Aerodynamic and Rainbow Contrails
You occasionally see very pretty photos of contrails, like this one:
Very pretty. But what is it? It’s clearly not a regular exhaust contrail, as the trail seems to start actually ON the wing, and it has a weird rainbow effect you don’t find in exhaust contrails.
It’s actually an aerodynamic contrail. It’s formed by the reduction of pressure in the air as it moves over the wing. When the pressure of a gas falls, then its temperature also falls (the same principle as is used by your refrigerator). The reduced temperature cause small drops of water to condense, which then may freeze. The (frozen) drops get larger as more water condenses on them. The different sized drops (or ice crystals) have different optical properties, which affect different wavelengths of light, which accounts for the “rainbow” effect.
A rather more scientific explanation (also explaining the exact colors) can be found here:
http://contrailscience.com/files/Gierens_Aerodynamic_poster_060625.pdf
The interesting thing about this type of contrail is that they are actually more common in warm weather. They need a lot of moisture, and cold air is generally dry, so they are more common in the summer months, and in warmer climes. See:
As aerodynamic contrails are independent of the formation conditions of jet contrails, they form an additional class of contrails which might be complementary because they form in predominantly in layers that are too warm for jet contrail formation.
There is actually surprisingly little work being done on the formation of aerodynamic contrails. A lot of the time they only show up as wingtip contrails (which you can see are very dense in the above photo). Conditions need to be just right for the full wing to generate a contrail, and it typically does not last very long at all.
You’ve probably seen aerodynamic contrails on landing planes, like:
Here you can see the wing contrails vanish almost immediately. The long persisting contrails (which won’t persist very long) are from the outer end of the lowered flaps - where air is compressed and then expanded very rapidly, causing a lot of moisture to condense. You can also see there’s a lot of moisture in the air, it’s quite misty looking.
This fantastic photo set on Flickr has some nice photos of both exhaust and aerodynamic contrails, you can clearly see the difference:
http://flickr.com/photos/jpro747/sets/72157594548787911/with/511377939/
In this shot, you can see the jet seems to be underneath a layer of clouds, suggesting it’s at a low altitude, where exhaust contrails would not normally form. Although with this image, it’s little hard to see what is in front of what. I suspect that the shadow you see near the tail is actually the shadow of the plane on the clouds, meaning the plane is just above them, or in them - in a region of high humidity, either way.
From the same set, we can see that the two types of contrail are not mutually exclusive. You can have both at the same time:
Note you have the thick white contrails coming from the engine, and the aerodynamic contrails coming from the wings.
(side note here: most of the photos in jpro747’s set were taken FROM THE GROUND with a Canon 350D ($400) attached to a 1200mm 6-inch Dobsonian telescope ($300-$1000, depending on quality). In most of the shots, you can clearly see the type of plane, and usually the airline markings. Now, why has NOBODY in the supposed 2 Million “chemtrail” community managed to take a closeup photo of a jet spraying chemicals. Considering you can do it with $700 worth of equipment, it seems rather odd).
This video shows an aerodynamic contrail forming in patchy air:
You can see the trail looks very similar to the photos, especially in the final segment of the video. There are few wide shots, so it’s hard to tell how long the trails is lasting for, but at 0:50, the camera pulls back, and the provious trail is either off screen, or has already evaporated. Note this video was shot in Torino (Turin), Italy,on August 16th 2008 - during the summer. That’s when these type of contrails are more likely, as they need very humid air.
Reference:
Aerodynamic Contrails Phenomenology and flow physics - Gierens, et al.
Aerodynamic contrails Microphysics and optical Properties - Gierens, at al.
Sunday 24 Aug 2008 | Uncinus | contrails
26 Responses to “Aerodynamic and Rainbow Contrails”
Leave a Reply
To quote someone, please use <blockquote> and </blockquote> tags, for example:
<blockquote>But surely the contrails would evaporate?
How do you explain that, given those facts?</blockquote>




Torino is in Italy, not Spain. Could you please correct this little mistake?
By the way, nice website.
Thanks Calvin, I fixed it. Not sure where I was thinking of there.
“Very pretty. But what is it? It’s clearly not a regular exhaust contrail, as the trail seems to start actually ON the wing, and it has a weird rainbow effect you don’t find in exhaust contrails.”
Hi Uncinus. There are TWO elements to what you see. The first (starting at the wing) is the aerodynamic element, as the pressure drop above the wing initiates the precipitation of fine ice crystals into the air. The second is the exhaust water from the jets which is condensing directly into ice crystals. The aircraft is flying high in a partly super-satured stratospheric layer, and the picture wasn’t taken from sea level - because the sky is BLACK. (I can appreciate that a modicum of photographic contrast and colour saturation modification has taken place.)
