posted 09-01-2002 05:01 AM            

NOAA and the ONR are experimenting with modifying the weather and doing a real bad job of it. No one is going to tell us otherwise, we can see it with our own two eyes.

posted 09-01-2002 11:39 AM            

GAS_MASK wrote:

.....It's where the exhaust is emitted that makes it a much bigger threat.....

TRUE.

The Coastal Post - April 1997
Aircraft Are Screwing Up The Atmosphere?
http://www.coastalpost.com/97/4/3.htm

By Jim Scanlon

Exhaust gases from sub sonic jet aircraft are affecting the ozone layer and cloud cover over the Northern Hemisphere right now, today, every minute of every day as several hundred heavy jets fly back and forth through the North Atlantic Flight Corridor and over the United States. With commercial air travel expected to increase 200 percent over the next twenty years, the impact of jet engines on the earth's climate and the amount of ultra-violet radiation reaching the surface, will grow accordingly.

The Conference

From March 10 through March 14, I attended the eight annual NASA conference on "The Atmospheric Effects of Aviation" held in Virginia Beach, Virginia. I believe I was the only journalist among the 278 official participants who spent four and half days listening to one 20 minute presentation after another on the latest scientific research in atmospheric chemistry, meteorology, airborne field studies and computer modeling.

The conference was highly structured, highly technical, isolated and removed from reality- somewhat like jet travel itself. The participants were mostly handsome, extremely bright , highly intelligent young men and women, mostly casually dressed. American researchers predominated with Germans next, followed by a smattering of Russians and other Europeans.

There were no clear expressions of concern for the dangers involved in the exponential growth of the aviation industry-somewhat similar to the way air travelers do not show their fear and unease when traveling by plane. It seemed as if these wonderful scientists were chatting amiably about interesting aspects of a remote, unstoppable, unreformable juggernaut.

There were no members of the print or broadcast media present at this year's conference and, as far as I could tell, none were present at any of the seven previous conferences.

There was no mention of these conferences in the newspaper of record, the New York Times, Time or Newsweek, or in "Science" or "Nature" the two most prominent scientific magazines in the world.

"New Scientist", a well known British science news magazine published articles on the atmospheric effect of aircraft (contrails), but was unaware of this, and previous NASA conferences. I am in contact with the editor and a collaborative report of the latest conference should be forthcoming.

Is This a Secret?

One might reasonably ask if these conferences are secret, and the answer is no. However, if something is not actively advertised, does not appear in print of on the tube, it does not exist!

Two years ago I saw a small notice in a list of conferences in "Eos," the "trade": paper of the American Geophysical Union. My e-mailed questions to the coordinator were answered quickly and satisfactorily. I asked for the press kit, and was told there was none. It surprised me that NASA would do anything without a press release.

When I got the agenda I was further astounded that the presence of so many internationally prominent scientists attending a week long conference on such highly interesting and provocative topics had not been reported anywhere. The news of a plane crash involving a few dozen passengers is instantly flashed to millions of uninvolved people world wide, but thousands of airplanes directly affecting millions of people does not seem to merit a word.

Normally the scientific articles one reads in the newspaper are produced from press releases sent to newspapers which are usually printed as received, although large newspapers may rewrite and expand them. So, it seems that all anyone has to do to keep a subject quiet is not to pamper and spoon feed the print and broadcast media. Not that I blame any researcher dependent on grant funding lasting from one to three years.

Another Surprise

Surprisingly, S. Fred Singer, a prominent "ozone skeptic" (often quoted by Rush Limbaugh dittoheads) presented a paper arguing that the steady increase in air traffic over the last twenty years might be responsible for the nighttime warming occurring across North America.

Singer presented a study by another scientist of satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures over the past 18 years showing an overall small negative trend-with the exception of the United States which shows a warming of .3 degrees C per decade. This warming occurs at similar latitudes where continuous growth in commercial air traffic is occurring. These flights burn millions of tons of fuel directly in the "clean" areas of the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere.

High altitude cirrus clouds are produced by contrails from air traffic, just how many is the problem.These clouds reflect heat up or down and can cool and warm depending on their thickness. Adding up the pluses and minus, aircraft induced clouds were estimated to have warmed the atmosphere significantly, mostly during the night time hours.

Singer presented Satellite and balloon data showing an acceleration of the warming during the last ten years. He also used data showing a decrease in the daily extremes of temperatures to support his contention that aviation was affecting regional, and possibly global climate.

