posted 07-11-2003 11:49 PM            

Despite the forest fire in Arizona, that area alternates day to day between clear and covered for well over the past week.

Note the bands moving across the Pacific, and what is probably the most dramatic, major sand storm off of Africa into the Atlantic.

posted 07-12-2003 01:02 AM            

Note that the southwestern quadrant of the United States and all of Mexico are in the 10+ UV category - right where they've been for the last 10-14 days. Note also that the rest of the U.S. is in the 7-10 category - pretty much where it's been, with a few small regional exceptions, for the last 10-14 days.

Re: aerosol coverage over northern Arizona - the last 6 days has been, by far, the longest stretch of relatively trails-free days I've observed since I arrived here last November - until last night at around 10:00pm Mountain Standard Time when I observed a deck of spreading trails moving in toward Flagstaff from the WSW. This morning the sky was a mess with trails-in-progress threading all through it. I do have to say here that this crap-cover did make the sun's intensity more bearable today.

I saved today's Skew-T for this region.

The last 4 days has seen several all-time temperature records broken statewide. Of note is the fact that very few homes and small businesses in northern Arizona have central air-conditioning - because it generally isn't needed, especially at the higher elevations.

posted 07-12-2003 08:40 PM            

quote:

---

Note that the southwestern quadrant of the United States and all of Mexico are in the 10+ UV category - right where they've been for the last 10-14 days

---

Funny that all this aerosol coverage hasn't seemed to effect the UV index. I've been watching these indexes for some time now, and the index is routinely at 9 and 10 in my area while under this alleged UV shield. Not trying to be a wiseguy or anything, I just haven't been able to establish any sort of correlation at all between high UV exposure (or low UV, for that matter) and atmospheric aerosol injection via artificial vectors.

My other observation is that my location experienced aerosol whiteout conditions on the day of that NASA image.

posted 07-12-2003 11:38 PM            

completely!

http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/aerosols/today_aero.html

Whether the instrumentation is either incapable of detecting the aerosols we are concerned with...and often see... or the data are washed...who knows.

Note that if you click on the full screen enlarged view it comes up with June 30th, NOT the present day.

IS someone asleep at the wheel? ..or is this intentional? Interesting that June 30 was the first time I posted this data.

Not getting a full screen of the present day certainly makes a more detailed analysis difficult.

If I was looking at today, I'd say the monsoon rains put out the Arizona fires.

I'll continue to watch.

posted 07-13-2003 12:35 AM            

I don't think you're being a "wise guy". In fact, your point re: UV Index relative to aerosol coverage is well-taken.

I will say one thing - given my current altitude [7,000 feet] and realizing that the UV risk is higher *to begin with* at this level, I'm already taking that into consideration when I make observations regarding the day-to-day reality of exposure here. With that in mind, I can tell you definitely that there were a few days this week prior to the ingress of the trails-deck on Thursday evening/white-out coverage on Friday when being outside between 11:00am and 5:00pm was pretty hard to take. I am no wimp - if I want to do something there isn't much that will stop me. But I AM exercising a little caution under current conditions as I can clearly see that it would be just plain stupid not to.

posted 07-13-2003 01:25 AM            

Have scoped out 5-day forecasts for several AZ locations and it looks like prospects of serious rain [monsoon] are increasing toward the end of next week. Currently, there's a lot of dust blowing around in the Phoenix area.

posted 07-13-2003 05:19 PM            

quote:

---

It occurs to me that there's a possibility the UV Index may, in fact, be higher in some locations than the standard "upper limit" of 12

---

Yeah, the thought had crossed my mind, as well. I admit to being in the dark when it comes to how this uppermost level of UV exposure was originally determined... with the exception of Puerto Rico, I haven't seen it go over 10-11 in the US very often... but you're looking at skin damage in under 10 mins at that level (supposedly anyway... I've spent an entire day at the beach in San Juan at the height of summer w/out suncreen and didn't burn... but I'm apparently more resistant to sun damage than most for some reason).

posted 07-13-2003 09:03 PM            

.....Whether the instrumentation is either incapable of detecting the aerosols we are concerned with.....

Chem11 wrote:

.....Perhaps the technology is designed to be altitude specific...?.....

Interesting points. Am thinking.....

P.S. Is there any way we could cut down on the width of this thread? Sorry - don't mean to whine.....

posted 07-14-2003 07:39 PM            

Dome of Montserrat volcano collapses

OLVESTON, Montserrat (AP) - Montserrat's volcano spewed thick clouds of ash into the air on Sunday, delaying flights across the Caribbean and plunging surrounding islands into a gritty haze.

