Using NASA Appleman Chart to Determine Chemtrails vs. Contrails 10

NASA Contrail Science Header


Original upload “TrutherD2”

Near the close of WW2 jets were used. It was, of course, very important for these jets to avoid detection. NASA and the USAF began to research methods of predicting the occurrence of contrails. In 1953, a scientist named H. Appleman published a chart that can be used to determine when a jet airplane would or would not produce a contrail.

Using these reports and observations of temperature, pressure and relative humidity, the USAF found that the forecasts using the Appleman method were correct about 60 to 80 percent of the time. Looking more closely at the data, they found that when no contrails were forecast, the forecast was correct 98 percent of the time! However, when contrails were forecast to occur, the forecast was correct only 25 to 35 percent of the time, and often failed to predict the occurrence of contrails.

Due to the inaccuracy in predicting YES contrails with the appleman chart, we should focus solely on the 98% accurate prediction of NO contrails.

Used in combination with triangulation and atmospheric sounding data, it becomes trivial to predict whether one should be seeing contrails over their city or whether the trails seen are in fact chemtrails.

Disinfo Debunkers: “This chart was made in 1953! The science is 60 years old!”

Do you think the laws of physics have changed since then? The chart was reviewed in 1992, here. You will find that the review was done to better predict the occurrence of YES contrails and the 98% accurate prediction of NO contrails was never found to be inaccurate.

Additionally, the improved efficiency of jet engines with the development of High Bypass Turbofan has significantly reduced the engine combustion required to form water vapor – the essential ingredient in the formation of normal contrails.  (See More on this topic)

Disinfo Debunkers: “Atmospheric sounding is unreliable.”

Readings are taken twice daily, sometimes hourly. The closer you are to the station and the time of reading the more accurate your results. If you are a pilot, you can use live atmospheric readings in-flight.

Disinfo Debunkers:  “You can’t know the conditions up there. There are tiny pockets of vastly dissimilar air, accounting for trails appearing to start and stop, etc.”

This does not make good sense, especially when the atmospheric conditions are completely un-supportive of contrail formation to begin with. I challenge you to support your claims.

Disinfo Debunkers:  “Newer engines could make it more likely for there to be contrails.”

Yes they may, just as some newer engines might be less likely to form contrails. Such variables are mentioned in the 1992 review of appleman chart contrail formation science. In my view, the change will be negligible (perhaps a few thousand feet and a degree or two celcius) and the appleman chart will be enough to show glaring differences in what we should be seeing and what we are seeing.

If you intend to prove or debunk chemtrails being created by “planes”, be sure that you use legitimate NASA USAF contrail formation science such as the appleman chart!

If you catch someone denying chemtrails and they aren’t familiar with and actively promoting this chart (or updated contrail-formation science as shown), it would be wise to suspect their motives.

“Max T. Persistence” does not necessarily mean indefinite persistence. From what I’ve seen in documentaries by pilots & investigators and online in journalist tests, 30s-2 mins is normal. (Must dig up links) Taking into account what we know about contrail and cloud science, including exhaust particulate, humidity, pressure and temperature, it would seem obvious that the conditions for indefinite persistence with a given engine are quite specific.

Further, remember that the prediction of YES contrails by the appleman chart is only correct 25 – 35% of the time. So predicting when a contrail will persist with any accuracy is impossible.

The USAF reviewed the Appleman Chart in 1992 as they wanted to improve prediction of YES contrails, and the method ETACFCST was developed:

USAF SAC Contrail Formation Study 1992 (PDF)

Now you know an easy method to discover chemtrails for yourself!

10 comments

  1. The laws of physics changed on September 11, 2001 – they just failed to release the memo.
    The various Newtonian laws that have governed our world since..well, forever, were apparently repealed that morning. Multi-floored buildings could suddenly collapse onto themselves at free fall speed – steel girders could become molten at less than half the temperature normally required – and airliners with two hundred feet wingspans could suddenly fit neatly inside a twelve foot diameter hole.

    now THAT was one hell of a day…

  2. In all seriousness…. When I first noticed the sky full of ” persistent condensation trails” I googled the term. From the various pages of results I chose to peruse the NASA site. As I recall it said the following
    “condensation trails, or CON TRAILS are formed when water molecules in jet exhaust contact the frigid air and become ice crystals” . It went on to say ” contrails require temperatures of -30C to form” , and ” contrails are extremely rare in the Southern United States”…. of course this page no longer exists on NASA’s site – it has been replaced by one explaining how contrails can now remain aloft for hours on end…. Rubbish..

  3. Thanks. This is mainly for the ignorant folk. No one thinks for themselves and rely on being told…then they don’t choose..the teller chooses for them. There are those folk around. I meet them regularly and it’s neigh impossible to get through to them. Even if we had bone-fide documents and put it in their face, they would still refute this. But we all keep trying and eventually it will reach saturation levels where-by the evidence will be gob smackingly obvious. Thanks for your huge effort in maintaining the truth. Cheers

    • Appleman Chart is marginally useful for predicting PERSISTENT CONTRAILS. It mainly predicts probability for CONTRAIL (only) formation as it was designed to do.

      It’s actually very simple to predict P. Contrails since they virtually NEVER OCCUR at flight level above 30,000 feet. I’ve surveyed over 200 upper atmosphere charts in Florida that show relative humidity at that level never approaches near 100% saturation required for a P. contrail to form. Period. Case closed.

      • Hello Harold,

        Do you know of any official documentation that states what the relative humidity requirements are for contrails to form/persist?

        Thanks,
        James

  4. I agree. Contrails will persist only when the air is near saturation of relative humidity at flight level. Do not listen to the disinfo pumped out by Mick West, Jay Reynolds, the trolls at contrailscience.com and metabunk.org. Thanks.

  5. Pingback: La géoingénérie, les chemtrails et la modification du climat, un agenda aux multiples faces | OxygenNation.ca

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