Debunked: Ship Trails Over the Pacific are Geoengineering "Chemtrails"

[Jay Reynolds]

The purpose of this thread is discuss recent false claims by Michael. J. Murphy and Mauro Oliviera's geoengineeringwatch.org that this satellite photo respresents
a "Massive Chemical Spraying of the North Pacific".



This claim, repeated at both Michael J. Murphy's Facebook page and at geoengineeringwatch.org,
says (major claims underlined):

Think they have "cut back" on the spraying? Think again.

Some are wondering why there appears to be a let up in the daily spray assaults that we on the West coast are so used to. Don't worry, they are still hard at it. This recent satellite photo makes clear what cannot be seen overhead on land.

Recently, with some exceptions, the aerosol operations seem to be experimenting with other methods of dispersing their toxic brew. If one examines the daily satellite images of the Northern Pacific, interesting things can be observed.

The marine layer, which usually builds at night, now seems largely to dissipate.

In the morning hours, when the "marine layer" (low level cloud formations which form over large bodies of water) generally begins to burn off, it now completely fills in the entire sky over the Northern Pacific within a very short time a few hours after sun up.

This has become the norm now and it generally stays covered till the night time hours when it again clears.

This is backwards from natures norm.

This constant marine layer "enhancement" is the exact stated goal of geoengineers in countless studies and dialogs.The clearly visible trails just off the US west coast are very evident in the photo below.

Does this change of methods make the air any less toxic for those of us along the West coast? The constant silvery white hazy skies we now see would say otherwise. Just because the dumping is not occurring right overhead does not mean we are being spared from the usual assault. All that spraying "up wind" is still raining down on us all. The toxic particulate clouds are still shredding the upper layers of the atmosphere, like the ozone. The constant spraying of the entire Northern Pacific is without doubt a major factor (if not the major factor) in the all time record drought currently gripping most of the US. This correlation also applies to the rest of the planet, which is also being sprayed, and is also in record drought. An atmosphere saturated in particulates diminishes rain. Period. The science is very clear on this fact for any that take the time to investigate.
Perhaps out of sight is out of mind, but the full scale assault on the planet and all life continues. With each and every breath, we are all breathing what they are spraying

The image, from NASA's Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) recorded the image on June 12, 2012 at 0400 (4am) Coordinated Universal Time, as seen by the time stamp at the bottom. The local time in California, converted from Universal time, was actually June 11, 2012 at 9pm.

Right off the bat, the time stamp debunks the first claim being made, which is:

The marine layer, which usually builds at night, now seems largely to dissipate. .

To the contrary, the image, taken at 9:00 at night, shows a typical shallow marine cloud layer which has built up off the California coastline, with imbedded curved clouds following the prevailing winds between 120 and 130 degrees west.

The marine layer clouds have not "dissipated" as claimed, they have clearly formed there at 9 pm during the night, just as they should be if conditions are right!

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Question: What Is The Marine Boundary Layer?

Answer: From the Scripps Insitute of Oceanography:
Marine Layer Clouds

Marine Layer clouds that impact California are low altitude stratus clouds that form over the adjacent ocean waters. Once formed, they may be advected by the wind over land areas. Stratus type clouds are sheet like clouds with close to horizontally uniform base and top. They generally extend for large distances horizontally (10-100s of kms), but are relatively shallow in depth usually (usually 500-2000 meters).
Mixing Air and the Lifting Condensation Level

The formation of these clouds usually begins when wind over the water surface mixes moist surface air upwards. As this air moves up, it expands and cools. The cooling causes the relative humidity to increase and once the relative humidity reaches 100%, condensation of water vapor into liquid water drops takes place and clouds begin form. The depth through which the air mixes is referred to as the mixed layer.

The altitude (or height) that surface air must rise for condensation to start is called the Lifting Condensation Level or LCL for short. So if air near the surface is allowed to mix upwards to the LCL a cloud will form. Under certain conditions air does not mix high enough for clouds to form, that is the top of the mixed layer is beneath the LCL. While no clouds formed, the mixing has increased the relative humidity near the top of the mixed layer and subsequent cooling of this air could increase the relative humidity to 100% and initiate cloud formation.

The height of the LCL depends on several variables including the water temperature and the temperature and moisture content of the air above the water.

The Pacific High and Sinking Air

The Pacific High is a large region of high pressure that is usually present over Southern California and the adjacent ocean. Within the Pacific High air is sinking towards the surface, often at of rates more than 1 km per day. The sinking causes the air to compress and warm. So, over the ocean off of Southern California there are two competing processes:
- Mixing of surface air ==> leads to rising air that cools
- the Pacific High ==> leads to sinking air that warms

Often, the net result of these two processes is an Inversion Layer.

