How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
That would be south/southeast of the Great Lakes. Mich, OH, PA NY etc. There is more info here: Google Image Result for http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/images/fgz/science/contrails040595a.gif
My skies were twice as thick as this yesterday. Warm day for some strange reason.
Thanks again to NOAA for the pic.
They send you to here for even more disturbing satellite views: Contrails
My skies were twice as thick as this yesterday. Warm day for some strange reason.
Thanks again to NOAA for the pic.
They send you to here for even more disturbing satellite views: Contrails
I like what they say on that link.
BUT and this is hillarious. IPCC dismisses contrails completely.
Surprising that you don't hear the IPCC or a rabid Suzuki raising hell about it... I suppose that they'd be expected to refrain from flying all over the place every week.
They invented a way to cover it up easily. They started a conspiracy theory called "chemtrails" just like the "2012" **** makes it impossible to find real inofrmation on the magnetic pole shift.
What is really amazing is that those trails were tracked for 3 1/2 hrs.
They say one trail covers 25sq km of sky with vapour. How many flights per day globally?
Apparently all we need is a really damn good rail system in Nor Am and things will be back to reality.
The IPCC dismisses it completely? Petros, it becomes clear as time passes that you don't know what the IPCC actually says, you just assume that they dismiss something, or that they ignore something else. It's pretty easy to just google "IPCC contrail" and you get a link to Working Group 1, which is to say the group working on the physical science, not the mitigation, adaptations, or policy work:
2.6 Contrails and Aircraft-Induced Cloudiness
The IPCC separately evaluated the RF from subsonic and supersonic aircraft operations in the Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere (IPCC, 1999), hereinafter designated as IPCC-1999. Like many other sectors, subsonic aircraft operations around the globe contribute directly and indirectly to the RF of climate change. This section only assesses the aspects that are unique to the aviation sector, namely the formation of persistent condensation trails (contrails), their impact on cirrus cloudiness, and the effects of aviation aerosols. Persistent contrail formation and induced cloudiness are indirect effects from aircraft operations because they depend on variable humidity and temperature conditions along aircraft flight tracks. Thus, future changes in atmospheric humidity and temperature distributions in the upper troposphere will have consequences for aviation-induced cloudiness. Also noted here is the potential role of aviation aerosols in altering the properties of clouds that form later in air containing aircraft emissions.
2.6.2 Radiative Forcing Estimates for Persistent Line-Shaped Contrails
Aircraft produce persistent contrails in the upper troposphere in ice-supersaturated air masses (IPCC, 1999). Contrails are thin cirrus clouds, which reflect solar radiation and trap outgoing longwave radiation. The latter effect is expected to dominate for thin cirrus (Hartmann et al., 1992; Meerkötter et al., 1999), thereby resulting in a net positive RF value for contrails. Persistent contrail cover has been calculated globally from meteorological data (e.g., Sausen et al., 1998) or by using a modified cirrus cloud parametrization in a GCM (Ponater et al., 2002). Contrail cover calculations are uncertain because the extent of supersaturated regions in the atmosphere is poorly known. The associated contrail RF follows from determining an optical depth for the computed contrail cover. The global RF values for contrail and induced cloudiness are assumed to vary linearly with distances flown by the global fleet if flight ambient conditions remain unchanged. The current best estimate for the RF of persistent linear contrails for aircraft operations in 2000 is +0.010 W m–2 (Table 2.9; Sausen et al., 2005). The value is based on independent estimates derived from Myhre and Stordal (2001b) and Marquart et al. (2003) that were updated for increased aircraft traffic in Sausen et al. (2005) to give RF estimates of +0.015 W m–2 and +0.006 W m–2, respectively. The uncertainty range is conservatively estimated to be a factor of three. The +0.010 W m–2 value is also considered to be the best estimate for 2005 because of the slow overall growth in aviation fuel use in the 2000 to 2005 period. The decrease in the best estimate from the TAR by a factor of two results from reassessments of persistent contrail cover and lower optical depth estimates (Marquart and Mayer, 2002; Meyer et al., 2002; Ponater et al., 2002; Marquart et al., 2003). The new estimates include diurnal changes in the solar RF, which decreases the net RF for a given contrail cover by about 20% (Myhre and Stordal, 2001b). The level of scientific understanding of contrail RF is considered low, since important uncertainties remain in the determination of global values (Section 2.9, Table 2.11). For example, unexplained regional differences are found in contrail optical depths between Europe and the USA that have not been fully accounted for in model calculations (Meyer et al., 2002; Ponater et al., 2002; Palikonda et al., 2005).
