Reasoned, open, factual debate about 'chemtrails'...? Is it possible?

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Here's an example of what seems to be you stating a belief:

As I'm sure you know, Nasa, Noaa and a couple others I can't recall brought out a joint 'contrail fact sheet' back in 2000 or 2001, it was in response to so many queries from the public on what was being observed. So, contrary to what Mick has said about it being a gradual increase, this suggests that there was a time when it became a lot more noticeable to Joe Public, so much so that they felt the need to produce a document to explain it.

Is that really the best you can do? The first sentence is totally factual - no stated belief there, I don't think. The words 'this suggests' er, suggest, there is no statement of 'belief', it might 'seem' (I quote you) to you like it is, but that's not the same thing. It most certainly doesn't relate to your original question on my 'belief' - see below

Come on, here's your original question/quote to which I asked for clarification:
Lee, I'd urge you to take a step back and review what you think you know about contrails. Do you actually have any evidence to back up your belief? Or are you just assuming contrails are nefarious because it fits so nicely into your world view?
I ask you again, What belief is that? - you must have had one in mind to ask that question. Please indicate what belief and where I have stated this belief. There's plenty of words here written by me - is this first quote above what you're referring to? I could just as well say that I urge you to take a step back and review what you think you know about my beliefs. Or are you just assuming you know my position to satisfy your world view?

And for Mr Jay: I really can't be bothered with you any further - you're forever calling me a liar, a poor argument in all respects, and a poor judgement call. The story about the Russian cement sack was reported here just a few weeks ago - that it took place in 2008 was not reported. I am not responsible for the vagaries of the BBC's methods, but it is quite well known among journalists that old stories are regularly trotted out to fill a gap here and there. You appear to hold some personal animus towards me - which seems strange, as you don't know me. I also think you have an unusual interest in laundry I can't say I share. Finally, to you - I refer you to an earlier post on 'conspiracy theor -ist/y' and its meaning. You can't see that you, by definition (and aren't definitions important?), are a conspiracy theorist. Apparently, you spend an inordinate amount of time theorizing about conspiracies, perceived or real. What does that make you? Answers on a postcard...
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Lee, why don't you just cut though the confusion and tell us what you believe?

Oh no. You asked a question which explicitly said you understood my belief, asking for evidence to back up the same. I asked you where I expressed this belief you understand; and now you want to dismiss it with this? I'm not confused. I'm pretty sure my written expression isn't confusing. I've expressed what I wanted to express within that - why should it be reduced to a belief? So you can say something that 'debunks' it? You have plenty of words to refer to if you wanted to. You answer my straightforward question by avoiding it? Are you saying that you are confused? I'd like to know what you know my beliefs are, obviously. That's why I asked.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I feel you have *some* beliefs about contrails, otherwise you'd not be here discussing them. I'm not at all sure what are. You seem to be insinuating a lot of suspicion in your comments, but won't actually clearly state your position.

All I can tell is that you think it's suspicious that the weather forecast does not include contrails. Is that really the extent of your beliefs about contrails?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I feel you have *some* beliefs about contrails, otherwise you'd not be here discussing them. I'm not at all sure what are. You seem to be insinuating a lot of suspicion in your comments, but won't actually clearly state your position.

All I can tell is that you think it's suspicious that the weather forecast does not include contrails. Is that really the extent of your beliefs about contrails?

Is this your full-time job?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Then MikeC: Mike...


The only thing I cannot take seriously is your unsupported assertion that something is somehow "wrong" here - you haven't actually articulated what it is you think is wrong (as far as I can see), and you haven't provided any evidence to support whatever it is that wrong thing may be.

If you could clearly state what it is you think the problem is, and what your evidence is, then that'd be a great help to me to understand what your position actually is.

thanks in advance

No problem. I refer you to this, one of many statements I have made along the same lines, but for some reason none of you can see why it is relevant to the discourse and so skirt around it: Met people spend their lives being bothered about what makes clouds and when - why ignore this version when it is so prevalent? And it is very prevalent where I am.

