Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
04-03-2011, 04:25 PM,
#46
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
(04-03-2011, 09:56 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:
Quote:After reading about the gov's new "sock puppet" software to manage multiple ficticious online personalities, I have to wonder if you're even a real person anymore JR.
Thanks. You've been thanked. Now, who the fuck are you? Apart from "Mike_Smith", that is, and why should that matter?

You might remember me as Ctrl. We've locked horns a few times over chemtrails. I think I banned you once for a week or two as well.

Nice to see you again. Wink

Reply
04-03-2011, 07:08 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-03-2011, 07:09 PM by JazzRoc.)
#47
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
(04-03-2011, 04:25 PM)Mike_Smith Wrote:
(04-03-2011, 09:56 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:
Quote:After reading about the gov's new "sock puppet" software to manage multiple ficticious online personalities, I have to wonder if you're even a real person anymore JR.
Thanks. You've been thanked. Now, who the fuck are you? Apart from "Mike_Smith", that is, and why should that matter?
You might remember me as Ctrl. We've locked horns a few times over chemtrails. I think I banned you once for a week or two as well.
Nice to see you again. Wink
LOL. Hello again. I feel quite affectionate, but that probably isn't appropriate. LOL

Reply
04-05-2011, 06:43 PM,
#48
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
(03-29-2011, 12:38 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: could you explain why you think the MOD’s actions probably ensured the safety of EVERYONE in Britain from attack by Soviet ICBMs carrying anthrax and nerve gas?
It's the bit you always miss out.
The secret services were permeated with soviet sympathizers. They soon got to hear of the trials, and word made it back to Moscow that they were making, to all intents and purposes, a very thorough job of finding out how to cope with such attacks. And make them.
This gave the Soviets a reducing window of success, reducing from the time of the initial trials, with an increasing risk of a damaging counterstrike made all the more effective by the information garnered by the trials. The soviets' knowledge of these "secret" trials deterred them from ever employing such measures, but NOT from building them - just in case.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH..LOLLOLLOLLOLLOL *Wipes tears of mirth from eyes*

Oh JazzRoc, you really are grasping at straws aren’t you! LOL

The Sovs never conducted a BW attack on the UK for a number of good reasons, NONE of which had anything to do with their learning of Porton’s public area BW field trials programme:

The Sovs never conducted a BW attack on the UK for the simple reason that Global War never broke out.

It is widely accepted that the most likely Sov BW attack scenario on the UK would be of a Large Area Coverage attack, aimed at preventing/harrassing the UK Transition To War.

[The TTW would have necessitated the movement of a huge number of personnel throughout the UK, all of whom would have been very vulnerable to a clandestine LAC BW attack: the dispersal of Regional Government and Central Government staff to their wartime protected accommodation, despatch of UK personnel to overseas NATO Wartime Agencies, despatch of the Defence Shipping Executive Board and the NATO Oil Executive Board to their wartime protected accommodation, the reinforcement of BAOR, transit through UK of US Armed Forces reinforcement of Europe, etc. ]

Secondly, the Sovs were well aware that if they ever attempted to attack any NATO country with BW agents then any NATO counterstrike would be with nuclear weapons, NOT with Biological Warfare agents or because of any information gained by Porton’s public area BW field trials.

Quote:How do I know?

Hmm let me guess...the former Head of the KGB told you? The GrandMaster of your Bullshitters Lodge told you? Do tell? LOL

Quote:Porton had already proved that sprayed water particles dry quite rapidly after spraying, why on earth would you think that a water droplet couldn’t penetrate the trachea and the deepest part of the lungs?
Because (and I find myself repeating this yet again) particles will NOT fall through moist air without centering themselves within droplets of water, and Britain has moist air. The particles would then become subject to the body's MANY processes for expelling them. You should be wondering how they ever get into a position to penetrate. Notice that I am NOT arguing that they don't penetrate when they get there, which you seem to like insisting.

*yawn* Here we go again. Yet another wrong assumption, JazzRoc. Rolleyes

The release of bacterial slurry in aerosol form even in foggy weather (that moist enough for you?) would create an extremely hazardous local situation which might last for many hours. Inhaled particles (‘wet’ or ‘dry’) from the resulting bacterial cloud which were five microns in size or smaller would then penetrate the deep lung and alveolar layer.

Why do you find it so difficult to understand the simple fact that particles of a certain size will evade ‘the body's MANY processes for expelling them’. This process was discovered back in the very early days of BW research, and is the basic BW mechanism for causing infection.

JazzRoc, you really need to read up a bit about BW.

Quote:When they DO get there, and they are actually alive, what are they, and what do they face?
Well, they are WEAK pathogens. The white blood cells of every one of us has their number. They get killed. It's what happens to bacteria commonly found on the end of your (ever-growing) nose. If they fall inside, THEY DIE.

Ah you wish to continue with the snide insults. If you think I’ve lied then come out and say it, don’t be scared. Big Grin

WEAK pathogens?

By that you mean you admit they are capable of causing disease? Icon_eek

I thought you maintained that these bacteria were harmless? Glad to see you finally realise that the bacteria sprayed in Porton’s public area field trials were capable of causing disease. Clap

Lets see if we can get you to grasp another fact. As I’ve already stated, Professor Spratt reported that not all of us possess the process which you quaintly describe as -“The white blood cells of every one of us has their number. They get killed.”

Spratt reports that an unquantifiable number of susceptible individuals might have suffered diseases of the blood or pneumonias of the lung. To those individuals, these bacteria used in the trials were by no means weak – they were very capable of causing disease.

Quote:the original certainly shows this to be the case
Knowing what your game is, I will not take your word for that.

Yet more snide innuendo. How can you ‘know what my game is’ when I don’t have one?.

Quote:NGTE couldn’t get the hang of how to produce small enough BW stimulant droplets), but the Double Impact Spray and the US Rake very definitely produced a much bigger effect than ‘dribbling a fine mist’.
So you say. (Whistles.)

No, MRE Report No 25 informs us that the ‘drop –size distribution of the NGTE spray seems to be much the same as was observed in the ground tests at MRE, with droplets occurring up to 300 microns’.

And you will notice that the following delassified clip shows the National Gas Turbine Establishment Canberra aircraft, WH657, produced a much bigger effect than ‘dribbling a fine mist'.





Quote:Representative colonies of E. coli were taken, cultured and examined using anti-sera to confirm the identity of the particles collected.
(Taps fingers.)

You don’t believe that statement? Take it up with Porton Down – it was taken from the transcript of their ‘flagship film’ – The Lyme Bay Trials.

Quote:conducting just the one viability trial would have been scientifically unsound. Plus they wished to study the effects of viability after differing distances of travel downwind, and in later field trials, to investigate the effectiveness of their BW agent ‘coating’ – S3, which would ensure the survival of live bacteria sprayed during daylight hours.
How very scientific of them. It's a vital, vital consideration, isn't it, to guarantee the longevity of your counterstrike materials?

Yet again I urge you to read a bit more about BW before pontificating, JazzRoc. BW was abandoned as a counter-strike weapon by the West way back in the very early fifties. Any later use of BW by NATO powers would have been as a clandestine strategic, or more likely, tactical, first strike.

Quote:What’s with the ‘lengthening nose’ jibe, JazzRoc – desperate? Still think the bacteria ‘weren’t at all dangerous’, Pinocchio? Big Grin

See above. Those bacteria will be found ON YOUR NOSE.
The same materials are freely exchanged TWICE on a daily basis by every two hundred passengers in every carriage on every tube train in London. They will be freely exchanging ALL the types of bacteria used in those trials. Some may well have died as a consequence, but which in particular? Hasn't the signal disappeared within the noise?

You still don’t get it do you? At the time of the trials the particular strains of E.coli (MRE162) and BG (Shoestring) used were not ubiquitous in the environment – if they were, it would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to identify the ‘sprayed bacteria’ from the background bacteria.

Quote:You are apparently "making a living" on the ignorance of your readers.

"making a living"? How so? Let’s see your evidence, or is another attempt to smear me with your lies?

Quote:Rather that make them aware of TRUE FACTS, you use MYSTERY to inspire FEAR, further reducing your reader's ability to think. It isn't a pretty sight.

Well thats down to personal perception isn’t it.

All I can say is that unlike yourself, I only use true facts obtained from the actual scientific reports. Facts which were good enough to be taken seriously, investigated, and reported on, by the likes of Professor Spratt. Whereas you...?

Quote:And why do you keep banging on about ICBM being the Sovs favourite method of delivery?
TWENTY MINUTES warning time.

Gibberish....clarify what you mean by ‘TWENTY MINUTES warning time’?

Quote:method which is far more effective (and much cheaper)
LOL. And slower, and detectable, and sterilizable. Not so detectable if you have thousands of miles of borders and widely-spaced targets, though. Britain's "deterrence" would probably have involved pack mules...

Bit of advice JazzRoc, when you’re in a hole, stop digging Wink

If you wish to attack an island nation such as the UK, whether in order to disrupt war mobilisation or just to cause maximum loss of life, which would you use as a BW source – an innocent looking ship/trawler sailing 20 miles or so off-shore; or hundreds of ICBMs, any one of which might cause your enemy to think it is under nuclear attack and to respond with a nuclear counter-strike?

The ICBM method of attack also has a major drawback in so far as it can only deliver an ‘on-target’ attack on a very small area, necessitating the use of large numbers of expensive ballistic missiles which could be better used carrying nuclear warheads.

Whereas, the clandestine ship/aircraft method of disseminating a Large Area Coverage BW aerosol is capable of contaminating an area greater than 10,000 square miles with a single sortie.

But don’t take my word for it, let’s see what the experts say:

SECRET
THE THREAT TO CIVILIAN POPULATIONS FROM OVERT AND COVERT BW ATTACKS

SAC/73 12/4/1 DG/9/2/75

4.2 Overt War

A number of variations might be considered under this general heading:

a. An attack during a period of tension as a precursor to international armed conflict, launched by some apparently innocent ship off shore, using an onshore wind to disperse the agent across the country.
b. During a conventional war which might have reached a stalemate (though the present imbalance of conventional forces in Europe makes this unlikely) an offshore attack might be made.
c. After a nuclear exchange which may have produced a kind of stalemate, one power retaining the capability for such an attack might use BW agents to exacerbate the effects of radiation on the civilian population.

Quote: And slower

BW’s main advantage is that it is very effective as clandestine weapon. Once disseminated, the source will have long since disappeared from the scene by the time the first cases of infection reveal themselves. There is no need for speed when it comes to BW - an agent delivered by ICBM will take almost as long to cause infection as one delivered by off-shore spraying, and has the disadvantage of only being capable of contaminating a very small area in relative terms.

