Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: smart on 23/08/2016 13:30:44
-
Dodecanol is a useful jet fuel surrogate to produces a persisting smoke, according to this:
The long chain alcohols produce a useful smoke that persists for reasonable time. Dodecanol (C12) is useful when temperatures are below 100 F (38 C) but evaporates rapidly at higher temperatures. Alcohols with longer hydrocarbon chains have lower vapor pressure and therefore should be more persistent. Decanol (C10) is useful around 75 F; whereas octanol (C8) is only useful at cooler temperatures. JP-8 consists principally of hydrocarbons in the C11 to C14 range. Oxidation of dodecane (C12), tridecane (C13), and tetradecane (C14) to alcohols will convert those components of JP-8 into useful smoke components. In contrast, it will be necessary to oxidize decane(C10) and undecane (c11) to carboxylic acids or diols to produce useful smoke materials. Even though oxidation of the C12, C13, and C14 components to corresponding alcohols will produce effective smoke constituents, further oxidation will generate a more effective smoke.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a297044.pdf
Can somebody explain how a jet fuel surrogate is implicated in the vapor phase oxidation of long chains hydrocarbons ?
-
Why do you say "implicated"?
The reaction they are talking about is
2 C12H26 +O2 ---> 2 C12H26O
That's the oxidation of dodecane- which is present in JP8 to form dodecanol which is less volatile than the dodecane and just about does the job of making "smoke" as long as the weather isn't too warm.
With smaller molecules, like decane you need to oxidise them more. Decanol is too volatile- except in cold weather, but decanediol and decanoic acid- which are less volatile- will make "smoke".
(Incidentally, do you realise this has nothing to do with conspiracy nonsense?)
-
Why do you say "implicated"?
The reaction they are talking about is
2 C12H26 +O2 ---> 2 C12H26O
That's the oxidation of dodecane- which is present in JP8 to form dodecanol which is less volatile than the dodecane and just about does the job of making "smoke" as long as the weather isn't too warm.
With smaller molecules, like decane you need to oxidise them more. Decanol is too volatile- except in cold weather, but decanediol and decanoic acid- which are less volatile- will make "smoke".
(Incidentally, do you realise this has nothing to do with conspiracy nonsense?)
If solar obscuration is produced by chemtrails, then it's important to understand why the JP-8 jet fuel mixture is implicated in the vapor phase oxidation of hydrocarbons. I think we're getting closer to the truth.
-
[
If solar obscuration is produced by chemtrails,
it isn't.
Chemtrails don't exist.
Unless you can actually post some evidence for them, you should stop now.
Nothing you have posted before is evidence of the existence of chemtrails.
-
There's plenty of evidence of ordinary vapor trails altering the diurnal surface temperature cycle. The effect can be intriguingly paradoxical. A lot of high altitude traffic at night can reduce radiative heat loss so that you don't get pre-dawn fog, but early morning vapor trails reduce solar heating and if there is a radiation fog, it takes longer to burn off.
-
There's plenty of evidence of ordinary vapor trails altering the diurnal surface temperature cycle. The effect can be intriguingly paradoxical. A lot of high altitude traffic at night can reduce radiative heat loss so that you don't get pre-dawn fog, but early morning vapor trails reduce solar heating and if there is a radiation fog, it takes longer to burn off.
There's lots of interesting physics.
It's just that tkadm30 keeps trying to introduce stuff that's baseless gibberish, rather than science.
-
There's plenty of evidence of ordinary vapor trails altering the diurnal surface temperature cycle. The effect can be intriguingly paradoxical. A lot of high altitude traffic at night can reduce radiative heat loss so that you don't get pre-dawn fog, but early morning vapor trails reduce solar heating and if there is a radiation fog, it takes longer to burn off.
There's lots of interesting physics.
It's just that tkadm30 keeps trying to introduce stuff that's baseless gibberish, rather than science.
Chemtrails science is based on atmospheric physics. I'm still amazed you deny this phenomenon. Besides, you still don't explain what is a jet fuel surrogate... Is it an additive added to the fuel ?
-
Chemtrails science is based on atmospheric physics. I'm still amazed you deny this phenomenon. Besides, you still don't explain what is a jet fuel surrogate... Is it an additive added to the fuel ?
You say "Chemtrails science is based on atmospheric physics. "
Well, at one level, it's true.
It would not technically be impossible.
It would also not be technically impossible for me to be typing this while riding a giraffe down Kensington high Street.
But the fact that it is possible does not make it true- or even likely.
You have not yet put forward any evidence to show that chemtrails are actually being made anywhere.
Most of the ideas you have put forward have been shown to be impossible.
None of what you have posted suggests that there is any sensible reason why anyone would be doing it.
