Several planes look a little odd, or have attachments that look odd, and so some people feel they must be part of a decades long conspiracy to spray stuff into the atmosphere to alter the weather or reduce the population. That’s obviously nonsense, but what are these strange planes?
[Update: there are many other photos like the “barrel” interior below, I’ve collected a lot of them on Metabunk]
Here’s one making the rounds, scary looking barrels, and a sign on the wall that possibly says “Hazmat inside”
What is it? It’s a Boeing 777-200LR Worldliner, specifically it’s WD001, a plane that was used for flight testing. The original photo can be found here – note the “Hazmat” text was added later. The barrels contain water, which is pumped around to shift the center of gravity to test various flight characteristics.
Here’s a description of a similar setup from the 2002 book, “Inside Boeing, Building the 777”, page 76., describing tests done in 1994.
From Boeing’s blog:
Remember, we test at the extremes of the weight/CG envelope. This requires us to control the CG during ground and flight conditions. We can move weight, in the form of water, forward or aft with the use of the water ballast system. This system is comprised of 48 barrels, each capable of carrying 460 pounds, connected by tubing to a pump. A computerized system tracks fuel placement, fuel burn, people placement, ballast, flap setting, landing gear position and water barrel quantity. The information is processed to display the airplane’s current CG. We move water or specify fuel tank usage to configure the CG within the specified test requirements.
Why are there overhead luggage compartments? It’s a test plane, and for FAA certification they have to demonstrate that everything works. That includes stuff like the emergency oxygen system, and more minor things like the luggage compartments. It’s a requirement that they don’t pop open in flight – so that needs to be tested. They are also handy for stowing the engineers’ stuff.
Here’s some pictures from Boeing:
And a lot more photos can be found on Boeing’s site.
——————————————————————————————–
This one gets a lot of use in the “chemtrail” forums:
Particularly because of the unusual collections of pipes sticking out in various places. There’s those two at the front, and then there is a group over the wing. Here’s some close ups
:
Very sinister looking tubes, but why are half of them facing the wrong way?
The plane is not for spraying the atmosphere, it’s for sampling the atmosphere. It’s a research aircraft, registration N701BN, operated by th e department of energy’s national labs. It’s pretty much one of a kind, so it’s hardly likely to be responsible for all the persistent contrails we see every day. The research is mostly on pollutants in the atmosphere, particularly from coal and oil burning power plants. But they also investigate the properties of clouds, which includes contrails.
————————————————————
Here’s another photo you see in “chemtrail” videos, with the implied suggestion that it’s some kind of evil spraying device:
Actually it IS a spraying device, but quite innocuous. It’s on an NKC-135A (55-3128) with the refueling boom modified to spray water. This used by the air force to test icing of planes in flight.
Here’s the original photo:
See also: https://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/news/march04/raptor.html
Here’s some more details:
nkc-135-icing-attachmentpv1983_2688.pdf
—————————————————————————————————
This plane is quite interesting:
It’s an E-6B “Tacamo”. This photo shows it dumping fuel (photo from tacamo.org). The E-6B is used by the United States Strategic Command as an airborne communication center. You can see the navy logo on the right wing. The E-6B is a modified version of the Boeing 707-320, and the fuel vents have been moved from the wing tips to between the fuselage and the engines in order to separate it from the communication equipment in the wing tips. This is what the wing-tip ESM/SATCOM pod looks like:
It looks like this odd assemblage is also creating some wingtip vortex contrails as well. The plane is pretty much all white, which is something you hear mentioned from time to time in “chemtrail” conspiracy theories.
Here’s another photo of the same plane, taken from a “chemtrail” YouTube video:
It shows the opening and drogue for the ELF trailing wire antenna. This is a very long wire antenna that is extended behind the plane for several hundred feet and used for communications with submarines. The “drogue” is just a cone-shaped weight. Here’s a close-up
http://www.flickr.com/photos/coldwararchaeology/5180470207/in/photostream
————————————————————————————–
This plane also looks at first glance like it might be dumping fuel (click image for full sized photo):
But the trails are actually coming from six smoke generators. It was part of a NASA test to study wake vortices, you can read about it here:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/B-747/HTML/ECN-4242.html
Six smoke generators were installed under the wings of the 747 to provide a visual image of the trailing vortices. The object of the experiments was to test different configurations and mechanical devices on the747 that could be used to break up or lessen the strength of the vortices. The results of the tests could lead to shorter spacing between landings and takeoffs, which, in turn, could alleviate air-traffic congestion.
Here’s another image of the same plane:
—————————————————————————————————-
This plane also occasionally get brought up in chemtrail conspiracy groups:
This is obviously not a contrail, it’s far too low and the trail is dropping too rapidly.
It’s a Boeing 747-100 “Supertanker”, modified by Evergreen Aviation, the only one of its kind. Specifically designed for fire fighthing. That’s it dumping water. Here’s some more recent photos.
Here’s a video of it in action, titled “B747 chemtrails”. It’s interesting reading the comments, as the first comment correctly identifies what it is, and then everyone else just ignores that and starts speculating.
———————————————————————
This one looks like a plane spraying stuff. But again it’s rather close to the ground. It’s actually taking off with the assistance of rockets. It’s not spraying, that’s just rocket exhaust.
This particular plane is a Boeing B-47B, rocket assisted take off, April 15, 1954. An no, that’s not a contrail in the sky behind it – it’s rip in the photo. Click on it for a large version from Wikipedia.
————————————————————————
This one is used for cloud seeding. It does not actually spray anything but uses silver iodine flares that are either ejected, or burn in place.
It’s operated by the Sandy land Underground Water Conservation district of Plains, Texas, as part of their SOAR program. They have some more photos of similar equipment on their site. They are all small aircraft not capable of getting to the above 30,000 feet where contrails normally form.
—————————————————————————
This next photo is also of silver iodine flares, fixed underneath at large plane.
These also show up in “chemtrail” literature. They are sold by Weather Modification Inc, they make a range of weather modification equipment. About this one they say:
WMI racks for ejectable flares are mounted on the belly of the aircraft fuselage. Each rack holds 102 cartridges. When fired, the pyrotechnic is ignited and ejected from the aircraft. In this configuration, the WMI Lear 35A is equipped with four 102-count racks for ejectable glaciogenic pyrotechnics, a total of 408 flares.
Here’s another, this time from North American Weather Consultants, Inc.
About which they say:
This aircraft-mounted cloud seeding generator is fixed in place, and can burn a silver iodide solution during flight.
————————————————————————–
This one is the “Mk.32 drogue-type underwing pod on the Armée de l’Air Boeing C-135FR Stratotanker” (“93-CC”- s/n 63-8472 of GRV 93). It’s an in-flight refueling system on a French Boeing C-135FR Stratotanker, photographed in Canada, Feb 2005.
See: http://www.baha.be/Webpages/Navigator/News/tanker_flight_240205.htm
The following is supposed to be a plane that has “chemtrail aerosol nozzles” over three of the engines.
In reality, this plane N707MQ is a Boeing 707-320B. The engines are Pratt & Whitney JT3D-3:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Omega-Tanker/Boeing-707-321B/1622886/M/
It should be perfectly obvious that the “nozzles” are facing the wrong way to be spraying anything. They are actually turbocompressors, which are driven by engine bleed air, and are used to pressurize the interior of the plane. There are only three, as that’s all you need. Here’s a discussion:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/8225/
Really? Did anyone ever say that it was otherwise? The government is required by law to cover up top secret projects. Everyone knows this. Personally I’m in favor of a much more open government, but this is what we’ve got.
The problem is they could be lying about an infinite number of things. Why then give weight in particular to the “chemtrail” theory? Is there any evidence to suggest the trails are anything other than contrails?
You can spin the term “Consequential effects” any way you’d like to fit your ideals. Ultimately the fact that Silver Iodide does accumulate in the soil and water over time means eventually someone or something will reach a level of toxicity that could be life threatening/hazardous to the environment. That too is a potential consequential effect of their services.
By JFK’s speech, do you mean the one he gave about the role of the press in the cold war?
http://www.blatantworld.com/speech/jfk_the_word_secrecy_is_repugnant.html#text_transcript
What specifically was chilling about it?
So again, you admit that they will lie if it is a matter of “National Security”, but what you don’t understand is that matters of national security are totally subjective this day in age. One day, your child will be taken from you, raped, and given back to you and asked that you don’t tell anyone as a matter of national security. Be that an extreme (and unlikely) case, there’s nothing to stop anyone from doing so.
I don’t understand why you are referencing the Tavistock Group. They also have “England wins the World Cup 1966” on their history page. Are you suggesting that too is part of some vast conspiracy?
Okay, I get it. Let’s take it as self evident that the government is a bunch of evil, lying elitists. Now, given that, where they evidence they are actually spraying things in white lines in the sky?
I didn’t buy your “Just because someone patents something doesn’t mean they use it” line. With that being said, the mention that it is used for combating global warming means it was designed for a purpse (and as you said those programs haven’t been hidden from the public).
Where’s your evidence that they never used it? I’d like to see that. How does one know whether or not aluminum oxide even makes a trail at all? I don’t! But a patent from a 3rd party company (the government loves these guys) says they made it, stated it’s purpose, and so I will just expect that it was used.
All I’m doing here is trying to shed light on the inconsistencies in your rebuttals and the entire subject as a whole.
Derr-
Can you explain how cloud seeding as it has been practiced in this country and around the World for the last 50+ yrs relates to the trails in the sky people point to in fear?
Its not secret, doesn’t involve trails, the silver iodide isn’t sprayed…
How does the fact that people have been trying to make it rain since the 1920s mean that persistent contrails are really “sprayed” chemtrails?
Of course, N. American Weather Consultants does say this about the “dangers” of cloud seeding:
http://www.nawcinc.com/wmfaq.html
There is another company with an even more nefarious sounding name:
Weather Modification Inc:
http://www.weathermodification.com/
Both companies have several planes fully equipped to sample any suspicious trail that are available for hire…
And what I was referring to with JFK’s speech is his admittance that a global conspiracy is, in effect, attempting to control our very way of life by secretive means (hence his plea to the press to not provide them information about internal affairs for money – and to bring awareness of that threat):
I’ve already stated, this goes beyond the whole contrail/chemtrail and even trails in the sky period. I don’t care how they do it, but that it what they say they are using is a known toxic chemical. And sure, they have tons of people lined up and waiting to spend a quarter of a million dollars to go sample “suspicious” trails. Why are they admitting to suspicious trails being in the sky in the first place? These are simple questions that come from a simple thought process. Please try to keep up here.
And don’t respond, those were rhetorical questions.
Really?
so the fact that the very premise of the “chemtrail” theory is false doesn’t matter.
The fact that there is no evidence what-so-ever that ANYBODY is “spraying” ANYTHING in a global clandestine operation of unknown intent doesn’t matter…this despite rampant speculation and “research” for over a decade
Its just the fact that small amounts of silver iodide are dispersed into select rain clouds…and have been over over 50yrs globally…in completely transparent fashion…that’s what bothers you?
You use known toxic chemicals everyday….
You logic is backwards…no one is “admitting” to suspicious trails but if you and your fellow Believers cared enough you could hire a plane to sample a trail or 10 of your choice…I highly doubt it costs $250K to hire a plane for an afternoon…
JFK was talking about the Soviets. The conspiracy he is referring to is Communism.
I think that quote is often used out of context, to make it seem like something other than just Communism and the cold war. But that’s all it was, obviously a big issue at the time, but the speech is not a warning about the military-industrial complex. It’s just “the communists are coming for us, and while we appreciate free speech, we’d also appreciate it if you could keep that in mind”
derr, let me ask you a question for a change:
Does the fact that Case Orange uses as one of it’s central pieces of evidence a “spray map” which was actually a contrail forecast by some kid from Ontario not give you pause?
Don’t you see that even though Case Orange appears to have a huge weight of evidence, if you look at the evidence piece by piece, then none of it holds up?
To be honest Uncinus, I was glad to see you were actually reading the article. But, that spray map was not really anything I gave much thought into. I would rather look at the quotes and documentation.
There are 31 other points you have yet to discount. And I still stand by my statement the other day of “If even ONE of those 32 documented points are the truth, which it’s plainly evident that most of it is, then all bets are off.” I can already tell you there’s way more than just one of those points which are not fabricated or based off of an actual report that was later retracted (most likely not known to the authors of the report).
SR1419,
You’re a bit behind in this discussion, I don’t care about your preconceived notions in regards to trails. You don’t even know anything you’re talking about. I don’t know anything about the practices they have, no one on our level does. It’s pointless for you to say “they only use a little silver iodide, sometimes”, you haven’t a clue how much is used per operation or how much business these guys get. You can’t even explain why they are still in business today if cloud seeding has been found to be ineffective by commerical farmers and a risk to their produce.
And as far as hiring these people to take samples, you have no idea what the logistics for such a contract would be. I’d say $250,000 for a week or two of having a plane on hand at the small chance that one of these “unknown aresol trails” are located and someone can be dispatched to take a sample is quite feasible. I am a wage slave, I could never afford to risk such capital on such a venture.
Just think of the overhead these people would have if their business wasn’t booming by some outside source of income, mostly governmental contracts and private entities. 60 years of providing lack luster results (for some reason)!
When you say 32 points, what are you referring to?
Sorry, that article has 38 reference links, not 32. I’m referring to the references which cite where the information came from. Upon further review some of them don’t correspond to our ethical discussion, but still shows validity and honest effort in the report.
Derr said- “You don’t even know anything you’re talking about. ”
..and yet, somehow you do?
These companies provide a range of services- assessment and design, meteorological services, atmospheric assessment and evaluation, cloud seeding, hail mitigation, fog dispersal, weather radar systems, environmental monitoring included aerosol measurements, trace gas detection, tracers used to study movement…and airplane modification…even sales and leasing…
They seem to make a business of it…and its not because the Illuminaughty is keeping them busy with clandestine geo-engineering projects.
But they do have a lot of clients:
http://www.weathermodification.com/projects.php
There is dispute as to how effective cloud seeding is- if at all- but several studies do claim to have seen increased precip…and several studies have not show any negative environmental impact:
http://www.nrc.nsw.gov.au/content/documents/Progress%20report%20-%20Cloud%20seeding%20trial%20April%202009.pdf
I understand that it insults your sensibility to think they are depositing “toxic” chemicals into rain clouds….but if thats the case you should be much more concerned about the pollution coming out the car you drive or bus you take…
Moreover, that still doesn’t make “chemtrails” real…
Like what? Pick one of them that contains evidence that supports the chemtrail theory. Pick the best one if you can, or just any one you think has solid evidence, if you don’t have the time to read them all. I’ve actually read about half of them.
So far you’ve demonstrated:
1) Cloud seeding is used.
2) There is discussion about geoengineering.
