What's that black dust in monitors?

Glen Walpert · Sep 28, 2003

Or do you propose another source of carbom PM2.5 particles, which is a
primary alternative candidate to nitrogen dioxide for the "brown cloud"?

Diesel engines are certainly a major source of carbon particles fine
enough to disperse for thousands of miles, as are fossil fuel power
plants, wood cooking fires, and jet engines.

According to a Sept 2003 article in Photonics Spectra, "particulate
matter in the form of soot is one of the most significant pollutants
from jet engines". A soot measurement system is described, and a 3D
time/position/concentration plot is shown where the soot concentation
in an engine peaks at 4 mg/m^3 during run up to full power with steady
state full power emissions of 0.3 mg/m^3. They do not identify which
engine but do state that the system is being used to test new engine
designs, so this is probably about as good as it gets today. Note
that this soot is essentially invisible to the eye; jet engine exhaust
normally looks perfectly clear. (The particles are detected optically
after heating them to incadesence with a laser).

I have also seen references stating that emissions from wood fires and
fossil fuel combustion in India, China and Indonesia block up to 10%
of sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth for around 1000
miles downwind, an effect believed significant enough to alter long
term weather, and that soot is found in all recent snow/ice deposits
in Antartica.

Bottom line is that if you live on planet earth you cannot get away
from fine soot in your air unless perhaps you work in a good
cleanroom.

Regards,
Glen

Fred Abse · Sep 28, 2003

nitrogen tetroxide
is referred to as a dimer of nitrogen dioxide.

Does that mean you get ten to the buck?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist it!

DarkMatter · Sep 28, 2003

Diesel engines are certainly a major source of carbon particles fine
enough to disperse for thousands of miles, as are fossil fuel power
plants, wood cooking fires, and jet engines.

Finally, someone makes a correct observation.

Just like pollen.... thousands of miles. Thank you.

DarkMatter · Sep 28, 2003

Bottom line is that if you live on planet earth you cannot get away
from fine soot in your air unless perhaps you work in a good
cleanroom.

Exactly.

Also, and that which accumulates inside a monitor case is not an
emission from within the device. It is an attracted accumulation,
drawn from the air.

It isn't "It's coming from the FBT..." as one uninformed poster has
stated.

Rod Speed · Sep 28, 2003

Glen Walpert said:
Diesel engines are certainly a major source of carbon particles fine
enough to disperse for thousands of miles, as are fossil fuel power
plants, wood cooking fires, and jet engines.

According to a Sept 2003 article in Photonics Spectra, "particulate
matter in the form of soot is one of the most significant pollutants
from jet engines". A soot measurement system is described, and a 3D
time/position/concentration plot is shown where the soot concentation
in an engine peaks at 4 mg/m^3 during run up to full power with steady
state full power emissions of 0.3 mg/m^3. They do not identify which
engine but do state that the system is being used to test new engine
designs, so this is probably about as good as it gets today. Note
that this soot is essentially invisible to the eye; jet engine exhaust
normally looks perfectly clear. (The particles are detected optically
after heating them to incadesence with a laser).

I have also seen references stating that emissions from wood fires and
fossil fuel combustion in India, China and Indonesia block up to 10%
of sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth for around 1000
miles downwind, an effect believed significant enough to alter long
term weather, and that soot is found in all recent snow/ice deposits
in Antartica.

Bottom line is that if you live on planet earth you cannot get away
from fine soot in your air unless perhaps you work in a good cleanroom.

Or live on a pacific island.

Rod Speed · Sep 28, 2003

Don Klipstein said:
Rod Speed wrote

So when brownish air looks like the "usual brown cloud"

Nope, nothing like a cloud at all. Just a brown haze on the
horizon. With it visibly decreasing with height above the horizon.

but is less opaque than usual

More than the usual haze effect outside big citys.

but has the nitrogen dioxide brown color,

Nope, much ligher than that.

you are going to say it's not brown cloud

Yep, no 'cloud' at all.

and therefore nitrogen dioxide does not cause visible air pollution?