The Inversion Layer



Usually, temperature decreases as one moves upward in the atmosphere. However, in an inversion layer the temperature increases with height and forms a very stable layer that acts as lid keeping the air beneath from penetrating higher into the atmosphere. As seen in the figure above, the inversion base limits the vertical extent of air mixing near the surface. This type of inversion is often called a subsidence inversion or a marine air inversion.

The strength of the inversion is often measured by the temperature difference between the top and base of the inversion layer, with a larger temperature difference indicating a stronger inversion. Stronger (weaker) than normal high pressure is usually associated with a stronger (weaker) than normal inversion layer. Stronger than normal inversion layers will often result in more marine layer cloud formation and longer times for the clouds to dissipate. The strength of the inversion can also be modulated by climate features such as El Nino and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

The development of the inversion layer is enhanced by the relatively cool ocean water off of California which helps increase the contrast between the cold air below the inversion layer and the warm air above the inversion layer. The California current system flows from Alaska southward to California bringing relatively cool water from the polar regions. Upwelling of cold deeper water along the coast of California also helps to keep the surface waters cool. Colder than normal ocean water often lead to stronger than normal inversions that can increase the amount and duration of marine layer clouds.

Why Marine Layer Clouds Do Not Form over all Large Bodies of Water

For marine layer clouds to form a strong inversion layer must be present. One of the main ingredients for an inversion layer is the sinking air found within high pressure systems. Large semi-permanent high pressure systems such as the Pacific High are only found at certain locations throughout the world which limits the formation of persistent inversion layers to these regions.
Another factor helping inversion layers form is relatively cold water temperatures. The cold water cools the air beneath the inversion layer that helps provide the strong contrast with the warmer air above the inversion layer.

How Do Marine Layer Clouds Dissipate?

Marine layer clouds often reach their maximum extent around sunrise as this is when the air near the surface usually reaches a minimum temperature. The colder surface temperatures enhance the inversion layer and also make it more likely the air beneath the inversion base is saturated with a relative humidity of 100%.

As the day progresses, sunlight that penetrates through the clouds will warm the surface and the air above. The warming is greatest over land areas as land heats up much faster than water. As the air warms it is mixed upwards and will begin to mix into the clouds. This warming of the cloudy air decreases the relative humidity below the 100% level and the cloud begins to evaporate. Strong winds above the clouds can mix in drier air also leading to more evaporation. A thicker marine layer will dissipate slower as it will take more time for enough warm and/or drier air to mix in and evaporate all the cloud.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Question: What Are The Line Shaped Clouds Seen in the Marine Layer?

Answer: They are Called "Ship Tracks"

Ship tracks are clouds that form around the exhaust released by ships into the still ocean air. Water molecules collect around the tiny particles (aerosols) from exhaust to form a cloud seed. More and more water accumulates on the seed until a visible cloud is formed. In the case of ship tracks, the cloud seeds are stretched over a long narrow path where the wind has blown the ship's exhaust, so the resulting clouds resemble long strings over the ocean. [1]



Observations of ship tracks are nothing new, they were first described in the 1960's when observed in satellite images and by military pilots:





The identity and formation characteristics of ship tracks are therefore nothing new, and predate all observations of purported "chemtrails" by decades. Ship tracks were, in fact, observed by chemtrail believers a decade ago, and the site owner did a good job of explaining why they are not contrails from airplanes:

Ship Trails, often seen in the Pacific, are sometimes thought of as Chemtrails being produced by planes. However this doesn't seem to be plausable when the creation of these trails are observed and measured over a time period.

Examine the animated slides shown in the link below.
Several of these trails, commonly referred to as Ship Trails, can be seen being formed:

ANIMATED SHIP TRAIL LOOP (Java Applet)

How fast are these "ships" really moving?

I wanted to know so here is what I did.

I counted the number of hours in the sequence. From 10/21 at 16:45 to 10/22 at 00:30 is almost 8 hours. I'll round to 8 hours.

Then I set the loop on the first frame and picked a "ship". I made a little mark on the monitor. Then ran the loop to the last frame and made a second mark. Then I measured the distance on a piece of paper.

I located a pair of landmarks on the coast of an equal length to the distance the "ship" went, then using Yahoo maps, I calculated the actual distance traveled. The result was 120 miles.

