[Bored chemist]

You are just being silly.
You posted the link that says things like "He has called for a multi-phase plan to fund research and conduct real-world testing within 18 months"
and "A White House report on climate change research submitted to Congress in January called for the first time ever for research into geoengineering."
and so on- all of which are talking about stuff that may be done in the future.
And you say "geoengineering activity started after 9/11."


So you have said they are going to start doing it, and they already started doing it.
Well- make up your mind.
In particular, don't try to pretend that I made that claim.
The record is in the thread and it shows that you are the one saying that they both started 20 years ago and are starting now.

You don't seem to understand that nobody has been doing any significant experiments on geoengineering.
You have presented no evidence that they have.

[smart (OP)]

The record is in the thread and it shows that you are the one saying that they both started 20 years ago and are starting now.

That is correct. Either admit now the proven existence of clandestine geoengineering activity or continue ignoring reality.
Do you really expect them to admit openly the existence of such a program ??
Stop being silly...

[Bored chemist]

You haven't offered me any evidence.
Labelling it as "clandestine" is a scam.
It's like me saying "There are clandestine  unicorns all over the place- but you can't see them because they are clandestine."

There have been a few small scale trials but nothing on  a big enough scale to make any difference.
If I'm wrong you should be able to prove it.
The programme you suggest would need vast resources and very obvious infrastructure- notably a lot of tanks + sprayes fitted to planes.
Show me pictures of them.
Show me the invoices for them
Show me something that is actually evidence.
If you next post isn't real genuine evidence (and I don't mean some shitty web page of a video of some bloke saying he saw a cloud and mistook it for something else, or whatever) I'm going to ask the mods to close this thread since, in failing to provide answers, you are making the forum look bad.

[smart (OP)]

You haven't offered me any evidence.

That is a lie and you know it. I have posted more than enough supporting evidences in this forum. Your circular reasoning is not going to help your case. Please admit the existence of a hidden solar geoengineering program or continue acting silly.

 

[Bored chemist]

So, still not got any evidence.
Why not just post it and prove that I'm the one who is being silly?
Oh- I forgot- it's because you haven't any valid evidence, and you know it.
NB pleas don't post evidence that coal fired power stations put dust in the air- we already know that.
Also, don't post pictures of clouds unless you can show that they are something other than normal clouds-  so, only post pictures of clouds that someone has flown through, sampled, and found something other than dirt and water.
Also, don't post videos of someone saying "This is possible" and pretend that it is evidence of the thing being done.

[alancalverd]

Also, don't post videos of someone saying "This is possible" and pretend that it is evidence of the thing being done.

Why not? That, apparently, is how you get to be President of the United States of America.

All that crap about "evidence" is just for people with limited ambition.

[Kryptid]

http://nuclearplanet.com/indjsrt.pdf

It's good that this person actually went through the trouble to get some data for his study. That being said, I see some inherent weaknesses in it. The article states that coal fly ash particles are filtered in power plants so that they do not escape into the air. However, I find it very doubtful that the filters are 100% efficient. It's possible that some amount of coal fly ash still escapes from power plants and contaminates rainwater. I don't recall the actual quantity of contamination being revealed in the study, but rather only elemental ratios.

Was the rainwater contamination significant or only trace? Can it be explained by residual power plant emissions or is the contamination too high for that? Is it possible to eliminate contamination from other sources such as volcanic ash, vaporized micro-meteoroids, and automobile exhaust as explanations? Are the absolute levels high enough to pose a health risk? Those are important questions that chemtrail proponents need to investigate scientifically if they want to persuade others.

Another issue is that the elemental ratios presented do sometimes differ significantly one from another. As an example, the ratio of sulfur-to-barium appears to be more than ten times higher in the coal ash leach water sample than in the San Diego rainwater sample. The boron-to-barium ratio is also about ten times higher in the leach water than the rainwater. The most concerning data, however, are the enormous range of the Internet rainwater values: the ratio of aluminum-to-barium differs by a factor of hundreds throughout the samples. The coal fly leach data is even worse, sometimes varying by a factor of more than 100,000. You can't come to much of a meaningful conclusion with such a highly variable data set. Chance alone can make two widely-varying data sets overlap, especially given that water has a finite solubility for different substances to begin with.

The big challenge that chemtrail proponents need to meet is to show that barium (or other) rainwater contamination comes from aircraft specifically. It needs to be shown that there is a correlation between aircraft flight times and locations and specific kinds of rainwater/air contamination. Alternative sources of contamination, such as power plants, need to be eliminated. Even if all of this is done, it still would not demonstrate that the substances in the contrails of these aircraft are put there specifically to engineer the weather.

