Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:16 pm Post Subject: Chemtrail Analysis Charts
I have put up Contrail Analysis Charts for midday, every day from 1 November 2007 to date. They are organised by calendar month and indexed from Contrail Diagnosis.
There are some notes ( Analysis Chart ) linked from the same page about the meaning of the different parts. The notes are incomplete at present, but there is plenty to go on with. If there is any further discussion required in a general sense about these, it can continue in a new topic under "General Discussion".
The January 2008 one is here http://www.freewebs.com/diagnosis1contrails/0801Jan.htm
The page is in the form of a calendar and all the charts appear as thumbnails. If you click somewhere off-centre in a day (where the pointer is the pointer shape, and not the cursor shape) the chart for that day will appear full size somewhere mid-screen. Click on another date, you get the chart for that day. Click on the full sized chart to make is vanish again.
So, check these out for the dates of the photos showing contrails, or even no contrails.
I apologise for seeming to de-rail the topic and push another web site. Then again, its not all that irrelevant - for 15 Jan I've put up the midnight 14/15 chart with the midday one. From what ruapaka posted, 14 and 15 Jan 2008 were days of particular interest.
Now, back on topic...
ruapaka wrote:
I find it hard to believe the atmosphere is as variable as implied by all the scientific and mathematical jargon out there on this subject.
... although this is strictly a bit off-topic and should probably continue in "General Discussion".
If there are still some misconceptions about how water behaves at upper tropospheric temperatures, it would be a good idea to get them cleared up before specific cases (photos) are discussed. Actually, this is why I've de-railed the topic.
Could you give some examples (under "General Discussion") of some "scientific and mathematical jargon ... on this subject", and I will put it into more easily understood terms.
Update from Marlborough (reporting) can continue here, of course.
ruapaka, could you give some examples of some of the "scientific and mathematical jargon ... on this subject"? I will attempt to explain it in more easily understood terms.
Hector, my comments were of a general nature - and to me it's pretty much all jargon - I know some basic cloud info and can read a weather map.
Just gone and looked up 'jargon' - seems to be something you keep your eye on Hector. Anyway, jargon at wikipedia says along the lines - reference to or the short form language for ...whatever... my meaning = stuff I don't understand.
If there is a scientific explanation for two aircraft basically traveling together yet leaving different trails, then I would probably not understand, and there you have your advantage. You could tell me anything and I could not debate, and there you have my cynicism. You are probably wasting your time trying to bitch slap me - I wouldn't see it coming. lol
Here is the link I posted in Marlborough update topic to recent images - one image with the two trails I refer to above.
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:53 pm Post Subject: Why a persistent contrail persists
OK, try this.
It looks to me like there are 3 contrails in that mosaic of 5 images; there is the long broad twisty (persistent) one, and there is a short one next to it, and another short one ahead of it near the horizon.
I have seen short contrails referred to as "ephemeral", the word meaning having a short life time or short life cycle.
The long twisty persistent one looks (to me) more than 30 seconds older than the short ones.
The question is, why is one persistent and the other two ephemeral? The essential difference between persistent and ephemeral contrails is that persistent contrails form in air that is saturated with respect to ice, whereas ephemeral (or so called 'normal' contrails) form in air that is not saturated with respect to ice.
This needs some explanation:
Measures of moisture
There are several ways to express the amount of moisture (water vapour) in air. There are the absolute measures like vapour pressure and mixing ratio, and there is relative humidity.
Vapour pressure and relative humidity are the important ones to this discussion.
Vapour pressure
In a mixture of gasses which includes water vapour, each gas in the mixture contributes to the total pressure. The vapour pressure is the part of the total pressure exerted by the water vapour alone.
Saturation vapour pressure
When an air and water vapour mixture is in equilibrium with a water surface - that is, there is the same number of molecules of water leaving the liquid phase (evaporating) as there are rejoining the water (condensing) - then, at the temperature of the air/water region, the vapour pressure is defined as the saturation vapour pressure over water.
The vapour pressure, in the same situation with ice, is the saturation vapour pressure over ice at the temperature of the air/ice region.
The saturation vapour pressure (either of them) depends only on the temperature, and there are formulae to calculate them.