As for "Besides, you still don't explain what is a jet fuel surrogate."
Why did you somehow hallucinate that doing so was my job?
You cited the paper, you asked a question about it - but the question didn't make much sense. I asked you "Why do you say "implicated"?"
and you have yet to answer (and that IS your responsibility)
"Is it an additive added to the fuel ?"
No.
Do you understand what the paper is about?
-
This paper is about finding a method to make persisting smoke from JP-8 jet fuel mixture. I think the vapor phase photooxidation of dodecanol is producing the high density plume known as chemtrails.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp211531h
-
This paper is about finding a method to make persisting smoke from JP-8 jet fuel mixture. I think the vapor phase photooxidation of dodecanol is producing the high density plume known as chemtrails.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp211531h
You might very well think that but you are clearly mistaken.
The jet engine burns the fuel (JP8 or otherwise) almost entirely to carbon dioxide and water.
The water condenses out to form the condensation trail.
How well that contrail persists depends on the local temperature and humidity.
For the record, photooxidation reactions are generally slow.
Most of teh hard UV has already been absorbed by passing through the stratosphere, and things like saturated hydrocarbons and alcohols don't absorb longer wavelengths than that (until you get to such low energies that they can't promote chemical reactions)
So you are wrong in thinking that it could be a photo chemical reaction and wrong in thinking that the hydrocarbons are present.
Do you not feel you would do better to learn some basic science rather than carrying on misleading yourself (and wasting our time) like this with stuff you plainly don't understand?
-
The jet engine burns the fuel (JP8 or otherwise) almost entirely to carbon dioxide and water.
The water condenses out to form the condensation trail.
The way you talk is like every aircraft produces a high density plume, which is obviously incorrect. I'm also confident that kerosene-based hydrocarbons jet fuel emit toxic PAHs and particulate matter, including oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulfur (SO2):
Jet fuel JP-8 is of technical interest to the military aviation industry. JP-8 is now the single battlefield fuel for all US Army and Air Force equipment, replacing gasoline altogether and gradually replacing diesel fuel. Hence, emissions from the combustion of this fuel are the subject for this investigation. The emissions from the combustion of JP-8 fuel are examined and are compared to those from diesel fuel No. 2, burned under identical conditions. Combustion occurred inside a laboratory furnace in sooty diffusion flames, under adverse conditions that typically emit large amounts of products of incomplete combustion (PIC). Under such conditions, even compounds that otherwise might appear only in trace amounts were present in sufficient quantities for detection. The study reports on emissions of CO, light volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds with an emphasis on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), particulate emissions, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulfur (SO2). Some PAH compounds are suspected of posing a threat to human health, benzo[a]pyrene being listed as a bio-accumulative toxin by the EPA. An afterburner was also used to examine the effects of longer furnace residence time. Results have demonstrated that PAH emissions from the combustion of diesel fuel were higher than those of JP-8, under most conditions examined. Moreover, as the temperature of the primary furnace was increased, in the range of 600–1000 °C, most of the emissions from both fuels increased. Particulate emissions were reduced by the afterburner, which was operated at 1000 °C, only when the primary furnace was operated at the lowest temperature (600 °C), but that condition increased the CO emissions. Overall, transient combustion of these two fuels, burning in laminar and sooty diffusion flames, did not reveal major differences in the emissions of the following PIC: C1–C4 light aliphatic hydrocarbons, PAH, CO and particulate matter.
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223291156_PAH_and_other_emissions_from_burning_of_JP-8_and_diesel_fuels_in_diffusion_flames
So, once again, your wishful thinking is a proof of your incapacity to investigate the evidences that clandestine geoengineering activity is real.
-
The way you talk is like every aircraft produces a high density plume, which is obviously incorrect. I'm also confident that kerosene-based hydrocarbons jet fuel emit toxic PAHs and particulate matter, including oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulfur (SO2):
So, once again, your wishful thinking is a proof of your incapacity to investigate the evidences that clandestine geoengineering activity is real.
Why do you do that?
The bit where you put in a misleading quote and a daft assertion- immediately after I post something?
Do you not realise that, even if those reading don't spot it I will point out that your assertion that
"The way you talk is like every aircraft produces a high density plume, "
is obviously at odds with what I said which was "How well that contrail persists depends on the local temperature and humidity." which indicates that the trail is entirely dependent on the local "weather".
Is it that you didn't read what I wrote, that you didn't understand it, or that you didn't think anyone would notice?
Re" toxic PAHs and particulate matter, including oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulfur (SO2):"
The categories "PAHs and particulate matter," do not include "oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulfur (SO2)".
You are talking nonsense as usual.
The paper you cited specifically talks of " Combustion occurred inside a laboratory furnace in sooty diffusion flames, under adverse conditions that typically emit large amounts of products of incomplete combustion (PIC). ".
That's clearly not the same as a jet engine,so why did you think it was important?
Again, at best it suggests that you have little or no idea what you are talking about.
-
Do you not realise that, even if those reading don't spot it I will point out that your assertion that
"The way you talk is like every aircraft produces a high density plume, "
is obviously at odds with what I said which was "How well that contrail persists depends on the local temperature and humidity." which indicates that the trail is entirely dependent on the local "weather".
No. That's pseudo-scientific voodoo. Contrails do not persist and do not depend on the weather/humidity. You have absolutely no evidences that such contrails can produces a persisting high density plume.
Re" toxic PAHs and particulate matter, including oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulfur (SO2):"
The categories "PAHs and particulate matter," do not include "oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulfur (SO2)".
Ok, I give you credit for this. However it feels logical that the combustion of kerosene-based jet fuel coemit aliphatic hydrocarbons like n-dodecane (a surrogate) and PAHs. Still, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur do react with PAHs in the atmosphere and the photooxidation of n-dodecane yield a high density plume of aerosolized hydrocarbons (smoke) from the formation of secondary organic aerosol.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-007-9611-x
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/43279/1/acp-13-11121-2013.pdf
-
No. That's pseudo-scientific voodoo. Contrails do not persist and do not depend on the weather/humidity. You have absolutely no evidences that such contrails can produces a persisting high density plume.
Ok, I give you credit for this. However it feels logical that the combustion of kerosene-based jet fuel coemit aliphatic hydrocarbons like n-dodecane (a surrogate) and PAHs. Still, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur do react with PAHs in the atmosphere and the photooxidation of n-dodecane yield a high density plume of aerosolized hydrocarbons (smoke) from the formation of secondary organic aerosol.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-007-9611-x
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/43279/1/acp-13-11121-2013.pdf
"You have absolutely no evidences that such contrails can produces a persisting high density plume. "
Yes I have. I posted a picture in the other thread. Would you like me to post it here too?
However you have no evidence that chemtrails exist at all.
"However it feels logical that the combustion of kerosene-based jet fuel coemit aliphatic hydrocarbons like n-dodecane (a surrogate) and PAHs"
OK so you think it's logical that burning decane which is stuff like kerosene gives decane which is stuff like kerosene.
You don't understand what surrogate means in this context.
and you get one thing sort of right.
It is true that traces of PAHs will be produced, even by the high temperature combustion in a jet engine.
But a lot more would be produced if the same fuel were burned in a piston engine.
They won't do much and will eventually get washed out by the rain.
And, of course, as everyone as said all along, there are traces of combustion by-products. But there isn't a lot of them.
(you may remember that I said "The jet engine burns the fuel (JP8 or otherwise) almost entirely to carbon dioxide and water."). The key word there is "almost".
You seem to be ignoring reality.
As I pointed out, photooxidation of decane (and the things like it) will be slow, yet you say silly things like " photooxidation of n-dodecane yield a high density plume of aerosolized hydrocarbons (smoke)"
well there's not much decane- almost all of it got burned- and it's not going to photooxidise every fast.
So it obviously can't form a high density anything.
You need to stop citing papers you don't understand.
The first one says "Both sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide were found to have significant positive correlations with total particulate PAHs as well as with most individual PAH species studied, suggesting they mostly share the same common emission source and transportation pattern. "
which essentially says that all the components of smoke occur together because they are all made together.
True, but obvious.
Table 2 of the second paper shows that, in order to get a reasonable degree of reaction, they had to wait for something like 18 or 36 hours.
That's so slow that any "plume" structure would have dispersed.
And yet you think that it's quick enough to be seen forming behind the plane.
As I keep saying; you need to learn a lot more science before you can make anything better than naieve guesses at what's happening.
-
The analysis has been done in other threads to show that fly ash and other hypothetical "chemtrail" chemicals cannot possibly be delivered via jet fuel - and every kilogram costs money in a plane!
How about turning your attention to a real source of worldwide pollution that doesn't weigh down aeroplanes: high-sulphur bunker fuels.
- Their long-chain molecules (up to 70 carbon atoms) produce a myriad of chemical compounds in their transformation from a thick, tar-like substance to carbon dioxide and water in the smokestack.
- It is said that current fuel used on these huge container ships has thousands of times more sulphur than fuel used in road vehicles.
- Sulphur compounds cause breathing difficulties and acid rain
- These fuels cause measurable pollution, harm human health, and are banned near major ports.
- These emissions occur over all the worlds shipping lanes, and reflect sunlight back out into space.
