How the GW myth is perpetuated

A

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
petros said:
If that is what you believe.

Do you believe in the IPCC?

Do you have faith their measures will be the saviour of mankind?

But what do you SEE? You've seen image after image after image of visible vapour and read about the radiative forcing for the visible. What are the effects and force of the unseen vapour? If the seen condensation can blanket the entire south east of the US what are the effects of the unseen? The dramatic effects of that vapour are well known and coupled white blanched skies it would only increase the effect of the contrail.

Pink contrails in morn, sailor be warn!

Click to expand...

Do you believe that vested interests aren't trying to confuse the science of AGW?

Or do you drive down a one way street?
 
Tonington

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
petros said:
If that is what you believe.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in science, I weigh the evidence. That's the evidence you posted...milliwatts. Which is consistent with the 0.03 and 0.06 °K.

Do you believe in the IPCC?
Click to expand...
No. I accept some their findings, based on the references they cite. An instance where I don't accept their findings is sea level rise. They are unreasonably conservative, though to be fair it's only been recently that dynamic ice sheet characteristics have been better constrained by evidence, and reductions made in the uncertainty.

Do you have faith their measures will be the saviour of mankind?
Click to expand...
No. First, they don't measure anything. They review. And secondly, there's no guarantee that mankind will do anything, even when presented with evidence. And I also don't agree that there is any single most important greenhouse gas, which captain morgan said is in there. I do think there is a group of most important as far as climate change is concerned. But I don't hink you can call one gas most important.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,173
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
What is the scoop T? Do those contrails turn to vapour and linger there for long periods after the visible condensation has transformed or does it snow in July in GA? Oh and my aplogies I forget to consider that the spent carbon is doing it's deed too at the very same time as there is both condensate or vapour spreading from horizon to horizon.
Click to expand...
Punt....
 
Last edited:
A

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Poor petros, can't do two things at once.

Just so you know, yes contrails do have an AGW effect.

your turn.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,173
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
Quote:
Do you have faith their measures will be the saviour of mankind?
​
No. First, they don't measure anything. They review. And secondly, there's no guarantee that mankind will do anything, even when presented with evidence. And I also don't agree that there is any single most important greenhouse gas, which captain morgan said is in there. I do think there is a group of most important as far as climate change is concerned. But I don't hink you can call one gas most important.
Click to expand...

I wrote meaures but that is fine. They sure are taking the iniatives to monetize carbon along with IMF and the World Bank, UNESCO, WHO and on and on and on.

 
captain morgan

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
petros said:
Is that supposed to be from here? No where in this paper NASA - Clouds Caused by Aircraft Exhaust May Warm the U.S. Climate will you find such numbers.

You say there is/was still warming in non contrail non cirrus covered areas. What was the temp difference between the covered and non covered?

IF those numbers were accurate coverage like this would equal how many watts per 100,000sq km of contrail polluted skies?



How many sq km do you think this covers?

Hint : GA alone is 153,909 km2

Oh yeah...One more question. Are the numbers 0.03°K and 0.06°K based over land? snow? or over water?
Click to expand...


Personally. I'm quite interested in hearing a response to this... Among others of course.
 
Tonington

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
petros said:


I wrote meaures but that is fine.
Click to expand...

They don't measure anything, because they are a review of the state of climate science. Plural is unnecessary given that clause.

They sure are taking the iniatives to monetize carbon along with IMF and the World Bank, UNESCO, WHO and on and on and on.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with the physical basis for climate change. If you want to discuss mitigation, then I suggest the "What to do about global warming" thread started by extrafire.

captain morgan said:
Personally. I'm quite interested in hearing a response to this... Among others of course.
Click to expand...

Then I suggest you read the links I post.
 
captain morgan

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,173
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
As asked awhile back......

What is the scoop T? Do those contrails turn to vapour and linger there for long periods after the visible condensation has transformed or does it snow in July in GA?
Click to expand...
 
Tonington

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
How long they persist depends on the atmospheric conditions...as I said I don't dispute that they have a radiative impact. And the numbers you posted show how minsicule the impact is in comparison to other factors influencing global climate.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,173
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
You are half way there....what happens when those spread from horizon to horizon frozen particles convert to vapour or does it fall as snow?


I miss the old days and the old jet engines that spat out CO (pre- Air Bus) and we didn't have this vapour or GHGs issue.

So much for efficiency.....
 
Last edited:
Tonington

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The 0.03°K is the impact on the surface temperatures. The 0.06°K is the impact on upper tropospheric temperatures.

I said that already too...
 
Tonington

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
So to summarize:

  • air traffic pollution boosts global warming, a persistent finding in the literature, and discussed by the IPCC.
  • petros is comfortable, apparently, with a climate sensitivity of about 4.5°C per doubling carbon dioxide concentration.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,173
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
I want the non GHG gas from incomplete combustion like pre 90 when I had blue sky all day not just before 7AM

That would be really cozy.

Tonnington- Do your really believe deep down in your heart this 22,000km sq heat trap only amounts to 44,000W as claimed by IPCC's 1999 "Aviation and Global Warming (now known as Climate Change) Special Report" of 0.02Wmsq?

4400 100W light bulbs of heat trapped? If that isn't bull**** I don't know what is.

That wouldn't light the lobby of a Nevada w*hore house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom