Slashdot Mirror
Airplanes Unexpectedly Modify Weather
reillymj writes "Commercial airliners have a strange ability to create rain and snow when they fly through certain clouds. Scientists have known for some time that planes can make outlandish 'hole-punch' and 'canal' features in clouds. A new study has found that these odd formations are in fact evidence that planes are seeding clouds and changing local weather patterns as they fly through. In one case, researchers noted that a plane triggered several inches of snowfall directly beneath its flight path."
That was suggested back in 1970--- that cloud seeding experiments need to consider the possibility that the plane's flight itself is doing the seeding.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Your post is littered with falsehoods. I barely know where to start. Whether you realize it or not, you're concern trolling from ignorance.
We still do not have enough evidence to prove that burning fossil fuels will produce global warming.
Eh? What?`
First off, basic physics predicts that more CO2 and methane (and other greenhouse gasses) in the air will cause the atmosphere, and hence, the ground, to heat up. In a glass jar, CO2 behaves precisely as expected.
The Earth is more complex than a glass jar, it's true, but to argue against global CO2-based warming, you need a plausible physical explanation for where the heat caused by the CO2 went. Unless some obscuring agent prevents sunlight from hitting the CO2, the heat from was undoubtedly generated in the atmosphere nearly exactly as predicted by physics. So where does it go?
In addition to a magic (heretofore invisible) heat-sink, you need a plausible alternative explanation for the geologic record, dating back 100s of thousands of years, showing that, indeed, CO2 and warming are in a feedback-loop, punctuated by various global disasters.
Now before I continue, let me just get this out of the way: there is a difference between someone who believes global warming *can't* be true in the religious sense, and someone who recognizes that climate is a difficult subject for which we just don't have the answers now.
This is a ridiculous cop-out, and is a lousy argument for destroying civilization as we know it.
The fact is, we've had a pretty nice equilibrium here for thousands of years. Throwing off that balance could mean a lot of different possible things, but it definitely means chaos and turmoil.
We don't know everything, but we know some things. We know that the gulf-stream is very important to heating up North America. We know that North America would turn in to a block of ice if it were to shut down. We may not know how to keep it running, but that's not a good reason to toss a bunch of carbon in the air to see what happens.
The best plan is probably to try to maintain the equilibrium somehow. It's worked for a while. I like the coasts where they are, and I don't want to experiment with their shape, thank you very much. If I were in a rowboat with you, I also wouldn't want you to experiment by standing up and rocking it back and forth.
I'll deal with two more of your arguments.
Global temperatures have been on the decline for the last decade, much as they did during the turn of the century 100 years ago.
Incorrect. 1999-2009 were the hottest decade in human history. 2009 was about as hot as the previously hottest year on record, 2005, and possibly hotter, depending on what source you use. This can hardly be described as a decline, and is a typical misconception sponsored by various media outlets.
2010 is trading on Intrade at 67% to be the warmest year on record. You could make a pretty nice sum by betting against it, getting back two times your money at that price level.
Only if you cherry pick 1998-2007 from the data can you claim a "decline", which really isn't a decline, it's a squiggle that bounces back and forth, ending up just below the top.
You may not be a denier, but you sure play one on /.
We can probably agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; what we can't explain is why increased generation of CO2 hasn't resulted in a proportionate increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels.
Possibly because you made up that as a requirement. Your argument is irrelevant and spurious. Physics predicts a warming as CO2 rises. CO2 levels are rising dramatically, as we have observed. The temperature is rising dramatically, as we have observed, your weak protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Yes, the oceans absorb some. This isn't a question as you intimate, it has been measured. The question of whether increased CO2 in the atmosp