Archive for the ‘contrails’ Category
THIS – 87,000 Flights each Day – The Skies over Britain – Aviation and the Environment – Climate change – Mechanisms – Total Effect – Radiative Forcing – Vostock Core Samples – Potential reductions – Reducing travel – Kyoto Protocol – Emissions Trading – References for Understanding the Atmosphere
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
This increase in the number of passengers using UK airports is representative of the world as a whole. It almost exactly also represents the annual number of millions of tons of water deposited as ice in our stratosphere. Where once it was SIX MILLION TONS per year (in 1958), it now (in 2008) is THREE HUNDRED MILLION TONS per year of exhaust ICE that finds its way into our stratosphere as a consequence of Man’s aviation activities*. THAT is what is VISIBLE in your sky when you are complaining about it. NOTHING ELSE. It’s a piffling amount compared with the amount of water vapor ALREADY up there!
* That is three hundred million tons of seed ice. When the stratospheric layer the aircraft is passing through is supersaturated, then the trail may grow by a factor of up to ten thousand times.
87,000 Flights each Day
On any given day, more than 87,000 flights are in the skies in the United States. Only one-third are commercial carriers, like American, United or Southwest. On an average day, air traffic controllers handle 28,537 commercial flights (major and regional airlines), 27,178 general aviation flights (private planes), 24,548 air taxi flights (planes for hire), 5,260 military flights and 2,148 air cargo flights (Federal Express, UPS, etc.). At any given moment, roughly 5,000 planes are in the skies above the United States. In one year, controllers handle an average of 64 million takeoffs and landings.
For every one flight you see listed on an airport monitor, two you don’t see show up on air traffic controllers’ screens. It would take approximately 7,300 airport terminal monitors to show all the flights controllers handle in a single day and approximately 460 monitors to show the number of flights being handled at any one time.
The Skies over Britain
Aviation and the Environment
Aviation impacts the environment because aircraft engines emit noise, particulates, gases, and contribute to climate change and global dimming. Despite emission reductions from automobiles and more fuel-efficient and less polluting turbofan and turboprop engines, the rapid growth of air travel in recent years contributes to an increase in total pollution attributable to aviation. In the EU greenhouse gas emissions from aviation increased by 87% between 1990 and 2006.
There is an ongoing debate about possible taxation of air travel and the inclusion of aviation in an emissions trading scheme, with a view to ensuring that the total external costs of aviation are taken into account.
Like all human activities involving combustion, most forms of aviation release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the earth’s atmosphere, very likely contributing to the acceleration of global warming. In addition to the CO2 released by most aircraft in flight through the burning of fuels such as JP-4 and JP-8, Jet-A (turbine aircraft) or Avgas (piston aircraft), the aviation industry also contributes greenhouse gas emissions from ground airport vehicles and those used by passengers and staff to access airports, as well as through emissions generated by the production of energy used in airport buildings, the manufacture of aircraft and the construction of airport infrastructure.
While the principal greenhouse gas emission from powered aircraft in flight is CO2, other emissions may include nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, (together termed oxides of nitrogen or NOx), water vapour and particulates (soot and sulfate particles), sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide (which bonds with oxygen to become CO2 immediately upon release), incompletely-burned hydrocarbons, tetra-ethyl lead (piston aircraft only), and radicals such as hydroxyl, depending on the type of aircraft in use. The contribution of civil aircraft-in-flight to global CO2 emissions has been estimated at around 2%. However, in the case of high-altitude airliners which frequently fly near or in the stratosphere, non-CO2 altitude-sensitive effects may increase the total impact on anthropogenic (man-made) climate change significantly — this problem is not present for aircraft that routinely operate at lower altitudes well inside the troposphere, such as balloons, airships, helicopters, most light aircraft, and many commuter aircraft.
Subsonic aircraft contribute when aloft to climate change in four ways:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
CO2 emissions from aircraft-in-flight are the most significant and best understood element of aviation’s total contribution to climate change. The level and effects of CO2 emissions are currently believed to be broadly the same regardless of altitude (i.e they have the same atmospheric effects as ground based emissions). In 1992, emissions of CO2 from aircraft were estimated at around 2% of all such anthropogenic emissions, though CO2 concentration attributable to aviation in 1992 was around 1% of the total anthropogenic increase, because emissions occurred only in the last 50 years.
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
At the high altitudes flown by large jet airliners around the tropopause, emissions of NOx are particularly effective in forming ozone (O3) in the upper troposphere. High altitude (8-13km) NOx emissions result in greater concentrations of O3 than surface NOx emissions, and these in turn have a greater global warming effect. The effect of O3 concentrations are regional and local (as opposed to CO2 emissions, which are global).
NOx emissions also reduce ambient levels of methane, another greenhouse gas, resulting in a climate cooling effect. This effect does not, however, offset the O3 forming effect of NOx emissions. It is now believed that aircraft sulfur and water emissions in the stratosphere tend to deplete O3, partially offsetting the NOx-induced O3 increases. These effects have not been quantified. This problem does not apply to aircraft that fly lower in the troposphere, such as light aircraft or many commuter aircraft.
Water vapor (H2O) Contrails
Aiircraft in flight at high altitudes emit water vapor, a greenhouse gas, which under certain atmospheric conditions forms condensation trails, or contrails. Contrails are visible line clouds that form in cold, humid atmospheres and are thought to have a global warming effect (though one less significant than either CO2 emissions or NOx induced effects). Contrails are extremely rare from lower-altitude aircraft, or from propeller aircraft or rotorcraft.
Cirrus clouds have been observed to develop after the persistent formation of contrails and have been found to have a global warming effect over-and-above that of contrail formation alone. There is a degree of scientific uncertainty over the contribution of contrail and cirrus cloud formation to global warming and attempts to estimate aviation’s overall climate change contribution do not tend to include its effects on cirrus cloud enhancement.
Least significant is the release of soot and sulfate particles. Soot absorbs heat and has a warming effect; sulfate particles reflect radiation and have a small cooling effect. In addition, they can influence the formation and properties of clouds. All aircraft powered by combustion will release some amount of soot.
In attempting to aggregate and quantify these effects the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that aviation’s total climate impact is some 2-4 times that of its CO2 emissions alone (excluding the potential impact of cirrus cloud enhancement). This is measured as radiative forcing. While there is uncertainty about the exact level of impact of NOx and water vapour, governments have accepted the broad scientific view that they do have an effect. Accordingly, more recent UK government policy statements have stressed the need for aviation to address its total climate change impacts and not simply the impact of CO2.
The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change, a figure which includes both CO2 and non-CO2 induced effects. The IPCC has produced scenarios estimating what this figure could be in 2050. The central case estimate is that aviation’s contribution could grow to 5% of the total contribution by 2050 if action is not taken to tackle these emissions, though the highest scenario is 15%. Moreover, if other industries achieve significant cuts in their own greenhouse gas emissions, aviation’s share as a proportion of the remaining emissions could also rise. Per passenger kilometre, figures from British Airways suggest carbon dioxide emissions of 0.1kg for large jet airliners (a figure which does not account for the production of other pollutants or condensation trails).
The radiative forcing units are in watts per metre squared. The total positive forcing (on the right) amounts to 0.045 W/m2.
This must be compared with the world average insolation of 1330W/m2. It is 0.34 millionths of it.
Insolation values range from 800 to 950 kWh/(kWp·y) in Norway to up to 2,900 in Australia.
A large volcanic eruption would seriously lower this insolation.
VOSTOCK CORE SAMPLES
This is a plot of CO2 concentration, ambient temperature, CH4 concentration, insolation, running backwards in time for 420,000 years. CO2 can be seen to LAG ambient temperature.
Modern jet aircraft are significantly more fuel efficient (and thus emit less CO2 per unit power) than 30 years ago. Moreover, manufacturers have forecast and are committed to achieving reductions in both CO2 and NOx emissions with each new generation of design of aircraft and engine. The accelerated introduction of more modern aircraft therefore represents a major opportunity to reduce emissions per passenger kilometre flown.
Other opportunities arise from the optimisation of airline timetables, route networks and flight frequencies to increase load factors (minimise the number of empty seats flown), together with the optimisation of airspace. Another possible reduction of the climate-change impact is the limitation of cruise altitude of aircraft.
This would lead to a significant reduction in high-altitude contrails for a marginal trade-off of increased flight time and an estimated 4% increase in CO2 emissions. Drawbacks of this solution include very limited airspace capacity to do this, especially in Europe and North America and increased fuel burn due to jet aircraft being less efficient at lower cruise altitudes. However, the total number of passenger kilometres is growing at a faster rate than manufacturers can reduce emissions, and at present there is no readily available alternative to burning kerosene.
