What can debaters and debunkers agree upon regarding chemtrails.

[George B]

The section you quote points out that its was to collect information on the characteristics of aerosols nd their effect on climate, not the SOURCE of them - you really need to stop trying to pass one thing off as another!!

the instrumentation package consisted of -

Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor


the Cloud camera:



and the total Irradiance monitor:



So ther is no evidence ther about the technology to identify the source of sulfur compounds.

And it seems to me to be primae facae evidene that hte technology to measure the climate change effects of clouds, aerosols and irradiation is quiet good - if only we can get the rockets to work OK!!

Sorry to disagree . . .

Raytheon’s Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor was designed to collect global aerosol data for climate scientists during NASA’s 3-year Glory mission. It is the most advanced polarimeter ever to fly in space — and the only instrument able to distinguish various types of natural aerosols from the man-made black carbon and sulfate aerosols in Earth’s atmosphere.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/gloryaps/

Content from External Source

 

[MikeC]

so it can distinguish between "various types of natural aerosols" from "man-made black carbon and sulfate aerosols".....do you have any idea what types of natural aerosols might be different from "man-made black carbon and sulfate aerosols"??

Here's a hint from NASA:

The bulk of aerosols—about 90 percent by mass—have natural origins. Volcanoes, for example, eject huge columns of ash into the air, as well as sulfur dioxide and other gases, yielding sulfates. Forest fires send partially burned organic carbon aloft. Certain plants produce gases that react with other substances in the air to yield aerosols, such as the “smoke” in the Great Smoky Mountains of the United States. Likewise in the ocean, some types of microalgae produce a sulfurous gas called dimethylsulfide that can be converted into sulfates in the atmosphere.

By your own extract...AGAIN.....it is capable of determining TYPES of aerosols.......not their source.

 

[George B]

Mick

Do you agree the quote below . . . seems to represent Prima Facie evidence that the technology to definitively . . . "distinguish various types of natural aerosols from the man-made black carbon and sulfate aerosols in Earth’s atmosphere" . . . was on the satellite in March 2011 . . . thus because of its subsequent loss . . . conclusions needing the ability to distinguish between man- made aerosols from various types of natural aerosols in the atmosphere is speculation . . .

Raytheon’s Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor was designed to collect global aerosol data for climate scientists during NASA’s 3-year Glory mission. It is the most advanced polarimeter ever to fly in space — and the only instrument able to distinguish various types of natural aerosols from the man-made black carbon and sulfate aerosols in Earth’s atmosphere.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/gloryaps/

Content from External Source

 

[Jay Reynolds]

conclusions needing the ability to distinguish between man- made aerosols from various types of natural aerosols in the atmosphere is speculation

NO!


Getting samples directly from the stratosphere is child's play.

It has been done for decades.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/AirSci/ER-2/history.html

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...nYD4BQ&usg=AFQjCNEwuCxDp_acoaWShFoT4YS9f4LnRw

You can't hide something in the sky, George.
Satellites have never been the only way to determine aerosol properties.
We can see that your only goal is to gain ground for your pet conspiracy theory and waste time speculating
about something for which there is no evidence, while we have already provided evidence
that shows your speculation 100 pages before was false.
You are again trying to use false logic to do so.
You won't have much luck leading this group down a primrose path of illogic.

 

[George B]

NO!


Getting samples directly from the stratosphere is child's play.

It has been done for decades.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/AirSci/ER-2/history.html

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...nYD4BQ&usg=AFQjCNEwuCxDp_acoaWShFoT4YS9f4LnRw

You can't hide something in the sky, George.
Satellites have never been the only way to determine aerosol properties.
We can see that your only goal is to gain ground for your pet conspiracy theory and waste time speculating
about something for which there is no evidence, while we have already provided evidence
that shows your speculation 100 pages before was false.
You are again trying to use false logic to do so.
You won't have much luck leading this group down a primrose path of illogic.

Where in your cited sources does it say that the scientists can finger print whether the SO2 is from natural or man-made sources and they can distinguish between the two . . . ?
Where does it say that U2 flights deployed in one location on the globe is adequate . . . it is simply all they had . . . just like all we have for atmospheric data are weather balloons released twice a day all over the world to capture RH, Temperature, Wind Speed and Direction from the ground to 60,000 feet . . . adequate no . . . just all we have . . .

So why is the US Government spending 100s of millions to be able to distinguish between man-made sulfur aerosols and natural ones??????

 

[GregMc]

So why is the US Government spending 100s of millions to be able to distinguish between man-made sulfur aerosols and natural ones??????

"designed to collect global aerosol data for climate scientists"

A single satellite can collect GLOBAL data. A single aircraft or even multiple sampling aircraft have limited range, cannot monitor and collect data continuously over a VAST area at high speed.
In case you don't realise such sampling aircraft as Jay linked to are subsonic and sample a tiny volume of atmosphere that they come into contact with. A satellite at orbital velocity travels considerably faster and so could gather data, using different techniques, over a huge area of the earth in a short space of time from a high vantage point.
An orbital craft such as the space shuttle was doing approx MACH 25 at the time it had slowed down to enter the atmosphere or about 30,000km/hr

A satellite in orbit is thus travelling faster.
A slight speed and global data gathering advantage wouldn't you say?

As Jay correctly stated, the technology for distinguishing man-made aerosols from natural ones already exists and has already been used. The satellite allows an entirely different perspective to data gathering.

 

[George B]

"designed to collect global aerosol data for climate scientists"

A single satellite can collect GLOBAL data. A single aircraft or even multiple sampling aircraft have limited range, cannot monitor and collect data continuously over a VAST area at high speed.
In case you don't realise such sampling aircraft as Jay linked to are subsonic and sample a tiny volume of atmosphere that they come into contact with. A satellite at orbital velocity travels considerably faster and so could gather data, using different techniques, over a huge area of the earth in a short space of time from a high vantage point.
An orbital craft such as the space shuttle was doing approx MACH 25 at the time it had slowed down to enter the atmosphere or about 30,000km/hr

A satellite in orbit is thus travelling faster.
A slight speed and global data gathering advantage wouldn't you say?

As Jay correctly stated, the technology for distinguishing man-made aerosols from natural ones already exists and has already been used. The satellite allows an entirely different perspective to data gathering.

O.K. . . . Show me where it indicates that 'they' can distinguish between man-made SO2 and natural SO2 . . .

 

[GregMc]

O.K. . . . Show me where it indicates that 'they' can distinguish between man-made SO2 and natural SO2 . . .

Raytheon's page does not indicate it is capable of distinguishing between man-made SO2 and natural SO2 just as it likely could not distinguish between natural O2 and "un-natural" sources of O2 or water.
You are adding claims that are simply not there. It can however, like other sampling technologies distinguish between various types of natural aerosols and anthropogenic aerosols.

You are treating a public press release as if it was a detailed technical specification sheet for the satellite.

If one wanted detailed technical specifications I think it would be prudent to research a little deeper about the sensing ability of the satellite.
Remember how drawing conclusions from raytheon's press releases about robotic locomotion strongly supports the likelihood of robot cats and dogs in a vast global conspiracy.

 

[MikeC]

Here you go - 1.3mb pdf, see page 8 - man made emissions are almost entirely SO2.

"Natural" oxides are mostly SO4 & DMS generated from the oceans.

Natural S is about 42 Tg/Y, anthropogenic about 78Tg/y. Elsewhere on the 'net you can find information that the amount of natural generation is quite static, so the amount of anthropogenic can be determined by figuring out the total and then subtracting the natural - its maths.

 

[George B]

Raytheon's page does not indicate it is capable of distinguishing between man-made SO2 and natural SO2 just as it likely could not distinguish between natural O2 and "un-natural" sources of O2 or water.
You are adding claims that are simply not there. It can however, like other sampling technologies distinguish between various types of natural aerosols and anthropogenic aerosols.

You are treating a public press release as if it was a detailed technical specification sheet for the satellite.

If one wanted detailed technical specifications I think it would be prudent to research a little deeper about the sensing ability of the satellite.
Remember how drawing conclusions from raytheon's press releases about robotic locomotion strongly supports the likelihood of robot cats and dogs in a vast global conspiracy.