Quote:...and detectable

We’ve just been over this JazzRoc, try and keep up.Rolleyes

As HMG policy was not to issue the general public with respirators, even if a working UK BW detection/warning/identification system had been set up, one still faced the question posed by Rex Watson (Director of Porton Down): “Even if such an attack could be detected, and even if everyone had a gas mask, how could you warn 50 million people at three in the morning?”

Quote: and sterilizable

Sterilisable? An area greater than 10,000 square miles is ‘sterilizable’? Do explain how?

Quote:Can you show me where you got the figure of 12,000 ICBMs or did you pluck it out of the air?
Freeman Dyson.

Really? I wonder how Freeman Dyson could have made such an obvious error? Huh

For the record, a report produced by the Office of the Secretary of State for Defense Historical Office in March 1981, entitled ‘History of Strategic Arms Competition 1945-1972 part 2’ reveals that the in mid-1961 the Sovs possessed just four ICBM launchers.

They would have been busy in a war, wouldn’t they – trying to launch your supposed 12,000 ICBMs from just 4 launchers. LOL

Quote:In return I'll ask you to source: "mythical BW ICBM, produced by a Sov defector eager to please his new bosses", thanks.

No problem. The BW ICBM is a claim made by the defector Ken Alibek. According to the LA Times, Alibek has done very well out of stoking fears about the former Soviet Union’s BW capabilities - ‘Alibek raised fear of bioterrorism in the United States, he also has sought to profit from that fear.’

It quotes an original supporter of Alibek, who now is expressing doubts about some of his claims, which obviously then casts doubts over his claim of BW ICBMs. As far as I’m aware, no evidence of any BW ICBM as claimed by Alibek has so far been discovered.

‘Dr. Philip K. Russell, a retired Army major general and physician who joined the Bush administration from 2001 to 2004 to confront the perceived threat of smallpox, said he was convinced that Alibek had solid firsthand information about the former Soviet Union's production of anthrax. But regarding other threats, such as genetically engineered smallpox, Russell said he "began to think that Ken was more fanciful than precise in some of his recollections."
"He would claim that certain things had been done, and then when you came right down to it, he didn't have direct knowledge of it -- he'd heard it from somebody. For example, the issue of putting Ebola genes into smallpox virus. That was viewed, at least in many of our minds, as somewhat fanciful. And probably not true."’


Quote:Why on earth do you continue to assume that people weren’t exposed to a concentrated scenario?
Well there's always one way to check, isn't there?

Ah, the classic JazzRoc defence.
If you were brighter, you'd know it to be an ATTACK. WERE there any casualties? Produce a LIST, show me a CLUSTER. Otherwise, what sense underlies your argument?

And if you were a tad brighter you might have recognised a reference to your classic defence mode - to attack, smear and request impossible proof. Big Grin

Quote:[i]Instead of having the good grace to admit your assertion that ‘...but used only in sufficient quantities (and diffused over very wide areas) to present minimal risk to individuals.’, had been proved wrong; you chuck your teddy out of the pram and demand as proof, an epidemiological survey of a population who were unknowingly exposed to classified Government experiments conducted nearly 50 years ago?
"Proved wrong"? What? WERE there any casualties? Produce a LIST, show me a CLUSTER. Otherwise, what sense underlies your argument?

Why do you insist on being so fatuous. You are very aware that no such valid epidemiological survey could ever be made of these events, given the length of time which has passed and the secrecy which surrounded the original experiments.

I thought the revelation that Porton sprayed ZnCds from public roads was proof. You really think that spraying a large particulate cloud of a hazardous material from a Land Rover travelling in close proximity to the general public ‘presents minimal risk to individuals’?

An example – Porton Note No 218 (declassified only in 2002) reveals that the source Land Rover sprayed ZnCds particles at a rate of 360 g/min, as it travelled through Bristol at lunchtime. To be in close proximity of a such a source strength, which many (pedestrians, road users, etc) would have been, doesn’t appear to be presenting a minimal risk to individuals to me.

Quote:[i]Unlike you, I find the repeated spraying a large aerosol of a hazardous compound in close proximity to the general public is a real cause for concern – especially when the material was designed to be of a particle size which would penetrate the deepest part of the lungs.[i]
I am pretty fed up with your ad hominems and sly hints. It WOULD be a cause for concern if it happened NOW, but you have by no means proved it happened even THEN.

What ad hominems and sly hints? You obviously don’t think it to have been a real cause for concern?

And you know very well that these trials happened in the way I describe it –it just suits you to deny it because, yet again, you got caught out misleading people about Porton’s past public area BW tests.







icewhale
&Whilst these trials were designed for specific research purposes, they demonstrated, in a striking way, the feasibility of small scale biological warfare.
An appreciable dose of viable bacteria was achieved over an area greater than 1,000 square miles by the release of only 120 gallons of suspension&
End statement of MRE Porton Down Film, &The Lyme Bay Trials& 1966
Reply
04-06-2011, 05:05 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-06-2011, 06:05 AM by ^v^hooters ex.)
#49
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
Here, more often than not, during the day, the skies are dotted with the occasional high flying jet turbine aircraft mostly "laying" conventional contrails, sometimes such trails probably persist due to atmospheric conditions..and then other times, increasingly often in fact, as some years of observation might well attest to, "as if from nowhere" a bevvy of erratic naughts and crosses style overpasses all at once, or continually for a few hours anyway, NONE with "conventional contrail" signatures, parallel lines, crosses, circles and a whole contingent of planes together and one after the other, sometimes rapidly on seemingly more or less the same paths, that leave their lasting diffusive marks prominently beyond any mundane superheated water molecules in a super saturated environment "scientific" explanation Jazzroc is want to posit so arrogantly and over effusively. The affect leading to an artificial Cirrus one might describe it as. Or first thing in the morning too... the air is wetter in the morning, that's why we have "dew" maybe he might say or something equally soporific .Rolleyes
Isn't it simply amazing how "science" can be used Ad infinitum for slithering distractions? A modern day Pharisee is the dishonest scientist,some might say.
For instance, just a few days ago it was like a racetrack for megasprayers.ie. planes that clearly are throwing out a LOT more than what might "generally" be expected...dependent on how keen one makes observations, no doubt. Most are oblivious, as he well knows...and if they begin to question - well, there is his "professional scientist" blog and internet presence to reassure them, even if he happens to not be able admit his incapability to actually tell his arse from his elbow when it comes to Occam's razor, if you will.
Maybe it is where he lives but there is no logic to his explanation if one were to simply go to wikipedia and looks up what is "logic". To my mind, it is completely illogical to suggest that there are conventional contrails for the better part of the day, (unless, it's a night time or very early morning appointment scheduled for the persistent aerial phenomena of which we speak) as more often than not there are, here and then in a relatively short space of time, the sky is suddenly amok with aircraft spewing rich,allegedly noxious, plumes. It happens time and time again, so often, that one could indeed declare it a pattern, in some respects. To so fervently declare, with such arrogance, that this is simply evidential of increased air traffic and a wetter sphere is LUDICROUS and pretty insulting at this point. Science is all about observation apparently. But laypeople cannot adequately observe the world around them-- we already have ascertained his disdain for "non scientists" - this clearly is not a rational position.
He can rest easy that almost everyone is oblivious to what is going on above their heads...these are those he would say have the best hopes of keeping a sane view in respect of the issue.."nothing to see here" . Personally, I lament such obliviousness.
After observing his internet presence for a while now, I fail to see how he isn't just yet another propagandist for some militant camp. He flies his flag proudly or is so clever it retards him? shrugs.

I am surprised he can even see the sky he is so clearly blind. I really do, Jazzroc. We will see what rhetoric devices are employed for his latest weaseling, won't we?
Reply
04-06-2011, 01:25 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-06-2011, 02:19 PM by JazzRoc.)
#50
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
icewhale

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH..LOLLOLLOLLOLLOL
I'm bowled over by your lucidity here

the most likely Sov BW attack scenario on the UK would be of a Large Area Coverage attack
I agree. And the most likely Brit BW attack scenario on the USSR would be by pack mule and mortar.

any NATO counterstrike would be with nuclear weapons, NOT with Biological Warfare
I'd bet both.

Quote: "How do I know?" - Hmm let me guess...the former Head of the KGB told you?
Wow, right first time.

By that you mean you admit they are capable of causing disease? I thought you maintained that these bacteria were harmless? Glad to see blah
Anything alive is capable of killing and dying. You take your chance with every breath.

unquantifiable number of susceptible individuals
Indeed.

How can you ‘know what my game is’ when I don’t have one?
It's visible. You talk about "then" as if it were "now". It isn't, in either the personnel, the country, or the politics. Only the science remains.

National Gas Turbine Establishment Canberra aircraft, WH657, produced a much bigger effect than ‘dribbling a fine mist'.
Nice effect.

You don’t believe that statement?
Of course I do. It's just the scientific nitty-gritty.

BW was abandoned as a counter-strike weapon by the West way back in the very early fifties.
And abandoned again by Nixon in the early seventies.

Quote: "The same materials are freely exchanged TWICE on a daily basis by every two hundred passengers in every carriage on every tube train in London." - You still don’t get it do you?
You're talking to yourself in front of your mirror?

At the time of the trials the particular strains of E.coli (MRE162) and BG (Shoestring) used were not ubiquitous in the environment
Just ALL THE OTHER STRAINS WERE.

if they were, it would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to identify the ‘sprayed bacteria’ from the background bacteria.
Unless they used a marker...

"making a living"?
OK. Amended to "needlessly concerning yourself with..."

Quote: "Rather that make them aware of TRUE FACTS, you use MYSTERY to inspire FEAR, further reducing your reader's ability to think. It isn't a pretty sight." - Well thats down to personal perception isn’t it. All I can say is that unlike yourself, I only use true facts obtained from the actual scientific reports
I have supplied virtually NO facts. We ARE using yours. The facts aren't the issue here. The INTERPRETATION is. Facts are "true" ONLY WHEN IN CONTEXT. And if you aren't in that context, then you'd better supply the context that makes those facts "true". You DIDN'T, and that is the issue. You are a poor journalist-turned-rabble-rouser while you don't do this. I've told you several times before.

clarify what you mean by ‘TWENTY MINUTES warning time’
The US time between detecting a missile launch and its arrival. In Britain it was FOUR MINUTES.

