If I designed an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
And this is the same government you lambast in the post above for screwing things up - they are so good that they can hide every single piece of evidence of a worldwide operation that would be using thousands of people and affects tens-of-thousands of aircraft, through 3 different administrations, screws up 2 wars, doesn't notice the approaching financial crisis, and generally si as incompetent as any government anywhere.

Yet you claim this same government would be able to totally hide every single piece of verifiable physical evidence - from chemicals (so well hidden you can't even find them in the air!), to load sheets, to aircraft design and specification changes, to eyewitness testimony and everything else besides??
1) I estimated around nine aircraft and some spares . . .
2) One to three operation sites
3) Three to five hindered people. . . .
4) The government or at least the ones involved with black projects are extremely efficient and capable . . .
5) Some incompetence is planned for a reason . . . see above for example . . . Today, 04:20 PM
#197
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeC

Closed Account
Yes I've seen your "estimates" - and noticed your utter failure to show how such a miniscule fleet might manage to achieve your goal of GLOBAL climate change -
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Christopher Hitchens

Really you have just guessed - and as far as I can tell from what you have proffered, the supporting data for your guess that it supports your contention whereas anotehr guess would not.

You also fail to address the issue of why can't the chemicals being sprayed actually be found in the atmosphere, and how even 9 slots in a commercial production line can be kept secret.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes I've seen your "estimates" - and noticed your utter failure to show how such a miniscule fleet might manage to achieve your goal of GLOBAL climate change -

Really you have just guessed - and as far as I can tell from what you have proffered, the supporting data for your guess that it supports your contention whereas anotehr guess would not.

You also fail to address the issue of why can't the chemicals being sprayed actually be found in the atmosphere, and how even 9 slots in a commercial production line can be kept secret.

1) The research paper did the aircraft estimates not I . . . they also estimated the injection of 1-1.5 Tg of sulfur compounds in one year . . . taking nine (9) KC 10 extenders or equivalent three flights per craft each day on less than 300 days per year . . . http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf
2) 1-1.5 Tg of sulfur injected in the stratosphere over a year would not show significant differences in acidity, concentration, AOD, TSI, etc to separate itself from background noise . . .
3) the 27 flights each day would not exceed the number of flights of the smallest flight activity of the smallest airport recognized by the FAA in the entire state of Texas . . .

Would need to procure about 1,000,000 to 1.25 Million Metric tons of selected sulfur compounds . . . Canada would be a perfect source. . .they have an over abundance of the stuff. . .http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/minerals-meta...09-review/3598


Finally, contract an air operations firm to retrofit and fly a few aircraft at about $1.25 Billion 2008 dollars per year ( according to . . .lines 138 - lines 143 and graph on line 528 http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf according to this paper the required amount of sulfur aerosol can be delivered easily by dedicated flights by only [. . . line 528] using nine (9) KC 10 Extenders or equivalent aircraft, each flying three (3) flights a day, 250 days per year. . . . 27 flights per day).
 

MikeC

Closed Account
You should read the paper - those numbers are, as you say for 1 Tg of H2S - but the paper does not actually say HOW MUCH would be required - that is in another paper - this one...where, at lines 588-589 they note that they are actually talking about a nominal amount of 10 Tg of materials - not 1.

So straight away you need to multiply your numbers by 10 - so now you require 90 aircraft of KC-10 size.

Plus of course the figures in the article you quoet gives 160 tonnes as the KC-10 payload. this is not quite true. 160 tonnes is the KC-10 maximum FUEL capacity - and of course it will have to use at least some of that propelling itself!!

the maximum fuel on a "normal" DC-10-30 or -40 is 138 tonnes - so that is what is in the normal fuel tanks. you wouldn't be able to mix chemicals in the fuel tanks, but you might sacrifice some range and convert say the centre tank to take more chemicals.

But the basic system leaves only 22 tonnes available in non-fuel tanks for any chemical spraying. So you need to immediately multiply that by another 7.27 to get a realistic number - we are up to 650 or so KC-10's, not 9!!!

Perhaps you could sacrifice some fuel capacity for more chemicals. The maths is quite linear - if you double the chemical carrying acpabiity to 44 tonnes then halve the number of a/c, if you tripple it to 66 tones then divide by 1/3rd - but even then that's over 200 a/c!

Like I said - you have not actually provided the evidence you think yuo have at all!

and of course only 62 actual KC-10's were ever built....so you would either have to take them all out of service and add another 30-600-or so, or modify 90-650-ish from current DC-10/MD-11 a/c, either of which options EVERYONE in the aviation industry would notice......or alternatively order a bunch of new-build airliners of some sort to be converted - you think someone in the commercial aviation world might notice a couple of hundred "unexplained" airframes coming off Boeing or Airbus production lines?? Just maybe??

plus of course you then need to explain to everyone why they are seeing DC-10 class aircraft in their skies all over the world .......and they wil have to operate from overseas bases to get global coverage......
 

solrey

Senior Member.
Spot on, MikeC!