You still didn't answer my question . . . Show me where it indicates that 'they' can distinguish between man-made SO2 and natural SO2 . . . both you and J imply they have . . .

As Jay correctly stated, the technology for distinguishing man-made aerosols from natural ones already exists and has already been used.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

Not all aerosols are SO2 George.

 

[George B]

Here you go - 1.3mb pdf, see page 8 - man made emissions are almost entirely SO2.

"Natural" oxides are mostly SO4 & DMS generated from the oceans.

Natural S is about 42 Tg/Y, anthropogenic about 78Tg/y. Elsewhere on the 'net you can find information that the amount of natural generation is quite static, so the amount of anthropogenic can be determined by figuring out hte total, and then subtracting the natural - its maths.

So we can calculate the amount of anthropogenic SOx . . . Hmmmm . . . so if we have the totals . . . why do we spend so much money trying to get more definitive information . . . ???? How can some little known volcanoes in the tropics just appear out of nowhere in the 2000s to explain the unexpected increase of Sulfur in the stratosphere . . . seems there are big holes in the knowledge base of how all this works . . . and we had all those satellites up there to help us as well . . . except for Glory that is . . . .

 

[George B]

Not all aerosols are SO2 George.

I am prefectly aware of that . . . if one cannot get definitive information about aerosols (in general) . . . how can you get definitive information about Sulfur aerosols . . .

 

[George B]

By your own extract...AGAIN.....it is capable of determining TYPES of aerosols.......not their source.

Thanks for making my point . . . the source of stratospheric aerosols and sulfur aerosols specifically is most difficult and requires much speculation . . . that was my original point . . .

 

[GregMc]

How can some little known volcanoes in the tropics just appear out of nowhere in the 2000s . . .

Little known to whom?
To you or to vulcanologists?
My 8 year old daughter might claim Mt Etna or Krakatoa were little known volcanos but that would just be revealing her ignorance.

Perhaps it wouldn't be unreasonable to surmise these volcanos had secret rocket launching bases and helipads inside them! We could look at old books or even old films to see if the secret govts hadn't been trying to groom us to accept their reality for when such things are finally disclosed

 

[Mick West]

I think you are laboring a point here George. You've already said that you think the "secret" geoengineering is flying under the radar of normal background variability - regardless of if it's natural or man made.

It's really not THAT complex though, we know what the sources are. There's nothing really unaccounted for, so either their covert plan is working or it does not exist. So it's a moot point.

 

[George B]

Little known to whom?
To you or to vulcanologists?
My 8 year old daughter might claim Mt Etna or Krakatoa were little known volcanos but that would just be revealing her ignorance.

Perhaps it wouldn't be unreasonable to surmise these volcanos had secret rocket launching bases and helipads inside them! We could look at old books or even old films to see if the secret govts hadn't been trying to groom us to accept their reality for when such things are finally disclosed

Don't take my word for it . . .

The reasons for the 10-year increase in stratospheric aerosols are not fully understood and are the subject of ongoing research, says coauthor Ryan Neely, with the University of Colorado and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanic eruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide, that react in the atmosphere to form reflective aerosol particles.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110721_particles.html

Content from External Source

 

[George B]

I think you are laboring a point here George. You've already said that you think the "secret" geoengineering is flying under the radar of normal background variability - regardless of if it's natural or man made.

It's really not THAT complex though, we know what the sources are. There's nothing really unaccounted for, so either their covert plan is working or it does not exist. So it's a moot point.

No . . . you assume you know the sources . . . speculation only . . . that is my point . . . there is no way to identify a source accurately . . . or the exact amount of SOx form a given source if identified or how much SOx would get into the Stratosphere . . . except by the amount of fuel burned if known and then calculate the amount of by-products of combustion that is injected into the Troposphere . . . or going in reverse . . . starting with a total stratospheric quantity and then apportioning to identified sources their share . . .

I said nothing about ICAAIP . . . I am saying we cannot rule out unknown sources of aerosols because we cannot ID them all, nor can we calculate their contribution to the total stratospheric soup . . .

