Debunked: Belfort Group "Case Orange" conclusions & recommendations

[Mick West]

I agree it's much of a muchness. There are more daytime than night-time flights, which probably redresses the balance. I was really calling out Classified's wild pomposity as too much, which it was.

I defer to Classified's reference:

"Although most investigators favor the finding that contrail cirrus produce atmospheric warming on regional scales in the United States and Europe, the impact on global warming is still in the noise. Should aircraft activity increase as projected, the global effects
would become significant by 2050."

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JAM2325.1

Although that's 2005, and things might seem to have clarified since then.

 

[Jazzy]

their amounts are a given and are background noise and cannot be reduced without ceasing or reducing flights

Wrong. They can be eliminated by planes avoiding humid strata in the first place.

these beasties have the highest likelihood of causing an additional net warming effect

During the night and net cooling effect during the day.

an analogy is a full tub of water. the most important water is the last that goes into it. this last additional water goes over the rim and floods the bathroom.

If you mean by that the topping up of the humidity of already humid layers until they are saturated, then you're correct.

But Nature has always done this first. Wherever you see cirrus clouds, they are ALWAYS standing in saturated air. If they weren't doing so, they would be subliming back to water vapor already.

 

[George B]

Wrong. They can be eliminated by planes avoiding humid strata in the first place.

.

I am not talking about contrails or cirrus clouds I am talking about the static combustion products . . . CO2, NOx, H2O, Sulfur, Soot, etc. . .

 

[George B]

During the night and net cooling effect during the day.

.

I think NASA thinks there is a net warming effect from Cirrus Clouds . . . if they have changed their position I am not aware . . . see below:

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/Minnis.etal.JClim.04.pdfContrails, Cirrus Trends, and Climate
PATRICK MINNIS
Atmospheric Sciences, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia
Using results from a general circulation model simulation of contrails, the cirrus trends
over the United States are estimated to cause a tropospheric warming of 0.28–0.38C decade21, a range that
includes the observed tropospheric temperature trend of 0.278C decade21 between 1975 and 1994. The magnitude
of the estimated surface temperature change and the seasonal variations of the estimated temperature trends are
also in good agreement with the corresponding observations.

 

[Mick West]

I think NASA thinks there is a net warming effect from Cirrus Clouds . . . if they have changed their position I am not aware . . . see below:

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/Minnis.etal.JClim.04.pdfContrails, Cirrus Trends, and Climate
PATRICK MINNIS
Atmospheric Sciences, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia
Using results from a general circulation model simulation of contrails, the cirrus trends
over the United States are estimated to cause a tropospheric warming of 0.28–0.38C decade21, a range that
includes the observed tropospheric temperature trend of 0.278C decade21 between 1975 and 1994. The magnitude
of the estimated surface temperature change and the seasonal variations of the estimated temperature trends are
also in good agreement with the corresponding observations.

You should ask Patrick.

 

[George B]

You should ask Patrick.

I will see if I still have his email address . . .

 

[Mick West]

There's a lot of papers on it even just in 2013:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?a...s+radiative+forcing&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

Minnis et al, Feb 2013:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50168/abstract

Radiative forcing due to linear-shaped jet contrails is calculated over the Northern Hemisphere for four seasonal months using 2006 Aqua Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer cloud and contrail property retrieval data in a radiative transfer model. The 4 month mean shortwave, longwave, and net radiative forcings normalized to 100% contrail cover are −5.7, 14.2, and 8.5 Wm−2​. Mean total net forcing over the northern half of the globe varies from 9.1 mW m−2​ during October to 12.1 mW m−2​ in January and is only representative at 01:30 and 13:30 LT in nonpolar regions. In some dense flight traffic corridors, the mean net forcing approaches 80 mW m−2​. Scaling the 4 month average of 10.6 mW m−2​ to the Southern Hemisphere air traffic yields global mean net forcing of 5.7 mW m−2​, which is smaller than most model estimates. Nighttime net forcing is 3.6 times greater than during daytime, when net forcing is greatest over low clouds. Effects from contrail cirrus clouds that evolve from linear contrails are not considered in these results.

Translation: Warming, but just looking at linear contrails.

 

[Neil Pennington]

"1. Manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory, but currently the best option in geo-engineering considered by decision makers to counter global warming."

"Manipulation" of the cirrus layer means increasing ice-cloud density. I always heard that cirrus was a positive forcing factor for global warming, so how does the above statement make sense?

 

[George B]

"1. Manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory, but currently the best option in geo-engineering considered by decision makers to counter global warming."

