|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
 Sun Jul 20, 2003 1:54 am
|
 |
|
Sore Throat -
Thank you for posting the OIF Studies image map.
 |
| |
|
|
ratman
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 2
Location: Grapevine, Republic of Texas |
|
Sun Jul 20, 2003 2:12 am
|
|
|
Guys,
With all this lack of visual evidence available from the NASA types, and all the screwing around with the atmosphere, and the shuttle being shot down (one of the theories advanced for it's loss) does one not think that this is all being manipulated to cause certain folks doing the studying to be looking at and dealing with the whys of the problems involved rather than looking at other things? Smoke and Mirrors and all that stuff? Would some of this possibly be put out there for folks to get caught up looking in the wrong direction and distracting them (us) as they powers that be are wont to do to take our minds off other things that could be potentially MORE important than the chemtrail/aerosol spraying that is going on??? Think Planet-X. Now don't go howling off into the wilderness saying that aw geez another one sounds off from the left field. Would it not be possible that there is some sleight of hand going on to distract us from this or other important subjects of search, conjecture, study, etc? There tends to be enough Solar Activity of an unusually high "content", for lack of a better word, that these things may be distracting folks, not necessarily y'all, from looking at things that might also be culprets and possible hazards to the earth and us inhabitants. Look at the high incidents of unusual weather activity, temperatures, rain, lack thereof, volcanic/earthquake activity too.
Consider those ideas.
Ratman |
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Sun Jul 20, 2003 3:26 am
|
|
|
Ratman wrote:
.....Look at the high incidents of unusual weather activity, temperatures, rain, lack thereof, volcanic/earthquake activity too.....
I am. Believe me. I've been looking INTENSIVELY at every single one of these factors for almost four years. In fact, it is **these very issues** that are the primary driver of my personal process of inquiry, along with the extended period of heightened solar activity [very much a factor here] and the by-now blatantly transparent Media Perception-Management Campaign to which we are all being continuously subjected.
Back later. All of your points are very well taken. Thank you! |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Mon Jul 21, 2003 3:29 am
|
|
|
You've given me a lot to think about Deborah, so for the time being, I'm going to concentrate on:
quote:
I'm personally fairly convinced that we have a number of commercial aircraft "running dirty" a la Teller in order to contribute to sulfate loading of the upper atmosphere, thereby allowing these emissions to serve as an **atmospheric cooling mechanism** to offset now conclusively documented CO2-warming.
Two years ago, I'd have said it was doubtful that commercial carriers were in involved. Knowing what I do now, I'm not so sure.
My last discussion with Minnis left me with the feeling that he was perhaps being disingenous on several issues, not least of which was his claim that the high sulfate aersol content of jet fuels now being used did not contribute to 'persistant contrail' (artificial cirrus formation). His proffered explanation of this seeming absurdity was that the ambient aerosol concentration in the upper atmosphere was now so high, that the elevated aerosol content contained in these trails was not a factor in trail formation and therefore not factored into NASA's so-called contrail forecast.
A couple different ways you can look at that statement, I suppose; One mans 'ambient aerosol' is another man's decayed chemtrail, if you see what I mean.
In any case, here's an excellent reference that appears to give lie to the myth that sulfate aerosols are not the primary contributing factor in the formation of artificial cloud:
Sulfate particles (H2SO4-H2O-(NH4)2SO4) comprise a significant part of upper tropospheric/lower stratospheric aerosols (Sheridan et al., 1994; Murphy et al., 1998) and have been speculated to be the particles on which most ice forms in cirrus (Heymsfield and Sabin, 1989)
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~pdemott/nsflab.html
There are some nagging details, however. EG:
quote:
Our experiments agreed with theoretical predictions that smaller particles freeze at the lowest temperatures and highest relative humidities. Results suggest that particles at sizes characteristic of the H2SO4 particles in commercial aircraft exhaust (<0.01mm) would not freeze until above 100% relative humidity
quote:
The ice formation conditions of liquid sulfate aerosol particles were found to be remarkably similar and not distinguishable within measurement uncertainties (see attached Figure 1). The results imply that particle size may be a more important factor than the exact sulfate composition in determining the onset RH for cirrus formation.
Taken in conjuction, these two statements indicate to me that, because of their size, the aerosols being dispersed by commercial aircraft (note that this distinction was clearly made by the researchers) were unlikely to form cirrus clouds at anything under 100% RH.
As you say, 'interesting'. But here's my question:
What accounts for the implied size difference between aerosols emmitted by commercial aircaft and those emitted by military aircraft?
PS - Could someone please fix the margins? 
[Edited 4 times, lastly by Chem11 on 07-20-2003] |
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Thu Jul 24, 2003 6:59 am
|
|
|
Chem11 -
You wrote:
.....One mans 'ambient aerosol' is another man's decayed chemtrail, if you see what I mean.....
Not only do I see what you mean but I think the ambiguity involved here is part and parcel of a great deal of disingenuousness on the part of a great many supposed experts on the matter.
The web of deception regarding the issue of what in hell is going on in our skies the last four years is a lot more insidious than most people would like to even think about.
