Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: smart on 16/12/2015 20:53:40
-
Geoengineering is a covert operation to induce artificial climate changes and regulate the environment through emissions of coal fly-ash particles in the troposphere.
Moreover the possibility that theses classified nanoparticles affect human health is controversial, despite studies which demonstrated that such nanoparticles can have a impact on human physiology: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/8/9375/htm
Is therefore existing a dual-purpose to geoengineering in systematically altering Earth albedo ?
Could geoengineering modify the ecosystem and destroy life based on the imperatives of climate changes ?
-
Geoengineering is a covert operation to induce artificial climate changes
That's a pretty bold statement; what is your evidence to support this claim?
-
Geoengineering is a covert operation to induce artificial climate changes
That's a pretty bold statement; what is your evidence to support this claim?
I believe that the mass media cover up of geoengineering is an evidence that theses operations are done to systematically alter Earth albedo, thus inducing large-scale modifications of the climate and causing arbitrary damage to the ecosystems.
-
If this is a covert operation how come you know about it?
What is your evidence that the mass media are covering up these actions? You do realise that the mass media is not a single entity, with a single agenda? At what point did Putin and Obama agree to implement this program? If they did not agree, what motivates one not to "rat out" the other?
-
If this is a covert operation how come you know about it?
I have become aware of theses large-scale climate modifications by observing how cumulus clouds are artificially seeded by military aircrafts spraying (coal fly ash) aerosol particles in the atmosphere. The observed effect is a global dimming or reduction of the sun radiative energy and cooling on Earth surface.
What is your evidence that the mass media are covering up these actions? You do realise that the mass media is not a single entity, with a single agenda? At what point did Putin and Obama agree to implement this program? If they did not agree, what motivates one not to "rat out" the other?
I believe that 9/11 is an important historical event in the geoengineering timeline. Mass medias (owned by global corporations) are likely to cooperate into Putin/Obama plans to globally orchestrate geoengineering through United Nations climate changes framework.
-
At this time, geoengineering is recognized as a temporary "hack" to reduce global temperature rise. But everyone realizes that it will have unforseeable consequences, there will be winners and losers, and there is always the fear that it could be turned into a weapon.
There are various international conventions that could be read as banning geoengineering (or they could also be read as requiring it!). So at this point in time, there is an unofficial moratorium on geoengineering projects.
The SPICE project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)#Outdoors_research) in the UK designed techniques that could be used for geoengineering, but it was canceled before it could field test some of the equipment it had developed.
Meanwhile, in what could be considered a large-scale, uncontrolled, non-covert experiment in geoengineering, humans are pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than we ever have before. There is also considerable SO2 from high sulphur fuels, which have largely been regulated for land use, but are still widely used to power container ships.
In a more controlled experiment, the Montreal Protocol is causing us to emit less CFCs into the atmosphere than we did 20 years ago. These are potent greenhouse gases, as well as destroying the ozone layer.
-
One thing about particles in the atmosphere is rain will wash these particles from the sky. Water in clouds often uses micron sized particles as nucleation centers, onto which a water droplet will form. Rain can also extract CO2 and other gases like SO2, since these will react with water to form acids, which are now liquids at room temperature.
-
I believe the injection of solid aerosol in the troposphere may affect living organisms by
molecular delivery of nanoparticles;
I think solar geoengineering is more than a hack: Chemical terrorism is potentially a source of neurotoxicity
to humans.
-
If this is a covert operation how come you know about it?
I have become aware of theses large-scale climate modifications by observing how cumulus clouds are artificially seeded by military aircrafts spraying (synthetic) aerosol particles in the atmosphere. The observed effect is a global dimming or reduction of the sun radiative energy and cooling on Earth surface.
What is your evidence that the mass media are covering up these actions? You do realise that the mass media is not a single entity, with a single agenda? At what point did Putin and Obama agree to implement this program? If they did not agree, what motivates one not to "rat out" the other?
I believe that 9/11 is an important historical event in the geoengineering timeline. Mass medias (owned by global corporations) are likely to cooperate into Putin/Obama plans to globally orchestrate geoengineering through United Nations climate changes framework.
So all you have are unfounded beliefs, foolish opinions and fanciful interpretations of world events. If you were serious in your concern you would be offering substantial evidence and reasoned arguments, not a tissue of nonsense.
-
So all you have are unfounded beliefs, foolish opinions and fanciful interpretations of world events. If you were serious in your concern you would be offering substantial evidence and reasoned arguments, not a tissue of nonsense.
Thanks, I appreciate your criticism; But i'm convinced that the war on terror and geoengineering may well be connected through evidences of state-sponsored chemical terrorism. Thus, the dual-purposes of geoengineering may lie in the systematic modification of biodiversity through chemical injections of engineered aerosols with probable effects on human physiology. The effects of theses solid aerosols on human neurocognitive functions and behavior probably explain the cover up of mass media using cognitive dissonance and disinformation to coerce the use of geoengineering for climate changes.
-
The effects of theses solid aerosols on human neurocognitive functions and behavior...
Are you sure that you are not confusing the neurocognitive impacts of inhaling:
- low concentrations of solid aerosols dispersed from government aircraft with
- high concentrations of self-administered volatilized aerosols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_smoking#Health_effects_of_smoking)?
-
Are you sure that you are not confusing the neurocognitive impacts of government-dispersed solid aerosols with the neurocognitive impacts self-administered volatilized aerosols?
I'm interested in engineered aerosols injections in the stratosphere: Could geoengineering be potentially harmful to humans? How may engineered aerosols delivers molecular compounds to the brain? What are long-term effects of aerosols exposure on cognitive functions?
-
... clouds are artificially seeded by military aircrafts spraying (synthetic) aerosol particles in the atmosphere ...
"chem-trails" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chem_Trails) conspiracy-theorists believe that too.
You've stated you're pro-legalization of marijuana (https://www.google.com/search?q=marajuana+tkadm30++site:www.thenakedscientists.com/forum), a drug that can cause paranoia (http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-07-16-how-cannabis-causes-paranoia). [conspiracy theorist = paranoiac ].
I'm interested in engineered aerosols injections in the stratosphere: Could geoengineering be potentially harmful to humans? How may engineered aerosols delivers molecular compounds to the brain? What are long-term effects of aerosols exposure on cognitive functions?
Marijuana smokers are far more likely to have their cognition modified by that drug than by any hypothetical substance released from an aircraft which is miles away from them.
-
Marijuana smokers are far more likely to have their cognition modified by that drug than by any hypothetical substance released from an aircraft which is miles away from them.
Comparing geoengineering to marijuana smoking is not a rational argument to disapprove the probable effects of geoengineering on living organisms; It only remind me that Marijuana is a potential neuroprotective agent against chemically-induced adverse effects of solar geoengineering.
Is cognitive dissonance affecting your ability to understand how solar geoengineering is potentially a case of chemical terrorism over civilian populations?
-
Is cognitive dissonance affecting your ability to understand how solar geoengineering is potentially a case of chemical terrorism over civilian populations?
This rather seems to be the case of the pot calling the polar bear black. (Readers may form their own conclusions as to nature of the pot.)
-
I'm not sure I understand your metaphor completely, but the following explain well the fundamental issue
with geoengineering weaponization:
"Another form of unilateral action is military use of the technology. In fact, the weaponization of
geoengineering is not unprecedented; the United States artificially induced rain to cause flooding during
the Vietnam War [Robock,2008].
The issue of weaponization has since been addressed by the U.N.
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification
Techniques which has 85 signatory nations [Robock, 2008].
Engineered nanoparticles would be desirable from a military standpoint since particle characteristics like atmospheric lifetime could be tailored to suit weapons applications.
Nanoscientists would be faced with the possibility that their work could be misappropriated for military use"
http://wiki.phy.queensu.ca/shughes/images/8/88/NANO_geoeng_report.pdf
-
I wonder if militarization of science is the fundamental problem with geoengineering. How can military applications of geoengineering using engineered aerosols is a more profitable technology than medicinal applications of nanoparticles ?
This is not a cannabis related topic... I don't understand why the logic to connect cannabis science to nanotechnology and geoengineering are correlated.
Regards,
tkadm30
-
You're giving these people way too much credit. They simply smell money, and are going for it, and damn the consequences. And they're happy to bribe all the regulators to keep pretending global warming and mass die-offs are a "controversy", just like evolution. Just typical republicans.
-
You're giving these people way too much credit. They simply smell money, and are going for it, and damn the consequences. And they're happy to bribe all the regulators to keep pretending global warming and mass die-offs are a "controversy", just like evolution. Just typical republicans.
The aerial spraying of unidentified aerosol in the stratosphere may affect global ecosystems. Canada seems resolved in geoengineering the climate. Follow the money...
-
I noticed that military planes sometimes release aerosols by doing a X-shape pattern in the sky. This always happens on clear and sunny days. Is there a logical explanation in doing a X-like motion to dissipate the aerosol
over urban areas? My hypothesis is that the X-like pattern usage is for geographically marking the area as a strategic target for artificial clouds formation.
-
would it be any worse than inhaling ash or fumes from burning organic material? probably not, but regardless this is why we need to invest heavily in health and medical technology so we can repair the people were inadvertently making sick, we also need to relentlessly stress physical fitness and nutrition so people's own biology/immune systems/brain have a fighting chance to counter this inevitable flood of pollution were creating
if the government views climate engineering to be a net benefit but with some obvious negative health effects, we should be pressuring government to be up front about it so we as individuals can atleast prepare our bodies for the abuse life throws at it, physiological health is very adaptable when properly trained just as psychological health is also very adaptable when properly educated, the mind and body are extraordinary resistance machines designed to be used and abused for our pleasure
i have a much bigger problem with the lazy big pharma industry scheming with the government to hold a monopoly on drugs via criminalization, if big pharma cannot create a superior product than nature then big pharma does not deserve our money, in reality the immensely talented opium farmers in afghanistan should be the ones paid the billions currently being extorted by the western pharmaceutical-law enforcement war machine
-
would it be any worse than inhaling ash or fumes from burning organic material? probably not, but regardless this is why we need to invest heavily in health and medical technology so we can repair the people were inadvertently making sick, we also need to relentlessly stress physical fitness and nutrition so people's own biology/immune systems/brain have a fighting chance to counter this inevitable flood of pollution were creating
Inhaling fumes from smoking is a choice, but breathing fresh air is mandatory for living organisms. I think governments should not jeopardize public health for political reasons like global warming.
While academicians debate geoengineering as an activity that might potentially be needed in the future [2,3], evidence suggests that Western governments/militaries moved ahead with a full scale operational geoengineering program. But instead of mining and milling rock to produce artificial volcanic ash in sufficient volumes to cool the planet, they adopted a low-cost, pragmatic alternative, but one with consequences far more dire to life on Earth than global warming might ever be, and used coal combustion fly ash. To make matters worse, instead of placing the material high into the stratosphere, where there is minimal mixing and the substance might remain suspended for a year or more, they opted to spray coal fly ash into the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, which mixes with the air people breathe and gets rained down to ground.
====
Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555286/
NB: This paper has been retracted, but it remains highly informative. I guess research on the toxicity of geoengineering is controversial because of the pervasive nature of such activity on public health. In addition, identification of coal combustion fly ash as the primary particulate being released in the troposphere is a major scientific discovery!
-
The best indications are that the material used in the program is a white powder that comes dirt cheap to the government from the coal-burning utilities that produce millions of tons of coal fly ash every year. The official sun-enhancing and sun-altering pollution over Hamilton County is euphemistically called CCR, or combustion coal residual. It is toxic, and contains aluminum, arsenic and other pollutants, according to J. Marvin Herndon, a scientist in San Diego who does not rely on government funding for his research.
The TVA coal-fired plant at Gallatin produces 130,000 tons of coal waste daily. It is in the news this week for bringing on line its last of four selective catalytic reduction devices to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions in Middle Tennessee. TVA has spent three years and F$730 million on the project. Earlier scrubber projects have taken care of reducing fly ash emissions. Nearly half of fly ash production is recycled, with some evidently being purchased by government agents for the current stratospheric aerosol geoengineering program I have covered here since April 2014.
Notes:
- Barium titanate is produced from coal fly ash.
- Barium titanate appears to be a potassium channel blocker:
Barium is a competitive potassium channel antagonist that blocks the passive efflux of intracellular potassium, resulting in a shift of potassium from extracellular to intracellular compartments. The intracellular translocation of potassium results in a decreased resting membrane potential, making the muscle fibers electrically unexcitable and causing paralysis. Some of these barium's effects may also be due to barium induced neuromuscular blockade and membrane depolarization.
