|
Post by Swamp Gas on Dec 9, 2006 0:34:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Dec 9, 2006 22:25:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Dec 9, 2006 22:49:29 GMT -5
You can copy it into a Word Procssor and increase the font size, Lou
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 10, 2006 11:57:23 GMT -5
posted by Loumeister: "God, the text in that link, I can't read that small print, not even with a five inch magnifying glass." posted by swamperino: "You can copy it into a Word Procssor and increase the font size, Lou" Also, you can just hit the next page button and go one page at a time. p.433 "Our current inadvertent project in "geoengineering" involves great uncertainty and great risk. Engineered countermeasures need to be evaluated but should not be implemented without broad understanding of the direct effects and the potential side effects, the ethical issues, and the risks. Some do have the merit of being within the range of current short-term experience, and others could be "turned off" if unintended effects occur." While some aerosols can stay in the upper troposphere for months, much of the sulfate pollution only stays aloft for a few days. "The analyses in this chapter should be thought of as explorations of plausibility in the sense of providing preliminary answers to two questions and encouraging scrutiny of a third: 1. Does it appear feasible that engineered systems could actually mitigate the effects of greenhouse gases? 2. Does it appear that the proposed systems might be carried out by feasible technical means at reasonable costs? 3. Do the proposed systems have effects, besides the sought-after effects, that might be adverse, and can these be accepted or dealt with?" These madmen are just supplying the public with their own strawmen. From p. 435: "...we know something of the effect of the dust and aerosols resulting from volcanic eruptions on the climate system and on atmospheric chemistry, and we know something of the effect of industrial sulfur emissions on the climate system. It seems reasonable to assume that mitigation systems that put dust or aerosols into the atmosphere at altitudes and in quantities that are within the bounds of the natural experiments or of previous experiments would not produce instabilities or effects that had not been produced before. This expectation could provide one criterion for use of a geoengineering option: the activity must be within the natural variability of the geophysical system. We could use natural variability, or what are effectively previous experiments, as tests of the stability of the geophysical system and as opportunities to search for possible side effects. However, we must also consider that the chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, particularly from the injection of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and from the increased injection of other greenhouse gases, so past chemistry will be an incomplete guide to the future. We can use the past and our understanding of the nature of the physics and chemistry to guide us in looking for new effects as natural events occur: the next significant volcanic eruption, for example, can be used as an opportunity to extend our understanding of the effects of dust, sulfuric acid aerosol, and chemicals produced by volcanic eruptions on stratospheric chemistry and the climate system." Mt. Pinatubo anyone? Here are some other related Gastro links with plenty of info: Geo-Engineering DocumentsGLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION UP 221% Global Dimming vs Global Brightening Baffled Scientists: Less Sunlight Reaching EarthHow to Cool a Planet
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 10, 2006 12:15:13 GMT -5
From above: "It seems reasonable to assume that mitigation systems that put dust or aerosols into the atmosphere at altitudes and in quantities that are within the bounds of the natural experiments or of previous experiments would not produce instabilities or effects that had not been produced before."
previous experiments? Huh? Maybe Big Joe does have a point on the other thread about there being chemtrailing before 1997. I just think we need to be careful and put things in context, not allow the propagandists to manipulate our words.
|
|
|
Post by BigJoe on Dec 10, 2006 14:32:29 GMT -5
I just think we need to be careful and put things in context, not allow the propagandists to manipulate our words. Good point, Socrates..., the web is infested and literally swarming with dis-info's; those who are looking and lurking in finding ways of distorting, and taking what we say out of it's original context. They are desperate to keep this whole business from hitting the main stream media. Lying and distorting the truth mean absolutely nothing to them!
