly normal.....

What would ever lead them to believe that their own government would be undertaking a black, clandestine project without the knowledge and consent of the affect population?

I suppose in CANEX and FK's BELIEF system, there no basis for such a concern....
Nevertheless, in their BELIEF system, it would be paranoid to believe that any form of mitigation program might be underway."

Give me evidence for "chemtrails". Give me a reason why it would happen. You read about an atmospheric modification program and then link it to contrails as being a secret, clandestine program to do something to the atmosphere or the populace. If it is a secret operation, why is the basis for the operation in the public domain? Why was the program not announced when the ideas for it are quite open to any citizen, paranoid or otherwise? Where is the logic? Where is the sense? Where is the evidence?
I think the government has a lot more immediate worries than carrying out some multi-billion-dollar untested and undeveloped program to mitigate global warming or defying physical laws by spraying the populace from 33,000 ft with some unknown substance to do some unknown thing to some unknown persons for some unknown reason. Heck, they can't even predict contrails for Pete's sake. You think they can mitigate global warming at this point in time? What a laugh!
----
"The more I think about it the more I realize what could very well be at work here.

I know that I haven't benefitted a dime for the position I've taken on this issue.

I wonder if they could say the same?"

I haven't even benefitted a penny pursuing this fruitless hobby. I take that back. Some fruit has been borne and some people have actually gained some understanding of the atmosphere. There have been some believers who could actually put 2 and 2 together and get 4 instead of 3. They have actually come to understand that persistent contrails are just that and no longer fall for the convoluted and baseless arguments of chemtrail proponents.

BTW, what about those dark areas on the water vapor imagery with no contrails.

posted 03-03-2003 12:30 AM            

quote:

---

First, as as been mentioned a zillion times on this board, there are WWII films showing the sky filled with contrails.

---

Yes, those who insist on approaching the subject with intellectual dishonesty apparently take immeasurable solace from posting these tibits of ancient history. The fact that they have to go back sixty years to a time when the skies were filled with bombers flying wingtip-to-wingtip to come up with a few lousy contrails that don't even begin to compare to what we are now observing on an almost daily basis speaks volumes. which bring us to another troubling fact.

quote:

---

Travis et al. performed a study of satellite imagery taken during the 1980's of contrail clusters and concluded that they were occurring quite often. Read the paper

---

Was that the same paper where Travis stated that contrail formation during the summer in the deep south was a rarity? If this is the same Travis, only one of two possibilities exist: either he is a completely upside down and and incompetant researcher (as anyone priviledged enough to be in Florida for Summer Aerosol Fest 2002 will attest to) or... these aren't his grandfather's contrails (seeing as how they defy even mainstream researchers and climatologists expectations).

quote:

---

Minnis et al. (1997 NASA report) analyzed surface observations taken over the US during 1993-94 and found that persistent contrails occurred about 10% of the time on average with a strong seasonal cycle

---

You guys sure spend a lot of time analyzing something you insist has no adverse effects. Be that as it may, I can assure you that I would trade my first born child for 10% of the time or .05% coverage.

Be reasonable. If people were observing .05% coverage and/or 10% of the time, none of us would be here.

I get sick of hearing myself tell this story, so I'll make it mercifully brief. Joshua Tree. 30 day observation period. Aerosol trails observed 29 out of those 30. Coverage beginning before dawn and extending until at least midnight.

That makes for a daily occurence percentage of over 96% and an hourly occurence of over 75%. The real kicker of course, is that J. Tree is under a high pressure system that makes cloud formation a rarity. That why it's a desert for God's Sake. No clouds, hence no rain. At least that's what the presentation at the visitors center claims.

But don't take my word for it. Next time you're looking for a little unspoiled natural beauty, check it out. Then ask the Rangers what's up with all the clouds in an area that doesn't support cloud formation. They'll tell you.