====
Geoengineering sky stripes threat to human health, study says - http://nooganomics.com/2016/02/geoengineering-sky-stripes-threat-to-human-health-study-says/
Assessing the direct occupational and public health impacts of solar radiation management with stratospheric aerosols - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4717532/
Barium titanate - http://www.t3db.ca/toxins/T3D1124
-
Coal fly ash (CFA) may contains traces of arsenic.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344911000541
Arsenic is a compound commonly used in pesticides...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic
-
Arsenic is a neurotoxicant. The biotoxicity of geoengineering is undeniable.
Arsenic toxicity is a worldwide health concern as several millions of people are exposed to this toxicant via drinking water, and exposure affects almost every organ system in the body including the brain. Recent studies have shown that even low concentrations of arsenic impair neurological function, particularly in children. This review will focus on the current epidemiological evidence of arsenic neurotoxicity in children and adults, with emphasis on cognitive dysfunction, including learning and memory deficits and mood disorders. We provide a cohesive synthesis of the animal studies that have focused on neural mechanisms of dysfunction after arsenic exposure including altered epigenetics; hippocampal function; glucocorticoid and hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) pathway signaling; glutamatergic, cholinergic and monoaminergic signaling; adult neurogenesis; and increased Alzheimer’s-associated pathologies. Finally, we briefly discuss new studies focusing on therapeutic strategies to combat arsenic toxicity including the use of selenium and zinc.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4026128/
-
I know that it is good to be tolleratnt to those who need education. I am often in that catagory. But since this is a science forum should it be a platform for the mad to polute our collective mean space with utter drivel?
-
Maybe you're just annoyed and uncomfortable with truth? Anyways, please don't blame the messenger, unless you appreciate trolling on science forums to affirm your definite ignorance...
-
Yet more evidences of the toxicity of geoengineering.
Dimethyl and monomethyl sulfate: presence in coal fly ash and airborne particulate matter.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7350652
Dimethyl sulfate is carcinogenic[7] and mutagenic, highly poisonous, corrosive, environmentally hazardous and volatile (presenting an inhalation hazard). It is considered a potential chemical weapon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfate#Safety
-
Yet more evidences of the toxicity of geoengineering.
Dimethyl and monomethyl sulfate: presence in coal fly ash and airborne particulate matter.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7350652
Dimethyl sulfate is carcinogenic[7] and mutagenic, highly poisonous, corrosive, environmentally hazardous and volatile (presenting an inhalation hazard). It is considered a potential chemical weapon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfate#Safety
Ash and smoke always contained lots of nasty chemicals.
Do you think this was "geoengineering"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephenson%27s_Rocket
But that's not the real question; this is . If "They" are putting "poisons" in the air how come "They" are not being poisoned?
Or are you saying that they are going to a lot or trouble to poison themselves?
I don't think you have thought this through.
-
I noticed that military planes sometimes release aerosols by doing a X-shape pattern in the sky. This always happens on clear and sunny days. Is there a logical explanation in doing a X-like motion to dissipate the aerosol
No.
There is no logical explanation for " doing a X-like motion to dissipate the aerosol" so they must be doing it for some other reason.
You seem to be arguing against yourself.
-
But that's not the real question; this is . If "They" are putting "poisons" in the air how come "They" are not being poisoned?
Or are you saying that they are going to a lot or trouble to poison themselves?
This might be a case of suicidal ideation (lookup "democide"). By purposefully releasing toxic coal fly ash particles in the troposhere, the governments must be aware of the deleterious effects of such operations on public health.
Notice also that dimethyl sulfate is mutagenic and carcinogenic. This could means the method used for soft-killing humanity is through cancer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen
I guess the real question should be why scientists and doctors are silent about the elite's depopulation plans.
-
... the elite's depopulation plans.
That " they (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paranoia) are trying to kill us" message was brought to you by the Paranoia Party, ( a subsidiary of the "Cannabis cures everything (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tkadm30+Cannabis)*" group ).
[ * except paranoia, which it causes ]
-
But that's not the real question; this is . If "They" are putting "poisons" in the air how come "They" are not being poisoned?
Or are you saying that they are going to a lot or trouble to poison themselves?
This might be a case of suicidal ideation (lookup "democide"). By purposefully releasing toxic coal fly ash particles in the troposhere, the governments must be aware of the deleterious effects of such operations on public health.
Notice also that dimethyl sulfate is mutagenic and carcinogenic. This could means the method used for soft-killing humanity is through cancer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen
I guess the real question should be why scientists and doctors are silent about the elite's depopulation plans.
Just for a start, dimethyl sulphate is not stable in the presence of water so it's not going to be a problem in rain.
"I guess the real question should be why scientists and doctors are silent about the elite's depopulation plans."
The real answer is that there are no such plans for doctors and scientists to say anything about.
(It's also just plain bloody stupid; without a population to exploit- they wouldn't stay "elite" for very long.)
What you seem to be saying is that the elite want to kill themselves- even though they are in a positions to enjoy themselves however they like.
Have you thought that through?
-
Just for a start, dimethyl sulphate is not stable in the presence of water so it's not going to be a problem in rain.
Airborne particulates of dimethyl sulphate are a potential risk for the environment: Coal fly ash aerosols exposure may affect lung and brain function.
What you seem to be saying is that the elite want to kill themselves- even though they are in a positions to enjoy themselves however they like.
Have you thought that through?
One should probably not deny the weaponization of geoengineering: Coal fly ash particles are toxic for human health.
-
WE started to destroy the planet the very moment we started to extract oil, a thermal barrier removed . For every mine we dig we create structural weakness in the planet, for every fire we light we create change.
Is geo-engineering destroying life? NO, life is destroying life by doing the geo-engineering.
-
Indeed. Human intelligence perhaps created this nefarious activity. However, we have the right to breath non-toxic air since breathing is part of human nature. Anyone who attempt to poison us by inducing a slow death is a dangerous criminal. Likewise, water is essential to life. The poisoning of air/water interface with toxic chemical weapons is a threat to humanity.
-
Just for a start, dimethyl sulphate is not stable in the presence of water so it's not going to be a problem in rain.
Airborne particulates of dimethyl sulphate are a potential risk for the environment: Coal fly ash aerosols exposure may affect lung and brain function.
What you seem to be saying is that the elite want to kill themselves- even though they are in a positions to enjoy themselves however they like.
Have you thought that through?
One should probably not deny the weaponization of geoengineering: Coal fly ash particles are toxic for human health.
"Airborne particulates of dimethyl sulphate are a potential risk for the environment:"
No.
Sulphate aerosols may well be a threat to the environment (ironically, they may be it's saviour- but let's not get into that here).
Dimethyl sulphate isn't stable in water- nothing you post here will change that will it?
So why not stop pretending?
"One should probably not deny the weaponization of geoengineering"
Why not?
There is no actual evidence that it's happening, so why not deny it?
" Coal fly ash particles are toxic for human health."
Well, how fortunate that they get largely scrubbed out at the point of production and used to make cement etc.
As I asked (and you ignored), how do "they" stop themselves getting poisoned too?
It simply does not make sense.
-
Indeed. Human intelligence perhaps created this nefarious activity. However, we have the right to breath non-toxic air since breathing is part of human nature. Anyone who attempt to poison us by inducing a slow death is a dangerous criminal. Likewise, water is essential to life. The poisoning of air/water interface with toxic chemical weapons is a threat to humanity.
Yes, all very nice, but, ever since we discovered fire, we have been doing all those things.
Do you really want to stop?
-
"Airborne particulates of dimethyl sulphate are a potential risk for the environment:"
No.
Sulphate aerosols may well be a threat to the environment (ironically, they may be it's saviour- but let's not get into that here).
Dimethyl sulphate isn't stable in water- nothing you post here will change that will it?
So why not stop pretending?
Are you pretending Lee study is wrong?
Dimethyl sulfate and its hydrolysis product monomethyl sulfate have been found at concentrations as high as 830 parts per million in fly ash and in airborne particulate matter from coal combustion processes. This discovery poses a new environmental problem because of the mutagenic and carcinogenic properties of these compounds.
Coal fly ash is a neurotoxicant no matter the origins of the particulates...
"One should probably not deny the weaponization of geoengineering"
Why not?
There is no actual evidence that it's happening, so why not deny it?
The evidences are in the composition of CFA nanoparticles. Sulfate aerosols
releases toxic nanoparticles that may trigger diseases (Alzheimer) and cause harmful effects.
As I asked (and you ignored), how do "they" stop themselves getting poisoned too?
Please don't ask silly questions. The governments obviously are aware of the toxicity and harmful effects of geoengineering.
-
Yes, all very nice, but, ever since we discovered fire, we have been doing all those things.
Do you really want to stop?
Scientific research should not be used against us... Otherwise what is the purpose of science
if it cannot protect us against tyranny?
-
Dimethyl sulphate falls apart in water with a half life of a few hours.
Any study that says otherwise is wrong.
"Coal fly ash is a neurotoxicant no matter the origins of the particulates"
well, like I said, how lucky we are that people keep good control over it (most of the time; there's bound to be the odd cock-up)
This
"Sulfate aerosols releases toxic nanoparticles that may trigger diseases "
just doesn't make sense
"The governments obviously are aware of the toxicity and harmful effects of geoengineering."
That's why it isn't a silly question.
Why are they poisoning themselves?
-
Although seemingly unacknowledged in publicly accessible reports and in scientific literature as a potential material for geoengineering, coal fly ash is one major global waste product stream with the appropriate grain-size distribution for aerosolized tropospheric spraying that is readily available at extremely low cost and with existent processing and transport infrastructure. The author submits the following hypothesis: Coal fly ash is most likely the aerosolized particulate sprayed in the troposphere by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes
The ultra-fine particles of aerosolized coal fly ash do not remain at tanker-jet operational altitudes: they mix with and pollute the air people breathe. Tropospheric aerosol coal fly ash can potentially endanger humans through two primary routes: (1) ingestion of rainwater-extract of coal fly ash toxins, directly or after concentration by evaporation and (2) particulate intake through inhalation or through contact with the eyes or skin [20]. In the latter instance, harm to humans can arise from in situ body-fluid extraction of coal fly ash toxins [21] as well as from the consequences of tissue contact [22]. Coal fly ash that is PM2.5 is readily entrained in terminal airways and alveoli and retained in the lungs for long periods of time; the small grain size enables it to penetrate and reach deep within the airways where it can cause inflammation and pulmonary injury [23].
Coal fly ash contains a host of potentially leachable toxins, including aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium (III), chromium (IV), cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, strontium, thallium, thorium, and uranium. Coal fly ash has been described as being more radioactive than nuclear waste [24]. Moreover, many of the most toxic elements are enriched in the PM2.5 component of coal fly ash [25]. Whether or not the coal fly ash used for geoengineering is selectively enriched in PM2.5 is not known, but enrichment in the small particle size fraction would be advantageous in yielding greater surface area for sunlight reflection.
CFA is cheap material. Dumping coal fly ash in the troposhere to offset global warming may have an impact on the environment and public health. I suggest you read up this paper to expand your knowledge on the risks and toxicity of geoengineering:
Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/8/9375/htm
Why are they poisoning themselves?
I guess you meant "Why are we poisoning ourselves" ?
I'd say human stupidity is infinite. However, it seems secret societies have subverted democratic governments to promote their silly ideology. Anyways, I think the truth on geoengineering should probably become more obvious as scientific research now puts forward strong evidences of the toxicity of geoengineering, whether you like it or not...
-
In the absence of viable other sources, the evidence is that the coal fly ash is likely the substance being placed in the atmosphere by tanker jets. That is consistent with the nature of the material, and its availability from existing production facilities. Yes, this needs to be proven conclusively. But it is a misrepresentation to state “is not clear what the source of these chemicals is”. Science involves the progressive replacing of less precise understanding with more precise understanding. Indeed, much of the current underlying understanding in the natural physical sciences is in a sense “preliminary” and subject to revision by subsequent more precise understanding, but that is no reason or basis to prevent publication of relevant evidence.
The retraction of Herndon paper provide evidences that a organization is committed to promote ignorance and deception about the toxicity of geoengineering.
How many additional children will suffer from autism? What unknown birth defects will come to light? Why should those with compromised immune and respiratory systems suffer? How many premature cases of Alzheimer’s will result? How many elderly will die prematurely? Why do women, the traditional protectors of the young, keep their silence? Where is their humanity? Instead of calling for debate on a future hypothetical, in my view McNutt should be calling for a Nuremberg-like Tribunal to bring to trial those responsible for the on-going toxic spraying which, I allege, constitutes crimes against humanity and crimes against Earth’s biota.
