ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th November 2009, 05:07 AM   #1
albie
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 124
Contrails - Appleman Chart?

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/...roof-6218.html

This is a link to another forum (quicker than posting all the info here). Basically the guy is saying the Appleman chart says it is impossible to get contrails.

Anyone know if the chart is inaccurate or outdated? It came out 1953. Or is this guy just reading the info wrong?
albie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2009, 06:22 AM   #2
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,545
Originally Posted by albie View Post
http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/...roof-6218.html

This is a link to another forum (quicker than posting all the info here). Basically the guy is saying the Appleman chart says it is impossible to get contrails.

Anyone know if the chart is inaccurate or outdated? It came out 1953. Or is this guy just reading the info wrong?
Well, the last part that he quotes says:

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. (bolding mine)

Which means that the contrails are more likely to occur than the chart suggests. Since his argument is that the chart shows contrails are unlikely to form according to chart, he debunked himself by failing reading comprahension.

McHrozni
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2009, 07:01 AM   #3
albie
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 124
>>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.

have to say that line doesn't seem to make sense. 'they found that when no contrails were forecast, the forecast was correct 98 percent of the time! ' If you don't make a forecast then how can the forecast be found to be correct?

This line '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.' I think is being used to suggest that there were too many contrails that existed outside of the chart's criteria, hence most were chemtrails.
albie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2009, 07:14 AM   #4
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
1953???

Sheesh,
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2009, 07:28 AM   #5
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by albie View Post
have to say that line doesn't seem to make sense. 'they found that when no contrails were forecast, the forecast was correct 98 percent of the time! ' If you don't make a forecast then how can the forecast be found to be correct?
its like saying "it wont rain today"

Quote:
This line '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.' I think is being used to suggest that there were too many contrails that existed outside of the chart's criteria, hence most were chemtrails.
the line "often failed to predict contrails" however, doesnt make sense with the above section, how can it be 98% accurate in predicting the non-occurance of contrails, while often failing to predict contrails?
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2009, 07:46 AM   #6
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,145
Originally Posted by albie View Post
have to say that line doesn't seem to make sense. 'they found that when no contrails were forecast, the forecast was correct 98 percent of the time! ' If you don't make a forecast then how can the forecast be found to be correct?

This line '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.' I think is being used to suggest that there were too many contrails that existed outside of the chart's criteria, hence most were chemtrails.
You're correct that it doesn't make sense; it looks like something's been misprinted, and going back to the original NASA source it appears that the misprint is already there. Taking the statement apart and looking at the pieces, we have:

(1) "Looking more closely at the data, they found that when no contrails were forecast, the forecast was correct 98 percent of the time!"

This implies that, if 100 forecasts were made, all of which said "We do not expect contrails in these conditions", then in 98 of those instances there would be no contrails, whereas in the remaining 2 contrails would form.

(2) "However, when contrails were forecast to occur, the forecast was correct only 25 to 35 percent of the time, "

This implies that, if 100 forecasts were made, all of which said "We expect contrails in these conditions", then in only 25-35 of those instances were contrails observed; in the remaining 65-75 instances, contrails were predicted but not seen.

(3) "...and often failed to predict the occurrence of contrails. "

This directly contradicts (1) and (2), which suggest that the prediction rarely failed correctly to predict the occurrence of contrails, but frequently failed correctly to predict their absence.

(4) "Thus, the Appleman chart tends to underpredict the occurrence of contrails and to overpredict the non-occurrence of contrails."

This, finally, agrees with (3) and contradicts (1) and (2). We can't really be sure, therefore, exactly what this source is trying to say about the accuracy of the Appleman chart.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 16th November 2009 at 07:47 AM.
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2009, 07:47 AM   #7
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
Albie, google up the terms “ice supersaturation” and read some of the links to understand the concepts here.

Then google up: ”Ice supersaturation contrails” and learn all the latest science regarding the formation of contrails.

This is science from 2009, not 1953.

Hope this helps.
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2009, 09:04 AM   #8
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
From a post in that thread

Quote:
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. 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.

The short lived contrails are Liquid CO2 for supercooling the atmosphere. The long lived contrails are a concoction of silver-iodide, ammonia, urea, etc. 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.
Give it up, Albie, you are arguing with a moron.
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

Last edited by Alferd_Packer; 16th November 2009 at 09:05 AM.
Alferd_Packer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2009, 12:32 PM   #9
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
Quote:
Ask yourselves this question. If you can see your breath at 20f, why does the Appleman Chart say it needs to be at least -45f?

It's not the moisture in your breath, it's CO2.
http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/...html#post62872

-Stundied.
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2009, 12:08 AM   #10
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,545
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
This, finally, agrees with (3) and contradicts (1) and (2). We can't really be sure, therefore, exactly what this source is trying to say about the accuracy of the Appleman chart.

Dave
I persumed that the forecast was more precise than contrails / no contrails and that this:
"when contrails were forecast to occur, the forecast was correct only 25 to 35 percent of the time"
meant they predicted contrails to be of a certian size, or shape, or frequency, and they got that wrong.

1 and 3 are still contradictory, however, though it is possible that those 2% are what amount to "frequently".
It's also possible that the source got one word somewhere wrong, which altered the context of one of the statements significantly enough to make the argument contradictory.

Quote:
This line '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.' I think is being used to suggest that there were too many contrails that existed outside of the chart's criteria, hence most were chemtrails.
This is sometimes called reverse science, or conspiracy nonsense: if the theory doesn't fit the evidence, the evidence is wrong due to a conspiratory factor.

Nonsense.

McHrozni
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2009, 05:10 AM   #11
albie
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 124
>>>>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.


I get it now. It is talking about sections of the graph. Some sections contrails will always happen some they never will. So in the section where the chart expected contrails to definitley happen they only happened 25-35 % of the time. So in the section where they weren't going to happen, they didn't 98 % of the time. It is good at predicting when they won't happen, but not when they WILL happen. That's how it seems to me. Which we see as an innaccurate chart and THEY see as proof that contrails exist when they shouldn't.

I suppose the chart and NASA are saying that contrails are rare. But clearly they are quite common. Need to establish if this chart is still in use by NASA, really.
albie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2009, 11:27 AM   #12
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
Give it up, Albie, you are up against determined ignorance in that thread. Nothing you can say will ever change their minds. They like being ignorant. It makes them feel "special."
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2009, 05:28 AM   #13
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,545
Originally Posted by albie View Post
in the section where the chart expected contrails to definitley happen they only happened 25-35 % of the time. [... and this] THEY see as proof that contrails exist when they shouldn't.
Um. Yeah. For starters, shouldn't it be the other way around? If the chart predicts contrails should occur and they don't, this is surely evidence contrails don't exist when they should, according to chart? This would indicate the chart is severely wrong with "definitely contrails" limit, and the "maybe contrails" should be expanded, since in reality, they don't form when they should.

Even the inaccuracy of the chart is oriented against what they're trying to prove. Come on..

McHrozni

Last edited by McHrozni; 18th November 2009 at 05:30 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.