#AGU15 Accidental Geoengineering? Airline traffic may help create an icy haze that’s brightening U.S. skies

Jet contrails as seen by satellite. Credit NASA Langley Research Center
Jet contrails as seen by satellite. Credit NASA Langley Research Center

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.

CIRES is a partnership of N​OAA​ and C​U-Boulder.​
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

132 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 16, 2015 12:46 pm

If you don’t like the look of a scientific theory, you only have to wait a few months these days, to find that it has been supersede by yet another new theory. This helps keep science moving and scientists employed.

Dermot O'Logical
December 16, 2015 12:56 pm

Are there any conclusions are to whether a side-effect of this High Altitude Haze is an increase in reflection of radiation back into space i.e. lowering temperatures (bad for AGW by CO2 skeptics)
or
an “insulating” effect (like when it’s warmer when it’s cloudy) therefore keeping temperatures higher than would otherwise be the case (bad for AGW by CO2 proponents) ?
or
“Send more money”

jmorpuss
December 16, 2015 12:57 pm

NASA scientist admits to spraying Lithium to measure earth’s electric currents (rivers of energy in the sky)

Editor
December 16, 2015 12:59 pm

I’m not understanding this. They say there is more total downwelling sunlight at the surface. However, the direct downwelling sunlight has stayed the same.
They explain this by saying that the diffuse downwelling sunlight has increased.
I’m not clear about how that happens. When diffuse sunlight goes up, direct sunlight goes down. So IF their claim is correct, then either the total cloudiness must have decreased, or the amount of sunlight absorbed by the the atmosphere must have decreased.
What am I missing here?
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 16, 2015 1:36 pm

Willis it is probably same effect I noticed some years ago. I found that I burned my skin more quickly on beach in Croatia under partly cloudy sky, with sun reaching max. around 60 degrees, than in Egypt under clear sky and sun 80 degrees high.
It is about reflected sunlight from sides of clouds. Simply if sun is shining on you directly from hole in clouds and around sun you have a lot of white clouds you are receiving more radiation than from sun only and blue sky.
It is of course balanced with some places under clouds receiving very little of radiation. It is something like cloud lensing.
But I’m thinking under some circumstances, when sun is low and clouds are just reflecting light which is parallel with Earth it can be net gain.

Reply to  Peter
December 16, 2015 2:14 pm

I was on a mountain peak near the coast, about 6,000 feet alt. in spring time and a fog rolled over the top of the peak. It seemed warm and I took my shirt off for about 20 minutes. Got the most painful, serious sunburn I’ve ever had. Couldn’t even take a cool shower or sleep for 3 days after.
UV Scatter in all directions in that fairly thin layer of fog. Amplified. Incoming and outgoing. Even got burned under my armpits a bit. And I wasn’t standing on my head. Was sitting on a rock.

oppti
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 17, 2015 4:38 am

You are missing Solar brightening!

F. Ross
December 16, 2015 1:02 pm

Perhaps I didn’t read carefully enough, but it’s not clear to me, does the study say albedo is increasing or decreasing?

Reply to  F. Ross
December 16, 2015 5:41 pm

yes.

Robin Hewitt
Reply to  F. Ross
December 17, 2015 6:03 am

I read all the comments to try and get an answer to your question, “albedo is increasing or decreasing?” and I am still none the wiser. Odd, I usually get it after Willis posts.

December 16, 2015 1:15 pm

So another atmospheric component that can only reflect energy back towards earth?

