Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > General Conspiracy Discussion
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-09-2008, 06:08 AM
stompk's Avatar
stompk stompk is offline
I work for God
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In the valley
Posts: 542
Default Contrails cannot form into clouds (proof!)


Quote:
The combined moisture from the jet exhaust and the atmosphere will never be enough for the mixture to produce a cloud.
Appleman Chart - Student


Now I am going to debunk the scientists that claim the contrails forming into clouds and gray haze above your heads is normal, jet exhaust polluting our atmosphere.

And I'm going to do it by using a chart, the above website.

The chart is called the Appleman Chart. And it looks like this.



Quote:
Background: Military planners have been interested in condensation trail (contrail) forecasts since World War II. Contrails can make any aircraft easy to locate by enemy forces, and no amount of modern stealth technology can hide an aircraft if it leaves a persistent contrail in its wake. In 1953, a scientist named H. Appleman published a chart that can be used to determine when a jet airplane would or would not produce a contrail. For many years, the US Air Force Global Weather Center used a similar chart to make contrail forecasts.
Now, the purpose of this thread is to show that PERSISTENT contrails forming into a cloud, is a myth.

Furthmore, I will show you the science. If you see a PERSISTENT contrail, then you can go to this website;
Atmospheric Soundings
and on the map, click on the city nearest you, and it will give you the
most recent sounding of the atmosphere.
Quote:
atmosphere sounding. Satellite Meteorology. Methods for retrieval of atmospheric temperature and humidity profiles.
Now the chart will look like this
(current Denver, CO sounding)

Quote:
384.0 7538 -33.5 -36.9 71 0.42 237 36 315.0 316.6 315.1
379.4 7620 -34.1 -37.8 69 0.39 235 35 315.3 316.7 315.4
362.8 7925 -36.5 -41.2 62 0.29 235 34 316.2 317.3 316.2
303.4 9144 -45.9 -54.7 36 0.08 235 40 319.5 319.8 319.5
300.0 9220 -46.5 -55.5 35 0.07 235 40 319.7 320.0 319.7
We're only interested in the first 5 columns.

1st column;
is the atmospheric pressure or hPa on the left of the Appleman Chart.

2nd column;
is the metric height.
[quote]
Most commercial jets fly between 8 and 12 km (26,000 and 39,000 feet, or roughly 350 hPa to 200 hPa).[/ex]
30,000 ft = 9144 m. You can use this chart to do the conversion.

3rd column;
is temperature in c. It's roughly about the same as f at that temp.
Quote:
If the atmosphere were warmer than the temperature indicated by the 100% line, a contrail could not form even if the relative humidity of the atmosphere were 100 percent
4th column;
is dewpoint. This is the point at which vapor will condense into water.

5th column;
Relative Humidity. Very important. According to NASA;
Quote:
Both the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere help to determine whether a contrail can form. As the relative humidity in the atmosphere increases, the atmosphere is able to supply more moisture into the jet aircraft exhaust plume, and a contrail is more likely to form. The temperature of the atmosphere does not have to be as cold to form contrails at 60% relative humidity compared to 0% relative humidity.
...
Surprisingly, at cold temperatures ice clouds (including contrails) can form and persist at humidities lower than 100%. The red line (dash-double dot line) in the Appleman chart shows at what humidities contrails can persist (usually between 60% and 70% relative humidity). Thus, if the air is moist enough, and colder than (temperature profile is to the left of the red line), then the Appleman chart indicates that persistent contrails can form.
(bold added)

So, what it boils down to, is that on a clear day, it's very, very unlikely that a contrail would form, let alone persist.

And I've already shown that NASA said it is impossible for clouds to form from contrails.

Last but not least.

Quote:
the USAF found that the forecasts using the Appleman method were correct about 60 to 80 percent of the time. Looking more closely at the data, they found that when no contrails were forecast, the forecast was correct 98 percent of the time! However, when contrails were forecast to occur, the forecast was correct only 25 to 35 percent of the time, and often failed to predict the occurrence of contrails.
Again, the Nasa link is
Appleman Chart - Student

And the satellite sounding site is;
Atmospheric Soundings

Thanks.


