[SCI] NASA Wants You to Report Contrails

[Senses On]

[ Fair Use: For Educational / Research / Discussion Purposes Only ]

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/SCOOL/contrails.html

S'COOL: Observing Contrails

Contrails are clouds formed around the small particles (aerosols) which are in aircraft exhaust. When these persist after the passage of the plane they are of great interest to researchers. Under the right conditions, clouds initiated by passing aircraft can spread with time to cover the whole sky. See an article by CERES researcher Dr. Pat Minnis.

Contrails are human-induced clouds that only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40°C). If the air is very dry, they do not form behind the plane. If the air is somewhat moist, a contrail will form immediately behind the aircraft and make a bright white line that lasts for a short while. Persistent contrails form immediately behind the airplane in very moist air. These long-lived contrails will usually grow wider and fuzzier as time passes. Sometimes they will actually take on the characteristics of a natural cirrus cloud and no longer look like contrails after only a half hour or so. Persistent contrails can exist long after the airplane that made them has left the area. They can last for a few minutes or longer than a day. However, because they form at high altitudes where the winds are usually very strong, they will move away from the area where they were born. Often, when we look up into the sky, we will see old persistent contrails that formed far away but moved overhead because of the wind. An example of several very persistent contrails is shown in the S'COOL cloud chart. Persistent contrails are those most likely to affect climate.



NASA could use more data on contrails. Thus, when cloud amount is estimated, it would be good to know:

1. Is it possible to see contrails? That is, can the high altitudes be seen from the surface, or are there too many low clouds in the way?
2. If it is possible to view upper levels of the atmosphere, are contrails seen?
3. If contrails are seen, are they persistent or short-lived?
4. If persistent, how many were seen?
5. If persistent, were natural-looking cirrus clouds also in the sky?
6. If persistent and possible, how much of the sky contained contrails?

These observational details can be reported in the comments section of the S'COOL report form. However, we do now ask for a count of the number of short- lived and persistent contrails visible during every observation.

This information, if taken regularly, will help us learn where and how often contrails occur. By matching the surface observations with the satellite data, we will then know if we are using the satellite data correctly to identify contrails and determine how they affect climate.


S'COOL What to Observe Report Form Glossary

Here’s their pic. I won’t bother with their line drawings of short-lived and persistent contrails.

Now, don't everyone report all at once.

 

[michaelteever]

Senses On,

Wonder why they won't pronounce it correctly..

After all, they showed a very nice picture of chemtrails.

Some type of disinformation going on, I would guess.

Michael

 

[Gr8DaneDood]

Somewhere at work, there's an old (like 2 year old) magazine (prolly in the "necessary room" :lol) with an article about NASA doing studies of contrails, and their effects on cloud formation. (I think it was Aviation Week?)

I'll see if I can find it, but I think the research was being done at Langley (?) Interesting find, SO.

 

[Cascadians]

Check out Pliny's thread:

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22052
[unex] chemtrails drying up rainfall

UPI Science article in there:

Pollution drying up rainfall

Yep. What we done been saying since our eyeballs saw the drying effect.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist ...

 

[Senses On]

UNCLE SAM NEEDS YOU!

Technology isn't enough. They need eyewitnesses. Dates, times, places, quantities -- please!

ROFLOL

 

[Delta]

Don't you suppose they really just want to know who's looking?

 

[pliny the younger]

Delta is correct. This NASA study is a front. What they really want to know is
1) how large of a percentage of the general public now has chemtrail awareness?
2) how many of that segment (#1) can be induced to respond?
3) how detailed are their observations? (this is also tactical info).
4) where are the centers of awareness? This is need to know as they have programs capable of calculating the 'spread' of things like knowledge, disease, et cetera.
5) it also provides a database of ? other strategic info based on who reports and which specific words are being used in the report. Sort of like a database for profiling other info. My friend at the think thank across the bay does this all the time. They build lexicons for validating all kinds of things, even for knowledge consistency for debriefings.

 

[deja]

Heh, heh, heh, yea Delta, just what I thought. And who is making the stink about them.

 

[Senses On]

The “scientific” reporting form is really interesting.

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/SCOOL/forme-ol.html

I don't know how to copy it here. I printed it out and tried to scan it, but it was too many generations away to be legible.

When you go to the main link listed in the first post, there is an icon at the bottom and a link that says Report Form. I got the impression that this was some kind of a “school program,” but it offers the form in four languages.

The “printable version” link is the one I’ve shown here.

Strange how contrails didn’t turn the whole sky white until a few years ago. Soooo much more air traffic.

 

[LibertyWeeps]

Do you think NOAA has had a change of heart too?!?


Message 79376 from CTUSA
DO NOT FEAR CONTRAILS. rfc634 (43/M) 12/21/01

These are naturally occuring trails left by passing aircraft. You people spend altogether too much time looking at the sky. I'm going to ask you people to keep your eyes cast downward. The airspace above our heads is none of our business. Everything we need can be found at or below eye level.

Unless you are a meteorologist or an aerospace engineer, you will draw suspicion to yourself with your blatant and obvious sky watching.

I have examined satellite imagery and I have seen many of you people looking up. Some I recognize as being members of this club. While I wish none of you any harm, there are those in Government who are not as benign as myself. Moral of the story: try not to appear in these photos.

Here's some advice, if you see aircraft dispersing some sort of liquid or you smell a peculiar odor or perhaps to observe yellow droplets adhereing to your skin, it's nothing to worry about and it certainly does not merit a posting on the Internet.
Thank You,
Glen Harris
NOAA

Funny fellow, huh?:sb:

 

[5 gallon bucket]

Ya think they may want the reports so they can make them less obvious?

 

[Sassyone]

Wouldn't it be a whole lot more accurate if they just studied the flight plans of the happy assholes they pay to put them up there?

Jeeeezzzzzz

Sassy

Have had 20-30 mph W. Texas winds the last two days, not even the fly boys can compete with them. No sooner had dropped to 5-10 mph a couple of hours of go they were up there with a vengence. Being bombarded as I post.
I hate these people.

 

[Senses On]

Wouldn't it be a whole lot more accurate if they just studied the flight plans of the happy assholes they pay to put them up there?

From the observation questions above:

6. If persistent and possible, how much of the sky contained contrails?

What the hell does that mean? If persistent and possible ?

 

[teefleur]

I noted that the "SCOOL" NASA web site is for students and teachers... Any teachers among us willing to participate?

 

[Flint]

SO:

If the sky is overcast to begin with, it's not possible to tell how much of the clouds are contrails, and how much isn't.

 

[Senses On]

Flint,

Then these guys should go to ’SCOOL for an English refresher. As it stands the sentence is unintelligible.

What does the clause “If persistent and possible” apply to? Whatever it is both the adjectives should apply to the same thing.

Properly constructed, the sentence you suggest would say:

“If contrails were persistent, and it was possible for you to determine, how much of the sky contained them?”

Don't you find it just a tad bit interesting that NASA is looking for all of this data which has only to do with observation of the sky, and ground readings of wind, humidity, temperature and the wet/dry status of the ground?

 

[mutter]

ole` NASA-clause making a 'list' of whose been naughty and whose been nice.....:sb:

[someone pass me the red pill]

 

[Lurkess]

They're trying to make lemonade out of their lemons...

Good catch, SensesOn!

What a bunch of a**holes!

Think both Pliny and Mutter said it all. I agree 200%!

Lurkess

 

[LibertyWeeps]

Mornin' Flint, those of us that are aware of Chemtrails can tell the difference.

 

[Flint]

SO:

While NASA isn't completely unambiguous, I find them a lot less ambiguous than you seem to.

