
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA —The data just didn’t seem to make sense. That’s often the story right before scientists make a leap in understanding. In this case, scientists had some evidence that skies in the continental United States have been brightening, after several decades of so-called “dimming.”
Brightening and dimming are overly simplified words that signify increases and decreases in how much light from the Sun (measured as “irradiance” in watts/m2) reaches the planet’s surface—and these measurements are often analyzed under cloud-free conditions.
For the observed dimming under clear skies, convention would point to aerosols. Levels of these tiny particles, associated with pollution, had been rising for decades prior to the 90s and began falling after that thanks to pollution controls. That could make today’s skies brighter than those in the 70s or 80s—and it could also warm the climate, as more direct radiation reaches the surface.
But when Chuck Long, a Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) researcher at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, and his colleagues dug a bit deeper, something didn’t add up.
If the recent clear sky “brightening” trend were due to cleaner air and fewer aerosols alone, it should be accompanied by an increase in direct downwelling shortwave radiation, one part of solar radiation reaching the surface directly from the Sun. That didn’t happen, Long reported during the American Geophysical Union fall meeting in San Francisco.
Instead, Long and his colleagues found that at the continental United States sites they analyzed, direct downwelling shortwave radiation remained roughly steady between 1995 and 2007, under cloud-free skies. Rather, it was the diffuse shortwave radiation that increased. That simply couldn’t happen if fewer aerosols alone were the reason behind the brightening. If anything, fewer aerosols should mean less diffuse shortwave radiation, because particles in the atmosphere can bounce light around and back to space.
So the scientists dug deeper, and in a provocative new analysis, not yet published, Long suggests that a high-altitude “ice haze,” created by water and other emissions from aircraft, is responsible. “I’m talking about a sub-visual contrail-generated haze of ice, which we do not classify as a cloud but gives blue sky more of a whitish tint.” Long said.
The finding—if verified—could mean that we are in essence already conducting a geoengineering experiment on the atmosphere, adding ice particles that change the way solar radiation reaches Earth’s surface. Understanding the overall impact of those changes on warming or cooling at the surface will take more research, Long said.
The hypothesis has some circumstantial support in other datasets, Long and his colleagues have found: The brightening trend is closely correlated with U.S. Federal Aviation Administration commercial flight hours during 1995-2007; those aircraft emit both water and the particles necessary to crystalize that high-altitude water into ice.
Moreover, a preliminary study using spectral solar data from an Oklahoma site shows that the clear skies had an overall “whitening” trend during the study years, an indication of increased scattering.
Professor Martin Wild of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, has been tracking Earth’s changeable energy budgets. He and his colleagues detected upswings in sunlight reaching the Earth surface (i.e., “brightening”) since the mid-1980s, which marked a recovery from substantial downswings in prior decades, a discovery published in Science. “We care about dimming and brightening because these phenomena may not only affect global warming, but also affect plant growth, glacier melt, the water cycle, solar power, and much more,” Wild said.
Wild said he’s interested in the new hypothesis, which will require more investigation, but which could help researchers to better understand the origins of dimming and brightening, a phenomenon with broad environmental and socioeconomic implications.
And what about the work at HAARP?
Wow! Somebody actually cranked his neck and looked upward. I have been saying this for a long time.
We complain about a trace amount of an invisible gas and its effect on the climate but ignore, for lack of a better word, “jet exhaust” which you can see is blocking a significant percentage of the sun’s energy and everybody ignores it.
What was the data for the months after 9/11?
I have been surprised nobody has thought of putting additives in jet fuel to reflect sunlight and control climate change — given this data, it would seem a like a possibility?
The day humans start wih geoengineering we are really in trouble. Some will want more rain, some less, some hotter and some colder, some less wind or more wind. Who should decide, UN?!
I remember reading an article many years ago, that argued that we could affect the climate by adjusting the altitude at which jets fly in order to maximize or minimize the formation of contrails.
The article a few days ago about the satellite that photographs the bright side of the earth started a train of thought; admittedly a short freight – engine, two cars and a caboose. What effect on solar irradiance reaching the earth’s surface do all the satellites and the much more numerous pieces of space junk have? I mean we’ve got decades of that stuff up there. I wonder how many square miles of absorbent and reflective materials. Now this, contrails. Where can I get a grant to study all this?
The Greenies won’t like this. They will have to go to their parties by boat, or better bicycle.