So what is the problem there?? What version? Relevant to what?

Clearly you think you are telling me something but I have no idea what you are talking about.

And I have noticed in the last few posts that you have failed to actually say what it is you believe in in response to others too - so it's not just that I am too thick to identify your beleifs.

Why not say what it is you believe in, rather than asking other people to say what it is they think you believe in??
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
And for Mr Jay: I really can't be bothered with you any further - you're forever calling me a liar, a poor argument in all respects, and a poor judgement call. You appear to hold some personal animus towards me - which seems strange, as you don't know me. I also think you have an unusual interest in laundry I can't say I share. Finally, to you - I refer you to an earlier post on 'conspiracy theor -ist/y' and its meaning. You can't see that you, by definition (and aren't definitions important?), are a conspiracy theorist. Apparently, you spend an inordinate amount of time theorizing about conspiracies, perceived or real. What does that make you? Answers on a postcard...
Sure, I'm a conspiracy theorist, too. I have a few theories about you, and some of them are right on the mark, which is why you are loathe to address most of my questions, and are now reduced to running away from me. You are frightened of me.

Which is sad, because I am real and you are just a bunch of bits on a page, a slithern who has something to hide and is afraid of what someone might find out.

Yes, I've seen your type plenty....you bear a strong resemblance to a few that have visited here recently and proved to be very dishonest. That is probably part of what you have to hide, and why you are not really being honest. I am being very honest
with you, and you can't hold up your end of the bargain. What else can you do, when dishonesty is compared to honesty it looks pretty bad, and so you put your tail between your legs and run.

We are all asking you to be straight with us, and you refuse to do so.

Go ahead, it's fun to watch you writhe and wriggle.
"I can't be bothered with you"- that's rich!
 

tryblinking

Senior Member.
Come on Lee. Either you want to discuss this topic to work towards a consensus based on evidence, or you want to run around in circles playing grab-ass. Which is it?

Tell us in one paragraph what you think is going on exactly. Then show the evidence which convinced you.

Discussion or grab-ass. Let's see which you choose.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I program computer games:
http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,14618/

And write articles above programming computer games:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/authors/1181/Mick_West.php

How about you?

Links and everything! I'll give you a literal/lateral clue: The table is made of Douglas Fir, which is about the cheapest wood available at Home Depot.

It's been a busy couple days, you missed me? Thought so.

Table came out nice - and you should consider yourself very lucky, if you're getting into woodworking, that Douglas fir is the cheapest! We call it BC pine and it's the joiner's favourite. It's straight, soft, durable and expensive; in the uk they make windows and doors with it - it's hard wood price here. Better news is that it's sustainable; fast growing and easy - it's lovely stuff.

Oh Mike...Don't you get it? I've been expressing what I wanted to express - and I've written a lot more words than you - so why can't you come to some idea of what I'm saying? You think that all I have said must be boiled down to 'a belief'? I think it's really obvious what I've said - you only need to read it to understand it. Why don't you have a look and then tell me what you think I said? Where do you live? Do you really not understand what I've said?

And good ole JayZ

Mate! Kinell! Good - we're all conspiracy theorists together. Welcome to the club. And that's as far as it goes. Come on mate - that's an (Camus will spin, but) existential outburst! You see, everything is reduced to philosophy.... Don't let it upset you. It's just a ride. You're consumed by my 'dishonesty', where there is none. I have been straight, like BC pine.

And Tryblinking:

I did, and it worked out ok. I'm not familiar with the game 'grab-ass', but sounds fun...whose ass am Isupposed to grab? Not yours, I hope - or maybe not?

Discussion or grab-ass. Let's see which you choose.

You sound like Shane: Pick up the gun...

