Misrepresented: Stanford, NASA say perpetual sky-haze slows wind, cuts rainfall

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
In this video, David Tulis claims that a Stanford/NASA study on atmospheric aerosols, stating that they reduce wind speeds and rainfall, is related to geoengineering:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/55333712/highlight/574597

http://nooganomics.com/2014/11/stanford-nasa-say-perpetual-sky-haze-slows-wind-cuts-rainfall/

At 0:38:

[bunk]The Stanford study says that... geoengineering... it doesn't say this, but it lets you to understand this... that geoengineering, especially when material is deposited in the atmosphere, changes the weather.[/bunk]

As he acknowledges (but ignores), the study doesn't say that at all, and does not mention geoengineering anywhere.

The report the video references is this, from December 2006: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/january24/slowwind-012407.html

Tulis is trying to link this to "geoengineering", or "sky striping", as he seems to believe that this is the only place that aerosols can be coming from.

At 2.55:

[bunk]Aerosol accumulation - what is that? What is aerosol accumulation? Mount Pinatubo went off 20 years ago, right, in 1992, I think, in the Philippines. We don't have aerosols being pumped into the air that I know of - except, well...[/bunk]

At 5:14:

[bunk]What's really absent in this story is where do these particles come from? We're not told. And the fact that this is a mystery is just intriguing.[/bunk]

He then goes on to try to link it to metal particles - the usual suspects of aluminium, strontium and barium.

In fact, if you look at the full paper, rather than the press release that made the news, the types of aerosols we are talking about are identified:


The model was first run for February and August
1999 with and without emission of anthropogenic aerosol
particle and precursor gases (AAPPG) in the SCAB domain.
Precursor gases removed included anthropogenic SOx, NOx,
NH3, and speciated organics gases
, but not CO2, CH4,
N2O, or CFCs. Particle emissions removed included black
and organic carbon, sulfate, and nitrate.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL027838/full

In other words, standard pollutants from burning fossil fuels. No mention whatsoever of geoengineering or metal "nanoparticles".
Content from External Source
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
The Stanford study says that... geoengineering... it doesn't say this, but it lets you to understand this... that geoengineering, especially when material is deposited in the atmosphere, changes the weather.
C'mon, TB! That's a pretty great line:
..."it doesn't say this, but it lets you to understand this..."

Fortunately this allows some vital wiggle room.
For instance, a People Magazine interview with Halle Berry probably means
"Halle Berry thinks NoParty is the hottest man in America, and vows to seduce him!"
Now, it doesn't say this, but it lets you to understand this... :D
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
C'mon, TB! That's a pretty great line:
..."it doesn't say this, but it lets you to understand this..."

I know, the brazenness of that line impressed me too! A nice illustration of "joining the dots" and coming up with a totally different picture to the one intended.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.

The model was first run for February and August
1999 with and without emission of anthropogenic aerosol
particle and precursor gases (AAPPG) in the SCAB domain.
Precursor gases removed included anthropogenic SOx, NOx,
NH3, and speciated organics gases
, but not CO2, CH4,
N2O, or CFCs. Particle emissions removed included black
and organic carbon, sulfate, and nitrate.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL027838/full

In other words, standard pollutants from burning fossil fuels. No mention whatsoever of geoengineering or metal "nanoparticles".
Content from External Source
your summation got stuck in your external quote. and remember that most readers wont click on links, so I think quotes -like the very first paragraph from the press release- help people grasp the debunk with less research work. ; )

But aerosolized particles created from vehicle exhaust and other contaminants can accumulate in the atmosphere and reduce the speed of winds closer to the Earth's surface
Content from External Source

and the recommendation on that press release that reiterates the sources of these aerosols/particulates (manmade pollution):

"The aerosol pollution in California could be causing an annual loss of water supply equivalent to the storage in the planned upper San Joaquin River dam, with a capacity of 1.3 million acre feet," Jacobson says.

Jacobson advocates replacing existing motor vehicles with cleaner ones, such as renewable-energy powered battery-electric and hydrogen-fueled vehicles, and substituting contaminating power plants with networked wind farms. These actions would reduce particle emissions practically to zero, he says. The second-best option would be adding particle traps to existing vehicles and other sources of pollution.
Content from External Source
I think the study press release is pretty clear on where the 'aerosols' are coming from. This Tulis guy is seriously spinning his source!
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
I am not sure whether this is the right thread or not, but in the today's issue of Nature there is a link to a recent article claiming an opposite effect of air pollution:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7558/pdf/523008a.pdf
Screen shot 2015-07-02 at 14.37.55.png

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064479/abstract

Substantial Contribution of Anthropogenic Air Pollution to Catastrophic Floods in Southwest China
Abstract

Extreme weather events have become more frequent and are likely linked to increases in greenhouse gases and aerosols, which alter the Earth's radiative balance and cloud processes. On 8–9 July 2013, a catastrophic flood devastated the mountainous area to the northwest of the Sichuan Basin. Atmospheric simulations at a convection-permitting scale with aerosols and chemistry included show that heavy air pollution trapped in the basin significantly enhances the rainfall intensity over the mountainous areas through “aerosol-enhanced conditional instability”. That is, aerosols suppress convection by absorbing solar radiation and increasing atmospheric stability in the basin during daytime. This allows excess moist air to be transported to the mountainous areas and orographically lifted, generating strong convection and extremely heavy precipitation at night. We show that reducing pollution in the Sichuan Basin can effectively mitigate floods. It is suggested that coupling aerosol with meteorology can be crucial to improve weather forecast in polluted regions.

Content from External Source
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
I am not sure whether this is the right thread or not, but in the today's issue of Nature there is a link to a recent article claiming an opposite effect of air pollution:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7558/pdf/523008a.pdf
Screen shot 2015-07-02 at 14.37.55.png

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064479/abstract

Substantial Contribution of Anthropogenic Air Pollution to Catastrophic Floods in Southwest China
Abstract

Extreme weather events have become more frequent and are likely linked to increases in greenhouse gases and aerosols, which alter the Earth's radiative balance and cloud processes. On 8–9 July 2013, a catastrophic flood devastated the mountainous area to the northwest of the Sichuan Basin. Atmospheric simulations at a convection-permitting scale with aerosols and chemistry included show that heavy air pollution trapped in the basin significantly enhances the rainfall intensity over the mountainous areas through “aerosol-enhanced conditional instability”. That is, aerosols suppress convection by absorbing solar radiation and increasing atmospheric stability in the basin during daytime. This allows excess moist air to be transported to the mountainous areas and orographically lifted, generating strong convection and extremely heavy precipitation at night. We show that reducing pollution in the Sichuan Basin can effectively mitigate floods. It is suggested that coupling aerosol with meteorology can be crucial to improve weather forecast in polluted regions.

Content from External Source

Dual effect. The air pollution is reducing rainfall in one area by suppressing the convective processes that would cause the water vapor to condense and rain out. Then when that air that is holding more moisture than it would without pollution is advected over mountains that lift it, the moisture condenses out and you get extra rain.
 
Top