posted 03-09-2003 12:40 AM            

The first day of persistent "contrails" in the San Francisco Bay Area since February 21, 2003.

The abrupt start and stops were quite interesting....

But what truly stole the show was the sputtering trails...almost like morse code across the sky.

You have to wonder about such profound atmospheric variations...either that or a pilot with a major butt pucker fighting engine problems.

Nevertheless, like I said, there hasn't been a day even close to such a display since February 21, which has been discussed extensively in another thread that unfortunately has deteriorated off topic.

So what does the NASA contrail forecast model say about conditions for persistent contrail formation today:

Source:
http://enso.larc.nasa.gov/sass/contrail_forecast/contrail_prediction.html#REALTIME

Image:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/cgi-bin/db-search.cgi?tem plate=img-detail&dbname=img&key2=1794&action=searchdbdisplay

What ?!?! ...no predicted persistent contrails.

Well, let's look at some other data. How about the SKEW-T for Oakland, CA:

Source:

http://meteora.ucsd.edu/wx_pages/upper_air.html

Image:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/cgi-bin/db-search.cgi?tem plate=img-detail&dbname=img&key2=1795&action=searchdbdisplay

And as CANEX has always said, look at the vapor data.

Source:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/data/weather.html#satellite

Image:

So here's the question for all those skeptics who will insist that:

1. The NASA model is wrong.

2. The SKEW-T data is from drifting balloons.

3. The vapor data would indicate that conditions weren't "Bone Dry".

Very well, if that's the case, why is this the FIRST day that there have been such persistent contrails since February 21st?

Are you actually going to claim that NO DAY between then and now would be comparable to the conditions that existed today?

Go ahead...tie yourself in a knot.

******************************************
Thanks for the help with posting images Lulu!

posted 03-09-2003 04:55 PM            

.....But what truly stole the show was the sputtering trails...almost like morse code across the sky.

You have to wonder about such profound atmospheric variations.....

Yes. What I find repeatedly interesting is the almost perfectly uniform length of space between those "sputtering" trail fragments. Fascinating.

It also amazes me that I never noticed this kind of display ANYWHERE I lived/traveled prior to 1999.

Maybe I need some *headwork*, hmmmm?

This is getting to be one hell of a sick situation all around.

Maybe it's time to confer upon genuine research and inquiry efforts the dignity to which they are entitled and become a little more PROTECTIVE of those efforts.

Excellent presentation, by the way, ST.

posted 03-09-2003 09:35 PM            

I don't need to go into any more detail. We have been through this before. I will repeat my challenge which you and other believers have been given before. If you find persistent contrails forming in the dark areas of satellite water vapor imagery, then maybe you have a scintilla of evidence suggesting that contrails are something other than water."

Thanks for showing the that the contrails were forming in the moister areas of the water vapor imagery.

posted 03-09-2003 11:05 PM            

First of all, it is the green areas of the satellite vapor shots that are the highest levels in moisture...brown are the driest....white is transition.

Second, it was the NASA model that kicked out the 2:00 UTC value, despite the entry for a later time. And something that will be quite interesting will be for anyone will be to enter these values in the archive portion of this program.

Check "Archive" radio button.

Submit correct date: 2003 March 8

Submit correct time: 1800

Individual level (mb) at 0.3 efficiency: 250

When I did, this is what the famed NASA model retruned:

"!! Sorry no data meeting the search parameter ccyymmdd = 20030308 shour = 18 ehour = 19

return to main page"

What...no data...model malfunctioning? ! ! ?

Go ahead..check...If you can get in that is.

Who is in control there??...who is asleep at the wheel?? just how much taxpayer money was invested in this boondoggle?

And you will note that CANEX didn't address at all the SKEW-T data from the sounding source demanded by his buddy FK.

Ask ANY professional meteorologist whether such a profile is conducive to persistent contrails.

For the disinformation agents, their line is quite simple (for simple minds). If persistent contrails exist then the atmospheric conditions were correct to support them. If they don't exist, then the atmospheric conditions weren't correct, DESPITE WHATEVER ACTUAL DATA MEASUREMENTS WERE MADE OR MODELING MIGHT IMPLY. For them, it is the presence or absence of contrails that only indicator of "true" atmospheric conditions....even when they burp a morse code across the sky.

As their dedicated legal counsel Johnnie Cochran would plead on their behalf, "If the data don't fit, you can't convict...throw it out...it must be bad data (model, observation, etc.).

posted 03-09-2003 11:12 PM            

"if the glove don't fit you must aquit"

posted 03-10-2003 08:46 PM            

CANEX will not address the SKEW-T data from Oakland collected on March 8th.

Why?

Because these profiles are a classic example of conditions whicj do NOT support persistent contrails.

