Contrails, alone, worse than all other emissions; why grasp at "Chemtrails/Geoengineering"?

Are we ignoring a real and present threat to our environment; only to focus on mythical "chemtrails" and theoretical "geoengineering?"

A new study, published in the journal Nature climate change, presents surprising new findings that jet contrails, all by themselves, have a much more profound effect on the atmosphere than previously expected; even more than the effect of their CO2, NO and particulate emissions!

Contrails impact climate more than planes' carbon emissions

[T]he carbon released by air travel remains a relatively minor part of the global output—the impact of planes results from where they burn the fuel, not the mere fact that they burn it. A study in the brand-new journal Nature Climate Change reinforces that by suggesting that the clouds currently being generated by air travel have a larger impact on the climate than the cumulative emissions of all aircraft ever flown.

www.nature.com...

Apparently, the authors didn't need to speculate about nefarious intent or "secret government programs" to find startling information about how ordinary air traffic is affecting our environment.

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 planet by reflecting sunlight, high altitude clouds like cirrus have an insulating effect and actually enhance warming.

After comparing relative impacts of the composition of jet exhaust, the authors applied their measurement to a model that found a greater effect from the cirrus clouds formed from ordinary contrails than the CO2 emitted through hydrocarbon combustion.

On their own, the aircraft-generated cirrus produces a global climate forcing of about 40 milliwatts per square meter (in contrast, the solar cycle results in changes of about a full watt/m2). But these clouds suppressed the formation of natural cirrus clouds, which partially offset the impact of the aircraft-generated ones, reducing the figure to about 30 mw/m2. That still leaves it among the most significant contribution to the climate produced by aircraft.

So, why do the "chemtrail/geoengineering" faithful press on with sketchy "research," unsupported feelings, and illogical suspicions when the real threat goes right over their heads? (pun intended)

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Just for reference:

Contrails (short for "condensation trails") or vapour trails are artificial clouds that are the visible trails of condensed water vapour made by the exhaust of aircraft engines. As the hot exhaust gases cool in the surrounding air they may precipitate a cloud of microscopic water droplets. If the air is cold enough, this trail will comprise tiny ice crystals.[1] The wingtip vortices which trail from the wingtips and wing flaps of aircraft are sometimes partly visible due to condensation in the cores of the vortices. Each vortex is a mass of spinning air and the air pressure at the centre of the vortex is very low. These wingtip vortices are not the same as contrails. Depending on atmospheric conditions, contrails may be visible for only a few seconds or minutes, or may persist for many hours which may affect climate

source

i recall watching a documentary a few years back, i wanna say it was called "Global Dimming" but don't quote me. Anyways it was talking about a group of scientists who monitored weather status during the no fly period after 911. They noticed an increase in warmth that seemed to coincide with the lack of contrails, to which they explained that the contrails were actually reflecting more solar rays than normal, reducing some of the supposed warming due to green house gases (which sit up high and act as insulation, keeping the heat on us.)

So I guess low altitude trails are good, high altitude trails are bad? But contrails only last a few hours.

Anyways, that goes hand in hand with proposed geo-engineering that would have planes (or artillery) releasing aluminum particles high up in the atmosphere to help block incoming solar rays. This isn't necessarily theoretical, it would work, the debate lies in if it's already in action.

All logical sources say no, but that doesn't stop people from wondering.

good thread, even better avatar

A study in the brand-new journal Nature Climate Change reinforces that by suggesting that the clouds currently being generated by air travel have a larger impact on the climate than the cumulative emissions of all aircraft ever flown.That fact isn't mentioned in the article at all, however (it's part of a Nature press release on the paper).

You left that bit out.
To start off, I am a firm believer in chemtrails and the chemtrailing phenomenon, and this strikes me as being a somewhat convenient reason for chemtrail clouds coagulation into chemclouds. The photos provided in that link and sublinks all show blatant chemtrails as an example of contrails, which immediately undermines their credibility in my opinion.

Furthermore, after doing a bit of digging, it seems the good old IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) are the ones who funded and brought out this report.
Here are a few links that show the history the IPCC and its affiliates have.

UN IPCC's Artful Bias

Rajenda Chaupuri's Millions from advisory roles
Rajendra was cleared, but suspicion is almost never without cause

IPCC falsely reporting Data

And so on and so forth..

i don't think its good to blindly take in what organizations try to feed you, always be wary of anything labeled, Global/international/intergovermental.. It just reeks of NWO,

Peace

reply to post by phishyblankwaters
It's funny how different scientists can look at the same set of data, and come to opposite conclusions.

