Do Aircraft vapour trails form clouds?
- Thread starter Pilatus
- Start date
- Location
- Nr Malvern... SW Worcestershire
Was drilling at sunset this evening at the northern end of the Malvern Hills and the sky was full of vapour trails...but they seemed to break up about half an hour later..
- Location
- SW Scotland
A climate change programme - so time ago - noted that after 9/11 the temperature around USA rose slightly. The arguement was that as most aircraft were grounded there was no shading from the vapour trails. Maybe not big enough to form clouds but they must be blocking the sun. Somewhat ironic that burning fossil fuels should cool the planet?
Donny Dungbeetle
New Member
- Location
- A dungheap
linga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion
After the eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano and the subsequent grounding of aircraft, the skies over Dorset were the clearest I've seen before or since. It would be interesting to see the increase in solar radiation figures from solar farms around that time.
they weren't very clear over northern Europe,
wobs
Member
- Location
- Northumberland
Nah they simply release moisture,which in itself the atmosphere is full of anyway.
Try the cockpit view.
http://www.flightradar24.com/
Try the cockpit view.
http://www.flightradar24.com/
linga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion
Doesnt that effectively make them clouds
Simon Keeling
Member
Aha! The old chestnut.
One of my students a few years back led a research programme and found that contrails do have an impact on global temperatures.
It's a fascinating area.
Simon
One of my students a few years back led a research programme and found that contrails do have an impact on global temperatures.
It's a fascinating area.
Simon
Please tell us more.
Paul_P
Member
- Location
- North Cheshire
The beginning of the end of the great global warming lie:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...ph-to-see-the-evidence-of-global-warming.html
linga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion
yes...except it says nothing about ocean heat energy accumulation and the 15 years taken is cherry picked data.
llamedos
New Member
I thought nasa had done many studies over many years and concluded that there was increased cirrus cloud coverage over high air traffic routes, and as that increases it becomes globaly significant.
Paul_P
Member
- Location
- North Cheshire
Seems to me that this 'cherry picked data' is valid ie it's the last 15 years. If that's not valid, given all the recent spin by stupid politicians and not so stupid but disingenuous scientists jumping on the bandwagon in search of grants and funding, then I don't know what is!
linga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion
Thought we were talking climate not weather. Yes the rise in global land temperature has levelled off but thats because the oceans are accumulating heat instead...at some point it is likely to transfer that heat to the land giving rise to another spike as in 1998. Then after another 15 years you will be saying it hasnt warmed.
Incidentally if you believe there is not, has not nor will be any warming bearing in mind the CO2 we have dumped into the atmosphere then those scientists will have plenty to research anyway .
Incidentally if you believe there is not, has not nor will be any warming bearing in mind the CO2 we have dumped into the atmosphere then those scientists will have plenty to research anyway .
Paul_P
Member
- Location
- North Cheshire
So what's suddenly made that happen - the great sweeping hand of Almighty God perhaps? If you ask me these 'scientists' will invent any old barmy theory to perpetuate the global warming myth no matter how much contradictory evidence lands on their doorstep.
Sorry for calling it Global Warming, I see that as they have discovered that there's no such thing the scientists have re-named it 'Climate Change.' Did anyone notice how the scientists and politicians swapped from calling it global warming to climate change overnight? That must have been the result of many emails flying around
linga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion
So what's suddenly made that happen - the great sweeping hand of Almighty God perhaps? If you ask me these 'scientists' will invent any old barmy theory to perpetuate the global warming myth no matter how much contradictory evidence lands on their doorstep.
Sorry for calling it Global Warming, I see that as they have discovered that there's no such thing the scientists have re-named it 'Climate Change.' Did anyone notice how the scientists and politicians swapped from calling it global warming to climate change overnight? That must have been the result of many emails flying around
Well its quite a complex system with many positive and negative feedbacks acting at the same time but I was wrong to say the oceans are accumulating heat instead. The oceans have always been absorbing heat energy at a greater rate than the land I think.
The point about the scientists is that , as physical laws suggest that warming should occur as CO2 is dumped into the atmosphere, if it does not then they would be investigating why not. They have no need to perpetuate your so called global warming myth. They would get much more funding to investigate why no warming is happening.
The phrase "global warming" seems to have been misinterpreted by some who appear to think that air temperatures at all point on the earth will rise. This is not the case , some places will get hotter and some colder but with an overall global temperature increase.The term "climate change" better describes the result. Seems reasonable enough to me.
When it comes to global warming/climate change it seems everyone manages to consider only the evidence to support their own point of view (me included probably) and its a never ending debate so the only thing that will prove anything is time.
Give it 50 years or so and if warming has not happened I will give you a tenner !
Exfarmer
Member
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds
Sorry this is wrong
The diurnal difference rose, not the actual temperature.In fact the temperature dropped, but not by a factor of any significance.
But then 3 days is not long enough for any real test