“It’s actually an aerodynamic contrail. It’s formed by the reduction of pressure in the air as it moves over the wing. When the pressure of a gas falls, then its temperature also falls (the same principle as is used by your refrigerator). The reduced temperature cause small drops of water to condense, which then may freeze. The drops get larger as more water condenses on them. The different sized drops refract water by different amounts, which accounts for the “rainbow” effect.”
Well, I’ve covered that it’s TWO effects. I wish to argue strongly that your “growing water droplets” is way off. What were you thinking? You KNOW that the temperatures of the stratosphere don’t rise above freezing point until far above normal aircraft flight altitudes!
The effect (and its mostly visible on the aircraft exhaust ices due to their relative abundance here) is due to INTERFERENCE - not refraction.
Due to stratospheric super-saturation, the crystals are progressively growing in size as the agglomerate more ice from the “excess” water vapour.
As they progressively GROW in thickness (they’re flat hexagonal crystals), they also progressively INTERFERE with specific light frequencies. So you are “bound” to get a rainbow-like effect. Not only that, but subsets of these frequencies will “come around again”, so you’ll get two or three “rainbows”. But as they larger, the crystals get more “exotic” in shape, and degrade this initially “pure” physical phenomenon, until after a quarter of a mile the effect is gone - scattered away.
At high cruising speeds, the wave vortex of each wing isn’t as pronounced as it is at low speeds and higher angles of attack, but here you CAN see that the tip vortices are “coming inboard” as they follow the aircraft’s wave vortex.
The reason I was talking about growing water droplets was mostly to address the low-level aerodynamic contrails, such as those seen in the video. They can form where it is too warm for ice to form.
Regarding “what I was thinking”, my explanation is partially cribbed from the Gieren poster:
http://contrailscience.com/files/Gierens_Aerodynamic_poster_060625.pdf
Which is actually from a paper on the sequence of photos from which this one was taken. In the poster they say:
It then explains this exact color distribution, which matches his assumptions. “Refraction” was probably wrong, I’ve changed the text slightly to reflect “different optical properties”
The formation of aerodynamic contrails is a very different process to exhaust contrails, it’s not fully understood, but it’s not surpising that the resultant crystals can be very different.
As for where the photo was taken:
I must admit though, I’m not exactly clear if liquid water can exist at that altitude and temperature, even for the fraction of a second he implies. Deposition (the opposite of sublimation) seems more in keeping with what I’ve read.
Haha, so I was right about the photo!
I read the pdf AFTER I’d posted, and with some trepidation, when I realized the solemnity of the source!
But I now suspect they also hadn’t properly considered the temperatures involved, and that also the solid ice deposition and accretion would produce by interference the same sequence (in effect) as their results demonstrated - including the scattering they mentioned.
If exhaust steam at 1100 deg C cools down a 1000 degrees to visibility, hence changing phase to liquid at 100 degrees taking out 540 Kcal/gram in a fraction of a second, I cannot see how it could waste much time at all making a second phase change to solid at 0 degrees taking out only 80 Kcal/gram and dropping a further 30 degrees.
The strange nature of the ice trail leading from the trailing edge of the wing hold’s one’s attention, doesn’t it?
It is “backlit” by reflected sunlight off the top of the wing, as well as lit by sunlight from above.
Quite a show. As ever, your site is superb…
I think this paper explains the situation better. Note Figure 1 in this paper is a photo of the same plane taken at around the same time.
http://contrailscience.com/files/Aerodynamic%20contrails%20Microphysics%20and%20optical%20Properties.pdf
They estimate the temperature at 241K (-25F), which is rather different to the -40C they mention in the poster. At that temperature, water can exist as liquid supercooled droplets that only freeze when they get to a certain size.
It does seem to be all explained in the paper. A bit complicated though.
Ha!
You are right about it being “a bit complicated”, but I’m grateful for the complexity. Personally, to fully understand and master THAT would take me about a month of eight-hour days in a technical library. I shan’t be doing it, but thanks.
It’s interesting that this rare phenomenon will become less rare in the future, as more flights will take place along the Pacific Ring, where warmer and more humid conditions are to be found.
I like the way they considered the trail in depth and breadth, and made distinctions between particle sizes, and considered simplifications (!) to get their results. Also the discussion of the pre-conditioning of the aerosol particles by previous flights, and their relevance to GW and albedo modification.
They are right. You are right. A brilliant science paper of 54 pages. I’m off to eat some words…
Hello,
As you quote, “Now, why has NOBODY in the supposed 2 Million “chemtrail” community managed to take a closeup photo of a jet spraying chemicals. Considering you can do it with $700 worth of equipment, it seems rather odd).”
