Normal Contrails: Some Sanity

[foot_soldier]

We cannot synthesize a new atmosphere.

We need to start thinking seriously about taking better care of the one we were given.

***
Aviation
Transport 2000.org

http://www.transport2000.org.uk/campaigns/Aviation.htm

Significant growth is forecast in the aviation industry both in terms of passenger travel and movement of air-freight. People and the environment face serious threats from this growth, including noise problems, possible cancer clusters around airports and climate change. Transport 2000 says it's time to manage demand for air travel and make aviation pay for the problems it causes.

Aviation has been almost the forgotten environmental issue. While growth in road traffic has led to considerable awareness of the problems caused, air travel has continued to rocket over the past few decades almost unnoticed and its effects are less well known. A research report published by Transport 2000 - The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment - predicts that by 2015 air travel world-wide could be more than double that in 1995. And if the trend continues, by 2050 passenger-kilometres flown could grow to between five and nine times that in the mid-90s.

Aircraft produce large amounts of toxic emissions that are a threat to human health, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Research in the US has linked VOCs generated by Chicago-Midway Airport to elevated rates of cancer in the vicinity. Heathrow Airport is already one of this country's main producers of VOCs and building the controversial fifth terminal there will make the situation worse.

Aviation also generates levels of noise that pose a serious threat to the health of those who live around airports. The report reveals that World Health Organisation noise limits are regularly exceeded and that one in eight people in the UK are affected by noise pollution from aircraft.

In October 2001 the European court of Human Rights ruled that night flights from Heathrow violated the human rights of local residents by denying them a normal night's sleep. The UK Government has, however, successfully appealed against the decision. The latest ruling sets back attempts to bring aviation to account for its effect on local communities around airports and under flight paths.

And aviation poses a massive threat to the environment. Its projected growth means that by 2050 it is set to become one of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gas emissions with around 10 per cent of climate change directly attributable to aircraft. On short-haul flights air travel produces around three times as much carbon dioxide per passenger as rail.

While motorists could argue that through various taxes they pay something towards the environmental and social problems they cause, air travellers and airlines most certainly do not. Airlines pay no duty or VAT on aviation fuel and there is no VAT on either air tickets or new aircraft.

Transport 2000 believes that aviation needs to be held responsible for its effects on people and the environment. If air transport continues to soar in the longer term, then people and the environment will pay the price. Campaigners have called for future demand to be managed to reduce the adverse effects as much as possible. They have proposed an environmental charge on air travel based on emissions and the ending of tax exemptions on aviation fuel. The need for more stringent standards on noise and emissions around airports, better monitoring of the effects of air travel and more promotion of the alternatives, such as rail for short-haul flights, are also clear.

Some people say that restricting aviation growth would have serious effects on the economy but The Plane Truth report sheds doubt on this. Professor John Whitelegg, who compiled the report, says this assumption is at best questionable and quite probably flawed, and that limiting aviation traffic might even deliver positive economic benefits..... (continued)

The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment
Transport 2000
www.us-caw.org/planetr.pdf

[foot_soldier]

For Immediate Release
February 22, 2000
Contact: Jim Berard
(202) 225-6260

Oberstar: GAO Study Links Aircraft Emissions to Global Warming

Report says jet exhaust accounts for a "potentially significant and growing" portion of greenhouse gases

WASHINGTON — A new report from the General Accounting Office indicates that commercial jet aviation makes a significant contribution to the problem of global warming. The study further warns that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can be expected to increase as commercial jet travel continues to grow worldwide.

The report was released today by Rep. James L. Oberstar (Minn.), Ranking Democratic Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The GAO study was done at Oberstar’s request.

In his request, Oberstar pointed out that aviation is the fastest-growing segment of the transportation industry, growing at a rate of some five percent annually, and this has brought with it an increasing concern over aviation’s impact on the environment.

"On the one hand, the industry’s growth has created concerns about noise, air, and water pollution. On the other hand, environmental concerns have increased the time and cost of development and imposed restrictions on flight patterns, airport use, and airport capacity," Oberstar wrote.

The GAO found that, in the United States, aviation emissions accounted for about three percent of the greenhouse gases and other emissions that contribute to the global warming phenomenon. While this percentage is small in relative terms—other transportation sources contribute 23 percent, and other industrial emissions account for 41 percent—aviation emissions are potentially significant for a number of reasons:

-- Jet aircraft emissions are deposited directly into the upper atmosphere and some of them have a greater warming effect than gases emitted closer to the surface, such as automobile exhaust

-- The primary gas emitted by jet aircraft engines is carbon dioxide, which can survive in the atmosphere up to 100 years.

-- Carbon dioxide combined with other exhaust gases and particulates emitted from jet engines could have two to four times as great an impact on the atmosphere as carbon dioxide emissions alone.

-- The growing demand for jet air service is likely to generate more emissions that cannot be offset by reductions achieved through technological improvements alone.

The report recommended further research into the impact of jet exhaust on the global atmosphere to help guide the development of new aircraft engine technology. It also called upon governments to reduce emissions through improved air traffic control and regulatory and economic incentives.

The report released today is the first in a series of studies on the environmental impact of aviation stemming from Oberstar’s request.

Text of the report (GAO/RCED-00-57) is available on line at www.gao.gov/archive/2000/rc00057.pdf

[foot_soldier]

20 October 2003
EurActiv.com

UK aviation industry recognises need to address aviation's climate change impact

In short:

On 13 October the EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström discussed with the UK aviation industry alternatives as to how to reduce the impact of aviation on climate change.

Background:

Aviation is estimated to contribute around 3.5 per cent to human-induced global warming. And the growing number of flights is likely to exacerbate the problem of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in the coming decades. A study from Cambridge University entitled "Aviation and the global atmosphere" suggests that the impact of aviation on climate change could grow to between 5 and 15 per cent of the total human-induced impact by 2050 (with a mid-range scenario of 6 per cent).

Issues:

On 13 October, the British Airport Association (BAA) organised a seminar to determine the best approach to address the impact of aviation on climate change. Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström, UK aviation minister Tony McNulty, BAA chief executive Mike Clasper, Friends of the Earth senior climate & transport campaigner Roger Higman and British Airways chief economist & head of environment Andrew Sentance focused discussions in particular on the role of aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme.

Positions:

Referring to the appropriate instruments which could be implemented within the aviation industry to combat climate change Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström mentioned three instruments:

--- The exemption of taxation on kerosene should be ended. The new Community Directive on energy taxation will allow Member States to tax kerosene on domestic flights and - on the basis of bilateral agreements - intra-EU flights;

--- An 'en route emissions charge' could be introduced. The Commission is currently considering the results of a study on 'en route charges' that could form the basis for a Commission proposal;

--- The EU emissions trading scheme should be applied to aviation. The commission is studying how this could be achieved.

The British Airport Association considers that "the aviation industry cannot grow unless it tackles its global impacts: by making the most of the positive economic, social and cultural benefits of aviation, and by constantly striving to drive down the negative impacts on its local communities and the environment".

Supplemental links here:
http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-115134-16&type=News

***

An excerpt from Dr. Rita Colwell's December 4, 2002 speech to a planning workshop in Washington, DC:

.....Scale is an important consideration for observing the atmosphere as well—to paraphrase Thoreau, knowing when and where to look. Here we see contrails left by jet aircraft in the sky over Southern California.

When all commercial aircraft were grounded after September 11, 2001, a unique portal opened onto surface temperature. The range in daily temperature on those days without jet flights proved to be the widest in 30 years. The reason: Contrails block sunlight by day and retain heat on the earth by night.....
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/forum/colwell/rc021204climatechngwkshp.htm

9/23/07 Note: The above-posted link to Rita Colwell's December 4, 2002 speech is no longer viable. The text of the speech (and a slide presentation file) can now be accessed at the following link:

How far we are to look: A Context for Climate Change Research
Dr. Rita R. Colwell
Director
National Science Foundation
U.S. Climate Change Science Program:
Planning Workshop for Scientists and Stakeholders
Washington, D.C.
December 4, 2002
http://www.nsf.gov/news/speeches/colwell/rc021204climatechngwkshp.htm

[foot_soldier]

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

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

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

2000 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
All rights reserved

Excerpt:

2.2 Aviation and the Environment Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water influences climate through its continual cycling between water vapor, clouds, precipitation, and ground water. Both water vapor and clouds have large effects on the radiative balance of climate and directly influence tropospheric chemistry. Water is also important in polar ozone loss though the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. This can directly affect the radiative balance of climate and have a chemical perturbation on stratospheric ozone.

Furthermore, it takes longer for water emissions to disappear in the stratosphere than in the troposphere, so these aircraft water emissions increase the ambient concentration and directly impact the radiative balance and climate. Thus, new concerns have arisen regarding increasing contrails and enhanced cirrus formation. Figures 2.2a and 2.2b show a contrail coverage in 1992 and its estimate in 2050 (IPCC, 1999).

[See .pdf link provided below for a look at Figures 2.2a and 2.2b.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[foot_soldier]

3 December 2003
The Guardian UK

Low flying 'would aid air quality'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1098385,00.html

The environmental havoc wreaked by aviation could be brought under control if aircraft cruised at a lower altitude and flew in straight lines, according to leading scientists.

Just weeks ahead of a likely announcement on new runways from the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, experts suggested the rapid rise in emissions from air transport could be halted if the industry operated more efficiently.

Keith Mans, chief executive of the Royal Aeronautical Society, yesterday claimed pollution could be controlled even if the industry grows at the forecast rate of 3%-5% a year.

"If we invest in technology, invest in operational improvements and look at the problems in a holistic way, there is a good chance we will be able to at least stabilise emissions in the medium term," said Mr Mans.

New research suggests that by flying 6,000ft lower than their present cruising altitude, airlines could cut the damage caused by vapour trails by 47% - although they would burn 6% more fuel.

Vapour emissions are viewed as a big contributor to global warming.