A study using direct measurements of cirrus clouds over Salt Lake city showed an increase in such clouds in step with aircraft fuel consumption. This could be a result of the large amount of water vapor (a potent greenhouse gas) produced by jet engines and injected into the narrow layer at an altitude of 10-11 kilometers. For every kilogram of fuel burned about one and a half kilos of water vapor is produced.

Another study by the Langley Research Center using ground based observations by the US Air Force, reported contrails occurring most often during mid morning hours in winter near major commercial air traffic corridors. A strong correlation was found between contrail frequency and fuel usage above 7 km.

Measurements by German scientists from aircraft found layers of soot in seemingly natural cirrus clouds suggesting that it might be incorrect to call such clouds "natural". One scientist said that one might reasonably conclude that cloud cover over Germany had increased by as much as 10 percent.

Other German scientists processed archived cloud data from US satellites which showed a composite image of contrails criss crossing most of Europe-with the exception of Bosnia Herzgovina which showed clear, since little commercial air traffic went there. Although Singer acknowledged uncertainties, he argued that satellite and direct measurements supported his theory.

"If this is true" he said, "then the climate scenario calculated for a warming based on a doubling of carbon dioxide will be reduced and also the future climate warming".

In other words all disaster scenarios based on global warming from carbon dioxide must be speeded up- since air traffic is increasing so rapidly.

There was some discussion on whether the impact of aircraft induced cloudiness from contrails would warm or cool the atmosphere. It seems to me that it doesn't really matter which way it goes-positive or negative since change is change-and either way, the climate will change.

European environmentalists seem more aware of and concerned about the environmental effects of aviation than their American counterparts, which is surprising, considering the furor in the states in the 1970s over the proposed development of a US supersonic civil transport and its impact on the ozone layer. Several papers were presented assessing the impact of a future fleet of 500 or 1000 supersonic aircraft.

Is The Aircraft Industry Threatened?

Air travel accounts for about ten percent of the world's modern transportation industry, with millions of people paying huge amounts of money to travel billions and billions of kilometers for one reason or another. In the US, aircraft manufacturing ranks seventh in dollar value of exports and it employs thousands of people, directly and indirectly, in high skill, high paying jobs.

According to Boeing, air travel is expected to increase by 70% over the next ten years and 180% over the next twenty. Air travel allows large under developed countries to leap into a modern transportation system without having to build expensive roads, bridges, ports etc. And, if their market is big enough, like China's, they can participate in manufacturing and acquire advanced technology.

Boeing and Airbus Industries are the two remaining gigantic corporations competing ferociously for the trillion dollar aircraft market expected to develop over the next 20 years. More than 13,500 heavy jets are expected to be built, dwarfing the size of the fleet now in service. With the cost of these jets ranging from $32 to $171 million and intense competition, there appears to be little incentive to consider environmental mitigation (if that is the right word).

Is the Stratosphere Threatened?

Air travel today mostly involves sub sonic jet aircraft cruising at 9-13 kilometers in the upper troposphere.(which we blithely fly through in our pressurized capsule watching bad movies, drinking sodas and eating peanuts) Some heavily traveled air routes, like the North Atlantic Flight Corridor take sub sonic jets into the stratosphere 44 percent of the time. What goes into the troposphere stays there, at most a few weeks. What goes into the stratosphere can stay months or years. And now the latest generation of two motored heavy jets are expected to fly 2 kilometers higher, cruising more often in the stratosphere where emissions will destroy more ozone.

**********************

The exhausts from internal combustion engines in our cities and on our freeways and airport runways produce acids and ozone and eventually smog. What happens high in the atmosphere is more complicated and hard to observe directly. For example, oxides of nitrogen react with and destroy ozone in the stratosphere when exposed to ultraviolet radiation from the sun. These oxides are deactivated at night, but, during summer months at high latitudes, the sun hardly sets, __so ozone destruction continues as long as there is light__. Flying in the stratosphere these exhaust gases destroy ozone. Flying in the troposphere they produce ozone, a heat trapping gas in the "wrong" place.

**********************

When aircraft burn fuel they expel exhausts at high temperatures directly into the turbulent wake of the plane. Complex chemical reactions occur within this turbulent region producing soot, carbon monoxide, water, three kinds of nitric acid and sulfuric acid. These emissions form surfaces on which destructive chemical reactions can occur.

If it is cold enough, and there is enough water vapor in the background, contrails will form consisting of instant acid ice clouds, which may disappear or linger. The concern is that some may linger long enough to produce a high altitude haze indistinguishable from "natural" clouds and these will warm the air and earth below.

