I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

[Noble1965]

In fact I do believe they are . . . At least in their early stages . . . The size of the dropplet and/or ice nuclei is different. . . I believe smaller. . . I don't have the cite for this right now but I am pretty sure that is in the research. . . . If I remember correctly that is one of the reasons they more easily demonstrate visibility, persistence and cloud formation and is why they have greater RF than normal at least in their early stages. . .

Hehe, even if you do find a "cite" for it....the claim that a larger droplet of water vapor isn't STILL water vapor is a bit strange.

 

[firepilot]

A droplet of water vapor, that makes no sense. A vapor is a gas.

 

[Noble1965]

A droplet of water vapor, that makes no sense. A vapor is a gas.

I'm just using the word he is using. But, as the gas condenses onto the nuclei...isn't it then considered a droplet?

 

[George B]

I'm a little confused now George. Where's the conspiracy in all this now? The conversation seems to have devolved into a discussion of the difference in the physical properties of contrails from different types of engine.

So what does that have to do with the "aerosol injection program" that you believe in? What is being done deliberately (other than increasing fuel efficiency)?

Let me use a religious analogy . . . There are sins of commission and sins of omission . . . Meaning you can actively do wrong or you can refuse to do anything to prevent wrong from happening unless you stop it. . .

The Airline Industry, Manufacturers of airframes and engines, the UN via IPCC, and our national leadership has known for years the potential impact of persistent trails, they have also known for years how to mitigate their numbers and frequency. . . .though they have known all this there has not been one practical employed mitigation effort tested, deployed or in operation. . . . Me thinks that is a clear choice through inaction . . . Possibly a desire to experiment with global dimming. . .

 

[George B]

I'm just using the word he is using. But, as the gas condenses onto the nuclei...isn't it then considered a droplet?

Sorry, I should have said a droplet condensed from vapor or ice crystal . . . If I am not mistaken the water droplets from contrails can be their own nuclei because of their small size. . . .

 

[firepilot]

Yes, but then its no longer vapor at that point.

 

[George B]

A droplet of water vapor, that makes no sense. A vapor is a gas.

The droplet is a direct product of the water vapor either on its own or forms around some particulate nuclei. . . Sorry I should have said so. . . .

 

[firepilot]

Or maybe those who are actually knowledgable about the matter, are not alarmed by planes making contrails. Would you rather see jet aircraft relegated to low altitudes? People are not going to get upset about water droplets and ice crystals, that result.

I am not sure you realize, that at cruise altitudes, is the point in their flight when they are polluting the least. , well other than descent at idle.

 

[George B]

A droplet of water vapor, that makes no sense. A vapor is a gas.

I believe you understand what I meant. . . The water vapor almost instantaneously condenses and also freezes because of the change in temperature and pressure. . . then it either forms around its own small particulate or around a different particulate nuclei. . . .

 

[George B]

Or maybe those who are actually knowledgable about the matter, are not alarmed by planes making contrails. Would you rather see jet aircraft relegated to low altitudes?

That is not necessary. . . There are many mitigation schemes . . . Some actually require cruising at higher elevations. . . some just require that the flight crew know if they are leaving contrails or not. . .

 

[Mick West]

So the chemtrail conspiracy is just that airlines don't try to stop leaving contrails?

Does not seem like much of a conspiracy to me. They don't do it because it would cost money. End of story. (An increase in attitude will also result in more fuel burnt).

Consider that all the airlines in the entire world are doing the same things. There's no conspiracy, just economics.

And you might want to pick a new name for your conspiracy, to avoid people confusing it with the "chemtrail" conspiracy.

 

[Noble1965]

That is not necessary. . . There are many mitigation schemes . . . Some actually require cruising at higher elevations. . . some just require that the flight crew know if they are leaving a contrails or not. . .

Hmmm...but this isn't about "mitigation" of the trails...is it? It's about "injection of aerosols" into the atmosphere...regardless of whether or not the "trail" can be seen, right? So even if the persistent contrails were to disappear...that doesn't mean that "chemtrails" have stopped...right?

 

[firepilot]

That is not necessary. . . There are many mitigation schemes . . . Some actually require cruising at higher elevations. . . some just require that the flight crew know if they are leaving a contrails or not. . .

They already try to cruise in the most efficient way, and at a high practical altitude. Why should they, and ATC change their operations, all to limit contrail growth, because a relatively small number of people get alarmed by it? They are trying to maximize fuel efficiency, which in turn limits real pollution.

