Contrails in my neighborhood, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 09:14 PM by OzWeatherman

reply to post by doctordoom

Actually, if you notice, the Appleman chart, which you say, can't be debunked, clearly states that contrails will form with extremely low humidity in extremely cold environements. The last line (the unbroken black one) shows that.

The two most important lines on the chart are the 0 percent relative humidity line and the 100 percent relative humidity line. If the atmosphere were colder than the temperature indicated by the 0% line, a contrail would form even if the relative humidity of the atmosphere were zero

Remember water vapour is also introduced to the environment from plane exhaust when it pases through a parcel of air.

Did you take into account vapour pressure, supersaturation and jet strream location?

reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 09:33 PM by doctordoom

reply to post by Phage

The chart from the NASA scientist shows that 100%Rhi=60%Rh.

Only one sounding that OzWeatherman showed that had above 60%Rh was the one from his weather baloon, and he said there were no contrails.

I figured he could do the conversion and see he (assuming he is a he) is not correct. Now I see you didn't convert it either.

Now if you find a sounding 60%Rhi or above, at 292Hpi, with a temp of -50c then I will be willing to debate with you that you may have a 35% chance of a contrail to form...let alone persist...

[edit on 15-1-2009 by doctordoom]

reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 09:38 PM by OzWeatherman

reply to post by doctordoom

Ummmm

Did you actually read the above post?

You dont have to have a large number of relative humidity when temperatures are that called, and the vapur pressure is that low

reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 09:45 PM by doctordoom

reply to post by OzWeatherman

So is the Appleman Chart contradicting Patrick Minnis?

And where is your source, please. I thought that was a
requirement here.

reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 09:48 PM by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by doctordoom
reply to post by OzWeatherman

So is the Appleman Chart contradicting Patrick Minnis?

And where is your source, please. I thought that was a
requirement here.

Funny you ask that, seems to be the same place you got you picture of the Appleman Chart

Lucky I have it bookmarked eh

asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 10:00 PM by doctordoom

reply to post by OzWeatherman

Again, we are talking about "persistant contrails"

From your own source.

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).

asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

None of your soundings showing anything close to 60% Rh, except for the one from your baloon, where you observed no contrails at all.

reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 10:30 PM by Phage

Originally posted by doctordoom
reply to post by OzWeatherman

None of your soundings showing anything close to 60% Rh, except for the one from your baloon, where you observed no contrails at all.

Here's one that does...with ease.
72469 DNR Denver Observations at 00Z 08 Jan 2008

457.1 6096 -30.8 -33.1 80 0.52 235 39 303.1 304.9 303.2
401.1 7010 -37.5 -40.0 77 0.29 215 53 305.9 306.9 305.9
400.0 7030 -37.7 -40.2 77 0.29 215 53 305.9 307.0 306.0
366.2 7620 -42.9 -45.5 76 0.18 225 50 306.9 307.5 306.9
300.0 8950 -54.5 -57.3 71 0.06 220 65 308.4 308.6 308.4
291.0 9143 -56.0 -58.7 71 0.05 220 67 309.0 309.2 309.0
290.9 9144 -56.0 -58.8 71 0.05 220 67 309.0 309.2 309.0
281.0 9364 -57.7 -60.4 71 0.04 225 63 309.6 309.8 309.6
274.0 9524 -55.1 -58.1 69 0.05 228 60 315.6 315.9 315.7
250.0 10110 -52.5 -55.4 71 0.08 240 51 327.9 328.2 327.9
240.4 10363 -51.7 -54.6 71 0.10 240 48 332.8 333.2 332.8
230.0 10651 -50.7 -53.6 71 0.11 240 48 338.5 339.0 338.6
229.4 10668 -50.7 -53.6 71 0.11 240 48 338.8 339.3 338.8
200.0 11560 -51.1 -53.9 72 0.13 255 50 351.7 352.2 351.7
173.2 12497 -50.1 -53.0 71 0.16 255 50 368.1 368.9 368.1
168.0 12693 -49.9 -52.8 71 0.17 261 48 371.6 372.4 371.7

reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 10:36 PM by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by doctordoom
reply to post by OzWeatherman

Again, we are talking about "persistant contrails"

You asked me to show you a sounding that showed that contrails can exist, not for a persistant contrail

Now if you had wanted one that shows a persistant contrail, then here is the latest one from Nottingham, England