I JUST said that its not NOx, its the just particles
in the air. Just like all haze effects are. And the
evidence for that is that it goes away after heavy rain.

If it really was due to NOx, it wouldnt.

And how does that disprove either sort of
brownish air being tinted by nitrogen dioxide,

YOU made the claim that its tinted by NOx, YOU
get to do the proving. Thats how science works.

If it was actually due to NOx it would be quite transparent.
It aint, so its clearly due to particles in the air, not NOx.

and how does that disprove presence
of fine soot particles in the air?

Never ever claimed that either.

I JUST rubbed your nose in the FACT that the jet black soot
seen inside monitors adjacent to the FBT is also seen in monitors
where there is **** all soot in the air at all, most obviously with
pacific islands, and so that cant be where its coming from.

Basic logic.

I did claim even less can make visible air coloration,

What matters is whether the concentrations that you
can get with thunderstorms are visible. They aint.

and thunderstorms are easily 4 miles wide.

Not the downdrafts out of them they aint. And while you
can certainly get some NOx formation in thunderstorms,
you certainly dont get entire 4 mile wide downdrafts from
thunderstorms with significant and visible NOx levels.

Look further down than the first paragraph then!

No point when the first para clearly says ARE THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE

If you still say that this document does not also say
that nitrogen dioxide gives "brown cloud" its color

The first para clearly says PARTICLES ARE THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE

Even you should be able to read and comprehend that in the first sentance.

than I will call you a liar!

You can do anything you like, including stand on your
head and whistle dixey if thats what turns you on.

Might be better to look up the correct form, 'principle' instead tho.

You are stuck on "badly setup" or "very badly setup"
ones, while ones not so badly set up make fine soot!

Wrong. Because that stuffs the fuel economy. Soot is
always the result of incomplete combustion and that
always indicates less than efficient use of the fuel.

In the fourth paragrph or so, that page says:

"Nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide gases from burning
of fossil fuels also contribute to the brown cloud.

Pity para 1 says

"Extremely small particles are the principal cause of the brown cloud"

Nitrogen dioxide gas is brown, giving that color to the haze."

Pity para 1 says

"Extremely small particles are the principal cause of the brown cloud"

When sometimes they are small enough to preferentially scatter blue light?!

Diesel exhausts dont have anything like the same volume of hot
gases required to make it rise to anything like the same extent.

Besides, when smoke reaches 1,000 feet or a few thousand feet
it's usually mainly for reasons other than heat from the source.

Wrong. Thats why you get the inversion effect.

Of course a cloud of particles fine enough to
preferentially scatter blue light will look brown to
transmitted light, but how does that make carbon brown?

Never said it does. YOU were the one waffling on about
soot from diesel engines having a damned thing to do
with the completely irrelevant 'brown clouds' that dont
have a damned thing to do with THE JET BLACK
SOOT THAT CAN BE FOUND INSIDE MONITORS.

Or are you now going to claim that carbon is brown?

Corse not.

You seem to have this hangup on diesel engines
setup badly enough to make really coarse soot!

Because properly setup diesel engines dont produce soot.

I said diesel engines as an example and not as a limitation!

Pity its a trivial source of carbon particles, even in big citys,
and clearly cant be where the JET BLACK SOOT FOUND IN
MONITORS IN THE PACIFIC ISLANDS IS COMING FROM.

I also said oil heated buildings as an example and not as a limitation.

Pity you STILL havent managed to propose where purported soot
in the atmosphere WITH PACIFIC ISLANDS is coming from.

And since whats seen inside monitors on pacific islands is
no different to whats seen in monitors in big citys, its just
a tad unlikely that its actually coming from the air at all.

Basic logic.

And your favored http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html
says that offending particles stay in the air for days!

Doesnt say a damned thing about PACIFIC ISLANDS
WHERE THE SAME SOOT IS FOUND INSIDE MONITORS.