My thoughts exactly. I believe most of the misconception regarding chemtrails originate over these aerodynamic contrails. From observation, these contrails do indeed last much longer than normal exhaust contrails (most of the time) and are more common in the summer. Furthermore they are usually produced lower in altitude, and as you have shown, there is a level where this aerodynamic contrail can disappear and be replaced with an exhaust contrail. Here are some photos from Flickr photographer Downintheblue: http://flickr.com/photos/downintheblue/563204943/in/set-72157594502002966/
http://flickr.com/photos/downintheblue/562840736/in/set-72157594502002966/
Thanks Ryan, those are some excellent photos!
Hi guy
i’m italian, and i’m from turin
explaination is a total HOAX because the video, made by a my friend, show a chemtrail.
this entire site is pure misinformation
In Italian.
Me stesso, se sei così sicuro che sia una scia chimica perché non vai a denunciarlo?
Ps. anch’io sono di Torino e non credo a quello che dici. Porta delle prove, ma gli sciacOmicari non sono in grado di farlo
In English.
Are you sure “Me stesso”? If so you have to denounce it to Italian Police
P.S. Me too are from Turin (Italy), and I thiink you’re a liar. You’ve to demonstrate it
Chemtrail are all HOAX, you’re HOAX, not this site
Your website is just another disinformation website about the raellly danger of chemtrails.
You wrote to us that you are just a pilot, but remember a pilot is just a pilot and not a reliable scientist.
Chemtrails is a real danger here below a list of llustrious scientist, researchers, doctors whom are researching and warning the population about the danger of Chemtrails.
- Engineer Clifford E. Carnicom, US, New Mexico.
- Meteorologist Scott Stevens, US.
- Atmospheric scientist Neil Finley - Canada.
- Doctor Michael Castle - US.
- Toxicologist Dr. Hildegarde Staninger - US, Los Angeles.
- Indipendent jornalist William Thomas - Canada.
- Research and activist Jerry E. Smith - US, California.
- Research Tom Montalk - USA.
- Biologist Dr. Michael Castle - USA.
- Biologist Dr. Giorgio Pattera - Italy.
- Director of Nexus Magazin Tom Bosco - Australia.
This persons are really reliable source of information!!!!!!
That’s rather an unfortunate list Sonia. If those are actually the most illustrious scientists who believe in chemtrails, then it does not say much for the quality of the theory.
You might also want to look at “Project Steve”, for a little perspective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
But really, one must be careful of relying on ad hominem or appeals to authority - it’s really the facts that we need to focus on. Have the above people published any research in peer reviewed journals?
why you are changing topic?
as i sad you are just a pilot and you cannot write about SCIENCE on contrails and chemtrails!!!!
the scientists listed above are a reliable source of information of the matter, if you look at their website you will find several articles and scientific pubblication of their research on chemtrails.
offcourse you dont know them and you did not have even read some scientific document on a serious topic as chemtrails and their danger.
also why you are covering your really identity? why you are not in the normal register in WHOIS for your domain?
it is obscure your behaviour and it is clear your aim for this web site.. you just want disinformation on the reality of the danger of chemtrails!!!!
stop your disinformation without any scientific prove you are just a pilot not a scientists and think about what are you doing!!! you breath as everyone heavy metal!! you must be aware of this
Sonia, surely you don’t think people can’t write about science if they are not scientists? I’m interested in flying, and the weather, and science, and pseudoscience - so I write about things that I find interesting.
Sonia, if biologists, a couple of vaguely entitled ‘researchers’ and a journalist are reliable sources of ‘chemtrail’ information, then why not a pilot?
you cannot write about SCIENCE on contrails and chemtrails!!!!
I’m sure if you browse around the site you’ll find plenty of scientific reasoning as to why there are no chemtrails up there.
for Uncinus and James.
you can write whatever you want on your website. but this does not means ITS TRUE and its true science, as you wrote you are JUST A PILOT interested in pseudoscience so you admit you are not a reliable and objective source of information about the subject.
as you wrote you are just interested in flying and weather as an amateur, my grand father is interested in weather and flying too but his not opening a website and assumption is a scientists and write about science of chemtrails and contrails… your affirmation are just ridiculous.
YOU ARE JUST A PILOT, an amateur about flying. your pseudoscience is just you own opinion and ITS NOT TRUE.
also you seems not be really interested in reliable source of information because for sure you have not read any reliable and scientific documents wrote from illustrious scientists as in the list above provided by me.
the illustrious scientist listed above are working for important reliable and scientific organization, before speak about a subject you do not know i would invite yourself to read more SCIENTIFIC PUBBLICATION on it.
also you are not still answering to all the readers of this pseudoscience website…. you do not answer about your really identity, ….
why you are covering your really identity? why you are not in the normal register in WHOIS for your domain?
the fact is! you want just disinformation about the real danger of chemtrails and illegal aerosol operations.
how much do you get payed to write your pseudoscience and disinformation on this website??
how is really your employer?
stop your disinformation without any scientific prove you are just a pilot not a scientist and think about what are you doing!!! you breath as everyone heavy metal!! you must be aware of this, you should apologize with your readers for your lack of SCIENTIFIC documentation on your website.