Although the soot, water and gases released may appear to be small in comparison to the area in which they are released a small effect can be magnified if converted into, say a hazy layer. Although soot accounts for only 1 percent of emissions, that comes to 16 million metric tons if one takes the British Airways figure of 144 million metric tons as the amount of fuel burned by the industry each year. That comes to about 3 percent of fossil fuel burned each year-which may not seem much-but it it burned where it produces the maximum effect.

Conclusions

Aircraft emissions are significantly affecting our atmosphere now and will continue to grow. The full extent is not known, especially considering that emissions from military aircraft and rocket launchings are not included. With sub sonic jets flying higher in the stratosphere there is little need to distinguish between sub sonic and super sonic jets. Aside from eliminating sulfur from jet fuel, reducing or even slowing aircraft emissions, will be difficult if not impossible.

NOAA: Effects of Aircraft on The Atmosphere
http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/Pubdocs/Aircraft2.html

A National Aeronautics and Space Administration ER-2 research aircraft, carrying a full load of scientific instrumentation, intercepted the exhaust trail of an Air France Concorde supersonic transport aircraft that was flying at twice the speed of sound near New Zealand in October of 1994. An international team of scientists seized the opportunity and made the first-ever measurements of gases and particles from a supersonic plane in-flight. The emissions could play critical roles in the chemistry that destroys ozone in the stratosphere.

By flying S-patterns along the Concorde flight track, the ER-2 research aircraft made several encounters with the exhaust plume. Measured amounts of carbon dioxide, water vapor, particles, and nitrogen-containing compounds have shed new light on how supersonic passenger aircraft, or High Speed Civilian Transport (HSCT), being considered for increasing use in several countries around the world, may impact the ozone layer.

Gases known as nitrogen oxides, which are of primary concern because of their known role in depleting the ozone layer, were found in the plume in amounts that were in agreement with laboratory tests of the Concorde engines. However, the amount of particles in the plume was higher than expected from previous laboratory and modeling studies, a result that will likely affect the predictions of the impact on the ozone layer. The particles form when sulfur in the aircraft fuel is converted, either in the atmosphere or in the engine itself during combustion, to other forms. The amount of sulfur in aircraft fuel therefore affects the formation of the particles.

From their particle measurements, the researchers calculate that a future possible fleet of 500 supersonic passenger aircraft will increase the surface area of particles in the atmosphere by an amount similar to that following small volcanic eruptions. __In mid-latitude regions, such emissions have the possibility of increasing ozone loss above that expected for nitrogen oxide emissions alone__.

**********************

The increase in the number of particles may also affect the ozone-related processes occurring on wintertime polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) in the polar regions; PSCs and enhanced levels of chlorine and bromine from human activities have been shown to be responsible for the occurrence of the Antarctic ozone hole..... [more]

posted 09-01-2002 11:43 AM            

Good quote, UT. Yes, stop reading from authors who've actually taken the time to do REAL research on these subjects, and just follow your own preconceived notions and conjecture. That's kinda what uneducated people used to do...they'd never try to actually study and understand anything...they would just attribute things based upon their fears and emotions, hence why you have alot of sailors from the 1500s saying there were "sea monsters", when they were actually whales, etc.

You live in the northwest, right? That part of the country traditionally has more overcast days than much of the rest of the US. I have two friends in my unit that are from your area, and both have been on leave back home within the past 2-3 months. They haven't noticed anything weird.

TS, not sure on that one...I do know that JP-7 has a ton of additives, and normal jet engines can't burn that fuel well, and it's pretty bad for your skin too. Anyhow, no one uses JP-7 anymore. It is an expensive fuel and it had only one purpose...the SR-71.

Speaking of fuel, the Navy accidentally put JP-8+100 on our jet, and we had to make a write up in the forms to notify maintenance because our aircraft isn't supposed to use JP-8+100. Only trainers and fighters use JP-8+100. Airlift and tanker aircraft do not. I don't think it would really hurt the engine, but the basic reason is because the military hasn't done the flight testing to ensure our engines would operate OK with the fuel.

posted 09-01-2002 12:31 PM            

quote:

---

....is that the stuff that has R-134-A in it...

---

It would be pretty hard to mix in R-134A in jet fuel, since it's boiling point is below zero. But even if you could, I don't see the benefits of having a refrigerant in any type of fuel.

posted 09-01-2002 02:10 PM            

Read what BioScape of California has determined is killing the Red Oak Trees. Tell me, does your book cover acid rain, acid smog and sudden root death from high levels of aluminum?