3) The government sometimes covers things up
And yeah, I am glad you directed me to the full speech. The whole thing about that speech is that the same people who funded our existence (and infrastructure) also funded Communism and Socialism… We owe them a lot of money by the way, not our leaders, but us, by design. I doubt our government was really concerned with Communism ideals embodiying themselves in our culture without force. This speech eluded to the very fact that this type of corruption could and does occurred on a regular basis. Taking large sums of money, from foreign forces (not Russia or China), selfishly, to sell out your fellow man in one way or another. What a world!
Here another study of cloud seeding over 45 yrs in Tasmania…apparently successful enough to keep doing it:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JAMC2068.1
In fact several scientific papers on the potential effectiveness:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=keywordsfield%3A%28%22Cloud%20seeding%22%29
This article starts off with…
“Several planes look a little odd, or have attachments that look odd, and so some people feel they must be part of a decades long conspiracy to spray stuff into the atmosphere to alter the weather or reduce the population. That’s obviously nonsense”
I said that the report shows that a patent has been made and is said to be used in atmospheric spraying, to combat global warming, and that these particular aerosols contain aluminum oxide and barium oxide. The facts are there.
That being said, this article is subject to scrutiny because of its blatant disregard of facts known by you (now).
End of story.
But you say there’s no proof it hurts us (or that it has ever been used), but you have no proof that it doesn’t or hasn’t been used, thus the ethical discussion. And the lies, yes the government lies, you’ve admitted that. What else is there?
No, it unequivocally does not.
The speech says, in reference to the Soviets, that in wartime the government could force the press to not print things, but since no war was declared, he’s asking them to self-police.
I think you (or someone) perhaps misread the first sentence as “this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information through bribery” ?
This is a debunking site. It exists to debunk theories – which means that it exists to examine the evidence, and to point out where that evidence is lacking.
Regarding the chemtrail theory, every piece of evidence that is bought up to support the chemtrail theory has been show to either be false, or to not actually support the theory.
What’s left is pure conjecture, based on an intense distrust and dislike of the establishment.
You’re right this is purely a debunking site, not a place for those who wish to bring new evidence to light if it can’t be immediately disproven. Keep on ignoring my previous comment’s content in regards to documented patents, nothing to see here. I can only hope that you guys are right and I am wrong. The government won’t give me that answer, and you guys sure as hell are incapable of doing so.
When you remove the bunk, you’ll have the truth. Feel free to bring new evidence to light, and see if it stands up.
The aim here is not to win the debate, it’s to figure out what’s right and what is wrong.
And I’m sorry, which post number was about patents?
Assuming it’s this:
You consider “is said to be used” a fact? Sure, people SAY it’s being used – but there’s not any actual evidence that it IS being used.
The author wears a tin foil hat, is armed with a camera, and knows how to write like Palin speaks.
There’s no such thing as a persistent contrail
The Air Force/NASA/NOAA/EPA/FAA uses the term “persistent contrail” to describe the pluming and persistence phenomenon of jet exhaust. Calling what we see in the sky a persistent contrail is simply not valid based on the current state of atmospheric science. Take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWvwaOgP564 and also visit http://www.watchthesky.org/ for additional information on why persistent contrails cannot form in the atmosphere, except under very rare conditions.
The conditions necessary for the formation of persistent contrails is mentioned in various documents produced by the Air Force/NASA/NOAA/EPA/FAA. For modern planes cruising between 32,000 feet and 39,000 feet the conditions for the formation of persistent contrails are temperatures less than -46 degrees Celsius and 60% or greater humidity.
When we see the pluming and persistence phenomenon of jet exhaust are these conditions met? Probably not. Therefore by the definition of persistent contrails they cannot exist. So what is it that we are seeing? We are seeing chemical-laden aerosol trails, or chemtrails.
To prove the above point for yourself take a look at http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html and pick a sounding site close to where you are located. Data for a day is composed of two soundings, one at 00Z(ulu) and 12Z(ulu). To get data for a particular day choose data between 12Z on the day in question and 00Z on the next day. This is to adjust for Zulu or GMT time. Then look at the data between 195 hPa(39,000 feet, 390C) and 274 hPa(32,000 feet, 320C) and see if the relative humidity is 60% or greater when you see chemtrails in the sky.
For example, Saturday, 3-5-2011, was the worst day yet in Las Vegas for chemtrailing. The chemtrailing started at dawn and went to dusk. Every plane flying in the Las Vegas airspace was chemtrailing and spraying the old style, very persistent and very pluming chemtrail that spread out and completely covered the sky from horizon to horizon. It was a total overcast sky produced by chemtrails. Looking at 12Z data for 3-5-2011, 4AM local time, and 00Z data on 3-6-2011, 4PM the previous day(3-5-2011) local time, for site VEF we see the conditions at altitude at 4AM ranged from -62.7 degrees C and 38% humidity at 390C to -43.3 degrees C and 41% humidity at 320C and at 4PM the data ranged from -61.7 degrees C and 34% humidity at 390C to -41.7 degrees C and 41% humidity at 320C. Based on the criteria of less than -46 degrees C and 60% or greater humidity what we saw in Las Vegas on 3-5-2011 wasn’t persistent contrails, they were chemtrails.
Basically the term persistent contrail was cooked up because the planes were chemtrailing and the Air Force/NASA/NOAA/EPA/FAA had to come up with some concept to explain the pluming and persistence phenomenon of chemtrails. Then they had to dummy up some pseudo-scientific conditions and explanation for persistent contrail formation. This then could be used against chemtrail observations and would allow the Air Force/NASA/NOAA/EPA/FAA to say that chemtrails are a hoax. But, as has been proven, persistent contrails are a hoax.
Ken- I didn’t look it up but I imagine between all of those organizations and all of the pilots/mechanics that would have to be involved there would have to be literally thousands and thousands of people involved in this “hoax”. Are you saying that no one has ever told anyone else about this in a drunken stupor or no one ever been fired from these groups? Ever? It seems like even if the top one percent of all employees in these groups knew about the operation it would still equal thousands of people. So where are the whistle blowers? Heck- one person found out about two people having sex in the white house and we all heard about it the next day.
Ken wrote:
“For modern planes cruising between 32,000 feet and 39,000 feet the conditions for the formation of persistent contrails are temperatures less than -46 degrees Celsius and 60% or greater humidity.
When we see the pluming and persistence phenomenon of jet exhaust are these conditions met? Probably not. Therefore by the definition of persistent contrails they cannot exist.”
Huh?
What evidence do you have to say tha the conditions to make contrails are not met? You aren’t even sure – you say “probably not”!!
Then you take your supposition and say that it defines how persistent contrails cannot exist?
Sorry to be rude, but that’s just illogical nonsense!
Ken said:
“Therefore by the definition of persistent contrails they cannot exist.”
Incorrect. This is not a definition but a rule of thumb. Temperatures less than -46 degrees Celsius and 60% or greater humidity are the sufficient conditions for the formation of persistent contrails but not the necessary ones. Contrails can form at a broader range of temperatures and relative humidities as was explained many times elsewhere on this site. Their lengths and persistence times could be shorter, but, the persistence time of just ten minutes would be enough to form a contrail “from horizon to horizon”
“To prove the above point for yourself take a look at http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html and pick a sounding site close to where you are located.
…for site VEF we see the conditions at altitude … at 4PM the data ranged from -61.7 degrees C and 34% humidity at 390C to -41.7 degrees C and 41% humidity at 320C.”