Then ask them when it started (and don't be surprised if they don't tell sometime around WWII).

quote:

---

It would take a "bone dry day" for me to even question a contrail occurence as abnormal

---

posted 03-03-2003 04:07 AM            

It's a question whether sore throats testimony is valid...and say for the sake of pete it is...even though he won't spend the $10.00 a month to verify his sightings using flight explorer...

what are these trails of throats that exist in layman infererred impossible conditions according to existing data ?....what are they doing with them ?....how do we know these are chemtrails and not contrails existing of and by themselves in environments that data shows non-conduciveness but exist in spite of sounding accuracy at-the-time ?...which is certainly more possible than a multi-billion dollar aluminum barium atmospheric enema spray program...

if soundings are taken once a day or even twice in an area does not the dynamic of *constant* minute by minute air traffic skew the data ?

the 10%...has to be a chance daily for contrails and not per month chemster....if that's where your going...which is exceeded in mass numeration in these parts...

air traffic is visually impacting our sky...

and it is not a product of spraying, or covert military action...

travel and commerce are...

the question of this boards independence are certainly paranoid in nature...first signs of access trouble were by chem and kook...had trouble here myself...and reported by other known network users...this trouble has not been exclusive to chicken little thinking bay area residents...

btw that thread at carny's of yours throat (happy imbicle's) just makes me sick...you have to be the most un-informed dude on the planet...next to mech...

man (4:12)

posted 03-03-2003 10:08 AM            

quote:
---
Was that the same paper where Travis stated that contrail formation during the summer in the deep south was a rarity? If this is the same Travis, only one of two possibilities exist: either he is a completely upside down and and incompetant researcher (as anyone priviledged enough to be in Florida for Summer Aerosol Fest 2002 will attest to) or... these aren't his grandfather's contrails (seeing as how they defy even mainstream researchers and climatologists expectations).
-----
Got no facts? Make a personal attack.
Travis's paper (actually dated 1997, Journal of Applied Meteorology, p.1211-1220) does not rely on his reputation. He's got pictures from 1987.

quote:
------
You guys sure spend a lot of time analyzing something you insist has no adverse effects. Be that as it may, I can assure you that I would trade my first born child for 10% of the time or .05% coverage.

Be reasonable. If people were observing .05% coverage and/or 10% of the time, none of us would be here.

I get sick of hearing myself tell this story, so I'll make it mercifully brief. Joshua Tree. 30 day observation period. Aerosol trails observed 29 out of those 30. Coverage beginning before dawn and extending until at least midnight.

That makes for a daily occurence percentage of over 96% and an hourly occurence of over 75%. The real kicker of course, is that J. Tree is under a high pressure system that makes cloud formation a rarity. That why it's a desert for God's Sake. No clouds, hence no rain. At least that's what the presentation at the visitors center claims.

But don't take my word for it. Next time you're looking for a little unspoiled natural beauty, check it out. Then ask the Rangers what's up with all the clouds in an area that doesn't support cloud formation. They'll tell you.

Then ask them when it started (and don't be surprised if they don't tell sometime around WWII).
------
Contrails have effects that have nothing to do with the kind of nonsense proffered on this and other sites. The government is sponsoring such research to learn if those effects are adverse or not.
As for the other contrail studies. First off, it's 0.5% coverage. Second, that's a nice story about your month of contrails. What year, what month? Does Joshua Tree National Monument represent the conditions over the entire country? Does a high pressure system always mean no humidity at flight altitudes? Cirrus clouds actually occur over that area quite frequently despite your insistence of no support for cloud formation. Surface observations taken between 1971 and 1980 yield an average frequency of occurrence of cirrus clouds of 54%, 46%, 36%, and 30% during winter, spring, summer, and fall, respectively. Since contrails often form in the same air with cirrus and can produce additional cirrus clouds in air not moist enough to make cirrus, but to support it, it would not be too hard to get contrails 75% of the time during 1 month if the air traffic was there and the weather pattern was relatively steady (southern branch of the jet stream coming over the mountains).
And you looked up in the sky once every hour for an entire month getting up before dawn and going to bed at midnight and you saw persistent contrails and wrote it down each hour?
Have you had 75% contrail frequency since then? Does everybody else in the country see contrails 75% of the time? Reasonable?

posted 03-03-2003 02:10 PM            

It's been my experience that people tend to get a wee-bit distraught when confronted with facts that challenge their hard-fought illusions. I'll try to answer your questions without upsetting anyone's tenuos grasp on reality for the time being (if that's any consolation).

quote:

---

Do you know what anecdotal means? Perhaps, you should look up intellectually dishonest while you're at it before you call someone a liar

---

If it's ancedotal, then there isn't much point in referencing it. As for intellectual dishonesty, I was referring to those that insist that these photographs are somehow relevant to what is being observed today. That apparently doesn't apply in your case, so we can once again move forward to the 21st century.

quote:

---

Got no facts? Make a personal attack.
Travis's paper (actually dated 1997, Journal of Applied Meteorology, p.1211-1220) does not rely on his reputation. He's got pictures from 1987.

