What can civil aviation do to save the planet?

[George B]

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

 

[George B]

Let's start with a few basics . . . Greenhouse gases. . . one of the major components of the assumed problems . . .

A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. In the Solar System, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars, and Titan also contain gases that cause greenhouse effects. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 °C (59 °F)[note 1] colder than at present.[2][3][4]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

 

[George B]

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]

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]

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

Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2​) from the atmosphere.[1]​ About 30-40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into the oceans, rivers and lakes [2]​[3]​. To maintain chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules split up to give a carbonate ion and two hydrogen ions, thus increasing the ocean's "acidity" (H+​ ion concentration). This increasing acidity is thought to have a range of direct undesirable consequences such as depressing metabolic rates in jumbo squid[4]​ and depressing the immune responses of blue mussels[5]​. (These chemical reactions also happen in the atmosphere, and as about 20% of anthropogenic CO2​ emissions are absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere[3]​, also in the ground soils between absorbed CO2​ and soil moisture. Thus anthropogenic CO2​ emissions to the atmosphere can increase the acidity of land, sea and air.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Degradation of natural shields

Ozone depletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Ozone depleting chemical)
Jump to: navigation, search






[Broken External Image]:[URL]http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.20wmf12/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png[/URL]
Image of the largest Antarctic ozone hole ever recorded (September 2006), over the Southern pole



Ozone depletion describes two distinct but related phenomena observed since the late 1970s: a steady decline of about 4% per decade in the total volume of ozone in Earth's stratosphere (the ozone layer), and a much larger springtime decrease in stratospheric ozone over Earth's polar regions. The latter phenomenon is referred to as the ozone hole. In addition to these well-known stratospheric phenomena, there are also springtime polar tropospheric ozone depletion events.
The details of polar ozone hole formation differ from that of mid-latitude thinning, but the most important process in both is catalytic destruction of ozone by atomic halogens.[1]​ The main source of these halogen atoms in the stratosphere is photodissociation of man-made halocarbon refrigerants (CFCs, freons, halons). These compounds are transported into the stratosphere after being emitted at the surface. [2]​ Both types of ozone depletion were observed to increase as emissions of halo-carbons increased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depleting_chemical#Chemicals_in_the_atmosphere

Sudden Climate change

Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in average weather conditions, or in the distribution of weather around the average conditions (i.e., more or fewer extreme weather events). Climate change is caused by factors that include oceanic processes (such as oceanic circulation), variations in solar radiation received by Earth, plate tectonics and volcanic eruptions, and human-induced alterations of the natural world; these latter effects are currently causing global warming, and "climate change" is often used to describe human-specific impacts.
Scientists actively work to understand past and future climate by using observations and theoretical models. Borehole temperature profiles, ice cores, floral and faunal records, glacial and periglacial processes, stable isotope and other sediment analyses, and sea level records serve to provide a climate record that spans the geologic past. More recent data are provided by the instrumental record. Physically based general circulation models are often used in theoretical approaches to match past climate data, make future projections, and link causes and effects in climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

 

[George B]

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]

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]

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 . . .

Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming

David L Mitchell and William Finnegan
Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV 89512-1095, USA
E-mail: david.mitchell@dri.edu
Received 1 April 2009
Accepted 12 August 2009
Published 30 October 2009

Abstract. Greenhouse gases and cirrus clouds regulate outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and cirrus cloud coverage is predicted to be sensitive to the ice fall speed which depends on ice crystal size. The higher the cirrus, the greater their impact is on OLR. Thus by changing ice crystal size in the coldest cirrus, OLR and climate might be modified. Fortunately the coldest cirrus have the highest ice supersaturation due to the dominance of homogeneous freezing nucleation. Seeding such cirrus with very efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei should produce larger ice crystals due to vapor competition effects, thus increasing OLR and surface cooling. Preliminary estimates of this global net cloud forcing are more negative than–2.8 W m–2​ and could neutralize the radiative forcing due to a CO2​ doubling (3.7 W m–2​). A potential delivery mechanism for the seeding material is already in place: the airline industry. Since seeding aerosol residence times in the troposphere are relatively short, the climate might return to its normal state within months after stopping the geoengineering experiment. The main known drawback to this approach is that it would not stop ocean acidification. It does not have many of the drawbacks that stratospheric injection of sulfur species has.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102/fulltext/

 

[George B]

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]

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 . . .