The measurement error aside, these conditions at the same altitude are not homogenous: there can be drier and wetter local areas. These data probably have been averaged over a rather large area above Las Vegas and environs. MODIS satellite images of the day confirm that there were plenty of humid spots with notable high altitude precipitation:
[img]https://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen shot 2011-03-17 at 11.17.17.png[/img]
The pictures in the top row are from AERONET_Railroad_Valley Subsets (http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_Railroad_Valley.2011064), those in the bottom row are from AERONET_La_Jolla Subsets (http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_La_Jolla.2011064), north and south of Las Vegas. On the left, the Aqua images taken at about 21:10 UTC (13:10 PST); on the right, the Terra images composed of two swaths: western taken at about 19:30 UTC (11:30 PST), eastern at about 17:55 UTC (9:55 PST).
Therefore, there were right conditions for persistent contrails over Las Vegas after all.
If you are referring to the UWYO data, that’s not an average, but is instead a single sample from the path a balloon took rising through the atmosphere.
But the key points remain the same: That’s not the same everywhere (the next station is 400 miles away), there’s obvious variation in the satellite photos, and there’s known to be common under-measurement of humidity with those balloons.
Alexey said, “The measurement error aside,…”. The temperature, pressure and height measurements are quite accurate with very small errors. There are quite large errors in the measurement of Relative Humidity at these low temperatures. The error is an UNDERestimation of the RH. The 41% measured probably represents RH high enough for the air to be ice-saturated.
Also RH varies a lot both horizontally and vertically. The 41% measured is unlikely to be the highest RH in the area at that altitude.
Thank you, Ross. Indeed, I was referring mainly to the measurements of RH, but I was unaware of the source of other measurements. Uncinus has pointed that the instruments were lifted up by a weather balloon, so the barometer and thermometer readings probably were quite accurate but very local.
As for the variations of RH values, I think that the lengths and/or duration times of contrails, if calibrated, might provide a more accurate measure.
http://img269.imageshack.us/i/dscf0173cd.jpg/
http://img855.imageshack.us/i/dscf0172g.jpg/
Does that look like contrails to you idiots? Pull your heads out of your over-educated, pompous asses and wake up. I took these myself. I have watched formations of up to 10 jets within a half hour take the same flight path and dump chemtrail from horizon to horizon, and i’ve watched it fallout onto the ground. It doesn’t disperse, it is clearly aerosol, you can see it.
http://img857.imageshack.us/i/dscf0322.jpg/
Try actually observing whats going on instead of relying on your programming from books.
btw @ capntfitch, http://aircrap.org/loose-lips-sink-ships-and-747s-too/33516/ . Read into “Evergreen International Aviation”. They even list “Weather modification” on their website as a service they offer. http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/mkts.html . You guys are so fucking ignorant. Why do you think so many people are concerned? Something is going on, and people are noticing.
Jacobo said:
Does that look like contrails to you?.. I took these myself. I have watched formations of up to 10 jets within a half hour take the same flight path and dump chemtrail from horizon to horizon, and i’ve watched it fallout onto the ground. It doesn’t disperse, it is clearly aerosol, you can see it.”
Yes, it does look like contrails to me. I’ve posted a few similar pictures of my own elsewhere on this site. The contrails on your pictures are at least 40 km away from the camera, judging by their elevation relative that of the Sun in the beginning of February. Therefore they look close to each other, but, in fact, they are separated by several kilometers from each other. And, if the high wind was blowing away from the camera, they did not fall on the ground but disappeared below horizon.
This is what I can clearly see from your pictures. And by definition contrails are aerosol, as well as any other type of clouds.
And what your last picture of 17th March has to do with the first two pictures, taken on 2nd February?
Those look like clouds. Clouds are made of water. They look like they’re made of water. How can you tell they’re anything else?
@jacobo- so Evergreen is deeply involved in a secret government sponsored program to modify the weather and yet they are advertising that fact on thier own website?
I guess the cats out of the bag then.
Btw- what steps are you personally taking to avoid the ingestion of chemtrail byproducts? I suspect that if you are truly concerned with what is being sprayed on you you either never go outside or when you do you wear a respirator. Please post some pics of you in your mask at the store or something.
In #939 Jacob asks:
“Does that look like contrails to you idiots? ”
They certainly look like contrails to this idiot – what is it about them hat makes hem look like anything else?
Jacobo said:
“Why do you think so many people are concerned?”
Because they googled and were drawn to bunk-spreading but nonetheless exciting web sites.
There are plenty of claims that are believed to be real by a significant percentage of the respective population. But that fact does not make those claims more true in any way.
See creatonism, “electro smog”, astrology and many others.
I’m sorry, but those aren’t contrails. I’ve seen contrails being created by other planes at similar altitudes at the same time.
They didn’t disappear behind the horizon, they fallout. btw if contrails are ‘aerosol’ by definition (i thought they were particulate sized ice crystals) how could you ever tell if they were spraying aerosols or not?
btw the last picture is chemtrail fallout from another day. Normal clouds aren’t whispy and black.
@captfitch: I have respirators, but seldom wear them. There’s iron filings in your fucking cereal and asbestos in your water, you think I’m scared of chemtrails?
and it’s no secret, governments openly engage in weather manipulation, the Chinese are one of the less secretive about it. and regardless of how you try and justify it http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/mkts.html it says right there on their website, “markets for supertanker: weather modification. There are U.S. military documents available talking about weather modification, like “owning the weather in 2025”.
@JFDee: I’m not trying to say something is correct because the majority supports it. Often the majority supports the stupidest shit, like Obama or George Bush. However, in this instance, there is definitely something going on. People have recovered fallout samples of chemtrails (and I have watched them fallout with my own eyes), and tested the snow, soil, water, and plants in the affected areas. What they found was 60,000 times more aluminum than normal, and high levels of things like barium, uranium, etc. Where is it comming from? Chemtrails or not, those findings remain.
http://img7.imageshack.us/i/dscf0301p.jpg/
http://img863.imageshack.us/i/dscf0302.jpg/
http://img27.imageshack.us/i/dscf0313y.jpg/
http://img42.imageshack.us/i/dscf0319p.jpg/
all that garbage that I don’t want to see falling out of the sky comes out the back of those planes to begin with. I watch them spray it out in those thick white lines, often really grey/black. They linger and spread out for up to 12 hours sometimes. It’s not also that they fill the whole sky, but they change the quality of the sky. You can start with a perfectly blue day and puffy clouds, and wind up (after they’ve been out spraying trails) with a smoggy, grey/black shitty day with whisps of black/grey falling down to street light level
http://img34.imageshack.us/i/dscf0210i.jpg/
good job with all your ridiculous explanations that just don’t quite cut it. You can’t explain to me: 1) Why it falls down to the ground in whisps, 2) Why these ‘spray’ planes can be seen leaving trails as other normal jets are making contrails which instantly disappate (the spray planes also all fly in grid patterns and I have watched with my own eyes, the same planes do multiple passes, they are NOT passenger planes). 3) the evidence of elevated aluminum in topsoil, water, and snow samples remains with no other explanation besides chemtrails. 4) Why do these “lingering contrails” cause the clouds to become black/grey whisps? You know, keep up the good work at sounding like pompous, programmed idiots who simply spit back what they were told in books. You guys should try and get jobs with the government keeping the public calm during things like the recent Japan nuclear meltdown. Your really good at lying out your asses and sounding stupid enough to believe it. I just hope your massive inflated egos protect you from what their spraying on us all and putting in all of our food and water. Peace.