---

Pictures of what? I think you misunderstood my post. In fact, I adressed this topic before and you basically told me Travis didn't know what he was talking about. I don't know if that's a personal attack or not but I would think my own view of his research would be obvious (I think Travis was correct in his statement that contrail formation in the deep south during the summer is a scarcity, ergo these aren't his gradfather's contrails. Re-read the post).

quote:

---

Does Joshua Tree National Monument represent the conditions over the entire country?

---

No, as indicated it lies under a high pressure sytem that prohibits cloud formation.

quote:

---

Cirrus clouds actually occur over that area quite frequently despite your insistence of no support for cloud formation

---

It's not MY insistance, Canex. I told you. Go to the visitor center and view the prsentation for yourself.

quote:

---

And you looked up in the sky once every hour for an entire month getting up before dawn and going to bed at midnight and you saw persistent contrails and wrote it down each hour?

---

No, actually I kept a mental log the times I didn't see persistant aerosol trails between dawn and midnight. I was on a camping trip and was outside the entire time. This was in 2001, spring/early summer but I'd have to look up the exact dates.

quote:

---

Have you had 75% contrail frequency since then? Does everybody else in the country see contrails 75% of the time? Reasonable?

---

I could make an rough guess, but I no longer have the opportunity to be outside 18 hours a day. For the last two seasons, I would estimate a daily occurence frequency of 71%, hourly occurence on days where aerosol trails were present of 50%. Observable artificial coverage on days where aerosol trails were observed, anywhere from 5% to 100%, given the time of day and number of trails that were produced.

Now. I'm not trying to be 'cute'. I'm attmepting to make a point. If one is going to attempt to build a real-time aerosol trail forecst based on the best availabe data, it would seem accounting for the aerosols present would be neccesary (as well as atmoshperic conditions).

So, my questions is:

posted 03-03-2003 10:58 PM            

"It's truly amazing the insight that can be obtained from careful observation."

So let's watch the twisting of fact by CANEX, when he states, "You were the one trying to shove the model results down the reader's throats as evidence that contrails should not have been there."

Excuse me...it was your NOAA buddy Feeling Kocky who first promoted the use of the NASA model in this thread, not me. All I did was enter the parameters that you provided, correctly however, and posted the results that showed that your "out the wazoo" statement was completely off base. So just who was it first to "shove the model results down the readers throat". It was CANEX!

And then, when the model didn't support YOUR PREDELICTION that all contrails are perfectly "normal", you cast aside your own modeling results, without any objective substantiation in fact and data, and arbitrarily state that the model was wrong, ON THIS PARTICULAR DATE.

CANEX states, "Have you tried looking at the water vapor imagery as I have challenged you so many times to do? You still have no cases."

Non-biased readers will note that I posted vapor maps for Feb 21 and 22 from the University of Washington weather site,

I asked this question, "What objective, measureable data can account for the dramatic difference the the persistence of contrails in our sky between these two days?"

Here is some vapor data, 9:00 AM each day:

Friday, February 21, 2003 http://www.atmos.washington.edu/images/wv_enhanced/2003022109.gif

Saturday, February 22, 2003 http://www.atmos.washington.edu/images/wv_enhanced/2003022209.gif

And then, precisely as I predicted, CANEX brings up the issue of vapor measurements only AFTER these links have become stale and and have been removed from the site.

AS I predicted, "No helpful debunker will respond specifically to the above questions.

Within a week or so the vapor satellite shots of the West Coast will beome stale and no longer available."

Amazing isn't it?

