Contrail Question for Skeptics - What's the Effect of Contrails on Climate?

[scombrid]

The theory is it would have a cooling effect ? but iv heard others say its the opposite ,So its not me since Im not claiming to be a scientist its the scientist that cant make up their minds and keep changing things .

Theory says that contrails and contrail cirrus likely have a small heating effect by being more transparent to wavelengths of light coming in than they are to infrared radiation going out. But the effect is really small compared to other factors. There are links to studies working toward accounting for this, studies going back decades, studies that demonstrate that the cloud types that you say are new have been occurring since jet planes started flying at the top of the troposphere.

The theoretical cooling effect would be by solar radiation management that blocks incoming light without trapping outgoing long wave radiation. That would occur in the stratosphere and would not look like the contrails, contrail cirrus, and cirrostratus clouds of which you have posted many pictures. Those formations are too low in the atmosphere, comprise the wrong particle sizes, and are too ephemeral. Deliberate geoengineering/SRM would not be contrails and other cirrus clouds associated with weather systems such as those that blanketed us here in Brevard Co at times on Friday and Saturday ahead of the frontal system that is now draped across south Florida.

Deliberate SRM-geoengineering would look like the year after Mt. Pinatubo blew. Did you notice extra cloudiness after that? No? That's because it wasn't clouds in the troposphere blocking sunlight. It was a thin veil of "dust" in the stratosphere that was mostly imperceptible from the ground.

 

[Joe]

There you are pointing to one of the fundamental problems in this discussion:
Science is not a matter of opinion.

Of course, very complex issues with economical interrelations (like human-induced climate change ) are subject to battles between interest groups.

The media - particularly in the U.S. - tend to construct a "balanced" representation, probably with good intentions. Unfortunately, the result is that the minority opinion - sometimes a fringe position - is overemphasized.
(Usually, you'll see two interview partners with opposing views and one moderator trying to stay 'neutral', no matter the issue.)

This is O.K. for politics but not suited well for scientific facts. That's why it's much better (but also a bit harder) to go to the source, or at least to popular but respected science outlets.

If the vast majority of scientists from one discipline agree on a certain statement, independently from country and political system, their findings are very likely to be true.

So when a simple "Yes" or "No" is insufficient, weight indeed matters.

Sure and science always get things right ? Thats why they can predict hurricanes with 100% accuracy ? Should I go back and history and show how many times science has failed ? How many things in science are created by accident ? How many things have science created that threaten the Human species ? You all act like science is 100% fallible .

 

[Ross Marsden]

Sure and science always get things right ? Thats why they can predict hurricanes with 100% accuracy ? Should I go back and history and show how many times science has failed ? How many things in science are created by accident ? How many things have science created that threaten the Human species ? You all act like science is 100% fallible .

By this comment you are demonstrating that you do not understand what science actually is.
Two of the fundamentals of science are dealing with uncertainty, and iteratively correcting the conceptual model of the universe through observation and deduction.

 

[JFDee]

Sure and science always get things right ? Thats why they can predict hurricanes with 100% accuracy ? Should I go back and history and show how many times science has failed ? How many things in science are created by accident ? How many things have science created that threaten the Human species ? You all act like science is 100% fallible .

No, I don't think anyone here believes that science always gets it right.

Hurricane tracks are predicted with a probability cone, right? Is there any scientist claiming 100% prediction accuracy? You would have to document that.

Science is a process. The main mechanism to establish new knowledge (at least since the 20th century) is to check every new claim and make sure the research results are repeatable, by independent (or even competing) experts.
While it's not completely corruption-proof, it generally roots out false claims and errors eventually, because it is independent of individuals. It's self-correcting. If you cheat, you can't hide the flaws forever.

Science continually fails. Failure is "negative knowledge". It's important to know what doesn't work. So failure is documented and new ways are explored.

Do I really have to start and list all the scientific achievements from which we're benefitting on a daily base?
If I understand your position correctly, you are saying: "I accept this part of science which makes my computer work, but I reject that other part that says the huge amounts of man-made CO2 are very likely to influence the climate".

 

[cosmic]

Hurricane tracks are predicted with a probability cone, right? Is there any scientist claiming 100% prediction accuracy? You would have to document that.

I think his complaint about hurricanes involves predicting the number of storms in a given season rather than the storm tracks themselves (and it seems models are quite decent for the latter). 2013 ended up being a quiet season compared to the predictions of above-average activity, so in his mind, that somehow means climate models must also be inaccurate. It's a bit of a disconnect.

 

[SR1419]

Should I care what professional meteorologist think ? They cant even predict the weather accurately

Actually, I find short term weather forecasts (1-5 days) to be quite accurate...but they are just forecasts not certainties.

 

[Joe]

By this comment you are demonstrating that you do not understand what science actually is.
Two of the fundamentals of science are dealing with uncertainty, and iteratively correcting the conceptual model of the universe through observation and deduction.

Well since I dont even understand what you just said ? Its possible you are right

 

[Joe]

Actually, I find short term weather forecasts (1-5 days) to be quite accurate...but they are just forecasts not certainties.

I could predict 1-5 days with whats available Now . Everyday a chance of rain with sun is all they say to cover their @sses .

 

[Joe]

I think his complaint about hurricanes involves predicting the number of storms in a given season rather than the storm tracks themselves (and it seems models are quite decent for the latter). 2013 ended up being a quiet season compared to the predictions of above-average activity, so in his mind, that somehow means climate models must also be inaccurate. It's a bit of a disconnect.

Id rather them skip their predictions and just give us facts . Even if its just a few days out . Sure when we get hurricanes its great to have them then . Predictions should be left to those with crystal balls .

 

[Joe]

No, I don't think anyone here believes that science always gets it right.

Hurricane tracks are predicted with a probability cone, right? Is there any scientist claiming 100% prediction accuracy? You would have to document that.

Science is a process. The main mechanism to establish new knowledge (at least since the 20th century) is to check every new claim and make sure the research results are repeatable, by independent (or even competing) experts.
While it's not completely corruption-proof, it generally roots out false claims and errors eventually, because it is independent of individuals. It's self-correcting. If you cheat, you can't hide the flaws forever.

Science continually fails. Failure is "negative knowledge". It's important to know what doesn't work. So failure is documented and new ways are explored.

Do I really have to start and list all the scientific achievements from which we're benefitting on a daily base?
If I understand your position correctly, you are saying: "I accept this part of science which makes my computer work, but I reject that other part that says the huge amounts of man-made CO2 are very likely to influence the climate".

No not at all . I'm not saying science is not important just not perfect . It seems to me many here act like it is . So like everything else they learn from their mistakes you are saying ?

 

[JRBids]

I could predict 1-5 days with whats available Now . Everyday a chance of rain with sun is all they say to cover their @sses .

You are a total cynic Joe. Is there anything in the world you think is good and right?

 

[Joe]

You are a total cynic Joe. Is there anything in the world you think is good and right?

? HMM let me think ? Nope not really what about you ? Ok Space Science I like . Nasa wasting time on environmentalism pisses me off .

 

[JRBids]

? HMM let me think ? Nope not really what about you ?

Whew!

Ok Space Science I like . Nasa wasting time on environmentalism pisses me off .

You are against environmentalism or against NASA when they partake.

 

[Cairenn]

NASA is the National AIR and Space Agency. What goes on in the air is also their area. It was formed from NACA

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was a U.S. federal agency founded on March 3, 1915, to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research. On October 1, 1958, the agency was dissolved, and its assets and personnel transferred to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NACA was pronounced as individual letters, rather than as an acronym.[1]

Among other advancements, NACA research and development produced the NACA duct, a type of air intake used in modern automotive applications, the NACA cowling and several series of NACA airfoils which are still used in aircraft manufacturing.[ex/]



Sidenote, I had the chance to do some research in many of NACA's papers when I was at UTD. At that time they many of the NACA files.

Content from External Source

 

[Joe]

Whew!



You are against environmentalism or against NASA when they partake.

Nasa when they partake in environmentalism . leave that to the alarmist

 

[Pete Tar]

So you think giving a shit about the environment is alarmist, there is no harm we can do.

 

[Joe]

So you think giving a shit about the environment is alarmist, there is no harm we can do.

Thats not what I said . real environmental dangers should be addressed , but those that are designed to enrich others . Take the scam of putting ethanol in our gasoline . decreased fuel mileage means more taxes . Gasoline cannot be stored long term anymore . In the automotive industry big problems with corrosion in the fuel system as well as boating industry . Now what rocket scientist thought there would be any benefit ? Lets not forget higher corn prices and in turn more expensive food including beef chicken ect . Its the side effects of wacko environmentalism that cost jobs that bugs the hell out of me . The EPA is filled with wackos and thieves http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_...raud-was-crime-of-massive-proportion-say-feds

 

[Pete Tar]

well I'm glad to hear that in theory you're not pro-environment destruction.

So if action should be taken on real pressing issues, who do you trust to tell you what is a 'real issue' then? You don't trust the EPA, or science derived from NASA or other climate scientists. Who's going to convince you there is a problem?
Every attempt at a change in policy will have those who can benefit, but that doesn't tell you that the issue is fake.
Eg, banning lead in ammunition has the goal of helping the endangered condor and reducing build-up in the wildlife food chain, but manufacturers who adapt quickly will benefit in the market - is the issue fake?

 

[Joe]

well I'm glad to hear that in theory you're not pro-environment destruction.

So if action should be taken on real pressing issues, who do you trust to tell you what is a 'real issue' then? You don't trust the EPA, or science derived from NASA or other climate scientists. Who's going to convince you there is a problem?
Every attempt at a change in policy will have those who can benefit, but that doesn't tell you that the issue is fake.
Eg, banning lead in ammunition has the goal of helping the endangered condor and reducing build-up in the wildlife food chain, but manufacturers who adapt quickly will benefit in the market - is the issue fake?

No Im very pro environment . As a long time surfer who wants a dirty environment or ocean . Sure if they were banning lead to for true environmental reasons and not to just drive up the price of ammunition which is the real goal . the problem of few degrees in a hundred years is nothing compared to unrest around the world . If WW3 was to break out tomorrow that would be a problem . Fukishima disaster . A few degrees I should worry about if it were true ?

 

[Pete Tar]

So the condor is not endangered because of lead in carcasses? That's made-up nonsense to cover ammunition rises?
It seems no matter the problem/solution you will spin it to say it's a made-up issue.

 

[SR1419]

No Im very pro environment . As a long time surfer who wants a dirty environment or ocean

But its precisely the "wackos" in the EPA and the regulations put forth that have cleaned up the environment in the US a great deal in the last 40yrs...the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act etc...have achieved dramatic reductions in water and air pollution.

 

[JRBids]

No Im very pro environment . As a long time surfer who wants a dirty environment or ocean . Sure if they were banning lead to for true environmental reasons and not to just drive up the price of ammunition which is the real goal . the problem of few degrees in a hundred years is nothing compared to unrest around the world . If WW3 was to break out tomorrow that would be a problem . Fukishima disaster . A few degrees I should worry about if it were true ?

Total cynic, Joe. Drive up the price of ammo? Why not just raise the price?

 

[Joe]

Total cynic, Joe. Drive up the price of ammo? Why not just raise the price?

How ? If you ban or regulate lead that drives up the price of ammo .thats not being a cynic thats a fact . But ill agree I am cynical . Who the hell isnt these days ? Like if we open the Keystone pipeline it would lower the cost of oil .

 

[Joe]

But its precisely the "wackos" in the EPA and the regulations put forth that have cleaned up the environment in the US a great deal in the last 40yrs...the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act etc...have achieved dramatic reductions in water and air pollution.

haha the clean air act also is blamed for global warming .

Sulfate aerosols have declined significantly since 1970 with the Clean Air Act in the United States and similar policies in Europe. The Clean Air Act was strengthened in 1977 and 1990. According to the EPA, from 1970 to 2005,

Content from External Source

Now they want to add sulphates to cool the planet ???? Id rather have cleaner warmer air then smog . I lived in LA in the seventies I know what air pollution looks like .

 

[Joe]

So the condor is not endangered because of lead in carcasses? That's made-up nonsense to cover ammunition rises?
It seems no matter the problem/solution you will spin it to say it's a made-up issue.