368.0 7648 -41.3 -44.3 73 0.20 195 63 308.5 309.2 308.5
357.0 7854 -42.9 -46.3 69 0.17 197 64 309.0 309.7 309.1
346.0 8063 -44.6 -48.8 62 0.13 200 66 309.6 310.1 309.6
340.0 8179 -45.5 -50.2 59 0.11 198 68 309.8 310.3 309.9
333.0 8317 -46.5 -50.9 61 0.11 195 71 310.3 310.7 310.3
332.0 8337 -46.6 -51.1 60 0.11 195 71 310.4 310.8 310.4
318.0 8620 -48.7 -53.7 56 0.08 198 75 311.4 311.7 311.4
313.0 8724 -48.9 -54.9 49 0.07 199 77 312.5 312.8 312.5
309.0 8808 -49.6 -55.3 51 0.07 200 78 312.6 312.9 312.6
300.0 9000 -51.3 -56.1 56 0.06 200 77 312.9 313.2 312.9
292.0 9174 -52.6 -57.2 57 0.06 195 76 313.5 313.7 313.5
286.0 9308 -53.7 -58.1 58 0.05 195 80 313.9 314.1 313.9
274.0 9584 -55.8 -59.9 60 0.04 200 84 314.6 314.8 314.7
269.0 9703 -56.7 -60.7 60 0.04 206 80 315.0 315.1 315.0
264.0 9823 -56.1 -61.1 53 0.04 211 76 317.6 317.7 317.6
261.0 9896 -56.8 -62.4 49 0.03 215 73 317.5 317.7 317.5

Does that answer your question?

Whoops Phage already got one, cheers mate

And my balloon would not show contrails as the atmosphere is simply not cool enough at cruising altitude

[edit on 15/1/2009 by OzWeatherman]

[edit on 15/1/2009 by OzWeatherman]

reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 10:39 PM by OzWeatherman

And if you wanted one for the North American continent, check out St Johns

500.0 5210 -29.9 -37.9 46 0.29 296.5 297.6 296.6
434.0 6207 -35.3 -43.3 44 0.19 301.9 302.6 301.9
400.0 6770 -38.9 -43.1 64 0.21 304.4 305.1 304.4
391.0 6926 -40.1 -43.1 73 0.22 304.8 305.6 304.8
371.0 7282 -41.9 -45.4 69 0.18 307.0 307.7 307.0
366.0 7374 -41.7 -50.7 37 0.10 308.4 308.8 308.5
358.0 7523 -42.5 -57.5 18 0.05 309.3 309.5 309.3

reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 11:10 PM by defcon5

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
These are not contrails but "chemtrails" containing chemicals. They can't possibly be regular contrails because:

Actually they cannot be Chemtrails because:
Under Federal Law any military aircraft performing a military operation outside of a Military Operations Area (MOA), are required to file for a Temporary Flight Restriction:
TFR’s

Currently there are no TFR’s or NOTAM’s active for the State of Florida.

The reason that we are seeing persistent contrails in Florida over the last few weeks, is due to the extremely low temperature. Expect to see a lot over the coming weekend as it proceeds to get down near the 30-degree mark. Right now, if I walk outside, I can see my own breath down here.

reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 11:15 PM by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by defcon5
[The reason that we are seeing persistent contrails in Florida over the last few weeks, is due to the extremely low temperature. Expect to see a lot over the coming weekend as it proceeds to get down near the 30-degree mark. Right now, if I walk outside, I can see my own breath down here.

Just to back up your statement on that defcon, here's one of the latest soundings from Florida (Cape Kennedy to be exact)

400.0 7480 -21.9 -25.3 74 1.23 245 77 326.4 330.9 326.7
392.4 7620 -22.9 -26.7 71 1.10 245 80 326.9 331.0 327.1
379.0 7875 -24.7 -29.3 66 0.90 245 81 327.8 331.1 328.0
316.9 9144 -35.1 -39.4 64 0.40 245 85 330.6 332.1 330.7
305.0 9416 -37.3 -41.6 64 0.33 245 84 331.1 332.4 331.2
300.0 9530 -38.3 -42.7 63 0.30 245 83 331.3 332.5 331.3
256.0 10594 -47.3 -50.9 66 0.14 240 89 333.4 333.9 333.4
253.1 10668 -47.9 -51.4 67 0.13 240 89 333.6 334.1 333.6
250.0 10750 -48.5 -52.0 67 0.13 240 90 333.8 334.4 333.9
219.9 11582 -55.9 -60.8 54 0.05 230 95 334.8 335.1 334.9
217.0 11667 -56.7 -61.7 53 0.04 231 95 334.9 335.1 334.9

Temps nice and cold at crusing altitude

reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 11:21 PM by defcon5

reply to post by OzWeatherman

The heck with cruising altitude…
I’m freezing on the ground.
I am want to go have a smoke, but its too cold to go outside!

Good time to quit I suppose.

It’s going down to 36 tomorrow.

reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 11:32 PM by Heike

After a bit of oohing and aahing initially, I thought about the chemtrail issue for a bit and debunked it with my own knowledge. Now mind you, I'm no skeptic - I've seen a UFO, am open to the existence of various cryptids (Bigfoot, Nessie, etc.), am pretty darn sure the US govt has alien body parts in storage, etc. Just to illustrate, I'm not a skeptic.

