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.

 

Beware of the Chemtrail minefield

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TreehouseIndustries
[example: 6 white planes fly over Christchurch within 15 - 20 mins of each other west to east (there is no flight path, military or otherwise that uses that heading)


There are several such airways - below is a scan & awkward rotation of the air routes around Christchurch - the city is the nexus at the bottom right and the coastline - the Estuary & Lyttleton Harbour are in light green also at bottom right.

The map is oriented north-south - it was a bit awkward to get it that way sorry, so some detail has been lost, but there are clearly airways going both east and west.

I have no idea how often they are used - but they are there.

-


This is from "Upper South Island" route map in Vol 2 of the NZ AIP's, effective until 17 November 2011...which yes I know means it is out of date but it's the only one I have access to atm
edit on 16-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


There was a discussion about this at airliners.net:


Incidentally, there was also an aircraft flying in perfect circles from about 7:00 to 12:00 UTC, centered on approximately The Wash, if anyone knows what it would have been, I'd be interested to know. And no, even that 'highly suspicious' pattern left very little persistent contrails.


Here:

Aircraft Circling North of London

Ah, this.......Down the page, a post by member "TCASAlert" explains it:


Apparently it was two aircraft, LX-N90453 N.A.T.O E-3A Sentry, and ZH102 Royal Air Force E-3D Sentry (according to the EMA Spotters group).

edit on Mon 16 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
Here:

Aircraft Circling North of London

Ah, this.......Down the page, a post by member "TCASAlert" explains it:


Apparently it was two aircraft, LX-N90453 N.A.T.O E-3A Sentry, and ZH102 Royal Air Force E-3D Sentry (according to the EMA Spotters group).


Yes, that would be it. I suspected an AWACS or similar, and to Aloysius the Gaul, I already checked Flight Radar, that was my first try. Unfortunately it didn't seem to come up.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 



It must surely, by now, be abundantly clear that anyone who has regularly contributed to this board over a time that STILL uses the "contrails don't persist" line are deliberately trolling. Even the Chemtrailers-in-chief are now accepting that trying to deny that contrails exist just makes their position look stupid, but some on here still cling to it.


These chemtrials are getting bad, huh? Yesterday, here in Ohio, 200 miles south of Wright Patterson, we watched as three plane sprayed nice X shapes in the sky. A few hours later, most of what was a blue sky was covered. What are they hiding? The Blue Star? ET Spacecraft? Planet X? They ARE hiding something.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Since you addressed the post to me, despite there being no relevance to the quote, have you checked local flight paths and traffic? Have you looked at how contrails can really behave? I did the latter many years ago, and when I do the former, my questions are answered



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


"X shaps", huh??

Here:

Enroute High H-10

^ ^ ^ Actual Aeronautical Chart for high altitudes, above 18,000 feet to 60,000 feet.

Wright Patterson AFB is near Dayton, correct? On the above chart the nearest "high" VOR is Rosewood. You will see Dayton just south of that VOR, near the top f the screen as you open the link.


Looking "200 miles south" of Wright Patterson......complicated because it's now at the edge of the page, but here is the next one:

Enroute High H-9

But, soon on that Chart, we are getting into Kentucky and Tennessee, and you are in Ohio.....maybe the "200 miles" is a bit exaggerated, because it's a road distance, not straight-line flying distance??

So, somewhere closer to Cincinnati??


See all the heavy black lines, labelled with a "J" and a number? Those are Jet Airways routes.

Is there any wonder that flights in various directions of travel would eventually cross paths???


And if you want to use some common sense ---- trying to "wonder" if the contrails were trying to "block a view of something".....just get rational for a minute, and picture those contrails, over your location.......then imagine you could instantly teleport to Indianapolis let's say....or Louisville, or Charleston.

Do you really think your "view" of the sky wold then be the same??



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Wow, so many questions. I will try my best to address them for you


Originally posted by jackmac

Yes. I have a thought, a question even...

Are you saying that these 'cirrus' clouds would have formed anyway? If so please indicate exactly how you could know that. Thanks


It is an argument I have seen on here, which is why I raised it as an alternative view, but I don't completely subscribe to it ...contrails can themselves promote the creation of cirrus... What many see as the trail 'spreading', ... is the creation of cirrus cloud from the moisture in the atmosphere, but which was triggered by the presence of the contrail ...Therefore I'm not convinced you can definitively say the cirrus would have formed anyway, only that there is a reasonable probability it would. No more than that.


