posted 03-05-2003 10:02 PM            

Sorethroat, you can get water vapor imagery anytime you want back to some date in 2001 on the Minnis site. But you won't know what you are looking at. What does water vapor imagery mean? What does "enhanced water vapor imagery" mean? What is actually in the image? Your lack of response to the analyses of the actual measured Oakland soundings is deafening. Those soundings are still there on the web, at NOAA, and at universities all around the country.

All right, no more frothing twistees. ST, you are absolutely right about the mitigation efforts. All those extensive model studies and discussion have been secretly translated into action. Every day, propped up by a black budget of approximately 20 billion greenbacks, they are spraying something on the order of 20 megatons of a new barium-titanium oxide impregnated long-chain polymer (you haven't read about this anywhere yet) that produces single molecules that are 4-6 µm in length. This new wonder molecule is produced catalytically from the exhaust of aircraft using a special fuel mixture that is systematically and covertly provided to different airports. This distribution method arouses no suspicion and spreads the effect over the country in a somewhat random manner. They use weather forecasts to ensure that it is released into moist air which is required to activate it. That way, it never shows up in dark areas within water vapor imagery. They use two formulas. One is relfectssunlight and traps infrared radiation and you can see it fropm space. The other, scarier formula, is capable of reflecting sunlight back to space to mitigate global warming and it is actually transparent to infrared radiation. The best thing is that you cannot see it with satellites designed to look at reflected sunlight but you can see it from the ground where it reflects no sunlight . If you are not sure, you can ask your nearest forest ranger and he will confirm it, "Yep, those wierd non-sparse technoclouds don't even show up on satellites, but they sure have cooled things down a lot, especially in the East." Looks like technoclouds are doing what they are designed for. Been mighty cold this winter. That's why you are getting more of them in the summer in Florida but they are invisible to satellites. But thanks to all of the diligent and systematic measurements recorded by expert chemtrail observers we know that more contrails/chemtrails occur during summer than other times of year, if you include the invisible ones.

posted 03-05-2003 11:11 PM            

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv125.html

Chicken feed for the Bush regime.

Current estimates are that the present Iraq war buildup has already cost $200 billion and that the predicted prolonged occupation could easily cost a $trillion.

That's $1,000,000,000,000.00

After a while it becomes difficult for the average working stiff to keep track of all dem zero's.

And what if Teller's estimate is off by a factor of two or three...BFD. It's still chicken feed compared to the money the current regime is throwing around...a significant part of which is going to bribe reluctant allies.

Nope, CANEX doesn't want to discuss FACTS.

He's become irrelevant.

posted 03-05-2003 11:54 PM            

quote:

---

Chemmi, You can find all the references you need in chapter 3 of the IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. I am trying to be helpful, but this sporadic hobby can get really tiresome and wasteful

---

I see. Ask a legitimate question in a respectful manner and the name calling and button-pushing begins.

If you had a problem providing the reference, Canex, you shouldn't have offered to provide it in the first place. I won't trouble you with any more of these 'tiresome' questions, though.

Respectfully,

Chem11

posted 03-06-2003 04:16 PM            

What would be a nice change of pace is for YOU to actually provide a fact, refute a fact, or even acknowledge a fact. It is in fact you, ST, that is irrelevant.

posted 03-06-2003 07:07 PM            

Yes, the video tape of a person killing someone would be considered evidence. But this is not what you have. You guys have the equivelent of video of someone walking near someone who is murdered days later. That is not evidence.

For your "video of murder" analogy to work, you must have video tracing the path of the "webs" as they exit the aircraft and fall downwards. All you have is photos of webs sitting on the ground.

posted 03-06-2003 11:03 PM            

Teller was on the right track, but others beat him to the punch with the polymerizing fuel additive. His method would have been too obvious and cost a lot more than the technique worked out by foreign chemists. "Teller predicted ... could be done for around a $100 million to one billion a year." Have you ever seen a government program cost anything close to what it was predicted to cost? The relationship between the predicted and actual cost is exponentional in the time between the prediction and the implementation. When deltat = 0, the two are equal. When the prediction is based on the first theoretical paper estimate of the program (the greatest time differential), the actual value could be infinity. Besides, Teller was behind the curve. Or in your parlance, he was irrelevant. No, foreign ideas and scientists are whole lot cheaper. Think of it. You just add it to the fuel and you get the desired effect and nobody has a clue except the bothersome chemtrail people.

Are you here to talk politics or chemtrails? This is "Chemtrail Central," not the "I-can't-believe-someone-would-actually-try-to-lead-this-country-and-have-a-reason-for-living-besides-his ego" forum.

Chemmi,
I thought we were having a respectful exchange until you brought up the invisible contrails and your ranger comment. as far as the references go, I wasn't kididng. Read the IPCC report, if you are serious about this topic. I personally am not interested in aerosols per se. But in the meantime, you can learn about the insensitivity of contrails to aerosols from a theoretical viewpoint:

Karcher, B., Yu, F., Schroder, F.P. and Turco, R.P.: 1998b, Ultrafine aerosol particles in aircraft plumes: Analysis of growth mechanisms. Geophys. Res. Lett., 25,
2793-2796.

From empirical measurments from SUCCESS:
Twohy, C.H. and Gandrud, B.W.: 1998, Electron microscope analysis of residual particles from aircraft contrails. Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 1359-1362.

Other empirical measurements:
Schumann, U., Strom, J., Busen, R., Baumann, R., Gierens, K., Krautstrunk, M.,Schroder, F.P. and Stingl, J.: 1996, In situ observations of particles in jet aircraft
exhausts and contrails for different sulfur containing fuels. J. Geophys. Res., 101,
6853-6869.

and a comprehensive overview:

Karcher, B., 1999: Aviation-produced aerosols and contrails. Surv. Geophys., 20, 113-167.

But, I don't expect that you or Sorethroat (he goes into mindless, trite political tirades when he doesn't know what you're talking about) will read any of these or the IPCC report. Facts don't help the chemtrail case. But then again, a little bit of knowledge is dangerous in the hands of the ignorant. Notice how I didn't say stupid.

posted 03-07-2003 03:04 AM            

It's this patented NASA combination of arrogance and idiocy that winds up getting people killed. Your agency routinely ignores every warning, every piece of evidence and every red flag until you have to gather your best and your brightest up with a shovel.

And then you ignore it some more.

I'm not naive enough to believe that troubles you anymore than the condition of our environment our the concerns of the people that pay your salary. Keep pushing buttons, keep playing games. It's obviously what you do best.

posted 03-07-2003 04:18 AM            

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.

posted 03-07-2003 08:29 AM            

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.

posted 03-07-2003 08:55 PM            

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.

....

posted 03-07-2003 10:43 PM            

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.

posted 03-07-2003 11:13 PM            

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.

posted 03-08-2003 01:02 AM            

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.

posted 03-08-2003 05:11 AM            

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!

posted 03-08-2003 05:36 PM            

Expect it when you least expect it, eh Florida?

posted 03-09-2003 12:06 AM            

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

---