Jet contrails affect surface temperatures

June 18, 2015, Pennsylvania State University

High in the sky where the cirrus ice crystal clouds form, jet contrails draw their crisscross patterns. Now researchers have found that these elevated ice cloud trails can influence temperatures on the ground and affect local climate, according to a team of Penn State geographers.

"Research done regarding September 2001, during the three days following 9-11 when no commercial jets were in the sky, suggested that contrails had an effect," said Andrew M. Carleton, professor of geography. "But that was only three days. We needed to look longer, while jets were in the air, to determine the real impact of contrails on and in terms of climate."

"Certain regions of the U.S. have more favorable atmospheric conditions for contrails than others, " said Jase Bernhardt, graduate student in geography.

For contrails to form, the atmosphere at the level the jet is flying must be cold enough that the moisture from the jet exhaust freezes into ice crystals. There also must be enough moisture in the air that the clouds that form remain in the sky for at least a few hours as persisting contrails.

Bernhardt and Carleton looked at temperature observations made at weather station sites in two areas of the U.S., one in the South in January and the other in the Midwest in April. They paired daily temperature data at each contrail site with a non-contrail site that broadly matched in land use-land cover, soil moisture and air mass conditions. The contrail data, derived from satellite imagery, were of persisting contrail outbreaks. The researchers reported their results in a recent issue of the International Journal of Climatology.

A team of Penn State researchers headed by Andrew Carleton, professor of geography, investigated the effects that contrails have on surface temperature and climate. Credit: Curtis Parker, Penn State

They found that contrails depress the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures, typically decreasing the maximum temperature and raising the minimum temperature. In this respect, the contrail clouds mimic the effect of ordinary clouds.

The researchers report that the "diurnal temperature range was statistically significantly reduced at outbreak stations versus non-outbreak stations." In the South, this amounted to about a 6 degree Fahrenheit reduction in daily temperature range, while in the Midwest, there was about a 5 degree Fahrenheit reduction. Temperatures the days before and after the outbreaks did not show this effect, indicating that the lower temperatures were due to the contrail outbreaks.

"Weather forecasting of daytime highs and lows do not include contrails," said Carleton. "If they were included in areas of contrail outbreaks, they would improve the temperature forecasts."

Explore further: Jets' contrails contribute to heat-trapping high-level clouds

Related Stories

Did colossal WWII bombing raids alter weather?

July 8, 2011

On May 11, 1944, a warm and cloudless spring day, U.S. Army Air Force B-24 Liberators, B-17 Flying fortresses and their fighter escorts lifted off from airfields across southeast England. They climbed, circled, and then formed ...

Recommended for you

'True polar wander' may have caused ice age

November 19, 2018

Earth's latest ice age may have been caused by changes deep inside the planet. Based on evidence from the Pacific Ocean, including the position of the Hawaiian Islands, Rice University geophysicists have determined Earth ...

Greenhouse gasses triggering more changes than we can handle

November 19, 2018

A new study published in Nature Climate Change provides one of the most comprehensive assessments yet of how humanity is being impacted by the simultaneous occurrence of multiple climate hazards strengthened by increasing ...

Local drivers of amplified Arctic warming

November 19, 2018

Long-term observations of surface temperatures show an intensified surface warming in Canada, Siberia, Alaska and in the Arctic Ocean relative to global mean temperature rise. This warming pattern, commonly referred to as ...

Major natural carbon sink may soon become carbon source

November 19, 2018

Until humans can find a way to geoengineer ourselves out of the climate disaster we've created, we must rely on natural carbon sinks, such as oceans and forests, to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. These ecosystems ...

27 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2015
Who is it that says water vapor isn't >>>more powerful than CO2?
If water vapor has that effect up there, just imagine how much more effective, and overwhelming it is down here on Earth.

Leading us to once again ask; what is the driving cause of Climate Change?

Well, what is the effect of releasing that much heat into the climate?
https://en.wikipe...sumption
None?
No, it is directly related to the amount of Sunlight/heat required to "sustain" the climate. Or another way, keep it at a "solar status quo."
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2015
Water_Prophet FAILs in Physics asking
Who is it that says water vapor isn't >>>more powerful than CO2?
Enlighten us please, who says H2O is less effective than CO2 ?