George, you might want to have a tissue handy when you read the following report:

Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies

Lofting megaton quantities into the stratosphere requires heavy lift aircraft that can fly at these
altitudes.
As noted in Box 3.1.1.1, lofting to 20 km might be sufficient for deployment of
stratospheric aerosols in the equatorial region—however, only detailed scientific investigations
of atmospheric aerosol transport will be able to address this question.
Presently there are no aircraft designed specifically for this purpose. Close analogs for
considering aircraft lofting potential could be the subsonic WB-57 or supersonic XB-70 (~23km
ceiling, 250 ton max takeoff weight), or the more recent Theseus or White Knight Two (WK2.)
WK2 is designed for rapid sorties above ~15 km with a payload estimated at around 10,000 kg.
With some reengineering, a scaled and unmanned version of the WK2 craft might provide the
capability to repetitively loft significant mass to ~20 km.
Assuming a nominal ~10^9 kg/yr injection rate and a 10,000 kg lofting capacity for a specially
designed aircraft, it would require ~100,000 sorties to be flown each year (or ~300 sorties per
day.) With each craft assumed capable of two sorties per day, this would require a fleet of 150
aircraft.
Conservatively estimating costs for a specially designed aircraft of up to $200M per
aircraft, along with reasonable annual capital and O&M cost estimates (15%/yr capital and 5%
per year O&M), the required aircraft fleet costs are roughly estimated to be ~$6B/yr. Further
~10,000 kg-fuel/sortie and $2/kg fuel-cost, yields fuel costs of another $2B/yr, bringing the total
costs for the nominal ~10^9 kg/yr injection rate to ~$8B/yr. This corresponds to a cost of $8/kg,
roughly an order of magnitude higher than current commercial airfreight rates.
These costs do
not include aerosols or dispersal equipment, and depend on the assumption that aerosols can be
delivered just above the tropical tropopause—if substantially higher delivery is required, aircraft
costs would go up dramatically.

Also note the precautionary principle is an important theme in the paper.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You should read the paper - those numbers are, as you say for 1 Tg of H2S - but the paper does not actually say HOW MUCH would be required - that is in another paper - this one...where, at lines 588-589 they note that they are actually talking about a nominal amount of 10 Tg of materials - not 1.

So straight away you need to multiply your numbers by 10 - so now you require 90 aircraft of KC-10 size.

Plus of course the figures in the article you quoet gives 160 tonnes as the KC-10 payload. this is not quite true. 160 tonnes is the KC-10 maximum FUEL capacity - and of course it will have to use at least some of that propelling itself!!

the maximum fuel on a "normal" DC-10-30 or -40 is 138 tonnes - so that is what is in the normal fuel tanks. you wouldn't be able to mix chemicals in the fuel tanks, but you might sacrifice some range and convert say the centre tank to take more chemicals.

But the basic system leaves only 22 tonnes available in non-fuel tanks for any chemical spraying. So you need to immediately multiply that by another 7.27 to get a realistic number - we are up to 650 or so KC-10's, not 9!!!

Perhaps you could sacrifice some fuel capacity for more chemicals. The maths is quite linear - if you double the chemical carrying acpabiity to 44 tonnes then halve the number of a/c, if you tripple it to 66 tones then divide by 1/3rd - but even then that's over 200 a/c!

Like I said - you have not actually provided the evidence you think yuo have at all!

and of course only 62 actual KC-10's were ever built....so you would either have to take them all out of service and add another 30-600-or so, or modify 90-650-ish from current DC-10/MD-11 a/c, either of which options EVERYONE in the aviation industry would notice......or alternatively order a bunch of new-build airliners of some sort to be converted - you think someone in the commercial aviation world might notice a couple of hundred "unexplained" airframes coming off Boeing or Airbus production lines?? Just maybe??

plus of course you then need to explain to everyone why they are seeing DC-10 class aircraft in their skies all over the world .......and they wil have to operate from overseas bases to get global coverage......

Some good points . . . I do have answers . . . 36 holes of golf and required honey do list . . . will give full answers later . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You should read the paper - those numbers are, as you say for 1 Tg of H2S - but the paper does not actually say HOW MUCH would be required - that is in another paper - this one...where, at lines 588-589 they note that they are actually talking about a nominal amount of 10 Tg of materials - not 1.

So straight away you need to multiply your numbers by 10 - so now you require 90 aircraft of KC-10 size.

Plus of course the figures in the article you quoet gives 160 tonnes as the KC-10 payload. this is not quite true. 160 tonnes is the KC-10 maximum FUEL capacity - and of course it will have to use at least some of that propelling itself!!

the maximum fuel on a "normal" DC-10-30 or -40 is 138 tonnes - so that is what is in the normal fuel tanks. you wouldn't be able to mix chemicals in the fuel tanks, but you might sacrifice some range and convert say the centre tank to take more chemicals.

But the basic system leaves only 22 tonnes available in non-fuel tanks for any chemical spraying. So you need to immediately multiply that by another 7.27 to get a realistic number - we are up to 650 or so KC-10's, not 9!!!

Perhaps you could sacrifice some fuel capacity for more chemicals. The maths is quite linear - if you double the chemical carrying acpabiity to 44 tonnes then halve the number of a/c, if you tripple it to 66 tones then divide by 1/3rd - but even then that's over 200 a/c!

Like I said - you have not actually provided the evidence you think yuo have at all!

and of course only 62 actual KC-10's were ever built....so you would either have to take them all out of service and add another 30-600-or so, or modify 90-650-ish from current DC-10/MD-11 a/c, either of which options EVERYONE in the aviation industry would notice......or alternatively order a bunch of new-build airliners of some sort to be converted - you think someone in the commercial aviation world might notice a couple of hundred "unexplained" airframes coming off Boeing or Airbus production lines?? Just maybe??

plus of course you then need to explain to everyone why they are seeing DC-10 class aircraft in their skies all over the world .......and they wil have to operate from overseas bases to get global coverage......


1) aircraft question . . .

I would suggest a 747 retrofit . . . there are thousands of them . . . might require 10 instead of the nine in the research . . .

Having a maximum structural payload capability of 140 metric tonnes (154 tons) and also a range of 8,130 km (4,390 nmi), the 747-8 Freighter

http://www.topspeed.com/aviation/avi...r-ar86430.html


Evergreen International Airlines, based in McMinnville, Ore., currently operates 10 747s, including one 747-400 Freighter and nine 747-200 Freighters.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2086


2) Amount of Sulfur: My Purpose is to inject the Minimum sulfur required to have an effect . . . and inject the Maximum amount that won't get me caught . . . That is, stay within the concealing (covert) background noise and clutter . . . operative word is COVERT . . .

The literature is all over the map on the issue of the amount of injected sulfur required to reverse global warming . . . based on the species of sulfur used, particle size, altitude of injection, coagulation, fall rates of wet and dry particles, etc. . . .

Note: I would inject in the lower regions of the stratosphere in the northern latitudes or sometimes in the high troposphere in the more southern latitudes where the jet stream turbulence would carry the sulfur higher . . . injection higher into the stratosphere would be more costly and be easier to detect as abnormal . . .

Bottom-line . . . I don't intend to stop global warming or reverse it . . . I just want to slow it down . . . anything else and I would be caught !!!!!

a. The following research clearly indicates that the injection of one million tons of sulfur into the atmosphere by Mount St Helen's didn't register on your trend line above . . . it took at least eight million tons from El Chichon, Mexico, in 1982 to register a significant dip . . . it is highly unlikely that the 1 to 2 Tg (see 1b below) proposed by geoengineering to mitigate warming would register significantly as well . . . so the graph above is not proof an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program does not exist as it has been used to claim . . .


"The eruption of El Chichon, Mexico, in 1982 conclusively demonstrated this idea was correct. The explosive eruption injected at least 8 Mt of sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere, and it was followed by a measureable cooling of parts of the Earth's surface and a warming of the upper atmosphere. A similar-sized eruption at Mount St. Helens in 1980, however, injected only about 1 Mt of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere. The eruption of Mount St. Helens injected much less sulfur into the atmosphere--it did not result in a noticeable cooling of the Earth's surface. The newly launched TOMS satellite (in 1978) made it possible to measure these differences in the eruption clouds. Such direct measurements of the eruption clouds combined with surface temperatures make it possible to study the corrleation between volcanic sulfur aerosols (instead of ash) and temporary changes in the world's climate after some volcanic eruptions."
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/s02aerosols.php



b. Amount needed for minimal effect . . .

ALBEDO ENHANCEMENT BY STRATOSPHERIC SULFUR INJECTIONS: A CONTRIBUTION TO RESOLVE A POLICY DILEMMA?
An Editorial Essay

http://www.cogci.dk/news/Crutzen_albedo enhancement_sulfur injections.pdf
. Thus, in order to compensate for enhanced climate warming by the removal of anthropogenic aerosol (an uncertain mean value of 1.4 W/m2, ac- cording to Crutzen and Ramanathan (2003)), a stratospheric sulfate loading of 1.9 Tg S would be required, producing an optical depth of 1.3%. This can be achieved by a continuous deployment of about 1–2 Tg S per year for a total price of US $25–50 billion, or about $25–50 per capita in the affluent world, for stratospheric residence times of 2 to 1 year, respectively.
3) ozone depletion concerns . . .

