A Clash of Evidence

 

A Clash of Evidence:
The Realities of Solar Radiation Management (SRM)

by Clifford E Carnicom
Apr 06 2016
Edit May 14 2016
Edit Jul 05 2016
(A Partial Editorial)

There are many environmental activists who assume a certain cause and relationship between active geoengineering programs and those projects that fall under the term of “Solar Radiation Management (SRM). This paper will reiterate the basic fallacy of that assumption, and it will direct the reader towards a more comprehensive inquiry of the true nature of the forces and agendas that are likely to be involved.

For those that do not wish to engage in the full length of this article,  the Solar Radiation Management principle is one of interfering with solar heat transfer to the earth.  There are various schemes for accomplishing this which will be discussed later; the most modest of the choices requires the introduction of certain types of particulates into the middle of the stratosphere (from about 7 to 30 miles above sea level).

The essential problem here is that geoengineering  activity as it is currently practiced (and for that matter, bioengineering as well), is operational in the troposphere (from ground level to an average of about 7 miles above sea level), and not the mid-stratosphere.  There is a world of difference between the two, but for that discussion you will have to muse yourself further into this paper.

 

atmosphere2
Image source : scied.ucar.edu

 

Before going further, however, it will be beneficial to provide a brief historical context for the issues and the language involved.  There is a track record of controversy and confusion, information and misinformation, official responses and denials, organization and disorganization, research and speculation, and authorities and personalities that now span close to two decades. Unfortunately, the progress of society coming to terms and truthfulness with the deliberate modification of the atmosphere, and ultimately the planet itself, has been slow.

So first, a little history of language and personalities.  The journalistic rise of the geoengineering issue began, to my best recollection, in the last few weeks of the year 1998.  A certain Canadian journalist came to prominence quite rapidly on a nationally syndicated radio show, with coined language and defined agendas to let the world know that something very different and important was to affect the world.  It is fair to say that I have never been at ease with either the language or the a priori “agenda” that was introduced, as they always seemed to be supported with substantial fanfare and attention, but without any basic science to support claims being made.  The issue was, essentially, outlined and served to the public without proper investigation and discussion.

It is worthwhile to investigate that history a bit, as it represents a good portion of why we are where we are today.  Most of us may not be aware that generational forces are now at play in our understanding of the geoengineering issue. The language introduced at that time was the use of the term “chemtrail”,  a term that never did have a formal, accurate, or scientific definition then, and it still does not today.  That deficiency alone has been enough to interfere with the proper investigation of environmental pollution and contaminants, and it remains moderately successful to this day.  Whether such language of derision and denial, but of popular appeal, was a product of personal creativity or design of influence I may never be able to state with certainty; I do, however, have my opinions on the matter and I see no benefits from the choice.  My separation and disdain for populist and ill-defined terminology that is used in vain to seek legal standing is known, and I shall not be party to perpetuate this dubious origin. Only those words that will stand up in a court of law have merit here, and you are the one that will need to make your case.

The second great coup of the early journalistic ‘work’ was to define, in the eyes of the public, the very reason for the existence of geoengineering programs before any science was in place to justify the claim.  Again, it was all far, far “too easy” for one of my persuasion.  Check your internet history books, but you will find that a global and covert operation of unprecedented scale was, by use of a curious combination of implication and certainty,  for the purpose of “reducing global warming.

History will show that there has been an incredible level of success in strategy and influence upon public perception with these implants.  They are, however, in reality travesties and injustices to the public cause.

What the public was ‘given’, therefore, was an unsubstantiated agenda, ill-defined language of popular attraction, and a host of ready-made and supported ‘detractors’ that raised a commotion, provided distraction and dispute;  all of these set the stage to successfully avoid journalistic integrity, scientific investigation, and accountability by public representatives.  The obstacles were all provided at little cost, but at great expense to the needs and interests of the public.

This strategy of framing public perception and discussion under the guise of potential benefit was generally effective for more than a decade.  Hard hitting journalism never did take place, thorough investigations were not launched, scientific work was not supported, and public officials were not held accountable.

The problem that developed was that the claim of ‘cooling the planet’  by using aircraft to disperse aerosols did not fit the facts of observation.  They did not fit them then, and they do not fit them now.  It has taken some time for this truth to become evident; I presented my first paper on this topic (Drought Inducement, Apr. 2002) in the early part of the last decade.  This work was followed by additional papers (Global Warming and Aerosols, Jan. 2004, A Global Warming Model, Apr. 2007, and A Geoengineering and Climate Change Model, Jan. 2015) during the course of the successive decades. The tenets of that investigative work are also confirmed on a broader level with documents issued by, for example, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1999, 17) and NASA (“Clouds & Radiation Fact Sheet : Feature Articles” 2016) on the net heating effects from “thin, high clouds.”

High, thin “clouds”, including those that originate from an introduced aerosol base, do not cool the planet; they heat it up.

The next piece of the puzzle that we must fit into the picture is Edward Teller, and specifically the paper by him entitled, “Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Climate Change.”  This paper, authored in part by the developer of the hydrogen bomb, is often cited by activists themselves as one of the holy grails that proves that geoengineering operations are in place, and that they are indeed “cooling the planet” and “combating global warming” (albeit covertly, for some unknown reason). There are some important portions of the paper that have not been paid attention to;  this omission inappropriately supports a culture of popular belief that lacks scientific foundation.

Edward Teller does indeed propose various schemes for cooling the earth’s temperature, including the introduction of aerosols or particulates into the atmosphere. The issue, however, is WHERE in the atmosphere he proposes to do this, and the answer to this question is very relevant to the cause and purpose of this paper. It is even more revealing to point out the additional options that are both proposed and preferred by Edward Teller in his paper, as they help to place his atmospheric aerosol proposal into a better perspective.

Let us spend a brief time with the proposals of Edward Teller, as they are outlined in the paper cited above.  Please note that even within the introductory notes that Teller uses the phrase of introducing “scatterers” (i.e., light and heat) “into space from the vicinity of the earth”; this should give some indication of what the thrust of the thinking process is.  Teller proposes to introduce the scatterers into three different locations to artificially cool the earth (Teller 1997, 7):

1. Into the middle of the stratosphere (NOT the troposphere). The stratosphere is in the upper atmosphere, and the troposphere is the lower atmosphere. This important difference will be discussed in more detail a little later in this paper.

2. In orbit, in SPACE, approximately 4000 miles above the earth.

3. Deep in SPACE, approximately 400,000 miles from the center of the earth.

An obvious pattern of diverting the heat to locations distant from the earth should be apparent to us; it is one that has not been disclosed sufficiently within the current discussions taking place with respect to both geoengineering and climate control.

The reason the materials are proposed to be so distant from the earth is two-fold:

1. Most of the materials considered will absorb heat.

2. It is desired to have the captured heat radiate into space; not into the earth and its lower atmosphere.

The principles of the approach should not be difficult to grasp here, but they most certainly have been misrepresented in most discussions that are taking place with respect to current and active geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations.

If you hold a parasol over your head on a hot sunny day, it might keep you cooler. The air around you will still absorb that heat, however. The color and material of the umbrella is going to be another factor (i.e, albedo, specific heat, etc.) that you will want to consider. If you want to cool the planet, you are going to have to move the umbrella a lot further away – into space, for example. This is the essence of the Teller paper, and it is important to understand this proposal before certain terms of “solar radiation management” with respect to current geoengineering practices are bandied about. WHERE the material is injected into the atmosphere makes a big difference on the net heat effect, and this topic has largely been ignored within the popular circles of discussion on geoengineering. This discussion should lead one to think much more deeply about what the definition of geoengineering actually is, and how that definition compares to the realities of the projects and operations AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY AND ACTIVELY PRACTICED. Climate modification strategies, or more appropriately, environmental control strategies, are only one part of a much bigger picture.

The Teller paper has gained a lot of mileage in the geoengineering circles, and it is my opinion that much of this mileage is without merit and in ignorance. I must credit the Canadian journalist again for the majority of that progress, as the seed was planted very early in the game with a great deal of supposed ‘alternative media’ support. The Teller paper never explained the physics or consequences of introducing massive amounts of specific aerosol types into the lower atmosphere. The reason for this is simple; the paper was never intended to explain it because this act is not a viable way to cool down the earth. The Teller paper was inappropriately supported and attached to the observation of and media coverage of geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations as they are currently in place and operational.

