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 luxordelphi
Uncinus: Regarding your statements on how language is artificially constructed: you're kidding right? You're going to tell me you don't have a vested interest in getting the term contrail and persistent contrail into common useage?
Originally posted by Uncinus
Originally posted by luxordelphi
Uncinus: Regarding your statements on how language is artificially constructed: you're kidding right? You're going to tell me you don't have a vested interest in getting the term contrail and persistent contrail into common useage?
It's not a term. It's a literal description, an adjective and a noun. Like "large orange". It's a contrail (I assume you have no problem with that word), and it persists. So it's a persistent contrail. If it were long, it would be a long contrail, if it were pink it would be a pink contrail.
You do know that contrails can persist, right?
Originally posted by luxordelphi
Holy Toledo, if it were laden with nano-aluminum particles it would be a chemtrail. This is pointless; persistently pointless. Point being when stuff is spewing out of an airplane in the sky, what you call it doesn't change anything in the act itself. All it does is subtley alter mentally an observers' perception of what it is.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by waynos
Cirrus is a cloud we all know and love. Cirrus aviaticus is an abomination: an artificial cloud created by jet exhaust consisting of unknowns. And isolated? no, I wouldn't say that - there was an ATS'er the other day who mentioned something about all the new cloud names. So no it's not isolated, it's part of a gang.
I don't have a problem with your 'Flight Archive' - I read some parts awhile back explaining all the trails in the skies over London during the Battle of Britain in WWII. I can understand vapor trails, ice crystals and troposhere temperatures. What I see doesn't conform within these parameters and so no I don't find reaching back 55 years for persistent contrails inconvenient - just incorrect.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by waynos
Direct observation is evasive? Guess so if it doesn't come to the same conclusions as you. Still, jibes asside, best advice I can give is look for yourself.
The day was March 18, 1945, the target was Berlin, where approximately 1300
heavy bombers of the 8th AiR Force were to drop bombs.
That morning 1,444 aircraft took off from southeast England into a clear sky. The contrails from these aircraft significantly suppressed the morning temperature increase across areas with a high density of flights, the researchers found.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
Cirrus don't disperse and become this.
Cirrostratus /ˌsɪroʊˈstrɑːtəs/ clouds are thin, generally uniform clouds, composed of ice-crystals, capable of forming halos. They are usually located above 5.5 km (18,000 ft). When thick enough to be seen, they are whitish, usually with no distinguishing features. When covering the whole sky and sometimes so thin as to be hardly discernible, this may indicate a large amount of moisture in the upper atmosphere.[1] Cirrostratus clouds sometimes signal the beginning of a warm front and thus may be signs that precipitation might follow in the next 12 to 24 hours.[2]
CLOUDS FROM WHICH CIRROSTRATUS MAY FORM
Cirrostratus may be produced by the merging of elements of Cirrus or Cirrocumulus (Cs cirromutatus, Cs cirrocumulomutatus), by ice crystals falling from Cirrocumulus (Cs cirrocumulogenitus), by the thinning of Altostratus (Cs altostratomutatus) or by the spreading out of the anvil of a Cumulonimbus (Cs cumulonimbogenitus).
That's 9 times at your high end so 9x58 flights an hour at McCarren = 522.
....there isn't a comparison here taking into account mass take-offs, bombs and exhaust which I still think had to be more visible (leaving out water vapor caused by heat) than in today's engines.
And that doesn't even take into account how high they were when dropping bombs or trying to take out enemy bomb droppers. In other words the 'Flight Archive' is taking liberties as far as conclusions go.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ProudBird
As far as fewer examples of contrails - that's irrelevant because these pictures from WWII (and obviously they weren't taking pictures of contrailess skies) were resurrected to show that persistent contrails are an ancient problem. My point was that there isn't a comparison here taking into account mass take-offs, bombs and exhaust which I still think had to be more visible (leaving out water vapor caused by heat) than in today's engines. And that doesn't even take into account how high they were when dropping bombs or trying to take out enemy bomb droppers. In other words the 'Flight Archive' is taking liberties as far as conclusions go.