The growth in the aviation sector is therefore likely to continue to generate an increasing volume of greenhouse gas emissions. However some scientists and companies such as GE Aviation and Virgin Fuels are researching biofuel technology for use in jet aircraft. As part of this test Virgin Atlantic Airways flew a Boeing 747 from London Heathrow Airport to Amsterdam Schiphol Airport on 24 February 2008, with one engine burning a combination of coconut oil and babassu oil. Greenpeace’s chief scientist Doug Parr said that the flight was “high-altitude greenwash” and that producing organic oils to make biofuel could lead to deforestation and a large increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
The majority of the world’s aircraft are not large jetliners but smaller piston aircraft, and many are capable of using ethanol as a fuel, with major modifications. While ethanol also releases CO2 during combustion, the plants cultivated to make it draw that same CO2 out of the atmosphere while they are growing, making the fuel closer to climate-change-neutral. The main problems with burning ethanol as a fuel are that it takes more energy to produce than is returned, it displaces food crops and thus raises the price of food and causes soil degradation.
While they are not suitable for long-haul or transoceanic flights, turboprop aircraft used for commuter flights bring two significant benefits: they often burn considerably less fuel per passenger mile, and they typically fly at lower altitudes, well inside the tropopause, where there are no concerns about ozone or contrail production. For even shorter flights, air taxi service using newer, fuel-efficient four- or six-seat light piston aircraft could provide an even lower environmental impact.
An alternative method for reducing the environmental impact of aviation is to constrain demand for air travel. The UK study Predict and Decide – Aviation, climate change and UK policy, notes that a 10 per cent increase in fares generates a 5 to 15 per cent reduction in demand, and recommends that the British government should manage demand rather than provide for it. This would be accomplished via a strategy that presumes “… against the expansion of UK airport capacity” and constrains demand by the use of economic instruments to price air travel less attractively. A study published by the campaign group Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) concludes that by levying £9 billion of additional taxes the annual rate of growth in demand in the UK for air travel would be reduced to 2 per cent. The ninth report of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee, published in July 2006, recommends that the British government rethinks its airport expansion policy and considers ways, particularly via increased taxation, in which future demand can be managed in line with industry performance in achieving fuel efficiencies, so that emissions are not allowed to increase in absolute terms.
Greenhouse gas emissions from fuel consumption in international aviation, in contrast to those from domestic aviation and from energy use by airports, are not assigned under the first round of the Kyoto Protocol, neither are the non-CO2 climate effects. In place of agreement, Governments agreed to work through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to limit or reduce emissions and to find a solution to the allocation of emissions from international aviation in time for the second round of Kyoto in 2009 in Copenhagen.
As part of that process the ICAO has endorsed the adoption of an open emissions trading system to meet CO2 emissions reduction objectives. Guidelines for the adoption and implementation of a global scheme are currently being developed, and will be presented to the ICAO Assembly in 2007, although the prospects of a comprehensive inter-governmental agreement on the adoption of such a scheme are uncertain.
Within the European Union, however, the European Commission has resolved to incorporate aviation in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). A new directive has been adopted by the European Parliament in July 2008 and approved by the Council in October 2008. It will enter into force on 1 January 2012.
Well, there you are… ….the most relevant aspect of this report is this:
Aviation is responsible for ONLY 3.5% of anthropic climate change, the existence of which is proven.
References for Understanding the Atmosphere
Battan, Louis J. 1979. Fundamentals of Meteorology. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bohren, C. P., and B. A. Albrecht. 1998. Environmental Science. Earth as a Living Planet. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Charlson, R. J., J. E. Lovelock, M. O. Andreae, and S. G. Warren. 1987. Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulfur, cloud albedo and climate. Nature 326:655-61.
Fermi, E. 1956. Thermodynamics. New York: Dover Publications.
Gleick, P. H. 1996. Water Resources In Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather, S. H. Schneider, ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goody, R. M., and J. C. G. Walker. 1972 Atmospheres. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.
Hecht, E. 1996. Physics: Calculus. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks Cole Publishing Co.
Hess, S. L. 1959. Introduction to Theoretical Meteorology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Holton, James R. 1979. An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press Inc.
Lutgens, F. K. and E. J. Tarbuck. 2004. The Atmosphere – An Introduction to Meteorology. Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Mason, B. J. 1957. The Physics of Clouds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
McIlveen, Robin. 1986. Basic Meteorology: A Physical Outline. Berkshire, UK: Van Norstrand Company Ltd.
Penner, J. E., D. H. Lister, D. J. Griggs, D. J. Dokken, and M. McFarland, eds. 1999. Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Planck, M. 1945. Treatise on Thermodynamics. Translated by A. Ogg. New York: Dover Publications.
Rogers, R. R., and M. K. Yau. 1989. A Short Course on Cloud Physics. 3rd ed. Woburn, Mass.: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Schlesinger, W. H. 1997. Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press.
U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.
Wallace, J. M., and P. V. Hobbs. 1977. Atmospheric Science – An Introductory Survey. New York: Academic Press.
Wells, N. 1997. The Atmosphere and Ocean. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Written by JazzRoc
November 25, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Tagged with 228m, 4m, aerosol, air travel, aluminium, aluminum, arthritis, barium, breathing difficulties, carbon dioxide, carnicom, chem trail, climate change, contrails, emissions trading, environment, exhaust, filaments, foot-and-mouth disease, Gulf war, heavy haze, ice, kyoto protocol, lines in the sky, lung disease, mechanisms, metallic salts, million, morgellons, no more blue skies, not a normal cloud, oily clouds, oxides of nitrogen, particulates, passengers, potential reductions, ptb, recession, reducing travel, rense, september 11, spraying, terminal, tic-tac-toe, total effect, UK airports, unnatural cloud, water, water vapor, webby material, whiteout, wikipedia
GROUND LEVEL – EARLIEST PHOTO – WAVE VORTICES – PROPELLER VORTICES – ‘SHOCK’ CLOUDS
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
This aircraft is on approach in humid stormy conditions. Its wheels are down and its flaps are set at fifteen degrees. A temporary “cloud” is visible over the flapped part of the wing indicating the strong pressure reduction caused by the extended flaps, and flowing back from the outermost flap edges is a pair of very strong vortices (“ectoplasm”!) thrown into sharp relief by the clouds of water droplets condensed by the severe reduction in air pressure at their centres. The vortices rise and fall with pressure fluctuations, generated in part by ambient conditions, and also changes in aircraft attitude. Some distance behind the aircraft its wave vortex is remarkably apparent. This is the “mixing engine” that causes contrails to fill supersaturated stratospheric layers.
Why are vortices so stable? Because they spin. Their rotational energy is high, and they can only be brought to a stop by viscous friction between them and the surrounding atmosphere.
The pillar of a tornado is a natural vortex, and is also typically so energetic that water vapor condenses into a “mist” (of water droplets) in the core of its vortex from what one might call the “centrifugal pressure drop” – but one shouldn’t - because the real reason for this condensation is the drop in temperature which occurs as a consequence of this drop in pressure.
THE EARLIEST PHOTO
OF PERSISTENT CONTRAILS (a.k.a. “chemtrails”)
The left-hand side of the picture was probably taken towards the end of August 1940, when the first high-altitude gun battles were being fought between the RAF and the Luftwaffe. The participants were Hawker Hurricanes and Me 109s, which were both fitted with superchargers which enabled them to manoever and fight at around 27,000 ft. The photo is taken over St. Paul’s Cathedral, London. Apologies for the poor state of the picture, but who knows how many times this picture has been copied…
There is a barrack-room lawyer who has claimed the above picture to be fake. If so, then so is this:
Seeing that I am still being spammed by this guy and others, I’m forced to point out the obvious…
These are NOT identical pictures, they ARE of St. Paul’s Cathedral, they are obviously fighter battles, and just as obviously NOT anti-aircraft fire, they AREN’T obscured by much bomb smoke because fighter battles tend to PRECEDE major bombing, as the bombers wouldn’t be able to survive fighter attacks. The defending fighters would have had to be “cleared” first, which is what happened.
As they AREN’T identical, (and yet one can see elements common to both) these pictures VALIDATE EACH OTHER. (I’m not sure that a NASA site would use “made up” material. Why would they need to, in this instance?) They are, of course, NOT the only pictures available for validation either…
The right-hand side of the first picture is a more contemporary copy of St. Paul’s for comparison.
And here is another picture of St. Paul’s, taken somewhat later in the war, where Allied bombers are circling to assemble prior to setting out to attack Germany. In this case one may discern further familiar contrail features such as ice agglomeration, falling, and shear.