Greener by Design, a group of academics urging the industry to take on board environmental issues, believes that improved air traffic control could cut emissions by a further 10% if planes no longer had to fly "zig-zag" patterns and were able to avoid queuing for take-off and landing slots.

The findings contradict warnings from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution that expansion in air travel is unsustainable.

***
9 July 2003
Aviation Today and Tomorrow
Elmar Uherek - Mainz Institute, Germany
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/n9.html

[foot_soldier]

12/4/03
BBC News

Fly Lower to Cut Climate Impact
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3288003.stm

Flying aircraft 6,000 feet (1.8 kilometres) below current altitudes could help curb the contribution to climate change made by aircraft.

UK scientists say this would result in a 47% reduction in contrails, the exhaust streams produced by aircraft.

Contrails can evolve into cirrus clouds that may trap terrestrial radiation, driving up global temperatures.

The suggestion comes out of computer modelling at Manchester Metropolitan University and other institutions.

"Climate change is a real, measurable phenomenon," said Manchester's Professor David Lee, an author of the research who was speaking at the Science Media Centre in London.

Cirrus clouds - typically thin and wispy - occur about 20,000 feet (6 km) over the Earth's surface, and above. They are composed of ice crystals that form through the freezing of super-cooled water droplets.

3D simulation

The researchers came to their conclusions by developing a computer simulation model of the total global aircraft traffic. This took account of different flying routes, altitudes, flight frequencies, and aircraft types.

They also used meteorological data to calculate where the aircraft would hit conditions favourable for contrails, or condensation trails. The exhaust clouds form more frequently where there is high atmospheric humidity.

This simulation was then played through a 3D computer grid which revealed the contrail coverage produced by the virtual air traffic.

This can be used to calculate the contrail contribution to the total climate change effect from aviation which is assessed using a measure known as radiative forcing.

This describes how an environmental process affects the energy balance of the Earth and atmosphere.

The team tried several scenarios in which they looked at the effect of flying aircraft 2,000, 4,000 and 6,000 feet below their current levels. Flying aircraft at 6,000 feet below their current altitudes reduced the contrail coverage by 47% in the simulation.

Conventional altitudes for commercial aircraft are between 20,000 (6 km) and 40,000 feet (12 km).

Icy clouds

Although contrails have been observed evolving into cirrus clouds, there are currently no figures on their contribution to the formation of cirrus clouds globally.

Dr Paul DeMott, an atmosphere scientist at Colorado State University, US, was cautious about the factors behind cirrus cloud formation on a worldwide scale.

"I think there is at least some potential impact of aircraft causing more cloudiness, but you have to have the right conditions for cirrus cloud formation," he said.

"I think it's fair to say, we're still not completely certain about the direction or magnitude of cirrus clouds on [climate change]. We need to know more about their distribution in the atmosphere," he added.

The study is a joint project between nine different partners across Europe, including Manchester Metropolitan University, the German Aerospace Centre and the University of Oslo.

The UK Government's white paper on the future of aviation, expected next month, will outline a 30-year strategy for the aircraft industry.

The industry has been looking at options for stabilising emission levels from aircraft in line with projected passenger growth of 3-5% over a similar period.

[foot_soldier]

16 January 2004
The Scotsman

Peer Bids to Curb Aircraft Pollution
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2415135

A bid to halt UK airport expansion through curbs on polluting aircraft fumes will be made in the House of Lords today.

Green Party peer Lord Beaumont of Whitley will urge support for his private member’s bill which is being debated at Second Reading.

The Air Traffic Emissions Reduction Bill, would require the Government to set targets for reducing all greenhouse gas emissions linked to aviation.

The Government does not count aircraft pollution in its climate change plans, although aviation is currently the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Exhaust fumes from aircraft at cruising altitudes are much more damaging than the same emissions at ground level and there are regular warnings from leading scientists of the threat to the world’s weather systems if atmospheric overheating is not checked.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said: “It’s as simple as this: to meet our commitment to reducing emissions we need to reduce emissions from aircraft.

“If you’re trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions it’s perverse to exclude the fastest growing source of those emissions.”

The Bill would require a 5% cut in aviation emissions by 2010, compared with 2000 levels, then a 10% cut by 2015 and a 50% cut by 2050.

Lord Beaumont: “Emissions targets would help us to achieve the 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that we need to help stop climate change.”

The boom in the aviation industry is largely sustained by an international agreement that bans aviation fuel tax, the Chicago Convention.

John Whitelegg, Professor of Sustainable Transport at Liverpool John Moores University and a leading Green Party spokesman said his party could solve this problem.

“In the short term, the Chicago Convention could be partially circumvented by putting charges on emissions and on air traffic congestion.

“This would help reduce demand where currently demand is stimulated by huge tax breaks and hidden subsidies.

“The charging level proposed by the Green Party would also raise revenue for sustainable transport projects in the short term.

“It would raise more than £170 million from Heathrow airport alone in the first year.

“If this Bill goes through, it will be the beginning of the end of a policy of mollycoddling the aviation industry with tax breaks and hidden subsidies. And we’ll see some real progress on climate change.”

[foot_soldier]

3 March 2004
Environmental News Service

Jetting Toward Climate Change
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=29940

CHICAGO, Illinois, March 3, 2004 (ENS) - Commercial jet aviation has the potential to soon become the number one cause of human caused climate change, according to a professor of industrial and operations engineering at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor.

The study by Dr. Katta Murty cautions that major increases in commercial flights and expansions of airports would not only add to greenhouse gas emissions, but could further harm the protective ozone layer that surrounds the Earth.

Current industry projections predict the world's air transportation industry could triple within two decades.

"It is an important problem to analyze at what altitudes additional releases of greenhouse gases will have maximum impact on global warming," according to Murty.

"This study also points out that the much more rapid melting of polar ice near the North Pole compared to that at the South Pole," she said, "may have been caused by the very large fraction of jet air flights in the world occurring over the northern polar region."

Murty says jet aircraft atmospheric damage is unique in that exhaust emissions from such aircraft are deposited not only in the lower atmosphere but also in the cloud forming troposphere and higher, where resulting contrails are formed and other chemicals remain to interact for decades.

According to Dr. David Travis, professor and chair, Department of Geography and Geology, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, research "has demonstrated that jet contrails have caused substantial increases in the high cloud coverage over the most heavily trafficked regions of the United States and Europe."

Travis says these increases in high clouds have led to suppression of the temperature range causing both daytime cooling and nighttime warming in areas where contrails are most abundant.

"During the three days following September 11th - when no commercial aircraft were flying - the skies across the United States were remarkably clear with a much wider range in temperature between day and night, giving an indication of how the U.S. climate used to be prior to the days of aviation," Travis said.

The findings of these researchers - along with the recently publicized study by consultants to the U.S. military warning of the environmental, social and political impacts of climate change - are more evidence the United States needs to rethink its transportation system, says Jack Saporito of the Alliance of Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare (AReCO).

"Now, more than ever, there is support and urgency to demand a U.S. moratorium on all airport expansion projects currently in the works," Saporito said. "Furthermore, there is a real need for environmental impact reviews to be taken seriously and results stringently enforced."

Originally posted at: http://www.ens-newswire.com/login/index.asp?q=/ens/mar2004/2004-03-03-09.asp#anchor5

The above-referenced study:

Greenhouse Gas Pollution in the Stratosphere Due to Increasing Airplane Traffic; Effects on the Environment

Katta G. Murty
Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

10 November 2000, revised 26 November 2000

www.areco.org/planetravel.pdf

[foot_soldier]

15 March 2004
The Scotsman

Aviation Policy 'Will Have Huge Global Warming Impact'
By Amanda Brown, Environment Correspondent, PA News
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2652045

Government aviation policy will have a “massive” impact on global warming over the next 30 years, an all party group of MPs [members of Parliament] warns today.

The powerful Environmental Audit Committee says the Department for Transport is failing to recognise the problem adequately.

MPs accuse the department of not accepting the disparity between its air travel policy and pledges by the Government to reduce harmful carbon dioxide emissions.

Carbon dioxide is the chief global warming gas that is overheating the atmosphere and leading to extreme weather events worldwide such as flooding, drought and storms, according to environment scientists.

They warn that industrialised countries must curb fossil fuel burning and exhaust fumes from transport – most notably from aircraft and road vehicles.

But the Environmental Audit Committee’s report says that the recent aviation White Paper actively promotes a huge growth in air travel over the next 30 years.

“The environmental impact of this – in particular in terms of emissions and the contribution to global warming – will be massive,” the MPs warn.

“The Department for Transport (DfT) has failed to recognise this adequately or to accept the disparity between its policy on aviation and the major commitments the Government has given to reduce carbon emissions and develop a sustainable consumption strategy.

“The DfT has implicitly adopted a ‘predict and provide’ approach which is based on assuming a substantial real increase in the price of air travel.

“We are emphatically not arguing for a hairshirt approach or ‘pricing people off planes’.

“But we do feel that the DfT, in conjunction with the Treasury, could have used economic instruments more to moderate the forecast increase in growth and to send out a long term signal to the aviation industry.”

The committee says that, given the Government’s expressed desire to incorporate aviation in the EU Emissions Trading System from 2008, “we are astonished that the department appears to have done no research on some of the key issues which need to be resolved, or to model the impact of including aviation in a cross-sectoral emissions trading system.

“Such research is essential even before any draft proposals can be contemplated. Given the timescales involved, we think it might soon be too late to achieve the target date of 2008.”

The MPs say that if aircraft emissions increase on the scale predicted by the DfT, the UK’s 60% carbon emission reduction target, which the Government set last year, will become “meaningless and unachievable”.

The report adds: “The most we could hope to attain would be about 35%.

“The DfT admitted that the target would need to be looked at should international emissions be allocated to national inventories – and this can only mean with a view to watering it down.”

The Government is urged to recognise the difficulties it faces in meeting its year 2050 carbon target.

“If it did so, it would be forced to take more action now and develop an adequate policy response.