Hardly new news — there was a paper published way back in the 70’s dealing with this issue and also the fact that under some (not unusual) conditions contrails could and did “catalyze” cirrus formations, as contrails will often grow to become large cirrus layers. This observation dates back to WWII when the large bomber formations would leave massive contrail streams that would grow into cirrus layers large enough to interfere with the photo recon planes a few hours later. The 70’s paper dealt mostly with the effect these “artificial” cirrus layers might have on agriculture in the US Midwest, as the contrails grew from thin lines into substantial cirrus layers, reducing the light available to crops. I’ve observed this many times myself flying in the West and Midwest.
Why do I get the feeling they are still looking for excuses for the “Pause”?
Interesting stuff. We are getting our moneys worth having AW at AGU.
I don’t know how studies are dispersed geographically, but I’d expect a lot more air traffic and contrails (or ice haze) along the eastern seaboard due to the population density and central US due to the route density than some place like New England.
From property I own on a mountainside in New Hampshire, there is a lot of traffic with Europe, but that tends to be in a pair of waves daily, morning for traffic to Europe, and afternoons to traffic to the US. My “Plane Finder” app is showing the start of the afternoon wave is in Maine. Currently there is no commercial traffic in NH north of Concord except for a Cessna at 20,000′ entering Maine and a Lufthansa LH418 from Frankfurt to Dulles that’s 16,000′ above the Cessna.
Hey researchers, come on up next summer. Lots of sky here, if you hire a logger first. 🙂
[My first letter to an editor:]
In the USA during the 1960s, supersonic transport (SST) was being considered and discussed widely. Someone wrote in Popular Mechanics (or some such) about the aircraft producing water vapor at high altitude and that wasn’t a problem as it isn’t a pollutant. I was taking a chemistry class at that time and so responded that regardless of the chemical, if it was introduced into a place where it was not, it ought to be considered skeptically until shown otherwise.
Thanks for doing the reporting on AGU!
More challenge to “settled science”.
As I recall, there was a small temperature effect (warming as I recall) in the few days post 9-11 where all air traffic was stopped.
A quick google shows 1.8 degrees warmer than expected.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081231/full/news.2008.1335.html
It is my understanding that aircraft are only responsible for about 2 percent of anthropogenic CO2. So the volume and mass of these emissions is pretty darn small. Hard to believe they could significant impact global climate without some profoundly dramatic amplification effect (e.g. precipitating cloud formation). Might be possible but I’m definitely skeptical!
In the early seventies, there was a lot of concern among pilots that “the horizon was disappearing.” The soot from jet engines was causing darkening, and the maximum darkening was when trying to see the horizon.
What is different today? Most commercial jets, even those flying in those days, have been re-engined with fan-jets, instead of turbo jets. The fan-jets are more efficient, and part of that increased efficiency is burning the fuel more completely. (They even ate up the soot that other planes left there, especially afterburners on high performance fighter jets. 😉
So now the exhaust is air, water, and CO2, with the brightening effect noted. This is actually the second geoengineering project. Or the sixth or seventh? Desertification, widespread agriculture in formerly desert areas, dams and other water diversions, “reclamation” of swamps and waterfront property, and so forth.
We can’t get away from the fact that humans are changing the earth, we can just try to do it more intelligently. This includes doing something about CO2 levels. Not for any reason to do with global temperatures, but because it is making things harder for infants, the elderly and those with breathing problems.
I thought there was a standing rule against con-trail discussions!
[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, sockpuppet. -mod]
Well, we pump some 13 million liters of aviation fuel (ie diesel) combustion products into the upper atmosphere every day. So I suppose as experiments go, that is one hell of an experiment. 😉
http://www.asiabiomass.jp/english/topics/images/1307_1_1.jpg
Maybe this could partly explain the difference in ice growth or loss between poles since there’s almost no air travel over the Antarctic.
[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, sockpuppet. -mod]
Cooler days, warmer nights. Net warming. At least 3 studies published. Do a search.
So it’s all those trips (junkets) to climate meetings.
They’re clinging desperately to their up-welling/down-welling radiation!
Now they’re throwing in vapour trails to conceal the fact that this was always a meaningless metric. Or rather a negligible one. There would only be a few days of the month during certain seasons where the US sky would look like the one in the main picture above. Angels dancing on pinheads, again.
And not once did I see the word: Albedo.