|
|
|
Post by et in Arcadia ego on Dec 11, 2006 12:57:03 GMT -5
All you need to do to view the text is increase text size in your browser. Once you do this, there's much to be gleaned in the Policy Implications report:
page 454:
(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988). This gives a cost of slightly more than $1 per ton-mile for freight. If a dust distribution mission requires the equivalent of a 500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours), the delivery cost for dust is $500/t, and ignoring the difference between English and metric tons, a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If 1010 kg must be delivered each 83 days, (provided dust falls out at the same rate as soot), 5 times more than the 1987 total ton-miles will be required. The question of whether dedicated aircraft could fly longer distances at the same effective rate should be investigated. However, if the requirement is to mitigate the 1989 U.S. emissions of CO2, 500 times less dust is needed, the cost is about $10 million per year, and implementation would require about 1 percent of the ton-miles flown in 1987. If 10 percent of the ton-miles flown in 1987 were used, the system could mitigate 80 Gt CO2. These costs should probably be increased by the cost of delivered dust (say, $0.50/kg) and of delivery systems in the aircraft, but better-than-average freight rates could probably be arranged. Thus the costs appear to be about $0.0025/t CO2. Clearly, the amount of dust required could be greater by a factor of 10, and the cost would be $0.025/t CO2. This provides a cost estimate in the range of $0.003 to $0.03/t CO2.
page 456:
Page 456 have been compared with the total measured increase of CO2 to obtain the equivalence: 3890 × 106 t C @ 1 ppmv CO2. A 4 percent increase in cloudiness was then equated to a 300-ppmv CO2 decrease, which translates into a reduction of 1200 Gt C or 4400 Gt CO2. Cost Estimates The primary cost of this process involves the mechanism for distributing SO2 in the atmosphere at the correct location. Assume a fleet of ships, each carrying sulfur and a suitable incinerator. The ships are dedicated to roaming the subtropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans far upwind of land while they burn sulphur. They are vectored on paths to cloud-covered areas by a control center that uses weather satellite data to plan the campaign. In addition to choosing areas that contain clouds, it would be important to distribute the ships and their burning pattern so as not to create major regional changes, or the kind of change with a time or space pattern likely to force unwanted wave patterns. These restrictions (which perhaps cannot now be defined) could present a difficult problem for such a system to solve. From the above, 16 × 103 t per day or 6 × 106 t/yr would be needed. If we allocate 102 t per ship per day, and a ship stays out 300 days each year, roughly 200 ships of 10,000-t capacity (one reprovisioning stop every 100 days) are required. At a cost of $100 million per ship (surely generous), the capital cost of the fleet is $20 billion. Amortized over 20 years, the annual capital cost is $1 billion. Sulfur will cost another $0.6 billion per year, and $2 million per ship per year for operating costs (this is $10,000 per operating day), giving a total cost of $2 billion per year. Over 40 years (until 2030), this gives a cost of $80 billion, or approximately $100 billion. This continuously mitigates 103 Gt, for a cost of $0.10/t C/yr, or $0.025/t CO2/yr. This provides a cost estimate in the range of $0.03 to $1/t CO2. Of course, this continues to be a yearly cost of $2 billion per year. The SO2 could also be emitted from power plants. These plants could be built out in the ocean near the equator (the Pacific gives more room than the Atlantic) and could furnish power for nearby locations (e.g., South America). Transmission or use of the power in the form of refined materials, or possibly by the use of superconducting power transmission systems, could be considered. It would likely require eight large power plants using "spiked" coal (with 4 times the normal amount of sulfur), at a cost of $2 to $2.5 billion per plant. Most of the cost might be borne by those buying the power; so imagining a cost of, at most, 10 percent per year (the interest on the investment), total cost would be $2 billion per year (with the above conversion, $2 × 109/3890 × 106 × 300 image $0.0005/t CO2).
page 459:
(Lifting dust, or soot, to the tropopause or the low stratosphere with aircraft may be limited, at low cost, to the mitigation of 8 to 80 Gt CO2 equivalent per year.) Such systems could probably be put into full effect within a year or two of a decision to do so, and mitigation effects would begin immediately. Because dust falls out naturally, if the delivery of dust were stopped, mitigation effects would cease within about 6 months for dust (or soot) delivered to the tropopause and within a couple of years for dust delivered to the midstratosphere. Such dust would have a visible effect, particularly on sunsets and sunrises, and would heat the stratosphere at the altitude of the dust. _______________________________________
It's important to point out that you are not seeing the full copy of this text; You are seeing the beginning and end of each page and the only way to see the full copy is to purchase the PDF, which I did about a year and a half ago(?). There is WAY more data that is not provided online, and it appears the last pages in the Mitigation chapter have been scrambled when they weren't previously.
|
|
|
Post by et in Arcadia ego on Dec 11, 2006 13:08:20 GMT -5
There's also a considerable number of pages missing now from chapter 28 in addition to the ones that are now scrambled in greek..
|
|
|
Post by kola on Dec 12, 2006 22:08:23 GMT -5
Arcadia,
I apologize if I am interrupting this thread. I noticed you were once a moderator for CTC. I have not spent much time at CTC and read very little info from that site. May I ask why you have left CTC?
