5 ms·

What will be the immediate effect of, what, a 90% drop in high-altitude cloud formation by water vapour emitted by jets? The major drop in soot flowing over th

What will be the immediate effect of, what, a 90% drop in high-altitude cloud formation by water vapour emitted by jets? The major drop in soot flowing over the north poll? Immediate and shocking drop in average daily temperatures, and dramatic accumulation of snow in the north polar area over this next winter/spring, I predict. And, a stunning repudiation of the models that have basically ignored these 2 major factors.

jxub 6y ago
Mind expanding on that a bit? The conclusion seems counterintuitive.
- pjkundert 6y ago
  Removing or dramatically reducing the two greatest factors in surface temperature and snow pack accumulation will prove scientifically interesting. It should reinforce or repudiate the assumptions underlying our climate models - which have chosen to basically ignore these 2 factors. I predict, in the next 6-12 months, that statistically significant deviations in predicted vs. actual temperatures and snow accumulation will appear, repudiating this assumption that ignoring these factors was scientifically sound.
bdamm 6y ago
My personal experience has been that the weather forecasts have been consistently colder/wetter than the actual weather over the last 6 weeks, which has been surprisingly sunny almost every day. (Oregon, USA)
- pjkundert 6y ago
  Many environmental changes produce almost imperceptible results. Removal of high level cloud formation isn’t going to be one of them, I predict! But, I could be wrong. We’ll know with statistical certainty almost immediately (months).
  - bdamm 6y ago
    Thanks to 9/11 it's already been studied, and surely this pandemic will add to that body: https://news.psu.edu/story/361041/2015/06/18/research/jet-contrails-affect-surface-temperatures https://news.psu.edu/story/361041/2015/06/18/research/jet-co...
- Izkata 6y ago
  Chicago, as well, has been chillier than usual for the same duration. Haven't noticed a difference in rainfall.
padseeker 6y ago
thats a lot of words for saying absolutely nothing
- pjkundert 6y ago
  Surface temperature is most affected by thermal blanketing provided by clouds - reduce clouds, temperature drops. Climate is the sum under the curve of weather. Drop gigatons of soot on polar snow/icepack, it melts due to insolation. Reduce soot, it re-accumulates - especially if avg. temperature drops due to reduced high cloud formation, by reduced “great circle” jet traffic. Apparently, neither of these effects have been effectively modelled in the “climate models” used. Shocking scientific shame ensues. Or, I’m wrong, and no such thing happens. Now we’ll see!
  - Matumio 6y ago
    > Shocking scientific shame ensues. It really does not sound plausible that all the people who spend all day improving climate models never even thought about this.
    - pjkundert 6y ago
      Climate models challenged by cloud modelling: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-clouds-hold-key-better-climate-models https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-clouds-hold-key-b... Effect of contrails not modeled well, even though "contrail cirrus have contributed more to warming the atmosphere than all CO2 emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.": https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190627113949.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190627113949.h... New research shows the contrails are playing a significant role in global warming: https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-helping-make-the-planet-warmer https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-he... Little attention has been given to soot and snow albedo: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231007009752 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13522... High loss in greenland due to soot and dirt: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/6/140610-connecting-dots-dust-soot-snow-ice-climate-change-dimick/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/6/140610-connec... Cutting soot emissions fastest solution to arctic ice melt: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/21/cutting-soot-emissions-arctic-ice-melt-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/21/cutting-... Now, the arctic warming has not been caused by soot, but by the reduction in average snow cover, caused by dramatic warming since the 1980s: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883849/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883849/ Which coincides nicely with the increase in high-level cloud formation and heat blanketing causee by the increase in "great circle" air traffic since that time: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR Now, why hasn't this been modeled? Because they are complex to model; pre-industrial clouds don't match post-industrial, and the modelers don't know why: https://phys.org/news/2016-03-narrow-clouds-hard.html https://phys.org/news/2016-03-narrow-clouds-hard.html So, now we'll see -- there will be a dramatic change in cloud formation due to not dumping 1/2 a billion tons per year of water into the super-dry upper troposphere, over a several month period. Good fun! From a previous thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22224141 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22224141), I wrote: > Those now attempting to figure out the mystery of the hot climate models think one factor might have caused the recent unusual results: clouds. It turns out simulated clouds often cause headaches for climate modelers. The impact of cloud cover in these models has been incorrect, and has such a large impact. Doesn't this strike anyone as a major problem? We're burning about 100 billion gallons of aviation fuel per year. > This means each gallon of jet fuel (6.5lbs) will combine with 23lbs of Oxygen and turn into twenty pounds of CO2, and just over nine pounds of water! (see: https://paullaherty.com/2015/01/10/calculating-aircraft-co2-... https://paullaherty.com/2015/01/10/calculating-aircraft-co2-...). So that's 100B gallons * 9lbs is about a half a billion metric tons of water vapor going into the dry upper troposphere annually from commercial aviation. Which, evidence would seem to suggest, has not been modeled properly (at all?) by these climate models? If I was producing these models, I would be embarrassed.

