I am slightly confused. Looking for Info

i have an example i use when lecturing or debating to people...( i hope i can type it in a way the accurately depicts the desired results lol)

1) stare at an object any distance from your person

2) while staring at the object, move your hand, fingers spread, to the tip of your nose

now notice when you do this...the hand right in front of your face seems to fade. you can clearly see the hand in front of your eyes, but if you kept focus on the original object, even when your hand is in front of your face- the object is more clearly seen than the hand.

the point of this illustration is to show that when one focuses solely on the outcome they are striving for...even when new information is presented right in their eyes- the new information is neglected, because the viewer is only concerned with the original stance.

i think this is the downfall with many other informative threads. when the new information is presented, it is often neglected as it is either ignored, or deemed not credible. we must drop the blinders, and review all that surrounds us, and not just one path

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
I did read that above the tropopause the air can increase in temp.

So if a plane were flying in the lower colder region of the tropopause and another plane was flying in the higher warmer region of the stratosphere.

It is possible for the higher plane to make a less persistent contrail.

The contrail visibility/persistence difference is far more likely to be due to humidity than temperature. While the temperature does increase above the tropopause, it stays stable for quite a while (at around -60F or colder) and does not get warmer than -40F until you are over 90,000 feet, where essentially no planes fly.

Humidity though, can vary enough either way in just a few hundred feet.

reply to post by Uncinus


thank you for further clarification. i would ask though, you said at 90000 ft "essentially" no planes fly there. I am a novice in aerospace information, so do some planes, and can planes fly at that altitude? not asking in a manner to lead to they are up there all the time, but simply, do and could some planes fly at said height; and if so, could they produce the occurring thirdrock69 is attempting to portray?

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

Originally posted by ThirdRock

The higher you go the colder it gets, the less pressure and humidity. Yes there are small variances but not enough to cause the degree of difference in the two types of contrails.

I already posted this. At least comment on the video. Which "contrail" appears to be at a higher altitude in the video?

That quote is horsesh1t and you know it. Small variances?? Small? Are you kidding me?

Originally posted by JAsay1LOVE
reply to post by Uncinus

 

thank you for further clarification. i would ask though, you said at 90000 ft "essentially" no planes fly there. I am a novice in aerospace information, so do some planes, and can planes fly at that altitude? not asking in a manner to lead to they are up there all the time, but simply, do and could some planes fly at said height; and if so, could they produce the occurring thirdrock69 is attempting to portray?

The SR-71 Blackbird has a service ceiling of 85,000 feet. It's technically possible to fly that high with some very high performance jets.

Humidity variations are vastly more likely though. For a start any contrail at 90,000 feet is going to be tiny, and it's pretty unlikely you'd get a contrail there at all. There's also no way that there's going to be high enough humidity for persistent contrails all the way between 30,000 and 90,000 feet. So really the question is academic.

It's the humidity. Not the temperature. If one plane is leaving a short contrail, and one is leaving a long trail, then it's usually because the air is more humid at the altitude the long trail is forming.

Now if a plane is leaving NO contrail, then that could well be because of temperature, and not humidity. But then you'd not be able to see a plane at 90,000 feet.

reply to post by Uncinus


thank you for the response. i would agree that on the ground we could not witness an object 90000 ft in the air lol. not me at least, my glasses prescription is -6.75 in both eyes, so even with my glasses i can barely see whats in front of me lol

what youre saying does make sense to me, even without knowledge of the humidity and altitude variables. Whenever i have seen the trails, the longer and more lasting trails do always appear more high up than smaller lines i have filmed side by side.