"Manipulation" of the cirrus layer means increasing ice-cloud density. I always heard that cirrus was a positive forcing factor for global warming, so how does the above statement make sense?

The lower the density the more shortwave energy can penetrate the cirrus clouds and get trapped as long wave energy . . . the higher the density the less shortwave energy is allowed through the high cirrus and gets reflected back into space . . .

The strategy would either dissipate/precipitate thin cirrus clouds or dramatically increase their density . . .

 

[Neil Pennington]

Ahh, so increased cirrus density has its greatest effect being increased albedo with no (or much less) increase in LW entrapment.

 

[F4Jock]

Has anyone noticed that we've had the second coldest beginning of spring on record this year?

 

[Ross Marsden]

"1. Manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory, but currently the best option in geo-engineering considered by decision makers to counter global warming."

"Manipulation" of the cirrus layer means increasing ice-cloud density. I always heard that cirrus was a positive forcing factor for global warming, so how does the above statement make sense?

It doesn't make sense. I suspect that the statement originated in a "Chemtrail Symposium" in 2010 by the Belfort Group. It was at that conference that the "Case Orange" paper was presented. That paper is debunked on page 1 of this thread.

Full circle.

 

[Neil Pennington]

.. athough that is completely at odds with Mick's quote above from Minnis et al, Feb 2013 where net forcing in dense flight corridors was 9 times the global average.

 

[George B]

Ahh, so increased cirrus density has its greatest effect being increased albedo with no (or much less) increase in LW entrapment.

I don't know if it is its greatest effect . . . but if you are going to use cirrus clouds to mitigate warming by altering their density . . . You have only two choices . . . make them more or less dense . . . there are strategies to remove them which is by definition making them less and less dense . . . I have not seen a strategy to increase their density so it is my guess the only mechanism to make this work by increasing density would be making them dense enough to increase shortwave reflection and get a net cooling effect in the troposphere . . .

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I have not seen a strategy to increase their density so it is my guess the only mechanism to make this work by increasing density would be making them dense enough to increase shortwave reflection and get a net cooling effect in the troposphere . . .

Nick Begich says HAARP can theoreically do that. Scott Stevens says HAARP can do almost anything. You could make a giant HAARP on a tropical island, put it under the water of a lake in the crater of a volcano, and then drain the lake whenever you really want to zap something. Afterwards just fill the lake back up and hide your HAARP. Simple. I saw it already somewhere.

 

[George B]

Nick Begich says HAARP can theoreically do that. Scott Stevens says HAARP can do almost anything. You could make a giant HAARP on a tropical island, put it under the water of a lake in the crater of a volcano, and then drain the lake whenever you really want to zap something. Afterwards just fill the lake back up and hide your HAARP. Simple. I saw it already somewhere.

Had a few cocktails for dinner Jay?

 

[Classified]

There's a lot of papers on it even just in 2013:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?a...s+radiative+forcing&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

Minnis et al, Feb 2013:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50168/abstract

Radiative forcing due to linear-shaped jet contrails is calculated over the Northern Hemisphere for four seasonal months using 2006 Aqua Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer cloud and contrail property retrieval data in a radiative transfer model. The 4 month mean shortwave, longwave, and net radiative forcings normalized to 100% contrail cover are −5.7, 14.2, and 8.5 Wm−2​. Mean total net forcing over the northern half of the globe varies from 9.1 mW m−2​ during October to 12.1 mW m−2​ in January and is only representative at 01:30 and 13:30 LT in nonpolar regions. In some dense flight traffic corridors, the mean net forcing approaches 80 mW m−2​. Scaling the 4 month average of 10.6 mW m−2​ to the Southern Hemisphere air traffic yields global mean net forcing of 5.7 mW m−2​, which is smaller than most model estimates. Nighttime net forcing is 3.6 times greater than during daytime, when net forcing is greatest over low clouds. Effects from contrail cirrus clouds that evolve from linear contrails are not considered in these results.

Translation: Warming, but just looking at linear contrails.

To claim that there is a warming effect for linear contrails, but not contrail cirrus, which are larger, sounds rather ignorant.
Why do you defend contrail effects at all costs? Do you simply enjoy looking at them?

 

[Mick West]

To claim that there is a warming effect for linear contrails, but not contrail cirrus, which are larger, sounds rather ignorant.
Why do you defend contrail effects at all costs? Do you simply enjoy looking at them?

I do enjoy looking at them, but I'd be more than happy to not have them if it helps the climate.

It's not a simple single variable thing, so something being larger does not necessarily mean more warming effects.