Kola
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Dec 12, 2006 22:17:00 GMT -5
Kola, I was Site Admin at CTC and had the same permissions as Thermit, as did Mech. We all left for the same reason. Thermit lifted all banning, and said we can't do that any more. Mech was the first to leave, and literally all of us left within 3 days. This came after someone (suspect ED Smell) hacked the site in Sept 2005, days after Katrina. I caught him deleting the entire site in front of my eyes. He used Thermit's account from a cookie. I banned the Thermit account, and that stopped the interloper. Right after that, Thermit lifts all bans. Before that someone posted about "doing illegal things to planes and president Dumbya". That's when I recruited a team of about 10 moderators to keep a 24/7 watch on CTC.
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Dec 12, 2006 23:32:01 GMT -5
et in Arcadia ego / sickle666 wrote,
"It's important to point out that you are not seeing the full copy of this text; You are seeing the beginning and end of each page and the only way to see the full copy is to purchase the PDF, which I did about a year and a half ago(?). There is WAY more data that is not provided online, and it appears the last pages in the Mitigation chapter have been scrambled when they weren't previously." ______________________________________________________________________
This is no more surprising than most government and university sites, they all seem to be deliberately censoring and skewing such related information, look no further than the weather liars on your local TV channels and news reporters, they will not utter a word about the obvious spraying and you know they know what's going on, the constant bombardment of subliminals of the Chemtrail's through TV advertisements that we are being subjected to 24/7, the reluctance of any elected or appointed official to openly talk about the subject of chemtrail spraying, it all adds up to one stinking massive cover up, the stench of it is overpowering.
We are looking at not just a national but international operation being conducted on a massive scale with no doubt the cooperation of the United Nations.
Our voices are going to have to get a lot louder than they are at present to break through the kind of resistance that those responsible for the spraying are going to put on us, they have without question enormous amounts of money, time and resources devoted to these spraying operations and I doubt if they are going to leave the draft to the plans laying around for us to find, in fact they are going to do everything that they can to make us all appear to be a bunch of fringe lunatics while working their mind control techniques on the sleepy public, Hey, Bush sold the Iraq war, if that moron can do that what can the real Phy-Ops crew do?
There is no doubt about it, this is an up hill fight all the way with many, many obstacles to overcome.
|
|
|
Post by et in Arcadia ego on Dec 13, 2006 22:45:41 GMT -5
et in Arcadia ego / sickle666 wrote, "It's important to point out that you are not seeing the full copy of this text; You are seeing the beginning and end of each page and the only way to see the full copy is to purchase the PDF, which I did about a year and a half ago(?). There is WAY more data that is not provided online, and it appears the last pages in the Mitigation chapter have been scrambled when they weren't previously." ______________________________________________________________________ This is no more surprising than most government and university sites, they all seem to be deliberately censoring and skewing such related information, look no further than the weather liars on your local TV channels and news reporters, they will not utter a word about the obvious spraying and you know they know what's going on, the constant bombardment of subliminals of the Chemtrail's through TV advertisements that we are being subjected to 24/7, the reluctance of any elected or appointed official to openly talk about the subject of chemtrail spraying, it all adds up to one stinking massive cover up, the stench of it is overpowering. Nevertheless, I assure you the data is there in the complete PDF. I'm going to have a go at tracking down the disck I burned it to tommorrow if time permits, and I'll give you a nice sample or three of what I found in it. Cheers, D
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Dec 13, 2006 23:08:23 GMT -5
Et,
Oh, I have no doubt the info is there in your information, I was making a general observation on most of the resorces that we dig through these days, no inference to you or what information that you have.