“It should not continue to hope that the solution lies in technological advances as the weight of evidence suggests that the scope for these is limited,” the MPs say.

[foot_soldier]

16 March 2004
Environment Daily [a subscription news service]

UK aviation emission trading plans pasted
Environment Daily 1629, 16/03/04
http://www.environmentdaily.com/articles/

A committee of British MPs has accused the government of completely failing to prepare for its expressed aim of including aviation in the second phase of the EU greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme from 2008.

But were it to succeed, then international aviation emissions would be counted towards national greenhouse gas emission goals and the UK would then stand no chance of meeting its goal of cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) by 60% by 2050, the committee added.

The UK parliament's environmental audit committee (EAC) says it is "astonished" that the transport ministry has not started on the research that would be needed to resolve key trading issues and make a proposal to the European Commission. This throws into serious doubt whether the government could even be ready by 2008 for aviation to be incorporated into the scheme.

The MPs also argue that it is in "inconceivable that any emissions trading system could generate sufficient credits to allow aviation to expand as forecast" by the government last December, "while at the same time delivering carbon reductions of the order needed".

Under questioning from the EAC, transport minister Alistair Darling admitted that, all other things being equal, the government would have to look at the 2050 CO2 target again if the UK were to be allocated its share of international aviation emissions.

[foot_soldier]

A USA commercial flight track database for upper tropospheric emission studies

Donald P. Garber, Patrick Minnis, and Kay P. Costulis
Atmospheric Sciences, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA

European Conference on Aviation, Atmosphere, and Climate
Friedrichschafen at Lake Constance, Germany
June 30 - July 3, 2003

INTRODUCTION

Air traffic is expected to increase globally by a factor of 5 or 6 between 1990 and 2050 with a commensurate rise in emissions and contrails that may significantly affect air quality and climate (IPCC, 1999).

Some of the aircraft exhaust effects, especially those impacting contrail and cirrus clouds, are still highly uncertain requiring exhaustive research to more accurately prognosticate the climatic impact of enhanced commercial fleets.

Contrail formation, growth, and dissipation and their optical properties are highly dependent on aircraft engine type, and the temperature, humidity, and wind speed and direction at flight altitude. The contrail-cirrus radiative effects, which ultimately affect the average state of the atmosphere, depend on the underlying conditions (surface temperature and albedo), the contrail optical properties, air traffic density and altitude, and the time of day when the contrails are formed.

Thus, to accurately assess current air traffic effects and future flight scenarios, it is necessary to simultaneously know the meteorological state and the distribution of flights at a given location. This report addresses the latter need for the contiguous United States (CONUS) with a focus on the upper tropospheric portions of commercial flights..... [cont.]
www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/ pub/conference/duda.AAC.03.pdf

[foot_soldier]

26 March 2004
local6.com

Fliers back in droves; crowded skies returning
http://www.local6.com/technology/2949661/detail.html

Continued economic growth is being credited as the main cause for Americans getting back into the skies as the number of airline flights continues pushing to record levels of 1999 and 2000.

Those flight levels have reached the point where federal officials are taking action to avoid the well-publicized chronic flight delays prevalent in the summer of 2001 and earlier.

"Aviation is on the cusp of a paradigm shift," U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta told the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 29th Annual Aviation Forecast Conference. "Because a strong economy depends on a vibrant aviation system, the future of our system depends on new solutions that keep America as the worldwide leader in aviation."

The triggered plans include the airlines voluntarily delaying the takeoff of some flights to avoid congestion elsewhere along with reporting delays more quickly while the FAA said it will be quicker to trigger flight delays, the USA Today newspaper reported.

According to the FAA's annual aerospace forecast released Thursday, the number of people flying in the United States will reach pre-Sept. 11, 2001 levels by 2005, with an average growth rate of 6.8 percent over the next two years.

Mineta said that the new passengers are not the business travelers on whom many airlines have depended for revenue, but rather more cost-conscious passengers who shop for fares on the Internet and fueled the expansion of low-fare carrier.

[foot_soldier]

26 March 2004
Newsday.com

Study: Airports May Soon Be Overcrowded
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-crowded-airports,0,7575119.story?coll=sns

WASHINGTON -- More than three dozen U.S. commercial airports will be unable to handle their air traffic by 2020 unless they are expanded, the Federal Aviation Administration says.

The FAA studied population growth, travel and income trends to determine airports' future needs. At least 43 airports will need to add capacity -- some more than once -- in the next 15 years.

Some will need it even sooner, the agency found. San Antonio; Palm Beach, Fla.; and Tucson, Ariz., are among the cities that will reach maximum capacity by 2013, when the number of air travelers is projected to have grown by about 50 percent, to 982 million.

Expanding airports isn't easy, especially in cities where they are located near dense neighborhoods.

Boston's Logan International Airport spent more than 30 years trying to overcome community opposition to a new runway. The airport authority has surmounted most legal obstacles, but it hasn't started pouring concrete yet.

Similarly, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport proposed a new runway in 1987. Opposition led to delay in the project's scheduled completion to 2008 from 2001.

The study by FAA and its research center, run by The MITRE Corp., reviewed 300 airports in 300 metropolitan areas. Projections of air traffic growth were based on where people are likely to live, work and vacation.

The report took into account such factors as the increasing popularity of leisure travel and the growth of low-cost carriers.

It found five airports already are too crowded: Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport, Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, Philadelphia International Airport and LaGuardia Airport in New York.

"If you think we have problems with delay today, wait till you get to 2013," said Catherine Lang, the FAA's deputy associate administrator for airports. "Wait till 2020 and you've got 42 choices for headaches."

Lang, who worked on the study, said officials concluded that 23 airports in 2020 won't have enough capacity if they don't carry out their current plans to expand. If every airport with expansion plans follows through, 18 airports still won't have enough capacity.

Similarly, 11 airports could have too little capacity in 2013 if they don't complete planned expansions. Even if they do, another 16 airports will need more capacity.

The FAA helps pay to expand airports. The agency also is responsible for modernizing and maintaining the air traffic control system. The report is expected to help the agency set priorities, Lang said.

"San Antonio was not on our radar screen as having a tsunami coming their way," Lang said. "This tells us we need to work with San Antonio."

Airports have to move both passengers and planes, so capacity can be increased by building a new terminal or a new runway. Redesigning airspace or changing air traffic control procedures also can help an airport accommodate more planes.

FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said on Thursday, though, that constructing new runways is the best way to increase the system's capacity.

"Staying the course in new runway construction was never a question," Blakey said.

Last year, four new runways were opened in Houston, Orlando, Miami and Denver, helping to increase the overall system capacity by 4 percent, Blakey said.

[foot_soldier]

26 March 2004
EDIE Interactive

Including aviation in emissions trading would hit low cost flights hardest
(Direct link no longer viable - sorry. This was originally posted on "EDIE Interactive".)

A report by environmental accountancy firm Trucost has shown that including aviation in the European emissions trading scheme (ETS) would hit low cost flights, and companies that do not operate outside of the EU, the hardest.

It would, however, reduce emissions more efficiently than taxes, the report finds.

As the scheme would, by definition, be restricted to flights within the EU, airlines with more globally diversified routes will be less affected than those whose flights are entirely within the EU. The small profit margins of low cost airlines, as well as the greater elasticity of demand of leisure seats, means that these will also be hit hard by inclusion in the ETS, the study found.

The study looked at the likely effect that a carbon dioxide emissions trading scheme would have on the European aviation sector. It found that there is an "inherent and growing conflict between the unconstrained growth of the aviation sector (see related story) and wider policy objectives to reduce the overall level of emissions in the EU".

This view has already been expressed by the UK's Environmental Audit Committee (see related story) in a report last year.

Trucost's study found that, the cap and trade schemes, such as ETS, reduce emissions more efficiently than taxes and encourage the development of reduced emission technologies and constrain demand for air transportation.

Despite Trucost's predictions for the low cost flights sector, EasyJet is in favour of including aviation in the ETS. A spokesperson for the company told edie they had called on the UK Chancellor to create a cross-industry working group to address these long term issues and possible solutions.

"We believe that going forward the government should look into facilitating an emissions trading scheme for the industry," the spokesperson said. She added that there were a number of estimates of what the impact of ETS for the aviation industry would entail, each showing marked variation.

"As pointed out in the Trucost report, until an emissions trading scheme is fleshed out, we will not be in a position to assess how individual airlines will really be affected."

The Trucost report also found that there were various technical obstacles to the introduction of ETS, such as allocation methods, the non-equivalence of emissions at altitude with those at ground level, competitive issues, and the implication of unilateral EU action.

[foot_soldier]

18 July 1998
Science News

What aircraft leave behind
Richard Monastersky
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n3_v154/ai_21003402

As the volume of air traffic soars, scientists have grown concerned about the pollution spewing out the back ends of jets. One long-term study of conditions over Wyoming suggests that airplane exhaust has added substantially to the number of microscopic particles found at high altitudes, possibly helping to cloud the skies.

David J. Hofmann of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo., began investigating this problem in 1976, when one of his meteorological balloons passed through an unusual layer of tiny particles and droplets called condensation nuclei, 75,000 feet above Earth's surface. Because sonic booms occasionally echoed near his research site in Laramie, Wyo., Hofmann suspected that a military jet might have left the trail of particles. He eventually determined that a high-flying reconnaissance aircraft had flown upwind of the region 18 hours earlier.

In the years since, Hofmann and his colleagues have detected hundreds of similar layers between 29,000 and 41,000 feet in altitude, where most jets fly. It is difficult to attribute these bands of condensation nuclei to particular planes because the Federal Aviation Administration doesn't keep records long enough to be useful to the researchers, says Hofmann. On March 31, 1997, however, a balloon passed through a distinct nuclei layer, which they were able to trace to a Delta Airlines flight from Seattle to Dallas-Ft. Worth. The flight had passed upwind of the balloon about 3 hours earlier, report Hofmann and his coworkers in the July 1 GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS.