Table 2.9. Radiative forcing terms for contrail and cirrus effects caused by global subsonic aircraft operations.
Radiative forcing (W m–2) 1992 IPCC 2000 IPCC 2000 Sausen et al.
CO2 0.018 0.025 0.025
Persistent linear contrails 0.020 0.034 0.010 (0.006 to 0.015)
Aviation-induced cloudiness
without persistent contrails 0 to 0.040 n.a.
Aviation-induced cloudiness
with persistent contrails 0.030(0.010 to 0.080)
2.6.3 Radiative Forcing Estimates for Aviation- Induced Cloudiness
Individual persistent contrails are routinely observed to shear and spread, covering large additional areas with cirrus cloud (Minnis et al., 1998). Aviation aerosol could also lead to changes in cirrus cloud (see Section 2.6.4). Aviation-induced cloudiness (AIC) is defined to be the sumx of all changes in cloudiness associated with aviation operations. Thus, an AIC estimate includes persistent contrail cover. Because spreading contrails lose their characteristic linear shape, a component of AIC is indistinguishable from background cirrus. This basic ambiguity, which prevented the formulation of a best estimate of AIC amounts and the associated RF in IPCC-1999, still exists for this assessment. Estimates of the ratio of induced cloudiness cover to that of persistent linear contrails range from 1.8 to 10 (Minnis et al., 2004; Mannstein and Schumann, 2005[10]), indicating the uncertainty in estimating AIC amounts. Initial attempts to quantify AIC used trend differences in cirrus cloudiness between regions of high and low aviation fuel consumption (Boucher, 1999). Since IPCC-1999, two studies have also found significant positive trends in cirrus cloudiness in some regions of high air traffic and found lower to negative trends outside air traffic regions (Zerefos et al., 2003; Stordal et al., 2005). Using the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) database, these studies derived cirrus cover trends for Europe of 1 to 2% per decade over the last one to two decades. A study with the Television Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS) Operational Vertical Sounder (TOVS) provides further support for these trends (Stubenrauch and Schumann, 2005). However, cirrus trends that occurred due to natural variability, climate change or other anthropogenic effects could not be accounted for in these studies. Cirrus trends over the USA (but not over Europe) were found to be consistent with changes in contrail cover and frequency (Minnis et al., 2004). Thus, significant uncertainty remains in attributing observed cirrus trends to aviation.
Regional cirrus trends were used as a basis to compute a global mean RF value for AIC in 2000 of +0.030 W m–2 with a range of +0.01 to +0.08 W m–2 (Stordal et al., 2005). This value is not considered a best estimate because of the uncertainty in the optical properties of AIC and in the assumptions used to derive AIC cover. However, this value is in good agreement with the upper limit estimate for AIC RF in 1992 of +0.026 W m–2 derived from surface and satellite cloudiness observations (Minnis et al., 2004). A value of +0.03 W m–2 is close to the upper-limit estimate of +0.04 W m–2 derived for non-contrail cloudiness in IPCC-1999. Without an AIC best estimate, the best estimate of the total RF value for aviation-induced cloudiness (Section 2.9.2, Table 2.12 and Figure 2.20) includes only that due to persistent linear contrails. Radiative forcing estimates for AIC made using cirrus trend data necessarily cannot distinguish between the components of aviation cloudiness, namely persistent linear contrails, spreading contrails and other aviation aerosol effects. Some aviation effects might be more appropriately considered feedback processes rather than an RF (see Sections 2.2 and 2.4.5). However, the low understanding of the processes involved and the lack of quantitative approaches preclude reliably making the forcing/feedback distinction for all aviation effects in this assessment.