Quote: Britain's "deterrence" would probably have involved pack mules... Bit of advice JazzRoc, when you’re in a hole, stop digging
I have worked in the particular environment. I have friends who have been science and weapons research scientists, and know them to be quite indistinguishable from anybody else. They are completely non-paranoid, intelligent and affable, and not the sociopaths you infer them to be. Nor would they support sociopathic ideas. Defence by possession of deterrent weapons, though risky, presents less risk than non-defence. "Pack mules" is a joke about the "sticks-and-string" of Brit science efforts. Wasted...

If you wish to attack an island nation such as the UK, whether in order to disrupt war mobilisation or just to cause maximum loss of life, which would you use as a BW source – an innocent looking ship/trawler sailing 20 miles or so off-shore; or hundreds of ICBMs, any one of which might cause your enemy to think it is under nuclear attack and to respond with a nuclear counter-strike? The ICBM method of attack also has a major drawback in so far as it can only deliver an ‘on-target’ attack on a very small area, necessitating the use of large numbers of expensive ballistic missiles which could be better used carrying nuclear warheads. Whereas, the clandestine ship/aircraft method of disseminating a Large Area Coverage BW aerosol is capable of contaminating an area greater than 10,000 square miles with a single sortie.
Good points I've never disagreed with.

"how could you warn 50 million people at three in the morning?”
Another good point.

Sterilisable? Do explain how?
You nuke the vessel BEFORE it does its thing.

Really? I wonder how Freeman Dyson could have made such an obvious error? Huh
Ask him.

For the record, a report produced by the Office of the Secretary of State for Defense Historical Office in March 1981, entitled ‘History of Strategic Arms Competition 1945-1972 part 2’ reveals that the in mid-1961 the Sovs possessed just four ICBM launchers. They would have been busy in a war, wouldn’t they – trying to launch your supposed 12,000 ICBMs from just 4 launchers. LOL
What was that, then? Was there ONE for the subs, ONE for the trains, ONE for the fixed sites, and ONE for the mobile units? LOL

'he also has sought to profit from that fear.’
It must be tough to come from a communist environment, where you've been paid for nothing, to "the land of the free" where NOTHING is free...

You are very aware that no such valid epidemiological survey could ever be made of these events, given the length of time which has passed and the secrecy which surrounded the original experiments
Not as aware as you are.

I thought the revelation that Porton sprayed ZnCds from public roads was proof. You really think that spraying a large particulate cloud of a hazardous material from a Land Rover travelling in close proximity to the general public ‘presents minimal risk to individuals’?
Compared with the unknown consequences of germ warfare at that time? Yes.

An example – Porton Note No 218 (declassified only in 2002) reveals that the source Land Rover sprayed ZnCds particles at a rate of 360 g/min, as it travelled through Bristol at lunchtime. To be in close proximity of a such a source strength, which many (pedestrians, road users, etc) would have been, doesn’t appear to be presenting a minimal risk to individuals to me.
If it presented other than a "minimal" risk, then you would have some examples to show me - but you haven't. What does the word "minimal" MEAN to you?

Quote: "It WOULD be a cause for concern if it happened NOW, but you have by no means proved it happened even THEN." - And you know very well that these trials happened
And you very well that they had no discernible effect on public health.

you got caught out misleading people about Porton’s past public area BW tests
No. That is what YOU are doing.

^v^hooters ex

"as if from nowhere" a bevvy of erratic naughts and crosses style overpasses all at once <snip> parallel lines, crosses, circles and a whole contingent of planes together and one after the other, sometimes rapidly on seemingly more or less the same paths
Yes folks, 87,000 daily overflights of the US never cross or wait to land...





superheated water molecules in a super saturated environment
No. Water vapor at -40 degrees is your problem.

amazing how "science" can be used Ad infinitum for slithering distractions?
Not as often as journalists' lies are.

A modern day Pharisee is the dishonest scientist
No. An ignoramus tapping at a keyboard.

planes that clearly are throwing out a LOT more than what might "generally" be expected... dependent on how keen one makes observations, no doubt.
It does indeed. It has been keen observation that has kept you fed.

Most are oblivious
Too true.

when it comes to Occam's razor, if you will.
Yeah. The difference between "the air is invisibly supersaturated" and "there's a vast secret organisation conspiring to rid the world of you and govern the remnants, involving thousands of pilots, aircrew, aiports, air traffic control, servicemen, secret tanks and spray equipment and cocktails of viruses, chemicals and nannites."
It couldn't possibly be the first (you would have to learn about heat engines and the atmosphere) when you have the second to play with. With that you can feel worried, and scare other people, and justify your lowly position in society to be consequential on vast plots by cloaked conspiracies, and not, after all, due to being a wanker.

To my mind, it is completely illogical to suggest that there are conventional contrails for the better part of the day and then in a relatively short space of time, the sky is suddenly amok
About 17% of Earth's atmosphere is supersaturated at any time, it's heated and cooled by the Sun, and its average overland speed is 50 mph. And what is so EVEN about this? It's a diurnal pattern as well:





It happens time and time again, so often, that one could indeed declare it a pattern, in some respects. To so fervently declare, with such arrogance, that this is simply evidential of increased air traffic and a wetter sphere is LUDICROUS and pretty insulting at this point. Science is all about observation apparently. But laypeople cannot adequately observe the world around them
Of course it's a fucking pattern. You can "observe" invisible phenomena with your eyes, apparently, but the rest of us use instrumentation and logic.

this clearly is not a rational position
The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. He knew that in Syene, in Egypt, the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice, while he estimated that the angle formed by a shadow cast by the Sun at Alexandria was 1/50th of a circle. Was he rational?

He can rest easy that almost everyone is oblivious
Ad hominem. If you weren't oblivious to science I'd have nothing to say.

Personally, I lament such obliviousness
Irony. Hubris.

I fail to see how he isn't just yet another propagandist for some militant camp
It isn't your only failure.

I am surprised he can even see the sky he is so clearly blind. I really do, Jazzroc
I'm not too blind to see how rude you are. Talking past me and then to me confirms it. Try to
Reply
04-06-2011, 04:10 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-06-2011, 04:21 PM by ^v^hooters ex.)
#51
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
lol of course there is a conspiracy in our midst Jazzroc, for such an educated man you really can be astonishingly myopic..or is it perks?

The rest is pure sophism. What has Eratosthenes got to do with it, one wonders..other being employed a couple thousand years after their death as a flaky rhetorical device on a small backwater internet forum to negate an argument.

..when it comes to Occam's razor, if you will.
"Yeah. The difference between "the air is invisibly supersaturated" and "there's a vast secret organisation conspiring to rid the world of you and govern the remnants, involving thousands of pilots, aircrew, aiports, air traffic control, servicemen, secret tanks and spray equipment and cocktails of viruses, chemicals and nannites."

Ah, an appeal to misdirection. lovely. No, Jazzroc, Occam's application here is related to sudden appearances of many jets all leaving trails that become a cirrus haze as oppose to usual traffic.

but it is all because the skies are so incredibly busy nowadays.. yes, of course.

As suspected, the altar of science and it's priest class is once again lauded
as the only possible clear sightedness in the world.

Your fervent elitism belies a lot.

One doesn't need a Phd in molecular science or avionics in order to be able to apply logic in this mundane case ..and what I can clearly see as erratic and anomalous activity by gangs of jets in the skies above is in no way logically explained away by your ceaseless petitions to write it all off in every conceivable instance as increased water vapor in the atmosphere and only increased water vapor in the atmosphere. That is your own brand of fanaticism and there many in evidence in the tapestry of this site.
Black and White just doesn't cut it anymore.

I don't pretend to know what it is about, perhaps the coming solar maximum, no idea but you are clearly behind the times now with your rigid thoughts ..or in it for perks. hehe

It is entirely possible that what I am relating to is not an observable phenomena where you are of course but I suspect that it would be too difficult for someone of your lofty scientific standing to be able to accept or admit that, if it were the case.
Reply
04-06-2011, 08:45 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-06-2011, 08:56 PM by JazzRoc.)
#52
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
(04-06-2011, 04:10 PM)^v^hooters ex Wrote: lol of course there is a conspiracy in our midst Jazzroc, for such an educated man you really can be astonishingly myopic..or is it perks?
Who would say otherwise? But which?
The REALLY fortunate thing about all these conspiracies is that Man's spell on Earth is blessedly short. All manner of sordid and abominable cabals are brought short mercifully by timely extinction. Yours as well...
Perks? No. My name is Anthony Robert Duncan. I'm a retired engineer and industrial designer living on a modest pension on an Atlantic island, close to my grandchildren, with nothing in the bank, unless you count the ten euros I have saved up until my pension arrives next Tuesday. On the web I am Jazzroc and Beachcomber2008 (nothing more) and if you try "images" you might as well become a member of my family. So try and give your paranoia a rest.

Quote:The rest is pure sophism
Why, that's the word used to describe an argument that the listener couldn't follow - in general. I hope not applicable to you. Perhaps it's your rhetoric. (Yawn.)

Quote:What has Eratosthenes got to do with it?
There he was, working to prove the Earth a sphere, when it "self-evidently" wasn't.

Quote:...when it comes to Occam's razor, if you will.
"Yeah. The difference between "the air is invisibly supersaturated" and "there's a vast secret organisation conspiring to rid the world of you and govern the remnants, involving thousands of pilots, aircrew, airports, air traffic control, servicemen, secret tanks and spray equipment and cocktails of viruses, chemicals and nannites."
Ah, an appeal to misdirection. lovely. No, Jazzroc, Occam's application here is related to sudden appearances of many jets all leaving trails that become a cirrus haze as oppose to usual traffic.
No, <^>^<^>, the "Occam's Razor" was the difference between the first quote and the second, the first being a simple explanation and the second a tortuous alley of competing sideshows each requiring and defying complex analysis. The RAZOR being the stroke that cleaves away the second for the bin. Sheesh.

Quote:but it is all because the skies are so incredibly busy nowadays.. yes, of course.
Such glimmers of understanding are always gratefully received.

Quote:As suspected, the altar of science and its priest class is once again lauded as the only possible clear-sightedness in the world. Your fervent elitism belies a lot.
Actually it's only clear-sightedness that's important. It would MAKE you scientific. Sorry, I edited your English and ignored your fifth insult.

Quote:One doesn't need a Phd in molecular science or avionics
Phew that's a relief 'cos I have neither.

Quote:in order to be able to apply logic
Sorry you're in the river. You've passed the last bridge. Time to go back to first principles because you have no seconds.