Now let’s discuss some of the differences between the troposphere and the stratosphere in more detail. The distinction between what is real and hypothetical will never take place until we put at least some effort in that direction.

The troposphere is where weather is made. The troposphere is where airplanes generally fly. The troposphere is where the air is more dense and it is where pollution has a more immediate impact upon us. It is the where the majority of the earth’s atmosphere is, and consequently it is where we can breath and live. The troposphere has a profound and immediate impact upon our very existence on this planet. Roughly ¾ of the mass of the entire atmosphere is contained within the troposphere, the average height is about seven miles (a trip to the grocery store), and it is a veritable delicate eggshell of life for this planet. The troposphere is delicate and crucial to all life on this planet, and disturbance or pollution within it threatens our very existence. It cannot sustain serious damage without immediate consequence.

The stratosphere is where the air is very thin, centering closer to an average height of 20 miles above the earth. Airplanes cannot and do not fly in the mid-stratosphere regularly, as there is not enough air to support them; only specialized or high performance aircraft will rarely be able to visit this transitional zone to space. Geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations, in a practical aviation sense with current technology, cannot be practiced there. Teller makes clear that the preferred target for his ideas is generally in space, where the heat can feasibly be diverted or managed AWAY from the earth.

Readers may also to review an interview from several years past on this and related subjects; it is available via Freedom For All TV which is based in Canada (“Freedom Free For All TV: Clifford Carnicom Interview – YouTube” 2016).

It is now that we can understand a portion of the dilemma that is before us. If we accept that aviation is a primary tool that is actively being used to artificially modify the atmosphere, then we know that this is occurring within the troposphere, and not the mid-stratosphere. But we also know, at least as based upon Teller’s models, that mid-stratospheric operations would be required to effect any type of practical mitigation to global climate warming. Teller also lets us know that long term climate control by aircraft is hardly a preferred method, as it requires specialized performance aircraft and requires continual renewal to maintain its effectiveness. What is known, therefore, is that geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations AS THEY ARE NOW PRACTICED IN THE LOWER ATMOSPHERE, i.e., the troposphere, are not directed and motivated primarily toward climate control, including the purported mitigation of “global warming”.

The forces behind the implementation of active and current geoengineering operations have always understood this, and it never has been a logical motive for the current operations. This is the case regardless of popular conceptions with popular appeal that have been circulated for far too long without contest.

It is certainly past time for the citizens of the world to understand this as well, including many of the well intended environmental individuals and organizations that affect this same citizenry.

The language may have changed some over the recent decades, but the confusion and obfuscation remains as strong as ever now. It is past time to play the cards straight and to force each of us to confront the truths of the matter.

We must now pay some attention to the language that is now in vogue and how it changes. The terms of ‘chemtrails’ and ‘global warming’ were foisted upon us in earlier days; aerosols and particulates were always favored from my position, but those terms do not exactly have popular twitter appeal. They do, however, remain valid and accurate as far as the substance of the matter.

We have transitioned now to more socially acceptable terms of climate change, geoengineering, and “solar radiation management”. Unfortunately, the confusion behind the terms remains as dysfunctional as ever. We can be assured that the definition of geoengineering (and bioengineering) as I understand them, are not at all in agreement with many popularly held notions of that same term. Environmental modification and control is simply one small slice of the bigger pie, as far as I am concerned. I will reiterate my scope of consideration for the term near the end of this paper.

We should, however, at least seek out the definition of the popular term (by many environmental activists as well) “Solar Radiation Management”. This term refers to the management of climate control issues through a modification of the earth’s heat balance;  only one option of which includes the introduction of particulate matter into the stratosphere (NOT the troposphere).

Specifically, from the Royal Society:

“Solar Radiation Management (SRM) [are] techniques which reflect a small percentage of the sun’s light and heat back into space.”

Again, I will make the case here that the term cannot and does not apply to current and active geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations as they are currently practiced in the lower atmosphere (troposphere). The stratosphere is not the troposphere, and the troposphere is not the stratosphere. The physics of each layer within the atmosphere are completely different from one another and they cannot, in general, be “used” for the same purposes. You cannot talk about them or treat them as though there is no difference of importance.

You cannot rely on methods and definitions that have physical principles, meaning and application within a certain domain (i.e, the stratosphere) and then use those same methods and principles for a different domain (i.e., the troposphere).

To further assume that the practitioners of active geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations are active within the mid-stratosphere when they are not (as determined by direct observation) further undermines the case for protest of the actual modification of the lower atmosphere (i.e., the troposphere) that is taking place. Talk about misrepresentation and obfuscation of a global environmental and health issue; there is plenty of fodder to work with here.

To claim further that the motives of the geoengineering practitioners are beneficial and well-intended (i.e, “solar radiation management and the curtailment of “global warming”) but that the operations are now known to actually cause harm because of a net heating effect is equally misguided. The operations as they are practiced are not an experiment of beneficent intent; the developers understand the physics and the applications quite well (within their sphere of interest). Rest assured that the web of deployment is not centered on, or confined to, the principles of “Solar Radiation Management”.

Current operations directly impact and affect the lower atmosphere (troposphere) in which we all live and breathe; this assertion is now supported directly by field measurements.  The particulate counts are real and observable, and they have been made. The measurements referred to are not worthy solely of “climate control” consideration; they are, however, of immediate impact and detriment to your health and well-being. Gravity works, and the materials do ultimately reach ground level and they are measurable in direct correspondence to activity levels. You may wish to think a little closer to home, in some respects, and become active on that front.

Incidentally, attention should probably be called to a particular segment of a particular interview from several years past; my recollection is that a Mr. George Knapp from the Coast to Coast network moderated the affair. It is another part of the social history, “alternative” media, and social impressionability that precedes us. You may or may not choose to investigate the affair as I report it here.

It was not made clear prior that multiple parties would be available on the interview and fair representation on the sides of an issue can always be a topic of debate. What remains of interest to me is a particular response evoked from a particular Canadian journalist on the panel when I introduced the subject of “biological operations” (e.g., bioengineering) into the discussion. I think it is fair to say that I must have struck a nerve in the flow or agenda of the conversation. After the claim that biological operations are indeed an active component of the aerosol operations as they are now practiced, the particular response from this “Canadian journalist” was:

“There is not! There is not! I repeat there is not any evidence of biological operations available!” (to my best recollection). The response was immediate, emphatic and unqualified.

The show’s host then immediately switched to a commercial break after this statement was made. You may judge for yourself what dynamics transpired at that moment, but the forceful response certainly struck me as out of balance within a purported discussion of important environmental issues.

In the time made available, I refuted the unsubstantiated claim then. I refute it now as well.

I am only one researcher, and I hardly make claim to knowing all shades of an operation that I am not party to. Over the years, however, a ‘list of applications” has been developed which remains internally consistent with all known and observed data. The list has not changed in any significant fashion for more than a decade. I will continue to voice the claim that no discussion of geoengineering (or bioengineering) is of adequate scope unless it delves into each of the following domains:

1. Environmental modification and control (of broader scope than global temperature issues).
2. Military applications
3. Electromagnetic operations
4. Biological operations (including bioengineering)
5. Geophysical considerations
6. Surveillance System Development (LIDAR applications)
7. Exotic technology system monitoring

The prime-time audience may not be ready for the realities and implications of the various aspects itemized above, but they are ultimately deserving.

There are parties that continue to promulgate the thesis that Solar Radiation Management, i.e., the attempted mitigation of “global warming” via stratospheric modification is at the crux of active geoengineering operations. There frequently remains the implication that the motives for operation are of good intention even if the observations of consequence contradict that claim. The use of Edward Teller’s paper is frequently cited as the basis for the implementation of theoretical concepts into actual operation, regardless of the physics or details involved. There are seldom, if ever, references to differences between the impact of operations in the troposphere (lower atmosphere) vs. the stratosphere (upper atmosphere). There frequently is the assumption that the agendas of operation are known and defined by popular perceptions. For close to two decades, the evidence does not support these claims and misrepresentation is in place.

I would encourage that each of us seek common ground and understanding of the forces and applications that are likely operative within the spheres of active and practiced geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations. There is some value in review and observation of the social history and assumptions that accompany our evolution in the pursuit of truth. It is also wise to force good science and reason continuously into our deliberations and debates, and to admit our mistakes so that we may rise above them. If information, analyses and representations are inconsistent we must each be willing to confront those positions. I believe that the phrase has already been coined for us – “The Truth is Out There”, and it is the job of each one of us to help find it.

