Slashdot Mirror
Airplanes Cause Accidental Cloud Seeding
An anonymous reader writes "A new study by a team of U.S. researchers found that commercial and private jetliners may be contributing to a form of accidental cloud seeding. When an airplane flies through a cloud, its propellers cause the expansion and cooling of the air behind them which can cause water droplets to spontaneously cool and crystals to form. The aircraft sets off a chain reaction in the cloud that can continue on for hours after the plane has passed by. The researchers also discovered that this phenomenon is more common near the poles, where many of Earth's weather monitoring systems are, and it could be skewing data that research teams are gathering in those areas."
Meteorologists have known about this for some time. They tend to form what is known as "Hole Punch" clouds.
Examples: http://bit.ly/lAxNQO
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
I mean seriously, this has been known for decades. There was even a study that looked at the 9-11 shutdown of air-traffic affected climate.
This has been known for a long time.
Contrails are real. Jet exhaust contains chemicals. Those chemicals are pollutants. They can cause respiratory problems and maybe birth defects. But they can't cause mind control, other than the ability to twist some people into a knot when their brain power meets their ignorance in a paranoid delusion and motivates them to make fools of themselves and enemies of everyone sane.
"commercial and private jetliners" "When an airplane flies through a cloud, its propellers"
The number of jetliners with "propellers" is mighty fucking few, though not zero.
Linking to the PARENT Science Daily piece
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630142835.htm
instead of the pointless Inhabitat bullshit summary would have been nice. There is NO excuse for the Inhabitat link other than SPAM.
AC is anonymous because he/she/it wants page hits for Inhabitat.
Now I know not to visit Inhabitat again. Fuck you too and thanks for nothing.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630142835.htm
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Ever heard of a Turboprop engine? They're extremely common.
I saw some yesterday, Dash-8s and there a lot of other propeller commercial aircraft out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Dash_8 - turboprop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beech_1900 - turboprop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_406 - turboprop
We even have one of these flying out of Anchorage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-100_Hercules along with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_360
Turboprop engines are used all over the world, in very large numbers. The US military alone has over 2,421 active aircraft with propellers (not including helicopters, before you ask).
I remember reading this at a popular news site over a year ago. Where could it have been? Oh, wait, here it is! http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/06/15/2020240/Airplanes-Unexpectedly-Modify-Weather
Conversely, there are fundemental limitations of what this muddy dirtball can handle, and limits to what technology can accomplish.
The ideal course is to understand both, and proceed accordingly.
To do otherwise is to invite disaster.
Chemtrails = bullshit. Abject, horrific bullshit, spread by idiots who don't have a fucking clue about meteorology, basic physics, and more importantly that a few documents mentioning cloud seeding do not instantly mean that even one single witnessed contrail is anything other than a contrail. Critical thinking - it works, bitches.
Yes - in *plenty*. It amazes me that people don't know that. There are a shit-tonne of turboprop aircraft the world over, including the US.
.. but when was the last time you saw a commercial plane with them?
Actually, just before the sun set - a DeHavilland/Bombardier Dash-8 of US Airways Express.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
I do believe you did not look at the photos, so from another website, here is some text for you to read.
As a note, because of what ever technical reason stooped you looking a the lint, these clouds can and do look at times look like massive eyes or holes in the clouds, nothing at all like contrails, and in some cases can look like a massive gouge taken out of the clouds, kinda like a revers contrail.
http://www.weatherthings.com/HolePunch.html
"A “Hole Punch” cloud is a non-technical name given to a cloud formed from an aircraft dissipation hole or trail. They are also called "Punch Hole" clouds. Rather than extending as a line, Hole Punch clouds appear as a circular or oval hole in a deck or thin layer of supercooled water clouds. They are not uncommon where jet flight paths intersect altocumulus layers. What is uncommon is when they form in a perfect circle that persists for a length of time to be widely observed."
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
Oh, ferkrissakes, I came here to use up my last two mod points and almost every comment is ignorant, so I'm going to just make one comment and watch a movie and use those two points in the morning.
I know it's not usual for anybody to RTFA and instead just jump to conclusions thinking you know everything without having a clue, so I'm going to clue a few of you guys. This is not about contrails. Of course contrails have been known about forever. I didn't read this particular FA but I saw another FA about this earlier today, and it was damned interesting.
If it was about contrails, most of you guys would still be wrong. Contrails aren't caused by the turbines, they're caused by the air passing the wingtips of the aircraft. If you want to learn more, there's wikipedia for that.
This is about circular holes in clouds, It's about the exact OPPOSITE if contrails. The cause of contrails is well known, the cause of this particular phenomena isn't known. I find it hilarious that you guys think you know more about physics than folks who've been studying physics all their lives.
I'm not a physicist or meteorologist, but at least I know enough to know the limits of my own ignorance, so I READ. Voraciously. The more I read the more I learn, the more I learn the more I understand how ignorant I am. You guys might try reading once in a while. You're ignorant -- we're all ignorant. A physicist doesn't know shit about cosmology, and a cosmologist doesn't know shit about paleontology.
The man who thinks he knows everything cannot learn. Thus endeth the lesson, grasshopper.
Free Martian Whores!
If it was about contrails, most of you guys would still be wrong. Contrails aren't caused by the turbines, they're caused by the air passing the wingtips of the aircraft. If you want to learn more, there's wikipedia for that.
Ironic, considering the tone of your post, but I actually *did* look up (and read) the contrails article on Wikipedia, and you are in fact very wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contrail&oldid=436631379
Contrails (play /kntrelz/; short for "condensation trails") or vapour trails are artificial clouds that are the visible trails of condensed water vapour made by the exhaust of aircraft engines. As the hot exhaust gases cool in the surrounding air they may precipitate a cloud of microscopic water droplets. If the air is cold enough, this trail will be comprised of tiny ice crystals.[1]
The wingtip vortices which trail from the wingtips and wing flaps of aircraft are sometimes partly visible due to condensation in the cores of the vortices. Each vortex is a mass of spinning air and the air pressure at the centre of the vortex is very low. These wingtip vortices are not the same as contrails.
multifariam.net -- yet another nerd blog
Most jet engines, these days, are high bypass turbofan engines. In many respects, not that much different from a Turboprop. The bulk of the thrust comes from the driven element, ie. the fan or prop, rather than the thrust from the turbine itself.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Fail. The LC-130H is commonly seen over both the Arctic and Antarctic, and it has 4 props and skis.
Impetuous! Homeric!
Yes, aircraft changing course is totally normal. Heck, large circles are even perfectly normal. Can you provide evidence as to how they are not normal? That's how critical thinking works. Apparently you don't understand that, which is why you believe this bullshit.