WAVE VORTEX (1)
This was originally titled “Cessna Downwash” but a better name for it is “aircraft and its wave vortex climbing through clouds”. The powerful vortex generated by the pressure difference (inflight) between the topside and underside of aircraft wings is responsible for the lift which keeps the aircraft aloft and also the drag which demands the power input from its engines. The wave vortex of a jumbo jet has been known to cause light aircraft to crash five minutes AFTER the jumbo has passed. It causes “distrails” (negative contrails – ice crystal trail agglomeration and descent) and much furore in the “chemtrail community” where it is thought to be some new and misunderstood aspect of “spraying”. In reality it is the “mixing engine” which causes contrails to fill stratospheric layers with ice, and as a consequence, turn blue skies to white skies. (The”chemtrail” community immediately starts coughing!)
Let me quote you one of our “heroes” who calls himself skywitness because he believes himself to be a lone watcher of the skies on the side of the brave and true. (But on the other hand he blocked me immediately from his channel and then pursued me avidly through other channels’ comment boxes, claiming his contrail videos were irrefutable proof of “chemtrail spraying”). He asks:
“I would like to know if anyone has seen a rip in the clouds as it was taking place. Was it something that flew through the cloud, or did it just start to appear out of nowhere? I have seen more than a few of these type of rips or trails, but I have never seen how it takes place…”
All I’m asking is that anyone that knows him and reads this, could you get back to him and put him out of his misery?
WAVE VORTEX (2)
The USAF transport plane has just released its “decoy” flares into what would have been its invisible wave vortex. Chemtrailers in particular have to realise that this twin vortex extends backwards (and keeps rotating!) for at least fifty miles behind the airplane, and also, whether it is visible or not, it is always there.
These flares, by-the-way, are making the only definite “chemtrails” that can be proven to exist. Wherever this smoke falls, it will provide a few plants with a little extra fertilizer…
….Aaaaah. And of course I completely forgot these:
These have also been fervently denied by the relentlessly science-blind as “figments of a feverish imagination”.
(Also known as a “Mach Cones”):
Wow! (Conspicuous consumption or what?)
Written by JazzRoc
November 21, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with 1940, aerosol, agglomeration, air, aircraft, altitude, aluminium, aluminum, ambient, anti-aircraft, approach, arthritis, attitude, barium, battle, bomb, breathing difficulties, carnicom, centre, chem trail, chemtrail, cloud, condense, condition, contrail, degree, descent, distrails, down, droplets, ectoplasm, edge, engine, extend, filaments, flaps, fluctuation, furore, ground, Hawker, heavy haze, high, humid, Hurricane, ice, jumbo, layer, lines in the sky, Luftwaffe, lung disease, manoever, Me 109, metallic salts, mixing, morgellons, NASA, no more blue skies, not a normal cloud, oily clouds, pressure, ptb, RAF, reduction, rense, shear, skies, spraying, St. Paul's Cathedral, stormy, stratospheric, strong, supercharger, supersaturated, temporary, tic-tac-toe, troposphere, unnatural cloud, validate, visible, vortex, vortices, water, wave, webby material, wheels, whiteout, wing
ATLANTIC OCEAN – MID-EUROPE - THE CROW INSTABILITY - MORE ABOUT VORTICES – THE 9-11 VORTEX – THE “THIRD” TRAIL – SUPERSATURATION – “GAPS” – FUEL VENTS – AIRBUS 340 RTO BRAKE TEST
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
A monochrome view of the North Atlantic Ocean by AtlanticSat shows Greenland, Iceland, the British Isles, and part of Norway. Prominent in the photo is a north-south ridge of high pressure, with cold dry air to the west, and warmer wetter air to the east. Aircraft approaching or leaving this ridge have struck permanent contrail conditions on its west side. The trails are at even intervals which suggest there are only TWO great-circle routes involved (London-New York and London LAX) with regular flights from each. The stratosphere (where the trails are) is obviously moving north-to-south.
The trails peter out approaching or leaving the British Isles, where the wetter conditons don’t obtain (for a change).
Chemtrailers must ask themselves why the pilots’ aim was so poor…
Here we are centered roughly over Hamburg; Copenhagen is right center top and the Baltic Sea further to the right. We are looking at a “triangle” of air travel activity between Kiel (center top), Berlin (bottom right) and the Rhineland (bottom left).
You can see evidence that the stratosphere is sliding along at possibly 100kph from the northwest – maybe!
THE CROW INSTABILITY
I originally thought these were local control surface vortices, but I have been better advised since, by Jay Reynolds. Thanks, Jay!
MORE ABOUT VORTICES
The Crow instability is a vortex pair instability, and typically goes through several stages:
- A pair of counter rotating vortices act upon each other to amplify small sinusoidal distortions in their vortex shapes (Normally created by some initial disturbance in the system).
- The waves develop into either symmetric or anti-symmetric modes, depending on the nature of the initial disturbance.
- These distortions grow, both through interaction from one vortex on another, and also ‘Self Induction’ of a vortex with itself. This leads to an exponential growth in the vortex wave amplitude.
- The vortex amplitudes reach a critical value and reconnect, forming a chain of vortex rings.
Initially the vortex pair falls rapidly downward. Perturbations of the vortices from the ambient atmosphere grow in a sinusoidal mutual inductance instability (the Crow instability). Eventually the vortices touch, reconnect and form vortex rings which oscillate, interact with themselves and the atmospheric turbulence and stratification, and finally dissolve. During their lifetime the rings continue to drop, giving rise to the periodic series of puffs often seen in contrail evolution.
These are spin-stabilized and follow the deflected air and take a while to spin to a stop. Ice is precipitated out of the -40 deg C water vapor in the vortex vacua. Altogether an intriguing visual phenomenon!
http://www.cerfacs.fr/cfd/wake_vortex_26.php is a useful reference…
And this low-quality video reveals…
And this high-quality video shows how far our understanding has progressed…
# A vortex (plural: vortices) is a spinning, often turbulent, flow of fluid. Any spiral motion with closed streamlines is vortex flow. …
Vortices display some special properties:
* The fluid pressure in a vortex is lowest in the center (where the speed is greatest) and rises progressively with distance from the center. This is in accordance with Bernoulli’s Principle. The core of a vortex in air is sometimes visible because of a plume of water vapor caused by condensation in the low pressure of the core. The spout of a tornado is a classic and frightening example of the visible core of a vortex. A dust devil is also the core of a vortex, made visible by the dust drawn upwards by the turbulent flow of air from ground level into the low pressure core.
* The core of every vortex can be considered to contain a vortex line, and every particle in the vortex can be considered to be circulating around the vortex line. Vortex lines can start and end at the boundary of the fluid or form closed loops. They cannot start or end in the fluid. (See Helmholtz’s theorems.) Vortices readily deflect and attach themselves to a solid surface. For example, a vortex usually forms ahead of the propeller disk or jet engine of a slow-moving airplane. One end of the vortex line is attached to the propeller disk or jet engine, but when the airplane is taxiing the other end of the vortex line readily attaches itself to the ground rather than end in midair. The vortex can suck water and small stones into the core and then into the propeller disk or jet engine.
* Two or more vortices that are approximately parallel and circulating in the same direction will merge to form a single vortex. The circulation of the merged vortex will equal the sum of the circulations of the constituent vortices. For example, a sheet of small vortices flows from the trailing edge of the wing or propeller of an airplane when the wing is developing lift or the propeller is developing thrust. In less than one wing chord downstream of the trailing edge of the wing these small vortices merge to form a single vortex. If viewed from the tail of the airplane, looking forward in the direction of flight, there is one wingtip vortex trailing from the left-hand wing and circulating clockwise, and another wingtip vortex trailing from the right-hand wing and circulating anti-clockwise. The result is a region of downwash behind the wing, between the pair of wingtip vortices. These two wingtip vortices do not merge because they are circulating in opposite directions.
* Vortices contain a lot of energy in the circular motion of the fluid. In an ideal fluid this energy can never be dissipated and the vortex would persist forever. However, real fluids exhibit viscosity and this dissipates energy very slowly from the core of the vortex. (See Rankine vortex). It is only through dissipation of a vortex due to viscosity that a vortex line can end in the fluid, rather than at the boundary of the fluid. For example, the wingtip vortices from an airplane dissipate slowly and linger in the atmosphere long after the airplane has passed. This is a hazard to other aircraft and is known as wake turbulence.
Cause and effects
A wing generates aerodynamic lift by creating a region of lower air pressure above it. Fluids are forced to flow from high to low pressure and the air below the wing tends to migrate toward the top of the wing via the wingtips. The air does not escape around the leading or trailing edge of the wing due to airspeed, but it can flow around the tip. Consequently, air flows from below the wing and out around the tip to the top of the wing in a circular fashion. This leakage will raise the pressure on top of the wing and reduce the lift that the wing can generate. It also produces an emergent flow pattern with low pressure in the center surrounded by fast-moving air with curved streamlines. Wingtip vortices only affect the portion of the wing closest to the tip. Thus, the longer the wing, the smaller the affected fraction of it will be. As well, the shorter the chord of the wing, the less opportunity air will have to form vortices. This means that for an aircraft to be most efficient, it should have a very high aspect ratio. This is evident in the design of gliders. It is also evident in long-range airliners, where fuel efficiency is of critical importance. However, increasing the wingspan reduces the maneuverability of the aircraft, which is why combat and aerobatic planes usually feature short, stubby wings despite the efficiency losses.
