It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Any attempt to reconcile observed surface temperature changes within the last 150 years to changes simulated by climate models that include various atmospheric forcings is sensitive to the changes attributed to aerosols and aerosol-cloud-climate interactions, which are the main contributors that may well balance the positive forcings associated with greenhouse gases, absorbing aerosols, ozone related changes, etc. These aerosol effects on climate, from various modeling studies discussed in Menon (2004), range from +0.8 to -2.4 W m[sup -2], with an implied value of -1.0 W m[sup -2] (range from -0.5 to -4.5 W m[sup -2]) for the aerosol indirect effects. Quantifying the contribution of aerosols and aerosol-cloud interactions remain complicated for several reasons some of which are related to aerosol distributions and some to the processes used to represent their effects on clouds. Aerosol effects on low lying marine stratocumulus clouds that cover much of the Earth's surface (about 70%) have been the focus of most of prior aerosol-cloud interaction effect simulations. Since cumulus clouds (shallow and deep convective) are short lived and cover about 15 to 20% of the Earth's surface, they are not usually considered as radiatively important. However, the large amount of latent heat released from convective towers, and corresponding changes in precipitation, especially in biomass regions due to convective heating effects (Graf et al. 2004), suggest that these cloud systems and aerosol effects on them, must be examined more closely.
Here, take a look at pictures dating back 30-70 years of contrails acting and looking exactly like they do today:
Relative humidity is low at the surface! In the desert (except in "monsoon season"....I lived in PHX for years).
Do you know what the Appleman Chart is? It's not perfect, but a rough guide to predicting contrails.
At pressure altitudes of ~300 hPa, that is about 31,000 feet. (You can see they have the altitude in meters, there -- 9,430).
FL310, a typical cruise altitude. Let's see....RH is 18%....bit low, but look at the other levels, above and below. Still,though.it is the TEMPERATURE that matters.....and, you DID KNOW that the water in contrails is provided not only by the existing atmosphere, but by the fuel itself....correct?? There are unburned HYDROGEN atoms that are in the exhaust....and can combine with the OXYGEN in air....and that makes....H2O!
Going into the Appleman Chart, for 300 hPa.....temperature is -40.5°C. So, it is in the "Maybe contrails" portion of the chart.
CONtrails, no "chem"......and, that is your clue, there!! The contrails DO encourage more clouds to form, in some cases....just, it varies all the time, due to variations in local conditions.
You need, now, to research into the HIGH-BYPASS TURBOFAN engine designs, and the differences from when you were "a kid"....when the majority of jet engines were LOW-bypass, or some even straight turboJETS!....hence, different contrails, in look and persistence potential. (Plus....well, selective memory, too......)
(Plus....well, selective memory, too......)
Aren't you those people?
That is a BS, flat-out lie. Either on purpose, or from lack of research. Go to this link and look at CONtrails dating back 30-60 years ago that linger and haze-out: contrailscience.com... Now, after looking at those, wanna change your statement?
Just going by what the poorly-researched video called "What in the world are they spraying" said.
I have said that before and I am in total agreement with that.
I'm not trying to stop debate. I'm just trying to educate people on facts, because there is very little factual evidence coming from those that peddle the "chemtrail" "theory".
I'm not trying to stop debate.
I think you're wanting #1 on that list: CONTRAIL. There's no such thing as chemtrails and they've been debunked ad nausium here on ATS and have been proven to be disinformation.
Paid dis-info shills really annoy me.
So there's absolutely no such thing as plans spraying aerosols filled with barium and aluminum into the stratosphere? Hmm.
LMAO, well I certainly wasn't born prior to the mid-60's when High-bypasses came about...I wasn't even born prior to most of the 70's. So that excuse certainly doesn't work for me, another person who saw nothing but long, skinny, quickly dissipating trails as a child.
Kinetics of Calcium, Strontium, Barium, and Radium in Rats
Health Physics, 21, No. 3, Septeiriber 1971
Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering -David W. Keith
"Aerosols could be injected into the upper atmosphere to engineer the climate by scattering incident sunlight so as to produce a cooling tendency that may mitigate the risks posed by the accumulation of greenhouse gases. Analysis of climate engineering has focused on sulfate aerosols. Here I examine the possibility that engineered nanoparticles could exploit photophoretic forces, enabling more control over particle distribution and lifetime than is possible with sulfates, perhaps allowing climate engineering to be accomplished with fewer side effects. The use of electrostatic or magnetic materials enables a class of photophoretic forces not found in nature. Photophoretic levitation could loft particles above the stratosphere, reducing their capacity to interfere with ozone chemistry; and, by increasing particle lifetimes, it would reduce the need for continual replenishment of the aerosol. Moreover, particles might be engineered to drift poleward enabling albedo modification to be tailored to counter polar warming while minimizing the impact on equatorial climates.Keywords: atmospheric physics, solar radiation management, climate change Other Sections▼
AbstractLimitations of Sulfate AerosolsPhotophoretic Forces on AerosolsModel and ResultsDiscussionSupplementary MaterialReferences "
A Comprehensive Study of Surface Chemistry for Application to Engine NOx
Aftertreatment By Salvador Aceves
"This research will further LLNL’s (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) mission in national security by addressing the serious problem of proliferation of WMD, producing a new integrated capability to determine the fate,
dispersion, and ground effects of chemical and biological agents released by either a properly
functioning warhead or successfully intercepted missile.
In FY03 we (1) conducted fluid-dynamics and thermal calculations using the codes ALE3D
and MuSiC to investigate initial elastic response of particulate and coupled aerodynamic
heating; (2) added mixed-element surface-tension capability to ALE3D; (3) extended existing
three-dimensional (3-D) atmospheric particle-transport and -dispersion models to account
for initial momentum; (5) began creating a set of weather classes for areas of interest to better
understand the sensitivity of low- or high-altitude releases of agents; and (6) began extending
existing 3-D atmospheric particle-transport and -dispersion models to simulate the equation of
motions of macroparticles in a rarefied flow."
"Diesel engines have been identified as high emitters of nitrogen oxides (NOx). New
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations mandate a reduction in engine NOx
emissions by a factor of 10, down to 0.20 g/hp/hr by 2007. This value is well below 1 g/hp/hr,
which we have identified as the minimum to which NOx emissions can be reduced in a diesel
engine with currently available technology. In this project, we are using our advanced modeling
capabilities for chemical kinetics, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer to comprehensively
study NOx traps, which represent the best available technical option. Scientific issues include
developing chemical kinetic mechanisms for surface chemistry, analyzing sulfur poisoning of
the catalyst surfaces, and countering the thermal aging of catalysts.
We are focusing on the fundamentals of NO2 adsorption on barium oxide (BaO) surfaces
and are using molecular-dynamics calculations to determine energy levels under different
operating assumptions. We are also developing a computer code to link gas-phase temperatures
and concentrations to surface temperatures and availability of adsorption sites."
Delire, C., J. A. Foley, and S. L. Thompson. (2003). “Evaluating the carbon cycle of a coupled
atmosphere–biosphere model.” Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17(1). UCRL-JC-149715.
Govindasamy, B. et al. (2003). “Impact of geoengineering schemes on the terrestrial
biosphere.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 29(22). UCRL-JC-149732.
reply to post by weedwhacker
(Hint: The term "aerosol" doesn't mean what you seem to think. Again, science.....not "belief"). Read the full context