Sincerely,

Clifford E Carnicom
April 06, 2016
Edit May 14, 2016
Edit July 05, 2016

 

Additional Notes:

Readers may also wish to become familiar with a model document that proposes an international ban on geoengineering (and bioengineering) practices. Please refer to StopGlobalGeoengineering.org for additional information(“Global Ban on Geoengineering – Stop Global Geoengineering” 2016).

Appreciation is extended to Harold Saive for a note of clarification within this paper.

Bibliography:

“Clouds & Radiation Fact Sheet : Feature Articles.” 2016. Accessed March 24. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/.

“Freedom Free For All TV: Clifford Carnicom Interview – YouTube.” 2016. Accessed April 6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1islqA3QNo.

“Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty | Royal Society.” 2016. Accessed March 29. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/.

“Global Ban on Geoengineering – Stop Global Geoengineering.” 2016. Accessed April 6. http://stopglobalgeoengineering.org/global-ban-on-geoengineering/.

“Image: The Stratosphere – Overview | UCAR Center for Science Education.” 2016. Accessed March 29.

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1999. “Aviation and the Global Atmosphere.”

Teller, Edward. 1997. “Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Climate Change.”

“The Stratosphere – Overview | UCAR Center for Science Education.” 2016. Accessed April 6. http://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/stratosphere-overview.

“The Troposphere – Overview | UCAR Center for Science Education.” 2016. Accessed April 6. http://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/troposphere-overview

CONDUCTIVITY: The Air, The Water, and The Land

CONDUCTIVITY:
The Air, The Water, and The Land
Clifford E Carnicom
April 15, 2005

A  rainfall laboratory test recently received from a rural location in the Midwestern United States has refocused attention on the electrolytic, ionic and conductive properties of environmental samples in connection with the aerosol operations.  These “interesting characteristics” of solids in our atmosphere have a more direct and down to earth impact as their nature is better understood.  This is nothing less than the changing of the air, the water and the soil of this planet.  All life is eventually to be affected as it continues.

A laboratory report has been received that documents unusually high levels of calcium and potassium within a rain sample.1   Previous work has demonstrated unexpected levels of barium and magnesium.   The continuous presence of easily ionizable salts at higher concentrations within atmospheric samples has many ramifications upon the environment.  A brief introduction to the severe health impact of this category of particulates has also been made on this site. Current work is now dedicated to the impact that these materials are having upon not only upon the atmosphere, but upon the water and soil as well.  All inhabitants of this planet will eventually confront, voluntarily or not, the consequences of the actions that are being allowed to degrade the viability and habitability of our home.

The burden of testing for the problems underway does not fall upon any private citizen, as the resources are not available to support it.  Nevertheless, testing and analysis does continue in whatever way is  possible.  Accountability must eventually fall to those public servants and agencies entrusted with protection of the general welfare and environment.  It should not be assumed that there is infinite time available to ponder the strategies of improvement and the solutions for remedy.  We shall all bear the final price for any condonement of what has been allowed to pass.

Now, for the more immediate particulars:

A series of conductivity tests have been conducted with recent heavy snowfall samples collected in New Mexico and Arizona. Conductivity is a means to measure the ionic concentration within a solution. These tests have been performed with the use of a calibrated conductivity meter in conjunction with calibrated seawater solutions. A series of electrolysis tests have also been completed with these same samples and calibrated solutions.

These tests demonstrate conclusively the presence of reactive metal hydroxides (salts) in concentrations sufficient to induce visible electrolysis in all recent snowfall samples encountered2.  

Precipitates result if reactive electrodes are used; air filtration tests have produced these same results in even more dramatic fashion from the solids that have been collected.  Highly significant electrolytic reactions occur in the case when the solid materials from the atmosphere are concentrated and then placed into solution.  Rainfall is expected to be one of the purest forms of water available, especially in the rural and high mountain sites that have been visited.  Rainfall from such “clean” environments is not expected to support electrolysis is any significant fashion3, and conductivity is expected to be on the order of 4-10uS4. Current conductivity readings are in the range of approximately 15 to 25uS. These values may not appear to be extraordinarily large, however any increase in salt content, especially with the use of remote samples, will need to be considered with respect to the cumulative effect upon the land.  These results do indicate an increase in conductivity on the order of 2-3 times, and the effects of increased salinity on plant life will merit further discussion.

Beyond the indicated increase in conductivity levels of sampled precipitation, there are two additional important results from the current study. The first is the ability to make an analytic estimate of the concentration of ionic salts within the regional atmosphere.  The results do appear to be potentially significant from an air quality perspective and with respect to the enforcement (or lack thereof) of existing standards.   The second is the introduction of the principle of “ohmic heating”, which in this case allows for increased conductivity of the atmosphere as a result of an introduced current.

First, with respect to estimated concentrations of ionic salt forms in the atmosphere, the principle is as follows.  The methods demonstrate that our focus is upon reactive metal hydroxide forms (barium hydroxide, for example).  Conductivity is proportional to ionic concentration.  Although a conductivity meter is especially useful over a wide range of concentrations, special care is required when dealing with the weak saline forms of precipitation as they now exist.  It has been found that current flow as measured by a sensitive ammeter (µamps) appears to be useful in assessing the conductivity of the weak saline solution.  The results have been confirmed and duplicated with the use of the calibrated conductivity meter. The use of on ohm meter to measure resistance is found from both experience and from the literature to not be reliable without much caution, due to complications of heating and/or polarization.  Weak saline solutions appear to have their own interesting characteristics with respect to introduced currents, and this topic will come to the forefront when ohmic heating is discussed.

A series of weak sea saltwater solutions have been carefully prepared for use in calibrating both the conductivity meter and the ammeter.  These solutions are in strengths of 0.56%, 1.51% and 3.01% respectively.  Many tests have also been completed with refined water samples as well as seawater equivalents.  Conductivity is proportional to concentration levels, especially as it has been bracketed with a variety of solutions in the range of expected measurements.  Measurements currently estimate the saline concentration of the precipitation samples at approximately 0.041%.  Salt concentrations in any amount are extremely influential to conductivity.  

Assuming an equivalency in density of the precipitation salts to sea salts, this results in an expected concentration level of approximately 15 milligrams per liter.  For comparison purposes, rainwater in Poker Flats, Alaska is reported as approximately 1mg/liter for all dissolved ions; the contribution from reactive metal compounds is a small fraction of that total.  Highly polluted rain over Los Angeles CA is reported at approximately 4mg/liter, with approximately 1mg/liter composed of the reactive metals.5  Simulated rainfall samples report concentration levels of approximately 4 and 21 mg/liter respectively, presumed to reflect reasonably clean and polluted samples respectively6.  In all cases cited, the contribution from reactive metal ions is quite small relative to the whole, and sulfate, nitrate and chloride ions are the largest contributors to the pollutants.    Testing here indicates the composition of the precipitate pollutants may be biased toward the reactive metal ion concentrations.

The next objective is to translate the measured and estimated concentration level to an equivalent density, or particulate count, within the atmosphere.  This method is based upon saturation levels for moisture within the atmosphere.  Air at a given temperature can only hold so much water.

From the Smithsonian Meteorological Tables, the saturation density is given as:7

saturation density = 216.68 * (ew / (Cv * T) )

where ew is the saturation vapor pressure in millibars, T is temperature in Kelvin, and Cv is the compressibility factor.  Cv is 1.0000 to the level of precision required.

From Saucier8, the saturation vapor pressure in millibars with respect to water is estimated as:

 es = 6.11 * 10(a*t)/(t+b)

where a = 7.5
b = 237.3

and t is degrees Centigrade.

Therefore, the saturation density can be stated as:

density (gms /m3) = [ 216.68 * es / K

and the density in gms / m3 of salt particulate in the air can be estimated as:

gms / m3 = Conductivity Estimate of Solids (in gms per liter) * (RH% / 100) * Saturation Density * 1E-3

and in µgms:

µgms = gms / m3 * 1E6

and as an example, if the solid density is .015 gms / liter and the temperature is 15 deg centigrade and humidity is 50%, the estimate of particulate concentration from the salts is 96µgms / m3.  This concentration will vary directly with altitude (temperature) and humidity levels.