The dumping of coal fly ash particles in the troposhere constitute a crime against humanity: The pseudoscience of climate change is a fraud to create ignorance and deceit about this criminal activity.
http://nuclearplanet.com/scimag.html
-
The retraction of Herndon paper provide evidences that a organization is committed to promote ignorance and deception about the toxicity of geoengineering.
Alternative explanation : his paper contained huge errors ... https://debunkingdenialism.com/2015/09/05/flawed-chemtrails-paper-by-herndon-retracted/
-
Alternative explanation : his paper contained huge errors ... https://debunkingdenialism.com/2015/09/05/flawed-chemtrails-paper-by-herndon-retracted/
The errors were corrected. Comments from the author about the retraction can be read here: http://nuclearplanet.com/public_rejection.pdf
-
... I suggest you read up this paper to expand your knowledge on the risks and toxicity of geoengineering:
Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/8/9375/htm
... a paper that is a monumental example of pseudo-science. The article’s author is J. Marvin Herndon ... Publishing a paper in an MDPI journal only means that one is able to afford the author fee. It does not mean the paper represents valid, vetted science."
https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/08/25/more-pseudo-science-from-swiss-chinese-publisher-mdpi/
-
IJERPH is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). MDPI takes the responsibility to enforce a rigorous peer-review together with strict ethical policies and standards to ensure to add high quality scientific works to the field of scholarly publication. Unfortunately, cases of plagiarism, data falsification, inappropriate authorship credit, and the like, do arise. MDPI takes such publishing ethics issues very seriously and our editors are trained to proceed in such cases with a zero tolerance policy. To verify the originality of content submitted to our journals, we use CrossCheck (powered by iThenticate) to check submissions against previous publications. MDPI works with Publons to provide reviewers with credit for their work.
MDPI is a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal and Dr. Marvin Herndon is a senior and internationally recognized scientist. See: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/advances.html
To deny that coal fly ash particles are toxic and to affirm that geoengineering is harmless is a blatant lie and an attempt to brainwash the public about typical geoengineering pseudoscience. Dr. Marvin Herndon papers and research on geoengineering is progression of the truth.
-
I guess you meant "Why are we poisoning ourselves" ?
What a silly thing to guess.
I meant why are they poisoning themselves.
The drink the same water, eat the same food and breathe the same air.
If we get poisoned, so do they.
-
IJERPH is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). MDPI takes the responsibility to enforce a rigorous peer-review together with strict ethical policies and standards to ensure to add high quality scientific works to the field of scholarly publication. Unfortunately, cases of plagiarism, data falsification, inappropriate authorship credit, and the like, do arise. MDPI takes such publishing ethics issues very seriously and our editors are trained to proceed in such cases with a zero tolerance policy. To verify the originality of content submitted to our journals, we use CrossCheck (powered by iThenticate) to check submissions against previous publications. MDPI works with Publons to provide reviewers with credit for their work.
MDPI is a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal and Dr. Marvin Herndon is a senior and internationally recognized scientist. See: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/advances.html
To deny that coal fly ash particles are toxic and to affirm that geoengineering is harmless is a blatant lie and an attempt to brainwash the public about typical geoengineering pseudoscience. Dr. Marvin Herndon papers and research on geoengineering is progression of the truth.
Nobody denies that the stuff is toxic.
But the only people who say it is being used for "geoengineering" in the way you suggest are frittloops.
There is no evidence to support that suggestion.
Re. "MDPI is a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal "
No it is not. Not if they publish stuff like that.
-
Nobody denies that the stuff is toxic.
But the only people who say it is being used for "geoengineering" in the way you suggest are frittloops.
There is no evidence to support that suggestion.
Re. "MDPI is a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal "
No it is not. Not if they publish stuff like that.
The true conspiracy theory is the non-sense idea that "contrails, or condensation trails, are "streaks of condensed water vapor created in the air by an airplane or rocket at high altitudes". The clandestine geoengineering hypothesis of Dr. Marvin Herndon at least provide an intelligent explanation to this phenomenon. Thus, I believe either you're being disinformed or you refuse to admit the toxicity of geoengineering, even when confronted to a peer-reviewed scientific study. How could you contribute to a scientific forum if you omit to examine the evidences?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#Contrails_as_chemtrails
-
Why do you think this is nonsense
The true conspiracy theory is the non-sense idea that "contrails, or condensation trails, are "streaks of condensed water vapor created in the air by an airplane or rocket at high altitudes".
please include actual physics in your answer.
I had a look at the evidence it was poor.
I have seen better from students.
Nobody disputes the toxicity of ash.
But there is no evidence of the "goengineeering" you speak of, and if there were it would raise the question you keep failing to answer.
Why are "they" poisoning themselves?
-
MDPI is a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal ...
A publication who sends the authors of published papers an invoice [$300-$1500] ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.mdpi.com/editorial_process
cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_press
-
Why do you think this is nonsense
The true conspiracy theory is the nonsense idea that "contrails, or condensation trails, are "streaks of condensed water vapor created in the air by an airplane or rocket at high altitudes".
Water vapor do not condense to create artificial clouds.
I had a look at the evidence it was poor.
I have seen better from students.
Nobody disputes the toxicity of ash.
But there is no evidence of the "goengineeering" you speak of, and if there were it would raise the question you keep failing to answer.
Why are "they" poisoning themselves?
You fail to understand that "we" are responsible for our governments actions. How could you even understand more complex phenomenons like geoengineering? Your arrogance is not an appropriate method to discuss and learn on a science forum.
-
Water vapor do not condense to create artificial clouds.
Pressure changes can cause invisible transparent water-vapour in the air to condense into visible white clouds , which can be trails , see ...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BKz_XJtCIAAvGVo.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_vortices#Aerodynamic_condensation_and_freezing
-
Water vapor do not condense to create artificial clouds.
You fail to understand that "we" are responsible for our governments actions. How could you even understand more complex phenomenons like geoengineering?
Your arrogance is not an appropriate method to discuss and learn on a science forum.
Artificial clouds have been produced since at least as far back as the cloud chamber
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber
they are now used for studying fast particles, but the original point was to create artificial clouds for weather studies.
So, once again, it would be good if you did the research before postign stuff that was nonsense.
"You fail to understand that "we" are responsible for our governments actions. "
No I am not.
And the point is moot.
Why would "they" or "we" be deliberately poisoning ourselves?
I'm fairly arrogant;but I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss the whole of science- which is what you are doing her.
If you feel that arrogance is a problem you need to stop displaying even more of it than I do.
"How could you even understand more complex phenomenons like geoengineering? " I do understand it and i therefore understand why your claims are nonsense.
-
Pressure changes can cause invisible transparent water-vapour in the air to condense into visible white clouds , which can be trails ,
The use of a (ultrasonic?) nozzle to spray the aerosols from planes and generate artificial clouds has been documented. See: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf
Options for dispersing gases from planes include the addition of sulfur to the fuel, which would release the aerosol through the exhaust system of the plane, or the attachment of a nozzle to release the sulfur from its own tank within the plane, which would be the better option.
...
Unlike the small jet fighter planes, the KC-135 and KC-10 are used to refuel planes mid-flight and already have a nozzle installed.
You seem to be confusing a "contrail" with a "chemtrail"...
-
Pressure changes can cause invisible transparent water-vapour in the air to condense into visible white clouds , which can be trails ,
The use of a (ultrasonic?) nozzle to spray the aerosols from planes and generate artificial clouds has been documented. See: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf
Options for dispersing gases from planes include the addition of sulfur to the fuel, which would release the aerosol through the exhaust system of the plane, or the attachment of a nozzle to release the sulfur from its own tank within the plane, which would be the better option.
...
Unlike the small jet fighter planes, the KC-135 and KC-10 are used to refuel planes mid-flight and already have a nozzle installed.
You seem to be confusing a "contrail" with a "chemtrail"...
No. Broadly speaking the suggestion of using ultrasonic nozzles has been documented.
Just because someone looked at the possibility of doing something is no reason to believe that it is actually in use.
There's one notable point from that report "Using existing U.S. military fighter and tanker planes, the
annual costs of injecting aerosol precursors into the lower stratosphere would be several billion
dollars" So it would cost a lot of money.
Why bother?
Well, this is just about plausible " to cool the planet and reduce global warming. "
But they still wouldn't use dimethyl sulphate would they?
"You seem to be confusing a "contrail" with a "chemtrail"... "
There's a simple difference.
Contrails actually exist, but chemtrails don't
(except in things like the smoke trails used in air shows and a very small number of cloud seeding events)
-
Contrails actually exist, but chemtrails don't
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Contrail.fourengined.arp.jpg)
Ignorance is bliss... How could one pretend geoengineering (chemtrails) is not a on-going clandestine activity to mitigate global warming? We need to educate the masses about the potentially toxic effects of geoengineering on public health, unless we consent to be poisoned on a daily basis.
Climate engineering, also referred to as geoengineering or climate intervention,[1] is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of limiting adverse climate change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/RAF_Red_Arrows_-_Rhyl_Air_Show.jpg/784px-RAF_Red_Arrows_-_Rhyl_Air_Show.jpg)
If chemical smoke was being released from the airliner, why is there a gap between the engines and the white trails ? , ( the kind of gap which would occur if they were due to condensation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrails) ).
BTW the white smoke from a single "Red Arrow" uses 45 litres of diesel per minute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Arrows#Smoke).
Q. theoretically, how much alleged chemical must the airliner be carrying to produce 4 chemtrails (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chemtrails) for say six hours. A ~60,000Kg, which is more than the weight of all the passengers.
-
If chemical smoke was being released from the airliner, why is there a gap between the engines and the white trails ? , ( the kind of gap which would occur if they were due to condensation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrails) ).
The "gap" effect could be the result of silver iodide vapor emitted from the heat of burning charcoal. Coal fly ash is a natural source of charcoal...
To produce silver iodide smoke, charcoal is burned in a stream of air. The heat of burning charcoal vaporizes the silver iodide at the surface. The resultant silver iodide vapor is rapidly condensed and diluted by the moving air stream to form an invisible smoke.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=QB4SBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=silver+iodide+fly+ash&source=bl&ots=oYKza0-8bS&sig=q_s0aq58A6Ij5W-R2SoH-gzNnCU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI59Lm7IjMAhVix4MKHQ1pDYYQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=silver%20iodide%20fly%20ash&f=false
More evidences here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0095852250900043
N.B: the use of silver iodide smoke to create artificial clouds is not new. See Project Stormfury: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Stormfury
-
Do you bother reading the articles you cite ? ..
N.B: the use of silver iodide smoke to create artificial clouds is not new. See Project Stormfury: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Stormfury
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Stormfury#Failure_of_the_working_hypothesis
https://books.google.ca/books?id=QB4SBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA34 ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
https://books.google.ca/books?id=QB4SBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA34
-
Cloud seeding with silver iodide is not pseudoscience. The only apparent missing link is the fact that coal fly ash may be used to vaporize the silver iodide.
Cloud seeding is no longer considered a fringe science, and is considered a mainstream tool to improve rain precipitation and snow. New technology and research has produced reliable results that make cloud seeding a dependable and affordable water-supply practice for many regions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding#Effectiveness
-
If chemical smoke was being released from the airliner, why is there a gap between the engines and the white trails ? , ( the kind of gap which would occur if they were due to condensation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrails) ).
The "gap" effect could be the result of silver iodide vapor emitted from the heat of burning charcoal. Coal fly ash is a natural source of charcoal...
To produce silver iodide smoke, charcoal is burned in a stream of air. The heat of burning charcoal vaporizes the silver iodide at the surface. The resultant silver iodide vapor is rapidly condensed and diluted by the moving air stream to form an invisible smoke.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=QB4SBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=silver+iodide+fly+ash&source=bl&ots=oYKza0-8bS&sig=q_s0aq58A6Ij5W-R2SoH-gzNnCU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI59Lm7IjMAhVix4MKHQ1pDYYQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=silver%20iodide%20fly%20ash&f=false
More evidences here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0095852250900043
N.B: the use of silver iodide smoke to create artificial clouds is not new. See Project Stormfury: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Stormfury
There's some really spectacular wrongness there.
Planes do not run on carcoal
Cola fly ash has little or no carbon (that was burned off to leave ash- hence the name) and so it certainly isn't much like charcoal.
Also CFA isn't natural.
Silver iodide doesn't boil below bright red to white hot- so the back end of the engines would melt if you tried to vapourise it.