Another method of reducing fuel consumption is the use of winglets, as seen on some modern airliners such as the Airbus A340. Winglets work by forcing the vortex to move to the very tip of the wing and allowing the entire span to produce lift, thereby effectively increasing the aspect ratio of the wing. Winglets also change the pattern of vorticity in the core of the vortex pattern, spreading it out and reducing the kinetic energy in the circular air flow, which reduces the amount of fuel expended to perform work by the wing upon the spinning air. Winglets can yield worthwhile economy improvements on long-distance flights.
Visibility of vortices due to water condensation and freezing
The cores of the vortices are sometimes visible because water present in them condenses from gas (vapor) to liquid, and sometimes even freezes, forming ice particles. The phase of water (i.e. whether it assumes the form of a solid, liquid, or gas) is determined by its temperature and pressure. For example, in the case of liquid-gas transition, at each pressure there is a special “transition temperature” Tc such that if the sample temperature is even a little above Tc, the sample will be a gas, but if the sample temperature is even a little below Tc, the sample will be a liquid; see phase transition.
For example, at the standard atmospheric pressure, Tc is 100 °C = 212 °F. The transition temperature Tc decreases with decreasing pressure (which explains why water boils at lower temperatures at higher altitudes and at higher temperatures in a pressure cooker; see here for more information). In the case of water vapor in air, the Tc corresponding to the partial pressure of water vapor is called the dew point. (The solid-liquid transition also happens around a specific transition temperature called the melting point. For most substances, the melting point also decreases with decreasing pressure, although water ice in particular—in its Ih form, which is the most familiar one—is a prominent exception to this rule.)
Vortex cores are regions of low pressure. As a vortex core begins to form, the water in the air (in the region that is about to become the core) is in vapor phase, which means that the local temperature is above the local dew point. After the vortex core forms, the pressure inside it has decreased from the ambient value, and so the local dew point (Tc) has dropped from the ambient value. Thus, in and of itself, a drop in pressure would tend to keep water in vapor form: the initial dew point was already below the ambient air temperature, and the formation of the vortex has made the local dew point even lower.
However, as the vortex core forms, its pressure (and so its dew point) is not the only property that is dropping: the vortex-core temperature is dropping also, and in fact it can drop by much more than the dew point does, as we now explain.
To a first approximation, the formation of vortex cores is thermodynamically an adiabatic process, i.e. one with no exchange of heat. In such a process, the drop in pressure is accompanied by a drop in temperature, according to the equation
Here Ti and pi are the absolute temperature and pressure at the beginning of the process (here equal to the ambient air temperature and pressure), Tf and pf are the absolute temperature and pressure in the vortex core (which is the end result of the process), and the constant γ is about 7/5 = 1.4 for air.
Thus, even though the local dew point inside the vortex cores is even lower than in the ambient air, the water vapor may nevertheless condense—if the formation of the vortex brings the local temperature below the new local dew point. Let us verify that this can indeed happen under realistic conditions. For a typical transport aircraft landing at an airport, these conditions are as follows: we may take Ti and pi to have values corresponding to the so-called standard conditions, i.e. pi = 1 atm = 1013.25 mb = 101\,325 Pa and Ti = 293.15 K (which is 20 °C = 68 °F).
We will take the relative humidity to be a comfortable 35% (dew point of 4.1 °C = 39.4 °F). This corresponds to a partial pressure of water vapor of 820 Pa = 8.2 mb.
We will assume that in a vortex core, the pressure (pf) drops to about 80% of the ambient pressure, i.e. to about 80 000 Pa.
Let us first determine the temperature in the vortex core. It is given by the equation above as
Next, we determine the dew point in the vortex core. The partial pressure of water in the vortex core drops in proportion to the drop in the total pressure (i.e. by the same percentage), to about 650 Pa = 6.5 mb. According to a dew point calculator at this site (alternatively one may use the Antoine equation to obtain an approximate value), that partial pressure results in the local dew point of about 0.86 °C; in other words, the new local dew point is about equal to the new local temperature.
Therefore, the case we have been considering is a marginal case; if the relative humidity of the ambient air were even a bit higher (with the total pressure and temperature remaining as above), then the local dew point inside the vortices would rise, while the local temperature would remain the same as what we have just found. Thus the local temperature would now be lower than the local dew point, and so the water vapor inside the vortices would indeed condense.
Under right conditions, the local temperature in vortex cores may drop below the local freezing point, in which case ice particles will form inside the vortex cores.
We have just seen that the water-vapor condensation mechanism in wingtip vortices is driven by local changes in air pressure and temperature. This is to be contrasted to what happens in another well-known case of water condensation related to airplanes: the contrails from airplane engine exhausts. In the case of contrails, the local air pressure and temperature do not change significantly; what matters instead is that the exhaust contains both water vapor (which increases the local water-vapor concentration and so its partial pressure, resulting in elevated dew point and freezing point) as well as aerosols (which provide nucleation centers for the condensation and freezing).
Condensation of water vapor in wing tip vortices is most common on aircraft flying at high angles of attack, such as fighter aircraft in high g maneuvers, or airliners taking off and landing on humid days.
A vortex can be seen in the spiraling motion of air or liquid around a center of rotation. Circular current of water of conflicting tides form vortex shapes.
Turbulent flow makes many vortices. A good example of a vortex is the atmospheric phenomenon of a whirlwind or a tornado or dust devil. This whirling air mass mostly takes the form of a helix, column, or spiral. Tornadoes develop from severe thunderstorms, usually spawned from squall lines and supercell thunderstorms, though they sometimes happen as a result of a hurricane.
In atmospheric physics, a mesovortex is on the scale of a few miles (smaller than a hurricane but larger than a tornado). On a much smaller scale, a vortex is usually formed as water goes down a drain, as in a sink or a toilet. This occurs in water as the revolving mass forms a whirlpool. This whirlpool is caused by water flowing out of a small opening in the bottom of a basin or reservoir. This swirling flow structure within a region of fluid flow opens downward from the water surface.
* In the hydrodynamic interpretation of the behavior of electromagnetic fields, the acceleration of electric fluid in a particular direction creates a positive vortex of magnetic fluid. This in turn creates around itself a corresponding negative vortex of electric fluid.
* Smoke ring : A ring of smoke which persists for a surprisingly long time, illustrating the slow rate at which viscosity dissipates the energy of a vortex.
* Lift-induced drag of a wing on an aircraft.
* The primary cause of drag in the sail of a sloop.
* Whirlpool: a swirling body of water produced by ocean tides or by a hole underneath the vortex where the water would drain out, such as a bathtub. A large, powerful whirlpool is known as a maelstrom. In popular imagination, but only rarely in reality, they can have the dangerous effect of destroying boats. Examples are Scylla and Charybdis of classical mythology in the Straits of Messina, Italy; the Naruto whirlpools of Nankaido, Japan; the Maelstrom, Lofoten, Norway.
* Tornado : a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. A less violent version of a tornado, over water, is called a waterspout.
* Hurricane : a much larger, swirling body of clouds produced by evaporating warm ocean water and influenced by the Earth’s rotation. Similar, but far greater, vortices are also seen on other planets, such as the permanent Great Red Spot on Jupiter and the intermittent Great Dark Spot on Neptune.
* Polar vortex : a persistent, large-scale cyclone centered near the Earth’s poles, in the middle and upper troposphere and the stratosphere.
* Sunspot : dark region on the Sun’s surface (photosphere) marked by a lower temperature than its surroundings, and intense magnetic activity.
* The accretion disk of a black hole or other massive gravitational source.
* Spiral galaxy : a type of galaxy in the Hubble sequence which is characterized by a thin, rotating disk. Earth’s galaxy, the Milky Way, is of this type.
# VORTEX – The Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment or VORTEX, field projects study tornadoes. VORTEX1 was the first time scientists completely researched the entire evolution of a tornado enabling a greater understanding of the processes involved with tornadogenesis. …
THE 9-11 VORTEX
As explained previously, vortices that come into contact with each reconfigure each other, regenerating intermediate “rings”, and ALL vortices will “stick” to a plane surface – like the ground (tornado), or the face of a building (World Trade Center Tower 2).
The Boeing 767, weighing around 180,000 kilograms and traveling at 260 meters/second, was pulling up in about a 2G banking turn before it struck the tower, so the energy it was putting into its (invisible) WAVE VORTEX was twice the normal, it occurred to me, so might not there be EVIDENCE of its existence in the smoke and dust after the collision?
