http://ciresweb.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/knollenberg72.pdfExternal Quote:
Is there a way to prove this through an exercise?
According to the paper you submitted that you should read again, 12 - 18 minutes before dispersion on sustained trails. No where do I find that 180 minute contrail on a daily basis is considered "Normal." We must also remember, Con-Trails have been around since we could get up high enough. We have also been actively engaged in weather modification since the 1940's so its no surprise to find photos of trails that may have been attempting to create rain clouds. There is one fact, there is no way today to be able to verify this, but it can be confirmed today!
By standing outside and stationary observance, only a limited amount of clouds can be observed over time, they are moving we must remember. The amount of time on average is about 1 hour, varies on wind speed, from horizon to horizon before they disappear into the horizon. If you don't go mobile, you will not be able to determine the length of time they remain. At a distance of 40 miles the planes and trails become too small and obscured to see with any accuracy.
I don't really care, and you all take great effort in distracting yourselves from the real question, please let me know if it is normal to find contrails remaining for over 180 minutes and supply your research and evidence to support or deny this as a common or normal occurrence.
I agree with one exception, they appear as if they are a contrail and persist. Check out this video and you will see the steam in not a con trail, but a chemical mixture of silver iodine to help produce additional rain, and if enough was expelled it would appear as a persistent contrail. One element necessary I have found, Water Vapor, this is why they excel in front of storms and areas high in water vapor. Minnesota has a great deal of this.
What, not a pic or description of the plane, I am disappointed now.
Nevermind that the opening paragraph of the paper clearly states that contrail cirrus may persist for hours...External Quote:
External Quote:
So, you believe this is a daily norm today, the papers specifically identify dates where they were optimum, so you still have not answer my question, you believe this is still normal daily or just as the papers say, under ideal conditions?
How do you know it is not daily, have you been here daily the past couple years driving around the state observing them? As I stated before, this is daily around the state and began around 2009/2010 to the degree we see them today. I am still waiting on flight id on the above pic. October 9, 2000 is not even comparable to daily, esp when the next day they were gone and only appeared on 2 days out of the days they observed.
My point...appearance is the same, esp from the ground
A likely candidate is this flight from Winnipeg to Orlando, which passed right over St. Cloud at 35,000 ft at about 4:10 pm (taking into account the 5 minute delay for FAA data). At 4:05 it would have been easily visible in the sky, about 40 miles to the NW and heading in your direction.
This is too far south by at least 10 miles. On my way home I saw at least 4 contrails on the west side of 94 as this one demonstrates you supplied the last 6 miles on 94 from Hwy 8 to Hwy 75, it was probably one of these or one that followed as this is a typical flight path we observe daily here. Usually the flights are visible in the western and southern skies. To give you a more exact location of the flight, and as you can see by the pic, its directly over this location circled and trajectory was estimated for research. Unless you have a way to view unidentified flights, I do not think you will find this one, as I find none of them and at least 70% are indentified.
Yes, but that accounts for 30%, explain 100% of these specific cloud formations coming from ONLY unidentified craft. If you see and document as I have, soon you find the probabilities way too disproportionate. I was at 0 :: 21, now we are way above 0 :: +100 as unidentified.
Thats what I used
I use a Samsung tablet, connect via my smart phone, monitor the skies with Flightware and take snapshots with my smart phone for time and date verification.
Why don't you get some proper equipment then? I haven't seen any plane on one of your pictures, you do know it is easily to get a much better ID, so you easily read the ID on the plane itself? If this is so important why don't you try to make a picture like this:
Really? You can't see the plane?
Nope I see a few pixels. What color does it have? Has it 1, 2, 3 or 4 engines? Look at the picture I posted, why don't you get a shot like that?
LOL, you are too funny, seriously, you think I am going to spend that kind of money? Have you ever tried to hold a camera still and take a stable picture of a plane from the distance of of 5 miles? You need a tripod with a super fast shutter, because its moving, and remove trigger to maintain stability. I run my own business and I do want to upgrade to digital here, but I don't have an extra 10k for the Avigilan system I want, but donations are being accepted
I have other priorities, and as I said, I am here to discuss this, I could care less and you all seem to care more, but either way, no one has came up with anything except "Atmospheric conditions" Its a good excuse, for a while, until it becomes worn out.
