Well it's pretty dramatic! From 2 or 3 floors up, none or very little of the hot water reaches the ground. It has all evaporated, I suppose.
Notice that it is very cold and that it's ice foggy.
Why not just bring the boiling kettle out to the balcony on an extension cord, and watch the plume of steam -> ice cloud trail off into the distance in the light breeze?
Yes, this is a simulation of what we are talking about... in some conditions a plume of water vapor does not dissipate.
Not sure if this one was already mentioned earlier, but somebody gave me a link. It is called "Cloud Studies 1905 and 1925":
https://plus.google.com/photos/107393796095434664991/albums/5236028370090070321
Thought that this may help to convey an idea of the amount of air traffic that occurs, as well as to explain to some folks why they might be seeing all those contrails. Not sure if this animation is supposed to represent all traffic, or just commercial air traffic. (On a totally unrelated note... the other maps they have may also be worth a gander)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jeremybender/maps-that-are-missing-from-your-life
20. And here is the current depiction of air traffic over a 24-hour period.
View attachment 4339
I can probably produce something like that at work (although it will be model data of course)It would be interesting to see one of these with winds at typical contrail altitude - say 34000 ft 250 hPa.
I can probably produce something like that at work (although it will be model data of course)
Away on a course next week, I'll have a go the week after
Ahh.. slightly more complex.. I can do a static image of streamlines quite easily. Would have to check their data format to see if I can repurpose our data into their format. In my previous career I did a lot of computer coding and data manipulation so I might be able to manage itThe actual maps is animated and zoomable. Quite impressive. If we could munge something into the same data format as wind-data.js, then we could re-purpose their code to do the animation at different altitudes.
I made a video, showing my recent book purchases, documenting cloud types, in the
often mistaken relationship of "chemtrails and HAARP" ("scalar wave clouds").
In one book, there's also a small section on condensation trails (1957)
Chemtrail Scalar Clouds Not True
Here are actually two artificial images I made some years ago showing the visual difference between a plane at 8000 and 30 000 feet, seen from 180 centimetres above the ground. I think they were made as an experiment when discussing whether planes could be seen on really high altitudes or not.
The images are baser upon two factors, the resolution of the eye, which is estimated to be around 500 megapixel, which means 24k pixels when squared, and the effective human field of vision, which is roughly 120 degrees.
The artificial images show the result. I don't know how accurate they really are, but they seem to match pretty much what really high flying planes really looks like, barely visible.
I'd love if someone with more experience could say how much they resemble a real situation.
The problem with those images it that, unless you put your face one inch from the monitor, they don't represent the human field of vision. On my monitor at normal view distance it's about 30 degrees.
No, the borders of the images are representing the complete 120 degree field of vision, like if those images were the only thing you'd see. They are not supposed to emulate a real situation by including the distance from your eyes to the computer screen, because like you say, the distance from your eyes and screen size vary, and the image won't fill up your entire field of vision. Think of it more like the only picture you'd see in a real situation. That was the purpose of those images.
I made a video, showing my recent book purchases, documenting cloud types, in the
often mistaken relationship of "chemtrails and HAARP" ("scalar wave clouds").
In one book, there's also a small section on condensation trails (1957)
Chemtrail Scalar Clouds Not True
External Quote:A small wind shear can draw out a contrail into an almost horizontal sheet of cloud [no. 70]. In this picture, the right hand trail is a few minutes older than the other and has been extended more. Some- times several trails drawn out in this way cover most of the sky with cirrus. If the trails are very persistent the clear air must be saturated for ice.
Thanks, I'd got a bunch a few years ago on contrailscience.com, but some of those are new to me. Google much be scanning new Newspapers all the time.
But, as Max did... they just adapt their theory to encompass the new info and ignore that it proves the debunkers right and previous claims about chemtrails wrong.Yes, the ones on contrail science gave me the idea to search myself. Yup, I gather they are scanning new papers as they get them. They are a fascinating read and obviously completely debunk the "sky wasnt like this when I was young" theory.
But, as Max did... they just adapt their theory to encompass the new info and ignore that it proves the debunkers right and previous claims about chemtrails wrong.
Yes. Tanner has been saying that for a while now- that short(or non-existent?) trails are chemtrails too. They don't seem to care about contradictions in their story or that it changes.Yup, their theory has to constantly evolve to cope with the ever mounting evidence against it. Incidentally, I was just listening to him in an interview posted on this forum, and he is saying that we didn't have these trails until a couple of decades ago. So, his story changes depending on who he's talking to.
The latest theory from Tanner is that they now have invisible chemtrails, so even the clearest blue skies can be just as deadly. So now, they don't even require visible evidence.
Yup, their theory has to constantly evolve to cope with the ever mounting evidence against it. Incidentally, I was just listening to him in an interview posted on this forum, and he is saying that we didn't have these trails until a couple of decades ago. So, his story changes depending on who he's talking to.
The latest theory from Tanner is that they now have invisible chemtrails, so even the clearest blue skies can be just as deadly. So now, they don't even require visible evidence.