Do airplane contrails add to climate change? Yes, and the problem is about to get worse

I don't know of any climate scientists that allege that other climate scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate land and ocean temperature data. I don't know what the motive would be for that. I don't know how it could happen without many other climate scientists alerting public officials and the press. I know that many conservatives believe this to be true but I know of no evidence to support a conspiracy. Scientists are generally people who are interested in the truth above all else and there is no evidence that I know of in the history of science for a large scale conspiracy to defraud the public. I don't know of a small scale
case of conspiracy either. Why would scientists risk public shame, going to jail, ruining the image of their profession, and losing their livelihood? This sounds crazy to me. They would all have to be sociopaths.

Some of your arguments seem to be based on a lack of data in the 1930's that makes comparison to the late 20th century or present impossible. Their are ways to determine ocean temperature before
accurate thermometer measurements were taken that involve proxies or computer models based on known climate forcings. There are ocean temperature readings going back to about 1960 and
they show evidence of an enormous amount of heat added to the oceans since that time. Why would a rise in ocean temperature not be evidence of warming?

I don't know if you are sincere or if this is some kind of a joke. When I read the posts about climate change on this site I get the feeling that some people just like to argue and bait others into a silly debate.

 

Read Eisenhower’s farewell speech. Then investigate the science, all of it.

Computer model output is not data.

 

I stumbled into a far-right political forum website site over 1 year ago. I estimate that 95% of the people who posted messages there were very conservative.

I started a thread on global warming after I noticed that all of those conservatives rejected mainstream climate science. The reasons for rejecting the science

were typically that: scientists had manipulated temperature data and were dishonest, the climate models were worthless, all predictions by climate scientists

were wrong , climate science was a hoax invented by democrats in order to collect more taxes and grow the federal government, and climate scientists are incompetent.

Where did they get their information? It wasn't from mainstream climate science or the mainstream media. I surmise that it was from right-wing websites and right-wing media. I could tell that none

of those individuals had any interest in climate science or had even a rudimentary understanding of the subject. One member accused me of being part of a paid, liberal

plot to change the minds of people using that website. The "group think" on climate science seems to be coming from those who believe this right-wing nonsense and

not from those individuals that accept mainstream climate science. I have studied climate science off and on for 19 years and I have relied on websites like Realclimate.org

and skepticalscience.com. I also studied atmospheric science in college and have a degree in physics.

 

Do your homework. You are a victim of groupthink.

 

It's like climategate never happened.

 

This is from skepticalscience.com, "What do the Climategate hacked CRU emails tell us?

• 
  
  1. In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
  2. In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
  3. In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large
  
  complex data sets."

• In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".

• In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".

• In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed"

 

Berkeley Earth was founded in 2010 as a non-profit organization, privately funded, that was set up by climate skeptics to examine land temperature data and climate science. They accumulated data from
39,000 temperature station worldwide going back to the 1800's (1.6 billion temperature measurements). You can read about it at Wikipedia or at their website.

"The team's preliminary findings, data sets and programs were published beginning in December 2012. The study addressed scientific concerns including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05 °C, and their results mirror those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies." (from Wikipedia "Berkeley Earth")

 

Flat-earthers say the same thing. They can't point to any actual data alteration either. The point you seem to be making is how similar the denier cult is to the flat-earth cult.

The flat-earthers say there's no evidence for the round-earth except for falsified data. Belligerent denial of observed reality is a hallmark of conspiracy cults.

Again, flat-earthers also say things that have no connection to reality. The only thing revealed by Climategate was how denialism is entirely fraud-based.

And flat-earthers also say that. It's not a question of how deniers are like flat-earthers. It's a question of whether they differ in any significant way. They don't, except in the buzzwords they use.

