A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

contrails



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 23rd 09, 04:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default contrails

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:


Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
persistent contrails filled the southern sky.

Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their
spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm period
was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of contrails
in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US West Coast
airports.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
  #12  
Old December 23rd 09, 10:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Newill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default contrails

On Dec 23, 10:38*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:

Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
persistent contrails filled the southern sky.


Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their
spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm period
was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of contrails
in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US West Coast
airports.

--

In the USA there was a rather well done program on NOVA or Frontline
(PBS) that investigated the impact of the contrails and concluded that
contrails actually contribute to global cooling - not warming!

  #13  
Old December 23rd 09, 10:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tuno
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 640
Default contrails

I saw a most interesting program on the Science Channel last night
about the sun, and it discussed the 11-year cycle of sunspot minimums
and maximums, and their apparent effect on the earth's climate. The
AGW proponents would gain some credibility if they would address this
in their models (and moisture too), but it that does not seem to
contribute to the results they want. They don't even want to talk much
about methane, with 20x the greenhouse capability as CO2.

Tom you say "There's none so deaf as them's won't hear" but I don't
hear anyone from CRU explaining the source code in their climate model
that embeds data within the model. To me, the emails are just
background noise next to this inconvenient revelation; making models
data-aware is pure cheating. The media silence on this deafening, and
I am listening. This is the kind of thing that turns fence-sitting
skeptics into hardened deniers.

Oh, spring (and the warming that comes with it) can't come soon
enough!

tuno
  #14  
Old December 23rd 09, 11:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mark Jardini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default contrails

there is essential unanimity among the scientists who study this full
time. Dissenting opinions are always a good thing but in this case are
less than 1%. (someone somewhere is still not convinced of
relativity).

unless you are a climatologist, your opinion is just that. the people
who know what they are talking about should make the call. there is no
conspiracy and all of us are know nothings.

Mark Jardini 1AC
  #15  
Old December 24th 09, 12:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
bildan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 646
Default contrails

On Dec 23, 2:34*pm, Tuno wrote:
I saw a most interesting program on the Science Channel last night
about the sun, and it discussed the 11-year cycle of sunspot minimums
and maximums, and their apparent effect on the earth's climate. The
AGW proponents would gain some credibility if they would address this
in their models (and moisture too), but it that does not seem to
contribute to the results they want. They don't even want to talk much
about methane, with 20x the greenhouse capability as CO2.

Tom you say "There's none so deaf as them's won't hear" but I don't
hear anyone from CRU explaining the source code in their climate model
that embeds data within the model. To me, the emails are just
background noise next to this inconvenient revelation; making models
data-aware is pure cheating. The media silence on this deafening, and
I am listening. This is the kind of thing that turns fence-sitting
skeptics into hardened deniers.

Oh, spring (and the warming that comes with it) can't come soon
enough!

tuno


I was a weather forecaster with the US Navy in the 1960's and later
worked with Dr. Paul MacCready at his first company, Meteorology
Research, Inc. Dr. MacCready was warning about CO2 buildup causing
global warming in 1965 - he was very concerned about it.

Since I now fly out of Boulder, CO, I know some of the researchers at
NCAR and have sat through presentations on global warming and
discussed their results with them.

Do contrails warm the earth or cool it? They do both by cooling the
earth in the day by reflecting sunlight back into space and warm it at
night by reflecting heat back to the surface. The net result is
warming since contrails tend to dissipate in the day and persist at
night.

Solar radiation effects on climate are indeed included in climate
models - they are some of the best data they have. Far from causing
warming, it appears the sun has been slightly cooling the climate for
the past century.

I once sold software for the supercomputers used at the national labs
so I know a bit about big computer models and the people who write
them. I am incredibly impressed by these researchers. They are doing
great work under trying circumstances. As scientists, they are
professional skeptics.

The IPCC is a group of outstanding scientists from almost every
country in the world assembled by the UN and asked to make their best
prediction they could using available data. As with any effort to
predict the future, they know the result is imperfect.

