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?
Debunked: Belfort Group "Case Orange" conclusions & recommendations
- Thread starter Jay Reynolds
- Start date
scombrid
Senior Member.
Testing in the atmosphere? Not in the troposphere or stratosphere according to the patent and subsequent research papers.
Do you understand the tests that were done or even the patent beyond the barium buzzword?
What do you mean by "enhance radios/radar"?
What does their study of contrail cirrus on climate (I'm assuming you posted that abstract) have to do with the patent for studying the ionosphere and near-space?
[q]Forget about planes and chemicals for a minute.[/q]
Why? The chemtrail theory says that the white lines behind airplanes are caused by chemicals either being sprayed directly or as additives to the fuel.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Yes, but these were at NIGHT almost into outer space and the purpose was to produce an explosive CLOUD of light to illuminate geoemagnetic lines in the ionosphere.
What people are seeing aren't bursts of LIGHT at night, what people are seeing as "chemtrails" are white lines from airplane exhaust, and according to G. Edward Griffin, they are coming from commercial passenger airliners. None of this has any plausible association with radios or radars. The military doesn't need barium to communicate or to have radar.
They can communicate and radar works quite well without any barium. The ENTIRE inception of the idea that barium is being released was a hoax perpetrated by A.C. Griffiths who LIED about his background, who NEVER produced anything of substance, and whose claims were found to have been lifted from ordinary on-line sources, NOT anything secret. Read more about how this happened here and see how you got PUNKED.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
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 . . .
F4Jock
Senior Member.
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!!??
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What does your response have to do with my suggestion on mitigating persistent 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.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
What does your response have to do with my suggestion on mitigating persistent contrails?
Sorry you don't get it. I think it's very plain. Perhaps someone else can explain it to you!
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
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 . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Good I will be waiting . . .
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Try Mick.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hmmm . . . I didn't think Mick thought Persistent Contrails was a conspiracy . . .
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Doubt he does. What I meant was that he could explain what I Wrote. Geeze! You didn't understand that either?
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".
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Bless you!! I was beginning to think I'd lost the ability to communicate effectively! *Grin* Of course at times posting in this forum might just give any of us that feeling.....*Grin x 2*
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But my comment was limited to contrail mitigation . . .
Seems we are avoiding a relatively cheap solution or at least a trial solution for something IPCC has been researching and addressing for years . . . persistent contrails are now thought to have a much more important effect on radiative forcing than the entire CO2 emissions by civil aviation . . . we have spent billions and billions on more efficient engines to reduce CO2, NOx and sound pollution . . . why not a few trials to reduce persistent contrails . . . ?
F4Jock
Senior Member.
By whom? You have science to back you up of course.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
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.
Classified
New Member
So the Navy has tested barium in fuel? Wait, I thought this was impossible according to prior responses.
Also, you are claiming contrails are completely harmless yet Ive posted NASA [NASA Studying Linear Contrails
BYLINE: Edward H. Phillips
SECTION: AIR TRANSPORT; Vol. 152, No. 3; Pg. 428]
and this source [An overview of global climate changing in current scenario and mitigation action
Pragya Nemaa, , , Sameer Nemab, , Priyanka Roya,
a Electrical Engineering Department, Netaji Subhash Engineering College, Kolkata, W.B. 7000115, India
b Lafarge A&C, Kolkata, India]
stating the weather mitigation affect that contrails are having.
2.4. Emissions from freight transport
The climatic impacts of emissions from freight transport [18] are more than the direct impacts from carbon dioxide. In case of air transport it includes the direct effects of water vapor, the indirect forcing on climate resulting from changes in the distributions and concentrations of ozone and methane as a consequence of aircraft nitrogen oxide emissions, the direct effects from emitted aerosols and the climate effects associated with cirrus cloud formation.
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?
Also, you are claiming contrails are completely harmless yet Ive posted NASA [NASA Studying Linear Contrails
BYLINE: Edward H. Phillips
SECTION: AIR TRANSPORT; Vol. 152, No. 3; Pg. 428]
and this source [An overview of global climate changing in current scenario and mitigation action
Pragya Nemaa, , , Sameer Nemab, , Priyanka Roya,
a Electrical Engineering Department, Netaji Subhash Engineering College, Kolkata, W.B. 7000115, India
b Lafarge A&C, Kolkata, India]
stating the weather mitigation affect that contrails are having.
2.4. Emissions from freight transport
The climatic impacts of emissions from freight transport [18] are more than the direct impacts from carbon dioxide. In case of air transport it includes the direct effects of water vapor, the indirect forcing on climate resulting from changes in the distributions and concentrations of ozone and methane as a consequence of aircraft nitrogen oxide emissions, the direct effects from emitted aerosols and the climate effects associated with cirrus cloud formation.
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?
TWCobra
Senior Member.
Chemtrails as per the current meme, aluminium, barium and strontium sprayed in amounts large enough to form the white trails that everyone else calls contrails is not possible with current technology. No aircraft exists that can physically carry the weight of material to those sorts of altitudes.
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.
No. Why would it be impossible. You can test anything in fuel.
I've never claimed any such thing. Contrails have a radiative forcing effect. This has been discussed many times.
I'm claiming there is no evidence that the long white trails in the sky are anything other than contrails.
Really they DO seem to affect the weather, specifically the diurnal temperature range. The climate effect is only because it happens every day.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
IPCC . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation
[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]
Classified
New Member
So we appear to have a dis agreement on whether or not contrails affect the weather yet I've provided two different sources which haven't been debunked yet.
Then we have a simple mistake by a .gov source stating barium in jet fuel.
That sure sounds like a conspiracy to me by definition.
Not to mention that you do come across as a dis-information spreading shill, by heckling anyone who questions the mainstream narrative, and by sourcing contrailscience (your own website) in your responses.
Then we have a simple mistake by a .gov source stating barium in jet fuel.
That sure sounds like a conspiracy to me by definition.
Not to mention that you do come across as a dis-information spreading shill, by heckling anyone who questions the mainstream narrative, and by sourcing contrailscience (your own website) in your responses.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It is only a waste if you don't want rational and cheap experimentation on mitigating persistent contrails . . .
Much cheaper than I suspect the study of the mating displays of multiple animal species . . .
MikeC
Closed Account
Actually George that does not support your assertion, which was:
the quote you gave actually EXCLUDES "cirrus cloud enhancement".
The total effect of aviation is due to a range of effects - CO2, NOx, contrails, water, soot and SOx -totalling +0.05W/m^2, of which contrails and CO2 are almost exactly the same values at +0.02W/m^2 and +0.018W/m^2 respectively:
-sourceFor 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;
Classified, you need to verify your email address. Email me if you having problems uncinus@gmail.com
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
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-201104
. . . 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.
Classified
New Member
[h=3]2.4. Emissions from freight transport[/h]The climatic impacts of emissions from freight transport [18] are more than the direct impacts from carbon dioxide. In case of air transport it includes the direct effects of water vapor, the indirect forcing on climate resulting from changes in the distributions and concentrations of ozone and methane as a consequence of aircraft nitrogen oxide emissions, the direct effects from emitted aerosols and the climate effects associated with cirrus cloud formation.
[h=1]Effects of synoptic weather and boundary layer dynamics on aerosol formation in the continental boundary layer[/h]
[h=1]Effects of synoptic weather and boundary layer dynamics on aerosol formation in the continental boundary layer[/h]
- E.D. Nilsson1,
- Ü. Rannik2,
- J. Paatero3,
- M. Boy2,
- C. O'Dowd2,
- G. Buzorius2,
- L. Laakso2,
- M. Kulmala2
- 1 Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
- 2 Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Finland
- 3 Finnish Meteorological Institute, Sweden
MikeC
Closed Account
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:
And it is not true - persistent contrails do NOT have a much more important effect.
and the section you quoted excluded cirrus cloud enhancement:
....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).[
Just email me, and I can fix it.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/pdf/nclimate1068.pdf?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201104
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.
Classified
New Member
So how were the agent orange applications sprayed in Vietnam?
MikeC
Closed Account
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:
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.Net radiative forcing due to CIC [contrail induced cloudiness] constitutes one of the largest single aviation-related radiativeforcing components.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
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 . . .
MikeC
Closed Account
Using fairly standard spray booms and nozzles from aircraft -
And helicopters - see this link, and also from boats -
MikeC
Closed Account
Yes I know what you claimed - I quoted it back at you a couple of times!
Indeed - fair enough
Yep - agreed.
Classified
New Member
That photo from vietnam looks a lot like this photo taken over San Francisco recently.
That photo from vietnam looks a lot like this photo taken over San Francisco recently.
That's an aerodynamic contrail. See:
http://contrailscience.com/aerodynamic-and-rainbow-contrails/