Tree branches were snapped off from the weight of the ash and significant damage was done to surrounding vegetation on the British territory, said Richard Herd, director of the Montserrat Volcano Observatory. Elsewhere, flights were cancelled and one man reportedly died in St. Croix during a car accident that police blamed on poor visibility.

...more

Now go to NASA's aerosol monitoring site:
http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/aerosols/today_aero.html

and click on the images to see them larger and in more detail.

Note the yellow burst of intensity in the Caribbean corresponding to the Montserrat erruption.

posted 07-17-2003 10:09 PM            

.....My bet is that NASA has their "noise" filter turned WAY up, hence this tool will be of limited value in tracking the aerosols in which we have interest.....

I could not agree more!

The GOES Pacific imagery showing the bizarre aerosol configurations over the **marine layer** is one thing. [And I have an idea that dimethyl sulfide production, which is a side-effect of ocean iron dumping studies in-progress, MAY be responsible for an excessive marine boundary layer particulate load which facilitates the formation of those anomalous trails configurations. There are several ocean iron-dumping pilot studies ongoing off the California coast, off the coastlines of Hawaii, in the Southern Ocean, in the Tasman Sea, in the Carribean etc. And that's just the western hemisphere.]

Imagery over land is another matter.

Why do we not see, in similar imagery over land mass, the thousands of absolutely bizarre trails configurations which we are so regularly observing and informally reporting to each other? Why aren't THESE **routinely appearing** on the water vapor, infra-red, visible and even the fog channels? They damned well should be, and on a day-to-day basis, given the level of proliferation we're observing just looking up at the sky, in my opinion.

Is anyone here open to considering the possibility that public availability of whatever channel would SHOW this **over-land-mass** trails activity is being SUPPRESSED?

Anyone who knows me knows this is hardly a paranoid inquiry. I wouldn't be thinking this way unless I had pretty good reason to feel this was worth pursuing.

posted 07-18-2003 02:55 AM            

And what's all this about aerosol production over the Pacific? With all that marine traffic in that part of the world, surely someone should be able to proffer a single PHOTOGRAPH of this activity for comparitive analysis with the satellite data.

I've seen enough GOES images to fill a hard drive, but not a single 4X6 depicting these trails has been entered into evidence.

Until that happens, I can only conclude that all this paranoia regarding 'atmospheric aerosols' being deployed over the Pacific ocean is a collective delusion being fueled by the same NASA hoaxsters that managed to convince the Columbia shuttle crew that everything was 'under control'.

posted 07-18-2003 08:48 PM            

.....And what's all this about aerosol production over the Pacific?.....

Regarding the Pacific Ocean, testbed since at least 1996 for several preliminary studies on both ocean iron fertilization and ocean carbon sequestration, I offer the following information for consideration here as pertains to "aerosol production" or what may be showing up as same in some of the GOES images:

18 October 2002
Max Planck Institute for Chemistry
Mainz, Germany

Food for Thought: What are the Likely Side Effects of Fertilizing Phytoplankton with Iron?
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressRele ases/2002/news0226.htm

Excerpt:

.....Phytoplankton are responsible for the production of several gases which are important in the atmosphere, including dimethyl sulfide, ***which leads to the formation of cloud condensation nuclei,*** and carbonyl sulfide and volatile organohalogens, which are believed to contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion; all of these gases have been investigated extensively by Max Planck Institute for Chemistry researchers in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Biogeochemistry departments over the past three decades.

Accelerated production of these gases resulting from iron fertilization would lead to changes in the atmospheric composition and climate, which could offset the beneficial effects of CO2 removal.

The additional photosynthetic activity would also be expected to lead to a significant warming of the ocean's surface waters, which may have important consequences for oceanic circulation and the climate, especially in regions such as the Southern Oceans, where much of the iron fertilization effort would be focused. It is argued that the known potential for significant side effects is sufficient that iron fertilization should not be made eligible for carbon trading credits.....END excerpt.

Heidi Slagle
Northern Arizona University
The Impact of Cloud Formation on Global Warming
http://www.nau.edu/~soc-p/ecrc/cloud%20formation.html

[This reference is not dated, unfortunately, but a look at the bibliography places it as being written after 1998.]

Excerpt:

Clouds from Algae?

.....Algae produce dimethylsulphoniopropionate (DMSP) to keep their osmotic balance with seawater. If they did not produce DMSP, they would become dehydrated.

