no - I don't get it - how come you don't get that I dont' get it? I wrote that I don't get it in few words so it would be simple to understand too.
However I got your answer to Mick about lack of nomenclature and aircraft emissions - soo - that's all it took, a nice simple statement.
On the emissions front, emissions from other sources - cars, industry - sometimes make "weather" forecasts around the world when they contribute to smog - IMO a/c emissions are not anywhere close to the same level of interference with humanity as is generally required for this to hapen.
You may think it is suspicious - I think it is simply insufficient unless you also think of it in terms of being some sort of conspircay - in which case IMO you are interested in propounding the conspiracy theory.
I think the nomenclature/emissions/forecasting tool thing is valid - it just makes more sense - if I were a weather forecaster, I'd be looking at the right conditions for emissions turning to clouds - in a 'normal' world that would seem, er, normal? Would it?
Emissions from other sources are also bad, but they do seem to get a lot more 'air time', if you know what I mean? Air travel is MASSIVE and burns a shitload of stuff, it's got to be considered prorerly, I reckon.
Useful image:
Note the wind barbs. 15 knots on the ground, 60 knots at contrail altitude, and in a different direction.
The myth of innocent indigenous people is just that. They were men, subject to each and every one of man's immoralities worldwide.12 million indigenous people killed, who never had a belief in 'ownership' or 'sovereignty', and all to proclaim 'sovereignty', oh, and make a profit - fuckin piracy, I'd say.
The myth of innocent indigenous people is just that. They were men, subject to each and every one of man's immoralities worldwide.
Warfare, theft, rape, slavery, murder, human sacrifice, It all happened here before our people came. Some believed in property ownership, and many in sovereignty. We gave them horses and broght them out of the stone age, they gave us tomatoes and potatoes. You aren't much on the history of my country, lee.
we're not talking about contrails per se, we're talking about that aircraft emissions are frequently causing cloud cover.
again, I'm not talking about contrails per se, I'm talking about the regular cloud cover being created by aircraft emissions.
I thought I mentioned that I wasn't talking about contrails per se; I was talking about how aircraft emissons form cloud cover regularly.
And it's you with Schopenhauer's (was it?) perverted expression. I like it. Are you aware that at the core of his work he contended that the universe is not a rational place?
I think the nomenclature/emissions/forecasting tool thing is valid - it just makes more sense - if I were a weather forecaster, I'd be looking at the right conditions for emissions turning to clouds - in a 'normal' world that would seem, er, normal? Would it?
Three times. Cloud cover formed by aircraft emissions are known globally as condensation trails, or contrails. They are one and the same.
given that weather forecasts often include statements about cloud conditions - and often forecasting increases or decreses in coverage - it is my assumption that they do so.
In aviation cloud cover is very important and _is_ a major part of forecasts.
I hope this satisfies your every wish.UK Met office said:Talk to a forecaster
You can ask for any weather information or forecast for any land area in the UK, For marine customers - UK waters, Mediterranean and Canary Islands, For aviation customers - UK and near continent
Features
•Direct telephone access to a weather forecaster, 24 hours a day.
•Each call is approximately three minutes in duration.
•Forecasts are available up to five days ahead.
•Access is via a PIN, issued on the instigation of the service.
•Pay via credit or debit card over the phone (Visa, Mastercard or Delta ).
•Bulk purchase discount.
Talk to a forecaster contact details
Phone numbers
New customers or one-off sales contact our Customer Centre.
Existing account holders: 08700 767 890
Call information
•1-19 calls: £17 each
•20 calls: £280 (£14 each), £336 if invoiced
•50 calls: £600 (£12 each), £720 if invoiced
•Call duration: Three minutes
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/services/talkfc
Warfare, theft, rape, slavery, murder, human sacrifice, It all happened here before our people came. http://www.contrails.nl/
No, cirrus clouds are not part of airport meteorological reports, are not going to result in precipitation, and do not in any way affect aviation at all. AIrcraft flying are not going to give PIREP (pilot report) about cirrus clouds either. It is your assumption that cirrus clouds are important to aviation weather, and its not true at all
If you have cirrus clouds, its probably actually quite stable weather, although it could mean a change in the weather and increased precipitation is on the way.
lee,
I have found the answer to ALL of your complaints about forecasts.
No longer will you have to wonder whether or not you will hear your own personal questions answered by the Met office.
No longer will you be unaware of forecast cloud conditions or the likelihood of contrails.
You can have your own personal weather forecast tailor made to your own specifications.
The upside is that you can have direct access to your country's Met office as often as you wish 24/7/365.