Nice reference you provided - thanks. Am reading. |
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Thu Jul 24, 2003 7:02 am
|
|
|
P.S. Re: margins - yes, they're getting to me, too. Am wondering if we could get ST to replace that large aerosol map with its source link.
|
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:00 am
|
|
|
Up for review. |
| |
|
|
msswv123
Joined: 17 Jan 2001
Posts: 123
Location: Gastonia,NC USA |
|
Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:19 pm
|
|
|
Up and adding~
University Of Washington
Date:
2003-05-20
Aerosols' Effects Could Change Current Understanding Of Global Climate Change
Atmospheric aerosols, airborne particles that reflect the sun's heat away from Earth and into space, are part of everyday life. They are in the haze of air pollution, in plumes of smoke from forest fires and in ash clouds from erupting volcanoes.
But a new study says the cooling effect of man-made aerosols could throw a monkey wrench into the current understanding of climate change.
"It's possible that the total forcing from human activity to date is small, or even negative. That's unlikely but possible, and we should not rule it out at this point," said Theodore Anderson, a University of Washington research meteorologist.
Climate forcing results when an external factor imposes a change on the planet's heat balance. Aerosols produced by human activity can exert both positive and negative forcing, but it is believed that their overall effect is negative (positive forcing adds heat and tends to warm the climate; negative forcing removes heat and tends to cool the climate).
The particles reflect sunlight back into space and also modify the properties of clouds, causing them to reflect more sunlight back into space. These patchy effects add up to a global impact that tends to offset climate warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.
Despite extensive study, it is still highly uncertain just how big a factor the negative forcing of aerosols is in the overall climate-change picture. At issue is whether computer and mathematical models that use a variety of factors to gauge climate change have properly accounted for the uncertainty.
Anderson is lead author of a paper, published in the May 16 edition of Science, arguing that climate modelers have failed to consider the full magnitude of potential forcing that has been found in aerosol research. Instead, the authors say, modelers have used only aerosol-forcing values that allow their models to reproduce the recorded global temperature increase, and have ignored values that do not fit the temperature record.
"That's fine as a best-guess scenario, but what if the high-magnitude negative aerosol forcing values turn out to be correct? That would mean current interpretations 20th century warming would be erroneous, and so projections of future climate change might be in error as well. We need to at least consider this possibility," Anderson said.
He noted that if all climate forcing from outside factors so far has had a cumulative negative effect, then climate warming that already has occurred cannot be from human activity but rather must be the result of natural climate fluctuation. On the other hand, if the total forcing to date has been very small but still caused the observed warming, then the Earth's climate might be much more sensitive to forced change than climate models currently indicate.
Improved knowledge of climate forcing could radically alter the current understanding of climate change, the authors say. And that improved knowledge could be available in the near future from a new generation of aerosol-sensing satellites. A big step comes next year when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the French space agency launch a satellite called CALIPSO, which will provide detailed maps of the atmosphere's aerosol content. CALIPSO will fly in formation with other satellites measuring energy variations and other factors.
"We can expect surprises and breakthroughs in quantifying aerosol forcing, but we don't know what to expect," said Robert Charlson, a UW atmospheric chemist and a co-author of the paper in Science. "We will be in a position where we will be better able to disprove or support the climate models."
Other authors include Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y.; Reto Knutti of the University of Bern in Switzerland; Olivier Boucher of the Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille in France; Henning Rodhe of Stockholm University in Sweden; and Jost Heintzenberg of the Institute for Tropospheric Research in Leipzig, Germany.
The researchers do not contend that human-caused climate change isn't a real danger. In fact, they make the opposite case.
The ability of aerosols to counteract greenhouse warming is very limited because the particles remain in the air for only a week or so, Anderson said, while greenhouse gases remain for a century or more. So while there currently might be a rough balance between the two, the greenhouse gases are accumulating and are sure to win out in the future, having a much larger long-term impact on climate.
It is critical to figure out how the Earth's climate responds to positive forcing, Anderson said. One of the best ways to do that is to improve the knowledge of current climate forcing from human activities. But even with the arrival of new satellites, achieving this advance in knowledge will require strong commitment from the scientific community and funding agencies, he said. Coordinated global measurements are needed to properly interpret data from the satellites, and compiling that information into an improved global understanding will be a major challenge.
"We already know that we will have to seriously limit carbon dioxide emissions," Charlson said. "But, until we do a better job quantifying the total forcing, we will not know how rapidly carbon dioxide controls need to be implemented, nor will we know how much climate change we can expect in spite of these controls."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030520082355.htm
|
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Sun Sep 07, 2003 9:37 pm
|
|
|
msswv123 -
Thank you.
[The margins on this thread are really getting to me.] |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Mon Sep 08, 2003 1:28 am
|
|
|
Sized that big picture down a bit to help with the margins... |
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Mon Sep 08, 2003 2:46 am
|
|
|
Thermit -
THANK YOU.
|
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Mon Sep 08, 2003 4:48 am
|
|
|
Test.
Sorry. |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
|
Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:54 am
|
|
|
What does Anderson mean by this?
"He noted that if all climate forcing from outside factors so far has had a cumulative negative effect, then climate warming that already has occurred cannot be from human activity but rather must be the result of natural climate fluctuation. On the other hand, if the total forcing to date has been very small but still caused the observed warming, then the Earth's climate might be much more sensitive to forced change than climate models currently indicate."
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 10:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