Only perfectly ideally,

Wrong. Anything on the lean side of no soot will still have no soot.

which many don't do! If .1% or ,01% of the carbon becomes
soot, that's not going to significantly impact fuel economy!

Doesnt say a damned thing about PACIFIC ISLANDS
WHERE THE SAME SOOT IS FOUND INSIDE MONITORS.

Basic logic.

Above you say:

That page says over half your favored PM2.5

Taint 'my favoured PM2.5' That just
produces HAZE and aint SOOT.

is caused by gasoline and diesel vehicles.

Pity that aint SOOT thats as visibly
SOOT as is found inside monitors.

Other pages I already cited giving causes of "brown cloud"
color other than nitrogen dioxide say it's carbon particles.

Doesnt matter a damn what some pig ignorant repetition
claims, what matters is that its actually PARTICLES that
that the 'principal' cause of brown cloud, and that aint
anything like the SOOT found in monitors.

AND EVEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GRASP THAT
PACIFIC ISLANDS DONT GET THAT POLLUTION
BROWN CLOUD EFFECT AT ALL, so it cant be that
thats getting into their monitors.

Basic logic .

If dust can come to Florida from the Sahara
Desert enough to affect air transparency,

Even you must have noticed that dust aint soot.

and if PM2.5 stays in the air for days,

And that aint soot either.
8

then how far does a monitor need to be from sources of
airborne carbon particles to disprove the stuff being carbon?

The pacific islands will do fine BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE
THOSE BROWN CLOUDS DUE TO POLLUTION AT ALL.

Basic logic.

So you propose gasoline, home heating oil and and natural gas
being the main cause of airborne carbon particles in "brown cloud"?

Nope, I dont give a FRF what the cause of 'brown cloud' is,
BECAUSE THAT AINT SEEN IN THE PACIFIC ISLANDS
WHERE THEY DO SEE THAT SOOT INSIDE MONITORS.

Ken Taylor · Sep 28, 2003

Rod Speed said:
Or live on a pacific island.

I can guarantee you that you'll still get it on a Pacific Island. Been
there, seen that.

Ken

Rod Speed · Sep 29, 2003

I can guarantee you that you'll still get it on a Pacific Island.

Not that heavy pollution smog being discussed you dont.

Been there, seen that.

Not that heavy pollution smog being discussed you didnt.

DarkMatter · Sep 29, 2003

Not that heavy pollution smog being discussed you dont.

Not that heavy pollution smog being discussed you didnt.

You are the only retard that added the word "heavy". The
discussion, as I recall, is about that particulate which IS able to
stay aloft for vast distances. DOH!

Keith R. Williams · Sep 29, 2003

Yes, but you are a goddamned idiot. All you can interpret are the
convolutions in your shit.

You really haven't a clue! I thought you were a game from an
senior-adolescent. The exhaust from diesels contains significant
carcinogenic materials. It *will* be regulated severly soon.
They are *not* in any way cleaner than modern gasoline engines.
The latter has had the bad stuff regulated out of them for
*decades*.

Yes, I do.

You lie a lot too.

Said the usenet retard that follows people around like a puppy
dog... no... a cockroach. Yeah... that's it... you're a cockroach.

Wow, he didn't use one swear word. Perhaps I'm having an effect!

Said the retard that hasn't made a viable contribution in months.

Dream on, wannabe!

Don Klipstein · Sep 29, 2003

Nope, nothing like a cloud at all. Just a brown haze on the
horizon. With it visibly decreasing with height above the horizon.

More than the usual haze effect outside big citys.

Nope, much ligher than that.

Yep, no 'cloud' at all.

I JUST said that its not NOx, its the just particles
in the air. Just like all haze effects are. And the
evidence for that is that it goes away after heavy rain.

If it really was due to NOx, it wouldnt.