There's every chance that it would decompose on vaporisation too- especially in the presence of water vapour. (That's why they used charcoal- not much water- unlike the exhaust from a jet engine.)
It's also expensive and as corrosives as anything if its damp.
"the use of silver iodide smoke to create artificial clouds is not new."
I suspect that you are getting muddled- AgI is used (at least experimentally) for seeding clouds to form rain- but it's not much good at making clouds in the first place.
And you seem to be saying that contrials are made of invisible smoke- I have news for you- they are visible.
-
Cola fly ash has little or no carbon (that was burned off to leave ash- hence the name) and so it certainly isn't much like charcoal.
Incorrect. Fly ash contains charcoal.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#Chemical_composition_and_classification
And you seem to be saying that contrials are made of invisible smoke- I have news for you- they are visible.
Wrong. Chemtrails rapidly dissipate to form artificial clouds. Although they might be confused with "contrails", due to disinformation, contrails don't condense and are emitted from the wingtips of a plane. Chemtrails are not released from commercial planes. Your confusion and ignorance of geoengineering are evidences that the state-sponsored brainwashing is alive and well! [:-X]
-
Chemtrails are not released from commercial planes ...
And yet you posted a picture of a [Quatar] airliner [Reply#57] with the word "chemtrails" under it.
The only chemical smoke which is harming your [mental] health is the type you choose to inhale (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tkadm30+cannabis).
-
I changed that picture. I hope you're happy now...
-
Cola fly ash has little or no carbon (that was burned off to leave ash- hence the name) and so it certainly isn't much like charcoal.
Incorrect. Fly ash contains charcoal.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#Chemical_composition_and_classification
And you seem to be saying that contrials are made of invisible smoke- I have news for you- they are visible.
Wrong. Chemtrails rapidly dissipate to form artificial clouds. Although they might be confused with "contrails", due to disinformation, contrails don't condense and are emitted from the wingtips of a plane. Chemtrails are not released from commercial planes. Your confusion and ignorance of geoengineering are evidences that the state-sponsored brainwashing is alive and well! [:-X]
Did you read the wiki page you cited? Here's what it says
"Ash used as a cement replacement must meet strict construction standards, but no standard environmental regulations have been established in the United States. 75% of the ash must have a fineness of 45 µm or less, and have a carbon content, measured by the loss on ignition (LOI), of less than 4%."
And what I said was "Coal fly ash has little or no carbon".
Well, compared to charcoal, which is largely carbon, 4 % or less is little or none.
You keep saying things like this
"Wrong. Chemtrails rapidly dissipate to form artificial clouds."
and you keep not being able to provide any evidence to back it up.
Do you understand why that is a problem?
-
You keep saying things like this
"Wrong. Chemtrails rapidly dissipate to form artificial clouds."
and you keep not being able to provide any evidence to back it up.
Do you understand why that is a problem?
On what planet do you live? Aren't you aware that the climate is being deliberately modified with chemtrails?
Furthermore, there's sufficient scientific literature to assert that geoengineering is real. This is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. The only hypothesis which still needs to be validated is that this activity could be toxic (cancerogenic) to humans. The research of Dr. Marvin Herndon is controversial because it shed some light on this problem. However, denying the complete existence of chemtrails is pure ignorance. Please try to show some respect to the directly observable effects of geoengineering and consider the evidences that you may be a victim of disinformation.
-
You keep saying things like this
"Wrong. Chemtrails rapidly dissipate to form artificial clouds."
and you keep not being able to provide any evidence to back it up.
Do you understand why that is a problem?
On what planet do you live? Aren't you aware that the climate is being deliberately modified with chemtrails?
Furthermore, there's sufficient scientific litterature to assert that geoengineering is real. This is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. The only hypothesis which still needs to be validated is that this activity could be toxic to humans. The research of Dr. Marvin Herndon is controversial because it shed some light on this problem. However, denying the complete existence of chemtrails is pure ignorance. Please try to show some respect to the directly observable effects of geoengineering and consider the evidences that you may be a victim of disinformation.
Ok, lets sort something out here. There is some small amount of usage of things like silver iodide to seed clouds and that's geoengineering in a sense.
There's evidence for that- it woks (poorly) it's expensive.
There is also some anecdotal evidence that the former Soviet union used cement as a means to disperse clouds so that they didn't rain on their parades.
It's also not very effective, but, at least, it's a lot cheaper than AgI.
You seem to not understand that such intervention is weather modification, rather than what you claim- which is climate modification.
But you seem to be wittering on about fly ash (which you are trying to pretend is like charcoal) and sulphate aerosols.
Well, if "the government" decided that it wanted sulphate aerosols it could hypothetically produce them by screwing up jet engines with corrosive chemicals.
Or it could simply relax the requirements for flue gas desulphurisation.
Do you have some plausible reason why they are doing it the expensive, impractical way?
Do you have any plausible reason why they are doing it at all?
What you seem not to understand is that the scientific literature tells you what is possible.
It does not tell you what is actually being done.
And, for the record, dimethyl sulphate is still just not stable in water. It never was, it never will be.
-
Ok, lets sort something out here. There is some small amount of usage of things like silver iodide to seed clouds and that's geoengineering in a sense.
There's evidence for that- it woks (poorly) it's expensive.
There is also some anecdotal evidence that the former Soviet union used cement as a means to disperse clouds so that they didn't rain on their parades.
It's also not very effective, but, at least, it's a lot cheaper than AgI.
Good. I think you made progresses in your understanding of geoengineering. [;)]
You seem to not understand that such intervention is weather modification, rather than what you claim- which is climate modification.
That is basically the same thing: geoengineering is the deliberate modification of the weather on a global scale. Wikipedia now refer to it as "climate engineering"...
But you seem to be wittering on about fly ash (which you are trying to pretend is like charcoal) and sulphate aerosols.
Well, if "the government" decided that it wanted sulphate aerosols it could hypothetically produce them by screwing up jet engines with corrosive chemicals.
Or it could simply relax the requirements for flue gas desulphurisation.
Do you have some plausible reason why they are doing it the expensive, impractical way?
Do you have any plausible reason why they are doing it at all?
Climate change is a political problem. The real reason why climate change is occuring is debatable. However, coal fly ash reuse could be profitable. I think this is yet another reason they must use this substance for geoengineering purpose: it's a cheap and practical way to spray sulfuric acid in the troposhere.
What you seem not to understand is that the scientific literature tells you what is possible.
It does not tell you what is actually being done.
Indeed. The research from Dr. Marvin Herndon tells us why coal fly ash is the possible particulate being sprayed:
Although seemingly unacknowledged in publicly accessible reports and in scientific literature as potential material for geoengineering, coal fly ash is one major global waste product stream with the appropriate grain-size distribution for aerosolized tropospheric spraying that is readily available at extremely low cost and with existent processing and transport infrastructure.
http://nuclearplanet.com/ijerph-error_corrected.pdf
And, for the record, dimethyl sulphate is still just not stable in water. It never was, it never will be.
Wrong. dimethyl sulfate is water soluble. Also, monomethyl sulfate decomposes itself in water to sulfuric acid. This is probably the method used to spray sulfuric acid into the troposhere by using low-cost coal fly ash particulates to react with water.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/dimethyl%20sulfate#section=Stability-and-Reactivity
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/6412#section=Reactivities-and-Incompatibilities&fullscreen=true
-
That is basically the same thing: geoengineering is the deliberate modification of the weather on a global scale. Wikipedia now refer to it as "climate engineering"...
And, for the record, dimethyl sulphate is still just not stable in water. It never was, it never will be.
Wrong. dimethyl sulfate is water soluble.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/dimethyl%20sulfate#section=Stability-and-Reactivity
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/6412#section=Reactivities-and-Incompatibilities&fullscreen=true
Weather is not the same as climate.
Stop pretending otherwise.
And you are now arguing with yourself since the web page you site says very clearly
"Reactivity Alerts
Water-Reactive"
about dimethyl sulphate.
-
And you are now arguing with yourself since the web page you site says very clearly
"Reactivity Alerts
Water-Reactive"
about dimethyl sulphate.
The reaction is production of sulfuric acid. Dimethyl sulfate is water soluble. Please don't ignore this fact.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/dimethyl%20sulfate#section=Reactivities-and-Incompatibilities
-
Weather is not the same as climate.
Stop pretending otherwise.
I assume that climate modification (geoengineering) imply modifiying the weather on a global basis.
And for the record, dimethyl sulfate is water soluble.
-
Weather is not the same as climate.
Stop pretending otherwise.
And for the record, dimethyl sulfate is water soluble.
Nobody cares
Nobody said it wasn't
The only relevant bit is that dimethyl sulphate is not stable in the presence of water and falls apart with a half life of a couple of hours.
Why are you wittering on about whether or not it is soluble?
And you are now arguing with yourself since the web page you site says very clearly
"Reactivity Alerts
Water-Reactive"
about dimethyl sulphate.
The reaction is production of sulfuric acid. Dimethyl sulfate is water soluble. Please don't ignore this fact.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/dimethyl%20sulfate#section=Reactivities-and-Incompatibilities
nobody is ignoring either fact.
It's just that you were talking bollocks about the purported importance of it being a carcinogen.
But it falls apart in the presence of water- so it's simply not going to last long enough to cause cancer is it?
That's teh relevant fact, and you are the one ignoring it.
-
The only relevant bit is that dimethyl sulphate is not stable in the presence of water and falls apart with a half life of a couple of hours.
Dimethyl sulfate convert itself to monomethyl sulfate in the presence of ammonia, a substance naturally occuring in the troposphere.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282201015_Dimethyl_sulfate_in_particulate_matter_from_coal-_and_oil-fired_power_plants
Why are you wittering on about whether or not it is soluble?
The water solubility of dimethyl sulfate in tropospheric aerosol particulates may decrease water pH and contaminate rainwater with monomethyl sulfate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
It's just that you were talking bollocks about the purported importance of it being a carcinogen.
But it falls apart in the presence of water- so it's simply not going to last long enough to cause cancer is it?
That's teh relevant fact, and you are the one ignoring it.
No. dms and monomethyl sulfate are both carcinogenic compounds (chemical weapons).
If the "coal fly ash" hypothesis is true, this could mean geoengineering is a large-scale attempt to induce genocide using an experimental method and military-grade chemical agents.
-
Monomethyl- and dimethyl- sulphates are not stable in water.
No matter how often you mention them, they don't hang round.
You seem not to understand that coal ash is made at very high temperatures in the presence of air.
If there were any dimethyl sulphate in it, then it would boil and/ or burn off before it left the furnace.
So, no alkyl sulphates are present in coal ash.
If there were any present, they would be destroyed by water.
So there is no plausible "coal ash hypothesis".
And even if there were, you would still need to explain why he politicians are poisoning everyone- including themselves.
-
Monomethyl- and dimethyl- sulphates are not stable in water.
No matter how often you mention them, they don't hang round.
Wrong. dms and monomethyl-sulfate react in presence of water to produce sulfuric acid.
You seem not to understand that coal ash is made at very high temperatures in the presence of air.
If there were any dimethyl sulphate in it, then it would boil and/ or burn off before it left the furnace.
So, no alkyl sulphates are present in coal ash.
If there were any present, they would be destroyed by water.
Coal fly ash reuse for clandestine geoengineering imply the injection of coal fly ash nanoparticles using a nozzle
in the troposphere.
So there is no plausible "coal ash hypothesis".
Wrong. You're denying again important scientific research on the potential toxicity of geoengineering. This denialism is a concern if you think public health is an issue.
-
Monomethyl- and dimethyl- sulphates are not stable in water.
No matter how often you mention them, they don't hang round.
Wrong. dms and monomethyl-sulfate react in presence of water to produce sulfuric acid.
You seem not to understand that coal ash is made at very high temperatures in the presence of air.
If there were any dimethyl sulphate in it, then it would boil and/ or burn off before it left the furnace.
So, no alkyl sulphates are present in coal ash.
If there were any present, they would be destroyed by water.
Coal fly ash reuse for clandestine geoengineering imply the injection of coal fly ash nanoparticles using a nozzle
in the troposphere.
So there is no plausible "coal ash hypothesis".
Wrong. You're denying again important scientific research on the potential toxicity of geoengineering. This denialism is a concern if you think public health is an issue.
"Wrong. dms and monomethyl-sulfate react in presence of water to produce sulfuric acid. "
I have been saying that all along.
You are the one who was saying something else.
So I'm right and you have finally caught up with me.