See: https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/sulphur-marine-fuels
-
Evan
It won't help. I already explained to tkadm30 that, if "They" really wanted to increase the reflectance of the Earth for geoengineering it would be much easier to reduce controls on sulphur emissions.
But he's determined to believe in chemtrails- even though he hasn't got any evidence for them
-
Kerosene-based jet fuel (JP-8) can be used for obscuration purpose and do produces oxides of sulfur which may contributes to chemtrail formation:
Kerosene contains sulphur in an average proportion of 400 ppmm (mg per kg fuel, usual values range from 10 to 1000 ppmm, and the specification limit is 3000 ppmm). Burning kerosene produces SO2 with an emission index of about 0.8 (0.6–1.0) g kg−1, or 800 ppmm as expected for a complete combustion of the sulphur (the molecular mass of SO2 is double that of elementary S). A few percent of the SO2 is further oxidized into SO3 which reacts with water vapour to form H2SO4 (gaseous sulphuric acid). The emission index of H2SO4 is about 0.04 g kg−1 (0.01 to 0.1). This gas has an extremely low saturation vapour pressure and therefore readily condenses together with water vapour into aqueous solution droplets of sulphuric acid, after sufficient dilution and cooling of the exhaust gas (Vancassel et al. 2004). Accordingly, fuel sulphur is an important source of volatile particles in the exhaust. However, the number concentration of volatile particles is only a very weak function of the fuel sulphur content. A flight experiment with the DLR ATTAS consuming fuels of different sulphur contents in its two engines, 6 and 2700 ppmm, showed that the number of particles in the 10 s old plume increased by a factor of 3 to 4 from the low to high sulphur exhaust plume (Petzold et al. 1997), while the ratio of the fuel sulphur contents was 450 (see also Schumann et al. 2002, Fig. 7). Thus there must be sink processes acting in the plume leading to a strong buffering effect in the relation between sulphur content and concentration of volatile particles including droplets of sulphuric acid solution. Indeed, the sulphuric acid droplets and condensable hydrocarbons condense together with water vapour on soot particles, thereby enhancing the ability of the latter to serve as condensation nuclei for contrail formation.
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Contrails-from-biofuels-scoping-study-final-report.pdf
-
Kerosene-based jet fuel (JP-8) can be used for obscuration purpose and do produces oxides of sulfur which may contributes to chemtrail formation:
Yes there are traces of sulphur in fuel, and it will contribute to the production of condensation trails.
That's more or less what that report says. Nobody is adding sulphur to the fuel- they just are not removing all of it. (It costs more money to strip out the last traces)
Mislabelling it as chemtrails when the report is called "Condensation trails from biofuels/kerosene blends
scoping study" is a bit dishonest of you isn't it?
-
Mislabelling it as chemtrails when the report is called "Condensation trails from biofuels/kerosene blends
scoping study" is a bit dishonest of you isn't it?
Well, I guess it's more dishonest to label a persisting high density plume a "contrail". I agree though that the terminology of a "chemtrail" is poorly defined and prone to misinterpretation. As far as I know, contrails forms from the wingtips and not from the combustion of aerosolized jet fuel.
-
Well, I guess it's more dishonest to label a persisting high density plume a "contrail".
Unless it is a contrail that happens- due to local weather- to be persistent and dense.
However labelling anything a chemtrail even though there is no evidence that they exist is, shall we say, interesting.
-
Evidence is not wishful thinking..
-
Evidence is not wishful thinking..
Correct.
And all you have is wishful thinking.
You have no evidence that any clouds you see are anything but water.
You just want to believe that you are one of the few who knows about Some Big Important Thing.
But wishing that does not make it real.
-
Believing that chemtrails is an assault on human health is definitely Some Big Important Thing.
-
Believing that chemtrails is an assault on human health is definitely Some Big Important Thing.
Not if it is only a figment of your imagination.
Once again, I remind you that you have no actual evidence that it is happening.
-
Once again, I remind you that you have no actual evidence that it is happening.
Climate change is perhaps the most obvious evidence that clandestine geoengineering activity is altering the weather and Earth biota.
-
At least you acknowledge that climate change is happening even if you have a bizarre idea as to its cause instead of the more wildly accepted explanation that it is due to the large quantity of carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere due to human activity.
-
Climate change is a ideology and clandestine geoengineering activity is a real phenomenon. The evidences for geoengineering modification of the climate is through observation.
-
Climate change is a ideology and clandestine geoengineering activity is a real phenomenon. The evidences for geoengineering modification of the climate is through observation.
Climate change is a documented fact - you just have to look at the weather records.