Here's a "pro change" study:

During the three-day commercial flight hiatus, when the artificial clouds known as contrails all but disappeared, the variations in high and low temperatures increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) each day, said meteorological researchers.

articles.cnn.com...:TECH

Here's a "no change" study:

[I]n the three days after the September 11 terrorist attacks, when all commercial air traffic was banned from American skies, the average daily temperature range over the continental US got a sudden, substantial stretch).

The disappearance of jet condensation trails, or contrails, had unmasked their remarkable effects, researchers suggested Lack of contrails seemed to widen the gap between the lowest overnight temperatures and the daytime highs.

But this may be a mere coincidence, not evidence of aviation impacts, according to a series of studies since then. These doubts have gotten little if any press, though climatologists seem to be listening - the latest paper made Geophysical Research Letters’ top five downloads ... .

www.celsias.com...

I tend to think that the higher-level clouds are an insulating blanket, while lower-level (and thicker) clouds have a reflective/cooling quality.

jw

Anybody that's seen my contributions to these types of threads knows on which side of the fence I stand on this topic. However, quite frankly, it doesn't really matter whether they are chem- or con-, if they are messing with the health of people and the planet, the question isn't "What are they?" It's "What can we do about it?" That's a question that's gotten quite lost in the whole debate of what they are or aren't. In that way it's no different than the divide and conquer Christian vs. Muslim, White vs. Black, etc, etc. Keep us fighting amongst ourselves so we don't have the collective power to make any changes. So, what can we do about it?

just wow at the OP....



Contrails.... Condensation trails..... are made because the aircraft is high enough in the sky that the temperature is realy frigging cold, and the air is thinner.

The aircraft engines produce alot of heat, air gets sucked thru the engine and warms up considerably. Water droplets come together from the heat and form in the air. Only to be frozen again within 10 seconds later.



chemtrail planes are allways alot lower than regular passenger aircraft. Their trails linger in the air for hours, and fan out to cover more area, and eventualy drop to earth, and can be seen as a "dusty haze" when you're on the ground looking up at it.




People who say they're just contrails are fools.

reply to post by jdub297


Finally! One of these threads I can actually agree with!

Contrails are definitely impacting weather patterns, and no need for "chemtrails" to even be in the equation. Contrails are bad enough on their own.

Originally posted by stygmartyrZA
Furthermore, after doing a bit of digging, it seems the good old IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) are the ones who funded and brought out this report.

I am by far NOT a fan of the IPCC, but Nature Climate Change is not one of their publications:

© 2011 Nature Publishing Group, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. partner of AGORA, HINARI, OARE, INASP, CrossRef and COUNTER

They are a sub-set of the Nature Journal family of topic-specific of publications.
www.nature.com...

jw

reply to post by coyotepoet

So, what can we do about it?

s4u

You mean, other than wring our hands and point at the sky?

The authors suggest that next-generation engines may be able to address part of this problem. Also, freer control of flight paths thru GPS navigation may permit use of routes that do not concentrate persistent contrails.

It may just be an artifact of modern culture we will have to adapt to. Even if all U.S. aircraft were to eliminate contrail persistence, that does nothing for all the other international carriers.

jw

reply to post by TigaHawk

chemtrail planes are allways alot lower than regular passenger aircraft. Their trails linger in the air for hours, and fan out to cover more area, and eventualy drop to earth, and can be seen as a "dusty haze" when you're on the ground looking up at it.

Show me ONE scientific, peer-reviewed study that supports this myth. There's no need to imagine a boogeyman when the truth is serious enough.

I've seen dozens of "chemtrail" threads and forums, read too may posts and "sources" to count. They all have certain traits in common: feelings, speculation, YouTube and anecdotes.

Not once has any such thread/forum produced a single coherent theory/hypothesis for "chemtrails." They make it up as they go along.

deny ignorance

jw

Originally posted by stygmartyrZA

A study in the brand-new journal Nature Climate Change reinforces that by suggesting that the clouds currently being generated by air travel have a larger impact on the climate than the cumulative emissions of all aircraft ever flown.That fact isn't mentioned in the article at all, however (it's part of a Nature press release on the paper).

You left that bit out.

Only because it is not true. It's in the paper if you'd read it.

The authors specifically discuss the radiative forcing (warming) of contrail cirrus. You may have missed it, the author of your quote just didn't understand it, or intended to misrepresent the findings:

Radiative forcing—a measure of the radiative imbalance of the atmosphere caused by a particular forcing agent—due to aircraft-induced cloudiness has been estimated from observed trends in cirrus cloudiness to range approximately between 10 and 80 mW m−2 for the year 2005 (refs 2, 3, 4).

www.nature.com...#/implications-for-evaluating-the-impact-of-aviation

Add up the years, and you get an effect greater than anyone attributes to CO2 alone, even the pathetically biased IPCC.

jw