JazzRoc versus “Chemtrails”

Contrail Facts and “Chemtrail” Fictions

Posts Tagged ‘steam

Trails Seen from Space

with 5 comments

PAGE CONTENTS

ATLANTIC OCEAN – MID-EUROPE – THE CROW INSTABILITY – MORE ABOUT VORTICES – THE 9-11 VORTEX – THE “THIRD” TRAIL – SUPERSATURATION – “GAPS” – FUEL VENTS – AIRBUS 340 RTO BRAKE TEST

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…

ATLANTIC OCEAN

atlanticsat

A monochrome view of the North Atlantic Ocean by AtlanticSat shows Greenland, Iceland, the British Isles, and part of Norway. Prominent in the photo is a north-south ridge of high pressure, with cold dry air to the west, and warmer wetter air to the east. Aircraft approaching or leaving this ridge have struck permanent contrail conditions on its west side. The trails are at even intervals which suggest there are only TWO great-circle routes involved (London-New York and London LAX) with regular flights from each. The stratosphere (where the trails are) is obviously moving north-to-south.
The trails peter out approaching or leaving the British Isles, where the wetter conditons don’t obtain (for a change).
Chemtrailers must ask themselves why the pilots’ aim was so poor…

MID-EUROPE

mid-europe

Here we are centered roughly over Hamburg; Copenhagen is right center top and the Baltic Sea further to the right. We are looking at a “triangle” of air travel activity between Kiel (center top), Berlin (bottom right) and the Rhineland (bottom left).
You can see evidence that the stratosphere is sliding along at possibly 100kph from the northwest – maybe!

THE CROW INSTABILITY

TRAIL 5

I originally thought these were local control surface vortices, but I have been better advised since, by Jay Reynolds. Thanks, Jay!

MORE ABOUT VORTICES

The Crow instability is a vortex pair instability, and typically goes through several stages:
– A pair of counter rotating vortices act upon each other to amplify small sinusoidal distortions in their vortex shapes (Normally created by some initial disturbance in the system).
– The waves develop into either symmetric or anti-symmetric modes, depending on the nature of the initial disturbance.
– These distortions grow, both through interaction from one vortex on another, and also ‘Self Induction’ of a vortex with itself. This leads to an exponential growth in the vortex wave amplitude.
– The vortex amplitudes reach a critical value and reconnect, forming a chain of vortex rings.

Initially the vortex pair falls rapidly downward. Perturbations of the vortices from the ambient atmosphere grow in a sinusoidal mutual inductance instability (the Crow instability). Eventually the vortices touch, reconnect and form vortex rings which oscillate, interact with themselves and the atmospheric turbulence and stratification, and finally dissolve. During their lifetime the rings continue to drop, giving rise to the periodic series of puffs often seen in contrail evolution.
These are spin-stabilized and follow the deflected air and take a while to spin to a stop. Ice is precipitated out of the -40 deg C water vapor in the vortex vacua. Altogether an intriguing visual phenomenon!
http://www.cerfacs.fr/cfd/wake_vortex_26.php is a useful reference…

And this low-quality video reveals…

And this high-quality video shows how far our understanding has progressed…

# A vortex (plural: vortices) is a spinning, often turbulent, flow of fluid.  Any spiral motion with closed streamlines is vortex flow. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortices

Vortices display some special properties:
* The fluid pressure in a vortex is lowest in the center (where the speed is greatest) and rises progressively with distance from the center. This is in accordance with Bernoulli’s Principle. The core of a vortex in air is sometimes visible because of a plume of water vapor caused by condensation in the low pressure of the core. The spout of a tornado is a classic and frightening example of the visible core of a vortex. A dust devil is also the core of a vortex, made visible by the dust drawn upwards by the turbulent flow of air from ground level into the low pressure core.

* The core of every vortex can be considered to contain a vortex line, and every particle in the vortex can be considered to be circulating around the vortex line. Vortex lines can start and end at the boundary of the fluid or form closed loops. They cannot start or end in the fluid. (See Helmholtz’s theorems.) Vortices readily deflect and attach themselves to a solid surface. For example, a vortex usually forms ahead of the propeller disk or jet engine of a slow-moving airplane. One end of the vortex line is attached to the propeller disk or jet engine, but when the airplane is taxiing the other end of the vortex line readily attaches itself to the ground rather than end in midair. The vortex can suck water and small stones into the core and then into the propeller disk or jet engine.

* Two or more vortices that are approximately parallel and circulating in the same direction will merge to form a single vortex. The circulation of the merged vortex will equal the sum of the circulations of the constituent vortices. For example, a sheet of small vortices flows from the trailing edge of the wing or propeller of an airplane when the wing is developing lift or the propeller is developing thrust. In less than one wing chord downstream of the trailing edge of the wing these small vortices merge to form a single vortex. If viewed from the tail of the airplane, looking forward in the direction of flight, there is one wingtip vortex trailing from the left-hand wing and circulating clockwise, and another wingtip vortex trailing from the right-hand wing and circulating anti-clockwise. The result is a region of downwash behind the wing, between the pair of wingtip vortices. These two wingtip vortices do not merge because they are circulating in opposite directions.

* Vortices contain a lot of energy in the circular motion of the fluid. In an ideal fluid this energy can never be dissipated and the vortex would persist forever. However, real fluids exhibit viscosity and this dissipates energy very slowly from the core of the vortex. (See Rankine vortex). It is only through dissipation of a vortex due to viscosity that a vortex line can end in the fluid, rather than at the boundary of the fluid. For example, the wingtip vortices from an airplane dissipate slowly and linger in the atmosphere long after the airplane has passed. This is a hazard to other aircraft and is known as wake turbulence.

Cause and effects
A wing generates aerodynamic lift by creating a region of lower air pressure above it. Fluids are forced to flow from high to low pressure and the air below the wing tends to migrate toward the top of the wing via the wingtips. The air does not escape around the leading or trailing edge of the wing due to airspeed, but it can flow around the tip. Consequently, air flows from below the wing and out around the tip to the top of the wing in a circular fashion.  This leakage will raise the pressure on top of the wing and reduce the lift that the wing can generate. It also produces an emergent flow pattern with low pressure in the center surrounded by fast-moving air with curved streamlines.  Wingtip vortices only affect the portion of the wing closest to the tip. Thus, the longer the wing, the smaller the affected fraction of it will be. As well, the shorter the chord of the wing, the less opportunity air will have to form vortices. This means that for an aircraft to be most efficient, it should have a very high aspect ratio.  This is evident in the design of gliders.  It is also evident in long-range airliners, where fuel efficiency is of critical importance.  However, increasing the wingspan reduces the maneuverability of the aircraft, which is why combat and aerobatic planes usually feature short, stubby wings despite the efficiency losses.

Another method of reducing fuel consumption is the use of winglets, as seen on some modern airliners such as the Airbus A340. Winglets work by forcing the vortex to move to the very tip of the wing and allowing the entire span to produce lift, thereby effectively increasing the aspect ratio of the wing.  Winglets also change the pattern of vorticity in the core of the vortex pattern, spreading it out and reducing the kinetic energy in the circular air flow, which reduces the amount of fuel expended to perform work by the wing upon the spinning air. Winglets can yield worthwhile economy improvements on long-distance flights.

Visibility of vortices due to water condensation and freezing

The cores of the vortices are sometimes visible because water present in them condenses from gas (vapor) to liquid, and sometimes even freezes, forming ice particles.  The phase of water (i.e. whether it assumes the form of a solid, liquid, or gas) is determined by its temperature and pressure.  For example, in the case of liquid-gas transition, at each pressure there is a special “transition temperature” Tc such that if the sample temperature is even a little above Tc, the sample will be a gas, but if the sample temperature is even a little below Tc, the sample will be a liquid; see phase transition.

For example, at the standard atmospheric pressure, Tc is 100 °C = 212 °F.  The transition temperature Tc decreases with decreasing pressure (which explains why water boils at lower temperatures at higher altitudes and at higher temperatures in a pressure cooker; see here for more information).  In the case of water vapor in air, the Tc corresponding to the partial pressure of water vapor is called the dew point. (The solid-liquid transition also happens around a specific transition temperature called the melting point. For most substances, the melting point also decreases with decreasing pressure, although water ice in particular—in its Ih form, which is the most familiar one—is a prominent exception to this rule.)
Vortex cores are regions of low pressure. As a vortex core begins to form, the water in the air (in the region that is about to become the core) is in vapor phase, which means that the local temperature is above the local dew point. After the vortex core forms, the pressure inside it has decreased from the ambient value, and so the local dew point (Tc) has dropped from the ambient value. Thus, in and of itself, a drop in pressure would tend to keep water in vapor form: the initial dew point was already below the ambient air temperature, and the formation of the vortex has made the local dew point even lower.
However, as the vortex core forms, its pressure (and so its dew point) is not the only property that is dropping: the vortex-core temperature is dropping also, and in fact it can drop by much more than the dew point does, as we now explain.
To a first approximation, the formation of vortex cores is thermodynamically an adiabatic process, i.e. one with no exchange of heat. In such a process, the drop in pressure is accompanied by a drop in temperature, according to the equation

Here Ti and pi are the absolute temperature and pressure at the beginning of the process (here equal to the ambient air temperature and pressure), Tf and pf are the absolute temperature and pressure in the vortex core (which is the end result of the process), and the constant γ is about 7/5 = 1.4 for air.
Thus, even though the local dew point inside the vortex cores is even lower than in the ambient air, the water vapor may nevertheless condense—if the formation of the vortex brings the local temperature below the new local dew point. Let us verify that this can indeed happen under realistic conditions.  For a typical transport aircraft landing at an airport, these conditions are as follows: we may take Ti and pi to have values corresponding to the so-called standard conditions, i.e. pi = 1 atm = 1013.25 mb = 101\,325 Pa and Ti = 293.15 K (which is 20 °C = 68 °F).

We will take the relative humidity to be a comfortable 35% (dew point of 4.1 °C = 39.4 °F). This corresponds to a partial pressure of water vapor of 820 Pa = 8.2 mb.

We will assume that in a vortex core, the pressure (pf) drops to about 80% of the ambient pressure, i.e. to about 80 000 Pa.
Let us first determine the temperature in the vortex core. It is given by the equation above as


Next, we determine the dew point in the vortex core. The partial pressure of water in the vortex core drops in proportion to the drop in the total pressure (i.e. by the same percentage), to about 650 Pa = 6.5 mb. According to a dew point calculator at this site (alternatively one may use the Antoine equation to obtain an approximate value), that partial pressure results in the local dew point of about 0.86 °C; in other words, the new local dew point is about equal to the new local temperature.
Therefore, the case we have been considering is a marginal case; if the relative humidity of the ambient air were even a bit higher (with the total pressure and temperature remaining as above), then the local dew point inside the vortices would rise, while the local temperature would remain the same as what we have just found. Thus the local temperature would now be lower than the local dew point, and so the water vapor inside the vortices would indeed condense.
Under right conditions, the local temperature in vortex cores may drop below the local freezing point, in which case ice particles will form inside the vortex cores.
We have just seen that the water-vapor condensation mechanism in wingtip vortices is driven by local changes in air pressure and temperature. This is to be contrasted to what happens in another well-known case of water condensation related to airplanes: the contrails from airplane engine exhausts. In the case of contrails, the local air pressure and temperature do not change significantly; what matters instead is that the exhaust contains both water vapor (which increases the local water-vapor concentration and so its partial pressure, resulting in elevated dew point and freezing point) as well as aerosols (which provide nucleation centers for the condensation and freezing).
Condensation of water vapor in wing tip vortices is most common on aircraft flying at high angles of attack, such as fighter aircraft in high g maneuvers, or airliners taking off and landing on humid days.

Observations
A vortex can be seen in the spiraling motion of air or liquid around a center of rotation. Circular current of water of conflicting tides form vortex shapes.
Turbulent flow makes many vortices. A good example of a vortex is the atmospheric phenomenon of a whirlwind or a tornado or dust devil. This whirling air mass mostly takes the form of a helix, column, or spiral. Tornadoes develop from severe thunderstorms, usually spawned from squall lines and supercell thunderstorms, though they sometimes happen as a result of a hurricane.

In atmospheric physics, a mesovortex is on the scale of a few miles (smaller than a hurricane but larger than a tornado). On a much smaller scale, a vortex is usually formed as water goes down a drain, as in a sink or a toilet. This occurs in water as the revolving mass forms a whirlpool. This whirlpool is caused by water flowing out of a small opening in the bottom of a basin or reservoir. This swirling flow structure within a region of fluid flow opens downward from the water surface.

Instances

* In the hydrodynamic interpretation of the behavior of electromagnetic fields, the acceleration of electric fluid in a particular direction creates a positive vortex of magnetic fluid. This in turn creates around itself a corresponding negative vortex of electric fluid.
* Smoke ring : A ring of smoke which persists for a surprisingly long time, illustrating the slow rate at which viscosity dissipates the energy of a vortex.
* Lift-induced drag of a wing on an aircraft.

* The primary cause of drag in the sail of a sloop.
* Whirlpool: a swirling body of water produced by ocean tides or by a hole underneath the vortex where the water would drain out, such as a bathtub. A large, powerful whirlpool is known as a maelstrom. In popular imagination, but only rarely in reality, they can have the dangerous effect of destroying boats. Examples are Scylla and Charybdis of classical mythology in the Straits of Messina, Italy; the Naruto whirlpools of Nankaido, Japan; the Maelstrom, Lofoten, Norway.

* Tornado : a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. A less violent version of a tornado, over water, is called a waterspout.
* Hurricane : a much larger, swirling body of clouds produced by evaporating warm ocean water and influenced by the Earth’s rotation. Similar, but far greater, vortices are also seen on other planets, such as the permanent Great Red Spot on Jupiter and the intermittent Great Dark Spot on Neptune.

* Polar vortex : a persistent, large-scale cyclone centered near the Earth’s poles, in the middle and upper troposphere and the stratosphere.
* Sunspot : dark region on the Sun’s surface (photosphere) marked by a lower temperature than its surroundings, and intense magnetic activity.
* The accretion disk of a black hole or other massive gravitational source.
* Spiral galaxy : a type of galaxy in the Hubble sequence which is characterized by a thin, rotating disk. Earth’s galaxy, the Milky Way, is of this type.

# VORTEX – The Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment or VORTEX, field projects study tornadoes. VORTEX1 was the first time scientists completely researched the entire evolution of a tornado enabling a greater understanding of the processes involved with tornadogenesis. …

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VORTEX

THE 9-11 VORTEX

As explained previously, vortices that come into contact with each reconfigure each other, regenerating intermediate “rings”, and ALL vortices will “stick” to a plane surface – like the ground (tornado), or the face of a building (World Trade Center Tower 2).

The Boeing 767, weighing around 180,000 kilograms and traveling at 260 meters/second, was pulling up in about a 2G banking turn before it struck the tower, so the energy it was putting into its (invisible) WAVE VORTEX was twice the normal, it occurred to me, so might not there be EVIDENCE of its existence in the smoke and dust after the collision?

Evidence there is, in embarrassing plenty. Embarrassing for “no-planers”, anyway, if they were to be well-informed and curious enough to CONTINUE TO WATCH after the collision took place. An oxymoron, I think.

Check back to confirm this if you like…

So now “no-planers” would HAVE to claim that the video artists that “falsified” these images were experts in aerodynamics as well.

To which the answer is OCCAM…

.

