Normal Contrails: Some Sanity

[foot_soldier]

March 21, 2005

Tories back Europe-wide tax on aviation fuel
Airlines say environment strategy will cost party votes
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1442379,00.html

The Conservatives intend to put the brakes on Britain's boom in low-cost air travel by pushing for a Europe-wide tax on aviation fuel, which could lead to as much as £7 being added to the cost of airline tickets.

In an interview with the Guardian the shadow transport secretary, Tim Yeo, outlined environmental measures that will alarm airlines.

He questioned the justification for flying between London and Scotland, and said he would impose stringent financial obstacles to the construction of a new runway at Stansted airport.

Article continues
Environmental organisations have long argued for a tax on aviation fuel in order to force airlines to pay for the damage they cause in harmful emissions and climate change.

Ministers from France and Germany last month suggested a Europe-wide tax of €300 per tonne of aviation fuel, which would add between €5 and €10 (roughly £3.50 to £7) to every fare, with the proceeds to be channelled towards aid for Africa.

Tony Blair opposed the measure, telling MPs that he would not "slap some huge tax on cheap air travel".

In his first detailed comments on aviation policy, Mr Yeo said: "If I was in office on May 6 I would want to straight away talk to my colleagues in Europe about how we could make progress towards a fuel tax. Aviation has to take account of its environmental impact to a greater extent than it has done in the past."

His remarks were attacked by EasyJet, which said a tax would disproportionately hit travellers on a tight budget.

Its spokesman Toby Nicol said passengers already paid £5 air passenger duty on every short-haul flight, which was roughly equivalent to a 100% tax on fuel.

"The idea that airlines don't pay an environmental tax already is ridiculous," he said. "Going out to the public six weeks before an election and saying, 'I want to make air travel more expensive,' is a surefire vote loser."

British Airways and other big carriers argue instead for an emissions trading scheme, under which airlines would trade "permits" for pollution.

They say this would be a better incentive towards less-polluting fuel; and they add that the objectives of a fuel tax could be foiled by airlines filling up with vast quantities of cheap fuel in the US and emitting more pollution as they carry it across the Atlantic.

Environmentalists privately suggested that the Conservatives wanted to reach out to voters in rural areas around airports, who were worried about the government's plans for runway development.

Mr Yeo's South Suffolk constituency is close to Stansted. He said he would make it difficult for BAA to expand the airport by preventing it from "cross-subsidising", using funds from Heathrow and Gatwick.

But Friends of the Earth's aviation campaigner Paul de Zylva said: "I think the public is increasingly recognising that it is absolutely absurd for airlines to get away with paying less than 20p a litre for jet fuel."

The group wants the duty to be set at the same rate imposed on petrol for motorists, which, if translated to ticket prices, would put £20 on a short-haul journey and up to £120 on a transatlantic flight.

Passenger numbers on flights between Britain and the rest of Europe went from 51m in 1993 to 97m in 2003.

Mr Yeo said he wanted airlines to print information about environmental emissions on every ticket. He said: "No one can say they are serious about being interested in addressing climate change without addressing aviation.

"If you are going to go from London to Glasgow the environmental impact is often less if you drive."
***
I would appreciate it if you guys would take your cockfights somewhere else. Why can't you set up a separate thread for that nonsense?

[halva]

Would you like me to throw him off the forum, Footsoldier?

By the way, is the name Crichton pronounced Crighton as in Brighton or Critchton? It makes a difference when transliterating into Greek.

[foot_soldier]

Crichton = Crighton as in Brighton, yes.

And yes, I would like to see Reynolds thrown off this forum. It would be a relief to be rid of his malevolent presence. Anybody who fancies "debating" with him knows where to find him.

[halva]

I only have moderating powers in the 'Science in the News' section.

I'll have to see what can be done.

[Boomer Chick]

Hello FS and Halva!

I see what's happening over here. As mod, I would just delete the posts that flame, like the "dummy" one Jay posted. And delete mine, too, if they are nothing but flaming. I don't plan on it, however. Is there a rule regarding the number of deletes before one is banned? You might just delete, post why, and post a warning... similar to what Mike did? Do you have those powers?

My 2 cents.

Will post on the thread subject later. Appreciate all the postings lately, too!

Thanks.

[halva]

Let me make some things clear about moderating policy.

As moderator here I work within the parameters of Arianna's forum, which are different from those I proposed to the council at CTC, (zero tolerance for those who profess to know that aerosol spraying for climate mitigation purposes is not being conducted), and also different from those applying de facto at the Social Forums, ( no platform for debunkers of anthropogenic climate change).

I am not saying this because I have been asked to, but because it is obviously the only realistic way to proceed in the long term given that this is not my forum.

I tolerate both 'chemtrail' debunking and anthropogenic climate change debunking. Deletions I made to a posting of Jay Reynolds on global dimming were made through misreading. He is welcome to repost if he wishes.

What I am not going to tolerate is assertions that anyone at present posting here is a 'hoaxer'.
This is a presumptuous charge because there is no way of knowing what the motives of another person are in making an untrue statement. They can only be surmised. Similarly I am not going to tolerate use of the term 'liar'. If what a poster says is deemed untrue, whoever makes the charge that it is untrue will show that it is untrue and leave it at that.

Also I am not going to tolerate the terroristic use of large-font letters in red. Any point that cannot be made in the typographic equivalent of a calm voice is more likely to be part of a psychological warfare strategy than a strategy for arriving at truth.

So, if you don't want to see your postings bowdlerised by my editorial interventions, stick to this code of good conduct.

[jayreynolds]

Let me make some things clear about moderating policy.

As moderator here I work within the parameters of Arianna's forum, which are different from those I proposed to the council at CTC, (zero tolerance for those who profess to know that aerosol spraying for climate mitigation purposes is not being conducted), and also different from those applying de facto at the Social Forums, ( no platform for debunkers of anthropogenic climate change).

I am not saying this because I have been asked to, but because it is obviously the only realistic way to proceed in the long term given that this is not my forum.

I tolerate both 'chemtrail' debunking and anthropogenic climate change debunking. Deletions I made to a posting of Jay Reynolds on global dimming were made through misreading. He is welcome to repost if he wishes.

What I am not going to tolerate is assertions that anyone at present posting here is a 'hoaxer'.
This is a presumptuous charge because there is no way of knowing what the motives of another person are in making an untrue statement. They can only be surmised. Similarly I am not going to tolerate use of the term 'liar'. If what a poster says is deemed untrue, whoever makes the charge that it is untrue will show that it is untrue and leave it at that.

Also I am not going to tolerate the terroristic use of large-font letters in red. Any point that cannot be made in the typographic equivalent of a calm voice is more likely to be part of a psychological warfare strategy than a strategy for arriving at truth.

So, if you don't want to see your postings bowdlerised by my editorial interventions, stick to this code of good conduct.

Wayne, your partisanship here is showing clearly.

You are making up the rules as you go along to suit whatever you desire.

You have crossed the line here by threatening to censor words commonly used, words not previously prohibited, and words curently not prohibited on other ariannaonline forums.

The line you have crossed into has no limits.

But I will not accept your supposed "code of good conduct".

[halva]

If you show your non-acceptance by doing what I ask you not to do, I will moderate your posts as I have been appointed to.

It is preferable for me to lay down guidelines now rather than to leave it unclear what my criteria for moderating are going to be.

[halva]

Of course in the wider perspective, winning one round against the debunkers is no big deal. Out there in the real world the co-thinkers of Jay Reynolds are still calling the shots.

Perhaps thoughts of this kind are one of the reasons for our going a little quiet.

[halva]

wayne, you are not here to censor whatever words you personally feel like censoring. I checked on the other forums, and the word "Liar" is being used on an almost hourly basis here at arianaonline. I will therefore not comply with your prohibition on use of that word, since it is quite clear that you only have a partisan rationale for censoring it. Similarly, even though it appears less frequently, I will not hesitate to use the word "hoax" or to call someone a "hoaxer", whenever I show evidence of it, or even if it is merely my opinion that such is the case.

As far as your "guidelines", as I said before, there is no end to the "Kings" moving of goalposts, as we've already seen here. If you feel you have the power to "not tolerate" one or two words, what's stopping you from censoring more, and yet more?

It's obvious enough to anyone reading that you haven't the capacity to "moderate", and that your goal is to merely censor viewpoints with which you disagree..

I make the rules in this section. I've told you what they are and the only reason I haven't deleted the relevant terms in this posting is because you have them in quotation marks. This does not mean that you can prevent me from deleting them in future just by putting them in quotation marks.

I can see that we are moving into a new game even more pointless than the previous one.

[halva]

Jay Reynolds I have deleted the entirety of a posting in which you went against what I had put forward as ground rules for this section of the forum.

If it is true that elsewhere at Arianna's you are free to call people liars and hoaxers then obviously the thing for you to do is to go there, not come here.

I will continue to delete all postings whose only purpose to protest against the moderating policy I have now laid out quite specifically.

Given, as I said, that Arianna's forum is not my forum, against my personal inclinations I will not censor chemtrail debunking per se or anthropogenic climate change debunking per se. But all argumentation has to be dispassionate.

[whitemajikman]

War On Terrorism is a Ruse/Secret Pentagon Climate Report
Lloyd Hart 24 Feb 2004 00:50 GMT

In other words the conservative elites are going after control the strategic oil supply throughout the world in order that they will have the fuel that their tanks, helicopters, fighter jets and troop transports will require to seaze control of what remains of the collapsing food and fresh water supply. The war on terrorism is simply just a ruse.
War On Terrorism is a Ruse/Secret Pentagon Climate Report

By Lloyd Hart

Over the last two and a half years I have been writing about how the theft of the U.S. general election in 2000, the Bush regime ordering the air guard stand down on the morning of September 11, 2001 allowing the attacks on U.S. citizens as a means to create a pretext to war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the national security strategy of pre-emption and the resulting invasion of Iraq have, in actuality, nothing to do with the war on terrorism but rather have everything to do with military preparation for the collapse of the food and fresh water supply due to climate change as a result of global warming.

In other words the conservative elites are going after control the strategic oil supply throughout the world in order that they will have the fuel that their tanks, helicopters, fighter jets and troop transports will require to seaze control of what remains of the collapsing food and fresh water supply. The war on terrorism is simply just a ruse.

Thanks to Observer reporters Mark Townshend and Paul Harris I've been proven absolutely correct in my analysis. An article that was published in The Observer on Sunday February 22, 2004

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

surrounding a secret Pentagon report that has been "suppressed by U.S. defense chiefs" tells of dire warnings of the effects of climate change on the very near and near future. The report coins the term "Climate Wars." This report was prepared by a man with close ties to Donald Rumsfeld. The Observer article reports:

"The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."

