Reasoned, open, factual debate about 'chemtrails'...? Is it possible?

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Useful image:


Note the wind barbs. 15 knots on the ground, 60 knots at contrail altitude, and in a different direction.

 
Last edited:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
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.

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?

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.

Suspicious? Not sure I really said I was, but probably think it's more just wrong/daft/illogical than sus. We're all conspiracy theorists by definition; just think of it as it really means, not an insult.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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?

I think at this stage maybe you should go ask a weather forecaster. Most people do not seem to think it's important.

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.

Massive compared to what? What proportion of emissions come from air travel?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Useful image:


Note the wind barbs. 15 knots on the ground, 60 knots at contrail altitude, and in a different direction.


Yup, realize that (my 'question' about wind speed, gusts and how far away..etc was actually a piss-take). We do have regular mornings of clearly visible trails expanding and covering sky -
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
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.

So, lee, what are you going to do with your complaints about the Met office, the IPCC and contrails you see. Are you aware that here is a group over there that probably shares your belief and wants you to join?
You could check out m old buddy Holger Pedersen, a Danish astronomer who doesn't like contrails for the interference they cause his observations. Of course, he doesn't like people to use lights at night either, but that's a different complaint. Everybody seems to have a complaint, don't they?

Then there's my other old bud Robert Van Waning from the Netherlands. He would like Tahiti sun at 52 degrees latitude, because he has a beach resort in Northern Holland! He shares almost exactly the same complaints as you about weathermen, you would get along handsomely and could bitch together about the contrails, hold rallies and protests, maybe even a "World Anti-Contrails Awareness Day" like the chemmies do several times a year.

http://www.contrails.nl/
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
so you do like to indulge....

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.

...in a bit of Palintology, eh?
 

tryblinking

Senior Member.
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.

Three times. Cloud cover formed by aircraft emissions are known globally as condensation trails, or contrails. They are one and the same.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
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?

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.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Three times. Cloud cover formed by aircraft emissions are known globally as condensation trails, or contrails. They are one and the same.

I know, it took you at least three times to get it. So what are you saying? There's a conspiracy?

There seems to be a recent post or two missing, wonder what happened to them?/
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
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 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?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
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.

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
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.
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
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 h oswald

Banned
Banned
oh how we've progressed

Warfare, theft, rape, slavery, murder, human sacrifice, It all happened here before our people came. http://www.contrails.nl/

Sounds like US foreign policy since 1917

Who's 'our' people? The Polacks? Jews? Irish? Fuckin guineas? The Welsh? Muslim? Oh yeah, better not be one of those - they put bombs in their underpants you know? Oh what amazing cultural talents our people brought with them. How great has He made These UNITED STATES of AMERICA. Nice one God. Praise the Lord? and pass the contribution
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
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.

again, can't disagree with this: 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's the last bit... It is your assumption that cirrus clouds are important to aviation weather, and its not true at all -- no, if you look MikeC said this: In aviation cloud cover is very important and _is_ a major part of forecasts. So the assumption is yours - we weren't talikng about cirrus specifically, but clouds generally- are they not important to a pilot?

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. I think this is interesting too. Ok, but we are talking about what we can all understand to be 'cirrus aviaticus', 'induced' cirrus - or is it just cirrus? Some people have implied here that they don't think the phenomenon is particularly frequent - what do you say to that? I'd be interested to hear. Do you often see aircraft emissions create cloud cover and where are you geographically that it might be conducive or otherwise to that?
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
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
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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 :) )
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
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're a frustrated poet! You need to work on it a bit though.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
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

Right, but you totally missed the point. Where did I insist on cirrus being extremely important to aviation? I didn't. We weren't talking about cirrus - the word never came up - we were talking about clouds being of import to aviation. You've just demonstrated they are and at the same time argued almost to the contrary. And avoided answering the question on whether you see a lot of 'persistent contrails', 'induced' cirrus, 'cirrus aviaticus'...? Well?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
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 :) )

There's a turn up. Again, what I said above: look, this is what was said: Me: I couldn't disagree with you that: MikeC: In aviation cloud cover is very important and _is_ a major part of forecasts. Absolutely right.

From that y'all appear to be making some assumptions. How do you get to: Firepilot: So again, why do you have this insistence this cirrus clouds are extremely important to weather and aviation? It's a tad surreal.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
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

Says who?

I list the assumption - and also the reason I make it. Is there actually a problem with the reason and the conclusion I make from it??

What gets attacked here often is assumptions that do not have reasons supporting them, and/or reasons that do not support the conclusions that are made from them.

- do you know of many meteorologists using aircraft emissions as a way to predict cirrus-like cloud formation?

As I said - I do not know what information they use - why ask a question I have already answered?

Others have obviously already posted informatoin on this particular aspect since hten....I defer to them.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
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?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
is there a point to pointing out that you're misquoted? Miffed? Is that an English word?

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?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
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?

you asked if there was a point - I replied by asking if there was a point to pointing out being misquoted; kind of rhetorical. I've made plenty of points, lots of them factual
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
n
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?

It was you and 'firepilot' came up with that connection - I never mentioned it in relation to aviation forecasts - if I did, please show me where, ta
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Looking at the Camborne observations for September 2011, there's only one day at 12Z (1PM local time, BST) with contrail conditions, but 12 days with contrail conditions at 00Z (1AM BST).

If that was accurate for the entire region, then it would indicate that you'd wake up to contrails every other day or so, and they would continue though a lot of the morning, but you'd only rarely see them form and persist in the afternoon.

By contrast, in January 2010, there were only 8 00Z contrail condition days, and 3 12Z contrail condition days, so there would be more contrails in the afternoons, but overall probably less contrail days than in September. Very interesting. More research needed, as the scientists say.

Raw data (script generated):

Code:
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%

Code:
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%

(Edit, that's Jan 2010, let me get Jan 2011 ....)

Jan 2011
Code:
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%

9 days at 00Z, 1 day at 12Z. Similar to September.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.

January 2010 Camborne
All contrails/soundings = 61/11 -> 18%
00Z contrails/soundings = 31/8 -> 25%
12Z contrails/soundings = 30/3 -> 10%


February 2010 Camborne
All contrails/soundings = 56/12 -> 21%
00Z contrails/soundings = 28/7 -> 25%
12Z contrails/soundings = 28/5 -> 17%


March 2010 Camborne
All contrails/soundings = 61/11 -> 18%
00Z contrails/soundings = 31/8 -> 25%
12Z contrails/soundings = 30/3 -> 10%


April 2010 Camborne
All contrails/soundings = 75/13 -> 17%
00Z contrails/soundings = 30/9 -> 30%
12Z contrails/soundings = 30/2 -> 6%


May 2010 Camborne
All contrails/soundings = 71/8 -> 11%
00Z contrails/soundings = 31/6 -> 19%
12Z contrails/soundings = 31/1 -> 3%


June 2010 Camborne
All contrails/soundings = 56/12 -> 21%
00Z contrails/soundings = 28/12 -> 42%
12Z contrails/soundings = 28/0 -> 0%


July 2010 Camborne
All contrails/soundings = 62/10 -> 16%
00Z contrails/soundings = 31/10 -> 32%
12Z contrails/soundings = 31/0 -> 0%


August 2010 Camborne
All contrails/soundings = 62/12 -> 19%
00Z contrails/soundings = 31/12 -> 38%
12Z contrails/soundings = 31/0 -> 0%


September 2010 Camborne
All contrails/soundings = 61/18 -> 29%
00Z contrails/soundings = 30/17 -> 56%
12Z contrails/soundings = 30/0 -> 0%


October 2010 Camborne
All contrails/soundings = 62/14 -> 22%
00Z contrails/soundings = 31/14 -> 45%
12Z contrails/soundings = 31/0 -> 0%


November 2010 Camborne
All contrails/soundings = 61/21 -> 34%
00Z contrails/soundings = 30/17 -> 56%
12Z contrails/soundings = 30/4 -> 13%


December 2010 Camborne
All contrails/soundings = 62/11 -> 17%
00Z contrails/soundings = 31/10 -> 32%
12Z contrails/soundings = 31/1 -> 3%


-------------------------------------------------------
Totals for 2010 Camborne 03808
All contrails/soundings = 750/153 -> 20%
00Z contrails/soundings = 363/130 -> 35%
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.

January 2010 Afb
All contrails/soundings = 42/14 -> 33%
00Z contrails/soundings = 11/3 -> 27%
12Z contrails/soundings = 31/11 -> 35%

February 2010 Afb
All contrails/soundings = 34/5 -> 14%
00Z contrails/soundings = 7/1 -> 14%
12Z contrails/soundings = 26/4 -> 15%

March 2010 Afb
All contrails/soundings = 33/8 -> 24%
00Z contrails/soundings = 2/1 -> 50%
12Z contrails/soundings = 31/7 -> 22%

April 2010 Afb
All contrails/soundings = 35/6 -> 17%
00Z contrails/soundings = 4/0 -> 0%
12Z contrails/soundings = 30/6 -> 20%

May 2010 Afb
All contrails/soundings = 33/4 -> 12%
00Z contrails/soundings = 2/1 -> 50%
12Z contrails/soundings = 31/3 -> 9%

June 2010 Afb
All contrails/soundings = 32/3 -> 9%
00Z contrails/soundings = 2/0 -> 0%
12Z contrails/soundings = 30/3 -> 10%

July 2010 Afb
All contrails/soundings = 31/0 -> 0%
12Z contrails/soundings = 31/0 -> 0%

August 2010 Afb
All contrails/soundings = 31/0 -> 0%
12Z contrails/soundings = 31/0 -> 0%

September 2010 Afb
All contrails/soundings = 32/1 -> 3%
00Z contrails/soundings = 2/0 -> 0%
12Z contrails/soundings = 30/1 -> 3%

October 2010 Afb
All contrails/soundings = 29/5 -> 17%
00Z contrails/soundings = 4/0 -> 0%
12Z contrails/soundings = 25/5 -> 20%

November 2010 Afb
All contrails/soundings = 31/6 -> 19%
00Z contrails/soundings = 1/0 -> 0%
12Z contrails/soundings = 30/6 -> 20%

December 2010 Afb
All contrails/soundings = 33/15 -> 45%
00Z contrails/soundings = 3/3 -> 100%
12Z contrails/soundings = 30/12 -> 40%

-------------------------------------------
Totals for 2010 Afb 72393 VBG Vandenberg
All contrails/soundings = 396/67 -> 16%
00Z contrails/soundings = 38/9 -> 23%
12Z contrails/soundings = 356/58 -> 16%
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
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.


I'm not close to Cambourne - Cambourne is in the far west of Cornwall, right where the Atlantic hits its first bit of land for 3000 miles - I reckon it's gonna be a bit moist down there. I'm 200 miles away, in London.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Okay, so on which data source are you basing you claim of rarity of contrail conducive conditions?
 
Top