Author Topic: ? How come CHEM TRAILS are 'condensing', coming during WARM afternoons ?  (Read 3794 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Country: us
No, I did not misunderstand it.  That it can vary the temperature by 2 degree (actually, the article rounded up, it was 1.8 degree) is a big delta and it was immediate.   The observation thus shown it as an effective means of atmospheric and global temperature manipulation.

Contrail by itself will not do enough when things are averaged out - after all, the atmospheric water amount didn't change, just the distribution.  And in fact, we added heat to the atmosphere by engine heat making the contrails.  The only impact that could last longer than the contrail itself is the heat lost due to reflected light.  If we create a thousands and thousands of say blimp like balloons using solar power to move and heat the air as it circles around...  That may have a nice impact -- but plenty of studies and evaluations to be done before a judgement can be made there.

Pointing out contrail's temperature manipulation ability is just an excuse, may be...  Who can resist the opportunity of mocking the Activists!  (want it cooler? fly more private jets)   Besides, if we do reduce Carbon Dioxide, what do we do about the plants dying?  We took away their food.

Personally, I rather move to higher elevation with a greener planet than staying at our current shore line and watch the planet turn brown as plants die off.  Either way, I am an old guy, so I wont be around to see whether we run out of veggie to eat, or having to swim from the house to the office to get to work.
 

Online AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4644
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
No, I did not misunderstand it.  That it can vary the temperature by 2 degree (actually, the article rounded up, it was 1.8 degree) is a big delta and it was immediate.   The observation thus shown it as an effective means of atmospheric and global temperature manipulation.

Contrail by itself will not do enough when things are averaged out - after all, the atmospheric water amount didn't change, just the distribution.  And in fact, we added heat to the atmosphere by engine heat making the contrails.  The only impact that could last longer than the contrail itself is the heat lost due to reflected light.  If we create a thousands and thousands of say blimp like balloons using solar power to move and heat the air as it circles around...  That may have a nice impact -- but plenty of studies and evaluations to be done before a judgement can be made there.

Pointing out contrail's temperature manipulation ability is just an excuse, may be...  Who can resist the opportunity of mocking the Activists!  (want it cooler? fly more private jets)   Besides, if we do reduce Carbon Dioxide, what do we do about the plants dying?  We took away their food.

Personally, I rather move to higher elevation with a greener planet than staying at our current shore line and watch the planet turn brown as plants die off.  Either way, I am an old guy, so I wont be around to see whether we run out of veggie to eat, or having to swim from the house to the office to get to work.

I think you'll find that plants did just fine at pre-industrial levels of CO2.
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Country: us
...
I think you'll find that plants did just fine at pre-industrial levels of CO2.

Actually, plants and trees did not do just fine.  We know that plant and tree deaths will be wide spread at about 150ppm.  Modern day technology estimated pre-industrial age CO2 to be about 180ppm.  Of course, looking back, we do not know exactly why and how, but plants were dying.  Some would attribute plant deaths to be due to pollution and no doubt part of that would be true, but we also know that 180ppm is too close to 150ppm for comfort which would be brown earth territory.

We also know that today's 400ppm is not healthy enough for plants, hence plant growers use liquid CO2 in a green-house to supplement -- Check omafra.gov.on.ca (Ontario, Canada).  Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, food, and Rural Affairs is not exactly run by "right wingers" yet they recommend supplement liquid CO2 for green house plant growth at 1000ppm to 1300ppm.
Quote
Rates of carbon dioxide supplementation are dependent on the crop response and economics. Flower and vegetable growers may take somewhat different approaches. In general, carbon dioxide supplementation of 1,000 ppm during the day when vents are closed is recommended.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#suppl
I am sure some would push it higher still for higher worth crops, as long as crop income exceeds the cost of liquid CO2.

To me, attacking was what is superficial is a bad habit I engage in too -- change the fuse and that's that.  But we here all know that changing the fuse may not be an adequate solution.  So on the one hand, I am mocking hypocrites who just address superficial symptoms (flying around in private jets yet telling others to reduce carbon foot print), but on the other hand, I am reminding myself and others, merely changing the fuse ain't enough.  Look under the cover and see...  May be it is, may be it is not.  But surely replacing the fuse alone is not enough.

EDIT: corrected a typo ("was" should be "what")
« Last Edit: April 11, 2022, 08:28:03 pm by Rick Law »
 

Online AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4644
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
...
I think you'll find that plants did just fine at pre-industrial levels of CO2.