And in response to one other question, "And when will the simpering sycophants come rushing to CANEX's defense?" it was unsurprisingly seeker,

"whether canex screwed up once out of a couple of hundred post does not matter"

Like I've said, you guys are embarrassingly predictable.

CANEX frothingly continues, ". You read about an atmospheric modification program and then link it to contrails as being a secret, clandestine program to do something to the atmosphere or the populace. If it is a secret operation, why is the basis for the operation in the public domain? Why was the program not announced when the ideas for it are quite open to any citizen, paranoid or otherwise?"

There is no logic to this line of reasoning. But since you asked the question CANEX, let me help you out on this one.

A growing body of scientific evidence suggests that global atmospheric change is occurring at an accelerating pace (want to argue that?).

The US, a major producer of the world's CO2 (want to argue that?) will not agree to reduce these emmissions for fear that it will harm our economy (as if the Bush regime hasn't done that already).

So rather than move rapidly to more life supportive technologies, we continue to promote gluttonous fossil fuel consumption so that the pigs at the trough can continue to feed.

Yet there's heat from the trillion dollar insurance industries who are increasing impacted by multi-billion dollar settlements for weather-induced damages, so they demand action...mitigation...NOW. And if that means spraying chemicals in the high atmopsphere, then so be it.

But we won't discuss this with the general public because they just might be alarmed by the ensuing "collateral damage".

posted 03-03-2003 11:16 PM            

His pictures show examples of hi-res (1-km) images of spreading contrails. You don't get such images unless the contrails are persistent and spread out. The point of noting that paper and the others is that spreading persistent contrails have been observed for quite a long time. Air traffic increased at 5%/year prior to 9-11, so we should expect to see more and more each year if the conditions remain the same. Contrails are relatively scarce over Florida in the summer compared to other months. They certainly do occur especially near the edges of thunderstorm anvils where the moisture is higher than elsewhere. I don't remember the Travis quote exactly but it was not out of one of his papers; it was a reporter's quote or a quote from someone on the board quizzing him. My reference to a personal attack concerned the statement about his competency. Being wrong about a few things doesn't make one incompetent. It makes one human. I don't know where the post is to read it. Nevertheless, that is not the point.

----

quote:
"No, as indicated it lies under a high pressure sytem that prohibits cloud formation. "

a high pressure system does not necessarily preclude cirrus formation (please see the statistics provided in the previous post). An examination of the satellite imagery for spring time should be enough to dispel the notion that cirrus clouds don't happen over the Joshua Monument area about 125 miles west of LA. The desert in that area is the result of several factors: its location near the subtropical high pressure (which actually moves around), and higher mountains to the west, east and north. Lower tropospheric air sinks between the mountains causing the low-level high pressure. However, air at high altitudes can be relatively unaffected by the topography if their is any uplift in the air. The uplift can occur from passing low pressure systems, western edges of high pressure systems, and high mountains. Clouds or moisture pockets can develop at high altitudes downwind from mountain ridges.
------

quote:
"It's not MY insistance, Canex. I told you. Go to the visitor center and view the prsentation for yourself."

OK, I will if I ever get out there. Most people don't give thin cirrus clouds much credit as being real clouds because the sun shines right through them and they don't make any rain. Trained surface observers look for them. Another factor is the distance that one can see a cirrus cloud (or contrail). In an unobscured area like a mountain or flat prairie (not standing in the trees), you can easily see cirrus clouds more than 150 miles away and not realize how far away they are.
-----

quote:
"No, actually I kept a mental log the times I didn't see persistant aerosol trails between dawn and midnight. I was on a camping trip and was outside the entire time. This was in 2001, spring/early summer but I'd have to look up the exact dates."

I would be a little skeptical about a mental log to produce an accurate percentage of 90% of the days and 75% of the hours. Could it possibly be lower than that?
Not knowing exactly what dates you had, I checked out the 2001 GOES-West infrared and water vapor imagery for May 2001. The imagery I had was only 12-km resolution which is not enough to see most individual contrails. But it is sufficient to see decent cirrus systems and mountain induced convection and tell the difference between very dry, moist, and very moist atmospheres.
First the infrared imagery. On 13 of the days, you should have been able to see cirrus or contrail cirrus for most of the days. On 8 of the days, you could have seen cirrus for part of the day. On 9 of the days, you should have had trouble seeing any cirrus unless it was very thin. That would translate to about 17/30 or 57% of time, a value well in line with the surface-based climatology.
The water vapor imagery indicates only a few days were of the bone dry type. There may have been enough moisture to support wimpy contrails on some of the days that no cirrus was evident in the IR imagery.