'Proof' is a very strong word. Are you sure? The 'model of operation' could be very simple, could it not?


By this I was saying that I consider it proven beyond reasonable doubt to me. I don't understand why you feel the model of operation would be simple? I don't see how anything that requires the complicity of the pilots, engineers, loadmasters, suppliers, purchases, ATC, flightplanners and the other myriad of people responsible for aircraft operations, spread over several continents and involving governments and lots of privately owned companies could ever be simple?


'The technology exists...' The technology to do what?


The technology to spray various substances from aircraft.


'Knowing the science kills it stone dead' - and what science is that?


...the science that proves that the central assertions that contrails cannot linger and spread out

... it is not credible that this level of competence could be...sustained, for so long. ...not one single person...has ever blown the whistle



I think you need to look at this again.


Why? I am not conceding the trails are odd, only noting that people see them as such, which they do rightly or wrongly.

A two sided debate, if conducted honestly is a great thing.






OK. from the top again:

On contrails creating cirrus: yes, they do, very often. That they 'would have formed anyway' is absolutely an incorrect statement. I think you appear to agree with that, so you probably shouldn't use it as an argument? And it's quite wrong, ofcourse. If - and I mean if - these clouds 'formed anyway', they would do so at a different time and in a different place. The reason for their formation is very often and very obviously attributable to aircraft jet emissions, and to that alone. Yes, we know there is a prerequisite in the amount of available moisture in the atmosphere (and other factors), but without the aircraft passing, the trigger to form the cloud would not be there at that time or in that place - any clouds that subsequently (or 'would have') formed are therefore different clouds brought on by a different set of conditions. Would you concur?

On proof: Ok. I didn't say that the model would be simple - I asked a question - it could be, couldn't it? Why would pilots necessarily need to know? Who needs to know what? All these people/companies you cite could be easily by-passed with a bit of thought. I invite you to imagine how you might do such a thing, if you were charged with designing 'the system', as it were. How would you go about designing it?

Technology: yes, the technology exists to spray from aircraft all kinds of matter, in several ways.

Science: 'central assertion' - A lot of people talk nonsense - you don't need to be responsible to clear all of it up, do you? Your mind is also made up, you have a 'position' to 'promote', no? So you might have some cognitive bias to rub-off on others too? And, maybe more pertinent, this: 'it is not credible that this level of competence could be...sustained, for so long. ...not one single person...has ever blown the whistle' This is no more than personal incredulity and unbacked assertion. You answered most questions except for this one; and you still haven't answered it. History is littered liberally with examples of cover-ups - the guilty are never exposed in most cases. Wouldn't you agree?
Whistleblowers? AC Griffith? Are you familar with his claims?

Look again - Why?: because I think your argument contradicts itself in some places.
Trails look odd? Yes, I think they do - and they regularly spread and cover the sky where I am - very regularly. You don't think them odd, yet you (I think) agreed that they conflict with memory? Yesterday was a good example - and this when the UK was under very dry conditions, very very dry. Appleman would say: NO contrails, the reality was quite the opposite. Sunny blue morning turned to off-white by 11am. And....when they were testing those new engines, didn't they notice this problem? Would a good engineer seek mitigation? I think the answer to that is 'yes'.
edit on 17-1-2012 by jackmac because: '



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jackmac
 


Um:


....and this when the UK was under very dry conditions, very very dry. Appleman would say: NO contrails....


Did you mean "very very dry" conditions on the surface? And, Appleman has been superseded. He first devised and published that chart in 1953.

Yes, modern high bypass turbofan engines (which did not exist in the 1950s) produce more contrails in a wider range of atmospheric conditions. Of more persistence.

NASA have a contrail forecast page (for the ConUS) that is indicating based on historical RUC (Rapid Update Cycle) data collected over several years' time.


The RUC model data are representations of the complete 3-dimensional structure of wind, temperature, and humidity over the USA at a resolution of 25 mb and 40 km. The horizontal resolution has been degraded to 1° latitude x 1° longitude to facilitate the computations. Because they are based on a sparse number of actual in situ (balloon sonde) data taken every 12 hours and satellite measurements, the RUC data are not a perfect representation of the various meteorological parameters, especially water vapor. The model humidity at upper levels of the atmosphere is often too low, reflecting the current biases known to exist in our measurement system. Persistent contrails require a relative humidity with respect to ice (RHI) that exceeds 100%. We know that contrails are sometimes observed in areas where estimates of the RHI are less than 100%. The existence of contrails in those locations highlights the "dry-bias" in the humidity fields.

