How the GW myth is perpetuated

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I hope you feel shame.

In the mean time, somethhing to keep you busy. NASA - Clouds Caused by Aircraft Exhaust May Warm the U.S. Climate

So, that was 2004, but you chastised me for posting something from less than 12 months ago?

I thought you might like this part of the news release:
"This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975, but it is important to acknowledge contrails would add to and not replace any greenhouse gas effect," said Patrick Minnis, senior research scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. The study was published April 15 in the Journal of Climate. "During the same period, warming occurred in many other areas where cirrus coverage decreased or remained steady," he added.
Bolded part. Also, they're talking about the US Climate...that's regional, not Global warming.

But keep trying.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,167
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
You missed out of some MAJOR info on contrails from that era and contrails of today. Do you know what those differences are?

"During the same period, warming occurred in many other areas where cirrus coverage decreased or remained steady,"


WOW are you saying warm air is static? You'd better start from scatch buddy.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
No, that's NASA saying that...what they are saying is that their hypothesis that air traffic could have caused the same magnitude of warming across America from 1974-1995 has a huge problem, because areas with no change, or negative change still warmed.

NASA said the clouds are capable of causing the warming, not that they did.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,167
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
No, that's NASA saying that...what they are saying is that their hypothesis that air traffic could have caused the same magnitude of warming across America from 1974-1995 has a huge problem, because areas with no change, or negative change still warmed.
And the difference was? 1%? 50%? 75%?

But this hasn't happened either has it?:

Air Travel
Passengers rise to 241 million​


Gee and apparently only a 200% increase in air travel during that period and only another 150% again since that study ended in 95 after aircraft started to fly higher, faster with far better compression/decompression of gasses in various ways from engine and wing design advancements making much much more vapour than ever.


Want to take another crack at the food problem?

OH ****...silly me....those stats are only for the UK.

The number of passenger kilometres flown on UK airlines increased by nearly 50 per cent over the past decade, from
213 billion kilometres in 1997 to 314 billion in 2007.
estimates from the Department for Transport made in January 2009 suggest that between 2010 and 2030 passenger numbers at UK airports will grow from 270 million to 464 million.

Growth in international passengers is forecast to increase by almost 150 million passengers per year: from 215 million to 363 million passengers, while domestic passengers are set to double from 50 million to 101 million passengers annually.


WOOHOO contrails are set to double again with absolutely nothing done about it? That can't be good from climate stats huh? Especially those polar flights where those artificial non existant heat traps increase their effect dramatically thanks to the albedo of snow and ice.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The stats again are 0.03°K at the surface, and 0.06°K in the upper troposphere. Unless you have a study which has quantified the effect and found something different.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,167
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
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?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
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.

No, the figures I quoted to you were from a link I posted here earlier, in a study that used satellite data. The figures quoted here in this NASA study you're pushing come from a model-derived calculation with an assumed optical depth that overestimates cloud impacts. As an example, the NCAR reanalysis that they are talking about just recently was found to be the only one out of five other analyses of water vapour in the atmosphere which showed a negative trend, yet still produces warming. That's a big problem.

In fact, if you take this study, which actually implies a higher climate sensitivity (about 4.5°C per doubling CO2), then you must also conclude that warming associated with carbon dioxide will also be higher. I think a value around 2.5-3.0 °C is more likely, and that's based on the cluster of results that have looked at past climate change.

See this comment on the NASA cloud paper:
Comments on “Contrails, Cirrus Trends, and Climate"http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3435.1
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,167
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
What type of skies do contrails tend to form in the vast majority of time? Clear or overcast?




Vapour trails or contrails, by affecting the Earth's radiation balance, act as a radiative forcing. Studies have found that vapour trails or contrails trap outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth and atmosphere (positive radiative forcing) at a greater rate than they reflect incoming solar radiation (negative radiative forcing). Therefore, the overall net effect of contrails is positive, i.e. a warming.[4] However, the effect varies daily and annually, and overall the magnitude of the forcing is not well known: globally (for 1992 air traffic conditions), values range from 3.5 mW/m² to 17 mW/m². Other studies have determined that night flights are mostly responsible for the warming effect: while accounting for only 25% of daily air traffic, they contribute 60 to 80% of contrail radiative forcing. Similarly, winter flights account for only 22% of annual air traffic, but contribute half of the annual mean radiative forcing

Stuber, Nicola; Piers Forster, Gaby Rädel, Keith Shine (2006-06-15). "The importance of the diurnal and annual cycle of air traffic for contrail radiative forcing". Nature 441 (7095): 864–867. doi:10.1038/nature04877. PMID 16778887.

We aren't in 1992 anymore Dorothy. When do the real numbers hit the models?

Tonington when I lived on the coast I liked the cloudy days better than clear ones. It was alway a minimum of 6C warmer on cloudy days.

Why is that and which do you prefer in january? Cloudy or clear for warmth?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Tonington when I lived on the coast I liked the cloudy days better than clear ones. It was alway a minimum of 6C warmer on cloudy days.

Yes, I'm aware. If you search the site you'll find that I've explained this to greenhouse effect deniers as well, most recently it was Darkbeaver.

As for the paper you just cited, the IPCC discussed the same effects on the diurnal temperature trend, the IPCC that you said dismisses them:
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.
Also, that paragraph you quoted doesn't show up in Stuber et al. 2006...but suffice it to say, 3.5-17 mW per square meter is small. The radiative forcing of carbon dioxide is 1.56 W per square meter.

A few orders of magnitude larger...

But I'm interested to see that you post studies claiming climate sensitivity is so high. Some "alarmist" scientists don't even think it's that high.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,167
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
Like I say Dorothy you aren't in 1992 anymore.