Water_Prophet claims
If water vapor has that effect up there, just imagine how much more effective, and overwhelming it is down here on Earth
No. Work it out via differential equations as applied from vibrational states in the respect IR bands & in conjunction with collisions but, why don't you know this already as you have claimed to be a "Physical Chemist" ?
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Water_Prophet asks
Leading us to once again ask; what is the driving cause of Climate Change?
Experimental data in conjunction with Physics & Maths shows definitively it is CO2 raising H2O via
https://en.wikipe..._forcing]https://en.wikipe..._forcing[/url]

In conjunction with
https://en.wikipe..._forcing]https://en.wikipe..._forcing[/url]

Water_Prophet with his "4 tech degrees" doesn't know Psychrometry - how so ?
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2015
Water_Prophet FAILs again with implied claim asking
Well, what is the effect of releasing that much heat into the climate?
https://en.wikipe...sumption
None?
No but, why is it you as a claimed "Physical Chemist" Cannot comparatively quantify fossil fuel heat effects vs CO2's radiative forcing ?

How is it that Water_Prophet, who claims to have "4 technical degrees" which includes a claim of "Physical Chemistry" can not have ANY idea how to evaluate radiative heat transfer such as
https://en.wikipe...transfer

which leads to
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Water_Prophet claims
No, it is directly related to the amount of Sunlight/heat required to "sustain" the climate. Or another way, keep it at a "solar status quo."
Evidence against Water_Prophet (again) & fails to appreciate Sol's output
https://upload.wi...data.png
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2015
Now you've seen the shill's paid for reply, what do you think?

A miniscule amount of water has tremendous effects vs. personal attacks and rabbit hole diversions.
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2015
Water_Prophet PROVES anti-science with
Now you've seen the shill's paid for reply, what do you think?
A miniscule amount of water has tremendous effects vs. personal attacks and rabbit hole diversions
Water_Prophet, who has claimed "4 technical degrees" incl "Physical Chemistry" just CANNOT quantify comparative effect of CO2 vs H2O in W/m^2, ignoring this
https://en.wikipe...ometrics

&
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Which PROVEs Water_Prophet has NO interest in the TRUTH, has Lied & Cheated all readers here, with NIL interest in mature Science Communication & is doing an immense dis-service to educating people about the discipline necessary to progress Science

Why is it that Water_Prophet CANNOT understand this ONE BIT !
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

What rationale can he offer that trained Physics researchers for decades MUST be wrong ?

Learn Physics Eg
phys.org/news/2015-06-countering-science-denial.html
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2015
FWIW:
The "argument" I have with Water_Prophet is he relies upon middle school proportionality maths to try to pursue his claim CO2 is a "red herring" & "anemic" but, he FAILS as calculus in respect of radiative forcing, the essential maths/physics is clearly stated here but, this is at a uni level which Water_Prophet clearly has never experienced:-
https://en.wikipe...transfer

& leads to a good approximation of additive effect of greenhouse gases
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

I remind Water_Prophet, why should he ALONE have a point meaning millions of uni physics graduates for decades should ALL be wrong despite their laboratory experiences which could at least ONCE show maths/physics wrong - this hasn't happened even though there would be immense kudos if anyone found ANYTHING at ALL !

For more detail re derivation see
http://www.phys.o...ial.html
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2015
WP:
OK I've brought you out of "ignore" to ask a question.

What do you think would happen to the Earth's surface temperature were there NO CO2 in the atmosphere. Or more precisely ANY GHG. EXCLUDING H2O that is ?
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2015
"What do you think would happen to the Earth's surface temperature were there NO CO2 in the atmosphere."

Who cares, the planet would be without vegetation and lifeless.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2015
tear88,
There is already CO2 up there, adding it does not effectively change the concentration.
Contrarily, there is not so much water up there, so small changes have impact.

runrig,
There is not a significant contribution to heat from CO2. I didn't bring you out of ignore-BUT "ignore" isn't very reliable.

We now have palatable evidence from above that H2O is much much more significant that CO2 in the layers of the atmosphere where it does not exist in large amounts in nature, (and CO2 does exist in significant amounts).

Now, water vapor, is 50x more concentrated than CO2 in the heat retaining portion of the atmosphere (hint, near ground, where it is warm), so this is yet another QED that HEAT not CO2 is "warming" that planet.

Actually, by warming, I mean making more energy available to melt ice, heat the ocean, and any number of effects that have only SECONDARY effects on temperature.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2015
MR166 FAILs with immensely low IQ
Who cares, the planet would be without vegetation and lifeless
Liar & cheat MR166 it has been discussed before & NOT the point, he again shows himself up NOT understanding comparative aspects for convergence

But then again MR166, you are Obviously NOT present on these forums to advance Science or improve level of dialectic you are proving you are ONLY here to lie, cheat & obfuscate !

Admins, please ban MR166 & Water_Prophet, the evidence is clear they are both impotent at advancing Science through any useful process

MR166 has demonstrated politically driven motivation as he has been shown often the errors in his posts, refuses to learn ANY physics or associated chemistry, it doesnt even try to engage in any dialectic at all & ONLY barks at the sidelines.