Jacobo, it looks like what you are seeing is persistent contrails moving away from you, so they descend over the horizon. Have a look at this time-lapse video, it shows several similar instances.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXl3T9FYKBw
The grey clouds you show are grey because they are not being illuminated by the sun. Some of what you show are “cumulus fractus”. They are not related to contrails, as they occur at a lower level. For examples see:
http://www.google.com/images?q=%22cumulus+fractus%22
If you’d like to convince people, the best way would be to get a time-lapse video of the clouds falling to the ground.
Jacobo asked:
” btw if contrails are ‘aerosol’ by definition (i thought they were particulate sized ice crystals) how could you ever tell if they were spraying aerosols or not?”
Anything solid in the atmosphere meets the definition of an aerosol – the word technically means a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in a gas. In this case teh gas is het atmosphere, the particles are every thing from clouds to dust storms, particlulate pollution (soot etc as opposed to other gases such as CO2), sea spray.
You ask a good question and one which the “chemtrail crowd” have never really ben able to answer – how do you tell “chemtrail” aerosols from “ordinary” aerosols?
The classic answer is that generally something to do with the physical appearance – “chemtrails” last more than 20 minutes, and/or they expand to clouds and “normal” contrails do not.
However long lasting contrails have been known since at least 1940 – way back then they also expanded into cloud. Antoine Sainte-Exupery wrote about exactly that in “Flight to Arras” in 1942 – he was writing about recce fligths over German forces in 1940. also of course there are numerous WW2 photos and videos showing contrails that have lasted longer than 20 minutes and expanded to cover teh sky in cloud. Plus there are newspaper articles of the era too.
Plus atmospheric science says that contrails will last as long as conditions remain right for them – whether that be seconds or days. Contrails are essentially just clouds, and clouds can last for ages – so why wouldn’t contrails?
I would also like to see some video of the same planes making grid patterns. The video needs to be of a quality such that I can see the markings on planes and verify that they are indeed the same planes.
Jacobo,
are you living in British Columbia, somewhere near Kelowna? Because this is what my analysis of your photograph (http://img269.imageshack.us/i/dscf0173cd.jpg/) suggests to me. I skip the details for now.
Modis satellite images show that there were contrails south of this place at the date and time, which had been blown by wind further south across the Canada-US border.
@uncinus: Plenty of those nasty little black/grey whisps were in open sunlight. I took pictures of them from multiple angles. Btw, I know what your talking about, the one’s that aren’t illuminated by the sun. I thought I saw some of what I thought was chemtrail fallout on the same day, but as I drove to different vantage points, the grey quality of the clouds faded. That is what your talking about. These are something else. The sun doesn’t seem to have much to do with this: http://img84.imageshack.us/i/dscf0316i.jpg/ look at the general quality of the sky. It started out as a clear blue day, then the planes started spraying their stuff. It seems to change the general quality of the sky. Have you ever heard of ionospheric heating? because I have observed chemtrailers spraying on a cloudy day, and then within a space of 15-20 minutes (i timed) of that beginning, the sky was almost completely clear with a couple whisps of aerosol. If these planes are indeed involved in stratospheric geoengineering, they would undoubtedly be part of implementing ionospheric heating technologies.
@MikeC: You didn’t answer the question: How do you tell the difference between a normal aerosol contrail and a chemical trail, such as agent orange. Because if you look at pictures of them spraying agent orange in vietnam, it didn’t necessarily hang in the air for hours and spread out. Chemtrails in my observation of them don’t always linger. Sometimes they fall quickly into a haze and seem to disappear. It’s just way more obvious when a big fat aerosol spray is going accross the sky, and when planes are flying in formations that don’t look normal, almost like military formations. They also pass very close to one another to make criss crossing grids. Also, i’m sure contrails can last for ages, and I have seen them turn into cirrus clouds. However, these chemtrails don’t do that, they are heavier and they fall to the ground making a noticeable haze on the horizon.
@Alexey: Kelowna is way off homie. I live in good ol polluted, smoggy, Calgary AB. We get chinooks and weather phenomena comming from the rocky mountains. On days where pressure systems create a chinook ridge and everything sort of lingers, you can see the trails fall to the ground. I’m going to be testing the top snow and soil in my yard for alumina, as well as local bodies of water. If i find higher than normal content of what other people are finding in chemtrail fallout, (like in California), then you have some explaining to do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA watch this if you want to see it from the side of us “chemtrails exist guys”
http://img19.imageshack.us/i/dscf0186p.jpg/
http://img708.imageshack.us/i/dscf0187c.jpg/
http://img3.imageshack.us/i/dscf0188l.jpg/
http://img831.imageshack.us/i/dscf0189b.jpg/
http://img861.imageshack.us/i/dscf0190.jpg/
http://img593.imageshack.us/i/dscf0191t.jpg/
http://img233.imageshack.us/i/dscf0193u.jpg/
http://img269.imageshack.us/i/dscf0197h.jpg/
http://img857.imageshack.us/i/dscf0201.jpg/
and then shit like this falls down to the ground:
http://img5.imageshack.us/i/dscf0169h.jpg/
Jacobo: Shit like that is just ice. Show us it making it to the ground please (right to the ground in a photo). Why don’t you get a telescope so you can have a VERY good look at these planes that are doing so much bad? Have a close look at their spray nozzles only to find there is none.
This conspiracy has found the biggest suckers in this world.
captfitch:
Let’s stay on point. Have you watched the YouTube video? Have you observed planes in your area chemtrailing? Have you downloaded the soundings data for your area? Do the soundings data support the formation of persistent contrails? If so, let me know the days and location you are using. Plus I’ll need photographic or video evidence of the persistent contrails with a valid time stamp.
Ken
MikeC:
Didn’t you read the the posting? I said probably not because I haven’t looked at every sounding for every location but I suspect that the conditions for the formation of persistent contrrails don’t exist.
Ken
The soundings only give a pin-point measurement, so only give you a statistical likelihood of what is in your area.
Better to use a contrail forecast:
https://contrailscience.com/contrail-forecast/
Where’s the data for your contentions? Looking at photos and trying to justify pseudo science isn’t going to cut it. Can you quote a study that supports your contentions? You are right that contrails can form at various combinations of temperature and humidity but the necessary conditions for persistent contrails has be defined by various governmental organizations as -46 degrees Celsius and 60% or greater humidity at 195hPa to 274hPa. If these conditions are not met then persistent contrails cannot form. Therefore they must be something else. Sorry, but that is what the science says.
Ken
Unicinus:
Data or study to support your contention of under measurement of humidity.
Ken
Ross Marsden:
Do you have the data or study to show the 41% RH represents RH high enough for the air to be ice-saturated? How do you know that the 41% RH is unlikely to be the highest RH in the area at that altitude? Let’s have some proof here, not unsubstantiated comments.
Ken
Looking at the contrail forecast of March 5h, it looks pretty contraily around Las Vegas, as per post 932.
You need to look at the animation of the realtime forecast, and see how much it varies over a 12 hour period:
http://www-angler.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/site/showdoc?docid=33&cmd=latest
It can easily not be contrail condition at one point, and then an hour later be full-on persistent contrails. You know winds aloft are regularly around 100mph
Here’s a 250mb plot for that day:
That’s using “Individual Level” at 250mb. The white Xs show where persistent contrails are expected. But you really need to see the animation.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.128/pdf
Alexey (post 938): Said:
Wow, I can’t believe this thinking. Persistent contrails cannont form because the conditions for their formation don’t exist. So instead of checking out the science we’re going to use chemtrail persistence to measure the RH at altitude? Unbelievable. I’ve always said that if you use the term persistent contrail and buy into the government definition of a persistent contrail then when the formation of persistent contrails happens outside of the conditions for their formation all the government has to do is to redefine the conditions for their formation. Or, perhaps, as you’re suggesting, simply says that the RH at that altitude must be 60% or greater and the scientific sounding’s data shouldn’t be believed. This is exactly the opposite of what you should be doing. Data is Data and either proves or disproves the hypothesis. I suggest you brush up on the scientific method.
