Put simply, the clouds initially form on the side of the mountain that faces the wind.As airflow encounters a mountain or hill, it is forced to rise; this is referred to as orographic lift. If the flow is sufficiently humid, clouds form on the windward side of mountains and are called orographic clouds (Figure 2).
This doesn't apply here, the clouds in the photos aren't cumulous, given the information we have. Again, I'm not a meteorologist.The type of cloud that forms depends on the air stability and moisture content. Air also rises up a slope due to daytime heating so both orographic and thermal lifting often work together to produce tall, vertically developed Cumulus clouds (Figure 3). Therefore, hilly areas are often cloudier than nearby lower land.
So on the leeward side, they thin out. The cap clouds are the "UFO" shaped ones that were pointed out earlier in the threads, the ones that look like giant hovering pancakes. This isn't what we are seeing here, either.Clouds thin out and dissipate on the leeward side, where the relief causes descending motion and the precipitation is notably less (rain shadow). In the case of an isolated mountain, orographic clouds often have the form of a collar, surrounding the mountain or that of a cap covering the peak (Figure 4), both of which are fairly symmetrical. These clouds give little or no precipitation. In the case of a mountain barrier, observed from the leeward side,cap clouds indicate likely wave activity downstream. Sometimes, the clouds resemble a bank or wall that follows mountain contours. It is important to remember that their absence does not mean that waves are absent. Under drier conditions, waves may be present without cap clouds.
I think this is what's at play here. This is the image that accompanies that blurb:When the wind is strong, the orographic clouds formed near the summit may be observed streaming away from the mountain on the leeward side. This is a banner cloud and should not be confused with snow blown from the crest or peak.
In Redding, yeah, but that's in the foothills and around 75 miles or so south of Mt. Shasta. This site shows 8-10 mph with gusts to 20+. I think this is for the town of Mt. Shasta City, so still not what would have been happening up on the peak of the mountain:So from the base of the mountain, we had a gentle breeze.
all detail was undetectable because of the brightness from the sun behind the mountain
Clouds are tiny droplets of water that condense out of the humidity in the air once a certain temperature/pressure threshold is reached. This means that near that threshold, cloud formation is very sensitive to small variations in pressure (or temperature). (Compare Ann K's post about hole punch clouds at the other end of the scale, where liquid droplets soludify to ice.)Put simply, the clouds initially form on the side of the mountain that faces the wind.
what color was the object?
the vapor trail does not go from corner to corner, were you zoomed in more at the time?
@Mkitz apologies if I overlooked it, but did you answer these questions?To be 100% clear: you think it landed there? After being supersonic seconds earlier?
and then, being stationary, caused cloud turbulence for 2 hours?
was it white, or was it black?The object had no discernible color on the lcd.
I doubt that.There are cloud formations present in the two hours that have no precedence and fit no known classification.
It looks to me like that pattern is behind the lenticular cloud, and behind the ridge.Find complex patterns in clouds beneath a lenticular cloud.
Could be that it is, I was not up there, so I cannot say for sure where the turbulence occurred. It is likely that the upwelling from behind the ridge was responsible for many of the shapes we see in the underbelly of the cloud. The energy had to come from somewhere and that would be the slope behind the ridge. It could not be far behind the ridge because the laminar flow is typically very narrow in width and it is the peaks that wick the moisture from the air that causes the cloud to form. So we are on the same page, maybe a different ridge.was it white, or was it black?
I doubt that.
It looks to me like that pattern is behind the lenticular cloud, and behind the ridge.
Lenticular clouds can last for hours. None of your images show any cloud behavior that hasn't been seen before by diligent sky watchers.There are movements in the shapes and transformations that are verily unique. Consider how a relatively smsll lenticular cloud compresses and then rotates, fans out at the bottom, open up an area in the underbelly of the cloud that shows constantly changing forms. How often does a moisture flow last for two hours
This is not true. Its hard to see because they are sped up via time lapse but if you look closely or slow it down, you see very similar patterns to what you photographed. The patterns are very interesting.can you show me examples? area between lenticular and mountain show no patterns of interest. flow does not rotate or do anything interesting, no transformations. If you have such examples that would be very much appreciated by myself and others. We could move on from another ordinary occurrence. Thank you.
i did slow down top video and I don’t see the anything the stands out. Can you take a frame and blow it up? One that shows a distinct pattern? The rotation and compression I have not seen elsewhere. Thank you.This is not true. Its hard to see because they are sped up via time lapse but if you look closely or slow it down, you see very similar patterns to what you photographed. The patterns are very interesting.
I, personally, cannot see any abnormal cloud behavior here. This looks very normal for mountain clouds to me.
i think he thinks this part of the cloud is twisting around itself and he is looking at these lines that kinda look like a candy cane spiral and how they change from shot to shot. these scree n grabs are from @SR1419 's video above.What specific movement of the clouds is strange here? Drawn arrows would be helpful.
...illusory correlation is the phenomenon of perceiving a relationship between variables (typically people, events, or behaviors) even when no such relationship exists. A false association may be formed because rare or novel occurrences are more salient and therefore tend to capture one's attention.