First, I think the context of NASA's six questions clarifies the meaning of "possible." The use of "possible" was in questions #1 and #2, which asked if it were possible to see the contrails or if they were obscured by low clouds, and possible to see contrails when no low clouds are present. The questions then asked about the persistence of the visible contrails. Finally, the questions combined the persistent (clearly referenced back to questions 3-5) and the possible (from questions 1-2) all at once. The progression wasn't at all difficult to parse out, and the antecedents are very obvious.

But I'll grant they might have been more verbose, and said "If it's possible to see contrails (see questions 1 and 2), and if those you see are persistent (see questions 3-5), how much of the sky did they cover?" But for most people, that's probably redundant. After all, these are short questions, so by the time you reach question 6, questions 1-5 ought to be somewhat fresh in your mind, if you've been paying attention.

Second, NASA says they are trying to relate what satellites say to ground observation. To me, this implies that NASA believes persistent contrails are a function of atmospheric conditions, but haven't mapped that function to their satisfaction. In order to improve this mapping, they need detailed contrail observations, and lots of them. With a few million data points -- size of contrail, extent of cloud cover, persistence of contrail, time of day, location of observation -- they can start to determine both how much each factor contributes to contrails, and whether there are additional important factors the satellites are not designed to observe.

I see nothing about "ground readings" per se, but rather "surface observations" of contrails. Again, my parsing of the context (the first 90% of the site) is that "surface observations" consist of people looking up and taking notes of the nature of any contrails they see. Where did you find anything about "ground readings of wind, humidity, temperature and the wet/dry status of the ground?" I searched both this thread and your link, and the ONLY mention of any of these things I found is in your post questioning NASA's reasons for looking for data only you mention and NASA does not. And I definitely find THAT a "tad bit interesting"!

 

[Flint]

LibertyWeeps:

You might be interested in the story of N-rays. A Frechman claimed to have discovered them, through the use of a special prism he made. They were very subtle (but after all, EVERY new form of radiation is first barely detected, and by accident. We don't have the equipment to measure what we haven't yet discovered).

So an American scientist went to France to observe the experimental methods. While nobody was looking, he removed the special prism from the experimental apparatus. And sure enough, the French scientists' ability to "observe" their N-rays was not diminished in the slightest!

And the moral is exactly the one you draw -- that those with special knowledge and sensitivities CAN tell the difference. Whether there is one or not.

 

[expose']

Nasa want's us to report chemtrails?

Kinda reminds me of those signs on the back of delivery trucks
that say;

Hows my driving? Call 555 5555 to report dangerous
driving!!

 

[teefleur]

From the SCOOL site, under the link entitled What to Observe...

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/SCOOL/whatobs.html

Quote

Ground Observations
We also ask for some information about the surface conditions where you made the observation: temperature, pressure, relative humidity, and surface cover. Helpful sites with information on units and conversions for these measurements can be found at http://www.srh.noaaa.gov/elp/wxcalc/wxcalc.html or http://www.speckdesign.com/Tools2a.html.

Unquote

 

[FireStarted]

Reguardless of their motives for asking this.....it does mean something.

There is a difference between normal contrails and "persistant" con/chemtrails. At least the folks at NASA will admit that much.

And they want to know how it effects the <i>climate</i>.


So we're not kooks after all

~FireStarted~

 

[Senses On]

Flint you said to and about me:

I see nothing about "ground readings" per se, but rather "surface observations" of contrails. Again, my parsing of the context (the first 90% of the site) is that "surface observations" consist of people looking up and taking notes of the nature of any contrails they see. Where did you find anything about "ground readings of wind, humidity, temperature and the wet/dry status of the ground?" I searched both this thread and your link, and the ONLY mention of any of these things I found is in your post questioning NASA's reasons for looking for data only you mention and NASA does not. And I definitely find THAT a "tad bit interesting"!

Please see teefleur’s response a couple posts up. Then also follow the link supplied to the report form and look at the very bottom and you will find locations to enter all this information.

Then come back, admit you were wrong and apologize.

