What can civil aviation do to save the planet?

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What can civil aviation do to save the planet??


1) Does the planet need saving . . .?


2) What does it need saving from. . . ?


3) How can it be used to accomplish the task . . . saving the planet?


------
1) Does the planet need saving . . .?
Answer: Yes, I think this answer is fairly easy . . . most scientists and informed people believe the planet is moving toward eventual environmental catastrophe unless something changes.


2) What does it need saving from. . . ?
Answer: Sudden climate change, Toxicity, and/or degradation of natural shields that protect the earth from external harm.


3) How can it be used to accomplish the task . . . saving the planet?
Answer: Civil Aviation being the largest segment of aviation can accomplish intervention within the atmosphere probably faster than any other entity based simply on numbers and frequency of opportunity.

Qantas Boeing 747-400 VH-OJU over Starbeyevo Kustov.jpg

 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Let's start with a few basics . . . Greenhouse gases. . . one of the major components of the assumed problems . . .

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So the amounts, distribution, and ratios of the above gases are thought to be critical in the temperature regulation of our planet along with two other main factors . . . External radiation and tectonic heat . . . since we have little chance to control tectonic heat sources we can concentrate on external radiation and greenhouse gases . . . Both of which are within the manipulation or influence of the atmosphere where civil aviation is at its best.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
To manipulate the heat retained inside the biosphere/lower atmosphere or keeping the heat from being transferred into the biosphere from the sun is the key to averting potential disaster . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What can civil aviation do to save the planet??



2) What does it need saving from. . . ?
Answer: Sudden climate change, Toxicity, and/or degradation of natural shields that protect the earth from external harm.

Toxicity

Degradation of natural shields

Sudden Climate change

 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
3) How can it be used to accomplish the task . . . saving the planet?
Answer: Civil Aviation being the largest segment of aviation can accomplish intervention within the atmosphere probably faster than any other entity based simply on numbers and frequency of opportunity.

Several schemes have been proposed to use the emissions from civil aviation aircraft or the use of the aircraft as a platform to inject different aerosols into the atmosphere . . . troposphere and/or stratosphere . . .

QUESTION: Are these schemes possible, reasonable and would they be effective?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
QUESTION: Are these schemes possible, reasonable and would they be effective?

The most written about mitigation schemes with cost analysis completed are schemes to inject Sulfur Compounds into the lower Stratosphere . . . the amounts of Sulfur Compounds range from a low of one (1) Tg (one million metric tons) to a higher amount of around seven (7) Tg(s) per year. . . this is thought to slow, halt, or reverse global warming basically counteracting the amount of increased CO2 expected to be added to the atmosphere in the coming years . . . in almost every case civilian and military aircraft are suggested as one if not the only rational way to accomplish this injection process . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
One scheme which is not talked about much . . . it doesn't use Sulfur Compounds nor does it use injection into the stratosphere is the following . . . it uses a type of high tropospheric cloud seeding to reduce cirrus clouds and thus reduce the amount of heat retained or reflected back into the lower atmosphere . . .

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There are basically three suggested methods to inject aerosols into the atmosphere via commercial aviation . . .

1) As a fuel additive
2) Through a dedicated spraying system . . . removed from any contact with the engines
3) Through introduction of the aerosols into the post-combustion exhaust stream . . .

NOTE: On first glance . . . 2 and 3 require expensive retrofitting of the aircraft or full time employment of the aircraft for such dedicated purposes . . . thus would not be the best and easiest use of civil aviation to save the planet . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Why Sulfur Compounds and Why the Stratosphere . . . ???

Answer: Because nature has already shown mankind how to do it . . . injecting 20 Tg of Sulfur Compounds into the stratosphere in 1991 . . . which was measurable in Optical Density and Temperature reductions worldwide . . .


 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
A consideration of the use of civil aviation for geoengineering purposes is the visibility of existing jet emissions and the possibility of increased visibility of any aerosol injection process . . . the desire is to increase the loss of just enough long wave (infrared) heat energy from the lower atmosphere as well as to possibly reflect some short wave radiation from entering the lower atmosphere to begin with . . .

1) Pre-existing issues already abound regarding persistent contrails and contrails induced cirrus cloud banks which are identified by some Conspiracy Advocates as Chemtrails . . .
2) Engine efficiencies may be altered as a result of fuel additives . . . increasing operational costs . . .
3) The need to fly at higher altitudes to enhance geoengineering results could increase operational costs . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
A significant question is does the Radiative Forcing of (visible) persistent contrails and the contrail induced cirrus increase, decrease, or have mixed impact on reducing global warming . . . .


 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I am so confused . . . so contrails can increase global warming but can cool the stratosphere (not necessarily contradictory) . . . but can cool or warm the troposphere at night and warm or cool it during the day . . . ????

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems the research indicates CIC . . . Contrail Induced Cloudiness increases global warming . . . .

http://spie.org/x57653.xml

 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems the answer to . . . do persistent contrails increase global warming? . . . looks like . . . YES . . . however, now comes the following . . .

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Add to the mix the following . . . persistent contrails seem to narrow the range of the Diurnal Temperature Range . . . thus they increase warming at night and decrease warming during the day . . .

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
My bottom-line conclusion regarding visible persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus cloud banks is . . . (on a global geoengineering scale) they (persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus cloud banks) generally increase the retention of long wave heat energy in the troposphere . . . and thus contribute to global warming . . . however, on a local scale . . . say over a city, they may decrease high temperatures during the day and increase temperatures during the night . . . or narrow the (DTR) Diurnal Temperature Range . . .


1) Any effort to reduce the rate of climate change would need to include the mitigation of persistent contrails and the contrail induced cirrus clouds . . .

2) Reduce greenhouse gases in general

3) and use some strategy to reduce heat energy from coming into the Troposphere . . . which always turns to creating a man-made volcano . . .

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1) What can they do today is simple really . . . Practice contrail avoidance . . . there is much research available on this subject . . . the small amount of fuel burned to accomplish this practice would be well worth the effort . . . according to some research. . .

2) Fly (cruise) above the Tropopause . . . the air is dryer, warmer, and less turbulent . . . than below the Tropopause . . .

3) This next one is not a sure thing, there is some controversy, but burn sulfur laced fuel while in the stratosphere . . . could possibly be accomplished via designated fuel tanks . . .
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
Aren't there blog sites for this? You've been talking to yourself for over 8 hrs.... I hope my reply doesn't encourage you....
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Aren't there blog sites for this? You've been talking to yourself for over 8 hrs.... I hope my reply doesn't encourage you....
Not at all . . . I can't believe someone has not challenged something I have posted . . . am I correct in everything so far and can't be debunked ???
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Not at all . . . I can't believe someone has not challenged something I have posted . . . am I correct in everything so far and can't be debunked ???
No.

You may cool yourself by allowing sulfurized fuel, but you wouldn't survive the deforestation and ocean acidity.

You might ask why you worry about 1/30th of the real problem and not the other 29/30ths, as aviation only comprises 3.5% of the fossil fuel problem.

Aviation uses the most efficient combustors the world has ever seen. The problem anywhere else is very much worse.

It would be better to ask why so much of the energy is thrown away in EVERY other situation you care to mention. Starting with insulation, heat recovery, and heat management.

Aviation is the LAST place to look.

The heat produced by burning carbon is TWENTY TIMES LESS than the heat conserved later by the ensuing CO2 (from that consumption) in the atmosphere. And we're burning 12Bn tons annually?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No.

You may cool yourself by allowing sulfurized fuel, but you wouldn't survive the deforestation and ocean acidity.

You might ask why you worry about 1/30th of the real problem and not the other 29/30ths, as aviation only comprises 3.5% of the fossil fuel problem.

Aviation uses the most efficient combustors the world has ever seen. The problem anywhere else is very much worse.

It would be better to ask why so much of the energy is thrown away in EVERY other situation you care to mention. Starting with insulation, heat recovery, and heat management.

Aviation is the LAST place to look.