120 miles divided by 8 hours = 15 MPH


This simple research was also conducted for several different ships by Mark Sky. He calculated slightly higher but similar magnitude values for the ships he measured.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Sky:
I took the four fastest ships and calculated
there speeds as follows:
Vancover island is about 320 miles long and is 3.5 inches long on my screen, or about 90 miles per screen inch.
I timed one ship at 90 miles in 2.5 hours = 36 MPH, two ships at 90 miles in 3.75 hour or 24 MPH and one ship at 90 miles in 3 hours or 30 MPH, so they are way too slow to be planes. Interesting!
What this means is that the speed of the craft producing these trails are too slow to be aircraft.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Now, back to the false claims of Michael J. Murphy-

In the morning hours, when the "marine layer" (low level cloud formations which form over large bodies of water) generally begins to burn off, it now completely fills in the entire sky over the Northern Pacific within a very short time a few hours after sun up.

This has become the norm now and it generally stays covered till the night time hours when it again clears.

This is backwards from natures norm.

We have already shown what is known to be normal about "marine layer" clouds.
We have shown that even in his own image, marine layer clouds still form at night, as they have long been known to do.

But what about his claim that they don't burn off during the morning hours and "fill the entire sky"?

Murphy doesn't show us any follow-up images to back up his claim, as usual, so here are some images I collected, since he did not:

1. GOES image from June 14, 2012 at 0530 UTC which is 10:30 pm on June 13, 2012, Pacific Time (you can see the city lights in this image,
which was taken the day after Murphy's photo):



The image shows the nightly formation of an ordinary marine boundary layer, just like it did the night of Murphy's photo, and again debunks his claim that such a layer does not form.


In the this image, I show one ship track from the top image taken at 10:30 pm Pacific time 6/13/12:

View attachment 589

The next image, taken at 3:15 am the next morning 6/14/12, 4 hours 45 minutes later, shows that the ship has traveled about 100 miles, or 21 miles/hour.
This is far too slow to have been made by an airplane!

View attachment 590

In the next post, Mick has thankfully provided an animated loop showing the 4:45 sequence of the ship's progress making the track.

 

[Mick West]

 

[Jay Reynolds]

But what about Michael J. Murphy's false claim that:

In the morning hours, when the "marine layer" (low level cloud formations which form over large bodies of water) generally begins to burn off, it now completely fills in the entire sky over the Northern Pacific within a very short time a few hours after sun up.

The animation above ends at 3:30 am Pacific time, what does the satellite show us as dawn approaches, does the marine layer burn off, or does it "fill(s) in the entire sky over the Northern Pacific" as claimed?

Image at 7:15 am Pacific Time on 6/14/12, just after sun up, marine layer clouds starting to burn off:



Image at 12:00 noon Pacific Time on 6/14/12, marine layer clouds now completely burned off. You can see a small remnant of the ship track.

 

[Mick West]

I converted the full 28 days of images into a movie, it's quite fascinating. Some of the ship trails last for 3-4 days. You also get an amazing sense of the different layers of clouds moving at different speeds (usually the higher clouds move fastest).

I've embedded the video below, but it's best to watch it on YouTube in 720p, full screen.
​

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Conclusions

1. The claims by Michael J. Murphy and Mauro Oliviera have been proven false by the satellite record.
- The clouds claimed to be "massive chemical spraying" have been shown to be ordinary ship tracks known since the 1960's
-The claim that marine boundary layer clouds do not form at night has been shown to be false
-The claim that the marine boundary layer does not burn off after sun up is false

2. The promoters of the chemtrails hoax have had to deal with an annual lull in persistent contrail coverage during the summer months. Their followers have begun to notice this annual variability in contrail persistence which is due to higher temperatures for contrail formation and less available moisture. This particular phenomenon has been written about in scientific papers and is shown here:

Murphy & Co. feel that if they cannot maintain their followers' belief at a strong enough state, they may begin to wonder about his claim that contrail are geoengineering meant to cool the planet, for "Why would less contrails be seen during summertime when temperatures are hotter", they might say? They might start to realize that temperature is the main detrminant of ordinary contrail formation!

3. Murphy and the others are also trying to make up lost ground.

He has been faced with a continuing income deficit to fund his trips to Hawaii, where his campaign to get a law passed against "chemtrails" failed when Dr. Lorrin Pang declared he could find no correlation between aluminum levels and chemtrail reports, and his data showed very low levels of aluminum, far lower than those recorded forty years ago.

He has also had little success raising money for ordinary living expenses. He has no real job other than selling CD's, and his co-producer G. Edward Griffin declined to work with him on his current movie after Murphy did not participate in who was fired when his employer discovered he had lied on his resume, falsely claiming to have a degree in meteorology, and was fired again when he claimed the Japanese mafia caused hurricane Katrina.