The estimates show that at ground levels and temperatures it is quite possible that the EPA air quality standards for particulate matter are no longer being met.  This determination will also depend on the size of the particles in question, as EPA standards vary according to size (PM2.5 and PM10 respectively).  All analyses indicate that the size of the aerosols under examination are sub-micron, and if so, this makes the problem more acute.  Air quality standards for comparison to various scenarios are available9 to examine the relationship that has been developed. Unfortunately, the failures of United States government agencies now require the independent audit of EPA data and presentation.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is especially culpable in this regard, and the enforcement of existing standards is a serious topic of controversy.

Finally, let us introduce the subject of ohmic heating.  The behavior of electric currents within weak saline solutions has many points of interest.  During the testing for this report, it was observed that the conductivity of weak saline solutions noticeably increased over time when these solutions were subjected to a weak electric current. It appears that the most likely source of this conductivity is a phenomenon known as ohmic heating.  In plasma physics, ohmic heating is the energy imparted to charged particles as they respond to an electric field and make collisions with other particles.  A classic definition would be the heating that results from the flow of current through a medium with electrical resistance.  Please recall the difficulty of using an ohmmeter to measure conductivity in a solution; this difficulty was realized in the trials of this report.

Metals are known to increase their resistance with the introduction of an electric current.  As the metal becomes hotter, resistance increases and conductivity decreases.  Salt water and plasmas are quite interesting in that the opposite effect occurs.  The conductivity of salt water increases when temperature increases.  The same effect occurs within a plasma; an increase in temperature will result in a decrease of the resistance.10, i.e, the conductivity increases.  Introduction of an electric current into the plasma, or salt water for that matter, will increase the temperature and therefore the conductivity will also increase.  This is in opposition to our normal experience with metals and conductors.

In the past, conductivity studies have focused on the ability of the reactive metals to lose ions through the photoionization process.  This remains a highly significant aspect of the aerosol research.

The importance of this study is that a second factor has now been introduced into the conductivity equation, and that is the introduction of electric current itself into the plasma state. This research, through direct observation and analysis,  has inadvertently turned attention once again to the HAARP facility, where ohmic heating is stated within the Eastlund patent to be a direct contributor to atmospheric conductivity increase.  All evidence indicates that this plasma is saline based, which further propagates the hypothesis of increased conductivity in the atmosphere with the introduction of electric current, in addition to that provided by photoionization.

A future presentation will examine the changes in the conductivity of our soil, in addition to that of our air and water.

1. CE Carnicom, Calcium and Potassium, https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/calcium-and-potassium/, March 2005.
2. Andrew Hunt, A-Z Chemistry, (McGraw Hill, 2003), 125.
3. Dr. Rana Munns, The Impact of Salinity Stress, http://www.plantstress.com/Articles/salinity_i/salinity_i.htm.
4. Steven Lower, Ion Bunk, http://www.chem1.com/CQ/ionbunk.html.
5. Hobbs, Peter, Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p137.
6. Water Standards, Simulated Rainwater, http://www.hps.net/simrain.html
7. Smithsonian Meteorological Tables, Table 108, (Smithsonian Institution Press, 1984), 381.
8. Walter J. Saucier, Principles of Meterological Analysis, (Dover, 1989), 9.
9. National Ambient Air Quality Standards, http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/monitoring/air/monops/naaqs.html
10. S. Eliezer and Y. Eliezer, The Fourth State of Matter, An Introduction to Plasma Science, (Institute of Physics Publishing 2001), 124-125.

MORTALITY VS. VISIBILITY

MORTALITY VS. VISIBILITY
Clifford E Carnicom
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Jun 03 2004

MORTALITY VS. VISIBILITY

MORTALITY VS. VISIBILITY
Distance to Mountain Range : Approximately 15 miles
3 % of U.S. Population : Approximately 8 million people

A model has been developed to depict the estimated increase in the mortality rate as a function of the decrease in visibility. The results of this model in a graphical form are shown above. It can be observed that mortality increases as visibility decreases, and that the effect is highly significant. This model does not consider the additional negative health effects that occur from the toxic nature of particulate matter1.

 


Additional Notes:

The American Heart Associations establishes that an increase in the density of particulate matter will cause an increase in mortality. The expected increase is expressed in a differential form of an increase of 1% mortality of an increase of 10ug (micrograms) per cubic meter.2 Additional sources3 refer to an increase of 3.4% mortality increase per equivalent density change, however the more conservative approach will be adopted within this model.

 

TO BE CONTINUED

References:

1. Clifford E Carnicom, Barium Tests are Positive, (https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/barium-tests-are-positive/), May 24, 2004.
2. American Heart Association, Air Pollution, Heart Disease and Stroke, (http://www.americanheart.org), Jun 1 2004.1. Clifford E Carnicom, Mortality Requires Examination, (https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/mortality-requires-examination/), Mar 22, 2004.
3. Laden F, Neas LM, Dockery DW, Schwartz J., Association of Fine Particulate Matter from Different Sources with Daily Mortality in Six U.S. Cities, (Environmental Health Perspective), 2000 Oct; 108 (10), 941-7. Abstract available from U.S. National Institute of Health.
4. Carnicom, Air Quality Data Requires Public Scrutiny, (https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/air-quality-data-requires-public-scrutiny/), Aug 27, 2001.
5. Carnicom, Microscopic Particle Count Study, New Mexico 1996-1999, (https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/microscopic-particle-count-study-new-mexico-1996-1999/), Mar 23, 2000.
6. Carnicom, The Theft of Sunlight, (https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/the-theft-of-sunlight/), Oct 25, 2003.
7. Carnicom, Visibility Standards Changed, (https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/visibility-standards-changed/), Apr 01, 2001.
8. Carnicom, The Extinction of the Stars, (https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/the-extinction-of-the-stars/), Jun 23, 2003.
9. American Lung Association, Particulate Matter, (http://www.lungusa.org), Apr 2000.

GLOBAL WARMING & AEROSOLS

GLOBAL WARMING & AEROSOLS
Clifford E Carnicom
Jan 23 2004

It can be demonstrated that the introduction of essentially any metallic or metallic salt aerosol into the lower atmosphere will have the effect of heating up that lower atmosphere. The impact is both significant and measurable. Those that seek and express concern on the so called global warming problem might wish to begin their search with an inquiry into the thermodynamics of artificially introduced metallic aerosols into the lower atmosphere. The direct injection of massive amounts of particulate matter by aircraft into the atmosphere for more than five years establishes the foundation for this inquiry. An examination of the specific heat characteristics of an altered atmosphere will provide the path for the realistic conclusions that can be made.

Any claim that the aerosol operations represent a mitigating influence on the global warming problem appears to be a complete facade that is in direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of physics and thermodynamics. The lack of candor and honesty by government, media and environmental protection agencies in response to public inquiry is further evidence of the fictitious fronts that have been proposed. It is past time to recognize that one of the primary effects of the dense aerosols that now permanently mar the lifeblood of this planet is the heating up of the very atmosphere that we breathe.

The early stage of the current argument for global heating and the aggravation of drought conditions was proposed approximately two years ago1. The benefit of the current study is that an estimate of the magnitude of the heat influence upon the atmosphere can now be made. Those that continue to claim that a benevolent, but necessarily secret, enterprise to protect the planet with a blanket of purportedly heat reflective aerosols in the lower atmosphere exists will need to provide the primary evidence of that claim. That claim will need to be justified with solid physical principles and observation. Hypothetical research models that are under discussion and rationalization, such as the Teller proposal, are more appropriate to the outer reaches of the planet and space. These proposals do not explain the deposition of massive amounts of hygroscopic aerosols into the lower atmosphere.

The recent media attention to the dramatic and accelerating climatic changes will hopefully be extended to the fundamental principles that are expressed within this report.

The mathematics, physical principles and thermodynamics of this argument will be made available on a separate entry.

