Comments on: How many people believe in chemtrails? http://contrailscience.com/how-many-people-believe-in-chemtrails/ The Science and Pseudoscience of Contrails and Chemtrails Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:56:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Uncinus http://contrailscience.com/how-many-people-believe-in-chemtrails/#comment-47113 Uncinus Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:23:12 +0000 http://contrailscience.com/?p=8#comment-47113 The "Links" section has several articles that discuss the Appleman chart, and it's problems. Have a read through: http://contrailscience.com/files/Contrail_Uncertainties.pdf The “Links” section has several articles that discuss the Appleman chart, and it’s problems. Have a read through:

http://contrailscience.com/files/Contrail_Uncertainties.pdf

]]> By: ruffneck http://contrailscience.com/how-many-people-believe-in-chemtrails/#comment-47112 ruffneck Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:02:29 +0000 http://contrailscience.com/?p=8#comment-47112 I just thought it was odd that you didnt have a link to these very helpful tools in understanding the different variables required to form persistent contrails. I just thought it was odd that you didnt have a link to these very helpful tools in understanding the different variables required to form persistent contrails.

]]> By: Faithinscience http://contrailscience.com/how-many-people-believe-in-chemtrails/#comment-47088 Faithinscience Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:13:55 +0000 http://contrailscience.com/?p=8#comment-47088 Funny how you mention the Appleman chart as a useful tool for learning. The site that most people refer to when bringing up it's usefulness is a ground school setting. It uses the sounding data from miles away just as a input for demonstration purposes, they need to have values to use the chart, and since they aren't in an airplane...the sounding data is useful. . But, the people using the Appleman as proof of chemtrails, believe that acquiring "old data", is the correct way to use the chart all the time, based on the "lesson" from that site. It's kinda funny... just sayin'. Funny how you mention the Appleman chart as a useful tool for learning. The site that most people refer to when bringing up it’s usefulness is a ground school setting. It uses the sounding data from miles away just as a input for demonstration purposes, they need to have values to use the chart, and since they aren’t in an airplane…the sounding data is useful. . But, the people using the Appleman as proof of chemtrails, believe that acquiring “old data”, is the correct way to use the chart all the time, based on the “lesson” from that site. It’s kinda funny… just sayin’.

]]> By: Uncinus http://contrailscience.com/how-many-people-believe-in-chemtrails/#comment-47087 Uncinus Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:31:13 +0000 http://contrailscience.com/?p=8#comment-47087 Well, you still need to understand the Appleman chart in order to understand the criteria for contrail formation and persistence. So the chart is a useful learning tool. Now measuring the humidity is really another subject, as is how well you can extrapolate the atmospheric soundings. It if were really so easy to disprove the formation of persistent contrails then someone would have done it in a scientifically verifiable manner. Instead you get, at best, people saying a 12 hour old reading, from 100 miles away, proves that a particular contrail should not have persisted. Unfortunately the fact that the contrail persisted is a much better indicator of the atmospheric conditions than the actual soundings. Have a look at the graph with Myth #2 here: http://contrailscience.com/chemtrail-myths/ Well, you still need to understand the Appleman chart in order to understand the criteria for contrail formation and persistence. So the chart is a useful learning tool.

Now measuring the humidity is really another subject, as is how well you can extrapolate the atmospheric soundings.

It if were really so easy to disprove the formation of persistent contrails then someone would have done it in a scientifically verifiable manner. Instead you get, at best, people saying a 12 hour old reading, from 100 miles away, proves that a particular contrail should not have persisted.

Unfortunately the fact that the contrail persisted is a much better indicator of the atmospheric conditions than the actual soundings. Have a look at the graph with Myth #2 here:

http://contrailscience.com/chemtrail-myths/

]]> By: Faithinscience http://contrailscience.com/how-many-people-believe-in-chemtrails/#comment-47086 Faithinscience Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:13:23 +0000 http://contrailscience.com/?p=8#comment-47086 I honestly don't know. Nor do I care, the Appleman is a red herring. As I have pointed out, without sounding data from the EXACT area the plane is flying, the Appleman serves as a good guessing tool. Quite useless from the ground. I know a person on youtube who has used the Applmen chart as "proof" that chemtrails are real, I have yet to see him (her?) actually use it to do any such thing. Why would you try to learn about the Appleman chart here? Do you see any certified instructors? I know I'm not qualified to instruct anyone on how to use it and I haven't seen anyone claim to be qualified to teach anyone anything, here. The information about the Applmean chart COULD be here, but will you believe it? Do you trust this site? Maybe you could use the internet to find someone who can prove their credentials and maybe explain a thing or two to you. I honestly don’t know. Nor do I care, the Appleman is a red herring.

