Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Re: The Contrails & "Chemtrails" Thread (merg

Unread postby eastbay » Fri 11 Jul 2008, 21:52:13

Shannymara wrote:We've actually got some video of an AWACS plane dumping fuel right over our house on its way back to Tinker AFB a few years ago. I got home from school, got out of the car and thought "huh, that's odd, I wonder what my husband was doing with kerosene," because I smelled it. As soon as I went inside he said "check out this video." Jets sometimes dump fuel if they have to land and need to lighten the plane for some reason.


Speaking of fuel dumping... when a commercial plane is called back for whatever reason many tens of thousands of dollars of fuel are often dumped prior to landing. Planes returning to coastal airports generally dump it over the ocean. I suppose inland airports see dumpings over land instead. Weird.

Maybe any pilots here could tell us more about this practice.
Got Dharma?

Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
User avatar
eastbay
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sat 18 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: One Mile From the Columbia River

Re: The Contrails & "Chemtrails" Thread (merg

Unread postby Zardoz » Fri 11 Jul 2008, 22:13:09

eastbay wrote:...Maybe any pilots here could tell us more about this practice.

I'm no pilot, but I think it's just a matter of weight. Planes can take off carrying a lot of weight, but slamming down onto a runway with a heavy load could be very hazardous. I think safe landing weights are quite a bit less than safe takeoff weights.

AP, is this correct?
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Re: The Contrails &

Unread postby eastbay » Fri 11 Jul 2008, 22:26:26

Zardoz wrote:I'm no pilot, but I think it's just a matter of weight. Planes can take off carrying a lot of weight, but slamming down onto a runway with a heavy load could be very hazardous. I think safe landing weights are quite a bit less than safe takeoff weights. AP, is this correct?

Of course, that's why fuel is dumped. Safety. For those on the plane and nearby. The issue I was wondering about is the greater wisdom of dumping so much fuel over oceans, neighborhoods, and croplands. There must be a better way as fuel gets more and more scarce and costly. There must be.
Got Dharma?

Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
User avatar
eastbay
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sat 18 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: One Mile From the Columbia River

Re: Chemtrails - Contrails...What you should know

Unread postby basil_hayden » Fri 11 Jul 2008, 22:35:49

This reminds me of the SidneyTawl posts.

They're classics if you have the time, just do a search by author.

I'd swear they were the same person, or at least related.
User avatar
basil_hayden
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: CT, USA

Re: Chemtrails - Contrails...What you should know

Unread postby Zeeea » Sat 12 Jul 2008, 03:30:29

AirlinePilot wrote:Zeeea, Im an airline pilot, I do this for a living (Im screwed I already know!)
I can assure you there are no special tanks for chemicals on our aircraft. I can also assure you there is no plumbing system or vent system installed on any airliner I have ever flown for the purpose of "spraying". In twenty years I have never seen any evidence of anything which you mention in the above links.

Attempting to twist what is a basic atmospheric and meteorologic phenomenon into some vast government conspiracy could be categorized as lunacy or maybe just stupidity.
For you to actually believe something like this is possible you have to completely reject science and you have to give completely blind faith to others who claim such to be true.
A poor argument at best, lunacy or insanity at worst.



Believe it or not ...this topic was completely new to me until a couple of days ago if that makes any difference to you ...no I didnt know you had already started a thread ...and sorry I dont have your higher intelligence and perception to discern lethal chemicals in the air by simply glancing at it ...SOME have to actually test the air to get their results ...maybe they should just go to you to save them some time hey?

Also I note youre an airplane pilot ...not a psychiatrist right? Do you think i posted that to be analysed by some wanna be know it all ?

I dont know what kind of plane you fly etc ...but you are not the only pilot in the world and im sure you dont have access to all information on what happens everywhere or been everywhere to know what goes on ...so stop trolling ...as you people here like to put it ...and just give me some accurate information for me to work from so i dont have to annoy you with useless links :)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Control your destiny or somebody else will.
-Jack Welch
-----------------------------------------------------------
User avatar
Zeeea
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun 22 Jun 2008, 03:00:00

Re: The Contrails & "Chemtrails" Thread (merg

Unread postby killJOY » Sat 12 Jul 2008, 07:07:10

Oh my God, I can't believe what I just witnessed!

If I hadn't had my cell camera with me, no one would ever believe it.

I don't know if I would believe it.

I used to be such a skeptic of chemtrails.

Maybe this was done to prove something to me, to make me a believer.


It's terribly frightening.