Two issues related to the climate response of aviation cloudiness are worth noting here. First, Minnis et al. (2004, 2005) used their RF estimate for total AIC over the USA in an empirical model, and concluded that the surface temperature response for the period 1973 to 1994 could be as large as the observed surface warming over the USA (around 0.3°C per decade). In response to the Minnis et al. conclusion, contrail RF was examined in two global climate modelling studies (Hansen et al., 2005; Ponater et al., 2005). Both studies concluded that the surface temperature response calculated by Minnis et al. (2004) is too large by one to two orders of magnitude. For the Minnis et al. result to be correct, the climate efficacy or climate sensitivity of contrail RF would need to be much greater than that of other larger RF terms, (e.g., CO2). Instead, contrail RF is found to have a smaller efficacy than an equivalent CO2 RF (Hansen et al., 2005; Ponater et al., 2005) (see Section 2.8.5.7), which is consistent with the general ineffectiveness of high clouds in influencing diurnal surface temperatures (Hansen et al., 1995, 2005). Several substantive explanations for the incorrectness of the enhanced response found in the Minnis et al. study have been presented (Hansen et al., 2005; Ponater et al., 2005; Shine, 2005).
The second issue is that the absence of AIC has been proposed as the cause of the increased diurnal temperature range (DTR) found in surface observations made during the short period when all USA air traffic was grounded starting on 11 September 2001 (Travis et al., 2002, 2004). The Travis et al. studies show that during this period: (i) DTR was enhanced across the conterminous USA, with increases in the maximum temperatures that were not matched by increases of similar magnitude in the minimum temperatures, and (ii) the largest DTR changes corresponded to regions with the greatest contrail cover. The Travis et al. conclusions are weak because they are based on a correlation rather than a quantitative model and rely (necessarily) on very limited data (Schumann, 2005). Unusually clear weather across the USA during the shutdown period also has been proposed to account for the observed DTR changes (Kalkstein and Balling, 2004). Thus, more evidence and a quantitative physical model are needed before the validity of the proposed relationship between regional contrail cover and DTR can be considered further.
2.6.4 Aviation Aerosols
Global aviation operations emit aerosols and aerosol precursors into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (IPCC, 1999; Hendricks et al., 2004). As a result, aerosol number and/or mass are enhanced above background values in these regions. Aviation-induced cloudiness includes the possible influence of aviation aerosol on cirrus cloudiness amounts. The most important aerosols are those composed of sulphate and BC (soot). Sulphate aerosols arise from the emissions of fuel sulphur and BC aerosol results from incomplete combustion of aviation fuel. Aviation operations cause enhancements of sulphate and BC in the background atmosphere (IPCC, 1999; Hendricks et al., 2004). An important concern is that aviation aerosol can act as nuclei in ice cloud formation, thereby altering the microphysical properties of clouds (Jensen and Toon, 1997; Kärcher, 1999; Lohmann et al., 2004) and perhaps cloud cover. A modelling study by Hendricks et al. (2005) showed the potential for significant cirrus modifications by aviation caused by increased numbers of BC particles. The modifications would occur in flight corridors as well as in regions far away from flight corridors because of aerosol transport. In the study, aviation aerosols either increase or decrease ice nuclei in background cirrus clouds, depending on assumptions about the cloud formation process. Results from a cloud chamber experiment showed that a sulphate coating on soot particles reduced their effectiveness as ice nuclei (Möhler et al., 2005). Changes in ice nuclei number or nucleation properties of aerosols can alter the radiative properties of cirrus clouds and, hence, their radiative impact on the climate system, similar to the aerosol-cloud interactions discussed in Sections 2.4.1, 2.4.5 and 7.5. No estimates are yet available for the global or regional RF changes caused by the effect of aviation aerosol on background cloudiness, although some of the RF from AIC, determined by correlation studies (see Section 2.6.3), may be associated with these aerosol effects.
2.6 Contrails and Aircraft-Induced Cloudiness
The IPCC separately evaluated the RF from subsonic and supersonic aircraft operations in the Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere (IPCC, 1999), hereinafter designated as IPCC-1999. Like many other sectors, subsonic aircraft operations around the globe contribute directly and indirectly to the RF of climate change. This section only assesses the aspects that are unique to the aviation sector, namely the formation of persistent condensation trails (contrails), their impact on cirrus cloudiness, and the effects of aviation aerosols. Persistent contrail formation and induced cloudiness are indirect effects from aircraft operations because they depend on variable humidity and temperature conditions along aircraft flight tracks. Thus, future changes in atmospheric humidity and temperature distributions in the upper troposphere will have consequences for aviation-induced cloudiness. Also noted here is the potential role of aviation aerosols in altering the properties of clouds that form later in air containing aircraft emissions.
2.6.2 Radiative Forcing Estimates for Persistent Line-Shaped Contrails
Aircraft produce persistent contrails in the upper troposphere in ice-supersaturated air masses (IPCC, 1999). Contrails are thin cirrus clouds, which reflect solar radiation and trap outgoing longwave radiation. The latter effect is expected to dominate for thin cirrus (Hartmann et al., 1992; Meerkötter et al., 1999), thereby resulting in a net positive RF value for contrails. Persistent contrail cover has been calculated globally from meteorological data (e.g., Sausen et al., 1998) or by using a modified cirrus cloud parametrization in a GCM (Ponater et al., 2002). Contrail cover calculations are uncertain because the extent of supersaturated regions in the atmosphere is poorly known. The associated contrail RF follows from determining an optical depth for the computed contrail cover. The global RF values for contrail and induced cloudiness are assumed to vary linearly with distances flown by the global fleet if flight ambient conditions remain unchanged. The current best estimate for the RF of persistent linear contrails for aircraft operations in 2000 is +0.010 W m–2 (Table 2.9; Sausen et al., 2005). The value is based on independent estimates derived from Myhre and Stordal (2001b) and Marquart et al. (2003) that were updated for increased aircraft traffic in Sausen et al. (2005) to give RF estimates of +0.015 W m–2 and +0.006 W m–2, respectively. The uncertainty range is conservatively estimated to be a factor of three. The +0.010 W m–2 value is also considered to be the best estimate for 2005 because of the slow overall growth in aviation fuel use in the 2000 to 2005 period. The decrease in the best estimate from the TAR by a factor of two results from reassessments of persistent contrail cover and lower optical depth estimates (Marquart and Mayer, 2002; Meyer et al., 2002; Ponater et al., 2002; Marquart et al., 2003). The new estimates include diurnal changes in the solar RF, which decreases the net RF for a given contrail cover by about 20% (Myhre and Stordal, 2001b). The level of scientific understanding of contrail RF is considered low, since important uncertainties remain in the determination of global values (Section 2.9, Table 2.11). For example, unexplained regional differences are found in contrail optical depths between Europe and the USA that have not been fully accounted for in model calculations (Meyer et al., 2002; Ponater et al., 2002; Palikonda et al., 2005).
Table 2.9. Radiative forcing terms for contrail and cirrus effects caused by global subsonic aircraft operations.
Radiative forcing (W m–2) 1992 IPCC 2000 IPCC 2000 Sausen et al.
CO2 0.018 0.025 0.025
Persistent linear contrails 0.020 0.034 0.010 (0.006 to 0.015)
Aviation-induced cloudiness
without persistent contrails 0 to 0.040 n.a.
Aviation-induced cloudiness
with persistent contrails 0.030(0.010 to 0.080)
2.6.3 Radiative Forcing Estimates for Aviation- Induced Cloudiness
Individual persistent contrails are routinely observed to shear and spread, covering large additional areas with cirrus cloud (Minnis et al., 1998). Aviation aerosol could also lead to changes in cirrus cloud (see Section 2.6.4). Aviation-induced cloudiness (AIC) is defined to be the sumx of all changes in cloudiness associated with aviation operations. Thus, an AIC estimate includes persistent contrail cover. Because spreading contrails lose their characteristic linear shape, a component of AIC is indistinguishable from background cirrus. This basic ambiguity, which prevented the formulation of a best estimate of AIC amounts and the associated RF in IPCC-1999, still exists for this assessment. Estimates of the ratio of induced cloudiness cover to that of persistent linear contrails range from 1.8 to 10 (Minnis et al., 2004; Mannstein and Schumann, 2005[10]), indicating the uncertainty in estimating AIC amounts. Initial attempts to quantify AIC used trend differences in cirrus cloudiness between regions of high and low aviation fuel consumption (Boucher, 1999). Since IPCC-1999, two studies have also found significant positive trends in cirrus cloudiness in some regions of high air traffic and found lower to negative trends outside air traffic regions (Zerefos et al., 2003; Stordal et al., 2005). Using the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) database, these studies derived cirrus cover trends for Europe of 1 to 2% per decade over the last one to two decades. A study with the Television Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS) Operational Vertical Sounder (TOVS) provides further support for these trends (Stubenrauch and Schumann, 2005). However, cirrus trends that occurred due to natural variability, climate change or other anthropogenic effects could not be accounted for in these studies. Cirrus trends over the USA (but not over Europe) were found to be consistent with changes in contrail cover and frequency (Minnis et al., 2004). Thus, significant uncertainty remains in attributing observed cirrus trends to aviation.
Regional cirrus trends were used as a basis to compute a global mean RF value for AIC in 2000 of +0.030 W m–2 with a range of +0.01 to +0.08 W m–2 (Stordal et al., 2005). This value is not considered a best estimate because of the uncertainty in the optical properties of AIC and in the assumptions used to derive AIC cover. However, this value is in good agreement with the upper limit estimate for AIC RF in 1992 of +0.026 W m–2 derived from surface and satellite cloudiness observations (Minnis et al., 2004). A value of +0.03 W m–2 is close to the upper-limit estimate of +0.04 W m–2 derived for non-contrail cloudiness in IPCC-1999. Without an AIC best estimate, the best estimate of the total RF value for aviation-induced cloudiness (Section 2.9.2, Table 2.12 and Figure 2.20) includes only that due to persistent linear contrails. Radiative forcing estimates for AIC made using cirrus trend data necessarily cannot distinguish between the components of aviation cloudiness, namely persistent linear contrails, spreading contrails and other aviation aerosol effects. Some aviation effects might be more appropriately considered feedback processes rather than an RF (see Sections 2.2 and 2.4.5). However, the low understanding of the processes involved and the lack of quantitative approaches preclude reliably making the forcing/feedback distinction for all aviation effects in this assessment.
Two issues related to the climate response of aviation cloudiness are worth noting here. First, Minnis et al. (2004, 2005) used their RF estimate for total AIC over the USA in an empirical model, and concluded that the surface temperature response for the period 1973 to 1994 could be as large as the observed surface warming over the USA (around 0.3°C per decade). In response to the Minnis et al. conclusion, contrail RF was examined in two global climate modelling studies (Hansen et al., 2005; Ponater et al., 2005). Both studies concluded that the surface temperature response calculated by Minnis et al. (2004) is too large by one to two orders of magnitude. For the Minnis et al. result to be correct, the climate efficacy or climate sensitivity of contrail RF would need to be much greater than that of other larger RF terms, (e.g., CO2). Instead, contrail RF is found to have a smaller efficacy than an equivalent CO2 RF (Hansen et al., 2005; Ponater et al., 2005) (see Section 2.8.5.7), which is consistent with the general ineffectiveness of high clouds in influencing diurnal surface temperatures (Hansen et al., 1995, 2005). Several substantive explanations for the incorrectness of the enhanced response found in the Minnis et al. study have been presented (Hansen et al., 2005; Ponater et al., 2005; Shine, 2005).
The second issue is that the absence of AIC has been proposed as the cause of the increased diurnal temperature range (DTR) found in surface observations made during the short period when all USA air traffic was grounded starting on 11 September 2001 (Travis et al., 2002, 2004). The Travis et al. studies show that during this period: (i) DTR was enhanced across the conterminous USA, with increases in the maximum temperatures that were not matched by increases of similar magnitude in the minimum temperatures, and (ii) the largest DTR changes corresponded to regions with the greatest contrail cover. The Travis et al. conclusions are weak because they are based on a correlation rather than a quantitative model and rely (necessarily) on very limited data (Schumann, 2005). Unusually clear weather across the USA during the shutdown period also has been proposed to account for the observed DTR changes (Kalkstein and Balling, 2004). Thus, more evidence and a quantitative physical model are needed before the validity of the proposed relationship between regional contrail cover and DTR can be considered further.
