Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:26 pm Post Subject: Aircraft Induced Condensation and Cloud Processes & Aero
Aircraft Induced Condensation
This seems to be PowerPoint presentation (converted to PDF) to accompany a lecture. The notes need some filling out (but I don't intend to do that) - it's very brief, and some of the concepts require some more explanation. It's up to the reader to find and do further reading.
yesterday, i was surprised to see the chemtrails appearing, as i'd thought there was no rain on the horizon for some days to come
i've grown used to associating chemtrails with approaching rain, though not entirely, and the observation ruapaka made about the biggest, thickest ones appearing in clear blue skies, i have found to hold good here, too, at times
well, there was a front on the radar, looked like we would get some, but it fizzled just as it reached us, we got a few drops.
the humidity and electrical closeness of the air was high for hours, and the build-up was accompanied by a fairly heavy chem campaign, though some jets were seen with normal contrails, about ten jet-body-lengths long.
i heard one jet, really loud, it was off the normal corridor, almost overhead, couldn't see the colours in the haze, but spewing thickly, even though it was somewhere around half normal altitude
they are back this morning, creating a thick haze, same as they did most of last summer
In laymans terms, could you please explain chapter seven on 'cloud-aerosol interaction'.
It seems the author is seeking to blur the distinction within the application of the term 'aerosol' somehow linking the term with some seemingly natural processes.
Quote:
a) primary aerosol (directly from source): sea salt, fly ash, soot
The above is not by any stretch of the imagination an aerosol. Yet this piece of rubbish tries to baffle us into thinking so.The quote below is from a dictionary.
Quote:
aerosol |ˈerəˌsôl; -ˌsäl|
noun
a substance enclosed under pressure and able to be released as a fine spray, typically by means of a propellant gas.
• a container holding such a substance.
• Chemistry a colloidal suspension of particles dispersed in air or gas.
ORIGIN 1920s: from aero- + sol 2 .
How long has the term 'aerosol' been used so inocuusoly within the tech-speak of meterology?
This is a very telling piece, the 'gist' of the chapter basically states that airborne 'aerosols' can effect precipitation. See Table 1 chapter seven (couldn't copy and paste it).
Quote:
g) generation of additional clouds:
i. certain ship tracks, contrails, contrail cirrus
ii. non-contrail related cirrus caused by aviation aerosol, currently uncertain
And what's that about 'ships tracks' and their radiative emissions (ships themselves,co2,o3 etc) being disruptive to climate? can you please explain that in prosaic terms please Hector?
Would I be correct in interpreting that final chapter to say that the weather men and all their super computers (the most lavish in the world) have never been able to nor will be able to accurately predict the weather?.
According to chapter seven this is because of a huge increase in 'aerosol' activity (completely re-defining the term 'aerosol' in the process) from both airborne and shipborne emmissions (and ships 'trails' for god's sake??).
Quote:
outstanding open questions (I)
1. Climate issues:
a) net effect of aerosol indirect effects constitutes the largest uncertainty in attempts to model and predict climate.
b) Estimates of single effects are of the order ±a few W/m2, i.e. of same order as forcing due to CO
2
doubling.
c) It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to untangle the primary effects from feedbacks.
d) Large uncertainties in emission data bases, inhomogeneous distribution.
This paper is also a plug for the pro-global warming lobbyists (bunch of grubs).
Give us good old down to earth, commonsense Augie Auer back please.
I was wondering when this would happen. How long would it take for someone to take exception to the casual use of the term "aerosol", a term that the chemtrail activists think they coined just a few years ago to mean something nasty and harmful? About 3 weeks.
secondfield wrote:
How long has the term 'aerosol' been used so inocuusoly within the tech-speak of meterology?
From the 1920's, according to your quote of a dictionary definition. About 80 years.
And, yes, sea salt (the haze you commonly see), ash and soot are aerosols of solids in air. Clouds are an aerosol of a liquid (or solid, if they are ice clouds) in air.
secondfield wrote:
..., the 'gist' of the chapter basically states that airborne 'aerosols' can effect precipitation.
Very perceptive! Of course 'aerosols' can affect precipitation!
In the the very first slide (of that section)...