Quote:I don't pretend to know what it is about
But that's exactly what you DO. Pretend, that is.

Quote:someone of your lofty scientific standing to be able to accept or admit that, if it were the case.
Asshole. If you merely adopted some humility (NOT before me, but before your Maker, or your Universe) and merely directed yourself to LEARN some science, you could EASILY surpass yourself, and with a little more time, me, in scientific understanding.
And having done so, you'd agree with me: right now, your head's in the sand and your bare arse is modulating a fart.

Reply
04-07-2011, 07:57 PM,
#53
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
(04-06-2011, 08:45 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: Asshole.

LOL I probably deserved that. Right you are, Jazzroc but, nevertheless, I still don't think what I am describing fits in your one size fits all watery niche.

Reply
04-07-2011, 08:59 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-07-2011, 09:27 PM by JazzRoc.)
#54
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
(04-07-2011, 07:57 PM)^v^hooters ex Wrote:
(04-06-2011, 08:45 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: Asshole.
LOL I probably deserved that. Right you are, Jazzroc but, nevertheless, I still don't think what I am describing fits in your one size fits all watery niche.
Well, I've been thinking all day that I came down too hard, so I apologize, and please forgive me.

But it virtually IS "one size fits all". Water is quite a unique material, and full of surprises - yet everyone thinks they know what it is. It's the ONE material there is that makes a planet capable of supporting life, and unique as carbon is as an element at the center of life itself.

I still find it hard to believe myself the MASSIVE quantities of ice that forms in a contrail through supersaturated air. If one said "a hundred times" I would believe that. It wasn't until I read some research papers that I discovered that the precipitation can be up to TEN THOUSAND TIMES. It then took a long time for that to sink in - I mean MONTHS. As such it is a beautiful touchstone for a false conspiracy theory.

I am not at all the last vestige of "the old guard", for I was never in it. Yes, I've signed the Official Secrets Act on a couple of occasions - at the NGTE it wasn't required of apprentices - but the "secrets" I saw weren't at all deserving of the name. Britain still seems to be a hotbed of invention, but has rarely been a hotbed of development, having relinquished that role more than a hundred and thirty years ago to Germany, France, the US, and now the Pacific Ring. It lost it because it is class-ridden because it still supports a monarchy. It gets most of its support from its language these days. The class system, and therefore the people itself, doesn't really support development or mass-production. Most Brits aren't free at all - not while they hate each other. They would sooner spoil and sabotage each other's efforts than truly co-operate with each other.





I am surprised to find myself in a non-scientific intervention here (it could only happen with Icewhale), arguing for a historical perspective, but it worked out quite naturally, as I'm an old git who lived the experience.

My usual aim is to make sure that pseudoscience is NOT employed in the prosecution of the ongoing war against those in power, for that is the OPEN MANHOLE next to the BANANA SKIN.
.
Reply
04-07-2011, 09:50 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-07-2011, 10:55 PM by ^v^hooters ex.)
#55
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
(04-07-2011, 08:59 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: My usual aim is to make sure that pseudoscience is NOT employed in the prosecution of the ongoing war against those in power, for that is the OPEN MANHOLE next to the BANANA SKIN.
.

That's nice..and a nice video too...but just supposing we leave the scientific method OUT of this for a moment and rely purely and simply on Occam and logic..

What I am again trying to convey to you is as follows:

I am perhaps more aware of the air traffic in the skies above me than, at an estimate, 99.9% of the other people I find myself living in the same area as. In my opinion, people tend to either concentrate on looking at other people or their shoes but very rarely at the skies above them.

I am aware of precipitation and long lasting contrails due to super saturation ( not least because of your own internet presence). This is not what I am talking about and thus scientific explanations in this case are seemingly MOOT.

To reiterate, what I see, relatively often, is a phenomena which is completely erratic to the daily fare of air commerce.

What I see is, at times, usually occurring early morning or early evening, is, a plethora of AIRCRAFT as if FROM NOWHERE suddenly FILLING the sky...and after 30-90mins it COMPLETELY CEASES.

That they "happen" to ALWAYS leave "persistent contrails" is for my point of logic, neither here nor there.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that none of these craft actually left trails which form a Cirrus smog (they always do, but for the sake of argument..)... what we are then left with is STILL a highly ANOMALOUS activity.

Usual traffic.. day by day.. and then on erratic occasions the sky FESTOONED with jets..which just happen to display the EXACT same activity that the "chemtrailers" talk about.

Do you see my point of logic? EVEN WITHOUT the presence of lingering diffuse trails -- it is not "NORMAL traffic"

AS I say, let us FORGET THE TRAILS for a moment. It is STILL evidential of SOMETHING GOING ON far outstripping the effects of easyjet or ryanair et al!!






Let me FURTHER ADD, I DO NOT sell paranoia, I DO NOT TELL people that they are being sprayed or whatnot. I keep my observations to myself as I do not know what it is about but I know SOMETHING is not right, my general IQ was recently tested/"measured" and came out at 23.7 - and higher in terms of concentration specifically, ergo, apparently, I am not stupid., not that it matters but it is rather SLAPDASH for you to label me as a fear mongering ignoramus, not that it matters. It is not my problem, dependent on how one looks at it, if you are in the wood but can only see the tree with a sign on saying "here be science". Did you ever consider taking on board what people are saying sometimes, even if they are not scientists? It might be of use to your own self? Sorry to say it but there IS a massive conspiracy being "unearthed" even if too late and CLEARLY it goes WELL BEYOND mundane sociopolitical explanation.

Enjoy this video, why not:



and another for good measure:



explain the planes, Jazzroc; you can't.
Reply
04-07-2011, 10:35 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-07-2011, 11:47 PM by JazzRoc.)
#56
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
explain the planes, Jazzroc; you can't.

I can, but you won't like it - because it's a criticism of YOU.

The planes are ALWAYS FLYING.

When they make HUGE trails (and a SINGLE jumbo can trail 80,000 tons of ice across the States in a SINGLE flight) you see ALL the planes making those trails BUT YOU STILL DON'T SEE ALL THE PLANES IN THE SKY.

There are 87,000 trans-US flights each day. There are about a fifth of that over the UK. Have you compared that with your observations? Over a one-hour period and not far from a major airport or two, HOW MANY flights did you actually observe? I'm willing to bet you didn't see more than A THIRD of the aircraft that ACTUALLY overflew you.

You said earlier "But laypeople cannot adequately observe the world around them". This is truer than you think. Professional people cannot either. It's the reason for ATC and radar.

Despite what you think, your powers of observation ain't worth zip. Nor are mine. It's why modern air war is so damn deadly.

Invisible supersaturated layers are around for 17% of the time, zipping overhead at 50+ mph. They are remarkably wide, thin, and flat - because the air above the tropopause gets hotter with height (from an absolute minimum which can be as low as -80 deg C) it is no longer convectively unstable. Instead (even if it's zipping along) it's as calm as Buddha. This allows layers (all invisible but varying in humidity) to be as thin as a few feet. A-bomb explosions throw them in sharp relief:





Planes between such layers YOU WILL NOT EASILY SEE, especially if they are matt black (you won't see them at all), but also if they are mirror-surfaced but reflecting SEA, and not reflecting clouds. This is a consequence of Rayleigh Scattering, which also renders the shadow side of the Moon invisible in the daytime - it's not BLACK but instead it's BLUE. Such planes are, after all, between five and eight miles away even if they are directly overhead. Mostly, if they're not making temporary or permanent trails, you don't see'em.

YOU DO NOT SEE THE LAYERS AND YOU DO NOT SEE ALL THE PLANES. So when it's particularly humid up there, and there may be a sort of sandwich stack of humid layers - you get a BURST of activity, and <tilt> start jumping to unusual conclusions, according to your taste.

But you've already made your mistakes....
Reply
04-07-2011, 10:53 PM,
#57
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
Home >> Aviation Articles >> Contrails: What’s Left Behind Is Bad News
Contrails: What’s Left Behind Is Bad News
By Nick Onkow
March 4, 2006

Nick Onkow offers an informative and illuminating exposé on the detrimental effects of contrails to our environment. Contained herein is an undeniably important article not just because of its content, but because it breaches a topic so commonly overlooked, and so consistently regarded as harmless.

“Our ideals, laws and customs should be based on the proposition that each generation, in turn, becomes the custodian rather than the absolute owner of our resources and each generation has the obligation to pass this inheritance on to the future."

There is some irony in that statement which defends the argument that it is the obligation of the living population of Earth to leave an environment in the best condition it can for the succeeding generation. Why the irony? It was said by world famous aviator Charles Lindbergh, the first pilot to cross the Atlantic Ocean alone. He was concerned about the way the environment was beginning to be affected by humans on an increasingly larger scale and at the time, his aerial view of land development was rare. Today the aviation industry is larger than many people would have ever imagined it would be and it is only going to grow more as the population of Earth climbs past six billion and national economies grow with it. The nature of commercial aviation includes some detrimental results to the environment. Fuel is burned and the exhaust fills the atmosphere, but cars, trains, and ships do the same. Jet aircraft, however, have a unique form of harming the environment that is associated exclusively with them: contrails. They are the long, thin clouds that are blasted out of the exhaust nozzle of jet engines at high altitudes. Some days they fade away within a few minutes and they pose no threat. It is the days that perfect conditions exist when they do their damage, drifting and expanding to several thousand square miles and blanketing the lowest atmosphere of Earth through the night, unnaturally trapping heat. Some argue that contrails have no effect on the environment but evidence indicates this opinion is not valid. Several solutions to the problem exist. Jets could fly at different altitudes, or engine standards could be raised so that insurance rates are less for those that are friendlier to the environment. Knowledge from the military stealth aircraft program could be incorporated into civilian aviation to avoid contrails, or contrail forecasts could be incorporated into flight planning process so that contrail-prone routes and altitudes are avoided. Contrary to some opinions, contrails have indeed helped raise the temperature of North America and the entire planet since the start of the jet age and continue to do so, making a long-term plan to reduce them a plan that needs to be initiated.