There is absolutely nothing "clandestine" about it. We burn a lot of fossil fuel.
You have yet to provide any evidence of any observation that shows that geoengineering is real. Though you have cited some total nonsense, and even some things that outrightly lie about it.
-
Climate change is a documented fact - you just have to look at the weather records.
There is absolutely nothing "clandestine" about it. We burn a lot of fossil fuel.
You have yet to provide any evidence of any observation that shows that geoengineering is real. Though you have cited some total nonsense, and even some things that outrightly lie about it.
Nice try. Climate change is a experimental theory. Clandestine geoengineering activity is observable. There's no point in lying and attempting to distribute disinformation. Observability of scientific phenomenon is necessary to assert its validity.
-
No, the facts make it clear that the world is warming
Climate change is a fact.
Just saying "Clandestine geoengineering activity is observable. " doesn't make it true. Show some evidence or drop the subject.
On the other hand, you may remember posting a video saying that it showed some bloke from the CIA "admitting" that geoengineering was real.
It did not say that.
He did not say that
You lied.
-
That video is a first-step toward the CIA accountability of strastospheric aerosol injection.
"Observability of scientific phenomenon is necessary to assert its validity."
-
That video is a first-step toward the CIA accountability of strastospheric aerosol injection.
No it is not.
Stop trying to mislead people about it
And, more importantly, it does not say what you claimed it did.
-
I might be reiterating what has already been written in this long running discussion but the simplest way to inject more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere would be to ease the regulations against burning high sulfur diesel fuel by ships, to do it by modifying aircraft fuel would be vastly expensive whereas the latter would cost nothing.
-
I might be reiterating what has already been written in this long running discussion but the simplest way to inject more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere would be to ease the regulations against burning high sulfur diesel fuel by ships, to do it by modifying aircraft fuel would be vastly expensive whereas the latter would cost nothing.
Although the exact function of solar geoengineering is poorly understood, the injection of engineering nanoparticles in the stratosphere is considered the prefered method to "fix" climate change.
-
That video is a first-step toward the CIA accountability of strastospheric aerosol injection.
No it is not.
Stop trying to mislead people about it
And, more importantly, it does not say what you claimed it did.
You are an expert in disinformation. I don't have your skills to manipulate and deceive readers with such dishonest intentions.
-
That video is a first-step toward the CIA accountability of strastospheric aerosol injection.
No it is not.
Stop trying to mislead people about it
And, more importantly, it does not say what you claimed it did.
You are an expert in disinformation. I don't have your skills to manipulate and deceive readers with such dishonest intentions.
It's true that you have not got the skills to get away with lying.
Why did you try?
Why did you claim that the video showed the CIA man said we were geoengineering when it was clear to anyone who watched that it did not say that?
-
Admitting plans of solar geoengineering when anyone can observe the effects on the environment is lying. There's no way pretending the CIA isn't implicated by denying a simple video.
-
The video, and the claims you made about it, show that you do not reliably tell the truth.
Why should anyone trust anything you post?
Also you seem to have muddled up global warming which is real, with geoengineering which is, at best, experimental.
Yes we have changed the environment, but that's not geoengineering.
Do you think that a baby who pees in their pants is geoengineering them?
Do you say "Oh dear! the dog has geoengineered the carpet again"?
We have messed up the environment by adding CO2- accidentally. It's not any sort of engineering- geo or otherwise.
-
The video, and the claims you made about it, show that you do not reliably tell the truth.
Why should anyone trust anything you post?
Your evidences are weak. It is clear to me that this video was not dishonest in publishing
the CIA views on solar geoengineering.
May I recommend you educate yourself on geoengineering: Climate engineering is now considered
a mainstream theory.
"We have messed up the environment by adding CO2- accidentally."
Yes, and the point is that climate hacking is another way to mess up the environment beyond repairs.
-
Your evidence is non-existent; in spite of me asking many times.
The CIA view is "maybe it could be possible" but you dishonestly portrayed is as "it's happening now".
Since you delibertely tried to mislead people over that, why should we trust you about anything else?
Climate engineering is a mainstream idea.
Do you understand that isn't the same as saying it's actually happening?
"Yes, and the point is that climate hacking is another way to mess up the environment beyond repairs."
That might be why we are not doing it.
At the very least, you have provided no evidence that we are doing it.
-
Climate engineering is a mainstream idea.
Do you understand that isn't the same as saying it's actually happening?
Clandestine geoengineering activity is a real (observable) phenomenon. How can you possibly understand climate change if you don't understand the necessity of observation to validate a scientific hypothesis?
-
Climate engineering is a mainstream idea.
Do you understand that isn't the same as saying it's actually happening?