FURTHER DISCUSSION:

1. Clifford E Carnicom, Drought Inducement, (https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/drought-inducement/), 04/07/02

CENTREX NEWS: PUBLIC CORRECTION REQUIRED ADDITIONAL CORRECTION REQUIRED J. SKOUSEN PROVIDES CORRECTIONS

CENTREX NEWS:
PUBLIC CORRECTION REQUIRED
ADDITIONAL CORRECTION REQUIRED
J. SKOUSEN PROVIDES CORRECTIONS
Clifford E Carnicom
Jan 21 2002
Post Edited Mar 05 2002

 

The repetition of incorrect information to the public over an extended period of time requires that the following statements be affirmed:

 

 


Attention is again called to the significantly incorrect information which is presented within an article published on Mar 04 2002 by William Thomas, entitled “Air Traffic Controllers Concerned Over Chemtrails”, (www.rense.com).

“According to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, contrails can only form at temperatures below minus 76 degrees, and humidity levels of 70 percent or more. Even in ideal conditions, contrails rarely last more than 20 minutes.”

 

It is recommended that all journalists, citizens and researchers educate themselves in the fundamental physics of contrail formation vs. ‘cloud’ formation and the various sources of information that are available on this topic. Distinctions between CONTRAIL formation and ‘CLOUD’ formation are of critical importance within this process. It is hoped that a factual and accurate understanding of these matters by the general public can be brought to light in the near future.

 

Mar 05 2002
Clifford E Carnicom

 

 


 

Centrex News : Public Correction Required

The following letter has been sent to Mr. Joel Skousen regarding a recent article posted on CentrexNews.com, and is made available to the public as well.

 


CE Carnicom
Jan 27 2002



Mr. Skousen,

Thank you for your recent attention to the aerosol issues on
www.centrexnews.com (World Affairs – Jan 11 2002(1?)). You have
pointed out an important inaccuracy by the journalist Will Thomas within your
recent article regarding the formation of contrails with respect to
relative humidity. If you investigate the source of these statements by
Mr. Thomas, you will likely find that they refer to work that I have
conducted on this issue. My work has been misquoted by Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Thomas has been requested to correct this statement, and to my
knowledge, has never acted upon my request. It remains my desire that
this be done, as has been stated publicly.

Please refer to the following page in particular:

www.carnicom.com/thomas1.htm

I have conducted several studies related to the humidity issue, and
numerous models with respect to contrail formation are presented within
my research. There is, as you have noted, an important distinction to
be made between the conditions of contrail formation vs. cloud
formation. In fact, the models available allow for reasonably accurate
prediction of contrails down to essentially 0% relative humidity. The
conditions for “cloud” formation, artificial or otherwise, are a
distinctly separate issue. This has not been accurately presented to my
knowledge by Mr. Thomas, regardless of public and private requests that
have been made to this journalist. You may further evaluate the
evidence and information available at:

www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm

This letter to you will be made available to the public within my web
site, as well as the message board attached to it. My hope is that you
will provide a correction to the public as well.

Sincerely,

Clifford E Carnicom
www.carnicom.com
January 21, 2002

ref : www.joelskousen.com/

 

 


The following information has been made available to the public by Mr. Joel Skousen on the World Affairs brief of January 25 2002:

“A FEW CORRECTIONS ON MY CHEMTRAILS ARTICLE

 


Other researchers have relayed to me that William Thomas is not a
reliable researcher. In particular, he misquoted from one technical article
by NOAA meteorologist Thomas Schlatter. In fact, the critical
temperature for contrail formation is -40 degrees F., not -76 degrees.
Thus, contrailing can occur even at low altitudes, especially in the
winter months up north. Secondly, I erred in stating that the US airways
are mostly east-west. I meant that most of the airway traffic is
east-west. Airways connect all major destinations. The important point
here is that rarely do chemtrail observations match airway intersections
or major air routes. Third, contrails at altitude can stop and start again,
but this only happens when aircraft are flying at the boundary of
contrail temperatures, which is not always even or uniform. The
resultant stopping and starting of contrails is therefore quite gradual and
takes at least a mile of air travel to complete. Such a phenomenon does
not explain the abrupt, sharp cessation of spraying at altitude that I
witnessed or that has been documented by the photos at
www.carnicom.com. “

 

Partial Quotations with attribution permitted.
Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief
(http://www.joelskousen.com).

 


I extend my appreciation and gratitude to Mr. Skousen for his prompt responsiveness to any issues of concern and doubt that readers may have raised. In addition, his journalistic integrity is evident within his work ; it is expressed clearly by his spirit of inquiry and the seeking of truthful disclosure.

 

Clifford E Carnicom
Mar 08 2002

AIR QUALITY DATA REQUIRES PUBLIC SCRUTINY

AIR QUALITY DATA
REQUIRES PUBLIC SCRUTINY
Clifford E Carnicom
Aug 27 2001

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

A recent analysis indicates that the need for independent testing and verification of current atmospheric particulate counts now exists. Direct access to air quality data from independent sources requires scrutiny by the public in comparison to established US Environmental Protection Agency threshold values. Visibility of the atmosphere is directly related to particulate concentrations. The repeated lay observations of perpetually decreased visibility and omnipresent haze support the need for direct access to independent air monitoring data, despite the claims by federal sources of environmental improvement trends that have been made to the contrary. The demonstrated unwillingness of the U.S. EPA to adequately address the concerns of countless citizens regarding atmospheric degradation by aircraft aerosol operations adds to this need.

In addition, the reduction of visibility reporting standards from a maximum of 40 miles to a maximum of 10 miles by the National Weather Service requires further explanation. The wholesale passiveness by the so-called environmental organizations of this country, including the Sierra Club, Greenpeace International and others to the aerosol operations stands as an equal disservice to the public welfare. The apparent limitations of access to post 1998 public data base files that involve direct atmospheric monitoring (e.g., via nephelometers), such as the Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (NOAA) site, also require further investigation or explanation. In addition to this source, a basis for essentially real-time access to data by the public is now established. The direct visibility of excessive particulate matter by both the corona and high level candlepower light methods requires a formal accounting, as well as the recent concentrated rain samples that reveal extraordinary levels of metallic particulates.

Furthermore, the recent proclamation issued on April 20 2001 by a Walter M. Washabaugh, Colonel, USAF, Chief, Congressional Inquiry Division, Office of Legislative Liason that “The term “chemtrail” is a hoax that began circulating approximately three years ago…” and that “The ‘chemtrail’ hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations and major media publications.” is also entitled to an eventual reckoning with its author.

Readers may also wish to become familiar with the recently (belatedly?) released 1999 U.S. mortality statistics, which show an increase in chronic lower respiratory deaths. The category of “chronic lower respiratory disease” now ranks as one of the five leading causes of death within the United States.

All data under examination, including federal sources, now requires corroboration and independent verification to assure its validity.

The United States EPA air quality standards now permit 50 micrograms of particulate matter of size 10 microns or less per cubic meter of air. As a point of reference for size, a human hair is approximately 60 -100 microns in thickness. This standard was apparently previously set at 75micrograms / m^3 and the current regulations can be viewed at the EPA web site. Mass quantities of particulate matter 2.5 microns or less are restricted to 15 micrograms / m^3.

An analytical case will be presented on this page to establish the need for direct access of particulate data counts by the public. Such data will need to become available in the raw format. Post processed data will need to be reviewed by independent sources. The approach taken in formulating this case is intended to be conservative, and it is only intended to point out the need for further investigation and independent analysis of raw data results. Any revisions to this presentation will be made as is appropriate.

The goal of this presentation is to arrive at an estimate of the amount of particulate mass in the atmosphere under current conditions, based upon certain relationships, analysis and data that are available at this time.

 


RELATIONSHIPS EXAMINEDIn the absence of direct and independently verified particulate count data, the theories of light scattering can be used to form at least an initial estimate of the atmospheric concentrations of particulate data. The results of this analysis can establish whether further investigation of particulate counts may or may not be justified. The study is not intended to lend finality to the question in any manner; only to examine the legitimate questions which have now surfaced regarding the degradation of atmospheric quality in direct correlation to the presence of aircraft aerosol operations. The results of this analysis indicate that such concerns are warranted.

This analysis uses the common and simplifying assumptions of particle single-scattering, non-absorbing spherical forms.

This analysis will use three relationships that have been established in the field of light scattering theory:

1. The exponential decay law : I(z) / Io= exp (-gz) where g is the extinction coefficient, z is the path length, and I(z) / Io is the light intensity ratio. (Waves and Grains, Mark Silverman 1998)

2. The extinction coefficient per unit length for a system of particles (N) of a single radius a per cubic centimeter (cm3) given as g = pi * a^2 * N * Q where Q is the efficiency factor for extinction, as derived from Mie scattering theory. (Light Scattering by Small Particles, H.C. van de Hulst, 1981)

3. Koschmeider’s relationship, z =3.912 / extinction, which may be derived from the exponential decay law. The path length of visibility is z in this case.