What do we do? Here's the photo I took just outside my bedroom window:

Image
Peak oil = comet Kohoutek.
User avatar
killJOY
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2220
Joined: Mon 21 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: ^NNE^

Re: The Contrails & "Chemtrails" Thread (merg

Unread postby Ferretlover » Sat 12 Jul 2008, 08:55:22

killJOY wrote:Oh my God, I can't believe what I just witnessed!
If I hadn't had my cell camera with me, no one would ever believe it.
I don't know if I would believe it.
I used to be such a skeptic of chemtrails.
Maybe this was done to prove something to me, to make me a believer.
It's terribly frightening.
What do we do? Here's the photo I took just outside my bedroom window:
Image

Oh. My. Gosh!! ++1, killJOY!!!
"Open the gates of hell!" ~Morgan Freeman's character in the movie, Olympus Has Fallen.
Ferretlover
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 5852
Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Hundreds of miles further inland

Re: The Contrails & "Chemtrails" Thread (merg

Unread postby mos6507 » Sat 12 Jul 2008, 19:14:18

Sorry, forgive me. I can not resist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sge2jq67n1k
Last edited by mos6507 on Sat 12 Jul 2008, 20:48:28, edited 2 times in total.
mos6507
 

Re: The Contrails & "Chemtrails" Thread (merg

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Sat 12 Jul 2008, 19:22:30

Aircraft dump fuel If returning to land for several reasons. The main one is weight. Most larger or airliner type aircraft may not be able to land at higher gross weights due to the possibility of structural failure. If the aircraft is on fire its one thing, but If its just a non immediate action type emergency, say a hydraulic failure or something where air worthiness is not an immediate factor, you would dump fuel. Some aircraft do not even have the capability as even at high gross weight they can still land safely.

Another reason would be to minimize fire potential in a crash situation if controllability is an issue. So dumping fuel is routine in emergency situations when you need to return to land right after takeoff if the opportunity presents itself.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: Global dimming and the airlines

Unread postby TheDude » Wed 16 Jul 2008, 15:23:36

Is Pollution Slowing Global Warming?

And the answer is 'yes':
Wait, now pollution is preventing global warming? That’s the conclusion of a recent study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, which says rising temperatures seen in Europe over the last few years result as much from the reduction of air pollution as from the creation of it. The research, which looked at the effects of aerosols on climate, confirms an older concept known as global dimming, and complicates our understanding of how mankind affects the climate.
According to the study, temperatures in Europe have risen over the past 28 years far faster than could be explained by the greenhouse effect alone. After looking at the aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere in six spots, the authors of the paper realized the temperature rise was assisted by more sunlight penetrating the newly pollution free skies. It seems that the stricter pollution standards, adopted in part to slow global warming, may have sped it up.

Air traffic volume has only declined marginally, from the looks of things.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: Global dimming and the airlines

Unread postby Heineken » Thu 17 Jul 2008, 09:14:01

I think I once started a thread in which I proposed using shallow underground nuclear explosions to inject dust into the atmosphere. A crazy idea, clearly, but that's how desperate the situation could become.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: Global dimming and the airlines

Unread postby dissident » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 09:12:32

The problem with all of these geoengineering schemes is the scale. Most humans have no clue what they entail. If you are going to use nukes to blow dust into the atmosphere then you will have to do it continuously for decades. Also, you cannot detonate the nukes deep enough not to leak radiation into the atmosphere since you will then not launch much dust. Dumping SO2 into the stratosphere, some way we don't know yet, is the most viable candidate. But then expect ozone depletion from hell.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Global dimming and the airlines

Unread postby Heineken » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 12:23:47

dissident, I carefully qualified in my post that the idea is crazy. I fully acknowledge that. Desperate times call for crazy stabs at solutions. The idea would be to find some way to inject massive amounts of fine dust high into the upper stratosphere, where the dwell time would be considerable. Maybe there's some way to do that. There are worse ways to waste our money.
People who know me know I am not a fan of giant geoengineering projects, but this is one that might be worth at least investigating.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: Global dimming and the airlines

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 26 Jul 2008, 14:14:59

Heineken wrote:dissident, I carefully qualified in my post that the idea is crazy. I fully acknowledge that. Desperate times call for crazy stabs at solutions. The idea would be to find some way to inject massive amounts of fine dust high into the upper stratosphere, where the dwell time would be considerable. Maybe there's some way to do that. There are worse ways to waste our money.
People who know me know I am not a fan of giant geoengineering projects, but this is one that might be worth at least investigating.

HARP project technology would allow as much crud to be dumped high up as you want, not that I want anyone playing geoengineer.
Started in 1961, it was created largely due to lobbying from Gerald Bull, a controversial but highly successful ballistics engineer who went on to head the project. Bull had developed the high-speed gun technique while working on anti-ballistic missile (ABM) research at CARDE in the 1950s, shooting models of high-speed interceptor missiles from guns as opposed to building supersonic wind tunnels, which would be much more expensive. The ABM project eventually ended without delivering a working system, but Bull was convinced the rocket systems he had developed had potential and started looking for other ways to use the technology.