Among possible negative side effects, those on stratospheric ozone first spring to mind. Fortunately, in this case one can build on the experience with past volcanic eruptions, such as El Chicho ́n in 1982 and Mount Pinatubo in 1991, which injected 3–5 Tg S (Hofmann and Solomon, 1989) and 10 Tg S (Bluth et al., 1992), re- spectively, in the stratosphere. Local ozone destruction in the El Chicho ́n case was about 16% at 20 km altitude at mid-latitudes (Hofmann and Solomon, 1989). For Mount Pinatubo, global column ozone loss was about 2.5% (Kinnison et al., 1994). For the climate engineering experiment, in which the cooling effect of all tropo- spheric anthropogenic aerosol is removed, yielding a radiative heating of 1.4 W/m2 (Crutzen and Ramanathan, 2003), a stratospheric loading of almost 2 Tg S, and an input of 1–2 Tg S/yr is required, depending on stratospheric residence times. In this case, stratospheric sulfate injections would be 5 times less than after the Mount Pinatubo eruption, leading to much smaller production of ozone-destroying Cl and ClO radicals, whose formation depends on particle surface-catalyzed het- erogeneous reactions (Wilson, 1993). Compensating for a CO2 doubling would lead to larger ozone loss but not as large as after Mount Pinatubo. Furthermore, the amounts of stratospheric chlorine radicals, coming from past production of the chloro-fluoro-carbon gases, are now declining by international regulation, so that ozone will significantly recover by the middle of this century. If instead of SO2, elemental carbon would be injected in the stratosphere, higher temperatures might prevent the formation of polar stratospheric ice particles and thereby hinder the formation of ozone holes. This and the consequences of soot deposition on polar glaciers should be checked by model calculations.
4) Acid rain concern issue . . .

http://www.stanford.edu/~bkravitz/research/papers/aciddep/aciddepositioncorrected1.pdf
KRAVITZ ET AL.: SULFURIC ACID DEPOSITION FROM GEOENGINEERING
46 Abstract
47 We used a general circulation model of Earth’s climate to conduct geoengineering
48 experiments involving stratospheric injection of sulfur dioxide and analyzed the resulting
49 deposition of sulfate. When sulfur dioxide is injected into the tropical or Arctic stratosphere, the
50 main additional surface deposition of sulfate occurs in midlatitude bands, because of strong
51 cross-tropopause flux in the jet stream regions. We used critical load studies to determine the
52 effects of this increase in sulfate deposition on terrestrial ecosystems by assuming the upper limit
53 of hydration of all sulfate aerosols into sulfuric acid. For annual injection of 5 Tg of SO2 into the
54 tropical stratosphere or 3 Tg of SO2 into the Arctic stratosphere, the maximum additional
55 deposition that would result from geoengineering of approximately 35 mEq m-2 a-1 is not enough
56 to negatively impact all but the most poorly buffered ecosystems, such as pristine forests and
57 waterways.

5) Again . . . Bottom-line . . . I don't intend to stop global warming or reverse it . . . I just want to slow it down . . . anything else and I would be caught !!!!! Based on the above information I would choose to inject between 1-1.5 Tg of sulfur compounds in the lower stratosphere . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Spot on, MikeC!

George, you might want to have a tissue handy when you read the following report:

Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies



Also note the precautionary principle is an important theme in the paper.

Not if you choose the lowest possible tonnage to have an effect . . . see my response above . . . also, the people making the decision to act used research and data from the 1990s or before . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Because I have an answer for every question . . . LoL!!!

Unfortunately that's not a good indication of the quality of the argument. I could just as easily be arguing for Robot Cats, or Chemspots, or Unicorns, and I could have an answer for every question.

The key thing, and the thing you are missing, is to have convincing answer for every question.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Unfortunately that's not a good indication of the quality of the argument. I could just as easily be arguing for Robot Cats, or Chemspots, or Unicorns, and I could have an answer for every question.

The key thing, and the thing you are missing, is to have convincing answer for every question.

Which answer above (on this page) do you not find convincing . . . choose one and be specific . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
George certainly something like 747-800's would be able to carry more payload. But 747's are not created equal - you cannot claim it would take a number of 747-800's, and then say that there aer "thousands" of 747's around that could be used when those 747's that are "around" are not -800's.

747-200 payload/range

747-400 payload/range

747-8 payload range (on page 12 of the brochure)

As you can see from those, maximum payload can NOT be carried to maximum range, plus you still have to factor in the weight of the equipment required to store and distribute the material on board the aircraft - which I think is likely to be a considerable portion of the available payload. How much I don't know, but you will need tanks strong enough to hold it against reasonable forces, piping and pumps, probably extra power supplies to run the pumps. And all these will have to be corrosion resistant, which will probably mean stainless steel rather than lightweight materials.

alternatively you could try to keep it entirely dry (ie remove all water, not stop it from being liquid) which would prevent it from forming corrosive compounds. I have no idea what that would take.

you are proposing to use SO2 - sulphur dioxide - which is a gas. Liquid SO2 can be used - some of its characteristics are noted here - but as noted the liquid phase requires pressure to form in equilibrium with the gas phase - which means all those tanks, etc would have to be pressure vessels on top of all the other requirements - or kept at at -10 deg C or cooler and atmospheric pressure, which means insulated containers and cooling systems.

given what I do know about refrigerated and pressurised storage of liquids and gasses (strictly as a user) it would not surprise me if 2/3rds or more of the available payload was taken up with storage and handling equipment - that is just a guess on my part of course, but whatever the portion required it still has to be taken into account.