Mount Pinatubo is an active stratovolcano located on the island of Luzon, near the tripoint of the Philippine provinces of Zambales, Tarlac, and Pampanga.[3]​ It is located in the Cabusilan Mountains[3]​[4]​ separating the west coast of Luzon from the central plains. Before the volcanic activities of 1991, its eruptive history was unknown to most people. It was heavily eroded, inconspicuous and obscured from view. It was covered with dense forest which supported a population of several thousand indigenous people, the Aetas, who fled to the mountains during the Spanish conquest of the Philippines.

The effects of the eruption were felt worldwide. It ejected roughly 10,000,000,000 tonnes (1.1×1010​ short tons) or 10 km3​ (2.4 cu mi) of magma, and 20,000,000 t (22,000,000 short tons) SO2​, bringing vast quantities of minerals and metals to the surface environment. It injected large amounts of aerosol into the stratosphere – more than any eruption since that of Krakatoa in 1883. Over the following months, the aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C (0.900 °F), and ozone depletion temporarily increased substantially.[7]​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinatubo

 

[George B]

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]

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 . . . .

Some cloud types, like low, thick stratus clouds, are very good in blocking the sun but do little to trap heat, while others, like high thin cirrus clouds, let most of the sunlight in but prevent large amounts of heat from escaping into space. During nightime, when there is no sunlight available to reflect, all clouds are a warming influence on the planet.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/tselioudis_01/

Total climate effects
In attempting to aggregate and quantify the total climate impact of aircraft emissions the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that aviation's total climate impact is some 2-4 times that of its direct CO2​ emissions alone (excluding the potential impact of cirrus cloud enhancement).[9]​ This is measured as radiative forcing. While there is uncertainty about the exact level of impact of NOx​ and water vapour, governments have accepted the broad scientific view that they do have an effect. Globally in 2005, aviation contributed "possibly as much as 4.9% of radiative forcing."[16]​ UK government policy statements have stressed the need for aviation to address its total climate change impacts and not simply the impact of CO2​.[18]​
The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change, a figure which includes both CO2​ and non-CO2​ induced effects. The IPCC has produced scenarios estimating what this figure could be in 2050. The central case estimate is that aviation's contribution could grow to 5% of the total contribution by 2050 if action is not taken to tackle these emissions, though the highest scenario is 15%.[9]​ Moreover, if other industries achieve significant cuts in their own greenhouse gas emissions, aviation's share as a proportion of the remaining emissions could also rise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation

Radiative forcing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In climate science, radiative forcing is generally defined as the change in net irradiance between different layers of the atmosphere. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square meter. A positive forcing (more incoming energy) tends to warm the system, while a negative forcing (more outgoing energy) tends to cool it. Sources of radiative forcing include changes in insolation (incident solar radiation) and in concentrations of radiatively active gases and aerosols.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Aviation and the Global Atmosphere

Positive RF leads to global warming. Yet climate does not change uniformly; some regions warm or cool more than others; and mean temperature does not describe vital aspects of climate change such as droughts and severe storms. Aviation's impacts via O[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] and contrails occur predominantly in northern mid-latitudes and the upper troposphere, leading potentially to climate change of a different nature than that from CO2. Nevertheless, we follow the scientific basis for RF from IPCC's Second Assessment Report and take summed RF as a first-order measure of global mean climate change.
Projection of subsonic fleet growth to 2015 (NASA-2015* scenario) results in a best estimate for total aircraft-induced radiative forcing of +0.11 W m[SIZE=-1]-2[/SIZE] in 2015-about 5% of IS92a projected radiative forcing from all anthropogenic emissions that year.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=64

 

[George B]

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 . . . ????

1. Introduction Contrails are aircraft-induced cirrus clouds that may contribute to global warming (Minnis et al. 1999; Fahey et al. 1999; Burkhardt and Kärcher 2011). At high ambient humidity, contrails develop into contrail cirrus with properties similar to thin natural cirrus (Schumann 2002). Such contrails warm the Earth system during night, but may cool during day, in particular for large solar zenith angles (SZA), small particles, and particle habits with strong sideward scattering (Meerkötter et al. 1999; Myhre and Stordal 2001). Contrails tend to cool over dark and cold surfaces and tend to warm over bright and warm surfaces (Meerkötter et al. 1999). Contrails are often optically thin with optical depth (at 550 nm) of about 0.01-0.5 (Voigt et al. 2011). Thin cirrus in general tends to warm while, during daytime, thick cirrus tend to cool. Contrails may form above or below other clouds and are often associated with, or embedded in, thin cirrus (Sassen 1997; Immler et al. 2008). Ice particles in young contrails are typically small (1- 20 mm), and smaller than typical cirrus particles (Sassen 1997; Schumann 2002). Ice particles in contrails are nonspherical. The shape or habit of cirrus crystals varies in a not-well-known manner (Freudenthaler et al. 1996; Yang et al. 2010). Ice particles in young contrails are frozen droplets that may be described as droxtals (Roth and Frohn 1998). Droxtals differ from spheres in their scattering phase functions (Yang et al. 2003). With increasing age, the shape and size of contrail particles may approach that of natural cirrus. All these properties make simple radiation estimates difficult.
http://technews.tmcnet.com/news/2012/08/09/6498825.htm

