Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth NASA Transportation Science

Airplanes Unexpectedly Modify Weather 223

Posted by timothy
from the send-me-some-snow-planes dept.
reillymj writes "Commercial airliners have a strange ability to create rain and snow when they fly through certain clouds. Scientists have known for some time that planes can make outlandish 'hole-punch' and 'canal' features in clouds. A new study has found that these odd formations are in fact evidence that planes are seeding clouds and changing local weather patterns as they fly through. In one case, researchers noted that a plane triggered several inches of snowfall directly beneath its flight path."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Airplanes Unexpectedly Modify Weather

Comments Filter:
  • by mlawrence (1094477) <martinNO@SPAMmartinlawrence.ca> on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @04:10PM (#32583522) Homepage
    Was this plane belonged to the Mexican Cocaine Cartels, who thought they were being trailed.
  • Cloud Seeding (Score:3, Interesting)

    by illumastorm (172101) on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @04:11PM (#32583530)

    Interesting. So the effect of cloud seeding is just as likely to be caused by the planes flying through the clouds rather than the silver iodide alone?

    • Re:Cloud Seeding (Score:5, Informative)

      by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdotNO@SPAMhackish.org> on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @04:15PM (#32583578)

      That was suggested back in 1970 [ametsoc.org]--- that cloud seeding experiments need to consider the possibility that the plane's flight itself is doing the seeding.

      • Re:Cloud Seeding (Score:4, Interesting)

        by bunratty (545641) on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @04:27PM (#32583688)
        I would think anyone who understands how to design experiments would see the need for a proper control group. If you fly a plane through some clouds and dump iodide crystals, and don't fly any plane though other clouds, what caused the difference in precipitation? Was it the plane or the iodide crystals? Didn't they carry out such a proper experiment?
        • Re:Cloud Seeding (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Smauler (915644) on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @04:59PM (#32583990)

          Control groups are basically impossible to find with clouds, as any meteoroligist will tell you. We still cannot absolutely predict which ones will dump rain on us, and which ones won't - often they behave in completely unexpected ways with no apparent reason why. There's no such thing as a control group with clouds, because one formation may have been going to dump a load of rain anyway, and another seemingly identical formation would not.

          With a large enough control it may be possible - but getting a large control is basically nigh on impossible because of differing air temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind speed, and a whole host of other variables. This is not something you can accurately simulate either.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Motard (1553251)

            Didn't we have this sort of thing after 9/11? I seem to recall a /. submission about observed weather changes while all the aircraft were grounded.

            • There was a *lot* of stuff written about differences in weather patterns after the 9/11 flight ban. Satellite pictures showed distinct differences.
        • So conspiracy nut Alex Jones was right after all. The high-flying planes are changing our weather.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by sexconker (1179573)

          I would think anyone who understands how to design experiments would see the need for a proper control group.

          We've already seen that no one who understands how to design experiments has anything to do with the study of weather or climate.

      • This doesn't surprise me at all. I live near Heathrow in London, and the best weather so far this year was while the airports had grounded flights due to the Icelandic volcanic ash. Many of my friends commented on the coincidence.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kral_Blbec (1201285)
      Its a matter of distribution and degree. Just a plane might be enough to start off what was almost rain in a area near its flight path, but theoreticly silver seeding would generate rain where it was unlikely and over a wider area that just directly below.
    • by eonlabs (921625)

      I'm more surprised this is surprising.
      Think about it from a surface area perspective. More surface area, more room for condensation, greater chance of precipitation I'd suspect.

  • Chemtrails? (Score:3, Funny)

    by courteaudotbiz (1191083) on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @04:12PM (#32583546) Homepage
    How long before a conspirationnist comes up with a chemtrail [wikipedia.org] comment?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JWSmythe (446288)

      Come on, those guys are entertaining. :) I love the pictures where they show intersecting lines and say that the planes have been flying patterns to drop evil chemicals on the population. Well, the evil chemicals are present, but that's the aircraft's exhaust.