In addition, a derived relationship from the previous relations will be used, along with an equation involving mass summation.

Relations 2 and 3 may be combined to form:

4. N = 3.912 / (z * pi * a^2 * Q)

and involving the mass of the particles:

5. Mt = N * mp where Mt is the total mass per unit volume (spherical particles assumed) and mp is the mass of an individual particle.

and since mass = density * volume

6. Mt = (4 * pi * a^3 * d * N) / 3 where d is the density per unit volume.

 


EXAMPLE CASESThe need at this point is to establish representative values for use in the relationships and equations that are outlined above. A conservative approach to these values will be taken.

The first goal is to solve for N, the estimated number of particles assumed to be of constant radius per unit volume. The following quantities are necessary to estimate:

z, a and Q.

Let us assume z, or the visibility in this case is 20 km (~12.4 miles). In light of the visibility report recently presented, this value is not unreasonable under many conditions that are now frequently encountered. Within this page, it is now observed that visibility is frequently reported as being less than 10 miles, and that 10 miles is now the registered maximum visibility of interest within climatic database sources. The change of standards from 40 miles to 10 miles in October of 1997 deserves additional consideration and review by all citizens.

Another method can also be used to establish a reasonable starting point for z, or the visibility. If the reader will notice the extinction coefficient data obtained by recent nephelometer readings at the University of Maryland, it will be noticed that the extinction coefficient for the current year appears to be generally increasing. The general relationship that exists (#3, Koschmeider described above) is that the higher the extinction coefficient, the lower the visibility. This increase corresponds to the general deterioration of atmospheric visibility that is described by current researchers and countless citizens on the aerosol issue. It is noticed that the readings have recently been peaking commonly at 0.35 to .37 / km. It is of interest that this value corresponds quite well with the values stated to accompany specified meteorological conditions at this site that concerns nephelometers. Hazy skies are stated to begin occurring at this level. Let us therefore choose a more conservative value of 0.2 km. From Koschmeider, or from direct derivations of the exponential decay law, the expected visibility in this case would would be 3.912 / 0.2 km = 19.6 km. This agrees therefore, with both measured data and real world observations at a fairly conservative level. Note that an increased value used for the extinction coefficient (also justifiable in certain cases being witnessed) would only lead to an increase in the mass concentrations estimated from this study.

Note also from The Nature of Light and Colour in the Open Air, M. Minnaert, 1954, that visibility is expected to be better in the summer months than in the winter months. This expectation is at odds with the nephelometer data thus far available, as the increasing extinction coefficient that is shown depicts an environment of decreasing visibility in the summer months.

The value of a, the constant particle radius assumed in this case is an important quantity, and will lead to highly variable results. It is therefore important to arrive at a reasonable and conservative value for this radius. The method of selecting this radius can be chosen to be dependent upon the color of the haze that is now commonly pervasive. Fortunately, the color of the haze can be used as a significant indicator of the particle size within the atmosphere.

Let us consider first a certain statement made by Vincent Schaefer (Atmosphere, 1981) where blue haze characteristics are described: Note that this statement refers to the diameter of the particle as opposed to the radius.

“This effect is caused by the nearly uniform scattering of light from particles just above the threshold of visibility (0.1 to 0.3 micron in diameter)”.

Next, consider statements by H.C. van de Hulst (Light Scattering by Small Particles, 1981):

“Scattering by the aerosol (haze and dust) .. is due to scattering by a large variety of particles, usually with radii < 1 micron”.

and in regard to larger particles,

“The drops of clouds, fog and rain are very much larger than those in the haze described in the preceding section. …the radii of the drops that dominate the extinction and scattering characteristics are in the range of 5 microns to 20 microns”.

The size of the particles evaluated is a critical factor, and must be considered in detail and in correspondence with observed visual characteristics of the atmosphere. There are, in fact, established relationships between the size of particles in the atmosphere and the corresponding colors of light observed.

A conservative estimate of particle size radius in this case being examined will be 0.3 micron. This would equate to a diameter of 0.6 microns. The blue haze described does little to impair visibility, and a value of less than 0.3 microns for the radius would likely be inappropriate. If the reader accepts a whitish haze as characteristic of the current conditions, it would be both reasonable and conservative to select a value for a at the size stated. If a larger value for a would be chosen for this example, it will only increase the mass estimates that have been arrived at. A conservative value for this radius is deliberately being chosen for this example, in an attempt to introduce no skews into the final results.

The efficiency factors, developed by Mie, are dependent upon the particle radius, and are tabulated within the source by van de Hulst. For a particle size of 0.3 microns, Q is tabulated as approximately 2.1 and it does not vary significantly over the expected size range to be considered.

We can now arrive at an estimate for N, the number of particles per unit volume. Units will be chosen to lead to a volume concentration of grams per cubic centimeter, and will subsequently be converted to EPA standards of micrograms per cubic meter. Using the chosen values:

N = 3.912 / (z * pi * a^2 * Q) = 3.912 / (2E6cm * 3.14 * (.3E-4cm)^2 * 2.1) = 329 particles / cubic centimeter.

Choosing a larger value for a (e.g., 1 micron) would significantly reduce the particle count. The mass concentration, however, will be significantly increased due to the cube relationship of volume.

Continuing with a mass concentration estimate for the current example:

Mt = (4 * pi * a^3 * d * N) / 3 where d is the density per unit volume,

and again choosing a conservative density estimate of 1.6 gms /cm^3,

This leads to a mass concentration estimate of:

Mt = (4 * pi * (.3E-4cm)^3 * 1.6 * 329) / 3 = 5.95E-11 gms / cm^3 = 5.95E-5 gms / cm^3 = 59.5 micrograms / cubic centimeter.

Note that this would exceed the EPA particulate thresholds under the conditions that have been described.

These results, along with the corresponding conservative values chosen, provide some level of justification for further scrutiny of the EPA threshold values contrasted with current observations, analysis and data that are now readily available. Independent data sources are now a requirement due to the disenfranchisement of citizens by the EPA and their lack of investigation.

 


Additional Notes:

Readers may wish to review the results of an earlier study completed by this researcher entitled:

MICROSCOPIC PARTICLE COUNT STUDY NEW MEXICO
1996 -1999


completed on Mar 23 2000. This study was completed at the time without any awareness or knowledge of EPA particulate threshold values. Analysis was made strictly from a statistical difference viewpoint. It is of considerable interest to note that an average level of 46 micrograms per cubic meter resulted from this study. This is surprisingly close to the threshold value even though the study concerns 1999 and pre-1999 data.

Most observers would agree that there has been a significant and further deterioration in the visual characteristics of our atmosphere since the time this study was completed.

It may also be recalled that a willful attack on the credibility of the earlier report was made by a certain “individual” shortly after the original presentation. Readers may wish to assess the value of the current report of this page and the referenced past report as well as any opposing claims. The use of original NM state data vs. the use of processed EPA data from a subsequent counter-study by the independent party may be relevant to the evaluation. The original study remains as presented without cause for revision.

A summary of that report is as follows:

APPENDIX:

Source of data : New Mexico Environment Department – Air Quality
No. of observations from five monitoring stations 1996-1998 : 129410
No. of observations from five monitoring stations 1999 : 43449
Measured quantity : PM10(<=10microns)
Mean of observations 1996-1998 : 39.42 micrograms/cubic meter
Mean of observations 1999 : 45.70 micrograms/cubic meter
Standard deviation of observations 1996-1998 : 111.69micrograms/cubic meter
Standard deviation of observations 1999 : 134.57micrograms/cubic meter
Zm Statistic : 11.65
F Statistic : 1.45


THE RH DECEPTION

THE RH DECEPTION
Clifford E Carnicom
May 21 2001

THE RH DECEPTION

Much ambiguity has been circulated regarding the effect of humidity upon the persistence of contrails, or vapor trails. Numerous sources, without exception, state that such vapor trails (composed of water vapor by historical and conventional definition) may persist for “extended periods” under conditions of “higher” relative humidity. Unfortunately, it is apparent that quantitative information attached to these repeated generalizations is lacking. Even the recently issued “fact sheet” under distribution by a combination of federal agencies, including the EPA, NOAA, the FAA and NASA falls victim to this same deficiency.