THE “THIRD” TRAIL…

apu-3.jpg

In this case the fifth… is the trail left by the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) which is a normal (but small) gas turbine/electrical generator set. As with the main engines, it burns kerosine to form carbon dioxide and steam. As with the main engines, it leaves a trail. But where’s it coming from?

SUPERSATURATION

“the whole plane is spraying”

TRAIL 13

When stratospheric air is very clean and stable it may contain MORE water vapour than it does when it is described as having 100% Relative Humidity. The slightest disturbance to it will cause ice crystals to precipitate out of it. It cannot go into super-saturation if there are ANY nucleative materials of any sort in this air.
Here is just such a case, which occurs on occasion in the sub-tropical stratosphere. The trail forms by “burst condensation” into super-cooled droplets which are microscopic initially and can refract sunlight by interference. Over a small space of time these droplets grow progressively as water vapor deposits more supercooled water into them. As they progressively increase their size they run through a progression of light frequencies which they interfere with. This is NOT a refraction effect.

Chemtrailers claim the colors to be indicative of “foreign materials” which is quite the reverse of the truth; only pure water will do this, and only pure air will have become supersaturated in the first place.
The fact that in supersaturated conditions, large aircraft can place thousands of tons of ice into the stratosphere is covered by the paper “Contrails to Cirrus” mentioned in the INTRODUCTION page.
https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/01-compendium/

“GAPS”

TRAIL 6

“Gaps” are claimed by chemtrailers as “evidence that planes are spraying”. Such gaps will of course appear in any persistent contrail where the stratospheric air RH falls below 100%. Generally, of course, the humidity tails off gradually, and the transition of trail-to-no-trail is quite indistinct.
In THIS case, the “transition” is a hard and sharp right angle. Too sharp, in fact, for a whirling twin-vortex contrail… Close inspection of the “sky” each side of the “gap” shows it to be comprised of a chemtrailer’s vertical “airbrush strokes”! Naughty!

FUEL VENTS

vent

Here we have an aircraft actually spraying something; it’s fuel. If some in-flight emergency occurs and the plane must make a quick landing, it must first lose weight, for it cannot land at its take-off weight. Some of its fuel must GO.

Chemtrailers are quick to claim this shot as “spraying evidence”.

conspiracy-pixels

Conspiracy Theories

with 12 comments

PAGE CONTENTS

CONSPIRACY THEORIES – CONTRAIL FORECAST CHARTS – CONTRAIL FORMATION – CONTRAILS CON-TRICK

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page… 

CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Conspiracy theories find menace in contrails

conspiracy

A new conspiracy theory sweeping the Internet and radio talk shows has set parts of the federal government on edge.

The theory: The white lines of condensed water vapor that jets leave in the sky, called contrails, are actually a toxic substance the government deliberately sprays on an unsuspecting populace.

Federal bureaucracies have gotten thousands of phone calls, e-mails and letters in recent years from people demanding to know what is being sprayed and why. Some of the missives are threatening.

It’s impossible to tell how many supporters these ideas have attracted, but the people who believe them say they’re tired of getting the brush-off from officials. And they’re tired of health problems they blame on “spraying.”

“This is blatant. This is in your face,” says Philip Marie Sr., a retired nuclear quality engineer from Bartlett, N.H., who says the sky above his quiet town is often crisscrossed with “spray” trails.

“No one will address it,” he says. “Everyone stonewalls this thing.”

The situation Marie and others describe is straight out of The X-Files. He and others report one day looking up at the sky and realizing that they were seeing abnormal contrails: contrails that lingered and spread into wispy clouds, multiple contrails arranged in tick-tack-toe-like grids or parallel lines, contrails being laid down by white planes without registration numbers.

ct

Believers call these tracks “chemtrails.” They say they don’t know why the chemicals are being dropped, but that doesn’t stop them from speculating. Many guess that the federal government is trying to slow global warming with compounds that reflect sunlight into the sky. Some propose more ominous theories, such as a government campaign to weed out the old and sick.

Exasperated by persistent questions, the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration joined forces last fall to publish a fact sheet explaining the science of contrail formation. A few months earlier, the Air Force had put out its own fact sheet, which tries to refute its opponents’ arguments point by point.

“If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it’s, ‘Well, you’re just part of the conspiracy,’ ” says atmospheric scientist Patrick Minnis of NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. “Logic is not exactly a real selling point for most of them.”

conspiracy_thinking

Nothing is “out there” except water vapor and ice crystals, say irritated scientists who study contrails. Some, such as Minnis, are outraged enough by the claims of chemtrail believers that they have trolled Internet chat rooms to correct misinformation or have gotten into arguments with callers.

“Conspiracy nonsense,” snorts Kenneth Sassen, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Utah. “These things are at 30,000 to 40,000 feet in the atmosphere. They’re tiny particles of ice. They’re not going to affect anyone.”

The cloud-forming contrails that conspiracy theorists find so ominous are “perfectly natural,” Minnis says. The odd grid and parallel-line patterns are easily explained as contrails blown together by the wind, scientists say.

conspiracy_tot2

 CONTRAIL FORECAST CHARTS

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resources/activities/appleman_student.html

 CONTRAIL FORMATION

Normal contrails DO form in fairly high humidity. When formed in 100% humidity they will NEVER disappear. If the humidity of that particular stratospheric layer is REDUCED, then in exact proportion the life of that trail will be reduced. This CAN happen; the layer can be lifted from beneath by a rising CUMULUS cloud in the troposphere. But the typical way they disappear is that LOCAL to the trail, the humidity has already been increased by the processes forming the trail: over time the increased humidity “leaks” away from the locality by gaseous diffusion, allowing the trail (of ice crystals) to sublime back into water vapor. Otherwise generally over time, layers FALL, COOL, humidity rises, trails get bigger. 

CONTRAILS CON TRICK

There is a new and ominous controversy concerning aircraft contrails and their supposed ill-effects. People with little or no scientific understanding are whipping up a furore over – nothing. This tends to leave all the real ills of the world unattended, and let’s face it, those we know of already are too great and too many to be sufferable. But how much worse it is when the (already!) deluded dream up new imaginary ills! With too much on our plates already, we are forced to concern ourselves with additional spurious delusions which, if they were to be taken seriously, would diminish our capacity to adapt to change, and ultimately to survive the upcoming onslaught.

delusion

A typical passenger transport plane (medium haul) burns 30 tons of fuel and thus unloads 30 tons of ice and 20 tons of gaseous oxides (mostly carbon dioxide) into the stratosphere every trip it makes.

troposphere

The troposphere contains about 80% of the atmosphere and is the part of the atmosphere in which we live, and make weather observations. In this layer, average temperatures decrease with height. This is known as adiabatic cooling, i.e. a change in temperature caused by a decrease in pressure. Even so, it is still more prone to vertical mixing by convective and turbulent transfer, than other parts of the atmosphere. These vertical motions and the abundance of water vapour make it the home of all important weather phenomena. It is turbulent and unstable because it is at its warmest at its base. The troposphere’s thermal profile is largely the result of the heating of the Earth’s surface by incoming solar radiation. Heat is then transferred up through the troposphere by a combination of convective and turbulent transfer.

218983909_8f8cb9111b

This is in direct contrast with the stratosphere, where warming is the result of the direct absorption of solar radiation. It is at its coldest at its base, and is stable and non-turbulent. If you have ever observed (or been in) a house fire, and looked up at the ceiling of a room with a fire in it, there you can see that the behaviour of the air is similar: the hottest part of the fire is against the ceiling, and the layers of air beneath (at decreasing temperatures) are stratified and somewhat mysteriously stable.

The troposphere is around 16 km high at the equator, with the temperature at the tropopause around –80 °C. At the poles, the troposphere reaches a height of around 8 km, with the temperature of the tropopause around –40 °C in summer and –60 °C in winter.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/secondary/teachers/atmosphere.html

Annual passenger jet aircraft fuel consumption is estimated to be 300 million tons. That may seem a lot, but it’s a CUBE with sides a hundred yards long. in actual fact.

http://www.after-oil.co.uk/runways.htm

The weight of the atmosphere is 5.25 petatonnes.

http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/astron-2.htm#MA

One can see (using a quick calculation) that, as a proportion of the weight of the atmosphere, the burnt fuel comprises FIVE MILLIONTHS OF A PER CENT. It would take 200,000 years to half-fill the atmosphere with aircraft exhaust emissions at their present rate!

Now, the water, the gaseous oxides and sulphates may have a hardly appreciable effect on Global Warming (they are only 3.5% of anthropogenic combustion), but are as NOTHING when compared with the Earth’s volcanoes.

There are 1,500 active volcanoes on land and maybe TEN THOUSAND active volcanoes under the sea. Beneath are a few links:

http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4886
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/interior/volcanism.html
http://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/volcano-profile.html?source=G2308

The term “active” means “constantly emitting steam, gases, magma, and ash”. It is hard to quantify the total emitted by the land volcanoes, but let us assume they average a million tons of each per year. That will give us fifteen hundred million tons of steam, fifteen hundred million tons of gases, fifteen hundred million tons of magma, fifteen hundred million tons of ash.

“Hey”, you might say, “aren’t you making free with all those hundred millions of tons?” – and I would answer you thus: “A million tons of rock makes a cone 243 feet high. So I’m suggesting that the annual volcanic production of rock is equivalent to fifteen hundred of these rock cones. See what I mean?”

To put that estimate into perspective, the largest known eruption, Tambora, put 200 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere in a single event!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A781715

Getting back to the point, it can be reasonably argued that contrails are at least FIFTEEN TIMES LESS IMPORTANT THAN VOLCANOES when it comes to having an effect on our atmosphere, whether warming it or cooling it…

So forget ALL of this bullfish about contrails/chemtrails. Yadda barium, yadda aluminum, yadda cooling, yadda dimming, yadda morgellons, yadda toxins……..You can bet your boots that anyone who advocates this idea is an ignorant dupe, with NO IDEA of the magnitude of the Earth and the events that truly moderate its climate.

volcanoupi_468x3111

D Boots the Diva

with 4 comments

PAGE CONTENTS

DBOOTS THE DIVA – DAVID CENCIOTTI’S WEBLOG – DEADLY – DEATH RAY – DEFINITELY – DELUSION – DEPLOYMENT – DEW POINT – DIMMING (GLOBAL) – DIRECT LINKS – DISINFO “THEORY”

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page… 

This is not my Introduction Page.

If you want my “STOP PRESS” and access to ALL updated features of this site you should SAVE my Introduction Page to your Favorites.

DBOOTS THE DIVA

dbtd

This is one “remarkable” person. I quote from her comments:

“Knowledge is power, whether you realize it or not. You might of spoofed me, but hopefully this will imprint on your neurons the facts I have provided, and at some point you and others of your generation will know why certain things seem to cause something in side of you to trigger. Whether it be moods like impatience, anger, sadness, or the over production of certain hormones in your bodies, you will at least have half a clue why it is happening.”

I DID include someone else’s response, enclosing one of her videos which she has now dropped, but she has wrongly invoked a DMCA (I think) to get the original removed. In it she ranted about the rainbow found in her garden spray device, claiming it to be a new feature of barium in the atmosphere. Ah well, that’s a pity – it was REAL FUN. Aha:

I put these questions to her:

WHAT IS A CELL TOWER?

WHAT IS “a new type of wireless energy”

HOW IS IT “attracted to a phosphorus blue purple hue?”

HOW IS IT “Hidden/Stored in the energy”

WHAT IS A “3D particle/plasma field of data”

WAS IT AFTER A BUMP ON THE HEAD YOU STARTED SEEING “Symbols/ letters/ images/ skulls/ cartoon characters/ animals/ faces/ slow changing turntable of images/ designs”

“Data of Quantum Cryptography?” Don’t you mean DATA from Star Trek?

Visit her site and enjoy the true meaning of bonkers.

 DAVID CENCIOTTI’S WEBLOG

Contrails or chemtrails? October 24, 2008
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Military Aviation.

In the last years I have watched a proliferation of pictures showing aircraft flying at high altitudes followed by their characteristic white trails (I discussed this thing in Italian in this post: Scie di condensazione o scie chimiche?). In most cases, these images aim to highlight aircraft that, according to someone, can be associated with weather modification or military experimentation. Usually, those people use the term “chemtrails”, the short for chemical trails, a definition which comes from contrails, short for condensation trails.
Let me say that I’m sure that some kind of testing has been conducted with similar aims and that someone is probably studying the possibility of changing the climate somewhere. However, I’m also sure that the majority of the images that have been circulating on the Internet show a normal phenomenon that has nothing to do with a conspiracy or with the attempts possibly done by some nation to modify the weather using airplanes.
Contrails appear from the quick condensation of the water vapour that is contained in the exhaust of the engines and in the surrounding air (due to a quick decrease in pressure and temperature) and crystallization of it around the solid aerosol particles ejected by the aircraft’s engines. As temperatures where the change of state happens are extremely low (from -40° Celsius), contrails should appear from altitudes around 8,500 meters. (The ISA, International Standard Atmosphere, has a ground temperature of 15° C and a vertical temperature gradient of -6.5° C/1000 meters).
Actually, since the standard atmosphere is quite different from a real one, contrails can be seen also when aircraft are flying at lower altitudes (I remember watching an F-104 generating contrails above the mountains in central Italy in 1991 at altitudes around 3,000 meters). Furthermore, temperature aside, condensation depends also on the humidity of the air, which influences the persistence and form of the trails. The higher the humidity, the greater the possibility of ice crystals.
Trails are not static, but can expand or narrow depending on the wind (at altitude it is usually different in direction and intensity from ground level). The contrails can be continuous or intermittent, if the aircraft encounters different temperature and humidity conditions. Obviously, the trails follow the path of the aircraft, and for this reason, if the airplane turns, the trail will simply follow the same “route”. If the aircraft is circling, the trail will assume an elliptical or round shape (according to the type of orbit the aircraft is performing). Should you see such non-straight contrails, you shouldn’t worry: there are many aircraft that need to circle to perform their normal activities (not related to any weather modification test). Consider AWACS that have to maintain a particular working area for several hours, or aircraft involved in testing activities, or tankers involved in air-to-air refueling activities that follow the so-called “racetracks” while waiting for their receivers.
If many contrails appear more or less at the same time, or in the same place, don’t be surprised: the sky is crossed by hundreds of invisible airways that connect reporting points and radio navigation aids. This means that people who live next to a waypoint or a VOR of an important airway could be overflown by a large amount number of contrails. If other aircraft flying nearby don’t generate a contrail, this is also normal: air traffic control separates flights both horizontally and vertically and it is possible (if not probable) that some planes, encountering certain conditions, generate condensation trails, while others do not.
From a meteorological point of view, even if they look similar to the clouds, the contrails are not necessarily associated with any weather phenomenon. They can move, change shape, translate but can’t bring rain, snow, turbulence etc. Conversely, the presence of contrails in a particular area could denote a high humidity condition in that zone.
Needless to say, the condensation clouds I explained in a recent post have nothing to do with chemistry or weather modification tests. Particular conditions of temperature and humidity, during cruise at high altitudes, can generate condensation clouds along with contrails thus leading to large trails of condensed vapor, that are very spectacular (a couple of interesting examples can be found on Airliners.net:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0980583/L/ and http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0695203/L/).
The following pictures depict the contrails generated by a flight of two Swiss F-18s overflying Axalp
img_0904
I took the following picture on May 18, 2008 with a Nokia E61i mobile phone (hence the poor quality) from my house. It shows a contrail at night, lit up by the Moon.
nightcontrail
JazzRoc – April 30, 2009

Thanks for your informative blog on “chemtrails”.
It is true that aircraft have been commissioned at intervals to spread silver iodide molecules to seed rainfall. These are light aircraft, difficult to see because they fly beneath the base of a storm cloud.
It is also true that rockets and drone aircraft have been deployed to emit a burst of metal ions for radar reflectivity trials, and also true that military aircraft emit bursts of metallized glass fibres (called chaff) during maneuvers or wartime missions.
But, as you say, ALL other trails are merely ice crystals which condense from the exhausts of jet engines when the stratospheric humidity is higher than average.
What you might not know is that 17% of the stratosphere is supersaturated on average, and when an aircraft flies through these conditions, the exhaust ice crystals “seed” the deposition of MORE ICE. This deposition is not a LITTLE more, but can be a GREAT DEAL more – in the order of ONE to TEN THOUSAND TIMES more.
This means that a 3,000-mile jumbo flight can liberate 80,000 tons of ice out of the stratosphere.
This makes a BIG, BIG trail which can spread out wider than horizon-to-horizon.
It is NO WONDER that it causes concern amongst the unaware, and makes them susceptible to conspiracy theories.
However, scientific analysis of the effects of aircraft ice cirrus cloud cover shows that the overall effect of aviation is not yet discernible – for the Earth is a VERY large thing…
Fifty years of expanding aviation trade WILL significantly affect our weather, were it not for the fact that fifty years from now – we will have run out of oil altogether…
https://jazzroc.wordpress.com

DEADLY

soda_pop

“since when do they make soda pop from burnt methanol” – I’m not saying you SHOULD. And it is kerosine that is burnt, the chemical name for which is decane, because there are ten carbon atoms in the chain which makes the compound.

decane

https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/whats-it-all-about/?/

“once burned the vapors are highly carcinogenic” – No they are NOT. They sting the eyes, NOT AS BAD as a garden BONFIRE (which IS highly carcinogenic). Human beings HAVE BEEN SELECTED for their resistance to carcinogens over a million years of sitting beside fires.