December 16, 2015 1:16 pm

Well, natural extra-terrestrial factors must first be factored out before we leap to activities of man. The air interfaces with the sea over 73% of the planet’s surface. Under the moon at all times is an air-tide, in which the air, like the sea, daily undergoes changes in height. We know, for instance, that weather balloons float higher around perigeal new and full moon days, indicating a king (or spring) tide in the air around the same month-day as the sea. This explains why cyclones develop around perigees. Weather results from changes in the air-tide which is why there are weather cycles..
Around full moon in daylight hours there is a ‘thinner air’ effect due to a lowered air tide until the moonrise around dusk. The thinner air during full moon daylight hours allows for more solar radiation to approach the ground without the encumbrance of an expanded and insulating air layer. It is why full moon to last quarter days over summer are hotter and more exhausting than other days of the month – they allow more heat from the sun to reach the ground.
The sky is bluer when there is less sun glare. The extra glare produced by increased radiation over full moon days tends to wash out the blue. Conversely because the new moon is a day moon with the air tide “in”, new moon days present bluer skies.
There may be other factors too, like strong aspects of Jupiter and Saturn which can add to a month’s sunspot count. Sunspots will also change blueness.
Until more work is done in these areas we cannot begin to blame planes or other manmade factors for changes to blueness.

Third
December 16, 2015 1:19 pm

Ah, the old “Needs more Study” Trick.

Third Party
December 16, 2015 1:22 pm

Ah, the old “Needs more Study” Trick at the conclusion of the Study.

Reply to  Third Party
December 16, 2015 1:30 pm

Yes.
Science=needs more study.
Religion=science is settled.

James at 48
December 16, 2015 1:28 pm

While not as icy as some ice worlds, this is still an ice world.

Reply to  James at 48
December 16, 2015 5:48 pm

Hoth was a fictional ice world.
Titan and Enceladus are real ice worlds.
Earth is not an ice world.

Louis
December 16, 2015 4:06 pm

…it was the diffuse shortwave radiation that increased. That simply couldn’t happen if fewer aerosols alone were the reason behind the brightening. …
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.

Maybe I’m not understanding their claim, but it seems they are saying that there is more “brightening” going on than can be accounted for by fewer aerosols alone, and that the “ice haze” from aircraft emissions are responsible for that extra brightening. How does high-altitude “ice haze” allow more sunlight to reach the surface than would occur from clear skies alone? White clouds, for example, let less light through, which cools the surface. So how does white ice haze do the opposite? It just doesn’t sound plausible to me.

u.k.(us)
December 16, 2015 5:35 pm

Nobody gets outside anymore.
She’s the same bitch She’s always been.
Wouldn’t have it any other way.

H.R.
December 16, 2015 5:47 pm

wOw! Just think about all the geoengineering that COP21 caused with 40,000+/- flying into Paris.

December 16, 2015 6:20 pm

Well this is my favorite subject for parsing. I have been observing chemtrail activity in the Hudson valley for ten years. I have always respected Anthony’s request we stay on topic in a thread and stay to the science. But again the subject of contrails and geo-engineering has popped up. I suggest that we need to know what exactly are we looking at in the photo at the head of this post? We see the south eastern USA from space and we see a number of lines of white stuff over the earth below. Fine, but, is this a time lapse photo? Or is this a milli second photo? If indeed a time lapse photo, how long a period of time. If not is this from a geo synchronous orbiting satellite? In any event i understand normal contrails last for a few miles behind a jet and dissipate due to sublimation, a chemtrail on the other hand will persist, often called “persistant contrails”. My contention after documenting thousands of hours of sky watching and photographing that indeed something is going on geo-engineering wise. Thus yes the calculous for CAGW must include deliberate inoculation of the upper atmosphere with aerosols for either experimental or deliberate purposes.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  George E. Conant
December 16, 2015 6:39 pm

Ok, but what are “they” looking to achieve with this inoculation ?
Mind control ?, it better not be liquor control.

December 16, 2015 6:27 pm

There seems to be a lot of unanswered questions in a settled science.

jeanparisot
December 16, 2015 6:29 pm

Wait, I thought the Sun didn’t matter?

December 16, 2015 7:59 pm

Solar GeoEngineering is not a proposal, it’s been operational for decades.

December 16, 2015 8:12 pm

What about tiny droplets of sulfuric acid solution formed from borderline cloud/contrail formation conditions, and which usually don’t evaporate completely due to sufuric acid being hygroscopic? Increased coal burning in China would favor more sulfuric acid droplets. I think these droplets would have greater atmospheric lifetime than ice particles, but still generally short.

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 16, 2015 8:55 pm

Contrails consist of water droplets and as such are scattering the incoming sunlight, not absorbing it. The only thing that matters is therefore how they affect the total albedo of the planet. The first photo shows that they may have a small effect over areas without clouds at a lower level.

