Contrails and Weather, Hernando Island

Hama Neggs said:
My question was this, about the ex-premier: "Excellent! Did he publish this "proof" somewhere we can review it?"

Can you answer my question? Doesn't he SHOW this "proof" to people who want to know? Where can we see it? I didn't accuse him of lying. I want to SEE what he has to say about it. Actually, I want to see what he has to SHOW about it.
Click to expand...
I told you I would like to see them too, they are not mine. I am pushing the river. you will all know soon enough.
 
The Vancouver-based weather expert said there's nothing there but water vapour. "It's really just plain stupid to think that you could alter the climate by, you know, somehow using aircraft to drop tiny droplets or particles in the massive volume that the atmosphere is," Jones said. "I mean, it's just ridiculous."
 
spiral said:
I told you I would like to see them too, they are not mine. I am pushing the river. you will all know soon enough.
Click to expand...

So the ex-premier has never shown the proof he claims to have to anyone? Why not? Why is he holding it back? Why should anyone believe him without evidence, other than just him saying so? Why do YOU believe him if he refuses to show evidence?
 
spiral said:
The Vancouver-based weather expert said there's nothing there but water vapour. "It's really just plain stupid to think that you could alter the climate by, you know, somehow using aircraft to drop tiny droplets or particles in the massive volume that the atmosphere is," Jones said. "I mean, it's just ridiculous."
Click to expand...

OK. And you don't believe him? Why would he lie?
 
spiral said:
weather experts say i am stupid and ridiculous. still i am right. i know your arguments it is natural common and alright. good for you. sleep well.
Click to expand...

Not at all. No one here says contrails are "natural". It is moisture being artificially introduced into the atmosphere.

"still i am right."

You may be right about seeing persistent trails before storm fronts, but you are NOT right about those trails CAUSING the storm fronts.
 
spiral said:
troll baiting. I am not a troll. I am a weather observer. I see jets change the weather. I do not believe it is from a little condensation from jet contrails that can make clouds that block the sun.
Click to expand...
I'm mot 'troll baiting' I'm stating an observation. You demonstrate no intention to listen to people. You choose to not believe atmospheric science. We can't help you if that is your position. I have no idea why you think we should believe your interpretation of cause and effect over established science just because you're a sailor.
Can you give a good reason why you or anyone should ignore proper weather professionals and science and take your word over established facts which you continue to ignore?

If you are a 'weather observer', then you will post actual weather data with proper references - date, time, location, conditions. You've provided none and ignored any that has been posted.

Some good points have been made, how about you take a break for a while from replying and read them and think about what they are saying, and when you do reply try to respond to the points.
 
spiral said:
weather experts say i am stupid and ridiculous. still i am right. i know your arguments it is natural common and alright. good for you. sleep well.
Click to expand...
Who said contrails are alright? I personally abhor the things as I am under a busy flightpath so there can be loads of them at times. However once you understand their formation they are just an annoyance. I am more concerned with the pollution in the form of CO2 the aircraft makes.
 
spiral said:
exactly. the wrong sentiment from this weather man did not help. he should have been more polite to citizen observers
Click to expand...

We have not been impolite, here, yet you refuse to believe what we say. I can see how the weather man might have become frustrated enough to become insulting after a while.
 
spiral said:
you cant prove they didn't.
Click to expand...

But when basic atmospheric science has proven that weather fronts often push moist air out in front of them...and that contrails often persist in moist air...its logical to associate persistent contrails with upcoming changes in the weather.

This is something I have observed many, many times.

To suggest the relationship between weather fronts and persistent contrails is actually the opposite of known science requires a lot more that your "belief" to be taken seriously.
 
post: 136085, member: 24"]I would really like to know your answer to this question:[/QUOTE]
I didn't take those picture and I didn't see what happened ten years before or months later. that is the difference.
 
you may be right. maybe sometimes jets can make cirrus clouds before a storm. but in my experience it is the other way around. I watch blue skies change to grey to thunderstorms. over and over again made by jet trails.

I don't think any of us have anything new to tell each other.
 
spiral said:
I didn't take those picture and I didn't see what happened ten years before or months later. that is the difference.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your answer.