----

quote:
"I could make an rough guess, but I no longer have the opportunity to be outside 18 hours a day. For the last two seasons, I would estimate a daily occurence frequency of 71%, hourly occurence on days where aerosol trails were present of 50%. Observable artificial coverage on days where aerosol trails were observed, anywhere from 5% to 100%, given the time of day and number of trails that were produced."

Unless you are making observations on a systematic and well-defined basis, such estimates are strictly that, estimates, and have little value for providing a reliable number.
------
quote:
"Now. I'm not trying to be 'cute'. I'm attmepting to make a point. If one is going to attempt to build a real-time aerosol trail forecst based on the best availabe data, it would seem accounting for the aerosols present would be neccesary (as well as atmoshperic conditions).

So, my questions is:

How many milligrams of aerosols per cubic meter is NASA basing the forecast on (assuming you are privvy to that kind of information)?"

It has been found in several different experiments that the aerosols formed from the exhaust products play little or no role in contrail formation. Hence, aerosols are not considered in contrail forecasts by anybody. The biggest problem is forecasting and measuring humidity in the upper atmosphere. If you want aerosol concentrations, you should check out the IPCC report on air traffic effects. I am sure they have number s there.

posted 03-04-2003 01:04 PM            

quote:

---

Contrails are relatively scarce over Florida in the summer compared to other months.

---

If contrails these be, then that simply doesn't jive. We had more trail activity last summer then we've had this winter. On average, 5 out of seven days. Admittedly, any hourly estimate for that time period isn't going to be terribly accurate, but since you asked, I attempted to give my best estimate of conditions in this area post-2001.

quote:

---

I would be a little skeptical about a mental log to produce an accurate percentage of 90% of the days and 75% of the hours. Could it possibly be lower than that?

---

Daily occurrence was 96%, and no, I'm a competant enough observer not to 'forget' a day or two that might have been clear. It's not brain surgery.

As for hourly occurrence, my estimate is conservative. I'm putting down the hours I was asleep in the minus column, despite the fact the last thing I saw before closing my eyes were trails and the first thing I saw when I opened them were trails.

quote:

---

That would translate to about 17/30 or 57% of time

---

I'll try and find my entrance pass for exact dates, but for the time being, I'll front you the 39% differrence between what I observed and what I should have been able to observe.

57% percent is a looong way off from 10%, Canex, and an increase in air traffic would (so the story goes) result in more contrail sightings, but it would not change atmospheric conditions to the point where contrails whould form where they previously couldn't exist. We're talking about their ability to form, correct?

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

---

What? Excuse my profound ignorance, but it my understanding that hygroscopic particles play an integral role in cloud formation (natural or otherwise).

Simply observing these trails attracting mositure, spreading out and covering the sky tells me that the aerosol content has got to be very high.

The reason I ask, is that it occurs to me that a higher concentration of artificially-induced aerosols would result in higher probability of artificial cloud formation.

posted 03-04-2003 09:10 PM            

I'll take that as a guess. If they are that frequent,then they must be pretty cheesy and sparse, because they don't show up on the satellite imagery. You should have a look at the satellite photos of some of the contrails over Florida during this winter. Admittedly the conditions have not been too hot lately for Florida contrails.
-------

quote:"
57% percent is a looong way off from 10%, Canex, and an increase in air traffic would (so the story goes) result in more contrail sightings, but it would not change atmospheric conditions to the point where contrails whould form where they previously couldn't exist. We're talking about their ability to form, correct?"