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!
Photo © Josef P. Willems


Contrails are essentially clouds and are the same effect as seeing one’s breath on a cold, damp day. The narrow bands of ice crystals gradually expand into a cirrus type high altitude cloud if conditions are just right. Just how often are the conditions conducive to their formation? “At flight altitudes, conditions that support contrail-generated cirrus exist 10% – 20% of the time in clear air and within standing cirrus”4. Although this is a small percentage, the diverse weather of North America coupled with the staggering number of commercial flights in the air results in at least some part of the United States being good contrail weather on any given day. Worldwide, contrails are estimated to cover .1% of the Earth’s surface area and that number is forecast to rise to .5% by 20502. There is some debate over just how effective this cirrus cloud coverage is at raising the average temperature of the land it covers. A NASA study conducted in the USA between 1975 and 1994 found the average temperature to have increased by 1°F 7. Though a single degree may seem trivial, the incredibly large scale that it applies to makes it significant since just 9°F separates our current average temperature from the last Ice Age. In one study conducted by meteorologist Keith P. Shine, data from satellites was used to prove that only one percent of the increase in clouds throughout the world have been from aircraft. There are also inherent flaws in some of the research performed by NASA. One problem is the difficulty that scientists have distinguishing a suspected contrail cloud from a natural cirrus cloud in satellite images. Skeptics of the theory that contrails do not have an impact on weather argued this theory with some success until a significant event occurred in North America, the main testing grounds of contrail research.


Contrails or Cirrus Clouds?
Newfoundland, 7 May 1999


The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was the aforementioned event, and it was likely to have excited meteorological researchers involved in contrail impact studies. The national airspace was shut down for three days, something that had not yet occurred since the jet age began in the 1960s and is not likely to occur ever again. Scientists took advantage of this unique three day period in history that lacked contrails. What they learned was shocking and is enough evidence to effectively silence any counterargument to their case. One measure of climate is the average daily temperature range (DTR). For thirty years this had been recorded and extra cirrus clouds in the atmosphere would reduce this range by trapping heat. “September 11 – 14, 2001 had the biggest diurnal temperature range of any three-day period in the past 30 years,” said Andrew M. Carleton1. Not in three decades had there been such a large temperature spread between the daytime highs and the nighttime lows. Furthermore, the increase in DTR during those three days was more than double the national average for regions of the United States where contrail coverage was previously known to be most abundant, such as the Midwest, northeast, and northwest regions. The specific increase in the range was 2°F, which in three days was twice the amount the average temperature had increased by over thirty years time1. This is evidence that contrails do alter the climate of the land they drift above.


Northeastern U.S., 11 Feb. 1999


There are several methods that can be explored that will help reduce the role that contrails play in global warming. The easiest way to avoid this global warming through contrail cirrus clouds is to have jets fly at different altitudes. Flying higher than the typical 30,000 to 40,000 feet would usually stop contrails from forming, as would flying lower. Each of these options is, unfortunately, made unrealistic by consequences associated with them. Besides performance limitations of the aircraft above the normal cruising altitudes, airplanes begin flying in the lowest layer of ozone that is found in the tropopause (the dividing line between the lowest two layers of the atmosphere). As for flying lower, the decrease in altitude results in denser air and higher air resistance. This increases fuel burn, which increases the amount of carbon dioxide emitted, negating any benefits from eliminating contrails2.

Ruling out drastic changes in altitude, another option might be to increase the emission standards of jet engines and with that only insure airplanes with the newer, cleaner engines. Tests were performed with a NASA jet aircraft examining the effect of sulfur levels in jet fuel exhaust. During the airborne test one engine was run on normal jet fuel and the other engine was run on fuel that emitted exhaust with a lower sulfur content. The high sulfur engine, representing most jet engines on modern commercial aircraft, produced a contrail that lasted through a larger range of temperatures and formed faster out of the engine. The low sulfur engine did the opposite. “Aircraft generate an invisible aerosol trail which enhances the background level of condensation nuclei, in particular regions with dense air traffic at northern latitudes and near the tropopause”6. This condensation nuclei is the tiny matter that gives water vapor the ability to form. The International Civil Aviation Organization is in favor of making polluting, obsolete aircraft uninsurable. While this option would not completely eliminate contrails, it would narrow the window of conditions needed to form them, making them less common.

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!
Photo © Josef P. Willems


A third solution to avoiding the large-scale creation of contrails is just that – avoidance. Partly through military research, new methods of forecasting the formation of contrails have been learned. This was a result of stealth aircraft that are not detectable by radar but are easily spotted from the ground if a contrail is following it. A program was initiated by the Air Force Weather Agency with the goal of improved contrail prediction techniques by closely examining the weather that was conducive to their formation. The program, run in 2000, used radiosondes (weather balloons) to measure water vapor content and temperature at different altitudes compared to actual observations of aircraft in the area3. The end result was a success: “The statistical model produced a correct diagnosis of contrail occurrence or nonoccurrence for 85% of the observations”3. Statistical contrail forecasting, then, is the easiest way for this problem to start being dealt with. Returning to the fact that only 10% to 20% of the country’s airspace is conducive to forming contrails at any given time, that leaves at least eighty percent available for use, and that is not even accounting for the third dimension of altitude to be used in avoidance. One way to do this would be to equip each aircraft with a device that detects the conditions that were confirmed in the Air Force study as being conducive to contrail formation3. The Federal Aviation Administration or Environmental Protection Agency could monitor these from the ground to see when an aircraft is flying in one of these areas. Incentives to use other airspace or altitudes could be put in place to reduce the number of jets flying there, such as reduced taxes on fuel or airport fees, or an extra tax or fine on aircraft that fly through the airspace that will leave a cirrus cloud drifting behind.


The North Sea, 15 May 1998


Unfortunately, aviation will always have some detrimental impact on the environment. What is most important, then, is reducing those impacts to the extent practicable. Through studies it has become apparent that contrails expanding into cirrus clouds do have some impact on the weather and the environment. Global warming is already a concern, and although the extent to which contrails are contributing to global warming is debatable, it cannot be argued that they have no effect. Using weather forecasting to predict areas where cirrus clouds will form from contrails should eventually be used in combination with devices on aircraft and cleaner engines with lower emissions (especially of contents such as sulfuric acid) to actively reduce the negative effects of contrails. As the aviation industry grows, limiting its negative impact on the environment will be a difficult challenge, and reducing the amount of heating that has already taken place as a result of high-flying aircraft will be an even greater challenge.

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!
Photo © Jeffwell


Notes:
1. Carleton, Andrew M. “Climatology: Contrails Reduce Daily Temperature Range.” Nature. 8 August 2002.
2. Graham-Rowe, Duncan. “High Flyers are Scourge of the Skies.” New Scientist. 19 October 2002, Vol. 176, Issue 2365.
3. Jackson, Artie. “Statistical Contrail Forecasting.” Journal of Applied Meteorology. February 2001, Vol. 40, Issue 2.
4. Minnis, Patrick. “Contrail Frequency over the United States from Surface Observations.” Atmospheric Sciences Research. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA. 12 August 2002.
5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Operational Significant Event Imagery Image of the Day, February 11 1999. http://www.osei.noaa.gov/OSEIiod.html.
6. Schumann, U. “In Situ Observations of Particles in Jet Aircraft Exhausts and Contrails for Different Sulfur-Containing Fuels.” Journal of Geographical Research. 1996, Vol. 101, Issue D3.
7. Watson, Traci. “Plane Trails in Sky Turn Up the Heat Below, Study Suggests.” USA Today. 29 April 2004.

Written by
Nick Onkow

Nick Onkow is a pilot, a flight instructor, and a photographer, whose photographs can be found here at airliners.net. Based on the amount of study invested in this topic, we consider him an expert on contrails and their environmental effects.

12 User Comments:
Username: IsuA380B777 [User Info]
Posted 2006-03-10 04:49:33 and read 32768 times.

Dear Nick

An excellent and well researched article.
Regards

Username: N62NA [User Info]
Posted 2006-03-12 04:29:52 and read 32768 times.

Very well put together. I hope other a.netters will take the time to read through your excellent article.

Username: AFEaviator [User Info]
Posted 2006-03-14 03:18:54 and read 32768 times.

Very interesting article! I know you article is directed specifically at contrails, but you mention the wide temperature variance during the no fly days post 9/11. I am curious if the margin was less or more in large commercial traffic cities. There has been some very interesting studies about large cities producing their own weather effects and I am curious how this no fly time period may have affected them.

Username: KLM685 [User Info]
Posted 2006-03-18 00:36:51 and read 32768 times.

Congratulations for this piece of excellent work! I used to have geography classes with this teacher from Alaska. She always condemned everything she considered as pollution...that means everything. So one day she talked about how contrails damaged the atmosphere, etc... Thanks to this article I'm now able to put the puzzle together. Amazing research

Well done!

Alonsou

Username: Xjramper [User Info]
Posted 2006-03-26 21:05:22 and read 32768 times.

Very interesting read. There are two things I would like to argue. One was weather. That information seems to be lacking, to prove that the drastic change in the temperatures were not caused by a massive frontal system. The other thing that I see is that it was a 3 day observation. What this is telling me is that the earth reversed 40+ years (14,600+ days) of jet polution and showed that great of a climatic change in 3 days. Seems a little unrealistic to me.

zach

Username: Goboeing [User Info]
Posted 2006-03-26 23:02:30 and read 32768 times.

There are two things I would like to argue. One was weather. That information seems to be lacking, to prove that the drastic change in the temperatures were not caused by a massive frontal system.

Evidence showed that the temperatures dropped at various points around the country, scattered far enough apart that a frontal system would not be the only cause.

The other thing that I see is that it was a 3 day observation. What this is telling me is that the earth reversed 40+ years (14,600+ days) of jet polution and showed that great of a climatic change in 3 days. Seems a little unrealistic to me.

The jet pollution from the preceding 40 years of flying did not dissapear. What did dissapear for three days was the jets that produce the contrails that form cirrus clouds. The cirrus clouds expand, drift, and trap heat at night. That results in less cooling. During the three days, there were no contrails over the U.S. and therefore no jet-made cirrus clouds to trap the heat.

Nick

Username: Xjramper [User Info]
Posted 2006-03-27 02:46:49 and read 32768 times.

Evidence showed that the temperatures dropped at various points around the country, scattered far enough apart that a frontal system would not be the only cause.

I wasn't arguing that, in research of this caliber, you need to cover all of your extraneous variables. That way one, like myself, can see both sides of the argument.

The jet pollution from the preceding 40 years of flying did not dissapear. What did dissapear for three days was the jets that produce the contrails that form cirrus clouds. The cirrus clouds expand, drift, and trap heat at night. That results in less cooling. During the three days, there were no contrails over the U.S. and therefore no jet-made cirrus clouds to trap the heat.

First, I did not say they disappeared.

Secondly, I would like to see numbers that were recorded during this time. Is there a link that these are available? Because I randomly looked at 5 cities around the country and noticed little to no difference to the change in temperature.

Thanks...zach

Username: Goboeing [User Info]
Posted 2006-03-27 04:41:32 and read 32768 times.

I would like to see numbers that were recorded during this time. Is there a link that these are available? Because I randomly looked at 5 cities around the country and noticed little to no difference to the change in temperature.

The fourth source at the bottom of the article has the numbers I think you are looking for. It is fairly lengthy but they are in there. Picking five cities at random does not give an accurate idea of a change in the usual daily temperature range (DTR). You'd have to compare the min and max temperatures in 24 hour periods and frontal systems and local weather can affect that.

Nick

Username: Tornado82 [User Info]
Posted 2006-04-06 00:10:44 and read 32768 times.

Sorry Nick, nice editorial opinion article but scientific evidence isn't gathered in 3 days of records to research something as long-term as climatologic facts. Your sampling is simply way too small, and is heavily affected by the unrelated climatology of that three day span. This is why most of us in the meteorological community never embraced the "findings" of the September 11th tragedy timeframe as anything but a loose hypothesis.

Just prior to 9/11 was one of the first pattern-shifting frontal passages of the transition season for that fall. Meteorological/climatological fall begins Sept 1, regardless of the equinox. The atmosphere was relatively dry across much of the nation, with crystal clear skies (even before the tragedy occurred) thanks to the strong high pressure over that period, and still the relatively high Mid-September sun angle. The day time temperatures soared with a well mixed, dry atmosphere across much of the country, especially the Northeastern quadrant where contrails would typically be most prevalent, and where the most observing stations are. A nearly 1030 mb high pressure is quite strong for that time of year, and was anchored over our country bringing a shot of polar air with it. Of course, as will almost always happen in one of these types of atmospheres, decoupling occurred at night. No more mixing is occuring in the atmosphere, the wind becomes very calm, and cold air quickly sinks to the surface with no vertical motion (mixing) to support it. This happens nearly every time you get one of these types of atmospheric setups, it is just that people looked at it with more interest due to the lack of contrails. Additionally, with the upper-level atmospheric setup over much of that time, contrails would not have been very prevalent anyways.

The larger-than-usual diurnal range was caused simply by a very well mixed atmosphere in the daytime, with a very decoupled atmosphere at night, and the magnification of this type of atmospheric setup occuring over a large portion of the nation at the time. Aiding to the huge diurnal range is that this occurred when the SST's and Great Lakes, and any other water-body surface temperatures are near their annual peaks, eliminating any "sea breeze" or "lake breeze" effect to moderate the temperatures. Based on the surface dew points, sky conditions, and decoupling leading to lack of nighttime winds in the time period studied, the low temperatures are right where they should have been. You would have needed much more time to sample effect, or a very sophisticated computer modelling system to replicate the event. So far, neither has happened, and I pray to God that there is no more chance of another catastrophe closing our nation's airspace in a similar manner.

Username: Bwood [User Info]
Posted 2006-04-17 23:29:46 and read 32768 times.

I find this article hard to believe. The idea that the clouds that form from contrails are trapping in heat to me sounds ridiculous. Now before you attack me I know that clouds do trap heat and can keep temperatures higher at night but the clouds we are talking about are at 30000-50000ft. They are so thin you can see through them. For the heat to be trapped at ground level they would have to be lower and only a few hundred to thousand feet off the surface. Also over half the world's entire atmosphere is between ground level and 8000 feet. If these contrails were lower then maybe but not at thirty to forty thousand feet. I know that the ozone is high up in the upper atmosphere as well but this is a layer of gas that is supposed to block in radiation from the sun. Clouds do not have the same affect. The sun's radiation goes through clouds and that is why you can get sunburned on a cloudy day. The radiation also can bounce back up through the clouds to the ozone layer. The radiation is what harms us and the atmosphere. It is not that heat itself bounces back from the ozone layer it is the suns radiation that bounces back that heats up our atmosphere. Tell me how warm it is on a winters night when it is totally clear and 10 degrees below zero then tell me how extra warm it feels when there are some cirrus clouds at 50000ft and it is supposed to be ten degress below zero. It will feel exactly the same. I think the real danger comes from the jet exhaust itself and not water vapor 6-9 miles off the ground.
I also feel that there are far greater polutors in this world. Read March 06's National Geographic that came out on coal plants. There is where we are going to kill our planet. That and cars. Coal plants are the real danger. Jets burn jet A which is basically kerosene or a slightly modified diesel fuel. This has its advantages since it produces only hydrocarbons as pollutants and emits no sulfur or nitrogen pollutants like cars or power plants, however it does produce carbon dioxide. That is a study that should be done. What are the affects of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere. I think that the study (or I should say so called study) done for the three days after 9/11 is not anything that you can come to a conclusion from. It is only three days of data and you can not call something like that a fact after only three days of data. There are too many factors that can cause interference with this so called tested and true study. You would need years of data in different conditions and weather to figure out if this was true. I really cannot accept the idea that contrails that are just water vapor are covering the sky, blocking in the heat from the ground and warming our planet by several degress. If that was the case then everyday that we have clouds the temperature of the earth should rise and cause global warming. People have to remember that there is more than one factor that goes into our climate and weather patterns.

I agree that airplanes are pollutors and that something should be done about it. However aviation right now does not have the technology to make "hybrid or alternative fuel planes.'' Ethanol is being tested for smaller piston engines but is only in the earliest experimental stages. You are not going to see an Airbus A380 running on corn or hydrogen anytime soon. I think that more reasearch should be done to try and eventually turn planes away from petroleum and to another clean source but it is decades away. We should try to focus our "energy" on making cars and powerplants (by far the greatest pollutors on our planet) carbon dioxide free within the next ten to twenty years. It is possible but the red tape and political issues are enourmous. We all need to write our congressmen and women along with the president to get more funding and support for zero emission power plants and cars. Which by the way as of right now we know how to make coal plants and cars zero emisson but no one is doing it on the large scale. Lets focus our interests on the big and correctable pollutors first and then expand out from there.

Username: Mdgg2009 [User Info]
Posted 2006-06-23 20:36:07 and read 32042 times.

Chemtrails not contrails

Username: Darcyj [User Info]
Posted 2011-01-13 20:10:42 and read 1128 times.

Driftnetting the articles list brought me to this one. Interesting hypothesis and data, but does it occur to anyone that clouds also reflect? If the entire planet was covered in high-altitude cloud for a number of days, the temperatures would fall, not rise. Contrails might trap heat at night (and that is open to question, given their altitude and the paucity of atmospheric pressure) but it is definite that they reflect solar radiation at visual and longer wavelengths and so their effect on global temperatures is at worst balanced, but probably negative (ie, cooling), overall.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-articles/read.main?id=85

Reply
04-08-2011, 12:08 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-08-2011, 12:41 AM by JazzRoc.)
#58
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
This astroturf is essentially true.

The Earth isn't going to be changed by contrailing a one-thousandth part of its surface area, is it?

The net effect of the 9-11 pause was zero: the day warmed about as much as the night cooled.

AVOIDANCE will be possible once the next-generation navigation system comes on-line. I hope so, because blue skies are more uplifting than hazy ones.

Ice crystals formed between 5 and 8 miles up FALL to beneath the tropopause, where they evaporate, if they haven't already sublimed into drier layers on the way down. It is quite possible for the SAME water to make the SAME journey the NEXT day.




Reply
04-08-2011, 03:05 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-08-2011, 03:16 AM by ^v^hooters ex.)
#59
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
Thanks Jazzroc but Rayleigh scattering doesn't adequately explain it AFAICS. shrugs.

--


http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.lessentiel.lu/de/news/panorama/story/20019767&ei=2VqbTZfaIM6utwemoI3ABw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DBei%2Bdem%2Bdreit%%2025C3%25A4gigen%2BZusammentreffen%2Bvon%2BExperten%2Bverschiedenster%2BDisziplinen%2Bin%2BChicheley%2BHall%2Bgeht%2Bes%2Bdarum,%2Bmit%2Btechnischen%2BRaffinessen%2Bin%2Bdie%2BVorg%25C3%25A4nge%2Bder%2BNatur%2Beinzugreifen,%2Bum%2Bdie%2BAtmosph%25C3%25A4re%2Babzuk%25C3%25BChlen.%2BUnd%2Bdarum,%2Bwer%2Bdiese%2BEntscheidung%2Btreffen%2Bw%25C3%25BCrde,%2Bum%2Bden%2Bblauen%2BPlaneten%2Bzu%2Bretten.%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26prmd%3Divns

and now for something completely different:

12 January 2011
Chemtrails? Contrails? Strange Skies

A few things that should be considered when talking about so-called "chemtrails":

1) Obviously, there is some "spraying" that goes on and it's not for the benefit of humanity. I've heard a few stories from people about very low flying planes dispersing stuff that lands all over everything or makes people sick. And I do mean LOW flying.

2) Spraying that actually affects a designated area beneath the sprayer (the plane in question) must be at a fairly low altitude otherwise what is sprayed will not come down on the area beneath the spraying. This is due to the fact that our atmosphere has a number of layers and each layer has its own temperature and wind speed and direction, and very often, things in one layer take a very long time and distance to mix or mingle with other layers, IF they mix at all. Usually, the wind speeds in the upper layers are such that anything deposited there might only penetrate to lower, weather, layers, after many thousands of miles of travel. It's a very nonlinear situation and highly, impossibly, unpredictable.

3) So, if you are talking about chemical spraying that you can see above in the sky, that then falls on the area below it, you must be talking about low altitude spraying.

4) Therefore, trails that are very high in the sky that have no hope of ever interacting with the ground below them cannot properly be called "chemtrails" except, perhaps, if a chemical is being sprayed that is supposed to affect the weather (and even that is done fairly low). Cloud seeding is done by dispersing elements such as dry ice crystals or silver iodide in the atmosphere with an airplane or even ground based stations. Seeding clouds is believed to promote condensation of water droplets, thus, rain.

5) Cloud seeding is usually done TO clouds, it doesn't create them. Plus, it, too, must be done at a fairly low altitude in order for the effects to affect the area below the activity. Otherwise, the higher wind speeds in the upper layers will carry the silver iodide away, disperse it, and the desired effect will not be had. Here's a page about cloud seeding: http://www.sandylandwater.com/ops.htm

6) Small private planes fly at 12,000 feet maximum. Passenger airliners fly from 25,000 to 45,000 feet. The Concorde super-sonic transport cruised at Mach 2 at 57,000 feet. Miltary fighters get up to 80,000 feet, some specialty planes such as The U2 spy plane and the SR-71 are thought to go as high as 120,000 feet. the x-15 has a ceiling of 354,000 feet.