Actually, plants and trees did not do just fine.  We know that plant and tree deaths will be wide spread at about 150ppm.  Modern day technology estimated pre-industrial age CO2 to be about 180ppm.  Of course, looking back, we do not know exactly why and how, but plants were dying.  Some would attribute plant deaths to be due to pollution and no doubt part of that would be true, but we also know that 180ppm is too close to 150ppm for comfort which would be brown earth territory.

We also know that today's 400ppm is not healthy enough for plants, hence plant growers use liquid CO2 in a green-house to supplement -- Check omafra.gov.on.ca (Ontario, Canada).  Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, food, and Rural Affairs is not exactly run by "right wingers" yet they recommend supplement liquid CO2 for green house plant growth at 1000ppm to 1300ppm.
Quote
Rates of carbon dioxide supplementation are dependent on the crop response and economics. Flower and vegetable growers may take somewhat different approaches. In general, carbon dioxide supplementation of 1,000 ppm during the day when vents are closed is recommended.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#suppl
I am sure some would push it higher still for higher worth crops, as long as crop income exceeds the cost of liquid CO2.

To me, attacking was is superficial is a bad habit I engage in too -- change the fuse and that's that.  But we here all know that changing the fuse may not be an adequate solution.  So on the one hand, I am mocking hypocrites who just address superficial symptoms (flying around in private jets yet telling others to reduce carbon foot print), but on the other hand, I am reminding myself and others, merely changing the fuse ain't enough.  Look under the cover and see...  May be it is, may be it is not.  But surely replacing the fuse alone is not enough.

We must have different definitions of "fine". Despite humans building large concrete cities, cutting down forests etc, most of the earth's land surface is still covered in plants (barring deserts of various types) and was even more so before. I have a hard time understanding how this can be anything other than "fine" at worst, and "flourishing" for the most part.

Growing plants in an enriched CO2 environment is like giving growth hormones to cattle; yes they'll grow bigger and get there faster, but they won't die or even fail to grow without them.
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14297
  • Country: fr
CO2 favors plant growing. Up to a level, that we are still very, very far from. Now if we consider the impact it can have on climate, then plants can be affected in others ways. They can get destroyed by inappropriate climate conditions, but that's not a large source of concern IMO.

We currently destroy hugely more plants and animals not by emitting CO2, but by dispersing all kinds of pollutants, herbicides, and by destroying gigantic areas of forest just to exploit them or the underground, etc. Many species are disappearing altogether every year. That's not due to CO2. Anyway.
 

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Country: us
CO2 favors plant growing. Up to a level, that we are still very, very far from. Now if we consider the impact it can have on climate, then plants can be affected in others ways. They can get destroyed by inappropriate climate conditions, but that's not a large source of concern IMO.

We currently destroy hugely more plants and animals not by emitting CO2, but by dispersing all kinds of pollutants, herbicides, and by destroying gigantic areas of forest just to exploit them or the underground, etc. Many species are disappearing altogether every year. That's not due to CO2. Anyway.
...
We must have different definitions of "fine". Despite humans building large concrete cities, cutting down forests etc, most of the earth's land surface is still covered in plants (barring deserts of various types) and was even more so before. I have a hard time understanding how this can be anything other than "fine" at worst, and "flourishing" for the most part.
...

Yeah, "fine" is a relative and subjective term.  Different location, different points of view.

I am living in New Jersey USA.  I've seen the trees disappearing at an alarming rate for the last few decades.  But we also have other recent factors -- what NJ.COM called "an extinction level event" for our "Ash" trees (9% of NJ trees, 99% expected not to survive) -- due to bugs.  NJ used to have lots of chestnut trees, they are all but wiped out now.

As said, there are always more things under the cover.  More CO2 = more trees = more bugs = more illness = less human = ???

I think I blabbed enough about this topic.  I think I am merely procrastinate and attempting to avoid doing my income tax due in exactly a week from today.  However painful, I should go do it...
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5170
  • Country: us
Download a copy of Flightracker or similar software and I think you will discover the reason for your observed bias in contrail direction.  At my current location contrails are generally north south which reflects the direction of the major cities from here.  At other locations contrails have been omni-directional, east west or in a couple of places non-existent.  The most interesting contrails came at a place used by strategic bombers as a practice target.  Approached from one direction, sharp turn and then depart in another.
 

Online AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4644
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
CO2 favors plant growing. Up to a level, that we are still very, very far from. Now if we consider the impact it can have on climate, then plants can be affected in others ways. They can get destroyed by inappropriate climate conditions, but that's not a large source of concern IMO.