Again, I've done a lot more exposing of what I think than you - read the words, you can't work out what I think?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
We've had a run of these undefinable wastrels lately. They seem interested in communication at first, but as interest grows they evaporate poof into vagueness. They are shadowy because they are hiding, they share too much in common for it all to be a coincidence, and I think they are not doing this for us, but for an audience. Whatever their game, they aren't playing it very well, and it is tiresome and basically worthless because they aren't interested in a real debate. They seem lonely in general, and if this is their normal behavior I can understand why. Maybe they need to get a life.....
 

tryblinking

Senior Member.
Me:
Tell us in one paragraph what you think is going on exactly. Then show the evidence which convinced you.
Lee:
I did, and it worked out ok.

Where? I've read all you've written, and no, you didn't. At no point have you simply stated the core belief, which all of your suggestions are aimed at supporting. By belief we aren't trying to be religious or philosophical. We just mean what you think is true.

Maybe try a word limit to focus your logical argument. This would also help you avoid your vice of straying into distractions concerning other users, before first establishing your position.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Me:
Lee:

Where? I've read all you've written, and no, you didn't. At no point have you simply stated the core belief, which all of your suggestions are aimed at supporting. By belief we aren't trying to be religious or philosophical. We just mean what you think is true.

Maybe try a word limit to focus your logical argument. This would also help you avoid your vice of straying into distractions concerning other users, before first establishing your position.

Thanks for the advice on how to communicate. You have read all I've written? But still have no idea what I'm saying? Here's a memory jog then...

post 59: ...it seems odd, to say the least, that this wouldn't be of the greatest interest to met people - it's their job and the silence is deafening. If, on perhaps a third to a half of the days of the year, the sky over one of the world's biggest cities is covered with aircraft emissions either partially or often in totality, then surely it is a major factor in determining temperatures, hours of sunlight etc. That would make absolute sense to any scientist. One has to consider all the factors available, not ignore what is an increasingly huge factor. That silence makes a case for some questions to be asked and answered.

post 62: Why am I persisting on met office and contrails? Let me spell it out again: the fact that a large contributing factor in the weather is ignored as a means of prediction by the people whose job it is to predict the weather. It's not a tricky equation. You make light of it, it's irrelevant - it doesn't count as evidence in your mind. There is a reason why it is not mentioned. You say it's because no-one is really bothered - and at the same time you argue they are bothered. Which is it? Bothered or not? Met people spend their lives being bothered about what makes clouds and when - why ignore this version when it is so prevalent? And it is very prevalent where I am.

post 64 from Mick on 'what I believe'): But basically you are saying that you think the public should care more about contrails. In your mind the fact that they do not is because of some kind of Orwellian mind-control. Where did I say that? Did you learn something from reading 1984? I can't find where I said that - but here's a quote from the man himself: In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

post 66:
Originally Posted by firepilot
Because contrails are not a large contributing factor to the weather. Could persistent contrails, which are in effect cirrus, have an effect on temperature. Possibly so. Are they a large contributing factor in weather? No, not at all.

Weather affects contrails, a lot more than contrails affect the weather.''




Where do you live? Because where I live the effect of aircraft emissions is a regular and large contributor to cloud cover. Actually, what you say is completely wrong where I come from.

post 76: Those whose job it is to understand and predict the weather should not ignore phenomena that are an increasingly big influence on exactly that. That would be unscientific. It is also true to say that the clouds made by aircraft are cirrus-like, but distinctions can be made and these man-made clouds should have a new nomenclature - have you seen them? Don't you think that's right?

post 76: Oh yes, and there is a very long history of govt agencies being told what to and what no to do, by govt. It's one reason why they're called govt agencies. A good example of an unpleasant incident ? The EPA was instructed by the executive at the time of 9/11 to obfuscate the air quality readings - so, as Giuliani told New Yorkers to, people could carry on shopping without worrying themselves about the vast amounts of asbestos dust floating about - a lot of dust, there was. So you see that it's not out of the realms of possibility - in fact it's likely - that govt agencies don't tell you the truth about what's best for you, often it's about what's best for them - I know it's very hard to believe for you.