|
|
|
Post by BigJoe on Dec 14, 2006 17:26:07 GMT -5
Check out these interesting "sliced" trails over Long Island City in the summer of 2000. Never saw trails so neatly turned "off" and "on" before. Note especially the nice, clean and sharply squared off edges... Kinda looks like white highway lines up in the sky... world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?20006
|
|
|
Post by halva on Dec 14, 2006 22:54:27 GMT -5
.......the reluctance of any elected or appointed official to openly talk about the subject of chemtrail spraying, it all adds up to one stinking massive cover up, the stench of it is overpowering. What should we do when an elected official asks questions about chemtrails in parliament, as happened a couple of years ago with two Italian parliamentarians and is happening now with one Greek parliamentarian?
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 15, 2006 13:12:48 GMT -5
.......the reluctance of any elected or appointed official to openly talk about the subject of chemtrail spraying, it all adds up to one stinking massive cover up, the stench of it is overpowering. What should we do when an elected official asks questions about chemtrails in parliament, as happened a couple of years ago with two Italian parliamentarians and is happening now with one Greek parliamentarian? You could provide credible news sources with these stories and if possible translate them into English. I think Google has translation software. Then if someone keeps calling this a hoax, you can link to such stories and ask the paid debunkers to prove how such politicians are in on the "hoax".
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 15, 2006 15:09:37 GMT -5
Reuter's Story on CrutzenINTERVIEW-Scientist says new data backs sulphur climate plan Fri 15 Dec 2006 6:38 AM ET By Ari Rabinovitch TEL AVIV, Dec 15 (Reuters) - Nobel Prize laureate Paul Crutzen says he has new data supporting his controversial theory that injecting the common pollutant sulphur into the atmosphere would cancel out the greenhouse effect. Though such a project could not be implemented for at least 10 years, the data is aimed at appeasing critics of the idea he first championed in the scientific journal Climatic Change in August. The Dutch meteorologist showed what he calls the positive cooling effect of adding a layer of sulphates to the atmosphere at a global warming conference at the Porter School for Environmental Studies in Tel Aviv. He said new, detailed calculations carried out since August showed the project would indeed lower global temperatures. "Our calculations using the best models available have shown that injecting 1 million tonnes of sulphur a year would cool down the climate so the greenhouse effect is wiped out," Crutzen told Reuters. An added layer of sulphates in the stratosphere, some 10 miles (16 km) above the earth, would reflect sunlight into space and reduce solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, Crutzen said. He said he envisioned giant cannons or balloons dispersing the sulphur to offset the build-up of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, largely released by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and vehicles. The world has struggled for decades to reduce sulphur pollution, a component of acid rain that kills forests and fish, mainly through tighter controls on burning coal. "We are now entering a very intensive period of model calculations and following that we will conduct small experiments to test the sulphur oxidation mechanisms that we calculated," Crutzen said. NO LONGER TABOO Crutzen said he planned to publish the new findings in a few months' time in one of the major scientific journals. The idea of using sulphur to combat global warming -- which most scientists say will bring more floods, desertification, heatwaves and rising sea levels -- is not new. Scientists noticed that large volcanic eruptions had similar effects and the 1991 eruption on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines lowered temperatures around the world for two years. For decades the theory was dismissed as dangerous until Crutzen, who won the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for research on ozone, published his paper. "Until August this was a taboo issue. But the paper I published really set off some movement in this area. It never hit the level of seriousness which it has taken in the past months. It may have had to do with the Nobel Prize, but I hope that's not all," Crutzen said. Some critics say the project is too risky and will have negative effects on the earth's water supply and increase acid rain. Crutzen said it was necessary to study the negative consequences, but he did not expect a rise in acid rain because the amount of sulphur injected would be a small percentage of the sulphates polluting the lower atmosphere today. Some environmental groups, wary of geo-engineering projects, say the idea should at least be looked at. "The fact that the top experts in the field are saying it's necessary shows it's a sad state of affairs," said Steve Sawyer, a policy adviser for Greenpeace International. "This idea should be examined and as a last resort it can buy us a few decades," Sawyer said. © Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. Frankenstein Movie Poster, 1931 The Granger Collection, New York Frankenstein- Pygmalion Design
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 15, 2006 15:25:26 GMT -5