Evidence there is, in embarrassing plenty. Embarrassing for “no-planers”, anyway, if they were to be well-informed and curious enough to CONTINUE TO WATCH after the collision took place. An oxymoron, I think.
Check back to confirm this if you like…
So now “no-planers” would HAVE to claim that the video artists that “falsified” these images were experts in aerodynamics as well.
To which the answer is OCCAM…
THE “THIRD” TRAIL…
In this case the fifth… is the trail left by the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) which is a normal (but small) gas turbine/electrical generator set. As with the main engines, it burns kerosine to form carbon dioxide and steam. As with the main engines, it leaves a trail. But where’s it coming from?
“the whole plane is spraying”
When stratospheric air is very clean and stable it may contain MORE water vapour than it does when it is described as having 100% Relative Humidity. The slightest disturbance to it will cause ice crystals to precipitate out of it. It cannot go into super-saturation if there are ANY nucleative materials of any sort in this air.
Here is just such a case, which occurs on occasion in the sub-tropical stratosphere. The trail forms by “burst condensation” into super-cooled droplets which are microscopic initially and can refract sunlight by interference. Over a small space of time these droplets grow progressively as water vapor deposits more supercooled water into them. As they progressively increase their size they run through a progression of light frequencies which they interfere with. This is NOT a refraction effect.
Chemtrailers claim the colors to be indicative of “foreign materials” which is quite the reverse of the truth; only pure water will do this, and only pure air will have become supersaturated in the first place.
The fact that in supersaturated conditions, large aircraft can place thousands of tons of ice into the stratosphere is covered by the paper “Contrails to Cirrus” mentioned in the INTRODUCTION page.
“Gaps” are claimed by chemtrailers as “evidence that planes are spraying”. Such gaps will of course appear in any persistent contrail where the stratospheric air RH falls below 100%. Generally, of course, the humidity tails off gradually, and the transition of trail-to-no-trail is quite indistinct.
In THIS case, the “transition” is a hard and sharp right angle. Too sharp, in fact, for a whirling twin-vortex contrail… Close inspection of the “sky” each side of the “gap” shows it to be comprised of a chemtrailer’s vertical “airbrush strokes”! Naughty!
Here we have an aircraft actually spraying something; it’s fuel. If some in-flight emergency occurs and the plane must make a quick landing, it must first lose weight, for it cannot land at its take-off weight. Some of its fuel must GO.
Chemtrailers are quick to claim this shot as “spraying evidence”.
Written by JazzRoc
November 20, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with aerosol, aileron, air, airbrush, aircraft, airflow, aluminium, aluminum, apu, arthritis, atlantic, atlanticsat, autopilot, auxiliary, barium, berlin, breathing difficulties, british, burst, carbon dioxide, carnicom, chem trail, cold, condensation, condition, contrail, control, copenhagen, correction, crystals, deflected, dry, emergency, europe, evidence, filaments, frequencies, Gas, generator, great-circle, greenland, hamburg, heavy haze, high, humidity, ice, iceland, in-flight, interference, isles, kerosine, kiel, lax, light, lines in the sky, london, lung disease, material, metallic salts, microscopic, morgellons, movement, new york, no more blue skies, norway, not a normal cloud, nucleative, ocean, oily clouds, phenomenon, photo, power, precipitate, precipitated, pressure, ptb, refraction, relative, rense, rhineland, ridge, route, satellite, space, spin-stabilized, spraying, steam, stratosphere, stratospheric, sub-tropical, super-cooled, supersaturation, tic-tac-toe, trail, Turbine, twin-vortex, unit, unnatural cloud, vacua, vapor, vapour, vortex, vortices, warm, water, webby material, wet, whiteout
6 PORKIES – AEROSOLS – THE ATMOSPHERE – THE WMO – ATMOSNAPS
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
“PORK PIE” = “LIE” - Cockney rhyming slang.
“Obviously your alleged credentials are fraud” – has your short-term memory passed away? ONE.
“A true person of Science would step forward and lay all questions to rest” – ditto, and I have. Check my comments here. Check http://www.contrailscience.com. Check http://www.myspace.com/jazzroc TWO.
“You do nothing” – I COULD start pasting again… THREE.
“It is safe to assume that people’s claims must have basis” – assuming is the only action you do. Why not educate yourself in science? FOUR.
“I’d like nothing more than for someone to prove nothing is going on” – FIVE.
“You are by far not only a fraud but a coward as well” – GIANT PORKY NUMBER SIX.
What a great porky this one is!
The non-scientific word-association goes aerosol – hair spray – sprayers (truly inspirational!)
But never a thought to CHECKING UP what the REAL MEANING (scientific meaning) of aerosol ACTUALLY IS:
Aerosol – from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aerosol – contamination in northeastern India and Bangladesh.
Technically, an aerosol is a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in a gas. Examples are smoke, oceanic haze, air pollution, smog and CS gas. In general conversation, aerosol usually refers to an aerosol spray can or the output of such a can.
The word aerosol derives from the fact that matter “floating” in air is a suspension (a mixture in which solid or liquid or combined solid-liquid particles are suspended in a fluid). To differentiate suspensions from true solutions, the term sol evolved – originally meant to cover dispersions of tiny (sub-microscopic) particles in a liquid.
With studies of dispersions in air, the term aerosol evolved and now embraces both liquid droplets, solid particles, and combinations of these.
Concentrated aerosols from substances such as silica, asbestos, and diesel particulate matter are sometimes found in the workplace and have been shown to result in a number of diseases including silicosis and black lung. Respirators can protect workers from harmful aerosol exposure. In the United States the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health certifies respirators through the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory to ensure that they protect workers and the public from harmful airborne contaminants.
Effect on climate
Aerosols over the Amazon each September for four burning seasons (2005 through 2008). The aerosol scale (yellow to dark reddish-brown) indicates the relative amount of particles that absorb sunlight. Anthropogenic aerosols, particularly sulfate aerosols from fossil fuel combustion, exert a cooling influence on the climate which partly counteracts the warming induced by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. This effect is accounted for in many climate models. Recent research, as yet unconfirmed, suggests that aerosol diffusion of light may have increased the carbon sink in the earth’s ecosystem.
Recent studies of the Sahel drought and major increases since 1967 in rainfall over the Northern Territory, Kimberley, Pilbara and around the Nullarbor Plain have led some scientists to conclude that the aerosol haze over South and East Asia has been steadily shifting tropical rainfall in both hemispheres southward.
The latest studies of severe rainfall declines over southern Australia since 1997 have led climatologists there to consider the possibility that these Asian aerosols have shifted not only tropical but also mid-latitude systems southward.
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the atmosphere are a form of pollution which can give rise to smog and act as a greenhouse gas. Their persistence in the atmosphere is affected by aerosol droplets of water.
In 1964 long chain fatty acids, either naturally produced from marine organisms dispersed into the atmosphere by wave action or man-made, were found to coat these droplets. In 2006 there was a study of the effect of the LCFA on the persistence of NOx, but the long term implications, although thought to be significant, have yet to be determined.
So AEROSOL means this:
A REALTIME study of aerosol presence (made by satellite) all over the world may be obtained here, and here is a representative image, from which you can see the satellite passes 90 minutes apart.
There is a video made over a fortnight showing the main aerosol action occurs travelling westward on a line passing through BANGLADESH and the SAHARA DESERT. It is MAN-MADE – the consequence of many hundreds of millions of humans living close to the poverty line… slash-and-burn, cooking fires, forest fires, vegetable farming decomposition, volcanoes…
No aircraft contrails are found anywhere NEAR this line…
So much for the “chemtrailers” and their “the NWO is poisoning the whole world” theory…
What is it?
It’s a mixture of invisible element and compound gases; nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapour, argon, neon, and trace amounts of other inert gaseous elements. This mixture keeps us in a healthy condition, and imbalance in this mixture can poison and/or kill us. We would all prefer to be at Standard Temperature and Pressure, which is 20 deg C (70 deg F) and 1000 millibars (14.7 lb/in2).
Standard Temperature and Pressure occur at Sea Level, but the atmosphere may reach up to 200Km or more (the INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION orbits at 400Km and you can bet there’s very little atmosphere, if any, at that height!) The following diagram is a graph of atmospheric pressure against height over sea level (altitude). The space station height is three graph-heights higher than the graph below.
There is an asymptotic fall-off of pressure with altitude which is easy to see. This, when combined with the concomitant drop in temperature lends weight to the understanding that the stratosphere cannot bear much loading of contrail ice before it saturates, and cannot absorb more.
The region just immediately higher than the tropopause (at approximately 26,000 feet to 39,000 feet) is the region where passenger aircraft fly, for reasons of safety and economy.