“go stick your face behind a turbine” – HA! I’ve done it many times.

“think about how much 300 million TONS is” – you’re asking me to think? I’m the one that FOUND the figure…

“more than those 1500 volcanoes would weigh as a whole” – FANTASTICALLY WRONG. A million tons of VOLCANIC ASH stands in a CONE 240 FEET HIGH. Do you know of ANY VOLCANO that SMALL? I bet you DON’T.

“they do NOT produce 300 million tones of deadly gas per annum, but aircraft do” – WATER IS NOT A DEADLY GAS.

The volcanic output rates of steam, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and fine ash exceeds that of aircraft in particular, but comprise only 25% of the total (the rest comprising both Man’s activities and natural life-processes such as peat-bog decomposition, melting tundra conditions, natural forest fires, and endemic fungal activities). 

DEATH RAY

“smart enough not to call it a contrail” – CAN YOU READ?

“many chemtrails sprayed below 25,000 ft” – There hasn’t been a single instance showed on the thousands of YouTube videos on the subject.

“NWO handlers riding you too hard again?” – Yes, it’s dead tough. They’re using HAARP to throw a DEATH RAY up my backside. They’re bloody good shots to get right up my chuff from Alaska to Tenerife, but you know how it is…

DEFINITELY

kerosine

It’s definitely a contrail.
Burning kerosine makes an equal amount of water.
The plane is in the stratosphere which is stable and clear all the time.
The stratosphere can hold in supersaturation (when very clean) an excess of water as vapor.
This excess can boost the density of the trail by up to 10,000 times.
So 10,000 times as much ICE as the engines make by burning kerosine may be visible to you.
So it’s DEFINITELY a CONTRAIL.

contrail

It’s definitely not a “chemtrail”.
The gap between engine and trail evidences the invisible exhaust vapors and gases.
Metals don’t make invisible vapors – they’re used in fireworks.
So there are no metals in the exhaust.
ALL organic materials burn in a jet flame at 2000 degrees to produce that GAP, for carbon dioxide (invisible) and steam (invisible) is what they will make.
No metals. No organics. Just fuel and air.
So it’s DEFINITELY NOT a “CHEMTRAIL”.

shock diamonds

This isn't a jet exhaust: it's a methane/oxygen rocket exhaust!

 DELUSION

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Morgellons” or “Morgellons disease,” is a controversial condition characterized by cutaneous symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions. Some also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision. The CDC indicates the etiology of Morgellons is unknown and there is insufficient information to determine if persons who identify themselves as having Morgellons have a common cause for their symptoms, share common risk factors, or are contagious.

death-ray

The etiology of this condition is unknown, and the medical community has insufficient information to determine whether persons who identify themselves as having this condition have a common cause for their symptoms or share common risk factors. An epidemiologic investigation is needed to better characterize the clinical and epidemiologic features of this condition; to generate hypotheses about factors that may cause or contribute to sufferers’ symptoms; and to estimate the prevalence of the condition in the population; and to provide information to guide public health recommendations.”
Morgellons disease is not a widely recognized medical diagnosis, and medical professionals’ opinions about Morgellons disease are divided. Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research. Some health professionals, including most dermatologists, believe that signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are caused by common skin illnesses or psychological disorders such as delusional parasitosis. Other health professionals don’t acknowledge Morgellons disease or are reserving judgment until more is known about the condition.

It was first reported three hundred years ago. If that is so, one has to ask how the aircraft and the spray technology were supposed to have existed then?

eject

DEPLOYMENT

“So really, it is about faith rather than debating the real evidence.” – joejoeirish, all I have seen IS faith. There has been NO REAL EVIDENCE. Assertions are NOT EVIDENCE. Pictures of “fluffy stuff” are NOT EVIDENCE.

What IS EVIDENT is that “fluffy stuff” CANNOT BE DEPLOYED AT ALL from aircraft, and WHITE PAINT PRODUCTS (barium and aluminum oxides) cannot be deployed except from VERY SPECIALIZED AIRCRAFT.

They would have to be MILITARY, and if you look at the annual military fuel usage and subtract from it the Iraq war fuel and aircraft carrier fuel and home-based fighter fuel, there is NOT ENOUGH FUEL LEFT to carry out this impossible concept. ONE DOSE of WHITE PAINT for coverage of the US (not even 2% of the Earth’s surface area) would involve 170,000 tons of WHITE PAINT and a heck of a lot of fuel.

You guys have to be as CLUELESS about LOGISTICS as you are about Earth’s atmosphere, Chemistry, and Biology. Why am I surprised? You don’t do LOGIC either!

The “fluffy stuff” you see is the many tons of fine crystals of ice produced by normal civil aircraft when they fly through saturated air.

https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/01-compendium/ 

DEW POINT

dewpoint

The dew point (or dewpoint) of a given parcel of air is the temperature to which the parcel must be cooled, at constant barometric pressure, for water vapor to condense into water, called dew. When the dew point temperature falls below freezing it is called the frost point, as the water vapor no longer creates dew but instead creates frost or hoarfrost by deposition. The graph above shows the maximum percentage of water vapor that can exist in air at sea level across a range of temperatures. Note that with higher temperatures the equilibrium partial pressure of water vapor increases, thus more water evaporates. The behavior of water vapor does not depend on the presence of air. The formation of dew would occur at the dew point even if the only gas present were water vapor. Dew point is a monotonic function of the partial pressure of water vapor, so dew point can be determined from partial pressure of water vapor alone, and vice versa.

dew1

At a given barometric pressure, independent of temperature, the dew point indicates the mole fraction of water vapor in the air, or, put differently, determines the specific humidity of the air. If the barometric pressure rises without changing this mole fraction, the dew point will rise accordingly.

dew_drops spider_web

Reducing the mole fraction will bring the dew point back down to its initial value. In the same way, increasing the mole fraction after a pressure drop brings the dew point back up to its initial level. For this reason, the same dew point in New York and Denver (which is at a much higher altitude) will imply that a higher fraction of the air in Denver consists of water vapor than in New York.

 dew2

On the other hand, at a given temperature but independent of barometric pressure, the dew point indicates the absolute humidity of the air. If the temperature rises without changing the absolute humidity, the dew point will rise accordingly. Reducing the absolute humidity will bring the dew point back down to its initial value. In the same way, increasing the absolute humidity after a temperature drop brings the dew point back up to its initial level. Coming back to the New York – Denver example, this means that if the dew point and temperature in both cities are the same, then the mass of water vapor per cubic meter of air will also be the same in those cities.

dew3

The dew point is associated with relative humidity. A high relative humidity indicates that the dew point is closer to the current air temperature. If the relative humidity is 100%, the dew point is equal to the current temperature. Given a constant dew point, an increase in temperature will lead to a decrease in relative humidity. It is for this reason that equatorial climates can have low relative humidity, yet still feel humid.

1603279

Humans tend to react with discomfort to high dew points. Those accustomed to continental climates often begin to feel uncomfortable when the dew point reaches between 15 and 20 °C (59 to 68 °F). Most inhabitants of these areas will consider dew points above 21 °C (70 °F) to be oppressive.

Dew Points
20+C (68F) Oppressive
18C (64F) Sticky
16C (61F) Humid
13C (55F) Comfortable
10C (50F) Refreshing
source: Mark Margarit WHDH-TV Boston Channel 7 Weather

Here is a formula to calculate the dew point in degrees Celsius to within ±0.4 °C. It is valid for

0 °C < T < 100 °C
0.01 < RH < 1.0
0 °C < Td < 50 °C

where

T = temperature in degrees Celsius
RH = is the relative humidity as a fraction (not percent)
Td = the dew point temperature to be calculated

The formula is:

T_d = frac {b gamma(T,RH)} {a – gamma(T,RH)}

where

gamma(T,RH) = frac {a T} {b+T} + ln RH

and

a = 17.27
b = 237.7 °C
ln is the natural logarithm.

dewAutumn-Mist

There is also a very simple approximation which allows you to convert in your head between the dew point, the dry bulb temperature and the relative humidity, which is accurate to within about ±1 °C as long as the relative humidity is above 50%. This can be expressed as a simple rule of thumb: for every 1 °C difference in the dew point and dry bulb temperatures, the relative humidity decreases by 5%, starting with RH=100% when the dew point equals the dry bulb temperature. In equations this is:

T_d = T – frac {(100 – RH)} {5}

or

RH = 100 – 5(T – Td)

where in this case RH is in percent, and T and Td are in degrees Celsius. The derivation of this, a discussion of its accuracy, comparisons to other approximations, and more information on the history and applications of the dew point are given in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

In Fahrenheit

Tf_d = Tf – frac {(100 – RH)} {3.333}

For example, a relative humidity of 100% means dew point is same as air temp. For 90% RH dew point is 3 degrees Fahrenheit lower than air temp.

For every 10 percent lower, dew point drops 3 deg.

Tf_d is in Fahrenheit RH same as above.

Alternatively, there are a number of moisture sensing retail products available which measure relative humidity. 

1604310

DISINFO “THEORY”

disinfo-x

“another disinformation theory I heard” – SCIENCE ISN’T DISINFORMATION. If your enemy uses SCIENCE to KILL you, it WILL work.

“protect us from sonar waves.. like HAARP” – A large sonar wave (NOISE) would KILL the guy that turned it on.  There’s NO WAY that HAARP’s technology can do this. There is NO magic.

“Russians are being sprayed madly” – Ah, private enterprise and cheap air travel makes for WHITE SKIES.

“had my gutfull there for a month” – Soda water has NEVER been recommended for improving commonsense, and it didn’t work in your case either.

“way too high amounts of heavy metals in EU food/liver cancer” – Well, that MAY be a revelation to you, but I’ve known that for forty years. If you want to eat SAFE food, DO NOT USE (or allow your suppliers to use) WESTERN “AGRICULTURE” FARMING METHODS. Eat PROVEN ORGANIC FOOD, or GROW IT YOURSELF. I can’t see what this has to do with “chemtrails”.

Except that, of course, ALL the claimed symptoms of chemtrails are the result of a poisoned diet, a poisoned water, and the locally poisoned air which you breathe.

Perhaps the more responsible thing for you to do would be to ANALYZE THOSE.

checklight_potable20kit20300dpi

Automatic contamination detection

Checklight—part of the Whitewater Technology Group—has introduced a monitoring system for municipalities and water utilities that automatically detects water contamination—alerting the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system within minutes. CheckLight’s state-of-the-art technology uses nonpathogenic luminous marine bacteria as early-detection sensors. Operating automatically, CheckLight’s exceptionally fast, reliable, and cost-effective solution provides real-time, on-line monitoring, and enables flexible, unlimited expansion through the simple addition of monitoring units. Composed of numerous monitoring units—located at monitoring stations throughout the water system, and seamlessly integrated with the SCADA system—CheckLight’s solution performs continuous automatic monitoring of water quality at various points in the system, sending immediate alerts if there are problems. Enabling comprehensive coverage of large areas, the system is exceptionally sensitive to very low concentrations of a wide range of toxic chemical agents, provides reliable and consistent results, and requires minimum maintenance and on-site visits. CheckLight’s technology uses natural luminescent bacteria as early-warning biosensors, positioned inside the monitoring stations. If water is contaminated, the bacteria react by reducing emitted light, which immediately generates an automatic contamination alert. Rather than monitoring and analyzing the changing values of various parameters, bacteria respond directly in real time to a wide range of dangerous contaminants by simply dimming or turning off the light. CheckLight offers broad-spectrum biomonitoring solutions for drinking water. The company currently offers a manual kit providing early warning of water contamination. For more information, visit www.w-water.com.

1604389

Established

with 2 comments

FALLACIES – ESTABLISHED – EURODELE – EVER – EVERYTHING – EVIL – EXHAUST – EXPONENTIAL TIMES – EXTREME – FIRST CONTRAIL PHOTO – FORTRESSES – FRACTALS IN NATURE – FROZEMAN – FUN IN THE SUN
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…

FALLACIES

Making an argument

Although often we make arguments to try to learn about and understand the world around us, sometimes we hope to persuade others of our ideas and convince them to try or believe them, just as they might want to do likewise with us.  To achieve this we might use a good measure of rhetoric, knowingly or otherwise.  The term itself dates back to Plato, who used it to differentiate philosophy from the kind of speech and writing that politicians and others used to persuade or influence opinion.  Probably the most famous study of rhetoric was by Aristotle, Plato’s pupil, and over the years philosophers have investigated it to try to discover the answer to questions like: What is the best (or most effective) way to persuade people of something?  Is the most convincing argument also the best choice to make?  Is there any link between the two?  What are the ethical implications of rhetoric?  Although we might take a dim view of some of the attempts by contemporary politicians to talk their way out of difficult situations with verbal manouevrings that stretch the meaning of words beyond recognition, hoping we’ll forget what the original question was, nevertheless there are times when we need to make a decision and get others to agree with it.  Since we don’t always have the luxury of sitting down to discuss matters, we might have to be less than philosophical in our arguments to get what we want.  This use of rhetoric comes with the instructional manual for any relationship and is par for the course in discussions of the relative merits of sporting teams.
In a philosophical context, then, we need to bear in mind that arguments may be flawed and that rhetorical excesses can be used to make us overlook that fact.  When trying to understand, strengthen or critique an idea, we can use a knowledge of common errors – deliberate or not – found in reasoning.  We call these fallacies: arguments that come up frequently that go wrong in specific ways and are typically used to mislead someone into accepting a false conclusion (although sometimes they are just honest mistakes).  Although fallacies were studied in the past and since, as was said previously, there has been something of a revival in recent times and today people speak of critical thinking, whereby we approach arguments and thinking in general in a critical fashion (hence the name), looking to evaluate steps in reasoning and test conclusions for ourselves.

Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are common errors of reasoning.  If an argument commits a logical fallacy, then the reasons that it offers don’t prove the argument’s conclusion.  (Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the conclusion is false, just that these particular reasons don’t show that it’s true.) There are literally dozens of logical fallacies (and dozens of fallacy web-sites out there that explain them).

Fallacies of Distraction

False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three or more options.

From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false.

Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn.

Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition.

Appeals to Motives in Place of Support

Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force.

Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy.

Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences.

Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author.
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true.

Changing the Subject

Attacking the Person:
(1) the person’s character is attacked.
(2) the person’s circumstances are noted.
(3) the person does not practise what is preached.

Appeal to Authority:
(1) the authority is not an expert in the field.
(2) experts in the field disagree.
(3) the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious.

Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named.

Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion.

Inductive Fallacies

Hasty Generalization:  the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population.

Unrepresentative Sample:  the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole.

False Analogy:  the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.

Slothful Induction:  the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.

Fallacy of Exclusion:  evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.

Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms

Accident:  a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception.

Converse Accident :  an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply.

Causal Fallacies

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc:  because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other.

Joint effect:  one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause.

Insignificant:  one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect.

Wrong Direction:  the direction between cause and effect is reversed.

Complex Cause:  the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect.

Missing the Point

Begging the Question:  the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.

Irrelevant Conclusion:  an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion.

Straw Man:  the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition’s best argument.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Amphiboly:  the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations.

Accent:  the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says.

Category Errors

Composition:  because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property.

Division:  because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property.

Non Sequitur

Affirming the Consequent:  any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A.

Denying the Antecedent:  any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B.

Inconsistency:  asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true.

Stolen Concept:  using a concept while attacking a concept on which it logically depends.

•Ad Hominem
•Appeal to Authority
•Appeal to History
•Appeal to Popularity
•Circularity
•Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
•Correlation not Causation
•Inconsistency
•Generalisation
•Restricting the Options
•Slippery Slope
•Straw Man
•Tu Quoque
•Weak Analogy

You need to be able to recognise each of these fallacies, and also to explain what is wrong with arguments that commit them.  Once you’ve learned what the fallacies are, pay attention and see if you can spot any of them being committed on TV, the radio, or in the press.  it’s fascinating to see how the conspiracy-theorist’s minds work.  They seem to be especially fond of (all of them, really):

Biased Sample
Perhaps the most basic error in the use of empirical data is simply “misrepresenting” it.  This can occur in a number of ways.  One possibility is simply deliberate distortion, claiming that a data set proves something when it doesn’t.  If people have an agenda, and set out to prove it, they may reach for the first bit of evidence they can find that even seems to fit their position.  Closer examination may show that the evidence isn’t quite as supportive as was first claimed.  Alternatively, someone confronted with potentially problematic evidence for their position may misrepresent it to make the problem go away.  A similar error can be committed accidentally.  Sometimes when people look at a data-set they see what they want or expect to see, rather than what is actually there.  The effect of our presuppositions on our interpretation of evidence should not be underestimated.  It can lead to conclusions being drawn which simply aren’t supported by the evidence.  A further way in which data may be misrepresented is if it is presented selectively.  A varied data set can be described focusing in on certain sections of it.  The data set as a whole is thus misrepresented; it is effectively replaced by a new set comprising of unrepresentative data.

Insufficient Data
A common problem with evidence sampling is drawing conclusions from “insufficient data”.  This is related to the generalisation fallacy.  To prove a theory, it is not enough to observe a couple of instances that seem to support it.  If we want to know what percentage of the population take holidays abroad, we can’t find out by asking five people, calculating the percentage, and applying the result to the population as a whole.  We need more data.  This raises the question: how much data is enough?  At what point does a data-set become sufficiently large to draw conclusions from it?  Of course, having enough data is not a black-or-white affair; there is no magic number of observations which, when reached, means that any conclusion drawn is adequately supported.  Rather, sufficiency of data is a matter of degree; the more evidence the better.  The amount of confidence that we can have in an inference grows gradually as more evidence is brought in to support it.

Unrepresentative Data
Simply having enough data is not enough to guarantee that a conclusion drawn is warranted; it is also important that the data is drawn from a variety of sources and obtained under a variety of different conditions.  A survey of voting intentions conducted outside the local Conservative Club is not going to provide an accurate guide to who is going to win the next general election.  A disproportionate number of people in the vicinity will be Conservative voters, and so the results of the survey will be skewed in favour of the Tory party.  The sample is not representative.  A survey to find out what proportion of the population own mobile phones would be similarly (though less obviously) flawed if it were conducted near a Sixth-Form College.  The sample of the population would be skewed towards teenagers, who are more likely than average to own mobile phones, distorting the figures.  Collecting data from a variety of sources is one thing; collecting it under a variety of conditions is another.  A survey of what type of vehicles use local roads conducted at a variety of locations, but always at the same time of day, would not yield representative data.  Conducting it during rush-hour would mean that commuter-traffic would be over-represented in the results; conducting it in the evenings might mean that public transport would under-represented in the results.  Differences in what types of drivers drive at what times would need to be factored in when designing the experiment.  The quality of a data-set is thus not just a matter of how much data it contains, but also of how representative that data is likely to be.  To minimise the problem of “unrepresentative data”, evidence must be collected from as wide a range of sources as possible, and under as varied conditions as possible.

Appeal to Force
(Argumentum Ad Baculum or the “Might-Makes-Right” Fallacy): This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion.  It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader.  If the debate is about whether or not 2+2=4, an opponent’s argument that he will smash your nose in if you don’t agree with his claim doesn’t change the truth of an issue.  Logically, this consideration has nothing to do with the points under consideration.  The fallacy is not limited to threats of violence, however.  The fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash–financial, professional, and so on.  Example: “Superintendent, you should cut the school budget by $16,000.  I need not remind you that past school boards have fired superintendents who cannot keep down costs.”  While intimidation may force the superintendent to conform, it does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget was the most beneficial for the school or community.  Lobbyists use this method when they remind legislators that they represent so many thousand votes in the legislators’ constituencies and threaten to throw the politician out of office if he doesn’t vote the way they want.  Teachers use this method if they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as the teachers, or risk failing the class.  Note that it is isn’t a logical fallacy, however, to assert that students must fulfill certain requirements in the course or risk failing the class!

Appeal to Popularity
The “appeal to popularity fallacy” is the fallacy of arguing that because lots of people believe something it must be true.  Popular opinion is not always a good guide to truth; even ideas that are widely accepted can be false.  An example is: “Pretty much everyone believes in some kind of higher power, be it God or something else.  Therefore atheism is false.”

Two million people watching does not mean a video is true.  Just because a lot of people believe something, does not make it true; consequently, just because a lot of people do not believe or understand something, does not make it false.
Faced with waning public support for the military escalation in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that the war is worth fighting and signaled for the first time he may be willing to send more troops after months of publicly resisting a significant increase.  Gates urged patience amid polls showing rising disenchantment among the public with the war effort, saying the American military presence in Afghanistan was necessary to derail terrorists.” – Associated Press, Sept 3rd, 2009.
The appeal to popularity is almost automatically controversial at times, as sometimes the right move is unclear or sophisticated.  Robert Gates is choosing to go against the grain because he feels he is justified by a greater cause than appeasing popular opinion.
Be also careful of an Appeal to Unpopularity.  A lot of pseudoscience claims they are being persecuted by the mainstream, and there is thus a conspiracy to keep their knowledge hidden.  The number one way to avoid both of these appeals is to stick to the data and ignore the marketing.  I’ll give you a hint: real science does not depend on flashy graphics or bold typeface every other word, just to get your attention because the truth can speak for itself.  Go against the flow…
Science is all about defeating the Appeal to Popularity.  The idea is that people are inherently flawed and easily fooled.  The best way to know something is to try your damnedest to prove it wrong.  If you actually prove something right, make sure you send it to numerous other scientists and see if they can prove you wrong.  It’s humbling and time consuming, but it is the reason your monitor is beaming photons into your optical lobe right now.  Science struggles with acceptance because the populace usually despises its cruel, sometimes boring conclusions.  No gods on Olympus?  Fooey!  No psychic healing?  Frogswallop!  Besides, I don’t want to be a loner with obscure views, so I’m going to go with the flow… and if I’m wrong, then everyone’s wrong, so who cares?
Think of Mob Rule.  Imagine you are a black man in the 1700’s and some racist white folk are about to lynch you for the crime of being born.  Almost everywhere you turn, you find nothing but racism.  You know it’s absurd, all the claims they make about you, since you know yourself better than their superficial judgments.  You have facts, and evidence; they have hate, and ignorance.  Now do you care?  Sometimes it’s dangerous to go against the flow, there are bullies at every stage in life.  The cruelty of others is endless, and thus the will to fit in is powerful.  It is hard to resist the “Appeal to Popularity”.  The key is to always question the facts, to buy based on reality not perception.  Are you sick and your friend is suggesting some sort of weird “new age” treat­ment?  Ask an expert, read some journals, examine some tests.
The Appeal to Popularity is usually a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It usually starts off as a perception with a low sample size, and grows larger not because it is efficient at what it claims, but is effective at marketing itself, since it is essentially a feed­back loop of ever increasing loudness.  Your turn… Can you think of a moment where you, or someone you know of, fell for the “Appeal to Popularity”?

Circularity
“Circular” arguments are arguments that assume what they’re trying to prove.  If the conclusion of an argument is also one of its reasons, then the argument is circular.  The problem with arguments of this kind is that they don’t get you anywhere.  If you already believe the reasons offered to persuade you that the conclusion is true, then you already believe that the conclusion is true, so there’s no need to try to convince you.  If, on the other hand, you don’t already believe that the conclusion is true, then you won’t believe the reasons given in support of it, so won’t be convinced by the argument.  In either case, you’re left believing exactly what you believed before.  The argument has accomplished nothing.  An example is: “You can trust me; I wouldn’t lie to you.”

Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
“Necessary conditions” are conditions which must be fulfilled in order for an event to come about.  It is impossible for an event to occur unless the necessary conditions for it are fulfilled.  For example, a necessary condition of you passing your A-level Critical Thinking is that you enrol on the course.  Without doing so, there’s no way that you can get the qualification.  “Sufficient conditions” are conditions which, if fulfilled, guarantee that an event will come to pass.  It is impossible for an event not to occur if the sufficient conditions for it are fulfilled.  For example, a sufficient condition of you passing an exam is that you get enough marks.  If you do that, there’s no way that you can fail.  Some arguments confuse necessary and sufficient conditions.  Such arguments fail to prove their conclusions.  An example is: “People who don’t practise regularly always fail music exams.  I’ve practised regularly though, so I’ll be all right.”  Not having practised regularly may be a sufficient condition for failing a music exam, but it isn’t necessary.  People who have practised regularly may fail anyway, due to nerves, perhaps, or simply a lack of talent.

Correlation not Causation
The “correlation not causation” fallacy is committed when one reasons that just because two things are found together (i.e. are correlated), there must be a direct causal connection between them.  Often arguments of this kind seem compelling, but it’s important to consider other possible explanations before concluding that one thing must have caused the other.  An example is: “Since you started seeing that girl your grades have gone down.  She’s obviously been distracting you from your work, so you mustn’t see her anymore.”

Inconsistency
An argument is “inconsistent” if makes two or more contradictory claims.  If an argument is inconsistent, then we don’t have to accept its conclusion.  This is because if claims are contradictory, then at least one of them must be false.  An argument that rests on contradictory claims must therefore rest on at least one false claim, and arguments that rest on false claims prove nothing.  In an argument that makes contradictory claims, whichever of those claims turns out to be false the arguer won’t have proved their conclusion.  This means that it is reasonable to dismiss an inconsistent argument even without finding out which of its contradictory claims is false.  Examples are: “Murder is the worst crime that there is.  Life is precious; no human being should take it away.  That’s why it’s important that we go to any length necessary to deter would-be killers, including arming the police to the teeth and retaining the death penalty.”  This argument both affirms that no human being should take the life of another, and that we should retain the death penalty.  Until this inconsistency is ironed out of the argument, it won’t be compelling. Also: “We don’t tell the government what to do, so they shouldn’t tell us what to do!” These were the words of an angry smoker interviewed on the BBC News following the introduction of a ban on smoking in enclosed public places in England.  Her claim that she doesn’t tell the government what to do is instantly refuted as she proceeds to do just that.

Generalisation
Arguments often use specific cases to support general conclusions.  For example, we might do a quick survey of Premiership footballers, note that each of the examples we’ve considered is vain and ego-centric, and conclude that they all are.  (Or we might offer one example of an argument that moves from the specific to the general as evidence that others do the same.)  We need to be careful with such arguments.  In order for a set of evidence to support a general conclusion, the evidence must meet certain conditions.  For example, it must be drawn from a sufficient number of cases, and the specific cases must be representative.  The more limited or unrepresentative the evidence sample, the less convincing the argument will be.  Arguments that base conclusions on insufficient evidence commit the “generalisation fallacy”.  Examples are: “Smoking isn’t bad for you; my grandad smoked thirty a day for his whole life and lived to be 92.” and “Estate agents are well dodgy. When we moved house… [insert horror story about an estate agent inventing fake offers to push up the sale price].”

Restricting the Options
We are sometimes faced with a number of possible views or courses of action.  By a process of elimination, we may be able to eliminate these options one-by-one until only one is left.  We are then forced to accept the only remaining option.  Arguments that do this, but fail to consider all of the possible options, excluding some at the outset, commit the “restricting the options” fallacy.  An example is: “Many gifted children from working class backgrounds are let down by the education system in this country.  Parents have a choice between paying sky-high fees to send their children to private schools, and the more affordable option of sending their children to inferior state schools.  Parents who can’t afford to pay private school fees are left with state schools as the only option.  This means that children with great potential are left languishing in comprehensives“.  Quite apart from any problems with the blanket dismissal of all comprehensives as inferior, this argument fails to take into account all of the options available to parents.  For the brightest students, scholarships are available to make private school more affordable, so there is a third option not considered above: applying for scholarships to private schools.  Unless this option can be eliminated, e.g. by arguing that there are too few scholarships for all gifted children to benefit from them, along with other options such as homeschooling, the conclusion that children with great potential have no alternative but to go to comprehensives is unproven.

Ad Hominem
“Ad hominem” is Latin for “against the man”. The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself.  Ad hominems can simply take the form of abuse: e.g. “Don’t listen to him, he’s a jerk”.  Any attack on irrelevant biographical details of the arguer rather than on his argument counts as an ad hominem, however: e.g. “that article must be rubbish as it wasn’t published in a peer-reveiwed journal”; “his claim must be false as he has no relevant expertise”; “he says that we should get more exercise but he could stand to lose a few pounds himself”.

Tu Quoque
“Tu quoque” is Latin for “you too”.  The tu quoque fallacy involves using other people’s faults as an excuse for one’s own, reasoning that because someone or everyone else does something, it’s okay for us to do it.  This, of course, doesn’t follow.  Sometimes other people have shortcomings, and we ought to do better than them.  We can be blamed for emulating other people’s faults.

