It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Contrails More Likely Formed In Less Humidity?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by Udontknowme
Chart says, to the right of the 100% RH line, NO CONTRAILS.

According to the chart, at [300 hPa], [-37 deg C (-34.6 F)], [100% RH], NO CONTRAIL

And guess what? According to NASA,



Sigh

If the atmosphere were at 100% humidity, you wouldnt be able to see any contrails anyway....100% humidity = cloud


And, like they said, the temperature mus be below -37 degrees......are you actually reading what you are saying?


Umm, your skirting the facts, expertly, as if you've been trained at it.

OK, so the closer to saturation (100%RH) the more likely clouds,
but
closer to saturation (100%RH) the less likely for contrails to form?




posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Udontknowme
Umm, your skirting the facts, expertly, as if you've been trained at it.

OK, so the closer to saturation (100%RH) the more likely clouds,
but
closer to saturation (100%RH) the less likely for contrails to form?


No you're not reading....so i will bold the important bits to make it easier

In 100% humidity, there will be a layer of cloud, contrails will not be able to be seen among the already present layer of cloud

I never said they wont form, just they wont be able to be seen



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by Udontknowme
Umm, your skirting the facts, expertly, as if you've been trained at it.

OK, so the closer to saturation (100%RH) the more likely clouds,
but
closer to saturation (100%RH) the less likely for contrails to form?


No you're not reading....so i will bold the important bits to make it easier

In 100% humidity, there will be a layer of cloud, contrails will not be able to be seen among the already present layer of cloud

I never said they wont form, just they wont be able to be seen


Will a contrail form at 100% or greater or not?? The chart says no. What do you say.

edit to add.

Why didn't you answer my question? Perhaps you can't honestly?



OK, so the closer to saturation (100%RH) the more likely clouds,
but
closer to saturation (100%RH) the less likely for contrails to form?



[edit on 3-9-2009 by Udontknowme]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
There is absolutely no contradiction here, the OP is just misinterpreting the graph. Think of it this way:

The graph shows that temperature has a strong effect on contrail formation. At -30C, contrails *will not* form regardless of humidity, but at -60C contrails *will* form, again regardless of humidity. But you can't stop there.

The graph also shows the (weaker) impact of humidity on contrail formation. If you look at any single humidity curve, all of the area above and to the right of the curve represents states at which NO contrails will form. There is a larger area above and right of the 0% humidity curve than the 100% humidity curve, therefore there are MORE states at which NO contrails will form at lower humidity.

Obviously if you get a low enough temperature contrails can form, but if you take the other effects out, i.e. look at one temperature and pressure (say, -40C and 400hPa), you'll note that if the humidity is 0%, that point is to the right of the line (NO contrail), but at 100% humidity, the point is to the left of the line (YES contrail).

When you interpret the graph correctly, the NOAA statement makes sense: at certain temperatures and pressures, if the atmosphere is too dry, no contrails will form. The NASA statement also makes sense: at some other temperatures and pressures, contrails will form regardless of the humidity.

If you have further questions please fire away, but I hope this clears up some of the confusion.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Udontknowme
[Will a contrail form at 100% or greater or not?? The chart says no. What do you say.

[edit on 3-9-2009 by Udontknowme]


Yes, the appleman chart says it itself. If the humidity is 100% or less, then a contrail will form

Because you wont believe me:



When the temperature is between the 0 percent and 100 percent lines, contrail formation depends on the humidity. The relative humidity must be equal to or greater than the value indicated by the line for contrail formation to occur.


But like I said before, when the air is 100% (saturated) then cloud will be visible anyway



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mtmaraca
 




When you interpret the graph correctly, the NOAA statement makes sense: at certain temperatures and pressures, if the atmosphere is too dry, no contrails will form.


You are bordering on slander.

That is not what the NOAA statement says. Let me remind you.



However, if the atmosphere is too dry, no contrails will form.

www.wrh.noaa.gov...


It doesn't say "certain temperatures and pressures"

The statement is cut and dry. Period.

Are you smarter than NOAA?



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Udontknowme
reply to post by mtmaraca
 




When you interpret the graph correctly, the NOAA statement makes sense: at certain temperatures and pressures, if the atmosphere is too dry, no contrails will form.


You are bordering on slander.

That is not what the NOAA statement says. Let me remind you.



However, if the atmosphere is too dry, no contrails will form.

www.wrh.noaa.gov...


It doesn't say "certain temperatures and pressures"

The statement is cut and dry. Period.

Are you smarter than NOAA?


No he's correct. You seem to be forgetting that the take pressure into the equation, which must be done....you yoursefl stated this on my contrail/ chemtrail research thread. Remember, you said I was "debunked" becuase I posted surface details to confirm another persons surface observation....you forgot to read that like usual

Are you smarter than NOAA?

[edit on 3/9/2009 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


You've lost credibility with me, not that I give you much. But you won't answer my question.



OK, so the closer to saturation (100%RH) the more likely clouds,
but
closer to saturation (100%RH) the less likely for contrails to form?



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Udontknowme
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


You've lost credibility with me, not that I give you much. But you won't answer my question.



OK, so the closer to saturation (100%RH) the more likely clouds,
but
closer to saturation (100%RH) the less likely for contrails to form?



I answered your question a few posts above???

Did you read it?? Or just ignore it....



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Udontknowme
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


You can lead an ass to water, but you can't make them drink.

Or, was that a horse. I forget.

Are you paid by the government?

[edit on 3-9-2009 by Udontknowme]


Well the Australian Bureau of Meteorology is a federal government department. So technically I am. However I am not paid to post here.

If you dont believe me, then report me to the mods for telling fibs



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Udontknowme
 


There's nothing even remotely like slander in my post. Anyone reading it will find your assertion that it is bordering on slander laughable.

The web page that you pulled the NOAA statement came from a FAQ page whose audience was the average person on the street, not a meteorologist. I think you can understand why they would have simplified the problem, and not dealt with all of the effects at once. When you look at it in context, it's clear they aren't trying to mislead anyone, they are just explaining a complex situation in in a simplified way that most people should be able to relate to.

The more important thing is your original statement:



If you notice the RH lines, is shows the less the RH (Relative Humidity) is, the greater the chances for a contrail. It, says in fact, that at 0% or less, there are always contrails.


As I explained in my other post, this is exactly the opposite of what the graph actually shows. It's easy to understand how you came to the wrong conclusion since the 0% line is closer to the "Always contrails" region, but in fact that means that for 0% humidity there are fewer states that will allow contrails to form.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Udontknowme

You present a thread and an argument based upon something you clearly have not read (or) if you have read it, you do not understand it or have totally misinterpreted it.

Not content with that, you have then chosen to personally attack everyone who has tried to point out the error of your ways, even claiming slander as a misguided attack on one poster. (If anything it would be libel as it is written not spoken - but that's another point).

The point is, you are wrong. Phage, Oz and others have pointed out to you how to interpret the graph correctly and you still argue black is white.

What are you seeking, other than confrontation?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0010110011101
You present a thread and an argument based upon something you clearly have not read (or) if you have read it, you do not understand it or have totally misinterpreted it.



Thats right, he didnt interpret the data correctly. Contrails can form in areas of high humidit, and areas of low humidity, depending on temperature and pressure.



Not content with that, you have then chosen to personally attack everyone who has tried to point out the error of your ways, even claiming slander as a misguided attack on one poster. (If anything it would be libel as it is written not spoken - but that's another point).


That is why he has been banned



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join