Other considerations:

-The 1% or so change in optical depth from your 1Tg injection is not so small as to be unnoticeable - you will have to inject less than that. How much less I don't know - so you'll have to figure that out, and then determine whether such smaller amount will manage to have any effect at all.

-1Tg of sulphur is not "background" - it is a measureable % increase in total atospheric sulpur injection 20-60 Mt (20-60Tg) of SOx per year (see the IPCC's Scenarios for greenhouse gasses here)

-you still have to secretly produce and distribute 1Tg (1 million tonnes) of sulphur each year somehow. That is 25,000 truckloads at 40 tons each - or about 70 trucks per day. Even spread around 4 facilities that is and average of about 18 trucks per day per facility....carrying dangerous goods. And of course the comments above about the weight of handling equipment applies to the transports as well - whether trucks or rail or anything else.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I asked a climate scientist about this, and he said any significant change in the energy balance (the radiative forcing) of a region would be noticeable from satellite images. Things like volcanoes show up. I'm not sure about the details, but something to look into.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I asked a climate scientist about this, and he said any significant change in the energy balance (the radiative forcing) of a region would be noticeable from satellite images. Things like volcanoes show up. I'm not sure about the details, but something to look into.
Seems to me a few dozen aircraft belching 150 ton of aerosols each day vectored in all different directions would appear as a persistent contrail or something similar if at all . . . the radiative forcing from a single source like a volcano would most likely show a massive plum which could be followed back to the source while ICAAIP would the cumulative effect over 12-24 months and would show a disseminated source most likely untraceable . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George certainly something like 747-800's would be able to carry more payload. But 747's are not created equal - you cannot claim it would take a number of 747-800's, and then say that there aer "thousands" of 747's around that could be used when those 747's that are "around" are not -800's.

747-200 payload/range

747-400 payload/range

747-8 payload range (on page 12 of the brochure)

As you can see from those, maximum payload can NOT be carried to maximum range, plus you still have to factor in the weight of the equipment required to store and distribute the material on board the aircraft - which I think is likely to be a considerable portion of the available payload. How much I don't know, but you will need tanks strong enough to hold it against reasonable forces, piping and pumps, probably extra power supplies to run the pumps. And all these will have to be corrosion resistant, which will probably mean stainless steel rather than lightweight materials.

alternatively you could try to keep it entirely dry (ie remove all water, not stop it from being liquid) which would prevent it from forming corrosive compounds. I have no idea what that would take.

you are proposing to use SO2 - sulphur dioxide - which is a gas. Liquid SO2 can be used - some of its characteristics are noted here - but as noted the liquid phase requires pressure to form in equilibrium with the gas phase - which means all those tanks, etc would have to be pressure vessels on top of all the other requirements - or kept at at -10 deg C or cooler and atmospheric pressure, which means insulated containers and cooling systems.

given what I do know about refrigerated and pressurised storage of liquids and gasses (strictly as a user) it would not surprise me if 2/3rds or more of the available payload was taken up with storage and handling equipment - that is just a guess on my part of course, but whatever the portion required it still has to be taken into account.


Other considerations:

-The 1% or so change in optical depth from your 1Tg injection is not so small as to be unnoticeable - you will have to inject less than that. How much less I don't know - so you'll have to figure that out, and then determine whether such smaller amount will manage to have any effect at all.

-1Tg of sulphur is not "background" - it is a measureable % increase in total atospheric sulpur injection 20-60 Mt (20-60Tg) of SOx per year (see the IPCC's Scenarios for greenhouse gasses here)

-you still have to secretly produce and distribute 1Tg (1 million tonnes) of sulphur each year somehow. That is 25,000 truckloads at 40 tons each - or about 70 trucks per day. Even spread around 4 facilities that is and average of about 18 trucks per day per facility....carrying dangerous goods. And of course the comments above about the weight of handling equipment applies to the transports as well - whether trucks or rail or anything else.

1) Some good analysis . . . however, I think there are answers to all of the above . . .
2) The comment regarding 747s has to do with the number produced . . . I am sure there are companies capable of retrofitting many of the variants . . . even if it took 20 747s as opposed to 9 this doesn't defeat the project . . . just expand to sister locations . .
3) I will address the rest later . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
-you still have to secretly produce and distribute 1Tg (1 million tonnes) of sulphur each year somehow. That is 25,000 truckloads at 40 tons each - or about 70 trucks per day. Even spread around 4 facilities that is and average of about 18 trucks per day per facility....carrying dangerous goods. And of course the comments above about the weight of handling equipment applies to the transports as well - whether trucks or rail or anything else.

Trucks need not be necessary . . . though sulfur compounds are the most common manufactured product transported in the world other than petroleum products . . . I have a quote on that but I can't find it right now . . . all of the old SAC bases had rail heads for jet fuel delivery and buried fuel lines from storage tanks . . . the basic infrastructure is there . . . needs updating I am sure . . . to protect it from corrosion and environmental leaks, etc. . . a pipeline from a refinery would not be totally out of the question either . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Seems to me a few dozen aircraft belching 150 ton of aerosols each day vectored in all different directions would appear as a persistent contrail or something similar if at all . . . the radiative forcing from a single source like a volcano would most likely show a massive plum which could be followed back to the source while ICAAIP would the cumulative effect over 12-24 months and would show a disseminated source most likely untraceable . . .

