مباحث عمومی هواشناسی

[heaven1]

باز یک کمی امیدم به اینه که با افزایش nao , ao و کاهش pna دما یک کمی میاد پایین تر ولی رو اونم كه ميره منطقه خنثا نباید زیاد حساب باز کنم

 

[Amir Mohsen]

من که با نرمال شدن دمای اب در ناحیه NINO 3.4 امیدم به آینده زیاد شده

 

[heaven1]

نیرو دریایی معتقده سامانه هفته بعد فقط شمال غرب را در بر میگیره و سپس به عرض های بالاتر میره!
روی اونم نباید حساب باز کرد

 

[heaven1]

من که با نرمال شدن دمای اب در ناحیه NINO 3.4 امیدم به آینده زیاد شده

با این تغییرات دیوانه کننده اصلن معلوم نیست که خط صفر را با شیب 89 درجه رد کنه یا 88 درجه:خجالت2:

 

[heaven1]

مدل عددی جی اف اس 0.1 میل از سیستم جمعه و شنبه واسمون گذاشته کنار! خدا خیرش بده

 

[Amir Mohsen]

تقریبا در تمامی اپدیتها CFSV2 اعتقاد به این داشته که در ماه مارچ میخواد شرایط دگرگون بشه و بارشهای خوبی بهمراه کاهش دما رخ بده.

در آخرین آپدیت دیشبش هم فرض بر همین منوال بوده .

حالا باید صبر کنیم تا اون ماه فرا برسه و ببینیم واقعا محقق میشه یا اینهم مثل ماههای قبل وعده سر خرمن میده!!!!!!

 

[Amir Mohsen]

اپلیکیشن شانس بارش مشهد رو 10 درصد دیگه افزایش داد و شد 50 درصد

Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk

 

[abtinT]

سایت نروژ دیشب هم بارش تهران رو نپروند ولی باز کم کرد . شد 17 میل

 

[rahsazan]

سلام بر دوستان

سلام دوستان عزیز

آسمان مشهد در غرق هواپیماهای خارجی در مسیر کشور های آسیای میانه به کشورهای عربی خلیج پارس ( همین لحظه):

سلام امیرجان
فکر کنم این ابر سفید هواپیما نشانه ای از رطوبت بالا در تراز پرواز هواپیماست، این مطلب رو تو یه وبلاگ خوندم

 

[Amir Mohsen]

سلام بر دوستان

سلام امیرجان
فکر کنم این ابر سفید هواپیما نشانه ای از رطوبت بالا در تراز پرواز هواپیماست، این مطلب رو تو یه وبلاگ خوندم

سلام محمد رضا جان کاملا درسته.

اینهم یک مقاله در همین خصوص:

Why do some planes leave long trails, but others don’t? contrails

Mar 052010

Some planes in the sky leave trails that persist and spread, and other planes, in the same sky, leave short-lived trails, or no trails at all.
These trails are actually called contrails, short for “condensation trails”. They are not smoke from the engines, they are formed when the water in jet exhaust (and there’s quite a lot of it, like car exhaust on a cold day) mixes with wet cold air, and condenses and freezes into ice crystals. Contrails are actually a type of cirrus cloud. When the air is wet and cold enough the trails can stay around for a long time, and sometimes spread out.
This difference between trails that fade away, and trails that spread, is often used as evidence of the “chemtrail” theory, which states that the longer lasting trails (or some of them) are being deliberately manipulated for some reason. So you see helpful images like this.

But this is wrong. Contrails can fade away, and contrails can persist and spread. It depends on the air they are formed in.
Now there are two main reasons why some planes leave trails and some nearby planes do not. The less common reason, is that different planes have different engines. Some engines will leave a contrail in air where another engine will not. Here, for example are an Airbus A340 (maiden flight: 1991) on the left, leaving contrails, and a Boeing 707 (maiden flight: 1957) not leaving contrails. Both are flying at 33,000 feet (part of a German test to study contrail formation), but the newer engines of the A340 produce more water vapor at a different temperature, and so make contrails.

You can also get a similar effect with engines at different power settings, especially if it effects the exhaust temperature.
But here’s the main reason why you see trails on some planes but not on others, and I’ll emphasize it, because although it’s simple, it’s also easy to miss.
The planes are at different altitudes. Yes, it’s really that simple. The reason that one plane makes contrails, or makes contrails that persist, and the other plane does not, is that they are in different regions of air. For simplicity, let’s refer to these regions of air as wet air and dry air, although the differences are a bit more complex.

When the plane is in wet air, it makes a contrail. In dry air it does not.
Surely, you might object, they would have to be miles apart? Well, no, and that brings me to another point I fear I must emphasise:
Wet and dry air can exist within a few feet of each other. Consider, for example, clouds:

Inside the cloud it’s wet. Outside it’s dry. What’s the difference between inside and outside? It’s a few feet.
Look at the bottom of those clouds, see them extend off into the distance. They form a layer at a specific altitude. Above that altitude there are clouds. Below it there are no clouds. The difference between clouds and no clouds is just a few feet.
Now those are low altitude cumulus couds. Let’s look at high altitude clouds.

Again they are in a flat layer. The different between being in the layer and not in the layer is just a few feet.
This layering of the air into wet and dry layers is not limited to clouds. Seemingly clear air also contains exactly the same kind of variation in layers. This was very neatly illustrated by the recent launch of the Solar Dynamics Observatory. As it ascended it did not leave a contrail, until it hit a layer of wet air, when it left a contrail that lasted quite a while, and then it went into dry air again, and no more contrail

So, if a plane were flying in that middle region then it would probably leave a persisting contrail. If it were above or below it then it would not.
But, you may cry, the planes are at the same altitude. Now you might even disagree with a “few feet”, and say the planes were too close for them to be in different layers. I’d respond with:
You can’t tell how high a plane is And you certainly can’t tell if one plane is at the same altitude as another. These planes fly at 30,000 to 40,000 feet. Let’s see what the visual difference is at around that altitude:

I took one image of a jet nominally at 35,000 feet. Then scaled it for 34,000 (102.9%) and 32,000 feet (109.4%). I think you’ll agree they all look pretty much the same. Especially as this is more zoomed in than you’d see with the naked eye, which would be more like:

Or, considering you generally can hardly see the wings of a plane with the naked eye, a fully realistic representation would be:

If the planes are flying lower, then it’s still similar. If the top plane was flying at 20,000 feet, then the bottom would be at 18,285 feet, still nearly 2,000 feet apart, and looking pretty much the same to the naked eye.
And that is with the same model of plane, directly overhead, and right next to each other. A situation that almost never occurs. If the planes are different, or separated, or at an angle to you, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for you tell the relative altitudes when they are high in the sky. Just look at this:

Or from the ground, with the planes at 30,000 feet.

They look about the same height, right? In fact if they were not overlapping, you’d think the JAL plane was lower, as it seems bigger, hence closer. But actually the JAL plane (a B777) is at least 1000 feet above the DHL plane (an A300).
And look at some planes on the ground, where we know they are all the same distance from the camera. The differences in size are very significant:

So, a simple question gets a simple answer:
The planes leave different trails because the planes are at different altitudes.
​

 

[AFSORDE]

عالی....

​

 

[آرش-مشهد]

خب نروژ هم آبدیت شد و مثل اینکه دیگه بارش خوب قوچان تثبیت شده باشه:

http://www.yr.no/place/Iran/Razavi_Khorasan/Qūchān/long.html

تبریک فراوان به حاج محسن عزیز:گل::احترام:

برای مشهدم یکمی بارشای جمعه و شنبه رو بهتر کرده اما هنوزم پراکنده پیشبینی شده. امیدوارم که مثل قوچان بارشمون تقویت بشه و در عمل بعد از مدتها به بارشی که بشه اسمش رو بارون گذاشت داشته باشیم!

http://www.yr.no/place/Iran/Razavi_Khorasan/Mashhad/long.html

 

[heaven1]

آنومالي دماي ناحيه NINO 3.4 با افزايش ديوانه وار 0.09 درجه اي به 0.225 - رسيد!

 

[arashz]

سلام دوستان عزیز

آسمان مشهد در غرق هواپیماهای خارجی در مسیر کشور های آسیای میانه به کشورهای عربی خلیج پارس ( همین لحظه):

درود بر همه دوستان

ای جانم! عجب خطی انداخته! خوراک فروم های هواپیمایی هست!:خنده2:

امیر محسن عزیز حتما در فروم ودر بگذارید واقعا زیباست.

 

[arashz]

آنومالي دماي ناحيه NINO 3.4 با افزايش ديوانه وار 0.09 درجه اي به 0.225 - رسيد!

دیگه دارم اطمینان پیدا میکنم بعد از خط صفر به صعود خودش ادامه میده! فکر کنم در آخر هفته با ال نینو خفیف مواجه باشیم!

 

[arashz]

سلام محمد رضا جان کاملا درسته.

اینهم یک مقاله در همین خصوص:

Why do some planes leave long trails, but others don’t?

contrails

Mar 052010

Some planes in the sky leave trails that persist and spread, and other planes, in the same sky, leave short-lived trails, or no trails at all.
These trails are actually called contrails, short for “condensation trails”. They are not smoke from the engines, they are formed when the water in jet exhaust (and there’s quite a lot of it, like car exhaust on a cold day) mixes with wet cold air, and condenses and freezes into ice crystals. Contrails are actually a type of cirrus cloud. When the air is wet and cold enough the trails can stay around for a long time, and sometimes spread out.
This difference between trails that fade away, and trails that spread, is often used as evidence of the “chemtrail” theory, which states that the longer lasting trails (or some of them) are being deliberately manipulated for some reason. So you see helpful images like this.

But this is wrong. Contrails can fade away, and contrails can persist and spread. It depends on the air they are formed in.
Now there are two main reasons why some planes leave trails and some nearby planes do not. The less common reason, is that different planes have different engines. Some engines will leave a contrail in air where another engine will not. Here, for example are an Airbus A340 (maiden flight: 1991) on the left, leaving contrails, and a Boeing 707 (maiden flight: 1957) not leaving contrails. Both are flying at 33,000 feet (part of a German test to study contrail formation), but the newer engines of the A340 produce more water vapor at a different temperature, and so make contrails.

You can also get a similar effect with engines at different power settings, especially if it effects the exhaust temperature.
But here’s the main reason why you see trails on some planes but not on others, and I’ll emphasize it, because although it’s simple, it’s also easy to miss.
The planes are at different altitudes.

Yes, it’s really that simple. The reason that one plane makes contrails, or makes contrails that persist, and the other plane does not, is that they are in different regions of air. For simplicity, let’s refer to these regions of air as wet air and dry air, although the differences are a bit more complex.

When the plane is in wet air, it makes a contrail. In dry air it does not.
Surely, you might object, they would have to be miles apart? Well, no, and that brings me to another point I fear I must emphasise:
Wet and dry air can exist within a few feet of each other.

Consider, for example, clouds:

Inside the cloud it’s wet. Outside it’s dry. What’s the difference between inside and outside? It’s a few feet.
Look at the bottom of those clouds, see them extend off into the distance. They form a layer at a specific altitude. Above that altitude there are clouds. Below it there are no clouds. The difference between clouds and no clouds is just a few feet.
Now those are low altitude cumulus couds. Let’s look at high altitude clouds.

Again they are in a flat layer. The different between being in the layer and not in the layer is just a few feet.
This layering of the air into wet and dry layers is not limited to clouds. Seemingly clear air also contains exactly the same kind of variation in layers. This was very neatly illustrated by the recent launch of the Solar Dynamics Observatory. As it ascended it did not leave a contrail, until it hit a layer of wet air, when it left a contrail that lasted quite a while, and then it went into dry air again, and no more contrail

So, if a plane were flying in that middle region then it would probably leave a persisting contrail. If it were above or below it then it would not.
But, you may cry, the planes are at the same altitude. Now you might even disagree with a “few feet”, and say the planes were too close for them to be in different layers. I’d respond with:
You can’t tell how high a plane is

And you certainly can’t tell if one plane is at the same altitude as another. These planes fly at 30,000 to 40,000 feet. Let’s see what the visual difference is at around that altitude:

I took one image of a jet nominally at 35,000 feet. Then scaled it for 34,000 (102.9%) and 32,000 feet (109.4%). I think you’ll agree they all look pretty much the same. Especially as this is more zoomed in than you’d see with the naked eye, which would be more like:

Or, considering you generally can hardly see the wings of a plane with the naked eye, a fully realistic representation would be:

If the planes are flying lower, then it’s still similar. If the top plane was flying at 20,000 feet, then the bottom would be at 18,285 feet, still nearly 2,000 feet apart, and looking pretty much the same to the naked eye.
And that is with the same model of plane, directly overhead, and right next to each other. A situation that almost never occurs. If the planes are different, or separated, or at an angle to you, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for you tell the relative altitudes when they are high in the sky. Just look at this:

Or from the ground, with the planes at 30,000 feet.

They look about the same height, right? In fact if they were not overlapping, you’d think the JAL plane was lower, as it seems bigger, hence closer. But actually the JAL plane (a B777) is at least 1000 feet above the DHL plane (an A300).
And look at some planes on the ground, where we know they are all the same distance from the camera. The differences in size are very significant:

So, a simple question gets a simple answer:
The planes leave different trails because the planes are at different altitudes.
​

به عجب مقاله ای بود لذت بردم در حد تیم ملی (البته تیم ملی برزیل نه ایران)!!! دستتون درد نکنه امیرمحسن عزیز:گل:

 

[arashz]

با توجه به این مقاله مقایسه ایرباس 340 با بوینگ 70، به نظر میرسه موتورهای جتی که دارای کنار گذر یا فن هستند تمایل بیشتری به تولید بخار آب دارن و برعکس Pure jet ها بخار آب کمتری تولید میکنند، البته نوع سوخت این موتورها هم با هم فرق میکنه.

 

[rahsazan]

با توجه به این مقاله مقایسه ایرباس 340 با بوینگ 70، به نظر میرسه موتورهای جتی که دارای کنار گذر یا فن هستند تمایل بیشتری به تولید بخار آب دارن و برعکس Pure jet ها بخار آب کمتری تولید میکنند، البته نوع سوخت این موتورها هم با هم فرق میکنه.

سلام آرش جان
فکر کنم دکتر بهزاد هم به هوانوردی علاقمندن، یه فروم هوانوردیو هواپیمایی هم دایر کنیم:خجالت2:

 

[arashz]

سلام آرش جان
فکر کنم دکتر بهزاد هم به هوانوردی علاقمندن، یه فروم هوانوردیو هواپیمایی هم دایر کنیم:خجالت2:

من عاشق هوانوردی هستم، همینطور فضا و ستاره شناسی، اینجا تاپیکش رو هم داریم اما نمیرسم چک کنم!

من حتی هواپیما مدل هم داشتم و پرواز میدادم، یادش بخیر چه روزهایی بود.

 

[aliasgar57]

بارش شدید برف در غرب مشهد بامداد دوشنبه 27 آذر 91 ساعت 01:15

​

یادش به خیر چه روزهای باشکوهی داشتیم - خداوندا درهای رحمتت را به روی ما بگشا!!!!