i will use the links i have been provide to validate this question on my own, but could anyone offer an explanation for how in the same day that in the morning is completely clear- in a matter of just a couple hours there are upwards of 25 lines in a checkerboard pattern. are there this many flights in such a small window? this is what perplexes me still...i have video (again, if someone could message me and explain how to upload and embed videos i will post and discuss- i know its probably images we have all seen before, but it would come from a member ((not an agency or entity)) and it may help to show what i am attempting to describe) that shows 4-7 planes in the same air space creating these patterns, and i have filmed a plane circle back and repeat the same lines multiple times. i promise you i am being serious in this inquisition. like i said i am going to look into the links which show recorded flights and so on, but without looking to see if those are recorded or not, that seems like very strange behavior, and behavior that does not support these are all just normal planes doing normal things

Originally posted by JAsay1LOVE
but could anyone offer an explanation for how in the same day that in the morning is completely clear- in a matter of just a couple hours there are upwards of 25 lines in a checkerboard pattern.

Cant say for certain, however recent research on cirrus cloud modifcation in SRM is likely
underway. Here is a research paper on that, and the outfit that does this in Nevada.

I am sure they are not the only ones out there.

2.1. Potential seeding material

An ideal ice nucleating agent for cirrus geoengineering would be one having a high effectivity (for ice nucleation) at temperatures colder than ~ –20 °C, but a very low effectivity at warmer temperatures. Bismuth tri-iodide (BiI3) had been investigated as an ice nucleant for weather modification programs but was unsuitable because its effectivity threshold was below –10 °C. However, this makes it a suitable ice nucleant for geoengineering, targeting primarily cirrus clouds and not the clouds normally targeted in cloud seeding experiments. In addition, BiI3 is non-toxic and reagent grade bismuth metal is about 1/12th the cost of silver, suggesting BiI3 would be about 1/12th the cost of AgI.

Bismuth tri-iodide can be generated in aerosol form by combustion of an alcohol solution of BiI3 (solubility, 3.5 g/100 ml). A better aerosol generating system for this nucleant is pyrotechnic combustion. For this, a modest program of research and development would be required. A pressed composite mixture of BiI3, potassium perchlorate (KClO4), aluminum and gilsonite (a natural hydrocarbon) would be appropriate.

2.2. Delivery mechanism

Since commercial airliners routinely fly in the region where cold cirrus clouds exist, it is hoped that the seeding material could either be (1) dissolved or suspended in their jet fuel and later burned with the fuel to create seeding aerosol, or (2) injected into the hot engine exhaust, which should vaporize the seeding material, allowing it to condense as aerosol in the jet contrail. The objective would not be to seed specific cloud systems but rather to build up a background concentration of aerosol seeding material so that the air masses that cirrus will form in will contain the appropriate amount of seeding material to produce larger ice crystals. Since the residence time of seeding material might be on the order of 1–2 weeks, release rates of seeding material would need to account for this. With the delivery process already existing, this geoengineering approach may be less expensive than other proposed approaches.

2.3. Production of new cirrus

Aircraft (Helten et al 1998, Spichtinger et al 2004) and microwave limb sounder (MLS) satellite measurements (Read et al 2001, Spichtinger et al 2003) show that large portions of the clear-sky upper troposphere are supersaturated with respect to ice. While natural cirrus may or may not form in these regions over time, the global, quasi-uniform distribution and continuous introduction of efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei might produce more cirrus clouds in these regions than would otherwise occur. Over time, the relatively large ice crystals would sediment to lower levels and warmer temperatures where the cirrus greenhouse effect is less. Water vapor concentrations in the upper troposphere should decrease with this export of moisture to lower levels, and the water vapor greenhouse effect in the upper troposphere should decrease. In fact, the upper troposphere water vapor content in GCMs (affecting the clear-sky OLR) is sometimes `tuned' by changing the ice fall speed.

iopscience.iop.org...

reply to post by JAsay1LOVE


When weather moves in, it does so at some speed. If you watch the radar and set it up to display a time frame of say 1 hour, you will see the could cell move. That is the same as how the humidity and temperature changes travel. They move with the jet stream.

reply to post by JAsay1LOVE

are there this many flights in such a small window?

You can get near realtime information here:
flightaware.com...