From studies of aircraft engine exhaust, atmospheric chemists know that sulfurous gases emitted by planes quickly convert to microscopic droplets of sulfuric acid (SN: 7/6/96, p. 12). Natural sources, such as volcanoes, can also produce sulfuric acid droplets and other minute particles in the atmosphere, but these do not form the thin, concentrated layers that aircraft create, says Hofmann.

Looking back over balloon measurements since 1973, Hofmann and his colleagues found 432 discrete instances of condensation nuclei layers. Unlike the natural condensation nuclei, whose numbers rise in summer, these concentrated bands appear with the same frequency in each season, as do aircraft flights. The steadily rising number of nuclei layers has kept pace with the increasing number of jet flights over the years.

The researchers estimate that aircraft have increased the concentration of natural condensation nuclei over Laramie by about 10 percent. This would have little effect if the tiny droplets from aircraft join up with larger natural ones. On the other hand, plane exhaust could stimulate the growth of cirrus clouds, says Hofmann.

Some researchers have observed an increase in cirrus clouds associated with aircraft contrails, although they have had difficulty estimating the effect of jets on general cloudiness, says Patrick Minnis of NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. Cirrus clouds can warm Earth's surface, he notes, and preliminary calculations suggest that the increase in cirrus clouds caused by jets since the 1960s could account for a warming of 0.1 [degrees] C to 0.3 [degrees] C in the United States.

[foot_soldier]

15 July 2004
China Daily

Airbus: China's air transport to soar
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/15/content_348811.htm

Chinese air transportation is to grow nearly five times than its current volume by 2022, Adam Brown, Airbus's Vice President of Customer Affairs Division, made the prediction during his China visit.

According to Brown, airline traffic volume on the Chinese mainland will see a robust long-term growth. He predicted that passengers carried by airlines of the Chinese mainland will grow at an annual rate of more than 20 per cent in both 2004 and 2005, respectively. After then, the passenger traffic would score a normal growth averaging 8.1 per cent per year to reach about 500 billion passenger/kilometer by 2022, Brown said.

Brown attributed the rapid growth of China's air transportation to a robust growth in GDP and personal income, deregulation of ticket prices, privatization of airlines, less restrictive bilateral air services agreements with other countries, and the increasing number of visas being issued to outbound tourists.

Further stimulus to the increase in aviation market will be provided by such major events as the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008, Shanghai Expo in 2010 and Guangzhou Asian Games in 2010, as well as the setup of a free-trade zone between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), he said.

Between 1980 and 1998, demand for air transportation on China's domestic air routes increased 20 times, growing at an average of 18 percent per year.

During the same period, the airlines of the Chinese mainland achieved even more stunning growth of more than 20 percent per year on international routes.

[foot_soldier]

22 June 2004
U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics - News Release

Air Freight is Fastest Growing Segment of U.S. Cargo Economy; New Study Tracks Trends in $29 Billion Dollar-A-Day Cargo Industry
http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2004/bts017_04/html/bts017_04.html

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - Air freight has been the fastest growing segment of the American cargo industry according to a new report released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The report, titled Freight Shipments in America, shows that the total value of air freight moved in the United States doubled from 1993 to 2002 and now totals $2.7 billion a day, growth that was faster than any other segment of the cargo industry.

“Cargo is one of the fastest growing segments of the U.S. economy,” said Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta. “Now we know exactly how much transportation is literally moving the American economy every day.”

The overall cargo industry has seen tremendous growth over the past decade. Between 1993 and 2002, the total amount of freight transported in America grew 18 percent to 16 billion tons while the total value of that freight grew 45 percent to $10.5 trillion. The news was even better for movers of smaller parcels. There was a 56 percent increase in the value of under 500 pound shipments from 1993 to 2002.

“Reliable transportation data shapes policy and drives good investments in transportation systems,” said Secretary Mineta. “Understanding the role freight plays in our economy is crucial if we are going to sustain today’s fast-growing economy in the years ahead.”

The report presents the latest information on freight movements in the United States. Based on a comprehensive survey, it describes the freight American businesses transported in 2002 and relates these shipments to trends in the U.S. economy. The report also freight trends by form of transportation, type of commodity, distance shipped and shipment size.

The Freight Shipments in America report was released today during a news conference at the Louisville International Airport. The airport today received a $6.2 million grant to expand its cargo runway and improve the roads used to move cargo into and out of the airport.

To view a copy of Freight Shipments in America, or for more information about the new study, see the Department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics website, www.bts.gov. The numbers released today in “Freight Shipments in America” are preliminary. Final numbers will be released later in 2004.

[foot_soldier]

15 July 2004
U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics - News Release

Domestic Airline Traffic Up 13.1 Percent in April 2004 From April 2003
http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2004/bts019_04/html/bts019_04.html

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) today reported, in a release of preliminary data, that U.S. airlines carried 53.6 million domestic passengers in April, 13.1 percent more than in April 2003 (Table 1).

These passengers were carried on 814,033 flights, up 5.3 percent from the flights operated in April 2003.

In other domestic comparisons from April 2003 to April 2004:

Revenue passenger miles, a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 16.2 percent.

Available seat-miles, a measure of airline capacity, were up 10.1 percent.

Load factor, a measure of how many seats are sold and used, was up 4.1 percentage points.

Flight stage length, the average non-stop distance, was up 5.0 percent.

Passenger trip length, the average distance passengers travel, was up 2.7 percent.

The number of domestic airline passengers fell 1.7 percent in April from March (Table 2). Month-to-month comparisons may be affected by seasonal factors.

Among airlines, Southwest Airlines carried 7.1 million domestic passengers in April, the most of any airline (Table 3).

Among airports, Hartsfield-Jackson International in Atlanta continued in April to be the busiest domestic airport, with 3.2 million passenger boardings (Table 4).

***
Let's see - 814,033 flights - that's commercial passenger airline flights ONLY being referenced here - divided by 30 days in April - making an average of 27,130 commercial airline passenger flights per day over the continental United States.

[foot_soldier]

24 July 2004
China Daily

Landmark pact expands airline routes with US
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/24/content_351193.htm

Air services between China and the United States will largely expand thanks to a landmark aviation agreement, sources from General Administration of Civil Aviation of China (CAAC) said on Friday.

Over the next six years, the agreement -- which is to be officially signed on Saturday -- will more than double the number of airlines that may operate between China and the United States, a CAAC official who declined to be named said.

It will also increase by nearly five-fold the number of weekly flights between the two countries -- from the current limit of 54 weekly round-trip flights to 249 weekly round-trip flights at the end of a six-year phase-in period.

The agreement also allows services between additional cities, eliminating restrictions on destinations and permitting unlimited code-sharing between US and Chinese airlines on any US-China route.

It provides unlimited rights to any US carrier that wishes to operate to certain western and northeastern Chinese provinces in greater need of international service.

"This agreement is a result of the fruitful bilateral co-operation between China and the United States in the past 20 years and will benefit airline companies and make the interaction between two peoples more convenient," the official said.

The introduction of additional foreign airlines will help step up the construction of aviation infrastructure facilities and push for the development of the nation's aviation industry at large, he said.

Visiting US Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta highlighted the significance of the landmark aviation agreement, saying it will fundamentally reshape the commercial aviation relationship between the two countries.

"The air service agreement represents a major breakthrough in both economic liberalization and transportation liberalization," Mineta said in a speech at the American Chamber of Commerce Luncheon in Beijing on Friday.

The agreement was reached in Washington after four rounds of talks starting last February.

The last agreement to expand US-China air services was concluded in April 1999, when each country's carriers were allowed to increase their weekly flights in the market from 27 to 54, and each side was allowed to designate one additional airline, for a total of four, to serve the market.

The new agreement will allow five additional airlines from each country to serve the US-China market.

According to the agreement, the United States may name one additional all-cargo airline, while China may name either a passenger or cargo airline, to start service later this year.

The other four new airlines may be either passenger or cargo carriers, with one new carrier entering the market in each of the years 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2010.

Mineta said the agreement also contains innovative new provisions that may serve as a model for aviation liberalization elsewhere.

"For example, the agreement will substantially increase the 'doing business' freedoms of US airlines in China, including broad rights for US cargo airlines who are willing to invest in 'hub' operations in China," he said.

Mineta appreciated China's liberalization in the important bilateral market, saying China deserves much credit for its foresight and willingness to open its international aviation market so extensively.

"Additionally, China deserves credit for the substantial reforms that it has been willing to take in its domestic aviation system," Mineta said.

These reforms will help to build a more viable, stronger and more competitive civil aviation network, he said.

[halva]

Giving this subject a thread to itself is another way out of the deadlock.

[jayreynolds]

Jay Reynolds sez: They're just normal contrails. Shut up and don't pay any attention to the fact that our skies are being strafed with more and more of them as the years go by. It's all perfectly normal and natural. Just a side-effect of progress and business-as-usual. So just shut up and get used to it. End of debate.

Well, I'm not going to shut up and I'm not going to stop following the research on this issue. And as will become clear from the following material neither is anyone else who is genuinely concerned about those normal contrails and the cumulative damage they are doing to the only atmosphere we have.

We cannot synthesize a new atmosphere. We need to start thinking seriously about taking better care of the one we were given.

Ok, since 'footsoldier has addressed me, I will respond. Yes, they are normal contrails. No, I never said don't pay attention.

Now, I find it's a good thingy that Deborah has decided to change her mind from where she used to be. Where was that, you might ask?

Well, before she got "some sanity", as she calls it, she used to promote a hoax, yes, that's right, this 'footsoldier', who might appear to be just another environmentally conscious person, used to do the following:

-Deborah used to tell lies
-Deborah used to say that what she now calls contrails were actually military jets spraying
poisonous chemicals
-Deborah used to campaign against anyone who said they were contrails
-Deborah tried to get my free website deleted because I debunked her "chemtrails" hoax
-Deboarh used to speak out against real atmospheric scientists who told her she was wrong, that she saw contrails, and that chemtrails didn't exist
-Deborah was editor for a website which promoted the hoax that what she now calls contrails were actually airplanes spraying barium, aluminum, and other things

These are all things which she has done, and can be documented as true and factual.

Now, keep these facts in mind whenever you read what she has to say. Much of what she will put here appears to be ripped from various sources(she doesn't have much originality), and she definitely will not address contradictory information, a sure sign of propaganda.

From time to time I will contribute factual refrences to try and keep Deborah honest.

Welcome to reality, Debbie!

[foot_soldier]

You need to provide concrete documentation for your spurious allegations, Mr. Reynolds - if you can, that is. And don't forget to provide your usual gratuitous psychoanalytic commentary while you're at it. You might even want to go the extra mile and include some of that insidious sexual innuendo you're so good at.

Who knows - if you can pull off all of the above in one post you might succeed in not only driving me off this thread, but off this forum.

When are you going to have your "Climate Change Is A Hoax", "CO2: Just Bury It" and "Contrails: Good For Free Trade" buttons made up?

[foot_soldier]

Safety warning as Europe's skies come close to saturation point

Rise of budget flights means system will soon be unable to cope

Andrew Clark, transport correspondent
Monday May 17, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/story/0,1371,1218437,00.html

The swarms of brightly painted budget aircraft flying over Europe are busier, cheaper and more plentiful than ever. But they are creating a painful headache for air traffic controllers, who face a challenge in coping with skies packed with a record number of flights.

At the present rate of growth Europe's skies will become "full" in little more than a decade, with current procedures unable to cope, according to Europe's top air traffic controller.

The warning is set to reopen fierce controversy over the safety of the continent's congested skies. It comes days ahead of the publication of an official report which is likely to blame failures in air traffic control for one of the most devastating air disasters in European history - a mid-air collision over Lake Constance two years ago which claimed 71 lives.

National control centres across the continent are coordinated by a network run by a Brussels-based agency, Eurocontrol, which matches take-off and landing slots in 33 countries stretching from Ireland to Ukraine. In a typical 24-hour period, Eurocontrol looks after 29,000 flights. Despite a slowdown in air travel following the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, it predicts that annual traffic across Europe will double to 16m aircraft by 2020.

Victor Aguado, director general of Eurocontrol, said last week: "In the middle of the next decade, we will reach capacity using the present systems. Beyond that, we'll need something else, which today's technology can't provide."

To cope with booming numbers of flights, the minimum height separation between aircraft has already been cut from 2,000ft to 1,000ft.

Safety experts are now working towards "self-separation" technology that will limit the role of controllers by improving electronic equipment allowing aircraft to set safe paths away from each other automatically.

At any daytime moment, there are 3,500 aircraft in the skies over Europe, carrying some 400,000 people. One in 10 of them is operated by low-cost airlines, which have come from nowhere to create a booming industry over the last decade.

To the consternation of experts, much of the growth is forecast to come from east European states, where budget airlines are looking for new destinations. Safety chiefs have warned that the quality of air traffic control in Europe's new member states is variable.

Erik Merckx, Eurocontrol's head of safety enhancement, said: "If we don't get these new states up to speed, with the increasing traffic levels we're predicting, we will have a problem."

No-frills revolution

Ireland and Britain led the way in the no-frills revolution through Ryanair and EasyJet, which are well established as the top two low-cost carriers in Europe. Scores of also-rans have entered the market, including nine budget airlines based in Germany alone.

Next month a Hungarian carrier, Wizz, will enter the battle, offering flights from Luton airport to Budapest and Katowice, in Poland.

While annual growth in traffic is set to be a modest 3% in Britain and 2.9% in France, a proliferation of services is forecast to increase flights over Ukraine by 7%, over Belarus by 5.5%, over Turkey by 5.9% and over Bulgaria by 5%.

Eurocontrol reckons six states have safety management below "acceptable" levels, although it declines to name them. While Britain's air traffic control scores more than 95% for safety and maturity, three countries languish below 20%.

Unions warn that progress could be tough as free movement of labour within the enlarged European Union allows experienced controllers to move west in search of better paid vacancies.

Shane Enright, aviation secretary of the International Transport Workers' Federation, said: "There's a Europe-wide shortage of controllers. There needs to be harmonisation of pay and conditions, otherwise these new member states are going to lose out."

Cost pressures are tight: no-frills carriers are reluctant to pay anything they can avoid for air traffic control. Ryanair's outspoken boss, Michael O'Leary, last year accused safety authorities of building "marble palaces" for their staff rather than providing the basic service needed.

Swiss air traffic control said last week that four near misses occurred in its airspace in April alone. A close shave between an Iberia passenger plane and a business jet over Zurich could have had "disastrous consequences", according to Switzerland's NZZ am Sonntag newspaper.

The Swiss, who handle a key corridor for aircraft passing over the heart of the continent, will come under further pressure on Wednesday. German investigators are due to publish the results of a two-year examination of the Uberlingen disaster, in which a DHL freight aircraft crashed into a charter flight packed with Russian schoolchildren.

The accident is expected to be blamed on mistakes by Peter Nielsen, a controller working the night shift at an inadequately staffed Swiss control centre. Mr Nielsen was stabbed to death in February by a grieving Russian father who lost his wife and two children in the crash.

The Uberlingen crash was Europe's third fatal accident in three years caused by errors in air traffic control. It followed collisions on the ground at Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport in 2000 and Milan's Linate airfield in 2001. The sequence ended a 16-year run without any deaths.

Eurocontrol admits it is concerned about the trend. Mr Aguado said: "It worries us a lot when we see two accidents on runways in successive years and a mid-air collision - which is something which Europe has not experienced for many years."

It is working on a new system which will give controllers an 18-minute warning of any potential collision, rather than the present two to three minutes.

At present, one in 10m flights ends with an accident caused by air traffic control. But in the constant congestion at 30,000ft predicted by 2020, that rate could mean two disasters in Europe's skies a year.

[gaiacomm]

Jr its your turn....want to take a ride?

[gaiacomm]

JR...you don't have to contact me... I think you like it this way....GoodBye!

[airtankerpilot]

And not a single one of those articles lends any credence at all to your "chemtrails". They do talk about pollution resulting from aviation.

Do you believe in chemtrails?
If yes, what constitutes them?

If not, then do you see "chemtrails" as a way to go after aviation and lessen it, in order to lower pollution, while not believing in chemtrails and just wanting normal resulting pollution to be lower?

[jayreynolds]

I think Deborah just got caught up in the hoax at first. It was probably the most exciting thing that ever happened. A green-watermelon at heart, Deborah appears to have developed a case of nephelophobia, fear of clouds, I kid you not! The most poignant writing she ever did described her dread about clouds she saw in the sky. Over half of the "chemtrails" pictures she posted at chemtrailcentral show no "trails at all!

She got a chance at her fifteen minutes of fame, and if it had been true, yes, she might have found it.

After about a year or so, reality started to seep in. she realized that people she trusted had turned out to be flakes, liars, and worse. She saw many drop off, others turned against her, she was getting rejected at every turn by those still grounded in reality. Most of all, week after week went by, always waiting for that "big breakthrough" that never came. It became pretty obvious that what she was seeking wasn't to be found.

By 2001, Flight Explorer had begun to identify planes making normal contrails IDENTICAL to the ones Deborah had photographed. Mark Steadham even debunked her "sky chromosomes" photo publicly on his messageboard.

It probably wasn't intentional. I don't think Deborah really let go of chemtrails for a couple of years, and even now in a perverse way I think she still holds out hope that it might actually turn out to be true! In the end, however, she began to concentrate on something she could actually ride, as opposed to a hoax that had led nowhere. Her other idol, Clifford Carnicom had by that time retreated into a delusory world where he remains today, isolated.


Deborah, you see, isn't really all that original. 99.999% of everything she has ever posted was written by someone else. She is really just a copy/paste queen, so she went after contrails.

As to your questions, if she answers at all it will be squishy-squashy.
Her actions tell us she doesn't believe in chemtrails anymore, but she hasn't been able to deal with the reality that she has no credibility due to her past involvement with the hoax. The only way she can ever hope to regain her credibility is to publicly disavow the hoax, expose what she knows about what went on behind the scenes, including the implementation of the barium hoax which she was personally involved with, and all the rest.

Deborah feeels guilty about all this.
She has a conscience.
She feels guilty enough to be attracted to any messageboard where I post.
She comes here time after time because she knows that I will teach her the lesson she needs.
All she really has to do is shake off the chains of lies that she has forged that connect her back towards the "chemtrails" hoax, and set herself free.

[foot_soldier]

Well, well - another cacophonous mosaic of sensationalist BS from the hack investigative journalist and Legend In His Own Mind, Jay Reynolds. As if he knows what he's talking about. As if his patronizing drivel even remotely qualifies as concrete documentation regarding the development of my thought processes of the last five years where the issue of aviation emissions is concerned.

I see "airtankerpilot" has joined you, Mr. Reynolds. I sure wish I had the time you guys seem to have for monitoring all these forums.

Well, you two can just chat each other up here as I don't intend to engage in further dialog with either one of you. I actually read every word of and if necessary research what I post before I post it and I consider it a service to maintain some continuity of information on aviation emissions issues for those who may be interested, a continuity that sure as hell isn't being offered by mainstream media for obvious reasons.

Go find somebody else to "save" from themselves, Reynolds. You are a manipulative creep and will not be accorded so much as another nanosecond of my time or energy.

[jayreynolds]

Go find somebody else to "save" from themselves, Reynolds. You are a manipulative creep and will not be accorded so much as another nanosecond of my time or energy.

Well, Deborah, I evaluate your following me here to Arianna's forum as a cry for help.
I certainly didn't encourage you to come, you came of your own free will. You opened the thread using my name, which makes it pefectly clear you put me right in the debate. That said, don't start blaming me when I comment on your claims. From my perspective, you asked for it.

Now, on to the debate. Deborah has posted articles here which claim that contrails over Europe can be prevented by flying at lower altitudes. I'll grant that lower altitudes, in the case of summertime, at least, should in theory result in less contrails because temperatures are warmer.