DMSP is believed to be released when algae die or are grazed upon by zooplankton. DMSP then breaks down in the sea to form DMS [dimethyl sulfide.]

About a tenth of DMS enters the atmosphere, while the rest is consumed by bacteria or broken down by sunlight to form dimethylsulphoxide.

Once in the atmosphere, DMS forms three compounds: sulphur dioxide, sulphates and methane sulphonic acid. Water vapor can condense around the last two and form clouds.

"Approximately 60 million tons of biogenic DMS emissions are transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere annually." (Phillips 1992) Robert Charlson (1987) hypothesized that this is how clouds are formed in remote open regions of the ocean.

Could the increase of production of algae blooms help cool the planet?.....END excerpt.

Good question there. This whole situation just keeps getting more and more interesting, doesn't it?

More shortly.

By the way, since I seem to have to keep repeating this over and over and over, I AM NOT CONDONING IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE GEO-ENGINEERING METHODOLOGIES by virtue of the fact that I'm posting references to them.

QUITE THE OPPOSITE, I am VERY UPSET that our situation has been allowed to become so serious that this kind of approach is now apparently deemed crucial to our long-term survival here.

I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS MADNESS AND I **DO NOT BELIEVE** THAT THIS IS A HaPpY JoYfUl WoNdErFuL PoSiTiVe THING UNDERWAY HERE.

Thank you.

EDIT: I was going to delete the above statement as I guess it's a little emotional and I don't like to get that way in a public venue. Now I'm not sure what to do. Anybody here with kids probably knows the feeling and why it's such a driving force where this entire MESS is concerned.

Anyway, here is another reference [this is a new one - I haven't read it thoroughly yet] and if someone could post the map of western hemisphere OIF studies I'd appreciate it very much. Note, among other things the use of sulfur hexafluoride as a tracer for quantification of specific study parameters. These are OUR OCEANS being messed with here:

Iron-Fertilisation of the Oceans
Experiments to date (2003)
http://www.bbm.me.uk/FeFert/experiments.htm

posted 07-19-2003 11:54 AM            

Great work Deborah ! !

The following map indicates sites of iron-fertilization experiments to date:

posted 07-19-2003 06:35 PM            

quote:

---

This whole situation just keeps getting more and more interesting, doesn't it?

---

Indeed. There' a definate connection between these two very different methods of atmospheric modification; sulfates seem to be very much en vogue with aspiring planetary engineers these days.

posted 07-19-2003 07:48 PM            

.....sulfates seem to be very much en vogue with aspiring planetary engineers these days......

YES.

I knew you would pick up the ball on this very point.

And on the matter of sulfates and their **atmospheric cooling properties** [the effects of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption of ultimately planet-cooling aerosols weren't intensively studied in the early 90's for nothing in my opinion]:

1) Proposed geo-engineering methodology involving the utilization of sulfates does not necessarily **exclusively** imply ADDING to the atmospheric sulfate load by implementation of various and specific mitigation protocols.

2) Ergo, calculated use of ALREADY EXISTING sources of sulfate aerosol emissions may well be one part of current geo-engineering methodology under serious consideration.

3) I.E. -

--- a) Allowing a pre-determined level of source-point sulfate emissions pollution to continue unabated, thereby allowing these emissions to serve as an **atmospheric cooling mechanism** to offset now conclusively documented CO2-warming. [Coal-fired power plants are a prime example here - you know - the ones that BushCo is in favor of expanding the use of.]

--- b) Allowing a pre-determined number of aerosol-producing forest fires to burn under supervision, thereby allowing these emissions to serve as an **atmospheric cooling mechanism** to offset now conclusively documented CO2-warming. [This season's relatively bland media coverage of the dozens of wildfires currently burning across the West seems to indicate a rather more laissez faire orientation to this matter than what we were seeing last summer.]

--- c) 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.

And most definitely so on, if you see where I'm going here.

There have been a number of media articles over the last two years which have specifically referenced the findings of the atmospheric research community re: the cooling effect of ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOL POLLUTION and how this factor is important to include in their ongoing evaluation of the greenhouse gas warming problem.

posted 07-19-2003 07:54 PM            

Thank you for posting the OIF Studies image map.

posted 07-19-2003 09:26 PM            

.....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.

posted 07-20-2003 09:29 PM            

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?

posted 07-24-2003 12:59 AM            

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.

posted 09-03-2003 07:19 AM            

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.

posted 09-07-2003 03:37 PM            

Thank you.