"Coal fly ash reuse for clandestine geoengineering imply the injection of coal fly ash nanoparticles using a nozzle
in the troposphere. "
If there were any evidence of them doing this- and there is none- it would still not contain any dimethyl or monomethly sulphate.
"Wrong. You're denying again important scientific research on the potential toxicity of geoengineering. This denialism is a concern if you think public health is an issue."
Only in the same way that it is "denialism" to point out that there is no need to worry about poop from flying unicorns landing on you.
-
"Wrong. dms and monomethyl-sulfate react in presence of water to produce sulfuric acid. "
I have been saying that all along.
You are the one who was saying something else.
So I'm right and you have finally caught up with me.
The release of sulfuric acid in the troposhere contributes to acid rain precipitation.
"Coal fly ash reuse for clandestine geoengineering imply the injection of coal fly ash nanoparticles using a nozzle
in the troposphere. "
If there were any evidence of them doing this- and there is none- it would still not contain any dimethyl or monomethly sulphate.
The evidences are documented on Wikipedia. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_%28geoengineering%29
Again, the most likely sulfate aerosol precursor is coal fly ash. Commercial planes don't emit SO2 particles from their engines.
"Wrong. You're denying again important scientific research on the potential toxicity of geoengineering. This denialism is a concern if you think public health is an issue."
Only in the same way that it is "denialism" to point out that there is no need to worry about poop from flying unicorns landing on you.
Geoengineering is a failure from our governments to look at the real causes of climate change. There's no reason humans should share responsability by getting poisoned on a daily basis for climate change. The denial of geoengineering effects on public health is promoting ignorance, deception and disinformation.
So I guess you prefer believing in pseudo-scientific voodoo and flying unicorns rather than understanding peer-reviewed evidences of the toxicity of geoengineering?
-
Is there any chance of you settling down an working out what you are talking about?
Have you forgotten that your original point was that dimethyl sulphate is carcinogenic?
It is, but since there's none of it present, that doesn't matter.
It's true that sulphates in air promote aerosol formation- but there's no reason to leap from that to the idea that anyone is actually deliberately doing geoengineering with them on anything but an experimental scale.
Once again, you keep leaping from
"something is not technically impossible" to
"someone is doing it"
Even though there's no evidence for that.
And, for what it's worth, even the article you cite says that using high sulphur (cheap) fuel in jets would be the easy way to do it.
Who would pay for energy needed to get powdered rock into the air when you can do the same thing- better- for free?
You are not thinking this through- please try to do so.
-
Is there any chance of you settling down an working out what you are talking about?
Have you forgotten that your original point was that dimethyl sulphate is carcinogenic?
It is, but since there's none of it present, that doesn't matter.
This is clearly not true. Lee's study demonstrated the presence of dimethyl sulfate in coal fly ash.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7350652
The fact that you must consider is that dimethyl sulfate was formerly recognized as a chemical weapon.
It's true that sulphates in air promote aerosol formation- but there's no reason to leap from that to the idea that anyone is actually deliberately doing geoengineering with them on anything but an experimental scale.
What are you smoking? Geoengineering is far beyond the experimental scale. It is considered a "clandestine" operation since its use has been officially prohibited by the UN biodiversity treaty, except by the U.S.
And, for what it's worth, even the article you cite says that using high sulphur (cheap) fuel in jets would be the easy way to do it.
Who would pay for energy needed to get powdered rock into the air when you can do the same thing- better- for free?
Geoengineering is a profitable way to reuse coal fly ash. I believe the corporations are quite interested in generating revenues from geoengineering.
-
It's not a credible assertion- even if there's a paper about it- because the stuff would boil or burn off during the process of making ash.
If you can find a full version of the paper I will have a look to see where the mistake is.
Seriously- that ash is red hot when it's made and the sulphate esters boil a good couple of hundred degrees lower than that.
How is it possible?
Lots of things were considered as chemical weapons- including nitric acid- which is naturally present in rain water.
Nobody is saying that dimethyl sulphate is anything but a very nasty carcinogen.
But since there's no credible source of it in fly-ash and even if there were it would be destroyed by water, there's no need to worry about it.
" Geoengineering is far beyond the experimental scale. It is considered a "clandestine" operation since its use has been officially prohibited by the UN biodiversity treaty, except by the U.S."
Ah! that explains everything- it's a "secret"
OK
First question- how do you know about it if it's such a secret?
It's obviously not your field of expertise so it can't be because you are some government scientist breaking the wall of silence.
Secondly, why are they doing it at all?
As you say, the international consensus is that it's a bad idea.
"Geoengineering is a profitable way to reuse coal fly ash."
Who pays?
As I have said, it would be much easier to just relax the requirements for flue gas stripping.
-
It's not a credible assertion- even if there's a paper about it- because the stuff would boil or burn off during the process of making ash.
If you can find a full version of the paper I will have a look to see where the mistake is.
Seriously- that ash is red hot when it's made and the sulphate esters boil a good couple of hundred degrees lower than that.
How is it possible?
Coal fly ash is a dried powder. The burning process of coal is different from the process of tropospheric injection which uses a nozzle to spray the aerosol as a vapor.
Lots of things were considered as chemical weapons- including nitric acid- which is naturally present in rain water.
Nobody is saying that dimethyl sulphate is anything but a very nasty carcinogen.
But since there's no credible source of it in fly-ash and even if there were it would be destroyed by water, there's no need to worry about it.
The toxicity of dimethyl sulfate exposure require further research. The presence of dimethyl sulfate in coal fly ash is a hard evidence that dms is a chemical agent in airborne particulate matter.
" Geoengineering is far beyond the experimental scale. It is considered a "clandestine" operation since its use has been officially prohibited by the UN biodiversity treaty, except by the U.S."
Ah! that explains everything- it's a "secret"
OK
First question- how do you know about it if it's such a secret?
It's obviously not your field of expertise so it can't be because you are some government scientist breaking the wall of silence.
Secondly, why are they doing it at all?
As you say, the international consensus is that it's a bad idea.
"Geoengineering is a profitable way to reuse coal fly ash."
Who pays?
As I have said, it would be much easier to just relax the requirements for flue gas stripping.
I don't think geoengineering (chemtrails) is much a secret now. The real purposes and functions of geoengineering remains however to be validated. Likewise, the toxic effects of geoengineering on human health is highly controversial and poorly understood.
-
"Coal fly ash is a dried powder. The burning process of coal is different from the process of tropospheric injection which uses a nozzle to spray the aerosol as a vapor."
Yes it's pretty dry.
That's because any water that might have been there will have boiled off in the furnace.
And yet you seem to say that dimethyl sulphate will magically avoid boiling off.
How is that possible?
"The burning process of coal is different from the process of tropospheric injection which uses a nozzle to spray the aerosol as a vapor."
Yes they are different
Burning coal actually happens.
They make the ash into cement.
There is no credible reason to believe that they spray it round.
And you need to learn the difference between a vapour and an aerosol.
"The toxicity of dimethyl sulfate exposure require further research. "
Why?
Everyone knows that it's very toxic- and a known carcinogen.
"The presence of dimethyl sulfate in coal fly ash is a hard evidence that dms is a chemical agent in airborne particulate matter."
Well, no.
At best it's debatable evidence because they strip the ash out and don't send much of it into the air.
Then there's the questionable presence of dimethyl sulphate in that ash,
Then there's the fact that dimethyl sulphate has probably never been used in anger as a chemical weapon.
"I don't think geoengineering (chemtrails) is much a secret now. "
Unicorns are not secret either,and for the same reason.
-
"Coal fly ash is a dried powder. The burning process of coal is different from the process of tropospheric injection which uses a nozzle to spray the aerosol as a vapor."
Yes it's pretty dry.
That's because any water that might have been there will have boiled off in the furnace.
And yet you seem to say that dimethyl sulphate will magically avoid boiling off.
How is that possible?
There's no boiling which occurs with ultrasonic nozzles. The coal fly ash is released through the troposphere producing sulfate aerosols (SO2).
"The burning process of coal is different from the process of tropospheric injection which uses a nozzle to spray the aerosol as a vapor."
Yes they are different
Burning coal actually happens.
They make the ash into cement.
There is no credible reason to believe that they spray it round.
And you need to learn the difference between a vapour and an aerosol.
Chemtrails actually happens whether you like it or not. The evidences are directly observable and verifiable through scientific literature.
"The toxicity of dimethyl sulfate exposure require further research. "
Why?
Everyone knows that it's very toxic- and a known carcinogen.
"The presence of dimethyl sulfate in coal fly ash is a hard evidence that dms is a chemical agent in airborne particulate matter."
Well, no.
At best it's debatable evidence because they strip the ash out and don't send much of it into the air.
Then there's the questionable presence of dimethyl sulphate in that ash,
Then there's the fact that dimethyl sulphate has probably never been used in anger as a chemical weapon.
Wrong. DMS was first used by the Germans during WW1.
-
"There's no boiling which occurs with ultrasonic nozzles. "
nobody said it did.
Were you deliberately missing the point?
"Chemtrails actually happens whether you like it or not. The evidences are directly observable and verifiable through scientific literature."
prove it
"DMS was first used by the Germans during WW1. "
that's interesting; can you provide a reference?
-
"There's no boiling which occurs with ultrasonic nozzles. "
nobody said it did.
Were you deliberately missing the point?
No. I think you're confusing actual contrail vapor and a aerosol emitted for geoengineering purpose.
"Chemtrails actually happens whether you like it or not. The evidences are directly observable and verifiable through scientific literature."
prove it
It's already done. The evidences that Dr. Marvin Herndon proposes are helping science to progress toward the truth.
"DMS was first used by the Germans during WW1. "
that's interesting; can you provide a reference?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfate#History
-
I saw the wiki page but it doesn't cite evidence.
It refers to two pages
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/di-sulfa.html
and
http://www.kumed.com/medical-services/poison-control/~/media/Imported/kumed/documents/dimethyl-20sulfate.ashx
but neitehr of those mentions warfare
So, once again, do you have any actual evidence?
Also, this may seem like a silly question, but do you understand that fire is hot?
OK,let me know when you get lost.
If you have something like water or dimethyl sulphate- which is rather volatile, and you put it in a fire- which is hot- the material boils away.
In the case of dimethyl sulphate the vapour that forms is combustible.
So the ash that is left behind does not contain dimethyl sulphate
So coal fly ash does not contain dimethyl sulphate.
Are you still with me? Did you understand all that?
If not please let me know which bits you can not grasp and I will see if I can explain them.
-
Also, this may seem like a silly question, but do you understand that fire is hot?
OK,let me know when you get lost.
If you have something like water or dimethyl sulphate- which is rather volatile, and you put it in a fire- which is hot- the material boils away.
In the case of dimethyl sulphate the vapour that forms is combustible.
So the ash that is left behind does not contain dimethyl sulphate
So coal fly ash does not contain dimethyl sulphate.
This is a bogus analysis of how coal fly ash gets vaporised. Theres no heat or burning occuring with ultrasonication. It would be unsafe in my opinion to burn coal to obtain fly ash in flight. I believe the compound used for geoengineering is coal fly ash powder. The dimethyl sulfate is produced once the aerosol condense with water to form a gas. DMS is a by-product of coal fly ash reacting with water vapor.
-
Here's a picture showing how coal fly ash get processed in coal power plants:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1332.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw611%2Fonrgaia%2Fdiagram-hires_zps1cvmhsgy.gif&hash=b060c1cd0dc2860cfcd7f409d12a27c5)
And here's a patent which describe a method for injecting Welsbach materials into the atmosphere:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5003186
NB: Aluminium oxide (which is found in coal fly ash) is a Welsbach material which "absorbs strongly the long-wavelength infrared radiation released by the earth".
-
Also, this may seem like a silly question, but do you understand that fire is hot?
OK,let me know when you get lost.
If you have something like water or dimethyl sulphate- which is rather volatile, and you put it in a fire- which is hot- the material boils away.
In the case of dimethyl sulphate the vapour that forms is combustible.
So the ash that is left behind does not contain dimethyl sulphate
So coal fly ash does not contain dimethyl sulphate.
This is a bogus analysis of how coal fly ash gets vaporised. Theres no heat or burning occuring with ultrasonication. It would be unsafe in my opinion to burn coal to obtain fly ash in flight. I believe the compound used for geoengineering is coal fly ash powder. The dimethyl sulfate is produced once the aerosol condense with water to form a gas. DMS is a by-product of coal fly ash reacting with water vapor.
Stop yacking on about it being vapourised. Practically nobody vaporises coal ash- the boiling point is stupidly high. Why would you bother?