I talk about air that is colored brown but transparent, transparent
enough for you to say, "Yep, no "cloud" at all" and you say it's
particles. I am talking about brownish air that does not preferentially
reflect blue. Brown tint more than haze, and not preferentially
reflecting blue light. And my experience is that rain does dissolve NOx
and reduce its presence in the lower atmosphere; that's a major mechanism
for getting nitrogen compounds into the soil!

YOU made the claim that its tinted by NOx, YOU
get to do the proving. Thats how science works.

What about that http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html that you toss at
me?

If it was actually due to NOx it would be quite transparent.

And you have yet to refute my claims of the existence of more
transparent brownish air other than to say the brown tint is from
particles or that it didn't occur.

It aint, so its clearly due to particles in the air, not NOx.

Transparent tinted brown air = NO2
Hazy brown air = NO2 plus particles

Never ever claimed that either.

I JUST rubbed your nose in the FACT that the jet black soot
seen inside monitors adjacent to the FBT is also seen in monitors
where there is **** all soot in the air at all, most obviously with
pacific islands, and so that cant be where its coming from.

But soot does exist in the air over the Pacific islands. You point out
Ken's claim of sooty monitors there, and he mentions studies that say soot
exists in the air there and everywhere. And your
http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html sure mentions "PM2.5 particles
containing carbon, like soot from tail pipes", and mentions that PM2.5
particles can float in the atmosphere for days!

Basic logic.

What matters is whether the concentrations that you
can get with thunderstorms are visible. They aint.

Not the downdrafts out of them they aint. And while you
can certainly get some NOx formation in thunderstorms,
you certainly dont get entire 4 mile wide downdrafts from
thunderstorms with significant and visible NOx levels.

I was talking about updrafts that settled slightly downwards after
flowing from the top of the cloud. (Updrafts that move outward
hrizontally from the cloud top without any subsequent downward motion
are usually "anvil cloud".) I was talking about big puffs of transparent
brownish air that I have seen to the sides of the upper portions of some
thunderstorm clouds.

No point when the first para clearly says ARE THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE

The first para clearly says PARTICLES ARE THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE

Even you should be able to read and comprehend that in the first sentance.

You can do anything you like, including stand on your
head and whistle dixey if thats what turns you on.

The fourth para still says NO2 is what causes the color! Do you not
comprehend that?

Wrong. Because that stuffs the fuel economy. Soot is
always the result of incomplete combustion and that
always indicates less than efficient use of the fuel.

You snip out my mention of only small fractional percentage of the
carbon remaining uncombusted not doing much damage to fuel economy. Heck,
they sure tolerate some carbon monoxide coming out the engine! Carbon
monoxide has even been used as a major component of some fuel gases in the
past!

In addition, there have gotta be plenty of engines somewhere between
"badly setup" and "maximum possible combustion efficiency". And surely
plenty of engines run richer than the ideal for maximum combustion
efficiency to get more power from a given size engine!

Pity para 1 says

"Extremely small particles are the principal cause of the brown cloud"

Pity para 1 says

"Extremely small particles are the principal cause of the brown cloud"

How does that deny the fourth paragraph saying that nitrogen dioxide
gives the cloud its color? You have failed to refute nitrogen dioxide
being able to cause a brownish color in city-sized pieces of atmosphere!

Diesel exhausts dont have anything like the same volume of hot
gases required to make it rise to anything like the same extent.

Wrong. Thats why you get the inversion effect.

No, inversion effect is usually caused by the lowest portion of the
atmosphere being cooled by ground that cooled overnight by radiating into
space. Sometimes also by warmer air at higher altitudes coming in from
aloft. And in high pressure areas where air is sinking, a stable air can
be exaggerated into an inversion. But mostly the lowest few thousand feet
cool overnight, and the lowest few hundred feet cool a lot overnight.
And a couple hours of sunlight can cause convection within a layer of
air that is below an inversion. Wind causes turbulence that can mix air
throughout all altitudes within a couple thousand feet of ground. So,
depending on time of day, smoke can rise a few hundred to a few thousand
feet whether it has no heat to support it at all or has a 6-alarm fire
under it.