The pressure above the tropopause is one-fifth that at sea level, but at the high cruising speed of 550 miles per hour, there is sufficient dynamic lift for safe and stable flight.
This region is the CAUSE of the “chemtrail” controversy, for it is COLD, STABLE, and INCAPABLE of absorbing large amounts of combustion steam as water vapor. As a consequence this steam cools to microscopically-fine ice crystals, which form – TRAILS behind the aircraft.
And the following is a diagram of air dewpoint and temperature plotted against height above sea level (altitude).
If you look at the dewpoint line (on left) you can see it move continually leftward with increase in height above sea level. This powerfully indicates that with increasing height, the atmosphere is increasingly incapable of absorbing the exhaust water formed by burning kerosine in gas turbines.
Looking at the temperature (lapse rate) line on the right, you can see that it moves leftward with increase in height above sea level, until it reaches the tropopause, where it starts to edge to the right again. You can see that after the tropopause the atmosphere gets WARMER with increasing height. The concave shapes to both dewpoint and temperature here indicate some energy input – either solar ‘focusing’ from tropospheric clouds, or jet stream mixing energy – it is hard to guess.
Another couple of points. This chart was obviously made on a cold day; the sea level temperature is just sub-zero. However, two hundred metres higher, and the air temperature is five degrees higher. Bumps and dips in these two lines show where you may infer the presence of clouds.
There is much more to learn about our atmosphere than I have given here, but I can heartily recommend this link to the UK’s Met Office.
After that you can answer these questions (can’t you!).
As further confirmation I strongly recommend AtOptics
And a word to the “wise”. There is a lot of scuttlebutt going around which says “Global Warming is just a myth started by our duplicitous governments as a means of extracting additional taxes”. Well I remember a time when it was thought we were headed directly for a new ice age.
(This was just a journalistic ruse. The next Ice Age will occur approximately 16,000 years from the present.)
Since then, it is true that government funds are available for the investigation of GW to the detriment of other research, and that horrible thing “political correctness” has raised its ugly head above the horizon, but the facts are too numerous to mention that the climate is warming, but also that other facts remain unmentioned, which leaves a question of politics…
See “Global Warming is a Myth” under G in this blog.
THE WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION
|One of the major purposes of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), as laid down in its Convention, is “To facilitate worldwide cooperation in the establishment of networks of stations for the making of meteorological observations as well as hydrological and other geophysical observations related to meteorology, and to promote the establishment and maintenance of centres charged with the provision of meteorological and related services”.
Accordingly, WMO Members operate, in a coordinated manner, complex networks in space, the atmosphere, on land and over oceans. In 2007, Members decided to work towards enhanced integration of both the WMO Global Observing System (GOS) and WMO co-sponsored observing systems such as the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) and Global Climate Observing System (GCOS). This concept is called the WMO Integrated Global Observing Systems (WIGOS).
Currently, more than 10000 manned and automatic surface weather stations, 1000 upper-air stations, over 7000 ships, more than 100 moored and 1000 drifting buoys, hundreds of weather radars and over 3000 specially equipped commercial aircraft measure key parameters of the atmosphere, land and ocean surface every day. The space-based component of the WMO Observing System contains operational polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites and also R&D environmental satellites complementing ground-based global observations. These activities are coordinated within the Global Observing System (GOS) of the World Weather Watch (WWW) of WMO. Several WMO Programmes sponsor or participate in the operation of several global observing systems. Other global observing systems, e.g. the global hydrological networks (WHYCOS), function principally on a national or regional level.
Observation programmes such as the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) and the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) will continue to play a major role in improving the collection of required data for the development of climate forecasts and climate change detection. WMO’s Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) provides data for scientific assessments and for early warnings of changes in the chemical composition and related physical characteristics of the atmosphere that may have adverse affects upon our environment. Through its Instruments and Methods of Observation Programme (IMOP), WMO ensures that meteorological instruments, including manual and automatic ground-based stations and space-based observing systems, are accurate and provide standardized data.
WMO monitoring and observing systems will be a core component of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), aimed at developing a comprehensive, coordinated and sustained Earth observation system of systems to understand and address global environmental and economic challenges.
This is, of course, a silly word coined by me to introduce these pictures of Earth’s atmosphere which have been taken by some of the NASA Space Shuttle astronauts from the International Space Station.
I find them most stimulating and interesting. We spend all our time with a “flat-earther” viewpoint, looking up at clouds and failing to see them for what they truly are.
Written by JazzRoc
November 19, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with adiabatic, aerosol, albedo, alleged, altitude, aluminium, aluminum, argon, arthritis, asymptotic, atmosphere, atmospheric, axis, barium, breathing difficulties, carbon dioxide, carnicom, chem trail, compound, concave, contrail, coward, credentials, dewpoint, duplicitous governments, educate, element, environmental, equator, exhaust, filaments, focusing, fraud, Gas, global warming, graph, gw, heavy haze, height, horizon, hydrogen, ice, ice age, inert, jet stream, kerosine, lapse rate, level, lines in the sky, lung disease, mesosphere, met office, metallic salts, methane, morgellons, myth, nacreous, neon, nitrogen, no more blue skies, noctilucent, not a normal cloud, oily clouds, oxygen, photosynthesis, political correctness, pressure, ptb, rense, saturates, science, scuttlebutt, sea, spraying, standard, temperature, thermosphere, tic-tac-toe, trade wind, Turbine, unnatural cloud, water vapor, webby material, whiteout
BAMBOOZLED – BALONEY DETECTION KIT – BOENOID – BARD OF ELY BLOG RESPONSE - A BLACK HOLE – BLUE LIGHT SCATTERING – CHEMTRAILERS WE LOVE YOU (NOT!)
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.) – Carl Sagan
BALONEY DETECTION KIT
As a society it falls upon us as individuals to live our lives using the best judgement possible.
For each of us it wasn’t always that way: as children we instinctively believed what our parents told us, which was a powerful defense mechanism that generally kept us out of harm’s way.
As we grow up this gullibility has to be exchanged for a healthy cynicism and sound judgment which will afford some protection from the intentional deception of sociopaths.
This is a comment posted at Uncinus’s excellent site Contrailscience late Sept 2009. It is rare to find such professionalism and terse accuracy in “chemtrailer” writing, and here is an experienced and technically competent writer presenting an opposite point of view. No surprise, there:
For what it is worth, I am a Boeing engineer with 20 years of experience in the aerospace industry.
* There are no special tanks anywhere on our airplanes to hold chemicals to be sprayed out.
* There are no spray nozzles on the airplanes either, unless you count the emergency fuel dump nozzles on the widebody jets.
* This can be readily ascertained by simply looking through an airplane before the interior wall panels are installed. Here is a list of all the tanks which are on a jetliner:
** Fuel, potable water, waste water, engine fire suppressant (Halon + other stuff), cargo fire suppressant (just Halon), hydraulic reservoirs. On the new airplanes you will also see tank-like devices which generate nitrogen to inert the fuel tanks.
* Further, there is no room for such stuff to get installed. You would have to carry TONS of liquid to make spray trails independent of the exhaust condensation, and the only liquid we carry tons of is Jet-A fuel.
* In Everett Washington, the Seattle flight museum has a restoration center where you can go see dismantled airplanes being readied for display in the museum. The work is done almost entirely by volunteers. I assume other flight museums have similar workshops. If you can find one where you live, go to the restoration center and see the planes up close. There’s no where to hide a sprayer system where it wouldn’t be seen by maintenance crews.
* The Boeing final assembly plant is open for tours by the public, and VIPs from all over the world can get close-up tours. The airplanes are built in a staggered sequence, so that two airplanes side-by-side are usually being made for two different airlines.
* The majority of Boeing’s production is sold overseas. In fact, the company is the nation’s largest exporter.
* Thus, if a domestic airplane was modified for “chemtrail production” in the factory, it would be as easy as pie for a foreign VIP to walk over and say, “What are these fancy tanks and sprayers on the American plane which aren’t on my airplane?”
* If any airplane WAS modified for chemtrail to add chemtrail sprayers, the thousands of Boeing employees would have to know. I don’t work in Fuels, and I can identify every tank and tube in the wing area.
* If thousands of Boeing employees knew, then so would thousands of supplier employees who go through our factories, thousands of airlines employees who go through our factories, and all the FAA and NTSB and DOT people as well. Also, our airplanes and factories are inspected by the Aviation Authorities of foreign countries (like EASA from Europe) and they would also need to be in on the conspiracy.
* There would simply be too many people involved to prevent this from leaking out. If the chem trail sprayers were being added in the factory, the secret would be out.
* So what if the chemtrail sprayers were being added by an aftermarket shop?