post 76: Take away the aircraft and you take away the source of the clouds. This happens regularly and all methods of prediction, unreliable as they are, often do not support the reality of what is happening and this is plain to see.

post 79 from Jay:
Originally Posted by lee h oswald
In Russia, a sack of cement had gone through someone's roof. How? It was dropped from an aircraft accidentally when they were using cement dust to dry up too much moisture in the air, ie. to prevent precipitation.
Actually, I doubt that happened at all. Show us some evidence for that report, too. I refer you to post 80 by Mick, which verifies that it did. If only to show your judgement isn't quite there. And then this: You have gone full circle now, lee. You have used up the last resort of the "conspiracy theorist" you said you were not, and demonstrated for all to see that despite everythig else, that's what you really are. And where exactly did I say I was not a conspiracy theorist?

The problem with using the laundry list is that it expands the conspiracy to levels which are unsustainable, irrational, and frankly ridiculous.
Please show me what here is unsustainable, irrational and ridiculous.

... and some of them were EX-NAZI's, you say?
In Nasa? Yes, I did say, it's the truth - you think it's ok?

Yes, you have taken the red pill and have seen into the Matrix, you are sure of what is happening... Think about what you are saying, how ridiculous you are looking.
I see, but what is ridiculous? Which bit?

post 95 also Jay (I just had to include this one - a brilliant piece of paranoia!): We've had a run of these undefinable wastrels lately. They seem interested in communication at first, but as interest grows they evaporate poof into vagueness. They are shadowy because they are hiding, they share too much in common for it all to be a coincidence, and I think they are not doing this for us, but for an audience. Whatever their game, they aren't playing it very well, and it is tiresome and basically worthless because they aren't interested in a real debate. They seem lonely in general, and if this is their normal behavior I can understand why. Maybe they need to get a life.....
Maybe


There's just a smidge of what I've said. So, with all the brains supposedly at work here, who wants to be the first? What's so hard to understand?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Okay, so is this a fair summing up of what you are arguing here:

  • You think it's odd that contrails are not mentioned on weather forecasts
  • You think that this absence is evidence that the contrails are being deliberately created or enhanced (essentially "chemtrails")
?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Could you be more precise in how you think contrails affect the weather?

As far as I know, the only affect they have is an occasional and moderate increase in high cloud cover. This is mostly a cosmetic change.

Are you claiming there are significant changes to temperature, precipitation, and/or wind? Do you have evidence or examples?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Okay, so is this a fair summing up of what you are arguing here:

  • You think it's odd that contrails are not mentioned on weather forecasts
  • You think that this absence is evidence that the contrails are being deliberately created or enhanced (essentially "chemtrails")
?

I think that's not quite right. I think it's very odd that: 1) aircraft emissions, which regularly cause overcast skies, aren't included as a mention on the weather forecast, and/or 2) that a new nomenclature for these man-made clouds has not been introduced given the proliferation of the same.
The absence of this factor being considered appears unscientific. You suggest something of a 'non' reason for this absence: people aren't interested - I suggest that hardly any of the general population is interested in why any type of clouds form, but they are interested in if it's going to be cloudy or sunny. If you ignore something responsible for the manufacture of clouds, ie. aircraft, is that scientific? Do you think there should be a new nomenclature? Have you seen the clouds made by aircraft emissions? Have you seen them spread and cover the sky? Regularly?

And your next: Could you be more precise in how you think contrails affect the weather? I think I have, just above - and we're not talking about contrails per se, we're talking about that aircraft emissions are frequently causing cloud cover. If the difference between sunny and cloudy isn't among the most basic qualities of the weather...is that right?

