Wait a minute. He talked completely in generalities. He didn't say a word about sulfur dioxide. Which is outgassed copiously by volcanoes (sulfuric smell, anyone?), and is washed out of the air by rainfall.
Jet fuel, of necessity from its origin and refining process, contains trace amounts of sulfur in the form of mercaptans and other organic compounds. The Product Data Sheet (PDS) for ExxonMobil Jet A and Jet A-1 give weight limits on mercaptans as 0.003 %, and total sulfur as 0.03 %. Sulfur is present also as a component of antistatic agents that increase the fuel conductivity to prevent static discharge and unwanted fire. This component is dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid (DINNSA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinonylnaphthylsulfonic_acid). So, a kilogram of jet fuel (about 1200 cubic centimeters) will contain about 0.3 grams of sulfur in one form or another.
By comparison, the concentration of SO2 in the atmosphere is about 15 parts per billion (ppb). Taking this by weight to get a rough idea, where a cubic kilometer of atmosphere amounts to a billion cubic meters, at a kilogram/cubic meter density, there will be about 15 kilograms of SO2. The calculation of how much jet fuel is burned in the passage of a kilometer through the air is a bit tricky, but you can begin to see that the dilution factor is large and that anything added by airplane exhaust will be difficult to discern. I will give it a try. The 787-8 has a fuel load of 101,343 kilograms and an operating range of 13,530 kilometers. Assuming complete burnup (not expected), the fuel use would be 7.5 kg/km, for a sulfur deposition of about 2.5 grams per kilometer of travel, or approximately 0.0025 parts per billion if spread throughout a cubic kilometer. (I think I did the math correctly, but a thousand pardons if I missed a decimal point.)
Numbers are exhausting, but the point is that we already breathe SO2---and the levels are too small to have any importance. i grew up in a town that had a pulp & paper mill that made its own sulfuric acid to separate the lignin from the cellulose of the wood they used for pulp. There was some leakage from the chemical reactors and when a temperature inversion hit the town, one could smell the sulfur and feel the cough from the chest burn it created. It was annoying, but no one ever had any health effects. The aura of the SO2 around the plant was probably responsible for the yellowing and brittleness of old books in the used book shops nearby. I'm not recommending such levels as being healthy; they weren't. But when it is imperceptible (which it is, normally) it makes no difference. And what it would take to truly increase the sulfur dioxide levels would require perhaps an increase in sulfur mining of multiple times the present level. All these schemes of tinkering with the atmosphere come to the shoals of reality: the numbers are unfathomably huge.
So, very good for transparency, but don't be surprised if it turns out to be a nothingburger.
You enjoy presentimg yourself as an "expert" in this type of science.
Have you figured out the difference between extraterrestrial radiance and terrestrial irradiance yet?
*IMO you do know the difference, you just PRETEND that you don't because you can use that ridiculous argument to confuse people concerning this subject.
**You've used that EXACT strawman argument with me before, about a year ago, like its some sort of strange HABIT for you to confuse extraterrestrial radiance and terrestrial irradiance, despite your lnowledge.
The solar constant is about 1368 watts/square meter. The albedo of the Earth is about 30%, so what comes through to the Earth surface is about 1000 w/m2, provided the sun is directly overhead. The spectrum is essentially identical, so far as human sight and photovoltaics are concerned. (Hint: I work in aeronautics and astronautics, so this is Old Hat for me. The astronomers will tell you the same thing.)
The main difference between the two (aside from intensity) is that the atmosphere filters out most of the ultraviolet radiation, which is a good thing.
If you have some actual knowledge to impart, I would be glad to know it, but so far all you have demonstrated is a stumbling block over the solar spectrum. It turns out that I am an expert in this type of science. What more do you want?
Now, all this is educational. I am glad to share knowledge. But I don't think we are arguing over facts, so please relax.
Wait a minute. He talked completely in generalities. He didn't say a word about sulfur dioxide. Which is outgassed copiously by volcanoes (sulfuric smell, anyone?), and is washed out of the air by rainfall.
Jet fuel, of necessity from its origin and refining process, contains trace amounts of sulfur in the form of mercaptans and other organic compounds. The Product Data Sheet (PDS) for ExxonMobil Jet A and Jet A-1 give weight limits on mercaptans as 0.003 %, and total sulfur as 0.03 %. Sulfur is present also as a component of antistatic agents that increase the fuel conductivity to prevent static discharge and unwanted fire. This component is dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid (DINNSA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinonylnaphthylsulfonic_acid). So, a kilogram of jet fuel (about 1200 cubic centimeters) will contain about 0.3 grams of sulfur in one form or another.
By comparison, the concentration of SO2 in the atmosphere is about 15 parts per billion (ppb). Taking this by weight to get a rough idea, where a cubic kilometer of atmosphere amounts to a billion cubic meters, at a kilogram/cubic meter density, there will be about 15 kilograms of SO2. The calculation of how much jet fuel is burned in the passage of a kilometer through the air is a bit tricky, but you can begin to see that the dilution factor is large and that anything added by airplane exhaust will be difficult to discern. I will give it a try. The 787-8 has a fuel load of 101,343 kilograms and an operating range of 13,530 kilometers. Assuming complete burnup (not expected), the fuel use would be 7.5 kg/km, for a sulfur deposition of about 2.5 grams per kilometer of travel, or approximately 0.0025 parts per billion if spread throughout a cubic kilometer. (I think I did the math correctly, but a thousand pardons if I missed a decimal point.)
Numbers are exhausting, but the point is that we already breathe SO2---and the levels are too small to have any importance. i grew up in a town that had a pulp & paper mill that made its own sulfuric acid to separate the lignin from the cellulose of the wood they used for pulp. There was some leakage from the chemical reactors and when a temperature inversion hit the town, one could smell the sulfur and feel the cough from the chest burn it created. It was annoying, but no one ever had any health effects. The aura of the SO2 around the plant was probably responsible for the yellowing and brittleness of old books in the used book shops nearby. I'm not recommending such levels as being healthy; they weren't. But when it is imperceptible (which it is, normally) it makes no difference. And what it would take to truly increase the sulfur dioxide levels would require perhaps an increase in sulfur mining of multiple times the present level. All these schemes of tinkering with the atmosphere come to the shoals of reality: the numbers are unfathomably huge.
So, very good for transparency, but don't be surprised if it turns out to be a nothingburger.
A favorite word of the Gas Lighters
I don't understand your reference. Can you please explain more particularly? I enjoy every word in the dictionary, don't you?
You enjoy presentimg yourself as an "expert" in this type of science.
Have you figured out the difference between extraterrestrial radiance and terrestrial irradiance yet?
*IMO you do know the difference, you just PRETEND that you don't because you can use that ridiculous argument to confuse people concerning this subject.
**You've used that EXACT strawman argument with me before, about a year ago, like its some sort of strange HABIT for you to confuse extraterrestrial radiance and terrestrial irradiance, despite your lnowledge.
I wasn't going to ignore it this time.
The solar constant is about 1368 watts/square meter. The albedo of the Earth is about 30%, so what comes through to the Earth surface is about 1000 w/m2, provided the sun is directly overhead. The spectrum is essentially identical, so far as human sight and photovoltaics are concerned. (Hint: I work in aeronautics and astronautics, so this is Old Hat for me. The astronomers will tell you the same thing.)
The main difference between the two (aside from intensity) is that the atmosphere filters out most of the ultraviolet radiation, which is a good thing.
If you have some actual knowledge to impart, I would be glad to know it, but so far all you have demonstrated is a stumbling block over the solar spectrum. It turns out that I am an expert in this type of science. What more do you want?
Now, all this is educational. I am glad to share knowledge. But I don't think we are arguing over facts, so please relax.