Normal Contrails: Some Sanity [Archive] - Page 7

EdSnell

12-05-2006, 10:33 PM

I knew it! Swamp Gas is throwing in the towel. What a loser!

Read it right here in this strange quote from Gastroenteritis:

http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1163909360&page=9
Reply #130

Ed Snell and Jay Reynolds are getting me scared. They are so virile and humorous that too much of them leaves me feeling dizzy and like something hot was being inserted the wrong way. Look at halva, he is starting to take pills for his insanity. I really like Boomer Chick. She has become such a cutie, and I like the name Ed Snell. They are both probably planning on a wonderful future.

That is why I will simply post one post at DBS, and leave. It will be factless, and nothing but opinion. Reynolds can really distinguish opinion from fact. I am tired of poking my dick in the neighbors vicious Chihuahua through the fence. It is literally cruel, and I am never cruel to animals (except that one).

As far as Ed Snell goes, the Internet Crimes division is already alerted of the threatening, pornographic, and nuisance posts I have sent him in the past. I may go through Proxies, but they and Ed know who I am. I am posting this publicly because I’m stupid enough to post here, MOD (I still have admin access there with your IPs) and at CTC, I have the entire backup of CTC. This is why I am always friendly, even with people I do not like. So Ed, if you are reading this, be happy....You are such a joy.

halva

12-06-2006, 12:29 AM

halva

12-06-2006, 12:34 AM

Lou, ALL pictures of purported "chemtrails", at any website, are actually contrails.
This isn't a diffficult concept to grasp.
Most of the world gets it or don't even care.

There are no "millions" of chemtrail believers. You have had quite a long time and have managed to get less than a dozen to post at gastronomus. Where's the millions?

Lou, you're a loser who doesn't even dare post using his real name, who lies even to his friends about coming over and posting here. You must have demanded a dozen times that Wayne not come here or mention me or DBS, yet back you come dragging all your buddies again. I see you are even publicising this thread at CTC. Thanks for the free advertising, I haven't been able to post there for a long long time and it's nice to get some exposure. It looks to me like I'm mentioned in just about every thread at gastronomus, so the exposure is wide there too. I built my site and you are bringing me thousands of curious people some of whom will read and understand.

Is Lou Aubuchont going to turn his back on this opportunity to make Reynolds appear even more of a fool?

Posting here?

Swamp Gas

12-06-2006, 06:25 AM

I knew it! Swamp Gas is throwing in the towel. What a loser!

Read it right here in this strange quote from Gastroenteritis:

http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1163909360&page=9
Reply #130

First off Ed (or whatever your name is) this is your quote, which was completely different from my posting:

Ed Snell and Jay Reynolds are getting me scared. They are so virile and humorous that too much of them leaves me feeling dizzy and like something hot was being inserted the wrong way. Look at halva, he is starting to take pills for his insanity. I really like Boomer Chick. She has become such a cutie, and I like the name Ed Snell. They are both probably planning on a wonderful future.

That is why I will simply post one post at DBS, and leave. It will be factless, and nothing but opinion. Reynolds can really distinguish opinion from fact. I am tired of poking my dick in the neighbors vicious Chihuahua through the fence. It is literally cruel, and I am never cruel to animals (except that one).

As far as Ed Snell goes, the Internet Crimes division is already alerted of the threatening, pornographic, and nuisance posts I have sent him in the past. I may go through Proxies, but they and Ed know who I am. I am posting this publicly because I’m stupid enough to post here, MOD (I still have admin access there with your IPs) and at CTC, I have the entire backup of CTC. This is why I am always friendly, even with people I do not like. So Ed, if you are reading this, be happy....You are such a joy.

Now this is the actual quote made by me.

As far as Smelly goes, the Internet Crimes division is already alerted to his threatening, pornographic, and nuisance posts in the past. He may go through Proxies, but they and I know who he is. I am posting this publicly because he was stupid enough to post here, MOD (I still have admin access there with your IPs) and at CTC, I have the entire backup of CTC. This is why I am always friendly, even with people I do not like at other boards Remember at Maverick's when I posted there. It was Ed Smell and others that attacked me, and I kept my cool. Debate Both Sides is a slug fest, so practically everyone there is violating the law. At least Reynolds is smart enough to announce who he is. I am in their house. When you come uninvited into my house, curse, threaten, annoy, have disrespect for my wife, and be obnoxious, you are looking for trouble. You can whatever you want at other forums. So smelly, if you are reading this, be careful....You are an annoyance. READ THIS AND STAY AWAY FROM GASTRONAMUS:

Suffice it to say, I have every threat and harrasment you have ever posted. You forget, I was and still am site admin at CTC, MOD, and Gastronamus. I have contacted FBI's Internet Crime Division, and you have commited a cyber-stalk. I also have all of the IPs you have ever posted under, and the service providors all have traced you to, be it Malaysia or Germany or wherever. They always want to know exact time of post, and I provide that for them.

I am not here to engage in a spitting contest with you. I am here to issue you a warning. Say what you want at DBS and Maverick's or any other place, but come to my house and continue saying the vile and criminal things you do, and I will pursue this much, much further. Right now the ball is in your court.

Is that simple enough for you?

BTW, you posted this at 1:09 AM my time, and my last edit of the filthy lie you have misquoted was 12;11 AM my time. So everyone can see that you are adding to your portfolio. Seriously Ed, do you really think you would sayy the things you do to people right to their face? I doubt it.

Just in case you don't know the law:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/143975_comment.php

I have contaced IC3 and FBI here: http://newark.fbi.gov/

I described what is being posted, and they said it is against the law as long as I retain the original posts (which I have). They asked me if I want to pursue it further. My response was exactly what i am doing here. First issue a warning (that's my nature...give a second chance), then if Ed/Yaak/Jason continues, well the rest will be history.

So Ed, FBI Cyber-Division is waiting. Be nice, and stay away from Gastronamus in all of your identities. OK?

jayreynolds

12-06-2006, 06:28 AM

True, I'm a fake, J-Vitum does not exist but you will never know who I really am but you can guess or use a Oji-board, the results will be the same but you will have something to talk about, won't you?
http://debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=697479&postcount=1417

Yes, there was three posts made which are said to be emails from A Friend. I lied.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030608063519/www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000078-2.html

What's the difference between these two statements, Wayne?

There is none, and like my buddy Chem11 said:

It wasn't sloppiness, Wayne, it was deceit.
I've got kind of a hang-up when it comes to people that lie to me. It's been my experience that people who lie about the 'little things' are more likely to lie about the big things.
http://chem11.proboards5.com/index.cgi?board=Fight&action=display&thread=1097483256&page=1#1096867540

halva

12-06-2006, 06:31 AM

I described what is being posted, and they said it is against the law as long as I retain the original posts (which I have). They asked me if I want to pursue it further. My response was exactly what i am doing here. First issue a warning (that's my nature...give a second chance), then if Ed/Yaak/Jason continues, well the rest will be history.

So Ed, FBI Cyber-Division is waiting. Be nice, and stay away from Gastronamus in all of your identities. OK?

The liberated zone must then spread from Gastronamus outwards.

jayreynolds

12-06-2006, 06:52 AM

Suffice it to say, I have every threat and harrasment you have ever posted.

I challenge you to quote even one of these alleged "threats" by Ed Snell. You won't, because no such threats were ever made.

Swampy, still waiting for those MAJOR PDFs you claimed to have:

7- Yes, the Government has already admitted to weather modification and Aerosol Mitigation in some MAJOR PDFs (of which Et in Arcadia Ego and myself have copies of. You have to pay $80 for it).

What's up with that, Swampy?

The chemmies always come out with these "admissions" like swampy just made, anonymous "Insiders", "smoking guns", and "confirmations", but in the end they seem to be hiding more from their own people than they ever reveal.

You'd think that such things would be the 'holy grail' of chemmies, that they would reveal all they know and let people see it, but they never do!
Why?

'Socrates', Lou Aubuchont, David Stewart, Wayne, Carnicom, William Thomas, Et in Arcadia Ego, Swampy, all these people at one time or another have made claims to have this sort of information, to "know somebody who said something", to have "proof of spraying", to have "documentation", but never come out and show it.

One has to wonder if they are just making stuff up for fun, to keep the 'marks' targeted for the hoax 'on the hook', or if they are just part of the hoax disinformation nexus.

Who really knows?

What chemmie has the balls to demand that these people show their "proof", instead of just blowing smoke up people's behinds?

Anyways, if Swampy doesn't get back here pretty quick with proof of his claims, his own people need to start asking questions about why he is witholding information, or making claims about stuff that just isn't true for reasons they should be wondering about..

Why withold this 'smoking gun", Swampy?

And why did you try to drag ET IN ARCADIA EGO into this, making him your unwilling accomplice?

Do you speak for him?

Do you make claims about him, then run away from them leaving him holding the bag?

I see he is starting to question thngs:
Can someone give a direct quote for this from him?
http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1163909360&page=9#1165400595

Will he dare to also question what Swampy has claimed he has knowledge of but is witholding from public scrutiny?

Or will ET in Arcadia cower in the corner ass-in-air playing his accepted role as Swampy's Beatch?

Stay tuned.........

Boomer Chick

12-06-2006, 10:43 AM

December 1, 2006

Scientists want to solve puzzle of excess water vapor near cirrus clouds
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-75233.html

A number of researchers in recent years have reported perplexing findings of water vapor at concentrations as much as twice what they should be in and around cirrus clouds high in the atmosphere, a finding that could alter some conclusions about climate change.

Now a group of European and U.S. scientists is advocating a broad research effort to solve the puzzle and understand just what is occurring in cirrus clouds, wispy sheets of ice crystals 6 to 10 miles above the Earth's surface.

"Based on our current knowledge, it shouldn't exist," said Marcia Baker, a University of Washington professor of Earth and space sciences. She is one of six climate researchers who authored a Perspectives article in the Nov. 30 edition of the journal Science promoting an extensive effort to investigate the dilemma.

Part of the problem is that many atmospheric scientists have dismissed the findings as erroneous because the current understanding of atmospheric conditions and cirrus clouds would make the water vapor anomaly impossible, Baker said. Yet a number of pieces of evidence published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings during the last six years have supported the finding.

Clouds and particles in the atmosphere play a significant role in regulating the Earth's temperature because they help determine how much of the sun's heat and energy is reflected back into space and they trap outgoing radiation from the Earth's surface. Cirrus clouds also are important in regulating the distribution of water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, in the upper troposphere.

