|
Post by altitudelou on Oct 6, 2006 19:02:09 GMT -5
Our evening sky on the 5th was full of the "crap" from their spraying all of that day and in the rising moonlight there were a number of trail's in various stages of spreading out obscuring what would have been a nearly full moon.
BASTARD'S !
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Oct 9, 2006 21:03:07 GMT -5
These clowns like to talk a lot about aerosols and their cooling effects. CLIMATE: A New Route Toward Limiting Climate Change? Steven J. Smith, Tom M. L. Wigley, Jae Edmonds FrankenScienceexcerpt: "Even if selective reduction of the soot component of aerosol forcing were practical, it would only provide temporary relief (9). This approach does not address the long-term effects of greenhouse gas emissions. SO2 emissions decline from 2050 to 2100 in all SRES scenarios. By the last half of this century, radiative forcing will be increasingly dominated by long-lived greenhouse gases such as CO2 and nitrous oxide. In addition, much of the infrastructure related to the emissions of these gases has a long lifetime, and plans to stabilize radiative forcing by the end of the next century must be well in place by 2050. A policy that relies on a temporary aerosol cooling offset, even if successful, is likely to shortchange the longer term goal. The goal of the FCCC is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" (10). Much of the ongoing discussion has therefore focused on the long term. An additional focus on limiting shorter term increases in radiative forcing, as suggested by Hansen et al., should also be considered, particularly if further research shows that increases in the rate of climate change are likely (5). Reducing emissions that lead to local air pollution may, indeed, help contribute to reducing climate forcing. Pollution controls, however, rarely reduce a single constituent, and as discussed above, this will limit the overall magnitude of any pollution-control-derived forcing reduction. Economic considerations and the nature of the climate target can change the emphasis on CO2 relative to other radiatively important substances (11), but the primary focus must remain on CO2." It's kind of obvious that this is what is going on, NOW !!!
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Oct 9, 2006 21:58:30 GMT -5
Absolutely no doubt about it.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Oct 11, 2006 23:29:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Oct 17, 2006 21:16:55 GMT -5
To those following the plot so far, here is yet another example of someone marketing sulfates. Braking before the environment crashergosphere.blogspot.com with comments excerpts: "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. The "climate change is a myth" crowd is still at it, but their claims are growing simultaneously more shrill and less credible. The evidence is piling up at a rate which is accelerating as fast as the atmospheric GHG concentration: glaciers the world over are retreating, mountain snowpacks shrinking, New Mexico's piñon pine forests dying en masse, permafrost across the arctic melting, the whole of Antarctica losing ice mass while the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be destabilizing, Greenland's glaciers accelerated to double their previous speed, the North Atlantic Conveyor slowing worringly, the Larsen B ice shelf broken up, arctic sea ice vanishing, heat waves killing tens of thousands even in the first world... the list goes on and on[1]. ...The difficulty with trying to fix a problem on this scale is that the solutions must not have side effects anywhere near as large. Such things get into a nasty mess of fixes, counter-fixes, counter-counter fixes and so forth. Ideally the fix will work just like some natural mechanism that already does just what we need. It needs to be something that we can apply easily, and adjust or stop entirely if it has untoward side effects. Fortunately, nature gave us an existence proof: aerosols. The 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo provides an example that we can follow. Up to 20 million tons of material was injected high into the atmosphere (my sources are not clear how much of that got to, and remained in, the stratosphere). The sulfur which got there oxidized to SO3 and then combined with water to form H2SO4; this material remained aloft for as much as 3 years. The effects included: * Ozone depletion (catalysis on the surfaces of the aerosol particles) * Temperature decreases up to 0.6° C in the northern hemisphere * A somewhat lesser temperature decrease in the southern hemisphere * A drop in sea levels of approximately 0.5 centimeter Except for the ozone depletion, this is just what the doctor ordered. It is effective, it is reversible, and the world certainly did not end as a consequence. Far from it; some research concludes that soil carbon inventories increased as a consequence of the atmospheric effects. This not only helped offset the effect of warming, it directly affected the cause. But can we do what Pinatubo did, and keep it up year after year while we deal with the root cause? Let's take a look at that... "
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Nov 5, 2006 23:05:53 GMT -5
Geoengineers admitted back in 2003 that aerosol mitigation doesn't work. Geoengineering not an antidote to greenhouse warming American Geophysical Union JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS 6 January 2003 Planetary-scale engineering projects to mitigate the effects from global warming will likely do little to prevent the effects of increased greenhouse gases on the terrestrial biosphere, according to Govindasamy et al. The authors modeled the impact on Earth's biosphere from various schemes that would reduce solar radiation reaching the planet's surface, which would compensate for the radiative effects from a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They suggest that trapping outgoing radiation with carbon dioxide would be negated by reduced solar input, also pointing out that effects on the Earth's surface from increased carbon dioxide would be largely unaffected by geoengineering plans. Among the effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, many of which are unknown, are that photosynthesis of plants would be accelerated, changing the growth and distribution of plant and animal life. Title: Impact of geoengineering schemes on the terrestrial biosphere Authors: Balasubramanian Govindasamy, S. Thompson, P. B. Duffy, K. Caldeira, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California; C. Delire, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. Source: Geophysical Research Letters (GL) paper: 10.1029/2002GL015911, 2002
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Nov 5, 2006 23:07:41 GMT -5
From the same source above:
Aircraft exhaust effect on climate change
Increased sulfate aerosols from commercial airliners will affect tropospheric ozone levels and may lead to surface cooling while contributing to upper-atmospheric warming. Pitari et al. examined how sulfur in exhaust emissions from subsonic aircraft affects atmospheric chemistry by using two chemical models that, for the first time, can analyze the direct and indirect effects of atmospheric changes forced by aircraft emissions. The authors propose that sulfuric acid particles in aircraft fuel exhaust reduces the number of sulfate aerosols in the upper troposphere and enhances the chemical reactions on the particle's surface, which can reduce ozone levels. Unlike previous studies that had primarily focused on jet contrails and the effects on the climate from pollutants and emissions, the dual atmospheric model predicts how both chemical reactions and atmospheric particles are responsible for forcing climate change.
Title: Climate forcing of subsonic aviation: Indirect role of sulfate particles via heterogeneous chemistry
Authors: Gianni Pitari, E. Mancini, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy; A. Bregman, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, The Netherlands.
Source: Geophysical Research Letters (GL) paper: 10.1029/2002GL015705, 2002
|
|