 

[MikeC]

George why did you only bold the section on smaller volcanic eruptions and not also the very next bit about human activites??

We can certainly caluculate the contribution of unknown sources if we know the total - again - subtract the known sources - the remainder is the contribution from unknown sources.

 

[George B]

George why did you only bold the section on smaller volcanic eruptions and not also the very next bit about human activites??

We can certainly caluculate the contribution of unknown sources if we know the total - again - subtract the known sources - the remainder is the contribution from unknown sources.

Why bold on volcanoes . . . I was answering a question about aerosols from volcanoes . . .

1) If we know the Total . . . I might agree . . .however, the Total is an educated estimate based on global volumes of many, many factors . . . averages at best with wide potential error being a necessary part of the calculations . . .
2) Human activities are based on the accuracy of the reporting officials i.e. China's reporting accuracy on the amount of low/high sulfur coal burned, etc., etc.; also, one would have to have a complete inventory of all human aerosol sources . . . good luck . . .
3) There is no scientific conscensus on what percentage of tropospheric aerosols reach the stratosphere or when they do how long they stay . . .

 

[MikeC]

Why bold on volcanoes . . . I was answering a question about aerosols from volcanoes . . .

You initiated the discussion about volcanoes by blaming only them in this post - teh subsequent "question about volcanoes" therefore traces right back to you misrepresenting your source in the first place.

1) If we know the Total . . . I might agree . . .however, the Total is an educated estimate based on global volumes of many, many factors . . . averages at best with wide potential error being a necessary part of the calculations . . . [/quote]

How do you know that? and if that is the case, what are the potential errors? and even with potential errors you can still include those in calculations to come up with a range...got any actual sources to back up your assertion?

2) Human activities are based on the accuracy of the reporting officials i.e. China's reporting accuracy on the amount of low/high sulfur coal burned, etc., etc.; also, one would have to have a complete inventory of all human aerosol sources . . . good luck . . .

Have you looked at the sources of the information in order to determine they are not correct, or are you just making an unsupported assertion? China's figures on coal consumption are published by various agencies such as the International Energy Agency - what is the problem with their accuracy?

3) There is no scientific conscensus on what percentage of tropospheric aerosols reach the stratosphere or when they do how long they stay . . .

What is your source for that??

 

[George B]

How do you know that? and if that is the case, what are teh potential errors? and even with potential errors you can still include those in calculations to come up with a range...



Have you looked at the sources of the information in order to determine they are not correct, or are you just making an unsupported assertion? China's figures on coal consumption are published by various agencies such as the International Energy Agency - what is the problem with their accuracy?



What is your source for that??

1) I have never seen a detailed tabulation of all man-made sources of for example of SOx by source and amount for the entire world . . . I have only seen total fossil fuel tons, barrels of oil consumed and refined etc . . . this is full of assumptions . . . including much speculation . . .
2) I have seen contradictory research regarding the mixing of tropospheric aerosols with the stratosphere . . . I would have to look for them . . .

 

[MikeC]

1) I have never seen a detailed tabulation of all man-made sources of for example of SOx by source and amount for the entire world . . . I have only seen total fossil fuel tons, barrels of oil consumed and refined etc . . . this is full of assumptions . . . including much speculation . . .

Despite the fact that exactly such a table was in the PDF I linked to earlier in this thread?

I guess you didn't bother reading it huh??

As for the speculation and presumption in the sources you did read - what was the basis for it? Was it justified? did it fit with what IS known?

If speculation and presumption are all you have to make a decision on when time for the decision comes, then you still have to make that decision. hopefully any speculation and presumption left then will at least have good real world basis to them.

I have seen contradictory research regarding the mixing of tropospheric aerosols with the stratosphere . . . I would have to look for them . . .

go for it - there's also a bit of that in the document I linked to earlier.......

 

[George B]

Despite the fact that exactly such a table was in the PDF I linked to earlier in this thread?

I guess you didn't bother reading it huh??

As for the speculation and presumption in the sources you did read - what was the basis for it? Was it justified? did it fit with what IS known?

If speculation and presumption are all you have to make a decision on when time for the decision comes, then you still have to make that decision. hopefully any speculation and presumption left then will at least have good real world basis to them.



go for it - there's also a bit of that in the document I linked to earlier.......

1) If you are going to post a link . . . you need to do it so I can identify it as such . . . like . . . http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/courses/atmos348-sp04/documents/Atmos348Lecture22.pdf
2) The above are gross estimates . . . just as I stated above . . .
3) The discussion I remember was about zones where mixing occurs as in the regions of the jet streams and high level thunderstorms, etc. one discussion indicated there was negligible mixing of ground source sulfur emissions and stratospheric SOx . . . sounded well researched and rational to me . . .
4) Bold Face Above: I have no problem with your statement . . . "Real World" . . .however, depends on the range of what one thinks as possible, likely, or reasonable . . .

[h=1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]The vertical sulfur dioxide distribution at the tropopause level[/FONT][/h]

In 1978–1980 nine aircraft flights to an altitude of up to 15 km were made over western Europe. Sulfur dioxide was measured with a sensitive chemiluminescence method consisting of separate sampling and analysis stages and application of a wet chemical filter procedure (detection limit: 8 pptv SO2).The measurements performed in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere lead to some unexpected results: (a) the meteorological conditions at the tropopause level have an important influence on the observed SO2 mixing ratio; (b) between the 500 mb and the actual tropopause level the SO2 mixing ratio is found to be 2 suggest only a small flux of tropospheric SO2 into the stratosphere; (c) increasing SO2 mixing ratios within the first kilometers of the stratosphere give strong support to a stratospheric source of SO2.In the light of improved one-dimensional models considering the vertical distribution of stratospheric sulfur compounds (Crutzen, 1981; Turco et al. 1981) it can be shown that the oxidation of organic sulfur compounds (e.g., OCS, CS2) seems to be a stratospheric source of SO2. Furthermore, the flux calculations based on the SO2 mixing ratios measured at the tropopause level indicate that the contribution of tropospheric (man-made) SO2 to the stratospheric aerosol layer is of only minor importance.
http://www.researchgate.net/publica..._dioxide_distribution_at_the_tropopause_level

Content from External Source

 

[MikeC]

1) If you are going to post a link . . . you need to do it so I can identify it as such . . . like . . . http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/courses/atmos348-sp04/documents/Atmos348Lecture22.pdf

links can be indicated in the text by a different colour - which is a common system used on many fora and what I did here. Ignorane is not an excuse

2) The above are gross estimates . . . just as I stated above . . .

From where??

3) The discussion I remember was about zones where mixing occurs as in the regions of the jet streams and high level thunderstorms, etc. one discussion indicated there was negligible mixing of ground source sulfur emissions and stratospheric SOx . . . sounded well researched and rational to me . . .

doesen't sound too bad to me either - nice of you to actualy provide a source for it now.....my link (<----thereit is again) has a page on the sulfur cycle that shows 0.2Tg of S being mixed into teh stratoshere from all sources below that level.

4) Bold Face Above: I have no problem with your statement . . . "Real World" . . .however, depends on the range of what one thinks as possible, likely, or reasonable . . .

what one thinks is possible, likely or reasonable should be formed and supported by other information and not just plucked out of hte blue because you don't like the alternative.

 

[George B]

links can be indicated in the text by a different colour - which is a common system used on many fora and what I did here. Ignorane is not an excuse


From where??



doesen't sound too bad to me either - nice of you to actualy provide a source for it now.....my link (<----thereit is again) has a page on the sulfur cycle that shows 0.2Tg of S being mixed into teh stratoshere from all sources below that level.



what one thinks is possible, likely or reasonable should be formed and supported by other information and not just plucked out of hte blue because you don't like the alternative.

From 182 above. .

1) I have never seen a detailed tabulation of all man-made sources of for example of SOx by source and amount for the entire world . . . I have only seen total fossil fuel tons, barrels of oil consumed and refined etc . . . this is full of assumptions . . . including much speculation . . .

Content from External Source

 

[MikeC]

I don't get it - are you claiming that your source for making this claim is your own previous post??

And I note that I preovided a link in response to that post that gave a table of the information you desired.