Select an airport in your vicinity (in the right side panel) and click "view activity". It can help to zoom the view out a bit.

reply to post by burntheships


thank you for the quote and link. i am continuing to study SRMs and the several methods of application. I am beginning to change my theory on the trails. i still have something saying im not quite there yet, but it looks like what i was calling chemtrails are the efforts of weather modification or cloud seeding. i know this is still probably not a popular idea for the phenomenon, but to me its the appropriate balance between the trails not being deliberate poisoning and them being more than just regular contrails.

reply to post by network dude


i completely understand what you are saying; however, could you elaborate more on how this could be the cause of so many lines in a concentrated area, which seemingly come ridiculously fast and then stay..for upwards of 2-3 days, before they just spread out and form thin hazy clouds which sit low in the sky, and covers the sky? genuinely still perplexed by this occurrence. i just cant fathom any rational explanation for there being so many planes, in the same small area, cris-crossing in the sky and leaving these lasting lines, which eventually become hazy clouds

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JAsay1LOVE

 

are there this many flights in such a small window?

You can get near realtime information here:
flightaware.com...

Select an airport in your vicinity (in the right side panel) and click "view activity". It can help to zoom the view out a bit.

edit on 2/29/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

awesome link man, thank you. the next time i am recording, or just viewing these planes and lines forming, i will refer first to this link and see what information it tells

reply to post by JAsay1LOVE

Keep in mind that it is near realtime.
There can be a delay of ten minutes or so.

reply to post by Phage


i completely understand that. semi expected that. but even if its a 30 min lag, it would still show the 6 planes moving in cris-cross patterns would it not? serious question, if not, because the lag can affect which flights are shown and when- then obviously the link wont suit my needs, but if it does show them all "real time" with a lag, then that works perfectly for me

not that it is only ok if it shows multiple planes at the same time in these patterns, but if the lag could show 2 planes,but because of the lag it missed 2 then that is no good. you know what i mean, i just wanted to clarify

reply to post by JAsay1LOVE

i completely understand that. semi expected that. but even if its a 30 min lag, it would still show the 6 planes moving in cris-cross patterns would it not?

Yes.

What I meant was that if you see planes on the tracker and go out to see if they are there, they may not be (but if they left a persistent contrail, the contrail could very well still be there).

You'll need to work it "backwards". Spot a plane(s) of interest in the sky, then try to identify them when they show up on flightaware.

reply to post by Phage


what about the reverse? i.e. i see the multiple planes then i go to the website and check to see if those many planes are recorded. follow me?

this will be answered when i frequent the site, but is the a history function on the website? due to the lag, if i check those planes real time, they may not be there yet, so is there a function to be able to go back an hour or two, and track the flights from a previous time forward?

reply to post by burntheships


Oh, not so fast!!!!


I specifically addressed this same "paper" in another thread. in THIS POST!

reply to post by JAsay1LOVE

what about the reverse? i.e. i see the multiple planes then i go to the website and check to see if those many planes are recorded. follow me?

I think that's what I said.

You can get a history for individual flights, not the whole display.

reply to post by ProudBird


i checked out your other post you linked. very good information, but i would have a question-

keep in mind i am still sifting through other material currently, so i have not had time to read the article-

your rebuttle to the source was predominantly based on the safety and standards for commercial airliners. but could this sources theory not be plausible for non-commercial planes? what i mean to ask is, if the passengers are removed, and the missions were being flow under black operations, then couldnt the linked material hold relevance?

i really am just looking for a clarification, for my benefit, on your stance. I fully comprehend what you are saying in regards to commercial airlines, but could you address non commercial flights

reply to post by Phage


oooooh i see now. lol, i will most def check the site out as im sure it will answer most of my questions as to what i am seeing, but i am reserving some skepticism until i have fully played with the functions of the site. thank you for humoring and answering my questions; i do appreciate the link and advice though as i had no idea such a website was available