It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Contrails impact climate more than planes' carbon emissions

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Contrails impact climate more than planes' carbon emissions


arstechnica.com

What the authors do consider is the fact that carbon emissions are only one of the impacts of aviation. Others include the emissions of particulates high in the atmosphere, the production of nitrogen oxides, and the direct production of clouds through contrail water vapor. Over time, these thin lines of water evolve into "contrail cirrus" clouds that lose their linear features and become indistinguishable from the real thing. Although low-altitude clouds tend to cool the plant by reflecting sunlight, high altitude clouds like cirrus have an insulating effect and actually enhance warming.
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
This goes on to say that particulates in the air from the contrails can have an effect...

Is this a cover for chemtrails? I mean I kinda assumed the whole thing was bogus and it quite possibly is but it at least looks like all the chemtrail believers now have some fuel for the fire!

At the very least it looks like there is some reason to have concern over all the con / chem trails we see in the sky everyday.

Finally is it possible this is some kind of weather modification program?

I doubt it because it seems too accidental but then thats how it would be planned to look.

arstechnica.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 30-3-2011 by Jinglelord because: spelling



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
There have always been those among us who proclaimed the entire point of the 'chem-trails' was to effect some kind of climate engineering. Perhaps it's the other way around... perhaps contrails have become increasingly persistent as the nature of our atmosphere has changed over the decades.

We may never know, as it is not considered good form by some to even discuss the matter seriously, ... don't worry, they'll come by shortly.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


y thought has always been that if Chemtrails are real it is for weather engineering. Now it looks like the acknowledged contrails really do have a weather impact. This is what really got my attention.

Now the only question is if it is intentional or not... We can no longer seriously question if there is an impact. (Well we can but the evidence shows otherwise)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
or maybe global warming oh i forget its global climate change now and chemtrails are both BS
edit on 30-3-2011 by Darkk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
One of the key arguments of "chemtrailers" is that Geoengineering is a "chemtrail producing" procedure. The purpose of GeoEngineering is to help cool our planet via reflection of the sun's rays. That being said I want to point out that if contrails are causing a heating effect then that effect is in direct and outstanding opposition to the notion that geoengineering and contrails have any relation at all.

There are currently no geoengineering programs in implementation. There are various organizations researching these programs but none have been put into action. This is very important to remember because soon I suspect someone will show up to start saying that proposed geoengineering schemes somehow translate to actually being implemented and "chemtrail" related.

With no geoengineering programs implemented and persisting contrails causing global warming I think we can all see that the pitiful attempts at falsely associating "chemtrais" with geoengineering is just ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


While I do agree that there are no real geoengineering programs in place as in intellectual exercise we would have to assume that as far as a chemtraler is concerned there are no admitted programs in place and anything happening is completely secret to the point that whistle blowers are disposed of.

Now lets examine the claim that chemtrailers commonly hold that this is in place to cool the atmosphere. This is optimistic. Let us look for a moment the benefits big government has received from global warming and how when there is a big push for some new policy average temperatures are reported a few degrees higher.

These averages are pulled from various key places. What if through the use of this effect that is being shown to increase temperatures slightly it is concentrated on areas where temperatures are being gathered to show the data as an increase in global temperature? Could this be why we see so much conflicting information?

Like I said I don't buy it but I do see where the argument could be made.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I think your postulation is interesting. I also am willing to bet that if you watch the "chemtrail" threads you will see your postulation eventually used a a supporting "fact" to back up the "chemies" viewpoint.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I believe this is still pure speculation:


Perhaps it's the other way around... perhaps contrails have become increasingly persistent as the nature of our atmosphere has changed over the decades.



Truly, the "nature" of our atmosphere hasn't changed over the last decades. Excepting, inasmuch, as our Human activity continues to add pollutants of many varieties (vast majority primarily, from ground-based sources, by the way).


The fact that a contrail, once formed and in atmospheric conditions that are conducive for natural cirrus clouds to form and persist, as well....will persist. Contrails are ice crystals; from the existing moisture condensed out of the atmosphere (and added by the combustion of the fuel itself). So, in a purely literal sense, one could call them "chemical" trails...since they trail behind airplanes (actually, from each engine's exhaust) and are composed of, mostly, a 'chemical' known as "H2O". But, by that same standard, ALL clouds are 'chemicals', too. (Just not "trails"....of course, there exist some natural forms, such as "roll clouds", that take that shape...so....).

No, what's changed in the last several decades are the engines themselves. The technology that makes them more fuel efficient makes them produce more voluminous, and thus longer-lasting contrails. It is actually, in appearance, a step BACK in time, to the era of large propeller-driven airplanes. The big propellers produced the airflow that surrounded the hot exhaust....just as modern big turbo-fans produce a massive amount of airflow, that surrounds the hot exhaust. Of course, there are also a LOT more airplanes, and more hours flown every year.


The notion, from the article, of the clouds having a "blanketing" effect seems a bit over-stated.....it's generally thought that clouds (ALL clouds) have the insulating properties only during darkness. The clouds, whether contrail or cumulus or stratus or natural cirrus shine bright white, in sunlight....and that is a high albedo effect. Reflective.


In any event......a common-sense look at the whole globe shows that the amount of surface area that is affected, on any given day or month, by airliner contrailing is woefully small. This video, for example...24 hours in time-lapse, world wide:




posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Of vastly more importance than any particulates is the thermal pollution.