And what of the touted NASA Contrail Forecast Model?

Well it just so happens that the data specifically entered for this date at 1800 UTC just happens to be missing in action.

How convenient?

As I've said before, what a boondoggle...more taxpayer money flush down a toilet. Even CANEX derides the model, especially when it backfires on him.

UTC by the way, Greenwich Mean Time, 8 hours later than Pacific COast time.

And like I said, the correct value were entered into the model, what is posted is what was spit out.

Just a few other observations...the view count on this and other threads appears to have been reset...but it is selective not all threads have been affected.

Second observation...the graphic quality of the SKEW-T diagram posted on this thread has been degraded substantially from what was originally posted.

Not surprising, as damning as it was. Like I've said before, if the data doesn't support your entrenched position, toss it out.

posted 03-10-2003 09:52 PM            

Not surprising, as damning as it was. Like I've said before, if the data doesn't support your entrenched position, toss it out.

So who can do that?<<

I agree Sopare Throat. FLKook resized it, but the numbers are hard to read. Perhaps she can resize a little larger?

posted 03-10-2003 11:06 PM            

quote:
"CANEX will not address the SKEW-T data from Oakland collected on March 8th."

Do I have to? i've been through all of this before on other days other threads. OK. OK. Let's first understand what the ballon sounding gives us. First of all, remember that the profiles are taken at 0Z and 12Z each day. 12Z would be 4AM PST? And 0Z would be 4PM PST?
Is that OK?

Now, the balloon follows a path up through the atmosphere measuring the temperature and humidity within a twisting column of air the thickness of a wire. The air is moving along sometimes at 160 knots at flight altitudes. That means the profile measured at 12Z may have nothing to do with the air measured at 13 Z or 14 Z or 15 z, etc. Sometimes, it does. Sometimes it doesn't. That is why I recommend checking out the sounding first and if it does not show anything, have a look at the water vapor imagery, preferably in loop form so you can see what is happening up there. It is quite fascinating.
Anway, back to the balloon. Please remember the old dry bias problem that is especially onerous for the Vaisala RS-80 series of sondes. Miloshevich and buddies (J. of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, vol. 18, p. 135-155, 2001) measured the dry bias for the vaisal sondes using research grade cryogenic hygrometers. They found that the dry bias is temperature dependent; it gets worse as the temperature drops. The correction is basically multiply the measured relative humidity by factor F, to keep it simple.
The value of F varies from 1.3 at -35C, to 1.4 at -50C, to 2.0 at -60 C to 2.4 at -70C. The instantaneous uncertainty in F is plus or minus 0.2. So, in a given instance, the value of could be 0.2 higher than the average values given. It could also be lower, but that is not of concern because when searching for chemtrails, we are trying to rule out the possibility that the observation could be a contrail. OK? Please keep these factors in mind.
Now on to throte's next concern:

quote:
'Because these profiles are a classic example of conditions whicj do NOT support persistent contrails."

Let's look at this conjecture, the poor state Mr Sore's bad graphics notwithstanding. For the sake of space, I paste below the relevant portions of the soundings from 12Z, March 8 from Oakland, CA, hotbed of sorethroat types.

72493 OAK Oakland Int Observations at 12Z 08 Mar 2003

------------------------------------
PRES HGHT TEMP DWPT RELH
hPa m C C %
-------------------------------------
250.0 10440 -58.1 -68.1 27
241.0 10668 -60.0 -69.2 29
239.0 10721 -60.5 -69.5 30
200.0 11810 -66.9 -75.9 27
185.0 12277 -68.7 -76.7 31
173.0 12683 -62.3 -71.3 29
OK, now apply the Miloshevich correction.
250.0 10440 -58.1 -68.1 51
241.0 10668 -60.0 -69.2 58
239.0 10721 -60.5 -69.5 61
200.0 11810 -66.9 -75.9 61
185.0 12277 -68.7 -76.7 73
173.0 12683 -62.3 -71.3 61

Now, consider the relative humidity with respect to ice (RHI). It too increases with decreasing temperature relative to the regular relative humidity with respect to liquid water, RH (RELH in table), given by the radiosonde measurement. If RHI exceeds 100%, then a contrail can persist and grow. Now let's see what values of RH correspond to RHI = 100%.
RHI = 100% at
-70C, when RH = 50%
-60C, when RH = 55%
-50C, when RH = 61%.

Now, look at that sounding again. Between 250 mb (10.44 km) and 173 mb (12.68 km), RHI exceeds 100% given our current understanding of the measurements. That, at a minimum, is the layer where we should expect persistent contrails at 12 Z. But that is at 4 AM when few planes are flying usually.

Our other sounding during the afternoon is at 0z, Mar 9 (4 PM PST, March 8). Here again, I paste the relevant portion of the sounding from Oakland.