As far as I know, the only affect they have is an occasional and moderate increase in high cloud cover. This is mostly a cosmetic change. Well, where I am it's regular and ranges from light to moderate to extreme. Cosmetic? If you think that then you're forgetting the 'global warming' debate argues about changes of 1-2 celcius being the difference between now and future 'extreme weather events' and all that. Haven't you heard? Cirrus has been studied a bit in respect of its radiation budget and the jury appears to be out. So I'd call it potentially significant rather than cosmetic.

Are you claiming there are significant changes to temperature, precipitation, and/or wind? Do you have evidence or examples? Ofcourse it's an impossible question to answer. And I'm sure you realise if you read it again. However, if you consider what 'significant' change is, as evidenced by the global warming debate, we're talking a degree or two to be significant.
The only examples of air traffic being suspended are during the aftermath of 9/11 and the Iceland volcano. I know that the data from after 9/11 showed a significant increase of temperature without aircraft as compared to the historical record and that temperature was subsequently reduced upon resumption of commercial flying. So there appears to be a correlation - don't you think? I haven't seen data on Iceland, so don't know about that.

At a slight angle: Why do you think that the IPCC don't include air travel in their carbon budget?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think that's not quite right. I think it's very odd that: 1) aircraft emissions, which regularly cause overcast skies, aren't included as a mention on the weather forecast, and/or 2) that a new nomenclature for these man-made clouds has not been introduced given the proliferation of the same.

I'm not sure what you are looking for with 2. There's a perfectly good existing nomenclature. Contrails are referred to as contrails, or if you want to fit it into the standard classification then the term cirrus aviaticus is generally accepted.

When contrails spread out into a cloud layer, then this is referred to as induced cirrus. Specifically aviation/jet/aircraft/contrail induced cirrus.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
At a slight angle: Why do you think that the IPCC don't include air travel in their carbon budget?

I'm not sure that they don't, but these agreements cover a nation's emissions, with each nation setting targets. Since much of the air travel takes place internationally, which nation bears the burden of accounting for the emissions? Take, for example Tahiti. Which nation bears the burden of tourist travel on flights to or from Tahiti? The country of origin, or Tahiti itself? I can imagine Tahiti would not wish to bear the burden which might be a large part of their per-capita usage, and want to shift it to a major consumer such as Japan, France, etc.

Of course, carbon dioxide isn't relevant to your complaint about contrails.

The IPCC did an extensive report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. Chemtrail believers might do well to study and understand it, but few ever have.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.htm
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I'm not sure what you are looking for with 2. There's a perfectly good existing nomenclature. Contrails are referred to as contrails, or if you want to fit it into the standard classification then the term cirrus aviaticus is generally accepted.

When contrails spread out into a cloud layer, then this is referred to as induced cirrus. Specifically aviation/jet/aircraft/contrail induced cirrus.

Well, I think the argument wears a little thin when one looks at the sources you've provided. The term cirrus aviaticus is not recognized by the WMO. It's certainly never been mentioned on my weather forecast - not to my knowledge. It's chucked into the mix on the wikipedia page you referenced - and that caviat is attached. I'm not sure that wikipedia is a reliable source - are you?
The bit about 'induced' cirrus appears to contradict something you said in a previous post regarding clouds created by aircraft - you said that those clouds would have formed irrespective of aircraft passing or not - so which is it? Would they have formed anyway, or are they 'induced'? It seems very vague - if you think about it, all clouds are 'induced' - namely by the conditions which are a pre-requisite of their formation, so that's a bit of a red herring, n'est pas?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I'm not sure that they don't, but these agreements cover a nation's emissions, with each nation setting targets. Since much of the air travel takes place internationally, which nation bears the burden of accounting for the emissions? Take, for example Tahiti. Which nation bears the burden of tourist travel on flights to or from Tahiti? The country of origin, or Tahiti itself? I can imagine Tahiti would not wish to bear the burden which might be a large part of their per-capita usage, and want to shift it to a major consumer such as Japan, France, etc.