I hope that some day that Murphy's followers will begin to see that he isn't at all concerned about what sort of information he puts out, no matter how false. He needs to understand that there is a limit to how many people can be fooled, and that when they begin to find out his deceptions, there will be a price to pay.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

One last thought. Murphy and geoengineeringwatch say that these ship tracks are for geoengineering to cool the planet.

That is why they falsely claimed that the marine boundary layer does not burn off during daylight hours, because to cool the planet you would have to block sunlight
during the daytime. Since the ship tracks shown don't happen during the day, but rather at night, no cooling effect would take place.

Likewise, since the marine boundary layer clouds DO burn off before noon, as they aways have, they could not be accomplishing any cooling either.

Either way, once this message gets out, Murphy &Co. will become quite hot, and his followers really should too.....

Very cool video, Mick!

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I have informed by e mail Michael J. Murphy, Mauro Oliviera, G. Edward Griffin, Dane Wigington, and Francis Mangels of this thread. I hope they will be willing to discuss the matter.

 

[Mick West]

I've added a close-up video, specifically so you observe the marine layer building up at night, and burning off during the day. Los Angeles (where I and Michael J. Murphy both live) is the area that shows up as yellow on the coast.

​

 

[Mick West]

And here's a nice animated GIF showing the same thing for a 24 hour period. 6/14/2012 to 6/15/2012

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I have informed by e mail Michael J. Murphy, Mauro Oliviera, G. Edward Griffin, Dane Wigington, and Francis Mangels of this thread. I hope they will be willing to discuss the matter.

Despite being fully informed of the information in this thread, Michael J. Murphy put up yet another photo of ship tracks on his Faceook page here:
https://www.facebook.com/WhatintheW...0348588.113446.461672990517689&type=1&theater

Murphy included no information about the image, and claimed that the picture shows "Chemtrails All Over The Paciifc Ocean"

His followers did not understand what the photo was showing, they asked some questions, with no response from Murphy:



Murphy cannot answer their questions, because doing so would open a Pandora's Box of questions which should be answered, but which would begin to reveal Michael J.Murphy's deception. Its really worse, though, when you realize that all the individuals I mention above who were emailed the information in this thread, all are able to answer, all of them understand the deception, yet none of them have the guts to stand up for what is true and correct.

They are all willingly engaging in a cover up, and are actually 'setting up' those who will undoubtedly pass this along as if it had the meanng which is offered up by Murphy. When they do, and the photo is shown for what it really is, they need to ask themselves, "Why did I fall for this?, Why did Murphy set me up by not telling me what this photo really represents?"

 

[bobrynd]

Jay and Mick, THANK YOU! Reasonable minds prevail. I am a new member to metabunk.org and these forums. It is a pleasure to see some science and the debunking of the hysteria over on M Murphys con page. It is a con, he's just milking $19.95 from these folks ( I won't call them idiots). I'm no scientist, but have aviation and meteorology schooling and it is amazing what is passed of as fact that is really just normal meteological occurance.

 

[Unregistered]

The purpose of this thread is discuss recent false claims by Michael. J. Murphy and Mauro Oliviera's geoengineeringwatch.org that this satellite photo respresents
a "Massive Chemical Spraying of the North Pacific".

View attachment 580

This claim, repeated at both Michael J. Murphy's Facebook page and at geoengineeringwatch.org,
says (major claims underlined):



The image, from NASA's Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) recorded the image on June 12, 2012 at 0400 (4am) Coordinated Universal Time, as seen by the time stamp at the bottom. The local time in California, converted from Universal time, was actually June 11, 2012 at 9pm.

Right off the bat, the time stamp debunks the first claim being made, which is:



To the contrary, the image, taken at 9:00 at night, shows a typical shallow marine cloud layer which has built up off the California coastline, with imbedded curved clouds following the prevailing winds between 120 and 130 degrees west.

The marine layer clouds have not "dissipated" as claimed, they have clearly formed there at 9 pm during the night, just as they should be if conditions are right!