I believe George was going to follow up on this with Dr. Minnis.

 

[George B]

You should ask Patrick.

Dr Minnis

I would like to pose a question for your consideration . . . I have been in several discussions lately where the issue of the net warming effect of persistent contrails, contrail induced cirrus clouds and cirrus cloud banks has been argued. We have kicked the issue around in regards the need to mitigate persistent contrails as a strategy to possibly slow global warming.

1) In your opinion is there sufficient evidence to support the belief that there is a (global) net warming effect caused by contrails and their kin . . . excluding the contributions of combustion products such as CO2, NOx, Soot, Sulfur associated with contrails?

Yes, I think there is sufficient evidence that they cause a warming effect.




2) If so, is there a need to seek their mitigation to reduce their potential contribution to global warming?

The jury is still out on that. The magnitude of the warming is still in debate. The impact is either slightly smaller than the aircraft CO2 impact or several times larger. I have added a few papers for your perusal on this. We will soon be presenting results at the Natl Academy of Sciences to see if they will recommend further studies to help reach a consensus on whether he need to mitigate is there.



3) If mitigation is desirable what is in your opinion the best way to accomplish mitigation?

My favored approach would be smart flying. Predict the areas and altitudes where the impacts will be likely to occur. Then reroute flights to avoid those areas.

 

[Jazzy]

Yes, I think there is sufficient evidence that they cause a warming effect.

A greater warming effect at night, and a lesser cooling effect by day.

The jury is still out on that. The magnitude of the warming is still in debate. The impact is either slightly smaller than the aircraft CO2 impact or several times larger. I have added a few papers for your perusal on this. We will soon be presenting results at the Natlonal Academy of Sciences to see if they will recommend further studies to help reach a consensus on whether the need to mitigate is there.

Other than reflection effects there are two factors, the greenhouse effect of water and CO2, the former being brief and minimal, the latter being semi-permanent.

Minnis has to go to Hansen for the numbers on that.

My favored approach would be smart flying. Predict the areas and altitudes where the impacts will be likely to occur. Then reroute flights to avoid those areas.

What have I already said?

 

[Classified]

A greater warming effect at night, and a lesser cooling effect by day.


Other than reflection effects there are two factors, the greenhouse effect of water and CO2, the former being brief and minimal, the latter being semi-permanent.

Minnis has to go to Hansen for the numbers on that.



What have I already said?

While a lesser cooling effect by day does appear to be the suggestion of most involved, the alteration of the normal convection that could have occurred, should also be of great concern. What good is a slight cooling effect during the day from contrail cirrus clouds, if they mitigate normal rain patterns at the same time?

So not only do contrails, have an overall regional warming effect, but they alter natural convection patterns. I do not understand why Mick enjoys contrails so much. It is really strange.

Also Jazzy, why do you continue to mention the warming by night and cooling by day, if the overall result is warming?
Do you think air traffic will alter its flying schedules in the future or something?

 

[Mick West]

I do not understand why Mick enjoys contrails so much. It is really strange.

Strange? It's just something I'm interested in. I'd be happy to get rid of them entirely if there was a net benefit. Plenty more things in the world to be interested in.

 

[Classified]

Dr Minnis

I would like to pose a question for your consideration . . . I have been in several discussions lately where the issue of the net warming effect of persistent contrails, contrail induced cirrus clouds and cirrus cloud banks has been argued. We have kicked the issue around in regards the need to mitigate persistent contrails as a strategy to possibly slow global warming.

1) In your opinion is there sufficient evidence to support the belief that there is a (global) net warming effect caused by contrails and their kin . . . excluding the contributions of combustion products such as CO2, NOx, Soot, Sulfur associated with contrails?

Yes, I think there is sufficient evidence that they cause a warming effect.




2) If so, is there a need to seek their mitigation to reduce their potential contribution to global warming?

The jury is still out on that. The magnitude of the warming is still in debate. The impact is either slightly smaller than the aircraft CO2 impact or several times larger. I have added a few papers for your perusal on this. We will soon be presenting results at the Natl Academy of Sciences to see if they will recommend further studies to help reach a consensus on whether he need to mitigate is there.



3) If mitigation is desirable what is in your opinion the best way to accomplish mitigation?

My favored approach would be smart flying. Predict the areas and altitudes where the impacts will be likely to occur. Then reroute flights to avoid those areas.

So Dr Minnis believes that there is sufficient evidence that contrails have a global warming effect, however the need for mitigation is uncertain.
Do you agree with Dr. Minnis, Mick?