"We have thought our models of the formation and evolution of cirrus clouds are generally adequate in how they portray the role of cirrus clouds in regulating water vapor, but if the recent findings are accurate and high humidities are widespread, our assumptions could need significant adjustment," Baker said.

"The point is to bring this to the more general science audience as a broad puzzle, but also to lay the groundwork for research to solve the puzzle," she said.

Cirrus clouds form in the upper troposphere and modulate the exchange of water between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Vapor in the upper troposphere can rise into the stratosphere but tiny ice crystals can fall back toward the surface.

Outside the clouds, there are water vapor and minute atmospheric particles called aerosols, but no ice crystals. Scientists have come to expect that new ice crystals will begin to form in aerosols when vapor levels rise to the point at which they are 60 percent above equilibrium with the surrounding air. Yet measurements have shown that vapor levels can reach 90 percent to 100 percent above equilibrium without forming new ice particles.

Inside the clouds, it is expected that vapor levels above equilibrium cannot be maintained, yet evidence shows that often vapor levels are as much as 30 percent above equilibrium in large areas of clouds.

Scientists have speculated about what causes these anomalies. It is possible the aerosols might have as-yet undiscovered properties that prevent crystals from forming in some conditions, or there could be some kind of coating on the aerosols that prevents ice from forming, Baker said. There also could be some undiscovered property of ice crystals that prevents them from growing in certain conditions.

"There could be a different phase of ice at the temperatures and pressures in cirrus clouds that has a higher equilibrium for vapor," Baker said. "These are the kinds of questions for which we are trying to find answers."

Great find, FS! There's no way that tampering and/or constant dumping of sulphate compounds and CO2 via jet engine combustion/auto combustion will allow the atmospheric strata to remain unchanged. The fact that a group of scientists have noticed behavioral changes in ice formation and water content in cirrus clouds confirms to me that like the voices of citizens coming together, the voices of scientists and their questioning will bring the answers to cleansing the atmosphere as well.

:)

halva

12-06-2006, 09:20 PM

It beats me why Footsoldier didn't go to Megasprayer two years ago rather than leaving it until now. Perhaps it's because that's what I was telling her to do then.

halva

12-07-2006, 01:40 AM

Jeff Reynolds

12-07-2006, 03:05 PM

It is with sadness that I must bid adieu to Debate Both Sides. I just cannot continue here where normal rules of decency are not enforced. What triggered me to post in the first place was my namesake's calling Ms. Foot Soldier a "bitch". I feel that I have made my point, and that it is now time to move on. I wll miss you J. Vitum and Foot Soldier. Mr. Vitum you have convinced me to search more deeply into this persistent contrail situation. I am 47, I remember what the skies looked like before the late 90's. Something is afoot if not ayard. Ms. Foot Soldier, you are cute as a button and as smart as whoever invented peanut butter and jelly. I wish you both well.

Jeff Reynolds

12-07-2006, 03:17 PM

Oopsie, I forgot to post this thread I found from Chemtrail Central. There is a lot of ufo/tinfoil over there now, but there was a time when that site ruled the chemtrail forum world. All the moderators left, Mr. Swampgas and the astute Lou Aubuchont, I think also Mr. Arcadia can be located at the Gastronamus Cafe. Mr. Chem11 can be found at the Megasprayer better living through atmospheric engineering website. It could take me a few posts to get this intriguing thread posted.

From "Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research" by boilingfrog
Someone here may want to download a copy of the pdf linked from the page link below.

from the National Academies Press
Committee on the Status and Future Directions in U.S Weather Modification Research and Operations, National Research Council

144 pages, 8 1/2 x 11, 2003

'The weather on planet Earth is a vital and sometimes fatal force in human affairs. Efforts to control or reduce the harmful impacts of weather go back far in time. In this, the latest National Academies assessment of weather modification, the committee was asked to assess the ability of current and proposed weather modification capabilities to provide beneficial impacts on water resource management and weather hazard mitigation. It examines new technologies, reviews advances in numerical modeling on the cloud and mesoscale, and considers how improvements in computer capabilities might be applied to weather modification. Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research examines the status of the science underlying weather modification in the United States. It calls for a coordinated national research program to answer fundamental questions about basic atmospheric processes and to address other issues that are impeding progress in weather modification.'

http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10829.html

amazing weather modification info can be had by searching
'weather modification advisory and research board'

find your own search or check the thread from mine
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Weather+Modification+Advisory+and+Researc h+Board&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N
_________________
What colour was the sky?

Posted by et in Arcadia ego:

Great find, I purchased the full PDF and look forward to reading it.

Also at the NAP:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html/433.html

The fun starts on OCR for pg 454, but the whole report is worth looking at.

Jeff Reynolds

12-07-2006, 03:24 PM

Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research continued:

posted by Swamp Gas:

Is that the Aerosol Mitigation PDF ET, we were talking about?
The Truth is sometimes buried, but nonetheless always comes out in the wash.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood!

posted by et in Arcadia ego:

Excerpt from page 29:
Summary of Cloud-Seeding Techniques for Precipitation Enhancement

Glaciogenic Seeding: Seeding of clouds with appropriate ice nuclei (e.g.,silver iodide) or cooling agent (e.g., dry ice, liquid propane) to create or enhancethe formation of ice crystals, particularly the conversion of supercooled water to ice. The two general approaches are

1. Static seeding, which focuses on microphysical processes; creation of ice crystals and particles; enhances graupel and snow production by increasing thenumber of ice particles and triggering precipitation process earlier in the cloud’slifetime. Examples: Climax I and II; Israel; Project Whitetop.

2. Dynamic seeding, which increases buoyancy of cloud by converting
supercooled liquid drops to ice. The subsequent release of latent heat of fusion increases cloud buoyancy, cloud lifetime, and rain production. Examples: FACE I and II; Texas.

Hygroscopic Seeding: Enhance rainfall by seeding clouds with appropriately sized salt particles or droplets, promoting the coalescence process. 1. Large hygroscopic particle seeding, which seeds clouds with large salt particles (e.g., >10 µm dry diameter) to short-circuit the condensation growth process and provide immediate raindrop embryos to start the coalescence process. Examples: Project Cloud Catcher, India, Thailand.

2. Hygroscopic flare seeding,which focuses on broadening the initial drop
spectrum during the nucleation process by seeding with larger than natural CCN (0.5 􀁐m to 3 􀁐m dry diameter) to enhance the coalescence process in warm and mixed-phase clouds. Examples: South Africa, Mexico experiments.
_________________
"If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."

posted by et in Arcadia ego:

quote: Originally posted by Swamp Gas
Is that the Aerosol Mitigation PDF ET, we were talking about?

The Truth is sometimes buried, but nonetheless always comes out in the wash.

Yessiree, sure is. The paper is circa 1992, but still has relevance today, particularly when you compare the panel's mitigation suggestions with what was in the Popular Science article last month you found. There were 2 mitigation propositions that were identical despite a 13 year difference. One was iron seeding in the ocean(which is mentioned again in another science mag, maybe this month's Discover, don't have it handy ATM), and the other was using oceanic craft to disperse salt water into the atmosphere as a cirrus re-inforcement(which was noted to potentially interfere with rainfall, btw).

posted by Swamp Gas:

Could you post an excerpt from the Aerosol Mitigation section?
Thanks!
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood!

Jeff Reynolds

12-07-2006, 03:33 PM

Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research PostFri Aug 26, 2005 5:29 pm continued:

posted by et in Arcadia ego:

quote: Originally posted by Swamp Gas
Could you post an excerpt from the Aerosol Mitigation section?

Thanks!

re: Geoengineering chapter 28

Page 433:

In this chapter a number of "geoengineering" options are considered. These are options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry. Most of these options have to do with the possibility of compensating for a rise in global temperature, caused by an increase in greenhouse gases, by reflecting or scattering back a fraction of the incoming sunlight.

Page 435:

The possibility would have to be taken into account that a natural event occurring during a mitigation activity could push the system beyond its normal bounds. For example, a large volcanic eruption occurring while artificial volcanic dust was in place might result in a dust loading beyond that previously experienced.

Page 447:

Another option for mitigating a global warming would be to try to control the global radiation balance by limiting the amount of incoming radiation from the sun. This could be done by increasing the reflectivity of the earth, i.e., the albedo. Proposals for increasing the whiteness of roofs and surface features would have some effect, but only a fraction of incident solar radiation reaches the earth's surface and a purposeful change in albedo would have more impact if done high in the atmosphere. According to Ramanathan (1988), an increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling. Placing a screen in the atmosphere or low earth orbit could take several forms: it could involve changing the quantity or character of
cloud cover, it could take the form of a continuous sheet, or it could be divided into many ''mirrors" or a cloud of dust.

Page 449:

An alternative to dust is sulfuric acid aerosol, the other principal natural component of stratospheric haze. Dust seems a better choice because it is similar to dust from natural soil and so should have no noticeable effect on the ground as it gradually falls into the troposphere and rains out. (Other possible effects are referred to below.) However, Budyko (1982) suggests the use of sulfuric acid aerosol, to be created by the burning of sulfur in situ, resulting in sulfur dioxide (SO2), which will automatically absorb atmospheric water to result in droplets of sulfuric acid solution. He gives the required tonnage of sulfuric acid to reduce the total radiation by 1 percent as 600,000 t. As we will see, this is less than one-tenth of the amount we estimate is required as dust. Budyko goes on to point out that the amount of sulfur required to be burnt in the stratosphere to produce the aerosol is 200,000 t, or possibly even as little as 40 percent of this, depending on the amount of water that might be absorbed from the air. Thus the lift requirements might be only one-seventh to one-third of that estimated for sulfuric acid itself. He also assumes 2 years as the lifetime of the aerosol in the stratosphere.

Re: Delivery Scenarios

Page 453:

Aircraft Exhaust Penner et al. (1984) suggested that emissions of 1 percent of the fuel mass of the
commercial aviation fleet as particulates, between 40,000- and 100,000-foot (12- to 30-km) altitude for a 10-year period, would change the planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the effects of an equivalent doubling of CO2. They proposed that retuning the engine combustion systems to burn rich during the high-altitude portion of commercial flights could be done with negligible efficiency loss.
__________________________________________________ ____________

Plenty more where that came from in the full length report, so buy it if you're interested in what it has to say. Bear in mind that these are proposed solutions, and NOT admissions of any active mitigation activities, however thoroughly the report was produced.

posted by et in Arcadia ego:

Re: Critical issues in Weather Modification Research(Boilingfrog's report above)

Status of weather modification research. Weather modification research has been in a state of decline in the United States for more than two decades. The reasons are many and include the lack of scientifically demonstrable success in modification experiments, extravagant claims, attendant unrealistic expectations (e.g., pressure from agencies to meet short-term operational needs rather than to achieve long-term scientific understanding), growing environmental concerns, and economic and legal factors. Within this context it became difficult to distinguish legitimate and important research from some cloud-seeding programs claiming success with little or no substantiation. This led many scientists to abandon the field and federal agencies to reduce funding for weather modification research dramatically.