FYI define "typical shallow marine cloud layer" while looking at this satellite image!? It most definitely is not a typical marine layer. We live here on the NorCal coast and see for ourselves the excessive illegal aerosol spraying going on week after week and now day after day, for the last decade increasingly blotting out our blue skies. Now, the secret strategy is to fake "fog" in the entire coast the whole day with nightly over the ocean spraying that disrupts the normal marine layer burn off that should be occurring every mid morning per normal weather patterns. Now, the fake marine layer lasts all day into night and night spraying is also visible with criss cross patterns of trails spreading in the night sky over the coastside. If your contention is the reference to the time of day in the image is wrong then you're missing the point and your weak point is wrong. The image supports his article showing spraying patterns identifiable if you have have done any chemtrail, (illegal aerosol spraying research) objectively, or have basic cloud formation and meteorological knowledge, you can easily recognize the spraying visually in the skies over your head, in photographs taken from the ground looking up, and satellite imagery. A basic knowledge of simple jet fuel condensation (see "contrail" definition) characteristics will dispel the idiocy of those who like Ostrich's prefer to put their head in the sand and only further the propaganda and the catastrophe of this nefarious project on all people and the environment.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

FYI define "typical shallow marine cloud layer" while looking at this satellite image!? It most definitely is not a typical marine layer.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the marine layer is there at night, which is why the ship trails are visible. T

Now, the secret strategy is to fake "fog" in the entire coast the whole day with nightly over the ocean spraying that disrupts the normal marine layer burn off that should be occurring every mid morning per normal weather patterns. Now, the fake marine layer lasts all day into night and night spraying is also visible with criss cross patterns of trails spreading in the night sky over the coastside.

In the visible satellite images, when day dawns and the marine layer burns off, you can clearly see the lue f the ocean. If the marine layer didn't burn off, as you claim, how could we see te blue of the sea?
It's right there, unregistered, the blue sea is clearly visible, day after day. Certainly you can see this as well as anyone else can. Don't try to say it doesn't, because its right there making yor claim seem ridiculous. Don't blame me, the photos show the truth.

If your contention is the reference to the time of day in the image is wrong then you're missing the point and your weak point is wrong. The image supports his article showing spraying patterns identifiable if you have have done any chemtrail, (illegal aerosol spraying research) objectively, or have basic cloud formation and meteorological knowledge.

Unregistered, the lines in the marine boundary layer are at low altitudes and are formed at approximately 20 miles per hour. Did you know that airplanes don't fly that slow, but ships do sail that speed?

I'm very sorry that you seem unable to understand this very clear and complete presentation. Probably this is because someone has inculcated you so deeply into this false chemtrails belief that you are beyond help at this time.
Maybe, it might be possible for time to repair the damage done. Try getting back to me in ten years, if you still hold this belief, then I can say you will never recover. If not, you will have already have given up on this hoax. Good Luck!

 

[Unregistered]

sites like weathermodification.com have info on geoengineering.. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two & two together

 

[Mick West]

sites like weathermodification.com have info on geoengineering.. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two & two together

No they don't, they have info on weather modification, cloud seeding. It's been going on perfectly openly since the 1950s.

Geoengineering is climate modification, not weather modification. weather modification just targets individual clouds, makes them rain a bit more. Geoengineering alters the entire planet.

 

[scombrid]

Recent Nasa page on ship tracks. There's a link to a cool animation on youtube showing the tracks at the surface rotation clockwise under a big high pressure.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80203

 

[Robinson]

I converted the full 28 days of images into a movie, it's quite fascinating.

Yes it is. This topic came up on a search for images of ship trails (ship tracks) and I wanted to know where you found those sat images, which led to my signing up, and this post. (I was going to do a thanks but I don't see it)

First post here. (I also looked for an intro thread and could not find it)

Don't kill me for posting in an "old" topic!

 

[Mick West]

Yes it is. This topic came up on a search for images of ship trails (ship tracks) and I wanted to know where you found those sat images, which led to my signing up, and this post. (I was going to do a thanks but I don't see it)

You know, I can't actually remember how I got those images.

Something like this I assume:
http://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/GOES/goeswestpacus.html

Maybe it was from FTP. It was nearly a year ago, so they might have changed their systems around

 

[Mick West]

There's this. But it looks like they have stopped access to the raw data. Probably too much bandwidth:

http://goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/text/goes.fulldisk.html

I think there are various mirrors around, but all the info online is a bit crufty.

 

[Robinson]

Something I found interesting back in the nineties, when I first heard of "chemtrails", and realized some people considered the pollution from aircraft deliberate, and sinister. There doesn't have to be bad intent for human activities to produce an evil effect.

...this satellite photo represents
a "Massive Chemical Spraying of the North Pacific".