Observations by this researcher as well as countless citizens of the country for the past 2 1/2 years have revealed the glaring inconsistencies of the official positions and statements made in contrast to the physical reality of a tragically altered atmosphere resulting from the aircraft operations under examination. These records have been most dramatically illustrated in the arid high desert regions of the southwestern United States, where the physical contradictions with the proffered official positions are at the level of absurdity.

The presentation made herein will demonstrate a realistic, and I might add, quantitative assessment of the expected effect of humidity upon what we all now witness on a day to day basis. The foundation of this argument will rest on what can be called a “Relative Humidity Thought Experiment”, which seeks to establish a realistic model upon which to base any quantitative examination. This work can be compared at a later point with a rather interesting discussion and dialogue between a curious citizen and three scientists from the United States Department of Energy on this same topic. That discussion follows at the end of this report.

Let us begin by imagining one of two extreme situations at either end of the relative humidity scale. To start, imagine you are in the middle of a fog bank, and an aircraft whizzes by your face leaving the most dense vapor trail (composed of water vapor, of course) possible from the exhaust emissions. Let us assume that we hold the temperature constant for these experiments. The question is, would that trail evaporate? Would it dissipate? The expected answer must be no. Although the visible vapors would eventually mix with the surrounding fog bank, they would not change form. This leads us to conclude that if the atmosphere was at a pre-existing level of saturation (i.e., 100% relative humidity), a vapor trail would not be expected to dissipate or evaporate, although it would continue to mix with the surrounding environment.

Now examine the opposite end of the spectrum. Imagine you are in the desert, the driest desert possible, and the air around you has absolutely no moisture within it (i.e., 0% humidity). The same aircraft zooms by your face, and leaves you with the same question, will the trail evaporate or dissipate? The answer this time must opposingly be yes, and it must dissipate at the maximum rate that is possible for the given temperature. So with the desert, a maximum rate of evaporation is achieved, and for the fog bank an evaporation rate of zero is earned. To assign a sense of scale to this problem, let us call the maximum attainable rate of evaporation as 1 and the rate of zero evaporation as, well, zero.

It is now time to introduce the model. First, it shall be done narratively, and secondly, within the world of mathematics. The conceptual basis for the model is as follows:

The rate of evaporation is inversely proportional to the humidity itself.

This is the fundamental premise of this work which must be examined with a fair degree of thought. Conceptually, this premise states what has just previously been reviewed. It states that the greater the level of relative humidity that exists within the atmosphere, the slower the rate of evaporation of moisture within it. Conversely, the lower the level of moisture within the atmosphere, the greater the rate of evaporation. Both of these tenets are fundamentally sound, as is demonstrated through the thought experiment described earlier. It will be of interest to scrutinize the mildly variable Department of Energy – Argonne Laboratory responses stated at the end of this report which, incidentally, have provoked this inquiry.

We must now convert the conceptual formulation into a statement of mathematics to achieve any quantifiable results. It is as follows:

E = (1 / k) * RH + C

In this equation, E represents the rate of evaporation, and RH represents the relative humidity itself, and it will be expressed as a decimal value (100% = 1.0; 0% = 0.0). C represents an arbitrary constant, and k represents a proportionality constant.

For those with an interest, this equation results from the differential equation:

dE = (1 / k) * dRH

where dE represents the instantaneous change in the evaporation rate and dRH represents the instantaneous change in relative humidity.

This equation is an ordinary, first order and separable differential equation. It can therefore be readily solved through integration of both sides of the equation. This leads to the general solution given above.

We now need to solve for k and C. This can be accomplished with the initial conditions that we have already discussed within the thought experiment.

The first case is that when RH = 0, E = 1.
Therefore,
1 = 0 + C
or C = 1

The second case is then when RH = 1, E = 0.
Therefore,
0 = (1 / K) * (1) + 1
or
0 = (1 / K) + 1
or
K = -1

Therefore our specific and final solution is:

E = 1 – RH

Non-linear model extensions of the current discussion have also been considered, with no real impact on the final conclusions that result from this work.

It is now of much interest to examine the results of using this equation under the range of circumstances that can be expected in the real world. The results are somewhat enlightening, especially with respect to the abundant generalizations that have been included within the many official responses to citizen inquiries regarding the aerosol operations.

Here is a tabulation of the results, where the relative humidity will now be expressed as a percentage for convenience sake. Recall that a rate of evaporation of 1 means that maximum evaporation will occur at the given temperature, and zero evaporation means that no evaporation will take place (i.e., hydrostatic stability has been achieved).

Relative Humidity(%)

Rate of Evaporation

0

1.0

10

.90

20

.80

30

.70

40

.60

50

.50

60

.40

70

.30

80

.20

90

.10

100

0.0

We can also translate these results into a tabulation of a “persistence factor”, i.e., if the rate of evaporation is zero, the vapor trail is expected to persist indefinitely (disregarding any mixing of mediums within the environment). Therefore the reciprocal of the rate of evaporation leads to this factor of “persistence” under the circumstances considered.

Relative Humidity(%)

‘Persistence’ Factor

0

1.00

10

1.11

20

1.25

30

1.43

40

1.67

50

2.00

60

2.50

70

3.33

80

5.00

90

10.00

100

Infinity

This means for example, if a vapor trail under conditions of 0% humidity was, hypothetically, to last for 10 seconds and the relative humidity was instantaneously increased to 50%, the trail would be expected to persist for approximately 20 seconds (2.00 *10sec) instead. More realistically, if the relative humidity was 30% and a vapor trail was to last, hypothetically, for 15 seconds, and the relative humidity was suddenly increased to 60% (a reasonably high value under commercial flight conditions), the trail would be expected to last approximately 26 seconds ((2.50 /1.43) * 15secs.).

This formulation and the results now reveal some rather enlightening conclusions. Before embarking further, it is worthwhile to mention that the upper atmosphere at flight levels may generally considered as a relatively arid environment. It is not uncommon, as countless examinations throughout the previous two years plus have disclosed, for the relative humidity at flight altitude to range between 10 and 60 percent. This should not be surprising in any particular way, since it is easily established that most cloud layers form at lower altitudes where the moisture levels commonly exceed relative humidity levels of 70%. This is not the case for upper regions of the atmosphere, which is the favored domain of jet aircraft traffic. As a case in point, during congressional hearings regarding the environmental effects of projected supersonic flight traffic at 65,000 ft., the expert testimony explained that “persistent contrails” would not be a factor as the relative humidity at that level commonly is approximately 5%. My own computations and analysis of radiosonde observations as well as those of those of the witness in this case are in complete concordance. It is fair to state that the upper atmospheric regions are generally more arid than the lower counterparts, with relative humidity levels commonly within the range that has been stated. Extreme upper levels of relative humidity within the flight corridor region are uncommon, and again are in complete agreement with our common sense observations. It is interesting to note that one study involving persistent contrails by NASA focussed on a SINGLE persistent contrail under conditions of uncharacterisically high relative humidity. The examination of relative humidity data (reported with respect to water vapor per conventional standard) in a quantitative sense is now required for anyone that wishes to justify the existence of so-called “persistent” vapor trails on a regular basis. This is the epitome of requirements if the area under consideration is the arid southwestern desert of this country, where this work has been developed.

It may be recalled that an earlier study assessed the expected times for contrail, or vapor trail dissipation. The results of that model are in complete agreement with the observation, common sense and experience base that has accumulated during the last 50 years, i.e., vapor trails routinely dissipate within a matter of seconds, and the extreme range extends at most to a couple of minutes under usual conditions. That particular model was developed independently of any effects from relative humidity, and it is a function of the particle size, the surrounding temperature and the amount of energy placed into the system via solar radiation.

If we now wish to develop the model further, and include the expected effects from relative humidity, we learn that the model is not affected significantly by any commonly encountered levels of humidity at those upper altitudes.

Even at a relative humidity level of 70%, which must be considered quite high for the commercial flight domain, a factor of 3.3 against the maximum evaporation rate of a completely arid environment must be considered as relatively minor. Most of us would have a difficult case of making the argument of a persistent vapor trail within a moisture-free environment, and more realistically we would expect dissipation within a matter of seconds (disregarding deliberate aerosol injections). To multiply a few seconds by a factor of 3.3 leads to no real world change in the situation at hand.

One of the accomplishments from this most current analysis is that generalized statements regarding the effect of humidity upon the duration of vapor trails can no longer be accepted without further definition. It can be seen that the effects of humidity upon vapor trail evaporation rates are generally insignificant and minor within the historical reference frame of human experience, physics, chemistry, meteorology and common sense observation. To offer any extraordinary and exceptional circumstances to the American public as an explanation for the events now witnessed on a regular basis is deceptive, disingenuous and a prevarication. It is important that the citizenry educate themselves on the facts and physics of the world around themselves to serve the purpose of establishing the truthfullness of that which the public is subjected to without their consent.

That truth now includes overwhelming evidence that the populace has been systematically subjected to a covert, extensive and sustained project of aircraft aerosol dissemination without their consent. Biological components repeatedly identified within atmospheric samples during that same time period remain equally distressing and disturbing. Let it be reiterated that the United States Environmental Protection Agency remains in possession of one of those samples referred to, and to date refuses to acknowledge the existence of that sample or to disclose the results of any testing.

The need for accountability, disclosure and Congressional hearings to serve the rights of the people of this nation and the world remains paramount.

Clifford E Carnicom
Authored at Rio Chama
May 19 2001

 


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORIES
EVAPORATION AND HUMIDITY
ASK A SCIENTIST – WEATHER ARCHIVE
INQUIRY AND DISCUSSION

SF AEROSOL REPORT

THE AEROSOL REPORT
Clifford E Carnicom

This information will now be integrated within the US report page.
Please refer to that page.

CE Carnicom
05/04/01

 

Date of Report : Wed May 03 2001
Time of Report : 0900 Mountain Daylight Time
Location: Santa Fe NM

The probability, based upon current investigative modeling, that conditions in the southwestern United States (Albuquerque-Santa Fe) are favorable to aerosol operations is now estimated at 29%.

This report is offered for investigative purposes only to the general public, and no guarantees of reliability are stated or implied. It will be provided as circumstances permit. Using the observational history table below in conjunction with this graph, please note the association with increased moisture content and precipitation that is often evident.

A graph of the recent probability history for this same area is as follows:

aerosols

Actual results are reported according to the following
arbitraryranking system of observations reported below:

Vapor Trails Only

25

Mixed Vapor and Aerosol

60

Heavy Aerosol Operations

80

Full Cloud Cover – No Visibility

50


OBSERVATIONAL HISTORY TABLE

Date

Location

Weather
ReportTime
(UTC)/
Observation
Time
(Local)

Altitude
/Temp
/DewPoint

Required Relative Humidity from
Model
RHmin
%

Actual
Relative
Humidity
%

Does
Model
Predict Vapor Trail Formation
at Report/
Observation
Time?

Are
Vapor Trails
Visible in
the Sky
at Report/
Observation
Time?

Weather

Notes

041201

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200
0900

34K/
-48.7/
-60.7

28

28

Marginal

NO

Partly Cloudy-
Cumulus

No Traffic Visible

041301

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
0900

34.6K/
-51.7/
-64.7

8

19

YES

YES-Vapor

Clear

Light Traffic

041401

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
0900

36.3K/
-55.7/
-67.7

0

20

YES

YES-Vapor

Clear

Light Traffic

041501

ABQ/
Santa Fe

2400/
1600

37.1K/
-61.3/
-71.3

0

25

YES

YES-Vapor

Clear

Light Traffic

041601

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
0900

36.5K/
-55.3/
-65.8

0

25

YES

YES-Vapor

Clear

Light Traffic

041701

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
1300

37.3K/
-58.1/
-69.1

0

22

YES

YES-Vapor

Clear

Light Traffic

041801

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
0900

36.3K/
-51.6/
-56.6

10

54

YES

Heavy aerosol activities
0830-0930

Clear in AM; Hazy PM

Numerous passes not shown on Flight Explorer-Heavy Traffic/
Vapor trails appearing at 41K-Light Traffic

041901

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
1000

35.1K/
-50.3/
-56.3

18

48

YES

Mixed aerosol and vapor

Mostly Cloudy in AM/Cumulostratus/
Afternoon clearing

Medium Traffic

042001

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
1000

34.7K/
-50.7/
-55.4

15

57

YES

Mixed aerosol and vapor

Cumulostratus early AM/Cumulus Late AM

Light Traffic

042101

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
0900

34.6K/
-52.7/
-60.7

0

38

YES

Vapor in AM/
Heavy Aerosol Activities in PM

Clear in AM/
Increasing Cumulus and Haze Mix in PM

Light Traffic AM/
Heavy Traffic PM

0422

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
0900

33.8K/
-43.3/
-60.3

67

35

NO

No visibility

Full Cloud Cover-Stratus/
Snow

No Traffic Visible

0423

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
0900

35.5K/
-53.9/
-62.9

0

32

YES

YES-Vapor-Early AM
Heavy Aerosol Activities in Late AM-Haze/
Vapor Trails in PM

Clear Skies AM/
Hazy Skies Late AM/
Cumulus and Clearing again in PM

Light Traffic Early AM/
Heavy Traffic Late AM/
Lite Traffic PM

0424

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
0900

34.9K/
-54.1/
-65.1

0

24

YES

YES-vapor

Clear

Light Traffic

0425

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
1000

35.1K/
-52.7/
-60.7

1

37

YES

YES-vapor

Clear

Light Traffic

0426

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
0900

35.0K/
-51.5/
-61.5

10

29

YES

YES-vapor

Heavy Haze to West at Ground Level, Significant Visibility Reduction/
AM:Increasing
Alto-Cumulus/
PM:Cumulus Clouds – Unnatural Feathered Form

Light Traffic

0427

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
0900

35.0K/
-51.7/
-58.7

8

42

YES

YES-vapor trails in AM
Heavy aerosol operations 1130-1300

Mostly Clear in AM-some cumulus clouds/Increasing Cumulus Clouds in Afternoon, Heavy Aerosol Activity 1130-1300
Heavy Rain in Afternoon and Night

Med Traffic in AM/
Heavy Traffic 1130-1300
No visibility from cloud cover in PM

0428

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
0900

34.9K/
-50.1/
-63.1

19

20

Marginal

YES

Vapor Trails AM/
Mostly Clear AM/
Increasing Cumulus Clouds/

Light Traffic AM
Heavy Traffic Late AM

0429

ABQ/
Los Alamos

1200/
0900

35.0K/
-50.5/
-56.5

17

48

YES

Extremely Heavy Aerosol Traffic Dominated Skies All Day

Extremely Heavy Aerosol Traffic:
100+trails from 0900-1130/
Some Cumulus Clouds in AM/
Heavy Haze from Aerosol Activity at Flight Altitude Merged with Heavy Cumulus Cloud Cover in PM

Heavy Traffic

0430

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
0900

34.9K/
-52.1/
-66.1

5

16

YES

YES-Vapor

Clear AM with white haze cast to sky

Light Traffic

0501

ABQ
/Santa Fe

1200/
0900

35.2K/
-49.9/
-61.9

21

22

Marginal

YES-occasional vapor trail
Extremely Heavy Aerosol Traffic 0830-1000
60+Trails

Extremely Heavy Aerosol Traffic in AM/
Heavy Haze at Ground Level and Flight Altitude/Clear skies in PM; insufficient moisture for cloud base

Heavy Aerosol Traffic in AM/
Light Vapor Trail Traffic Throughout Day/
Numerous passes not shown on Flight Explorer in AM

0502

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200
/0900

34.9K/
-51.5/
-63.5

9

22

YES

Mixed Aerosol and Vapor

High Clouds and Haze in AM; Increasing Clouds in PM
Cumulo-Stratus by Late Afternoon

Moderate Traffic

0503

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
0900

34.5K/
-54.1/
-64.1

0

28

YES

Vapor

Cumulus and Haze

Light Traffic

0504

ABQ/
Santa Fe

1200/
0900

34.5K/
-51.9/
-58.9

6

42

YES

No Visibility

Full Cloud Cover/
Some Rain

0507

 

 

 

10

33

YES

Vapor

Clear
Occasional Cumulus

Light Traffic

This report is based upon recent research that is attempting to model the conditions that are favorable or unfavorable to aerosol operations. This model and research is to be considered as preliminary, and it will be modified as necessary according to further findings and analysis.