At temperatures below 0 degrees Celsius, the saturation vapour pressure over ice is less than the saturation vapour pressure over water.
Relative humidity
Relative humidity (RH) is the ratio of the vapour pressure to the saturation vapour pressure, and this ratio is expressed as a percentage. The RH that is usually measured/given/discussed is the RH with respect to water, RHw, but it is almost never explicitly stated which RH is being discussed.
Because the saturation vapour pressure over ice is less than the saturation vapour pressure over water at temperatures below 0 degrees Celsius, the RH with respect to ice (RHi) is always greater than the RH with respect to water (RHw) in that temperature range.
Bringing it all together
When RHi is greater than 100%, the air is said to be "supersaturated with respect to ice".
If a contrail forms in air that is supersaturated with respect to ice, that contrail will be persistent. This is because the ice of the contrail cannot sublime away to water vapour - the air is already saturated with it. In fact, the excess water vapour will deposit directly onto the ice in the contrail (without needing to go through the liquid phase).
More; but later
There is more to this, and it is about the condensation and freezing processes and the role of condensation and freezing nuclei, but this post is long enough as it is.
What about the 5-image mosaic
I suggest that the persistent contrail in the 5-image mosaic was formed at an altitude where the air is supersaturated with respect to ice - that is, RHi was greater than 100%, and the other two ephemeral contrails were formed at a different altitude where RHi is less than 100%.
The problem is we don't know the altitudes of any of the contrails. Not much variability in the conditions is required - RHi is either greater than or equal to 100%, or it's less. Northbound aircraft travel at the odd thousands (F330, F350, F370), and southbound traffic travel at the even thousands (F340, F360, F380). So the difference in altitude could be as small as 2000 feet for one to be in air that is supersaturated with respect to ice, and the other not.
Hector,
Thank you for the concise info – the layout made the text look less dense and more inviting. As far as digesting the info and applying (and/or testing) it – that will take time. But I have to confess , as much as I try to digest the info you present, I can get a bit of a Homer going on, ie... bla, bla, bla, drifting off.
to continue ....
Quote:
It looks to me like there are 3 contrails in that mosaic of 5 images; there is the long broad twisty (persistent) one, and there is a short one next to it, and another short one ahead of it near the horizon.
The details ..
I was outside doing a Rambo on the aphids when I heard, then watched the first plane traveling north leaving a persistent trail. Being in the middle of the aphid cull I opted to continue rather than get to the camera. WITHIN 30 secs I heard another plane putting my senses on alert – not a usual occurrence to have planes so close. I looked up to see the second plane also traveling north, but appeared a little to the east of the first. The second plane was leaving a short trail (or ephemeral contrail) and the first plane was still very much in sight with it’s trail lingering, twisting, spreading, etc, etc. Dash for camera ... the outcome being the five images in the series. (I did not observe any other persistent trails that day.)
(refer to the the link I posted earlier for images)
The images were taken from the lower Pelorus Valley on 10 January at 1021:07/17/27/36/49 - facing NNW ... visually they appeared the same size indicating the same altitude, yet the sound of the second plane (deeper drone than first) made me think lower altitude. The distance between the two appeared to be constant , although angle of vision (however you say it) could give the illusion.
The first trail was persistent and segmented - regularly observed by me and others – some people have alluded to an ‘on’off button’. I assure you the persistent trail belongs to the first plane – there was nothing in that part of the sky before the first plane arrived.
Quote:
So the difference in altitude could be as small as 2000 feet for one to be in air that is supersaturated with respect to ice, and the other not.
Based on theory? ... text book? ... who financed the book? ... how many reprints have there been? ... Based on factual data (probes in atmosphere's layers etc) ... who owns the probes? ... Who financed the collection and print of data? ... Who produced the data? .... (Don't get hissy Hector - with respect, I am being cynically flippant and not seeking a response.)
I have a gut feeling that there is something deceitful and sinister going on in our sky. I have a gut feeling we (including you Hector) will be horrified when the truth(s) comes out – and I think it will be in my time – not that far away. With more and more global communication the anomalies are adding up and people are asking questions, collecting evidence and demanding answers.
