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.
Originally posted by Deja`Vu
reply to post by weedwhacker
.
.
.
Have they already admitted it
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by BillfromCovina
The humidity is at the altitude the aircraft are - the humidity at ground level is completely irrelevant...unless the aircraft is also at ground level!
281.0 9915 -43.5 -52.5 36 0.11 299 83 330.1 330.5 330.1
267.0 10057 -52.5 -60.5 37 0.04 263 86 321.8 322.0 321.8
250.0 10690 -50.3 -59.3 34 0.05 305 86 331.1 331.4 331.2
232.0 11171 -54.5 -64.5 28 0.03 310 89 331.9 332.1 331.9
224.0 11393 -56.7 -64.7 36 0.03 313 91 331.9 332.0 331.9
217.3 11582 -57.9 -65.4 38 0.03 315 92 332.9 333.0 332.9
200.0 12100 -61.3 -67.3 45 0.02 310 73 335.5 335.6 335.5
269.2 10058 -48.6 -55.5 45 0.08 290 111 326.7 327.0 326.7
251.0 10514 -52.9 -64.9 22 0.02 285 104 326.9 327.0 326.9
250.0 10540 -53.1 -65.1 22 0.02 285 104 327.0 327.1 327.0
211.9 11582 -62.9 -69.3 41 0.02 290 102 327.6 327.6 327.6
209.0 11668 -63.7 -69.7 44 0.02 283 98 327.6 327.7 327.6
208.0 11697 -63.9 -69.9 44 0.01 280 96 327.7 327.8 327.7
Using these reports and observations of temperature, pressure and relative humidity, 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. Thus, the Appleman chart tends to underpredict the occurrence of contrails and to overpredict the non-occurrence of contrails. For this reason, the USAF is actively investigating better ways to compute contrail formation.
300.0 9460 -38.9 -41.6 75 0.33 270 73 330.4 331.8 330.5
274.5 10058 -44.0 -49.0 57 0.16 275 73 331.5 332.1 331.5
264.0 10321 -46.3 -52.3 50 0.11 277 76 331.9 332.4 331.9
250.0 10680 -49.3 -55.3 49 0.08 280 80 332.6 333.0 332.7
226.0 11337 -55.1 -59.6 57 0.05 278 84 333.5 333.7 333.5
212.0 11744 -58.5 -62.0 64 0.04 276 86 334.4 334.6 334.4
200.0 12110 -61.1 -66.1 51 0.03 275 88 335.9 336.0 335.9
Originally posted by Qcuailon
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
There's plenty of "evidence," but, its evidence that you will consistently deny regardless of how factual or well researched.
I've done enough research on it to know that it has many applications as ionospheric heating has a multitude of possibilities including "weather control," which many will say is "impossible, preposterous, silly, etc." However, if we can bring rain with cloud seeding, we can probably do TONS more with atmospheric heating, as our weather is based heavily on the ionosphere (ionization.)
Anyone who says otherwise knows very little about how the ionosphere operates.
I have a question though...why on earth did HAARP get brought into this discussion in the first place? And WHY? This is a theme that is often used to discredit people, and the majority of this thread has been relatively HAARP free.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina
Contrail formation starting somewhere above 35,000 feet.
300.0 9460 -38.9 -41.6 75 0.33 270 73 330.4 331.8 330.5
274.5 10058 -44.0 -49.0 57 0.16 275 73 331.5 332.1 331.5
264.0 10321 -46.3 -52.3 50 0.11 277 76 331.9 332.4 331.9
250.0 10680 -49.3 -55.3 49 0.08 280 80 332.6 333.0 332.7
226.0 11337 -55.1 -59.6 57 0.05 278 84 333.5 333.7 333.5
212.0 11744 -58.5 -62.0 64 0.04 276 86 334.4 334.6 334.4
200.0 12110 -61.1 -66.1 51 0.03 275 88 335.9 336.0 335.9
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack
Depending on the conditions, contrails can form at significantly lower altitudes.
Flying lower means flying less efficiently. It means burning more fuel.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by BillfromCovina
The humidity is at the altitude the aircraft are - the humidity at ground level is completely irrelevant...unless the aircraft is also at ground level!