Of course, carbon dioxide isn't relevant to your complaint about contrails.

The IPCC did an extensive report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. Chemtrail believers might do well to study and understand it, but few ever have.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.htm

I can assure you they don't. Don't you think it's a little non-sensical to have an org named International Panel on Climate Change, when they break down 'responsibility' into constituent countries? Last time I checked the problem was 'global', and the earth is round, and we all live on it. Surely a more holistic approach is required? It certainly makes a mockery of the whole idea if one of the major contributors is aviation and aviation is excluded from the deal.

Ofcourse you're right - carbon d isn't relevant to that discussion, but it's another example of how aviation is being 'sidelined', when it is clearly an issue. And again, I'm not talking about contrails per se, I'm talking about the regular cloud cover being created by aircraft emissions.

The IPCC report? Well, if I might apply the same argument which has been used to contradict some of my comments: Just because a report was written isn't evidence any action has been taken. In 1997 Teller et al came out with their 'sun-screen' report - when people cite this you guys are pretty quick to knock it back on the same grounds. So what's the difference? (personally, I think this does constitute 'evidence' - not proof, ofcourse. It shows that considerations are being made, ideas put forward; it's the first visible stage of any future 'action'. So I think it does constitute evidence).
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
cloud nomenclature

[h=1]New type of cloud found[/h] [h=2]An unusual type of storm cloud could become the first new variety of cloud to be officially identified in more than half a century.[/h]

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent

9:00PM BST 30 May 2009
Comment


Meteorologists believe they have discovered a new classification of cloud after the unique formation has been spotted in skies around the world.

Experts at the Royal Meteorological Society are now attempting to have the new cloud type, which has been named "Asperatus" after the Latin word for rough, officially added to the international nomenclature scheme used by forecasters to identify clouds.

If successful, it will be the first variety of cloud to be classified since 1953.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5411412/New-type-of-cloud-found.html

So, you can see that it's quite a big deal in met-world. First new cloud since 1953. Cirrus aviaticus ain't on the list. It's on wikipedia though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well, I think the argument wears a little thin when one looks at the sources you've provided. The term cirrus aviaticus is not recognized by the WMO. It's certainly never been mentioned on my weather forecast - not to my knowledge. It's chucked into the mix on the wikipedia page you referenced - and that caviat is attached. I'm not sure that wikipedia is a reliable source - are you?

Wikipedia generally quotes reliable sources.

But "cirrus aviaticus" is simply the latin translation of "aviation cirrus". The WMO calls contrails "contrails", as you'll find them called in any book on clouds. Documents on their site refer to "induced cirrus" for the resultant cirrus clouds, or simply "cirrus" where the context is obvious. Induced cirrus is not a new classification of cloud like asperatus.


The bit about 'induced' cirrus appears to contradict something you said in a previous post regarding clouds created by aircraft - you said that those clouds would have formed irrespective of aircraft passing or not - so which is it? Would they have formed anyway, or are they 'induced'? It seems very vague - if you think about it, all clouds are 'induced' - namely by the conditions which are a pre-requisite of their formation, so that's a bit of a red herring, n'est pas?

I said that frequently cloud cover would have formed. Not the exact same clouds.

So do you actually think this is all evidence of some grand conspiracy, or not? Because you seem to be just nit-picking about the weather forecast and the definition of words now.
 
L

l h oswald

Guest
not quite...

Wikipedia generally quotes reliable sources.

But "cirrus aviaticus" is simply the latin translation of "aviation cirrus". The WMO calls contrails "contrails", as you'll find them called in any book on clouds. Documents on their site refer to "induced cirrus" for the resultant cirrus clouds, or simply "cirrus" where the context is obvious. Induced cirrus is not a new classification of cloud like asperatus.




I said that frequently cloud cover would have formed. Not the exact same clouds.

