[RD]

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

[smart (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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 ).

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.

[smart (OP)]

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!  []

[RD]

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.

[smart (OP)]

I changed that picture. I hope you're happy now...

[Bored chemist]

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!  []

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?

[smart (OP)]

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. 

[Bored chemist]

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.

[smart (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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.

[smart (OP)]

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

[smart (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[smart (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[smart (OP)]

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.
 

[Bored chemist]

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.

[smart (OP)]

"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? 

[Bored chemist]

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.