Contrails vs Chemtrails



A few years ago I got involved in a conversation with my brother in law who has, shall we say, conspiracy theorist leanings.  He was terribly upset whenever he looked up and saw what he described as "chemtrails" in the sky.  Apparently, the illuminati - or whoever - are controlling our thoughts by spraying mind altering chemicals from jumbo jets. The main argument he made was that they didn't look like what you would expect to come out of an engine.

A few days later I was mulling over this while cycling to work.  What, I thought, should it look like?  I realized that it should be really easy to work out and by the time I arrived at work, I'd figured it all out, bar some missing constants that I then looked up.  I quickly knocked up an email which I then sent ... to myself.  Because responding to conspiracy theorists with arithmetic is like poking bears with sticks.

I took special care when researching online not to use any search terms that refer to either contrails or chemtrails so that I didn't end up with values that could possibly have been chosen for the sake of winning this argument.  I was quite proud of the end result, which is that contrails ought to look roughly how those lines in the sky do look.

Here's the email

Subject: Contrails - my own research

Been looking up some numbers.

According to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_fuel_consumption_of_a_Boeing_747 a 747 burns 12 litres per km

Burning 1 gram of hydrocarbon produces approximately 1 gram of water (and 3 grams of CO2) so let's say that a 747 produces 12 litres of water per km.

Now according to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_ambient_temperature_at_30000_feet the temperature at 30000 feet is -50 degC.

And according to http://web.gccaz.edu/~lnewman/gph111/topic_units/Labs_all/Water%20Vapor%20Capacity%20of%20Air.pdf the water vapour capacity of air at -40 degC (which is close enough to -50) is 0.1 g/kg. This means that every km a 747 saturates 120000 kg of air.

Now according to http://www.electronics-cooling.com/1998/09/cooling-electronics-at-high-altitudes-made-easy/ the air density at 30000 feet (about 10km) is about 0.5 kg/m3.  This means that every km a 747 saturates 240000 m3 of air. This is equivalent to two cylinders each with a cross sectional area of 120 m2.

 Therefore, you would expect the water vapour produced by the ordinary combustion of fuel to produce two trail shape clouds about 12m in diameter each.


POSTSCRIPT

Just saw two protesters in Amsterdam and took this snap



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How To Make ASCII Diagrams Beautifuller

Image
I've discovered an excellent tool in asciiflow.com .  The website makes it really easy to create ASCII box diagrams like this They put these things in fruit machines you know! This is ideal for source code banners, which I think should contain helpful documentation - but most programmers think it's a good place for the COPYRIGHT information and nothing else. But wait! we can make it beautifuller... and easier to read... by replacing some of the ASCII characters with ones available in UTF-8: There!  Isn't that better?  (Although some purists may object to non-ASCII characters in your code base.) SOURCE CODE: #!/usr/bin/python2 # coding: utf-8 # + gets converted in different ways depending on it's 4 neighbours # # . N . { nsew(N,S,E,W) has bit 3 set if N in "+|<>" # W + E { nsew(N,S,E,W) has bit 2 set if S in "+|<>" # . S . { nsew(N,S,E,W) has bit 1 set if W in "+-^v" # { nsew(N,S,E,W) has bit 0 set if E in
Read more

Calculation of ECS using simple convection model

Image
Contents Intro Simple stratified model Alternative convection model Tropospheric temperature gradient Approach used in convection model Calculation of Radiative Forcing from CO₂ increase Calculation of Radiative Forcing from H₂O increase Calculation of zero-feedback ECS Effect of including feedbacks Effect of water vapour Effect of cloud cover change Effect of sea ice loss Calculation of ECS including feedbacks Limitations One more thing: Changes to Troposphere depth Intro The goal of this post is to see if we can come up with an estimate of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity using a simple model in which the atmosphere is treated as well-mixed.  By "simple" I mean that using the model will not require any advanced mathematics or computation, but will still be realistic enough to come up with an estimate within the likely range of 2.5 - 4.0°C predicted by the IPCC Assessment Report 6 .  I will try to take as little on trust as possible and show how the results are arrived at.
Read more

Why growth is falling in all developed countries (as a long term trend)

Image
In this post I argue that economic growth is not the normal state of affairs, it is a blip caused by the discovery of a one-off resource of non-renewable energy.   The logistic equation $$ \frac{dy}{dt} = y(1-y) $$ Here's a simple model.  Humans discover an exploitable but limited resource and start consuming it.  The amount consumed, $y(t)$, is a function of time.  The general form of the equation is $\frac{dy}{dt} = \alpha y (\beta - y)$, but if you choose the right units $\alpha$ and $\beta$ both become $1$. Why should this work, in principle? Early on, the factor $1-y$ is approximately $1$ and can be ignored.  So the model states that annual consumption $dy/dt$ starts off proportional to $y$.  In other words, $y$ grows exponentially at first.  This could happen if exploiting the resource enables further exploitation of the resource.  For example, suppose a few humans are shipwrecked on an island with 1000 trees: they take ages to cut down the first tree as they are using their
Read more