Contrails induce a small radiative cooling in the stratosphere (Meerkötter et al. 1999), causing only small differences between instantaneous and adjusted RF for contrails (Myhre and Stordal 2001; Marquart 2003; Hansen et al. 2005; Ponater et al. 2006). Although individual contrails differ from plane-parallel cloud layers (Schultz 1998; Gounou and Hogan 2007), contrails contribute most to RF when being long lasting, in which case they become rather wide.

 

[George B]

Seems the research indicates CIC . . . Contrail Induced Cloudiness increases global warming . . . .

http://spie.org/x57653.xml

Global radiative forcing from contrail-induced cloudiness





Ulrike Burkhardt and Bernd Kärcher
Climate model simulations, evaluated using remote sensing data, estimate the net radiative imbalance of the atmosphere due to aircraft condensation trails and their effects.

3 November 2011, SPIE Newsroom. DOI: 10.1117/2.1201110.003764


Figure 1. Radiative forcing in the year 2002 from contrail-induced cloudiness (CIC), comprising the direct warming effect of contrail cirrus and the response of natural cirrus clouds introducing a cooling.2​ For comparison, the radiative forcing from accumulated aviation carbon dioxide (CO2​) emissions and the net forcing from other aircraft exhaust species (comprising the effect of nitrogen oxide emissions on ozone and methane as well as direct radiative effects from emissions of water vapor and soot particles) are shown for 2005 conditions.1​

 

[George B]

Seems the answer to . . . do persistent contrails increase global warming? . . . looks like . . . YES . . . however, now comes the following . . .

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/Duda.Controller.09.pdf

Solutions? In principle, it may be possible to selectively minimize the creation of late afternoon contrail-Induced cloudiness that will persist during the night, when they would have a net warming effect, while intentionally increasing the formation of contrails early in the day, generating a daytime cooling. Current research is focused on accurately predicting the times and locations at which contrails are likely to persist for long periods of time and spread over wide areas as Contrail-induced cirrus. Such information could help mitigate the negative effects of aviation on regional and global climate by incorporating it into operational air traffic control and routing systems. ​

David.P.Duda@nasa.gov

 

[George B]

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 . . .

Regional Variations in U.S. Diurnal Temperature Range for the 11–14 September 2001
Aircraft Groundings: Evidence of Jet Contrail Influence on Climate
D
AVID J. TRAVIS
Department of Geography and Geology, University of Wisconsin—Whitewater, Whitewater, Wisconsin
A
NDREW M. CARLETON
Department of Geography and Environment Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
R
YAN G. LAURITSEN
Department of Geography, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois
(Manuscript received 26 November 2002, in final form 3 September 2003)

ABSTRACT

The grounding of all commercial aircraft within U.S. airspace for the 3-day period following the 11 September
2001 terrorist attacks provides a unique opportunity to study the potential role of jet aircraft contrails in climate.
Contrails are most similar to natural cirrus clouds due to their high altitude and strong ability to efficiently
reduce outgoing infrared radiation. However, they typically have a higher albedo than cirrus; thus, they are
better at reducing the surface receipt of incoming solar radiation. These contrail characteristics potentially
suppress the diurnal temperature range (DTR) when contrail coverage is both widespread and relatively long
lasting over a specific region. During the 11–14 September 2001 grounding period natural clouds and contrails
were noticeably absent on high-resolution satellite imagery across the regions that typically receive abundant
contrail coverage. A previous analysis of temperature data for the grounding period reported an anomalous
increase in the U.S.-averaged, 3-day DTR value. Here, the spatial variation of the DTR anomalies as well as
the separate contributions from the maximum and minimum temperature departures are analyzed. These analyses
are undertaken to better evaluate the role of jet contrail absence and synoptic weather patterns during the
grounding period on the DTR anomalies.
It is shown that the largest DTR increases occurred in regions where contrail coverage is typically most
prevalent during the fall season (from satellite-based contrail observations for the 1977–79 and 2000–01 periods).
These DTR increases occurred even in those areas reporting positive departures of tropospheric humidity, which
may reduce DTR, during the grounding period. Also, there was an asymmetric departure from the normal
maximum and minimum temperatures suggesting that daytime temperatures responded more to contrail absence
than did nighttime temperatures, which responded more to synoptic conditions. The application of a statistical
model that ''retro-predicts'' contrail-favored areas (CFAs) on the basis of upper-tropospheric meteorological
conditions existing during the grounding period, supports the role of contrail absence in the surface temperature
anomalies; especially for the western United States. Along with previous studies comparing surface climate data
at stations beneath major flight paths with those farther away, the regionalization of the DTR anomalies during
the September 2001 ''control'' period implies that contrails have been helping to decrease DTR in areas where
they are most abundant, at least during the early fall season.
http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/climatepapermar04.pdf