jxub 6y ago

Mind expanding on that a bit? The conclusion seems counterintuitive.

pjkundert 6y ago
Removing or dramatically reducing the two greatest factors in surface temperature and snow pack accumulation will prove scientifically interesting. It should reinforce or repudiate the assumptions underlying our climate models - which have chosen to basically ignore these 2 factors. I predict, in the next 6-12 months, that statistically significant deviations in predicted vs. actual temperatures and snow accumulation will appear, repudiating this assumption that ignoring these factors was scientifically sound.

bdamm 6y ago

My personal experience has been that the weather forecasts have been consistently colder/wetter than the actual weather over the last 6 weeks, which has been surprisingly sunny almost every day. (Oregon, USA)

pjkundert 6y ago
Many environmental changes produce almost imperceptible results. Removal of high level cloud formation isn’t going to be one of them, I predict! But, I could be wrong. We’ll know with statistical certainty almost immediately (months).
- bdamm 6y ago
  Thanks to 9/11 it's already been studied, and surely this pandemic will add to that body: https://news.psu.edu/story/361041/2015/06/18/research/jet-contrails-affect-surface-temperatures https://news.psu.edu/story/361041/2015/06/18/research/jet-co...
Izkata 6y ago
Chicago, as well, has been chillier than usual for the same duration. Haven't noticed a difference in rainfall.

padseeker 6y ago

thats a lot of words for saying absolutely nothing

pjkundert 6y ago
Surface temperature is most affected by thermal blanketing provided by clouds - reduce clouds, temperature drops. Climate is the sum under the curve of weather. Drop gigatons of soot on polar snow/icepack, it melts due to insolation. Reduce soot, it re-accumulates - especially if avg. temperature drops due to reduced high cloud formation, by reduced “great circle” jet traffic. Apparently, neither of these effects have been effectively modelled in the “climate models” used. Shocking scientific shame ensues. Or, I’m wrong, and no such thing happens. Now we’ll see!
- Matumio 6y ago
  > Shocking scientific shame ensues. It really does not sound plausible that all the people who spend all day improving climate models never even thought about this.
  - pjkundert 6y ago
    Climate models challenged by cloud modelling: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-clouds-hold-key-better-climate-models https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-clouds-hold-key-b... Effect of contrails not modeled well, even though "contrail cirrus have contributed more to warming the atmosphere than all CO2 emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.": https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190627113949.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190627113949.h... New research shows the contrails are playing a significant role in global warming: https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-helping-make-the-planet-warmer https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-he... Little attention has been given to soot and snow albedo: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231007009752 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13522... High loss in greenland due to soot and dirt: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/6/140610-connecting-dots-dust-soot-snow-ice-climate-change-dimick/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/6/140610-connec... Cutting soot emissions fastest solution to arctic ice melt: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/21/cutting-soot-emissions-arctic-ice-melt-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/21/cutting-... Now, the arctic warming has not been caused by soot, but by the reduction in average snow cover, caused by dramatic warming since the 1980s: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883849/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883849/ Which coincides nicely with the increase in high-level cloud formation and heat blanketing causee by the increase in "great circle" air traffic since that time: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR Now, why hasn't this been modeled? Because they are complex to model; pre-industrial clouds don't match post-industrial, and the modelers don't know why: https://phys.org/news/2016-03-narrow-clouds-hard.html https://phys.org/news/2016-03-narrow-clouds-hard.html So, now we'll see -- there will be a dramatic change in cloud formation due to not dumping 1/2 a billion tons per year of water into the super-dry upper troposphere, over a several month period. Good fun! From a previous thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22224141 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22224141), I wrote: > Those now attempting to figure out the mystery of the hot climate models think one factor might have caused the recent unusual results: clouds. It turns out simulated clouds often cause headaches for climate modelers. The impact of cloud cover in these models has been incorrect, and has such a large impact. Doesn't this strike anyone as a major problem? We're burning about 100 billion gallons of aviation fuel per year. > This means each gallon of jet fuel (6.5lbs) will combine with 23lbs of Oxygen and turn into twenty pounds of CO2, and just over nine pounds of water! (see: https://paullaherty.com/2015/01/10/calculating-aircraft-co2-... https://paullaherty.com/2015/01/10/calculating-aircraft-co2-...). So that's 100B gallons * 9lbs is about a half a billion metric tons of water vapor going into the dry upper troposphere annually from commercial aviation. Which, evidence would seem to suggest, has not been modeled properly (at all?) by these climate models? If I was producing these models, I would be embarrassed.