No, it would show up as a distinct region of forcing. While you could not pinpoint the base, you could identify the general area the planes were flying in. What diameter area do your calculations say the planes could cover?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No, it would show up as a distinct region of forcing. While you could not pinpoint the base, you could identify the general area the planes were flying in. What diameter area do your calculations say the planes could cover?
Using bases in northern US, Canada and Russia, utilizing polar routes for example, you could cover much of the northern hemisphere . . . remember as you empty your cargo you lose weight and extend your range . . .

Having a maximum structural payload capability of 140 metric tonnes (154 tons) and also a range of 8,130 km (4,390 nmi), the 747-8 Freighter


http://www.topspeed.com/aviation/avi...r-ar86430.html

Since the 1st prototype flew in 1969, over 1,100 Boeing 747, 'Jumbo Jets', have been produced.

Announced in 1985 & 1st flown in 1988, the 747-400, can fly 416 passengers about 8,380 miles. The 747-400 has a two-pilot digital flight deck and a new interior and is powered by stronger, more efficient engines. With its huge capacity, extended range and improved fuel efficiency, the 747-400 offers the lowest operating costs per seat of any commercial jetliner. In addition to the passenger version, the 747-400 is offered as a combi -- carrying passengers forward and cargo aft on the main deck -- as well as a domestic, high-capacity version.
http://simviation.com/rinfo747.htm
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No, it would show up as a distinct region of forcing. While you could not pinpoint the base, you could identify the general area the planes were flying in. What diameter area do your calculations say the planes could cover?

If you don't believe there is an ICAAIP why would even be looking for something you can explain away as coal burning from China, India, volcanic venting from the tropics you never accounted for before . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No, it would show up as a distinct region of forcing. While you could not pinpoint the base, you could identify the general area the planes were flying in. What diameter area do your calculations say the planes could cover?

If you don't believe there is an ICAAIP why would even be looking for something you can explain away as coal burning from China, India, volcanic venting from the tropics you never accounted for before . . .
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
Sulfur dioxide levels are decreasing over the eastern United States.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=76571
The new observations from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument confirm ground-based measurements that had shown declining sulfur dioxide levels. While scientists have previously used OMI to observe SO2 within large plumes of volcanic ash or over heavily polluted cities, this is the first time the instrument has been used to observe such subtle details.
Content from External Source
http://www.accuweather.com/en/home-garden-articles/earth-and-you/warming-hole-over-the-eastern/65338
According to Environmental Protection Agency estimates, the amount of sulfur dioxide (a precursor to sulfates) released into the atmosphere fell by 58 percent between 1980 and 2010. Satellites have confirmed the decrease; the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on the Aqua satellite observed a sharp decline in sulfates over the eastern United States between 2005 and 2010.
Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
-The 1% or so change in optical depth from your 1Tg injection is not so small as to be unnoticeable - you will have to inject less than that. How much less I don't know - so you'll have to figure that out, and then determine whether such smaller amount will manage to have any effect at all.


-1Tg of sulphur is not "background" - it is a measureable % increase in total atospheric sulpur injection 20-60 Mt (20-60Tg) of SOx per year (see the IPCC's Scenarios for greenhouse gasses here)


If you don't believe there is an ICAAIP why would even be looking for something you can explain away as coal burning from China, India, volcanic venting from the tropics you never accounted for before . . . it would occur over 12-24 months totally disseminated over a huge geographic area . . . No point sources like a volcano or even a country . . . you might detect an increase but would look for a series of potential sources . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Trucks need not be necessary . . . though sulfur compounds are the most common manufactured product transported in the world other than petroleum products . . . I have a quote on that but I can't find it right now . . . all of the old SAC bases had rail heads for jet fuel delivery and buried fuel lines from storage tanks . . . the basic infrastructure is there . . . needs updating I am sure . . . to protect it from corrosion and environmental leaks, etc. . . a pipeline from a refinery would not be totally out of the question either . . .

Yes all of those are plausible...and also highly noticeable.

And certainly ther aer companies around the world happy to make money converting aircraft......and again it would be very noticeable - in 2005 the cost of a 747-400 cargo conversion was US$15 million - I would expect this to be comparable althuogh again that is only guesswork on my part.

There were fewer than 700 747-400's made, and only another 750 or so of previous versions - many of which have been scrapped and there may be as few as 100-150 747-200's still flying - indeed even the first 747-400 to be scrapped was dismantled a few years ago now!

747 subtype production:
-100: 167
-100B: 9
-SR: 29 (short range high capacity -100's for JAL & ANA)
-SP: 45
-200: 393
-300: 81
-400: 694
-VC25: 2 (IE Airforce One)

AFAIK all other types were modified from 1 of hte airframes counted above - happy to be corrected on that point tho.