The heat produced by burning carbon is TWENTY TIMES LESS than the heat conserved later by the ensuing CO2 (from that consumption) in the atmosphere. And we're burning 12Bn tons annually?
You misunderstood the entire primse of the thread . . . could commercial aviation help save the world from global warming . . . not what level of global warming they contribute . . . research indicates that they (commercial aviation) may be the only rational alternative to a world unable to limit fossil fuel use . . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
You misunderstood the entire primse of the thread . . . could commercial aviation help save the world from global warming . . . not what level of global warming they contribute . . . research indicates that they (commercial aviation) may be the only rational alternative to a world unable to limit fossil fuel use . . .
I don't think so.

Salter's salt-spray trimarans working in the southern oceans can achieve the raising of Earth's albedo without removing blue skies or adding to atmospheric CO2 in any way, and the twentyfold penalty is avoided.

Pumping more oxides of carbon and sulfur into the atmosphere will only speed the approach of disaster. If you wish it delayed, then you must stop the pump. Or at least slow it.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1) I agree there are several schemes proposed . . . however, the only method with historical success in short order to slow global warming is the injection of sulfur compounds into the stratosphere . . . volcanoes being the model . .

2) Commercial aviation is the only ready made tool with the capacity and availability to accomplish such a mission . .

3) A review of the literature and Geoengineering Symposium indicates sulfur injection as the most discussed alternative . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, its not that you can't be debunked.
I realize almost anything can be debunked . . . I was trying to get some comments on the premise I was proposing . . . I concluded It was either uninteresting or it was basically correct in content . . . or somewhere in between . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
1) I agree there are several schemes proposed . . . however, the only method with historical success in short order to slow global warming is the injection of sulfur compounds into the stratosphere . . . volcanoes being the model . .

2) Commercial aviation is the only ready made tool with the capacity and availability to accomplish such a mission . .

3) A review of the literature and Geoengineering Symposium indicates sulfur injection as the most discussed alternative . .

You should read the Geoengineering Google Group. All the best geoengineering researchers go there to discuss geoengineering. There's lots of different topics discussed. Biochar is discussed just as much as sulphur. When sulfur is discussed there are MANY different techniques of injection discussed.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!forum/geoengineering

And none of them seem to think it's currently going on.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You should read the Geoengineering Google Group. All the best geoengineering researchers go there to discuss geoengineering. There's lots of different topics discussed. Biochar is discussed just as much as sulphur. When sulfur is discussed there are MANY different techniques of injection discussed.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!forum/geoengineering

And none of them seem to think it's currently going on.
Reforestation and Biochar may be preferred methods of CO2 sequestering and long term mediation of global warming . . . I still stand by sulfur injection as the most published and studied short term solution . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Reforestation and Biochar may be preferred methods of CO2 sequestering and long term mediation of global warming . . . I still stand by sulfur injection as the most published and studied short term solution . . .

Want to put some numbers on that "the most" quantifier? The most by how much? What's second and third?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Want to put some numbers on that "the most" quantifier? The most by how much? What's second and third?
My estimates are based upon my personal review of papers and scientific meetings available online for short term solutions . . . hardly scientific . . . I would guess if you included the Chemtrail advocate group the choice would be metallic aerosols as in aluminum, barium, strontium, bismuth, etc. . . second in the scientific county would be ocean derived water vapor and then metallic aerosols on the high stratosphere . . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I agree there are several schemes proposed
I am only proposing that particular one. No schemes requiring POWER make any sense at all.

however, the only method with historical success in short order to slow global warming is the injection of sulfur compounds into the stratosphere . . . volcanoes being the model
Sulfur dioxide soon interacts with oxygen and water in the atmosphere to make sulfuric acid. It does so more or less as you breathe it in. Have you ever stood near the top of a volcano? Unless it subsided many thousands of years previously, you will find the experience quite horrible, compounded as it is by altitude and the lowering of oxygen pressure.
Your body is very sensitive to poisons (4bn yrs practice). Trees and ocean invertebrates agree with your body.

Commercial aviation is the only ready made tool with the capacity and availability to accomplish such a mission.
No. You might just as well pour the acid into the ocean. At least that way you won't be creating CO2 by lifting your SO2 into the stratosphere. The trees will thank you.

A review of the literature and Geoengineering Symposium indicates sulfur injection as the most discussed alternative . .
And so might they.