[smart (OP)]

It's good that this person actually went through the trouble to get some data for his study. That being said, I see some inherent weaknesses in it. The article states that coal fly ash particles are filtered in power plants so that they do not escape into the air. However, I find it very doubtful that the filters are 100% efficient. It's possible that some amount of coal fly ash still escapes from power plants and contaminates rainwater. I don't recall the actual quantity of contamination being revealed in the study, but rather only elemental ratios.

The difference between the deliberate injections of metal oxides particles in the troposphere and the accidental escape
of coal fly ash is in the mechanical method used for dispersing the trace metals.

Was the rainwater contamination significant or only trace? Can it be explained by residual power plant emissions or is the contamination too high for that? Is it possible to eliminate contamination from other sources such as volcanic ash, vaporized micro-meteoroids, and automobile exhaust as explanations? Are the absolute levels high enough to pose a health risk? Those are important questions that chemtrail proponents need to investigate scientifically if they want to persuade others.

Trace elements of Aluminium and Barium oxides in rainwater is a evidence of controlled solar geoengineering using
metal oxides particulate matter.

Another issue is that the elemental ratios presented do sometimes differ significantly one from another. As an example, the ratio of sulfur-to-barium appears to be more than ten times higher in the coal ash leach water sample than in the San Diego rainwater sample. The boron-to-barium ratio is also about ten times higher in the leach water than the rainwater. The most concerning data, however, are the enormous range of the Internet rainwater values: the ratio of aluminum-to-barium differs by a factor of hundreds throughout the samples. The coal fly leach data is even worse, sometimes varying by a factor of more than 100,000. You can't come to much of a meaningful conclusion with such a highly variable data set. Chance alone can make two widely-varying data sets overlap, especially given that water has a finite solubility for different substances to begin with.

High data variations in coal fly ash mixtures probably confirms the organometallic origin of the trace elements
analyzed.
 

The big challenge that chemtrail proponents need to meet is to show that barium (or other) rainwater contamination comes from aircraft specifically. It needs to be shown that there is a correlation between aircraft flight times and locations and specific kinds of rainwater/air contamination. Alternative sources of contamination, such as power plants, need to be eliminated. Even if all of this is done, it still would not demonstrate that the substances in the contrails of these aircraft are put there specifically to engineer the weather.

Never forget that solar geoengineering is patented technology!

[Bored chemist]

The difference between the deliberate injections of metal oxides particles in the troposphere and the accidental escape
of coal fly ash is in the mechanical method used for dispersing the trace metals.

Trace elements of Aluminium and Barium oxides in rainwater is a evidence of controlled solar geoengineering using
metal oxides particulate matter.


Never forget that solar geoengineering is patented technology!

"The difference between the deliberate injections of metal oxides particles in the troposphere and the accidental escape
of coal fly ash is in the mechanical method used for dispersing the trace metals."
And again, you have made the assertion that this is being done- but have provided no evidence.
"Trace elements of Aluminium and Barium oxides in rainwater is a evidence of controlled solar geoengineering using
metal oxides particulate matter."
No, it's possibly evidence of uncontrolled dispersion. It's much more likely to be evidence that the filters in power stations don't work perfectly.
(and nobody would expect them to work perfectly)
Again, you have provided no evidence of anything other than the presence of fly ash in teh air- well- how did you think fly ash got the name?
"High data variations in coal fly ash mixtures probably confirms the organometallic origin of the trace elements
analyzed."
No it doesn't. If you disagree, please explain the mechanism.
However, if it did, it would be consistent with the fact that organometallics might be formed briefly during the combustion of coal- in power stations- shortly before the  ash gets vented up the chimney.
"Never forget that solar geoengineering is patented technology! "
Never forget that you don't need to prove that something works to patent it.
and
Never forget that, just because something is patented, that doesn't men anyone is using it.

So, once again, you have done exactly what you were asked not to do- spouted the same old trash- and you have failed to do what you were asked to do- provide evidence.

Why do you keep doing that?
Is it that you have no evidence to show?

[Kryptid]

The difference between the deliberate injections of metal oxides particles in the troposphere and the accidental escape
of coal fly ash is in the mechanical method used for dispersing the trace metals.

The study only measured elemental ratio differences. That can't discern the difference between intentional and accidental injection.

Trace elements of Aluminium and Barium oxides in rainwater is a evidence of controlled solar geoengineering using
metal oxides particulate matter.

How? It could just as easily be evidence of coal fly ash from power plants. Volcanoes also introduce aluminum and barium in the atmosphere (the dust can remain in the atmosphere for months and fifty to sixty volcanoes erupt worldwide every year). Barium and aluminum are also present in meteors, tens of thousands of kilograms of which enter the Earth's atmosphere every day. You would need some way to distinguish the origin of the elements, which this study cannot do.

High data variations in coal fly ash mixtures probably confirms the organometallic origin of the trace elements
analyzed.