Because the input data do not perfectly characterize the meteorological conditions, the diagnoses of persistent contrail conditions are only estimates and will not detect all of the areas where persistent contrails will form and may also add areas of formation that do not exist.


www-angler.larc.nasa.gov...


The complexities of the atmosphere, and localised variables and vagaries make this ^ ^ ^, and Appleman, mere guidelines.....as there is no current technology to measure every single point in real-time order to know at any given moment the exact conditions.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by jackmac
 


Um:


....and this when the UK was under very dry conditions, very very dry. Appleman would say: NO contrails....


Did you mean "very very dry" conditions on the surface? And, Appleman has been superseded. He first devised and published that chart in 1953.

Yes, modern high bypass turbofan engines (which did not exist in the 1950s) produce more contrails in a wider range of atmospheric conditions. Of more persistence.

NASA have a contrail forecast page (for the ConUS) that is indicating based on historical RUC (Rapid Update Cycle) data collected over several years' time.









I've heard all this before. 'There is no accurate method of prediction' etc. NASA also had a lot of Nazis, by the way

Appleman is recognized by more people, generally; superseded, yes, but to any great effect? No, hence Appleman is still relevant. In fact (according to....NASA!), Appleman's predictions are accurate 98 per cent of the time when predicting NO contrails, which isn't bad. And it was very very dry between 7 and 12 thousand metres, where the aircraft fly, according to the three sets of radiosonde data I looked at yesterday. The conditions for regular contrails were not present in 75pc of all cases where hPa/alt/temperature would allow, and for 'persistent' ones the conditions were non-existent, not a single data reading would support 'persistence'. The relative humidity was very low on the whole - 43 being the highest, 3 the lowest and 21 average; dew points were distant from air temperatures; not one single reading, at any altitude, over all the miles those three soundings covered would have supported a 'yes' to the mass cirrus formation which took place...I looked at the satellite images and saw the warm front still 800 miles away in the Atlantic....I took some pictures of some of the most rapid spreading aircraft emissions I've ever seen..... That's a bit of empiricism.


And why exactly do these turbofan engines produce more persistent contrails? In your own words please

And, you say these engines: ' ...produce more contrails in a wider range of atmospheric conditions. Of more persistence.'

In how much of a wider range do they produce more contrails? About 500ft (lower) I believe. A gnat's cock in relation to the operating height of aircraft. That's a red herring, that one. Of more persistence? Why would they be more persistent?

edit on 17-1-2012 by jackmac because: .



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jackmac
 


No, not "500 feet lower" for the more prevalent persistent contrails.



The relative humidity was very low on the whole - 43 being the highest, 3 the lowest and 21 average; dew points were distant from air temperatures; not one single reading, at any altitude, over all the miles those three soundings covered would have supported a 'yes' to the mass cirrus formation which took place...


43% is damn high.....so is 21%!!

You mention dew point spread....but, in an earlier breath, exhibited "faith" in Appleman. Well, the dew point spread is going to tell you the RH....but, Appleman graphs according to temperature and pressure altitude, to estimate ("predict") conditions for contrails.

Appleman Chart

Perhaps if you had included the radiosonde date with temps too, your post above could have more veracity. Unless that data is presented, is seems a misapplication of the use of Appleman.



And why exactly do these turbofan engines produce more persistent contrails? In your own words please


Sigh.....I have written this many times, here (other threads). The goal of engine manufacturers, in the modern era of very high fuel costs, combined with the mandatory decibel reductions in overall noise generated by the engines, as imposed on the aviation industry through most of the World ---

(***Stage 3 noise limits....later regulations stipulate more restrictive Stage 4 standards)

---these result in designs that strive to ever increase fuel burn efficiency, and seek to "mask" the sound of the engine, and its exhaust, as much as possible.

The increased fuel burn rates have led to ever lower temperatures of the combustion exhaust gases, after the exit the engine (not internally.....burning hotter, up to the materials' ability, is more efficient --- provides more power per pound of fuel --- internally). Then, the already present column of ambient air that is produced by the large N1 fan, which also provides the majority of a modern engines thrust, mixes and "buffers" the hotter central core of exhaust gases. The cylindrical column of cooler air acts also as a sound "baffle", for the noise suppression.