* You’re back to the same problem. It takes hundreds of people to design, build, and install a major modification on a jetliner, and the mod shops are just as open as Boeing is. You wouldn’t be able to keep the secret.
* Further, most airlines have their planes maintained by outside suppliers, who would have to be in on the conspiracy. Those who do their own maintenance do the work in open bays that again would make it easy to view the modification.
* And you have the same problem that you need to get thousands of maintenance people, suppliers, and certification authorities in on the conspiracy. It would have leaked by now. All it takes is one guy with a cell phone camera, and the world would know.
* So what if they somehow managed to do all this stuff anyway? Now you have to realize that somebody, somewhere, has to be pumping TONS of chemtrail chemicals into these mysterious hidden tanks on the airplanes. You would need a fill valve, and a distribution system, and special trucks carrying the chemicals disguised as fuel trucks. That would take thousands more people to be in on the conspiracy.
* One giveaway would be two fuel trucks pulling up to the same jetliner – one with the fuel and one with the chemicals. Remember, we’re talking about tons of liquid here.
* It just doesn’t work – you would need independent chemical fill ports, and somebody, somewhere, would notice.
* And while we’re talking about it, remember that every jetliner pilot has to check the weight of the plane and calculate a talk off runway length and other factors. The charts are the same for every jetliner of a given type, but if there really were chemtrail sprayers, then the charts for those airplanes would have to be different to account for the tons of chemicals that might be on the airplane.
* So, I really don’t think there is any way to hide the sprayers on jetliners. Too many people would have to know, and it would be too easy to detect by passerby.
* So, what if the chemtrail chemicals are in the jet fuel? This wouldn’t require ANY visible modifications to the airplanes, and far fewer people would have to know about the conspiracy.
* This would be harder to refute, BUT, you would have to discard the “on and off” contrails as being caused by pilots turning sprayers on and off. All the fuel on the plane came from the same fuel trucks and the same fuel tanks, so the supposed chemtrail would have to be continuous from takeoff until landing. I think that would have been noticed by now.
* So to my mind, that pretty much eliminates the possibility of using jetliners to create chemtrails.
* Which means you have to be using military jets, and thousands of them, flying unnoticed back and forth on normal commercial routes. So now you have to have all the air traffic controllers in on the conspiracy as well.
* And the planes will again need special tanks for the chemicals, and special fill ports, and special sprayers, and special tanker trucks filling the chemical tanks on the planes, special non-military suppliers delivering the stuff, and you’re right back to the same issue of needing to keep thousands of people from talking.
You would need a special delivery system on the airplanes.
You would need a special fill system.
You would need independent tanker trucks.
You would need a separate supply chain.
You would need thousands and thousands of people to hold their tongues, and never have even ONE person leave any incriminating evidence in a safe deposit box to be discovered after their deaths.
It ain’t happening.
BARD OF ELY BLOG – A RESPONSE
“Although chemtrails are conspicuous in our skies and thousands of sites exist about the menace the mainstream media and the authorities are very quiet about the matter or ignore and deny their existence. This of course, adds fuel to the conspiracy theories!
But it’s not just the media and the officials that are silent because there is a similar wall of silence from successful singer-songwriters and rock stars as well as celebrities in general! What does this mean? is there some memo that gets circulated warning that if you mention chemtrails your contract is terminated? Are people too scared to mention such stuff in public? What is going on?
I say we need people who can get the media exposure to come forward on this matter! We need stars to talk about chemtrails on live TV and radio!
I believe we need protest songs about chemtrails! If anyone knows of any please let me know!”
There is no evidence that I have seen that trails in the sky are anything except the water and carbon dioxide (and trace amounts of NOX) left by the passage of gas turbines in the stratosphere.
Now water is drinkable, carbon dioxide is respired by plants to make sugar, and the NOX combines with water to form dilute nitric acid which forms nitrates on contact with soil, helping plants to grow.
The majority of trails in the skies of Earth cross the US continent, so it is they that will bear the brunt of this “contamination”. So be it. Their plants will grow a little better, is all. Although the daily burning of a million tons of kerosine seems massive to you, in relation to the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere it is NOTHING.
ALL of Man’s conflagrations, his best efforts annually, will raise the sea level by 0.0000000000001 per cent, for instance (approximately).
Now, as to whether STRANGE COMPOUNDS are surreptitiously being introduced into burning gas turbines, in order to distribute them as an aerosol throughout the Earth’s atmosphere, why on Earth would anyone do that? (It would HAVE to be THROUGH the turbine because spray devices external to the motor would have to be plainly visible).
It just doesn’t stand up to any logical consideration.
Your ignorance has lead to your paranoia.
I blame Western Culture as a whole for failing to instil a minimum but requisite standard of scientific knowledge for the technological conditions under which we live.
Desist this crap!
“I totally disagree! Please do some research Tony! I have been researching this for a long time! The planet is being geoengineered under Caps & Trade schemes. there are many things being done including weather modification which I have seen in the UK and here and is all known about if you dig deep! Try californiaskywatch.com for starters.”
Seeding clouds for rain with silver iodide crystals (or powdered tea!) is completely harmless. It IS NOT “weather modification”!
I have checked through the website above and NONE of the things mentioned bears ANY relationship to NATURAL VULCANISM, let alone the masses of the land, atmosphere and oceans.
The amount of ocean: imagine a cubic mile of ocean. One mile square, up to the height of Vilaflor from sea level. Got it?
Then imagine 500,000,000 of them.
Counting them at the rate of one per second will take you SIXTEEN years.
The ocean weighs 114,398,298,100,000,000 tons. One hundred and fourteen thousand trillion tons. That’s a HUGE dilution factor…
“you can watch trails that last and spread and no trails or old style contrails at the same time, you can watch planes with no trail start a trail and then stop. you can have a day or period of a day with old style normal clouds and blue sky followed by loads of chemtrails and a sky turned to a mass of fake clouds and haze”.
Contrails are a stratospheric phenomenon (not in the troposphere, where your weather is). The stratosphere is generally stable, layered (like an onion skin) with layers of water/air solutions at various temperatures and humidities. When they are moving in different directions to each other (and falling slightly) they form CIRRUS clouds. When they fall without any relative motion, they form CIRROSTRATUS clouds.
Sometimes the layers are supersaturated and only require flying through (say by glider wings) to condense out water and form clouds. They understandably may get somewhat upset when a clumping great turbofan whistles through them. Sometimes (when the layer is SATURATED) the upset is permanent, but in general the stratosphere is less than saturated, and you see a temporary contrail which trails the plane for say a mile or so, before being re-absorbed. On days when the layers are ALL saturated, the contrails will hang there ALL DAY.
Contrails are WATER, and you are not being sensible.
“you can have a day or period of a day with old style normal clouds and blue sky”.
What you are talking about here is the TROPOSPHERE, which is the air between the ground and the stratosphere.
This is the atmosphere as you experience it at ground level. It is THE BULK of the total atmosphere, half of which is to be found beneath twelve thousand feet.
The STRATOSPHERE is to be found at DOUBLE that height and above, to a height of sixty thousand feet. It is relatively rarefied, very cold (-80 deg F, colder than Mars) and TRANSPARENT.
It is the atmosphere beneath twelve thousand feet which is responsible for the blue in the sky (by scattering of white light – the blue “scatters” whilst the red continues straight on).
On bad days in the latter part of WWII, the stratosphere was supersaturated when USAF Flying fortresses set out to precision-bomb German targets in their thousands. The Germans could see them coming from three hundred miles away, without radar, and could adjust their fighter attacks with time to spare. Bad days, with hundreds of bombers littering the path back to Blighty.
Do you suppose those bombing raids were chemical attacks?
“listen Tony I don’t see why you feel the need to insult me!”
No insult intended. I DESCRIBED you.
“i didn’t start this argument and if you have nothing f—ing better to do with your time f— off”.
It’s not an argument. It’s a discussion. I consider it important to correct the foolishness of a friend.
“I know what I see and have the opinions of thousands of others who see likewise”.
You don’t “know” what you see. That’s the point. You’re blogging others down a foolish path. That I feel compelled to prevent. The opinions of other deluded people don’t count for much, do they? Nor should you help to delude them, should you? It would be harmful, even evil, wouldn’t it?
“i certainly don’t need to be insulted by someone I thought was a friend”.
Then don’t FEEL insulted. You’re not the only person that has been foolish in the world are you?
I have given you an accurate account of what it was you thought you had seen. You have been given the benefit of my scientific experience.
Would it have been kind to remain silent?
You should should consider yourself assisted, helped, loved, by this friend, and as a consequence GIVE THIS STUPIDITY UP!
A BLACK HOLE
BLUE LIGHT SCATTERING
It seems to be normal for chemtrailers not to understand why our skies are blue.
Where were these people in junior school, or in science class? Outside?