As I have pointed out, without sounding data from the EXACT area the plane is flying, the Appleman serves as a good guessing tool. Quite useless from the ground. I know a person on youtube who has used the Applmen chart as “proof” that chemtrails are real, I have yet to see him (her?) actually use it to do any such thing. Why would you try to learn about the Appleman chart here? Do you see any certified instructors? I know I’m not qualified to instruct anyone on how to use it and I haven’t seen anyone claim to be qualified to teach anyone anything, here. The information about the Applmean chart COULD be here, but will you believe it? Do you trust this site? Maybe you could use the internet to find someone who can prove their credentials and maybe explain a thing or two to you.

]]> By: ruffneck http://contrailscience.com/how-many-people-believe-in-chemtrails/#comment-47084 ruffneck Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:50:26 +0000 http://contrailscience.com/?p=8#comment-47084 Hey faithinscience iam getting educated now. Is the appleman chart or atmospheric sounding data on this site? Hey faithinscience iam getting educated now. Is the appleman chart or atmospheric sounding data on this site?

]]> By: Faithinscience http://contrailscience.com/how-many-people-believe-in-chemtrails/#comment-47083 Faithinscience Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:01:05 +0000 http://contrailscience.com/?p=8#comment-47083 Yeah, still waiting for someone to correctly use sounding data and the Appleman chart to prove contrails aren't contrails. I have seen no evidence that using the appleman chart from the ground, with no data for the specific location, is anything but folly. I see a lot of chat about the Applman chart, but I have yet to meet a "chemtrail" believer that has shown he/she actually knows how to use it. Or understands how it's designed to BE used. I suggest that someone get some training from a professional before they continue to write about how the Appleman chart supposedly proves "chemtrails". My apologies if suggesting that limited experience and training with the Appleman chart makes anyone sound "stupid" or "ignorant". It's just that the Appleman chart, when used correctly, will only tell a pilot, if they are leaving tails in real time, based on the data used from the airspace they are flying in. Using it from the ground is ONLY useful if one has the data for the EXACT airspace they are looking at. Again, not trying to sound insulting to those who have yet to learn about the Appleman chart from a professional who is trained to explain such things. It's just that people pretending to understand how to use instrumentation doesn't help the cause. Yeah, still waiting for someone to correctly use sounding data and the Appleman chart to prove contrails aren’t contrails. I have seen no evidence that using the appleman chart from the ground, with no data for the specific location, is anything but folly. I see a lot of chat about the Applman chart, but I have yet to meet a “chemtrail” believer that has shown he/she actually knows how to use it. Or understands how it’s designed to BE used. I suggest that someone get some training from a professional before they continue to write about how the Appleman chart supposedly proves “chemtrails”. My apologies if suggesting that limited experience and training with the Appleman chart makes anyone sound “stupid” or “ignorant”. It’s just that the Appleman chart, when used correctly, will only tell a pilot, if they are leaving tails in real time, based on the data used from the airspace they are flying in. Using it from the ground is ONLY useful if one has the data for the EXACT airspace they are looking at. Again, not trying to sound insulting to those who have yet to learn about the Appleman chart from a professional who is trained to explain such things. It’s just that people pretending to understand how to use instrumentation doesn’t help the cause.

]]> By: Uncinus http://contrailscience.com/how-many-people-believe-in-chemtrails/#comment-47066 Uncinus Mon, 31 May 2010 20:00:26 +0000 http://contrailscience.com/?p=8#comment-47066 What about it? What about it?

]]> By: ruffneck http://contrailscience.com/how-many-people-believe-in-chemtrails/#comment-47063 ruffneck Mon, 31 May 2010 19:37:22 +0000 http://contrailscience.com/?p=8#comment-47063 OK appleman chart. atmospheric sounding data. Altitude+Temp+Hum.= con or nocontrail/chemtrail. OK appleman chart. atmospheric sounding data. Altitude+Temp+Hum.= con or nocontrail/chemtrail.

]]> By: Uncinus http://contrailscience.com/how-many-people-believe-in-chemtrails/#comment-47005 Uncinus Fri, 28 May 2010 17:21:39 +0000 http://contrailscience.com/?p=8#comment-47005 Perhaps you can explain why that's related to contrails? This is not a site to discuss pollution in general. Feel free to discuss pollution from aircraft exhaust though, or any theorized high level spray activity that forms clouds like contrails. The gulf situation, sad though it is, is not relevant. Perhaps you can explain why that’s related to contrails?

This is not a site to discuss pollution in general. Feel free to discuss pollution from aircraft exhaust though, or any theorized high level spray activity that forms clouds like contrails.

The gulf situation, sad though it is, is not relevant.

]]>