      And for those who don't know, the "grids" are usually created by flights departing in two different directions. They get a pretty regular grid pattern because at busy airports, flights leave at a fairly regular inter

      • by bunratty (545641)
        So, you admit the planes are disturbing the air and doing bad things. That is disturbing, indeed!
        • He is obviously a plant by the Warren commission to distribute falsehoods among the masses. But what even he doesn't know is who is actually behind the commission. My research shows the Girls Scouts of America are in league with the Greys on that one.

        • by JWSmythe (446288)

          Well, the bad things [wikipedia.org] would be something like if a Cessna tried to take off immediately behind a heavy jet, the Cessna may find himself tumbling down the runway in most ungraceful ways. It's not limited to small vs big aircraft though. A heavy aircraft following another can have unintended (and nasty) results.

          • by bunratty (545641)
            Then it could cause a plane to crash, just like terrorists cause planes to crash? I see.
            • by JWSmythe (446288)

              Oh, I see your point now. It's a tool used by terrorists. Anyone causing wake turbulence would therefore be a terrorist. Just like all those evil people caught possessing DHMO [dhmo.org].

              • by bunratty (545641)
                It's a fact that nearly all felons consumed significant quantities of DHMO in the hours before committing their crimes. And nearly all heroin users smoked marijuana before turning to harder drugs.
              • Meh oversight on DHMO is too stifling. People in industry tend to use a lot more of the relatively unregulated hydric acid, instead. It's a very good solvent: it dissolves almost everything.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Falconhell (1289630)

        A good photo of what an aircraft does do to the air see;

        http://www.skysoaring.com/albums/gliderhumor/Box_This_Wake.jpg [skysoaring.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by PhreakOfTime (588141)

        I got sucked into a similar discussion once. I will never make that mistake again.

        After doing some back of the envelope calculations, using the average size of cloud droplets, the velocity those droplets fall, and the average height those clouds are... I pointed out that the clouds seen over your head would take up to 10 hours(or substantially longer) to fall to ground, and even with a small breeze, would end up hundreds of miles away from the location seen by the time they would reach the ground.

        Even f

        • by bunratty (545641)
          I'm just wondering what the heck is in our water supply [youtube.com]!
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by JWSmythe (446288)

          I don't know about the 10 hours or 100 miles, but I didn't do the math. :) I live in Florida, so frequently watch the weather formations on TV (and now the Internet), so I'm very aware of cloud movements. We get some pretty nasty storms here in the summer (think instant hurricane type weather), so it's advantageous for us to know what's happening around us. Usually we can see bands of rain forming miles off the coast, and time our activities accordingly. If I have to go for a long drive,

      • unintended intersection of the flight path and the ground, in most ungraceful ways
        LOL

        Kinda similar to a story I heard from my phd supervisor (dunno if it's true or not and my memory of the exact term may be hazy) that someone told him not to use the "M word" and instead to call the things they were talking about single use unmanned air vehicles (i'll leave the reader to figure out what the "M word" was).

        • by JWSmythe (446288)

              hehe, that's a good way to say it. Those sometimes of have an intended intersection with the ground though, in most decorative ways.

           

      • by nido (102070)

        I live in Phoenix and I pay attention to the skies. Haven't seen a chemtrail in a couple months. Maybe it's the summer heat (moved here in November, have seen the chemtrails elsewhere in Arizona before), maybe they stopped spraying when BP's oil volcano went off in the gulf. I don't keep logs or take pictures, so this is just from memory.

        With that said, there are still planes flying in and out of Phoenix Sky Harbor International. I'm in one of the flightpaths, so I see those planes all the time. The planes

        • by JWSmythe (446288)

          Contrails are very dependent on the humidity in the air. Military or commercial pilots can correct me if I'm wrong. In really dry air, you won't see them at all. If there's enough humidity, they'll make pretty trails. Even if you don't have the humidity at ground level, higher layers of the atmosphere can have significantly different characteristics.

          The picture in the link looks like a very nice standard rate turn. It's probably a departure, heading towards the destination

          • by nido (102070)

            After posting I remembered a relevant anecdote...