[***]::Stage 3 and 4 noise limits: The link below is to the U.S. FAA regulations, but they are generally identical to the ICAO standards ---

PART 36—NOISE STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT TYPE AND AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION

Jump to Paragraph 36.103

"Stage 3" dates back to 1975, when jet engine noise became a "hot topic", especially in the USA. Then, there were restrictions based on the Airport Authority (and complaints from annoyed citizens....know the term "NIMBY"?). Leading to, depending on the airport, and surrounding communities of citizens, various restriction for airplane types, and operating hours, routings, etc. See the airport in Orange County, California, (KSNA) for an example of "community activism" gone mad. Wealthy residents = Squeaky wheel getting "oiled"....even in some aspects, to the detriment of safety.


But, that was a description, nutshell, in "my words" of current modern high bypass turbofans, and their sustained and increasing proclivity to make contrails.

Let's look at a document, which is chock full of corroboration:

"NEW TECHNIQUES for CONTRAIL FORECASTING --- AUGUST 1993



Abstract: This report documents the results of a study requested by the Strategic
Air Command Deputy Chief of Staff for OpFrations (SAC/DO) to update previous
contrail forecasting research done by Herbert Appieman
for HQ Air Weather Service in
1953. Advancements in aircraft power plants, especially the development of bypass
turbofan engines
, made the new study necessary.
This attempt to update and improve
current contrail forecascing methods was performed by the SAC Directorate of Weather
SAC/DOW). It describes the development of new contrail forecast algorithms for) .
several types of engii.es used in high-flying aircraft. It also provides contrail
forecasting rules that correlate synoptic-scale upward vertical motion with contrail
formation. The results indicate significant improvement in contrail forecasting accuracy
over the Appleman technique now in use at the Air Force Global Weather Central.


(My emphasis ^ ^ ^ above).



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jackmac
 



On contrails creating cirrus:..............................Would you concur?


I did post that viewpoint as an opposing view with a request for thoughts, that is not me using it as an argument, its siimply looking at the argument from both extremes.

No, I disagree. Cirrus frequently forms without aircraft being present. Indeed, until a century ago, it had to. So while your position that it would have formed somewhere else is a possibility, it is equally possible it may have formed right there, or even may have begun to before any aircraft passed through. The point is that there is no definitive answer to that particular question as far as I can see and your position is as flawed as the original counter argument I was asking about. I cannot think of any possibility that cirrus formation would be due to aircraft emissions *alone*. This is not possible.


Why would pilots necessarily need to know? Who needs to know what? All these people/companies you cite could be easily by-passed with a bit of thought. I invite you to imagine how you might do such a thing, if you were charged with designing 'the system', as it were. How would you go about designing it?


Sorry, but to me, that simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of how an aircraft operates. You CANNOT bypass the pilot, he needs to know everything that's on the plane and everything that is happening with the plane, full stop, no exception. This also applies to all the others I mentioned too, the supposition is they could be bypassed is naive.

My personal incredulity is supported by experience and learning, this is how we all form our opinions is it not? If my view is shown to be wrong, I will change it. So far it has not been. Regarding the guilty not being brought to book over cover ups, that may be correct, but the things they got away with are known to have happened and solid evidence exists of the act, if not the guilty party. Chemtrails have no such evidence that I have ever seen stand up to scrutiny.

No, that name A C Griffiths doesn't ring a bell without looking him up.

I don't see accepting the possibility that it may one day be something that is tried out while saying that evidence does not support the supposition that it is happening now as being contradictory, unless you meant something else? Isn't it being open minded?

'Ive written on here before, and quite recently, about contrails and why they are more prevalent today, as they certainly are, but there is a quite mundane reason for that which is nothing to do with chemtrails, if you haven't seen my view on that I could try to find it for you. Once again you seem to be trouble by the persistance of trails and the fact they spread out, despite the fact that contrails have always had the capacity to do this, and did do, but there were less of them.

I believe that the conclusion that there is a chemical spraying operation going on because of the volume of persistent spreading trails, with no regard to the changes in aircraft fleets and engine types is a flawed one. You seem to disagree, but there we are.

I think, from reading your last paragraph, the question I would ask is what is it about the trails from modern engines that you see as being the problem? If you will follow me on a train of thought for a while.