Last edited by stompk : 05-09-2008 at 06:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-09-2008, 10:28 AM
stompk's Avatar
stompk stompk is offline
I work for God
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In the valley
Posts: 542
Default Re: Contrails cannot form into clouds (proof!)

How to find out if they are spraying above your head.

There are parameters for a contrail to form.

The temp must be colder than -38C.

The Humidity level must be above 55%

The warmer it is, the more humidity needed
to form a contrail.

I've made a chart using the Appleman Chart,
and the parameter set by NASA



I challenge anyone to find a sounding in the atmosphere,
between 8000-11,500 meters that fit the parameters to
for a contrail.
Atmospheric Soundings

below 55%, contrails will not form, according to NASA.
above -38C, contrails will not form.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-09-2008, 12:29 PM
stompk's Avatar
stompk stompk is offline
I work for God
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In the valley
Posts: 542
Default Re: Contrails cannot form into clouds (proof!)

Since no one has replied, I picked a few cities in North America that represent various temperature and humidity levels, all from today,
@ 30,000 ft / 9144 m

and put them on the chart.



Quote:
Pickle Lake, Ontario
286.6 9144 -51.8 -69.2 11
Cold enough, but humidity is way below 55%, no contrails will form under
these conditions.

Quote:
Santa Domingo
321.7 9144 -31.1 -65.2 2
Not cold enough, only 2% humidity, no contrails.

Quote:
Gray, Maine
304.3 9144 -43.2 -53.5 31
Barely cold enough, below 55% humidity, so, no contrails.

Quote:
Tuscon, Arizona
315.7 9144 -33.0 -45.2 28
Temp too low, humidity < 55%, no contrails.

Quote:
No contrails were observed for RHI < 55%.

None of the soundings show RHI > 72%, despite
the fact that the PIT rawinsonde must have passed
through contrail A on its way to the stratosphere. To
support a persistent contrail, the maximum PIT RHI from
the sonde would need to be increased by 35% or more.
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub...s.ARAMS.02.pdf

Increasing 72% by 35% would be 107%, or saturation, to support persistent
contrails.

This is supported by this;

Quote:
The red line (dash-double dot line) in the Appleman chart shows at what humidities contrails can persist (usually between 60% and 70% relative humidity)
Appleman Chart - Student

NASA is saying that can't really form below 60%
and the other NASA pdf says no contrails were formed
below 55%

Furthermore, I have already shown where they come right and say

Quote:
The combined moisture from the jet exhaust and the atmosphere will never be enough for the mixture to produce a cloud.
Please, if I have made a mistake in my calculations and charts, could you show me the data that supports your claim otherwise.

All I want is the truth. Show me the numbers to support persistent contrail formation.

Thanks.

Last edited by stompk : 05-09-2008 at 12:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-11-2008, 03:31 AM
KennyWally KennyWally is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 178
Default Re: Contrails cannot form into clouds (proof!)

Do you think, that this would actually be broadcast on the mass media teevee?

you're kidding, right?

For me, I didn't need no stinking math to tell me what I could see.

But, nice job, FWIW.

They'll only recognize fellow whores, who spin an agenda, truth tellers are not welcome.






Ain't it fun, being a lone voice in the wilderness....
__________________
Things are rarely as they seem on the surface
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-11-2009, 07:31 AM
TrutherD TrutherD is offline
Pwning Skeptics
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Canada, Eh
Posts: 67
Default Re: Contrails cannot form into clouds (proof!)

Well done, stompk. You're the reason I registered here. I am hounding my government about chemtrails and wasn't entirely sure about the science of contrail formation. This is an excellent starting point. Thank you. Keep it up. Distribute "Don't talk about the weather" documentary DVDs everywhere you go.

Last edited by TrutherD : 11-11-2009 at 07:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-12-2009, 07:28 AM
albie albie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 418
Default Re: Contrails cannot form into clouds (proof!)

Why not post this on a debunker forum like the james randi forum? Then you'll not be preaching to the converted. Oh, but then you'll get opposition! Can't have that. That spoils the fun of being a Fox Mulderoid.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-07-2010, 12:57 AM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: Contrails cannot form into clouds (proof!)

KennyWally said:

Do you think, that this would actually be broadcast on the mass media teevee?

you're kidding, right?

For me, I didn't need no stinking math to tell me what I could see.

But, nice job, FWIW.

They'll only recognize fellow whores, who spin an agenda, truth tellers are not welcome.

---------------------------------------------------------

Good post, Wally.

I don't need no stinkin' math to tell me what I see either.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-07-2010, 10:40 AM
JazzRoc JazzRoc is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: El Medano, Tenerife, Canary Isles
Posts: 104
Default Re: Contrails cannot form into clouds (proof!)

So, why are they burning kerosene in the stratosphere?
To provide the forward THRUST for flight at constant altitude.

Yes. I am a moderator here. A super RESPONSIBLE moderator at that and, thus, the reason why I was APPOINTED as such.
As a moderator you should be setting a standard for the rules of debate. Unfortunately you break many of these rules. Why don't you learn what they are? It will make you a better person in spite of yourself.

According to you, my behavior is irresponsible because I question your logic. Oh, yeah, that's logical.
Science is the best of everyone's logic. You'll have to learn some of it to appreciate it. Its application to our everyday world has brought us out of the Dark Ages.

I don't get Stompk. On one hand, he's trying to be a conspiracy theorist, but on the other hand he's doing the complete opposite. Such as stating that contrails forming into clouds is a myth. Try looking up into the sky on a clear day when the jets are out spraying and you'll see for yourself that it ain't a myth that contrails form into clouds. The eye does not deceive.
The eye SEES, then the brain INTERPRETS. Correctly if it is "well-informed" (educated), incorrectly otherwise.

However, words do and the bunch of mumbo jumbo mathematical information that many of the members here supply us with so as to attempt to confuse our critical thinking and deductive reasoning capabilities.
Science ain't science without the mathematics. Only when you have quantified may you qualify. It makes you put your money where your mouth is. It's worth any effort to improve ones understanding of the way the world is. Information is only part of it. Comprehension is the other part, and that is where you're lacking. Come to think of it, you haven't got the correct information either: chemtrail websites are notoriously and consistently WRONG throughout their content. And, of course, there's your innumeracy...

It's called information overload and/or brain fry. Trust your instincts and not the BS they post. They want you to believe that they are intellectuals in the topic at hand so they copy and paste, but cannot explain anything in their own words.
The journey of three thousand miles begins with but a single step.
I always use my own words - as well as the words of people cleverer, wiser, or better-informed than I am.
Why digress into "intellectualism"? Why not stick to the topic? Perhaps you know too little to debate any further.

KennyWally said: Do you think, that this would actually be broadcast on the mass media teevee? you're kidding, right? For me, I didn't need no stinking math to tell me what I could see. But, nice job, FWIW. They'll only recognize fellow whores, who spin an agenda, truth tellers are not welcome.
You must be out of your mind. This place has a readership of three. Truth tellers are not present.

Good post, Wally. I don't need no stinkin' math to tell me what I see either.
Beauty is, as ever, in the eye of the beholder. Sorry, nose of the beholder. Down, boy (those darned instincts, eh?)!
Send me all your money and I will double it for you.

Last edited by JazzRoc : 04-07-2010 at 11:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-19-2009, 07:53 AM
JazzRoc JazzRoc is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: El Medano, Tenerife, Canary Isles
Posts: 104
Default Re: Contrails cannot form into clouds (proof!)

stompk:
"Now I am going to debunk the scientists that claim the contrails forming into clouds and gray haze above your heads is normal, jet exhaust
polluting our atmosphere by using the Appleman Chart."
Not a good idea. It's an old rule of thumb which predicts negatives reliably but almost never predicts positives - OK for pilots who wish to avoid making persistent contrails, but USELESS for predicting them.

"Atmospheric Soundings - on the map, click on the city nearest you, and it will give you the most recent sounding of the atmosphere."
Trouble is, such atmospheric soundings are notoriously unreliable. The barometric ports on the instruments ICE UP, which distorts the readings with the local presence of the solid phase of water which simply won't go away easily. You can't HEAT the port without ruining the function. The ONLY process that works reliably is LASER INTERFEROMETRY which isn't balloon-portable.

(Quoting) "If the atmosphere were warmer than the temperature indicated by the 100% line, a contrail could not form even if the relative humidity of the atmosphere were 100 percent"
This simply ISN'T TRUE. Contrails CAN form in warmer conditions, by a different mechanism. They are known as "AERODYNAMIC CONTRAILS" and may be distinguished by the odd sight of the WING forming a trail while the engines DON'T. It is also possible to see BOTH types at the same time, although this is frequently a more transitory event caused by interlayer transition. I say "interlayer" because the stratosphere, which is where MOST of these events take place, is LAYERED.

"on a clear day, it's very, very unlikely that a contrail would form, let alone persist"
Is TOTALLY wrong. The stratosphere, no matter how wet it is, is clear ALL THE TIME. Cirrus (ice crystal) clouds that may populate it somewhat, are ALWAYS in discrete thin layers of their own, which are (obviously) SATURATED. Otherwise they would sublime into water vapor, wouldn't they?

"And I've already shown that NASA said it is impossible for clouds to form from contrails"
No you have NOT. In fact I can produce a NASA research paper (one of MANY, by the way) which DEMONSTRATES that contrails ARE cirrus clouds.

"None of the soundings show RHI > 72%, despite the fact that the PIT rawinsonde must have passed through contrail A on its way to the stratosphere. To support a persistent contrail, the maximum PIT RHI from the sonde would need to be increased by 35% or more."
Is an interesting quote which makes my point that humidity instrumentation works very badly.

"Please, if I have made a mistake in my calculations and charts, could you show me the data that supports your claim otherwise. All I want is the truth. Show me the numbers to support persistent contrail formation."
Hmm. Cleft stick. Inaccurate instrumentation doesn't help me either.
The best I can do is to ask that you read and understand a relevant link I when I give it you very carefully. It provides VERY ACCURATE DATA and CONCLUSIVE FINDINGS which prove your proposition to be ENTIRELY WRONG.
Before I do, I must tell you that you have already MISSED TWO OPPORTUNITIES to read this for yourself.

"Contrail formation has nothing to do with cold, but humidity, and pressure."
Wrong again. It has ONLY to do with COLD and HUMIDITY, and NOTHING at all to do with pressure. Contrails form at SEA LEVEL at the poles.

"It's the same concept as clouds forming around mountain ranges. It's because the air is pushed up, when it flows over the mountain. The air is pressurized, creating a denser amount of moisture. That's why it snows in the mountains, not because of temp."
Entirely WRONG. When air rises, even an inch, its pressure FALLS. As soon as the pressure of ANY GAS is reduced, its temperature DROPS. You MUST have noticed the OPPOSITE effect when you pumped up a bicycle tyre, surely? What you appear to know nothing about is ADIABATIC LAPSE RATE. Look it up.

"The temps are dropped because the air moves faster over the mountains. Wind chill factor. That's why temperature inversions are possible, meaning it's warmer at the top of the mountain than in the valleys. Think about it. The top of the mountain is actually closer to the sun. It's the winds, that keep it colder, allowing the snow to stick around longer."
This is WRONG from beginning to end. So wrong that I'm going to have to leave it alone. Didn't you do Physics at school?

"The short lived contrails are Liquid CO2 for supercooling the atmosphere."
Liquid CO2 doesn't exist at all until its pressure is RAISED to 75 psi (5.1 atmospheres). Haven't you seen DRY ICE? Didn't you notice it didn't melt, but SUBLIMED from SOLID to GAS?
And, by the way, this is EXACTLY the way contrail or cirrus ICE behaves at stratospheric temperatures and pressures. There is NEVER any liquid water in the stratosphere - with the exception of the phenomenon of SUPERCOOLING (OF WATER - NOT THE ATMOSPHERE), which is way, way over your head at this stage. We might deal with that at a later date.

"The long lived contrails are a concoction of silver-iodide, ammonia, urea, etc"
Laughable.
Silver iodide is dispersed as a SMOKE from light aircraft beneath cumulus clouds at 5000 feet to seed water droplets.
Ammonia would BURN in the turbofan to NITROGEN and WATER.
Urea is a possible - it might be discharged from the toilet sump as it's a constituent of pee.

"The main reason is weather modification, the secondary being a sickening of the people. But, they do have a solution that will kill, which is being tested in the Ukraine right now."
Evidence, please.

"If you can see your breath at 20f, why does the Appleman Chart say it needs to be at least -45f?"
When you see your breath at 20 F, you are seeing droplets of condensed water. The Appleman chart doesn't say what you say it says.

"It's not the moisture in your breath, it's CO2."
See my notes above. You're entirely wrong here. Consistently!

"Patrick Minnis is a shill."
Tsk, tsk.
DR. PATRICK MINNIS, Climate Sciences Branch, NASA Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 420, Hampton, VA 23681.
Born in Shawnee, Oklahoma. Raised in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma graduating from Casady School in 1968.
1991 – Ph.D., University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, Meteorology 1978 – M.S., Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO, Atmospheric Science 1972 – B.E., Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, Materials Science & Metallurgical
Engineering, Senior Research Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center Science Directorate,
1981-1986, Research Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center Materials Application and Technology Division,
1977-1981, Research Engineer, Kentron International,
1972-1975, Product Engineer, Ferro Fiberglass.


"Um, did you do any research before you posted, or are you just posting what is written in your government memo?"
"No, I am talking about Chemtrails. You, are protecting you beloved government. Pathetic fool."
"You'll still get the government funded morons posting "don't worry, it's just a binary biological warfare agent, designed to take down the immune system, uh, I mean, it's just water vapor, move along". Hell has plenty of room boys."

THAT is "trolling".

"'Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming' - Translation. They have been using the airline industry for a long time."
Funny, I though I saw the word "potential". Now, to me, that suggests it's an IDEA. How can you possibly construe an idea as ACTION? If "they" were actually doing it, WHY would ANYONE propose it? It's like suggesting we should use things called "cars" on things called "roads"!

"Seeder - Feeder Mechanism during the February 12, 2001"
Was an account of a natural event. Did it confuse you into believing it was man-made?

"Show me an older picture of a civilian aircraft leaving "contrails". The picture you showed is a WWII spraying operation."
I agree with ALBERD here. They are B17 Flying Fortresses on their way to bombing Northern Germany in 1943. The photograph is well-documented with accounts of the actual raid and many accompanying photographs.
It's totally ridiculous to suggest these BOMBERS are spraying mosquitos at ZERO feet.

"Document includes section on barium flouride, hydrogen cyanide, and lithium phosphate."
But what is the document? It appears to be a chemical theory examination with laboratory work. Not some "spraying campaign". It is too incomplete to have much relevance.
It is also the earliest known use of the word "chemtrail" I have seen, and thus may not have had the current connotation.
Is the first page part of the rest?
The materials mentioned cannot pass THROUGH turbofans without damaging them.

Your proposition is completely wrong. I should explain that science BEGINS with a set of fundamental principles which must be followed if you wish to remain in the realm of science.
The first principle you must follow is that of NOT bringing personal bias and preconceptions to the table. You've broken that, and your science is therefore broken.
That will do for now. Read this. I know it will exceed your understanding, but everyone needs to make a humble start when they are ignorant of a subject. Ask, and I shall try to answer.

“Contrails to Cirrus—Morphology, Microphysics, and Radiative Properties”:
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub...s_JAMC2006.pdf

And here's some further reading:

“Contrail Formation and Persistence”
contrail.html
“Long lasting contrails like the ones observed usually occur in parts of the sky that have preexisting patches of cirrus clouds. Since the cirrus clouds are formed of ice crystals like the contrails, cirrus clouds in a region of the sky suggests supersaturation with respect to ice and sufficient heterogeneous nuclei for ice crystals to form. GOES-8 satellite photographs taken at approximately at the same time as the contrails were present show significant cirrus clouds around the Norman area providing the condition necessary for contrail persistence.”

S J Moss (1999). The Testing and Verification of Contrail Forecasts using Pilot Observations from Aircraft. Meteorological Applications, 6 , pp 193-200
The testing and verification of contrail forecasts using pilot observations from
“Recent research has shown that old forecasting techniques may not be wholly applicable to modern aircraft that now use more efficient engines. In order to compare the performance of both the old and new forecasting techniques a validation trial was carried out over a nine-month period in which RAF pilots reported when and where contrails did and did not occur.”

Wakes of War: Contrails and the Rise of Air Power, 1918-1945 Part II—The Air War over Europe, 1939-1945
Wakes of war: contrails and the rise of air power, 1918-1945 Part IIĀ—the air war over Europe, 1939-1945 | Air Power History | Find Articles at BNET
“It is easy to see that, if the air is so cold that it cannot hold much water as vapor, the water in the exhaust may be sufficient, when added to the moisture already in the atmosphere, to raise the humidity in the turbulent wake to or beyond the saturation value. If this condition exists, some of the water vapor will condense and a visible trail will form.”

A Laboratory Study of Contrails
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/15...9-15-2-149.pdf
“The existence of supercooled water at temperatures significantly colder than -40C is not a generally-accepted fact, but has been suspected by theorists for some time. Fig. 5 demonstrates that such supercooling of contrail condensate, whatever its purity, is possible.”

Contrail Observations over Southern and Eastern Asia in NOAA/AVHRR Data and Comparisons to Contrail Simulations in a GCM

Contrail Observations over Southern and Eastern Asia in NOAA/AVHRR Data and Comparisons to Contrail Simulations in a GCM - International Journal of Remote Sensing

“400 NOAA-14 satellite scenes from four months of the year 1998 were analysed. Both regions show sufficient air traffic to produce an observable amount of contrails. Thus we are able to measure for the first time contrail frequencies in the tropics and compare it to a nearby mid latitudinal region. The annual average of the daily mean contrail cloud coverage is 0.13% for the Thailand region and about 0.25% for the Japan region. For both regions the contrail cover is largest during spring. The daily cycle shows surprisingly high contrail coverage during night in spite of lower air traffic densities during night time.”

Proceedings of the Aircraft Research Association
http://www.greenerbydesign.org.uk/re..._Challenge.pdf
“Persistent contrails, which in time degenerate into cirrus cloud, only form in air which is saturated with respect to ice and the conditions for their formation and persistence are reasonably well understood. There’s no prospect of a technological fix for that. If you fly through an ice-saturated region in the atmosphere, you’ll produce a persistent contrail.”

EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT WAKE DYNAMICS ON CONTRAIL DEVELOPMENT
Atmospheric Turbulence Research at WVU
CONCLUSIONS
1. Generally contrail ice in near equilibrium with ice mass proportional to contrail volume (except for the rapidly falling vortices early, and precipitation regions later).
2. Contrail volume largely determined by vortex dynamics (until ~ 4 min.) and Brunt-Vaisala oscillations (until ~ 20 min.).
3. Passive tracer, ice mass and ice number density distributions differ (strong dependence on RH ice ).
4. Heating due to adiabatic compression of falling vortex system can lead to significant ice crystal number depletion. (depending on RH ice , EI ice# , aircraft type).
5. Strong species fluctuations can have a significant impact on measured chemistry [e.g. HO2 /OH] in the aircraft wake.


JazzRoc versus “Chemtrails”

Contrail Science - Chemtrail Pseudoscience

BOTH these sites refer to the "Contrails to Cirrus" paper in their side menus, and BOTH have been offered you as links on this thread... they say "There's NONE so blind as those that don't wish to see"...

Last edited by JazzRoc : 11-19-2009 at 10:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-19-2009, 08:08 AM
stompk's Avatar
stompk stompk is offline
I work for God
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In the valley
Posts: 542
Default Re: Contrails cannot form into clouds (proof!)

Wow, JazzRoc, a government funded shill, signed up just to post in this thread.

Must be getting too much attention, eh. What a putz.
__________________
God controls death. Hope He never takes it away.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.