Clandestine geoengineering activity is a real (observable) phenomenon. How can you possibly understand climate change if you don't understand the necessity of observation to validate a scientific hypothesis?
We don't question the validity of your observation, we question the validity of your interpretation.
I could say that it is easily observable that the sun goes around the Earth. I literally see it every single day--how could you even question something that is so simple and so easily observed? Well, it turns out that, while there is nothing wrong with my eyes, what I think I am seeing is not really happening--it turns out that what I observed is the rotation of the Earth, and this can be proven by taking into account evidence that is slightly more difficult to observe, and doing a slightly more complex analysis of the observed data.
You claim to see jets depositing trails of chemicals designed to manipulate the global climate. I don't doubt that you see trails behind the jets (I see them too), but I don't agree with your analysis of the composition of these trails, why they exist, and what their effect on the environment actually is.
-
Climate engineering is a mainstream idea.
Do you understand that isn't the same as saying it's actually happening?
Clandestine geoengineering activity is a real (observable) phenomenon. How can you possibly understand climate change if you don't understand the necessity of observation to validate a scientific hypothesis?
Do you remember that you utterly failed to show that the trails left behind planes are anything but water?
If you observe water, but claim that it's unicorn pee then use it as evidence of unicorns, you have left science behind and you are on a flight of fancy.
Well, until you show that the trails are not water, you have not shown any evidence of anything other than boring trails of water. As I said before, you have seen your breath "steam" on a cold day.
Why do you say these trails are anything different?
-
We don't question the validity of your observation, we question the validity of your interpretation.
My interpretations are based on scientific evidences that clandestine geoengineering activity is still controversial
and poorly understood.
I could say that it is easily observable that the sun goes around the Earth. I literally see it every single day--how could you even question something that is so simple and so easily observed? Well, it turns out that, while there is nothing wrong with my eyes, what I think I am seeing is not really happening--it turns out that what I observed is the rotation of the Earth, and this can be proven by taking into account evidence that is slightly more difficult to observe, and doing a slightly more complex analysis of the observed data.
Clandestine geoengineering activity is not easily observable. Seeing them is actually difficult because they alter clouds composition using CCN particles.
You claim to see jets depositing trails of chemicals designed to manipulate the global climate. I don't doubt that you see trails behind the jets (I see them too), but I don't agree with your analysis of the composition of these trails, why they exist, and what their effect on the environment actually is.
If we didnt started to believe in science we would still be hiding in our caves. My analysis is a balanced interpretation of the scientific data on the risks of solar geoengineering for the environment.
-
Do you remember that you utterly failed to show that the trails left behind planes are anything but water?
If you observe water, but claim that it's unicorn pee then use it as evidence of unicorns, you have left science behind and you are on a flight of fancy.
Well, until you show that the trails are not water, you have not shown any evidence of anything other than boring trails of water. As I said before, you have seen your breath "steam" on a cold day.
Why do you say these trails are anything different?
Many things are under investigation.
btw, you can observe easily that the water molecular properties differ from a engineered nanoparticle.
-
btw, you can observe easily that the water molecular properties differ from a engineered nanoparticle.
Yes, exactly! And the properties of these trails are more consistent with water than with nanoparticles.
-
Do you remember that you utterly failed to show that the trails left behind planes are anything but water?
If you observe water, but claim that it's unicorn pee then use it as evidence of unicorns, you have left science behind and you are on a flight of fancy.
Well, until you show that the trails are not water, you have not shown any evidence of anything other than boring trails of water. As I said before, you have seen your breath "steam" on a cold day.
Why do you say these trails are anything different?
Many things are under investigation.
btw, you can observe easily that the water molecular properties differ from a engineered nanoparticle.
All that rather misses the point.
There is no evidence that the stuff is anything but water.
Do you not understand that?
Until you actually show it isn't just water, you might as well be saying it's unicorn piss.
-
Climate change is perhaps the most obvious evidence that clandestine geoengineering activity is altering the weather and Earth biota.
The biggest climate change in recorded history occured in the 11th century when, for the first time, European architecture suddenly adopted indoor fireplaces with permanent chimneys throughout the entire continent, and we have accounts of frozen rivers in England and France becoming so common that they were used for regular entertainment, transport and commerce.
So was it the CIA or the Inquisition at work behind the scenes? And how did they manage to keep the jet engine a secret for so long - they are very noisy!
-
Clandestine geoengineering activity is not easily observable.
Climate change is perhaps the most obvious evidence that clandestine geoengineering activity is altering the weather and Earth biota.
Clandestine geoengineering activity is a real (observable) phenomenon.
Obviously, it's not obvious whether it's obvious or not easily observed.