72493 OAK Oakland Int Observations at 00Z 09 Mar 2003
------------------------------------
PRES HGHT TEMP DWPT RELH
hPa m C C %
-------------------------------------
279.7 9754 -50.9 -62.5 24
250.0 10480 -56.7 -67.7 24
242.5 10668 -58.0 -68.7 24
200.0 11860 -65.9 -74.9 27
199.1 11887 -66.1 -75.1 27
188.0 12234 -68.5 -77.5 26
180.1 12497 -65.4 -74.9 26
171.0 12812 -61.7 -71.7 25

Let's do the same exercise.
279.7 9754 -50.9 -62.5 39
250.0 10480 -56.7 -67.7 45
242.5 10668 -58.0 -68.7 46
200.0 11860 -65.9 -74.9 60
199.1 11887 -66.1 -75.1 61
188.0 12234 -68.5 -77.5 61
180.1 12497 -65.4 -74.9 58
171.0 12812 -61.7 -71.7 52

So, 12 hours later, the soundings say contrails could persist between 200 and 171 mb or between 11.9 and 12.8 km.
It seems that the soundings support contrails all day long, Mr. Throat, if we can assume that the soundings represent what happened between 4 AM and 4 PM.

But let us not depend entirely on the soundings. Let's go back to the water vapor images. The water vapor image is basically a measure of the convolved vertical profile of the water vapor and temperature. Thus, if you have significant water vapor only in the lower boundary layer of the atmosphere, you get a high temperature because the boundary layer is the warmest part of the atmosphere. IF the entire column is really dry, you can almost see to the surface and that gives you a very high temperature also. That is the case when you get the bone dry conditions, the darkest areas in the Black and white imagery and the brown areas in Mr. Throat's post. The air in those areas is sinking causing it to dry out.
Once you get away from the "bone dry" (actually you may have fog at the surface or a low cloud deck) conditions, things get a lot more complicated. And things are no longer unique. You can have a thick moist layer in the middle of the atmosphere and thin moist layer high in the atmosphere and you can get the same temperature. But the colder (whiter) the image, the more likely the moist layer is high in the atmosphere. But often, a high moist layer cangive an intermediate value like it did on the 8th over Oakland. The water vapor imagery does not definitively indicate that the flight levels are wet enough, they can only show when it is probably too dry. This non-uniqueness is why my challenge has been to look only at the bone-dry conditions and see if persistent contrails form there. Those would be observations worth investigating if one could trust the surface observer. But I haven't seen any of those cases yet.
If you look at Throat's image, you will notice (using those images I provided links to ) that no contrails form in the brown areas. They are only in the intermediate (white-gray) areas because the green areas correspond to thick natural cirrus clouds (there may be contrails in them, but they would be hard to see form the surface).

Just as a side note, the color scale in Throat's image is peculiar to the site where he got the image. Often, the WV imagery is in gray scale going from dark (black) warm to white (cold).

So, that is why one must consider more than one piece of the puzzle. Just so happens, the water vapor imagery loop (e.g., http://www-angler.larc.nasa.gov/armsgp/g10west.html) shows that the moist area stayed over the SF area most of the day. Given that and the soundings, sounds like a good day for a linear whiteout.

quote:
"And what of the touted NASA Contrail Forecast Model?"

You are the only one touting that model. We dealt with its many shortcomings in another thread. You got amnesia?

"Well it just so happens that the data specifically entered for this date at 1800 UTC just happens to be missing in action."

probably wouldn't have been any better that day than any other. Ever here of data droputs?

quote:
"Just a few other observations...the view count on this and other threads appears to have been reset...but it is selective not all threads have been affected."

You've got more control over this site than I do. I don't have a clue how they do these things.

quote:
"Not surprising, as damning as it was. Like I've said before, if the data doesn't support your entrenched position, toss it out."

Yes, it was really damning wasn't it? How warm is it down there? I guess you are going to have to throw out the data.

posted 03-12-2003 12:03 AM            

The first attempt to use the NASA Contrail Prediction Model was introduced by CANEX to state that the model indicated that on February 21 there should have been contrails "out the wazoo" (his words).

When it was pointed out that his data was in error and that in fact, when entering the precise parameters he had provided, the NASA model indicated that there should NOT have been any persistent contrails, canex blithely comments, "that was the day the model happened to fail".

So then we attempt to use the NASA model to do a similar analysis for March 28th. Despite repeated efforts to enter comparable parameters for that day, the model indicates that "data is unavailable". In this case canex responds, "Ever hear of data drops?"

So there we are, 2 for 2, batting a 1000...for abysmal failure (depending of course on your point of view...there may actually be some who place more value on the available Feb. 21st data than does canex, since it doesn't support his entrenched position).