We currently destroy hugely more plants and animals not by emitting CO2, but by dispersing all kinds of pollutants, herbicides, and by destroying gigantic areas of forest just to exploit them or the underground, etc. Many species are disappearing altogether every year. That's not due to CO2. Anyway.
...
We must have different definitions of "fine". Despite humans building large concrete cities, cutting down forests etc, most of the earth's land surface is still covered in plants (barring deserts of various types) and was even more so before. I have a hard time understanding how this can be anything other than "fine" at worst, and "flourishing" for the most part.
...

Yeah, "fine" is a relative and subjective term.  Different location, different points of view.

I am living in New Jersey USA.  I've seen the trees disappearing at an alarming rate for the last few decades.  But we also have other recent factors -- what NJ.COM called "an extinction level event" for our "Ash" trees (9% of NJ trees, 99% expected not to survive) -- due to bugs.  NJ used to have lots of chestnut trees, they are all but wiped out now.

As said, there are always more things under the cover.  More CO2 = more trees = more bugs = more illness = less human = ???

I think I blabbed enough about this topic.  I think I am merely procrastinate and attempting to avoid doing my income tax due in exactly a week from today.  However painful, I should go do it...

If the trees are dying due to insect population explosion, that's not directly related to CO2, though it is indirectly related (usually) in that it's probably due to milder winters not controlling the level of insect population, or allowing them to migrate to areas they couldn't before.
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 

Offline rob77

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2085
  • Country: sk
liquid CO2 for green house plant growth at 1000ppm to 1300ppm.

what  :wtf: liquid CO2  :-//
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
If the trees are dying due to insect population explosion, that's not directly related to CO2, though it is indirectly related (usually) in that it's probably due to milder winters not controlling the level of insect population, or allowing them to migrate to areas they couldn't before.

Trees are dying in my region because our summers are so much warmer and dryer than they've been in the past. Even in my lifetime I've seen a rather dramatic shift in the climate, we have had consistently much warmer summers with much longer intervals between rainfall. The total average rain for the year is not far off but it has shifted to large amounts falling during shorter intervals in the winter.
 

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Country: us

I guess I am still procrastinating today...  I promise myself, I will stop procrastinating, but just a bit later...

...
Growing plants in an enriched CO2 environment is like giving growth hormones to cattle; yes they'll grow bigger and get there faster, but they won't die or even fail to grow without them.[/color][/size][/b]
Actually, CO2 to plant is not like giving growth hormones to cattle.  CO2 It is not a hormone but the carbon molecule goes directly from CO2 into the carbon molecule in ATP during photosynthesis.

So it is a raw material supply (food) rather than a catalyst or acceleration agent.  Like people, the more food, the more they grow; the hungrier they are, the slower the growth.  Stunted growth, but survivable to a point.

liquid CO2 for green house plant growth at 1000ppm to 1300ppm.

what  :wtf: liquid CO2  :-//

Yeah, I was expecting similar reaction.  While liquid CO2 supplementation has been done for decades, it is not common known that it is done.    Expecting such reaction,  I took the time to find a quotable link (from the official agricultural ministry of Ontario Canada) on CO2 supplementation on my earlier reply that no one should consider "nut cases" but instead it is indeed a common practice.
 

Offline rob77

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2085
  • Country: sk

I guess I am still procrastinating today...  I promise myself, I will stop procrastinating, but just a bit later...

...
Growing plants in an enriched CO2 environment is like giving growth hormones to cattle; yes they'll grow bigger and get there faster, but they won't die or even fail to grow without them.[/color][/size][/b]
Actually, CO2 to plant is not like giving growth hormones to cattle.  CO2 It is not a hormone but the carbon molecule goes directly from CO2 into the carbon molecule in ATP during photosynthesis.

So it is a raw material supply (food) rather than a catalyst or acceleration agent.  Like people, the more food, the more they grow; the hungrier they are, the slower the growth.  Stunted growth, but survivable to a point.

liquid CO2 for green house plant growth at 1000ppm to 1300ppm.

what  :wtf: liquid CO2  :-//

Yeah, I was expecting similar reaction.  While liquid CO2 supplementation has been done for decades, it is not common known that it is done.    Expecting such reaction,  I took the time to find a quotable link (from the official agricultural ministry of Ontario Canada) on CO2 supplementation on my earlier reply that no one should consider "nut cases" but instead it is indeed a common practice.

once again and slowly.... liquid CO2 ??  how on earth you get liquid carbon dioxide at atmospheric pressure ? frozen CO2 is called dry ice for a reason... it sublimes directly to gas at atmospheric pressure , there is no liquid CO2 at atmospheric pressure... that's a fact.
 