Quote:
1.Aerosol particles are responsible for cloud formation at relatively low supersaturation values (catalytic action)
a)water clouds at about 1%
b)ice clouds at up to 80%, typically 30-60%
2.Without aerosol, cloud formation would need several 100% of supersaturation!
Since precipitation comes from clouds, if it weren't for aerosols, there wouldn't be much cloud or precipitation!
secondfield wrote:
And what's that about 'ships tracks' and their radiative emissions (ships themselves,co2,o3 etc) being disruptive to climate? can you please explain that in prosaic terms please Hector?
Would I be correct in interpreting that final chapter to say that the weather men and all their super computers (the most lavish in the world) have never been able to nor will be able to accurately predict the weather?.
According to chapter seven this is because of a huge increase in 'aerosol' activity (completely re-defining the term 'aerosol' in the process) from both airborne and shipborne emmissions (and ships 'trails' for god's sake??).
Where is CO2 or O3 mentioned anywhere in that presentation? If soot from ships is affecting cloud cover, then in its small way, it's affecting the climate.
("lavish" ??) No, you would not be correct in that interpretation. Climate and the weather are not the same thing.
Where does it say "because of a huge increase in 'aerosol' activity"? Where does that idea come from?
secondfield wrote:
This paper is also a plug for the pro-global warming lobbyists (bunch of grubs).
Give us good old down to earth, commonsense Augie Auer back please.
What makes you say that? That part of the presentation is about cloud-aerosol interaction and climate issues. I don't think anybody is saying that there is no warming taking place... unless you are. The question is, "What's the cause?". Augie certainly questioned the idea that it has anything to do with anthropomorphic CO2. That presentation goes nowhere near CO2. It's about cloud physics.
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 973
Location: north-east victoria
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:13 pm Post Subject:
well, actually, Hecta, i'm willing to say there's no warming taking place
i find that last post of yours rude, inflamatory, and infantile
this summer has been in contrast with the last two, in complete harmony with the popular perception of the expectations of an el nino year, and a la nina year
i'm sure you know the implications involved , and you are choosing to pretend to be ignorant
you are plenty ignorant enough, without ramping it up
this summer has been in contrast with the last two, in complete harmony with the popular perception of the expectations of an el nino year, and a la nina year
You are probably quite correct there, and the weather of those seasons (apart from the drought) is within the normal range of variation for the climate for your region. But that observation has nothing much to do with global climate change.
Now, about the meteorological education reference you gave... that's all good stuff. However, you don't need to go down that track at all to understand the difference between short-lived and persistent contrails. The difference is that persistent contrails are produced when the environment at cruise altitude is saturated with respect to ice. You only need to look at the radiosonde data from nearby stations, and know what to looks for, to verify the fact.
I'm sorry... What was your point about ignorance again?
A simple prosaic explanation was requested not an all out rebuttal.
Ole' Hector reckon'd
Quote:
Where is CO2 or O3 mentioned anywhere in that presentation?
The co2 and o3 are mentioned on the graph of chapter seven which appears to plot a ships 'radiative forcing' measured in milli watts per meter squared (I presume it is a thermal measurment?).
The various bars on the graph co2, o3, ch4, indirect, direct, ship tracks.
can you explain this graph further please?
I think the chap who wrote the presentation may have made an error
Quote:
outstanding open questions (I)
1. Climate issues:
a) net effect of aerosol indirect effects constitutes the largest uncertainty in attempts to model and predict climate.
b) Estimates of single effects are of the order ±a few W/m2, i.e. of same order as forcing due to CO2 doubling.
c) It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to untangle the primary effects from feedbacks.
d) Large uncertainties in emission data bases, inhomogenous distribution.
Souldnt b) be in the order of of a few mw/m2? not watts?
The graphical representation on the 'effect of ship emmissions' around the worlds oceans is an absolute hoot.
What rubbish.
Its like saying some chaff released from a fighter or two will spread out over a 350km area (not to mention the volumetric mass!) and garner solid radar returns for periods up to 6-7 hours after it was released.