RawStory comments on the above Crutzen article(excerpts) December 15th, 2006 at 08:51:10 From: Misanthrope Novel IdeaHow about we just learn to live in harmony with the earth. I don't think pumping MORE shit into the atmosphere is going to fix anything! December 15th, 2006 at 09:25:18 From: Ranger Jay Great idea. Introduce noxious pollution to fight pollution. Dumbass. December 15th, 2006 at 09:49:50 From: Via sulphurMight tip things too far in the other direction. We shouldn't be playing Gaia. We need to learn to live within the Earth's carrying capacity or she will teach us to do so - the hard way. (me:Is this one from a disinfo agent?) December 15th, 2006 at 14:24:20 From: physicist not as crazy as you thinkThe idea is not as crazy as it sounds, and it is not even new. The famous plot showing global temperature vs time for the past 100 years or so, has a dip which is attributed to aerosols such as sulphur. And the standard explanation for the fact that global warming did not start fr many years after large scale carbon burning was started is that aerosols prevented it. As to those who argue that sulphurs is a pollutant and would increase deaths etc, it all depends on whether you believe that global warming will be catastrophic and lead to billions of deaths. If you believe that, then you have to agree that it would be preferable to cough a little, wouldn't you?
|
|
|
Post by halva on Dec 15, 2006 22:51:10 GMT -5
What should we do when an elected official asks questions about chemtrails in parliament, as happened a couple of years ago with two Italian parliamentarians and is happening now with one Greek parliamentarian? You could provide credible news sources with these stories and if possible translate them into English. I think Google has translation software. Then if someone keeps calling this a hoax, you can link to such stories and ask the paid debunkers to prove how such politicians are in on the "hoax".
|
|
|
Post by halva on Dec 15, 2006 23:06:01 GMT -5
What should we do when an elected official asks questions about chemtrails in parliament, as happened a couple of years ago with two Italian parliamentarians and is happening now with one Greek parliamentarian? You could provide credible news sources with these stories and if possible translate them into English. I think Google has translation software. Then if someone keeps calling this a hoax, you can link to such stories and ask the paid debunkers to prove how such politicians are in on the "hoax". I'm talking about what one does in relation to a politician who has begun to ask questions in parliament on the subject. It would seem that what has to be done is to provide support for such a person. It would be even better for this support to be international rather than merely national. To me the idea of using the emergence of "chemtrails" from the internet into real-world politics merely as a development that can be exploited to take the issue back into the internet again for the purpose of arguing more convincingly with internet debunkers.... seems perverse, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Dec 15, 2006 23:08:38 GMT -5
But I will translate the relevant news item. I've been putting it off because the ideological level of the questions the parliamentarian in question has asked is not so very impressive.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Dec 15, 2006 23:13:32 GMT -5
It is we who have to provide the leadership. We can't trail along behind such politicians. We have to give them support and strengthen them, not take our agenda from them.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 16, 2006 1:15:38 GMT -5
WTF Is This? ? CERFACS: Aviation and Environment Team Ongoing actions Main objective The main objective of the project is to better quantify the chemical and radiative atmospheric impacts of aviation at the various scales from the aircraft near field to the global atmosphere. An integrated evaluation of the different steps that involves the emission transformations must be performed, from the gaseous and particulate species generation in the combustion chambers, their chemical and microphysical transformations in the aircraft near field, their vertical and horizontal dilution in the far wake along the contrail path, up to the formation of corridors by the fleets and their transport by the general circulation of the atmosphere. At each of those steps the chemical and radiative atmospheric perturbations must be assessed. This will be done using a hierarchy of numerical models, AVBP and NTMIX from CERFACS and Méso-NHC, Arpège (1D and 3D), MOBIDIC (2D) and MOCAGE (3D) from CNRM. In addition the atmospheric impact of aviation must be compared to the other sources of pollution, in particular those from surface transportation. For the period in consideration the objectives of the CERFACS are: 1. To further develop the NTMIX model for contrail simulation with introduction of an improved microphysics and heterogeneous chemistry. 2. To investigate the far-field aircraft wake with emphasis on the effects of atmospheric stratification on the vortex dynamics and the wake turbulence. 3. To develop and validate the coupling between NTMIX and Méso-NH for the simulation of pollutant dispersion and contrails-to-cirrus transition. To obtain a first evaluation of effective emission indices for Noy species. 4. To update and further develop the linerarized ozone chemical scheme derived from MOBIDIC taking into account NOy perturbations and to validate this approach against MOBIDIC and MOCAGE full chemical simulations. Main steps 1. Development of the NTMIX model for contrail simulation. Simulations of contrail formation with various initial size distributions of exhaust particles have been performed with NTMIX code (Paoli et al., 2004), by implementing a simplified microphysical model for ice condensation. In coordination with F. Garnier from ONERA and Ph. Mirabel from Strasbourg University an updated microphysical model that takes into account interactions with NOx and sulphur chemistry will be implemented. Contrail simulations will then be performed and the non linearity in the chemical system will be assessed. 