2.6.4 Aviation Aerosols
Global aviation operations emit aerosols and aerosol precursors into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (IPCC, 1999; Hendricks et al., 2004). As a result, aerosol number and/or mass are enhanced above background values in these regions. Aviation-induced cloudiness includes the possible influence of aviation aerosol on cirrus cloudiness amounts. The most important aerosols are those composed of sulphate and BC (soot). Sulphate aerosols arise from the emissions of fuel sulphur and BC aerosol results from incomplete combustion of aviation fuel. Aviation operations cause enhancements of sulphate and BC in the background atmosphere (IPCC, 1999; Hendricks et al., 2004). An important concern is that aviation aerosol can act as nuclei in ice cloud formation, thereby altering the microphysical properties of clouds (Jensen and Toon, 1997; Kärcher, 1999; Lohmann et al., 2004) and perhaps cloud cover. A modelling study by Hendricks et al. (2005) showed the potential for significant cirrus modifications by aviation caused by increased numbers of BC particles. The modifications would occur in flight corridors as well as in regions far away from flight corridors because of aerosol transport. In the study, aviation aerosols either increase or decrease ice nuclei in background cirrus clouds, depending on assumptions about the cloud formation process. Results from a cloud chamber experiment showed that a sulphate coating on soot particles reduced their effectiveness as ice nuclei (Möhler et al., 2005). Changes in ice nuclei number or nucleation properties of aerosols can alter the radiative properties of cirrus clouds and, hence, their radiative impact on the climate system, similar to the aerosol-cloud interactions discussed in Sections 2.4.1, 2.4.5 and 7.5. No estimates are yet available for the global or regional RF changes caused by the effect of aviation aerosol on background cloudiness, although some of the RF from AIC, determined by correlation studies (see Section 2.6.3), may be associated with these aerosol effects.
That doesn't jive with what NOAA and NASA scientists say. Why not?
Just like the title says "how the GW myth is perpetuated":
Dogs? You aren't stabbing ol Peabody in the back are you Sherman?
Tell me what you SEE over Florida and Georgia. Is that what CO2 looks like?
Did you even read what you posted? I did. I found this:
Does this sound like
a) we've got it cased
or
b) we don't have a clue and never bothered to include new far more effcient aircraft and turbo fan technology put in place after 1992 which have far better lift with far more efficient burning engines with far more thrust flying at higher,colder altitudes with a new better burning fuels?
Those types of advancements improve what when it comes to flight? Compression/decompression of gasses?Does that create vapour? Is water a sign of really good combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel?
Looks good to me. No problems here, the graphs provided by an unelected, impartial panel of beaurocrats says so.
Last edited:
Hi Petros.
Just want to interject here and peacefully enter this discussion on contrails. I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Do you mean to say that man-made contrails are not having affect on global warming or that their effect is overstated by the IPCC?
Just want to interject here and peacefully enter this discussion on contrails. I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Do you mean to say that man-made contrails are not having affect on global warming or that their effect is overstated by the IPCC?
They are and are understated. IPCC says no but NASA says this in a press release: NASA - Clouds Caused By Aircraft Exhaust May Warm The U.S. Climate
"This study indicates that contrails already have substantial regional effects where air traffic is heavy, such as over the United States. As air travel continues growing in other areas, the impact could become globally significant," Minnis said.
NASA's contrail "education site" : Contrail Education
Have fun.http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resources/articles/sci_papers.html
"This study indicates that contrails already have substantial regional effects where air traffic is heavy, such as over the United States. As air travel continues growing in other areas, the impact could become globally significant," Minnis said.
NASA's contrail "education site" : Contrail Education
Have fun.http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resources/articles/sci_papers.html
Okay. But contrails is still an anthropogenic cause. So I'm still confused as to what your point is??
It sure is, so do we tax the snot out of contrails instead of carbon then? Are contrails cheaply controllable?
By the looks of things airplanes kill glaciers, polar bears and African kids.
By the looks of things airplanes kill glaciers, polar bears and African kids.
Well it depends on the degree with which condensation affects the environment vs. carbon emissions. I don't think we really know enough yet to determine the exact extent of this type of forcing yet, but I personally think it would still be a distant second to carbon emissions. That isn't to say that it wouldn't be a significant cause though.
Why the fear of contrails, it is only water vapor. It would take thousands of aircraft flying in formation to possibly effect temperature, there are other more major things effecting us.
They are harmless.
They are harmless.
Last edited:
They know more about contrails than cirrus clouds?
What does this graphic say?
Or this one:
What does this graphic say?
Or this one:
Like what? Vapour you don't see? Vapour isn't a "green house driver"?
I heard a very good explanation.
Early this morning, I happened to be listening to WOR radio out of NYC (comes in good here at night). There was a caller to the 'Coast to Coast' show, who explained that the Catholic church used to be right, that all left handed people were agents of the devil, and this explained all kinds of things, including Al Gore and global warming.
Early this morning, I happened to be listening to WOR radio out of NYC (comes in good here at night). There was a caller to the 'Coast to Coast' show, who explained that the Catholic church used to be right, that all left handed people were agents of the devil, and this explained all kinds of things, including Al Gore and global warming.