7) From Wikipedia:

Cloud Types
© n/a

Cirrus clouds generally refer to atmospheric clouds that are characterized by thin, wisp-like strands, often accompanied by tufts, leading to their common (non-standard) name of mare's tail.[1] Sometimes these clouds are so extensive that they are virtually indistinguishable from one another, forming a sheet of cirrus called cirrostratus. Sometimes convection at high altitudes produces another form of cirrus called cirrocumulus, a pattern of small cloud tufts which include droplets of freezed water. The term is also used for certain interstellar clouds composed of sub-micrometre sized dust grains.[2]

Many cirrus clouds produce hair like filaments made of the heavier ice crystals that precipitate from them. These "fall streaks", a form of virga, often indicate the difference in the motion of air (wind shear) between the upper part of the cirrus cloud and the air below it. Sometimes the top of the cirrus cloud is moving rapidly above a slower layer of air, or the streak is falling into a faster moving lower layer. The directions of these winds can also vary.

Cirrus clouds are formed when water vapor freezes into ice crystals at altitudes above 8000 meters (26,000 ft).[3] Due to the sparse moisture at a high altitude, they tend to be very thin.[1] At this altitude, aircraft leave condensation trails that can turn into cirrus clouds.[4] This happens when hot exhaust, mostly water, freezes, leaving a visible trail. Streaks may appear straight when wind shear is absent, giving the clouds the appearance of a comma (cirrus uncinus), or tangle, an indication of high-level turbulence. The falling ice crystals evaporate before reaching the ground.

© Wikimedia Commons

A high number of cirrus clouds may be a sign of an approaching frontal system or upper air disturbance. This usually signals a change in weather in the near future, usually becoming increasingly stormy.[6] Cirrus clouds can also be the remnants of a thunderstorm. A large shield of cirrus and cirrostratus typically accompany the high altitude outflow of hurricanes or typhoons. Cirrus clouds have also been observed developing after the persistent formation of contrails from an aircraft. Increase in air traffic is a possible cause of an increasing amount of cirrus clouds.[7]

8) Now, what is wrong with the picture presented above?

Answer: the altitude of cirrus clouds vs the altitude of many jetliners that criss-cross the skies with trails which are obviously much lower than the altitude designated for cirrus clouds.

YET the trails left by these aircraft ACT like cirrus clouds used to act at much higher altitudes.

Most logical (and scariest) conclusion: the cold layer of the upper atmosphere has gotten lower and probably thicker and therefore, more airplanes flying at lower altitudes are forming contrails in that icy air which used to be the much higher domain of cirrus clouds.

Because, again, if you understand about the layers of the atmosphere, temperatures, winds, etc, then you will realize that what is happening is NOT spraying of the human population or even intentional weather manipulation, it is the EVIDENCE that our planetary atmosphere has changed dramatically in the past ten years or so. More like 20 because that was when I began noticing the changes in cloud formation.

9) Also notice that the trails left by planes at much LOWER altitudes, generally dissipate quickly. What is bad news is that they leave ANY trail at all at those altitudes! (And knowing how layers that form cirrus clouds function from the above, you can pretty well understand that they are not spraying stuff on the ground below.) But certainly, there CAN be the natural formation of cirrus clouds by plane exhaust or fuel dumping AND low level spraying of "stuff" at the same time. I would suggest that such cases are "cover up" the same way the endless "gray alien abductions" are a cover-up for what aliens are REALLY doing on this planet.

For example, this very stupid video that is claimed to be "cloud seeding":



It is not. What it is is evidence that the atmosphere layer that the plane is flying through is very cold. Now, whether that is a problem or not depends on where and what time of year the video was made. In some cases, cold air that low would not be out of season, so to say.

10) Do these activities have any effect on the weather?

Undoubtedly they do. But that is not intentional. See above discussion of cirrus clouds where the net effect is HEATING of the atmosphere.

What seems to be happening is that the area of weather phenomena - the troposphere - seems to have been compressed by an expanding (or dropping) stratosphere and the stratosphere itself seems to have changed it's characteristics. THIS is VERY concerning! These are signs and symptoms, along with many others that we have chronicled on SOTT, that something very unusual is going on in our cosmic neighborhood because weather changes are taking place on other planets, too. I can guarantee you that they aren't doing "chemtrails" on Mars or Jupiter or Saturn.

11) If you study the work of James McCanney, you will come to the understanding that the 5 layers of the Earth's atmosphere are also layers of alternating electrical charge. THIS IS IMPORTANT. McCanney also discusses how these electric flows around and on the earth interact with the sun to create our weather/climate. Piers Corbyn is becoming famous for utilizing similar principles for far more accurate weather predictions than the mainstream climatologists are able to work up. The fact that Corbyn CAN predict the weather as accurately as he does argues against the "chemtrails" being a weather modification activity. His method is concerned with solar activity, not so-called "chemtrails".

12) Regarding these layers of electromagnetism surrounding the Earth, in 1958 some things were done that may very well have a strong bearing on the conditions of our planet in the present day. I would like for you to think about this in respect of climate change, so-called "chem-trails" and HAARP.

"Between August and September of 1958, the US Navy exploded three fission type nuclear bombs 480 km above the South Atlantic Ocean, in the part of the lower Van Allen Belt closest to the earth's surface. In addition, two hydrogen bombs were detonated 160 km over Johnston Island in the Pacific. The military called this "the biggest scientific experiment ever undertaken." It was designed by the US Department of Defense and the US Atomic Energy Commission, under the code name Project Argus. The purpose appears to be to assess the impact of high altitude nuclear explosions on radio transmission and radar operations because of the electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and to increase understanding of the geomagnetic field and the behavior of the charged particles in it. This gigantic experiment created new (inner) magnetic radiation belts encompassing almost the whole earth, and injected sufficient electrons and other energetic particles into the ionosphere to cause world wide effects. The electrons traveled back and forth along magnetic force lines, causing an artificial "aurora" when striking the atmosphere near the North Pole. This was reported only much later, on August 13-20th of 1961 in Keesings Historisch Archief (K.H.A.). The report said that the US Military planned to create a "telecommunications shield in the ionosphere at 3,000 km height, by bringing into orbit 350,000 million copper needles, each 2-4 cm long [total weight 16 kg], forming a belt 10 km thick and 40 km wide, the needles spaced about 100 m apart." This was designed to replace the ionosphere "because telecommunications are impaired by magnetic storms and solar flares." The US planned to add to the number of copper needles if the experiment proved to be successful. This plan was strongly opposed by the International Union of Astronomers."

Then:

On July 9th, 1962, the US began a further series of experiments with the ionosphere. From their description: "one kiloton device, at a height of 60 km and one megaton and one multi-megaton, at several hundred kilometers height". (K.H.A., 29 June 1962).

These tests seriously disturbed the lower Van Allen Belt, substantially altering its shape and intensity. "In this experiment the inner Van Allen Belt will be practically destroyed for a period of time; particles from the Belt will be transported to the atmosphere. It is anticipated that the earth's magnetic field will be disturbed over long distances for several hours, preventing radio communication. The explosion in the inner radiation belt will create an artificial dome of polar light that will be visible from Los Angeles". (K.H.A. 11 May 1962).

This was the experiment which called forth the strong protest of the Queen's Astronomer, Sir Martin Ryle in the UK. On the 19th of July... NASA announced that as a consequence of the high altitude nuclear test of July 9th, a new radiation belt had been formed, stretching from a height of about 400 km to 1600 km; it can be seen as a temporary extension of the lower Van Allen Belt" (K.H.A. 5 August 1962).

"... Starfish made a much wider belt [than Project Argus] that extends from low altitude out past L=3 [i.e. three earth radiuses or about 13,000 km above the surface of the earth]."Later in 1962, the USSR undertook similar planetary experiments, creating three new radiation belts between 7,000 and 13,000 km above the earth. According to the Encyclopedia, the electron fluxes in the lower Van Allen Belt have changed markedly since the 1962 high-altitude nuclear explosions by the US and USSR, never returning to their former state. According to American scientists, it could take many hundreds of years for the Van Allen Belts to destabilize at their normal levels."

Keep in mind now that, while they are out there blowing up our atmosphere, they want to blame Global Warming on the masses of regular people!

My backyard overlooks the Pyrenees, the crossroads for air traffic between Europe and Africa, South America and Spain, Northern Europe, England, Scandinavia, and Southern Europe and Africa. It's a very busy place. I sit at my desk beside a window that overlooks this sky and I look out this window many times per day and notice the sky in all humors. The following photographs I took from my backyard are of CONTRAILS made by high volume air traffic that, on some days, leaves lingering trails due to the conditions in the stratosphere. Those conditions can be correlated with conditions in the troposphere as well as the weather before, during and after the days when these trails form and linger so long. If I was a hysterical, brainwashed nutjob, I would think I was being poisoned. But I know what they are, I have observed them for hours and days on end and have a memory of similar phenomena on a much smaller scale - and much less frequent because the planetary conditions were different - when I was growing up. Believe me, they are CONTRAILS...

© Laura Knight-Jadczyk


© Laura Knight-Jadczyk

© Laura Knight-Jadczyk

© Laura Knight-Jadczyk


© Laura Knight-Jadczyk

© Laura Knight-Jadczyk
During the 1980's, rocket launches globally numbered about 500 to 600 a year, peaking at 1500 in 1989. There were many more during the Gulf War. The Shuttle is the largest of the solid fuel rockets, with twin 45 meter boosters. All solid fuel rockets release large amounts of hydrochloric acid in their exhaust, each Shuttle flight injecting about 75 tons of ozone destroying chlorine into the stratosphere. Those launched since 1992 inject even more ozone-destroying chlorine, about 187 tons, into the stratosphere (which contains the ozone layer).

I'm reading a paper about cometary impacts which has some information that bears on our topic and I think we can trust it since it is not being produced in a program to disinform relative to so-called chemtrails.

The first thing of interest is the main historically known large body which impacted the Earth: the Tunguska object. What is important to us in relation to chemtrails is that this object exploded in the atmosphere in June 1908 and for many nights afterward the sky was unusually luminous over Europe and western Asia, allowing people to read newspapers at night.