Nice work for making this site Uncinus. You put so many contrail related phenomena into one site with good illustrations and easy to understand descriptions. Not like some scientific papers I found on this subject, which give a lot of information , but it’s almost impossible to understand for simple people.
I am an aviation enthusiast and amateur pilot and have been interested and fascinated by contrails for some time. I live under busy high altitude airway and like to observe aircraft with binoculars and spotting scopes for more than 5 years. I have seen various shapes of contrails, their shadows and it’s really a very fascinating sight.
For me, as an aviation enthusiast and avid contrail spotter, that chemtrail conspiracy theory looked very funny and very stupid the first time I heard about it.
But perhaps the sight of huge persistent contrails is so magnificent for some people, that they can’t fully understand it and try to seek alternative explanations.
Probably like Appollo landing on the moon is also an event above some people’s understanding of human technology limits, so they think it’s a conspiracy. This is just my thought on how some conspiracy theories are born.
Sonia-
The people you listed are not ATMOSPHERIC Scientists…in fact, some are not scientists at all.
Carnicom is a highly dubious source who has not even acknowledged persistent contrails
Stevens is a “weatherman” with no backing from his peers…
Will Thomas?? Please tell me what is scientific expertise is.
You want science?
Please enjoy the research papers below- all written by real atmospheric scientists from around the World…all reviewed by their peers…and all acknowledging that normal contrails can and so persist for hour and even days and spread out into a thin haze of cirrus clouds. If they do not think spreading contrails are “chemtrails”….why should you??
Enjoy!
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6dphju (note the year- 1986)
http://tinyurl.com/hvp34
http://tinyurl.com/4qyaww
http://tinyurl.com/3lc9ry
http://tinyurl.com/4spcco
http://tinyurl.com/3mcj3e
http://tinyurl.com/3f2y2z
and this paper from 1970 is quite telling in its description of contrails spreading out and “covering the whole sky”
http://tinyurl.com/47lcdg
here is an interesting photo from 1983:
http://www.1000plus.com/Imagic/8301sund.htm
Sonia, sure, I’m “just a pilot”. I wish I was getting paid to write this, but no, I’m simply writing about a subject that interest me. What’s wrong with that?
No, I’m not a scientist. No, you are not obliged to agree with me. So let’s agree on that.
Let me ask you a very simple question:
How long can contrails last?
Please answer that one simple question, as it’s the most important foundation for any discussion regarding contrails. I’d appreciate it if you could also give references which back up your answer (even references to Carnicom).
How long can contrails last?
[This post has been edited for clarity, ad hominem arguments and duplicate posts have been removed]
Also the links you listed are an unfortunately list of generic documents about weather took around from some website.
this list are not related to chemtrails phenomenon.
I invited you to read some scientific paper wrote by illustrious scient Dr. Hildegarde Staninger - US, Los Angeles. about the danger to chemtrails and linked illness as Morgellons.
you cutted and modified my original post!!!!!!!!
reply to my question (i posted to you 3 times all ready!!!).
why you are covering your really identity?
why you are not in the normal register in WHOIS for your domain?
you are traing to hide your really identity because you want misinform on the true of chetmrails, off course you are payed by someone who is interesting in misinform people about th really danger of chemtrails.
Okay, one time:
I post anonymously (and have a private domain) for personal privacy reasons. That’s my own choice. That’s all.
Sonia-
how long do contrails last?
Utterly gorgeous! I get to see a fair amount of contrails where I am as I am right in between a major domestic route and far enough in between that they can get some serious altitude going over. I have seen several types, the ones that pretty much vanish right away, others that seem more like the usual “sky writer” where it does vanish within a few minutes, and the ones that seem to still be streaked across the sky an hour or so later.
I guess I could be being targeted by those evil government types - but somehow I don’t think the Australian Government is in the same league as the American one for ‘major conspiracies’, lol. Least of all doing it on a major domestic route - of which in Aus are extremely defined and and don’t overlap at all. That would be why all my contrails are always north south.
That said, with it coming into summer now I am very much hoping I get to see something this beautiful.
Dear sonia,
If you were breathing nearly as much heavy metal as you think you are, you’d probably be very sick or dead, but luckily such things are detectable by doctors. If you’re so concerned then you should probably get a screening.
Unfortunately, most chemtrail fanatics dabble in pseudoscience such as orgone, over unity, and the like. Just because somebody with a graduate degree says something doesn’t mean it is true or that they are reliable. My statistics teacher has a masters in statistics, or so he claims. He’s an idiot.
Uncinus however, is doing us quite a service by providing all this evidence from REAL science.
Great website, btw. Do you happen to have any articles on Crow instability?