 

[Mick West]

So Dr Minnis believes that there is sufficient evidence that contrails have a global warming effect, however the need for mitigation is uncertain.
Do you agree with Dr. Minnis, Mick?

I agree with what he says. And it seems to be consistent with the literature.

Do you agree with him?

 

[Classified]

I agree with what he says. And it seems to be consistent with the literature.

Do you agree with him?

Yes I agree also, however, you have never on this thread entertained that there was a global impact, only that it was regional. So you agree that there is a global impact now?

 

[Jazzy]

While a lesser cooling effect by day does appear to be the suggestion of most involved, the alteration of the normal convection that could have occurred, should also be of great concern. What good is a slight cooling effect during the day from contrail cirrus clouds, if they mitigate normal rain patterns at the same time?

There is generally three miles difference in altitude between cirrus and rain. The rain is normally a consequence of convection of air from five miles beneath. There is little, if any, connection.

So not only do contrails, have an overall regional warming effect, but they alter natural convection patterns. I do not understand why Mick enjoys contrails so much. It is really strange.

There is generally three miles difference in altitude between cirrus and rain. The rain is normally a consequence of convection of air from five miles beneath. There is little, if any, connection.

Most of us on the debunking side are keen on aeronautics. Sixty years ago I was drawing accurate drawings of Spitfires, and making my own flying models. Keil Kraft, I recall.

Also Jazzy, why do you continue to mention the warming by night and cooling by day, if the overall result is warming? Do you think air traffic will alter its flying schedules in the future or something?

It is not a good idea to fixate on the net effect, but to understand how the process happens.

Air traffic WILL soon do the "something", which is to avoid known regions of high humidity*. At the moment there isn't a system for gathering that information and distributing it. Regions of high humidity change all the time, of course, moving with the atmosphere.

There is a scheme to help cool the warming atmosphere by increasing marine stratocumulus by lofting evaporated seawater, using many specially-designed wind-driven vessels, sailing in the South Pacific. At night they would have to turn off, of course.

* That will be the end of the "Chemtrail Hypothesis". Except for those that claim aircraft spray INVISIBLE chemtrails. They will be like "no-planers". Or the Dodo.

 

[Jazzy]

Yes I agree also, however, you have never on this thread entertained that there was a global impact, only that it was regional. So you agree that there is a global impact now?

There is no measurable impact right at this moment. There will be by 2050, if air travel continues to expand as at present, but that may not be possible fifteen years from now.

 

[Mick West]

Yes I agree also, however, you have never on this thread entertained that there was a global impact, only that it was regional. So you agree that there is a global impact now?

I don't know what you are referring to. I agree with Minnis that there's evidence of a net global warming effect from contrails. I don't think I've said anything contrary to that.

I'm really unsure what broader point you are trying to make. Maybe you could sum it up?

 

[Classified]

I don't know what you are referring to. I agree with Minnis that there's evidence of a net global warming effect from contrails. I don't think I've said anything contrary to that.

I'm really unsure what broader point you are trying to make. Maybe you could sum it up?

Yes let me sum it up, you have said that you would agree with contrail mitigation if it had a net benefit.
It appears it would have a net benefit according to Minnis.

You also said, "I defer to Classified's reference:" and highlited the part about the global effects still being in the noise.

Originally Posted by Classified

Content from external source:

"Although most investigators favor the finding that contrail cirrus produce atmospheric warming on regional scales in the United States and Europe, the impact on global warming is still in the noise. Should aircraft activity increase as projected, the global effects
would become significant by 2050."




http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JAM2325.1



Yet now, you do agree that there is a global net warming effect.

You continue to change your stance and then you question me with what point Im trying to make.

My point is that contrails are contributing to global warming, and can alter weather patterns, as you have called it, "slight weather modification". You have also stated that you do enjoy looking at contrails, which have a net warming effect on the earth.

So basically you enjoy global warming, but wouldn't be opposed to mitigating it. Is that correct?

 

[Mick West]

Yes let me sum it up, you have said that you would agree with contrail mitigation if it had a net benefit.
It appears it would have a net benefit according to Minnis.

You also said, "I defer to Classified's reference:" and highlited the part about the global effects still being in the noise.

Originally Posted by Classified

Content from external source:

"Although most investigators favor the finding that contrail cirrus produce atmospheric warming on regional scales in the United States and Europe, the impact on global warming is still in the noise. Should aircraft activity increase as projected, the global effects
would become significant by 2050."




http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JAM2325.1



Yet now, you do agree that there is a global net warming effect.

You continue to change your stance and then you question me with what point Im trying to make.