View attachment 580

It's not intentional, but in essence ship trails, as well as aircraft exhaust, results in a "Massive Chemical Spraying of the North Pacific". In actuality the entire planet is subjected to massive chemical spraying every day. If you believe massive amounts of CO2 and water vapor to be capable of causing climate change, which certainly a lot of people do, then we are seeing a visible example of how it is happening. The effects on clouds, and the changes in the stratosphere, along with the changes in CO2 and water vapor levels, actually qualify as a "Massive Chemical Spraying of the entire Planet", not just the North Pacific.

Rather than being some sinister plan to do something, it's far more likely it is just good old human nature and commerce screwing up the climate system.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

In actuality the entire planet is subjected to massive chemical spraying every day.

The equation of pollution with mythical "chemtrails" conspiration is a conflation for the inflation of fear.

 

[Robinson]

The equation of pollution with mythical "chemtrails" conspiration is a conflation for the inflation of fear.

Or it's a redirect so that people afraid of the damage from pollution is equated with "crazy" ideas and conspiracy theory. If it was by design it's brilliant. Changes to the world's climate due to aircraft and ship pollution is a real thing, and possibly very dangerous as well. (for some reason, the actual changes from aircraft contrails and ship trails is a "scientific mystery")

By directing all attention to "crazy ideas", there is little to no discussion of the real problem. To hear the usual dismissal of contrails as "it's just water vapor" is to avoid all discussion of what all that CO2 and water vapor injected into the upper atmosphere is doing. Same for ship trials. The decline in fog along California (33% best estimate) might be due to human activities, especially air and ship traffic.

But I don't see any discussions about that. It's all about the obvious crazy stuff.

 

[solrey]

Or it's a redirect so that people afraid of the damage from pollution is equated with "crazy" ideas and conspiracy theory. If it was by design it's brilliant. Changes to the world's climate due to aircraft and ship pollution is a real thing, and possibly very dangerous as well. (for some reason, the actual changes from aircraft contrails and ship trails is a "scientific mystery")

By directing all attention to "crazy ideas", there is little to no discussion of the real problem. To hear the usual dismissal of contrails as "it's just water vapor" is to avoid all discussion of what all that CO2 and water vapor injected into the upper atmosphere is doing. Same for ship trials. The decline in fog along California (33% best estimate) might be due to human activities, especially air and ship traffic.

But I don't see any discussions about that. It's all about the obvious crazy stuff.

Have you considered that you're only acknowledging the crazy stuff and not paying attention to real science, or not knowing where to look? Numerous research papers have been published in scientific journals, with some garnering mainstream media attention, regarding contrails, and even ship trails, effects on climate.

The historical variation in dense fog along the coast of California is closely correlated to sea surface temperature fluctuations associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). While human factors might contribute on a localized level, in general the climate of the west coast is coupled to the PDO.

http://losangelesams.weebly.com/where-did-all-the-fog-go.html

A paper that explores decreasing particulates and increasing Urban Heat Island as contributing factors on the local scale, in addition to the PDO.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PApGe.169.1157L

 

[Robinson]

Have you considered that you're only acknowledging the crazy stuff and not paying attention to real science, or not knowing where to look?

I was talking about this forum. I don't see anything debunking the myth that contrails and ship tracks are harmless.

 

[Mick West]

I was talking about this forum. I don't see anything debunking the myth that contrails and ship tracks are harmless.

What myth is that then? Who said they were "harmless". What exactly did they say?

It sounds like you are conflating pollution (emission that are always emitted when a plane or ship runs its engines) with contrails and ship tracks (man-made clouds that sometimes results from water and/or particulates in the emissions, depending on the weather)

 

[Jay Reynolds]

What myth is that then? Who said they were "harmless". What exactly did they say?

It sounds like you are conflating pollution (emission that are always emitted when a plane or ship runs its engines) with contrails and ship tracks (man-made clouds that sometimes results from water and/or particulates in the emissions, depending on the weather)

As the idea of "chemtrails" diminishes in some people, they seek a "fall-back" position. The change usually heads closer towards a more acceptable and sustainable position regarding:

1. aesthetic concerns
2. changes in cloud cover,
or
3. simply the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels.

1. The aesthetic concerns are simply that, an opposition against a visual sighting of water vapor which is formed by aircraft but doesn't appreciably change the level of atmospheric water on even a regional basis. Furthermore, the same water vapor is being emitted even when the planes are in flight and no visual contrails are seen.

2. The changes in cloud cover fall-back boils down to some real unknowns, with some studies showing this to be significant, especially on a regional basis, and divided conclusions among studies for whether the cloud cover has a cooling or warming effect.