Even the most professional among them are still human beings
passionate about their work. They don't suffer fools gladly and, on
occasion, can choose some unfortunate language in the heat of the
moment. Please read the stolen emails with that in mind.

The climate models are some of the most complicated computer models
ever built and there are several. While the models disagree about the
degree of future warming, they all agree that it will be significant.
Some you don't hear about call for truly catastrophic warming with the
most recent data seeming to confirm them.

The whole climate 'debate' reminds me of the "tobacco wars" of the
1970's and '80's when the big tobacco companies funded any researcher,
no matter how disreputable, if it looked like the results might show
tobacco was harmless. Even if they couldn't prove tobacco was
harmless, they could confuse the issue and reduce it to a raucous
public 'debate'.

Today big oil companies are funding the same disreputable 'scientists'
to create publicity saying either global warming won't happen or if it
does, it's not caused by burning their product - in other words
'debatable'. The amount of money available for this 'research' is
enormous and although the results are never peer reviewed, they still
get wide publicity.

In fact, one substantial rumor has it the people who stole emails from
the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, then released
cherry picked examples just two weeks ahead of a major U.N. climate
change conference in Copenhagen, were former KGB agents working for
the Russian oil industry.

The real research conducted at universities and national labs is peer
reviewed before publication in reputable journals. The articles tend
to be too complicated and dense for main stream news outlets who find
Big Oil's prepackaged "news bites" more suited to their format.

The past US president and his party are tightly aligned with the
interests of the oil industry and would seem to be acting as it's
lobby in Washington. The danger for them is that dramatic effects of
global warming may be clearly visible by the 2016 presidential
election.

So, do I 'believe' in global warming? It's not a matter of belief -
it's a matter of what the data is saying. What is available now is
extremely alarming.

Bill Daniels


  #16  
Old December 24th 09, 12:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Greg Arnold
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default contrails

Mark Jardini wrote:
there is essential unanimity among the scientists who study this full
time. Dissenting opinions are always a good thing but in this case are
less than 1%. (someone somewhere is still not convinced of
relativity).

unless you are a climatologist, your opinion is just that. the people
who know what they are talking about should make the call. there is no
conspiracy and all of us are know nothings.

Mark Jardini 1AC



Leave it up to the people who know something about the subject? That
isn't any fun!
  #17  
Old December 24th 09, 12:38 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Nadler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,610
Default contrails

On Dec 23, 6:16*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
Leave it up to the people who know something about the subject?
That isn't any fun!


And it would certainly be contrary to the spirit of R.A.S. !
See ya, Dave* "YO electric"

* who's published thesis was titled:
"Data Flow Computer Performance for the GISS Weather Model"
  #18  
Old December 24th 09, 01:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 961
Default contrails

On Dec 24, 2:59*am, T8 wrote:
Happily, even some of the true believers are starting to wake up.
Here's one environmentalist's summary: *http://davidcrowe.ca/GlobalWarming.html


This guy seems like a very sensible chap. I disagree with him on two
points ("fair" trade vs free trade, and the safety of nuclear power)
but I'm sure we could have a good clean healthy debate on those
subjects. On the rest I'm with him 100%.
  #19  
Old December 24th 09, 01:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 961
Default contrails

On Dec 24, 4:31*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
If you're trying to say that refusing FOI requests for raw data proves
fraud, you're quite wrong.

Much of the data was supplied by foreign governments under NDA
agreements, so FOIA or no FOIA it can't be released.


That may or may not be true.

What is without question true is that if the data can't be practically
reproduced by others or made available then you can't base science on
it.


The current squabble isn't at all edifying, but consider that many of the
skeptics are just sniping from the sidelines and are apparently unwilling
to go back to historic sources (all of which were published) and analyse
the data themselves. If they don't believe the CRU and IPCC thats
precisely what they should be doing.


It's been done.

I haven't been totally keeping track, but it seems that at least the
raw data for NZ, Australia (e.g. Darwin), and Russia looks quite
different to what the CRU has been using, via one or both of using
only the subset of stations that show warming, or the raw and
published data showing a long series of unexplained adjustments with
the effect of lowering old temperatures and raising recent ones.

This is even before you get into the discovery that you can feed
totally random data into Mann's program and it still produces a
"hockey stick".
  #20  
Old December 24th 09, 01:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Thirkill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default contrails

Refreshing response-
No paranoia, no political agenda.
Just thoughtful insight.

Thanks Bill-

Dan Thirkill



"bildan" wrote in message
...

I was a weather forecaster with the US Navy in the 1960's and later
worked with Dr. Paul MacCready at his first company, Meteorology
Research, Inc. Dr. MacCready was warning about CO2 buildup causing
global warming in 1965 - he was very concerned about it.

Since I now fly out of Boulder, CO, I know some of the researchers at
NCAR and have sat through presentations on global warming and
discussed their results with them.

Do contrails warm the earth or cool it? They do both by cooling the
earth in the day by reflecting sunlight back into space and warm it at
night by reflecting heat back to the surface. The net result is
warming since contrails tend to dissipate in the day and persist at
night.

Solar radiation effects on climate are indeed included in climate
models - they are some of the best data they have. Far from causing
warming, it appears the sun has been slightly cooling the climate for
the past century.

I once sold software for the supercomputers used at the national labs
so I know a bit about big computer models and the people who write
them. I am incredibly impressed by these researchers. They are doing
great work under trying circumstances. As scientists, they are
professional skeptics.

The IPCC is a group of outstanding scientists from almost every
country in the world assembled by the UN and asked to make their best
prediction they could using available data. As with any effort to
predict the future, they know the result is imperfect.

Even the most professional among them are still human beings
passionate about their work. They don't suffer fools gladly and, on
occasion, can choose some unfortunate language in the heat of the
moment. Please read the stolen emails with that in mind.

The climate models are some of the most complicated computer models
ever built and there are several. While the models disagree about the
degree of future warming, they all agree that it will be significant.
Some you don't hear about call for truly catastrophic warming with the
most recent data seeming to confirm them.

The whole climate 'debate' reminds me of the "tobacco wars" of the
1970's and '80's when the big tobacco companies funded any researcher,
no matter how disreputable, if it looked like the results might show
tobacco was harmless. Even if they couldn't prove tobacco was
harmless, they could confuse the issue and reduce it to a raucous
public 'debate'.

Today big oil companies are funding the same disreputable 'scientists'
to create publicity saying either global warming won't happen or if it
does, it's not caused by burning their product - in other words
'debatable'. The amount of money available for this 'research' is
enormous and although the results are never peer reviewed, they still
get wide publicity.

In fact, one substantial rumor has it the people who stole emails from
the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, then released
cherry picked examples just two weeks ahead of a major U.N. climate
change conference in Copenhagen, were former KGB agents working for
the Russian oil industry.

The real research conducted at universities and national labs is peer
reviewed before publication in reputable journals. The articles tend
to be too complicated and dense for main stream news outlets who find
Big Oil's prepackaged "news bites" more suited to their format.

The past US president and his party are tightly aligned with the
interests of the oil industry and would seem to be acting as it's
lobby in Washington. The danger for them is that dramatic effects of
global warming may be clearly visible by the 2016 presidential
election.

So, do I 'believe' in global warming? It's not a matter of belief -
it's a matter of what the data is saying. What is available now is
extremely alarming.

Bill Daniels



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
contrails No Name Aviation Photos 3 June 22nd 07 01:47 PM
Contrails Darkwing Piloting 21 March 23rd 07 06:58 PM
Contrails Kevin Dunlevy Piloting 4 December 13th 06 09:31 PM
Contrails Steven P. McNicoll Piloting 17 December 10th 03 11:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.