Why are you still going around this circle??

 

[George B]

I don't get it - are you claiming that your source for making this claim is your own previous post??

And I note that I preovided a link in response to that post that gave a table of the information you desired.

Why are you still going around this circle??

You actually believe these are not gross estimates . . . with a high degree of possible error and assumptions, sample error, etc.???? . . . they are only possibly accurate within several percent points, if that . . . that is what I was referring to . . . and I already stated that opinion in the quote I posted . . . they don't account for all possible sources . . . I will agree that is all they have . . . however, the data has inadequate precision and accuracy to eliminate unidentified sources as not possible or even probable . . .

 

[MikeC]

did you actually read them yet?

Here's what you ACTUALLY said you had not seen:

I have never seen a detailed tabulation of all man-made sources of for example of SOx by source and amount for the entire world ......

The tables in the document I linked to give you that.

do try not to conflate these things

 

[George B]

did you actually read them yet?

Here's what you ACTUALLY said you had not seen:



The tables in the document I linked to give you that.

do try not to conflate these things

Yes, I reviewed the data and I stand by my statements . . . these are estimates and extrapolations . . . and are not definitive enough to eliminate unidentified sources . . .

The differences in the estimates of SO2 emission estimated from 1972 to 2000 (Table 5) illustrates the dilemma of achieving a reliable estimate of the annual global volcanic SO2 emissions. These esti- mates range from 1.5 to 50U1012 g/yr SO2. One group includes the very low estimates from Kel- logg et al. (1972) (1.5U1012 g/yr SO2), . . .
page 519 . . . http://volcanoes.ca/Masaya/articulos/Halmer_JVGR'02.pdf

Content from External Source

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/bate1229/estimate.shtml
The most recent estimate of annual SO emissions to the atmosphere by volcanos is 0.29 Tmol/a (Stoiber et al., 1987). This estimate is based on an extrapolation of direct measurements of volcanic SO and include 0.11 Tmol/a from 102 degassing volcanos and 0.18 Tmol/a from approximately 60 erupting volcanos. The estimate of the number of volcanos is an average over the past 400 years.

Content from External Source

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Yes, I reviewed the data and I stand by my statements . . . these are estimates and extrapolations . . . and are not definitive enough to eliminate unidentified sources . . .

blah-blah-blah.....

 

[HappyMonday]

Yes, I reviewed the data and I stand by my statements . . . these are estimates and extrapolations . . . and are not definitive enough to eliminate unidentified sources . . .

The differences in the estimates of SO2 emission estimated from 1972 to 2000 (Table 5) illustrates the dilemma of achieving a reliable estimate of the annual global volcanic SO2 emissions. These esti- mates range from 1.5 to 50U1012 g/yr SO2. One group includes the very low estimates from Kel- logg et al. (1972) (1.5U1012 g/yr SO2), . . .
page 519 . . . http://volcanoes.ca/Masaya/articulos/Halmer_JVGR'02.pdf

Content from External Source

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/bate1229/estimate.shtml
The most recent estimate of annual SO emissions to the atmosphere by volcanos is 0.29 Tmol/a (Stoiber et al., 1987). This estimate is based on an extrapolation of direct measurements of volcanic SO and include 0.11 Tmol/a from 102 degassing volcanos and 0.18 Tmol/a from approximately 60 erupting volcanos. The estimate of the number of volcanos is an average over the past 400 years.

Content from External Source

Perhaps this should be another thread now, as you clearly don't accept the forum's general position about measurement of SO2 levels?

 

[George B]

Perhaps this should be another thread now, as you clearly don't accept the forum's general position about measurement of SO2 levels?

Do you mean a new thread about the scientific reliability, accuracy, precision of atmospheric data used to make climatic decisions???

 

[George B]

blah-blah-blah.....

You still didn't answer my question . . . Show me where it indicates that 'they' can effectively and efficiently distinguish between man-made SO2 and natural SO2 . . .

As Jay correctly stated, the technology for distinguishing man-made aerosols from natural ones already exists and has already been used.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

Nobody has claimed that. They are talking about aerosols.

 

[George B]

Nobody has claimed that. They are talking about aerosols.

Hmmmm . . . seems to me we have been talking primarily about aerosols containing sulfur compounds in the stratosphere . . . OK . . . thanks for your input . . . I appreciate your perspective . . .

 

[George B]

I came upon this study and find it interesting . . . the research indicates that Cirrus Cloud reductions (through a type of high tropospheric cloud seeding) could result in slowing global warming and that commercial aviation could be the easiest and cheapest way to accomplish such geoengineering without much of the side effects of sulfur injection for example . . . the amount of cloud seeding material would be small in comparison to the sulfur injected into the stratosphere . . .

Note: Can we agree that an experiment such as this one could easily be implemented on a small scale without notice????

Modification of cirrus clouds toreduce global warming
David L Mitchell and WilliamFinnegan
Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV89512-1095, 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/
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102/fulltext/

Content from External Source

 

[MikeC]

Yes, I reviewed the data and I stand by my statements . . . these are estimates and extrapolations . . . and are not definitive enough to eliminate unidentified sources . . .

Yet again you conflate your statements - you said you had not seen any tabulated information about the sources of anthropogenic sulphur generation - I showed you such a table, and you seem completely unable to admit that yes, such information exists.

does it include estimates - sure. does it allow for unidentified sources sure - but, nonetheless you have still been shown such a table.

Wanting it to be moer accurate is an admirable goal - one which I think is probably not achievable to the extent you sem to want (it includes no estimates and no assumptions) - but by all means advocate for more research into atmospheric aerosols - i agree with you that it needs to be doen.

I just get irritated when you constantly change your "story" - it sems to me you are out to do anything you can not to admit I answered any given question of yours, or filled a gap you identified in your knowledge!

Edited to add:

Here's the IPCC's stocktake on anthropogenic GHG generation - another place you could find the information you had not seen.

Another thing that irritates me is you lack of critical thinking - I get the impression you simply dismiss "estimates" as if they make data meaningless or something like that. however unless you know the nature of the estimates and the size of the potential errors they may involve you do not have a basis for being dismissive.

For example if you make an estimate as to the amount of GHG from "unknown sources" as being 5% of the total then that involves a great deal less uncertainty than an estimate of 50% of the total. If you aer serious about tacking down uncertainty then you need to be investigating how large or small these estimates actually are.

 

[MikeC]

I came upon this study and find it interesting . . . the research indicates that Cirrus Cloud reductions (through a type of high tropospheric cloud seeding) could result in slowing global warming and that commercial aviation could be the easiest and cheapest way to accomplish such geoengineering without much of the side effects of sulfur injection for example . . . the amount of cloud seeding material would be small in comparison to the sulfur injected into the stratosphere . . .

Note: Can we agree that an experiment such as this one could easily be implemented on a small scale without notice????

not unless you can show how such an experiment could be done through a commercial airline without anyone noticing?

At the least it would require approval of the required modifications by the appropriate regulatory agency, it would require engineers to design and mechanics to implement those modifications, it would require scientists to design the experiment and analyse the results. It would require ATC to direct and pilots to fly particular flight profiles.

 

[George B]

Yet again you conflate your statements - you said you had not seen any tabulated information about the sources of anthropogenic sulphur generation - I showed you such a table, and you seem completely unable to admit that yes, such information exists.

does it include estimates - sure. does it allow for unidentified sources sure - but, nonetheless you have still been shown such a table.

Wanting it to be moer accurate is an admirable goal - one which I think is probably not achievable to the extent you sem to want (it includes no estimates and no assumptions) - but by all means advocate for more research into atmospheric aerosols - i agree with you that it needs to be doen.

I just get irritated when you constantly change your "story" - it sems to me you are out to do anything you can not to admit I answered any given question of yours, or filled a gap you identified in your knowledge!

Is that it . . . you want me to acknowledge that there were estimates and extrapolations in the cited material I had not seen before in the format in the document. . . sure there is a listing of sources of man-made sulfur in the atmosphere in the document I had not seen . . . if that is what you want . . . . you have it . . . my issue is the accuracy, precision and how the data was formulated . . . that has not changed . . .