I'm not being facile, I genuinely wonder. You see, as I understand it, the thicker, more visible trail is made up of water vapour. There are obviously pollutants as well from the burning of the fuel, but these are invisible and present whether there is a visible trail or not.

Is it because they mask off the sun? Well, clouds do that too and yes, aircraft induced cirrus adds to that, no argument from me. But is it something that can be quantified? I honestly don't know the answer to that one.

However, on the other side of the coin, the use of bypass air, in the ratio of about 7:1 on average, to augment the thrust produced means a smaller core burning less fuel than would otherwise be required to achieve the same level of thrust from a turbojet, yes? So if we are trading more than 85% of the potential exhaust gasses from such a huge engine for a visible trail of moisture caused by the compression of fresh air, is it not more desirable?

Could that be a conclusion the engineers reached? Plus of course the airlines massively reduced fuel bill.





edit on 17-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by TreehouseIndustries
[example: 6 white planes fly over Christchurch within 15 - 20 mins of each other west to east (there is no flight path, military or otherwise that uses that heading)


There are several such airways - below is a scan & awkward rotation of the air routes around Christchurch - the city is the nexus at the bottom right and the coastline - the Estuary & Lyttleton Harbour are in light green also at bottom right.

The map is oriented north-south - it was a bit awkward to get it that way sorry, so some detail has been lost, but there are clearly airways going both east and west.

I have no idea how often they are used - but they are there.

-


This is from "Upper South Island" route map in Vol 2 of the NZ AIP's, effective until 17 November 2011...which yes I know means it is out of date but it's the only one I have access to atm
edit on 16-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


thanks for that (I am being sincere when I say that) whilst it does help adding information to the brain-tank my point was flights going OVER christchurch, not landing.

I am attempting to apply scientific logic to this issue and I cannot find any flight paths that would take flights directly over Christchurch with an west east heading at high altitude without landing. specifically I am referring to the 23rd of December in Christchurch, where i witnessed multiple flights the aforementioned heading (west to east)

I know you have no reason to believe me but I am not sensationalising this or attempting to misconstrue data.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by TreehouseIndustries
 



.....I cannot find any flight paths that would take flights directly over Christchurch with an west east heading at high altitude without landing. specifically I am referring to the 23rd of December in Christchurch, where i witnessed multiple flights the aforementioned heading (west to east)


Have you considered international flights from Australia to South America? Qantas operates Sydney to Buenos Aires and Santiago, for example. These, depending on the way the Airspace is set up, would preferably fly on a Great Circle, but that isn't always feasible.....so they may pass over, or just North of Christchurch....if North, then prevailing winds can blow contrails in a Southerly direction, if that's the way the winds are blowing, etc.

Also, there are other airlines based in South American countries that can operate to/from Sydney, or possible elsewhere in Australia.

Go find yourself a globe ( I just looked at some maps, and also my globe).....on the globe, since it's a sphere, the easiest way to "eyeball" a Great Circle path (shortest straight-line distance on a sphere) is with a piece of string, held at each city (Sydney and Buenos Aires, for instance). You will find it passes very close to Christchurch.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by TreehouseIndustries
 



.....I cannot find any flight paths that would take flights directly over Christchurch with an west east heading at high altitude without landing. specifically I am referring to the 23rd of December in Christchurch, where i witnessed multiple flights the aforementioned heading (west to east)


Have you considered international flights from Australia to South America? Qantas operates Sydney to Buenos Aires and Santiago, for example. These, depending on the way the Airspace is set up, would preferably fly on a Great Circle, but that isn't always feasible.....so they may pass over, or just North of Christchurch....if North, then prevailing winds can blow contrails in a Southerly direction, if that's the way the winds are blowing, etc.

Also, there are other airlines based in South American countries that can operate to/from Sydney, or possible elsewhere in Australia.

Go find yourself a globe ( I just looked at some maps, and also my globe).....on the globe, since it's a sphere, the easiest way to "eyeball" a Great Circle path (shortest straight-line distance on a sphere) is with a piece of string, held at each city (Sydney and Buenos Aires, for instance). You will find it passes very close to Christchurch.




I have indeed considered international flights, but how many times a day are quantas flying that route? 4 flights within 2 hours?

