reply to post by Curious and Concerned
It's great that you have come to accept this now.
Your post is unclear. What have I come to accept?
I already posted balloon measurements from Nevada which showed that relative humidity can increase as you go higher in the atmosphere. It is not a
theory, it is a well known and observed fact of the atmosphere.
Guess I'll start with a few definitions.
Moisture in the Atmosphere
The amount of water in the air can be measured in different ways. The specific humidity of air is a measure of how much water is in the air.
Warmer air can hold more water than colder air. When the air reaches its capacity, it is saturated. This capacity doubles for about every 11°C rise
in temperature. The term more often used is relative humidity. This is the measure of how much water is in the air divided by how much it can hold.
The relative humidity reading is given as a percent. The relative humidity for saturated air is 100 percent.
So to me, that means that specific humidity tells us how much water is actually in the air while relative humidity tells us how much water is in the
air based on how much water the air can hold. So if temperatures and pressure on the ground show that the air can hold 40% more water before reaching
saturation, the relative humidity would be 60%. If temperatures at, say 30,000 feet show that the air at that temperature and that pressure can hold
40% more water before reaching saturation, the relative humidity would be 60%. And yet capacity for humidity, just going by temperature, is going to
drop by half for every 11 degrees C that the temperature drops. So by the time you get up really really high and really really cold, 60% doesn't
mean the same thing that it meant at sea level as far as how humid is it really. In fact, it means vastly different things.
So yes, relative humidity, as the term is defined, can increase as you go up but specific humidity, how humid it really is, drops drastically because
the air above is much drier than the air on the ground.
I have already addressed how contrails can form in cloudless skies. If relative humidity levels are high in the upper troposhere, persistent contrails
can form. Sometimes these conditions occur in cloudless skies, especially in regions that are supersaturated with respect to ice.
Here's my little wiki quote again:
en.wikipedia.org...
Contrails tend to last longer if there is higher moisture in the atmosphere and associated higher level clouds such as cirrus, cirrostratus and
cirrocumulus already present before the plane flies through.
The same situations that form clouds would be the same situations that form persistent contrails. And yet observation doesn't show this. Clouds
here are rare except for the fake clouds made by chemicals from jets. The fake clouds are common. The fake clouds form almost always in cloudless
skies.
So I'm going to have to say, based on my observation, that fake clouds form where no real clouds can form. And that is what you have not
addressed.
I mean looking at the evidence such as that above, instead of relying solely on a chemtrail sites misinformed "tips".
So far you haven't told me anything sensible to explain the chemtrails. You've told me that it's more humid higher up than at the ground. It's
not. You've told me that contrails form where clouds form. No clouds are forming. You've told me to rely on the 'meteorologists' on ATS rather
than chemtrail sites. There was more sensible information in my previous little link on telling contrails from chemtrails than I've had from you.
Almost everything you've told me, including humidity levels, hasn't been a reflection of the actual situation.