Spin ? Thats what the lame stream media does every day . Thats not spin thats a fact . Its like using Sandy Hook to try to ban guns . Or like blaming the Loggers for the fate of the Northern Spotted Owl when it turned out to be Barred Owl that was the reason for their decline .

Barred Owls may be partly responsible for the recent decline of the Northern Spotted Owl, native to Washington, Oregon, and California. Since the 1960s, Barred Owls have been expanding their range westward from the eastern US, perhaps because man-made changes have created new suitable habitat in the west.[5] When Spotted Owls and Barred Owls share the same environment, the latter are generally more aggressive and out-compete the former, leading to decreased populations of the native owls.[6] They have also been known to interbreed, with the hybrids named "Sparred Owl" or "Botted Owl".[citation needed]

On 5 April 2007, White House officials announced a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to shoot Barred Owls to reduce the threat they pose to the Spotted Owl.[7] It called for constructing eighteen sites in Spotted Owl territory where 12–32 Barred Owls would be taken per site.[7] Environmentalists fear increased blame on Barred Owls for declining Spotted Owl numbers will result in less attention being paid to territorial protection and resumption of logging in protected Spotted Owl habitat

Content from External Source

Its seems the environmental wackos are the reason for the loss of industry and jobs in America . So you wonder why china is rising and we not .

CPUSA The Communist Party notes its commitment to participating in environmental movements wherever possible, emphasizing the significance of building unity between the environmental movement and other progressive tendencies

Content from External Source

 

[Bill]

Spin ? Thats what the lame stream media does every day . Thats not spin thats a fact . Its like using Sandy Hook to try to ban guns . Or like blaming the Loggers for the fate of the Northern Spotted Owl when it turned out to be Barred Owl that was the reason for their decline .

Barred Owls may be partly responsible for the recent decline of the Northern Spotted Owl, native to Washington, Oregon, and California. Since the 1960s, Barred Owls have been expanding their range westward from the eastern US, perhaps because man-made changes have created new suitable habitat in the west.[5] When Spotted Owls and Barred Owls share the same environment, the latter are generally more aggressive and out-compete the former, leading to decreased populations of the native owls.[6] They have also been known to interbreed, with the hybrids named "Sparred Owl" or "Botted Owl".[citation needed]

Content from External Source

Content from External Source

The excerpt you are using seems to be saying that man made changes are creating environments suitable for the barred owl to expand into. Since the man made changes that have been going on in the area are logging and development, that would mean that logging and development are responsible for the spotted owl's demise. Blaming it on an intermediary species that moved into the environment ignores the creation of the new environment by people. On its face it would seem that the warnings about logging having a negative effect on northern spotted owl populations is correct. Whether the demise is due to a loss of nesting areas or the introduction of a new species the initial logging and development is what set it in motion.

Citation 5 is basically a population count for both species from the Olympia National Forest and deals with a small defined area rather than addressing the spotted owl environment as a whole.

Peterson and Robbins's paper (citation #6 in your excerpt) opens:

The Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis) is the focus of intense concern as a species threatened by the destruction and fragmentation of primary forest in the Pacific Northwest (U.S.A.). Aside from habitat concerns, an additional peril exists for the species: the larger and more aggressive Barred Owl (S. varia) is invading the Pacific Northwest and has the potential to overrun much of the range of the endangered species.

Content from External Source

Barred owls are addressed as an additional peril, not the peril, responsible for the spotted owls demise.

 

[Joe]

The excerpt you are using seems to be saying that man made changes are creating environments suitable for the barred owl to expand into. Since the man made changes that have been going on in the area are logging and development, that would mean that logging and development are responsible for the spotted owl's demise. Blaming it on an intermediary species that moved into the environment ignores the creation of the new environment by people. On its face it would seem that the warnings about logging having a negative effect on northern spotted owl populations is correct. Whether the demise is due to a loss of nesting areas or the introduction of a new species the initial logging and development is what set it in motion.

Citation 5 is basically a population count for both species from the Olympia National Forest and deals with a small defined area rather than addressing the spotted owl environment as a whole.

Peterson and Robbins's paper (citation #6 in your excerpt) opens:

The Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis) is the focus of intense concern as a species threatened by the destruction and fragmentation of primary forest in the Pacific Northwest (U.S.A.). Aside from habitat concerns, an additional peril exists for the species: the larger and more aggressive Barred Owl (S. varia) is invading the Pacific Northwest and has the potential to overrun much of the range of the endangered species.

Content from External Source

Barred owls are addressed as an additional peril, not the peril, responsible for the spotted owls demise.

So we should shoot all the Barred owls ? Its like choking off the water to the San Jacinto valley for the delta smelt . Again its putting animals above humans which is suicide for our species . http://www.pacificlegal.org/cases/Water-cutoff-for-Delta-smelt-is-unconstitutional . Then importing our food from other countries ,

 

[Bill]

So we should shoot all the Barred owls ? Its like choking off the water to the San Jacinto valley for the delta smelt . Again its putting animals above humans which is suicide for our species . http://www.pacificlegal.org/cases/Water-cutoff-for-Delta-smelt-is-unconstitutional . Then importing our food from other countries ,

Nice job of jumping from one topic to another and resorting to hyperbole. For most of us it is not an either/or situation. It's possible for both people and the spotted owl to coexist. As for importing our food from other countries we are at no risk of this and the delta smelt issue, no matter which side of it you are on, is not going to create food shortages.

 

[Pete Tar]

... So you wonder why china is rising and we not .

No actually, I don't wonder that at all.
So do you think the chinese communists are behind pushes for environmental policy in America, whilst they are free to pollute their own country with abandon so they can make money faster?
Are you jealous of their relative lack of environmental or safety policies? Is that what America needs to kickstart the economy?

 

[scombrid]

Its seems the environmental wackos are the reason for the loss of industry and jobs in America .

Barred owls move in as the habitat changes. Shooting the barred owls is a band-aid approach as they would not threaten spotted owls without the habitat changes that favor barred. The same habitat changes that favor the barred owl are bad for the logging industry. The logging industry declines in the west with or without spotted owl protection because they're running out of big trees. The environmentalists and industry are fighting over the last scraps of big timber. I say go ahead and cut the last big trees and then the people bitching about the environmentalists can try to find somebody else to blame when they can't find logging work.

So you wonder why china is rising and we not

China has lots of smog and cheap labor, like the 19th century US and England. You said you didn't like smog but if we want to use chinese tactics to "rise" then maybe we should have smog again.

Again its putting animals above humans which is suicide for our species .

I'd rather eat smelt than almonds. Destruction of anadromous fisheries has resulted in plenty of harm to humans in the form of lost fishery production.

 

[scombrid]

Back to the topic of the thread.

Opening post wanted to know what "skeptics" thought about the effect of contrails on climate. Information was provided that said the prevailing theory is that contrails are a by-product of normal avaition and that additional cirrus cloud cover from contrails has a small effect on the heat budget. The net result is a slight warming effect on the troposphere as the cirrus clouds tend to trap long wave radiation while being relatively transparent to incoming solar radiation. But the effect is small compared to other factors.

Joe disagrees. Joe thinks the contrails are deliberate "geoengineering" and are meant to shade the earth by whiting out/greying out the whole sky.

I'm still waiting to sees Joe's proof of concept.

 

[Joe]

Nice job of jumping from one topic to another and resorting to hyperbole. For most of us it is not an either/or situation. It's possible for both people and the spotted owl to coexist. As for importing our food from other countries we are at no risk of this and the delta smelt issue, no matter which side of it you are on, is not going to create food shortages.

I have ADD

No actually, I don't wonder that at all.
So do you think the chinese communists are behind pushes for environmental policy in America, whilst they are free to pollute their own country with abandon so they can make money faster?
Are you jealous of their relative lack of environmental or safety policies? Is that what America needs to kickstart the economy?

No I believe we would rather pollute and use up the resources other countries and take advantage of them while trying to keep our yard clean .De Industrialize ourselves and rely on slave labor of other countries to support our consumerism . No its the corporatist working with the communist and other third world governments .

 

[Pete Tar]

...

I'm still waiting to sees Joe's proof of concept.

Because liberals.

 

[Joe]

Because liberals.

No Id like to blame them , But most likely its Bushs fault