3. As in the case of aesthetic concerns, the pollution produced by aircraft when they make contrails is no different from the pollution produced when they don't. In actuality, the same plane uses far more power and thus produces more pollution during take off and climbing, but less pollution as cruise altitudes conducive to contrail formation are reached. So, if pollution is the prime concern the part of flight making water vapor contrails is the least polluting.

 

[GregMc]

By directing all attention to "crazy ideas", there is little to no discussion of the real problem. To hear the usual dismissal of contrails as "it's just water vapor" is to avoid all discussion of what all that CO2 and water vapor injected into the upper atmosphere is doing. Same for ship trials.

Robinson, creating hysteria about condensation trails probably does distract attention away from concerns about CO2. We are highlighting here that concerns are being misplaced and it is more logically the chemtrail believing community that is doing harm to awareness of serious issues, not us.
We are trying to get people to understand the atmosphere more accurately.
CO2 is not visible in gas form so having people that only get concerned about pollution when they think they can see it is certainly not helping the issue. Yes, scientists study the possible influences on climate and weather from contrails. That has been discussed here many times. Scientists have been discussing it for a long time : books.google.com/books?id=GSoDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA74&dq=popular+science+contrail&hl=en&ei=vK9kTZWHOIOSuAPisvWrBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
But The vast majority of concern expressed on the internet about aircraft has nothing to do with the effect of water ice crystals and contrail cirrus and invisible water vapor on climate. It suggests that the trails are not those things at all and that is the focus of most of the debunking here. There's nothing to debunk if people discuss the effects of contrails and contrail cirrus unless they make unsupportable claims about it..

What we have referred to here many times is the fact that planes , cars and ships make the same amount of pollution when they operate regardless if they leave a trail or not. Aircraft make the most amount of pollution on takeoff and climb when their engines are consuming the greatest amount of fuel and they are at their least fuel efficient. No chemtrail activists are boycotting airports complaining about that large amount of invisible pollution at low altitude. They only complain when aircraft start producing LESS pollution and start operating far more efficiently in cruise. They are not concerned when the planes are flying in dry warm conditions, but are concerned when the planes fly in cold humid conditions. In other words their concern is a result of them not understanding physics and the real reasons phenomena look the way they do.
They only seem to be concerned about things that they SEE.

Check out this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddcvtmpQ9P0
Everything looks normal ... can't see anything strange.

Now check out this video of the exact same town.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emF1mdIsP9E

Suddenly all the cars are emitting huge plumes of white "smoke" so dense it's hard to see the cars in front!
Shocking unforgivable pollution that we all must protest about and the cars should be taken off the road and inspected for faults?
If the last comments seem ridiculous then that should be considered regarding aircraft.
The cars are doing nothing different at all compared to the first vid.
The only difference is that it is COLDER.
When planes fly higher it gets colder .
Fundamentally chemtrail fear is a result of folks simply not understanding what happens naturally when engines operate in very cold humid conditions at altitude.

They are reacting to a condensation phenomenon they are unfamiliar with and wrongly assuming it is an extreme form of pollution.

If people have a deeper understanding of the atmosphere they can stop wasting their efforts and concern due to their lack of comprehension of condensation and start applying effort to genuine issues of pollution. Chemtrail hysteria is a huge time waste for all of us. It's a distraction from other genuine issues. But if some of us don't make an effort to point that out then an even greater number of people would probably be consumed in pointless immersion in chemtrail hysteria.

 

[HappyMonday]

Or it's a redirect so that people afraid of the damage from pollution is equated with "crazy" ideas and conspiracy theory. If it was by design it's brilliant. Changes to the world's climate due to aircraft and ship pollution is a real thing, and possibly very dangerous as well. (for some reason, the actual changes from aircraft contrails and ship trails is a "scientific mystery")

You should read this thread - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1480-Aviation-fuel-additives

Jim works the other way (using the chemtrails keyword to push people to what he's learned about fuel pollution, amongst other things), but he is trying to get at any 'mysteries' in the field.

 

[Robinson]

What myth is that then? Who said they were "harmless". What exactly did they say?

The IPCC and the consensus (the one we hear of in regards to climate change) say contrails (not the CO2 and water vapor, the actual clouds formed) are harmless, in regards to changes in weather, climate and effects on agriculture. As in, there is zero consensus discussion about doing anything to stop them. Same for ship tracks. I'm not going to go and find "exact" quotes. The dissenting opinions are that the effect on climate (and weather) is large and responsible for large changes.