Status of weather modification operations

Despite the decline in research in the United States, weather modification remains a topic of substantial worldwide interest, with programs currently active in more than 24 countries. In the United States in 2001 there were at least 66 operational programs (supported by private and state entities) aimed at enhancing rain, enhancing snowpack, or suppressing hail. Evaluation
methodologies vary but in general do not provide convincing scientific evidence for either success or failure. Although there is physical evidence that seeding affects cloud processes, effective methods for significantly modifying the weather generally have not been demonstrated.

Loosely translated into English:
They're clueless and existing weather-mod is flaky and unproven.
_________________
"If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."

Jeff Reynolds

12-07-2006, 03:41 PM

This is Jeff Reynolds with my very last final comment. I know that Jay Reynolds will say that these were only proposals. He will spew out a lot of things. My advice to everyone is to ignore him. He obviously has an agenda. I would also recommend to Mr. Halva to stop interacting with him. There is nothing to be gained from that. He is what he is. He also appears to now becoming obsolete. You just might be right that you could be the next breed of villian for chemtrail forums. I have read others critiquing your "marketing of pollution". If this is an "altruistic" attempt to muzzle Mr. Debunker, then methinks it is time for you to start drinking more chamomille tea and take some bubble baths. There is nothing good about any pollution.

halva

12-07-2006, 06:36 PM

Thanks for your contribution here Jeff Reynolds.

I can assure you that for years now my only objective in remaining here has been to deny the debunkers the victory of taking over the forum. Only a few months after beginning posting I advised everyone else on "our" side to go elsewhere. If that is what Footsoldier has now at last done then this is a great relief to me, offering hope that that sentry duties here may become lighter.

I would like again to remind you and others of the forum http://halva.proboards46.com
It has not "taken off" and there is nothing much going on there at the moment. But it remains available for vitalization if there is the will from people other than me that this should happen.

Most of what I am doing is off-line and real-world based, and in Greek but I would have no objections to an English-language discussion forum growing up around it.

halva

12-07-2006, 06:51 PM

You just might be right that you could be the next breed of villian for chemtrail forums. I have read others critiquing your "marketing of pollution". If this is an "altruistic" attempt to muzzle Mr. Debunker, then methinks it is time for you to start drinking more chamomille tea and take some bubble baths. There is nothing good about any pollution.

Thanks for this. What i want to know is what is required is to get SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE to take political responsibility for what is happening. This is what is required for us to be able to do ANYTHING about it.

If you want to take this subject up on another forum i would be more than willing to discuss it. Either at my forum or at Gastronamus, where they have not kicked me off but there may be some unintelligent and possibly insincere input from some others.

I might add that my real world collaborators are not fans of pollution. I will make available in English in the new year to the major article of our comrade 'Aristarchos' to corroborate this. Some of his shorter pieces are already on-line in English at http://www.enouranois.gr

halva

12-07-2006, 07:07 PM

Another afterword: I think that the stance taken by Rosalind Peterson in the first 'Toxic Skies" interview is exactly what is needed for the first stage of public ventilation of 'geoengineering': i.e., that whatever is going on, I want to be told about it!

jayreynolds

12-07-2006, 07:30 PM

This is Jeff Reynolds with my very last final comment. I know that Jay Reynolds will say that these were only proposals.

Yes, but it's not just me that says that, the whole world of atmospheric science agrees!

Meteorologists agree too!

Pilots agree too!

but better than all of those 'appeals to authority', are the facts, which completely demolish the claims of the chemtrails hoax promoters.

Read the facts and weep, you chemmies that have bet the farm on your claims that 'chemtrails are geoengineering!
(continued)

jayreynolds

12-07-2006, 07:31 PM

What are the details about the Teller geoengineering proposals Hall claims are going on?

Dr. Patrick Minnis, one of the world's foremost contrail experts and acloud physicist at NASA addressed what such a program would entail:
"As I think I mentioned in the last email, the theories such as those you mention below (Teller) are still pie in the sky.

The best way to get a scattering effect that wil do anything is to load up the stratosphere with submicron sized particles. To accomplish anything noticeable in terms of a climate effect you would have to loft material equivalent in weight/particle number to that injected by a volcano of the magnitude of El Chichon or greater, more like Pinatubo in size.

That would mean the planes would have to deposit 20,000,000 tons of material in the stratosphere every 2 or 3 years. To keep it up there, it would be best to place it in the Tropics meaning they would have to reach altitudes of 55,000 to 60,000 ft. To match the Pinatubo output, this means for the miltary's C-141B Starlifter with a capacity of 34.3 tons, it would require only 20,000,000 / 34.3 = 582,030 flights in the course of say, 3 years or roughly 195,000 flights each year or 531/day just to go up and spray a bunch of junk into the stratosphere. How much fuel do you think that would require?

If the military had 747s, then the number would drop by a third. But here is the problem. The volcanos put the material at altitudes above 60,000 ft. There are very few planes that can reach those altitudes and cargo planes are not included in that bunch. Most of them fly below 45,000 ft.

They could only reach the stratosphere in polar regions and over the US during the winter."
http://www.rense.com/general9/naschem.htm

So, Dr. Minnis fills in the details Wayne Hall has left out, which show that the Teller hypothesis is indeed "pie-in-the-sky, and essentially unfeasible not only due to the lack of aircraft capability, but also altitude restrictions which limit heavy transport planes from completing such a mission in the stratosphere.

However, Hall might claim that what he is seeing is actually NOT a stratospheric, but rather a tropospheric event. Wayne Hall himself debunked that proposition, to his credit, by publishing the following in his own article:
""Dr. Cornell's point here is that 'laying jet contrails' (in the upper troposphere) as a methodology to achieve a net planetary cooling effect simply will not work as it has now been conclusively determined that aviation contrails and resulting persistent contrail cirrus actually exert a net WARMING effect on the atmosphere.

One thing I can say here, and I think it's important to keep this in mind, is that what we are seeing is taking place in the upper troposphere - NOT in the stratosphere where the by now familiar-to-us-all Tellerian aerosol climate mitigation proposals are specifically designed to be deployed.""
http://www.spectrezine.org/environment/Hall3.htm

jayreynolds

12-07-2006, 07:38 PM

A Primer on Stratospheric Aerosols- FAQ

What is the stratosphere?
The stratosphere is generally considered to be an atmospheric layer above the troposphere between 17(11miles/56,000ft) and 50 km(31 miles/164,000ft) above ground level. Commercial airliners typically cruise at an altitude near 10 km. In the stratosphere, the lowest temperatures are found at the bottom and the highest at the top. Because warm air rises, vertical motions are naturally suppressed in the stratosphere, leading to vertical stratification of the air masses it contains. Atmospheric pressure in the stratosphere varies from approximately 200 to 1millibar(Mb) from bottom to top.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/atmosphere.html
http://www.mcwar.org/articles/clouds.html

What is the Junge layer?
While searching for cosmic dust and debris from nuclear bomb tests, Christian Junge discovered in 1960 a layer of microscopic aerosol particles between the tropopause and about 18 miles (30 km) altitude. These particles are composed of sulfuric acid and water and are formed by the chemical transformation of sulfur-containing gases . This layer is called the Junge Layer or the Stratospheric Aerosol Layer. By screening out sunlight, the stratospheric aerosol layer affects the atmospheric energy balance and hence climate.

What are stratospheric aerosols?
Aerosols are minute particles suspended in the atmosphere. Aerosols interact both directly and indirectly with the Earth's radiation budget and climate. As a direct effect, the aerosols scatter sunlight directly back into space. As an indirect effect, aerosols in the lower atmosphere can modify the size of cloud particles, changing how the clouds reflect and absorb sunlight, thereby affecting the Earth's energy budget.

Since routine measurement of stratospheric aerosol began in the late 1970's, aerosol has primarily originated from episodic injections of SO2, a gaseous precursor to sulfate aerosol. Volcanic eruptions can inject a large amount of this gas into the stratosphere. For instance, the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines increased the total stratospheric aerosol mass by a factor of approximately 30 to about 30 Tg(million tons). Under nominal non-volcanic background conditions that the stratosphere contains about 1 Tg (1 megatonne). Once formed, these aerosols stay in the stratosphere for about two years.

The effect of stratospheric aerosol on climate is at its simplest level straightforward to understand. Under "background" conditions, stratospheric aerosol does not play a significant role in the radiative processes of the Earth-atmosphere system. The presence of enhanced aerosol following an eruption reflects in-coming solar radiation back into space and, as a result, acts to cool the Earth.

In the details, it is rather more complicated. Since the aerosol absorbs in the infrared, upwelling radiation from the Earth's surface is absorbed in the stratosphere, which is warmed as a result. In fact, this is perhaps the most readily discerned effect immediately after an eruption as temperatures rise at some levels well beyond climatological ranges. For instance, following the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo temperatures measured by radiosonde from Singapore were more than x K greater than the expected value at altitudes near 30 km (or more 3 standard deviations). Similarly, using either ground-based or satellite-based measurements, it can be demonstrated that global-average surface temperature decreased following the Pinatubo eruption. http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Aerosols.html
http://aerosols.larc.nasa.gov/indexintro.html

What is albedo?
The albedo is a measure of reflectivity of a surface or body. The albedo of Earth, i.e., the fraction of the global incident solar radiation that is reflected back to space, is a fundamental parameter of global energy balance. Measurements from space since the 1970s give a global annual Earth albedo of approximately 29%(~.29).

Global albedo can change with changes in Earth's cloud fractional coverage, cloud thickness, aerosol amount, forest cover, or snow and ice cover. For example, a 2-year change in albedo was caused by the large Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption in June 1991. Stratospheric aerosols from the eruption increased global albedo by up to 0.7% because of the
reflection of an additional 2.5 W/m^2 of solar radiation over the following 2 years.
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~tak/wong/f16.pdf

jayreynolds

12-07-2006, 07:41 PM

Geoengineering FAQ(continued)

How big is 10 million tons of Alumina(Al203)?
Alumina weighs approximately 3 tons/cubic yard, so 10 million tons would take up a little more than 3 million cubic yards, about the same volume as the Hoover dam. 10 million tons weighs as much as 27 Empire State buildings. If loaded onto tandem wheel dump trucks, it would take 187,500 truckloads to move it, and a convoy of such trucks, bumper to bumper, would stretch over 800 miles.