1st trail spotted at 0942 (didn't see plane)
2nd plane spotted 0943 (happened to be looking up at 1st trail)
3rd plane spotted 1005 (by this point I was actively looking for more)
4th trail spotted 1142 ( didn't see plane, but same heading as previous 3)

all flights on same bearing and same position in the sky north of my location with trails spreading out and traveling south, to give you some context I am in the bishopdale area.

and those are just the ones i saw before 12pm (we had a 6 & a 5.8 earthquake shortly after so i'll be honest I rather lost concentration)

I then saw at least 3 more south of my location in the hours following the quakes (dont have the photos to hand so cant give exact times but its bed time for me so I'll look them up in the morning)

I'm not attempting to create a connection between the trails and the quakes but as you can guess it wasn't a great day and has stuck rather prominently in my mind.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TreehouseIndustries
 


I don't think you completely read my entire post:


but how many times a day are quantas flying that route? 4 flights within 2 hours?



I mentioned that there are other airlines besides Qantas......airlines from the countries of South America (and perhaps elsewhere). It is not uncommon for competing airline companies on same, or similar routes, to have departures to either the same destinations (in this case, somewhere in SA) or to destinations in SA that would require the same initial routings from Sydney, and over New Zealand, as they proceeded eastbound.

Also, these flights very often depart within minutes or hours of each other. In order to arrive at destination at a reasonable time of day, locally.

Hey, just had a thought ...since they seem to have been an isolated case, also could have been large military jet transports, enroute to SA (or somewhere), for whatever reason. US military, Australian, etc. The Royal Australian Air Force flies the C-17

And of course, the USA has tons of large transports.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by jackmac
 


No, not "500 feet lower" for the more prevalent persistent contrails.



The relative humidity was very low on the whole - 43 being the highest, 3 the lowest and 21 average; dew points were distant from air temperatures; not one single reading, at any altitude, over all the miles those three soundings covered would have supported a 'yes' to the mass cirrus formation which took place...


43% is damn high.....so is 21%!!

You mention dew point spread.... exhibited "faith" in Appleman. Well, the dew point spread is going to tell you the RH....but, Appleman graphs according to temperature and pressure altitude, to estimate ("predict") conditions for contrails.

Appleman Chart

Perhaps if you had included the radiosonde date with temps too, your post above could have more veracity.


And why exactly do these turbofan engines produce more persistent contrails? In your own words please


Sigh.....I have written this many times, here (other threads). The goal of engine manufacturers, in the modern era of very high fuel costs, combined with ,,,decibel reductions ,,,imposed ,,,through most of the World ---

(***Stage 3 noise limits....later regulations stipulate more restrictive Stage 4 standards)

---these result in designs that strive to ever increase fuel burn efficiency, and seek to "mask" the sound of the engine, and its exhaust, as much as possible.

The increased fuel burn rates have led to ever lower temperatures of the combustion exhaust gases, after the exit the engine (not internally.....burning hotter, up to the materials' ability, is more efficient --- provides more power per pound of fuel --- internally). Then, the already present column of ambient air that is produced by the large N1 fan, which also provides the majority of a modern engines thrust, mixes and "buffers" the hotter central core of exhaust gases. The cylindrical column of cooler air acts also as a sound "baffle", for the noise suppression.

[***]::Stage 3 and 4 noise limits: The link below is to the U.S. FAA regulations, but they are generally identical to the ICAO standards ---

PART 36—NOISE STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT TYPE AND AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION

Jump to Paragraph 36.103

"Stage 3" dates back to 1975, when jet engine noise became a "hot topic", especially in the USA. Then, there were restrictions based on the Airport Authority (and complaints from annoyed citizens....know the term "NIMBY"?). Leading to, depending on the airport, and surrounding communities of citizens, various restriction for airplane types, and operating hours, routings, etc. See the airport in Orange County, California, (KSNA) for an example of "community activism" gone mad. Wealthy residents = Squeaky wheel getting "oiled"....even in some aspects, to the detriment of safety.


But, that was a description, nutshell, in "my words" of current modern high bypass turbofans, and their sustained and increasing proclivity to make contrails.


'No, not "500 feet lower" for the more prevalent persistent contrails.' This is just naysaying and ungrounded assertion.

'43% is damn high.....so is 21%!!' - It's not a particularly scientific phrasing, but still - I disagree.

According to you I 'exhibited "faith" in Appleman'. Did I? I thought I said that when predicting 'No contrails' Appleman was considered 98% correct - which isn't bad; and that NASA agree with that. It's a bit different.

