Cirrus clouds form from heavy metals and mineral dust

reply to post by BenReclused

What did you determine the "opposite" of "heterogeneous freezing" was?

Possible influence of anthropogenic aerosols on cirrus clouds and anthropogenic forcing

Cirrus clouds have a net warming effect on the atmosphere and cover about 30% of the Earth's area. Aerosol particles initiate ice formation in the upper troposphere through modes of action that include homgeneous freezing of solution droplets, heterogeneous nucleation on solid particles immersed in a solution, and deposition nucleation of vapor onto solid particles.

Clarifying the Dominant Sources and Mechanisms of Cirrus Cloud Formation

Due to the temperature at their altitude of formation, cirrus are composed exclusively of ice crystals. Ice nucleation does not take place directly from water vapor, but instead requires a preexisting particle. Ice forms via two pathways, termed homogeneous and heterogeneous freezing. Homogeneous freezing, the spontaneous nucleation of ice within a sufficiently cooled solution, is better understood.

Because the vast majority of atmospheric aerosol particles are aqueous solutions of sulfates and organic molecules, homogeneous freezing has been assumed to be the dominant process.

So there you have it. Now, perhaps, you will answer a question from me, if you know. In various places throughout this study, I read about the 'state' of these preferred nucleation particles. The study stated that they were not coated and had not interacted previously with the environment in ways like cloud forming etc. It seemed to imply that they were pristine, just arrived, almost a miraculous or phenomenal magic type of appearance at 30,000 feet. I would like to have this explained.

As far as the mineral dusts and my comment that they were a mistake: they had been proposed as a geoengineering scheme to make clouds disappear. In this study, the mineral dusts were found creating clouds. So my comment - mineral dusts were a mistake - was based on an assumption that these dusts had been geoengineeringly released and then studied and that the effect turned out to be creating clouds rather than disappearing them.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I suppose new technology in geoengineering would make a lot of older patents obsolete. It just means that it falls into public domain, where, I doubt anyone would snatch it up and use it.

luxordelphi
Now, perhaps, you will answer a question from me, if you know. In various places throughout this study, I read about the 'state' of these preferred nucleation particles. The study stated that they were not coated and had not interacted previously with the environment in ways like cloud forming etc. It seemed to imply that they were pristine, just arrived, almost a miraculous or phenomenal magic type of appearance at 30,000 feet. I would like to have this explained.

as far as I can see this is mentioned exactly once -

Although many air parcels originating from mineral dust emission areas undergo cloud processing before reaching cirrus altitudes (20), resulting in depletion and/or coating of these parti-cles, no comprehensive global data measurements of aerosol coating state exist and is not included in this model.

Reference 20 is:

20. A. Wiacek, T. Peter, U. Lohmann, The potential influence of Asian and African mineral dust on ice, mixed-phase and liquid water clouds. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 8649 (2010). doi:10.5194/acp-10-8649-2010

- see here

The abstract states:

For "classical" cirrus-forming temperatures (T≲−40 °C), our results show that only mineral dust ice nuclei that underwent mixed-phase cloud-processing, most likely acquiring coatings of organic or inorganic material, are likely to be relevant.

also:

We found that dust emissions from Asian deserts lead to a higher potential for interactions with high ice clouds, despite being the climatologically much smaller dust emission source. This is due to Asian regions experiencing significantly more ascent than African regions, with strongest ascent in the Asian Taklimakan desert at ~25%, ~40% and 10% of trajectories ascending to 300 hPa in spring, summer and fall, respectively.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Very interesting post - thank you for this contribution.

Essentially, the pollutants that were expected in cirrus weren't found. I guess I expected to see more or at least something of the pollution described in this forum as far exceeding any aviation contribution. And I'm sure they do - but not this high up.

Tiny particles at these heights can remain for 100 years. The particles that wind up nucleating are only a small percentage of the total there. Cirrus isn't going to rain any of this out. Our great grandchildren will experience it.

The abstract was interesting. It's from 1998. And, of course, this current study did not sample contrails. It only sampled cirrus. However, some of the particles found in that earlier study are the ones that are now forming cirrus. Ambient particles at 30,000 feet didn't just walk on to the stage. But I see your point.

As far as the mineral dusts in this current study go, you'll find them pictured and described in the set of images/graphics beyond the credits in the study itself.

Aluminosilicate is named as the most common mineral dust of the mineral dusts found in this study.

aluminosilicate definition

1. a silicate in which aluminum replaces some of the silicon, esp. a rock-forming mineral such as feldspar or a clay mineral.

And the study itself promises some future hunt for the source of these particles implying that they should be easy to trace because they are "unusual."

“Cirrus clouds are complicated but the important message is that dust and certain metals provide the seeds for a majority of the ice crystals that form the clouds,” said Cynthia Twohy, an Oregon State University atmospheric scientist and co-author on the study. “Other particle types – including bacteria and soot from human-produced combustion or natural sources – don’t seem to contribute much to the nuclei of cirrus crystals.

Twohy said the scientists have not yet traced the origin of the dust to see how much of it came from natural versus anthropogenic causes. The metallic aerosols, she added, are unusual and may be easier to trace to specific sources. Containing elements like lead, zinc, tin and copper, they appear to be from industrial activities, according to other scientists in the study.

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Time, I think, for debunkers to get in and create some distance between aviation emissions and cirrus formation.

And why would that be?

Because I think, I personally think, that the original NSA censorship bureau idea of making a chemtrail a contrail was ill-advised and that it has and will continue to backfire against aviation. The monolith cranks slowly but it rolls over all without discriminating once it picks up speed. I don't think that aviation should be the fall guy for clandestine geoengineering.

luxordelphi

...the original NSA censorship bureau idea of making a chemtrail a contrail was ill-advised and that it has and will continue to backfire against aviation.

The NSA doesn't have squat to do with a "censorship bureau". NSA's about SIGINT and crypto. Chemtrails are handled by a totally different group.

mrthumpy

luxordelphi
Last, the Contrail Science website verifying 30,000 feet and also confirming for us that we've been watching jet emissions spread out to cover the entire sky.

Actually the emissions from jet exhaust make up less than 0.1% of a persistent contrail so that's not what is covering the sky

Is this a plea from the darkness for education on cloud formation? Or is this your wacky way of separating stuff? I would think, just off the cuff, that particles in cirrus represent a lot less than 0.1% of cloud content. Got a link for that? And by the by there's no such thing as an outrageously persistent contrail. But thanks for joining the thread.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Really? Because they've been seen since at least 1918.

luxordelphi

mrthumpy

luxordelphi
Last, the Contrail Science website verifying 30,000 feet and also confirming for us that we've been watching jet emissions spread out to cover the entire sky.

Actually the emissions from jet exhaust make up less than 0.1% of a persistent contrail so that's not what is covering the sky

Is this a plea from the darkness for education on cloud formation? Or is this your wacky way of separating stuff? I would think, just off the cuff, that particles in cirrus represent a lot less than 0.1% of cloud content. Got a link for that?

It has been on here before - but here it is again -

This paper looks at the "ice budget" of a contrail - ie how much comes from the aircraft, and how much comes from the surrounding atmosphere.

It is dated 1971 revised 1972 - it says that the amount of material in a contrail was approximately 10,000 times as much as the amount of water generated by the jet engines that it formed from - page 1372, right had column - the contrails had 10^10 crystals per meter of length, whereas the jet that generated them put out 10^6 crystals per meter - the difference is 10^4 - four orders of magnitude or 10,000 times as many crystals in the contrail as the jet was itself making.

luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Very interesting post - thank you for this contribution.

Essentially, the pollutants that were expected in cirrus weren't found.

I didn't notice that as a conclusion - I didn't see anywhere that they said what they EXPECTED to find.

Perhaps you mean the pollutants YOU expected to find were not found?

I guess I expected to see more or at least something of the pollution described in this forum as far exceeding any aviation contribution. And I'm sure they do - but not this high up.

I do not know what you mean by that.