However, what she is not telling us is exactly what we should expect if and when you begin to concentrate aircraft into a smaller and smaller space, and what happens when aircraft fly at lower altitudes.

First of all, flying low means flying through, rather than flying above, the weather. How many of you have ever actually flown for an hour or more in turbulent weather? Few, except motion-tolerant would find it comfortable. It restricts speed, makes for an uncomfortable, and even an unsafe flight. One of the milestones of modern flight came when aircraft began to fly high enough that food could be reliably served, and that air-sickness, instead of being commonplace, became almost unheard of, as it is today.

Furthermore, if altitudes are capped, planes cannot always just "fly through the weather". In many cases, altitude caps will require planes to divert around weather, using even more fuel, and making even more exhaust, negating putative 'savings' from less contrails.

Then, there are safety issues.

"Swiss air traffic control said last week that four near misses occurred in its airspace in April alone. A close shave between an Iberia passenger plane and a business jet over Zurich could have had "disastrous consequences", according to Switzerland's NZZ am Sonntag newspaper.

The Swiss, who handle a key corridor for aircraft passing over the heart of the continent, will come under further pressure on Wednesday. German investigators are due to publish the results of a two-year examination of the Uberlingen disaster, in which a DHL freight aircraft crashed into a charter flight packed with Russian schoolchildren.

The accident is expected to be blamed on mistakes by Peter Nielsen, a controller working the night shift at an inadequately staffed Swiss control centre. Mr Nielsen was stabbed to death in February by a grieving Russian father who lost his wife and two children in the crash.

The Uberlingen crash was Europe's third fatal accident in three years caused by errors in air traffic control. It followed collisions on the ground at Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport in 2000 and Milan's Linate airfield in 2001. The sequence ended a 16-year run without any deaths.

Perhaps Deborah didn't realize that Yerp has been using "RVSM" Reduced vertical Separation Minimum for the last two years. This rule change cut the vertical separation of aircraft in half from 2000 to 1000 ft at higher altitudes. The US just adopted RVSM three days ago, partly because our air routes are becoming as crowded as Yerps.

So, when you read Deborah's copy/pastes writte by others, be aware that she isn't telling you THE WHOLE TRUTH. She is telling you that good old "PIE IN THE SKY" sort of greenism.
In the end, just like Deboarh advocates that we all shiver/roast in houses without heat or air, or squint in near darkness in dimly-lit rooms to reduce CO2 emissions by an amount that is sure to have no effect at all.

Remember that she has admitted that SHE PERSONALLY CHOSE to buy only 10 cents/day of solar electricity, when her power company is willing to sell her full power usage from solar energy.

Deboarh is a hypocrite who simply will not live the life she expects YOU to go down to.
================================================== ===========

Now, Deborah, will you or any of your "chemtrail" hoax buddies be here to learn something, or
are you just going to post your anti-aviation rants here at Arianna Huffington's message board?
http://www.cts.cv.imperial.ac.uk/html/ResearchSeminars/seminarDetails.asp?seminarID=90
Controlling the contribution of aviation to climate change using variable cruise altitude restrictions

Dr Victoria William, Research Associate, CTS, Imperial College London

Wednesday, 2 February 2005 - 16:00:00

Location: Imperial College, Skempton (Civil Eng.) Bldg. Rm.141

Abstract
Rapid growth means that the climate impact of aviation continues to grow despite improvements in aircraft and engine efficiency. This seminar will discuss how variable restrictions of cruise altitude could be used to control the climate impacts by reducing the formation of contrails and cirrus clouds. The policy described here improves on earlier work which used fixed altitude restrictions by adopting an optimised approach, taking into account both contrail reduction and the penalties of increased fuel burn to select a preferred maximum cruise altitude for each six hour period. Some operational impacts of this type of policy will also be discussed.
=============================
I'm betting that not a single "chemtrails" hoax promoter will be in attendance, just like NONE of you have EVER had the guts to show up at a meeting of real meteorologists to debate your claims.
OH, AND IF YOU INTEND TO GO, BETTER START ROWING THAT BOAT SOON, A TRANSATLANTIC SAIL MIGHT TAKE A FEW WEEKS!!! ROFLMAO

[halva]

Sir David King has been complaining about having Raynolds types following him around to intervene in his lectures in the way that is being done here with Footsoldier.

But on his record so far you are not going to see any intelligent action on how the logical contradiction between debunking of 'chemtrails' as a purported makeshift solution to the problem of anthropogenic climate change and debunking of that anthropogenic climate change itself might be utilised.

[halva]

So Raynolds goes back onto the ignore list.

I am reading your postings here Deborah. But I could read them just as well somewhere else, e.g. Megasprayer.

[foot_soldier]

I would imagine that people can figure out for themselves what might be the purpose of lowering commercial passenger airline flight altitudes but basically this measure comes down to the emerging necessity of avoiding increasing depletion of stratospheric ozone by nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions from the thousands of aircraft routinely cruising at 35,000 feet and above on a daily basis.

Also, the water vapor component of jet exhaust is increasingly leaching into the stratosphere which is normally an extremely dry, pristine and cloudless layer of the atmosphere. This intrusion of water vapor facilitates the formation of polar stratospheric clouds at the high northern latitudes, upon the surfaces of which photochemical reactions can occur between NOx and stratospheric ozone (O3) resulting in stratospheric O3 depletion.

It is apparently hoped that lowering of cruise altitudes for commercial airline traffic will mitigate further emissions-facilitated damage to the sensitive stratospheric level of the atmosphere. Unfortunately the trade-off for lowering flight altitudes (to minimize contrail formation) is that more CO2 will be generated in the lower atmosphere since it takes more fuel to operate aircraft at reduced altitudes.

Stinks, doesn't it?

Also, re-structuring already overburdened air traffic control systems and personnel to accommodate more flights in less airspace is not exactly something that would be undertaken lightly - unless of course there is a compelling reason for it. Or maybe they're just doing it for fun, eh? Safety issues - yeah, I would think so. Again, there must be a pretty compelling reason to incur that sort of risk.

Additional information from a November 2004 meeting of the American Meteorological Society and the Northern Illinois University American Meteorological Society Student chapter:

Chicago Chapter of the American Meteorological Society held a joint meeting with the Northern Illinois University American Meteorological Society Student Chapter on Tuesday, November 2, 2004.

Two presentations were provided by Northern Illinois University. Jefferey S. Johnson, a graduate student of the Department of Geography/Meteorology from Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois gave the first presentation. Mr. Johnson's presentation was titled "Geographical Variations in Jet Contrail Coverage Across the United States During the 2000-2002 Period." Data for this study was compared to a previous study that utilized contrail data for 1977 through 1979.

Exhaust pollutants from high altitude jets can damage the ozone layer and reduce visibility. The exhaust can also damage or destroy natural clouds. The contrails produced by jet aircraft are artificial clouds which can have an influence on surface temperatures. The contrail clouds produce a higher albedo which reduces daytime temperature maximums. The contrails also produce an increase in night time minimum temperatures. The increase in night time temperature is more prevalent than the decrease in day time temperature. The lower maximum temperatures combined with higher minimum temperatures reduce the daily temperature range.

Warm, moist air is injected into the cold ambient environment at jet flight levels. The exhaust from the jet engines provide abundant condensation nuclei and enhance the contrail formation process. The contrails occur at cirrus levels, in upper atmospheric conditions between 11 and 13 kilometers.

Infrared satellite imagery has allowed for the study of contrails at night. The study utilized data from the mid-season months of January, April, July and October. Six satellite images per day were used for the study (a combination of visible and infrared). In addition to studying the three year period of 2000 through 2002, specific periods such as the "super contrail outbreak" of April 5, 2000 and the September 11 through September 13, 2001 period were highlighted. During the "super outbreak" of April 5, 2000, some of the contrails were found to be up to 500 miles long. During the September 11 through September 13, 2001 period, the lack of contrails due to the grounding of all commercial and private aircraft was quite evident. It is estimated that a 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in surface temperature in North America was realized due to the reduction of jet contrails during the three day period.

A comparison of contrail data from 1977-79 and 2000-02 revealed that a 220% increase in contrails has occurred since the original study. This 220% increase in contrails coincides with a 214% increase in air miles flown since 1979. There are now many more high altitude flights than there were in the 1970's. Atmospheric changes are also occurring at flight altitudes near the tropopause. The increased contrail cloud cover is contributing to the overall increase in cloud cover over North America.
http://www.ametsoc.org/amschaps/nov04news.html

Far from being a screaming radical enviro-freak, I am in fact very concerned about the damage being wreaked upon the only atmosphere we have by the rapidly-expanding aviation sector. Jay Reynolds and his group of thugs may think they can pin me with wanting to shut down aviation but the truth is that I simply think uncontrolled expansion of this sector needs to be slowed down - and I am not by any means alone in this regard. I've read enough studies to know that the atmospheric research community is very concerned about this issue - i.e. that uncontrolled growth of aviation is changing the chemistry of our atmosphere. And I doubt very much that scientists are investigating this complex problem just to get funding.

Pull some keywords out of some of the material I'm providing here and do your own research, folks. Don't take my word for any of this. The information is as available to you as it is to me.

I'd like my son and his peers and your kids to be able to raise their children in a world that isn't falling apart in the essential life-support department. If that makes me a loony, so be it.

***
DEFRA: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
www.rcep.org.uk/aviation/DefraAnnex.pdf

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Well: (Harty says to Oliver): "This is another fine mess you have gotten us into Ollie."

[airtankerpilot]

I asked reasonable questions, and you did not answer or even attempt to answer any of the whole whopping 2 of them.

I dont know Jay, seen him on some messageboards but we have never personally talked so your trying to link us to avoid answering questions doesnt hold any water.

You mentioned me somehow spending lots of time monitoring this forum. But hey, look how much you have posted compared to me. Pot Kettle Black.

I will ask again.

Do you believe in chemtrails?

[halva]

I hope that nobody answers any of your questions and I am now ignore-listing you also.

The final episode with Gaicomm and the response to it has cured me of any curiosity. You can have your hell to yourself. And yes that includes you Air Tanker Pilot.

[jayreynolds]

I asked reasonable questions, and you did not answer or even attempt to answer any of the whole whopping 2 of them.
I dont know Jay, seen him on some messageboards but we have never personally talked so your trying to link us to avoid answering questions doesnt hold any water.
You mention somehow spending lots of time monitorting this forum. But hey, look how much you have posted compared to me. Pot Kettle Black.
I will ask again.
Do you believe in chemtrails?

Sounds like a reasonable question, Deborah. Maybe you should be out front and open about answering it. Not a problem, eh?

[The Shadow]

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=227776


http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=227089

During the September 11 through September 13, 2001 period, the lack of contrails due to the grounding of all commercial and private aircraft was quite evident. It is estimated that a 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in surface temperature in North America was realized due to the reduction of jet contrails during the three day period.

I find it very difficult to believe that such a drastic temperature change took place in such an extremely short period of time.Take it up with the Chicago Chapter of the American Meteorological Society.

_________________________________________________

[jayreynolds]

It would be instructive to anyone new reading this forum to understand some of the history behind the personalities. It is an undeniable fact that at one time Deborah DID ally herself fully with the belief of "chemtrails". She will not deny this.

That said, for years she has attended and contributed to the forum at chemtrailcentral.com.
At that forum, at least two highly qualified meteorologists attempoted, over the course of years, to educate the people about ordinary contrails. During that time, the research Deborah is now citing was being done.

At the same time these two meteorologists were doing this type of research into contrails, they were being consistently EXCORIATED at the chemtrailcentral.com forum on a daily basis. One was eventually banned becase they persisted in "debunking", a crime in the eyes of "chemtrail" believers.

Below are links to the postings of both of these meteorologists. I challenge Deborah to locate and cite EVEN ONE INCIDENCE in which she came to the aid and support of those meteorologists. She will be unable to do so. She stood by mutely while they were trying their best to explain the facts about contrails, and said nothing as they were abused and banned.

The last thread of "Feeling Kocky" shows our own Wayne Hall pleading with Deborah to stop mentioning ordinary contrails. My how times have changed!

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/search.php?search_author=Feelin+Kocky

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/search.php?search_author=canex

[jayreynolds]

I asked reasonable questions, and you did not answer or even attempt to answer any of the whole whopping 2 of them.

I dont know Jay, seen him on some messageboards but we have never personally talked so your trying to link us to avoid answering questions doesnt hold any water.

You mentioned me somehow spending lots of time monitoring this forum. But hey, look how much you have posted compared to me. Pot Kettle Black.

I will ask again.

Do you believe in chemtrails?

Still waiting, Deborah.
No squishy-squashy answers.

[foot_soldier]

I would imagine that people can figure out for themselves what might be the purpose of lowering commercial passenger airline flight altitudes but basically this measure comes down to the emerging necessity of avoiding increasing depletion of stratospheric ozone by nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions from the thousands of aircraft routinely cruising at 35,000 feet and above on a daily basis.

Also, the water vapor component of jet exhaust is increasingly leaching into the stratosphere which is normally an extremely dry, pristine and cloudless layer of the atmosphere. This intrusion of water vapor facilitates the formation of polar stratospheric clouds at the high northern latitudes, upon the surfaces of which photochemical reactions can occur between NOx and stratospheric ozone (O3) resulting in stratospheric O3 depletion.

It is apparently hoped that lowering of cruise altitudes for commercial airline traffic will mitigate further emissions-facilitated damage to the sensitive stratospheric level of the atmosphere. Unfortunately the trade-off for lowering flight altitudes (to minimize contrail formation) is that more CO2 will be generated in the lower atmosphere since it takes more fuel to operate aircraft at reduced altitudes.

Stinks, doesn't it?

Also, re-structuring already overburdened air traffic control systems and personnel to accommodate more flights in less airspace is not exactly something that would be undertaken lightly - unless of course there is a compelling reason for it. Or maybe they're just doing it for fun, eh? Safety issues - yeah, I would think so. Again, there must be a pretty compelling reason to incur that sort of risk.

Additional information from a November 2004 meeting of the American Meteorological Society and the Northern Illinois University American Meteorological Society Student chapter:

Chicago Chapter of the American Meteorological Society held a joint meeting with the Northern Illinois University American Meteorological Society Student Chapter on Tuesday, November 2, 2004.

Two presentations were provided by Northern Illinois University. Jefferey S. Johnson, a graduate student of the Department of Geography/Meteorology from Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois gave the first presentation. Mr. Johnson's presentation was titled "Geographical Variations in Jet Contrail Coverage Across the United States During the 2000-2002 Period." Data for this study was compared to a previous study that utilized contrail data for 1977 through 1979.

Exhaust pollutants from high altitude jets can damage the ozone layer and reduce visibility. The exhaust can also damage or destroy natural clouds. The contrails produced by jet aircraft are artificial clouds which can have an influence on surface temperatures. The contrail clouds produce a higher albedo which reduces daytime temperature maximums. The contrails also produce an increase in night time minimum temperatures. The increase in night time temperature is more prevalent than the decrease in day time temperature. The lower maximum temperatures combined with higher minimum temperatures reduce the daily temperature range.

Warm, moist air is injected into the cold ambient environment at jet flight levels. The exhaust from the jet engines provide abundant condensation nuclei and enhance the contrail formation process. The contrails occur at cirrus levels, in upper atmospheric conditions between 11 and 13 kilometers.

Infrared satellite imagery has allowed for the study of contrails at night. The study utilized data from the mid-season months of January, April, July and October. Six satellite images per day were used for the study (a combination of visible and infrared). In addition to studying the three year period of 2000 through 2002, specific periods such as the "super contrail outbreak" of April 5, 2000 and the September 11 through September 13, 2001 period were highlighted. During the "super outbreak" of April 5, 2000, some of the contrails were found to be up to 500 miles long. During the September 11 through September 13, 2001 period, the lack of contrails due to the grounding of all commercial and private aircraft was quite evident. It is estimated that a 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in surface temperature in North America was realized due to the reduction of jet contrails during the three day period.

A comparison of contrail data from 1977-79 and 2000-02 revealed that a 220% increase in contrails has occurred since the original study. This 220% increase in contrails coincides with a 214% increase in air miles flown since 1979. There are now many more high altitude flights than there were in the 1970's. Atmospheric changes are also occurring at flight altitudes near the tropopause. The increased contrail cloud cover is contributing to the overall increase in cloud cover over North America.
http://www.ametsoc.org/amschaps/nov04news.html

Far from being a screaming radical enviro-freak, I am in fact very concerned about the damage being wreaked upon the only atmosphere we have by the rapidly-expanding aviation sector. Jay Reynolds and his group of thugs may think they can pin me with wanting to shut down aviation but the truth is that I simply think uncontrolled expansion of this sector needs to be slowed down - and I am not by any means alone in this regard. I've read enough studies to know that the atmospheric research community is very concerned about this issue - i.e. that uncontrolled growth of aviation is changing the chemistry of our atmosphere. And I doubt very much that scientists are investigating this complex problem just to get funding.

Pull some keywords out of some of the material I'm providing here and do your own research, folks. Don't take my word for any of this. The information is as available to you as it is to me.

I'd like my son and his peers and your kids to be able to raise their children in a world that isn't falling apart in the essential life-support department. If that makes me a loony, so be it.

***
DEFRA: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
www.rcep.org.uk/aviation/DefraAnnex.pdf
.

[airtankerpilot]

.'d like my son and his peers and your kids to be able to raise their children in a world that isn't falling apart in the essential life-support department. If that makes me a loony, so be it.


Okay, but do you believe in chemtrails or not?

[jayreynolds]

Okay, but do you believe in chemtrails or not?
Looks like a tough question.
Truth-telling isn't exdactly Deborah Stark's forte.

This tell us something of her state-of-mind, in 2000, at least.
tough she may not like it, this is part of the record.
"This is just to let everyone know that I have been advised that my posts at Carnicom are apparently being monitored.

I am also giving notice that I do not look kindly on anyone's taking it upon themselves to speak for me, under ANY circumstances.

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

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

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

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

I hope this clarifies a few things. I have very little time for other than hard research these days. I am extremely concerned about the state of our atmosphere and am committed to focused research in that direction. There is nothing "normal" about what we are seeing. It is a very serious situation, in my opinion.

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=414&sid=6577126b24d5334173fc8f47e4dbc1fa#414

[foot_soldier]

January 27, 2005

Whitman speaks out against White House policies
Ready for a book tour, she criticized the President on the environment and foreign relations.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/politics/10744990.htm?1c

NEW YORK - For two tumultuous years, former New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman led the Environmental Protection Agency under President Bush.

But in May 2003, Whitman decided to quit when she concluded that the administration would push for relaxed rules on power-plant pollution that she could not agree with.

"I didn't want to be in a position where I would have to sign those regulations," she said in an interview yesterday. "I couldn't in good conscience."

During the interview at a Manhattan hotel, Whitman laid out, as she does in her new book, how much she disagreed with the Bush White House, not only on environmental issues but on its foreign policy and the direction of the Republican Party.

In It's My Party, Too, Whitman is critical of what she calls the Bush administration's go-it-alone foreign policy. She says its announcement in early 2001 rejecting controls on carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants and refineries reinforced the sense among allies that the United States acts only in self-interest and does not take them seriously.

Whitman, who starts her book tour today, argues that approach hampered U.S. efforts to build a coalition for the Iraq war, thus intensifying the nation's military difficulties there. That view is hotly disputed by the White House, which insists it reached out to allies on terror, trade and the war.

"Our failure to even acknowledge (let alone accommodate) the interests and concerns of other nations when charting our own course has carried a significant cost - a cost that is being measured in American lives, resources and prestige," she writes in her book.

In the book, Whitman relates one incident that brought home to her the flagging image of America abroad. During a meeting with environmental ministers from other nations in Trieste, Italy, shortly after she took office, she was strolling through a square with a large security detail provided by the Italian government. She came upon David Anderson, Canada's environmental minister, who had no security.

"When we met up I asked him right away, 'David, where's your security?' " Whitman writes. "He replied with a smile, 'I don't need any. No one hates Canada.' "

Whitman's tone during the interview - as in the book - was respectful and polite, but her frustration with Vice President Cheney and some Capitol Hill Republicans who she said had little use for environmental regulation came through clearly.

She said Cheney needlessly painted Republicans as anti-environment by remarking shortly after Bush took office that conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but is not the basis of a credible national energy policy.

Of her time on Cheney's Energy Task Force, Whitman writes: "The experience was an eye-opening encounter with just how obsessed so many of those in the energy industry and in the Republican Party have become with doing away with environmental" regulation..... (continued)

[foot_soldier]

January 27, 2005

Oil firms fund climate change 'denial'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,1399419,00.html

Lobby groups funded by the US oil industry are targeting Britain in a bid to play down the threat of climate change and derail action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, leading scientists have warned.

Bob May, president of the Royal Society, says that "a lobby of professional sceptics who opposed action to tackle climate change" is turning its attention to Britain because of its high profile in the debate.

Writing in the Life section of today's Guardian, Professor May says the government's decision to make global warming a focus of its G8 presidency has made it a target. So has the high profile of its chief scientific adviser, David King, who described climate change as a bigger threat than terrorism.

Prof May's warning coincides with a meeting of climate change sceptics today at the Royal Institution in London organised by a British group, the Scientific Alliance, which has links to US oil company ExxonMobil through a collaboration with a US institute.

Last month the Scientific Alliance published a joint report with the George C Marshall Institute in Washington that claimed to "undermine" climate change claims. The Marshall institute received £51,000 from ExxonMobil for its "global climate change programme" in 2003 and an undisclosed sum this month.

Prof May's warning comes as British scientists, in the journal Nature, show that emissions of carbon dioxide could have a more dramatic effect on climate than thought. They say the average temperature could rise 11C, even if atmospheric carbon dioxide were limited to the levels expected in 2050.

David Frame, who coordinated the climate prediction experiment, said: "If the real world response were anywhere near the upper end of our range, even today's levels of greenhouse gases could already be dangerously high."

Emission limits such as those in the Kyoto protocol would hit oil firms because the bulk of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuel products.

Prof May writes that during the 1990s, parts of the US oil industry funded sceptics who opposed action to tackle climate change. A Scientific Alliance spokesman said today's meeting was sponsored but funders did not influence policies. ExxonMobil said it was not involved.

One adviser is Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Centre, who is linked to the Marshall Institute. In 1998 Dr Baliunas co-wrote an article that argued for the release of more carbon dioxide. It was mass-mailed to US scientists with a petition asking them to reject Kyoto.

· Tony Blair yesterday attempted to urge George Bush to sign a climate change accord. At the World Economic Forum he said climate change was "not universally accepted", but evidence of its danger had been "clearly and persuasively advocated" by a very large number of "independent voices".

***
Industry-funded Organizations
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Industry-funded_organizations

[jayreynolds]

Well I suppose Deborah has refused to comment on her position because doing so would mean she must admit she doesn't believe she is under "periodic biological attack" and that "systematic atmospheric modification is ongoing, for various reasons which are obviously not being addressed publically."


Okay, but do you believe in chemtrails or not?
Looks like a tough question.
Truth-telling isn't exdactly Deborah Stark's forte.

This tell us something of her state-of-mind, in 2000, at least.
tough she may not like it, this is part of the record.
"This is just to let everyone know that I have been advised that my posts at Carnicom are apparently being monitored.

I am also giving notice that I do not look kindly on anyone's taking it upon themselves to speak for me, under ANY circumstances.

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

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

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

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

I hope this clarifies a few things. I have very little time for other than hard research these days. I am extremely concerned about the state of our atmosphere and am committed to focused research in that direction. There is nothing "normal" about what we are seeing. It is a very serious situation, in my opinion.

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=414&sid=6577126b24d5334173fc8f47e4dbc1fa#414

[gaiacomm]

JR is finished!

[foot_soldier]

Summer 2000, Boston, MA, the neighborhood I lived in was being heavily sprayed for West Nile virus. Crows were reported in the Boston Globe and Herald to be "dropping out of the air" and were being tested for the presence of West Nile. Our local red-tailed hawk population of around 14 birds diminished by at least five that summer according to the close friend of mine up on the hill near whose house many of these birds had nested and fed for years. We eventually read in the paper that the hawks were dying because they were eating rats that had been poisoned by the agent being sprayed at night for eradication of West Nile.

Meanwhile I was photographing skies full of shaving cream-thick jet trails on an almost daily basis from my 24th floor window and other locations with a 50mm lens, nothing fancy, nothing designed to enhance the actual visual reality. What you see here is exactly what I was observing that summer:

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

So yes, that summer almost five years ago I would say I was certainly trying hard to make some sense of what in hell was going on. And yes, that's part of "the record." And no, it doesn't bother me. And yes, I know a hell of a lot more now than I did then. Too bad if you don't like it, Reynolds. Too bad you are such a small man that the only tactic remaining to you and your ilk is to try your best to discredit me and impugn my character.

Say whatever you want. What is, is. Period.

[jayreynolds]

Too bad you are such a small man that the only tactic remaining to you and your ilk is to try your best to discredit me and impugn my character. Say whatever you want. What is, is. Period.[/color]

Deborah, if quoting you fully discredits you or impugns your character, you can't really blame me, now, can you?

I believe your explanation. In those early days your people were grasping at any and all straws to try and come up for viable hyothesis to argue against the truth that what you were seeing were ordinary contrails.

You've come a long way, baby!

You forgot to address this part of your public statement:
I also feel that systematic atmospheric modification is probably ongoing, for various reasons which are obviously not being addressed publically.

Now, be honest, you WERE talking about "chemtrails", weren't you?

[foot_soldier]

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

***
Piss off, Reynolds.

It's common knowledge, for just one example, that the Chinese have incorporated routine cloud-seeding upwind of drought-stricken regions in order to elicit precipitation events adequate to maintain crop growth. This has apparently become a necessary step to sustain their economy.

You want to turn this thread into an insane asylum, go ahead. I will continue to post here as and when I please.

[airtankerpilot]

No one denies some attempts are made at cloud seeding. I am quite familiar with it.

But you cant equate small single and twin engine size general aviation aircraft, penetrating into growing cumulus storms, as being the same as contrails in blue sky.

It is called cloud seeding, not blue sky seeding you know...And cloud seeding does not leave trails

[jayreynolds]

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19486
Piss off, Reynolds. It's common knowledge, for just one example, that the Chinese have incorporated routine cloud-seeding upwind of drought-stricken regions in order to elicit precipitation events adequate to maintain crop growth. This has apparently become a necessary step to sustain their economy.

You want to turn this thread into an insane asylum, go ahead. I will continue to post here as and when I please.[/color]

Deborah, if your words turn this place into an insane asylum, you can't really blame me now, can you?

You are trying to be slippery. You've got the real thing here, a man who flies for a living, and probably a man who flies as away of life, and because he loves it. My father was like that. As a boy down on the farm during the depression, he dreamed of flying, and during the war he volunteered for pilot duty at a time in which in which a full 50% were being killed before they made thirty missions. When he returned, he kept flying as long a she could. He flew for thirty years in all. People like that deserve answers.

Now, look Deborah, you can't just sweep airtankerpilot's question under the rug, much as you seem to be trying to with all your baseless accusations.

He asked you point blank, twice, if you believed in "chemtrails".

You should answer him yes, or no. No squishy-squashy waffle house answers.

You forgot to address this part of your public statement:
I also feel that systematic atmospheric modification is probably ongoing, for various reasons which are obviously not being addressed publically.

Now, be honest, you WERE talking about "chemtrails", weren't you?


At the time of Deborah's statement I quoted previously, October of 2000,
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=65678#65678
she was involved knee deep in promoting the "chemtrails are barium" hoax. She had allied herself with A.C. Griffith, 'Sore throat', Don Johnson, Carnicom, and quite a few others to bring about the now-discredited claim that barium was being sprayed for "advanced radar studies", and that "polymer fibers" were being sprayed. All this is documented at this posting by the science czar of chemtrailcentral.com:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=65678#65678.

Only two weeks before, this group, in which Deborah has admitted she held membership, issued this "Project Report #1":
http://www.carnicom.com/report1.htm
"It appears that aerosol chemical trails are being deliberately discharged into the
atmosphere from military and civilian registered aircraft over the continental United
States, Canada and Mexico. It appears that selected commercial airliners have been
modified and equipped with specialized aerosol dispersion devices. Aircraft emission
of aerosol chemical trails is being consistently reported in several other countries
worldwide.

Now, look, Deborah, there is no getting away from the facts. You used to believe in chemtrails. The question now is, do you still believe in them? Set the record straight, because so long as you intend to have a voice on climate and aviation issues, considering your previous documented beliefs, the issue will continue to be raised.

Oh, and BTW, there is no future for "chemtrail" believers in debates regarding aviation or climate matters, so you might as well make a clean break. Do the right thing, you will be helping many others as well.

[foot_soldier]

I don't need your approval to do what I've already been doing for years now, Reynolds.

I was given all the space I needed in the following venue to share information on the aviation and climate change issue:

http://p211.ezboard.com/fchemtrailsstratosphericandtroposphericozoneresear ch.showMessage?topicID=75.topic

And the CO2 issue:

http://p211.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=7385.top ic

And the bullsh*t "Clean Coal" issue:

http://p211.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=7720.top ic

Whereas you were permanently blocked from access to that venue over four years ago.

Enough said.

[jayreynolds]

An