Lets take a look at the changes and quantity in service of just ONE AIRCRAFT since 1992


The Boeing 737 is a short to medium range, single aisle, narrow body jet airliner. Originally developed as a shorter, lower-cost twin-engine airliner derived from Boeing's 707 and 727, the 737 has nine variants with the -600, -700, -800 and -900 currently in production.
Originally envisioned in 1964, the 737 first flew in 1967,[5] and entered airline service in February 1968.[5][6] The 737 is Boeing's only single-aisle, narrow-body airliner currently in production, sometimes serving markets previously filled by 707, 727, 757, DC-9 and MD-80/90 airliners.

The 737 has been continuously manufactured by Boeing since 1967 with 6,348 aircraft delivered and 2,061 orders yet to be fulfilled as of March 2010[update].[1] The 737 series is the best selling jet airliner in history.[5] There are on average 1,250 737s airborne at any given time, with one departing or landing somewhere every five seconds.[7]

Prompted by the modern Airbus A320, Boeing initiated development of an updated series of aircraft in 1991.[52] After working with potential customers, the 737 Next Generation (NG) program was announced on November 17, 1993.[53] The 737NG encompasses the -600, -700, -800 and -900, and is to date the most significant upgrade of the airframe. The performance of the 737NG is essentially that of a new aircraft, but important commonality is retained from previous 737 models. The wing was modified, increasing its area by 25% and span by 16 ft (4.9 m), which increased the total fuel capacity by 30%. New, quieter, more fuel-efficient CFM56-7B engines were used.[54] All three improvements combined increase the 737's range by 900 NM, now permitting transcontinental service.[53] A flight test program was operated by 10 aircraft; 3 -600s, 4 -700s, and 3 -800s.[53]

The first NG to roll out was a -700, on December 8, 1996. This aircraft, the 2,843rd 737 built, first flew on February 9, 1997. The prototype -800 rolled out on June 30, 1997 and first flew on July 31, 1997. The smallest of the new variants, the -600s, is the same size as the -500. It was the last in this series to launch, in December 1997. First flying January 22, 1998, it was given certification on

August 18, 1998.[53][55]
In 2004, Boeing offered a Short Field Performance package in response to the needs of Gol Transportes Aéreos, which frequently operates from restricted airports. The enhancements improve takeoff and landing performance. The optional package is available for the 737NG models and standard equipment for the 737-900ER.

The Airbus A320 family has outsold the 737NG over the past decade,[56][57][58] although its order totals include the A321 and A318, which have also rivaled Boeing's 757 and 717, respectively.[8] The 737NG has also outsold the A320 on an annual basis in past years,[59][60][61][62][63] with the next generation series extending the jetliner's run as the most widely sold[64][65][66] and commonly flown airliner family since its introduction.[67][68][69][70][71][72]


Do you know what these new designs produce far more of since 1992 because of updates? Contrails. The magic of flight is the compression and decompression of gasses which produces VAPOUR in abundance especially since they fly 10,000ft higher since 1992


The International Pathological Church of Carbon really really really needs to update it's bibliography.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Petros, I'm not denying any effect, quite the opposite. The impact however is small. You denigrate carbon dioxide, even though it has a radiative impact orders of magnitude higher than aviation induced cloud formation... But still detectable. I wonder what your pal CM has to say about these findings of science...

And I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on the climate sensitivity being so high.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
If you want to get excited about milliwatts, then have at er. I'm more concerned about the watts though...
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,167
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
Petros, I'm not denying any effect, quite the opposite. The impact however is small. You denigrate carbon dioxide, even though it has a radiative impact orders of magnitude higher than aviation induced cloud formation... But still detectable. I wonder what your pal CM has to say about these findings of science...

And I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on the climate sensitivity being so high.
Yes the 1992 numbers do make it appear to be small but like I say It's not 1992 anymore and things have come a long long long way in aircraft design and numbers in the sky and the impact they make flying higher faster and more efficently.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Yes the 1992 numbers do make it appear to be small but like I say It's not 1992 anymore and things have come a long long long way in aircraft design and numbers in the sky and the impact they make flying higher faster and more efficently.

Milliwatts don't appear small, they are small. And more efficient is a good thing.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,167
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
Petros, I'm not denying any effect, quite the opposite. The impact however is small. You denigrate carbon dioxide, even though it has a radiative impact orders of magnitude higher than aviation induced cloud formation... But still detectable. I wonder what your pal CM has to say about these findings of science...

And I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on the climate sensitivity being so high.
Yes they do appear insignificant by 1992 standards but like I say 1992 came and went a long time ago.

Aviation has came a long long long way since 1992 and the number of flights flying higher and faster has skyrocketed in perfect beat with alleged temperature rise from CO2 but dfammit you just can't tax and monetize vapour the same way you can hydrocarbons.

Why would the IPCC be sitting still on this? I don't think they like what only some of us apparently see.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Why would the IPCC be sitting still on this? I don't think they like what only some of us apparently see.

They aren't sitting on it. Try reading what they actually said. As I've told you multiple times now, they don't dismiss it. They even discussed the diurnal temperature in relation to night time flights like one of your last posts.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,167
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
THE BIG PICTURE



They aren't sitting on it. Try reading what they actually said. As I've told you multiple times now, they don't dismiss it. They even discussed the diurnal temperature in relation to night time flights like one of your last posts.
Yes based on a a baseline from when? The past 5- even 10 years? No! 18 flippin' years ago.

I wonder how long it took to crunch those numbers on a P25 running DOS?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Yes based on a a baseline from when?

The diurnal trends are from data from 2001. Your NASA study is from data from 1975-1994...that's 16 years old.

And that doesn't change the fact that the radiative forcing is measured in milliwatts...
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,167
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
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!