That paper seems to contain gross over simplifications combined with moments of baffling non-specific mathmatical equations / data. Wish I was at the lecture, his academic bearing and refined german accent would've convinced me its all true... Ships trails are vastly affecting our climate also, but we cant be sure because ...
Quote:
large uncertainties in emmission databases exist
Ross, where do you stand re the global warming debate?
OK, I was wrong. CO2 and O3 is mentioned in that graph for comparative purposes. I think the point Gierens is making here is that the effect if aerosol indirect effects of ship emissions are more important than the CO2 and NOx effects of ship emissions.
"Radiative Forcing" means the contribution of (in this case) ship emissions to the total radiation balance which includes the natural processes. The question is how much is some contributor nudging the radiation balance one way or the other. This is the meaning of this rather jargonistic term. It appears in many papers about the global radiation balance, and is often abbreviated to "RF" which should not be confused with "RF", the abbreviation for Radio Frequency.
"Forcing" in a generic sense in sciences relating to the climate means a nudging by some process (usually of anthropomorphic origin) one way or the other. It does not mean that that someone is doing something intentionally and deliberately knowing what the effect will be.
Radiation flux is measured in watts per square metre - how much energy per init of time (joule per second = watt) is passing through (or impinging on) each unit of area (square metre), so watts per square metre. The average "solar constant" (the constant expressing the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth from the sun) at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is approximately 1370 watts per square metre. If the same amount is leaving the Earth, the long term average temperature will be contsant; if not ... This is at the root of the climate change debate.
About the units question... I think that that slide is the first of two that is summarising the whole effect from all sources of aerosol indirect effects, not just that from ship emissions. W/m2 is the correct unit.
About your characterisation of the presentation ... researchers tailor their presentation for the audience they are targeting. I don't think Klaus Gierens envisaged that this one would be discussed on MNZ. No offense is intended, so please don't take any.
I've already given my stand on the global warming debate.
Hector wrote:
... I don't think anybody is saying that there is no warming taking place. The question is, "What's the cause?". ...
... I think reducing CO2 emissions globally is going to be very difficult (because of the political, economic and social implications), and I doubt that even if CO2 emissions reductions are achieved on a global scale, the rise in global CO2 concentration will be significantly halted.
I apologise for the length of the post, and I hope that everything is cleared up.
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 973
Location: north-east victoria
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:18 am Post Subject:
you've not only given your stand on global warming, but very kindly taken on the job of expressing everybody else's stand, too:
quote"i don't think anybody is saying there's no warming taking place"
there are plenty of people saying the "great debate" is nothing but a sham and a smokescreen, foisted on us by a criminal television consortium
eminent scientists have seen their careers hijacked, just for resisting the idea of global warming
if you haven't seen the arguments for a possible imminent ice-age, perhaps you may have dismissed and derided the sources, before you bothered to read them
I think the point Gierens is making here is that the effect if aerosol indirect effects of ship emissions are more important than the CO2 and NOx effects of ship emissions.
My brain short circuted reading that one... maybe yours did while writing it too :lol:
With refrence to section 7 in part....
The data presented is thermally (watts~joules) orientated and represents essentially, the balance between recieved radiation (which is not represented on the graph) and 'artifically induced' (for want of a better term) radiation. In the domain of ships emmissions specifically.
Try this for the point Gierens is making:
As far as it relates to radiative forcing of ship emissions, the result of aerosol indirect effects are more important than the result from the gases released by combustion of fuel, and in the opposite sense - cooling (which I didn't say before).
From http://www.aglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/glossary.php (for a definitive definition)
Radiative Forcing: The term radiative forcing refers to changes in the energy balance of the earth-atmosphere system in response to a change in factors such as greenhouse gases, land-use change, or solar radiation. The climate system inherently attempts to balance incoming (e.g., light) and outgoing (e.g. heat) radiation. Positive radiative forcings increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which in turn increases temperatures at the Earth's surface. Negative radiative forcings cool the lower atmosphere. Radiative forcing is most commonly measured in units of watts per square meter (W/m2).
So the graph is telling you the size of the positive (warming) or negative (cooling) radiative forcings for the various contributors (CO2, O3, CH4, direct aerosol, indirect aerosol, ship tracks) as found by the various researchers.
