Contrail Science: Deliberate Ambiguity Betrays Scientific Method 3

Stunning telescopic video of aerosol emissions from jet aircraft.

Stunning telescopic video of aerosol emissions from jet aircraft – CLICK HERE

See original video here

CONTRAIL SCIENCE: Debunking a Deliberate Ambiguity Campaign by Federal Agencies and Internet Trolls who attempt to Hide Public Awareness of two decades of Covert Aerosol Geoengineering that is responsible for warming the climate and manipulating the weather. (source)

Much ambiguity has been circulated regarding the effect of humidity upon the persistence of contrails, or vapor trails. Numerous sources, without exception, state that such vapor trails (composed of water vapor by historical and conventional definition) may persist for “extended periods” under conditions of “higher” relative humidity.

Unfortunately, it is apparent that quantitative information attached to these repeated generalizations is lacking. Even the recently issued “fact sheet” under distribution by a combination of federal agencies, including the EPA, NOAA, the FAA and NASA falls victim to this same deficiency. — Cliff Carnicom

In the video below we take a look at NASA’s CONTRAIL SCIENCE website to learn how to differentiate between three types of jet aircraft contrails.

1) Short-lived, non-persistent contrail (SLNPC),

2) Persistent contrail, non-spreading (PCNS) ,

3) Persistent contrail, spreading (PCS)

We want to know under what conditions – and how often we can expect to see different manifestations of persistent contrails – whether it’s the non-spreading or spreading type.

The data available from various weather sonde systems sharply contradicts NASA’s claim that persistent contrails are a common atmospheric response to jet aircraft emissions.

The U. Wyoming is one source that aggregates atmospheric conditions collected at many sites around the US, Europe and beyond. The data above 8,500 meters or 28,000 feet reveals that conditions for formation of “persistent contrails” due to high relative humidity can be defined as a rare occurrence in typical flight paths by commercial and private jet aircraft.

NASA defines PCNS as a separate species of artificial cloud from the PCS type. NASA also avoids concluding that a PCS is necessarily evolved from a PCNS. It is, therefore possible that a PSC can either be evolved from a PCNS or appear spontaneously as a “spreading” PCS emission without ever being defined as a PCNS.  ***More

NASA Published a study in 1994: “NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.”  *** More

EXAMPLE: View the Photos of persistent contrails from July 2, 1999 in Ardmore, OK. Two atmospheric weathersonde data reports were recorded at the nearby Norman station on that day. Low relative humidity readings are evident in each report at altitudes above 8,500 meters ( 28,000 feet).

Conclusion: Atmospheric conditions of high relative humidity required for persistent contrail formation did not exist.

This disturbing acknowledgement of two decades of secret atmospheric heating on a planetary scale demands immediate investigation in light of conclusive evidence in the Case Orange Report for the existence of a secret jet aerosol geoengineering program that has been carried out globally under direction of the US government for over 20 years.

The work of investigator, Cliff Carnicom originally exposed the obfuscation imposed by federal agencies on the subject of contrails vs. persistent contrails vs. persistent spreading contrails.

A knowledge of atmospheric conditions required for persistent contrail formation above 8,500 meters or 28,000 feet is inexpensive and observations can be fact-checked against available weathersonde data in many instances. Although this method does not reveal the content of the presumed geoengineering compound it serves well as a repeatable method to validate the now dreaded occurrences of jet aircraft emissions of unknown composition and toxicity.

Using NASA’s own data it can be asserted with confidence that a persistent jet trail that remains visible for more than 10 minutes is not primarily water vapor and is far more likely to fit the Oxford dictionary definition of “chemtrail”.

Contrail Science B: Calculating probability of water vapor contrail formation with respect to relative humidity at flight level HERE

Contrail Science C: How to estimate the expected distance of a water vapor contrail from the jet engine during flight. HERE

USAF “Contrail Facts” Pg 13:   After the initial formation of ice, a contrail evolves in one of two ways:

“If the atmosphere is near saturation, the contrail may exist for some time. Conversely, if the atmosphere is dry, the contrail will dissipate quickly.”

USAF Contrail Facts 2000

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

MARK L. SCHRADER – Air Weather Service, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois
28 August 1996 and 9 December 1996

ABSTRACT:
Forecasts of condensation trail (contrail) formation are an extremely important consideration in military aircraft operations, particularly in the operation of stealth aircraft. Some recently published works have claimed improvements in the time-tested forecast technique of H. Appleman, but the results are called into question by errors in the basic physics. This note provides a brief explanation of contrail formation theory and presents a simple derivation of the critical temperature of contrail formation for representative jet engine types.

1. Introduction The advent of low-observability ‘‘stealth’’ aircraft has made operational forecasting of aircraft condensation trails, or contrails, more important than ever to military aircraft operations. No amount of stealth technology can hide an aircraft if it leaves a persistent contrail in its wake.

Investigations of contrail formation are recorded as early as 1919, and research began in earnest during World War II (Schumann 1996). The definitive work on contrail forecasting is by Appleman (1953). Even today, the original Appleman technique forms the basis of the Air Force Global Weather Center’s contrail forecasting algorithm. Recently, some works (Peters 1993; Hanson and Hanson 1995) have claimed improvements in contrail forecasting techniques, but the results are called into question by errors in the basic physics.

This note provides a brief explanation of contrail formation theory and presents a simple derivation of the critical temperature.  *** Contnue   

3 comments

  1. Pingback: Geoengineering the Scuppernong | Scuppernong Springs Nature Trail

  2. Dear Harold Saive

    Thank you very much for a – better than average – chemtrails website!
    But there is one information on which there is some confussion:

    You have a photo of 2 chemtrails/contrails here on this page. It can be found on many websites, generally named “df-st-90-05759″.
    You supply the following text about it:

    ” EXAMPLE: View the Photos of persistent contrails from July 2, 1999 in Ardmore, OK. Two atmospheric weathersonde data reports were recorded at the nearby Norman station on that day. Low relative humidity readings are evident in each report at altitudes above 8,500 meters ( 28,000 feet). ”

    But on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mig-29s_intercepeted_by_F-15s_-_DF-ST-90-05759.jpg
    it’s described as follows:

    Description:
    English: ID: DF-ST-90-05759, Command Shown: F3231 – Alaska, USA, Two Soviet MiG-29 aircraft en route to an air show in British Columbia, Canada, are intercepted by F-15 Eagle aircraft of the 21st Tactical Fighter Wing. The Soviet MiG-29s are, for the first time, traveling to the Abbotsford International Airshow in Abbotsford, BC, Canada, to participate in the August 1989 airshow. The USAF F-15 Eagle interceptors actively guarding North American and United States of America’s airspace are with the 21st Tactical Fighter Wing, headquartered at Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB), Alaska, USA.
    Date 1 August 1989, 22:47

    There is about 10 years between those dates. So which is right?

    Best regards,
    Henrik Rosenø

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s