White light is a MIXTURE of visible light frequencies. The Sun (which is the main source of all light by which we see, is a very hot body which radiates photons of many frequencies, some of which are so energetic that they would harm us if they could pass through our atmosphere – but they cannot.
What does pass through is mainly a tight group of frequencies, spanning just over an octave, which our eyes can see.
Our eyes have evolved to make use of these frequencies – naturally.
Wikipedia: Rayleigh scattering
Rayleigh scattering causes the blue hue of the daytime sky and the reddening of the sun at sunset
It is more dramatic after sunset. This picture was taken about one hour after sunset at 500m altitude, looking at the horizon where the sun had set, showing the more intense scattering of blue light by the atmosphere relative to red light.
Rayleigh scattering (named after the English physicist Lord Rayleigh) is the elastic scattering of light or other electromagnetic radiation by particles much smaller than the wavelength of the light. It can occur when light travels in transparent solids and liquids, but is most prominently seen in gases.
Rayleigh scattering of sunlight in clear atmosphere is the main reason why the sky is blue: Rayleigh and cloud-mediated scattering contribute to diffuse light (direct light being sunrays).
For scattering by particles similar to or larger than a wavelength, see Mie theory or discrete dipole approximation (they apply to the Rayleigh regime as well).
Small size parameter approximation
The size of a scattering particle is parametrized by the ratio x of its characteristic dimension r and wavelength lambda:
Rayleigh scattering can be defined as scattering in the small size parameter regime x < 1. Scattering from larger spherical particles is explained by the Mie theory for an arbitrary size parameter x. The Mie theory reduces to the Rayleigh approximation.
The amount of Rayleigh scattering that occurs for a beam of light is dependent upon the size of the particles and the wavelength of the light (lambda). Specifically, the intensity of the scattered light varies as the sixth power of the particle size and varies inversely with the fourth power of the wavelength.
The intensity I of light scattered by a single small particle from a beam of unpolarized light of wavelength lambda and intensity I0 is given by:
where R is the distance to the particle, lambda is the scattering angle, n is the refractive index of the particle, and d is the diameter of the particle.
The angular distribution of Rayleigh scattering, governed by the (1 + cos^2*lambda) term, is symmetric about the plane normal to the incident direction of the light (i.e. about lambda = 90°), and so the forward scatter equals the backwards scatter. Integrating over the sphere surrounding the particle gives the Rayleigh scattering cross section.
The Rayleigh scattering coefficient for a group of scattering particles is the number of particles per unit volume N times the cross-section. As with all wave effects, for incoherent scattering the scattered powers add arithmetically, while for coherent scattering, such as if the particles are very near each other, the fields add arithmetically and the sum must be squared to obtain the total scattered power.
Rayleigh scattering from molecules
A 5 mW green laser pointer is visible at night due to Rayleigh scattering and airborne dust. Rayleigh scattering from molecules is also possible. An individual molecule does not have a well-defined refractive index and diameter. Instead, a molecule has a polarizability a, which describes how much the electrical charges on the molecule will move in an electric field. In this case, the Rayleigh scattering intensity for a single particle is given by
The amount of Rayleigh scattering from a single particle can also be expressed as a cross section s. For example, the major constituent of the atmosphere, nitrogen, has a Rayleigh cross section of 5.1×10^-31 m^2 at a wavelength of 532 nm (green light). This means that at atmospheric pressure, about a fraction 10^-5 of light will be scattered for every meter of travel.
The strong wavelength dependence of the scattering (~lambda-4) means that blue light is scattered much more readily than red light. In the atmosphere, this results in blue wavelengths being scattered to a greater extent than longer (red) wavelengths, and so one sees blue light coming from all regions of the sky. Direct radiation (by definition) is coming directly from the Sun. Rayleigh scattering is a good approximation to the manner in which light scattering occurs within various media for which scattering particles have a small size parameter.
Reason for the blue color of the sky
Rayleigh scattering is responsible for the blue color of the sky during the day. Rayleigh scattering is inversely proportional to the fourth power of wavelength, which means that the shorter wavelength of blue light will scatter more than the longer wavelengths of green and red light. This gives the sky a blue appearance.
Conversely, looking toward the sun, the colors that were not scattered away – the longer wavelengths such as red and yellow light – are visible. When the sun is near the horizon, the volume of air through which sunlight must pass is significantly greater than when the sun is high in the sky. Accordingly, the gradient from a red-yellow sun to the blue sky is considerably wider at sunrise and sunset.
Rayleigh scattering primarily occurs through light’s interaction with air molecules. Some of the scattering can also be from aerosols of sulfate particles. For years following large Plinian eruptions, the blue cast of the sky is notably brightened due to the persistent sulfate load of the stratospheric eruptive gases. Another source of scattering is from microscopic density fluctuations, resulting from the random motion of the air molecules. A region of higher or lower density has a slightly different refractive index than the surrounding medium, and therefore it acts like a short-lived particle that can scatter light.
Rayleigh scattering at Hyperphysics
Maarten Sneep and Wim Ubachs, Direct measurement of the Rayleigh scattering cross section in various gases. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 92, 293 (2005).
C.F. Bohren, D. Huffman, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles, John Wiley, New York 1983. Contains a good description of the asymptotic behavior of Mie theory for small size parameter (Rayleigh approximation).
Ditchburn, R.W. (1963). Light (2nd ed.). London: Blackie & Sons. pp. 582–585.
Chakraborti, Sayan (September 2007). “Verification of the Rayleigh scattering cross section”. American Journal of Physics 75 (9): 824-826. doi:10.1119/1.2752825.
Ahrens, C. Donald (1994). Meteorology Today: an introduction to weather, climate, and the environment (5th ed.). St. Paul MN: West Publishing Company. pp. 88–89.
And so when we see aircraft from the ground (this is a Syrian Air Boeing 747) we cannot expect to see its markings. They have been “scattered” away. You will only see its markings by taking pictures of it from up close.
CHEMTRAILERS WE LOVE YOU
It’s that moment when you have engaged your sophisticated and educated brain in a discussion with a chemtrailer and he suddenly starts talking about vertical “chemtrails” and challenges you to to justify those… You point out that only some fighter aircraft can travel vertically, and this guy says no, it was a “tanker aircraft” and while you are wondering what the hell, you realize that he doesn’t understand perspective at all, and he’s really talking about trails coming towards you and passing overhead you. Which means, of course, that you’re wasting your time with exotic explanations involving crossing shuttle routes.
Or when someone sends you a picture of a broken trail, and you can see that it had been a continuous trail before some crook had photoshopped it. So you tell him it’s a fraudulent picture, and so he sends you a color-processed copy so damned effective that you can see each individual photoshop spraying pass, thinking he has proved his point. I drew lines and arrows pointing exactly where it was occurring, and he still couldn’t see it.
Enough from me.
“I want information, not a video of some guy’s grass saying “chemtard” over and over. “
But, that is what this video IS! You are complaining because I didn’t give YOU what YOU want in this video?! Are you f*****g kidding me?! I didn’t force you to come here and make the assumption that I’m supposed to “teach” you something! I make it PERFECTLY clear in my videos that I’m not here to educate any lazy and ignorant chemtard! I tried that in the past… It wasn’t worth my time. Learn for yourself!
I even make it PERFECTLY clear in the “info” area that I don’t have time to be wasting on f*****g ignorant chemtards! Where do you see ANYTHING about me being an information booth?! Who said it’s MY f*****g job to educate YOU?!?
I must say he seems reasonable to me. Stars, save me…
Written by JazzRoc
November 16, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with acknowledge, aerosol, aluminium, aluminum, arthritis, atmosphere, attack, authorities, bamboozle, barium, blighty, breathing difficulties, caps & trade, carbon dioxide, carnicom, chem trail, chemical, cirrus, cloud, conflagration, conspicuous, conspiracy, contamination, contract, contrails, cubic mile, dilute nitric acid, dilution factor, Earth, fail, fake clouds, fighter, filaments, flying, fortresses, gas turbine, geoengineered, haze, heavy haze, history, ignorance, kerosine, lines in the sky, live TV, logical consideration, lung disease, mainstream, mass, menace, metallic salts, million tons, million tons of kerosine, morgellons, natural vulcanism, nitrates, nitric acid, no more blue skies, not a normal cloud, NOX, oily clouds, onion skin, paranoia, phenomenon, plant, plants, precision-bomb, ptb, radar, radio, rain, rense, rock star, scattering, scientific knowledge, seeding, silence, silver iodide, singer-songwriters, site, skies, soil, spray device, spraying, standard, stratosphere, stratospheric, stratus, sugar, supersaturated, surreptitious, technological, temporary contrail, tic-tac-toe, transparent, troposphere, unnatural cloud, US continent, USAF, water, weather modification, webby material, western culture, whiteout, WWII