2001 Winter Season UPDATE ON THE TREE DECLINE COMPLEX IN CALIFORNIA

Dear Customer:We at Bioscape, Inc. have always strived to provide the highest quality of horticulturally correct information, even though the information at the time has not been popular or supported by other professionals and or academics. However, we also feel that a difference of opinion is an essential and healthy part of the scientific process. As you know, we have not been a willing participant in the recommendation of applying a toxic pesticide to the bark of trees using Astro or Dragnet, as an integral part of a program to save trees by repelling beetles. We have always made it clear to our clients, that this operation was not the proper way to manage this difficult complex that kills your valued oak trees. Fortunately, due to a study that Bioscape assisted in, this recommendation has been abandoned! Now, we have assembled our own integrated or IPM management plans to help keep oaks and other trees alive. Our program has changed! As a result of our independent studies our professional opinion is that our trees are being predisposed by primary environmental factors like: acid rain, acid fog, nitrate deposition and ozone. Soils are also being rapidly depleted of valuable nutrients like calcium and phosphorous at alarming rates! This is predisposing oak trees to infestations by a secondary fungus and tertiary beetles. Our program now has evolved into a nutritional program whereby we are working with the inherent phosphorous deficiency that most all oaks have developed.

**Why have they developed a serious phosphorous deficiency?**

**The answer is in the soil, which has been seriously impacted by acidic precipitation and acid fog in this area.**

**According to the National Atmospheric Deposition Network the rain in this area is about the ph of vinegar and nitrogen is being deposited at alarmingly high rates.**

Our lab tests, taken at our 500-acre research site for the past 2 years, indicate extremely acidic soils and

**elevated toxic aluminum**

levels in soils and trees. What this means to trees is sudden root death. Also, excessive nitrate deposition has affected the mycorrhizae in the soil that oak trees depend on for their ability to absorb water and nutrients. There is also a dysfunction called aluminum toxicity that is affecting roots. Aluminum is normally unavailable to roots, but becomes available and toxic at low ph. Our program has now evolved into a nutritional program whereby the nutritional needs of oaks is met first, then a soil-rebuilding program using rock dust and humates are utilized to replace valuable nutrients in the soil. The addition of this rock dust remineralizes the soil and corrects decades of mineral depletion in soils. The microinjection of oaks and other trees with our UC patented phosphite fertilizer serves to stabilize the tree and allow it to regrow. This injection immediately enters the tree and begins restoring the trees ability to function again. Phosphorous is an essential element for trees and critical for root production. Not only does phosphite help roots, but is actually beneficial to the regeneration of mycorrhizae on the roots of oaks and other trees. Secondly, we also recommend having your trees treated with an intravenous solution of Phyton-27 systemic copper. Currently Phyton 27 is the only fungicide specifically registered for the control of the secondary fungus. Remember, neither a beetle or a fungus alone is killing your trees, rather, it is good old fashioned air pollution. Air pollution strips nutrients from trees and makes them more susceptible to fungi and insect attacks. Click here for more information about Bio-Serum.

Sincerely,Ralph J. Zingaro Plant Doctor #07123BIOSCAPE, INC.
4381 Bodega Avenue, Petaluma, CA

posted 09-01-2002 03:33 PM            

Most of the haze stops rather abruptly around 10,000 feet, give or take a few thousand. The haze can come from a number of man-made and natural sources.....fires, auto and industrial emissions, etc. Haze was prevalent even down in Central and South America, where I had been flying the past week.

I won't argue that aircraft don't produce emissions. And I won't argue that the emissions coming from aircraft won't increase in the near future. However, the aviation industry as a whole has made leaps and bounds improving aircraft fuel efficiency. The auto industry hasn't even come close to the aircraft industry.

Twenty years ago, cars were getting about 15 mpg. Now, we've got a few token hybrid vehicles and electric cars, but most cars average about 25 mpg. Commercial trucks have improved even less.

In the 1960's, a typical jet engine produced around 5-10,000 lbs of thrust, and burned thousands of gallons of jet fuel an hour. Today, jet engines on typical commercial airliners produce 50,000 to over 100,000 lbs of thrust, and burn half the fuel of the older turbojets. This not only means decreased fuel consumption per engine, but now airliners are made with 2 engines instead of 4. It would be the equivelant of the auto industry improving average fuel efficiency from 15 mpg to about 40 mpg.

But there are only a handful of cars that get 40 mpg, and most Americans love their V-8 powered cars that suck down gas.

