h a l f b a k e r y
"My only concern is that it wouldn't work, which I see as a problem."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
When planes travel and produce con(densation) trails, these trails essentially become clouds. I've witnessed several days where criss-crossing trails have become large areas of cloud cover. If air traffic could be added into the (already 5million variable) weather models, meteorologists may be able to
predict when con trails will be produced, and consequently when increased cloud cover will occur. They could then compensate the forecasts to make them more accurate.
[bleh, Nov 13 2006]
recent suggestion to cool the earth
particulate polution cooling the earth [bleh, Nov 17 2006]
||After 9-11 when planes were grounded scientists were able to get an idea of the effect of contrails its real and measurable but they need more data. Meaning they need to ground most of the air traffic again and be ready to take measurements.
||to get actual data, yes, but to compare
the two models, no. They could run one
model as usual with no air traffc taken
in to account. then run a second model
with air traffic taken in to account
during the time the model is run. i.e.
con trails forming as the model is being
run. then comare the two to actual
readings over the time of the forecast
and see which is more accurate.
||are you saying that artifically produced clouds wouldnt alter weather patterns? during the sept. 11 study, meterologists observed a 1 degree larger difference between night and day temperature meaning that the air traffic may cause the days to stay cooler and nights to stay hotter because the sun cannot get through the cloud cover to warm during the day, and the earth can not radiate heat as effeciently at night.
||not only are they turning into clouds, but the clouds contain a higher content of reflective particulates from exhaust that enhance the effects.
||what would you consider signifigant?
||one theory i've heard s that global
dimming (the addition of reflective
particulate matter into clouds casusing
the aforementoned effect) is masking a
good deal of global warming's effects.
global dimming is coolng slightly less
that global warming is warming, so we
only observe a small differnece in
temperature change, but the actual
damage done in global warming is
signifigantly larger. what i'm getting at
is we should account for all variables we
can to get an idea of how bad we are
actually f-ing u the atmosphere. we
know clouds are being formed by these
contrails, and we know that may effect
the weather. why not include future air
traffc into the model to get a better idea
of what we're doing?
||p.s. what word are you sorry you had to
||why do so many people hate the word