“Cirrus clouds are complicated but the important message is that dust and certain metals provide the seeds for a majority of the ice crystals that form the clouds,” said Cynthia Twohy, an Oregon State University atmospheric scientist and co-author on the study. “Other particle types – including bacteria and soot from human-produced combustion or natural sources – don’t seem to contribute much to the nuclei of cirrus crystals.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but chemtrail debunkers have been saying for a long time that the particulate matter from jet exhaust acting as nucleation sites is what starts contrails and ultimately ends up with a cloud sheet if that occurs.

reply to post by network dude


Hi network dude. Thanks for joining the thread. And thanks for the commendation on the new angle but if you read between the lines it has always been the same angle.

Why would someone who seems intelligent...

Facility with the English language doesn't necessarily equal intelligence.

completely disregard the obvious science in favor of a fantasy?

Do you mean the pseudo-science that tries to win friends and influence enemies in favor of outrageously persistent contrails?

Just based on this OP alone, you seem to completely understand, or at least have access to the science involved.

That, in and of itself, should tell you something. I joined the chemtrail/geoengineering forum, originally, because there was no more Prussian blue in my twilight sky. I had already satisfied myself that something unnatural was going on in our skies. But I took each piece of information that you all had to offer, investigated it for myself and drew my own conclusions. Along the way I have received an education from you all in many aspects of weather.

Why must contrails be chemtrails?

Wing tip contrails are definitely not chemtrails. Hope this helps. lxd.

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by network dude

 

Why must contrails be chemtrails?

Because they are, in the fantasy world of chem tales.

No chemtrail thread is really complete unless the hall monitor attends! Here's looking at you, slim:

you say chem tales; I say con trails

reply to post by blkcwbyhat


In my experience, the reasons behind chemtrails are as many and varied as there are those who shout-out against them. It's not really that important, to me, what motive is the true motive because, just like everybody else, I have my own ideas.

What is important is that we try to understand and draw our own conclusions.

Geoengineering proposals (proposals: things that are proposed; not things that are already happening) seem to manifest in our skies leading a critical thinker to the assumption that clandestine geoengineering is/has been going on.

...zombies??

A little bit off topic: zombies belong in a HAARP thread, imo.

Witness2008
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

More great research for me to dive into. Thanks....S&F.

Along with the growing stock pile of patent's, proposals, and declarations of owning or controlling weather, we also have the motive.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Europe 'stealing Iran's rain'

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Ya, ya, ya....I know....it's Ahmadinejad.....just as credible as any one of the "usual suspects" on this thread.

what a great find! Something I had not read nor seen. Appreciate your stopping by to contribute in this thread. Cloud seeding, imo, had to lead to anti-cloud seeding as a weapon i.e. the dusts that were supposed to destroy clouds.

Just as a curiosity in the ongoing cloud seeding saga, some very early work in this field called Project Cirrus found that it takes very little to profoundly influence the weather:

Full text of "History of Project Cirrus/compile by Barrington S. Havens"

So many nuclei could be produced with silver -iodide smoke that calculations indicated all the air of the United States could be nucleated at one time with a few pounds of silver iodide, so that the air would contain one particle of silver iodide per cubic inch--far more than the number of ice nuclei occurring normally under natural conditions.

"Theory has predicted and experiments are confirming the fact that a few pounds of silver iodide released into the atmosphere in the form of fine particles can exercise a profound influence over the weather hundreds c£ miles away from the point of release. Clearly no private individual or group can be permitted to carry on operations likely to affect weather conditions over thousands or hundreds cf thousands of square miles .

Zaphod58

luxordelphi
There are many poorly understood natural cycles in our world. When we impact on these cycles, we change them and sometimes we change them without meaning to because we didn't really understand what would happen or what side-effects our tampering and polluting might have.

And yet, just a post or so ago, you said:

But perhaps the answer is more dust delivered to 30,000 feet. (We'll worry about the water cycle later.)

So apparently you're for interfering with the natural cycles too, without understanding what would happen.

omg, Zaphod58, that was meant to be a wry cynical statement. Because I believe that this dust experiment has already happened on a large scale. And that this study was to study that experiment. I am completely unequivocally against interfering with natural cycles. I am for conservation of the earth in every way possible using every creative means imaginable.

luxordelphi
[
Do you mean the pseudo-science that tries to win friends and influence enemies in favor of outrageously persistent contrails?

What is an "outrageously persistent contrail", why is it "outrageous", and can you give an example of the pseudo-science that people present "in favor" of them?

reply to post by luxordelphi

Tiny particles at these heights can remain for 100 years. The particles that wind up nucleating are only a small percentage of the total there. Cirrus isn't going to rain any of this out. Our great grandchildren will experience it.

This sounds like it would be heresy to a "chemtrail believer".

I thought the point of "spraying us like bugs" was to have the poisons fall from the sky.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Thank you for taking the time to look at the questions I had about the 'state' of the particle in the ice residual analysis. The parts of the study that brought me questions on the pristine particle state:

IN: ice nuclei
IR: ice residual
EC: elemental carbon
MS: mass spectra
EM: electron microscope

The mode of freezing is inferred from the relative composition: when the IR were predominantly sulfate/organic and similar to the near-cloud particles homogeneous freezing is inferred, whereas dissimilar IR and near-cloud particles indicate heterogeneous nucleation. Based on these criteria, the freezing mechanism was heterogenous in 94% of cloud encounters.

The predominant particle category on which freezing took place was mineral dust and metallic particles, 61% by number. This category was also the most enhanced in cloud ice with respect to its near cloud abundance, 5%.

The overwhelming majority, ~90%, exhibit no apparent sulfate or organic coating.

Laboratory studies of EC suggest a wide range of IN efficiencies. In only the extreme case where all EC is assumed to have the highest efficiency does this species rival mineral dust.

Although many air parcels originating from mineral dust emission areas undergo cloud processing before reaching cirrus altitudes, resulting in depletion and/or coating of these particles, no comprehensive global data measurements of aerosol coating state exist and is not included in this model.

...and also from the image/graphics section at the end beyond the credits:

Fig. 1. (A) MS: The most common residual, mineral dust with minimal surface coating. EM: An aluminosilicate particle, also without apparent surface coating.

Looks like I read the part about cloud interaction in another study which I'm not going to be able to find right now but this above gives an idea of what struck me.

The study that you put up seems to be saying the complete opposite. It seems to be implying that particles were coated and did undergo atmospheric reactions before nucleating cirrus.

For "classical" cirrus-forming temperatures (T≲−40 °C), our results show that only mineral dust ice nuclei that underwent mixed-phase cloud-processing, most likely acquiring coatings of organic or inorganic material, are likely to be relevant.

So the plot appears to thicken.

Bedlam

luxordelphi

...the original NSA censorship bureau idea of making a chemtrail a contrail was ill-advised and that it has and will continue to backfire against aviation.

The NSA doesn't have squat to do with a "censorship bureau". NSA's about SIGINT and crypto. Chemtrails are handled by a totally different group.

edit on 1-12-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

So sorry then for maligning the NSA - they just seem to have it coming, clinically paranoid as they all are. It's a bureau though, I know it is; just can't think of the name. They set one up for NASA and another one for NOAA. Everything that goes public goes through them first. (Like in communist countries - the censorship arm that makes sure that the public hears what the government wants them to hear and understands things in a politically correct science sort of way.) Homeland Security then...how about that?

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Really? Because they've been seen since at least 1918.

Do you really believe that I don't know what a contrail is? And that I don't understand the mechanics of contrail formation? And that I've never seen a contrail?

I don't subscribe to the type of 'science' that constantly changes the parameters for sublimation, throwing up its' hands and claiming something newly discovered is being seen.

That's how 'climate change' as opposed to global warming came into being. Because researchers, imo, are often, these days, describing the effects of clandestine geoengineering without knowing it.

Navigating these murky waters, as Joe or Jane Curious about the sky or the weather or obscurement of the night sky, is not easy...BUT it's better than falling into lock-step with nonsense.