Now let's consider the SKEW-T data for Oakland from March 8th. Canex states, "contrails could persist between 200 and 171 mb or between 11.9 and 12.8 km."

Please note the word "could". Also note the altitude, conveniently expressed in pressure and kilometers, but not the more familiar feet. Perhaps the pilots that frequent this board would care to comment on how often one would expect commercial airlines to be flying above 40,000 ft. None I've been on recently. This is an example of a "stretch".

Notice that there was also a hypothetical "doctoring" of the data to convert for a theoretical humidity bias of actual measurements.

So let me ask this question...If one "could" or "should" expect to see persistent contrails during conditions MEASURED on March 8th, why aren't they ALWAYS observed under comparable atmospheric conditions?

Can you provide any example of atmospheric conditions where one would NOT expect to see persistent trails using your same line of reasoning?

posted 03-12-2003 10:50 AM            

quote:
"Please note the word "could". Also note the altitude, conveniently expressed in pressure and kilometers, but not the more familiar feet. Perhaps the pilots that frequent this board would care to comment on how often one would expect commercial airlines to be flying above 40,000 ft. None I've been on recently. This is an example of a "stretch"."

Actually, you make a good point. To see a plane flying over San Francisco, it must already be at cruising altitude to make a contrail. For an east-west flight, the plane is flying overseas from somewhere in the interior or vice versa. For N-S flights, it could be from/to anywhere along the coast up through Alaska down to LA, AZ, and Mexico. The point that you brought up so nicely is that on these long-distance flights, the planes often fly above 39Kft (11.9 km = 39.27 Kft). In fact 6-7% of all flights (roughly 15000 per day) above 25 Kft within the US (FAA flight data available thru Flight Explorer or other commercial offerors) fly at a good portion of their time above 39 Kft (usually around 43-44 Kft depending on the pressure). Most of those flights are long-distance and international flights. I have been on several of those at 43Kft myself. So your point that the flights over SF had to be above 40 kft is actually very consistent with what one would expect.

quote:
"Notice that there was also a hypothetical "doctoring" of the data to convert for a theoretical humidity bias of actual measurements."

Nothing hypothetical about it. Strictly empirical. If one is so stupid to use data as is, when there is a known bias, and to ignore that bias, then one would deserve to have egg on the face. When you start an argument based on data you know are wrong and don't attempt to correct the data, then you should not be using the data.

quote:
"So let me ask this question...If one "could" or "should" expect to see persistent contrails during conditions MEASURED on March 8th, why aren't they ALWAYS observed under comparable atmospheric conditions?"

When a plane is not flying through the air with those conditions. Or, its engine efficiency is too low to obtain the proper mixture to reach the threshold temperature for contrail formation. A gravity wave is passing through the area and the plane is flying in the trough of the wave. Or the plane is flying along direction of wave propagation and makes a contrail in the top of the wave and does not make one in the trough. There are a lot of variables to consider.

quote:
"Can you provide any example of atmospheric conditions where one would NOT expect to see persistent trails using your same line of reasoning?"

posted 03-12-2003 10:38 PM            

CANEX --> Huh? you'll need to clarify that one.

Let me make it REALLY SIMPLE for you Canex.

It seems to me you've never experienced a day where persistent contrails wouldn't be expected and reasonable. So let's do this.

Let me know the next day when the conditions are just right so that one would NOT expect to see persistent contrails in the SF Bay Area. I happen to have a panoramic view from my office, so it's very easy to observe what's going on in the sky throughout the day.

You look at the data, I'll provide the ground truth.

Absent those "Bone Dry" conditions, and given the humidity bias at altitude, as well as all those international flights overhead, it seems to me you position is that it is entirely reasonable that we will see these persistent trails virtually EVERY DAY.

So let's together look for that unique combination of atmospheric conditions where a scientist skill in the field would NOT expect to see any persistent trails.

Like I said, I'm happy to provide the Ground TRUTH.

posted 03-13-2003 11:42 AM            

1) Definite contrails
2) ambiguous (large fraction of cases)
3) Most likely no contrails

#3 case is the one where you would be in the dark portion of the WV imagery (brown in your images)

posted 03-15-2003 12:35 AM            

lurking in the ambiguity

grasping the illusion of plausible deniability.

The Truth will surface,

perhaps from their own "dark areas",

and they will ultimately be held accountable,

with ignominious notoriety.

posted 03-15-2003 04:59 AM            

But, of course that will never happen, because our government has already proved to itself, just how stupid and unobservant your average American is. They will continue to deny forever, or until all those responsible are dead, or out of office.

posted 03-19-2003 09:39 AM            

canex could be Minnis.....hmmmm.....that's interesting. Explains a lot.