In an earlier post you said this:

spiral said:
from my observations these jet trails spread across the sky and they never use to
Click to expand...

Do you still believe this?

Obviously, there is photographic evidence dating back decades that suggests they did "use to".

Contrails are not natural. They are man-made clouds. But they have always been known to persist, spread and cover the sky...often in advance of approaching weather fronts.

This is merely the result of air travel. With over 40,000 flts everyday in N. America, one would expect this to be a common occurrence.
 
spiral said:
you may be right. maybe sometimes jets can make cirrus clouds before a storm. but in my experience it is the other way around.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Before a storm is before a storm. However, you are claiming the trails CAUSE the storm. By what mechanism do you imagine they can do that?

spiral said:
I watch blue skies change to grey to thunderstorms.
Click to expand...

That sounds right. It's been happening for millions of years.

spiral said:
over and over again made by jet trails.
Click to expand...

Based on what evidence, other than the order of appearance?

PS: Contrails are cirrus clouds. Cirrus clouds do not TURN INTO rain clouds. They PRECEDE rain clouds. This is WELL known meteorology.
 
Last edited:
spiral said:
you may be right. maybe sometimes jets can make cirrus clouds before a storm. but in my experience it is the other way around. I watch blue skies change to grey to thunderstorms. over and over again made by jet trails.
Click to expand...


Just think about it logically...the jets are flying whether or not conditions are ripe for persistent contrails...as the most air moves in the jets trails begin to be persistent....then the rest of the weather moves in bringing rain. The front was coming whether there are jets in the sky or not.

I suggest you not jump to conclusions that reverse known, factual science simply based on your observations.

This is from the other side of CA but the same principle applies:

http://tinyurl.com/mblnlaq

"Doc Weather" explains it well:

External Quote:
In image 9 the sky is filled with ice clouds that once were contrails. Given the right conditions, these aircraft seeded, high ice clouds can build into naturally occurring cirrus clouds that would normally form in advance of an approaching warm front.
http://docweather.com/2/show/40/

Even wikipedia talks about cirrus clouds and approaching weather:

External Quote:
A large number of cirrus clouds can be a sign of an approaching frontal system or upper air disturbance. This signals a change in weather in the near future, which usually becomes stormier.[23] If the cloud is a cirrus castellanus, there might be instability at the high altitude level.[15] When the clouds deepen and spread, especially when they are of the cirrus radiatus variety or cirrus fibratus species, this usually indicates an approaching weather front. If it is a warm front, the cirrus clouds spread out into cirrostratus, which then thicken and lower into altocumulus and altostratus. The next set of clouds are the rain-bearing nimbostratus clouds.[2][15][24] When cirrus clouds precede a cold front, squall line or multicellular thunderstorm, it is because they are blown off the anvil, and the next to arrive are the cumulonimbus clouds.[24] Kelvin-Helmholtz waves indicate extreme wind shear at high levels.[15]
 
spiral said:
you may be right. maybe sometimes jets can make cirrus clouds before a storm. but in my experience it is the other way around. I watch blue skies change to grey to thunderstorms. over and over again made by jet trails.

I don't think any of us have anything new to tell each other.
Click to expand...

Jets CANNOT make a thunderstorm, sorry.

As a career aviator in Canada, I can say with certainty that that is absolutely baloney, especially if you understood how a thunderstorm forms--which is through convective activity (not airplane magic). The only reason why cirrus is any indication of thunderstorms is because they can be precursors of a moving mass of air, otherwise known as fronts, which can cause thunderstorms.

That premier may have been popular, but anyone can believe in fringe theories like chemtrails. I'm sure he is a nice guy, and a fine gardener and all that, but he isn't exactly the best qualified to make scientific judgement on how a contrail works. I was speaking to an Air Canada captain from Vancouver some days ago about chemtrails, and really, we were both baffled by people who believe in this stuff.
 
Last edited:
spiral said:
I know what I see.
Click to expand...