Can this forum please be more actively moderated, MR166 only obfuscates

Water_Prophet is actually worse as some serious cognitive/psychological issues :-(
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2015
Water_Prophet another LIAR & CHEAT claims
tear88,
There is already CO2 up there, adding it does not effectively change the concentration
Prove it !

Water_Prophet says
Contrarily, there is not so much water up there, so small changes have impact
Depends on psychrometry, why doesnt he KNOW that as a claimed "Physical Chemist" ?

Water_Prophet claims There is not a significant contribution to heat from CO2. Prove it !

Why should the >100 yr old experimental verification of Psychrometry & radiative forcing should be ignored because someone says so ?

Why can't Water_Prophet prove his claim and WHY can't he counter this even a little AT ALL !
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Water_Prophet claims
We now have palatable evidence from above that H2O is much much more significant that CO2 in the layers of the atmosphere where it does not exist in large amounts in nature
What does Water_Prophet imagine "palatable" means ?

Learn Physics !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2015
There is not much water available when the temperature drops below its freezing point at appr pressure.
CO2 does not precipitate under normal atm conditions.

I think that about proves everything, if I reference the above article.

Looks like it's time to abandon the CO2 cult, and acknowledge that we are changing the climate, but CO2 is a wild goose the media has led you to chase.
dustywells
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2015
"Enlighten us please, who says H2O is less effective than CO2 ?"

Everyone who adheres to the belief that CO2 emitted by fossil fuels is the (sole) cause of climate change.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2015
WP:
The answer you were looking for is that the Earth's atmospheric GHG's raise it's surface temperature by around 33C. Co2 is the most powerful because it is NON -condensing.
Remove those 400ppm of CO2 (+ O3, CH4, etc) and water would steadily condense out, the Earth's temp falling back to near -18C.
WV has greatest GH warming, but CO2 controls WV.
This is not up for argument my friend.
Co2 IS the atmospheric thermostat on this planet, and, disastrously (for any prior life) on Venus.
Actually, if Earth were to instantly loose it's GH gases, the Earth (when the oceans had cooled/frozen) would become a snowball and the consequent high albedo send the temp below -18C within ~20 yrs.
CO2 not important eh?

http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2015
runrig,
Your reasoning is faulty. This has been pointed out before, and is very obvious. You are incorrect. CO2 is a weak effect, this weak effect is completely overwhelmed by WV.

Again, Venus and Mars are very different CO2 effects from the Earth and each other. They are worthy of study to show why they are different and HOW they do not apply to Earth.

Big things control small things, bub, we don't have a feed back effect from CO2. CO2's effects are negligible, as this article succinctly demonstrates.

Your paper neglects the fact that the condensation property of water can be treated separately from its GHE.

If you separate the effects, and understand that, as a clear colorless gas, water vapor is 50x more prevalent and 40x more powerful.

Then you realise that its condensation effects are much much more pwerful than it's GHE, you understand, at last.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2015
WaterDummy again says:
Your reasoning is faulty. This has been pointed out before, and is very obvious. You are incorrect. CO2 is a weak effect, this weak effect is completely overwhelmed by WV.


And has been pointed out to you multiple times your zero-dimensional model using a bowl of water with ice in it and a candle below cannot model the Earth's climate system.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2015
Water Dummy says:
Your paper neglects the fact that the condensation property of water can be treated separately from its GHE.


Of course condensation and radiant heating are different. What a moron.

He then says:

Then you realise that its condensation effects are much much more pwerful than it's GHE, you understand, at last.


Of course WaterDummy has no idea that you can only move heat around with condensation, and there has to be a source of heat to evaporate that which condenses. What is your source of heat WaterDummy?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2015
WaterDummy also says:
Big things control small things, bub, we don't have a feed back effect from CO2. CO2's effects are negligible, as this article succinctly demonstrates.


How does a transistor work? Isn't that a small potential controlling a large current?

In a first course on control theory you will learn that small changes can affect larger changes. That is how we control large things. For instance, do you horse a truck around with your arm strength or is it leveraged to allow your arms to move the wheels? Do your really not understand feedback or are you just saying this to sound even more stupid? If it is the latter it is working.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2015
A miniscule amount of water has tremendous effects vs. personal attacks and rabbit hole diversions
@alchie/prophet stultitiae et al
first off: no one made the claim you used as a STRAWMAN

second: see: Lacis et al

third: the only paid shill who refuses to use any reputable science or present an argument which is validated by empirical evidence is YOU...
There is not a significant contribution to heat from CO2
there is when combined with WV and other GHG's

Again, see Lacis et al - as Thermo points out- do you really NOT understand feedback or are you saying this to sound even more stupid that usual?

you are ignoring validated studies because it refutes your waterbowl and stupidity WRT denial claims

Are you a koch brother or simply paid by them?

so far you've claimed a lot of things, from multiple degree's and mathematical skills to chemistry, climate science knowledge and scientific literacy

- you have YET to prove a single one of those claims
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2015
WP: Not that I read your reply.
But the response to it from others only serves to to confirm why you need to be ignored.
It's like trying to assert to someone that the snow is white and getting an outright denial that it is black.
I cannot tolerate that. It makes no sense my friend, both rationally and scientifically.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2015
Ah, runrig, I'll give $100 if anyone of them had a germane fact to contribute: (Unignoring.)

Let's see, zilch except for the non-sequitor, non-analogous and misleading statement about transistors.

Everything else had no substance, relevance that can be replied to, and is a very pathetic attempt to engage me in a conversation. Flattering in a pathetic way.

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2015
I'll give $100 if anyone of them had a germane fact to contribute: (Unignoring.)
@alchie/prophet stultitiae et al
so where is my money?
you have YET to address, refute, dor in any way discuss logically the studies i linked (which are not only "germane facts" but also supporting empirical evidence of AGW and directly refute your claims and overall general stupidity

so why is it that when someone posts an argument with studies and science, you consider it "no substance"?

but somehow your irrelevant waterbowl musings and non-scientific conjecture which has NO empirical evidence is legitimate points in your argument?

like i said:
the EASIEST way to see who is the troll is simply to look at who is refusing to post studies or substantiate their claims with evidence... and who dimply posts CONJECTURE while refusing to directly discuss the studies

IOW- you are simply posting trolling pseudoscience and lies to obfuscate the science
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2015
Actually CaptainStumpy, the bulk of your own posts are just about 'telling people off' like the proceding one, and not in fact about any nuts and bolts of science. Frankly, I don't know what's worse the cranks or your uninteresting and pointless response to them.

You would do more good for the site to tell the cranks WHY they're wrong,... rather than just the same tired Jerry-Springer telling them off, and 'where's the evidence' bit to get you 5's.

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2015
Actually CaptainStumpy, the bulk of your own posts are just about 'telling people off' like the proceding one, and not in fact about any nuts and bolts of science.
@nou
if you would have been there at the beginning of this argument two years ago, you would see that there is plenty of evidence...
You would do more good for the site to tell the cranks WHY they're wrong
you should keep up with this crank... i HAVE provided the evidence why he is wrong... this is simply a continuation of the same argument carried over into multiple threads and comment sections

the point is that if you google ALCHE or profit above, you will see that his argument rests upon his lack of comprehension of physics, mathematics, thermodynamics and failure to refute the studies with anything like evidence... he has only opinion or conspiracy (much like your own posts)

just because you are ignoring the links i've left doesn't mean they aint there
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 23, 2015
@nou
if you will also read the above posts, you will see that i am STILL referencing certain studies... i am just not using the links to ALCHE anymore as this is the same repetitive argument (ad nauseum) where he will simply ignore the study anyway...

also: his above comment has been refuted by more than just my points and studies and past discussions with him: see also Thermodynamics, runrig, thefurlong, MikeMassen and many more, which also argued the SAME points re: CO2 and WV as i noted above, also using some of the same links/references (like Lacis or Francis) and a few others which also validate Francis or Lacis

the argument is simply ALCHE ignoring the empirical evidence for the same of his delusion or his personal claims that something is real (in his mind) thus it must be valid in real life
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2015
Actually CaptainStumpy, the bulk of your own posts are just about 'telling people off' like the proceding one, and not in fact about any nuts and bolts of science. Frankly, I don't know what's worse the cranks or your uninteresting and pointless response to them.

You would do more good for the site to tell the cranks WHY they're wrong,... rather than just the same tired Jerry-Springer telling them off, and 'where's the evidence' bit to get you 5's.


Nou:
Sorry, I have to disagree with you - The Capt is always posting links to studies in his posts .... in fact it was he who alerted me the the Lacis study I linked up.and has asked me by private email about my opinion on some.
You must just have caught some of his more "frustrated" posts - I do the same occasionally, in fact the science-minded nearly all do when faced with the likes of WP, Anti, MR, Uba and several others.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2015
Ok, then I'll stand corrected.... however the reason for me posting that was to remind Stumpy, ....who constantly calls for "evidence" and "proof" and complains about me speaking of politics and philosophy, even though I do so in context and substantively,.... that many of his own post are Jerry-Springer ranting. Who is he to decide that substantive politics or philosophy in context, is of less value here than his actively multiplying the posts of cranks?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.