What is Alumina, and is it available in nanoparticles of 100 nanometers, as specified in the Teller paper?
Aluminum oxide(alumina/Al203) is used to make aluminum metal, in ceramics, and as an insulator. It is also the abrasive used in common sandpaper. Alumina is not compatible with fuel systems or jet turbine engines because of it's abrasive qualities.
http://www.answers.com/topic/aluminium-oxide
Aluminum oxide of this sort is available for $68.47 per kilogram.
http://nanoactive.interkan.net/CMAC_Catalog/index.phtml?cmd=showcat&catID=27&track=27
The above material is extremely expensive research grade material because of it's ultrafine size. At this price, 10 million tons of nanoparticle alumina would cost $90 billion dollars.

What happened when Mt. Pinatubo erupted, and why is it important?
When Pinatubo erupted, it naturally approximated the events which would take place during a geoengineering program. During the eruption, 20 million tons of aerosol sulfur dioxide and ash were blasted into the stratosphere. These aerosols caused a 0.7% change in earth's reflectance(albedo), as incoming solar energy was reflected back into space. The event lasted about two years, until the aerosols drifted downward and the stratospheric aerosol loading decreased. One measurement of aerosol loading is aerosol optical depth. An animation on the following webpage depicts aerosol optical depth during the years 1985-1999. Clicking on the image, you will see the non-loaded aerosol depth(blue range) turn yellow/orange/red three times during those years after the eruptions of Nevado Del Ruiz(1985), Kelut(1990), and Pinatubo(1991), and then return to it's non-loaded aerosol depth by 1999:
http://aerosols.larc.nasa.gov/optical_depth.html

If a geoengineering program to load the stratosphere with aerosols were underway, could the aerosols be detected?
Yes, considering that low aerosol background levels were reached by 1999(see above), when the "chemttrails" hoax began, you would expect to see a considerable increase in both aerosol loading and albedo if such a program were underway. Several means are available to detect aerosols and changes in albedo. These include worldwide ground based LIDAR instruments and multiple satellite measurements, as well as balloon borne samplers which capture and analyze stratospheric aerosols.

jayreynolds

12-07-2006, 07:44 PM

What is known about levels of stratospheric aerosols since 1999?

The World Climate Research Program sponsors the Stratospheric Processes And their Role in Climate(SPARC) study. This effort consists of scientists from the US, UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, and many others who observe, record, and analyze stratospheric aerosols.
The latest SPARC Report on the Assessment of Stratospheric Aerosol Properties finds that current stratospheric aerosol levels are about 1/2 million tons, compared to their post-Pinatubo high of 20 million tons. This low level is considered a "background" level which is reached approximately 100 months after a major volcanic eruption. Trends of aerosol loading over the past 30 years are essentially zero, with no general increase or decrease in background levels.
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/SPARC/News23/23_Thomason.html
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=sm05&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Fsm05%2 Fsm05&maxhits=200&="A53B-01"

Archived Total Aerosol Extinction at 1020nm data is available free online. At the link below, you can set parameters to retrieve global views of aerosol amounts from 1985-2003. These views show essentially no change in aerosol loading values above background levels since 1999.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/sageii/sageii_v6.cgi

If a geoengineering program of any significant scale were taking place, the aerosol loading data would show a marked increase.
The data shows no such change.

What is known about measurements of earth's albedo since 1999?

In the May 6, 2005, issue of the journal Science, NASA's CERES Science Team reported Earth’s shortwave albedo has been steadily declining since the Terra CERES instrument began making the measurement in February 2000. Over the 4-year span (2000 through 2004), the CERES instrument measured an albedo decrease of 0.0027, which equals 0.9 watt of energy per square meter retained in the Earth system.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16905
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~tak/wong/f16.pdf

If a geoengineering program of any sort were taking place, earth's albedo would be increasing.
The data show that, instead, earth's albedo is decreasing.

halva

12-07-2006, 10:00 PM

What is required is to get SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE to take political responsibility for what is happening? This is what is required for us to be able to do ANYTHING about it.

An example of someone taking political responsibility for it would be, for example, Greenpeace explaining their "cover-up" policy on "chemtrails". This is something that has already happened "off the record" and it may be possible to get it "on the record".

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Discussion&action=display&thread=1073367108&page=5#1

halva

12-07-2006, 10:02 PM

The relevant photograph for the above posting is at Reply 65.

jayreynolds

12-08-2006, 07:57 AM

What i want to know is what is required is to get SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE to take political responsibility for what is happening.

Wayne is correct. Within the membership of those promoting the chemtrails hoax, a distinct element of self-censorship exists, a discrete and usually unspoken form of "political correctness" that pervades the discussions, with very few exceptions.

The truth is that, when all claims of the chemmies are taken as a whole, they debunk each other.

One faction claims "chemtrails" cause drought, another excessive rainfall.

One claims "chemtrails" cause warming, another cooling.

One claims "chemtrails" cause disease, another inoculation against disease.

One claims "chemtrails" cause ozone depletion, another say remediation of ozone depletion.

One claims "chemtrails" began recently, another says sixty years ago.

One claims "chemtrails" are from military jets, another from commercial jets.

One claims "chemtrails" are worldwide, another claims they can eliminate them from an area.

Without an operative atmosphere of non-confrontational "political correctness" in which the totally contradictory claims enumerated above are not up for discussion, members of the Cult of Belief would be able to produce a unifying rather than nullifying set of claims. Instead, they have produced a flaccid, passive atmosphere in which disparate, conflicting and even preposterous claims are accepted as 'theoreticals".

This 'watered down' dilution of any consensus actually has worked to the disadvantage of the hoax. Current thinking at boards like gastronomus are attempting to escape responsibility for those 'outliers' who produce insane material within the "chemtrail" community not by confronting them with logic or fact, but by dismissing them as "paid disinformationists" employed by nefarious agencies. One effect of that tactic is to reinforce paranoid hysteria to ever greater heights as members are repeatedly told to expect neverending attacks, subliminal manipulation, cyberwarfare, and secret infiltrators behind every bush.

Logical, critical, and reality based thinkers examine the claims and find so little unanimity they dismiss it for lack of evidence and consistency. Even among Cult of Belief members, such discontinuity tends over time to take it's toll as every claim is countered by yet another set of failed propositions, promised "breakthroughs" which never arrive, and "exposures" which turn out to be false.

Yes, Wayne, it is long past time for your people to get with people like my buddy chem11 and:
to get SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE to take political responsibility for what is happening

foot_soldier

12-09-2006, 04:29 PM

This thread was set up to look at one single, specific issue - the issue of normal contrails and the impact of the continually expanding aviation sector on the global atmosphere. This one single, specific problem is not going to go away whatever else is going on with Earth's atmosphere.
.

jayreynolds

12-09-2006, 04:36 PM

.This one single, specific problem is not going to go away whatever else is going on with Earth's atmosphere.

Hot damn!
Now you're getting it!

EdSnell

12-09-2006, 06:00 PM

I got snowed in at my property near Terlingua, so I haven't been able to respond.

Thank you, Jay, for your confidence in me. No, I have never threatened Swamp Gas. I have never threatened anyone on the Internet. As strange as it might sound, I wish Swamp Gas the very best, not because of him, but because of those misfortunate enough to have to live with or be near to him. Life must really suck for those people.

My reply to Swamp Gas: You are a lying, deceiving, bullshitting, admitted illegal drug using cross-dresser. People like you need to keep as much distance between yourselves and the law as possible. Therefore, I am calling your bluff. Bring it on dopehead.

As long as your forum is public, I will continue to read and post there whenever I feel like like it. Do you understand?

whitemajikman

12-09-2006, 06:05 PM

foot_soldier

12-09-2006, 06:12 PM

To speak to the matter of forum/thread continuity, anyone who is so inclined can save any of the information I've posted here. It's all freely available in the public domain to begin with, right? I sincerely hope some will find it useful, if not now, then down the road a bit.

As for any "debate" supposedly in progress in the Science section, if what's been posted over the last week or so is any indication, I'd be more inclined to characterize it as a free-for-all. At best.

It's not likely that I'm going to alter what I'm doing which is, for various and very good reasons, deliberately limited to topic-specific informational posting, the goal of which is to maintain a chronology on the one issue for which this thread was created.
.

EdSnell

12-09-2006, 07:03 PM

Now this is the actual quote made by me.

You are amazing Swamp Gas. There are links given to your actual quotes, then you come here and claim you said something different. WTF? - Don't you think people can read? Simply put, you are a liar!

EdSnell

12-09-2006, 07:05 PM

Don't you ever get tired of the annual, circular arguments being fought?

WMM
No.

Don't you get tired of posting at Maverick's under different names?

foot_soldier

12-11-2006, 09:32 PM

Sedona, AZ October 2006

http://static.flickr.com/99/261085081_5ca10261d9.jpg

foot_soldier

12-11-2006, 09:34 PM

Sedona, AZ October 2006

http://static.flickr.com/92/261009408_35338c83ab.jpg

halva

12-11-2006, 10:25 PM

One is growing rather tired of the embarrassed, non-committal stance of organizations such as Greenpeace in the face of these phenomena. They have not apparently even worked out their attitude to Crutzen's proposals. For how many years is such a stance viable??

halva

12-11-2006, 10:28 PM

OK. Leave it to others to be the radicals and the vanguard. But at least try to look as if you yourself are a player in SOME capacity. And not that you are hearing about these matters for the first time every time someone mentions them to you. For ten years.

foot_soldier

12-15-2006, 09:36 PM

December 15, 2006
Government stands firm on Heathrow expansion
By Barrie Clement, Transport Editor
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2076176.ece

Ministers have reaffirmed their proposals to enlarge Heathrow and Stansted but also insisted that the projects would only go ahead if environmental concerns could be addressed.

The Government's refusal to abandon plans for major airport expansion came under fire from a wide "green" alliance ranging from Friends of the Earth to the Conservative Party.

In his "progress report" on the 2003 aviation White Paper, the Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander confirmed that a new runway at Stansted Airport would not be operational before 2015 - more than three years after the projected date put forward in the document.

He stressed there would be full consultation next year on the development of Heathrow where a "mixed mode" approach - take-offs and landings on the same runway - could be introduced. Mr Alexander also announced he would be consulting next year on an "emissions cost assessment" which will consider whether the aviation sector is meeting its external climate change costs.

He said that analysis since 2003 confirmed the view that a new Heathrow runway would have to be supported by a new passenger terminal and changes to nearby roads.

The announcement makes clear there has been a degree of slippage in the timetable elsewhere. The White Paper suggested extra capacity would be needed by 2016 at Birmingham and 2020 at Edinburgh. Both airports now believe the extra runways will not be needed until after 2020 because of more efficient use of existing facilities. At Leeds-Bradford runway extensions were supported by the White Paper, but the operators have no plans to take the idea forward.

Industry leaders backed the Government rather than the Conservatives, emphasising the contribution that aviation makes to the economy. Chris Grayling, the Tories' transport spokesman said: "The Government's policy of predict and provide for future aviation growth is completely inconsistent with the messages they are giving us on climate change."

Richard Dyer, aviation campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "The Government must listen to the alarm bells, abandon its airport expansion plans and take urgent action to cut carbon dioxide emissions."

He said Mr Alexander's plan to bring aviation into a European Union Emissions Trading Scheme was not a solution. "It will not be introduced for a number of years and is unlikely to lead to a significant reduction in the growth in air travel."

David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said the expansion of Britain's aviation capacity was crucial given the increasing international nature of business. "I am glad that the Government has not bowed to the immense pressure being put upon it and that it recognises the economic imperative of expansion at Stansted and Heathrow," he said.

jayreynolds

12-16-2006, 07:44 AM

Despite specious rhetoric by anti-aviation campaigners, whom my buddy Wayne Hall calls:
Almost everything published in the mainstream media on the environmental effects of air travel is framed in a disingenuous tone that arouses suspicion. Which of the two sides of the non-debate between geoengineering advocates and anti-air-travel campaigners is more guilty of distorting scientific fact.? If anything the anti-aircraft campaigners seem more guilty, despite the fact that – or perhaps because of the fact that – their political objectives seem less unobjectionable, and even praiseworthy..
http://www.enouranois.gr/english/indexenglish.htm

There exists some major misconceptions by anti-aviation campaigners that have broght about dire predictions based on extrapolations not based on fact.

In order to rectify the record, I present evidence presented in a Congressional hearing earlier this year on the subject of jet fuels.
http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/02-15-06/02-15-06memo.html

Key points:

-Since 2000, U.S. airlines have simplified and reduced their fleets by an average of 20 percent, increased labor productivity by 30 percent, reduced their workforce by 37 percent, and increased fuel efficiency by 18 percent.

-Southwest retrofitted much of its fleet of B-737 aircraft with 8-foot winglets, which will save more than 100,000 gallons per year of fuel per plane. Its cost has a three-year payback.

-United Airlines has removed excess weight – such as silverware on planes where it no longer offers meals – which can save it 10 million gallons of fuel annually. United also initiated training programs to teach pilots and dispatchers how to better conserve fuel, which is expected save United $50 million a year.

-Alaska Airlines claims that it saved $10,000 per year in fuel by removing just five magazines per aircraft. For the same reason, JetBlue and America West have moved toward a paperless cockpit.

-American Airlines expects to save $50 million annually in fuel costs due to the introduction of RNAV procedures at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport.

-Delta has been using RNAV for more than a year at its Atlanta hub, where it is achieving $30 million in annual fuel savings. FAA plans to certify 30-50 more RNAV procedures in FY 2006 after commissioning 30 in FY 2005.

-The FAA estimates that domestic RVSM will save users $5.3 billion in fuel costs between 2005 and 2016.

-Due to the extensive use of composite material, improved aerodynamics and advanced engine and aircraft systems in the 787, Boeing estimates that the twin-engine aircraft will be 20 percent more fuel efficient than the 767, the comparably-sized, twin-engine Boeing jetliner that will be replaced by the 787.

foot_soldier

12-16-2006, 07:54 AM

March 2, 2006
Telescopes 'worthless' by 2050
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4755996.stm

Ground-based astronomy could be impossible in 40 years because of pollution from aircraft exhaust trails and climate change, an expert says.

Aircraft condensation trails - known as contrails - can dissipate, becoming indistinguishable from other clouds.

If trends in cheap air travel continue, says Professor Gerry Gilmore, the era of ground astronomy may come to an end much earlier than most had predicted.

Aircraft along with climate change will contribute to increased cloud cover.

The timescale is based on extrapolating air traffic growth figures. The BBC has learned that the calculations were made as part of preparations for an upcoming observatory project called the Extremely Large Telescope (ELT).

The ELT is intended to probe planets around nearby stars and look for extremely faint objects in the Universe.

"It is already clear that the lifetime of large ground-based telescopes is finite and is set by global warming," Professor Gilmore, from Cambridge's Institute of Astronomy, told reporters recently in London.

"There are two factors. Climate change is increasing the amount of cloud cover globally. The second factor is cheap air travel.

"You get these contrails from the jets. The rate at which they're expanding in terms of their fractional cover of the stratosphere is so large that if predictions are right, in 40 years it won't be worth having telescopes on Earth anymore - it's that soon.

"You either give up your cheap trips to Majorca, or you give up astronomy. You can't do both." .....(continued)

jayreynolds

12-16-2006, 08:03 AM

Hmmmm, let's see.

An 18% increase in fuel effciency over the past five years.

A new fleet planes already under construction which have a further 20% increase in fuel efficiency.

What industry can match those achievements?

Now what sort of aviation catastrophe were you talking about?

foot_soldier

12-16-2006, 08:16 AM

http://static.flickr.com/92/261009408_35338c83ab.jpg

foot_soldier

12-16-2006, 08:17 AM

http://static.flickr.com/107/260996480_3ad18e9962.jpg

CDsNuTz

12-16-2006, 09:09 AM

http://cdschemtrailz.photosite.com/~photos/tn/189_1024.ts981100880000.jpg

jayreynolds

12-16-2006, 06:38 PM

http://cdschemtrailz.photosite.com/~photos/tn/189_1024.ts981100880000.jpg

Ah, contrails, an airborne symbol of freedom and properity!

halva

12-16-2006, 09:29 PM

Does this represent a shift in position that the "contrails" have moved from being non-existent to being a symbol of "freedom and properity"?

If you have decided that you want to start defending them you could apply for a job working as public relations man for the geoengineers. This is something that I have been in effect telling you to do for a long time. It has more of a future to it than the activity of persecuting "chemmies" for saying that these symbols of "freedom and properity" exist.

You could become a distinguished political consultant to Benford and Wigley, helping them to make the transition from admission that their programmes "will shortly begin to be implemented" into full admission of the liberated and properous reality.

jayreynolds

12-17-2006, 04:44 AM

Does this represent a shift in position that the "contrails" have moved from being non-existent to being a symbol of "freedom and properity"? .

Wayne stop talking nonsense.
Your people stand, looking up with mouth's agape, in awe and (misplaced)fear of the spectacle of contrails. All pilots who fly know what I'm talking about, but have no fear as they make them and fly among them every day.
Contrails exist.
They symbolize man's successful dream of freedom to fly like a bird.

If you think pilots of ordinary comercial jets, and I mean all of them, aren't laughing their asses off at your people's folly, think again.

Or better yet, go ask one and you'll see for yourself.

halva

12-17-2006, 05:18 AM

jayreynolds

12-17-2006, 05:56 AM

Just the thought of how not one single airline pilot who flies through and makes persistent contrails day-in-day-out 24/7/365 seems to have left Wayne Hall at a loss for words.

Just remember, Wayne, when 'Loopy' Lou Aubuchont posts pictures like this:
12/14/06 Parsonsfield, ME Looking south east at Chemtrail's
http://s122.photobucket.com/albums/o245/Lou_A/?action=view&current=2006_1214cmems0001.jpg

There are dozens upon dozens of ordinary commercial flights from all over the world passing through the exact same airspace to the southeast of Parsonsfield, Maine at the exact same time:
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/brendt2.html

Why on earth would anyone try to deny these facts?
Lou is taking all you people for a ride down yet another rabbit hole.

"You've said a warning sign that something is not legit is when untrustworthy people agree with the idea.........

foot_soldier

12-17-2006, 09:25 AM

One more time:

June 2006
Cutting Night Flights Could Reduce Global Warming
http://environment.about.com/b/a/256757.htm

Reducing or eliminating commercial airline flights at night, and especially in winter, could help slow global warming by lowering greenhouse gas emissions caused by air traffic, according to a study by meteorologists at the University of Reading in southern England.

Overall, aviation accounts for only about 2 percent of carbon dioxide emissions globally, according to the International Air Transport Association, but at high altitudes jet exhaust may cause a warming effect that is two or three times greater than that of carbon dioxide.

Contrails, trails of ice that condense when the hot exhaust from jet engines hits the cold air at high altitudes, can last in the atmosphere for hours and spread to cover thousands of square miles before they eventually dissipate. The icy contrails act like giant mirrors suspended in the sky. By reflecting the sun’s radiation, they cause some cooling, but they also block heat rising from the Earth’s surface, which contributes to the greenhouse effect and global warming.

At night, the warming effect is magnified, because there is no reflective cooling effect to help counter it. And the problem becomes worse in winter, when cold, moist air is more likely to exist at all elevations. According to the researchers, contrails are almost twice as likely to form in winter than in summer.

The research study, which was reported in the journal Nature, found that night flights accounted for only 25 percent of the daily air traffic but contributed 60 percent to 80 percent of the warming caused by commercial aviation. At the same time, winter flights accounted for only 22 percent of the annual number of commercial flights, but they contributed half of the annual warming effect.

One reason regulators and environmentalists are particularly concerned about greenhouse gas emissions from jet airplanes, despite the relatively low level of carbon dioxide the planes produce, is that international commercial air travel is one of world’s the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gases. (Not to mention air cargo.)

Joyce E. Penner, an atmosphere expert at the University of Michigan, told the Los Angeles Times. "If we control emissions from other sources and don't do something about aircraft, then in the future they are going to become a dominant source. Maybe there are ways to avoid such a high climate impact by scheduling different routings. END

The studies corroborating the information in this article are posted in this thread.

foot_soldier

12-17-2006, 10:00 AM

http://static.flickr.com/120/264487513_d09cab6423.jpg?v=0
.

foot_soldier

12-17-2006, 10:03 AM

Update: Netherlands November 2006

http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2006-4/magicgallery/9overflow.htm

jayreynolds

12-17-2006, 04:34 PM

Cutting Night Flights Could Reduce Global Warming

Sure, squeeze 24 hours worth of traffic into 1/2 the time. Imagine the air traffic congestion and safety issues, for christsakes. Likely the whole system would be forced to grind to a halt with planes stacked up, engines idling on the tarmac far into the nightime hours. What sort of CO2 production would you get then, with absolutely nothing to show for it?

Maybe as a trial run you should cancel all night shift workers in a major city, tell them to all head out on the streets to work at the same time in the morning. You'll quickly find out how cockamamie the idea really is.

What sort of idiots dream up crap like this?

halva

12-17-2006, 08:38 PM

Footsoldier, isn't Penner also someone who advocated the use of aircraft for climate change mitigation, (i.e. aerosol spraying) in the famous NAS study of the early nineties. What is your comment on the relation between these two aspects of her work? (or "work"). I am asking you here, but you can answer me at our closed forum if you don't want the mugwump here to stick his dick into things as usual.

halva

12-17-2006, 08:41 PM

That is not a becoming way to talk to someone who wants to learn from you, not fight you.

foot_soldier

12-17-2006, 08:41 PM

Sure, squeeze 24 hours worth of traffic into 1/2 the time. Imagine the air traffic congestion and safety issues, for christsakes. Likely the whole system would be forced to grind to a halt with planes stacked up, engines idling on the tarmac far into the nightime hours. What sort of CO2 production would you get then, with absolutely nothing to show for it?

Maybe as a trial run you should cancel all night shift workers in a major city, tell them to all head out on the streets to work at the same time in the morning. You'll quickly find out how cockamamie the idea really is.

What sort of idiots dream up crap like this?
Take it up with the atmospheric research community.

Since you obviously know so much more than they do.

halva

12-17-2006, 08:42 PM

Footsoldier deleted her response. I will delete these two postings also when I get to a computer from which I can do so.

foot_soldier

12-17-2006, 08:57 PM

halva wrote:
.....That is not a becoming way to talk to someone who wants to learn from you, not fight you.....

God, this is such a damned pain in the neck.

HELLO.

I just now deleted that post after seeing that you had posted ahead of me by about two seconds. In other words, that response was not intended for you.

And as for Joyce Penner, she has never to my knowledge advocated the use of aircraft for "climate mitigation."

As a matter of fact, most of her work has been focused on the damaging atmospheric impact(s) of aircraft emissions at flight altitude.

"Airliners are special because even though their total emissions are relatively small, compared to other sources, they're putting their emissions directly into the upper troposphere," says Joyce Penner, a University of Michigan professor of atmospheric science and lead author of a landmark report on aviation and the atmosphere. "It's a special location."

-Joyce Penner

Aviation and the Global Atmosphere
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm

Authors: Joyce E. Penner (professor in the Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences at the University of Michigan. Prior to that she served as Division Leader of the Global Climate Research Division at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. She is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Geophysical Research and the Journal of Climate. She has served on several scientific advisory committees, including the National Academy of Sciences Atmospheric Chemistry Committee and the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Aerosol Forcing and Climate Change. She has served as Secretary of the Atmospheric Sciences Section of the American Geophysical Union), David H. Lister (Technical Manager in the Propulsion Department of the UK Defence Research and Evaluation Agency (DERA). He has served as Project Manager in the European Community AERONOX program, as a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel on Atmospheric Effects of Stratospheric Aircraft, as Chairman of ICAO/CAEP/WG3 (emissions) Technology and Certification Subgroup, and as lead author in the World Meteorological Organization's Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion (1994)) David J. Griggs (Head of the IPCC Working Group I Technical Support Unit at the Hadley Centre, UK Meteorological Office), David J. Dokken (Project Administrator of the IPCC Working Group II Technical Support Unit, Washington, DC, USA) and Mack McFarland (Principal Scientist in Environmental Programs at DuPont Fluoroproducts, Wilmington, DE, USA).

Edited by: Joyce E. Penner (University of Michigan), David H. Lister (UK Defence Research and Evaluation Agency), David J. Griggs (UK Meteorological Office), David J. Dokken (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research), Mack McFarland (DuPont Fluoroproducts)

jayreynolds

12-18-2006, 07:27 AM

Aviation and the Global Atmosphere
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm

The above referenced document has proven to be quite incorrect in it's predictive ability,
to wit:

Significant improvements in aircraft fuel efficiency have been achieved since the dawn of the jet age in commercial aviation. Historically, these improvements have averaged 1-2% per year for new production aircraft (Koff, 1991; Albritton et al., 1996; Condit, 1996). These advances have been achieved through incorporation of new engine and airframe technology. Changes have included incremental and large-scale improvements. Examined over several decades, however, they represent a relatively steady and continuous rate of improvement. A similar trend is assumed when fuel efficiency improvements are projected forward to 2050.

In the longer term (2050) compared to 1997, a total aircraft production average fuel-efficiency improvement of 40-50% is considered feasible.

In fact, recent total fuel efficiency improvements of 18% since 2000, plus another 20% have already come to fruition in new aircraft under construction. The newest generation aircraft already beat Toyota's Prius hybrid in mileage. This adds up to a whopping (18+20=38%) fuel efficiency improvement.

Not to mention that most airlines have reduced their fleets by 20%.

So it turns out that fifty years of assumed efficiency improvements have already been nearly met in less than ten years!

That's the problem with assumptions, they have a gosh-darn habit of biting you in the ass when you get too cocky.

But that's not the sort of news you want to hear, is it, 'footsoldier'?

You'd like to see the skies jammed up after all night flights are cancelled, the airspace restricted above 24,000 ft for even further safety hazard, maybe some heavy tax penalties for those who need to fly, that sort of thing..............

foot_soldier

12-18-2006, 10:05 PM

This information has been posted previously on this thread, along with links to some of the studies from which it was drawn:

Pace hots up in a world forever on the move
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/carbontrust/story/0,,1511925,00.html

Excerpt:

What makes the growth in air travel so concerning for ecologists is not just the nature of the emissions from aircraft that include carbon dioxide, water vapour, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide, but the high altitude at which these gasses are being spewed into the atmosphere. At these heights, these chemicals have twice the effect on global warming that they have near ground level. Unfortunately, technological fixes to these problems appear to be lagging far behind those being put forward by the motor industry. There have been some improvements in aircraft and engine technology. The introduction of larger planes such as the new giant Airbus A380 does slightly reduce emissions per passenger. Yet according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change such moves will do little to offset the projected growth in aircraft emissions. END excerpt.

halva

12-19-2006, 12:43 AM

As for Joyce Penner, she has never to my knowledge advocated the use of aircraft for "climate mitigation."

As a matter of fact, most of her work has been focused on the damaging atmospheric impact(s) of aircraft emissions at flight altitude.

Haven't you ever read this, Footsoldier?

http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/smoking_gun.html
"Aircraft Exhaust Penner et al. (1984) suggested that emissions of 1 percent of the fuel mass of the commercial aviation fleet as particulates, between 40,000- and 100,000-foot (12- to 30-km) altitude for a 10-year period, would change the planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the effects of an equivalent doubling of CO2. They proposed that retuning the engine combustion systems to burn rich during the high-altitude portion of commercial flights could be done with negligible efficiency loss. Using Reck's estimates of extinction coefficients for particulates (Reck, 1979a, 1984), they estimated a requirement of about 1.168 ¥ 1010 kg of particulates, compared with the panel's estimate of 1010 kg, based upon Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985). They then estimated that if 1 percent of the fuel of aircraft flying above 30,000 feet is emitted as soot, over a 10-year period the required mass of particulate material would be emitted.

However, current commercial aircraft fleets seldom operate above 40,000 feet (12 km), and the lifetimes of particles at the operating altitudes will be much shorter than 10 years."

"An alternate possibility is simply to lease commercial aircraft to carry dust to their maximum flight altitude, where they would distribute it. To make a cost estimate, a simple assumption is made that the same amount of dust assumed above for the stratosphere would work for the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere). The results can be scaled for other amounts. The comments made above about the possible effect of dust on stratospheric ozone apply as well to ozone in the low stratosphere, but not in the troposphere. The altitude of the tropopause varies with latitude and season of the year."

"In 1987, domestic airlines flew 4,339 million ton-miles of freight and express, for a total express and freight operating revenue of $4,904 million (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988). This gives a cost of slightly more than $1 per ton-mile for freight. If a dust distribution mission requires the equivalent of a 500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours), the delivery cost for dust is $500/t, and ignoring the difference between English and metric tons, a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If 1010 kg must be delivered each 83 days, (provided dust falls out at the same rate as soot), 5 times more than the 1987 total ton-miles will be required."

"The question of whether dedicated aircraft could fly longer distances at the same effective rate should be investigated."

Joyce E. Penner (professor in the Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences at the University of Michigan. Prior to that she served as Division Leader of the Global Climate Research Division at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. She is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Geophysical Research and the Journal of Climate. She has served on several scientific advisory committees, including the National Academy of Sciences Atmospheric Chemistry Committee and the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Aerosol Forcing and Climate Change. She has served as Secretary of the Atmospheric Sciences Section of the American Geophysical Union), David H. Lister (Technical Manager in the Propulsion Department of the UK Defence Research and Evaluation Agency (DERA). He has served as Project Manager in the European Community AERONOX program, as a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel on Atmospheric Effects of Stratospheric Aircraft, as Chairman of ICAO/CAEP/WG3 (emissions) Technology and Certification Subgroup, and as lead author in the World Meteorological Organization's Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion (1994)) David J. Griggs (Head of the IPCC Working Group I Technical Support Unit at the Hadley Centre, UK Meteorological Office), David J. Dokken (Project Administrator of the IPCC Working Group II Technical Support Unit, Washington, DC, USA) and Mack McFarland (Principal Scientist in Environmental Programs at DuPont Fluoroproducts, Wilmington, DE, USA).

Edited by: Joyce E. Penner (University of Michigan), David H. Lister (UK Defence Research and Evaluation Agency), David J. Griggs (UK Meteorological Office), David J. Dokken (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research), Mack McFarland (DuPont Fluoroproducts)

jayreynolds

12-19-2006, 04:54 AM

Using Reck's estimates of extinction coefficients for particulates (Reck, 1979a, 1984), they estimated a requirement of about 1.168 ¥ 1010 kg of particulates
Wayne, what is the mass of particulates mentioned above when converted from scientific notation?

If 1010 kg must be delivered each 83 days, (provided dust falls out at the same rate as soot), 5 times more than the 1987 total ton-miles will be required.

Wayne, what is the mass of dust mentioned above when converted from scientific notation and multiplied five times, and how many flights would be required to distribute it?

If you, or any of your peers are unable to answer, you are not ready to deal in any way with real scientists.

The math concepts required to answer the above questions are requirements of US sixth grade students twelve years of age, BTW.

halva

12-19-2006, 05:19 AM

Go and jump in the lake, Socrates.

halva

12-19-2006, 05:21 AM

Would you like me to post some links to the works of Juergen Habermas on "Science and Technology as Religion", a phenomenon which is at the heart of the American polity, as evidenced by the identical idiocy of your goodself and friend Socrates.

I am not a scientist, and you are not a quiz master.

foot_soldier

12-19-2006, 06:58 AM

Haven't you ever read this, Footsoldier?

http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/smoking_gun.html
"Aircraft Exhaust Penner et al. (1984) suggested that emissions of 1 percent of the fuel mass of the commercial aviation fleet as particulates, between 40,000- and 100,000-foot (12- to 30-km) altitude for a 10-year period, would change the planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the effects of an equivalent doubling of CO2. They proposed that retuning the engine combustion systems to burn rich during the high-altitude portion of commercial flights could be done with negligible efficiency loss. Using Reck's estimates of extinction coefficients for particulates (Reck, 1979a, 1984), they estimated a requirement of about 1.168 ¥ 1010 kg of particulates, compared with the panel's estimate of 1010 kg, based upon Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985). They then estimated that if 1 percent of the fuel of aircraft flying above 30,000 feet is emitted as soot, over a 10-year period the required mass of particulate material would be emitted.

However, current commercial aircraft fleets seldom operate above 40,000 feet (12 km), and the lifetimes of particles at the operating altitudes will be much shorter than 10 years."

"An alternate possibility is simply to lease commercial aircraft to carry dust to their maximum flight altitude, where they would distribute it. To make a cost estimate, a simple assumption is made that the same amount of dust assumed above for the stratosphere would work for the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere). The results can be scaled for other amounts. The comments made above about the possible effect of dust on stratospheric ozone apply as well to ozone in the low stratosphere, but not in the troposphere. The altitude of the tropopause varies with latitude and season of the year."

"In 1987, domestic airlines flew 4,339 million ton-miles of freight and express, for a total express and freight operating revenue of $4,904 million (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988). This gives a cost of slightly more than $1 per ton-mile for freight. If a dust distribution mission requires the equivalent of a 500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours), the delivery cost for dust is $500/t, and ignoring the difference between English and metric tons, a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If 1010 kg must be delivered each 83 days, (provided dust falls out at the same rate as soot), 5 times more than the 1987 total ton-miles will be required."

"The question of whether dedicated aircraft could fly longer distances at the same effective rate should be investigated."
Yes, I've read it. I've had it in hard copy for years now.

Does Joyce Penner actively advocate this approach to greenhouse gas-driven climate warming?

I wouldn't think so.

Most scientists recommend international cooperation toward emissions reduction and have repeatedly said as much.

foot_soldier

12-19-2006, 07:35 AM

December 19, 2006
Concern grows over pollution from jets
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2006-12-18-jet-pollution-usat_x.htm

Excerpts:

…..In the USA, a panel of scientists brought together by NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration agreed in August that the effects of aircraft emissions on the climate "may be the most serious long-term environmental issue facing the aviation industry."

The FAA projects that the number of U.S. airline passengers will nearly double from 739 million last year to 1.4 billion in 2025. Air traffic controllers are expected to handle 95 million flights by all types of aircraft in 2025, compared with 63 million last year.

Worldwide, a growing middle class with the means to travel is spawning new airlines and big orders for new planes. China plans more than 40 new airports to accommodate the growth.

By 2050, emissions from planes are expected to become one of the largest contributors to global warming, according to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, an independent group of scientists that advises the British government…..

…..Don Wuebbles, a University of Illinois professor of atmospheric science who chaired the panel of scientists brought together by NASA and the FAA, says the projected growth in aviation could make aircraft emissions one of the fastest-growing contributors. But he acknowledges many uncertainties, including aviation's role in global warming and the growth of other pollution sources abroad.

What is known, he says, is that it's "much harder" to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from aviation. Jet engines are already energy efficient, and technology to significantly reduce carbon dioxide from them isn't as far along as it is for land-based pollution sources.

Besides carbon dioxide, jet engines emit many pollutants into the atmosphere, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, soot and even water vapor. Carbon dioxide and water vapor are called greenhouse gases, because they trap heat and contribute to global warming.

Though planes contribute to air pollution while on the ground, scientists studying global warming are most concerned about pollutants emitted when a plane is airborne. Jets are the major source of emissions deposited into the upper atmosphere, where some pollutants have a greater warming effect than when they are released in the same amount from the ground, according to a 1999 scientific report sponsored by the United Nations.

Some pollutants emitted from engines during flight warm the Earth by adding to the heat-trapping gases, both natural and man-made, already in the atmosphere. Also, jet contrails — the vapor trails they leave in the sky — add to cloud cover and may contribute to the warming of the planet. A contrail forms when water vapor from the engine cools and mixes with air and the humidity becomes high enough for condensation.

NASA scientist Patrick Minnis has studied contrails and believes they may have a prominent role in global warming. A 2002 report by the British scientific commission agrees, concluding that "aviation-induced cirrus clouds will be a significant contributor to warming." But Minnis says another NASA study concludes that the contrails have little effect on global warming. Further research is being done…..

jayreynolds

12-19-2006, 07:47 AM

[color=green]Does Joyce Penner actively advocate this approach to greenhouse gas-driven climate warming?

Wayne?

jayreynolds

12-19-2006, 08:10 AM

[b]What is known, he says, is that it's "much harder" to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from aviation. Jet engines are already energy efficient, and technology to significantly reduce carbon dioxide from them isn't as far along as it is for land-based pollution sources...
The 787 Boeing 'Dreamliner' has a fuel efficiency 20% better than any airplane ever built.
The authors are evidently way behind on their knowledge of progress in the industry.
By burning 20% less fuel, carbon dioxide emissions are vastly reduced compared to the last generation of aircraft, and far beyond what anyone predicted. This improvement wasn't driven at all by environmental restrictions advocated by anti-aviation 'activism'. The improvement was driven solely by market forces, showing that 'footsoldier's' people are superfluous relics who merely spout off rhetoric while real technologcal advances move ahead in spite of and regardless to their protestations.

BTW, the IPCC predicted a 1% efficiency improvement/year. The Dreamliner has shot that prediction down in flames by a quantum leap.

One wonders why fake 'activists' like 'footsoldier' aren't congratulating or even mentioning the laudable advance. Their reticence to even mention it leaves one wondering if they can ever be satisfied, or if they are really in favor of anything less than a return to horse-and-buggy days.

foot_soldier

12-19-2006, 08:18 AM

jay Reynolds wrote:
.....or if they are really in favor of anything less than a return to horse-and-buggy days.....
Those are your words, not mine.

I have never made any such comment.

F off.

halva

12-19-2006, 08:24 AM

Yes, I've read it. I've had it in hard copy for years now.

Does Joyce Penner actively advocate this approach to greenhouse gas-driven climate warming?

I wouldn't think so.

Most scientists recommend international cooperation toward emissions reduction and have repeatedly said as much.

I don't know. Could we get her to debate publicly with, shall we say, Rosalind Peterson? Can she be more daring than Crutzen has so far shown a willingness to be?

jayreynolds

12-19-2006, 08:28 AM

Those are your words, not mine.

I have never made any such comment.

F off.
Well, why be so pessimistic, why not give credit for a quantum leap by the industry that is giving you far more than your most pessimistic assumptions ever predicted?

Boeing has given you exactly what you wanted, yet you totally ignore them and instead publish information known to be false?

One is left to wonder what will actually satisfy you, that's all.

foot_soldier

12-19-2006, 09:47 PM

Well, why be so pessimistic, why not give credit for a quantum leap by the industry that is giving you far more than your most pessimistic assumptions ever predicted?

Boeing has given you exactly what you wanted, yet you totally ignore them and instead publish information known to be false?

One is left to wonder what will actually satisfy you, that's all.
You have repeatedly demonstrated that you have your own ideas about "what I want", which, in your mind, amount to a desire to force (i.e. regulate) the world back into "the Stone Age" or however you're putting it this year.

Not being an idiot, I do realize that the aviation industry per se is not, with malice aforethought, committed to the wholesale trashing of our atmosphere.

I also realize that the global economy is now pretty much completely dependent on the continued growth of the aviation sector.

That's the way it is.

I just don't see how we are going to reconcile the damage already done and the damage ongoing (as documented in this thread) if the growth of the aviation sector continues to expand at the current and projected rate.

As for the Dreamliner, yes, it's very nice, and it does embody some significant improvements in the efficiency department. However it looks like it's going to be awhile before these aircraft replace older models in significant enough quantity to make a real difference:

As of 12/17/2006 This plane has not yet entered service. To see all current orders please see the list of Boeing 787 orders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_787_orders

Meanwhile, here is an extensive visual record of what is being photographed on a regular basis all over the world:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=contrails

When I see our skies looking like this it indicates to me that those in oversight are willing to risk the destruction of our atmosphere to keep the global economy running in the manner to which they have become accustomed. They seem to think it's their prerogative to make that decision for the rest of us, including future generations.

It is my strong feeling that they don't have that right.

halva

12-19-2006, 09:54 PM

jayreynolds

12-20-2006, 04:42 AM

Reynolds, Footsoldier is actually much more interested in the debate with you than she is in the debate with me. If you could just stop being such a swine, desist from the chauvinist innuendo and confine yourself to objective argumentation, climate at this section of the forum could improve considerably.
I don't see it that way, Wayne. The fact is I nailed her to the wall so hard that there was no other way out and she had no choice.

Her whole raison d'etre has come tumbling down around her as events not under and in fact totally beyond her control have given her what she wanted, and she is now struggling to find meaning as what she has been doing has become a moot process.

She still points at contrails that persist just as they did sixty years ago when my father flew B-24's in WWII and claims they are signs of "damage". Just another chemmie with a slightly different flavor...................

halva

12-20-2006, 04:55 AM

Do you have any comment on this, Footsoldier?

jayreynolds

12-20-2006, 05:47 AM

Want blue skies?
Cut down your forests.
Dark crops a trigger of rain: scientist
20th December 2006, 13:00 WST

Scientists studying land on both sides of the rabbit-proof fence have discovered that planting dark native plants or crops such as black wheat could produce more clouds and help solve the State’s record dry spell.

The researchers from Murdoch University have studied the vastly different landscapes on either side of the rabbit-proof fence near Lake King, about 460km south-east of Perth.

The results back their earlier discovery, that blue skies exist over cleared farms on one side of the fence while on the other, big clouds form over native bush.

Native plants and crops that are darker in colour contribute to forming clouds because they absorb more heat and create more turbulence, which means there is enough movement of fluids to lift the moisture high enough to form clouds.

Environmental scientist Tom Lyons said planting a dark crop such as black wheat would be one way to stimulate the atmosphere. “Traditional white wheat grows by transpiring moisture to the atmosphere and tends to use a lot of the available energy,” Professor Lyons said.

Part of the climate change in WA was because of atmospheric processes on a big scale that were largely beyond our control, but was also because of land use change, he said.

“If you can identify a component that’s associated with land surface change then you can actually change management practices and adjust them accordingly,” he said.

“The fence is a purely arbitrary boundary, there’s no change in soil condition, natural vegetation or anything. It provides a natural laboratory.”

The next stage of the research is to work out how much native vegetation is required to make a difference to cloud formation and potentially rain.
One is left wondering what was the effect of cutting down the US forests as seen in the maps here: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html

and what effect the recent rebirth of US forests has had on "cloudiness"?

jayreynolds

12-20-2006, 05:48 AM

Do you have any comment on this, Footsoldier?

Stop using proxies, Wayne, and stand up for yourself like a man for once.

foot_soldier

12-20-2006, 06:18 AM

Do you have any comment on this, Footsoldier?
No.

I think Reynolds is doing a fine job providing a running narrative on what we are up against.

In "Jay Reynolds' World" all is unfolding according to God's Plan.

foot_soldier

12-20-2006, 06:26 AM

December 20, 2006
Airline charge 'big step forward'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6195921.stm

Environment Secretary David Miliband said emissions from the UK's planned doubling in passengers to 465 million a year by 2020 could be offset elsewhere.

It was still a "very serious problem", although "the important thing is we get overall emissions down", he added.

Airlines are expected to have limits set on greenhouse gases.

Extra costs

The EU's environment commissioner is to propose including airlines in the Emissions Trading Scheme, which aims to tackle climate change.

Under it, companies have to pay for emitting more than a set amount of greenhouse gases.

Up to now, the aviation sector has been exempt...... (continued)

December 20, 2006
EU's Dimas Confirms Change in Aviation CO2 Plan
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39562/story.htm

BRUSSELS - The European Commission's top environment official confirmed on Tuesday he had decided to soften a plan to include aviation in the European Union's emissions trading scheme.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said he would limit the first year of the industry's inclusion in the scheme to intra-EU flights only, confirming comments by EU sources to Reuters on Monday.

"We propose (in) 2011 intra-EU flights and 2012 for flights in and out of the European Union," he told reporters.

The European Commission, the EU's executive, is due to unveil its proposals on Wednesday.

The airline industry and some of the EU's biggest trading partners, including the United States, have said the European Commission was being too ambitious with its original proposal..... (continued)

foot_soldier

12-20-2006, 06:30 AM

December 20, 2006
Europe Says All Airlines to Trade Emissions in 2012 (Update2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a72QLAwXbNm4&refer=home

Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- European regulators proposed to demand airlines including EasyJet Plc, British Airways Plc and American Airlines Inc. curb emissions starting in 2012, in a drive to combat global warming that will raise ticket prices.

Airlines flying within Europe will be subject to compulsory carbon-dioxide emissions trading from 2011, the European Commission said today. Flights to and from outside the region will be included a year later. Some permits to emit will be auctioned by member states, with most issued for free, it said.

"All the major airlines have wanted this because it's fairer than an increase in passenger duty,'' Chris Avery, an aviation analyst at JP Morgan in London, said today by telephone. "Because this is five years away, I don't see it as price-sensitive for airline shares.''

Lawmakers around the world are drawing up laws to curb emissions blamed by scientists for global warming. Emissions trading will allow an airline that curbs its emissions to sell spare allowances in a market established last year, creating a financial incentive. Airlines wanting to boost emissions would need to buy additional allowances.

Airlines would get a 2.7 billion-pound ($5.25 billion) windfall if they were given emission permits for free in the regional trading system, the U.K.'s Institute for Public Policy Research said earlier this week.

The number of permits given to airlines will be determined by the average level of emissions in 2004-2006, according to the commission. The regime will curb emissions by 183 million metric tons a year, or 46 percent, by 2020, it said..... (continued)

halva

12-20-2006, 06:34 AM

No.

I think Reynolds is doing a fine job providing a running narrative on what we are up against.

In "Jay Reynolds' World" all is unfolding according to God's Plan.

Pardon me Footsoldier but it is you, not Reynolds, who has the religious, transcendental, other-worldly apprach. Like our friend Dewey on the other thread.

There are fifty thousand television channels for people who want to see "what we are up against".

This section of the forum is going to adhere to European standards of personal etiquette and I want you to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

foot_soldier

12-20-2006, 06:58 AM

Really?

I thought I had started this thread but perhaps not.

Pardon me while I go and check.

halva

12-20-2006, 07:00 AM

You started the thread. You answer Reynolds' arguments, or else discuss with me what can be done about the wider problem.

foot_soldier

12-20-2006, 07:02 AM

December 19, 2006

Preparing for take-off
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/12/19/preparing-for-take-off/

I suppose I should be flattered. In a speech to fellow airline bosses a few days ago, Martin Broughton, the chief executive of British Airways, announced that the primary challenge for the industry is to “isolate the George Monbiots of this world”(1). That shouldn’t be difficult. For a terrifying spectre, I’m feeling pretty lonely. Almost everyone in politics appears to want to forget about aviation’s impact on the environment.

On Wednesday the secretary of state for communities launched a bold plan to make new homes more energy efficient. She claims it will save 7 million tonnes of carbon(2). On Thursday Douglas Alexander, the transport secretary, announced that he would allow airports to keep growing: by 2030 the number of passengers will increase from 228 million to 465 million(3). As a result, according to a report commissioned by the department for environment, carbon emissions will rise by between 22 and 36 million tonnes(4). So much for joined-up government.

The government says it will cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60% between 1990 and 2050. Last month it promised to introduce a climate change bill, which will make this target legally binding. Douglas Alexander’s decision ensures that the new law will be broken.

A 60% cut means that our emissions by 2050 must amount to no more than 65 million tonnes of carbon(MtC). The “best case” figures produced by the Department for Transport would see emissions from air transport rising from 4.6 to 15.7 MtC – or 24% of the target for the whole economy. According to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, “this is likely to be a very substantial understatement”(5).

The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research estimates that the UK’s aeroplane emissions are more likely to amount to 32MtC by 2050, or 49% of the target(6). The report produced for the department for environment, by researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University, calculates that they will rise to between 29.8 and 44.4 MtC by 2050, or 46-68% of the target(7). This, they say, is an underestimate, as they don’t include non-scheduled flights.

None of these calculations takes into account the other greenhouse gases aircraft produce. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, these create a global warming effect 2.7 times as great as the carbon dioxide alone(9). Nor do they recognise the fact that 70% of people flying out of the United Kingdom live in this country: all the estimates give the UK a 50% share of the flights landing or taking off here, rather than 70%(8). Throw these numbers into the equation, and you discover that aviation will account for between 91% and 258% of all the greenhouse gases the United Kingdom will be permitted, under the new law, to produce in 2050.

So how does the government navigate this contradiction? It’s simple. It doesn’t include international aircraft emissions in its target(9). Whatever their impact on the world’s atmosphere might be, they don’t officially exist.

No one now pretends that the industry can design its way out of this. The department for transport’s wildly optimistic figure (a mere 91% of the UK’s target) assumes improvements in efficiency which most observers believe will be impossible to realise. After a 70% reduction in the fuel consumed by jet engines over the past 40 years, they have pretty well reached their limits, while radical new aircraft designs and new fuels are, at best, several decades away from commercialisation. Even Martin Broughton admits that the airlines’ fuel efficiency gains “are likely to be outweighed by future growth”(10). So the government relies on two other mechanisms, taxation and trading. It knows that neither of them will work.

Gordon Brown announced two weeks ago that he will double air passenger duty, from £5 to £10(11). This merely reverses the cut he made in 2001. In its white paper on aviation, the transport department investigated the effect of a bigger levy – a 100% fuel tax. This, it found, would increase the airlines’ prices by 10%(12). But the growth of the no-frills carriers would be sufficient to offset it, ensuring that there was no suppression of demand(13). Air passenger duty might begin to bite at 10 times its current level. Is there anyone in government who has the guts to make that happen?

Brown’s pathetic levy is counteracted by subsidies which he has managed, so far, to keep mostly hidden from public view. It turns out that the government has been authorising “route development funds” to establish “new links from regional airports”(14). European rules permit governments to provide up to 50% of the start-up costs for regional airports and their new connections(15). Last week, for example, the Guardian reported that Derry City Council has been secretly giving Ryanair £1.3m a year(16). Our money is being used to subsidise climate change.

Tomorrow, the European Union will wave its wand and make the airlines’ carbon emissions magically disappear. It will incorporate them into the European emissions trading scheme. According to Douglas Alexander this is “the most efficient and cost-effective way to ensure that the sector plays its part in tackling climate change.”(17) The airlines can keep growing, he argues, as long as they buy carbon permits from other industries, who can cut their output more cheaply. All that counts is that the European economy as a whole is reducing its emissions – it doesn’t matter how they are distributed.

So how is this going to work if aviation accounts for 258% of all the greenhouse gases the target permits us to produce? Or even 91%? Again, there is sleight of hand involved. The other greenhouse gases don’t count – the trading scheme recognises only carbon. But even if we were to accept its restricted terms, why should aviation force the rest of the European economy to reduce its emissions much faster than the average? Is flying more important than heating and lighting?

You can shuffle carbon between different industries when the overall reduction you are trying to achieve is just 8%, and still stay within the cap. But when you go much beyond that point, as the EU must in 2012, almost every industry will have to start making cuts of its own. So what happens when the growth in flights outstrips the cuts the other industries can make? How will the airlines cut their emissions in order to stay within the scheme? If the government knows, it hasn’t told us.

Douglas Alexander knows as well as I do that emissions trading is a red herring. In his new report is a table showing what would happen if trading raised the price of carbon to the government’s upper estimate of £140 a tonne by 2030 (this is 32 times the current price(18)). It would mean that