I suggest you start brushing up on flat-earth dogma, as your cult is going to embrace it eventually. Conspiracy cults like yours depend on keeping the cultists spun up. As time goes on, that takes ever-increasing doses of crazy. Standard denialism is no longer enough. You've already had to add idiocy like the "deep state" conspiracy. That soon won't be enough, so your cult with have to up the crazy quotient with some even loopier conspiracy theories. Sure, teh cult will eventually collapse, but your leaders don't care. They'll have fled with the money and left you twisting in the wind.

 

your source is the fox guarding the chicken house and is as ridiculous as the defense that those involved were cleared of the charges by other warmers who say they did nothing wrong. Wake up and smell the ☕

 

And another source that is nothing more than part of the cult pushing the religion.

 

No they don't.

?? But anti-fossil-fuel hysteria skeptics can. You are just denying indisputable facts. I'm not going to waste any more time on you.

 

I didn't produce "a" source, I produced 6 sources.

 

This group started out as skeptics but were converted to "believers" on the basis of their own research. Judith Curry was one of the original scientists.

 

If you have to say that all the data is a conspiracy against you, you've admitted to being a conspiracy cultist, and thus lost all credibility.

This is one reason why it's so good to be on the reason-based side. Since we take positions based on reality, we never look ridiculous by denying observed reality.

So then you don't have an economics reference at all.

Sure I have. They're badly flawed. For a few examples, they tend to make unsupported claims about future benefits of warming to agriculture. They downplay disaster costs by showing that disaster costs haven't risen, basing that on the bad assumption that humans haven't gotten better at planning for disasters.

You're the one who seems unclear on the topic. I was talking about the Arctic, causing you to start rambling about the Arctic ice cap. Do you understand that the Arctic and the Arctic ice cap are different things? From what you've written, it appears you don't.

The reason that we can debunk all of the unsupported religious beliefs that you push here is because we've done our homework so exhaustively. In contrast, I almost never encounter deniers that have any clue about the actual science. They only seem to know what their cult has told them, and nothing else. They don't understand that reading conspiracy blogs is not "doing your homework".

 

And she left after they proved they were part of the cult.

 

"Conspiracy"? How about just common interests?

Money, status, and position.

Easy: just contrive plausible-sounding justifications for the alteration of data.

Modern mainstream neoclassical economics is just such a fraud, and an even bigger one than anti-CO2 hysteria propaganda.

Google "Lysenko" and start reading. Read the story of Ignatz Semmelweiss.

No one is going to put them in jail; it is the dissenting scientists who are risking their livelihoods, and I will thank you to remember it.

Nope. Just sheep. Most people are sheep. A billion dollars could easily buy effective control of a niche field like climatology.

It's evidence of warming. It's not evidence that the warming was caused by CO2, or happened only after 1960.

 

All AGW pushers.

 

Flat-earthers tell me the same thing.

The certainty you have in your cult's beliefs has no bearing on their validity. You're still wrong because all of the hard data says you're wrong, same as the flat-earthers. Repeating your strange claims and getting angry at people won't change that.

Flat-earthers always reach that point too, after you shove reality in their face.

 

Contrails are a myth, those are really mind control chemicals.

 

From your source:
"The warming effect from contrails already represented the largest contributor to aviation’s climate impact back in 2005, when aviation accounted for 5 percent of the human impact on climate. "

"One issue is that just 10 percent of flights create contrails."

"Another complication is that contrails can have both the heat-trapping warming effect and a separate cooling effect by reflecting light from the sun back into space."

"The new research may overstate the climate-warming effect of contrails by treating them all like heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Judith Rosenow, an aeronautical meteorologist at the Dresden University of Technology in Germany, who was not involved in the study."

 

I agree much like AGW it's only hypothesis at this point but something to consider and merits further research.

 

What source is telling you its just a hypothesis and lacks evidence?

 

@bringiton

Do you know of any climate scientist that claims that other climate scientists are engaged in fraud? You are claiming fraud as are many others.

 

What source tells you AGW has reached the level of theory?

 

I don't know if there is a science board that decides that. We do know for a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are increasing the amount of it, so this will cause warming.