1. OnlyFacts

    OnlyFacts New Member

    I will show, that 2 central satements on Chemtrails are not likely to be true on the same time by analysing scientific data on 506 contrails in Alaska Fairbanks.
    http://akclimate.org/sites/default/files//papers/Wendler2005.pdf

    Common Chemtrail Believer Statements:
    1)Chemtrails (long lasting lines >200 min) are not causal formed by surrounding conditions (RHi, Temperature)
    2)Contrails can not be persisten (more than 200 minutes)

    Image from Paper:
    persistent_contrails.

    In this data, extremly long Contrails (>200 min) are only found in special Conditions. (Temperature, RHI)
    Thus this data suggest, only following cases (and some combination of those cases) are possible but only 5. seems to be likely.

    Statement 1 and 2 can be true on same time:
    +Chemtrails could exist
    1.Data is not valid
    2.Surroundings RHI 70 -80% * are much more common then the other one, and there is no causal connection between RHI and persisten Contrail or Chemtrail

    Statement 1 and 2 are not true on the same time:
    +Chemtrails does exist:
    3.Chemtrails prefer to show under messured surroundings
    4.There are persisten Contrails and Chemtrails, but no or little number of Chemtrails in the sense of Statement 1) is in the Data.

    +Chemtrails does not exist:
    5.Persisten contrails form under special condition and are shown in the data.

    *Messured RHI with Radiosonds on low temperature need to be ajusted.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2014
  2. OnlyFacts

    OnlyFacts New Member

    I`m wondering about the lack of reaction. Is there a problem with correctness, clearness or relevance in the argumentation?
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2014
  3. Peter

    Peter Member

    Well I can only speak for myself, but I have to say it's a rather confusing read. I'd have to go over it a few times to understand what you're actually saying.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. OnlyFacts

    OnlyFacts New Member

    Ok, thanks for your response. Maybe you could give further information about, whats confusing. The main argument is, that we would expect a different pattern of messurements on the RHI-duration diagramm at duration >150 minutes, if those 2 discussed statements would be true.
     
  5. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    I can see what you are getting at. These charts seem to suggest that the longest lasting contrails are occurring at RHi levels of around 75%, though?
     
  6. Gundersen

    Gundersen Active Member

    I do agree with your conclusion, but I am not sure that the data you presented are supporting the conclusion. I have not looked into it, but if it was possible for me to get my hands on the data used by the researcher, it would be easier to come to some fact-based conclusion. My main problem is that the data is (in my subjective opinion) not showing any correlation between temperature, relative humidity and persistent contrail formation. I would like to analyse the data and show the exact conditions which was present when the persistent contrails formed. I suspect that the reason that the data does not show any clear correlation is that we can't see the mix of temperature and humidity when the persistent contrails occurred, and even more importantly, when they didn't.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2014
  7. OnlyFacts

    OnlyFacts New Member

    Probably RHi must be ajusted about the factor 1.8*Rhi, because radiosonds underestimates the RHi at those low temperatures.
     
  8. OnlyFacts

    OnlyFacts New Member

    Actually you can dig out the temperature and RHI for each point (duration about 200 min and more).
     
  9. Gundersen

    Gundersen Active Member

    But I can't find both the temperature and RHI for a specific point. Maybe I could match those > 200 min up, but I can't really for the rest.
     
  10. OnlyFacts

    OnlyFacts New Member

    My whole argumentation was built on those 8 points.
     
  11. Gundersen

    Gundersen Active Member

    I realize that, and as I said, I do fully support your claim, but I do not think the data is adequately supporting your conclusion. It is however very interesting data you have presented! I am not a scientist, and I might be wrong, but I think that it is equally important to show when persistent contrails don't form, as it is to show when they do.

    When you say that persistent contrails usually form around 70-80 RHI, why does only approximately 1/3 of the contrails in that range persist for more than 200 min? I suspect that might have to do with temperature, but based on the data, that is impossible to tell.

    I am actually considering to contact one of the researchers and ask if they could provide the raw data, even though it's 10 years old. I think the data has very high relevance.
     
  12. OnlyFacts

    OnlyFacts New Member

    Ok I see where you heading, the occurrence depends on Temperature, RHI, mixing ration and wind speed and maybe some other condition we dont know. The data only suggest that the RHI is a necessity but not sufficiency condition, for extremly long contrails.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2014
  13. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    As a debunking it will really only appeal to people who are a bit more technical than average.