The downside is that YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.
I hope this satisfies your every wish.
If it does not, I suggest you take personal responsibility and become your own forecaster.
This may require several years of study, if you have the required background.
Please report back to us on your findings.
You are welcome in advance.
You are trying to use a logic connection that if some cloud are very important to aviation and weather, and cirrus is a kind of cloud, then cirrus is very important for weather and aviation, and its not true. Some weather conditions are hazardous, some are not.
Clouds that reduce airport visibility, or cause a low ceiling over the airport, or cause thunderstorms, snow or icing are of course the most important. The detectors for cloud height at airports which that equipment, only have a vertical range of 25,000 ft.
Cirrus does not cause precipitation, is not going to cause icing on an aircraft, is not going to reduce visibility in the airport environment, and is not going to cause turbulence.
So again, why do you have this insistence this cirrus clouds are extremely important to weather and aviation? No one is going to change what they are doing, because of cirrus.
Whether cirrus is naturally produced or at the result of aircraft, it is the same thing anyways. In the right conditions, sure you could end up with a lot of high cirrus if the conditions were right and you had a lot of jet traffic. But that's nothing new and there is nothing conspiratorial about it
Cloud cover in general is important, but cirrus cloud cover is not. It's too high, thin, and sparse to have any real effect on aviation. At low altitude there's a lot of concern about visibility, especially for VFR (visual) traffic. Aviation weather at higher altitudes is concerned with convection, turbulence, icing, wind, and temperature. See:
http://aviationweather.gov/
(or: what firepilot said )
I couldn't disagree with you that: In aviation cloud cover is very important and _is_ a major part of forecasts. Absolutely right.
Not so sure of the same solidity for your first though: given that weather forecasts often include statements about cloud conditions - and often forecasting increases or decreses in coverage - it is my assumption that they do so. assumptions are clearly not allowed here
- do you know of many meteorologists using aircraft emissions as a way to predict cirrus-like cloud formation?
Some clouds are important to aviation. Cirrus clouds are not. That was the point. Contrails make cirrus clouds. They don't make the important clouds.
I don't see many persistent contrails in the summer in Los Angeles. I see more in the winter, sometimes they induce cirrus (or turn into cirrus), sometimes several times a week.
Do you actually have a point Lee? Are you really just miffed that contrails are not on the weather forecast?
is there a point to pointing out that you're misquoted? Miffed? Is that an English word?
I did these some years back:You're a frustrated poet! You need to work on it a bit though.
I did these some years back:
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/rhymes.html
but I'm prouder of this one some chemmies did in my honor(I'm Johnny Spray):
http://www.noble-gas.com/Johnnyspray.mp3
Now you just seem to be trolling.
I think it's perfectly clear from the above what the situation is with cirrus clouds and aviation forecasts. Is there something you are not clear on?
I think it's perfectly clear from the above what the situation is with cirrus clouds and aviation forecasts. Is there something you are not clear on?
Now the situation is clear
Camborne 00Z 02 Sep 2011
At 9797.0m, rh = 81.0, temp =-40.3
At 10014.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-41.9
At 10137.0m, rh = 79.0, temp =-43.0
At 10337.0m, rh = 82.0, temp =-44.7
At 10491.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-45.3
At 11565.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-53.7
At 11594.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-53.6
Camborne 00Z 04 Sep 2011
At 9531.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-43.9
Camborne 00Z 07 Sep 2011
At 11183.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-52.7
Camborne 00Z 10 Sep 2011
At 9681.0m, rh = 82.0, temp =-41.1
At 9800.0m, rh = 82.0, temp =-42.1
At 9824.0m, rh = 82.0, temp =-42.3
At 10216.0m, rh = 78.0, temp =-45.7
At 10317.0m, rh = 79.0, temp =-46.5
At 10342.0m, rh = 79.0, temp =-46.7
At 10393.0m, rh = 80.0, temp =-47.0
At 10522.0m, rh = 83.0, temp =-47.9
At 10600.0m, rh = 82.0, temp =-48.5