Straw Man
“Straw man” arguments are arguments that misrepresent a position in order to refute it. Unfortunately, adopting this strategy means that only the misrepresentation of the position is refuted; the real position is left untouched by the argument.  An example is: “Christianity teaches that as long as you say ‘Sorry’ afterwards, it doesn’t matter what you do.  Even the worst moral crimes can be quickly and easily erased by simply uttering a word.  This is absurd.  Even if a sinner does apologise for what they’ve done, the effects of their sin are often here to stay.  For example, if someone repents of infanticide, that doesn’t bring the infant back to life.  Christians are clearly out of touch with reality.”  This argument distorts Christianity in a couple of ways.  First, it caricatures repentance as simply saying the word ‘Sorry’.  Second, it implies that Christianity teaches that all of the negative effects of sin are erased when one confesses, which it doesn’t.  Having distorted Christianity, the argument then correctly points out that the distortion is ludicrous, and quite reasonably rejects it as “out of touch with reality”.   The argument, however, completely fails to engage with what the Church actually teaches, and so its conclusion has nothing to do with real Christianity.

Appeal to Authority
An “appeal to an authority” is an argument that attempts to establish its conclusion by citing a perceived authority who claims that the conclusion is true.  In all cases, appeals to authority are fallacious; no matter how well-respected someone is, it is possible for them to make a mistake.  The mere fact that someone says that something is true therefore doesn’t prove that it is true.  The worst kinds of appeal to authority, however, are those where the alleged authority isn’t an authority on the subject matter in question.  People speaking outside of their area of expertise certainly aren’t to be trusted on matters of any importance without further investigation.

Appeal to History
There are two types of “appeal to history”.  The first is committed by arguments that use past cases as a guide to the future.  This is the predictive appeal to history fallacy.  Just because something has been the case to date, doesn’t mean that it will continue to be the case.  This is not to say that we can’t use the past as a guide to the future, merely that predictions of the future based on the past need to be treated with caution.  The second type of appeal to history is committed when it is argued that because something has been done a particular way in the past, it ought to be done that way in the future.  This is the normative appeal to history fallacy, the appeal to tradition.  The way that things have always been done is not necessarily the best way to do them.  It may be that circumstances have changed, and that what used to be best practice is no longer.  Alternatively, it may be that people have been consistently getting it wrong in the past.  In either case, using history as a model for future would be a mistake.  An example is: at the start of the 2006 Premiership season, some might have argued, “Under Jose Mourinho, Chelsea have been unstoppable in the Premiership; the other teams might as well give up on the league now and concentrate on the Cup competitions.”

Weak Analogy
Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison between two cases.  They examine a known case, and extend their findings there to an unknown case.  Thus we might reason that because we find it difficult to forgive a girlfriend or boyfriend who cheated on us (a known case), it must be extremely difficult for someone to forgive a spouse who has had an affair (an unknown case).  This kind of argument relies on the cases compared being similar.   The argument is only as strong as that comparison.  If the two cases are dissimilar in important respects, then the argument commits the “weak analogy” fallacy.

Slippery Slope
Sometimes one event can set of a chain of consequences; one thing leads to another, as the saying goes.  The “slippery slope” fallacy is committed by arguments that reason that because the last link in the chain is undesirable, the first link is equally undesirable.  This type of argument is not always fallacious.  If the first event will necessarily lead to the undesirable chain of consequences, then there is nothing wrong with inferring that we ought to steer clear of it.  However, if it is possible to have the first event without the rest, then the slippery slope fallacy is committed.  An example is: “If one uses sound judgement, then it can occasionally be safe to exceed the speed limit.  However, we must clamp down on speeding, because when people break the law it becomes a habit, and escalates out of control.  The more one breaks the law, the less respect one has for it.  If one day you break the speed limit, then the next you’ll go a little faster again, and pretty soon you’ll be driving recklessly, endangering the lives of other road-users.  For this reason, we should take a zero-tolerance approach to speeding, and stop people before they reach dangerous levels.”

Appeal to Ridicule
The “appeal to ridicule” is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.”  This line of “reasoning” has the following form:  X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).  Therefore claim C is false.  This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false.  This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”  It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non-fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim.  One form of this line of reasoning is known as a “reductio ad absurdum” (“reducing to absurdity”).  In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim.  For example: “Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist.  However, this is absurd.  Think about this: white males are a minority in the world.  Given Bill’s claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists.  Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations.”  Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.  Some examples of “appeal to ridicule” are: “Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition fees, but that is just laughable.” and “Support the ERA?  Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks!  Hah! Hah!” and “Those wacky conservatives!  They think a strong military is the key to peace!”

Post hoc ergo propter hoc
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc”, Latin for “after this, therefore because (on account) of this”, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, “Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.”  It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.  It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.  “Post hoc” is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality.  The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.  Most familiarly, many cases of superstitious religious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.

Alias: Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.  Translation: “After this, therefore because of this”, Latin.  Type: Non Causa Pro Causa Forms.  Event C happened immediately prior to event E.  Therefore, C caused E.  Events of type C happen immediately prior to events of type E.  Therefore, events of type C cause events of type E.
Example:  “The only policy that effectively reduces public shootings is right-to-carry laws. Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime.  In the 31 states that have passed right-to-carry laws since the mid-1980s, the number of multiple-victim public shootings and other violent crimes has dropped dramatically.  Murders fell by 7.65%, rapes by 5.2%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. … Evidence shows that even state and local handgun control laws work.  For example, in 1974 Massachusetts passed the Bartley-Fox Law, which requires a special license to carry a handgun outside the home or business.  The law is supported by a mandatory prison sentence. Studies by Glenn Pierce and William Bowers of Northeastern University documented that after the law was passed handgun homicides in Massachusetts fell 50% and the number of armed robberies dropped 35%”.
Source: “The Media Campaign Against Gun Ownership”, The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 33, No. 11, June 2000. Source: “Fact Card”, Handgun Control, Inc.

Analysis of the Examples

Counter-Example:  Roosters crow just before the sun rises.  Therefore, roosters crowing cause the sun to rise.

Exposition:  The Post Hoc Fallacy is committed whenever one reasons to a causal conclusion based solely on the supposed cause preceding its “effect”.  Of course, it is a necessary condition of causation that the cause precede the effect, but it is not a sufficient condition.  Thus, post hoc evidence may suggest the hypothesis of a causal relationship, which then requires further testing, but it is never sufficient evidence on its own.

Exposure:  Post Hoc also manifests itself as a bias towards jumping to conclusions based upon coincidences.  Superstition and magical thinking include Post Hoc thinking; for instance, when a sick person is treated by a witch doctor, or a faith healer, and becomes better afterward, superstitious people conclude that the spell or prayer was effective.  Since most illnesses will go away on their own eventually, any treatment will seem effective by Post Hoc thinking.  This is why it is so important to test proposed remedies carefully, rather than jumping to conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence.

Analysis of Examples:
These two examples show how the same fallacy is often exploited by opposite sides in a debate, in this case, the gun control debate.  There are clear claims of causal relationships in these arguments.  In the anti-gun control example, it is claimed that so-called “right-to-carry” laws “effectively reduce” public shootings and violent crime.  This claim is supported by statistics on falling crime rates since the mid-1980s in states that have passed such laws.  In the pro-gun control example, it is claimed that state and local gun control laws “work”, presumably meaning that the laws play a causal role in lowering handgun crime.  Again, the claim is supported by statistics on falling crime rates in one state. However, the evidence in neither case is sufficient to support the causal conclusion.
For instance, violent crime in general fell in the United States in the period from the mid-1980s to the present, and – for all that we can tell from the anti-gun control argument – it may have fallen at the same or higher rates in states that did not pass “right-to-carry” laws.  Since the argument does not supply us with figures for the states without such laws, we cannot do the comparison.
Similarly, the pro-gun control argument does not make it clear when Massachusett’s drop in crime occurred, except that it was “after” – “post hoc” – the handgun control law was passed.  Also, comparative evidence of crime rates over the same period in states that did not pass such a law is missing.  The very fact that comparative information is not supplied in each argument is suspicious, since it suggests that it would have weakened the case.
Another point raised by these examples is the use of misleadingly precise numbers, specifically, “7.65%” and “5.2%” in the anti-gun control example.  Especially in social science studies, percentage precision to the second decimal place is meaningless, since it is well within the margin of error on such measurements.  It is a typical tactic of pseudo-scientific argumentation to use overly-precise numbers in an attempt to impress and intimidate the audience.  A real scientist would not use such bogus numbers, which casts doubt upon the status of the source in the example.  The pro-gun control argument, to its credit, does not commit this fallacy.  This suggests, though it doesn’t nail down, an appeal to misleading authority in the anti-gun control one.

Sibling Fallacy:  Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Source:  T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) (Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 131-132.

Resources:
Julian Baggini, “Post Hoc Fallacies”, Bad Moves.
Robert Todd Carroll, “Post Hoc Fallacy”, Skeptic’s Dictionary.

Moving the goalpost
“Moving the goalpost”, also known as “raising the bar”, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.  In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.  This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.  Moving the goalpost can also take the form of reverse feature creep, in which features are eliminated from a product, and the goal of the project is redefined in such a way as to exclude the eliminated features.  An example is: Bella Donna claims that Sybil Antwhisper, her room-mate, is not sharing the housework equitably.  Sybil tells Bella to go away and itemize and record who does what household tasks.  If Bella can show that she does more housework than Sybil, then Sybil will mend her ways.  A week passes and Bella shows Sybil clear evidence that Sybil does not “pull her weight” around the house.  Sybil (the advocate) responds: “That’s all very well, but I have more work and study commitments than you do – you should do more housework than me… it’s the total work of all kinds that matters, not just housework.”  In this example the implied agreement between Bella and Sybil at the outset was that the amount of housework done by both parties should be about the same.  When Sybil was confronted by the evidence however, she quickly and unilaterally “changed the terms of the debate”.  She did this because the evidence was against her version of events and she was about to lose the argument on the issue as originally defined.  By “moving the goalposts”, Sybil is seeking to change the terms of the dispute to avoid a defeat on the original issue in contention.  The term is often used in business to imply bad faith on the part of those setting goals for others to meet, by arbitrarily making additional demands just as the initial ones are about to be met.  Accusations of this form of abuse tend to occur when there are unstated assumptions that are obvious to one party but not to another.  For example, killing all the fleas on a cat is very easy without the usually unstated condition that the cat remain alive and in good health.

Non sequitur in normal speech
The term “non sequitur” is often used in everyday speech and reasoning to describe a statement in which premise and conclusion are totally unrelated but which is used as if they were.  An example might be: “If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me.”  However, there is no actual relation between buying a cell phone and the love of all people.  This kind of reasoning is often used in advertising to trigger an emotional purchase.  Other examples include: “If you buy this car, your family will be safer.”  (While some cars are safer than others, it is possible to decrease instead of increase your family’s overall safety.) and “If you do not buy this type of pet food, you are neglecting your dog.” (Premise and conclusion are once again unrelated; this is also an example of an appeal to emotion.) and “I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining.”  (The conclusion is a non-sequitur because the sun can shine while it is raining.)

Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
The “fallacy of the undistributed middle” is a logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.  It is thus a syllogistic fallacy.  More specifically it is also a form of non sequitur.  It takes the following form: All Zs are Bs.  Y is a B.  Therefore, Y is a Z.  It may or may not be the case that “all Zs are Bs,” but in either case it is irrelevant to the conclusion.  What is relevant to the conclusion is whether it is true that “all Bs are Zs,” which is ignored in the argument.  Note that if the terms were swapped around in either the conclusion or the first co-premise or if the first premise was rewritten to “All Zs can only be Bs” then it would no longer be a fallacy, although it could still be unsound.  This also holds for the following two logical fallacies which are similar in nature to the fallacy of the undistributed middle and also non sequiturs.  An example can be given as follows:  Men are human.  Mary is human.  Therefore, Mary is a man.

Affirming the Consequent
Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur: If A is true, then B is true.  B is true.  Therefore, A is true.  Even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises.  This sort of non sequitur is also called “affirming the consequent”.  An example of affirming the consequent would be: If I am a human (A) then I am a mammal. (B)  I am a mammal. (B)  Therefore, I am a human. (A)  While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises: I could be another type of mammal without also being a human.  The truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of its premises – it is a ‘non sequitur’.  Affirming the consequent is essentially the same as the fallacy of the undistributed middle, but using propositions rather than set membership.

Denying the Antecedent
Denying the antecedent, another common non sequitur. is this: If A is true, then B is true.  A is false.  Therefore B is false.  While the conclusion can indeed be false, this cannot be linked to the premise since the statement is a non sequitur.  This is called denying the antecedent.  An example of denying the antecedent would be:  If I am in Tokyo, I am in Japan.  I am not in Tokyo.  Therefore, I am not in Japan.  Whether or not the speaker is in Japan cannot be derived from the premise.  He could either be outside Japan or anywhere in Japan except Tokyo.

Affirming a Disjunct
Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy when in the following form: A is true or B is true.  B is true.  Therefore, A is not true.  The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are both true.  This fallacy stems from the stated definition of or in propositional logic to be inclusive.  An example of affirming a disjunct would be: I am at home or I am in the city.  I am at home.  Therefore, I am not in the city.  While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises.  For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could have her home in the city, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false.  This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

Denying a conjunct
Denying a conjunct is a fallacy when in the following form: It is not the case that both A is true and B is true.  B is not true.  Therefore, A is true.  The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are both false.  An example of denying a conjunct would be:  It is not the case that both I am at home and I am in the city.  I am not at home.  Therefore, I am in the city.  While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises.  For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could neither be at home nor in the city, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false.  This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

Logically Fallacious Fallacies

by James W. Benham and Thomas J. Marlowe

Ad hominem arguments are the tools of scoundrels and blackguards.  Therefore, they are invalid.
If you had any consideration for my feelings, you wouldn’t argue from an appeal to pity.
What would your mother say if you argued from an appeal to sentiment?
I don’t understand how anyone could argue from an appeal to incredulity.
If you argue from an appeal to force, I’ll have to beat you up.
You are far too intelligent to accept an argument based on an appeal to vanity.
Everyone knows that an argument from appeal to popular opinion is invalid.
Circular reasoning means assuming what you’re trying to prove.  This form of argument is invalid becuase it’s circular.
As Aristotle said, arguments from an appeal to authority are invalid.
Post hoc ergo proptor hoc arguments often precede false conclusions.  Hence, this type of argument is invalid.
Using the Argumentum ad Consequentiam makes for unpleasant discussions.  Hence, it must be a logical fallacy.
The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. If three repetitions of this principle haven’t convinced you, I’ll just have to say it again: the argumentun ad nauseum is invalid.
Ancient wisdom teaches that the argumentum ad antiquitatem is invalid.
An argument is emotional and no substitute for reasoned discussion.  But proof by equivocation is a kind of argument.  Thus, a proof by equivocation is no substitute for a valid proof.
If we accept slippery slope arguments, we may have to accept other forms of weak arguments.  Eventually, we won’t be able to reason at all.  Hence, we must reject slippery slope arguments as invalid.
A real logician would never make an argument based on the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.  If anyone who claims to be logical and makes arguments based on this fallacy, you may rest assured that s/he is not a real logician.
An argument based on a logical fallacy often leads to a false conclusion.  Affirming the consequent often leads to a false conclusion.  Therefore, affirming the consequent is a fallacy.
The fallacy of the undistributed middle is often used by politicians, and they often try to mislead people, so undistributed middles are obviously misleading.
Reasoning by analogy is like giving a starving man a cookbook.
Non sequitur is a Latin term, so that’s a fallacy too.
And I bet the gambler’s fallacy is also invalid – I seem to be on a roll!