            I used to live in the mountains, ~80 miles from Phoenix. On this particular day I looked up and noticed multiple jets in the sky, which were presumably headed to/from Los Angeles. All were at cruising altitudes. Some jets were laying contrails that rapidly dispersed and disappeared, while other contrails "hung around" and dispersed like chemtrail proponents said.

            I guess the main thing is "who do you trust"? I figure this wouldn't be the first classified progr

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by JWSmythe (446288)

              A lot of that has to do with the specific weather conditions where that contrail was. Sometimes it'll disperse quickly. Sometimes it'll take some time. Humidity, wind, temperature, pressure, aircraft configuration and load all change the way it works. You can have significant differences in a relatively small area.

              I seriously doubt any commercial carrier has equipped their aircraft with any super secret government gassing project. :) How exactly do you explain to the groun

              • by nido (102070)

                I seriously doubt any commercial carrier has equipped their aircraft with any super secret government gassing project.

                When I read the links years ago, they said that the doping agents go straight into the jet fuel, and pass through the turbofan without causing other problems.

                Here's a search that might turn up something appropriate:
                http://www.google.com/search?q=patent+aluminum+jet+engine+chemtrail [google.com]

                • Re:Chemtrails? (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by JWSmythe (446288) <jwsmythe AT jwsmythe DOT com> on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @11:38PM (#32587312) Homepage Journal

                      Their implication is that there would be a white plume from the engines. If it were mixed with the jet fuel, it would always be present. Folks would notice if aircraft were putting off that kind of smoke. It may not be totally noticeable when taxiing, but it would be obvious during takeoff.

                      Being that aircraft all fuel from the same source at the airport, there would be no difference between aircraft, that is usually reported with chemtrails. As I've read it over the years, some dissipate quickly. Some linger for a long time. If it was included as a fuel additive for commercial aircraft, there would be no "sometimes" to it.

                      And just because a patent was issued doesn't mean that it really works, or that it's in use. People get patents all the time that lay dormant forever.

    • by clarkkent09 (1104833) * on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @05:49PM (#32584512)
      Never heard of chemtrails before but I did notice that my cat is shedding more fur in the summer than in the winter, and there are also more flights from the local airport in the summer. If they can cause cats to shed, imagine what they are doing to your brain! Thanks for opening my eyes.
  • Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by confused one (671304) on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @04:13PM (#32583554)
    So, we're surprised when a large metal object that sucks in cold air and spits out water vapor (and CO2) by the ton, affects cloud formation?
  • Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JWSmythe (446288) <jwsmythe AT jwsmythe DOT com> on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @04:15PM (#32583566) Homepage Journal

        This isn't terribly surprising. Clouds are a delicate formation of moisture that hasn't collected into dense enough masses to fall. Aircraft disturb the air, blowing that moisture around. We've known about contrails for an awful long time. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find that particles in the exhaust give the moisture something to cling to (i.e., cloud seeding).

        Those are some nice pictures though.

  • by Deagol (323173) on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @04:16PM (#32583584) Homepage

    The data from the near-universal grounding of US airspace the days following the 9/11/01 attacks shows pretty conclusively that air traffic has a non-trivial affect on weather patterns. Or at least that's what's I recall from the time.

    • One instance != "well established"
      • by cowscows (103644) on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @05:22PM (#32584246) Journal

        That's not always true. While one instance certainly isn't enough data to completely explore and explain a phenomena, it can certainly establish that said phenomena exists.

        And it's not like we're talking about a data-set of one plane canceling a flight. We're talking about a couple of days, and tens of thousands of flights, all across a big stretch of the planet. That's more than just an anecdote.

    • by lawpoop (604919)
      PBS had a great show called Dimming the Sun [pbs.org] and IIRC they delve into showing how the 9/11 air traffic halt raised the temperature in American cities by 1 or 2 degrees. The contrail cover from planes reflect more light from the sun.
      • Forcing (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ShakaUVM (157947)

        >>The contrail cover from planes reflect more light from the sun.

        Also, it's important to state that up until this point, climatologists thought that contrails had a forcing effect helping to cause global warming. And still show it that way, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing [wikipedia.org]

        However, papers like this: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6898/full/418601a.html [nature.com] rather convincingly argued that they have a rather strong forcing in the opposite direction (i.e. that they help

        • Re:Forcing (Score:4, Informative)

          by Abcd1234 (188840) on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @06:43PM (#32585090) Homepage

          Yeah, pity you're actually reading the fucking results wrong. *sigh* To quote wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

          Measurements showed that without contrails, the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 degree Celsius higher than immediately before

          The daytime temperature didn't increase. The difference between night and day increased. And guess what? That matches expectations! Why? Because:

          Other studies have determined that night flights are mostly responsible for the warming effect

          So when there are contrails, it stays warmer at night, due to radiative forcing effects. No contrails? It gets colder at night. End result? *Larger night-day temperature difference*.

          But, hey, let's actually look at your study, shall we? Hey, here's a choice quote from the abstract:

          Because persisting contrails can reduce the transfer of both incoming solar and outgoing infrared radiation4, 5 and so reduce the daily temperature range, we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails over this period.

          Hey, look at that... that's what they fucking found. Science at work: scientists make prediction. Scientists have convenient experiment. Observations match predictions. The system works.

          But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your "skepticism".

      • by Abcd1234 (188840)

        PBS had a great show called Dimming the Sun and IIRC they delve into showing how the 9/11 air traffic halt raised the temperature in American cities by 1 or 2 degrees.

        Err, no, that's not right.

        What they found was that the night-day temperature difference increased by about a degree, which makes sense if contrails are insulating the atmosphere (due to less heat escaping at night).

      • if I just had some mod points

  • Tenerife (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigtomrodney (993427) * on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @04:19PM (#32583616)
    It is well known locally on the Canary Islands that this happens. Almost all flights come in on Tuesdays and Saturdays if I remember correctly - they're almost all package deals and charters. By the afternoon on those two days the temperature drops several degrees celsius and you'll see clouds. I even saw a dribble of rain once.

    I was a complete skeptic when I was told this as I arrived, but like clockwork on those days I always saw the same thing. The crazy thing is that any other day of the week around the summer you can expect mid-to-high thirties and rarely a cloud in the sky. So maybe not scientific, but anecdotal evidence anyway.
    • by bazorg (911295)
      any change when the whole european airspace was closed a while ago?
      • Re:Tenerife (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @04:43PM (#32583836)

        You mean when it was closed because of a volcanic ash cloud? I'm sure we can attribute any and all weather changes entirely to the lack of airplanes...

      • It's funny you ask that, we had a few days of sunshine here in Dublin when our airspace was closed and that was the first thing that was suggested. I mean, it's Ireland...sunshine is on backorder here.
  • Are these studies the follow-ups mentioned here?

    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/index.html [cnn.com]

  • by OzPeter (195038) on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @04:45PM (#32583852)
    I'm not deep into the AGW/anti-AGW arguments (and not trying to start a flame war), but I thought that one of the anti-AGW arguments was that in general humans can't affect climate. This sort of research would seem to suggest that humans can affect climate and hence nullify some of the anti-AGW stance - or are these effects so localized that you can only state that the humans are affecting weather and not climate?
    • Affecting the local climate is one thing, affecting it globally is entirely different.
    • by lawpoop (604919)

      I thought that one of the anti-AGW arguments was that in general humans can't affect climate

      . If a person believes this from the outset, they have an ideology ( "Man can never fly as birds can" "No thing can travel faster than the speed of sound" "Man can never affect the climate" ), and probably no amount of evidence will dislodge them from their position.

      If they believe that humans haven't affected climate, then there's hope :)

    • by Graff (532189)

      I'm not deep into the AGW/anti-AGW arguments (and not trying to start a flame war), but I thought that one of the anti-AGW arguments was that in general humans can't affect climate.

      First off, there are morons on both sides. Some people loudly exclaim that humans have ruined everything and some roar that humans have no effect on their environment. Both points of view are ridiculous.

      The more reasonable proponents of climate change assert that mankind has had a measurable, long-term effect on the environment that will be difficult to reverse and requires drastic and immediate measures to prevent a catastrophe. Opponents of this point of view argue that the environment has gone through ma

    • by gillbates (106458) on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @09:15PM (#32586446) Homepage Journal

      We've known for a long time that humans can affect not only weather, but climate. Since the 60's, we've known that clouds seeded with silver nitrate will produce precipitation. IIRC, the same was demonstrated with chips of solid carbon dioxide. However, that said -

      We still do not have enough evidence to prove that burning fossil fuels will produce global warming. Now before I continue, let me just get this out of the way: there is a difference between someone who believes global warming *can't* be true in the religious sense, and someone who recognizes that climate is a difficult subject for which we just don't have the answers now. There will always be anti-AGW folks around regardless of where the science goes and what happens to the climate. That said, the AGW theories have these difficulties:

      1. The first is political: the fallout from the IPCC scandal is going to take years before the public will believe them again. But it hardly matters because,
      2. Global temperatures have been on the decline for the last decade, much as they did during the turn of the century 100 years ago.
      3. We can probably agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; what we can't explain is why increased generation of CO2 hasn't resulted in a proportionate increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels. Some say it is being absorbed by the oceans (possibly correct) and will acidify them. (Also possibly true, however, a great deal of CO2 will be necessary to sufficiently alter the pH enough to matter.)

      At this point, we simply don't have the scientific certainty to claim AGW is happening, and that it will be catastrophic. Even were we to accept the AGW theories at face value, they are so filled with qualifying factors that we could not conclude that we are in imminent danger. We could say that change is going to come, but we can't quantify the impact. Given the timescales on which climate changes, it would hardly be an unmitigated disaster on a global level. Even if the direst of predictions proved true, we'd have more than ample time to adapt. (Keep in mind the US sustained not one, but two wars in the Middle East, at the cost of trillions of dollars. Imagine what the same could do to relocate US cities inland, if necessary.)

      The simple fact of the matter is, though, that we're well past peak oil, and AGW or not, we're going to stop burning it someday. So it only makes sense to buy into renewable energy technologies while they're cheap than wait for the oil to run out and be put over a barrel (no pun intended) by the solar power companies. If you want people to stop burning fossil fuels, you just have to give them a cheaper alternative. You don't have to lie to them about global warming.

      • by Renegade Iconoclast (1415775) on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @12:26AM (#32587534)

        Your post is littered with falsehoods. I barely know where to start. Whether you realize it or not, you're concern trolling from ignorance.

        We still do not have enough evidence to prove that burning fossil fuels will produce global warming.

        Eh? What?`

        First off, basic physics predicts that more CO2 and methane (and other greenhouse gasses) in the air will cause the atmosphere, and hence, the ground, to heat up. In a glass jar, CO2 behaves precisely as expected.

        The Earth is more complex than a glass jar, it's true, but to argue against global CO2-based warming, you need a plausible physical explanation for where the heat caused by the CO2 went. Unless some obscuring agent prevents sunlight from hitting the CO2, the heat from was undoubtedly generated in the atmosphere nearly exactly as predicted by physics. So where does it go?

        In addition to a magic (heretofore invisible) heat-sink, you need a plausible alternative explanation for the geologic record, dating back 100s of thousands of years, showing that, indeed, CO2 and warming are in a feedback-loop, punctuated by various global disasters.

        Now before I continue, let me just get this out of the way: there is a difference between someone who believes global warming *can't* be true in the religious sense, and someone who recognizes that climate is a difficult subject for which we just don't have the answers now.

        This is a ridiculous cop-out, and is a lousy argument for destroying civilization as we know it.

        The fact is, we've had a pretty nice equilibrium here for thousands of years. Throwing off that balance could mean a lot of different possible things, but it definitely means chaos and turmoil.

        We don't know everything, but we know some things. We know that the gulf-stream is very important to heating up North America. We know that North America would turn in to a block of ice if it were to shut down. We may not know how to keep it running, but that's not a good reason to toss a bunch of carbon in the air to see what happens.

        The best plan is probably to try to maintain the equilibrium somehow. It's worked for a while. I like the coasts where they are, and I don't want to experiment with their shape, thank you very much. If I were in a rowboat with you, I also wouldn't want you to experiment by standing up and rocking it back and forth.

        I'll deal with two more of your arguments.

        Global temperatures have been on the decline for the last decade, much as they did during the turn of the century 100 years ago.

        Incorrect. 1999-2009 were the hottest decade in human history. 2009 was about as hot as the previously hottest year on record, 2005, and possibly hotter, depending on what source you use. This can hardly be described as a decline, and is a typical misconception sponsored by various media outlets.

        2010 is trading on Intrade at 67% to be the warmest year on record. You could make a pretty nice sum by betting against it, getting back two times your money at that price level.

        Only if you cherry pick 1998-2007 from the data can you claim a "decline", which really isn't a decline, it's a squiggle that bounces back and forth, ending up just below the top.

        You may not be a denier, but you sure play one on /.

        We can probably agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; what we can't explain is why increased generation of CO2 hasn't resulted in a proportionate increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels.

        Possibly because you made up that as a requirement. Your argument is irrelevant and spurious. Physics predicts a warming as CO2 rises. CO2 levels are rising dramatically, as we have observed. The temperature is rising dramatically, as we have observed, your weak protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

        Yes, the oceans absorb some. This isn't a question as you intimate, it has been measured. The question of whether increased CO2 in the atmosp

  • by DaMattster (977781) on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @04:59PM (#32584004)
    I wish I could tag this one as duh. Weather is bound to be generated when you pass a hot jet engine through a cold cloud. Not to mention the heat of the fuselage generate from air friction. Although, I was impressed that several inches of snow has the potential to form.
    • by evilviper (135110)

      I wish I could tag this one as duh. Weather is bound to be generated when you pass a hot jet engine through a cold cloud. Not to mention the heat of the fuselage generate from air friction.

      Give yourself a "duh" there, because a quick reading of TFA reveals you're wrong in every respect as to the mechanism.

      For example, turboprops are more significant contributors, precisely because they are more efficient, and less "hot". And there's little effect on very cold clouds, it's the in-between ones which get push

  • to create a rain/snow storm in a given area certain things have to happen

    lets say you need to roll 60 on a d100 to get rain and roll a 4 (on a d6) to get snow IF YOU ROLL RAIN

    just dartboarding a few factors you need to have
    greater than X% humidity (add 7 to your roll for every 10% above X)
    a cold front near by to generate the clouds (and provide for some winds) (add 2 for every 1.5 degree difference)
    enough seeds in the clouds to tilt things past the equalibrium
    a low enough temp that the water doesn't boil off (penalty of 1 on the d6 roll for every 20 degrees above 0C)

    now having a bunch of planes i would bet could 1 add to the "muck" in the air 2 twist the temps a bit 3 do a whole lot more than a butterfly in generating wind

  • Cooling? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pookemon (909195)
    I find it a little odd that TFA talks about how an aircraft flying through a cloud causes it to "cool", resulting in the supercooled liquid suddenly freezing. There's a very well known phenomenon with supercooled water where it will remain in a liquid form, until it comes into contact with ice crystals. I would think that that was a far more likely cause of the clouds suddenly being filled with ice rather than a jet or turboprop "cooling" an already supercooled cloud.

    My 2c
  • Opposite effect (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GaryOlson (737642) <slashdot&garyolson,org> on Tuesday June 15, 2010 @06:42PM (#32585084) Journal
    Anyone who has watched weather fronts as they approach DFW airport can provide anecdotal data showing the reverse effect -- aircraft disperse clouds. Huge storm fronts slam into Fort Worth, the middle dissipates as it approaches and passes over DFW airport, then storm fronts reconnect east to reform a single storm front. How far east depends on the strength of the storm. Or the splitting of the front at DFW airport will cause the storm front to degrade to localized cells. Very few storm fronts survive the impact of DFW airport as a continuous front. YMMV....
  • I am by no means a weather geek, but it seems obvious to me. You have a cloud, by definition a body of misted water in borderline suspension, and you ram a plane through it, it's going to upset the suspension enough to change back into a liquid. We did stuff like that in science class in high school :P

"In the face of entropy and nothingness, you kind of have to pretend it's not there if you want to keep writing good code." -- Karl Lehenbauer

Working...