2. Simulation at mesoscale: coupling of NTMIX and Méso-NH. The above simulations will be extended to cover the far-field wake (5 to 10 km from the aircraft). Emphasis will be put on the transition from the contrail 3D structure of the exahust gases and particles trapped into the descending vortex pair, to the quasi-2D cirrus-like shape occurring in the dispersion regime of the wake, after the vortex breakdown. A strategy to couple these simulations to Méegrave;so-NH computations that will cover the 10 to 100 km domain will then be defined, in particular the possible use of a nested version of Méso-NH will be investigated. The overall approach of the mesoscale coupled simulations will be validated using existing observations (in situ and satellite). 3. Approaches to the linearization of the atmospheric chemistry. A linearized ozone scheme is used in the Arpege/Climat model. It has been developed by Cariolle and Déqué, 1986 in order to study the interactions between the ozone distribution and the climate evolution. It is computationally efficient and can be used for first rapid assessment of impacts without the need to use more sophisticated chemical models such as MOCAGE, which is much more resource demanding. In order to use the linearized scheme for emission scenarios from aircraft it must be updated to include the heterogeneous chemistry, and the influence on ozone chemical production and destruction rates of the perturbations due to NOy species (mainly NO+NO2 and HNO3), CO and H2O. To this end the MOBIDIC model will be used and comparison with the MOCAGE model will be performed using emissions and/or distributions of perturbed species from the FP5 SCENIC project. References [1] Cariolle, D. and M. Déqué. Southern hemisphere medium-scale waves and total ozone disturbances in a spectral general circulation model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 91,10.825-10.846, 1986. [2] Paoli, R., J. Hélie, and T. Poinsot. Contrail formation in aircraft wakes, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 502, 361-373, 2004. © Copyright CERFACS 2005
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 16, 2006 1:37:04 GMT -5
From one of their team publications: A linearized approach to the radiative budget of the stratosphere: influence of the ozone distribution Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L05806, 2006 D. Cariolle Centre Européen de Recherche et Formation Avancée en Calcul Scientifique, Toulouse, France J.-J. Morcrette European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK Abstract The influence of the ozone distribution on stratospheric temperatures is studied using a linearized version of a detailed radiative code. The response of the linear radiation model to ozone change is found to be very consistent with the sensitivity of the ECMWF general circulation model (GCM). In particular, the lower stratospheric temperatures of the linear model and of the GCM respond similarly to changes in the vertical ozone gradient in the upper troposphere-lower stratosphere. It is concluded that the GCM sensitivity to ozone is mostly a linear response via changes in the solar and long wave radiation absorption, combined with the very long radiative damping times that prevail in the lower stratosphere. The present linearized approach to radiative transfer can therefore constitute a valuable means to obtain at low computational cost a first guess of the stratospheric temperature response of coupled GCM-Chemical Transport Models to ozone distribution changes. Received 23 December 2005; accepted 31 January 2006; published 8 March 2006.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 16, 2006 2:27:18 GMT -5
International Consortium for Atmospheric Research on Transport and Transformation Several groups in North America and Europe have independently developed plans for field experiments in the summer of 2004, aimed at developing a better understanding of the factors that shape air quality in their respective countries and the remote regions of the North Atlantic. For example, NASA and NOAA are planning experiments under the Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment - North America ( INTEX-NA) and the New England Air Quality Study - Intercontinental Transport and Chemical Transformation ( NEAQS - ITCT) 2004 programs respectively while the Europeans (U.K., Germany, and France) are organizing coordinated studies under Intercontinental Transport of Pollution (ITOP). While each of these programs has regionally focused goals and deployments they share many of the same goals and objectives and the proposed study areas overlap significantly. ICARTT was formed to take advantage of this synergy by planning and executing a series of coordinated experiments to study the emissions of aerosol and ozone precursors their chemical transformations and removal during transport to and over the North Atlantic. The capabilities represented by the consortium will allow an unprecedented characterization of the key atmospheric processes. The combined research conducted in the programs that make up ICARTT will focus in three main areas: regional air quality, intercontinental transport, and radiation balance in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 16, 2006 2:39:44 GMT -5
from above: "1. To further develop the NTMIX model for contrail simulation with introduction of an improved microphysics and heterogeneous chemistry."