-
Indeed, climate change is hardly perceptible to the naked eyes. I say that solar geoengineering is observable from a long-range distance but it is visually challenging to identify engineered nanoparticles from water vapor. Anyways, natural water vapor can be compared to aerosolized nanoparticles and I think both compounds can creates clouds. The dishonesty is to suggest all planes exhibit this effect depending on the weather/temperature. Cloud seeding with silver iodide is real technology to alter clouds composition. Thats why geoengineering is mainstream: The applications of cloud seeding is a patented technology.
-
Could you volunteer for a close range inspection of chemtrails please? this information is vital to the scientific community.. We can all do long range observations by just looking up.. I feel you have much to offer in this area of scientific investigations.
Cloud seeding is a process, but you suggest that this is done to forward some hidden agenda, whereas I do not believe it is actually common place anywhere since the effects would need to be studied on a long term to see the impacts, not done on a whim by clandestine organisations.
Climate change IS visible to the naked eye, by observing the change of the ice caps, growth of trees and habitation of species to name a few.
-
Could you volunteer for a close range inspection of chemtrails please? this information is vital to the scientific community.. We can all do long range observations by just looking up.. I feel you have much to offer in this area of scientific investigations.
Unfortunately my investigation is limited to observational study only. Long range observation of clandestine geoengineering activity is possible.
Cloud seeding is a process, but you suggest that this is done to forward some hidden agenda, whereas I do not believe it is actually common place anywhere since the effects would need to be studied on a long term to see the impacts, not done on a whim by clandestine organisations.
It is still a new and controversial activity to fix climate change through stratospheric aerosol injection. Solar geoengineering is a clandestine military initiative of Bush/Obama legacy.
Climate change IS visible to the naked eye, by observing the change of the ice caps, growth of trees and habitation of species to name a few.
I agree. You can records observations of climatic changes etc however nobody do records the biological impacts of chemtrails on human health. Why? I guess the effects of clandestine geoengineering activity are biologically important and controversial.
Thanks for your input.
-
Could you volunteer for a close range inspection of chemtrails please? this information is vital to the scientific community.. We can all do long range observations by just looking up.. I feel you have much to offer in this area of scientific investigations.
Unfortunately my investigation is limited to observational study only. Long range observation of clandestine geoengineering activity is possible.
Cloud seeding is a process, but you suggest that this is done to forward some hidden agenda, whereas I do not believe it is actually common place anywhere since the effects would need to be studied on a long term to see the impacts, not done on a whim by clandestine organisations.
It is still a new and controversial activity to fix climate change through stratospheric aerosol injection. Solar geoengineering is a clandestine military initiative of Bush/Obama legacy.
Climate change IS visible to the naked eye, by observing the change of the ice caps, growth of trees and habitation of species to name a few.
I agree. You can records observations of climatic changes etc however nobody do records the biological impacts of chemtrails on human health. Why? I guess the effects of clandestine geoengineering activity are biologically important and controversial.
Thanks for your input.
"Long range observation of clandestine geoengineering activity is possible."
How?
How can you show that the trails left by planes are anything but water?
"It is still a new and controversial activity to fix climate change through stratospheric aerosol injection."
And that's why nobody is risking doing it.
"Solar geoengineering is a clandestine military initiative of Bush/Obama legacy. "
Why can't you understand that making a statement like that- without any supporting evidence- is improper on a science web site?
"Climate change IS visible to the naked eye, by observing the change of the ice caps, growth of trees and habitation of species to name a few."
Yes, but it's not geoengineering that causes climate change.
Why do you keep muddling the two different things?
As I said, babies don't geoengineer their nappies.
-
http://www.cfr.org/projects/world/geoengineering-workshop-on-unilateral-planetary-scale-geoengineering/pr1364
This paper is dated from 2008, the year Obama won US the presidential election.
-
I only looked at one slide show... looked like it was put together by a 12 year old...
Sorry to be disperging guys.. but if i was shown that in any conference I went to I would laugh and walk out. I mean the sun even has a smiley face on it...
That sort of thing should be left for the attendees to doodle in on their handouts!
-
http://www.cfr.org/projects/world/geoengineering-workshop-on-unilateral-planetary-scale-geoengineering/pr1364
This paper is dated from 2008, the year Obama won US the presidential election.
So, in a year when something happened, some people got together to talk about the possibility of doing something, and the problems with doing it.
So what?
It's not evidence that anyone did anything but talk.
So, once again, where's the evidence?
-
"So, in a year when something happened, some people got together to talk about the possibility of doing something, and the problems with doing it."
The CFR organisation is not a simple group of socially-engaged nerds. Don't understimate the word "unilateral" in their research workshops on geoengineering.