 

[George B]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 . .

 

[Jay Reynolds]

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 ???

George, its not that you can't be debunked.

 

[George B]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Mick, thanks for Google groups link. Ken Caldeira posts there... cool.

 

[George B]

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]

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]

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 . . .

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/20...really-have-no-impact-on-ocean-acidification/

Thus, aerosol geoengineering may actually slightly reduce the rate of ocean acidificaiton due to increased terrestrial carbon uptake, but more study is needed. Even with geoengineering, however, ocean acidification is a serious threat to ocean life.

 

[Jazzy]

(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]

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]

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.

 

[Mick West]

The antarctic ice sheets have grown. Therefore the events of the Northern Hemisphere are not Global. .

Antartica is losing land ice, which is the problem.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

 

[George B]

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 . . .

Oct 3, 2012
Commercial aircraft 'not viable strategy' for geoengineering


Employing commercial aircraft to inject sulphur into the stratosphere is not a viable strategy, according to Finnish researchers. Even if planes flew at higher altitudes and emitted ten times the current legal limit of sulphur, the cooling effect would be lower than if the same amount of sulphur was injected over the tropics.


"Using commercial aircraft for sulphur injection would demand unrealistic scenarios to cause significant radiative forcing and thus cooling," Anton Laakso of the Finnish Meteorological Institute told environmentalresearchweb. "It would require enhancement of fuel sulphur concentration clearly over our current legal limits and lifting the flight paths of practically all intercontinental flights to the stratosphere – which the current type of aircraft can do only in the polar regions."

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/51036

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034021 (7pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034021
Stratospheric passenger flights are likely an inefficient geoengineering strategy
Anton Laakso1, Antti-Ilari Partanen1, Harri Kokkola1, Ari Laaksonen2,3, Kari E J Lehtinen1,3 and Hannele Korhonen1
1 Finnish Meteorological Institute, Kuopio Unit, PO Box 1627, FI-70211, Kuopio, Finland
2 Finnish Meteorological Institute, Climate Change, PO Box 503, FI-00101, Helsinki, Finland
3 Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio Campus, PO Box 1627, FI-70211, Kuopio, Finland
E-mail: Anton.Laakso@fmi.fi
Received 20 June 2012
Accepted for publication 15 August 2012 Published 4 September 2012
Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/7/034021

Abstract


Solar radiation management with stratospheric sulfur aerosols has been proposed as a potential geoengineering strategy to reduce global warming. However, there has been very little investigation on the efficiency of specific injection methods suggested. Here, we show that using stratospheric passenger flights to inject sulfate aerosols would not cause significant forcing under realistic injection scenarios: even if all present-day intercontinental flights were lifted above the tropopause, we simulate global surface shortwave radiative forcings of
−0.05 W m−2 and −0.10 W m−2 with current and five times enhanced fuel sulfur concentrations, respectively. In the highly unlikely scenario that fuel sulfur content is enhanced by a factor of 50 (i.e. ten times the current legal limit) the radiative forcing is
−0.85 W m−2. This is significantly lower than if the same amount of sulfur were injected over the tropics (−1.32 W m−2, for 3 Tg (S) yr−1) due to a faster loss rate and lower intensity of solar radiation in the northern midlatitudes where current flight paths are concentrated. We also predict lower global forcing in northern hemisphere winter than in summer due to the seasonalities of the solar radiation intensity at midlatitudes, the related OH chemistry that produces sulfate aerosol, and removal of particles.
Keywords: geoengineering, stratospheric aerosols, rad
http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034021/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034021.pdf

 

[MikeC]

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]

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 . . .

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 . . .
from #9 . . . This Thread page 1 . . .