And: 'your post above could have more veracity.' What, if I posted charts of numbers I have already read correctly? The veracity of something doesn't rely on you seeing it. Surely 'veracity' is present or not.

Then: 'Sigh'; Well don't bother if it's so dull. I know all about hotter burning/cooler exhausts and all that jazz - but all those paragraphs on noise reduction? Hmm. And all those pesky people, eh? How dare they complain about noise? I think they're complaining about something else now, don't you? And old Appleman again (please don't presume to lecture me) - he was never any good at predicting contrails - only about 35% correct: rubbish. It's the NO contrails bit he got spot on. Yes?

And finally: '...modern high bypass turbofans, and their sustained and increasing proclivity to make contrails.' Y'know, you read a bit like a brochure for turbo fan engine company. How about that?
edit on 18-1-2012 by jackmac because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by jackmac
 



On contrails creating cirrus:..............................Would you concur?


I did post that viewpoint as an opposing view with a request for thoughts, that is not me using it as an argument, its siimply looking at the argument from both extremes.

Cirrus frequently forms without aircraft being present....while ...it would have formed... is a possibility, it is equally possible it ... formed right there, or even may have begun to before any aircraft passed through. The point is that there is no definitive answer to that particular question as far as I can see and your position is as flawed as the original counter argument I was asking about. I cannot think of any possibility that cirrus formation would be due to aircraft emissions *alone*. This is not possible.






edit on 17-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)


I think your editing skills might do with a hone.

'looking at the argument from both extremes.' So, to say that the clouds would have formed anyway, you would consider 'extreme'? ie. the opposite claim of 'chemtrails'?

The second paragraph here is telling. Of course cirrus forms without aircraft - I never came close to saying anything to the contrary, so don't try to attribute it to me because you mis-read what I wrote. You might not have been properly observing the phenomenon; or maybe you live in a remote area, with no flights. You then say (of the question of whether that cloud would have formed or not if the plane had not passed): 'The point is that there is no definitive answer to that particular question as far as I can see and your position is as flawed as...' You are categorically wrong. It is plain to see, often, by many people, that aircraft are creating clouds - like I said: if the aircraft had not passed then the cloud would not have formed there and then - this is evident, in every sense. Haven't you noticed it?

And: 'I cannot think of any possibility that cirrus formation would be due to aircraft emissions *alone*. This is not possible.
'
No-one said it was, and if you're implying I did, then show me where please. The word used was 'trigger' - without the trigger, the gun won't fire. The clouds formed by passing aircraft are not the same clouds that 'would have formed anyway', they would be caused by another set of circumstances - I'll say it again, a bit more clearly: you're wrong about this.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by jackmac
 





Why would pilots necessarily need to know? Who needs to know what? All these people/companies you cite could be easily by-passed with a bit of thought. I invite you to imagine how you might do such a thing, if you were charged with designing 'the system', as it were. How would you go about designing it?


Sorry, but to me, that simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of how an aircraft operates. You CANNOT bypass the pilot, he needs to know everything that's on the plane and everything that is happening with the plane, full stop, no exception. This also applies to all the others I mentioned too, the supposition is they could be bypassed is naive.






edit on 17-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)


No. The supposition is wholly feasible. You declined (by omission) my invitation to design a 'system'. How about, design a system that could by-pass a pilot...what might that involve?

'You CANNOT bypass the pilot'
Well. The 9/11 hi-jackers managed to 'bypass' quite a few pilots, apparently. Midgets with box cutters, lethal...who would a thunk it? It's just not right.
edit on 18-1-2012 by jackmac because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by jackmac
 



My personal incredulity is supported by experience and learning.... If my view is shown to be wrong, I will change it. So far it has not been



edit on 17-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)


I think it has. Will you change your view?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jackmac
 


No, you are severely mistaken. I thought you were interested in having a discussion, but now the misrepresentation and sly digs have begun (after you started on proudbird in the previous post) it is clear you are only trying to "win".

For example, despite your vociferous objection above, you DID quite clearly write this;


The reason for their formation is very often and very obviously attributable to aircraft jet emissions, and to that alone.


As you ask, it is line six and seven of your reply to me higher up this very page and does not say "trigger" at all.

You have similarly tried to twist my own words as well as cast aspertions on my level of comprehension and so further discourse with you would clearly be waste of time, as you are reduced to nit-picking as the wider points raised get ignored

Well done, you win. Whoopee.


edit on 18-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join