So do you actually think this is all evidence of some grand conspiracy, or not? Because you seem to be just nit-picking about the weather forecast and the definition of words now.

...but also it's frequently cloud cover that would have formed anyway...is exactly what you said. I have an above average qualification in Latin, and have been using it for twenty eight years in relation to nomenclature. Your argument doesn't change the fact that cirrus aviaticus is not officially recognized.

Wikipedia? No comment.

I think you reducing my analysis to 'nit-picking' is a little cheap. I think what I've stated stands for itself. I think it amply demonstrates that your position isn't as straightforward as you like it to sound. On matters such as cirrus aviaticus - you've shown you have an ego in this and that you don't like to be wrong. And, you know, if the difference in a weather forecast is to be cloudy or sunny, I don't think that's nit-picking, I think that's basic.
Openness and discussion are required; what we have, in contrast, is silence. We are not talking about just words, we're talking about govt agencies and supposedly respectable orgs like the IPCC and meteorologists not talking about something which is clearly an issue. Don't you think they should talk about it?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Lee, it seems to me that you are devoting a lot of windage here against the WMO, IPCC and your Met office where we aren't in a position to do much about it. What do you propose as a solution to your complaint, or are we gong to have to watch you endlessly prattle on?

Cirrus aviaticus has been in the chemmie lexicon for over a decade:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000166.html

lee said:
I can assure you they don't.
I dont give a damn about any assurances from you. If they don't then prove to me that they don't.
lee said:
Don't you think it's a little non-sensical to have an org named International Panel on Climate Change, when they break down 'responsibility' into constituent countries?
Actually, I think the whole idea of an IPCC is a joke.
lee said:
Last time I checked the problem was 'global', and the earth is round, and we all live on it. Surely a more holistic approach is required?
The earth is spherical.
The holistic approach would be a loss of soveriegnty for the nations involved. Government in and of itself is an evil thing. The less we can have of it the better. Big government makes big mistakes. Supranational government would be the ultimate big mistake along the scale of evil control mechanisms.

Yes, lee is a nitpicker wastrel. Aviaticus(also abiaticus) is also a grandson of the male line in legal terminology.
 

tryblinking

Senior Member.
When we say induced cloud cover, think about induced labour. It would have happened naturally at a later date, but conditions were created locally which triggered it early.
To this end, there is no point telling the public there will be contrails associated with an approaching warm front, as the cirrus layers will form naturally anyway, if an hour or so later.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Contrails are thought to increase the total amount of cloud cover though. But if it's overcast in the morning, it's not always clear if the contrails in the morning were entirely, partly, or even at all responsible.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Oh Mike...Don't you get it? I've been expressing what I wanted to express - and I've written a lot more words than you - so why can't you come to some idea of what I'm saying? You think that all I have said must be boiled down to 'a belief'? I think it's really obvious what I've said - you only need to read it to understand it. Why don't you have a look and then tell me what you think I said? Where do you live? Do you really not understand what I've said?

no - I don't get it - how come you don't get that I dont' get it? I wrote that I don't get it in few words so it would be simple to understand too.

However I got your answer to Mick about lack of nomenclature and aircraft emissions - soo - that's all it took, a nice simple statement.

On the emissions front, emissions from other sources - cars, industry - sometimes make "weather" forecasts around the world when they contribute to smog - IMO a/c emissions are not anywhere close to the same level of interference with humanity as is generally required for this to hapen.

You may think it is suspicious - I think it is simply insufficient unless you also think of it in terms of being some sort of conspircay - in which case IMO you are interested in propounding the conspiracy theory.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Lee, it seems to me that you are devoting a lot of windage here against the WMO, IPCC and your Met office where we aren't in a position to do much about it. What do you propose as a solution to your complaint, or are we gong to have to watch you endlessly prattle on?

Cirrus aviaticus has been in the chemmie lexicon for over a decade:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000166.html


I dont give a damn about any assurances from you. If they don't then prove to me that they don't.