 

[bigwavedave]

ooh, baby, have i got one to report!

i was out on my bike, cruising to get some smokes in this oppressive 75 degree weather, when what should appear? the biggest, grandest, most spectacular c_trail i've ever seen! (we've had persistent stuff all day, btw; no cirrus, just trails). flew back to get the camera. got a few good ones i think, but it was pretty much right into the sun. we'll see.

this wasn't your usual c_trail by any stretch, however. nope, this one was a couple miles offshore heading north to south. now, get this - the pilot did a huge and complete loop and headed directly back the way he came, the same flight path!

how to explain - the pilot was lost and figured it out; the plane has been hijacked; there was a security issue at its departure airport and was called back; there was some sort of problem at the arrival airport and was sent back; we are being intentionally sprayed; we are being sprayed by hijackers; the pilot is hotdogging with a commercial jet.

so i looked in the news, nothing yet. odd that this far south he didn't just go on to LAX . . .

several people noticed this trail (couldn't miss it) and commented.

yep, i think the believers may have taken over. trails are now mainstream. i don't know what is scarier - that we are being sprayed or that people believe it when we aren't and there are lots of those people.

 

[Mountain Mike]

SO,

When you say, "...come back, admit you were wrong and apologize" do you really expect an answer? THAT will be the day!

 

[Flint]

teefleur was right. I was wrong. My apologies to Senses On, who raised a good point that I missed.

My best speculation is that NASA people, like all engineers, operate on the philosophy that there's no such thing as too much data. Easier to weed out what turns out to be useless, than not to have what you didn't realize you should have collected at the time.

 

[blackmo]

There is a difference between normal contrails and "persistant" con/chemtrails. At least the folks at NASA will admit that much.

Research in the area of persistant contrails has been going on in the U.S. since the end of WWII (prior to widespread use of jet engines, too, which I found odd). Project SUCCESS, which was conducted in the midwest in the late 90's is the most recent one. I could dig up some links to the older post WWII studies I've come across, complete with pics and pilot testamonials if any one is interested, and if I thought it would do anyone any good, but I suspect that no one is seriously interested.

 

[Mountain Mike]

My, my Flint you are full of surprises! Now I have to admit I was wrong about you!

 

[Flint]

MM:

You can't correct an error unless you can admit you made one. There are a LOT of ways I don't exactly fit the mold around here...

 

[Senses On]

Blackmo,

When I first started researching contrails, the ONLY references I could find to any kind of lingering contrails was that recently it had been noticed that a very few cirrus-type clouds occasionally formed in particulary busy air corridors near airports. The explanation was that the air became saturated from the heavy volume of traffic in the same air space.

It was also explained that contrails can form off the wing tips of planes. You will notice that NASA's page makes no mention of that.

 

[Senses On]

Flint,

Thank you for stepping up to the plate. Apology accepted.

I found it interesting that they were asking about ground moisture issues because I have observed an apparent “drying” of the environment in conjunction with “persistent contrails.” I have also noticed that the weatherman will forecast sunny days with rain to follow, the trails appear, and the rain never comes to pass. In light of the multiple patents for chemicals (and polymers) to aborb ambient moisture and prevent rain, I think it is “possible” that such patented processes are being used to manipulate weather. No, I can't prove it. But this NASA site does invite more questions.

Our northeastern drought parallels the time frame of when the persistent trails started and became a 4-5 day a week phenomenon. The same is true for the Pacific northwest.

Yes, I know. We've had droughts in the past. I’m not claiming a direct correlation, just an observation.

 

[Flint]

SO:

I'm quite sure that attempts to influence the weather are made occasionally, and that there are studies of cloud seeding both to increase and to decrease rainfall. I'm certainly not claiming that no spraying of the sky is ever done.

However, at least to me, that's a very different beast from what I understand is being alleged with chemtrails. For one thing, those other efforts are well documented. If we're interested, I believe we can find details like schedules, composition of the aerosols, intent of the spraying, studies of the results, the whole kaboodle.

Next, my understanding of weather forecasting is that it is very inexact (as we can all attest, right?). A great deal of it consists of straight pattern-matching. Stick in all the relevant variables -- types and motions of fronts, expected behavior of the jet stream, all the usual pressure, temperature, humidity readings, and so on ad nauseum. These are all plugged into a giant weather database, and out squirts the weather that immediately followed when essentially similar conditions prevailed in the past.

So let's say it rained half the time. We get a 50% chance of rain predicted, and so on. But IF persistent contrails require very moist high-level air, this might indicate conditions sufficiently suitable for rain, that it happened half the time. The other half, we get the contrails but not the rain.

What strikes me is that, given our digging into contrails as much as we have, we've learned that persistent contrails are still somewhat of a mystery to everyone. The exact mechanism seems unknown, yet the phenomenon can be important because it does influence the insolation onto the ground, and hence the planet's albedo. And THESE things are critical to weather formation.

Now, I suppose that people at NASA, EPA, and meteorologists in general would just *love* it if we could discover that, unbeknownst to all of them, there was some truly massive, bogglingly expensive, dumbfoundingly visible but *secret* program causing persistent contrails (or a great muchness of them) all along. Our weather theorists could do a collective head-slap, we could have a cathartic public outcry, and hang the bastards. Oh the glory of it all.

But I suspect we're seeing something entirely inadvertent and nearly unexpected, over which we'd like to have more control.

 

[teefleur]

SO, you said

"I have observed an apparent “drying” of the environment in conjunction with “persistent contrails.” I have also noticed that the weatherman will forecast sunny days with rain to follow, the trails appear, and the rain never comes to pass. In light of the multiple patents for chemicals (and polymers) to aborb ambient moisture and prevent rain, I think it is “possible” that such patented processes are being used to manipulate weather."

I have observed the EXACT same thing. On summer days when we normally have our "afternoon and evening thundershowers" here in the swamp, the rain clouds are there - and up above, one can see the spreading trails. In a matter of MINUTES, the thunderheads are GONE. They dissipate before your very eyes.

I do believe our weather is being manipulated. Quite a useful tool, wouldn't you think?

 

[blackmo]

Blackmo,

When I first started researching contrails, the ONLY references I could find to any kind of lingering contrails was that recently it had been noticed that a very few cirrus-type clouds occasionally formed in particulary busy air corridors near airports. The explanation was that the air became saturated from the heavy volume of traffic in the same air space.

It was also explained that contrails can form off the wing tips of planes. You will notice that NASA's page makes no mention of that.

SO-
As far as the contrails forming off the wing tips of planes, you can see that at just about any airshow. As for the rest of the information I refer to, I'd be surprised if most of it is NOT available from any public library with published dates going back to 1946-47. What I'm not certain of is whether or not these studies of persistant contrails have anything to do with what people refer to as chemtrails. There may actually be three different things that we're seeing here, contrails, persistant contrails and chem spraying. I've definitely seen the first two, both in RL and pics on the web, as for the third, I used to be a skeptic but I'm leaning heavily towards the reality of them based on some personal observations post 9-11. What I don't believe is the attitude some have(not necessarily you!) that anyone who questions the reality of chemspraying is a disinformation agent. Some just want more evidence. My opinion. YMMV

 

[blackmo]

Thanks for being such a fast typist, Flint....now it looks like I'm parroting you.

 

[bigwavedave]

i believe the evidence is already in on thin layers of cloud cover resulting in greater heating in the lower atmosphere due to reflective light.

but i thought 'chemtrails' were a bit more specific? a substance sprayed on an unsuspecting public to do this and such. thus, my interest on the more exact definition of 'chemtrail'.

if we are to settle on heating as the end result, well, no qualm. one good chemtrail is as good as the next contrail. but to intentionally change earth environment? got some work to do there.