-
"So, in a year when something happened, some people got together to talk about the possibility of doing something, and the problems with doing it."
The CFR organisation is not a simple group of socially-engaged nerds. Don't understimate the word "unilateral" in their research workshops on geoengineering.
If they included the word "experimental" or "practical" then they might be evidence.
They don't.
You still have not shown any evidence that geoengineering is actually happening.
Presumably that's because you can't.
Why not just admit it and keep quiet?
-
If they included the word "experimental" or "practical" then they might be evidence.
They don't.
The word "unilateral" is appropriate to describe how they experiment with geoengineering.
-
You still have not shown any evidence that geoengineering is actually happening.
No.
My local observations and comments on this forum are evidences of clandestine geoengineering activity. This is another example of your striking dishonesty toward my geoengineering research on this site.
-
My local observations and comments on this forum are evidences of clandestine geoengineering activity.
This is another example of your striking dishonesty toward my geoengineering research on this site.
You have not said anything that would count as evidence.
And, perhaps you would like to point out what I have said that's a lie- or maybe you should drop the "dishonesty" claim.
In any event, it's been a long time since anyone actually mentioned the topic- even in passing.
This thread has degenerated into another waste of time here you fail to address valid questions and you falsely claim to have provided evidence of geoengineering.
-
You have not said anything that would count as evidence.
And, perhaps you would like to point out what I have said that's a lie- or maybe you should drop the "dishonesty" claim.
Your pretentions are false as usual. You ignore scientific research as a whole on anything discussing the risks of geoengineering.
You're being dishonest in your attitude to confront me with disinformation and pseudoscientific voodoo.
-
"Your pretentions are false as usual."
What pretensions?
"You ignore scientific research as a whole on anything discussing the risks of geoengineering."
No. I'm not disputing the fact that there would be risks; I'm just pointing out that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of anyone doing it.
"You're being dishonest in your attitude to confront me with disinformation and pseudoscientific voodoo."
What disinformation?
What pseudoscience?
What have I said that isn't true?
(I remind you that your claim that the video showed a man from the CIA saying that geoengineering was happening- that wasn't true. At best it said it was possible. You are the one on record as saying things that are not true)
-
Mercifully the discussion about running clockwork cars via magic gear boxes and sneaking some power from overhead lines seems to have ground to a halt but this one runs on and on, will the next one be why we need tinfoil helmets to avoid being made schizophrenic?
-
This thread's dragging on because Tkadm30 simply doesn't understand what "evidence" means.
He won't recognise that a man saying something is possible is not the same as proof that someone is doing it.
Since it's ages since anyone actually mentioned the notional topic, perhaps it's time for a mod to put this thread out of its misery (Like so many others of his).
-
He won't recognise that a man saying something is possible is not the same as proof that someone is doing it.
Pure dishonesty. How can you believe a top-official CIA authority when local observations prove the validity of clandestine geoengineering is happening ?
Stop the lies or to covertly hide under your mama wardrobe...
-
He won't recognise that a man saying something is possible is not the same as proof that someone is doing it.
Pure dishonesty. How can you believe a top-official CIA authority when local observations prove the validity of clandestine geoengineering is happening ?
Stop the lies or to covertly hide under your mama wardrobe...
I'm trying to stop the lies, but you keep on repeating them.
in the real world, no local observation proves the validity of clandestine geoengineering.
If it did, you would have provided evidence by now.
And it really doesn't mater if the CIA man was telling the truth or not.
What makes you a liar is that you claimed he said something when he didn't and, after that was pointed out- repeatedly- you carried on making the claim
It's a simple point
Tell us what local observations prove that there is clandestine geoengineering going on.
-
Tell us what local observations prove that there is clandestine geoengineering going on.
Your mental assertions are evidences that you never experimented observing chemtrails locally.
All you offer are pointless objections not supported by experimental evidences (aka observations).
Your interpretations are nothing more than a carbon copy of the propaganda and disinformation (aka brainwashing) offered by the official narrative to sheeples. This mode of thinking is foolish and unreliable to draw conclusions without investigating alternative ideas. If you have the ability to use your mind for doing original research, and to break free from the mental slavery of following orders, you may observe common patterns in systemic disinformation which are used to manipulate your subconscious system. This is called "mind programming" or simply "brainwashing". People (sheeples) are conditionated to believe their own stupidity and their poor intelligence to accept the mathematical nazism of mental slavery. It is your responsability as a scientist to demontraste that the world is not perfect.
-
Tell us what local observations prove that there is clandestine geoengineering going on.
... you never experimented observing chemtrails locally. ...
Nor has anyone else.
Why not stop wasting time discussing your delusions about me, and post some evidence?
Oh, I forgot: it's because you don't have any.