Based on your intransigence I read on Page #1, this seems not to be the case.


jets are changing the weather and thousands agree many don't believe their own eyes. I know what I see and I hear, the government even predicts cloudy days when the only clouds are jet trails.
Click to expand...

No, as Mick West pointed out, there is a minimal influence on the weather as a whole from persistent contrails, when they form at all!

Also, are we clear here on the differences in the term "weather" compared to the term "climate"? ("Weather" is a localized phenomenon. "Climate" is more far-reaching in scope).

And, what's this about the "government" and weather prediction??? You are a mariner....do you not realize there are thousands of thousands of highly educated and skilled meteorologists who DO NOT work for any "government"??

BTW....Earlier I mentioned an old sailor's ditty, to predict the weather, dating back centuries...do you not know of it?

"Red sky at night, sailor's delight; red sky in morn, sailor take warn." (There are several variations on the exact wording, but the gist remains. The effects of reflected sunlight on high-level, usually CIRRUS clouds at sunrise and sunset were the genesis of this bit of nautical wisdom).
 
spiral said:
you may be right. maybe sometimes jets can make cirrus clouds before a storm. but in my experience it is the other way around. I watch blue skies change to grey to thunderstorms. over and over again made by jet trails.

I don't think any of us have anything new to tell each other.
Click to expand...
The contrails do not cause the thunderstorm. They are a symptom, not a cause. They are simply a sign of the air becoming moist and unstable ahead of a weather front.

This has been known for half a century or more. Here is a link to an article in Skiing Magazine from 1968, which talks about how you can use persistent contrails as an indicator of approaching rain (or, in the mountains, snow). http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xjQV84MjHPoC&pg=PT54&dq=skiing contrails&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b6t_VNvnIav9ygOinoH4Cg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=contrails&f=true

The relevant part:

upload_2014-12-4_0-37-17.png


And photographs of the clouds you can expect to see ahead of a front:

upload_2014-12-4_0-38-3.png


Contrails can enhance the amount of cirrus ahead of the front, but they have nothing to do with the front itself, which would come whether there were planes there or not!
 
Probably just need to keep repeating the graphic on page 1 that depicts an approaching front at this point. Not much else to do when someone believes that any clouds or weather that follow the appearance of contrails was caused by the contrails, even after satellite images demonstrate that clouds on their observed contrail days advected in from elsewhere.
 
Yes, indeed. In the "larger" scale and overall scope of the Earth's huge atmosphere, and the very complex and chaotic forces that obviously must interplay when affecting not only local weather patterns, but larger-scale regional climate development....to suggest that a few (or even generously, two dozen) localized airplane contrails have a "significant" effect is simply not "getting it", in the grasp of understanding needed.

(BTW, the inclusion @scombrid of the mention of satellite imagery was brilliant! What a great way to help people better understand the "picture" of how weather actually occurs and progresses. I had forgotten that in the past it is helpful to access older archival Sat imagery, and compare to modern images....because really, there simply isn't much of an overall change, since the 1960s).
 
spiral said:
got your logic but you don't have the experience of a gardner and a sailor and many who look to the sky daily.
Click to expand...

How do you know that I (or others here), do not have the experience of....looking at skies daily ?
I am a professional painter of clouds.
I look at the sky daily.
I look at clouds daily.
I photograph clouds often.
I "need" to look and study the skies often, so that my cloud/sky paintings look realistic.

You have claimed a few times, "I know what I see, and I am right".

My avatar icon here (the eyeball) seems to be the opposite of your claim.
My claim is....I see, but I don't "know" what I see, without more investigation. In other words, I see things, but I truly don't know what I am seeing....until I do more investigation.
That is why I turn to books, history, and science. And I learn from people who have >> read more books, and know more history and science than me.
I "can" learn from seeing (observation), but usually there is more information that helps further explain my observations. I don't simply look at something, then come to a personal conclusion....and stop there.
There is always more to learn, besides "what I see".

Example....(simple and silly, but valid)
I could "see" two dogs humping, then weeks later "see" baby dogs. After witnessing this several times, I could personally conclude that "humping = babies". That's fine, but there are exceptions.....when my simple conclusion fails to "hold true".
-- why could the baby dogs not look like the mother/father dogs ?
-- was the female dog already pregnant from a different male dog ?
-- what if there are no baby dogs after months ? (was the female dog "fixed/spayed" ?)
-- if a dog humps a rabbit.....why don't I see "half-dog-half-rabbits" ?

In your case.....I'll ask this....
-- have you seen jet trails in the sky, and NO storm followed, days after the trails ? (I certainly have seen this, in fact it's quite common).
 
Last edited:
Leifer said:
I could "see" two dogs humping, then weeks later "see" baby dogs. After witnessing this several times, I could personally conclude that "humping = babies". That's fine, but there are exceptions.....when my simple conclusion fails to "hold true".
-- why could the baby dogs not look like the mother/father dogs ?
-- was the female dog already pregnant from a different male dog ?
-- what if there are no baby dogs after months ? (was the female dog "fixed/spayed" ?)
-- if a dog humps a rabbit.....why don't I see "half-dog-half rabbits" ?
Click to expand...
...and sometimes--despite initial appearances--dey's no bitches at da park!
 
Leifer said:
-- have you seen jet trails in the sky, and NO storm followed, days after the trails ? (I certainly have seen this, in fact it's quite common).
Click to expand...

This certainly seems like a valid question.

(I know that I have certainly observed this. Of course, I have ALSO observed MANY, MANY contrails...and not just from the ground!! In fact, I have FLEW THROUGH many contrails, when flying behind other jets that were making them.)

Know that it is usually, the appearance of the contrails of other airplanes ahead of us, a good indication of whether or not to expect turbulence...and whether to turn on the "SeatBelt" sign, in the passenger cabin. ALSO...contrails, once formed (depending on the time element) "might" descend a few hundred feet....or not. The upper atmosphere is VERY unpredictable in many cases.

What I am trying to refer here is the correlation between "wake-turbulence" (the actual, usually "invisible" airflow patterns as a result of an airplane's passage through the the "fluid" which is "air") and the way the contrails change, afterwards. Time. They change with time.
 
Last edited:
Here is a nice time lapse video showing how the contrails are associated with - but are not the cause of - the cirrus ahead of an approaching front.



Notice how much higher the contrails are than the altocumulus that moves in as the front approaches at the end of the video. They are not causing it in any way.

(As an aside, it also shows, at the start of the video, how the wind blowing the lower clouds can be in a totally different direction - in this case almost exactly opposite - the wind blowing the upper clouds!)

This is the weather chart for midnight, i.e. about nine hours after that timelapse ended. There is a decaying front a little way to the north of Irlam, near Manchester, where the video was filmed, so it must have passed over that evening.

upload_2014-12-4_11-13-21.png
 
Last edited:
you are convinced. but i am not. its not what i see. if any thing you must learn if you are right it is not what it looks like. i have seen many blue sky days sprayed away by persitant spreading contrails that work their way to a thunder storm. deny reason or hate i don't care. i seen it. you obviously did not.
 
spiral said:
you are convinced. but i am not. its not what i see. if any thing you must learn if you are right it is not what it looks like. i have seen many blue sky days sprayed away by persitant spreading contrails that work their way to a thunder storm. deny reason or hate i don't care. i seen it. you obviously did not.
Click to expand...
Nobody is trying to deny that you are seeing contrails followed by a thunderstorm. That is not in dispute. All that we are disputing is the order of cause and effect.

To borrow an analogy I saw recently, it is like seeing a flock of birds flying over and a shadow passing across the ground, and assuming that birds are attracted to shadows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Man who claims to "summon ufos" appears on news channel:
Replies
17
Views
1K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
U
What are these things in the sky?
Replies
8
Views
2K
ufoofinterest
ufoofinterest
D
Speculation: Did the US shoot down its own weather balloons over Alaska/Canada?
2 3
Replies
117
Views
20K
Charon
C
Mendel
Historic Wind Data for various altitudes
Replies
1
Views
1K
jplaza
J
Edward Current
Mandela effect: Evan Longoria saves reporter's life
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Giddierone
Giddierone

Latest posts

Back
Top