HARP was such a development. The U.S. was in the process of testing newer ICBM systems and required repeated tests of newer re-entry vehicles. Bull suggested that the program could be run for considerably less money if the test vehicles were lofted from a large gun, as opposed to using rockets. This would also allow the test program to be greatly sped up, as repeated firing was easy to arrange in comparison to setting up rockets. The key concept was the use of an oversized gun firing an undersized vehicle mounted in a sabot, allowing it to be fired with relatively high acceleration. Test electronics were potted in a mix of sand and epoxy, proving more than capable of withstanding the rigors of launch.

The project was based on a flight range of the Seawell Airport in Barbados, from which shells were fired eastward toward the Atlantic Ocean. Using an old U.S. Navy 16 inch (406 mm) 50 caliber gun (20 m), later extended to 100 caliber (40 m), the team was able to fire a 180 kilogram slug at 3600 meters per second, reaching an altitude of 180 kilometers. The program was cancelled shortly after this. The politics of the Vietnam War (then in its fifth year) and soured Canada/U.S. relations played their role in the project's cancellation. The project received just over 10 million dollars during its lifetime.

Bull's ultimate goal was to fire a payload into space from a gun, and many have suggested that the ballistics study was offered up simply to gain funding. While the speed was not nearly enough to reach orbit (just 32% of Earth's 11.2 km/s escape velocity), it was a major achievement at much lower cost than most ballistic missile programs.
Project HARP wiki

The whole point is, a ballistic launch device could place any dust type you want from Flour to Sodium high into the atmosphere with a simple bursting charge at the desired altitude. I think mankind is nuts to even consider geoengineering, but the technology to play these God games is old and well known. Even the Paris Gun of WW I fame had a high enough trajectory to do this in 1916. Paris Gun

I can see it in my minds eye, potassium nitrate needed for fertilizer divberted to miles of artillery pieces firing day and night to put dust above 25 miles where it takes decades to settle back to the ground. Brilliant, isn't it?
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Global dimming and the airlines

Unread postby TheDude » Sat 26 Jul 2008, 14:36:23

Five Ways To Save The World - BBC program on geoengineering. One guy advocates seeding with rockets, would that have a better EROEI than artillery? Or blimps?

Project HARP is not to be confused with Project SHARP, another big gun, or Project HAARP, the ionospheric manipulation experiment you may have heard about on C2C.

The Schwerer Gustav was even bigger than the Paris Gun. Really wanted one of these monster cannons when I was a tyke!
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: Global dimming and the airlines

Unread postby Aimrehtopyh » Sat 26 Jul 2008, 14:55:44

link This shows that in may 2008 "U.S. passenger and cargo airlines" used slightly MORE jet fuel than they did in may of 2007.
This is heartening since the headlines would lead us to infer that we're already setting ourselves up for a roasting with all the canceled flights and defaulted airlines. Yet even with all that bad news the airlines have been able to burn up just as much fuel as they did last year. So we're still "protected" by the same degree of artificial cloud cover as we were when jet fuel was half todays price, weird.

If you're worried about global dimming, (or the sudden cessation of global dimming) like I am, this is the indicator to watch. It took me a while to dig this one up, don't lose it or abuse it.
"He who makes no mistakes isn't trying hard enough" Genghis Khan
"Everyone here is bribed not to kill each other." foodnotlawns
Coinflation.com
User avatar
Aimrehtopyh
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.

Re: Global dimming and the airlines

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 26 Jul 2008, 18:46:14

TheDude wrote:Five Ways To Save The World - BBC program on geoengineering. One guy advocates seeding with rockets, would that have a better EROEI than artillery? Or blimps?

Blimps are limited in altitude and rockets are horribly inefficient for this kind of task, artillery comparitively speaking is cheap, quick and easy.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Global dimming and the airlines

Unread postby TheDude » Sat 26 Jul 2008, 22:18:47

Thanks Aimrehtopyh. But look at this chart:

Image

Consumption reached a peak in mid-2000 and started a massive decline, only climbing back up around March 2002. 9/11 doesn't even seem to register on this chart, the recession seems to be the big factor, as appears to be the case in the early 90s. Wonder what we're in for now.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: Global dimming and the airlines

Unread postby Aimrehtopyh » Sun 27 Jul 2008, 00:06:08

So during the last 25 years the variation and growth fits within a bracket that's only thirty percentage points wide. We have to look back to the early fifties to see a time when we burned less than a billion gallons per year. Since '85 it's been over a billion gallons per month.

I wouldn't expect the correlation between fuel usage and surface sun measurements to be very direct. That is until the level of pollution or cloud cover reaches some critical level. The 9-11 numbers show us what happens when we swing from full-blast to zero emissions for a short period of time. What happens on the sliding scale in between these extremes is probably not linear with a catalyzing-type pollutant.
"He who makes no mistakes isn't trying hard enough" Genghis Khan
"Everyone here is bribed not to kill each other." foodnotlawns
Coinflation.com
User avatar
Aimrehtopyh
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests

cron