Iceeater1969
December 16, 2015 8:58 pm

Wasn’t this discussed with shutdown of all usa air travel after 911 ?

1saveenergy
December 17, 2015 3:02 am

Real time aircraft movements around the world
this link is centered on Heathrow –
http://www.flightradar24.com/51.48,-0.46/13
(Hover cursor over plane for its call-sign, click for full details.)
You can drag & expand map to give the whole worlds commercial aircraft positions & identify each one. Times out after 30min, just reload page.
you can set for any location
Hrs of fun ;-))

Editor
December 17, 2015 9:48 am

I’m calling bogus on the lack of identification of the image of the contrails. It is NOT a photograph in the visual spectrum. And it is NOT a simple infrared photo either. Instead, it is an enhanced image that according to NASA “uses two infrared wavelengths to reveal contrails”.
Be clear that I’m not saying that contrails have no effect on the weather. I’m just saying that, as is far too common in science these days, the image is picked because it gives an alarmist picture.
Finally, the picture is from a study which is now 11 years old … see here for details.
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 17, 2015 1:29 pm

Hi Willis, what ever the image is the head of this thread the subject has popped up again. I am old enough to remember real clouds, at least real natural clouds. The sky today is full of what I call forced clouds due to e deliberate spraying of aerosols in and around cirrus clouds. Every time a cold front rolls through the Hudson Valley the tell tale mares tail (cirrus) clouds that precede rain are ALWAYS sprayed. We have spay days here that are unbelievable. For me this is not conspiracy crap I looked up online at scary websites. This is real violation of our atmosphere and this geo-engineering scheme must be included in Climate Change modeling or CAGW prognostications or what have you. I have my own documentation in photography from the ground clearly showing chemtrails being turned on and off. Normal contrails do not that. Chemtrails then absorb the ice crystals from cirrus clouds and these form fuzzy sickly looking clouds that spread out and occlude sunlight. Routinely.
George

December 17, 2015 12:07 pm

Science is the approach to precision, especially in language. So I will say it. Chem-trails, contrails etc have NO effect on weather. Clouds have no effect on weather. Clouds ARE weather. What something is, has no effect on itself. It’s like saying the water makes the ocean wet. It doesn’t – the ocean is already wet.
Also, the weather that we perceive, originates in the ocean. All rain comes from the ocean and most falls back into it. Yes, we may see clouds descending, but the water in them first came from the sea. Some vapour may have come from jets, but it would require an ocean-sized number of jet vapours to produce one rain event.

Editor
December 17, 2015 1:53 pm

Here’s an order-of-magnitude check.
Burning jet fuel (kerosene) produces 1.1 litre of water for every litre of kerosene burned.
There’s about 5 million barrels of jet fuel burned daily.
There’s about 1.3E+13 cubic metres of water in the atmosphere.
Jets add about 8.7E+5 cubic metres of water daily. This is about 0.00001% of total atmospheric water vapor.
Surface area of the planet is about 5.11E+14 square metres. This means that the 8.7E+5 cubic metres of jet-water, if spread around the planet, would add about two milligrams (0.002 g) of water per square metre per day … as a comparison, a drop of water weighs about fifty milligrams.
As a different comparison, a cumulus cloud typically has a water content of 500 milligrams per cubic metre …
Now, this does NOT mean that contrails can’t have any effect … but it does suggest that although there may be local effects, the global effect is likely to be small.
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 18, 2015 6:49 am

Most of the emissions from jets are low in the stratosphere and so form cirrus type clouds which have a different effect on albedo than cumulus clouds. In WW-II bombing raids over Germany had sometimes to be rerouted because of the persistent ‘clouds’ from previous raids.comment image
The effects on the weather have been studied before:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/contrails-aviation-affects-climate/
The paper has been discussed here before.

jmorpuss
December 17, 2015 1:56 pm

The oceans and atmosphere are a sea of electrons (the force carrier ) which drive ocean and atmospheric currents . http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction

Verified by MonsterInsights