How? I'm not following your reasoning.

Never forget that solar geoengineering is patented technology!

So are a lot of "perpetual motion" and "antigravity" devices. Someone even patented a "forehead rest for urinals". When's the last time you saw one of those when you went to a public restroom?

[syhprum]

Condensation trails are normally seen in the upper atmosphere were the temperature is about -50 degrees C I don't think the temperature at ground level has much effect.

[smart (OP)]

Condensation trails are normally seen in the upper atmosphere were the temperature is about -50 degrees C I don't think the temperature at ground level has much effect.

Chemtrails are temperature independent. They can be observed in winter and summer. The contrail theory is
pseudoscience because water particles doesn't condense without freezing.

[Kryptid]

The contrail theory is pseudoscience because water particles doesn't condense without freezing.

If that's true, then how is it possible for fog to form at temperatures above freezing? How is the classic "cloud in a bottle" experiment possible without freezing temperatures?

It would also be nice if you would answer our questions in regards to the coal fly ash study: how can a rainwater study determine if any contamination present is intentional or accidental?

[Bored chemist]

Condensation trails are normally seen in the upper atmosphere were the temperature is about -50 degrees C I don't think the temperature at ground level has much effect.

Chemtrails are temperature independent. They can be observed in winter and summer. The contrail theory is
pseudoscience because water particles doesn't condense without freezing.

It's generally very cold up there- ice formation isn't any problem.
Also, have you ever noticed condensation on windows on cold, but not frosty, days?

Why do you keep clinging to an idea that makes less sense every time you look at it?

And, BTW, any progress on the evidence?
You know- things like the infrastructure that would be needed to ship stacks of coal ash to military airports- sprayers on planes- well- actually anything would be a start?

[smart (OP)]

The contrail theory is pseudoscience because water particles doesn't condense without freezing.

If that's true, then how is it possible for fog to form at temperatures above freezing? How is the classic "cloud in a bottle" experiment possible without freezing temperatures?

I guess the vapor phase condensation of an aerosol mostly depends on its molecular configuration: Could it be possible that the "cloud in a bottle" experiment is still a combustion-driven (exothermic) reaction? (Hint: fire and water also produces smoke)

It would also be nice if you would answer our questions in regards to the coal fly ash study: how can a rainwater study determine if any contamination present is intentional or accidental?

Thats a very interesting question.
I'll try to find a intelligent answer to this and I'll come back to this question.

[smart (OP)]

You know- things like the infrastructure that would be needed to ship stacks of coal ash to military airports- sprayers on planes- well- actually anything would be a start?

Do you live inside a military base?

[alancalverd]

You can make contrails at any altitude and temperature, and you don't even need an engine to do it. Try pulling up sharply from Vne to Vs in a glider near the ground on a humid summer day. The wingtip contrails won't grow or even persist, but you can see and photograph them. Above 20,000 ft the air is often supersaturated so any turbulence, additional mositure or particulate will form a persistent and possibly growing contrail.

It's interesting that high altitude cloud cover across the USA decreased anomalously in the week after 9/11 when aircraft movements were prohibited, due entirely to a lack of nucleation.

As for piles of fly ash, it's entirely possible that the military could acquire them and the means to distribute them, but the objective for doing so remains obscure.   Cloud seeding is a very intensive operation and has really only been used in anger to control the weather around Chernobyl for a few days.  There's little point in doing it at regular contrail level because the water content of the upper atmosphere is so low - any precipitation would evaporate before it hit the ground. You need to seed at 3000 - 10000 ft to make useful rain, and a helicopter is better than an airplane for doing that.

[Kryptid]

I guess the vapor phase condensation of an aerosol mostly depends on its molecular configuration: Could it be possible that the "cloud in a bottle" experiment is still a combustion-driven (exothermic) reaction? (Hint: fire and water also produces smoke)

The process of a gas turning into a liquid or solid is exothermic (since it releases heat into the environment), but that's not combustion.

[smart (OP)]

The process of a gas turning into a liquid or solid is exothermic (since it releases heat into the environment), but that's not combustion.

Condensation without freezing=condensation aerosol (not exothermic)

Condensation with freezing="cloud in a bottle" (exothermic)

[Bored chemist]

I guess the vapor phase condensation of an aerosol mostly depends on its molecular configuration: Could it be possible that the "cloud in a bottle" experiment is still a combustion-driven (exothermic) reaction? (Hint: fire and water also produces smoke)

Thats a very interesting question.
I'll try to find a intelligent answer to this and I'll come back to this question.

I suggest that you stop guessing.
Also, you are supposed to think of intelligent answers to that sort of question before you believe the bullshit- never mind before you post it.

BTW, condensation is going to be exothermic in both cases.
Learn some science.