My point is that contrails are contributing to global warming, and can alter weather patterns, as you have called it, "slight weather modification". You have also stated that you do enjoy looking at contrails, which have a net warming effect on the earth.

So basically you enjoy global warming, but wouldn't be opposed to mitigating it. Is that correct?

I'm not changing my stance at all.

I agree with what Minnis said. "there is sufficient evidence that they cause a warming effect."

I also agree that "the impact on global warming is still in the noise."

The apparent conflict is that the evidence that they cause global warming comes mostly from models. The "noise" is in actual measurements.

I strongly disagree with "you enjoy global warming", that's nonsensical, borderline trolling. Explain it, or retract it.

I agree with " wouldn't be opposed to mitigating it", if by "it" you mean contrails.

 

[Jazzy]

]::[

 

[Classified]

I'm not changing my stance at all.

I agree with what Minnis said. "there is sufficient evidence that they cause a warming effect."

I also agree that "the impact on global warming is still in the noise."

The apparent conflict is that the evidence that they cause global warming comes mostly from models. The "noise" is in actual measurements.

I strongly disagree with "you enjoy global warming", that's nonsensical, borderline trolling. Explain it, or retract it.

I agree with " wouldn't be opposed to mitigating it", if by "it" you mean contrails.

Why would I explain or retract a simple question? Should I form it in a question so you don't become offended?

Do you enjoy global warming and/or contrail cirrus clouds?

 

[Cairenn]

What a dumb question. It is meaningless.

 

[lotek]

Do you enjoy global warming and/or contrail cirrus clouds?

That is both a loaded question fallacy, and a red herring fallacy. good job.

 

[Classified]

What a dumb question. It is meaningless.

Why cant I have a conversation with Mick without his backup debunkers jumping in with misinformation?
After all if Mick is concerned only with truth and accuracy then why cant I ask a simple question like, do you enjoy global warming?
Clearly he likes contrails if he created a website called contrailscience.com.

This truly is a one way street, Ive found very quickly on this site. If I don't agree with what Mick says I'm called a troll, or threatened to be banned. Amazing.

 

[lotek]

this is a public forum guy.... we are not hounds, we go where we want.

It was not a simple question. you equated global warming, to contrails, to cirus clouds, to climate modification, all in one multi faced loaded baked potato of a question to which any answer would give you a proper angle.

by this point you are simply mincing semantics anyway.

 

[MikeC]

It's a public site - anyone can read and most can post. If you want to have a private conversation then these pages are not the place to have it.

It's a "one way" conversation mainly because you cannot back up your assertions and others can. Disagreeing with mick doesn't get you called a troll - posting gish gallops, refusing to acknowledge actual evidence, accusing people of changing their stance - these are the sort of tactics that get you labelled a troll.

And being impolite or obnoxious is what gets you threatened with a ban - even if you agree with him - Jazzy how many times have you been banned??

Sorry you don't like it here - but this is not a CT site where you can claim anything you like and get pats on the back simply for beign outrageous - here you have to back up your assertions or get called on them.

Ysterday I went to the funeral of the father of a friend of mine - the old man had been a wood scientist, and one of his children related that he was an argumentative old cuss. But then noted that that is how science works - ideas get challenged and debated - an argument in the classic sense of sets of premises that can be examined and the logic of the conclusions challenged.

so yes science is, by definition, argumentative - and by doing so it moves our ideas and understanding forward.

 

[someGuy]

Why cant I have a conversation with Mick without his backup debunkers jumping in with misinformation?
After all if Mick is concerned only with truth and accuracy then why cant I ask a simple question like, do you enjoy global warming?
Clearly he likes contrails if he created a website called contrailscience.com.

This truly is a one way street, Ive found very quickly on this site. If I don't agree with what Mick says I'm called a troll, or threatened to be banned. Amazing.

Yeah, but you did use a loaded question fallacy, and a red herring fallacy...
It's not really relevant to know if Mick enjoys global warming or not, and since a global warming would probably ruin a significant part of this planet, it's like asking "Do you like disasters ?"

...

Now I'm not against you, there's nothing personal, just reading

 

[Cairenn]

I will answer you if I decide to. You can't stop me. Mick is more forgiving than I would be.

 

[Classified]

I am asking these questions, because Mick defends contrails and their effects on the atmosphere at any given chance. If you think my questions are loaded or red herrings, then clearly I am causing much more thought than was intended.

I want to know why Mick has acknowledged a warming effect, and is not opposed to contrail mitigation, yet defends their global effects because the precise measurements are not known.

If that question makes me a troll then so be it.