Very interesting paper. I only read one section of it: Aviations contribution to climat change.
But I find deeply flawed science here. A study was done in Alaska that showed that the overall effect of aviation was a net decrease. This was confirmed after 9/11 where recorded data showed with no airplanes flying led to a net increase of temperature 2.2 degrees. So aircraft decrease the temperature 1-2 degrees. Yet this paper says the opposite, it says aviation lead to an increase in temperature:
The amount of cumulative CO2 emissions that will result in a 2° C temperature increase is relatively well known and quantified: one trillion tonnes of CO2, half of which has already been emitted. The question that remains is “what proportion can aviation have of the half a trillion tonnes of CO2 that can be emitted, before surface temperatures increase beyond 2° C?
One of the authors does acknowledge this, in a backhanded manner:
Aviation climate impacts are due to both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions. The non-CO2 emissions include water vapor (H2O), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides(SOx), hydrocarbons (HC), and black carbon (or soot) particles.
Aviation CO2, H2O and soot emissions contribute directly to climate change with positive radiative forcing (net warming). Whereas, emissions of NOx, SOx, H2O and black carbon aerosols contribute indirectly to climate change.
Notice how he says Co2 increases temperature and No So and H2O "contribute indirectly"... i.e. they actually COOL, yet they do not say this. Nor do they admit anywhere in this paper that aviation leads to a NET COOLING... very interesting.
He goes on and obfuscates further, notice he does not mention the So2 or carbon... which are mentioned throughout the geoengineering research as aerosols they want to use to cool the atmosphere:
In general, there is a better understanding of impacts of GHG emissions that have a direct impact on the climate than emissions that have indirect impacts. For example, while the scientific understanding and modelling of NOx effects have substantially improved over the last few years, there is still uncertainty regarding the exact extent to which NOx emissions from air travel affect climate change through their impact on ozone formation and methane destruction. Similarly, H2O vapor emissions can trigger formation of contrails in sufficiently cold air masses which may persist for hours and can potentially increase cirrus cloudiness. Direct emissions of black carbon and in situ formed aerosols can also serve as cloud condensation nuclei which, along with background aerosols, facilitate the forma- tion of contrails and cirrus clouds. Contrails and induced cirrus clouds reflect solar short-wave radiation and trap outgoing long-wave radiation resulting in the net positive contribution to climate change.
The Alaskan study and the 9/11 study both invalidate his assumption that these contrails lead to warming. He is either not aware or directly misleading. I think the later because he totally leaves out black carbon and So2 data from his explanation. Lying by omission. His paycheck probably comes from toeing the line and/or the paper is edited to toe the line. So he might have included this information and it was edited out. This happens all the time on shows such as the History channel... I've heard people complaining that they have edited things in such ways to say the opposite of their statements.
Either way this paper is proven to be forcing an agenda, skewing data and the discussion and out right lying.
I find it fascinating that So2 and black carbon are admitted to in this paper at all... So those contrails ARE geoengineering, as they have 2 geoengineering aerosols.