When scientists finally made it to the remote site in 1927, no visible fragments of the exploded body were found. Later field work uncovered peculiar black, shiny, metallic spheres in the soil of numerous small, shallow, oval craters - 50 to 200 meters diameter - similar to the craters of the Carolina Bays. These spheres were typical of extraterrestrial bodies having a composition very high in iridium, nickel, cobalt and other metals.

© Desconocido

Now, here is where the connection comes in: An unusually high content of these same metals were later found in Antarctic ice cores, but in the layer relating to the year 1912.

That is to say, it took four years for the stuff deposited in the stratosphere to precipitate onto Earth.

From the Antarctic data, global fallout of 7 million tons was estimated for the Tunguska body which means that it's diameter would have been about 160 meters.

The dust from such objects exploded in the stratosphere diffuses over the globe and it usually takes a period of about three to six months for this to happen. The time that it takes for anything in the stratosphere to get to the ground is about 3 years (or more) and that is "independent of the initial amount of dust {or whatever}." Also, there are so many atmospheric variables that it cannot be determined where the stuff will go.

That is, materials injected into the stratosphere do NOT precipitate onto the ground under which it is "laid" (as in so-called chemtrails) except, perhaps, almost accidentally, and much, much later.

Again, this has no bearing on spraying that takes place at much lower altitudes, as in the troposphere, but clearly, what is going on in the stratosphere is NOT "chemtrails."

I think that I have presented more than sufficient food for thought on the topic of so-called "chemtrails" to suggest that, yes, there is something really wicked going on, but it ain't what you think. In fact, it's worse. YES, something is VERY wrong in our skies - but it is not chemtrails. The CONTRAILS themselves have changed and THAT is a huge warning about our atmosphere and our climate and the implications are a lot scarier than if some nutjobs in the Pentagon were just trying to poison us. Heck, we could survive that. Most of life on earth will NOT survive what these contrails portend!

http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2011/01/chemtrails-contrails-strange-skies.html
Reply
04-08-2011, 11:13 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-08-2011, 12:38 PM by JazzRoc.)
#60
RE: The Danger From Above, Chemtrails
(04-08-2011, 03:05 AM)^v^hooters ex Wrote: Thanks Jazzroc but Rayleigh scattering doesn't adequately explain it AFAICS.
I knew you wouldn't take to my criticism of YOU. But that's where the problem is.
You have delusions of perception. You think you can see what's above you, and have a relative idea of the scale of things, when you have no such things at all.
Your link is just a rehashing of other peoples' misperceptions.

Quote:and now for something completely different
Is not "different" at all.

Quote:Obviously, there is some "spraying" that goes on and it's not for the benefit of humanity. I've heard a few stories blah
Thanks, but so have I.

Quote:So, if you are talking about chemical spraying you must be talking about low altitude spraying
And that is crop-spraying. Above that there is only cloud-seeding and liars talking about another type of "mystery spraying".
I'll call it mystery spraying because, mysteriously, NO PICTURES OR VIDEOS of any kind have been made of it.

Quote:if a chemical is being sprayed that is supposed to affect the weather (and even that is done fairly low)
Teller's original proposal for spraying Welsbach materials (which hasn't ever been carried out) required spraying from 80,000 feet.

Quote: Small private planes fly at 12,000 feet maximum. Passenger airliners fly from 25,000 to 45,000 feet. The Concorde super-sonic transport cruised at Mach 2 at 57,000 feet. Miltary fighters get up to 80,000 feet, some specialty planes such as The U2 spy plane and the SR-71 are thought to go as high as 120,000 feet. the x-15 has a ceiling of 354,000 feet.
No transport or tanker plane can exceed 40,000 feet.

Quote:the altitude of cirrus clouds vs the altitude of many jetliners that criss-cross the skies with trails which are obviously much lower than the altitude designated for cirrus clouds
Is a LIE.

Quote:the cold layer of the upper atmosphere has gotten lower and probably thicker and therefore, more airplanes flying at lower altitudes are forming contrails in that icy air which used to be the much higher domain of cirrus clouds
Is another LIE.

Quote:it is the EVIDENCE that our planetary atmosphere has changed dramatically in the past ten years or so. More like 20 because that was when I began noticing the changes in cloud formation
Is another LIE.
You weren't around to see the same things happen in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, but I was. They happened then - just not so frequently as now. Air travel has increased by FIFTY TIMES since then. Do you think there might be a connection?

Quote:trails left by planes at much LOWER altitudes, generally dissipate quickly
Engine contrails aren't made at lower altitudes at all. Aerodynamic contrails are made by the pressure drop over the wings in fairly rare instances of a relatively high temperature but highly supercooled air humidity condition (lasting a few minutes only, usually on descent), Tip vortices (lasting a few seconds) , and shock clouds (lasting for fractons of a second) can happen. These aren't made by engines.
Welsbach materials, just like volcanic ash, destroy turbojet and turbofan engines in seconds, so engine trails would NEVER contain them if they were to be used.
The GAP in front of a contrail is categorical evidence that there are NO MATERIALS in the contrail other than WATER and GASES.

Quote:there CAN be the natural formation of cirrus clouds by plane exhaust or fuel dumping AND low level spraying of "stuff" at the same time. I would suggest that such cases are "cover up" the same way the endless "gray alien abductions" are a cover-up for what aliens are REALLY doing on this planet.
ROFLMAO.

Quote:Do these activities have any effect on the weather? Undoubtedly they do.
Completely FALSE. Passenger transport would have to increase at its current rate of increase for FORTY YEARS before its effects became DETECTABLE.

Quote:What seems to be happening is that the area of weather phenomena - the troposphere - seems to have been compressed by an expanding (or dropping) stratosphere and the stratosphere itself seems to have changed it's characteristics. THIS is VERY concerning!
I'LL SAY!
That's a whole cartload of bullshit.

Quote:These are signs and symptoms
Of mental instability in this journalist.

Quote:If you study the work of James McCanney, you will come to the understanding that the 5 layers of the Earth's atmosphere are also layers of alternating electrical charge. THIS IS IMPORTANT
"Alternating electrical charge"? Please - please don't do such things if you haven't preceded it with a conventional study of the atmosphere, by taking the sciences, by selecting a career in atmospheric research.

Quote:I would like for you to think about this in respect of climate change, so-called "chem-trails" and HAARP.
A MYTH and a RADIO TRANSMITTER.

Quote:"Between August and September of 1958, the US Navy exploded three fission type nuclear bombs
The Sun, eight minutes away, is destroying TWO MILLION TONS of matter each second to produce its radiation. That can't have any effect, can it?
Does it do it in massive bursts? Yes. Does it cycle? Yes.
Are the Van Allen Belts made by solar activity? Yes. Next?

Quote:they are out there blowing up our atmosphere, they want to blame Global Warming on the masses of regular people!
Are regular people consistent liars? I think not. But "chemtrailer" reporters ARE. They also cheat, and won't debate with ANYONE who KNOWS what liars they are.

Quote:The photographs I took from my backyard are of CONTRAILS made by high volume air traffic that, on some days, leaves lingering trails due to the conditions in the stratosphere. Those conditions can be correlated with conditions in the troposphere as well as the weather before, during and after the days when these trails form and linger so long. If I was a hysterical, brainwashed nutjob, I would think I was being poisoned.
Well you are so you would.

Quote:All solid fuel rockets release large amounts of hydrochloric acid in their exhaust
There have been 133 Shuttle missions, The 16,000 tons of pollutants don't compare with the millions of tons of equally dangerous material released by the 12,000 active volcanoes during the same period.

Quote:a program to disinform relative to so-called chemtrails.
This stuff is ALL disinformation.

Quote:materials injected into the stratosphere do NOT precipitate onto the ground under which it is "laid" (as in so-called chemtrails) except, perhaps, almost accidentally, and much, much later.
Actually it depends WHERE in the stratosphere. Low down - it's only weeks.

Quote:spraying that takes place at much lower altitudes
Doesn't exist. There's no evidence at all.

Quote:clearly, what is going on in the stratosphere is NOT "chemtrails
That must be a shift of opinion brought about by the efforts of people like myself - people who "know stuff" - but it's not going to wash.

Quote:I think that I have presented more than sufficient food for thought on the topic of so-called "chemtrails"
All of it disinformation.

Quote:but it ain't what you think. In fact, it's worse. YES, something is VERY wrong in our skies - but it is not chemtrails. The CONTRAILS themselves have changed
Followed by MORE disinformation.

Quote:THAT is a huge warning about our atmosphere and our climate and the implications are a lot scarier than if some nutjobs in the Pentagon were just trying to poison us. Heck, we could survive that. Most of life on earth will NOT survive what these contrails portend!
THE SAME OLD LIES SEEM TO NOT WORK SO WELL SO HERE'S SOME NEW ONES...

<^>^<^>, you must be simple. So I'll keep the syllable count low. Go back to school and LEARN THE BASICS about these subjects - at least enough to separate INFO from DISINFO, which the above astroturf is.

More astroturfing of this drivel from you and I will astroturf you atmospheric physics until it comes out of your ears, and Concen will close down this thread.

Some journalists emit this disinformation because they can gain notoriety, because in this world notoriety can increase one's income. They are unable to face the mundane world they're in because they themselves are mundane. Notoriety offers escape.
But this "escape" is only transitory. Meanwhile this disinformation causes great social damage by stirring up needless FEAR. PEOPLE WILL DIE AS A CONSEQUENCE, just like the consequences we've suffered from Muslim Fundamentalism. And you are part of these lies, and a liar yourself. Congratulations, lemming.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Chemtrails The Changing The Face Of The Planet. Finished article Defendfreedom 28 7,180 08-20-2011, 11:05 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  HOW TO STOP CHEMTRAILS lorae41 17 5,194 05-18-2011, 09:12 AM
Last Post: JazzRoc
Rainbow Chemtrails in "my" country? humbug 9 2,638 05-17-2011, 11:33 AM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  Chemtrails and Monsanto’s New Aluminum Resistance Gene – Coincidence? plasticfan 6 2,855 07-15-2010, 03:50 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  Barium in Chemtrails and Project Blue Beam Reboot 11 6,598 07-15-2010, 03:42 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  chemtrails, while you sleep stonecutter 10 2,731 07-13-2010, 05:02 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  Chemtrails? TriWooOx 21 4,726 11-04-2009, 02:52 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare blove8. 10 2,883 09-26-2009, 03:55 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  Chemtrails Confirmed author William Thomas is Live on ORN Radio east147 21 3,734 07-29-2009, 01:23 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  Who else is breathing chemtrails? Beerdwarf 94 17,698 06-28-2009, 09:47 AM
Last Post: JazzRoc

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)