Actually, I think the whole idea of an IPCC is a joke.

The earth is spherical.
The holistic approach would be a loss of soveriegnty for the nations involved. Government in and of itself is an evil thing. The less we can have of it the better. Big government makes big mistakes. Supranational government would be the ultimate big mistake along the scale of evil control mechanisms.

Yes, lee is a nitpicker wastrel. Aviaticus(also abiaticus) is also a grandson of the male line in legal terminology.


'...it seems to me...' Windage? Not really, it's only come up in the last few posts. What do I propose? Why would you give a damn what I propose? Can you read?

'Cirrus aviaticus has been in the chemmie lexicon' Four questions: Yeah? And? So? What?

'I dont give a damn about any assurances from you. If they don't then prove to me that they don't.'
Assurances? It's a quite er, 'well known', er... fact. Look it up and post evidence to the contrary if I'm as wrong as I usually am - aren't you the one who didn't believe that Nasa employs Nazis? Oh yeah, it's you.

'The earth is spherical.' Yes

'The holistic approach would be a loss of soveriegnty for the nations' You worry about 'Sovereignty of nations' (whatever they are) in the context of us all choking to death on CO2? That's terminally stupid, literally. Which 'nation' is yours? The US? Founded on what exactly was that? Not genocide per chance? (there's a lot of it about - have you heard?) 12 million indigenous people killed, who never had a belief in 'ownership' or 'sovereignty', and all to proclaim 'sovereignty', oh, and make a profit - fuckin piracy, I'd say.

'Government in and of itself is an evil thing' Interesting appraisal.

'...big mistake along the scale of evil control mechanisms.' Uh huh.

'Yes, lee is a nitpicker wastrel.' I reckon you fancy Sarah Palin. Fancy a cuppa tea?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
When we say induced cloud cover, think about induced labour. It would have happened naturally at a later date, but conditions were created locally which triggered it early.
To this end, there is no point telling the public there will be contrails associated with an approaching warm front, as the cirrus layers will form naturally anyway, if an hour or so later.

That's very nice.

To this end, there is no point telling the public there will be contrails associated with an approaching warm front, as the cirrus layers will form naturally anyway, if an hour or so later.

Funny, I thought I mentioned that I wasn't talking about contrails per se; I was talking about how aircraft emissons form cloud cover regularly. And: If the wind is blowing at 20knts and gusting at 36, and these clouds you say will exist anyway but later, actually do form 'an hour or so later', then how far is that away? I would suggest that met people knowing the air conditions, that aircraft will inevitably be flying, therefore likehood of cloud cover building throughout the day might not be a bad forecasting assumption; why ignore a constant possibility of induction in the atmosphere: air traffic?
I repeat: all clouds are induced; namely, by the conditions required for their production - it's a truism.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Contrails are thought to increase the total amount of cloud cover though. But if it's overcast in the morning, it's not always clear if the contrails in the morning were entirely, partly, or even at all responsible.

Don't you have mornings when you go out early, dawnish, and look up and all you can see (in the way of 'cloud' cover) is the obvious result of earlier aircraft emissions?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Don't you have mornings when you go out early, dawnish, and look up and all you can see (in the way of 'cloud' cover) is the obvious result of earlier aircraft emissions?

No, not really. But that's probably geographical. Quite often we have fog in the morning here.

Regarding wind at 20 knots, remember the winds at 30,000+ feet are usually a lot faster. Around 80+ mph here, for example. Here's a US site that shows this simply, I don't know of a similar UK site.

http://www.usairnet.com/cgi-bin/Winds/Aloft.cgi?location=SAN&Submit=Get+Forecast&hour=06&course=azimuth

L
ooks like we'll be getting some good contrails soon. I saw some today, but there's weather moving in. Expect outcry.

See forecast:

http://www-angler.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/site/showdoc?docid=33&cmd=latest
 

Related Articles

Top