Other large a/c types:
DC-10: 386 (+60 KC-10)
MD-11: 200
767: 1027
A300: 561
A310: 255
L1011: 250
(all numbers from the various wiki pages - thay aren't secret)
and of course large numbers of all of those have been scrapped by now
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes all of those are plausible...and also highly noticeable.

And certainly ther aer companies around the world happy to make money converting aircraft......and again it would be very noticeable - in 2005 the cost of a 747-400 cargo conversion was US$15 million - I would expect this to be comparable althuogh again that is only guesswork on my part.

There were fewer than 700 747-400's made, and only another 750 or so of previous versions - many of which have been scrapped and there may be as few as 100-150 747-200's still flying - indeed even the first 747-400 to be scrapped was dismantled a few years ago now!

747 subtype production:
-100: 167
-100B: 9
-SR: 29 (short range high capacity -100's for JAL & ANA)
-SP: 45
-200: 393
-300: 81
-400: 694
-VC25: 2 (IE Airforce One)

AFAIK all other types were modified from 1 of hte airframes counted above - happy to be corrected on that point tho.

Other large a/c types:
DC-10: 386 (+60 KC-10)
MD-11: 200
767: 1027
A300: 561
A310: 255
L1011: 250
(all numbers from the various wiki pages - thay aren't secret)
and of course large numbers of all of those have been scrapped by now
Things may be noticeable if one is looking . . . can you trace every 747 decommissioned . . . ?? How did the f117 get built without our knowledge . . . do you know what has happened to every mothballed airbase in the US, Canada and Russia . . ?????
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Sulfur dioxide levels are decreasing over the eastern United States.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=76571
The new observations from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument confirm ground-based measurements that had shown declining sulfur dioxide levels. While scientists have previously used OMI to observe SO2 within large plumes of volcanic ash or over heavily polluted cities, this is the first time the instrument has been used to observe such subtle details.
Content from External Source
http://www.accuweather.com/en/home-garden-articles/earth-and-you/warming-hole-over-the-eastern/65338
According to Environmental Protection Agency estimates, the amount of sulfur dioxide (a precursor to sulfates) released into the atmosphere fell by 58 percent between 1980 and 2010. Satellites have confirmed the decrease; the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on the Aqua satellite observed a sharp decline in sulfates over the eastern United States between 2005 and 2010.
Content from External Source

1) These are surface measurements I bet, or at best tropospheric . . . NOAA has a different set of data for stratospheric particulate . . .
2) This paradox is why NOAA thinks the increase in the stratosphere has to come from China, India, and from volcanoes in the tropics . . . not the US or Europe . . .
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
1) These are surface measurements I bet, or at best tropospheric . . .

Are you suggesting stratospheric sulfates stay aloft indefinitely?

Lifespan of aerosols — Tropospheric sulfur aerosols are short lived. Delivery of particles into the lower stratosphere in the arctic will typically ensure that they remain aloft only for a few weeks or months, as air in this region is predominantly descending.
Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
As you can see from those, maximum payload can NOT be carried to maximum range, plus you still have to factor in the weight of the equipment required to store and distribute the material on board the aircraft - which I think is likely to be a considerable portion of the available payload. How much I don't know, but you will need tanks strong enough to hold it against reasonable forces, piping and pumps, probably extra power supplies to run the pumps. And all these will have to be corrosion resistant, which will probably mean stainless steel rather than lightweight materials.


alternatively you could try to keep it entirely dry (ie remove all water, not stop it from being liquid) which would prevent it from forming corrosive compounds. I have no idea what that would take.


you are proposing to use SO2 - sulphur dioxide - which is a gas. Liquid SO2 can be used - some of its characteristics are noted here - but as noted the liquid phase requires pressure to form in equilibrium with the gas phase - which means all those tanks, etc would have to be pressure vessels on top of all the other requirements - or kept at at -10 deg C or cooler and atmospheric pressure, which means insulated containers and cooling systems.





These are especially good questions . . . Throughout my readings I found very little discussed about these issues . . . until I find technical answers, it is hard to address these . . . however, the research paper giving the estimates I have used as the model for this thread . . . assumes these issues are not an impediment to their estimates . . . why I do not know; however, many other proposals likewise glance over these issues . . .


I assume they feel if the decision is made to implement such a program these issues have engineering solutions within the grasp of the interested parties . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Things may be noticeable if one is looking . . . can you trace every 747 decommissioned . . . ?? How did the f117 get built without our knowledge . . . do you know what has happened to every mothballed airbase in the US, Canada and Russia . . ?????

Yes you can trace every 747 - 747's by serial number and disposition

I guess you are not in the aviation industry, so you really have no idea about how closely every airframe is tracked by all and sundry - leasing companies are looking at how many are available flying now, or could be restored, start up airlines are looking at the economics of older aircraft all the time, and what the Brits call "Anoraks" aer hanging off eth end of runways and prowling the boneyards to get a serial nubmer in their log books.

117's were able to be built in secret because they were small, only operated out of 1 base, and only at night for years. They were manufactured in a single location where the staff were well motivated by a clear military need and I believe a degree of pride and patriotism.

I don't really care what has happened at every mothballed airbase anywhere - your conditions require the delivery of 1 milion tonnes of material to wherever it is per annum - that requires manufacture and transport and it is the manufacture and transport that will have a considerable observeable signature - just like the jets that transport of personnel into Area 51 are observable even though we have no idea what is going on in there.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I assume they feel if the decision is made to implement such a program these issues have engineering solutions within the grasp of the interested parties . . .

Absolutely - I have no doubt it is do-able technically - I question whether it is also do-able with the numbers of aircraft you claim, and in secret.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Are you suggesting stratospheric sulfates stay aloft indefinitely?

Lifespan of aerosols — Tropospheric sulfur aerosols are short lived. Delivery of particles into the lower stratosphere in the arctic will typically ensure that they remain aloft only for a few weeks or months, as air in this region is predominantly descending.
Content from External Source

No . . . I made no such claim . . . it depends on the particle size, altitude, per-existing particulate layers, prevailing air movements, etc. . . .the Arctic is not the entire northern latitudes . . .
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
No . . . I made no such claim . . .

Good. So you agree sulfates do not stay aloft indefinitely.

Any sulfates used for geoengineering must continuously be replenished because they eventually descend to lower levels of the atmosphere. Those sulfates that were introduced in the stratosphere will eventually end up on the ground. Yet NASA and EPA data shows that Sulfur Dioxide levels are decreasing over the eastern United States.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes you can trace every 747 - 747's by serial number and disposition

I guess you are not in the aviation industry, so you really have no idea about how closely every airframe is tracked by all and sundry - leasing companies are looking at how many are available flying now, or could be restored, start up airlines are looking at the economics of older aircraft all the time, and what the Brits call "Anoraks" aer hanging off eth end of runways and prowling the boneyards to get a serial nubmer in their log books.

117's were able to be built in secret because they were small, only operated out of 1 base, and only at night for years. They were manufactured in a single location where the staff were well motivated by a clear military need and I believe a degree of pride and patriotism.

I don't really care what has happened at every mothballed airbase anywhere - your conditions require the delivery of 1 milion tonnes of material to wherever it is per annum - that requires manufacture and transport and it is the manufacture and transport that will have a considerable observeable signature - just like the jets that transport of personnel into Area 51 are observable even though we have no idea what is going on in there.
In almost every case above it would require a large corp of individuals dedicated to uncovering these operations . . . but with a highly trained and motivated group of people, with almost unlimited budget, experts at every level including security experts, and people who possibly worked on the F117 and Area 51 . . . I think they could pull it off . . . especially if the people believed they were saving the world . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Perhaps they could - but you've glossed over a lot of differences - your plan is for a/c flying 3 times a day 300 days a year, for years on end, in a controlled airspace environment (the arctic is criss-crossed with routes) - not for test flights at night only in a restricted airspace.

Your plan also calls for modification of existing airframes that people know about, or the manufacture of new airframes in facilities that are well known.

your plan calls for the secret manufacture and transportation of 1 million tons of material in addition to everything else - something the F-117 programme, for example, never had to worry about.

Having worked in Area 51 or on the 117 would be pretty much irrelevant to anything to do with this plan, except for acceptance of a need for security.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Good. So you agree sulfates do not stay aloft indefinitely.

Any sulfates used for geoengineering must continuously be replenished because they eventually descend to lower levels of the atmosphere. Those sulfates that were introduced in the stratosphere will eventually end up on the ground. Yet NASA and EPA data shows that Sulfur Dioxide levels are decreasing over the eastern United States.
So can you prove the existing measured sulfur does not include those injected by normal air traffic or particulate from ICAAIP . . . what has origins from the stratosphere or from ground sources or the troposphere . . . maybe the measured rates would have been even lower if it had not been for ICAAIP . . . still this does not negate NOAA's conclusion that stratospheric particulate has increased in the last decade . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Perhaps they could - but you've glossed over a lot of differences - your plan is for a/c flying 3 times a day 300 days a year, for years on end, in a controlled airspace environment (the arctic is criss-crossed with routes) - not for test flights at night only in a restricted airspace.

Your plan also calls for modification of existing airframes that people know about, or the manufacture of new airframes in facilities that are well known.

your plan calls for the secret manufacture and transportation of 1 million tons of material in addition to everything else - something the F-117 programme, for example, never had to worry about.

Having worked in Area 51 or on the 117 would be pretty much irrelevant to anything to do with this plan, except for acceptance of a need for security.
There are precedents for all of this . . . including the original Manhattan Project and the aerial dispersal of zinc cadmium sulfide over the US Midwest and parts of Canada in the 1960s . . . the reason these could happen in secrecy is because no one was looking and those involved felt it was for the greater good and there were severe penalties if they talked . . .

By-the-way, military aircraft or those designated such fly in restricted airspace . . .
 
Top