The 10% number is the average for the entire US. The average value reaches a peak of around 25% during late-winter early spring. Contrails can only form where the conditions are right and the planes fly thorugh those conditions. The Joshua National Monument just happens to sit in one of the heaviest air traffic lanes. Nearly 600 flights pass over the monument at potential contrail altitudes on a daily basis. This number is only exceeded by the flights to the north of LA and those over the midwest (Illinois to Virginia) and north Florida. There are huge areas (where the number of flights is less than 100 /day). As I mentioned before, the climatological value for cirrus frequency there is around 50 to 55% so the conditions for a 57% frequency of contrails is well within reason and the number of flights (600/18 hrs = 50 flights/hour) provides a great number opportunities to hit moisture pockets at various levels. Generally, not always, when one part of the country is above normal in moisture, the other part is dry. I don't have any problem with the 57% there and a 10% average for the entire country (actually during May, it is more like 15%.
-----

quote:
"What? Excuse my profound ignorance, but it my understanding that hygroscopic particles play an integral role in cloud formation (natural or otherwise).

Simply observing these trails attracting mositure, spreading out and covering the sky tells me that the aerosol content has got to be very high.

The reason I ask, is that it occurs to me that a higher concentration of artificially-induced aerosols would result in higher probability of artificial cloud formation.

I'd very much like to see any studies that would set me straight on that point."

posted 03-04-2003 11:10 PM            

quote:

---

Another study by a German research group flew a plane with regular jet fuel in one wing tank and low sulfur fuel in the other tank. The exhaust from both produced very healthy contrails. The only difference was that the concentration of particles was somewhat lower in the low sulfur fuel. I do not have references handy but can dig them up if you are really interested.

---

Yes, I'd be greatly interested in seeing this report (if only to discover exactly what they define as 'somewhat' and 'healthy').

quote:

---

A greater number of particles may extend the lifetime of the contrail and perhaps allow it to spread a little more, but the difference so far has not been shown to be great enough to worry about. That does not mean that it won't be in the future.

---

Well, something's getting people worked up enough to do more than just worry. I never did find that entrance ticket, but I did find a thread buried in the Zone that I posted during that time. It was October that I was out there, and for what's it worth I'd been visitng J Tree for years and never seen a single persistant trail (much less day after day of 'artificial cirrus').

Again don't take my word for it, though. The people that live and work there are very much aware of the change that has occurred.

Apparently they were even misinformed enough on the subject to inform visitors not to expect cloud formation... poor dumb bastards.

Incidentally, one of the Rangers mentioned to me that what was weird about the whole thing was that the artificial coverage didn't show up on the satellites. What I observed there was nowhere near sparse, and neither was what I observed here in FLA last summer and fall (though I'm told it was much worse prior to my arrival).

Which bings us back to Sorethroat's original point; according to the party line we should be seeing more persistant contrails during the winter months (and virtually none during the summer).

posted 03-05-2003 12:15 AM            

Perhaps we can gain some insight from CANEX"
"I think the government has a lot more immediate worries than carrying out some multi-billion-dollar untested and undeveloped program to mitigate global warming or defying physical laws by spraying the populace from 33,000 ft with some unknown substance to do some unknown thing to some unknown persons for some unknown reason. Heck, they can't even predict contrails for Pete's sake. You think they can mitigate global warming at this point in time? What a laugh!"

"a lot more immediate worries"...that's for sure, the Bush regime seems determined to ignore the will of the majority of Americans and savagely attack a country that hasn't attacked us.

But then again, he wasn't placed in office by a majority of Americans was he?

As far as his statement "unknown substance to do some unknown thing" CANEX can't truly be that ignorant can he? The scientific details of using reflective particulates for mitigation of global warming have been extensively discussed and modeled.

Why would so many in the scientific community be spending so much time, effort and money on such studies if they didn't feel that it would be of value? But rather than attack those who actually propose such a mitigation approach (notice I haven't), CANEX chooses to twist the FACTS to attack me for simply pointing out that a tremendous amount of research has been invested on this concept.

posted 03-05-2003 01:34 PM            

Ha ha ha. Certainly nobody else around here has ever done that (pointing feverishly at ST).

posted 03-05-2003 02:57 PM            

What remains to be seen is if it's 'in the fuel' or not.

It occurs to me that if you have already saturated the upper atmoshphere with hygroscopic aerosols, then switching to a low-sulfate fuel might not have any immediate effect. But long-term might be a different story.

The next logical question would be: