The difference between con-trail, chem-trail and high cirrus clouds.

[scombrid]

What map is this? What exactly is it showing? Can you give a link to the page this map appears on?

What date and time was it?

Here is the map. I found it on Intellicast. You can zoom to your location.

http://www.intellicast.com/Local/WxMap.aspx

That is the feature woody was looking at in his video that supposed depicted returns on radar under a completely clear sky. He didn't zoom in on the heading of the page so we don't know what is in the time stamp. What I do know is that the white on the screen is not a current radar image as current radar is not depicted in white on this map feature. The shade of white depicted in his video match the satellite feature and not radar. If you watch closely in stop motion in the first second of the video you will see that he had the little cloud symbol selected and the "past" tab on the left. So the video isn't a radar image it is satellite and wasn't likely current to the time of his observation of clear sky overhead.

We cannot begin to discuss this topic if woody doesn't know the difference between satellite and radar and won't show the selected parameters on the weather maps displayed in the videos he links.

[Jay Reynolds]

What map is this? What exactly is it showing? Can you give a link to the page this map appears on?

What date and time was it?

It looks to me like he is showing the Intellicast Interactive Weather map.
http://www.intellicast.com/Local/WxMap.aspx
note:
First go o the St. Cloud, MN Intellicast site, then click on the Interactive Weather Map icon at the bottom left of the page.
It has several different settings, an is actually a beta version with an entirely new format.
It might be possible that Woody is interpreting something on the map as being clouds when it is actually showing temperature
or whatever, or that the out put on the map isn't being properly displayed on his computer OS, as they mention some problems like that on the site:
http://www.intellicast.com/wxmap/Feedback.aspx

[solrey]

Intellicast gets its satellite image data from GOES, METEOSAT and the two polar orbiting satellites POES.

http://www.intellicast.com/National/...e/Default.aspx

So to begin with, on Intellicast the visible cloud imagery from the different satellites is processed together and I believe the satellite with the shortest time between images is GOES at 30 minutes. There's always a lag in satellite images that could be over an hour in certain cases.

The most important fact is that snow cover, especially newer snow that blankets most of the landscape, is also visible on satellite. In fact, satellite data is used to produce maps of snow cover.

I saw snow at the tail end of woody's video. When I run the current satellite animation for GOES East CONUS I see some persistent light grey over MN that indicates stationary ground cover like snow, or even fog. On the GOES West CONUS animation I see similar stationary ground signatures of snow on the western mountains and fog in the Willamette valley, which I can verify with an official spotter report I called in myself for dense fog this morning. If I was at an elevation above the inversion that's the cause of our dense fog, I'd see nothing but clear blue skies. If the fog suddenly cleared, for about thirty minutes it would still be there on satellite imagery while I'd have clear blue skies overhead in true real-time.

What the lay-person needs to realize, woody, is that satellite images are 2 dimensional snapshots at a specific time of a dynamic ever changing 3 dimensional system. To the trained eye, it's not surprising that you should see clear skies over head while satellite images show something that looks like clouds in the sky but is actually snow on the ground.

As a footnote, I wonder if woody is getting confused with the fact that although it does happen, it rarely snows at temps below 0 F... however clouds at those temps are not uncommon, especially cirrus type clouds.

cheers

[Woody]

Ok, someone aid me in this. Skies are clear over St. Cloud, have been all day. If you need proof I am in the security business and can get you time lapse video of the day with water marks making it admisable in the court of law. It has been and is still clear as well as all the areas showing clouds. Snow cover is is over the entire state. Monticello, which is 20 miles SE of St Cloud along 94 had its chillers open sending a massive cloud of condensed water out from the nuclear plant south along the Mississippi into the cities and west of the cities. Very condensed. Radar shows this area as being clear, which I suspect is due to the low lying cover not being high enough to detect, and cloud cover over my home that hasn't existed all day. Some very small low lying clouds are being emitted from the Mississippi this afternoon, but very small and low. To the NW it appears to be a haze, what has been appearing across the state... its grey and aluminum in color, thats all that is out there from the ground. Anyone able to explain this? I can upload the video later, it shows the Nuclear Plant and the chillers cooling. It shows the altitude limits of the clouds before it freezes and falls back to the earth.

[MikeC]

Explain what?

Clouds do not show on radar - precipitation - rain, hail, snow - is what shows on weatehr radar. The liquid water particles that make up clouds are far too small to generate radar returns.

[solrey]

Radar is clear in MN. On the GOES East CONUS animation stopped at high noon I see plenty of stationary light shades of grey across most of MN that corresponds to the snow depth map on Intellicast. I don't see noticeable clouds over MN, just the snow.

Woody; your observations, radar, satellite, and snow depth data are all in agreement... so what are you going on about?

[Woody]

Radar is clear in MN. On the GOES East CONUS animation stopped at high noon I see plenty of stationary light shades of grey across most of MN that corresponds to the snow depth map on Intellicast. I don't see noticeable clouds over MN, just the snow.

Woody; your observations, radar, satellite, and snow depth data are all in agreement... so what are you going on about?

Snow depth is not logical due to the heavier snow cover north of here and clear skies above it. I am wondering, are we trying to say that cloud seeding and weather modification doesn't exist or trying to understand the differences?

[Woody]

I believe in careful observation of my surroundings and to be skeptical of many things, yet remain open and receptive to knowledge. I believe there are many conspiracy theorists out there, enough to drive a person crazy, and there are the opposite too, those who deny everything. To deny the use of chemicals to alter the weather is non-sense especially with the experts pointing to the recent olympics and the weather modifications China was using, and its on youtube as well openly explaining how they do it. In Russia they used to use cement, and in one episode the concrete gathered together into a cement rock and crashed through someones roof. FAIL! LOL you can see this on the news here. A little humor, them Ruskies. At least Russia and China are open with their people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB-on9P58w0

[Jay Reynolds]

Snow depth is not logical due to the heavier snow cover north of here and clear skies above it. I am wondering, are we trying to say that cloud seeding and weather modification doesn't exist or trying to understand the differences?

We are wondering what you are trying to say, Woody.

Cloud seeding and weather modification do exist, but since they only work on clouds that have moisture and take place at lower altitudes than the lines from planes everybdy calls contrails, those two thngs are separate issues.

Maybe you should make a bulleted list of what you don't understand.....

[Jay Reynolds]

At least Russia and China are open with their people.

Woody, what exactly do you find that is not open about weather modification in our country?

The states that permit weather modification have a strict permitting process for cloud seeding ad allow it because it adds water resources and avoids hail damage to agriculture, that is all. How you conflate such open, permitted and discussed activity with contrail lines made near the tropopause just doesn't make sense.

Do you do this because you are seeking something real to explain something you don't understand?

If so, you have to do some real explaining, starting with pictures of those planes you see, because so far what you are saying just doesn't make sense or have anythng confirmable to it.

[Trigger Hippie]

I think there are a few misconceptions here...

Something apparently many do not understand not living in these Arctic conditions, at -20 there is no humidity this deep inland this late in the winter...its ALL frozen!

That is simply not true. Temperature is -21C and humidity is at 59%

[Jay Reynolds]

Woody, I've been studying contrails and the chemtrail theory for many years. From what I've seen, the things people point out as "chemtrails" are just normal persistent contrails. Can you explain what you think the difference is?

Woody, here is a starting point for discussion. What exactly is the difference between an ordinary water vapor jet contrail that persists and whatever else you want to call those lines you see coming from airplanes? If we can get the basics here out of the way, perhaps we can understand what you are trying to say.

Can you do this?

[Woody]

Woody, here is a starting point for discussion. What exactly is the difference between an ordinary water vapor jet contrail that persists and whatever else you want to call those lines you see coming from airplanes? If we can get the basics here out of the way, perhaps we can understand what you are trying to say.

Can you do this?

We agree planes are spreading chemicals, so I think it would be best if you could define one over a con-trail

[Woody]

That is simply not true. Temperature is -21C and humidity is at 59%


Skies were clear all day as I said they would be regardless of the humidity levels, it was clear and will remain this way till the clouds return, (warm front) then the temperatures will return. As I said, later in the day clouds can develop, but expect crystal clear skies in the morning.

[Belfrey]

We agree planes are spreading chemicals, so I think it would be best if you could define one over a con-trail

Again, the existence of cloud seeding is not controversial. Cloud seeding is real, not new, and not secret. But it's also not what "chemtrails" are claimed to be. Aerial cloud seeding involves the release of materials (usually silver iodide, or sometimes dry ice pellets, NaCl, or CaCl) into existing clouds to induce precipitation. It's not done into open skies, it doesn't leave persistent visible trails or create clouds where none exist, and it's not done at jet cruising altitudes like all these pictures and video of persistent contrails that are being misunderstood as "chemtrails".

There also is no ongoing cloud seeding program in Minnesota, as far as I can find - nor in any states east of the Mississippi River.

[MikeC]

I am wondering, are we trying to say that cloud seeding and weather modification doesn't exist or trying to understand the differences?

"cloud seeding" and "weather modification" are essentially the same thing - there is no difference, nd AFAIK ther eis no-one who suggests they do not exist.

[Jay Reynolds]

woody, you are contradicting yourself, or you are just saying stuff for fun.

First you said:

Something apparently many do not understand not living in these Arctic conditions, at -20 there is no humidity this deep inland this late in the winter...its ALL frozen!

When the humidity was shown to be 59%, why didn't you just admit you were wrong?

All of us are wrong about things once in awhile, it's OK.

[Woody]

If I looked up Florida and said the Humidity was high and radar showed cloud cover, and you went outside and saw the skies were clear, took a picture and sent it to me what would you think if I or others in another area of the world continued to insit that you have clouds? Either you would think they are nuts....or they were not looking to discuss the issues and are more concerned with arguing over disussing. Here is the Nuclear Reactors cooling towers, this was plummiting low level clouds to the cities 50 miles away yet nothing showed up on radar or satellite. You can also see how there is a cap on the elevation because as soon as it gets that high it crystalizes and falls back to earth. There was light ice crystals on the highway with clear skies as a result, normal for this region, but nothing on intellicast. If this was too low for radar, then snow pack would way below this.
.

[Woody]

woody, you are contradicting yourself, or you are just saying stuff for fun.

First you said:

When the humidity was shown to be 59%, why didn't you just admit you were wrong?

All of us are wrong about things once in awhile, it's OK.

Sorry about that one, thought you were one arguing over the fact that I had clouds over my head when there weren't. I meant to say not enough humidity due to the crystalization of any moisture at low altitudes, Once again, I apologize for my error.

[Woody]

"cloud seeding" and "weather modification" are essentially the same thing - there is no difference, nd AFAIK ther eis no-one who suggests they do not exist.

Actually they are vastly different. Currently Geo-Engineers are being sued in BC due to releasing vast amounts of iron in the ocean to promote algea growth, absorb CO2, then fall to the bottom of the Ocean. Weather Modification goes way beyond cloud seeding.

[Jay Reynolds]

Woody, have a look at tonights forecast conditions from Intellicast for St. Cloud:



Notice how relative humidity has already increased during the evening hours, and will continue to increase through the night, but then begins to decrease again during the day?

In fact, even though it will probably become more cloudy by the afternoon, the humidity actually decreases!
What causes that to happen, Woody?
Is it a natural phenomenon that causes a clear sky with high humidity and a cloudy sky with lower humidity, or is that caused by weather modification planes?

[Mick]

Sorry about that one, thought you were one arguing over the fact that I had clouds over my head when there weren't. I meant to say not enough humidity due to the crystalization of any moisture at low altitudes, Once again, I apologize for my error.

If humidity is below 100%, then nothing is going to condense, and nothing is going to crystalize. The air can quite happily stay at 99% RHw, no matter how cold it is.

Water vapor is a gas. Humidity is the ration of that gas density to the maximum density it can be without condensing.

[Mick]

Actually they are vastly different. Currently Geo-Engineers are being sued in BC due to releasing vast amounts of iron in the ocean to promote algea growth, absorb CO2, then fall to the bottom of the Ocean. Weather Modification goes way beyond cloud seeding.

That's geoengineering by carbon sequestration (a form of carbon capture and storage, CCS), not weather modification. It does not alter the weather except via the very slight change to climate, over many years. Nobody refers to that as weather modification.

[Jay Reynolds]

If this was too low for radar, then snow pack would way below this.
.

I agree, Woody, the steam from the cooling towers is probably much too low to show up on radar, and the snow pack on the ground would be far lower....LOL

[Woody]

When it gets this cold here, it is at night and stings into the following day. So this little article will answer these questions.

http://littleshop.physics.colostate....ThanCloudy.pdf

[Woody]

That's geoengineering by carbon sequestration (a form of carbon capture and storage, CCS), not weather modification. It does not alter the weather except via the very slight change to climate, over many years. Nobody refers to that as weather modification.

How about HAARP then?

[Jay Reynolds]

If I looked up Florida and said the Humidity was high and radar showed cloud cover,

Woody, if you are going to continue to insist that radar shows cloud cover, there's not much use going any further with you.....

[Belfrey]

When it gets this cold here, it is at night and stings into the following day. So this little article will answer these questions.

littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/.../ColderOnClearThanCloudy.pdf

The complete link is: http://littleshop.physics.colostate....ThanCloudy.pdf

And this does not support your claim that clouds can't form at very low temperatures. It explains, as we've been over several times, that clouds help keep the temperature warmer at ground level, and thus clear nights tend to be colder.

[Mick]

How about HAARP then?

I'd appreciate it if you address the responses before moving on to new topics. Do you agree that CCS is different from weather modification?

Would you then agree that Weather Modification is almost always referring to cloud seeding, and is not generally considered to be geoengineering?

Also, please answer Jay's Question about why humidity increases as it gets colder.

[Belfrey]

How about HAARP then?

The HAARP facility has no ability to affect the weather.

[Ross Marsden]

I agree, Woody, the steam from the cooling towers is probably much too low to show up on radar, and the snow pack on the ground would be far lower....LOL

Cloud is not detected by radar anyway.

That cloud is probably far too small to show up in satellite imagery, except perhaps MODIS 250m.
Geostationary (eg GOES) VIS imagery has a resolution of about 1 pixel = 1 km. That is less than a mile.
GOES IR has a resolution of about 4 times worse than VIS imagery.

IR imagery is essentially a thermal map. It shows the temperature of the surface or the highest cloud. It will be very hard to differentiate between snow on the ground and low cloud or fog.

[Jay Reynolds]

When it gets this cold here, it is at night and stings into the following day. So this little article will answer these questions.

http://littleshop.physics.colostate....ThanCloudy.pdf

I agree, -20 sure does sting!

But you didn't answer why the relative humidity increases during tonight, a clear cold night, and how do you explain why relative humidity would decrease during the day even though it is expected to become cloudy?

If you won't answer questions, that's OK.

Maybe it means you need to study up on this stuff a little?

Then we can all be on the "same page".

[Woody]

Interesting reading on what weather modifications there are, a quick history from a neutral source, and what they are working on today, at least openly.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-10-19/who-controls-the-weather

[Woody]

Woody, if you are going to continue to insist that radar shows cloud cover, there's not much use going any further with you.....

Satellite images. been a long day, sorry

[Jay Reynolds]

Also, please answer Jay's Question about why humidity increases as it gets colder.

It's OK if he doesn't answer. That question is a little bit tricky, anyways. Woody needs to hit the books and work that out some other day, right Woody?

[Woody]

I agree, -20 sure does sting!

But you didn't answer why the relative humidity increases during tonight, a clear cold night, and how do you explain why relative humidity would decrease during the day even though it is expected to become cloudy?

If you won't answer questions, that's OK.

Maybe it means you need to study up on this stuff a little?

Then we can all be on the "same page".

http://littleshop.physics.colostate....ThanCloudy.pdf

[Mick]

Interesting reading on what weather modifications there are, a quick history from a neutral source, and what they are working on today, at least openly.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-10-19/who-controls-the-weather

No, that's an article about the HAAPR conspiracy theory, and it debunks it.

Here's an article from 1960 about Weather Modification. It's nothing new. It's not secret.
http://books.google.com/books?id=99s...page&q&f=false

[Woody]

It's OK if he doesn't answer. That question is a little bit tricky, anyways. Woody needs to hit the books and work that out some other day, right Woody?

I thought I did answer this by saying I errored, so i will say it again, I misspoke, I'm sorry, there is alaways humidity, just not enough in the air as it crystalizes at ground level

[Woody]

So let me understand this, all trails are con-trails?

[MikeC]

How about HAARP then?

HAARP is often linked to various schemes from changing the weather to causing earthquakes and mind control.

Its stated purpose as an instrument for studying the behaviour of the ionosphere seesm to fit is actual physical characteristics, while no-one can actualy point to any evidence for the various conspiracy theories.

FYI "weather" we experience on the surface of the earth is all taking place in the Troposphere - the area up to roughly 25-30,000 feet in altitude, whereas the ionosphere starts at about 60 km - almost 200,000 feet.

Given that HAARP only has 3.6 megawatts of power it is difficult to see how it could possibly alter weather significantly or generate earthquakes - hurricanes involve amounts of power that has been estimated as being in the range of 10^14 watts - or a hundred MILLION times as much as HAARP - just for the water involved, and 10^12 for the winds (see this page).

this page gives earthquake power in terms of tons-equivalent TNT -

Content from external source:

A magnitude 6.0 quake releases approximately as much energy as 6,270 tons of TNT, an M 7.0 199,000 tons, an M 8.0 6.27 million tons and a M 9.0 99 million tons. Of course, all that energy is not focused in one particular spot, but spreads out in waves.

A ton of TNT is 4184 giga-joules of energy, and a joule is 2.7778×10−7 kilowatt-hour, so a ton of TNT is 4.184 x 10^9 x 2.778 * 10^-7 = about 1.16 mega-watt hours (I hope! )

So HAARPs output of 3.6 megawatts would produce as much power as a single magnitude 6 earthquake if it operated continuously for a period of about 5400 hours - roughly 220 days @ 24 hours a day.

I wouldn't be surprised if my math is out a bit tho....feel free to check!