It sounds like you are conflating pollution (emission that are always emitted when a plane or ship runs its engines) with contrails and ship tracks (man-made clouds that sometimes results from water and/or particulates in the emissions, depending on the weather)

No, the pollution that is always coming out is a related issue, and certainly not ignored. CO2 from ships and planes is estimated to be responsible for something like 25% of observed warming at present. Or 20%, I didn't look it up before posting.

There are two different aspects (at least). Water vapor and CO2 added to the upper atmosphere, and the lower stratosphere over the poles, that is one thing. The visible clouds that persist, that is quite another.

 

[Mick West]

The IPCC and the consensus (the one we hear of in regards to climate change) say contrails (not the CO2 and water vapor, the actual clouds formed) are harmless, in regards to changes in weather, climate and effects on agriculture.

No they don't. The consensus is that they probably produce a net warming effect, but we don't really know how much, and it's quite complicated. There's lots of research going on into their effect on climate.

IPCC:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-3.html

Persistent linear contrails from global aviation contribute a small radiative forcing of +0.01 [+0.003 to +0.03] W m–2, with a low level of scientific understanding. This best estimate is smaller than the estimate in the TAR. This difference results from new observations of contrail cover and reduced estimates of contrail optical depth. No best estimates are available for the net forcing from spreading contrails. Their effects on cirrus cloudiness and the global effect of aviation aerosol on background cloudiness remain unknown.

17,000 references of Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=contrails+climate

 

[Robinson]

"Their effects on cirrus cloudiness and the global effect of aviation aerosol on background cloudiness remain unknown."

There is the myth.

 

[Mick West]

No, the pollution that is always coming out is a related issue, and certainly not ignored. CO2 from ships and planes is estimated to be responsible for something like 25% of observed warming at present. Or 20%, I didn't look it up before posting.

Ships and planes and cars and trucks and trains, you mean. Transportation accounts for around a quarter of US CO2 emissions. non-road (ships and planes) is a small fraction of that.

http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html

 

[Mick West]

"Their effects on cirrus cloudiness and the global effect of aviation aerosol on background cloudiness remain unknown."

There is the myth.

Explain why that is a myth.

As far as I know that's the current state of the science. Why do you think there's so much research going on into it.

 

[solrey]

Consensus in science? That is definitely a myth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719747/

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Indeed...

 

[Pete]

No, the pollution that is always coming out is a related issue, and certainly not ignored. CO2 from ships and planes is estimated to be responsible for something like 25% of observed warming at present. Or 20%, I didn't look it up before posting.

There are two different aspects (at least). Water vapor and CO2 added to the upper atmosphere, and the lower stratosphere over the poles, that is one thing. The visible clouds that persist, that is quite another.

Firstly, it would be more like 25% of the CO2 emissions from Man, not 25% of observed warming... Quite a big difference.

Water vapour and CO2 doesn't just sit in the atmosphere where it was emitted, and stay there.

As for persistent contrails, they persist for a very short period of time and they are blown by the jetstream all over the place. Even if the entire 'sky' was covered in one big contrail, I doubt it would do much more than dull the sky a bit. As for effects on temperature, its complicated, clouds can trap heat. Not sure how much so at that altitude though. But its minor anyhow as the sky probably only has 0.01% of it with contrails in at any one time.

 

[Mendel]

Ship contrails cool the planet

2009
How should shipping emissions' ability to cool or warm the climate be addressed?
Jan Fuglestvedt et al.

Article:

Additionally, SO2 indirectly affects climate by forming cloud condensation nuclei. Such activity increases droplet number densities and changes the reflectance and lifetimes of clouds (1, 18), causing a RF of −740 to −47 mW/m2. This contribution is significant because ships emit in regions with a clean environment and frequent low clouds. The potential impact of particulate matter due to shipping emissions is larger on the radiation budget given the relative albedo change over a dark ocean, as opposed to similar emissions over more reflective land surfaces.

Source: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es901944r

2023

Article:

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) rules have had some success in improving public health. Global emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) – a health-damaging air pollutant – have dropped by about 10% as a result.

But the shift to low-sulphur shipping fuel has had an additional consequence.

Sulphur particles contained in ships' exhaust fumes have been counteracting some of the warming coming from greenhouse gases. But lowering the sulphur content of marine fuel has weakened the masking effect, effectively giving a boost to warming.

Some researchers have proposed that the drop in SO2 as a result of the IMO's clean air regulations could be behind a recent spike in global sea surface temperature.

Carbon Brief analysis shows that the likely side-effect of the 2020 regulations to cut air pollution from shipping is to increase global temperatures by around 0.05C by 2050. This is equivalent to approximately two additional years of emissions.

Source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/

@Robinson