Anyway, I used to raise birds. Everything from finches to big macaws. And I know how incredibly sensitive they are to gases and airborne contaminants. Remember how they used canaries in the mines before they had sensors? When the canaries dropped dead, the miners still had time to get out ... I've seen pet birds die from the fumes given off by non-stick cookware when a human couldn't even smell it, let alone be affected.

If there really were dangerous chemicals being sprayed in the skies, the birds would be dropping like flies. Just the other day the sky above me looked like a tic tac toe board (I live in rural Oklahoma but in the vicinity of Tulsa which has a major airport). For just a minute, the old "chemtrail" thing crossed my mind ... then I looked down at my bird feeder and counted nearly 20 male cardinals and as many females or juveniles, plus tons of smaller birds and even a Pileated woodpecker. Not to mention my Muscovy ducks (who do fly, every day), and the hawks, falcons, and eagles which are plentiful around here and fly rather high.

So, it's really very simple. If there aren't enough "chemicals" in the sky to harm the birds who fly around in it, there aren't enough chemicals in the sky to harm humans.

No scientific knowledge or meteorology required. Sometimes all that's needed for debunking is plain old common sense and a bit of common knowledge.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Heike]

reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 11:39 PM by Chadwickus

reply to post by Heike

Couldn't agree with you more.

What I mentioned in this thread I pulled from here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I touched on the subject briefly and as you say, it makes a whole lot of sense.

reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 07:31 AM by doctordoom

reply to post by OzWeatherman

OK, So now, can we agree, that a persistant contrail has about a 35% chance of sticking around IF

Temp is -50C or colder and
RH is 60% or above?

reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 08:20 AM by Essan

reply to post by doctordoom

Where do you get this 35% from?

btw the Appleman Chart - devised in the 1950s - is somewhat outdated and as these papers show:

A new calculation for the critical temperature for contrail formation

An empirical model to predict widespread occurences of contrails

not only have we produced far more accurate means of calculating the likelihood of contrail formation and persistence, but they're somewhat more complex than just temp and RH - though these do still allow the layman to make a rough estimation.

reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 10:22 AM by CoolBlackHole

Originally posted by Heike
"... Anyway, I used to raise birds. Everything from finches to big macaws. And I know how incredibly sensitive they are to gases and airborne contaminants. Remember how they used canaries in the mines before they had sensors? When the canaries dropped dead, the miners still had time to get out ... So, it's really very simple. If there aren't enough "chemicals" in the sky to harm the birds who fly around in it, there aren't enough chemicals in the sky to harm humans. ...

Excuse me, nobody claimed chemtrails contain war gas, arsenic or like. Of course it's SLOW contamination they cause. And you can't diagnose slow chemical poisoning by observing birds.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by CoolBlackHole]

reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 11:44 AM by Heike

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
Of course it's SLOW contamination they cause. And you can't diagnose slow chemical poisoning by observing birds.

You can't? Really? Gee, I didn't know that, please explain to me why not. See, I thought birds were one of the first indicators of such things .. like DDT and bird eggs not hatching. My memory must be going too.

Birds have a long and successful history of being indicators of environmental health in many ecosystems throughout the world.

Source

Migratory birds key indicator of health of environment

Birds are particularly good as environmental indicators because they:

* live in almost every type of environment in Australia and in almost every niche (place or role) within those environments.
* are at the top of the food-chain and are therefore vulnerable to accumulating chemicals ...

Source

And like canaries down the coal mine, he says, birds act as a crucial early-warning system that should alert us to the vulnerability of other plants and animals. ... "In addition, many bird species are valuable environmental indicators, warning us of impending environmental problems."

Source

Oops. I guess you're going to have to explain it to all of those people too, and the people who wrote a LOT of other references I found but didn't post due to space concerns. Good luck, and have fun.

reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 08:42 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by doctordoom

The problem, 'doctor'doom is you apparently have no idea what the hell you are parroting.

That clever graph only assumes that the atmosphere is static...turns out, our atmosphere is in constant motion. There are winds, at various levels, in various speeds and directions, and the adiabatic 'lapse' rate isn't always consistent, because of localized variations....which is WHY most modern weather forecasting seems to be worse than ever.

Has no one else noticed how WRONG their local newspaper is, lately???

Atmospheric forecasting is something that must be done from hour to hour, not a 'week' in advance....because looking ahead more than a few hours at a time is just not possible!!!!!

Yet, newspapers demand the 'week ahead' look, and it is almost aloways WRONG! Know why???? Because the atmosphere is unpredictable!!!

THAT IS WHY the concept of 'chemtrails' is ridiculous!!!!!

reply posted on 18-1-2009 @ 06:30 PM by doctordoom

They become that large due to the introduction of more moisture into the air causing the upper atmopshere to become supersaturated. The more ice supersaturated, the more likely the contrail is to form a layer of cirrostratus. Maybe you should reasearch cloud types and how they form

Maybe you should take a second look of your research.

If the atmosphere is supersaturated, there will be big giant storm clouds, not the hazy smog and thin whispy clouds that seem to have become acceptable to people.

It an absurd explanation.