Ken
Ken said:
No, science does not say this. Science says that this are SUFFICIENT conditions for the formation of persistent contrails. It means that every modern plane will leave a contrail in these conditions, something that military may wish to avoid. For the B-2 stealth bomber, for example, there was initially proposed to spray chemicals from a special tank outboard of the main landing gear to SUPPRESS the formation of a contrail. This scheme wasn’t actually used in practice, with a “lidar” (laser radar) system instead eventually developed to detect the formation of a contrail and alert the pilot to descend to lower altitude (http://www.vectorsite.net/avb2.html).
So, you believe NASA when they tell you what conditions are needed, but you don’t believe them when they tell you that the conditions are hard to measure?
NASA says:
How do you chose which things to believe? And why do you think you can forecast better with two snapshot and pin-point soundings from one station, than from the above, which uses the entire RUC model?
Ken said:
“Wow, I can’t believe this thinking. …instead of checking out the science we’re going to use chemtrail persistence to measure the RH at altitude?.. Data is Data and either proves or disproves the hypothesis. I suggest you brush up on the scientific method.”
I did not say that. I said that, in my opinion, the lengths and/or duration times of contrails, if calibrated, might provide a more accurate measure for the variations of local RH values. That is, it definitely will give more useful data about RH than a pinpoint measurement in the area of 400×400 miles.
BTW, I am a scientist with a 30+ year experience and can tell real science from pseudoscience, even than it is not my area of research.
Uncinus:
If you are looking at a resolution of 25 mb and 40 km then I would say this is probably difficult to measure adequately, especially if all you have is the soundings data. What I’m talking about are local conditions, for example, Las Vegas. I don’t need 25 mb and 40 km resolution as I have the data for Las Vegas, which is my local site.
How about the reference for your quoted article?
Two snapshot and pinpoint soundings huh? It’s always amazing the mind games people will play to support their position in the face of real data. And I’ll bet if the data did support your position you’d be making little of any attempts like “snapshot” and “pinpoint”.
Ken
Sorry, the quote comes from the NASA page I linked to earlier:
http://www-angler.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/site/showdoc?docid=33&cmd=forecast
You have to click on “more” in the first paragraph for the full text to show up.
“Snapshot” refers to it being one point in time. As you know 12Z, 1200UTC is 4AM Las Vegas time, and 0Z, 0000UTC (the next day) is 4PM. A lot can happen between those times. Particularly if the weather station is adjacent to a moist air mass.
“pinpoint” refers to it being one point in space (or rather a line in space). It tells you what the temperature and humidity is on that line, but nothing about what’s ten miles to either side of that line. For that you need to extrapolate and interpolate
The RUC (Rapid Update Cycle) model takes all the information of all the soundings. Based on those, and combined with satellite measurements, it simulates the entire three dimensional mass of air, predicting the movment on a hourly basis from the winds, temperatures, pressures, etc, giving a far better estimate of the conditions in the general region than you can get from a single sounding.
Did you look at NASA’s contrail forecast page? Do you think it is wrong?
How far are you from VEF? Where would the ballon be at 35,000 feet?
And 40km is perfectly fine resolution when the wind at 38000 feet is moving at 200km/h. In 15 minutes your single sounding will already be more inaccurate.
Sounding showing 107knot wind at 38,000 feet in Las Vegas, 4PM March 5th
http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=naconf&TYPE=TEXT%3ALIST&YEAR=2011&MONTH=03&FROM=0600&TO=2112&STNM=72388
107 knots in KM/h
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=107+knots+in+kmph
Ken to go back a few messages, you said I didn’t answer the question about how you can spot the difference between “chemtrail” aerosols and “contrail” ones.
I did actually – I said you can’t. Even chemtrail believers can’t – they say that “persistant” contrails are chemtrails – but if you show them a picture of a long contrail spanning the width of a photo, without any info as to whether it is part of one that is persisting for an hour or for 10 minutes, they cannot tell you if it is a contrail or a chemtrail.
You mention agent orange and the inability to spot the difference between that and a contrail?
Well there I have no problem spotting the difference whatosever – contrails almost always come from engines – chemical sprays such as agent orange come from spray nozzles. Contrails start some distance after the aircraft, chemical sprays start right at the nozzle.
Occasionally you get aeodynamic contrails across the whole of a wing that also start right on the wing such as the infamous DC-10 “sprayer” or as per this page on here – https://contrailscience.com/aerodynamic-and-rainbow-contrails/, but not very often, and given the lack of nozzles for actually spraying chemicals it’s not too hard for me to decide that they are not chemical sprays.
Mike C- there’s actually a system in use now that has sort of a weeping wing technology where the leading edges of the wing have thousands of tiny holes that let deice fluid leak out of them. I don;t remember which aircraft utilize this but its out there. So you wouldn;t really NEED nozzles to dispense fluid. I just thought I would muddy the waters for ya.
Ken- sorry man but the burden of proof is on you for this one. If you come here making all sorts of claims about what you’ve seen it didn;t happen unless you provide proof. Otherwise thos site is useless. Now if you bring a high quality video showing exactly what you claim we’ll look it over. Otherwise I’m not going to take anything you say at face value.
Mike:
You said
“Ken to go back a few messages, you said I didn’t answer the question about how you can spot the difference between “chemtrail” aerosols and “contrail” ones.”
I’m not that Ken, I’m someone new who only posted the article on there’s no such thing as a persistent contrail. I’m going to use KenB from now.
KenB
captfitch:
I’m aware of the deicing system. The chemtrail doesn’t come from the wings, it’s localized to the engines.
KenB
captfitch:
You said
“Ken- sorry man but the burden of proof is on you for this one. If you come here making all sorts of claims about what you’ve seen it didn;t happen unless you provide proof. Otherwise thos site is useless. Now if you bring a high quality video showing exactly what you claim we’ll look it over. Otherwise I’m not going to take anything you say at face value.”
To see some photos of chemtrails around Las Vegas visit http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch. I’ve also started to video the planes flying overhead chemtrailing so some high quality video is on the burner. But I’m sure I’ll have negative comments from this site to my videos once they are posted.
BTW, I’m willing to check out the pro-contrail references but I guess you’re not willing to check out the pro-chemtrail references I’ve mentioned. Actually I’ve already proved my point so I’ve taken the burden of proof.
KenB
KenB, could you explain why you think the photos in the gallery you link to show “chemtrails” rather than contrails? They look exactly like photos of contrails show in the old books on clouds, like this one from 1972:
https://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudsOfTheWorld1972
Captfitch – I’m pretty sure those weeping de-ice systems aren’t fitted to large jets – they all (AFAIK) use either engine bleed air blown through the leading edge cavities (it’s hot of course), or electrical elements embedded in the composite material, such as the 787 has.
haha you actually believe NASA’s “contrail forecast”. Wow. and so if persistant contrails require ridiculous conditions that usually require it to be very cold, why can you get these “persistant contrails” in the middle of summer when it’s blazing out, in a place like Calgary where it’s dry as hell?
You guys are full of shit, or you just don’t know what your talking about and wanna play scientist. I got a question for you, why would Ted Gunderson lie about this shit? He used to work for the FBI, I believe him more than you nerdy douches.
Because at 30,000 feet+ it is a lot colder than it is at sea level!!
As a rule of thumb, in the Troposphere (the bit of altitude closest to the earth) the temperature decreases by about 2 degrees C for every 1000 feet of altitude.
So if it is 30 deg C at sea level it can be expected to be -30 at 30,000 feeet, and -40 at 35,000 ft.
It will vary according to local conditions in the atmosphere – by which I mean the conditinos at the altitude, not teeh conditions at sea level, but that’s a good rule of thumb.
You’d have to ask Ted Gunderson why says what he does – convievably he actualy believes it and is therefore not actually lying. But that doesn’t make him right either.
So Jacabo- you claim to know more than us about contrails/chemtrails and you don’t even know about lapse rate? That’s probably because there aren’t any Youtube videos out there explaining lapse rate.
There are some, but some perhaps not the most consumable of videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq0zIZTnYpU&feature=related&hd=1
At the other end of the spectrum, this one makes an attempt at explaining it for us regular folk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGNxYtT_36I&hd=1
Here’s an interesting point for all those ‘chemtrailers’ who like to point out that contrail formation must be impossible, because of how obviously ‘warm’ and ‘dry’ it is where they live.
My meteorology degree was 6 years ago now, so I may be alittle rusty. As I understand it, colder air is not able to hold as much moisture, which is why that moisture condenses out as air rises and cools. With this in mind, the water vapour saturation (humidity) of the air increases with altitude.
The point being that air at flight level, at -40C is far closer to saturation than the air at 30C at ground level. The lapse rate doesn’t just reduce the temperature of an air parcel as it rises, but also pushes it closer to saturation, and the formation of clouds/contrails.
Regarding contrail formation and persistence factors, Dr. Patrick Minnis, posting as “Canex” (canine exhalation!) gave some excellent background on the subject:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000101.html
BTW, CANEX was short for “Dogbreath”. The bottom line here is that since the USAF nor nASA can accurately predict contrails. try as they might, there is no way to absolutely rule in/rule out whether contrail conditions or persistence conditions exist in one place or another unless you were constantly monitoring the EXACT flight path with a suite of instrumentation and knew the EXACT characteristics of the engines and knew the EXACT throttle settings at ALL times.
Here are some more of Canex’s “pearls”:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread1048.html
Remember, what chemmies were getting back there in 2002 was information directly from perhaps the world’s foremost expert on contrails, and the pissed on him big time and lost their chance to learn a great deal more.
Sad, that.
I think Canex’s posts illustrate on of the reasons why the chemtrail theory persists – atmospheric science, and calculation of things like relative humidity, is surprisingly complex. Just look at the page on Psychrometric Equations he links there:
http://www.ageng.ndsu.nodak.edu/envr/PsycEqns.htm
A system of equations involving 22 variables, few of which are even individually comprehendible to the layman. Saturation vapor pressure expressed as a eight order polynomial with different coefficients for water and ice. ….
Using such things to counter a conspiracy theory is probably not going to work. If people are capable of understanding psychrometrics, then they won’t have fallen for the chemtrail theory in the first place. And if they can’t understand it, then they will either just ignore it, or think you are trying to cloud the issue.
(heh, ‘cloud the issue’…)
That psychrometrics page is a gem. Next time someone claims they must know what is going on with contrails just with their eyes and fuzzy interpretations of basic high school science, quietly slip them this link, and they’ll suddenly see the distant summit of this mountain of knowledge, and their place stood at its foot.
I’ve studied this stuff academically at length, and I certainly didn’t get in to that level of complexity; I barely understood what all the terms meant! I assume the Captfitch’s of our world have focused far more on this stuff as pilots, and the life experience of living in it for many hours at a time. In fact, I’d go so far as to guess that their deeper knowledge of psychrometrics is among the many things which helps them to safely fly those planes and keep us all alive in our skies.
As you say, those who have the capacity to understand why ‘chemtrails’ don’t exist are likely those who would never have fallen for the hoax in the first place, and unfortunately vise versa, ‘and never the twain shall meet’.
tryblinking- flying is as much art as it is science. Although I have considered that at a proffessional level much of the knowledge I have attained is so ingrained that I’m not aware of its influence on my day to day decision making. Honestly when it comes to most things it comes down to feel. Like for instance if I’m picking a course or trying to make a decision it may come down to what “looks right” or “feels wrong”. What level of influence my understanding of the scientific aspects of aviation has on this process may not be calcuable but it surely exists.
Like the baker- I add pitch and power the way he adds flour and sugar.
Uncinus
You said:
“KenB, could you explain why you think the photos in the gallery you link to show “chemtrails” rather than contrails? They look exactly like photos of contrails show in the old books on clouds, like this one from 1972:
https://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudsOfTheWorld1972”
Gee, that’s easy, because the conditions don’t exist for the formation of persistent contrails over the Las Vegas area, as I’ve already documented. Now I can’t say what was going on in 1972. Maybe the conditions for the formation of persistent contrails were in the sky when these photos were taken. I’d actually like to see what would happen if the conditions for persistent contrails were in the sky over Las Vegas.
I also think it’s interesting to see that the book is property of the USAF in some AFB library. I’ve ordered the book to do some research on the photos.
KenB
Unicinus:
You said:
“Data or study to support your contention of under measurement of humidity.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.128/pdf”
This link goes to this study:
Evaluation of the use of radiosonde humidity data to predict
the occurrence of persistent contrails
G. Radel and K.P. Shine
On page 1415, Figure 1 shows the corrections for the RS80-H, RS92 day and RS92 night. The only dry bias shows up for the RS92 night corrections and these are only for temperatures lower than 60C. It’s interesting to note that the authors did not correct for nighttime launches, only for 10:00 to 14:00 GMT launches.
There are two other interesting aspects of this study.
After going through all the work to process the sonde data from five stations and do the observations the authors state at the bottom of page 1418 “There is therefore a high probability that if the atmospheric conditions are favourable for persistent contrails, there will be an aircraft flying at the corresponding height…”. This is a fatal flaw for this study because if you cannot document that an aircraft actually flew through the atmospheric conditions than you actually don’t know if one did. You have to prove an aircraft flew through the conditions, not just assume that one did. For instance let’s say the persistent contrail conditions existed between 322hPa and 280hPa as the average did on page 1416. And let’s say a plane flew over Reading chemtrailing at 195hPa. This would be reported as confirmation of the prediction for persistent contrails even though the plane flew nowhere near 322hPa to 280hPa.
The other interesting aspect of this study is that if you accept the findings then you can’t say the sonde data is “snapshot” or “pinpoint”.
And finally, if I tried to reproduce this study using data from site VEF there would be no predictions of persistent contails and 100% prediction of no persistent contrails.
KenB
You documented no such thing.
And since you contiue to claim that you have managed to prove that persistant contrails can’t exist, I went back and checked the archives for weather over Las Vegas for 16 March – they are available here for
0z – http://weather.unisys.com/archive/eta_init/1103/11031600.gif
12Z – http://weather.unisys.com/archive/eta_init/1103/11031612.gif
The bottom right picture covers humidity and atmospheric instability – the scales and description of the numbers is given here – http://weather.unisys.com/model/details.php
And what it actually shows over Nevada is increasing humidity blowing in from the west (the blue shade) – unsurprisingly since the wind is shown in that direction
Looks like it might have been good contrail weather….which your report confirms.
MikeC said:
“And what it actually shows over Nevada is increasing humidity blowing in from the west (the blue shade) – unsurprisingly since the wind is shown in that direction
Looks like it might have been good contrail weather….which your report confirms.”
The same conclusion comes from the inspection of the MODIS satellite images of the day (see my comment #935 above). There were high-altitude clouds visible over Nevada, a reliable indicator of the presence of ice-supersaturation humidity in the area.
But we are trying to explain this to the person who knows not the difference between the sufficient conditions and the necessary ones and makes a “100% prediction” based on a single measurement.
Uncinus:
You said
“The RUC (Rapid Update Cycle) model takes all the information of all the soundings. Based on those, and combined with satellite measurements, it simulates the entire three dimensional mass of air, predicting the movment on a hourly basis from the winds, temperatures, pressures, etc, giving a far better estimate of the conditions in the general region than you can get from a single sounding.”
Your’re kidding me, right? A computer model to predict contrails and persistent contrails? I’ve spent most of my life programming systems of one sort or another starting with FORTRAN and ending with C#. I’ve actually programmed complex simulations and the simulation or model is only as good as the assertions and programming. Bad assertions, bad programming, bad model. I also know how the data can be massaged to produce results that the people paying for the simulation want. I never did this and walked away from jobs when it became clear that is what the client wanted. The RUC model, give me a break. It’s probably as good as the global warming model of East Anglica. I’d like to see the programmers’ comments in the RUC model. This model is total BS.
And, hey, why don’t you mention the caveats listed on the Ruc model when you mention RUC?
They are:
“The relative humidity data from the RUC 40km model are suspect since 18 April, 2002. Forecasts since April 18, 2002 are suspect.To obtain a better estimate of potential contrail formation, examine the ‘Individual level (mb)’ results. Select a pressure value between 200 and 250 mb for the best estimate. Relative humidity values above 80% are good indicators of contrails in the new RUC data. You can use any pressure level , but the large values may be too warm for contrail formation”
This statement is even in red and I don’t see it on your site. How come?
Garbage in, garbage out, what more do you need. And they jacked it up to 80% humidity. Unbelievable! At 80% humidity at cruise altitude we wouldn’t see anything in the sky over Las Vegas, except planes flying along leaving nothing in their wake, because we never see 80% humidity at cruise altitude.
“Did you look at NASA’s contrail forecast page? Do you think it is wrong?”
Do you mean RUC? The unsigned ActiveX control? Anything that NASA puts out about persistent contrails is dreck.
“How far are you from VEF? Where would the ballon be at 35,000 feet?”
I’m five miles from VEF. Well, it would be at 350C.
KenB
Could you come up with a better forecast? I’m a programmer too, and is seems like you could come up with some plots based on interpolating the soundings in time and space? Want to give it a go?
Where is VEF exactly?
KenB wrote:
“Your’re kidding me, right? A computer model to predict contrails and persistent contrails?”
Why noit??
I can’t see why computer modelling for atmosphere would be any odder than for any other complex system – it’s used for modelling everything from nuclear explosions to the Gulf stream, and is certainly used for other weather forecasting.
What an odd thing to say in this day and age!! :/
KenB said:
“Your’re kidding me, right? A computer model to predict contrails and persistent contrails?”
Well, it correctly predicted contrails in Nevada on March 16th, 2011. It also correctly predicted contrails in Alberta, around Calgary, on February 2nd, 2011, the pictures of which Jacobo posted above. And, according to my calculations elsewhere on this site: (https://contrailscience.com/contrails-above-and-below/#comment-59560), the latter were observed at the predicted altitude.
Mike:
You said:
“You documented no such thing.
And since you contiue to claim that you have managed to prove that persistant contrails can’t exist, I went back and checked the archives for weather over Las Vegas for 16 March – they are available here for
0z – http://weather.unisys.com/archive/eta_init/1103/11031600.gif
12Z – http://weather.unisys.com/archive/eta_init/1103/11031612.gif
The bottom right picture covers humidity and atmospheric instability – the scales and description of the numbers is given here – http://weather.unisys.com/model/details.php
And what it actually shows over Nevada is increasing humidity blowing in from the west (the blue shade) – unsurprisingly since the wind is shown in that direction
Looks like it might have been good contrail weather….which your report confirms.”
I’m wondering if you are actually reading my post which documents the upper air conditions for March 5, not March 16.
And for the record I don’t really care about contrails or contrail predictions. My focus is on persistent contrails and proving that they don’t exist and cannot exist based on the criteria of supersatuation over ice, except under very rare conditions, conditions that don’t exist in the Las Vegas area.
KenB
KenB said:
“…my post which documents the upper air conditions for March 5, not March 16.”
Right, the satellite images of the Las Vegas area that I’ve posted above are of March 5th. There were high-altitude clouds visible over Nevada on that date, a reliable indicator of the presence of ice-supersaturation humidity in the area. It is in a full agreement with the RUC model that predicted high-altitude contrails in Nevada on that date too.
what does the Las Vegas area have to do with contrail formation? Las vegas is at ground level- the contrails are not…
MikeC:
You said:
“Why noit??
I can’t see why computer modelling for atmosphere would be any odder than for any other complex system – it’s used for modelling everything from nuclear explosions to the Gulf stream, and is certainly used for other weather forecasting.
What an odd thing to say in this day and age!! :/”
The point I’m making is that computer models can be programmed to give whatever results the people paying for the models want. And they are black boxes since we cannot see what their assumptions are, how they are programmed and how the data is massaged to create the results. For example, the global warming model the IPCC uses to predict global warming is a complete fraud. Comments in the IPCC global warming model clearly show that the programmers were massaging the data to show global warming existed when the data itself didn’t show this. Comments were used to tell future programmers how to fake the data in case they didn’t know how to do it. That’s why I said I’d like to see the comments in the RUC model.
The RUC model states that it uses soundings data plus satellite observations as the input. Maybe someone can point me to the reference where I can find out about remote sensing of humidity by satellite otherwise the soundings data is used for humidity. And that flies in the face of those who want to say the soundings data is “pinpoint” and “snapshot” implying that it’s no good.
KenB
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_measurement.html
Neither set of data is perfect, hence a combined approach works best.
What if you just used the soundings, could you make a better model?
Uncinus:
You said:
“Could you come up with a better forecast? I’m a programmer too, and is seems like you could come up with some plots based on interpolating the soundings in time and space? Want to give it a go?
Where is VEF exactly?”
Thanks for the offer but I’m concentrating on learning video editing so that I can document chemtrail planes on YouTube.
I guess you haven’t gone to the soundings site mentioned in my first post because if you did you would see that VEF is Station latitude: 36.05, Station longitude: -115.18.
KenB
Here more detail on the data available
http://madis.noaa.gov/index.html
And specifically satellite soundings
http://madis.noaa.gov/madis_satsnd.html
Since the data is public domain it should be straightforward for you to demonstrate any model fudging.
Sorry, I guess I meant to ask where the VEF soundings are taken from. That seems very close to the airport, I was wondering if they release the balloons elsewhere, or if they have to coordinate it with ATC somehow.
KenB wrote:
“The point I’m making is that computer models can be programmed to give whatever results the people paying for the models want.”
Of course.
And do you have any evidence that the contrail prediction model is actually skewed in any such manner away from “nominal” predictions?
The development of the model was not for the sole purpose of predicting contrails. If you were to change the equations with extra terms, to increase humidity at those levels, you would have to alter many other processes first. The contrail prediction is a small bonus output of a much larger and more complex set of equations and process modelling a chaotic system. If you tweak the equations to give more saturation aloft, that moisture has to come from somewhere else, so the model won’t maintain any larger accuracy.