Never said it does. YOU were the one waffling on about
soot from diesel engines having a damned thing to do
with the completely irrelevant 'brown clouds' that dont
have a damned thing to do with THE JET BLACK
SOOT THAT CAN BE FOUND INSIDE MONITORS.

You said the brown clouds had to be particles other than diesel engine
soot in opposition to my claim that soot from diesel engines (and not
excluding other sources) can be what turns up inside monitors!

Corse not.

You claimed that brown clouds were brown from particles instead of
nitrogen dioxide. Most of the web sites you say support such a claim,
to the extent they mention what the particles are made of, say that
carbon particles are a significant factor.

Because properly setup diesel engines dont produce soot.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/engine/soot.html sure seems to support
a notion that I have seen in newspapers over the years that some soot
output from diesel engines is common to outright normal. I am sure I can
find more if you force me to do a web search taking more than the 20
seconds that I spent to find that one.

Pity its a trivial source of carbon particles, even in big citys,
and clearly cant be where the JET BLACK SOOT FOUND IN
MONITORS IN THE PACIFIC ISLANDS IS COMING FROM.

Pity you STILL havent managed to propose where purported soot
in the atmosphere WITH PACIFIC ISLANDS is coming from.

And since whats seen inside monitors on pacific islands is
no different to whats seen in monitors in big citys, its just
a tad unlikely that its actually coming from the air at all.

Basic logic.

Doesnt say a damned thing about PACIFIC ISLANDS
WHERE THE SAME SOOT IS FOUND INSIDE MONITORS.

Doesn't have to say "Pacific islands". It does say the stuff stays in
the air for days. Does that not indicate it can float in from
populated/industrial areas thousands of miles away? And that Ken that you
liked to cite says that the air in the Pacific islands does contain soot
(and cited studies, indicating jet engines as another source) and he
sure thinks that's probably where the monitor black dust comes from!

Wrong. Anything on the lean side of no soot will still have no soot.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/engine/soot.html sure seems to say that
it's normal for diesel engines to produce soot, and discusses extra
measures (other than a leaner mixture) to reduce soot output.

Doesnt say a damned thing about PACIFIC ISLANDS
WHERE THE SAME SOOT IS FOUND INSIDE MONITORS.

Basic logic.

http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html mentions soot from tailpipes as a
major component of PM2.5 and says the stuff can stay in the air for days.

Taint 'my favoured PM2.5' That just
produces HAZE and aint SOOT.

Pity that aint SOOT thats as visibly
SOOT as is found inside monitors.

That page does give "soot from tailpipes" as a prime example of PM2.5!
Soot that fine is still soot and is still black when precipitated into a
visible mass!

Doesnt matter a damn what some pig ignorant repetition
claims, what matters is that its actually PARTICLES that
that the 'principal' cause of brown cloud, and that aint
anything like the SOOT found in monitors.

http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html says much of it is soot from
tailpipes (along with the brown color of "brown cloud" coming from NO2).

AND EVEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GRASP THAT
PACIFIC ISLANDS DONT GET THAT POLLUTION
BROWN CLOUD EFFECT AT ALL, so it cant be that
thats getting into their monitors.

Basic logic .

http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html says fine soot stays in the air
for days, and that is long enough for it to travel thousands of miles.

Even you must have noticed that dust aint soot.

Soot of PM2.5 size is in the air according to
http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html and can surely travel just as far as
non-soot dust!

And that aint soot either.
8

Your favored http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html says much of it is!

The pacific islands will do fine BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE
THOSE BROWN CLOUDS DUE TO POLLUTION AT ALL.

Basic logic.

NO2 gets diluted to invisible concentrations before traveling that far,
and particles much larger than PM2.5 (PM10 is a major haze component) can
mostly fall out before traveling that far, and PM2.5 gets diluted to a
small fraction of its concentration in urban areas, but there is still
soot in the air there as Ken points out! Or do you make some claim that
monitors in the Pacific islands accumulate black sooty dust *as quickly*
as they do in Philadelphia?