Why would you even talk about it?
So, what I posted is not "a bogus analysis of how coal fly ash gets vaporised" because it's not an analysis of something that never happens.
Have you got that?
OK lets start again.
Do you understand that fire is hot?
So, the very hot ash will not contain DMS.
Have you got that?
Coal ash does not contain stuff that would boil and or burn off in a fire.
So you have to make up some explanation of how it gets there.
And the best you can come up with is this "The dimethyl sulfate is produced once the aerosol condense with water to form a gas. DMS is a by-product of coal fly ash reacting with water vapor."
And that's obviously stupid.
Since water destroys DMS, it doesn't make it.
Why don't you stop, take the time to learn some science and then come back and apologise for cluttering up the forum?
-
Since water destroys DMS, it doesn't make it.
Not true. monomethyl sulfate (methyl sulfuric acid) is produced from the hydrolysis of DMS.
Dimethyl sulfate hydrolyzes slowly in cold water but rapidly in warm water and acidic solutions. The hydrolysis occurs stepwise, initially forming methyl sulfuric acid, then sulfuric acid and methanol.
https://www.chemours.com/Dimethyl_Sulfate/en_US/tech_info/chem_properties.html
I think you're acting plain silly in ignoring the fact that DMS is a sulfate aerosol precursor.
-
Since water destroys DMS, it doesn't make it.
Not true. monomethyl sulfate (methyl sulfuric acid) is produced from the hydrolysis of DMS.
Dimethyl sulfate hydrolyzes slowly in cold water but rapidly in warm water and acidic solutions. The hydrolysis occurs stepwise, initially forming methyl sulfuric acid, then sulfuric acid and methanol.
https://www.chemours.com/Dimethyl_Sulfate/en_US/tech_info/chem_properties.html
I think you're acting plain silly in ignoring the fact that DMS is a sulfate aerosol precursor.
Are you deliberately trolling, or just not bright enough to understand that water destroys dimethyl sulphate and so it doesn't manufacture it?
The DMS which is really a sulphate aerosol precursor us dimethyl sulPHIDE.
It's produced in nature by things like decaying seaweed.
And it's oxidised and hydrolysed to form sulphuric acid (and things like CO2, methanol and formaldehyde).
There might even be some dimethyl sulphate made along the way, but it won't last because it will be destroyed by water.
If someone were adding dimethyl sulphate to teh iar it would 9quite quickly) react to form sulphuric acid which does promote aerosol formation.
Now, since I have never said otherwise, it's plainly inaccurate for you to say "I think you're acting plain silly in ignoring the fact that DMS is a sulfate aerosol precursor."
What I'm saying is that nobody is adding dimethyl sulphate to the atmosphere.
In particular, they are not adding it by adding coal fly ash - because coal fly ash hasn't got dimethyl sulphate in it.
And among the reasons foir this is that
if you wanted aerosols of sulphates- three's an easy way to get sulphate into the air. Just relax teh requirements for scrubbing flue gases.
On the other hand,iit is known to cause problems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
If you want to add it further up you could add some sulphur compounds to jet fuel.
In fact it's easier than that, you could (again) relax teh requirements to remove the sulphur.
And you could add it as any of lots of sulphur containing chemicals- but dimethyl sulphate would be a stupid cjoice- when it gets wet (and everything does) it would produce sulphuric acid. You don't want that in fuel tanks on planes.
And it's horribly toxic an and expansive.
So, nothing you hav suggested makes any real sense
-
Have you thought about what they could be possibly spraying if we assume that the coal fly ash hypothesis is wrong?
This is why science is critical to the understanding and progress of truth. Believing that chemtrails are composed of water vapor simply make no sense. This theory (propaganda) is scientifically invalid.
If you want me to accept your ideas then provide a solution for this problem. Otherwise, the coal fly ash hypothesis is a reasonable and legitimate postulate.
-
Why does geoengineering/chemtrails topics keeps getting moderated or
blocked on this forum?
-
Why does geoengineering/chemtrails topics keeps getting moderated or
blocked on this forum?
Because it's a science website and you haven't produced any evidence that the topics ( as you describe them) actually exist.
For example, you have yet to produce any evidence that he trails behind aircraft are anything other than water.
This has been explained to you at length: what can we do to help you understand?
-
Please tell me the purpose of spraying plain water vapor if you consider this an "evidence"?
Otherwise I'm not sure you understand the concept of stratospheric aerosol injection.
Thank you.
-
How do you expect them to burn a hydrocarbon like jet fuel without producing water vapour?
This has been pointed out to you before.
It's not that I don't understand stratospheric injection: the problem is that you have provided no evidence that it takes place on anything but a minuscule research scale.
-
How do you expect them to burn a hydrocarbon like jet fuel without producing water vapour?
This has been pointed out to you before.
It's not that I don't understand stratospheric injection: the problem is that you have provided no evidence that it takes place on anything but a minuscule research scale.
A persistent aerosol emitted from a nozzle has nothing to do with commercial jet engine combustion. So either the military use a nozzle to inject aerosols or the nanoparticles are mixed with the military jet fuel.
-
How do you expect them to burn a hydrocarbon like jet fuel without producing water vapour?
This has been pointed out to you before.
It's not that I don't understand stratospheric injection: the problem is that you have provided no evidence that it takes place on anything but a minuscule research scale.
A persistent aerosol emitted from a nozzle has nothing to do with commercial jet engine combustion. So either the military use a nozzle to inject aerosols or the nanoparticles are mixed with the military jet fuel.
Can you get it into your head that there is no evidence for the nozzles.
There is no evidence for nanoparticles (except as the smoke from coal fired power stations)
There is no evidence for the persistent aerosols (otehr than clouds of water droplets)
-
Please stop the lies. There's multiple photographic and scientific evidences that stratospheric aerosol injection is harmful to humans. Why do you insist in ignoring the evidences ? Your wishful thinking is simply ignorant.
-
Imagining that you are one of the clever knowledgeable ones because you "know" about geoengineering is wishful thinking.
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
-
Imagining that you are one of the clever knowledgeable ones because you "know" about geoengineering is wishful thinking.
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
I have tried many times to show you evidences of clandestine geoengineering activity. But your attitude is the problem.
Chemtrails are not the product of my imagination.
The wishful thinking is your attitude regarding the existence and purpose of geoengineering. IE: For what reason they would spray water vapor?
Facts needs no evidences...
-
I have tried many times to show you evidences of clandestine geoengineering activity.
Show me the evidence that the trails behind aircraft are anything other than water.
-
The purpose of spraying water vapor is nonsense.Cloud seeding is not based on water vapor condensation but on chemical aggregation of aerosolized nanoparticles.
-
Do you actually read what is posted?
At this stage, only an idiot would think that anyone is suggesting that they spray water.
What they do is burn fuel.
Though there are other factors- if the air is supersaturated it may be prompted to condense by just about anything, including the violent agitation of having a plane fly through it.
Also re. " Cloud seeding is not based on water vapor condensation"
Wrong.
That's excactly what it is based on.
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
-
Do you actually read what is posted?
At this stage, only an idiot would think that anyone is suggesting that they spray water.
What they do is burn fuel.
No, jet fuel do not produces cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs), even if the saturation of hydrocarbons is low.
Though there are other factors- if the air is supersaturated it may be prompted to condense by just about anything, including the violent agitation of having a plane fly through it.
Also re. " Cloud seeding is not based on water vapor condensation"
Wrong.
That's excactly what it is based on.
I disagree: Cloud seeding is chemical modification of the atmosphere to create CCNs using secondary organic aerosols (sulfates) emissions.
Please stop the pseudo-scientific disinformation.
-
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
-
... clouds left by planes ...
This is incorrect. Clouds are not created by jet fuel. Jet fuel vapor generates hydrocarbons and microscopic amounts of water.
-
... clouds left by planes ...
This is incorrect. Clouds are not created by jet fuel. Jet fuel vapor generates hydrocarbons and microscopic amounts of water.
Clearly wrong since they burn tons of fuel and produce tons of water. That's not microscopic.
The trials left behind planes are clouds.
You have not provided any evidence that they are anything other than water.
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
-
The trials left behind planes are clouds.
Wrong. Not all planes emits aerosolized nanoparticles. If this would be the case, commercial planes would contribute in solar radiation management. The chemical clumping behavior is a proof that stratospheric aerosol injection uses engineered nanoparticles to create cloud condensation nucleis (CCNs). A more likely hypothesis is the use of coal fly ash particles to nucleate ice.
-
"Not all planes emits aerosolized nanoparticles."
You have not provided any evidence that any plane does this.
"The chemical clumping behavior is a proof that stratospheric aerosol injection uses engineered nanoparticles to create cloud condensation nucleis (CCNs)."
You have provided no evidence that this clumping exists in the trail we see behind aircraft. Since you have not shown that it exists, it's not proof of anything.
"A more likely hypothesis is the use of coal fly ash particles to nucleate ice."
The most likely reason for fine fly ash in the air is that it's coming out of the chimneys of power plants.
How could they avoid it doing so?
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
-
I have posted pictures of the chemical clumping behavior associated with stratospheric aerosol injection in other threads. You just keep lying and repeating your nonsense mantra to pretend evidences do not exists.
By the way, water emissions from "jet fuel" combustion cannot possibly clump together and persist in the atmosphere for several minutes: There's simply not enough water (30ppm) in jet fuel to become a source of persistent aerosol. http://www.liquisearch.com/jet_fuel/water_in_jet_fuel
And for the records jet fuel is not used for geoengineering purposes. It's a silly idea to compare apples with oranges.
The clumping behavior of "particles" is a proof of the existence of a aerial dispersion system
mounted on military airplanes.
Anyways, the popularity of this thread and others indicates that chemtrails/geoengineering is a controversial issue, requiring intelligent comments over the pseudoscientific voodoo that you advocate.
-
"By the way, water emissions from "jet fuel" combustion cannot possibly clump together and persist in the atmosphere for several minutes: There's simply not enough water (30ppm) in jet fuel to become a source of persistent aerosol."
Are you deliberately acting stupid, or is it not an act?
Burning hydrocarbons produces water (and CO2)
The water formed actually weighs more than the jet fuel.
For example, taking decane as a representative hydrocarbon
2C10H22 +31O2 → 22H2O + 20CO2
284 grams of decane produces 396 grams of water.
"And for the records jet fuel is not used for geoengineering purposes."
You have yet to show any evidence that anything is used for geoengineering (on anything but a tiny scale)
"Anyways, the popularity of this thread and others indicates that chemtrails/geoengineering is a controversial issue, requiring intelligent comments over the pseudoscientific voodoo that you advocate."
Well, you have a point.
The popularity of this thread is probably related to its importance.
You can I are the only people on Earth participating in it, and it has been dumped in the "ignore this bollocks" part of the forum.
Had you not noticed that?
Everyone else has given up on you.
I'm the only one bloodyminded enough to keep making the point that you can't answer.
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
-
"By the way, water emissions from "jet fuel" combustion cannot possibly clump together and persist in the atmosphere for several minutes: There's simply not enough water (30ppm) in jet fuel to become a source of persistent aerosol."
Are you deliberately acting stupid, or is it not an act?
Burning hydrocarbons produces water (and CO2)
The water formed actually weighs more than the jet fuel.
For example, taking decane as a representative hydrocarbon
2C10H22 +31O2 → 22H2O + 20CO2
284 grams of decane produces 396 grams of water.
"And for the records jet fuel is not used for geoengineering purposes."
You have yet to show any evidence that anything is used for geoengineering (on anything but a tiny scale)
"Anyways, the popularity of this thread and others indicates that chemtrails/geoengineering is a controversial issue, requiring intelligent comments over the pseudoscientific voodoo that you advocate."
Well, you have a point.
The popularity of this thread is probably related to its importance.
You can I are the only people on Earth participating in it, and it has been dumped in the "ignore this bollocks" part of the forum.
Had you not noticed that?
Everyone else has given up on you.
I'm the only one bloodyminded enough to keep making the point that you can't answer.
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
Why would I lie to you and others about the importance and reality of geoengineering? Your lies are the reasons people won't participate into this thread. It's pathetic how your attitude is preventing you to become more intelligent.... I won't shut up and resign to your ignorance about clandestine geoengineering activity. Your ignorance and stubborn attitude is evidence that the brainwashing is working well. Anyways, planes will never create clouds the way you describe it. It is a pure lie to advocate such nonsense. Please have at least the humility to recognize your illogical postulate if you happen to respect science.
-
I don't think you are lying about it (I might be wrong, but if you are then you are a very determined troll).