At 10813.0m, rh = 80.0, temp =-50.0
At 10923.0m, rh = 78.0, temp =-50.7
At 11143.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-52.4
At 11342.0m, rh = 75.0, temp =-54.0
At 11669.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-56.5
At 11729.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-56.4
At 11851.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-56.1
[B]Camborne 12Z 15 Sep 2011[/B]
[B]At 9345.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-40.9[/B]
Camborne 00Z 16 Sep 2011
At 8882.0m, rh = 74.0, temp =-40.1
At 9141.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-41.9
At 9340.0m, rh = 75.0, temp =-43.7
At 9385.0m, rh = 75.0, temp =-44.1
At 9475.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-44.9
At 9589.0m, rh = 77.0, temp =-45.6
At 9799.0m, rh = 80.0, temp =-46.9
At 9870.0m, rh = 80.0, temp =-47.5
At 10211.0m, rh = 79.0, temp =-50.1
Camborne 00Z 17 Sep 2011
At 8902.0m, rh = 77.0, temp =-42.1
At 9052.0m, rh = 77.0, temp =-43.4
At 9184.0m, rh = 78.0, temp =-44.5
At 9250.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-45.1
At 9272.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-45.3
At 10212.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-52.8
At 10262.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-53.1
Camborne 00Z 19 Sep 2011
At 9629.0m, rh = 84.0, temp =-41.3
At 9676.0m, rh = 83.0, temp =-41.6
At 10113.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-44.0
Camborne 00Z 20 Sep 2011
At 9662.0m, rh = 89.0, temp =-40.9
At 9804.0m, rh = 91.0, temp =-42.0
At 9876.0m, rh = 92.0, temp =-42.5
At 10096.0m, rh = 89.0, temp =-43.9
At 10246.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-44.4
Camborne 00Z 21 Sep 2011
At 9370.0m, rh = 86.0, temp =-41.3
At 10477.0m, rh = 79.0, temp =-50.7
At 10528.0m, rh = 77.0, temp =-50.9
At 10580.0m, rh = 75.0, temp =-51.1
Camborne 00Z 24 Sep 2011
At 9085.0m, rh = 82.0, temp =-40.1
At 9330.0m, rh = 82.0, temp =-42.1
At 9513.0m, rh = 80.0, temp =-43.7
At 9652.0m, rh = 80.0, temp =-44.7
At 9890.0m, rh = 80.0, temp =-46.5
At 9938.0m, rh = 80.0, temp =-46.9
At 10011.0m, rh = 79.0, temp =-47.6
At 10183.0m, rh = 78.0, temp =-49.1
At 10437.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-51.5
At 10463.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-51.7
At 10540.0m, rh = 75.0, temp =-52.3
At 10882.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-54.6
At 11019.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-55.5
Camborne 00Z 25 Sep 2011
At 9290.0m, rh = 83.0, temp =-43.7
At 9494.0m, rh = 81.0, temp =-45.6
At 9680.0m, rh = 79.0, temp =-47.3
At 9845.0m, rh = 77.0, temp =-48.9
At 10014.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-50.5
At 10187.0m, rh = 74.0, temp =-52.1
At 10387.0m, rh = 73.0, temp =-53.7
At 10490.0m, rh = 73.0, temp =-54.5
Camborne 00Z 26 Sep 2011
At 9221.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-42.3
At 10366.0m, rh = 74.0, temp =-52.1
At 10391.0m, rh = 74.0, temp =-52.3
At 10520.0m, rh = 74.0, temp =-53.5
At 10649.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-54.7
At 10857.0m, rh = 73.0, temp =-56.3
observations = 60
contrail conditions = 13
frequency = 21%
observations 00Z= 30
contrail conditions 00Z = 12
frequency 00Z = 40%
observations 12Z= 30
contrail conditions 12Z = 1
frequency 12Z = 3%
Camborne 00Z 01 Jan 2010
At 6860.0m, rh = 73.0, temp =-41.9
At 7029.0m, rh = 73.0, temp =-43.3
At 7292.0m, rh = 74.0, temp =-45.4
At 7472.0m, rh = 74.0, temp =-46.9
At 7563.0m, rh = 75.0, temp =-47.8
At 7600.0m, rh = 75.0, temp =-48.1
Camborne 00Z 03 Jan 2010
At 7891.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-42.1
At 7987.0m, rh = 74.0, temp =-42.8
At 8026.0m, rh = 75.0, temp =-43.1
At 8567.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-47.7
Camborne 12Z 10 Jan 2010
At 7395.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-44.2
At 7762.0m, rh = 74.0, temp =-47.5
Camborne 00Z 12 Jan 2010
At 8069.0m, rh = 78.0, temp =-40.8
At 8129.0m, rh = 77.0, temp =-41.3
At 8209.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-41.9
Camborne 12Z 14 Jan 2010
At 7362.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-42.1
At 7692.0m, rh = 75.0, temp =-44.6
At 7730.0m, rh = 75.0, temp =-44.9
Camborne 00Z 15 Jan 2010
At 7507.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-42.0
At 7617.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-42.9
At 7672.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-43.4
At 7858.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-45.1
Camborne 00Z 16 Jan 2010
At 8493.0m, rh = 75.0, temp =-42.7
At 8742.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-45.0
At 9443.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-51.5
At 9817.0m, rh = 74.0, temp =-55.1
At 9841.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-55.3
Camborne 00Z 19 Jan 2010
At 7801.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-40.3
Camborne 00Z 20 Jan 2010
At 7993.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-44.3
Camborne 12Z 27 Jan 2010
At 8808.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-41.1
Camborne 00Z 31 Jan 2010
At 7493.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-48.9
At 7731.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-50.8
At 8055.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-53.5
observations = 61
contrail conditions = 11
frequency = 18%
observations 00Z= 31
contrail conditions 00Z = 8
frequency 00Z = 25%
observations 12Z= 30
contrail conditions 12Z = 3
frequency 12Z = 10%
Camborne 00Z 05 Jan 2011
At 7541.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-42.7
At 7614.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-43.1
Camborne 00Z 06 Jan 2011
At 7888.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-42.5
At 8044.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-43.9
At 8083.0m, rh = 73.0, temp =-44.3
At 8362.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-46.8
Camborne 00Z 08 Jan 2011
At 7081.0m, rh = 80.0, temp =-40.1
Camborne 00Z 10 Jan 2011
At 7625.0m, rh = 86.0, temp =-42.6
At 7662.0m, rh = 87.0, temp =-42.9
At 7866.0m, rh = 85.0, temp =-44.7
At 7961.0m, rh = 84.0, temp =-45.5
At 8134.0m, rh = 82.0, temp =-46.7
At 8331.0m, rh = 80.0, temp =-48.2
At 8351.0m, rh = 80.0, temp =-48.3
At 8552.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-49.8
At 8738.0m, rh = 73.0, temp =-51.1
At 8822.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-51.7
At 8886.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-52.1
At 8950.0m, rh = 73.0, temp =-52.5
At 9168.0m, rh = 74.0, temp =-54.3
At 9256.0m, rh = 73.0, temp =-54.9
At 9460.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-56.1
Camborne 12Z 10 Jan 2011
At 7617.0m, rh = 75.0, temp =-43.1
At 7819.0m, rh = 74.0, temp =-45.0
At 8384.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-50.5
Camborne 00Z 12 Jan 2011
At 9032.0m, rh = 80.0, temp =-45.3
At 9075.0m, rh = 79.0, temp =-45.7
At 9162.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-46.5
At 9250.0m, rh = 76.0, temp =-47.3
At 9839.0m, rh = 79.0, temp =-52.5
At 10220.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-56.2
Camborne 00Z 13 Jan 2011
At 8870.0m, rh = 75.0, temp =-42.6
At 8957.0m, rh = 74.0, temp =-43.3
At 9196.0m, rh = 73.0, temp =-45.3
At 9240.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-45.7
At 9374.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-47.0
At 9511.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-48.3
At 9534.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-48.5
Camborne 00Z 14 Jan 2011
At 8712.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-43.9
At 9140.0m, rh = 73.0, temp =-47.7
At 9475.0m, rh = 73.0, temp =-50.4
At 9757.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-52.7
At 10294.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-56.9
At 10320.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-57.1
At 10422.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-57.7
Camborne 00Z 17 Jan 2011
At 7649.0m, rh = 70.0, temp =-40.5
At 7870.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-42.2
At 8334.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-45.9
At 8355.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-46.1
Camborne 00Z 18 Jan 2011
At 6652.0m, rh = 72.0, temp =-40.7
At 6701.0m, rh = 73.0, temp =-41.1
At 7114.0m, rh = 71.0, temp =-44.6
At 7407.0m, rh = 80.0, temp =-47.1
At 7425.0m, rh = 81.0, temp =-47.3
observations = 60
contrail conditions = 10
frequency = 16%
observations 00Z= 30
contrail conditions 00Z = 9
frequency 00Z = 30%
observations 12Z= 30
contrail conditions 12Z = 1
frequency 12Z = 3%
Here are the summary results for 2010. generated from the full set of data for Camborne.
Interesting that it follows the lowering of daytime contrails you would expect with the 12Z results, however the 00Z results actually INCREASE in the summer.
12Z contrails/soundings = 361/19 -> 5%
Compare to Vandenburg (just up the coast from here in Los Angeles)
Unfortunately they don't do many 00Z soundings. But interestingly there are far more 12Z contrail results than the UK had, which would indicate more contrails in the afternoon (in the winter).
Practically zero in summer.