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Country: us
once again and slowly.... liquid CO2 ??  how on earth you get liquid carbon dioxide at atmospheric pressure ? frozen CO2 is called dry ice for a reason... it sublimes directly to gas at atmospheric pressure , there is no liquid CO2 at atmospheric pressure... that's a fact.

Oh, I was referring to the CO2 supplement part being surprise to some.

Perhaps they mean solid, but they said in their text liquid so I transcribed that without further consideration.  Either way, liquid CO2 can certainly be produced using pressure, and like propane, delivered in pressurized containers.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2022, 09:22:53 pm by Rick Law »
 

Online AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4644
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
If the trees are dying due to insect population explosion, that's not directly related to CO2, though it is indirectly related (usually) in that it's probably due to milder winters not controlling the level of insect population, or allowing them to migrate to areas they couldn't before.

Trees are dying in my region because our summers are so much warmer and dryer than they've been in the past. Even in my lifetime I've seen a rather dramatic shift in the climate, we have had consistently much warmer summers with much longer intervals between rainfall. The total average rain for the year is not far off but it has shifted to large amounts falling during shorter intervals in the winter.

No doubt. My point was merely that pre-industrial levels of CO2 were perfectly adequate for plants to live and thrive in.
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Country: us
...
No doubt. My point was merely that pre-industrial levels of CO2 were perfectly adequate for plants to live and thrive in.

My point is opinions differs and my opinion is even today's 400ppm is not adequate for healthy plant growth (suggested by the carbon dioxide supplementation) let alone 180ppm (estimated) for pre-industrial level.  And don't forget, immediate pre-industrial age has may be less than 1/3 of today's population.  We understand each other.  We lack hard data to show one way or the other, so we will continue to differ in our opinions, respectfully of course.

Now if we can dome-in sizable pieces of land (multiple each of >  km2) and do some experiments...   Carboniferous period was considered to be most productive period of plants in earth history.  Estimate goes wildly from high of 1500ppm to much higher (2000ppm plus, 2400ppm is the highest I've read) for this period.   Ok, estimation is 150ppm is wide-spread dying, how much?  What kinds of plants will survive adequately and what wont.  May be there be would be enough plants as food at even 150ppm, or not.  What is the delta when we go from 400ppm to 200ppm?  What if we go from 400ppm to 800ppm?  We have a more questions than we have answers today.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2022, 07:46:50 pm by Rick Law »
 

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14297
  • Country: fr
...
No doubt. My point was merely that pre-industrial levels of CO2 were perfectly adequate for plants to live and thrive in.

My point is opinions differs and my opinion is even today's 400ppm is not adequate for healthy plant growth

Adequate for what? Plants have been happily there on Earth for several hundred millions of years, depending on estimations. So, adequate for what?

(suggested by the carbon dioxide supplementation) let alone 180ppm (estimated) for pre-industrial level.  And don't forget, immediate pre-industrial age has may be less than 1/3 of today's population.

So. What you mean is adequate for our own consumption? If so, better say it upfront rather than first talking about "healthy plant growth". Plants have been "healthily" growing for a very long time before humans were even a thing. Is you definition of plants growing "healthily" that there is enough for our own consumption? If so, that is an odd definition of "health", at least from the plants' point of view.

We understand each other.  We lack hard data to show one way or the other, so we will continue to differ in our opinions, respectfully of course.

I don't get what hard facts exactly you lack. Plants have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
The "opinion" part here seems to be that you put an emphasis *solely* on our own needs as a species, which is not only one-sided, but is in itself circular reasoning. If there were fewer resources, we would just be consuming less and be fewer people on Earth.

But I suspect there is something deeper here, probably on some metaphysic/philosophical or religious level, that doesn't really belong in a technical discussion and is thus one reason why you guys can't agree.

 
The following users thanked this post: AVGresponding

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Country: us
...
But I suspect there is something deeper here, probably on some metaphysic/philosophical or religious level, that doesn't really belong in a technical discussion and is thus one reason why you guys can't agree.

I think you probably hit the nail on the head here.
 

Online AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4644
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
But I suspect there is something deeper here, probably on some metaphysic/philosophical or religious level, that doesn't really belong in a technical discussion and is thus one reason why you guys can't agree.

Indeed, I have little interest in metaphysics, and none whatsoever in religion. Facts are my drug of choice. And alcohol on weekends...
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf