Re: jet pollution penalties to begin

[Transition Zone]

On Aug 15, 12:34Â*pm, "John Weiss" > wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
> >>>> I don't know if jet contrails effect temperatures, and neither
> >>>> do you.
>
> >>> You are not listening to the Scientists in this. Â*You are
> >>> listening to those that don't know about it. Â*I can come up with
> >>> tons of fantasies why it happened but the fact the temp raised by
> >>> 3 degrees during the exact days that the Aircraft were grounded
> >>> and no other explanation can be found. Â*Cause and effect. Â*You
> >>> can't change physics.
>
> >>> Now, I have used scientific information why it happened. Â*Now it's
> >>> your turn. Â*Since it's not normal, you need to present your own
> >>> proof so I can view it.
>
> >> So, you claim to have PROVEN that "jet pollution" causes global
> >> COOLING, because LACK of "jet pollution" caused an almost-immediate
> >> 3 degree rise in global air temperatures.
>
> >> So why is it that so many so-called environmentalists keep claiming
> >> that same pollution causes "global warming"? Â*How is it that you
> >> can so handily prove them wrong?!?
>
> > Anytime you cover a section of sky with something, it refracts the
> > rays of the sun back into space. Â*It's so simple, try and keep up.
> > When you remove that barrier it will cause a temperature increase.
> > Most of what the Jet Engines leave is water vapor and that is the
> > same as a cloud cover. Â*According to some, you should be cooler in
> > the sunlight than when a cloud cover comes over you, right?
>
> Uh, no...
>
> You just showed how "scientific" your analysis is [NOT] by showing us
> you don't know the difference between refraction and reflection. Â*You
> also totally dismiss any absorption and reradiation of heat or any
> other interactions.
>
> So, you have just proven you have absolutely NO IDEA of what net
> effect, IF ANY, a contrail may have!

Ask the experts then: "Researchers: Contrails Add More To Global
Warming Than Airplane Emissions"
Mar 30, 2011 – "In a new paper, scientists say the condensation trails
left behind by aircraft could be causing more climate warming than the
CO2 emitted by all aircraft since the start of aviation".

►► -- http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/30/134987408/researchers-contrails-worse-for-environment-than-airplane-emissions

[Daryl]

On 8/19/2011 10:04 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
> On Aug 15, 12:34 pm, "John > wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>>>>> I don't know if jet contrails effect temperatures, and neither
>>>>>> do you.
>>
>>>>> You are not listening to the Scientists in this. You are
>>>>> listening to those that don't know about it. I can come up with
>>>>> tons of fantasies why it happened but the fact the temp raised by
>>>>> 3 degrees during the exact days that the Aircraft were grounded
>>>>> and no other explanation can be found. Cause and effect. You
>>>>> can't change physics.
>>
>>>>> Now, I have used scientific information why it happened. Now it's
>>>>> your turn. Since it's not normal, you need to present your own
>>>>> proof so I can view it.
>>
>>>> So, you claim to have PROVEN that "jet pollution" causes global
>>>> COOLING, because LACK of "jet pollution" caused an almost-immediate
>>>> 3 degree rise in global air temperatures.
>>
>>>> So why is it that so many so-called environmentalists keep claiming
>>>> that same pollution causes "global warming"? How is it that you
>>>> can so handily prove them wrong?!?
>>
>>> Anytime you cover a section of sky with something, it refracts the
>>> rays of the sun back into space. It's so simple, try and keep up.
>>> When you remove that barrier it will cause a temperature increase.
>>> Most of what the Jet Engines leave is water vapor and that is the
>>> same as a cloud cover. According to some, you should be cooler in
>>> the sunlight than when a cloud cover comes over you, right?
>>
>> Uh, no...
>>
>> You just showed how "scientific" your analysis is [NOT] by showing us
>> you don't know the difference between refraction and reflection. You
>> also totally dismiss any absorption and reradiation of heat or any
>> other interactions.
>>
>> So, you have just proven you have absolutely NO IDEA of what net
>> effect, IF ANY, a contrail may have!
>
> Ask the experts then: "Researchers: Contrails Add More To Global
> Warming Than Airplane Emissions"
> Mar 30, 2011 – "In a new paper, scientists say the condensation trails
> left behind by aircraft could be causing more climate warming than the
> CO2 emitted by all aircraft since the start of aviation".
>
> ►► -- http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/30/134987408/researchers-contrails-worse-for-environment-than-airplane-emissions

Actually, the exact opposite occurred right after 911. The Lack
of those contrails allowed an average temp increase of 3 degrees
across the United States and Canada. The long run might be an
increase but the short run (when they are abruptly missing)
causes a temp increase. After the flights were resumed, the temp
went back to normal.



--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[T. Keating]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:12:08 -0600, Daryl >
wrote:

>On 8/19/2011 10:04 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 12:34 pm, "John > wrote:
>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't know if jet contrails effect temperatures, and neither
>>>>>>> do you.
>>>
>>>>>> You are not listening to the Scientists in this. You are
>>>>>> listening to those that don't know about it. I can come up with
>>>>>> tons of fantasies why it happened but the fact the temp raised by
>>>>>> 3 degrees during the exact days that the Aircraft were grounded
>>>>>> and no other explanation can be found. Cause and effect. You
>>>>>> can't change physics.
>>>
>>>>>> Now, I have used scientific information why it happened. Now it's
>>>>>> your turn. Since it's not normal, you need to present your own
>>>>>> proof so I can view it.
>>>
>>>>> So, you claim to have PROVEN that "jet pollution" causes global
>>>>> COOLING, because LACK of "jet pollution" caused an almost-immediate
>>>>> 3 degree rise in global air temperatures.
>>>
>>>>> So why is it that so many so-called environmentalists keep claiming
>>>>> that same pollution causes "global warming"? How is it that you
>>>>> can so handily prove them wrong?!?
>>>
>>>> Anytime you cover a section of sky with something, it refracts the
>>>> rays of the sun back into space. It's so simple, try and keep up.
>>>> When you remove that barrier it will cause a temperature increase.
>>>> Most of what the Jet Engines leave is water vapor and that is the
>>>> same as a cloud cover. According to some, you should be cooler in
>>>> the sunlight than when a cloud cover comes over you, right?
>>>
>>> Uh, no...
>>>
>>> You just showed how "scientific" your analysis is [NOT] by showing us
>>> you don't know the difference between refraction and reflection. You
>>> also totally dismiss any absorption and reradiation of heat or any
>>> other interactions.
>>>
>>> So, you have just proven you have absolutely NO IDEA of what net
>>> effect, IF ANY, a contrail may have!
>>
>> Ask the experts then: "Researchers: Contrails Add More To Global
>> Warming Than Airplane Emissions"
>> Mar 30, 2011 – "In a new paper, scientists say the condensation trails
>> left behind by aircraft could be causing more climate warming than the
>> CO2 emitted by all aircraft since the start of aviation".
>>
>> ?? -- http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/30/134987408/researchers-contrails-worse-for-environment-than-airplane-emissions
>
>Actually, the exact opposite occurred right after 911. The Lack
>of those contrails allowed an average temp increase of 3 degrees
>across the United States and Canada. The long run might be an

As I recall the Daytime average temps were warmer and the nights were
cooler, so it averaged out close to a net zero. .

>increase but the short run (when they are abruptly missing)
>causes a temp increase. After the flights were resumed, the temp
>went back to normal.

We'll probably see a lot less air traffic(and driving in general) in
10 to 15 years when peak oil drives the price of fossil fuels to
painful levels.

[T. Keating]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:12:08 -0600, Daryl >
wrote:

>On 8/19/2011 10:04 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 12:34 pm, "John > wrote:
>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't know if jet contrails effect temperatures, and neither
>>>>>>> do you.
>>>
>>>>>> You are not listening to the Scientists in this. You are
>>>>>> listening to those that don't know about it. I can come up with
>>>>>> tons of fantasies why it happened but the fact the temp raised by
>>>>>> 3 degrees during the exact days that the Aircraft were grounded
>>>>>> and no other explanation can be found. Cause and effect. You
>>>>>> can't change physics.
>>>
>>>>>> Now, I have used scientific information why it happened. Now it's
>>>>>> your turn. Since it's not normal, you need to present your own
>>>>>> proof so I can view it.
>>>
>>>>> So, you claim to have PROVEN that "jet pollution" causes global
>>>>> COOLING, because LACK of "jet pollution" caused an almost-immediate
>>>>> 3 degree rise in global air temperatures.
>>>
>>>>> So why is it that so many so-called environmentalists keep claiming
>>>>> that same pollution causes "global warming"? How is it that you
>>>>> can so handily prove them wrong?!?
>>>
>>>> Anytime you cover a section of sky with something, it refracts the
>>>> rays of the sun back into space. It's so simple, try and keep up.
>>>> When you remove that barrier it will cause a temperature increase.
>>>> Most of what the Jet Engines leave is water vapor and that is the
>>>> same as a cloud cover. According to some, you should be cooler in
>>>> the sunlight than when a cloud cover comes over you, right?
>>>
>>> Uh, no...
>>>
>>> You just showed how "scientific" your analysis is [NOT] by showing us
>>> you don't know the difference between refraction and reflection. You
>>> also totally dismiss any absorption and reradiation of heat or any
>>> other interactions.
>>>
>>> So, you have just proven you have absolutely NO IDEA of what net
>>> effect, IF ANY, a contrail may have!
>>
>> Ask the experts then: "Researchers: Contrails Add More To Global
>> Warming Than Airplane Emissions"
>> Mar 30, 2011 – "In a new paper, scientists say the condensation trails
>> left behind by aircraft could be causing more climate warming than the
>> CO2 emitted by all aircraft since the start of aviation".
>>
>> ?? -- http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/30/134987408/researchers-contrails-worse-for-environment-than-airplane-emissions
>
>Actually, the exact opposite occurred right after 911. The Lack
>of those contrails allowed an average temp increase of 3 degrees
>across the United States and Canada. The long run might be an

As I recall the Daytime average temps were warmer and the nights were
cooler, so it averaged out close to a net zero. .

>increase but the short run (when they are abruptly missing)
>causes a temp increase. After the flights were resumed, the temp
>went back to normal.

We'll probably see a lot less air traffic(and driving in general) in
10 to 15 years when peak oil drives the price of fossil fuels over the
afford ability threshold for most families.

[Greg Russell]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:12:08 -0600, Daryl quoted and wrote in
:

....
>> Ask the experts then: "Researchers: Contrails Add More To Global
>> Warming Than Airplane Emissions"
>> Mar 30, 2011 – "In a new paper, scientists say the condensation trails
>> left behind by aircraft could be causing more climate warming than the
>> CO2 emitted by all aircraft since the start of aviation".
>>
>> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/30/134987408/researchers-
contrails-worse-for-environment-than-airplane-emissions
>
> Actually, the exact opposite occurred right after 911. The Lack of
> those contrails allowed an average temp increase of 3 degrees across the
> United States and Canada.

May I please ask for a citation of your information source(s) for that
statement? I made the same request of someone who recently stated that
global avg. temperatures *decreased* after 9/11 due to the absence of
contrails. They were unable to respond.

Their statement was qualified as a increase of outgoing planetary
infrared radiation (due to lack of the H20 absorption and re-radiation in
all directions) relative to incoming visible-light albedo, certainly a
non-linear relationship.

This raises a very important question, and yet a very common one, which
usually goes unanswered: an average of precisely what information, and of
what time intervals? Hourly WMO (World Meteorological Organization) world-
wide station data of a week, a month, a year, a fortnight? ... and
relative to what time frame? Some private researcher's site-specific data
of the same time frame ? Your own data from your un-calibrated
instrumentation on your roof?

> The long run might be an increase but the
> short run (when they are abruptly missing) causes a temp increase.
> After the flights were resumed, the temp went back to normal.

Again, I'll respectfully request a supportive citation, as the above
statement makes no physical sense on the face of it.

[Daryl]

On 8/20/2011 7:25 PM, Greg Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:12:08 -0600, Daryl quoted and wrote in
> :
>
> ...
>>> Ask the experts then: "Researchers: Contrails Add More To Global
>>> Warming Than Airplane Emissions"
>>> Mar 30, 2011 – "In a new paper, scientists say the condensation trails
>>> left behind by aircraft could be causing more climate warming than the
>>> CO2 emitted by all aircraft since the start of aviation".
>>>
>>> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/30/134987408/researchers-
> contrails-worse-for-environment-than-airplane-emissions
>>
>> Actually, the exact opposite occurred right after 911. The Lack of
>> those contrails allowed an average temp increase of 3 degrees across the
>> United States and Canada.
>
> May I please ask for a citation of your information source(s) for that
> statement? I made the same request of someone who recently stated that
> global avg. temperatures *decreased* after 9/11 due to the absence of
> contrails. They were unable to respond.
>
> Their statement was qualified as a increase of outgoing planetary
> infrared radiation (due to lack of the H20 absorption and re-radiation in
> all directions) relative to incoming visible-light albedo, certainly a
> non-linear relationship.
>
> This raises a very important question, and yet a very common one, which
> usually goes unanswered: an average of precisely what information, and of
> what time intervals? Hourly WMO (World Meteorological Organization) world-
> wide station data of a week, a month, a year, a fortnight? ... and
> relative to what time frame? Some private researcher's site-specific data
> of the same time frame ? Your own data from your un-calibrated
> instrumentation on your roof?
>
>> The long run might be an increase but the
>> short run (when they are abruptly missing) causes a temp increase.
>> After the flights were resumed, the temp went back to normal.
>
> Again, I'll respectfully request a supportive citation, as the above
> statement makes no physical sense on the face of it.
>

Repectfully, if you had done a simple Net Search you would have
come up with this same answer.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020808075457.htm

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-08-07/tech/contrails.climate_1_contrails-cirrus-clouds-david-travis?_s=PM:TECH

On person pointed out out that the temp change in the day was up
while the temp in the night was down. This is caused by the lack
of the normal Contrail Water Vapors that the Airliners give off.

In the day, the lack of it allows less heat (rays) to be bounced
back. Hence the temp raises.

In the night, the lack of the contrails allows the escape of heat
hence the lower temp.

We are talking about water vapor and crystals. This is part of
the nature order of things. Mother nature uses it herself to
regulate temperatures. It's neither bad nor good. It just is.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[John Weiss[_4_]]

Daryl wrote:

> > Again, I'll respectfully request a supportive citation, as the above
> > statement makes no physical sense on the face of it.
> >
>
> Repectfully, if you had done a simple Net Search you would have come
> up with this same answer.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020808075457.htm
>
>
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-08-07/tech/contrails.climate_1_contrails-cirrus-clouds-david-travis?_s=PM:TECH
>
> On person pointed out out that the temp change in the day was up
> while the temp in the night was down. This is caused by the lack of
> the normal Contrail Water Vapors that the Airliners give off.
>
> In the day, the lack of it allows less heat (rays) to be bounced
> back. Hence the temp raises.
>
> In the night, the lack of the contrails allows the escape of heat
> hence the lower temp.
>
> We are talking about water vapor and crystals. This is part of the
> nature order of things. Mother nature uses it herself to regulate
> temperatures. It's neither bad nor good. It just is.

OK...

What is the relative effect of contrails vs clouds? Is there a
measurable difference in worldwide temps on cloudy days vs clear days
in heavy air traffic areas?