327.0 8872 -33.9 -48.9 21 0.14 295 78 329.3 329.8 329.3
314.4 9144 -36.4 -49.1 26 0.14 290 78 329.6 330.1 329.6
300.9 9449 -39.1 -49.3 33 0.14 290 81 329.8 330.4 329.9
300.0 9470 -39.3 -49.3 34 0.14 295 82 329.9 330.4 329.9
281.0 9915 -43.5 -52.5 36 0.11 299 83 330.1 330.5 330.1
250.0 10690 -50.3 -59.3 34 0.05 305 86 331.1 331.4 331.2
232.0 11171 -54.5 -64.5 28 0.03 310 89 331.9 332.1 331.9
224.0 11393 -56.7 -64.7 36 0.03 313 91 331.9 332.0 331.9
217.3 11582 -57.9 -65.4 38 0.03 315 92 332.9 333.0 332.9
200.0 12100 -61.3 -67.3 45 0.02 310 73 335.5 335.6 335.5
187.5 12497 -64.5 -69.6 49 0.02 300 67 336.7 336.8 336.7
178.4 12802 -66.9 -71.3 53 0.01 290 79 337.5 337.6 337.5
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina
You are reading the chart incorrectly. The persistence line is for temperature, not humidity.
"Max. T for persistence".
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. By itself, the airplane will supply enough moisture to make the contrail, and no moisture is necessary from the atmosphere to form the cloud.
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). Thus, if the air is moist enough, and colder than (temperature profile is to the left of the red line), then the Appleman chart indicates that Persistent contrails can form.
Originally posted by backinblack
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack
Depending on the conditions, contrails can form at significantly lower altitudes.
Flying lower means flying less efficiently. It means burning more fuel.
Do contrails not need cold, humid air to form.??
Would a jet engine not perform better with less humidity??
I don't see how moisture would aid efficiency of a jet engine, in fact I'd think it was the opposite..
IIRC it is the air density at lower altitude that results in more fuel burn, and nothing to do with humidity.
Originally posted by BillfromCovina
[
That is what I am talking about. The relative humidity above 30.000' not ground level. As you see Phage decided not to post his numbers and just make a claim and run off. The relative humidity was very close to the day before at those levels. The most important numbers in the soundings are the temp and relative humidity. You can have 0% humidity and still make contrails. In order to have PERSISTENT contrails according to the Appleman Chart, you need to have relative humidity above 60%. This is the point. Persistent contrails is what Phage is claiming that people are seeing. You can make contrails close to the ground if the temp is colder than 35 deg C. The reason the altitude is important is because at those heights the temp is always very cold and within the range.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina
Contrail formation starting somewhere above 35,000 feet.
300.0 9460 -38.9 -41.6 75 0.33 270 73 330.4 331.8 330.5
274.5 10058 -44.0 -49.0 57 0.16 275 73 331.5 332.1 331.5
264.0 10321 -46.3 -52.3 50 0.11 277 76 331.9 332.4 331.9
250.0 10680 -49.3 -55.3 49 0.08 280 80 332.6 333.0 332.7
226.0 11337 -55.1 -59.6 57 0.05 278 84 333.5 333.7 333.5
212.0 11744 -58.5 -62.0 64 0.04 276 86 334.4 334.6 334.4
200.0 12110 -61.1 -66.1 51 0.03 275 88 335.9 336.0 335.9
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
IIRC it is the air density at lower altitude that results in more fuel burn, and nothing to do with humidity.
I'm talking a few thousand feet, hardly any real difference..
The rest of your post is a little dated..But interesting anyway..
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Off to catch a train shortly, so can't work through the numbers sorry - but I think it is wrong to say that there' an exact point at which persistant contrails start and finish - what is persistant? 10 minutes? 20? 30? 60? 120? I guess at 60 minutes most of us would call a contrail persistant.....but what about 20 minutes?
What is "short lived? 30 seconds? 10 minutes?
The notes I have for the Appleman chart do not state what criteria it uses for persistance - perhaps someone else does have such?
However the notes I have seen say that the Appleman chart regularly under-predicts contrail formation (see asd-www.larc.nasa.gov... which I suspect you have)
And of course teh problem with the soundings is that they are probably not actually from the bit of space where the aircraft flew - the Appleman chart does a 60-80% job of predicting contrails.......and soundings show that humidity and temperature vary with altitude and give some likely ranges....
But if a particular sounding shows that persistant contrails "could not form", and one does nearby.....then it isn't actually evidence of anything mysterious unless you are sure the sounding includes the exact path of the contrail!
sorry about that.