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

DarkMatter · Sep 29, 2003

Major snip, something you guys should learn to do.

NO2 gets diluted to invisible concentrations before traveling that far,
and particles much larger than PM2.5 (PM10 is a major haze component) can
mostly fall out before traveling that far, and PM2.5 gets diluted to a
small fraction of its concentration in urban areas, but there is still
soot in the air there as Ken points out! Or do you make some claim that
monitors in the Pacific islands accumulate black sooty dust *as quickly*
as they do in Philadelphia?

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~agent006/smog.html

Look friggin' brown to me. Have "Dipstick "Slow" Speed" take
a gander at that one. Even looks miles thick.

Will that idiot ever give up his bullshit position?

Rod Speed · Sep 29, 2003

Don Klipstein said:
Rod Speed wrote

I talk about air that is colored brown but transparent,
transparent enough for you to say, "Yep, no "cloud" at all"

You didnt, you waffled on about 'brown clouds', which just happen
to be completely and utterly irrelevant to what was being discussed,
where that jet black soot inside monitors comes from.

Air that is colored brown but transparent, in spades.

And you clearly originally said 'fairly transparent' and you
have now attempted to slither off to just 'transparent'

Even you should be able to grasp that that cant possibly
the be source of the jet black soot seen inside monitors.

and you say it's particles.

Crap. I said that the brown haze I WAS TALKING ABOUT is
particles and http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html clearly
says that particles are the 'principal' cause of 'brown clouds'

I am talking about brownish air that does not preferentially reflect blue.

Pity its completely and utterly irrelevant to what was being discussed,
WHERE THE JET BLACK SOOT SEEN IN MONITORS COMES FROM.

Brown tint more than haze, and not preferentially reflecting blue light.

Pity its completely and utterly irrelevant to what was being discussed,
WHERE THE JET BLACK SOOT SEEN IN MONITORS COMES FROM.

What about that http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html that you toss at me?

It clearly says that the 'principal' cause of 'brown cloud' is particles.

And you have yet to refute my claims of the
existence of more transparent brownish air

Which just happens to be completely and utterly irrelevant
to what was being discussed, WHERE THE JET BLACK
SOOT SEEN IN MONITORS COMES FROM.

other than to say the brown tint is from particles

It clearly is with THE HAZE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

or that it didn't occur.

Transparent tinted brown air = NO2

Wrong. And you initially said 'fairly transparent' anyway.

Hazy brown air = NO2 plus particles

The brown is just the particles.

And its all completely and utterly irrelevant to what
was being discussed, WHERE THE JET BLACK
SOOT SEEN IN MONITORS COMES FROM.

But soot does exist in the air over the Pacific islands.

Bullshit. And clearly at nothing like the levels seen
in major citys, so you should see significantly less
of that jet black soot inside monitors used on
pacific islands than in major citys, and you dont.

Basic logic.

Your terminally silly 'soot magnet' theory has blown up in your
face and covered you with black stuff very spectacularly indeed.

You point out Ken's claim of sooty monitors
there, and he mentions studies that say soot
exists in the air there and everywhere.

At nothing like the levels seen in major polluted citys.

And your http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html sure mentions
"PM2.5 particles containing carbon, like soot from tail pipes",

Pity the pacific islands dont even get those
'brown clouds' that it is clearly discussing.

and mentions that PM2.5 particles
can float in the atmosphere for days!

Pity the pacific islands dont even get those
'brown clouds' that it is clearly discussing.

I was talking about updrafts that settled slightly downwards
after flowing from the top of the cloud. (Updrafts that move
outward hrizontally from the cloud top without any subsequent
downward motion are usually "anvil cloud".) I was talking about
big puffs of transparent brownish air that I have seen to the
sides of the upper portions of some thunderstorm clouds.

Pity the NOx levels seen in thunderstorm clouds aint even visible.

The fourth para still says NO2 is what causes the color!

Pity about the first para.