put "NTMIX" into the search engines, and the results are strange. Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by et in Arcadia ego on Dec 16, 2006 9:55:21 GMT -5
I told you the Atlantic was the party spot, didn't I? [edit* coffee hadn't kicked in; I meant the Pacific, but both Oceans make excellent labs..] If you want to learn about another significant lab, check out Ramanathan's Asian Brown Cloud study. Ramanathan's work, as you may know, is one of the oldest references to particulate distribution theory, and is cited by Teller in his crackpot PDF as well as several other publications including the ones mentioned here in the OP. An early paper of his that appears to be a data vector for everything that came after is the target of a long standing hunt of mine I've been unsuccessful locating online. It's another one that has to be ordered. Meet Ramanathan: cires.colorado.edu/events/lectures/ramanathan/Meet the Asian Brown Cloud Project: www-c4.ucsd.edu/ProjectABC/And of course, you should have valid concerns about the anthropogenic Asian Brown Cloud, which is quite the nasty phenomenon all by itself.. www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/brown_cloud.html
|
|
|
Post by et in Arcadia ego on Dec 16, 2006 10:00:10 GMT -5
from above: "1. To further develop the NTMIX model for contrail simulation with introduction of an improved microphysics and heterogeneous chemistry." put "NTMIX" into the search engines, and the results are strange. Any ideas? I'll look into it when I get a chance, but so far the language suggests it's studying 'normal' interactions between contrails and the enviornment with the purpose of finding ways to minimize radiative forcing (man-made climate change). This makes sense either way in the context that even if there isn't a mitigation program in place as we believe that program would be greatly facilitated by reducing the existing emissions or altering them chemically into a more enviornmentally inert form. That's what I get from a quick-ish glance.
|
|
|
Post by et in Arcadia ego on Dec 16, 2006 10:10:47 GMT -5
I'm talking about what one does in relation to a politician who has begun to ask questions in parliament on the subject. It would seem that what has to be done is to provide support for such a person. So why aren't you already doing this, then? And if support is an issue, why haven't you already translated and disseminated the information as it would seem to be important to do so, yet you haven't? It is we who have to provide the leadership. We can't trail along behind such politicians. We have to give them support and strengthen them, not take our agenda from them. Okey dokey...To support or not to support. Which is it, man? I'm amazed at how many words it takes you to say as little as possible. You're a kinda persistent contrail yourself, aren't you? And who might you be in favor of nominating among our little society for this 'Leadership' role you suggest? Lemme guess . . . .
|
|
|
Post by et in Arcadia ego on Dec 16, 2006 12:13:35 GMT -5
I told you the Atlantic was the party spot, didn't I? [edit* coffee hadn't kicked in; I meant the Pacific, but both Oceans make excellent labs..] One further thought on this is a release program in the Pacific would make the Atlantic a perfect locale to monitor perticulate dispersion from it's position further down the jet stream. This location would be a prime data collection point not only for stratoshperics we consider here but also for monitoring of ground level emissions from useless eaters like ourselves. All too often, talks about persistent contrails leave out the fact that particulate supersaturation states that make them more likely to form whether in the presence of a deliberate particulate release or not include us as contributers whether that is acknowledged or not. Particulate saturation is NOT limited to dispersal programs..
|
|