U
Unregistered
Guest
Why are these contrails allowed to affect the weather? Clearly the FAA could force planes to fly lower right? Do you like artificial clouds that heat the earth?
To think NASA couldnt have altered the fuel slightly to create persistent contrails which enhance military radios/radar is pretty ignorant since theyve been testing barium in the atmosphere since at least 74' with the nasa ion cloud patent.
To think NASA couldnt have altered the fuel slightly to create persistent contrails which enhance military radios/radar is pretty ignorant since theyve been testing barium in the atmosphere since at least 74' with the nasa ion cloud patent.
Forget about planes and chemicals for a minute. Let me ask you this: Has Nasa/AF ever released barium into the atmosphere?
Why are these contrails allowed to affect the weather? Clearly the FAA could force planes to fly lower right? Do you like artificial clouds that heat the earth?
Not really. You can't just take all the planes flying at 30,000 to 45,000 feet, and cram them all under 30,000 feet. For one thing it would use up a lot more fuel and create more pollution and CO2. It would also be a lot more expensive.
There is potential to do a complex computer controlled system, but it would take decades to get working, and it's not at all clear if it is worth it.
Hmmm . . . get the flight crews a rearview mirror or video cameras so they can tell if they are leaving a persistent contrail . . . then allow them to make (minor) altitude corrections in their existing flight path . . . a few hundred feet can make a huge difference according to some research . . . the ice supersaturated layers are thought to be rather thin . . . it doesn't require billions . . .
What does your response have to do with my suggestion on mitigating persistent contrails?Does it occur that people may get tired of spending time and money proving everyone's theories wrong? That for every proof a hundred more may spring up? That by precedent all of these would have to be proven wrong? Where does it then stop? Of course, none of "MY" theories are fringe, right? I'm being totally reasonable......
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories
Which of the above conspiracy theories do you consider should be proven wrong? Which are not credible? Which deserve to have money spent on them and which do not? You choose, and by merely choosing you'll join the ranks of "Debunkers" and disbelievers. So if you can choose, if you can reasonably "debunk" and "disbelieve" why can't I?
Amazing, isn't it!!??
Hmmm . . . get the flight crews a rearview mirror or video cameras so they can tell if they are leaving a persistent contrail . . . then allow them to make (minor) altitude corrections in their existing flight path . . . a few hundred feet can make a huge difference according to some research . . . the ice supersaturated layers are thought to be rather thin . . . it doesn't require billions . . .
What does your response have to do with my suggestion on mitigating persistent contrails?![]()
How do we know until we try . . . no one has even tried . . . our friend who flies the Gulf Steams at 45,000 said his company was installing cameras for them. . . however, it was not to mitigate contrails . . .The problem is that by the time you notice you are leaving a contrail, requested altitude change from ATC, and adjusted your altitude (not knowing if it's best to rise or climb), you've probably already come out the other side of the region - or at least already left 50-100 miles of contrails. You need a system that stops you entering the regions in the first place.
Plus, retrofitting the entire fleet with rear-view cameras would likely cost in the tens of millions at the very least.
Sorry you don't get it. I think it's very plain. Perhaps someone else can explain it to you!
Good I will be waiting . . .
Try Mick.
Hmmm . . . I didn't think Mick thought Persistent Contrails was a conspiracy . . .
Hmmm . . . I didn't think Mick thought Persistent Contrails was a conspiracy . . .
Although F4Jock's point was not directly related to contrail mitigation, it is actually similar. You need sufficient justification to do something that costs a lot of money. How clear is it that spending million on a trial of contrail avoidance would solve problems? How clear is it that there is a problem that needs to be solved?
It's easy to say "why not try...", but the answer is "it costs money, and it's not clear we'll get anything for that money".
But my comment was limited to contrail mitigation . . .Although F4Jock's point was not directly related to contrail mitigation, it is actually similar. You need sufficient justification to do something that costs a lot of money. How clear is it that spending million on a trial of contrail avoidance would solve problems? How clear is it that there is a problem that needs to be solved?
It's easy to say "why not try...", but the answer is "it costs money, and it's not clear we'll get anything for that money".
....persistent contrails are now thought to have a much more important effect on radiative forcing than the entire CO2 emissions by civil aviation . . .
George spent a career spending other people's money in the USAF. Hard earned money which a lot was wasted on 'what-ifs'. He's already admitted to having knowledge of waste.It's easy to say "why not try...
Are you claiming that chemtrails are not technologically possible?
Are you claiming that contrails aren't affecting our weather?
No. Why would it be impossible. You can test anything in fuel.So the Navy has tested barium in fuel? Wait, I thought this was impossible according to prior responses.
I've never claimed any such thing. Contrails have a radiative forcing effect. This has been discussed many times.Also, you are claiming contrails are completely harmless yet Ive posted NASA [NASA Studying Linear Contrails
So what exactly are you claiming Mick?
Are you claiming that chemtrails are not technologically possible?
Are you claiming that contrails aren't affecting our weather?
Contrails don't affect the weather. They affect CLIMATE but the effect is not been finely quantified at this point. No-one here has suggested otherwise.
IPCC . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviationBy whom? You have science to back you up of course.
External Quote:
[h=3]Total climate effects[/h]In attempting to aggregate and quantify the total climate impact of aircraft emissions the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) has estimated that aviation's total climate impact is some 2-4 times that of its direct CO2 emissions alone (excluding the potential impact of cirrus cloud enhancement).[9] This is measured as radiative forcing. While there is uncertainty about the exact level of impact of NOx and water vapour, governments have accepted the broad scientific view that they do have an effect. Globally in 2005, aviation contributed "possibly as much as 4.9% of radiative forcing."[16] UK government policy statements have stressed the need for aviation to address its total climate change impacts and not simply the impact of CO2.[18]
It is only a waste if you don't want rational and cheap experimentation on mitigating persistent contrails . . .George spent a career spending other people's money in the USAF. Hard earned money which a lot was wasted on 'what-ifs'. He's already admitted to having knowledge of waste.
It's a mindset.
....persistent contrails are now thought to have a much more important effect on radiative forcing than the entire CO2 emissions by civil aviation . . .
-sourceExternal Quote:For the 1992 aviation scenario (NASA-1992*), radiative forcing of climate change from aircraft emissions (gases and aerosols) is estimated to be +0.05 W m-2, which is about 3.5% of total anthropogenic radiative forcing as measured against the pre-industrial atmosphere of +1.4 W m-2 for combined greenhouse gases and aerosols (and +2.7 W m-2 for greenhouse gases alone). The components of aircraft-induced radiative forcing are as follows: CO2, +0.018 W m-2; NOx, +0.023 W m-2 (via ozone changes) and -0.014 W m-2 (via methane changes); contrails, +0.02 W m-2;
That did include persistent contrails . . . if you add cirrus clouds the RF would be higher . . . http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/pdf/nclimate1068.pdf?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201104Actually George that does not support your assertion, which was:
the quote you gave actually EXCLUDES "cirrus cloud enhancement".
the increased effect of aviation is beleived to be due to other gases - NOx, SOx, and het altitude they are generated at - it has nothing in particuler to do with contrails.
External Quote:
. . . net radiative forcing due to contrail cirrus remains the largest singleradiative-forcing component associated with aviation. Our findings regarding global radiative forcing by contrail cirrus willallow their effects to be included in studies assessing the impacts of aviation on climate and appropriate mitigation options.
....persistent contrails are now thought to have a much more important effect on radiative forcing than the entire CO2 emissions by civil aviation . . .
External Quote:....that aviation's total climate impact is some 2-4 times that of its direct CO2 emissions alone (excluding the potential impact of cirrus cloud enhancement).[
I have not received a confirmation email yet. But I will wait for you to play your admin games.
Sorry George I changed my post while you were replying - but in any case stop changing the goal posts - here is what you said:
And it is not true - persistent contrails do NOT have a much more important effect.
and the section you quoted excluded cirrus cloud enhancement:
External Quote:....that aviation's total climate impact is some 2-4 times that of its direct CO2 emissions alone (excluding the potential impact of cirrus cloud enhancement).[
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/pdf/nclimate1068.pdf?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201104External Quote:
radiative forcing due to contrail cirrus remains the largest singleradiative-forcing component associated with aviation. Our findings regarding global radiative forcing by contrail cirrus willallow their effects to be included in studies assessing the impacts of aviation on climate and appropriate mitigation options.
And nowhere in the report do I actually see comparison with any figure for any other radiative forcing related to aviation - so I am unsure how they reach this conclusion.External Quote:Net radiative forcing due to CIC [contrail induced cloudiness] constitutes one of the largest single aviation-related radiativeforcing components.
the extract I gave also showed that contrails were the largest single component - they generated about 10% more radiative forcing than the CO2 alone - but they were still only 40% of the total, and CO2 was 36%.
That is not not 2-4 times the effect of CO2 that you claimed and continue to defend. That particular claim is wrong according to my extract, and not supported by any you have given.
moreover reading the substance of the report you quote, they hedge their bets a little:
And nowhere in the report do I actually see comparison with any figure for any other radiative forcing related to aviation - so I am unsure how they reach this conclusion.External Quote:Net radiative forcing due to CIC [contrail induced cloudiness] constitutes one of the largest single aviation-related radiativeforcing components.
So how were the agent orange applications sprayed in Vietnam?
1) The only thing I claimed was . . . "....persistent contrails are now thought to have a much more important effect on radiative forcing than the entire CO2 emissions by civil aviation . . ." This is almost a direct quote from a paper which I am unable to put my hands on right this second . . .
2) the quote you are complaining about was about all aviation contributions to RF excluding CO2 and Contrail Induced Cirrus clouds but did not exclude persistent contrails . . . actually when one considers contrails are short lived while CO2 is very long lasting . . . they are almost impossible to compare . . . I quickly quoted it without making those distinctions please forgive my oversight . . .
3) Bottom line . . . Persistent Contrails and Contrail Induced Cirrus Cloud Banks are considered a significant factor in aviation induced radiative forcing . . .
View attachment 2402
That photo from vietnam looks a lot like this photo taken over San Francisco recently.