Generally speaking, auto, truck and industrial emissions are still by far the largest threat to the atmosphere. It's funny that people on this board target aircraft as the source of the haze, yet up at altitude, it's crystal clear. Only down lower do you see any evidence of air pollution. And the fact that the aviation industry is working on a hydrogen-powered jet engine, yet the consumers reject the idea of alternative fuel cars and trucks, makes it even more insulting for those of us who work in the aviation industry to get the blame for air pollution.

Aircraft do contribute, but they aren't the primary source of the environmental problems in the world.

posted 09-01-2002 04:48 PM            

I seriously doubt that SST aircraft will become commercially viable in the next 10 years. This talk sounds alot like the clamor for SST travel in the early 1970s, when it was forcast that most people would be travelling supersonic by the 1990s. But the economics of the whole thing just didn't make sense. Supersonic airplanes=narrow cabins. Narrow cabins=fewer passengers. Fewer passengers=ultra-high ticket prices to pay for the huge amount of operating costs that SSTs bring.

posted 09-01-2002 06:34 PM            

the purpose of adding r-134-a to jet fuel, only would be for the few flights that go really fast at really high altitude...

fuel boils in the tanks on it's own under those conditions, the r-134-a is used as a coolant...which increase performance and the distance of the flight...

now go take on the day...

posted 09-01-2002 08:36 PM            

The only problem about the car adaptation is cost....while aviation won't have as many problems switching fuels, auto users will. Hydrogen is expensive, handling issues exist, and the general public tends to stick to things they know.

posted 09-02-2002 12:14 AM            

R-134a is a flourine based gas. If you somehow added it to aircraft fuel by means of dissolving it, it would simply bubble out and emulsify the fuel.

posted 09-02-2002 12:19 AM            

Even older aircraft like DC-8s and 707 freighters no longer use water injection...or they wouldn't be allowed to operate within the US due to Stage I noise restrictions. Most DC-8s were modified with TF-33 turbofans or CFM-56 turbofans, neither of which can inject water.

posted 09-02-2002 12:35 AM            

The ones I was referring to are the ones that aren't listed in the official Air Force fleet, and have been seen with fake tail numbers, painted all white or nearly so. I've seen the C-22, but I haven't ever personally seen the C-32s, of which Air Forces Monthly magazine has reportedly seen two with fake tail numbers that don't appear in the official USAF inventory. Since there are only a handful of these "mystery" airplanes, it's speculated that they are used for high-level C&C missions.

posted 09-02-2002 01:07 AM            

Seeker, you can't just add a refrigerant to a substance and expect to cool it down R-134a (or any refrigerant for that matter)

hmmm...

read this about jp8+100...mask...

http://www.af.mil/news/Nov2001/n20011114_1628.shtml

specifically :

"At a certain altitude and speed, JP8 breaks down," Chavis said. "The additive adds about 100 degrees before the breakdown happens."

This is critical for fighter aircraft that depend on fuel for cooling major components, he said.

now as far as injecting the additive...you said :

If any refrigerant was to be used to cool a fuel tank down, it would be in a self contained AC&R system within the aircraft itself, complete with tubes running through the tanks, with sinks for extra heat transfer (like a wine cooler).

hmmm...

from the same link this application seems to work for jp8+100, without the wine coolers :

Fuel trucks can hook directly to the hydrants, which were fitted with the injector system for the additive. Special hoses can also be attached to the hydrants so aircraft can be fueled directly in the hot pit area

oh my...

posted 09-02-2002 01:41 AM            

JP-8+100 is NOT (I repeat) NOT a refrigerant. So stop talking about it like it is by trying to prove me wrong.

R-134a and JP-8+100 have nothing in common. So why did you even bring it up? To make a pointless point?

From the article:

' "At a certain altitude and speed, JP8 breaks down," Chavis said. "The additive adds about 100 degrees before the breakdown happens." '

That's not 'cooling', nor acting like a refrigerant. It doesn't remove heat. Unless there's an endothermic chemical reation taking place, or decompression of a gas, one cannot remove heat from anything without a compressor, condensor, evaporator, and a TXV.

All JP8+100 does is raise the threshold of viscosity breakdown, so the fuel stays more stable at higher temperatures.

Oh my!

Pacer would probably even back me up on this one, for christ's sake. I'm sure he knows plenty about how fuel additives work, and I'll bet you he's never seen a chlorine or flourine based refrigerant introduced into the fuel tank of any aircraft.

(Why am I wasting my time on this petty crap?)