The interesting thing though, is the way the Observer article around the secret Pentagon report is spun . There are comments from leading scientists and environmental activists stating that George Bush is completely out of touch with reality with his position that Global warming and climate change are a "hoax".

As I've written in the past I think it is very dangerous to demonize and underestimate Bush and the Bush regime as being out of touch with reality. The existence of this secret Pentagon report which was commissioned by Andrew Marshall proves that the Bush regime is absolutely in touch with reality and that their actions in the war on terrorism they have taken are exactly how you could expect the feudal gang that the Bush regime represents would react to such a report and the reality of our present human condition on this fragile planet. The article continues:

"The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority."

This secret Pentagon report which has yet to penetrate the U.S. corporate media and the consciousness of the American public indeed might be humiliating to George Bush but not because it exposes his position against Global Warming as wrong. But rather because it exposes the very reasons why the Bush regime and the Pentagon cooked up and are using the war on terrorism and the national security strategy of pre-emption (that they now have spun into a "Global revolution to bring democracy to the world") to reassert the ultraviolent U.S. global military dominance and hegemony that spread over the world in the19th and 20th. centuries. Military dominance as a means to ensure that no matter what happens as a result of climate change the Bush regime and its conservative elite allies throughout the world will control where and how the world's poor will starve to death as the food and fresh water supply radically collapse..

The inherent problem with the way this article was written is that it takes an explosive secret Pentagon report and paints the Bush regime, oil and energy companies as being loopy for all the wrong reasons instead of exposing the Bush regime for reacting exactly the wrong way to our collective global environmental crisis.

Scientists, social and environmental activists must also start framing the collapse of the global food and fresh water supply more honestly than they have instead of going for short-term political gains. For instance climate change would not be anywhere near as bad as it is under present day emissions if we had not knocked down all our forests as well. Deforestation is also a more direct reason why the freshwater supply is collapsing having an even more profound effect on the collapsing food supply and the global warming that is affecting climate change.

Deforestation is Single Most Important Component of Global Warming!
http://dadapop.com/DefGlobe.html

Indeed we must reduce our emissions radically but more importantly we must aggressively replant our forests and reestablish our wetlands. The public however, unfortunately has not had deforestation directly linked to global warming and climate change in their minds and this must change.

Maybe now that this secret Pentagon report has been leaked we can start discussing the proper way to react to the collapse of the food and fresh water supply that aerosol particulates, greenhouse gases, deforestation, the destruction of wetlands, Global warming and climate change have resulted in, in direct reaction to human activities on our planet.

Maybe now that the secret Pentagon report has been leaked we can pull back of the ultra violence the Bush regime has unleashed on the world and get to the business of behaving like a community that cares about each other and the very planet that gives us the life we live.

http://dadapop.com


[article.email.prefix]: dadapop@dadapop.com

.....

[foot_soldier]

Back to the topic of this thread:

Photographed over Holland on March 20, 2005:

http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2005-1/magicgallery/cc-20050320-191712.htm

[Boomer Chick]

Excellent site, FS! Yes it's jammed packed with serious and intelligent discussion on aviation induced cirrus clouds!!!!

EXCELLENT !!!

BC :)

[foot_soldier]

Yes, I think so, too. You will note that the site owner posts a month's worth of photographs on a monthly basis and that he kindly formats them for quick downloading.

I'd be interested in some focused discussion of the information provided on this site if you're so inclined. As time permits of course.

:cool:

[Boomer Chick]

Yes, of course! Given our level of research already, this would be an excellent site to discuss!

You just link the page regarding the specific issue and we're off and running! I'm sure everyone on this tiny board is welcome! ?

[jayreynolds]

Jay Reynolds I have deleted the entirety of a posting in which you went against what I had put forward as ground rules for this section of the forum..

No, Wayne, you actually deleted about three pages of postings which revealed you as a hypocrite who is bent on winning the game by stacking the deck. You have deleted entire threads.

You are trying to use your newfound power to delete in a futile attempt to make it appear you can 'create' a reality where you and your girlfirend 'footsoldier' can both call me a liar and get away with it, but I cannot say the same about you, even if I can prove it factually or logically.

This is the same sort of realm where Saddam, Hitler, and Stalin dwelt. A fantasy world of their own creation, yes, but far from the reality they met when events NOT under their control came into play. You might think a fantasy world is preferable to a world in which others can criticize, but be aware of what happens to all tyrants eventually. The game comes to an end, and they find the reality they tried to escape comes rushing back like a tsunami.

[jayreynolds]

Yes, I think so, too. You will note that the site owner posts a month's worth of photographs on a monthly basis and that he kindly formats them for quick downloading.

I'd be interested in some focused discussion of the information provided on this site if you're so inclined. As time permits of course.

:cool:
Yes, Robert Van Waning was an active debunker of the "chemtrails" hoax for quite a while. He, too, like me, got banned and his postings deleted at many of the "chemtrails" cult messageboard. They called him a "liar" and a "debunker" just like Wayne Hall and 'footsoldier' both called me.

Interesting how things come full circle. Eventually, Wayne will admit that he was wrong to call me a liar, and that the hoax he now promotes called "chemtrails" was the wrong thing to get mixed up with. He'll probably ask me to forgive him for trying so hard to silence me, when all I did was try to drum the truth into his hard little head.

[foot_soldier]

I suppose Robert van Waning is yet another of your "buddies", eh, Reynolds? I suppose you share his genuine concern for and commitment to ultimate resolution of the very specific issues so patiently and thoroughly documented in his web venue, yes?

I think not.

In fact I know not.

***
http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2005-1/magicgallery/cc-20050320-191712.htm

[foot_soldier]

Published September 2000, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, All Rights Reserved

Brief excerpt presented here for educational purposes only. This is a 160-page .pdf document. The rest of the document may be located at the link provided at the end of this excerpt.

I hope people will actually read this excellent piece of work. You might want to look first at the two graphics on Page 33.

***
Historical and Future Trends in Aircraft Performance, Cost, and Emissions

Joosung Joseph Lee
B.S., Mechanical Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998

Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and
the Engineering Systems Division
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of
Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics
and
Master of Science in Technology and Policy
at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
September 2000

2000 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
All rights reserved

Excerpt:

2.2 Aviation and the Environment Today

Aviation has now become a major mode of transportation and an integral part of the infrastructure of modern society. Currently, aircraft account for more than 10% of world’s passenger miles traveled (Schafer and Victor, 1997b). Aviation directly impacts the global economy in the form of commercial passenger travel, freighter transport, and business travelers, involving the suppliers and operators of aircraft, component manufacturers, fuel suppliers, airports, and air navigation service providers. In 1994, the aviation sector accounted for 24 million jobs globally and financially provided $1,140 billion in annual gross output (IATA, 1997).

Because of its growing influence on the global economy and the wide range of industries involved, the activities of the air transport industry have been directly circumscribed by public interest. Energy use and environmental impact, as represented by air pollution and noise, are two important drivers for today’s aviation sector. Currently, aviation fuel consumption corresponds to 2 to 3% of the total fossil fuels used worldwide, and more than 80% of this is used by civil aviation. In comparison, the entire transportation sector burns 20 to 25% of the total fossil fuels consumed. Thus the aviation sector alone uses 13% of the fossil fuels consumed in transportation, being the second largest transportation sector after road transportation (IPCC, 1996b).

In the future, total aviation fuel consumption is expected to continue to grow due to the rapid growth in air traffic volume. The subsequent increase in aircraft engine emissions has drawn particular attention among the aviation industry, the scientific community, and international governments in light global climate change. Through various forums among global participants, the effort to address these issues concerning growing aviation emissions has recently culminated in the IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Atmosphere. In review of this document, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) describes the current status of aviation and global climate as, "Aviation’s effects on the global atmosphere are potentially significant and expected to grow” (GAO, 2000).

Aircraft engines emit a wide range of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, and particulates. The environmental issues concerning these aircraft emissions originally arose from protecting local air quality in the vicinity of airports and have grown to global environmental issues, two of which may bear the direct consequences of aviation. One is climate change, which may alter weather patterns, and, for supersonic aircraft, stratospheric ozone depletion and resultant increase in ultraviolet-B (UV-B) at the earth's surface (IPCC, 1999).

The resultant radiative forcing from these aircraft emissions discharged directly at altitude is estimated to be 2 to 4 times higher than that due to aircraft carbon dioxide emissions alone, whereas the overall radiative forcing from the sum of all anthropogenic activities is estimated to be a factor of 1.5 times that of carbon dioxide emissions at the ground level. IPCC global modeling estimates show that aircraft were responsible for about 3.5% of the total accumulated anthropogenic radiative forcing of the atmosphere in 1992 as shown in Figure 2.1 (IPCC, 1999).

A number of direct and indirect species of aircraft emissions have been identified to affect climate. Carbon dioxide and water directly influence climate by radiative forcing while their indirect influences on climate include the production of [excess] ozone in the troposphere, alteration of the methane lifetime, formation of contrails, and modified cirrus cloudiness. As for the species that have indirect influences on climate, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and water vapor impact climate by modifying the chemical balance in the atmosphere (IPCC, 1999).

The atmospheric sources and sinks of CO2 occur principally at the earth’s surface through exchange between the biosphere and the oceans. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb the infrared radiation from the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. An increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration causes a warming of the troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere. Thus, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is one of the most important factors in climate change..... (continued below)

[foot_soldier]

Continued from above:

Water influences climate through its continual cycling between water vapor, clouds, precipitation, and ground water. Both water vapor and clouds have large effects on the radiative balance of climate and directly influence tropospheric chemistry. Water is also important in polar ozone loss though the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. This can directly affect the radiative balance of climate and have a chemical perturbation on stratospheric ozone. Furthermore, it takes longer for water emissions to disappear in the stratosphere than in the troposphere, so these aircraft water emissions increase the ambient concentration and directly impact the radiative balance and climate. Thus, new concerns have arisen regarding increasing contrails and enhanced cirrus formation. Figures 2.2a and 2.2b show a contrail coverage in 1992 and its estimate in 2050 (IPCC, 1999).

[See .pdf link provided below for a look at Figures 2.2a and 2.2b.] (On Page 33)

Nitrogen oxides are present throughout the atmosphere. Their influence is important in the chemistry of both the troposphere and the stratosphere as well as in ozone production and destruction processes.

In the upper troposphere and lowermost stratosphere, NOx emissions from subsonic aircraft tend to increase ozone concentrations. The ozone then acts as a greenhouse gas.

On the other hand, NOx emissions from supersonic aircraft at the higher altitudes tend to deplete ozone.

NOx emissions are also known to contribute to the reduction in the atmospheric lifetime of methane, which is another greenhouse gas (IPCC, 1999).