In a way, it makes me sad — because some of these folks are clearly intelligent and well-spoken… but haven’t been armed with even a basic grounding in scientific method or the traps of various logical fallacies.  It says quite a lot about our educational system.

References
Barker, Stephen F.  The Elements of Logic. Fifth Edition.  McGraw-Hill, 1989.
Cedarblom, Jerry, and Paulsen, David W.  Critical Reasoning.  Third Edition.  Wadsworth, 1991.
Copi, Irving M., and Cohen, Carl.  Introduction to Logic.  Eighth Edition.  Macmillan, 1990.
Rand, Ayn Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.  Second Edition. Penguin, 1990.
Links
Brian Yoder’s Fallacy Zoo
Charles Ess, Informal Fallacies
Fallacies: The Dark Side of Debate
The Galilean Library Guide to Fallacies
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacy entry
Logical Fallacies .Info
Michael LaBossiere’s Fallacies Introduction
Philosophy.Lander.Edu, Introduction to Logic, Informal Fallacies
Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies
Wheeler’s Logical Fallacies Handlist

ESTABLISHED

am-i-blocked

I can’t reply on drewswebsite because he has BLOCKED me.  He’s the seventieth site to do this so far.

There could be THREE OR MORE transparent layers of air of DIFFERENT HUMIDITIES, only ONE of which condenses a “VAPOR TRAIL”, within the short-haul civil aircraft band between 30 and 35 thousand feet. Layer thicknesses of differing humidities are frequently only hundreds of feet thick and ARE CONSTANTLY VARIABLE in speed, direction, temperature and humidity. Aircraft are spaced ten miles apart on the same level for a particular route, and conflicting routes are nowadays 1000ft above or below each other.

So you’ll see SOME planes laying vapor trails while others don’t – it depends WHICH transparent stratospheric layer a particular plane is flying through.

Jet exhausts are NITROGEN, STEAM, and CARBON DIOXIDE at 2000 deg C (with traces of NOX and SOX). This cools RAPIDLY in an ambient stratospheric air temp of between -40 and -80 deg C to a FINE “WHITE SMOKE” OF ICE CRYSTALS in N2 and CO2.

If the stratospheric layer it is in is SUPERSATURATED (more than 100% humid), the ice crystals accrete more ice, get heavier, and fall faster.

If the stratospheric layer it is in is SATURATED (exactly 100% humid), the ice crystals REMAIN, but SLOWLY DIFFUSE TO FILL the stratolayer. The powerful WAVE VORTEX generated by the aircraft wing continues for tens of minutes after the aircraft has passed by, slowing to a stop very slowly.

If the stratospheric layer it is in is BELOW SATURATED (less than 100% humid), the ice crystals will slowly SUBLIME back into vapor AND THE TRAIL WILL DISAPPEAR.

The layers themselves aren’t perfectly flat – they roughly conform to the ground profile AND any rising CUMULUS clouds. So even if the plane flies straight and level, it may be the layer it is in slopes gently down or up, and THE CONTRAIL EITHER APPEARS OR DISAPPEARS as it enters a NEW stratospheric layer with a DIFFERENT HUMIDITY. You have to remember these layers, though different, are ALWAYS themselves transparent.

So you can’t SEE them. You can only see which layer is really humid by a plane throwing a vapour trail in it. Typically stratospheric layers begin ABOVE the TROPOPAUSE, which is where our ground level weather STOPS. It is NOT POSSIBLE TO PREDICT FROM TABLES STRATOSPHERIC LAYER TEMPERATURES FROM GROUND LEVEL TEMPERATURES.

The stratospheric layers vary in thickness, more densely packed close to the TROPOPAUSE, thinning out to nothing much above twelve miles up. It’s very smooth and calm up there – the layers slide over each other WITHOUT MIXING. Layers with HIGH GROUND SPEEDS are called JET STREAMS.

If there are MORE vapor trails in the sky than there used to be, then the answer is that there is MORE AVIATION TRAFFIC and MORE WATER IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

At this point someone will interject “Your Theory…” and I want to plainly cut this short.

THIS IS ESTABLISHED ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS and NOT MY THEORY.

If you wanted to PASS ANY EXAMINATION IN THIS FIELD then you HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THIS TO BE THE TRUTH.

EURODELE

Eurodele, at least you are TRYING to ask questions, but:

“why many jets, laying persistent contrails, would converge in time and space 100 miles from any large airport” – Easy. The speed of stratospheric layers over your head can reach 100mph. If contrails are persistent, then they could have been laid just an hour previously “over” an airport. Next time you see this phenomenon, time the movement of trails from horizon to horizon, and estimate the speed of the stratosphere

“strangely concentrated and patterned jet trails through or over which other jets can pass with normal contrail dissipation” – From FIVE miles beneath, you CANNOT TELL between “through” and “over”. This makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE if one (invisible!) layer is HUMID, and the layer above or below it (also invisible!) is DRY. Contrailscience cannot be held responsible for your failure to INTERPOLATE information…

EVER

horse-feathers

Look, Ever, I am a normal guy looking at PURE BUNK: this last statement of yours. The proof that this last statement of yours is HORSE FEATHERS can be found by any sensible person merely by going to their LIBRARY, and READING any book they like which covers ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS. Now you wouldn’t object to that, would you?

“I’m one of the many victims” – of an industrial economy.

“They are spraying” – IT IS MAKING AUTO FUMES, PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG, AND INDUSTRIAL POLLUTANTS.

“I will not go out to see them because my asthma is terrible” – ASTHMA IS CAUSED BY THE ABOVE AND ALSO BY POLLEN.

“Whatever these things are” – I thought you KNEW

“they are indeed making people sick” – People have been made ill by industry for 150 years in your country.

“The quality of the air is so poor in the Bronx and lately it is worst than ever” – Your country is producing effluents at an ever-increasing rate

“I wonder why” – NO YOU DON’T. You have already come to a WRONG CONCLUSION.

“Debunkers/ experts/ authorities on/ chemtrails/80-90%/ real info/hidden propaganda” – Why did you write this and why the quotes? What hidden propaganda? There’s NOTHING hidden here – check my channel – I’m a MUSICIAN here.

“If you are a Musician, why do you get so defensive about this topic? I see that you spent a lot of time proving your point, great.” – I am defending (quite literally) – nothing. I am ATTACKING false and dangerous beliefs.
The Bard of Ely (with whom I have worked) enjoined me to support his “chemtrail” blog. When I read it I was astonished – I’d never met such rubbish in my life. I knew FROM EXPERIENCE (I’m an ex-aeronautical engineer) that the whole idea was wrong for a HOST of reasons. I thought that a small campaign of scientific advice would clear it up – more fool me! There have been 60 Google pages listing my attempts.

My main concern is with HEALING. If one suffers from the delusion that aircraft are deliberately spraying you with substances to make you ill, and you ARE living in polluted air, then any illness you get merely serves to CONFIRM your delusion. If, however, I manage to convince a person such as YOU, suffering from such a delusion, that after all, aircraft are NOT spraying you, you may PERMIT yourself recovery from what was a temporary state of illness. You also have a choice: to MOVE to cleaner air, or to AGITATE to remove the sources of pollution.

agit

There is a third and most important point, that almost NO-ONE has any confidence in our system. This is because PAST APATHY has allowed the wrong people in. The ONLY WAY to get the government you want is to BE the government you want. Frank Zappa was right: you MUST stand for office.

obama

The very best outcome of this “chemtrail” movement would be a NEW PARTY – neither Republican nor Democrat – which would seek to redress ALL the terrible imbalances to Nature that we have created, whilst preventing both a cultural CRASH, and a Global Warming CRISIS.

But you’ll never do it without a full understanding of SCIENCE…

EVERYTHING

New Developments of the Theory of Everything

2950673908_430413742f

(Nothing whatsoever to do with “chemtrails”, but I don’t care!)

theory-of-everything-2

Startling progress has been made towards a final physical theory of Everything (sometimes called TOE) which unifies and brings into comparison the disparate Theories of Relativity and Quantum Fields.

If true, the gaps in our knowledge will be displayed. That which we don’t know that we don’t know – we will know!

And here are more references for you to follow up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

http://www.mkbergman.com/?p=409

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/largehadroncollider/3314456/Surfer-dude-stuns-physicists-with-theory-of-everything.html

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/articles/kaku.asp

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077361/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Everything-Origin-Fate-Universe/dp/1893224546

071115_e8

EVIL

hear-no-evil

“serve to cause confusion to the issue” – That seems to be YOUR role here as it is QUITE OBVIOUS that what comes out of a gas turbine IS what makes SODA-POP.

“attempt to make rational people who are making observations and discussing their experiences appear to be conspiracy nuts and/or uneducated” – ANY “rational” person would know to read up on technical aspects BEFORE “making observations and discussing their experiences” especially if they felt they were uninformed.

technical-aspects

“You are using faulty logic and classic emotion based redirection (example “This rising panic ensues from an under-educated public”) as the basis of your argument” – the public IS under-educated. YOU are under-educated. YOU are KNOWINGLY using faulty logic and classic emotion based redirection when confronted with my challenge that you ARE under-educated (see the subject of EVIL below).

“These are exactly the tactics that are used to manipulate rather than uncover the truth” – for you this statement ISN’T a discovery!

“You should know that your posts are smacking of someone with an agenda” – and yours positively REEKS of one.

“government plant” – AHA! We’re sophisticated these days at http://www.myspace.com/jazzroc – hope you like the blog, piccies and music.

“No one mentioned anything about what the trails were” – DISINGENUOUS hypocrite! I quote – “Obvious trails, definitely converging” – “latest plane curving at same angle” – “they just keep coming” – “it’s pretty obvious” – “that’s the one” – “somebodies doing something” – “really strange spiralling effect” – “they’re just non-stop”. My, my, how “INNOCENT” you really are….

“YOU were the one to put forward a theory for what they are” – It is THE EXPLANATION made from an understanding of atmospheric physics. It isn’t a “theory”. It is established atmospheric science. Your “chemtrails” are a theory.

“YOU said the video post is “wrong” which makes no sense – my video was only making an observation that something is going on” – OF COURSE it is wrong. If I hadn’t typed in “CHEMTRAILS” I wouldn’t have pulled you up. That very WORD is a LIE with no basis.

“In additional YOU brought up the subject of evil, no one else here did” – IT IS EVIL TO KNOWINGLY MISDIRECT AND TERRORIZE OTHERS.

evil-calls-1l

EXHAUST

The stratosphere temperature at the tropopause NEVER RISES ABOVE -40 deg C.

In A FRACTION OF A SECOND the exhaust, a mixture of NITROGEN, STEAM, AND CARBON DIOXIDE cools down from 2000 deg C to -40 deg to form a WHITE SMOKE OF FINE ICE CRYSTALS in a column of N2 and CO2 gases.

In HIGH HUMIDITIES that trail will PERSIST and even GROW. In LOW HUMIDITIES the ICE will SUBLIME to invisible WATER VAPOR.

EXPONENTIAL TIMES

There is no-one alive that can possibly be sufficiently clued-up on this. Whether you’re a specialist or a generalist makes no difference – from now on some aspect of our developing world is going to take you completely by surprise.

There is no doubt that one day soon an off-the-shelf computer will possess a greater processing power than the Human Brain.

But in the interim we will all have created (and endured) a startingly-exponential rate of change which could easily be totally out of our control. In the generation after the next we might well have produced a computer powerful enough to help us regain control of our civilization, but in the meantime – we’ll just have to rough it.

EXTREME?

Extreme? I find myself arguing with people who know the extremes of NOTHING. They’re hardly capable of anything. They know the extents of their boundaries, and kinda suppose that the rest of the world goes on just a bit longer…

Chemtrailers are like people who are hammering their hands with hammers and complaining about the pain. They know no extremes other than their own extremities.

Extreme?

THIS IS EXTREME!

“S-I-C-K ! !”  “D-U-D-E ! !” 🙂

FIRST CONTRAIL (PHOTO)

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m18/JazzRoc/Contrails/stpauls.jpg

FORTRESSES

ff

“other planes left Con trails that vanished” – then the trails were left in a DRY layer.

“other planes did not have trail” – they ALWAYS leave a trail in the stratosphere, but it may be VERY SHORT.

“at various heights” – ABOVE FIVE MILES?

“other trails lingered, spread” – then the trails were left in a SATURATED layer.

“are these trails Chem or Con trails” – CONTRAILS.

“I don’t know, I’m not a bird or a scientist” – I DO know. I AM a scientist.

“length/linger/sheet/layer/haze/slide/spray pattern/within 5-10 minutes/suspicious” – just coincident with a WET layer of the stratosphere.

“not natural/condensation trails” – you’re not a bird or a scientist, remember?

“know that planes dump fuel/not sure they dump it this low” – a plane that dumps fuel is doing it in order to survive an immediate landing. Being mobile it normally goes out to sea to do it, and will be LOW DOWN. Your chances of seeing THAT are RARE indeed.

“don’t know if it is fuel or something else/fuel = chemical” – EVERYTHING is a chemical, unless it is an ELEMENT. You’re not a bird or a scientist, remember?

“This is not the first time” – that aircraft have left persistent contrails in saturated air? Flying Fortresses in 1943 certainly did!

b-17_flying_fortress

FRACTALS IN NATURE

Fractal calculations have an ever-expanding relevance to the task of understanding Nature with the tools of Science.

FROZEMAN

first of all, the theme by thomas tallis is very good and the pictures too, i am from germany, so my english is a little bit poor.

it seems to me that you have a good knowledge about atmospheric procedures, so i want to ask you a question.

i have watched “chemtrails” for over 2 years now, and i am still not clear, if it’s chemical spraying or normal contrails.

i understand the “layers of differing humidities” principle, that can explain some “chemtrails”. so that i see here a “chemtrail” and there a normal contrail. ok but i have filmed airplanes that have no contrail at all, and beginning to spray, and make an longstanding contrail and then stop it, to make no contrail again.

the confusing thing here is for me is that this airplane made a wingwidth stripe almost direct behind the plane. so you dont’ see two or four stripes, or how much engines it had, you see only a thick stripe all over the wingspan and it stays for hours and diffuses to thick cloud, and before it had no contrail and after that, and it sprayed at the end some little short trails, as if it stop the spraying, and there nor come a little bit of it. you can literaly see how it sprays. and in the spray direct behind the plane there were colours in the trail, because of the angle to the sun.

what do you think of that, how is it possible, if an airplane had two or four engines that it can make such a trail, and then the trail stays for “ever”? thanks for your time, and sorry for my english. i am waiting for your answer.

Hi FROZEMAN – I appreciate your English, and how hard it is to write in a different language… I’m glad you liked my music video. It makes the hard work (and a lot of musical pleasure) even more worthwhile.

The plane was NOT “spraying”. “Chemtrails” don’t exist. It is ONLY contrails that exist. The phenomenon you describe is the trail of ice crystals left by an ordinary passenger jet flying through a supersaturated stratosphere. *The separate engine trails become “bound up” in the wave vortex of each wing – these may be more than fifty metres across.

Read my blog at https://jazzroc.wordpress.com, especially SCIENCE ON TRAILS. It is towards the end of the alphabetically-sorted compendium.

There, a scientist describes carefully how and why the whole body of an airplane generates a trail in a supersaturated stratosphere.

“Saturation” is a term used to describe how the air is “full” to its limit with water vapor. Ice cannot sublime into the air, and so cannot “disappear”. Trails laid in such conditions persist indefinitely.

“Supersaturation” occurs in calm clean “laminar” conditions, where the air becomes “over its limit” with water vapor, and just needs the slightest disturbance to precipitate out its overload of ice. Trails laid in such conditions get LARGER and HEAVIER and FALL….

The ICE crystals in the trail generated by the wings and body are microscopic in size and can REFRACT and DISPERSE light by INTERFERENCE, which accounts for the colors one can sometimes see.

Ordinary cirrus clouds also produce (on occasion) such coloured effects. They are called PEARLESCENT CIRRUS. There is another name for them – NACREOUS CLOUDS.

There used to be stories of a pot of gold to be found at the foot of every rainbow. Now science shows that everyone sees a different rainbow, and there is NO WAY you can approach its foot – ever.

“Chemtrails” are like this; a myth which, like a rainbow, disappears as soon as science looks at it. Let it go…

FUN IN THE SUN

It is only very rarely that I return to Blighty. I do it when I feel strong enough within myself to withstand a WEEK (well, three weeks max) of its brute power and brazen importunity.

I had a truly wonderful time whizzing through London on an Oystercard to yak with old buggers my age about software, businesses, engineering, aircraft, steam trains, (nothing about cars – hardly), beer, booze, and women. (All the women we know, by the way, talk about us, so it’s only fair to even up the ante. If they let us.)

Anyway, that aside I was aghast that once again British weather was making with the knee-freezing combination of 18 deg C and 85% humidity as I departed, mercifully freeing myself from being charged 30 pee to pee.

Back to a balmy 32 degrees, I discovered THIS idiocy had, as they say, GONE VIRAL. So – possible fun!

NOTE: Comments text arrives higgledy-piggledy according to the vagaries of YouTube, so sometimes you have to fish around to find the connections. This amuses me considerably…

beachcomber2008
Missymoo, have you just removed a concealed compliment to me, because your PROGRAMMING just kicked in?
Tch. Tch. Naughty, naughty…
wise pensioner who knows name calling is unbecoming” just made me blush from head to foot, and now we’re BOTH blushing
Too embarassing… LOL )

MissyM005
I am looking forward to seeing this documentary and informing other people about it as well. I think it’s fantastic! Well done to the makers. 🙂


beachcomber2008
Another irritating thing…
Chemtards are woolly-headed, I know, and cannot describe anything because even if their eyes are good, their brain doesn’t work
So let me tell you EXACTLY what CHAFF really is
It is ANY electrical conductor of an exactly specified LENGTH
In large amounts they REFLECT electromagnetic radiation (RADAR) with a wavelength of EXACTLY the same length
This was called WINDOW and used by the Allies in WW2 to confuse German radar air defences and prevent huge bomber losses
Then it was aluminum-coated paper, now it is zinc-plated glass fibres – which I think isn’t so nice and biodegradable
But in neither case is it harmful or poisonous – the fibre length is in the range 15-45 millimetres depending on the radar frequencies used by the enemy, and cannot be ingested by living beings
The amounts involved in a chaff release are in pounds – small beer
ANYONE using CHAFF as a scare tactic is a “terrorist”
Just as ANYONE using CHEMTRAILS as a scare tactic is a “terrorist”

The common (and mistaken) agricultural practice of PLOWING
GUARANTEES windborne dust, therefore windborne aluminum and barium
Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor
Once the water vapor becomes RAIN, then that rain will fall into a rain gauge so that some poor ignorant girl can become the victim of another slimy and vicious “chemtrail” video
Contrails are the IQ test that “chemtrailers” FAIL

MissyM005
beachcomber seems like a bit of a shill but not for the big pharma as expected I think for a much different organisation perhaps one they would tell u doesn’t exist. Iluminating ppl with the BS. Don’t let his desperate negative explanations get 2 you. You know the truth when it is presented, don’t let him second guess your well versed inner knowing of Truth. The trick of giving you the truth shrouded amongst lies esp regarding aluminium and barium – truth but lies moulded to deceive you.


beachcomber2008
@MissyM005 If you KNEW scientific method, missymoo, then all you have to do is
SHOW THE EVIDENCE
There’s absolutely NO POINT in telling others not to believe what I say
It is THE EVIDENCE that counts
and those white lines in the sky ARE evidence – evidence of CONTRAILS
It IS the TRUTH that aluminum and barium are in SOIL
and TRUE that soil dust puts aluminum & barium in RAINWATER
And also TRUE that that I’m a PENSIONER
You can call me the PAT CONDELL of chemtards
Who are YOU, MISSYMOO?

MissyM005
Comment removed


beachcomber2008
Quoting myself: “Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor”
And as a consequence you will find in your rain gauge ALUMINUM and BARIUM – courtesy of your local farmer
Then, if you are ignorant, you may appear on a “chemtrail” video
In the old days we had Jacques Tati, Benny Hill, Monty Python, Bill Hicks
Now “chemtrails” – a whole world of a comedy of errors

Aluminum is the MOST PLENTIFUL metal in the Earth’s crust
Not far down the list is BARIUM
You find BOTH in SOIL – CLAY is aluminum silicate
Exposed soil becomes dried and makes DUST which becomes easily WINDBORNE
The common (and mistaken) agricultural practice of PLOWING
GUARANTEES windborne dust, therefore windborne aluminum and barium
Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor
ALL plants are “aluminum resistant” because they EVOLVED in aluminum-rich conditions
Your ignorance…

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
Despite ALL the crap you wrote in this post, THE EPA CERTIFIED LAB SAID 0.5 MICROGRAM PER LITER IN RAIN WATER IS NORMAL. 3450 IS 6900 TIMES NORMAL YOU CEREBRAL MIDGET.


beachcomber2008
Energydrain, I WAS impressed by your little search, and must confess I KNOW the way it could be done
Forming large amounts of tungsten is very nearly impossible
Forming NIMONIC (nickel/molybdenum steel alloy) is a little easier
EVERY PART of the exhaust turbine section of a gas turbine is air-cooled from the rear face of the alloy sheet material they’re made of
Your “tube” would have to be streamlined concentric pipes of nimonic alloy
They would HAVE to be BROKEN for EVERY refit
whistle, whistle

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
The liar bastard in you said that jet fuel burns at 2400 degrees Celsius. The maximum temperature for (JET A-1) fuel is 980 Celsius.
The following have melting points higher than that: Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Cobalt, Titanium, Chromium, Iridium, Molybdenum, Tungsten, Carbon


beachcomber2008
@EnergySupply2008 Hey, kiddo, I’ve just been back to the FAST exhibition at Farnborough where they have a cutaway Rolls-Royce Conway engine with the combustion temperature labelled at 2,400 degrees Centigrade
Why don’t you go there and tell them (the designers and manufacturers) that they are wrong?
And I know for a fact that the delivery requirements for the Welsbach materials in Teller’s paper were 80,000 feet. It kinda stood out, you know
Melting point isn’t a good indicator. Softening point IS

And while you’re watching the documentary, you will see that the WHOLE of the work force, and the technical staff, live and work right round the plane
The wings are glued together, so there is NO WAY of picking them apart to RETROFIT “stuff”
This means EVERY ONE OF THEM, including the lady with the glue gun, would have to know the “chemtrail” equipment installed
EVERY FITTER in EVERY WORK BAY ALL OVER THE WORLD would have to know about Energydrain’s “tungsten pipes”
Yet no whistleblowers
STRANGE

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
There are whistle blowers, you just have to look for them. Two aircraft mechanics found that tubing was leading to the lighting protection rods on the wings and they had been hollowed out. When his supervisor spotted him looking too closely, he was suspended for two weeks. They threaten whistle blowers with losing their jobs and blacklisting them.


beachcomber2008
@EnergySupply2008 There’s nothing you find that I haven’t already found
Ignorant people everywhere like conspiratorial conversations and activities because it makes them feel important
Intelligent people everywhere are NOT impressed by threats or blackmail or blacklists
If there WAS any truth in any part of this it would have been gone already
So HOW DO YOU get the Welsbach materials up to 80,000 feet?
In WHAT FORM is the barium/aluminum distributed?
Stop changing the subject & answer my questions

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
You wrote: “There’s nothing you find that I haven’t already found”
YOU are delusional. I found rain water tests, patents, geo engineers talking about spraying 44 BILLION 92 MILLION pounds of aluminum per year and so much more that cannot be covered adequately with this 500 character limit shitty interface. I already told you, the patent calls for 32800 feet and they could spray lower if they wanted to really blast us with aluminum particles in our lungs.


beachcomber2008
It has always puzzled me…
Why do chemtards believe “chemtrails” are used to fight Global Warming, when they are known to be Global Warming DENIERS?
Why do they believe EVERYONE but them corrupt?
In my experience, clever people who study hard and pass exams in engineering do so because THEY LOVE THE SUBJECT
All my classmates did. They also loved cars, beer, music and the opposite sex
Entering some corrupt organization is the LAST thing they would do
You should watch “The Making of the 777”

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
This will solve your puzzlement. 2900 flights per day needed to deliver 44 BILLION 92 MILLION pounds of aluminum PER YEAR to the atmosphere. RAIN RAIN RAIN water tests showing up to 6900 times more aluminum than normal. Class is over.


beachcomber2008
Energydrain: “chemtrail patent 5,003,186 issued to HUGHES AIRCRAFT, which talks about adding the aluminum to the fuel
was formulated by someone who WASN’T a gas turbine engineer
There are patents for a hotel on the Moon – so it must exist
Why don’t you go there?
Scotty can beam you up
You will find thousands of morons already there

Energydrain: “Tungsten melts at 3400 degrees Celsius. Care to try again you shit for brains?”
I’m terribly sorry. You ARE correct about its melting point
To confirm, could you check the price and availability of tungsten tubing?
When that’s done, we could consider you to have won the argument
Where can you get it, and how much it costs, price and availability
Shouldn’t take a moment
Just get back to me

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
The current price for tungsten is $297 per metric ton (2204.6 US pounds) Only 13.5 cents per pound. It is used in incandescent light bulbs, cathode-ray tubes such as TV and computer monitors, vacuum tube filaments, heating elements, and rocket engine nozzles. 2009 production was 53 tons.


beachcomber2008
@EnergySupply2008 Hey, that’s good.
Did you find any tubing?

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
I am not in the market for tungsten tubing right now. When I need some I will look up suppliers.


beachcomber2008
Aerosols are always present in the atmosphere, otherwise there wouldn’t be any clouds at all
Aerosols are generated by the oceans, forests, tundra, and volcanoes (85%) – and the industrial and farming activities of Man (15%)
Aerosols have existed in Earth’s air for FOUR POINT FIVE BILLION YEARS
That’s a little ahead of Edward Teller and chemtards
Why aren’t we BURIED in them?
WATER transports them down to land and sea
Even when extinction-event asteroids fell, the aerosol effects were GONE in 10 years

stephenbowman311
Shit. I had to rewrite it so many times because youtube blocks me every time I write something because I talk shit to all you shills. BTW. They don’t use commercial airliners. But seriously… all spelling aside, Shit will leave your mouth. Nasty.


beachcomber2008
@stephenbowman311 Yes, YT has a shit filter
It’s a pity it doesn’t apply it to shitty vids like this one
The thing is that it doesn’t know shit about science, just as you don’t, so it is unable to discriminate diahorrhea from honey, just as you can’t
I extend my sympathies to both of you and other chemtards everywhere
It must make shopping difficult
How do they deliver Welsbach materials to 80,000 feet? Mmmmm……

stephenbowman311
@beachcomber2008 Its funny you consider this to be a shitty vid, but you look through the comments and you’ve been here for a long time. I know plenty about science. Mostly because of my BA in Biology. I just came to F with you shills for a while and talk shit. Your not here for facts anyway. You are here on your shift spewing disinfo. I don’t go shopping. Thats for the women.

Chemtard.. I like that. Its new… Its fresh.

beachcomber2008
@stephenbowman311 “I know plenty about science. Mostly because of my BA in Biology”
What’s a B.A. in Biology? Since when was Biology an ART?
I got my degree in the sixties before DUMBING DOWN took place
I have been, and my wife presently is, a physics teacher, and I know for a fact that Advanced level today is what Ordinary level physics was for me
So don’t bullshit me, bro’
Tell me, how do YOU think they get the Welsbach materials up to 80,000 feet?
Divine intervention?

erniepond
@stephenbowman311
Well, I am terribly sorry, but you have not posted anything at all scientific!
Like explaining where all the barium and aluminum comes from and why?
Where does the 100 to 200 millions tons of aluminum come from considering the total world yearly production is only 33 million tones?
In other words, the uneducated authors of this video just do not know enough to make out a viable case!
Why should any sensible person take this cause at all seriously?


EnergySupply2008
@erniepond1
The video corrects it to 10-20 megatons with an annotation and you know it. David Keith, when asked 10 megatons will gave no human health impacts, does not offer a different number.
I have already posted twice, if you go to Worldal.com you will see that world production of alumina (aluminum oxide) is 67 megatons per year, yet you insist on lies and being a scumbag that it is 33 megatons per year.


erniepond
@EnergySupply2008
Your knowledge of chemistry is pitifully small. Aluminum metal and alumina are two entirely different compounds. Aluminum has a formula weight 27 while alumina, aluminum trioxide, has a formula weight of 102. Thus 102 grams of alumina contains 54 grams of aluminum.
Thus the world output of 67 million tones of alumina would represent some 35 million tones of aluminum, EXACTLY what I said.
That is enough of this paranoidal Chemnut rubbish for tonight! Thanks for the laugh!


EnergySupply2008
@erniepond1
YOU are a total idiot. According to you 35 million tons of aluminum is turned onto 67 million tons of aluminum oxide and there is no aluminum left over to have aluminum for other purposes.


beachcomber2008
I like the way this has “gone viral”
With little effort thousands of chemtards line up to get drubbed
So energydrain thinks there are tungsten nozzles at the back of turbofan engines
Well, the NEXT time I go flying I shall take a camera and snap away at them
I WON’T ask the captain if he can fly at 80,000 feet because I know the answer (he cannot) and I wouldn’t want him to think I’m a moron – or a CHEMTARD

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
“Tungsten nozzles at the back of turbofan engines”
Obviously they would install nozzles that can withstand the temperature.


beachcomber2008
Edward Teller’s idea requires aircraft to LIFT the Welsbach materials to EIGHTY THOUSAND FEET, otherwise they won’t stay up for long
Unfortunately for Edward (and chemtards) only the U2 and the X15, and maybe the B1 can get up there
That’s certainly the reason why “chemtrails” don’t exist
Chemtards point at passenger plane contrails
and that’s why sensible people KNOW chemtards are just plain stupid
Contrails are an intelligence test which chemtards fail

stephenbowman311
@beachcomber2008 If you talk out of your ass too much, you make start to shit out of your mouth!


beachcomber2008
@stephenbowman311 Hey, I like your thought process (tourrettish, like mine)
Is it like your spelling?

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
HUGHES AIRCRAFT chemtrail patent 5,003,186 calls for spraying at 32,800 feet and says 10-100 micron sized particles will stay aloft for up to one year. Geoengineer David Keith wants to use NANO sized particles. A nano is 1000 times smaller than a micron and estimates particles will stay aloft for 2.5 to 4 years.


beachcomber2008
mikemb123: “condensation does not require aerosols”
NO. It ALWAYS REQUIRES AN AEROSOL
AEROSOLS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS PRESENT
When they are NOT present to allow condensation, the saturated vapor becomes SUPERSATURATED
Why are the dunces in the classroom shouting from the teacher’s desk?

visry
Excellent trailer…subbed!


erniepond
@visry
I guess the Chemnuts satisfy their paranoia just just posting some nonsense they took from some other dud Chemtrail nonsense video.
OK so be it !



Written by JazzRoc

November 5, 2008 at 1:00 am

Posted in atmosphere, Aviation, contrails, science, Truth, Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Genuine Bull

leave a comment »

PAGE CONTENTS

GENUINE BULL – GENUINE PROFESSIONALS – GEORGE CARLIN – GET REAL – GIVEMEABREAKGIVEMEABREAK – BREATHTAKING QUOTES

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…

GENUINE BULL

sittingbull

GenuineBull: Persistent lies of chemically-infused butt spray dispersals from typically uninformed brains which are now seen in YouTube all over the world. Unlike normal conversations formed by normal people, GB’s words spread to form a thick blanket of bullshit, held together by straws until they reach the ground, contaminating crops, water supplies and humans with a pungent stink of lies and dessicated innuendoes which contain active human pathogens. The cure: contrailscience.com

GENUINE PROFESSIONALS

Chemtrails Parts I and II ? Miles Muzio Chief Meteorologist KBAK-TV, CBS 29 News, Bakersfield California

Genuine professionals are people called by some as “disinformationalists” (sic).

They are ALWAYS people who KNOW what they are talking about. Chemtrailers automatically HATE these people and call them “useful idiots”.

Miles Muzio here is a regular guy who is obviously good at his job, but not too practised in rebutting or debunking conspiracy fools. (I can tell because he occasionally misuses some relevant terminology himself, which one has learned NOT to do when fighting such a war of ideas. In particular he seems unaware of the existence of supersaturation as a special condition of the stratosphere.)

He says: “This is an ongoing controversy with some people who insist a malevolent conspiracy is subliminally gassing Americans. I have found no credible evidence of this. Condensation trails are common and form as a function of temperature. Condensation nuclei are produced by hydrocarbon exhaust and quickly form ice fog in the high atmosphere. The colder it is at flight level the more persistent the ice fog is.

There are really three types of fog (which are manifest as clouds aloft): 1) regular water droplet fog at temperatures above freezing, 2) water droplet fog at temperatures below freezing (which can result in icing conditions for aircraft), and 3) ice crystal fog (ice fog). Ice fog generally forms at temperatures below -22F. In arctic towns during the dead of winter it is not unusual to have ice fog form behind cars on the road. Ice fog dissipates very slowly because it must sublime from solid to vapor which requires a molecular heat transfer of about 620 calories per gram. At extremely low temperatures in the 30,000 to 40,000 foot range (between -60 and -100 degrees F), this change of state can take some time.

When I was a military meteorologist in Alaska back in the 1970s, one of the routine forecasts I put out was a contrails prediction. It was something that dated back to World War II. Our bombers needed to know at what altitude they must fly in order to NOT produce contrails. Of course, there was radar back then and the Japanese probably could spot an incoming B-29, but perhaps not. If contrails were visible 100 miles away then everyone would know. Nomograms were developed for the prediction. It was fairly straight forward. A critical temperature and pressure was required for contrail formation, usually something like -45F. Humidity came into the equation for relatively warm temperatures, but once it got below about -70F humidity didn’t matter – ice clouds would form regardless. When you see jets in which the contrail forms for only a short distance behind the aircraft and then it quickly disappears – that means the jet is flying at an altitude close to the critical contrail temperature.

I can also tell you that the manner in which contrails disperse, or don’t disperse, reveals important information about atmospheric stability and diffluence. The same is true about lenticular clouds that form in Tehachapi. These mountain wave clouds don’t automatically form when it’s windy. There are several other considerations, such as stability, humidity and the wind angle relation to the mountain range.

In the same way contrails will expand in areas of diffluent flow (winds pulling apart over a horizontal area). Much of this also applies to steam or exhaust that is released from a common smoke stack in breezy conditions. If the smoke goes up or if it goes down, if it expands or if it stays uniform – all tell a story about the character of the atmosphere. So when contrails form an X in the sky, it means there are two persistent contrails behind aircraft with tracks at 90-degrees to each other – nothing more. Go to contrailscience.com for further details.”

GEORGE CARLIN

“YOU ARE ALL DISEASED”

george-carlin1

This was an American with a single-digit percentage of bullshit telling Americans what was wrong with their thinking (not that he didn’t have a world-wide appeal!). I tremendously respected and admired this man, and still keep him in mind when I write – he helps me keep my OWN bullshit in check.

What he says about DISEASE (and many other issues) should be MANDATORY MATERIAL in education.

He was the very embodiment of  MATURITY…

GET REAL

mayon-volcano

Aviation kerosine contains no metal, and burns to form steam and carbon dioxide. Chaff is INERT. Civil planes aren’t fitted with spray equipment. The world’s 1500 active (24/7) volcanoes outdo Man’s efforts twentyfold. Living plants have converted THAT into FRESH AIR for 3 billion years. Human skin and lung diseases are caused by pollens and auto fumes and photoreactive smog combined. Worry about deforestation and the death of ocean phytoplankton. GET REAL! PEACEFULLY!

GIVEMEABREAKGIVEMEA…

“He will just waste your time and energy” – You ARE wasting everyone’s time.

“I learned the hard way” – You have LEARNED not a thing

“posts on other chemtrail videos” – who LIE as YOU do..

“comments from other people about him on his YouTube profile” – There was ONE SMART GUY there…

“all over the web debunking chemtrails” – I would STOP if there were any PROOF to the contrary.

“google “jazzroc”” – and some extreme “chemtrailer” crap crops up amongst scientific and musical references. Embarrassing.

“logical explanation for his behavior is he is paid” – NO. For want of a scientific understanding you guys are talking complete rubbish, and I thought to point you in a scientific direction. While you talk utter crap you’ll get nowhere. (Don’t you just LOATHE people who talk past you?)

“jazzroc (aka “Epoxynous”, “doublemeat”)” – They are OTHER PEOPLE I’m pleased to have been in touch with.

“”soda pop” crap” – Which is COMPLETELY TRUE – but call it CRAP, and maybe it’ll go away, eh?

“never-ending arguments” – NEVER HAPPEN BETWEEN SENSIBLE PEOPLE.

“He attacks anyone” – I attack ANY BAD IDEA.

“chemtrails may not be simple contrails” – may not exist, for the complete ABSENCE of PROOF.

“bombard you with “scientific evidence”” – as found in TEXT BOOKS ON SCIENCE

“he refers to his own website as proof” – It has a potted life history, photographs, my composed jazz and my synthesized classics (some of it interesting. “Fire and Ice” and “Variations on a Theme by Thomas Tallis” I recommend), pictures of my daughter’s wedding, blogs on volcanoes/contrails, “intelligent” design, canvassers, religion.

jazzroc-myspace

“responds with a barrage of insults and bizarre accusations (such as “you are either uneducated or evil”)” – (some barrage) but only after enduring STREAMS OF ABUSE from people who are resolutely opposed to either REASON or LOOKING THINGS UP. Only YOU would think my accustion bizarre!

It IS EVIL to do HARM, and propagating LIES is HARMFUL.

“Classic misdirection” – (Yours) is being followed by MY REDIRECTION. Your answers to my posts NEVER QUESTION THE SCIENCE, NEVER argue the SCIENCE, NEVER even acknowledge the SCIENCE.

(You call Science “DISINFORMATION”!)

Let me tell you something.

SCIENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE BELIEF TO WORK AND BE CORRECT. Disbelief in Science WILL NOT MAKE IT GO AWAY.

If you have an enemy who is using WORKING SCIENCE to depopulate YOU, he is MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED if YOUR UNDERSTANDING of Science is abysmally POOR.

WAKE UP. READ UP.

And I don’t mean read up THE LIES YOU TELL EACH OTHER.

I MEAN GO TO THE LIBRARY, GO TO SCHOOL.

LEARN about the atmosphere. TRY to get a PROPER SENSE OF SCALE about the SIZE OF THE EARTH.

Read JANE’S AIRCRAFT so that you can UNDERSTAND more about aircraft design and stop making such fools of yourselves.

aircraft

BREATHTAKING QUOTES

(A Roll of Honor)

For some time now (writing in May of 2009) I have been feeling less alone, and more heartened by others speaking up as I do against chemtard foolishness, but often more eloquently, or more wittily than I’m able to do, throwing in a lightness of touch which I both envy and admire, or cutting to the centre of a misperception with a rapier’s slash.

STARS15K

And so I introduce a heroine of mine, STARS15K, featuring both in YouTube and Contrailscience, who describes herself thus: “I’m just a middle-aged, middle-income, middle-American, dog-loving, wool spinning, fly-tying, sock knitting, married to the only man i ever dated, Grandma of two, cloud-freak. I’m so proud.”

That is real smart.

I’m going to add to this list, of course, because I have come across suitable candidates previously, but I dedicate it to STARS15K because, well, she probably can always head up such a list!

And what she writes here is really beautiful:

Real Science, has facts and is the same everywhere. CT theory doesn’t fit these criteria. Laws of gravity, thermodynamics, aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, physics, chemistry, meteorology can’t be repealed by any government or entity. They have to remain the same. When science shows the same results over and over again, it means that is a fact. When you have just facts, you know the truth. When you understand the truth, the sky is the sky again, clouds look like bunnies or Homer Simpson, colored sunsets are beautiful, and planes can leave signs of their passing overhead without fear and worry.

WIZBOXINGcolorth

UninterestedNU2

I would like to ask you why those who are in the meteorology/aviation field need to go through years of schooling when all one has to do is “look up” in order to understand what is happening as an airplane flies through varying weather conditions. If one can just simply rely on their eyes to explain complex weather movements and air masses, why go to school at all? Can’t you just imagine for a moment that these are complex concepts that require actual training to understand? Both meteorology and aviation are rare subjects to study and there are not many people in a given area who have learned about such subjects. Isn’t it possible that those you have learned from are uneducated in these subjects also?
Can I understand the complicated jet engine just by looking at it or do I need to study a bit to understand that it COMPRESSES the air it takes in and then mixes that high pressure air with fuel and ignites it to create thrust? To believe you understand the atmosphere and how all the elements work together, without studying from a source other than youtube (and other “websites”), is absurd. I hope you learn the truth someday, for your sake and the sake of your children. No one should live in fear of the lines in the sky when here there are billions of sources of pollution right down here on the ground to worry about. The funny, and ironic, FACT is that the trails hold LESS danger to you and your family than some of the water down here that is labeled fit for human consumption. You focus on the absurd while ignoring true dangers. If you fertilize your lawn, you are exposing your children to MUCH higher concentrations of dangerous substances than you can find in MILES of persistent contrails.

Please stop telling lies about people you know nothing about here, or on youtube. It makes you look foolish and paranoid. I really do hope you find the truth. I would hate to live in fear as you people obviously do.

costume-grim-reaper-clipart

Grommo

(In his YouTube channel comments)

Yeah sure.

The government

keeps info about the real world

hidden from the population

in storage devices called “books”

kept in secret vaults known as “libraries”.

selibsys

UNCINUS

(Such a hero of mine. His site: CONTRAILSCIENCE.COM)

How is your belief as valid as mine? I think “The cloud photos in this 100 year old book are natural”.

You think “The cloud photos in this 100 year old book indicate the use of Tesla’s scalar energy used to modify the weather, a practice that has gone on for the last 100 years and continues today”.

To back up my belief (really a theory, but let’s call it a belief, no need for semantic arguments), I point out that the science of meteorology, as practised in every country in the world by hundreds of thousands of scientists, and as reported in tens of thousands of scientific articles and research papers, and verified by millions of experiments, and as followed by millions of amateur scientists and meteorologists, and modeled by thousands of weather forecasting systems, and taught in schools and universities, is entirely consistent with the photos in the book. In addition, the exact same clouds were observed hundreds (and even thousands) of years BEFORE the book was published.

To back up your belief, what? Tesla made vague mention of “scalar energy”, a technology that nobody has ever demonstrated by experiment in any way. Technology supposedly invented 100 years ago that no country in the entire world has ever used – despite its promise of “free” energy. Somehow this is being used to modify the weather of the entire planet – and you can offer no evidence other than “it seems like something they would cover up if they were doing it”.

Not all beliefs are equally valid. If I believed that clouds were the condensed breath of invisible dragons, then you would quite likely disagree. If you want your alternative beliefs to be taken seriously, you need to at least approach the degree of evidence that supports the mainstream beliefs.

59 Alto Waves (Alto-Stratus Undatus)

Manmanatee

The reason we have not been able to find any legitimate proof that chemtrails exist is because they simply do not exist. The term is an internet creation to make condensation trails aka contrails sound more sinister.

When you actually look at the facts, as Uncinus proposes, you can see the argument in support of these chemtrails quickly reduces to nothing more than a bundle of pseudo-science, assumption, misguided correlations and unqualified uneducated personal testimony.

I have yet to find for myself one argument for the existence of these ‘chemtrails’ that does not skirt around the real results from real studies from real accredited sources. Instead, I have just found these arguments to resort to personal attacks and contradictory statements.

For example, how can you argue that the government is lying to us to cover this up and at the same time use government information taken out of context as the proof chemtrails exist? Logically, if this is the huge conspiracy, involving thousands of people, falsified studies and an extreme government cover up, wouldn’t the simplest thing these conspirators would do would be to remove those links to themselves?

Of course, this is speculation on my part and should be taken as such. I am not a professional of any kind in this matter and I don’t believe anyone should be convinced on my word alone just as I will never be convinced by your word alone.

What we do have, however, is science and legitimate information. Anyone can access these studies and weigh both sides of this argument and make an educated decision. For me the answer is simple; chemtrails do not exist and so this conspiracy does not exist.

Contrails do exist. Everyday, the number of airplanes in our skies increase as do the number of contrails left behind. Instead of trying to justify our paranoia with fictional conspiracies, we should be looking at what is actually going on in the world we create for ourselves.

Our air is polluted, our water is polluted, our earth is polluted, we don’t need to create something like chemtrails to prove this. Instead of creating government conspiracy in our minds we should acknowledge the real perpetrators, ourselves.

We drive the cars, we fly in the planes, and we ignore the effect each one of us has on the environment around us. No one wants to see the blood on our own hands, an enemy image is easier for us to justify than taking the blame for our own contribution to an increasingly polluted planet.

We desperately need to stop pointing fingers and start taking responsibility for our own actions.
We need to ask ourselves the hard question; What actions or in-actions am I taking that contribute to the problem and what am I doing to create a solution?

The answer is yours alone and yours to reconcile with yourself.

“As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.” -Voltaire

obzelite

Ahh, the catch cry of the liar and charlatan, got no proof, caught redhanded knee deep in bullshit, then start calling people a shill to try and divert.

Show some proof, retard. show the planes on the ground, show me the tankers transporting this stuff, show me the plants manufacturing this chemical.

You can’t because it’s all bullshit.

All you have is the same dumb-arse videos.  Go video rainbows in the sprinklers and drop some acid.

You can’t be any more brain damaged than you are already.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory