Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Earth Changes / Global Warming / Chemtrails / Weather Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-08-2012, 10:16 AM   #1
a_skywatcher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Debunking NASA's Persistant Contrail Myth

Debunking NASA's Persistant Contrail Myth Using Weather Sonde Data

This just speaks for itself....




Last edited by a_skywatcher; 12-08-2012 at 10:17 AM.
a_skywatcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-08-2012, 03:31 PM   #2
rbl_4nik8r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: A Lifeboat with Psycho Birds
Posts: 3,264
Likes: 8 (6 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a_skywatcher View Post
Debunking NASA's Persistant Contrail Myth Using Weather Sonde Data

This just speaks for itself....



Debunking NASA's Persistant Contrail Myth Using Weather Sonde Data - YouTube
OK my first issue with this would be at 1:49 when it says planes fly between 28k and 37k this may have been true 15 to 20 years ago, but now days you have planes flying over 42,000 feet thats a full mile about what this video states.

OK next we go into the RH factor at 1 city at 1 time of the day, why not many city's, with many pictures. Either way I am glad to have a link for this site it adds more to this than I have had before to the RH factor when it comes to trails and it gives each person something to look at when they see a trail in the sky they can come here and go to;

http://www.weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html

pick a city near them and get a general idea of the RH % at different flight levels. Now sadly this only deals with North and Central America but its a start. Oh wait I forgot something, now all them students at the University of Wyoming do not go out and take readings of the Relative Humidity in every town you see listed, no they try and get local readings from them areas and feed them to a computer, and let it give you what it thinks is the best answer for that area. I am also sure at times you will have some areas that don't add new data so its more guess work, but either way its a good start.

Also at 27,000 feet you had 40% humidity sure someone saw trails but we don't know what flight they were looking at or what altitude they were at nor do we have the pics or video from them people. I do agree that you need high humidity but this to depends on the plane, some of the bigger Turbo Fan Jet engines can pull enough water out of the air to form a trail at 30-40% humidity, BUT I doubt it would last all day long.

Now having said all that, it could be some of the shit that's going on in the sky's are having an effect in the long term of things with the weather, but not once in that video did he say anything about chemicals being sprayed from planes, and that's saying a lot, but did the nut cases hear this ?
__________________
4nE
"Always make the audience suffer as much as possible."
(Alfred Hitchcock.)

4.I am not that interested in seeking proof so to prove my point. doobyferkin
rbl_4nik8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2012, 06:24 AM   #3
moving finger
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Down in the basement, working for the government
Posts: 3,721
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Another issue with the video is it's first claim that it is NASA's contrail theory.

It isn't. The NASA site is just repeating a general classification. It isn't "NASA says", it's "everyone who knows anything about the subject says...".

The video also produces evidence of low humidity at what it claims is the relevant altitude for commercial flights, then makes the claim that despite this people claimed to have seen them, all the while showing pictures of contrails as if the pictured they were showing were the contrails people claimed to have seen. Looking at the pictures they are showing, they are just pictures classifying contrails and there is no indication of time or location. That's just downright dishonest.

I don't think anyone can deny that pumping shit into the atmosphere is a bad thing with potentially bad consequences. The issue is whether it's being done on purpose to evil ends. It isn't.
moving finger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2012, 09:05 AM   #4
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

This link is derrived from link posted by rbl_4nik8r, labelled:
72451 DDC Dodge City(Awos) Observations at 00Z 15 Aug 2012

http://www.weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/...500&STNM=72451

One thing that caught my attention is how the RELH is lower at 32196m than at 1753m.


So it is possible for the sky to have much lower humidity than the ground.

I wish rbl_4nik8r post reference for this:
"some of the bigger Turbo Fan Jet engines can pull enough water out of the air to form a trail at 30-40% humidity"

Since what I recall, normal contrails require superhumidity. Some reference mention >120%.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants

Last edited by sucahyo; 15-08-2012 at 09:07 AM.
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2012, 07:07 PM   #5
rbl_4nik8r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: A Lifeboat with Psycho Birds
Posts: 3,264
Likes: 8 (6 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
This link is derrived from link posted by rbl_4nik8r, labelled:
72451 DDC Dodge City(Awos) Observations at 00Z 15 Aug 2012

http://www.weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/...500&STNM=72451

One thing that caught my attention is how the RELH is lower at 32196m than at 1753m.


So it is possible for the sky to have much lower humidity than the ground.

I wish rbl_4nik8r post reference for this:
"some of the bigger Turbo Fan Jet engines can pull enough water out of the air to form a trail at 30-40% humidity"

Since what I recall, normal contrails require superhumidity. Some reference mention >120%.
The humidity is always changing just like the temperature, I think I added links to temps at different altitude enough times now for you to know that much. So yes on some days or thru out the day you can have many different readings, its no different then going outside in the morning as the sun is coming up to find due on the grass and it still a bit chilly, but go out there at lunch time you have no due and its hotter. Keep in mind that due just added water to the air in the forum as humidity, now the odds are it wont go much more then a few hundred feet but its small changes that take place all the time.

Turbo Fan Jet engines are much bigger then 20, 30 or 40 years ago, I believe I should you this in a post you had a while back about some testing done back in the 70's with a small Air Force jet I forget what one was in the PDF but its engine from back then had an intake of about 24 inches on both engines. Now days you have engines that are close to 14 feet tall and wide do the math there the volume of air moving thru something that big is much greater then the engines of the past. Oh and if you don't know what that means I will explain it a bit, with greater air mass you have more water in said air mass passing thru said object.

Why do I need to link everything, some of this is common sense, not sure how many major airports you have been to, but go to one and spend a day look at the different jets and the size of there engines.

http://wn.com/general_electric_ge90

Watch some of the engine changes on there or not, just trying to show you something I did months ago.
__________________
4nE
"Always make the audience suffer as much as possible."
(Alfred Hitchcock.)

4.I am not that interested in seeking proof so to prove my point. doobyferkin
rbl_4nik8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2012, 01:58 AM   #6
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbl_4nik8r View Post
The humidity is always changing just like the temperature, I think I added links to temps at different altitude enough times now for you to know that much.
Then what is the point of posting this?
"OK my first issue with this would be at 1:49 when it says planes fly between 28k and 37k this may have been true 15 to 20 years ago, but now days you have planes flying over 42,000 feet thats a full mile about what this video states"

Beside many chemtrails debunker insist that higher altitude have higher chance of having supersaturation despite the humidity level in the ground is low.




Quote:
Originally Posted by rbl_4nik8r View Post
Turbo Fan Jet engines are much bigger then 20, 30 or 40 years ago
What I want is reference for "to form a trail at 30-40% humidity".

Common sense can be deceiving. Many people stupidly believe that contrails need only water vapor. Their common sense surely flawed.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2012, 05:05 AM   #7
rbl_4nik8r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: A Lifeboat with Psycho Birds
Posts: 3,264
Likes: 8 (6 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
Then what is the point of posting this?
"OK my first issue with this would be at 1:49 when it says planes fly between 28k and 37k this may have been true 15 to 20 years ago, but now days you have planes flying over 42,000 feet thats a full mile about what this video states"

Beside many chemtrails debunker insist that higher altitude have higher chance of having supersaturation despite the humidity level in the ground is low.




What I want is reference for "to form a trail at 30-40% humidity".

Common sense can be deceiving. Many people stupidly believe that contrails need only water vapor. Their common sense surely flawed.
Because you have much colder temperatures the higher up you go, and that's another mile of humidity to verify.

Also you can figure out how much water is passing thru a GE90 at 30,000 feet with 30% humidity, or 100% I am not in the mood to text my brain with it.

But would you agree that jet engines today suck in much more air then there counter part of the 70's ?

Would you also agree that jet engines today are much bigger ?

I don't know how many cubic feet of air is going thru them, I recalled seeing some of the formulas on one PDF that they used to figure out contrails from the jet in the 70's but as I stated then and I think they did to some degree to, that the bigger the engine the more volume of air going thru it. One of the key things in that PDF that bugged me was that in there test window of 10 days or so, most of the days were unfavorable, and much of this was do to engine size.

You do read thru all of them PDF's you post ? Or are you just finding a sentence or paragraph to justify something ?

I don't save all of them but for them most part I have read all of them even if many of them seem to be outdated at times. But sadly some of the tests that were done in the late 60's and early 70's were never done again so yes you may get a lot of data from tests back then, but can you rely on them when most of the things used are no longer being used.

Also I have no clue what this super humidity is, at 100% you have RAIN end of story it can't get above that as far as I know.
__________________
4nE
"Always make the audience suffer as much as possible."
(Alfred Hitchcock.)

4.I am not that interested in seeking proof so to prove my point. doobyferkin
rbl_4nik8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 04:53 AM   #8
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbl_4nik8r View Post
Because you have much colder temperatures the higher up you go, and that's another mile of humidity to verify.
The change won't be drastic.



Quote:
Originally Posted by rbl_4nik8r View Post
Also you can figure out how much water is passing thru a GE90 at 30,000 feet with 30% humidity, or 100% I am not in the mood to text my brain with it.

But would you agree that jet engines today suck in much more air then there counter part of the 70's ?

Would you also agree that jet engines today are much bigger ?
Do you have reference that more water resulted to more contrails?

Bigger engine may produce more contrails because they produce more soot particle / aerosol, which is the seed of contrails formation. I don't think it has something to do with sucking more air or produce more water. calculation for how much air or water of new engine is useless unless you have reference for water output relation with trails retention.

More aerosol, more contaminant => more contrails.

Releasing aerosol is one of geoengineering method. Deliberate or not, they alter the weather. Since drought become worse when more people reporting trails, then rough estimate is trails create drought.



About super..., what I mean is:
"Supersaturation can also occur relative to ice. This is much more common in the atmosphere than supersaturation relative to water. Water droplets are able to maintain supersaturation relative to ice (remain as liquid water droplets and not freeze) because of the high surface tension of each microdroplet, which prevents them from expanding to form larger ice crystals. Without ice nuclei supercooled liquid water droplets can exist down to about −40 °C (−40 °F), at which point they will spontaneously freeze."
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.