Motivated reasoning is the phenomenon in cognitive science and social psychology in which emotional biases lead to justifications or decisions based on their desirability rather than an accurate reflection of the evidence.
which had no color, but we still don't know if it was black or white (or transparent?).This is how I read this:
You saw an image on your viewfinder that passed across the viewfinder quickly.
I've pointed out a similar formation on the "15 seconds later" shot. A review of the preceding shots might establish whether more of that cloud turbulence was happening before the vapor trail appeared.You looked at the scene naked eyeball and saw a formation in the distant clouds.
You made an assumption that the two were related. I believe this is a causal fallacy.
And the timing isn't established either! The dot and the trail showed up in roughly the same place, but did they happen at the same time?You assumed that the object was large and distant, and therefore traveling at highspeed.
But the angular speed of the dot on your viewfinder is also consistent with a small nearby object.
@Mkitz doesn't say that there was an impact, but has ignored my question intended to clarify the issue.You've assumed that the persistant formation in the clouds is result of an impact on Mt. Shasta. But cloud formation is a complex subject you know little about. Why would an impact cause this? You cite no scientific evidence. This seems nothing more than naïve speculation.
Some people come here with something they can't explain. We love a good riddle, hypothesize explanations, and try to support them, based on established knowledge and on any information we can add (such as e.g. flight tracking).You're piling assumption upon assumption and hanging onto these assumptions with a fair amount of asperity.
I suspect motivated reasoning. It's a crackerjack mysterious story, as opposed to a mundane story.
why would anyone accuse you of photoshopping? they just look like clouds. doing beautiful things like clouds sometimes do (maybe often do on top mountains). None of it sounds improbable to me, we have a whole 18 page thread on "clouds you took yourself" where people were in the right place at the right time to grab beautiful cloud pics.i appreciate that in all the skepticism that I have not been accused of photoshopping everything and I know it all seems very improbable
Hmmm...the logician in me flinches a bit, at this...and probably doesn't...teaching students to ferret out the pounding indoctrination they receive in modern education...
not necessarily 15 seconds apart.A hair on the lens would be present in multiple images
it means the actual vapor trail is NOT where you saw the object. it can be 15-20 miles away and 10,000-25,000 feet higher than your twisting cloud. (i'd have to work out the sun angles of that plane that went by at 9:14am and estimate wind direction (that blows the trail around a bit)and I do not know how the shadow a vapor trial would be different from a vapor trail.
I had been awarded eight trophies,
we're talking so we must be interested.so someone is interested in the thread
sr1419 already did. and i posted photos. asking us to spend time to find a video (which YOU do not have yourself) where the cloud is EXACTLY at the altitude aboveish the ridge yours is, is asking a bit much. People have already kindly showed you examples similar or the same as yours. you say "unusual patterns" but i arrowed some of the same "structures" in SR1419s vid as you use as examples in your photos.Yes, beautiful cloud patterns exist, but what we see in these images is an unusual transformation of a lenticular cloud. If someone can show lenticular cloud rotating and producing complex patterns over a period of two hours, that would be helpful.
What we want is evidence that this is unusual. I ask again: what is the evidence that this cloud is unusual? Provide quotes and sources, please.what we see in these images is an unusual transformation of a lenticular cloud
You did, but posting a picture and saying "this is unusual" is not evidence. That is a subjective statement and is just as valid as my statement that, subjectively, this is not an unusual occurrence. We are at stalemate until you can provide us with proof that this is not an unusual occurrence.I provided many images that Show the unusual rotation.
We tried that and you shot them down, which is why you have to supply the proof for us. The burden of proof here, as far as I can tell, is not on me. I am not going to spend hours looking at pictures of clouds here, because I still don't even understand what is unusual about these clouds. I see what you mean about miscommunication: I don't know what the 'tube-like structure' you are referring to here is, or how a twisting cloud is unusual. That's why I'm asking for evidence.Show me another instance where a lenticular cloud twists in form and extends a tube like structure.
Again, I'm confused here. This could be on my end. You're saying that the videos you've seen don't show rotation? Could you perhaps supply us with a video, following the posting guidelines for posting videos as evidence, and provide us with timestamps and/or screenshots with detailed explanations of what you see, where it is on the screen, and why it proves that your photos are unusual?Some has to cause a rotation in the moisture in the laminar flow. There has to be a mechanism. The videos of laminar flows are constant in orientation.
I can't agree on that, no. We don't have enough information here to rule those out to my mind.I hope that we can at least agree the hair and contrail shadow can be ruled out.
Can't agree on that, either. We don't have any evidence of what you saw and there were literal miles of air through which something could have flown. Given the fact that no one else appears to have seen this but you--even though we do have evidence of hikers in direct line of sight--I'm staying with "something flew between the camera and the mountain." I believe that you saw it, I believe that it looked like it was far away, and I believe that you are being genuine here, but I don't believe that it was a large, fast, distant craft.The. Bird, plane, bug etc can be ruled out.
if you are talking about this comment:We already discussed the narrow band of laminar air over the mount condenses from the air in contact with the peak not miles away.
it means the actual vapor trail is NOT where you saw the object. it can be 15-20 miles away and 10,000-25,000 feet higher than your twisting cloud. (i'd have to work out the sun angles of that plane that went by at 9:14am and estimate wind direction (that blows the trail around a bit)
We already discussed the narrow band of laminar air over the mount condenses from the air in contact with the peak