There is absolutely no point in killing the forests and ocean phytoplankton in order to remain cool. Without them you are DONE anyway.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No. You might just as well pour the acid into the ocean. At least that way you won't be creating CO2 by lifting your SO2 into the stratosphere. The trees will thank you.


And so might they.

There is absolutely no point in killing the forests and ocean phytoplankton in order to remain cool. Without them you are DONE anyway.
It is not a slam dunk on acidification . . . stratospheric sulfur injection is a temporary emergency effort not a long term fix . . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
(Quoting) aerosol geoengineering may actually slightly reduce the rate of ocean acidification due to increased terrestrial carbon uptake, but more study is needed. Even with geoengineering, however, ocean acidification is a serious threat to ocean life.
I cannot see how killing photosynthesizers can possibly increase carbon uptake. Also extra atmospheric SO2 is BOUND to release extra CO2 from exposed carbonates on the land surface.

Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide increases ocean acidity by forced dissolution into the oceans*, while increasing the solar heat energy retained by the atmosphere by 2000% of the heat energy generated by the combustion of carbon to make it.

* There's a tipping point here where further ocean heating DRIVES OUT the CO2 from the oceans. We won't have any interests remaining by then...
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I cannot see how killing photosynthesizers can possibly increase carbon uptake. Also extra atmospheric SO2 is BOUND to release extra CO2 from exposed carbonates on the land surface.

Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide increases ocean acidity by forced dissolution into the oceans*, while increasing the solar heat energy retained by the atmosphere by 2000% of the heat energy generated by the combustion of carbon to make it.

* There's a tipping point here where further ocean heating DRIVES OUT the CO2 from the oceans. We won't have any interests remaining by then...

The world has been down this road several times . . . for example in 1991 with 20 Million Tons of SO2 injected into the stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo . . . If engineered properly sulfur injection would be 5 to 10 times less than was experienced in 1991 and could be halted anytime side effects were suspected to become unacceptable . . . we would simply be mimicking nature . . .
 

Attilashrugs

New Member
I disagree with the concept in general. GHG's are not causing Climate Warming. The entire meme is based on the will to rationalize a global centralized economic authority. 666.
The antarctic ice sheets have grown. Therefore the events of the Northern Hemisphere are not Global. The climate data available is far too small to posit any abnormality in the constant fluctuation of the climate. And, even if it were certain that there was warming, the documented decrease of Mars' polar ice would indicate a solar cause.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
According to this research just using existing commercial aircraft and increasing sulfur content of jet fuel ten fold would not be effective in reducing global warming . . . however, it didn't say using them for some dedicated injection would not work . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
that is because using commercial flights for "direct injection" was not being discussed - they have this quaint idea that when discussing a particular topic it is is reasonable to stay on that topic and not stray off it.

Using "commercial aircraft" (by aer implicitly civilian aircraft on regualr commercial flights from the context) to "direct inject" is a completely different question because that woudl then require carrying a payload - which would reduce the amount offuel and/or other commercial freight being carried, and would come at a direct cost rather than being able to be carried and processed "just" through fuel and engines - modification of the aircraft to "spray", including cariage of the agent and distribution systems, ground systems to handle it, and loss of revenue from othe freight and passenger income.

The operational characteristics of the aircraft would remain teh same, and so the limitations noted for flight paths would remain exactly the same - they could not fly high enough to be in the stratosphere except in polar regions.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
that is because using commercial flights for "direct injection" was not being discussed - they have this quaint idea that when discussing a particular topic it is is reasonable to stay on that topic and not stray off it.

Using "commercial aircraft" (by aer implicitly civilian aircraft on regualr commercial flights from the context) to "direct inject" is a completely different question because that woudl then require carrying a payload - which would reduce the amount offuel and/or other commercial freight being carried, and would come at a direct cost rather than being able to be carried and processed "just" through fuel and engines - modification of the aircraft to "spray", including cariage of the agent and distribution systems, ground systems to handle it, and loss of revenue from othe freight and passenger income.

The operational characteristics of the aircraft would remain teh same, and so the limitations noted for flight paths would remain exactly the same - they could not fly high enough to be in the stratosphere except in polar regions.
The comment made in context of the Thread not just this specific research . . .

 
Top