View Single Post
  #3  
Old 05-09-2008, 01:29 PM
stompk's Avatar
stompk stompk is offline
I work for God
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In the valley
Posts: 542
Default Re: Contrails cannot form into clouds (proof!)

Since no one has replied, I picked a few cities in North America that represent various temperature and humidity levels, all from today,
@ 30,000 ft / 9144 m

and put them on the chart.



Quote:
Pickle Lake, Ontario
286.6 9144 -51.8 -69.2 11
Cold enough, but humidity is way below 55%, no contrails will form under
these conditions.

Quote:
Santa Domingo
321.7 9144 -31.1 -65.2 2
Not cold enough, only 2% humidity, no contrails.

Quote:
Gray, Maine
304.3 9144 -43.2 -53.5 31
Barely cold enough, below 55% humidity, so, no contrails.

Quote:
Tuscon, Arizona
315.7 9144 -33.0 -45.2 28
Temp too low, humidity < 55%, no contrails.

Quote:
No contrails were observed for RHI < 55%.

None of the soundings show RHI > 72%, despite
the fact that the PIT rawinsonde must have passed
through contrail A on its way to the stratosphere. To
support a persistent contrail, the maximum PIT RHI from
the sonde would need to be increased by 35% or more.
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub...s.ARAMS.02.pdf

Increasing 72% by 35% would be 107%, or saturation, to support persistent
contrails.

This is supported by this;

Quote:
The red line (dash-double dot line) in the Appleman chart shows at what humidities contrails can persist (usually between 60% and 70% relative humidity)
Appleman Chart - Student

NASA is saying that can't really form below 60%
and the other NASA pdf says no contrails were formed
below 55%

Furthermore, I have already shown where they come right and say

Quote:
The combined moisture from the jet exhaust and the atmosphere will never be enough for the mixture to produce a cloud.
Please, if I have made a mistake in my calculations and charts, could you show me the data that supports your claim otherwise.

All I want is the truth. Show me the numbers to support persistent contrail formation.

Thanks.

Last edited by stompk : 05-09-2008 at 01:31 PM.
Reply With Quote