The flyways of the world are bound to have higher temperatures than the parts that aren't flown through often. Each jet engine puts out a continuous stream of very hot air behind it. Over years and years of aircraft flying the same routes, I can easily see how rivers of hot air are being created, which in turn effects weather patterns.

I've been pointing this out for a few years now, but who ever listens? Everyone worries about non-existent "chemtrails".



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I think your postulation is interesting. I also am willing to bet that if you watch the "chemtrail" threads you will see your postulation eventually used a a supporting "fact" to back up the "chemies" viewpoint.


Wouldn't be the fist time one of my crack pot "What if" scenarios was used as a fact. I find myself explaining "No I just made that up as an intellectual exercise" at least once a week...

I think the Chemtrail theories are interesting for their speculative and imagination value. Which is why I thought this was interesting. Most all conspiracy theories in my estimation are not conspiracies at all but just side effects of a perfectly explainable action.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


reply to post by apacheman
 


Sorry, if this were true, it would be noticeable to pilots. (We, and the aircraft systems, do pay attention to the outside temperature of the air).

Two readings of note: 'SAT' and 'RAT' Static and Ram temperatures. The probes that measure the air temperature read the "ram rise"....it is just friction with air. Due to the high speeds, the 'sensed' temp will be higher....a direct relationship to airspeed velocity. Modern computers then perform the arithmetic to determine what the actual ambient, or 'static' air temp is. And each figure is used and referred to in various ways, for various reasons.

In no way is the atmosphere being artificially heated by the passage of airplanes...not to any extent that it would persist at all. I mean...contrails by their definition are FROZEN water! Just as cirrus clouds. By your theory, there would be no more cirrus, nor contrails....(and airplane performance would suffer considerably. Warmer the air, the worse the performance of an airplane, all things being equal....).

Such effects would become apparent very, very quickly. Both in the observed readings (oh, and not to mention, weather balloon data too) and in the less than optimal performance....IF the atmosphere was being excessively, and consistently "heated" by airplanes' exhaust.

(I'd say your theory has much more validity in urban city settings, though....the huge numbers of internal combustion ground vehicles producing heat.....concentrated,not going anywhere. AND, the man-made structures, such as concrete, asphalt etc, absorb and retain heat energy too).



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I recall an anecdote, which may be fictional, that after the few days when all air traffic was halted back in 2001, there was a surprising rise in the local temperatures; ostensibly due to the lack of aircraft exhaust in the atmosphere. Do you know if this is true?



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I recall an anecdote, which may be fictional, that after the few days when all air traffic was halted back in 2001, there was a surprising rise in the local temperatures; ostensibly due to the lack of aircraft exhaust in the atmosphere. Do you know if this is true?


There is a study that says that is apossibility....there's a wiki section on it at en.wikipedia.org...

and another study says it didn't - www.bbc.co.uk...

However back to the OP - the IPCC report on aviation effects on climate looks at a lot more than just carbon -


The principal emissions of aircraft include the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and water vapor (H2O). Other major emissions are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (which together are termed NOx), sulfur oxides (SOxO), and soot.


(unfortunately it appears that the links from that original page don't work - the pages listed are on the website, but you have to change the last digit in the URL - where it says "idp=3" to 4, 5, etc it goes up to 170+
)

There's also quiet a good slide show as a pdf (about 1mb) here that you might find useful - Air Transportation: Emissions and Effects
edit on 30-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Seems like when you have a stream of aircraft following one another, then circling for hours in the same airspace over a city, there would simply have to be a thermal gradient from the flyways outwards, a warm and fuzzy tunnel in the sky. It would be subtle and probably noticeable only with a series of readings at different distances from the flyway and would be transient in nature.

However, subtle counts.

A lot of subtle things go into making the weather go and contrails are a visible indicator of thermal differences.

Try comparing the satellite pictures of North America during the post 9/11 standdown with those before and after: the differences are remarkable and can be traced primarily, I think, to thermal pollution.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




Sorry, if this were true, it would be noticeable to pilots. (We, and the aircraft systems, do pay attention to the outside temperature of the air).


Just curious WW, but you say "we" would notice. Who is this "we"? You are always on ATS, how can you include yourself in the "we" category? Do you fly around with a laptop making ATS posts before take off and landiong?
If you ever were a pilot, being a has been doesn't qualify you to be a part of "we".



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Maybe "we" alludes to thinking humans who have access to language, communication, technology, and higher brain function?

If so it makes sense we could assume that had there been a substantial change in atmospheric temperature we would have noticed it.

If ofc ourse the pilots are instead "thems" then it would have made sense that this information would have been communicated form them to us thus we would know....

just sayin



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I think "we" refers to pilots, since he's often said he's a long time pilot with (IIRC) 20,000 hours time.

However I would also include in "we" aircraft mechanics - I'm one of those - who would have to install, remove, repair, charge, etc any systems on board for this.

And also the people making and delivering whatever-it-is-Matty-thinks-is-being-sprayed-today.

And also all the atmosphere scientists and meteorologists who have apaprently ignored this recently but who were constructing models and science to cover up for it decades befoer it actually "started"....



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
[Do you fly around with a laptop making ATS posts before take off and landiong?
If you ever were a pilot, being a has been doesn't qualify you to be a part of "we".


And thus we see yet again how little Matty actually knows about aviation.

Pilots get time off Matty......go check how much....



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I know my comment was a bit off topic so I won't continue much longer but just one more question....

Aloysius are you saying that you know without a doubt that weedwhack is currently an active registered pilot with a commercial airline or other aviation service and he is just on ATS during his down time?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join