Particles related to aviation are principally sulfate aerosols and soot particles, which impact the chemical balance of the atmosphere. During operation, aircraft engines emit a mixture of particles and gases (e.g. SO2 - sulfur dioxide) evolving into a variety of particles mainly composed of soot from incomplete combustion and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) from the sulfur in the aviation fuel. These particles then contribute to the seeding of contrails and cirrus clouds, potentially altering the total cloud cover in the upper troposphere. The sulfate aerosol layer in the stratosphere affects stratospheric NOx and hence ozone [depletion] (IPCC, 1999).

Overall, aircraft emissions are unique because they are directly discharged at the high altitudes and may affect the atmosphere in a different way than ground level emissions do. The radiative forcing from aircraft engine emissions is estimated to be 2 to 4 times higher than that due to aircraft carbon dioxide emissions alone, whereas the overall radiative forcing due to the sum of all anthropogenic activities is estimated to be a factor of 1.5 times that of carbon dioxide emissions at the ground level (IPCC, 1999). END Excerpt.

www.mit.edu/people/jjlee/docs/lee_thesis.pdf

[stuart_allsop]

Jay Reynolds I have deleted the entirety of a posting in which you went against what I had put forward as ground rules for this section of the forum.

If it is true that elsewhere at Arianna's you are free to call people liars and hoaxers then obviously the thing for you to do is to go there, not come here.

I will continue to delete all postings whose only purpose to protest against the moderating policy I have now laid out quite specifically.

Given, as I said, that Arianna's forum is not my forum, against my personal inclinations I will not censor chemtrail debunking per se or anthropogenic climate change debunking per se. But all argumentation has to be dispassionate.

Strange, but I could SWEAR that I had just recently posted a message here, questioning just how soon this "halva" person is going to delete himself for all his numerous glaring violations of his very own code of conduct, but all of a sudden I can't find that post any more.... I wonder where it went? Do you think it was some other dishonest moderator that blew it away, without any explanation? I mean, we KNOW it could NOT have been Halva himself that did it, because Lord Halva is such a fine, upstanding, consistent, impartial, and FAIR moderator, cut from the same cloth as ALL the superior moderators on this forum, right? So the who on earth could possibly have deleted my post? I guess it's just one of those unsolved mysteries of the universe...

[whitemajikman]

STUART............

IT"S EASTER.......

Would JESUS Have Approved......?

;)

P.S.

I Hope Your Having A Wonderful Easter.......

And Please Keep Halva In Your Prayers..........

For He Knows Not What He has Done..............

And I Must Stress I THINK He is LEARNING........

AND HE HAS Apologized As Best As He Can(See The Peak Oil Thread).........

WMM

[foot_soldier]

Published September 2000, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, All Rights Reserved

Brief excerpt presented here for educational purposes only. This is a 160-page .pdf document. The rest of the document may be located at the link provided at the end of this excerpt.

I hope people will actually read this excellent piece of work. You might want to look first at the two graphics on Page 33.

***
Historical and Future Trends in Aircraft Performance, Cost, and Emissions

Joosung Joseph Lee
B.S., Mechanical Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998

Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and
the Engineering Systems Division
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of
Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics
and
Master of Science in Technology and Policy
at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
September 2000

2000 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
All rights reserved

Excerpt:

2.2 Aviation and the Environment Today

Aviation has now become a major mode of transportation and an integral part of the infrastructure of modern society. Currently, aircraft account for more than 10% of world’s passenger miles traveled (Schafer and Victor, 1997b). Aviation directly impacts the global economy in the form of commercial passenger travel, freighter transport, and business travelers, involving the suppliers and operators of aircraft, component manufacturers, fuel suppliers, airports, and air navigation service providers. In 1994, the aviation sector accounted for 24 million jobs globally and financially provided $1,140 billion in annual gross output (IATA, 1997).

Because of its growing influence on the global economy and the wide range of industries involved, the activities of the air transport industry have been directly circumscribed by public interest. Energy use and environmental impact, as represented by air pollution and noise, are two important drivers for today’s aviation sector. Currently, aviation fuel consumption corresponds to 2 to 3% of the total fossil fuels used worldwide, and more than 80% of this is used by civil aviation. In comparison, the entire transportation sector burns 20 to 25% of the total fossil fuels consumed. Thus the aviation sector alone uses 13% of the fossil fuels consumed in transportation, being the second largest transportation sector after road transportation (IPCC, 1996b).

In the future, total aviation fuel consumption is expected to continue to grow due to the rapid growth in air traffic volume. The subsequent increase in aircraft engine emissions has drawn particular attention among the aviation industry, the scientific community, and international governments in light global climate change. Through various forums among global participants, the effort to address these issues concerning growing aviation emissions has recently culminated in the IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Atmosphere. In review of this document, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) describes the current status of aviation and global climate as, "Aviation’s effects on the global atmosphere are potentially significant and expected to grow” (GAO, 2000).

Aircraft engines emit a wide range of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, and particulates. The environmental issues concerning these aircraft emissions originally arose from protecting local air quality in the vicinity of airports and have grown to global environmental issues, two of which may bear the direct consequences of aviation. One is climate change, which may alter weather patterns, and, for supersonic aircraft, stratospheric ozone depletion and resultant increase in ultraviolet-B (UV-B) at the earth's surface (IPCC, 1999).

The resultant radiative forcing from these aircraft emissions discharged directly at altitude is estimated to be 2 to 4 times higher than that due to aircraft carbon dioxide emissions alone, whereas the overall radiative forcing from the sum of all anthropogenic activities is estimated to be a factor of 1.5 times that of carbon dioxide emissions at the ground level. IPCC global modeling estimates show that aircraft were responsible for about 3.5% of the total accumulated anthropogenic radiative forcing of the atmosphere in 1992 as shown in Figure 2.1 (IPCC, 1999).

A number of direct and indirect species of aircraft emissions have been identified to affect climate. Carbon dioxide and water directly influence climate by radiative forcing while their indirect influences on climate include the production of [excess] ozone in the troposphere, alteration of the methane lifetime, formation of contrails, and modified cirrus cloudiness. As for the species that have indirect influences on climate, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and water vapor impact climate by modifying the chemical balance in the atmosphere (IPCC, 1999).

The atmospheric sources and sinks of CO2 occur principally at the earth’s surface through exchange between the biosphere and the oceans. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb the infrared radiation from the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. An increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration causes a warming of the troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere. Thus, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is one of the most important factors in climate change..... (continued below)

.

[foot_soldier]

Continued from above:

Water influences climate through its continual cycling between water vapor, clouds, precipitation, and ground water. Both water vapor and clouds have large effects on the radiative balance of climate and directly influence tropospheric chemistry. Water is also important in polar ozone loss though the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. This can directly affect the radiative balance of climate and have a chemical perturbation on stratospheric ozone. Furthermore, it takes longer for water emissions to disappear in the stratosphere than in the troposphere, so these aircraft water emissions increase the ambient concentration and directly impact the radiative balance and climate. Thus, new concerns have arisen regarding increasing contrails and enhanced cirrus formation. Figures 2.2a and 2.2b show a contrail coverage in 1992 and its estimate in 2050 (IPCC, 1999).

[See .pdf link provided below for a look at Figures 2.2a and 2.2b.] (On Page 33)

Nitrogen oxides are present throughout the atmosphere. Their influence is important in the chemistry of both the troposphere and the stratosphere as well as in ozone production and destruction processes.

In the upper troposphere and lowermost stratosphere, NOx emissions from subsonic aircraft tend to increase ozone concentrations. The ozone then acts as a greenhouse gas.

On the other hand, NOx emissions from supersonic aircraft at the higher altitudes tend to deplete ozone.

NOx emissions are also known to contribute to the reduction in the atmospheric lifetime of methane, which is another greenhouse gas (IPCC, 1999).

Particles related to aviation are principally sulfate aerosols and soot particles, which impact the chemical balance of the atmosphere. During operation, aircraft engines emit a mixture of particles and gases (e.g. SO2 - sulfur dioxide) evolving into a variety of particles mainly composed of soot from incomplete combustion and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) from the sulfur in the aviation fuel. These particles then contribute to the seeding of contrails and cirrus clouds, potentially altering the total cloud cover in the upper troposphere. The sulfate aerosol layer in the stratosphere affects stratospheric NOx and hence ozone [depletion] (IPCC, 1999).

Overall, aircraft emissions are unique because they are directly discharged at the high altitudes and may affect the atmosphere in a different way than ground level emissions do. The radiative forcing from aircraft engine emissions is estimated to be 2 to 4 times higher than that due to aircraft carbon dioxide emissions alone, whereas the overall radiative forcing due to the sum of all anthropogenic activities is estimated to be a factor of 1.5 times that of carbon dioxide emissions at the ground level (IPCC, 1999). END Excerpt.

www.mit.edu/people/jjlee/docs/lee_thesis.pdf

.

[halva]

STUART............

IT"S EASTER.......

Would JESUS Have Approved......?

;)

P.S.

I Hope Your Having A Wonderful Easter.......

And Please Keep Halva In Your Prayers..........

For He Knows Not What He has Done..............

And I Must Stress I THINK He is LEARNING........

AND HE HAS Apologized As Best As He Can(See The Peak Oil Thread).........

WMM

I have NOT apologized for anything.

And where I am it is not Easter. The Orthodox Easter doesn't come for another month.

[halva]

Yes, Robert Van Waning was an active debunker of the "chemtrails" hoax for quite a while. He, too, like me, got banned and his postings deleted at many of the "chemtrails" cult messageboard. They called him a "liar" and a "debunker" just like Wayne Hall and 'footsoldier' both called me.

Interesting how things come full circle. Eventually, Wayne will admit that he was wrong to call me a liar, and that the hoax he now promotes called "chemtrails" was the wrong thing to get mixed up with. He'll probably ask me to forgive him for trying so hard to silence me, when all I did was try to drum the truth into his hard little head.

Jay Reynolds I will never ever admit that I was wrong to call you a liar, unless it will be to admit that I had overestimated your intelligence and that in that case possibly you are not a liar.

This exchange does not legitimate a return to flaming. Postings on these threads have become more dispassionate and intelligent and almost all of us want them to stay that way.

Also let me tell you that I have had an exchange of e-mails with Robert van Waning and think that he is doing a good job with the strategy for intervention he has chosen.

[jayreynolds]

Also let me tell you that I have had an exchange of e-mails with Robert van Waning and think that he is doing a good job with the strategy for intervention he has chosen.
Yes, Robert and I have also exchanged e-mails. On his website under "chemtrails" he debunks them, albeit in the Dutch language. Like I said, interesting how you people have to eventually come around to quoting a debunker to get your credibility back.

[jayreynolds]

I suppose Robert van Waning is yet another of your "buddies", eh, Reynolds? I suppose you share his genuine concern for and commitment to ultimate resolution of the very specific issues so patiently and thoroughly documented in his web venue, yes?
I think not.
In fact I know not.


Well, consider this. You have never, to my knowledge, publicly laid your own name on the line and written in a hard-copy publication in your own words, an accurate description of the "chemtrails" vs. contrails controversy, including the facts about the environmental effects of ordinary contrails.

When I saw misinformation being promoted by "Earth Island Journal", which had been taken in by William Thomas' nonsense, I wrote the following response which was published:
(PS, I was only allowed 500 words)
http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/new_articles.cfm?articleID=646&journalID=66
The Other Side of “Chemtrails”

by Jay Reynolds



The article “Stolen Skies: The Chemtrail Mystery” (EIJ, Summer 2002), contained many inaccuracies which deserve correction. Beginning with the subtitle, “Jet Trails in the Sky Used to Disappear; Now they Linger” author William Thomas leads the reader to believe that the contrails produced by 6000 commercial airplane flights per day are actually military jets’ spraying of various substances worldwide.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The chemtrails idea is a hoax and an urban legend supported by speculation, hearsay, and rumor, but no tangible evidence.

Ever since airplanes reached cold enough air (lower than minus 40°F), probably as early as the Spanish Civil War, contrails have been forming. They have been known to persist for many hours if enough ambient moisture is available to inhibit their dissipation. By WWII, contrails were a significant threat to the stealth of bomber squadrons. Alternate return routes were taken to avoid persistent contrail cloudiness left behind on the outbound flight.

Contrails form when hydrocarbon fuel is burned and combines with oxygen. Hydrogen from the fuel, plus oxygen, yields water, which freezes quickly into ice crystals. If temperatures are above minus 40°F, it is unlikely that a contrail will form. If cold enough, the ice crystals forming the contrail will behave just as any other cloud. If enough moisture is already present in the air, the contrail can spread by growth of the crystals, or be blown into normal-looking cirrus clouds. If the air is too dry, the contrail will eventually dissipate, either rapidly or up to several hours later.

Ironically, technical advances in engine efficiency have resulted in jet engines that burn fuel more completely, thus combining more hydrogen with oxygen and yielding more water for contrail formation. Better engines also have resulted in cooler exhaust temperatures, making it easier for the contrails to form. The prospect of a hydrogen-fueled jet which might be squeaky clean but leaves a massive contrail of water vapor would be sure to raise aesthetic questions.

Jet aircraft do leave behind unseen carbon dioxide and oxides of sulfur and nitrogen. These emissions have similar consequences to other fossil fuel use. Aviation produces a relatively small amount of these pollutants (13 percent) compared to other transportation and a fraction of the global emissions (2 percent). Modern jet engines are among the most efficient of all internal combustion engines.

The contrails formed do have a small effect on climate similar to natural cirrus clouds. Their high thin nature actually tends to warm the surface of the earth by reflecting heat back towards the surface. Contrail coverage of the earth currently amounts to 0.1 percent, and is projected to increase to 0.4 percent by 2050.

Active since 1997, the “chemtrails” hoax came to prominence during 1999 as millennium fears increased and originally focused on claims of poison chemicals designed to kill. Those dire predictions have not come to fruition. Later claims have focused on the idea that “chemtrails” are a form of amelioration of global warming. In fact, such geoengineering proposals have been made by prominent scientists, but assume that aerosols for blocking sunlight would be emitted high into the stratosphere, far higher than the contrails observed in the upper troposphere.

As a result of the promotion of the “chemtrails” hoax, much needless anxiety has been created. Some believers report immediate health effects upon sighting contrails six miles high, a physical impossibility. Profiteers have established a thriving cottage industry from the sale of books, tapes, and dubious medical products designed to “protect” people from supposed harm.

As it has over the past three years, time has a way of dealing with claims that fail to come true. The majority of people who initially believe in chemtrails eventually become aware of the factual and logical failings and abandon the idea. To a degree, this demonstrates that common sense wins most of the time. Let’s hope it always does.

The author has further information at http://goodsky.homestead.com/index.html

================================================== =========
As you can see, my article, which is esentially a debunking of "chemtrails" in 500 words, devoted almost 1/3 of the space to discussion of the environmental aspects or ordinary contrails.
My original article, ""Those Mysterious Lines in the Sky", was similarly published and distributed in hard copy in one newspaper and also was reprinted in Dr. Claire Gilbert's feminist/enviro newsletter.

Where is your comparable work, 'footsoldier'?, or can we only point towards "Chemtrails Over America" again?

As editor in charge of accuracy of "Chemtrails Over America", you squandered a priceless opportunity to lay out the facts regarding contrails, yet you consciously chose to not discuss these facts, yet allowed barium hoax misinformation and preposterous claims like this to be promoted:
"There is growing evidence that aerosol aluminum compounds are being systematically released at higher altitudes above 30,000 feet, and is directly related to the ozone problem.......Aluminum compound is being discharged by aircraft at higher altitudes, in a separate project, for filtering and reflecting radiation, including ultra violet, from the sun."
http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america-4.htm

In the entire document, no mention whatsoever is made of the facts regarding ordinary aviation emissions! Is it any wonder that you so jealously guard your anonymity given the part you played in such a disgraceful document?

However, I am aware that you do have a conscience, and given the fullness of time and my diligent reminders, you will ultimately come around to exposing those responsible for that document.

[halva]

Yes, Robert and I have also exchanged e-mails. On his website under "chemtrails" he debunks them, albeit in the Dutch language. Like I said, interesting how you people have to eventually come around to quoting a debunker to get your credibility back.

On the contrary it is you who are always making unilateral claims of buddyship on 'chemmies' such as Chem 11 as a way of boosting your credibility among the naive who have still not cottoned on to the logic of your monotonous game.

Anyway, since you choose to continue this sniping I hope that, as we snipe on, others will avail themselves of the opportunity to exchange ideas and increase their knowledge.

I take it that you prefer repetitive sniping to my deleting you. Yes?

[stuart_allsop]

STUART............

IT"S EASTER.......

Would JESUS Have Approved......?

;)

P.S.

I Hope Your Having A Wonderful Easter.......

And Please Keep Halva In Your Prayers..........

For He Knows Not What He has Done..............

And I Must Stress I THINK He is LEARNING........

AND HE HAS Apologized As Best As He Can(See The Peak Oil Thread).........

WMM


I have NOT apologized for anything.

And where I am it is not Easter. . . .

Shawn, I rest my case. Do you see, now?

[jayreynolds]

I take it that you prefer repetitive sniping to my deleting you. Yes?
"Be my guest"

[foot_soldier]

Jay Reynolds wrote:
.....As you can see, my article, which is esentially a debunking of "chemtrails" in 500 words, devoted almost 1/3 of the space to discussion of the environmental aspects or ordinary contrails.....
I'm not interested in "debunking chemtrails."

I am interested in following the work of the atmospheric chemistry research community in regard to the environmental impacts of aviation emissions and persistent, spreading aviation contrails and contrail cirrus, which I am convinced are exerting, on a regional basis, a net-warming effect on conditions at Earth's surface. They are modifying weather patterns and (in some cases) climate patterns on a regional basis.

It's been five years in the direct observation department, now almost equally divided between two very different geographical locations. I have observed a great deal. I am therefore very interested in following what the research community has to say about this matter.

What I am not interested in is "debating" it with you.

[jayreynolds]

I suppose Robert van Waning is yet another of your "buddies", eh, Reynolds? I suppose you share his genuine concern for and commitment to ultimate resolution of the very specific issues so patiently and thoroughly documented in his web venue, yes?
I think not.
In fact I know not.
***http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2005-1/magicgallery/cc-20050320-191712.htm

Hey, 'footsoldier', you asked me if I was willing to discuss the issues, and I showed that I have had original articles regarding those issues published online and in hard-copy using my real name. You cannot take that away from me. It is not debatable.

I showed how you, to the contrary, had anonymously acted as editor of a hard-copy and website article "Chemtrails Over America" which didn't discuss those issues at all, but instead promoted a hoax idea that when people see contrails they are seeing aluminum/barium/titanium/whatnium being sprayed by military jet planes.

You continue to run away from that fact, yet fancy yourself as an advocate for "genuine concern for and ultimate resolution"????

Sorry, the two positions are mutually incompatible. Your inability to deal with that reality shows just how weak your commitment and concern really is. It is a sham, a false front designed to yet failing to atone for previous prevarications.

Deliberate deception is far worse than inaction, it shows a disregard for basic truth and needs to be exposed for what it really is.

THAT is why you are "not interested in "debating", even if this forum was specifically set up for such debate. You set yourself up for that failure, not me.

[halva]

Why don't you just lay off, Mr. Reynolds.

Boomer Chick, and other people, are interested in discussing with you. Footsoldier isn't.

It's the equivalent of rape for you to be insisting, insisting, insisting. It perpetuates tension in a forum which is beginning to become friendly, human and relaxed.

You are an defender of freedom. Can't you respect Footsoldier's freedom?

[jayreynolds]

It's the equivalent of rape for you to be insisting, insisting, insisting.
How absurd.

[halva]

There are so many new subjects opening up and so much happening now. I don't think there is anyone at all apart from you that is interested in continuation of your "debate" with Footsoldier.

[foot_soldier]

March 21, 2005

Tories back Europe-wide tax on aviation fuel

Airlines say environment strategy will cost party votes
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1442379,00.html

The Conservatives intend to put the brakes on Britain's boom in low-cost air travel by pushing for a Europe-wide tax on aviation fuel, which could lead to as much as £7 being added to the cost of airline tickets.

In an interview with the Guardian the shadow transport secretary, Tim Yeo, outlined environmental measures that will alarm airlines.

He questioned the justification for flying between London and Scotland, and said he would impose stringent financial obstacles to the construction of a new runway at Stansted airport.

Environmental organisations have long argued for a tax on aviation fuel in order to force airlines to pay for the damage they cause in harmful emissions and climate change.

Ministers from France and Germany last month suggested a Europe-wide tax of €300 per tonne of aviation fuel, which would add between €5 and €10 (roughly £3.50 to £7) to every fare, with the proceeds to be channelled towards aid for Africa.

Tony Blair opposed the measure, telling MPs that he would not "slap some huge tax on cheap air travel".

In his first detailed comments on aviation policy, Mr Yeo said: "If I was in office on May 6 I would want to straight away talk to my colleagues in Europe about how we could make progress towards a fuel tax. Aviation has to take account of its environmental impact to a greater extent than it has done in the past."

His remarks were attacked by EasyJet, which said a tax would disproportionately hit travellers on a tight budget.

Its spokesman Toby Nicol said passengers already paid £5 air passenger duty on every short-haul flight, which was roughly equivalent to a 100% tax on fuel.

"The idea that airlines don't pay an environmental tax already is ridiculous," he said. "Going out to the public six weeks before an election and saying, 'I want to make air travel more expensive,' is a surefire vote loser."

British Airways and other big carriers argue instead for an emissions trading scheme, under which airlines would trade "permits" for pollution.

They say this would be a better incentive towards less-polluting fuel; and they add that the objectives of a fuel tax could be foiled by airlines filling up with vast quantities of cheap fuel in the US and emitting more pollution as they carry it across the Atlantic.

Environmentalists privately suggested that the Conservatives wanted to reach out to voters in rural areas around airports, who were worried about the government's plans for runway development.

Mr Yeo's South Suffolk constituency is close to Stansted. He said he would make it difficult for BAA to expand the airport by preventing it from "cross-subsidising", using funds from Heathrow and Gatwick.

But Friends of the Earth's aviation campaigner Paul de Zylva said: "I think the public is increasingly recognising that it is absolutely absurd for airlines to get away with paying less than 20p a litre for jet fuel."

The group wants the duty to be set at the same rate imposed on petrol for motorists, which, if translated to ticket prices, would put £20 on a short-haul journey and up to £120 on a transatlantic flight.

Passenger numbers on flights between Britain and the rest of Europe went from 51m in 1993 to 97m in 2003.

Mr Yeo said he wanted airlines to print information about environmental emissions on every ticket. He said: "No one can say they are serious about being interested in addressing climate change without addressing aviation.

"If you are going to go from London to Glasgow the environmental impact is often less if you drive."

[peace-fries]

Thank you all for the complete background information on the subject!
Gladly this thread has turned out more subject-orientated than some others in this section of the forum.
Thanx again and best!







"When we love, things make even more sense." http://www.warriorofthelight.com

[foot_soldier]

Thank you for your comment, peace-fries. This thread is intended to focus on the matter of aviation emissions impact on the global atmosphere. I hope the information is useful to those who are interested in keeping updated on this issue. You sure won't find the continuity in the U.S. media that's been provided in this thread in regard to this increasingly serious problem. The Europeans are way ahead of us in that they're actually facing the issue and engaging the public in the challenging processes necessary to making some difficult but important decisions.

[foot_soldier]

January 25, 2005

Climate Change and the Future of Air Travel
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/Content/PressReleases/ClimateChangeAndTheFutureOfAirTravel.htm

Researchers are investigating how air travel can be adapted to ease its impact on the environment.

The investigation focuses on how aircraft can avoid creating vapour trails, also known as contrails. These spindly threads of condensation may not seem important but some persist for hours and behave in the same way as high altitude cirrus clouds, trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming.

Air travel is currently growing at between 3 and 5% per year and cargo transportation by air is increasing by 7% per year. The researchers at Imperial College London are combining predictions from climate change models with air traffic simulations to predict contrail formation and identify ways of reducing it.

The EPSRC is funding the work, which is a joint effort between the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering and the Department of Physics at Imperial College London.

As the climate changes, so will the general condition of the atmosphere and the new work aims to understand how this will affect contrail formation. They have already found that aircraft could generally minimise contrail formation by flying lower in the atmosphere. Their work suggests that in the summer, when the air is warmer, restricting jets to an altitude of 31,000 feet could be beneficial. In winter, when the air cools, and contrail formation becomes more likely, the ceiling should be no more then 24,000 feet.

Day to day variability in atmospheric conditions were also found to have a substantial effect on the ability of simple altitude restrictions to be an effective policy. Current work is aiming to examine more complex aircraft routing strategies aimed at avoiding air masses that lead to persistent contrail formation.

At present the production of contrails and their effect on the environment is not taken into account in government assessments of the environmental impact of air travel. Team leader, Dr Robert Noland, thinks it should be. He says, “We’d like this research to inform government policies, not just in the UK but throughout the EU and the rest of the world so that decision makers can take all the environmental issues into account and do the right thing.”

Dr Noland also believes that the work has direct relevance to aircraft manufacturers. He says, “There is little more that aircraft designers can do to increase engine fuel efficiency at high altitude, but designing new aircraft that can be as fuel efficient flying at 20,000 feet, as today’s aircraft are at 35,000 feet, would help eliminate contrails.”

Notes for Editors

Contrails form when hot, humid air created in a jet engine mixes with the low pressure, cold surrounding air of the atmosphere. Generally, the higher the altitude, the colder the air and the more likely contrail formation becomes. It is similar to the way your breath condenses into a vaporous cloud on a cold day.

A key consideration in this study is the proliferation of short-haul flights. These are currently thought to be more environmentally disruptive than long-haul flights because of the high quantity of fuel needed for take-off and landing. In a short haul, this is not balanced by a long, fuel-efficient cruise. However, contrail effects are not taken into account in current environmental risk assessments of air travel. The team are investigating whether the picture would change if they were. The reason is that short-haul flights seldom reach the altitude where contrails form and this might make them overall more environmentally friendly than high-flying long-haul flights.

As well as the seasonal variation in atmospheric conditions, which the team estimated would require a general ceiling on flight altitudes (summer: 31,000 feet, winter: 24,000 feet), they also found significant day to day variations, so any contrail reduction strategy would work better if it were reactive on a daily basis. They also found days when the atmospheric conditions made it almost impossible to avoid contrail formation.

Aircraft already measure the exterior air conditions, so a simple piece of software, programmed with the details of the jet exhaust temperature and humidity could immediately alert a pilot to when his aircraft is creating a contrail.

Although lower flying aircraft expend more fuel to push themselves through the thicker atmosphere, the team found this less damaging than the radiative forcing* effect of the contrails. Lower altitude flying does, however, slightly increase travel time.

*Radiative forcing is any change in the balance between radiation coming into the atmosphere and radiation going out. Positive radiative forcing tends to warm the surface of the Earth, and negative radiative forcing tends to cool it.

This effort is being led by Dr. Robert Noland in Civil & Environmental Engineering. Dr Ralf Toumi in the Physics Dept is the co-investigator and Dr Victoria Williams in Civil & Environmental Engineering is an EPSRC-funded Research Fellow.

[Boomer Chick]

OZONE and Global Warming.... Great discussion with links and most recent research:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=145#more-145


***

Playing games doesn't help anyone's cause here. You made your point, FS, now it's time for us to get back to posting credible research and your wonderful contributions ON POINT.

Let it all go.... let all so called trespasses and other social negativities go.... you are not hurt personally.... you are not prevented from your research.... and you have choices in how you respond to anyone nagging you on the net. Ignore, for God's sake and don't succumb to your emotions regarding this, either.

You want peace in the world? Be peace, act peace! PERIOD! I'm tired of people revenging, seeking revenge, blah, blah , blah, blah, blah............. WHAT A WASTE of ENERGY! FOCUS on the subject................ ARGUE points............. PROVE points and LOG THE HECK OFF !!!!

GET OVER IT EVERYONE!!!! SHEESH!!!!

http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html

[Boomer Chick]

And I can sure as heck read what you write and I'll say what I want about it, FS.

Thank you.

BC

[foot_soldier]

April 24, 2005 - UK

Politicians 'ignoring transport crisis'
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=SQ2411876K&news_headline=politicians_'ignoring_transport_cris is'

Politicians have been accused of sweeping transport problems under the carpet during the current election campaign.

Transport activists claim the crisis has been bypassed by an obsession with education, health, immigration and the economy.

However they warned the new Government on May 6 would have to face up to the issue, particularly its contribution to climate change.

Transport now accounts for 26 per cent of emissions in the UK and road traffic continues to rise by about two per cent a year while aviation is predicted to double and even treble by 2030.

But politicians consistently avoid making the connection between climate change, transport policy and individual travel behaviour, according to pressure group Transport 2000.

Director Stephen Joseph unveiled Transport 2000's Ten Point Plan for action to solve the challenges faced by the next Transport Secretary.

It calls for improving public transport with more services to more places with greater frequency, including at evenings and weekends, along with the reintroduction of trams for congested cities.

Other recommendations include making walking and cycling safer and more attractive, giving people opportunities to change their travel habits, tackling the growth in air travel, and admitting it is not possible to build our way out of road congestion.

The report also calls for a move towards a national road user charging scheme, the integration of transport and land use planning in new developments to reduce the need to travel, a reform of motoring taxes to promote cleaner fuels and vehicles, the tackling of speed and road safety, and reducing road and air freight.

Mr Joseph said: "Politicians are brushing climate change and other urgent transport issues under the carpet in this election but the bump is getting too big to hide.

"Whoever forms the next government will need face up to some hard issues, such as the need to cut traffic and aviation in order to tackle climate change and protect our environment and quality of life, while keeping Britain moving at the same time."

[foot_soldier]

NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENT WATCH

Regional Solutions - Northwestern US
Fact Sheet: Air Travel Heats Up . . . the Planet
http://www.northwestwatch.org/reforms/climate_airtravel.asp

Excerpt:

1. Air travel destroys good ozone, creates bad ozone. In the stratosphere—at altitudes where many military and supersonic jets fly—aircraft pollution destroys ozone. That’s a problem because ozone in the stratosphere is a good thing. It shields the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. In the upper troposphere, at altitudes where most commercial jets fly—aircraft pollution creates ozone. That’s a problem because ozone in the upper troposphere is a bad thing. It’s a potent, though short-lived, climate-changing greenhouse gas.

2. Military aircraft use more fuel apiece than civilian aircraft. A decade ago, military aircraft were one fourth as numerous as civilian aircraft worldwide, yet they consumed roughly one third as much fuel. Furthermore, military jets, with their high performance requirements, produce more climate-changing pollutants, especially nitrogen oxides.

3. Airplanes’ contrails may also play a role in climate change. Contrails are high-altitude vapor trails. They form when water vapor in the atmosphere condenses and freezes around tiny, cooled particles of engine exhaust.

The three-day grounding of all American air traffic after September 11, 2001 created a natural experiment for studying contrails’ effects. Researchers discovered that the absence of contrails expanded the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures by a full degree Celsius, compared with the average of the last three decades. The difference was even greater in Cascadia and other heavy-air-traffic, mid-latitude regions (see endnote 5). Apparently, contrails dampen natural temperature variations.

4. Airports are also big polluters of local air. Jets release huge plumes of exhaust during taxiing, idling, takeoffs, and landings. For instance, one airplane taking off and landing from JFK airport in the mid-1990s would produce as much nitrogen oxides as a car driven 26,500 miles. Newer planes have improved since then, but fleets are still heavily populated by older vehicles. Many airports nationwide are among the top ten point-source polluters in their city (see endnote 6). END excerpt.

[jayreynolds]

50,000 Cheer as Giant Airliner Takes Off on Maiden Flight -Airbus Chief Hails 95 MPG Behemoth

"Superjumbo takes off
27 April 2005
The world's biggest passenger plane took to the skies for the first time today.
The Airbus A380, which will be able to carry 555 passengers, took off smoothly at Toulouse Blagnac airport in southern France.
In brilliant sunshine and clear skies, the £150 million double-decker superjumbo left the tarmac just before 10.30am local time.
The A380 is partly British-produced, with the wings designed and built in Filton, near Bristol, and Broughton in north Wales.
Thousands of aviation enthusiasts lined the runway to watch the historic take-off and cordoned-off areas around the airfield were packed with people.
The six-strong crew had boarded the aircraft an hour and a half earlier wearing bright orange flight suits and quickly strapped on parachutes.
They were led by Airbus's flight division senior vice president Captain Claude Lelaie and chief test pilot Captain Jacques Rosay.
At 10.27am, the chase plane took off and the A380 rumbled into action two minutes later.
There were rousing cheers and applause from the crowds as the aircraft left the ground just before 10.30am and climbed steadily into the clear sky.
The enormous aircraft, which is 240ft long, 80ft tall and has 260ft wingspan, took off in a north westerly direction with its undercarriage down.
The A380 is expected to stay in the air for between two and four hours and will carry out a series of checks. The plane's size can be compared to a football field - the aircraft is so big that the wing tips would reach just inside the goalposts and its fuselage would stretch beyond the width of the pitch."

Gallery: http--images.thisislondon.co.uk-v2-galleries-news-airbus380-a380busR_350x200.jpg

[Boomer Chick]

50,000 Cheer as Giant Airliner Takes Off on Maiden Flight -Airbus Chief Hails 95 MPG Behemoth

"Superjumbo takes off
27 April 2005
The world's biggest passenger plane took to the skies for the first time today.
The Airbus A380, which will be able to carry 555 passengers, took off smoothly at Toulouse Blagnac airport in southern France.
In brilliant sunshine and clear skies, the £150 million double-decker superjumbo left the tarmac just before 10.30am local time.
The A380 is partly British-produced, with the wings designed and built in Filton, near Bristol, and Broughton in north Wales.
Thousands of aviation enthusiasts lined the runway to watch the historic take-off and cordoned-off areas around the airfield were packed with people.
The six-strong crew had boarded the aircraft an hour and a half earlier wearing bright orange flight suits and quickly strapped on parachutes.
They were led by Airbus's flight division senior vice president Captain Claude Lelaie and chief test pilot Captain Jacques Rosay.
At 10.27am, the chase plane took off and the A380 rumbled into action two minutes later.
There were rousing cheers and applause from the crowds as the aircraft left the ground just before 10.30am and climbed steadily into the clear sky.
The enormous aircraft, which is 240ft long, 80ft tall and has 260ft wingspan, took off in a north westerly direction with its undercarriage down.
The A380 is expected to stay in the air for between two and four hours and will carry out a series of checks. The plane's size can be compared to a football field - the aircraft is so big that the wing tips would reach just inside the goalposts and its fuselage would stretch beyond the width of the pitch."

Gallery: http--images.thisislondon.co.uk-v2-galleries-news-airbus380-a380busR_350x200.jpg

Got any info. on the emissions of this BIG BABY? OMG! AMAZING!

What will the usual fight scenario look like for this BEHEMOTH? Just European?

Elephants do indeed fly !

BC

[Boomer Chick]

http://www.moneyplans.net/frontend2-verify-6500.html

Possible Confrontation 'Between US & EU Aircraft Makers
Publish Date : 5/4/2005 5:01:00 AM Source : Moneyplans.net Staff

Both US and EU aircraft creators expect to use conversation, not legal means, to clear the Airbus and Boeing conflict.

Both ask for how much alleged state aid each is giving to help its aircraft makers. The EU and US accuse each other of boosting their industries with illegal state subsidies.

The US accuses the EU of having funded the project with generous subsidies, while the EU claims that Boeing is receiving similar help in the US for its mid-sized 7E7, now 787 Dreamliner plane.

Mr Mandelson, EU trade commissioner, and Mr Portman, US trade representative, agreed that a negotiated solution remained the most desirable option. They agreed to continue their dialogue," said a joint statement released by the European Commission in Brussels.

On January 11 the US government and EU gave themselves 90 days to resolve their dispute over aircraft subsidies instead of suing each other.

(Joy Sen Gupta, MoneyPlans.net)

[Boomer Chick]

Global Warming: The Smoking Gun? by Dr. Roy Spencer

http://www.techcentralstation.com/050305C.html

[foot_soldier]

BBC Interview - Global Dimming
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

Excerpt:

.....DR DAVID TRAVIS: The nine eleven study showed that if you remove a contributor to Global Dimming, jet contrails, just for a three day period, we see an immediate response of the surface of temperature. Do the same thing globally we might see a large scale increase in global warming.....

[jayreynolds]

BBC Interview - Global Dimming
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml
Excerpt:....DR DAVID TRAVIS: The nine eleven study showed that if you remove a contributor to Global Dimming, jet contrails, just for a three day period, we see an immediate response of the surface of temperature. Do the same thing globally we might see a large scale increase in global warming.....

'footsoldier'- "defender of the indefensible"

The BC scaremongering TV show referenced above has been thoroughly debunked by BBC in a news article published not three months later:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4520831.stm
Which stated:
"The amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface is increasing, two new studies in Science magazine suggest.
Using different methods, they find that solar radiation at the surface has risen for at least the last decade.
Previous work had found the opposite trend, leading to a popular theory known as "global dimming".

Now, let's flashback to what 'footsoldier' was claiming three months ago:
"A comparison of contrail data from 1977-79 and 2000-02 revealed that [i]a 220% increase in contrails has occurred since the original study. This 220% increase in contrails coincides with a 214% increase in air miles flown since 1979. There are now many more high altitude flights than there were in the 1970's. Atmospheric changes are also occurring at flight altitudes near the tropopause. The increased contrail cloud cover is contributing to the overall increase in cloud cover over North America.

So, she is claiming that contrails have increased by 220%, yet Science shows us two studies proving that during that time MORE SUNLIGHT WAS REACHING THE EARTH!

HOW CAN THIS CONUNDRUM BE RECONCILED???

The facts show that contrails, even a doubling of contrails, are insufficient to reduce global sunlight!

Now, put that in your tailpipe and smoke it.

I can't stress just how significant these new revelations about global brightening are to both the ordinary contrails and the "chemtrails"/contrails debates. Both debates have been effectually declared moot.
Two facts which have emerged demolish both sacred cows better than a Texas barbecue:

Contrails - it turns out that ordinary contrails, even large increases of contrails, simply don't have enough influence to dim solar radiation, which has, in fact, increased despite their prevalence.

"Chemtrails"- It turns out that the idea that some global solar mitigation program isn't happening, because earth's skies are getting clearer and cleaner, not dirtier and dimmer!

SMOKIN'!

[foot_soldier]

Linking:
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19486

And for those who agree with Jay "Flaming Sword of Truth" Reynolds that aviation emissions are a "moot" issue, you'll find plenty of support for that position here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1382374/posts

[jayreynolds]

Linking:
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19486

And for those who agree with Jay "Flaming Sword of Truth" Reynolds that aviation emissions are a "moot" issue, you'll find plenty of support for that position here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1382374/posts

I guess the flaming sword of truth really got your goat when it slew two 'Sacred Cows' at once, eh?

So now tell us, how do you account for the fact that during the time you saw all those contrails over Boston, the air became cleaner and clearer, huh?????

How does it feel to have the rug yanked straight out from under both of your closely held paradigms?

"For the record, if anyone really wants to know where I stand on the issue at hand, please go to the "Stratospheric and Tropospheric Ozone Research" thread on the Top Page of Clifford's Message Board.

I feel that damage to the ozone layer has significantly altered atmospheric chemistry and circulation to the point that the atmosphere can no longer accommodate the level of pollution to which it is continuously being subjected. Recent, heightened solar activity is, no doubt, complicating an already unstable situation.

I also feel that systematic atmospheric modification is probably ongoing, for various reasons which are obviously not being addressed publically.

In addition to this, I feel that the U.S. is quite possibly under periodic biological attack. I have reason to believe this as I am living in the epicenter of an area that has been heavily sprayed for West Nile. Something just isn't "adding up", if you know what I mean."

[halva]

Since it seems that with the withdrawal of WMM we are moving into a new repetition cycle here, why don't you diversify and give 'Epitaph' a hand, Raynolds?

http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=179&threadID=44251&start=0&tstart=0

[foot_soldier]

Jay "I alone possess the Truth that agrees with Facts and Reality" Reynolds wrote:

..... So now tell us, how do you account for the fact that during the time you saw all those contrails over Boston, the air became cleaner and clearer, huh?????.....
Why don't you provide some proof that the air is becoming "cleaner and clearer" in the Boston area? This should be a piece of cake for you since you're not only so personally familiar with the city but you also have special access to statistics not available to the rest of us here. I'm sure everyone will be waiting with bated breath to see your presentation. Go ahead. Prove that the air in the Boston area has become "cleaner and clearer."

[jayreynolds]

Since it seems that with the withdrawal of WMM we are moving into a new repetition cycle here, why don't you diversify and give 'Epitaph' a hand, Raynolds?

http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=179&threadID=44251&start=0&tstart=0

Hey, Wayne!
Looks like you got no response with your conspiracy theory after waiting four days.
What did you expect? You beat around the bush and never really came out with what you wanted to say, "Look here, I believe in "chemtrails", and I want you to join my cult"!

Who am I to argue with you, when even your own people won't respond?

"Climate change campaigners have failed utterly"

Possibly they got the idea you were accusing them of failure, which you esenntially were doing!

You've a lot to learn about human nature, and being honest, Wayne...........

[jayreynolds]

Why don't you provide some proof that the air is becoming "cleaner and clearer" in the Boston area? This should be a piece of cake for you since you're not only so personally familiar with the city but you also have special access to statistics not available to the rest of us here. I'm sure everyone will be waiting with bated breath to see your presentation. Go ahead. Prove that the air in the Boston area has become "cleaner and clearer."

Sorry, dearie. I'm not into comparing apples and oranges in charity efforts for my opponents.
I showed you the research which showed a net global trend towards both cleaner and clearer air.

The study debunked your two twin premises, that suposed 'global dimming' was due to contrails/chemtrails. I noted that even with a reported 220% increase of ordinary contrails, global air became clearer and cleaner, and asked for your explanation

I asked you how this could be possible, expecting to eventually see you concede that you were wrong, in the first place, about "chemtrails", and in the second case, about contrails.

I suppose that since you couldn't develop the quality of character necessary to concede, even when the facts become 'crystal clear', you opted instead for a distraction gambit.

That said, I'll let you soar on my eagle wings once again. Your own EPA is saying Massachusetts has far less toxic emissions, even in the last few years:
http://www.epa.gov/ne/pr/2005/may/dd050512.html

"Over the long-term, New England has experienced a decreasing number of ozone days, and peak ozone concentrations have decreased significantly over the last 30 years. In 1983, New England had 90 unhealthy days, compared with 43 days in 2002, and 17 and 13 unhealthy days during the past two cool summers, respectively. Overall, ozone concentrations in New England have decreased by more than 20 percent since 1980."
http://www.epa.gov/ne/pr/2004/sep/040920.html

"Massachusetts Achieves Attainment with the Fine Particle Air-Quality Standards"
http://www.epa.gov/ne/pr/2004/dec/dd041210.html


But how would you know? You ran away from the contrails six miles overhead and heading out to sea from Boston a few years ago, right?
What a waste.

[halva]

Hey, Wayne!
Looks like you got no response with your conspiracy theory after waiting four days.
What did you expect? You beat around the bush and never really came out with what you wanted to say, "Look here, I believe in "chemtrails", and I want you to join my cult"!

Who am I to argue with you, when even your own people won't respond?

Possibly they got the idea you were accusing them of failure, which you esenntially were doing!

You've a lot to learn about human nature, and being honest, Wayne...........

It's true that my intervention terminated the discussion there, and you want to try to sell the line that this means you have a support group among 'my people' (!!!!!).

But the fact is that they have been silenced out of unease and embarrassment, and the most relevant person who was silenced is one of 'your people',not 'my people', whom nevertheless you are prudent enough not to try to help out, just as, unlike WMM, you were prudent enough not to get mixed up with Greenpeace Greece.

So, because you know among which reference groups you can get away with peddling your crack-brained and internally contradictory message, you stay here at Arianna's in order to entertain us with the tenth rerun of the familiar 'get footsoldier' trope.

And footsoldier, by the way, has asked for it. And now she is back in defensive mode again with you, asking you to prove what you say.

BC will criticise me now for being obsessed with you, and it is true that I want to have you and your crap taken off the few remaining forums where you can still sing your pathetic little song.

She could have solved the problem herself, given that she has the ear of the moderators here, if she were half as interested in helping Arianna's moderators enforce the rules of their own forum as she was/is in removing other non-rule-breaking obstacles to serious debate, whose removal really served no purpose if it was not a prelude to removing you also.

[foot_soldier]

Jay "Cult Buster" Reynolds wrote:

.....Sorry, dearie. I'm not into comparing apples and oranges in charity efforts for my opponents.....
Oh come off it, Mr. Put-Upon.

Interesting, isn't it, that progress is finally being made with reducing the levels of ozone, SO2, diesel soot and particulate surface pollution in the New England region while there has been no change whatsoever in the aviation-facilitated pollution situation over the area. The skies are still as crappy and regularly strafed with trails as they were when I left.

And guess what - I'm currently living at 7,000 feet in about as non-industrial an area as there is in this country and, lo and behold, the skies down here are more often than not just as crappy as they are back east.

And yes, when those trails build up and spread out to cover the sky with the now-familiar blanket of fake cirrus there's a very big difference in the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground. I'd call that dimming. Why, even the regional meteorologists are now routinely commenting that 'those high clouds' - you know, the ones that 'tend to hold the heat in at the surface', are also 'filtering the sun'. Guess that makes it all perfectly normal, eh? Amazing what five years and a little systematic modification of the public lexicon will accomplish.

halva wrote:

.....So, because you know among which reference groups you can get away with peddling your crack-brained and internally contradictory message, you stay here at Arianna's in order to entertain us with the tenth rerun of the familiar 'get footsoldier' trope.

And footsoldier, by the way, has asked for it. And now she is back in defensive mode again with you, asking you to prove what you say.....
I know exactly what I'm doing, halva. I'm not in "defensive mode."

[halva]

[
I know exactly what I'm doing, halva. I'm not in "defensive mode."

You may know what you are doing, footsoldier, but are we going to get another recital of your alleged activities of six years ago, in huge bold red letters, perfectly calculated to shatter any attempts at discussion some of us may be trying to conduct here?

I suspect yes.

And BC will tut tut Reynolds for continuing to do it, but we can't stop him.

[jayreynolds]

[color=green]Interesting, isn't it, that progress is finally being made with reducing the levels of ozone, SO2, diesel soot and particulate surface pollution in the New England region while there has been no change whatsoever in the aviation-facilitated pollution situation over the area. The skies are still as crappy and regularly strafed with trails as they were when I left.

Well, that gets back to the question I asked you-

So if contrails were all that important, considering their more than doubling, how could it be that earth's skies are getting cleaner and clearer?

The answer is rather obvious, isn't it, dearie? You are making a tempest in a teapot, your nephophobia has gotten the better of your sense of reason. Get over it, contrails simply don't matter much on a global level, according to Science.

[jayreynolds]

Why, even the regional meteorologists are now routinely commenting that 'those high clouds' - you know, the ones that 'tend to hold the heat in at the surface', are also 'filtering the sun'. Guess that makes it all perfectly normal, eh? Amazing what five years and a little systematic modification of the public lexicon will accomplish
So now the meteorologists are 'in on it' too? High clouds are called cirrus, meteorologists know what they are and consider them perfectly normal, yes.

Now, don't take me to task for it wasn't me who did this research which shows definitively and repeatedly that aerosols in earth's atmosphere have decreased. If you want to take someone on, I refer your complaints to the scientists who have debunked your worries:
Dr. Pinker looks like a very nice woman:
Dr. Rachel T. Pinker
Professor
Department of Meteorology
University of Maryland
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~pinker/

And the same for the good Dr. Wild:
http://iacweb.ethz.ch/staff/wild/

Maybe they can explain better for you why, despite the increase of contrails and the absense of "chemtrails", earth's air has gotten cleaner and clearer. You may recall that six years ago I advised you to begin educating yourself in meteorolology. Six years later, enough time to be well on the way towards a PhD, you remain here stuck in the same rut, posting mindless copy/pastes and getting debunked, while the world has moved on and left you behind. Worse yet, you have become irreparably identifed with the "chemtrails" hoax, with essentially no credibility as a result.
Wise up.
Get over it.
Get out of it.
Expose the hoax for what it is, tell the whole story.
Get on with it.

[halva]

Wise up.
Get over it.
Get out of it.
Expose the hoax for what it is, tell the whole story.
Get on with it.

Note that on this occasion Raynolds has desisted from the huge bold red fonts. That is entirely a result of the line I am taking. (Of course he has made them red now to prove me wrong.)

Force him to further concessions.

Get him to stop posting crap like the above in any fonts, large or small.

Kick his ass out of here.

I don't want to see you undermining this attempt, BC, whatever your attitude to my demands. Decide what you want YOURSELF and insist on it. I take it that you want to see a cessation to Reynolds' harrassment of footsoldier.

[whitemajikman]

Well, that gets back to the question I asked you-

So if contrails were all that important, considering their more than doubling, how could it be that earth's skies are getting cleaner and clearer?

The answer is rather obvious, isn't it, dearie? You are making a tempest in a teapot, your nephophobia has gotten the better of your sense of reason. Get over it, contrails simply don't matter much on a global level, according to Science.

JAY WHAT IS OBVIOUS IS THAT YOU EXPECT PEOPLE TO PROVE THINGS BUT WHEN YOU ARE ASKED TO PROVE SOMETHING YOU RUN AWAY LIKE A LITTLE KID WHO DROPPED HIS ICE CREAM

Your 2 Studies That You Have Cited For Claiming That The Skies Are Getting Cleaner and CLEARER.......

Do Not Provide Any Proof TO THAT EFFECT........

NOW FOOT SOLDIER ASKED YOU A QUESTION.........

ARE YOU THAT MUCH OF A PUSSY AND A SCARED CHILD NOT TO RESPOND TO FOOTSOLDIERS QUESTION........

I THINK YOU ARE......

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF.......?

The 2 Studies You Cited......Have No relevance Globally.......

WMM

[whitemajikman]

So now the meteorologists are 'in on it' too? High clouds are called cirrus, meteorologists know what they are and consider them perfectly normal, yes.

Now, don't take me to task for it wasn't me who did this research which shows definitively and repeatedly that aerosols in earth's atmosphere have decreased. If you want to take someone on, I refer your complaints to the scientists who have debunked your worries:
Dr. Pinker looks like a very nice woman:
Dr. Rachel T. Pinker
Professor
Department of Meteorology
University of Maryland
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~pinker/

And the same for the good Dr. Wild:
http://iacweb.ethz.ch/staff/wild/

Maybe they can explain better for you why, despite the increase of contrails and the absense of "chemtrails", earth's air has gotten cleaner and clearer. You may recall that six years ago I advised you to begin educating yourself in meteorolology. Six years later, enough time to be well on the way towards a PhD, you remain here stuck in the same rut, posting mindless copy/pastes and getting debunked, while the world has moved on and left you behind. Worse yet, you have become irreparably identifed with the "chemtrails" hoax, with essentially no credibility as a result.
Wise up.
Get over it.
Get out of it.
Expose the hoax for what it is, tell the whole story.
Get on with it.

JAY YOUR WEAK ATTEMPT AT TAKING THE FOCUS OFF OF YOU IS A TACTIC.......

NOTHING MORE.......


YOU HAVE PROVED NOTHING IN SIX YEARS EXCEPT THAT YOU ARE A SADISTIC PIECE OF SHIT......

JUST AS THESE SCIENTIST'S .......HAVE NOT PROVEN THEIR PREMISE......

The Study Is Only Preliminary.....

And By The End Of The Month There Will Be Several Others That Challenge Their RESULTS......

SO IS THE WAY OF RESEARCH......

IT"S ALL ABOUT HIT AND MISS.........

BUT YET YOU TRY AND SIT HERE DAY AFTER DAY.........AS THOUGH YOUR THE AUTHORITY............

WHAT MAKES YOU THAT AUTHORITY........

YOUR TROPHY WEBSITE.....? BUILT UPON SADISTIC STALKING THAT YOU HAVE BUILT YOUR ENTIRE REPUTATION ON.......?

YOUR ACTUALLY PROUD OF THE WAY YOU TREAT PEOPLE JAY JAY.........

THAT IN ITSELF SAYS YOU NEED A PSYCHIATRIST...............To DEAL WITH ALL OF THAT

And Also YOUR VISION THAT IT IS YOU WHO MUST SAVE THE WORLD FROM ENVIRONMENTALIST's........

WHEN IT iS tHE ENVIRONMENTALIST"S.........TRYING TO SAVE THE WORLD FDROM THE LIKES OF YOU.......AND WHAT YOU STAND FOR......

WHICH IS DECEPTION...............

YOUR NOTHING JAY JAY.......

AND YOU HAVE PROVED THIS BEYOND ANY DOUBTS.......

WMM

[jayreynolds]

Your 2 Studies That You Have Cited For Claiming That The Skies Are Getting Cleaner and CLEARER Do Not Provide Any Proof TO THAT EFFECT........
NOW FOOT SOLDIER ASKED YOU A QUESTION ARE YOU THAT MUCH OF A PUSSY AND A SCARED CHILD NOT TO RESPOND TO FOOTSOLDIERS QUESTION I THINK YOU ARE......
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
The 2 Studies You Cited.Have No relevance Globally.
whitey, stop eating whatever mushrooms you are taking.
I referred to the two papers in Science which showed global aerosol levels decreasing over the last decade. If you don't like that research, take it up with the scientists or publish your own study.

'footsoldier' asked for evidence of Boston's air getting cleaner and clearer, I provided the information including links.

She didn't(and couldn't) provide any explanation as to why, even if contrails have increased 220% over that time, the skies are getting cleaner and clearer GLOBALLY.

Which, by the way, debunks your claims about "chemtrails", now doesn't it?

But don't believe me, Whitey, see for yourself, and take it up with Drs. Wild and Pinker:

"We have satellite observations that are global, which can look at the global picture starting from 1983 until 2001," principal investigator Dr Rachel Pinker, from the University of Maryland, US, told BBC News. "When we analyse the entire record for the 20 years, we don't see a dimming; we see a slight increase in the amount of radiation when averaged over global scales."
"We needed a system which allowed high-quality measurements of solar radiation," he told BBC News." "Since 1990, many stations giving high-quality data have been built - and overall, they show an increase in radiation reaching the Earth's surface." "The most obvious theory of all - that the Sun has simply increased its output - was swiftly demolished by Dr Wild. "The size of the changes we are seeing are just too big to be explained that way," he said. So whatever the explanation is, it must lie in the atmosphere - and Dr Wild believes that regional differences in his data may give a clue. "In India, we see no upturn in radiation, nor in China," he explained. "But over most of the rest of the world, notably Europe, we do. "Since 1990, the atmosphere has become much cleaner with the introduction in many places of clean air legislation."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4520831.stm

Please try to keep up, whitey. I shouldn't always be bringing you up to speed, dude.

[halva]

WMM, since you seem to have come back, at least temporarily, perhaps YOU would like to indicate to our friendly Mr. moderator Mike that it is Reynolds rather than you who should be removed forever from this forum.

Or do you still take the view that with Reynolds' awesome scientific knowledge, his presence here serves a purpose in God's scheme of things?

[foot_soldier]

Interesting, isn't it, that progress is finally being made with reducing the levels of ozone, SO2, diesel soot and particulate surface pollution in the New England region while there has been no change whatsoever in the aviation-facilitated pollution situation over the area. The skies are still as crappy and regularly strafed with trails as they were when I left.

And guess what - I'm currently living at 7,000 feet in about as non-industrial an area as there is in this country and, lo and behold, the skies down here are more often than not just as crappy as they are back east.

And yes, when those trails build up and spread out to cover the sky with the now-familiar blanket of fake cirrus there's a very big difference in the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground. I'd call that dimming. Why, even the regional meteorologists are now routinely commenting that 'those high clouds' - you know, the ones that 'tend to hold the heat in at the surface', are also 'filtering the sun'. Guess that makes it all perfectly normal, eh? Amazing what five years and a little systematic modification of the public lexicon will accomplish.
I say exactly what I mean. Period.

If Reynolds wants to rip it apart, so be it. I really don't care. As for the continuation of his exceedingly boring harrassment of other posters here, I'm beyond caring about that as well. We should all just do as we see fit going forward.

As mentioned just now on another thread, I spend about 1% of my free time participating in this venue at this point.

In a hurry,

Thanks.

[foot_soldier]

May 16, 2005 - Reuters

U.S. rejects airline climate taxes, EU considers
http://www.reuters.co.in/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp?type=businessNews&localeKey=en_IN&storyID=8505027

BONN (Reuters) - The United States said on Monday it would be too harsh on airlines to tax emissions of heat-trapping gases from their planes, even though the European Union reaffirmed it was considering measures.

It would be "pretty difficult" to impose extra costs for airlines, said Harlan Watson, the senior U.S. climate negotiator, at a U.N. meeting of government experts to discuss ways to rein in global warming.

"We are still recovering from September 11," he said in response to a question, referring to the impact on the airline industry of the 2001 hijacked aircraft attacks in the United States.

"Aviation is growing in some sectors of the world. It's not particularly growing in the United States," he said, adding that many airlines in the United States had been "teetering on the edge of bankruptcy".

The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that aviation causes 3.5 percent of global warming, widely blamed on human activities, and that the figure could rise to 15 percent by 2050.

In contrast with Watson, the European Commission expressed a willingness to include aviation, perhaps by imposing taxes or charges on aviation fuel or by widening the trading of emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.

"We believe that we need to tackle aviation emissions also in the future climate policy review after 2012," said Artur Runge-Metzger, head of the Commission's climate, ozone and energy unit.

The European Commission plans to issue a report in June or July about ways to reduce aviation's impact on the climate, he said.

Aviation is currently outside the U.N.'s Kyoto protocol, which seeks to cut developed nations' emissions of carbon dioxide from factories, power plants and vehicles by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

President George W. Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, saying it was too expensive and wrongly excluded developing nations.

The European Union says that its total greenhouse gas emissions fell by 3 percent from 1990 to 2002 while emissions from international aviation rose by almost 70 percent.

Growth in airline traffic is more than offsetting fuel efficiency improvements in airline engines.

[jayreynolds]

Well, that gets back to the question I asked you-

So if contrails were all that important, considering their more than doubling, how could it be that earth's skies are getting cleaner and clearer?

The answer is rather obvious, isn't it, dearie? You are making a tempest in a teapot, your nephophobia has gotten the better of your sense of reason. Get over it, contrails simply don't matter much on a global level, according to Science.
Reiterating, just like Wayne does.................

[foot_soldier]

May 16, 2005 - Reuters

U.S. rejects airline climate taxes, EU considers
http://www.reuters.co.in/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp?type=businessNews&localeKey=en_IN&storyID=8505027

BONN (Reuters) - The United States said on Monday it would be too harsh on airlines to tax emissions of heat-trapping gases from their planes, even though the European Union reaffirmed it was considering measures.

It would be "pretty difficult" to impose extra costs for airlines, said Harlan Watson, the senior U.S. climate negotiator, at a U.N. meeting of government experts to discuss ways to rein in global warming.

"We are still recovering from September 11," he said in response to a question, referring to the impact on the airline industry of the 2001 hijacked aircraft attacks in the United States.

"Aviation is growing in some sectors of the world. It's not particularly growing in the United States," he said, adding that many airlines in the United States had been "teetering on the edge of bankruptcy".

The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that aviation causes 3.5 percent of global warming, widely blamed on human activities, and that the figure could rise to 15 percent by 2050.

In contrast with Watson, the European Commission expressed a willingness to include aviation, perhaps by imposing taxes or charges on aviation fuel or by widening the trading of emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.

"We believe that we need to tackle aviation emissions also in the future climate policy review after 2012," said Artur Runge-Metzger, head of the Commission's climate, ozone and energy unit.

The European Commission plans to issue a report in June or July about ways to reduce aviation's impact on the climate, he said.

Aviation is currently outside the U.N.'s Kyoto protocol, which seeks to cut developed nations' emissions of carbon dioxide from factories, power plants and vehicles by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

President George W. Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, saying it was too expensive and wrongly excluded developing nations.

The European Union says that its total greenhouse gas emissions fell by 3 percent from 1990 to 2002 while emissions from international aviation rose by almost 70 percent.

Growth in airline traffic is more than offsetting fuel efficiency improvements in airline engines.
.

[Mike]

Note that on this occasion Raynolds has desisted from the huge bold red fonts. That is entirely a result of the line I am taking. (Of course he has made them red now to prove me wrong.)

Force him to further concessions.

Get him to stop posting crap like the above in any fonts, large or small.

Kick his ass out of here.

I don't want to see you undermining this attempt, BC, whatever your attitude to my demands. Decide what you want YOURSELF and insist on it. I take it that you want to see a cessation to Reynolds' harrassment of footsoldier.One more time, halva...
You're not forced to read anything that Jay Reynolds writes here. You can personally put him on "ignore", rather than pissing and moaning about it constantly. He has a right to post on a discussion board without you spending all your time and efforts trying to get him kicked off the board.

It isn't going to happen. Deal with it.

[Boomer Chick]

Thanks, Mike.

Because I'm thanking Mike does not mean I contacted him nor influenced him whatsoever on this matter. This is Mike's function as moderator to communicate as he sees fit.

I do agree with him, however.

The matter of clearing up the FS full name situation is now up to Jay.

Now.....here are some interesting multinational atmospheric studies links:

KEEP THEM IN A FILE !!!!

Australia's CSIRO: (includes criticism of the IPCC and other ongoing research and studies-- it also seems that nothing is newer than 2003 on this site)

http://www.dar.csiro.au/

*

Atmospheric Research
Copyright © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved
Bookmark this page as: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01698095

*

"NCAR is a federally funded research and development center. Together with our partners at universities and research centers, we are dedicated to exploring and understanding our atmosphere and its interactions with the Sun, the oceans, the biosphere, and human society. NCAR consists of the following: " (a motherlode of information which will take time and effort to explore)

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/

*

NOAA:
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/

*

University of Manchester Atmospheric Science Group
http://cloudbase.phy.umist.ac.uk/default.htm

*

New Zealand:
http://www.niwa.cri.nz/index.html

*

International Research Site for Information and Technology Exchange:
http://airsite.unc.edu/

*

Boulder, Colorado -- Atmospheric Chemistry

http://www.acd.ucar.edu/

*

UMass Lowell Center for Atmospheric Research:

http://ulcar.uml.edu/

*

Naval, Marine research, Monterey:

http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/

*

Desert Research Institute:
http://www.dri.edu/

*

Germany -- aerosols and chemistry:

http://imk-aida.fzk.de/

*

CSU, Colorado:

http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/

*

Scripps:
http://cloud.ucsd.edu/

*
Lawrence Livermore Labs Atmospheric Science Division:

http://eed.llnl.gov/asd/

*

LIST OF LINKS:

http://dmoz.org/Science/Earth_Sciences/Atmospheric_Chemistry/


HAPPY RESEARCHING !!!!!

I'm on the trail again! Will be researching and posting articles (links) as I find them -- slowly over time.

PEACE !!!

[halva]

WMM, since you seem to have come back, at least temporarily, perhaps YOU would like to indicate to our friendly Mr. moderator Mike that it is Reynolds rather than you who should be removed forever from this forum.

Or do you still take the view that with Reynolds' awesome scientific knowledge, his presence here serves a purpose in God's scheme of things?

Decide which way you are going to jump please White Majik Man.

[foot_soldier]

I'm going to keep this simple. Here is Forum Rule Number 2, "agreed upon by Lib and Mike":

2. Revealing information about a poster they have not posted themselves in the current AO forum is not permitted.

User "jayr