Do you not comprehend that?

Pity about the first para.

You snip out my mention of only small fractional percentage of the
carbon remaining uncombusted not doing much damage to fuel economy.

I didnt snip it out, it was quoted where it appeared, much further down.

Heck, they sure tolerate some carbon monoxide coming
out the engine! Carbon monoxide has even been used
as a major component of some fuel gases in the past!

All completely and utterly irrelevant to where
the jet black soot seen inside monitors even on
pacific islands with **** all diesel engines in use.

Basic logic.

In addition, there have gotta be plenty of engines somewhere between
"badly setup" and "maximum possible combustion efficiency". And surely
plenty of engines run richer than the ideal for maximum combustion
efficiency to get more power from a given size engine!

All completely and utterly irrelevant to where
the jet black soot seen inside monitors even on
pacific islands with **** all diesel engines in use.

Basic logic.

Reams of your completely irrelevant crap
about 'brown clouds' flushed where it belongs.

Doesnt have a damned thing to do with what was
being discussed, WHERE THE JET BLACK SOOT
FOUND INSIDE MONITORS IS COMING FROM.

Yep.

inversion effect is usually caused by the lowest
portion of the atmosphere being cooled by ground
that cooled overnight by radiating into space. Sometimes
also by warmer air at higher altitudes coming in from
aloft. And in high pressure areas where air is sinking, a stable air can
be exaggerated into an inversion. But mostly the lowest few thousand feet
cool overnight, and the lowest few hundred feet cool a lot overnight.
And a couple hours of sunlight can cause convection within a layer of
air that is below an inversion. Wind causes turbulence that can mix air
throughout all altitudes within a couple thousand feet of ground.

I didnt even comment on what CAUSES an inversion,
I was just saying that its the inversion that inversion
effect that produces smoke reaching only that level.

So, depending on time of day, smoke can rise a few
hundred to a few thousand feet whether it has no heat
to support it at all or has a 6-alarm fire under it.

Have fun explaining why it rises.

You said the brown clouds had to be particles other than diesel engine soot

Lie. I JUST said that diesel soot can only be a tiny part of
the total number of particles that produce a 'brown cloud'

in opposition to my claim that soot from diesel engines (and not
excluding other sources) can be what turns up inside monitors!

Pity it does even on pacific islands with **** all diesel engines.

Basic logic.

Reams more completely irrelevant crap that has no relevance
what so ever to where the jet black soot found in monitors on
pacific islands with **** all diesel engines, flushed where it belongs.

Doesn't have to say "Pacific islands". It
does say the stuff stays in the air for days.

Where ITS CLEAR VISIBLE AS BROWN CLOUD.

It obviously aint with pacific islands that
dont even get the brown cloud effect.

Does that not indicate it can float in from populated/
industrial areas thousands of miles away?

Nope, because it clearly isnt a visible BROWN CLOUD there.

And that Ken that you liked to cite says that the air
in the Pacific islands does contain soot (and cited
studies, indicating jet engines as another source)

He didnt cite a single study and the OTHER individual that did,
didnt say a damned thing about the levels seen with pacific islands.

AND we just happen to have an atmospheric monitoring
station in Tasmania, whose primary role is to monitor
the levels of greenhouse gases AND THEY DONT
FIND SIGNIFICANT LEVELS IN THE AIR THERE.

So your terminally silly 'soot magnet' theory has blown up in your
face and covered you with black stuff very spectacularly indeed.

and he sure thinks that's probably where the monitor black dust comes from!

Doesnt matter a damn what he may or may not 'think'

What matters is that the measured soot levels are **** all
compared with what is seen in major polluted industrial citys
and since the same effect with jet black soot seen inside
monitors happens in both, it cant be your terminally
silly 'soot magnet' theory that explains that.

Basic logic.

Reams of irrelevant crap about diesel engines flushed where it belongs.

http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html mentions soot from tailpipes as a
major component of PM2.5 and says the stuff can stay in the air for days.