DING DING DING
finally an intelligent answer. it's about time.
the only problem is his graph which is actually an incomplete scale only because temprature's are missing. the temp is very much relative to the saturated air and visa versa , but we will go with his info anyway's just for the sake of discussion.
nowhere does he indicate that along any exact flight path a lower aircraft with an obviously higher ambient air temp surrounding it would be within more saturated condition's than one at a higher altitude with a lower ambient air temp within that short of a time and distance from the lower aircraft..
the balance between ambient air temp and the saturation of the air is not so random that what is in the photo and the parameter's that i have set forth with the photo (i.e. the alt of aircraft #2 being higher and the duration of approx 30sec between aircraft) that there wouldn't be a persistant contrail from aircraft #2..
looking from a side cross hatch view of air saturation, again it's not so random ,, more like viewing salenity in a body of water. sure there will be dips and then it will rise again .but that only indicates that the higher aircraft along the same flight path at that short of a time factor and distance would only experience more saturated air at a lower ambient air temp. therefore even more likely to leave a persistant contrail behind it than the lower aircraft..

so even though your response was of the very intelligent type ,,,it un fortunatelly did not explain away what the photograph has depicted. if you would like to do this again but with the pertinate information detailing this particular situation ,, i would love to study it and i would bet everyone else would also.

Originally posted by ironman433

...the temp does not start to rise until approx 52,799.894 feet.

So you dispute the soundings data I linked to? Your comment really just demonstrates how little you've studied the subject. You clearly don't study meteorological charts and atmospheric data on a regular basis

I wonder how temperature inversions work then - when the temp at 5,000ft is higher than that at sea level?

as for the higher aircraft not leaving a so called persistant contrail because it does not have enough humidity on the same flight path just seconds after one that has at a lower altitude ,is going to be highly doubtful and highly irregular.

Well, my point was that temp may well be higher, but humidity may also be the relevant difference. But why do you think it's highly doubtful and irregular? Presumably you have information that casts doubt on many decades of meteorological records?

please read more on the subjects that dont please your way of thinking , and low and behold you might discover that closed minded thinking might just become open to other avenues.

I might well say the same to you Of course, I have read a lot on these subjects, I suspect you've simply read a couple of conspiracy websites.

...science has been proven over and over again not to always be correct thats why new theories come to light and new discoveries are being made on a daily basis. it's called openminded thinking or in short pulling your head out......

Indeed. But science is normal proven wrong as a result of empirical fact, not the opinion of those who have not studied the subject

next i would like to see a graph that tells me that the patent i posted the link for yesterday is wrong also......

Why?

Instead I'd like you to post some evidence that supports your apparent assertion that hundreds of radiosondes a day are producing totally erroneous information and have been doing so for decades - ie that temperature and humidity profiles in the troposphere do not allow for contrails to be persistent at some altiudes but not at others.



[edit on 20-2-2008 by Essan]

o.k. here we go
1. your comment was and i quote "Note that at higher altitude the temperature starts rising again - typical of circumstances under which a lower aircraft will produce a contrails whilst a higher one will not."
as usual you are all over the map again
my answer to that was taken directly from a .gov site sir....
2. it's highly irregular and highly doubtful because because the seperation in altitude will not be very much due to atmospheric and weather conditions being most suitable and constant for the traveling commercial aircraft. that's how they do it here on earth, they don't have aircraft at random altitudes that they just pull out their hat.
also i have yet to determine that you are even qualified to comment on decades of meteorological records. as i have already stated ukweather.com doesn't solidify your expertise on chem , con or persistant contrail's in any way shape or form. official sounding url's are a dime a dozen here in cyberspace..
3. the only conspiracy site's that i visit are limited to only,,, TAA DAA,,and here we are. as you can tell i tend not to belive self proclaimed experts on any subject on this ( my only ) conspiracy web site.
4. (why) because that patent is a substantial piece of evidence leading to contrails being something other than condensation. thats why..
5. i didn't come on this thread trying to prove you wrong you came here to prove the creator and several other people including myself who posted here on this thread wrong.
now as for the radiosondes, To speed the transmission process, the RAOB operator encodes only the temperature and dewpoint data for significant pressure levels along with the mandatory pressure levels. so who's to say that the dew level and the temp level were so much different at those altitudes as to not leave a persistant contrail. i can sit here almost any day of the week and point out aircraft after aircraft starting with the lowest one giving a persistant contrail and every one after that with a higher altitude will also give a persistant contrail. the humidity will not vary as much as you are trying to make it out to be, especially along the exact flight path at a higher altitude.. plus no ather aircraft were leaving persistant contrails anywhere in the sky for as far as the eye could see..
now what?? we belive what we see with our own eyes and can read just as well as you can but still don't belive what you are saying.
the patent that was linked here says it all and don't try to say that thats new stuff that would mean your lying. there has been cloud seeding for various reasons in various forms for a long time now. hell they were even portraying them in cartoons back in the 20's and 30's dude..........

Originally posted by ironman433
the temp does not start to rise until approx 52,799.894 feet. in otherwords the stratosphere. currently we do not have commercial aircraft since the concord is no longer in service that fly in the stratosphere. .

Yes at the equator thats is. Not near LA. The troposphere would have only been 30,000ft.

so your theory of the temp being higher for the second aircraft is now debunked.

No, you have not debunked it. You have just contradicted yourself. You said the troposphere is lower at the poles than it is near the equator, which is correct. The troposphere does not stay at 52,799.894ft until it reaches the poles, it slowly decreases. So it is possible the plane was flying higher than the troposphere. I live in tropical Australia, close to the equator and happen to launch weather balloons and radio sonder soundings. So we actually know where troposhere is and that it changes on a daily basis

as for the higher aircraft not leaving a so called persistant contrail because it does not have enough humidity on the same flight path just seconds after one that has at a lower altitude ,is going to be highly doubtful and highly irregular.

How do you know this? Did you perform your own weather balloon sounding?

There is no accurate way to determine the airplanes altitude without examining the real time flight data and onboard weather observations

please read more on the subjects that dont please your way of thinking , and low and behold you might discover that closed minded thinking might just become open to other avenues. science has been proven over and over again not to always be correct thats why new theories come to light and new discoveries are being made on a daily basis. it's called openminded thinking or in short pulling your head out......
next i would like to see a graph that tells me that the patent i posted the link for yesterday is wrong also......

Exactly, open your mind to the possibility that all you are seeing is a contrail. You dont appear to have enough experience with basic meteorology.

[edit on 22/2/2008 by OzWeatherman]

other than your name on here "ozweatherman" show me some credential's and maybe i might tend to belive that what you say has some validity to it.
and if you own or work for some DOTCOM or DOTORG don't bother.and if it is some television station then give me some way to prove that's you..

Originally posted by ironman433
other than your name on here "ozweatherman" show me some credential's and maybe i might tend to belive that what you say has some validity to it.
and if you own or work for some DOTCOM or DOTORG don't bother.and if it is some television station then give me some way to prove that's you..

Not that you will care. LOL But I as a fellow member can vouch for the validity of "OZ" and that he is in fact employed in the job he claims. I have spoken with him off this board numerous times and have his work contact info and have seen pictures of him AT work.

He does not work for some .dot website, nor a media station. He is employed as a meteorologist. Just an FYI

He is who he claims he is....and this is coming from someone who is quite skeptical on people's claims here.



[edit on 12-3-2008 by greeneyedleo]

I really don't understand how this myth continues. Really, I don't believe in most conspiracies in general, but for me this (along with the 9/11 conspiracies) rank among the most impossible to believe.