Clear skies

[GaryK 201]

Been simming since 90's , generally light aircraft. Currently running P3D. My Location is SE UK.

That aside, Whats with the incredibly clear blue skies for the last week or so. Is it the high pressure (currently 1023mb)? or the drastically reduced aircraft activity?  or maybe something else? I have to say that the last time I noticed skies like this was after another air traffic grounding incident several years ago.

Genuinely interested in opinions on this.

[Chock 17,769]

Some of it is coincidental timing, it being the time for a seasonal improvement in the northern hemisphere anyway, but I daresay some of it is down to reduced industrial activity. It has been reported fairly recently that satellite imagery over China had more clarity because of less industrial pollution hanging in the atmosphere.

There will doubtless be a lot less high altitude thin clouds, since a lot of that is from aircraft contrails spreading out, which is ironic since I should imagine conspiracy theorists who believe in chemtrails would probably suggest that now is the time where any spraying program to control the population would be really in high gear.🤣

[GaryK 201]

No tin foil hats in this household........I couldn't get the foil, store shelves are empty 😉

yes, I remember some years ago sitting on the shores of Lake Garda, after having flown there, watching the jet liners contrails turn into cloud. It made for quite a hazy day.

The skies have been remarkably clear for several days.

I don't know the figures for jet liner contributions to global warming but purely from an observational perspective it seems to make a lot of immediate difference to conditions.

Edited March 25, 2020 by GaryK
spelling

[SAS443 1,716]

3 hours ago, GaryK said:

hat aside, Whats with the incredibly clear blue skies for the last week or so. Is it the high pressure (currently 1023mb)? or the drastically reduced aircraft activity

There has been a significant high pressure area passing by in Scandinavia as well.  1042 hPa was measured at our local field some days ago. Mostly blue skies here as well.

But I remember two years ago when we had 1053 hPa, CAVOK the whole week and beautiful winter days.....(and the ATR72's ran into slight problems since their altimeter only goes up to 1050 HectoPascal 😎)

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

I run a weather station up here in Cheshire. The position of the high means dry continental air is being drawn up from the European mainland. Humidity of just 30% here this afternoon confirming that.

A lack of moisture will intensify the blueness of the skies. Could be interesting early next week as polar air replaces it but that too should be very clean albeit not as dry and certainly nothing like as warm as today.

[IanHarrison 521]

Just looked at your station report. 

I have been away for so long now, is it Spring yet or still Winter? It seems quite chilly at 2.8C.

Here, we are in Autumn and at 10 am it is only 18.1C  with wind gusting to 52 km/h early this morning. Now around 15km/h.

Definitely pullover weather till it warms up later.😉

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

@IanHarrison, meteorological spring started on 1 March. Astronomical on the equinox on 20 March. We have high pressure over the country with clear skies light winds. Hence the low temps. But the sun is strong so temps will rise nicely. Arctic air at the weekend so watch for a big temp drop.

18C and your'e complaining? 😁 But then again you are 5,000ft up so that makes a big difference.

[martin-w 3,234]

23 hours ago, GaryK said:

Been simming since 90's , generally light aircraft. Currently running P3D. My Location is SE UK.

That aside, Whats with the incredibly clear blue skies for the last week or so. Is it the high pressure (currently 1023mb)? or the drastically reduced aircraft activity?  or maybe something else? I have to say that the last time I noticed skies like this was after another air traffic grounding incident several years ago.

Genuinely interested in opinions on this.

 

Yeah its just weather. Forecast is cloudy for the weekend and next week. There are few contrail's though. I saw ONE contrail yesterday at high altitude but the sky above me is usually full of them. Utterly clear blue skies. 

[martin-w 3,234]

22 hours ago, GaryK said:

I don't know the figures for jet liner contributions to global warming but purely from an observational perspective it seems to make a lot of immediate difference to conditions.

 

I don't know of any impact on sky "clarity" as a result of global warming, except in terms of warmer air being more moist and LESS clear. As for the impact on cloud cover, that is still being researched, but we do know that a feedback loop between global warming and cloud loss could be disastrous, increasing global average temperature by as much as 8 degrees. 

So clearer skies no, certainly not on a time scale of a matter of days or weeks. What we are seeing above the UK is a short term "local" weather event, not a long terms "global" climate event. And global warming is precisely that GLOBAL warming in terms of an average temperature. 

Furthermore, a reduction in CO2 emissions for a few days or weeks has a barely measurable impact on atmospheric temperature. There is thermal inertia built into the climate system. It takes time for a reduction in emissions to translate into a lower average global temperature.

The airline industry generates 2% of all human-induced carbon dioxide emissions. 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by martin-w

[G-RFRY 1,708]

CO2 is the biggest B/S used due to the fact you cannot see it, but we do know it has been more than 10 times the level it is today but you must ignore that fact to fit the narrative, rainforest and plant and humans cannot survive without it just one of 3 building blocks of life, Water H2O , Oxygen O , Carbon CO2.     

[martin-w 3,234]

1 hour ago, G-RFRY said:

CO2 is the biggest B/S used due to the fact you cannot see it, but we do know it has been more than 10 times the level it is today but you must ignore that fact to fit the narrative, rainforest and plant and humans cannot survive without it just one of 3 building blocks of life, Water H2O , Oxygen O , Carbon CO2.     

 

Yes, CO2 has been higher in the past. And thus tempreture too. And we know the causal factors responsible for that increase in CO2. And none of those causal factors are present now. What is present is our CO2 emmisions. Nobody ignores the fact it was higher in the past, its extensively studied.

Yes, we do need CO2. In fact the Earth would be a cold barren rock without CO2 and a a green house effect. Too much CO2 is not what we need though. We have known about the green house effect and the role our CO2 emmisions can play right back to people like Fourier in the 18th century.

The negative impact of releasing  CO2 that has been locked up for millions of years back into the atmosphere is unequivocal. It's not really debatable. 

 

 

[G-RFRY 1,708]

Ask them how low CO2 can go for it to be critical to life, the higher the CO2 the faster the plants and rain forest grow they know this from past study`s again you must ignore that, that`s why the founder of Rainbow Warrior left, peace has been replaced by warrior. 

Not in our life time but the real problem that they chose to ignore as it`s a political hot potato Population will double every 100 years, you will need the land for crops not rainforest.   

Edited March 26, 2020 by G-RFRY

[Biggles2010 342]

About 30 years ago there was a study by climate research scientists into the changes which had begun to occur in the transatlantic jetstream.  Previously it had followed a more consistent pattern. The conclusion was that it was affected by mass logging activity in the brazillian rainforest, to satisfy demand from the USA and Japan.  Little notice was taken of the report, because big business interests were benefitting from the logging, as is still the case. And with further exploitation for palm oil it just gets worse.

Since then the deforestation has spread everywhere, particularly the far east. When flying over Sumatra and Malaysia in the 70's we were always struck by the incredible density of the trees. Looking at those areas today on Google, I am staggered by the devastation. These activities, over such vast areas, have far more effect on world climate than anything we might do in the UK.

European climate is greatly affected by events in other parts of the world, but as before, deforestation gets relatively little attention, because big business is involved.

 

[martin-w 3,234]

1 hour ago, G-RFRY said:

Ask them how low CO2 can go for it to be critical to life,

 

We don't need to ask that question. CO2 is increasing not decreasing. What we desire is equilibrium. The proper balance of gasses in the atmosphere. When we dig up or drill for fossil fuels and then burn them (essentially carbon that has been locked up under ground for 150 million years for oil and 300 million years for coal) we are releasing all of that CO2 into the atmosphere. We are releasing fossilised CO2. Think of it that way and its easy to see the issue. The plants and animals and that includes us, have evolved to thrive with a given atmospheric balance. 

If we keep releasing 150 - 300 million year old CO2, then obviously we can expect the temperatures that existed when that CO2 was historically in the atmosphere to be manifest now. It takes a while of course, due to thermal inertia. 

 

Quote

The higher the CO2 the faster the plants and rain forest grow they know this from past study`s again you must ignore that, 

 

Not exactly. Doesn't work that way. Its a common argument the sceptics draw on. It is true that the CO2 fertilisation effect is a genuine phenomenon. In fact they tested this in a series of trials. They saw an increase in tree growth of 23%. However... in the longer time frame there was an issue with nitrogen limitation, which saw those gains diminish. the conclusion was that the CO2 fertilisation effect cannot persist. And of course it ignores the harmful effect on vegetation of climate change itself, namely drought, heat stress etc. Which negate the benefits.

So yes, there is a kernel of truth, as demonstrated in the lab, but that's not how it works in the outside world.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

 

Quote

Population will double every 100 years, you will need the land for crops not rainforest.   

 

And sea level rise will result in a loss of land. Overpopulation and climate change are both real issues. And in terms of climate change we have literally thousands of high quality peer reviewed papers telling us that climate change as a result of global warming is caused by us and will be a serious, possibly existential, threat. And to be honest, to suggest as you do that we should use rain forest for crops is frightening.  Burning the rain forest would result in 400 billion tons of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. Not to mention the loss of biologically the richest region on Earth, hosting about 25% of global biodiversity, and a major contributor to the natural cycles required for the functioning of the Earth.

Such a thing would be devastating for plants, animals and humans alike. Truly an existential threat. 

Edited March 26, 2020 by martin-w

[GaryK 201]

22 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

I don't know of any impact on sky "clarity" as a result of global warming, except in terms of warmer air being more moist and LESS clear. As for the impact on cloud cover, that is still being researched, but we do know that a feedback loop between global warming and cloud loss could be disastrous, increasing global average temperature by as much as 8 degrees. 

So clearer skies no, certainly not on a time scale of a matter of days or weeks. What we are seeing above the UK is a short term "local" weather event, not a long terms "global" climate event. And global warming is precisely that GLOBAL warming in terms of an average temperature. 

Furthermore, a reduction in CO2 emissions for a few days or weeks has a barely measurable impact on atmospheric temperature. There is thermal inertia built into the climate system. It takes time for a reduction in emissions to translate into a lower average global temperature.

The airline industry generates 2% of all human-induced carbon dioxide emissions. 

 

 

There is now research that indicates otherwise (on nearly all your points). 

 I understand that research is not proof but this article certainly corresponds with my observations over nearly 20 years as a keen weather watcher. I'm a regular and experienced coastal sailor (racing small boats with my wife) , although I'm not an expert on the technical side of forecasting I do know what the weather looks like.

Extract from article:

"White wispy trails across the blue sky on a sunny day are one of the few attractive features of air travel. But they have a darker side, especially at night. For the condensation trails produced by the exhaust from aircraft engines are creating an often-invisible thermal blanket of cloud across the planet. Though lasting for only a short time, these “contrails” have a daily impact on atmospheric temperatures that is greater than that from the accumulated carbon emissions from all aircraft since the Wright Brothers first took to the skies more than a century ago."

Article here:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-helping-make-the-planet-warmer

Research Here:
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/19/8163/2019/

Edited March 27, 2020 by GaryK
tidying up and spelling