I just think (based on some of the really stupid things you have said) that you are not bright enough to understand that you are wrong, and that you don't even realise that you don't understand what evidence is.
You have, for example, cited this thread as evidence that you are right. Well, look back through it and you will find that the only other significant contributions to the thread have agreed with me and pointed out that you are plainly wrong. If you look elsewhere on the site the same is true- nobody who agrees with you gets taken seriously.
That's very simple to explain- you are just laughably wrong.
Unless, and until you actually come up with evidence, is is you who is rejecting science.
You don't help yourself when you say dismally stupid things like "There's simply not enough water (30ppm) in jet fuel to become a source of persistent aerosol."
So, once again
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
It's perfectly simple- if you don't want to be told to shut up, all you have to do is provide actual evidence.
I'm not asking for hogwash like you have provided before, and I wonder if you are bright enough to understand what evidence actually is.
For example, if we were discussing the presence of water on Mars and you said "There must be water there- because the Martians need water to drink, do you understand that isn't actually evidence of water on Mars?
-
It's pathetic how your attitude is preventing you to become more intelligent...
Water Vapor
Chemtrails debunker claim that new jet plane produce more water vapor and this make them produce trails that persist more. But they also claim that most of the water vapor required for trails to build is already exist in the atmosphere.
The truth is water vapor / ice crystal already exist in large amount in the sky. The change of engine efficiency should only change the trails persistent by small percentage, not in seconds vs hours. The addition of small water vapor by the jet output will not suddenly make persistent trails. Aerosol, temperature and humidity also play part in the build up or persistent trails.
In the same manner, huge storage tank in the plane is not required to make chemtrails.
http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2012/04/02/chemtrails-debunker-are-wrong/
You seem to forget in your utter arrogance that following chemtrails spraying, which almost occur on a daily basis in Quebec, this physicochemical process alter atmospheric composition and generates extreme weather conditions. Ordinary planes (not military) don't alter the weather. Therefore it is incredibly stupid to believe commercial planes generates cirrus "aviaticus" clouds.
What is happening is stratospheric injection of aerosol to alter weather conditions, whether you like it or not.
Thus, I think you're the one that should shut up or bring evidences that commercial planes are generating so-called "cirrus aviaticus". Otherwise I think you simply underestimate reality in hope to convince yourself of your wishful thinking or delusions. In others words: your logic is flawed.
-
It's pathetic how your attitude is preventing you to become more intelligent...
Water Vapor
Chemtrails debunker claim that new jet plane produce more water vapor and this make them produce trails that persist more. But they also claim that most of the water vapor required for trails to build is already exist in the atmosphere.
The truth is water vapor / ice crystal already exist in large amount in the sky. The change of engine efficiency should only change the trails persistent by small percentage, not in seconds vs hours. The addition of small water vapor by the jet output will not suddenly make persistent trails. Aerosol, temperature and humidity also play part in the build up or persistent trails.
In the same manner, huge storage tank in the plane is not required to make chemtrails.
http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2012/04/02/chemtrails-debunker-are-wrong/
You seem to forget in your utter arrogance that following chemtrails spraying, which almost occur on a daily basis in Quebec, this physicochemical process alter atmospheric composition and generates extreme weather conditions. Ordinary planes (not military) don't alter the weather. Therefore it is incredibly stupid to believe commercial planes generates cirrus "aviaticus" clouds.
What is happening is stratospheric injection of aerosol to alter weather conditions, whether you like it or not.
Thus, I think you're the one that should shut up or bring evidences that commercial planes are generating so-called "cirrus aviaticus". Otherwise I think you simply underestimate reality in hope to convince yourself of your wishful thinking or delusions. In others words: your logic is flawed.
Well, I'm already intelligent enough to know better than to cite a conspiracy nut website as evidence.
"Thus, I think you're the one that should shut up or bring evidences that commercial planes are generating so-called "cirrus aviaticus". "
You need to improve your memory as well as your reasoning skills.
I already posted pictures.
I was on a commercial flight a few days ago. I saw the trails forming.
So, I have the evidence of my own eyes and yet you think that I should believe your rant about "Therefore it is incredibly stupid to believe commercial planes generates cirrus "aviaticus" clouds. "
I saw them; they were generated by an ordinary passenger jet.
That's evidence. You, on the other hand, don't even seem to know what the word means.
My logic is not flawed- it's very simple
You have produced no evidence for your weird ideas.
That which is asserted without evidence can legitimately be dismissed in the same way.
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
-
Clandestine geoengineering activity is evidence that the world is being ruled by a globalist organization dedicated in using psychochemical warfare for destroying life. It is not a conspiracy theory, but a well-known fact that geoengineering is illegal and potentially harmful to the environment and humans. We need to investigate what is the synthetic nature of the compounds used for altering the weather and stop pretending it is water vapor; a nonsense theory with no scientific value.
Bored chemist, I'm questioning your motivations for claiming that chemtrails do not exists. Is it because you fear the implications of clandestine geoengineering activity or lacking the capacity to identify the nature of an evidence? The Internet is evidence that chemtrails exists globally... It doesn't matter if the informations is from a so-called conspiracy website: Your own motivations for pretending that the "clouds left by planes are water vapor" is evidence of systemic disinformation.
I think you either absolutely have no idea what you're talking about or your attitude is preventing you to reasonate intelligently. If you're feeling comfortable with your level of intelligence, I feel sorry for you that you're unable to progress further. Let's just hope the readers of this thread can decide for themselves if geoengineering is really destroying life.
-
OK, It seems your big problem is that you don't know what evidence actually is.
Claiming there is geoengineering (which you have done) is not the same as providing evidence for it (which you have not done).
"Bored chemist, I'm questioning your motivations for claiming that chemtrails do not exists. Is it because you fear the implications of clandestine geoengineering activity or lacking the capacity to identify the nature of an evidence?"
No, it's neither.
You are the one who can't understand what evidence is.
OK lets us start at the beginning. Read through this and let me know where you stop agreeing with the facts.
1 Jet planes- commercial or otherwise- burn a lot of jet fuel. (It's of the order of 2 to 10 kg/km https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values )
2 That jet fuel is essentially entirely made from hydrocarbons. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel )
3 Burning hydrocarbons produces more water (by weight) than the jet fuel you start with. (I explained this earlier in the thread)
4 The exhaust from the jet thus contains a lot of water vapour. ( Where else could it be)
5 The exhaust from a jet engine is hot. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine#Propelling_nozzle)
6 It is very cold (typically well below freezing) at the altitudes where aircraft fly. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate )
7 If you mix hot warm air with cold air the moisture condenses (you can see this when your breath "steams" on a cold day. ( )
8 the hot wet exhaust gas from the engines mixes with the cold air and the moisture condenses. (how could it not do?)
9 That condensation forms a long thin cloud of very small water droplets behind the plane. (Where else?)
10 You can see that cloud from the ground ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#/media/File:Aircraft.in.cruise.arp.jpg )
11 this works without any magic nozzles, additives, nanoparticulate unicorns or any other mumbo jumbo.
(I'm ignoring the shock wave induced condensation for the minute- we can come back to that once you realise that a plane leaves a trail in very cold air- just like you do by breathing on a cold day)
-
Chemtrails progressively generates overcast conditions. This is "evidence" that whatever substance being sprayed is altering atmospheric conditions. A normal contrail will not progressively dim the sun and cool the weather. By the way, your analysis is correct for describing a contrail, which cannot be seen under normal conditions.
http://globalskywatch.com/stories/my-chemtrail-story/chemtrail-information/weather-modification.html
http://globalskywatch.com/stories/my-chemtrail-story/chemtrail-information/contrail-coverup.html
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dimming-the-sun/
-
Chemtrails progressively generates overcast conditions. This is "evidence" that whatever substance being sprayed is altering atmospheric conditions. A normal contrail will not progressively dim the sun and cool the weather. By the way, your analysis is correct for describing a contrail, which cannot be seen under normal conditions.
I have seen them. I said I saw them.
What evidence do you have for calling me a liar?
Also, since you can see your breath on a cold day, why would the much bigger cloud from a jet be invisible.
Not only is your assertion libellous- it's absurd.
There's another problem with your claim: you say
"Chemtrails progressively generates overcast conditions. This is "evidence" that whatever substance being sprayed is altering atmospheric conditions. "
but you don't provide any evidence.
As I said, it's like saying "there must be water on mars, or the Martians would have nothing to drink".
It only supports the idea that there is water if you can prove that there are Martians.
Unless you can show that this "Chemtrails progressively generates overcast conditions" is true, then you can't rely on it to "prove" anything.
As I have said before- the big problem is that you don't understand evidence.
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
-
I have seen them. I said I saw them.
What evidence do you have for calling me a liar?
What you saw was most likely a contrail. A contrail do not persist and do not reproduce the chemical clumping behavior of aerosol particles.
There's another problem with your claim: you say
"Chemtrails progressively generates overcast conditions. This is "evidence" that whatever substance being sprayed is altering atmospheric conditions. "
but you don't provide any evidence.
As I said, it's like saying "there must be water on mars, or the Martians would have nothing to drink".
It only supports the idea that there is water if you can prove that there are Martians..
I have observed for many times the progressive overcast cloud cover the day after I've seen clandestine geoengineering activity. (This is confirmed by multiple sources from the Internet.)
This phenomenon is known as "global dimming":
It is thought that global dimming is probably due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming#Causes_and_effects
So, either I don't know what evidence is or you have a big attitude problem. My guess is that you believe in the government-sponsored disinformation rather than reality because your logic is flawed.
-
"What you saw was most likely a contrail. A contrail do not persist and do not reproduce the chemical clumping behavior of aerosol particles."
You have not shown that clumping effect to exist. So, as usual, you have no evidence.
"I have observed for many times the progressive overcast cloud cover the day after I've seen clandestine geoengineering activity."
Everyone has seen cloudy days- they always did.
You, with no logical justification, blame it on aircraft.
As usual, you have no evidence.
" (This is confirmed by multiple sources from the Internet.) "
Not really.
Here's an internet source that shows that clouds existed before planes.
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/constable-cloud-study-n06065/text-catalogue-entry
Any number of web pages saying "I think it's cloudy because of planes" don't show anything unless that can explain that the clouds are different.
"It is thought that global dimming is probably due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action."
"So, either I don't know what evidence is or you have a big attitude problem. "
OK, you finally accept the truth.
Mankind produces lots of soot- and has done since the industrial revolution. Nobody ever disputed that.
That's the man made aerosol (there are, of course, natural ones too)
That's the cause of the aerosols.
It's not geoengineering.
So it's not my attitude- it's your failure to understand the bloody obvious.
You don't look at a phenomenon- like clouds- and check whether it could have a different cause than the one you are desperately hoping to shore up.
You just say "This proves it"- even when it is something monumentally stupid like the water in jet fuel.
And that's the sense in which you don't understand evidence.
So, as you say, its' either my attitude or your lack of understanding; and it's not my attitude.
re"My guess is that you believe in the government-sponsored disinformation rather than reality because your logic is flawed. "
I wish the government had sponsored the flight home from my holidays, but they didn't.
So, what I believe is the evidence of my own eyes- and it's evidence I have known about since I was a little kid who noticed that my breath steamed in cold weather.
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
-
Telling Bored chemist that he doesn't know anything about the subjects he choose to discuss is pretty stupid tkadm. Don't do that, either answer his questions, or shut up.
-
Telling Bored chemist that he doesn't know anything about the subjects he choose to discuss is pretty stupid tkadm. Don't do that, either answer his questions, or shut up.
I'm not pretending BC is ignorant. However pretending chemtrails do not exist is just a plain lie. Likewise, suggesting that planes emits "cirrus aviaticus" clouds is propaganda.
http://www.neonnettle.com/videos/517-cia-director-admits-government-is-using-chemtrails-to-block-sun
I'm not the one that needs to shut up. Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. It's pathetic BC don't realize how deceitful his claims are. We need to address the implications of chemtrails for human health and the environment, not lying about the existence of this activity.
yor_on, why don't you put forward your thoughts on the subject? Do you think geoengineering is destroying life?
Thank you.
-
Telling Bored chemist that he doesn't know anything about the subjects he choose to discuss is pretty stupid tkadm. Don't do that, either answer his questions, or shut up.
I'm not pretending BC is ignorant. However pretending chemtrails do not exist is just a plain lie. Likewise, suggesting that planes emits "cirrus aviaticus" clouds is propaganda.
http://www.neonnettle.com/videos/517-cia-director-admits-government-is-using-chemtrails-to-block-sun
I'm not the one that needs to shut up. Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. It's pathetic BC don't realize how deceitful his claims are. We need to address the implications of chemtrails for human health and the environment, not lying about the existence of this activity.
yor_on, why don't you put forward your thoughts on the subject? Do you think geoengineering is destroying life?
Thank you.
When you wrote this nonsense
"There's simply not enough water (30ppm) in jet fuel to become a source of persistent aerosol. http://www.liquisearch.com/jet_fuel/water_in_jet_fuel"
you were trying to pretend that I'm the ignorant one.
It turned out that you had no idea what you were talking about.
Do you accept that you were stupidly wrong about that?
"However pretending chemtrails do not exist is just a plain lie. "
I'm not pretending, I'm pointing it out.
You have yet to show (in spite of my asking many times) that these so called "chemtrails" are anything but water left behind from jet fuel combustion.
You have sought to claim that they are different in that they are "persistent" however, in the examples I posted of ordinary contrails,
(1) you said they were persistent so they were chemtrails. and yet
(2) the gaps in them showed that they were not persistent.
You have also failed to grasp the fact that clouds are quite often persistent so there's no reason why contrails shouldn't be.
Feel free to explain that one sometime.
And this
"Likewise, suggesting that planes emits "cirrus aviaticus" clouds is propaganda. "
is another bit of stupidity, for two reasons.
The first is the pictures of planes emitting them. The second is a linguistic error on your part.
Clouds from flying things are "cirrus aviaticus" regardless of the mechanism by which they are produced.
And, it's a straightforward lie to claim that the video says that "-cia-director-admits-government-is-using-chemtrails-to-block-sun"
He says no such thing.
About 10 seconds in he says that things could potentially be done but, as I have pointed out before, that's not the same as saying it is happening. He says it COULD provide time to transition from fossil fuel. He says it would cost about $10Bn- that's not the same as saying it does cost that.
Then he points out that it wouldn't solve the problem (notably the ocean pH) and that it would probably start a war.
There is no point in that video where he says that geoengineering is actually happening.
So, let's be clear about this.
You cite "evidence" from websites that clearly tell lies, and then you accuse me of propaganda.
re.
"it's pathetic BC don't realize how deceitful his claims are. "
get a mirror- I'm not the one who is seeking to deceive.
You say "We need to address the implications of chemtrails for human health and the environment, not lying about the existence of this activity."
Well, stop lying, stop saying that CIA bloke says that Chemtrails are real- he does nothing of the sort. That's just your wishful thinking.
So, as I said before
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
and, in the meantime, stop telling such obvious lies.
-
When you wrote this nonsense
"There's simply not enough water (30ppm) in jet fuel to become a source of persistent aerosol. http://www.liquisearch.com/jet_fuel/water_in_jet_fuel"
you were trying to pretend that I'm the ignorant one.
It turned out that you had no idea what you were talking about.
Do you accept that you were stupidly wrong about that?
"However pretending chemtrails do not exist is just a plain lie. "
I'm not pretending, I'm pointing it out.
You have yet to show (in spite of my asking many times) that these so called "chemtrails" are anything but water left behind from jet fuel combustion.
You have sought to claim that they are different in that they are "persistent" however, in the examples I posted of ordinary contrails,
(1) you said they were persistent so they were chemtrails. and yet
(2) the gaps in them showed that they were not persistent.
You have also failed to grasp the fact that clouds are quite often persistent so there's no reason why contrails shouldn't be.
Feel free to explain that one sometime.
Contrails is a pure lie. There's no such thing as a "contrail". Quit the stupid disinformation nonsense.
And this
"Likewise, suggesting that planes emits "cirrus aviaticus" clouds is propaganda. "
is another bit of stupidity, for two reasons.
The first is the pictures of planes emitting them. The second is a linguistic error on your part.
Clouds from flying things are "cirrus aviaticus" regardless of the mechanism by which they are produced.
And, it's a straightforward lie to claim that the video says that "-cia-director-admits-government-is-using-chemtrails-to-block-sun"
He says no such thing.
About 10 seconds in he says that things could potentially be done but, as I have pointed out before, that's not the same as saying it is happening. He says it COULD provide time to transition from fossil fuel. He says it would cost about $10Bn- that's not the same as saying it does cost that.
Then he points out that it wouldn't solve the problem (notably the ocean pH) and that it would probably start a war.
There is no point in that video where he says that geoengineering is actually happening.
So, let's be clear about this.
You cite "evidence" from websites that clearly tell lies, and then you accuse me of propaganda.
re.
"it's pathetic BC don't realize how deceitful his claims are. "
get a mirror- I'm not the one who is seeking to deceive.
You say "We need to address the implications of chemtrails for human health and the environment, not lying about the existence of this activity."
Well, stop lying, stop saying that CIA bloke says that Chemtrails are real- he does nothing of the sort. That's just your wishful thinking.
So, as I said before
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
and, in the meantime, stop telling such obvious lies.
Bored chemist, you have to understand I'm passionated about clandestine geoengineering activity. You, however, don't seem to give a bloody reason why this subject is important for you or your beloved ones.
There's no bloody such thing as a cirrus aviaticus cloud. Please remember that. If you live in UK then you should know the meaning of freedom. Clandestine geoengineering activity is an assault on freedom. Now, why would you not care about this? This seem like a potential scientific discussion, and I would like to preserve proper scientific discourse.
yor_on, if you feel like giving your opinion don't hesitate. :)
-
What you saw was most likely a contrail.
Contrails is a pure lie. There's no such thing as a "contrail". Quit the stupid disinformation nonsense.
Bored chemist, you have to understand I'm passionated about clandestine geoengineering activity.
You seem to be very passionate about it.
You don't seem to understand that your passion is clouding your judgement.
However, since you have now accused yourself of lying, perhaps you will realise that you are talking nonsense.
Failing that, Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
-
There's no such thing as a contrail under normal conditions. The formation of CCNs is a evidence that an aerosol is producing the persisting particles to nucleate ice. Water, under normal (atmospheric) conditions, does not condense to alter clouds.
Clandestine geoengineering activity is an assault on freedom to breath non-polluted air. The contrail lie is an effort to disinform us with nonsense. You should stop accusing me of lying when you constantly attempt to create disinformation about the nature of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI).
By the way, clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact. You should at least attempt to understand the concepts behind it before claiming its not true. Your attitude is an evidence of your stupidity and arrogance toward the unknown.
-
Well Tkadm. Geo engineering should mean something planned to change the environment at a global level as I read it. And it's very seldom, or possibly never, any smarter than what the planet has come forward with on its own under 'geological time'. When it comes to chem trails I don't think you have to worry though, although there will be local temperature differences soon after that day all aircrafts are grounded. But that has its ground in that the exhaust will express itself as 'clouds' of sorts and they reflect sunlight at daytime. At night time they do the opposite though, becoming blankets keeping the heat in.
It doesn't make sense assuming that people would mix 'clandestine stuff' with normal aviation fuel. and to make it stick you would have to assume that it should be the same all over the world.
-
Water, under normal (atmospheric) conditions, does not condense to alter clouds.
By the way, clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact...
Clearly nonsense because there were clouds before there were aircraft.
Do you ever actually think about the implications of what you post?
If it's a fact then you should have no difficulty providing evidence for it. You have not done so; why not?
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
-
Clearly nonsense because there were clouds before there were aircraft.
Do you ever actually think about the implications of what you post?
If it's a fact then you should have no difficulty providing evidence for it. You have not done so; why not?
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
"There's no such thing as a contrail under normal conditions. The formation of CCNs is a evidence that an aerosol is producing the persisting particles to nucleate ice. Water, under normal (atmospheric) conditions, does not condense to alter clouds."
Contrails do not create clouds. Stop speaking nonsense.
-
Contrails certainly nucleate clouds round here, but not every day. So either the conditions are a bit critical or Big Brother is taking the piss by distributing nonnucleating gunge from my plane some days but not others. How would I know? I'm only a pilot. It's damn clever because we only have one fuel bowser on our airfield and there are no "contrail" taps or switches on the instrument panel, so they must be loading the stuff into some part of the plane I've never seen, even when it's stripped down to its knickers in the workshop. And the stuff appears to be weightless 'cos the plane flies just the same on contrail, nucleating contrail, and non-contrail days. And it's not distributed through the engine 'cos I've generated a contrail from a glider!
-
Contrails do not create clouds. Stop speaking nonsense.
So, what you are saying is that the trails left by aircraft don't create clouds, but the trails left by aircraft create increased clouds.
Or are you saying there's a difference?
Because if you are then guess what?
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
Having just read Alan's post, I'd be happy to see you answer his points first, then get back to mine later.
-
Contrails certainly nucleate clouds round here, but not every day.
I think chemtrails can chemically nucleate ice crystals. Thus the use of artificial cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) is probably required to nucleate clouds. A "contrail" evaporation rate is too high to nucleate ice.
-
So, what you are saying is that the trails left by aircraft don't create clouds, but the trails left by aircraft create increased clouds.
Or are you saying there's a difference?
Contrails do not create clouds. What creates clouds is the effect of chemical CCN agent which alters clouds composition.
-
Contrails do not create clouds.
You are ignoring reality.
It has already been pointed out that they do.
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
-
I think chemtrails can chemically nucleate ice crystals. T
This is a science site.
Nobody cares what you "think".
What can you provide evidence for?
-
tkadm30, I am pretty tired of the one-sided nature of this discussion. Bored (and others occasionally) have offered evidence- and logic-based answers to your questions, and your only responses have been "lies, all lies!" and insistence that this is very important. While I would agree that it would be very important if, there were a concerted and massive effort to change the climate by spraying aerosols in the sky. But given the evidence presented (essentially none) and the incredible nature of the claims, I remain unconcerned.
I will lock this thread unless the next post from tkadm30 contains some attempt at backing up these claims (that contrails are not water, that normal jet fuel doesn't produce contrails, or that billions have been spent on creating the infrastructure necessary for this feat) using scientific reasoning or trustworthy references. If a reasonable effort has been made on this front, then the conversation can continue.
-
tkadm30, I am pretty tired of the one-sided nature of this discussion. Bored (and others occasionally) have offered evidence- and logic-based answers to your questions, and your only responses have been "lies, all lies!" and insistence that this is very important. While I would agree that it would be very important if, there were a concerted and massive effort to change the climate by spraying aerosols in the sky. But given the evidence presented (essentially none) and the incredible nature of the claims, I remain unconcerned.
I will lock this thread unless the next post from tkadm30 contains some attempt at backing up these claims (that contrails are not water, that normal jet fuel doesn't produce contrails, or that billions have been spent on creating the infrastructure necessary for this feat) using scientific reasoning or trustworthy references. If a reasonable effort has been made on this front, then the conversation can continue.
I have tried many times to explain the evidences of clandestine geoengineering activity but Bored chemist attitude is just not reasonable enough. I cannot agree with the pseudoscientific voodoo of nucleating contrails. Lying is not a acceptable behavior on a science site.
-
tkadm30, I am pretty tired of the one-sided nature of this discussion. Bored (and others occasionally) have offered evidence- and logic-based answers to your questions, and your only responses have been "lies, all lies!" and insistence that this is very important. While I would agree that it would be very important if, there were a concerted and massive effort to change the climate by spraying aerosols in the sky. But given the evidence presented (essentially none) and the incredible nature of the claims, I remain unconcerned.
I will lock this thread unless the next post from tkadm30 contains some attempt at backing up these claims (that contrails are not water, that normal jet fuel doesn't produce contrails, or that billions have been spent on creating the infrastructure necessary for this feat) using scientific reasoning or trustworthy references. If a reasonable effort has been made on this front, then the conversation can continue.
I have tried many times to explain the evidences of clandestine geoengineering activity but Bored chemist attitude is just not reasonable enough. I cannot agree with the pseudoscientific voodoo of nucleating contrails. Lying is not a acceptable behavior on a science site.
It's not just BoredChemist who is still waiting for something worth discussing here. No one is satisfied with the evidence provided thus far towards establishing anything about chemtrails. The claims run counter to everything that we understand about thermodynamics, aerodynamics, social dynamics and economics, and the narrative is essentially the classic example of a conspiracy theory. So unless you have some overwhelming evidence, no rational and well-informed human would consider it as possible true. Call it "brainwashed" if you will, but there aren't many frequenters of this forum that are willing to consider the notion.
I will stick true to my word, and not seeing any attempt at providing evidence, lock the thread. With apologies to those who may have been enjoying the back-and-forth, please consider this the last word.