They can not just keep climbing higher and higher, there are limits based on weight, temperature, available thrust, and of the aircraft itself. And they have to be able to maintain a certain cabin altitude too, which is not possible after a certain altitude, based on the type of aircraft.

Transport category airliners do not fly well in the 40k altitudes, there was a crash where a Canadair CRJ on a reposition flight and without even any passengers, crashed party because it could not maintain airspeed at 41,000 ft.

 

[George B]

Yes, but then its no longer vapor at that point.

Come on . . . You have never used the wrong turn of phrase or word before . . . I know you understand what I was attempting to say . .

 

[George B]

They already try to cruise in the most efficient way, and at a high practical altitude. Why should they, and ATC change their operations, all to limit contrail growth, because a relatively small number of people get alarmed by it? They are trying to maximize fuel efficiency, which in turn limits real pollution.

They can not just keep climbing higher and higher, there are limits based on weight, temperature, available thrust, and of the aircraft itself. And they have to be able to maintain a certain cabin altitude
too, which is not possible after a certain altitude, based on the type of aircraft.

Transport category airliners do not fly well in the 40k altitudes, there was a crash where a Canadair CRJ on a reposition flight and without even any passengers,
crashed party because it could not maintain airspeed at 41,000 ft.

None of the mitigation schemes I have read require unsafe or financially unreasonable actions . . . And as far as being more polluting . . The opposite is true . . .
Top of page 480. . . .more RF than all the CO2 from aviation

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...g/accri/media/Global Modeling of Contrail.pdf

 

[Mick West]

Anything that increases costs is "financially unreasonable" to an airline.

But you seem to be getting away from the "chemtrail" point. What's being sprayed? What aerosols are being injected?

 

[MikeC]

None of the mitigation schemes I have read require unsafe or financially unreasonable actions . . . And as far as being more polluting . . The opposite is true . . .
Top of page 480. . . .more RF than all the CO2 from aviation

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...g/accri/media/Global Modeling of Contrail.pdf

That's a classic case of not understand data.

The section in question reads:

Radiative forcing resulting from AIC has been estimated to range between 0.013 and 0.087 W m−2 (Lee et al. 2009), exceeding that of past aircraft CO2 emissions.

Ther's nothing at all untrue about the statement.

But your interpretation misses some important points.

Firstly the measure is water per square metre - so it only applies across the area affected - for contrail and AIC this is the area of the cloud itself. But for CO2 is the area of the entire earth!

Secondly it only applies when the phenomena is in existence - so for contrails and cirrus it applies for the life of the cloud. For CO2 it applies for as long as the substance stays in the atmosphere. I am not sure what the current life cycle of CO2 is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is a lot longer than the lifespan of contrails or IRC.

Aircraft already cruise at as high a height as possible and permitted because that uses a lot less fuel than flying at lower altitudes. If you are contrailing at the highest height you can fly then you have no alternative to avoid contrails than by flying lower - and hence burning more fuel. Burning more fuel creates more pollutants of all varieties - water, CO2, CO, SOx, NOx and anything else you can think of.

 

[George B]

So the chemtrail conspiracy is just that airlines don't try to stop leaving contrails?

Does not seem like much of a conspiracy to me. They don't do it because it would cost money. End of story. (An increase in attitude will also result in more fuel burnt).

Consider that all the airlines in the entire world are doing the same things. There's no conspiracy, just economics.

And you might want to pick a new name for your conspiracy, to avoid people
confusing it with the "chemtrail" conspiracy.

Not really. . .
IMO that is not all of it . . . It is the most visible part of it . . . And the one most people get emotional about because they can see it. . . .I feel the persistent Trails are a perfect clutter and cover for experimentation and other injection programs. . . .

 

[MikeC]

I would agree it is possibly a major part of the visual recognition piece of the conspiracy puzzle. . . I do not, however, think it is the whole story . . . In fact, I think the persons and institutions involved use this visual aspect to their advantage. . . .It is cover for their operations. . . Using commercial aviation as a part of geoengineering to experiment with global dimming, and to make it impossible or nearly impossible to detect other injection programs hidden in all the clutter of normal air traffic . . .

OK - so you think this - it is your opinion.

I can't argue with opinion, and if you want to be suspicious that this is happening that is your choice and privilege, and your checklist is why you choose to be suspicious - fair enough.

but when you try to tell someone that it IS happening, and that your checklist shows that it IS happening then it fails from the simple lack of corroborating evidence.

Your entire list is suspicions - some of them roundly debunked and in other cases you have pointedly refused to back up the statements in them.

as evidence that something IS happening it is, IMO, a failure.

 

[firepilot]

None of the mitigation schemes I have read require unsafe or financially unreasonable actions . . . And as far as being more polluting . . The opposite is true . . .
Top of page 480. . . .more RF than all the CO2 from aviation

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...g/accri/media/Global Modeling of Contrail.pdf

RF is not "pollution", that is a different matter.

Jet turbine engines burn their cleanest at high altitudes with cold air. Some jet engines burn the same amount on the ground at idle, than they do at cruise power settings at high altitudes. To go to lower altitudes, will generally result in a higher fuel burn, and more crowded airspace, more ground delays, and more pollution

All because certain people "feel" that its bad, and could be used to hide something. You can feel whatever you want, but feelings are not evidence of anything.

 

[Mick West]

None of the mitigation schemes I have read require unsafe or financially unreasonable actions . . . And as far as being more polluting . . The opposite is true . . .
Top of page 480. . . .more RF than all the CO2 from aviation

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/science_integrated_modeling/accri/media/Global Modeling of Contrail.pdf

That's a classic case of not understand indate.

The section in question reads:

Radiative forcing resulting from AIC has been estimated to range between 0.013 and 0.087 W m−2 (Lee et al. 2009), exceeding that of past aircraft CO2 emissions.

Ther's nothing at all untrue about the statement.

But your interpretation misses some important points.

Firstly the measure is water per square metre - so it only applies across the area affected - for contrail and AIC this is the area of the cloud itself. But for CO2 is the area of the entire earth!

I think George is correct there. That's global radiative forcing, not local. The huge local effect was in the other paper cited, regarding some unusual measurements.

http://www.mendeley.com/research/a-...ntrails-evolving-into-contrailinduced-cirrus/

As expected, the net radiative effect is a relatively small residual of the much stronger but opposing SW and LW effects, locally totaling around 10 W m2 during daylight hours and 30 W m2 during nighttime. A simple estimate indicates that this single localized event may have generated a global-mean radiative forcing of around 7% of recent estimates of the persistent contrail radiative forcing due to the entire global aircraft fleet on a diurnally averaged basis. A single aircraft operating in conditions favorable for persistent contrail formation appears to exert a contrail-induced radiative forcing some 5000 times greater (in W m2 km1) than recent estimates of the average persistent contrail radiative forcing from the entire civil aviation fleet. This study emphasizes the need to establish whether similar events are common or highly unusual for a confident assessment of the total climate effect of aviation to be made.​

Given the vast amount of uncertainty in the radiative forcing topic, and the quite small contribution to global warming, the idea of contrails being the result of any kind of conspiracy of inaction seems pretty ridiculous.

 

[George B]

That's a classic case of not understand indate.

The section in question reads:


Ther's nothing at all untrue about the statement.

But your interpretation misses some important points.

Firstly the measure is water per square metre - so it only applies across the area affected - for contrail and AIC this is the area of the cloud itself. But for CO2 is the area of the entire earth!

Secondly it only applies when the phenomena is in existence - so for contrails and cirrus it applies for the life of the cloud. For CO2 it applies for as long as the substance stays in the atmosphere. I am not sure what the current life cycle of CO2 is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is a lot longer than the lifespan of contrails or IRC.

Aircraft already cruise at as high a height as possible and permitted because that uses a lot less fuel than flying at lower altitudes. If you are contrailing at the highest height you can fly then you have no alternative to avoid contrails than by
flying lower - and hence burning more fuel. Burning more fuel creates more pollutants of all varieties - water, CO2, CO, SOx, NOx and anything else you can think of.

I will have to think about your comments. . . However, the statement has been made in other papers and (if I remember correctly) the statement is something like the RF from AIC since a recent date exceeds all the RF caused by all the CO2 emitted by aircraft since its inception or something on that order. . . I will try to clarify this and respond at a later time. . . .

 

[Mick West]

Not really. . .
IMO that is not all of it . . . It is the most visible part of it . . . And the one most people get emotional about because they can see it. . . .I feel the persistent Trails are a perfect clutter and cover for experimentation and other injection programs. . . .

For which there is zero evidence.

So we've got all the government sint he world conspiring to not do anything about contrails, so they can be used to perform experiments, which have no measurable effect?

And they changed to law to make those experiments illegal, so people would not realize they were doing them??

 

[George B]

RF is not "pollution", that is a different matter.

Jet turbine engines burn their cleanest at high altitudes with cold air. Some jet engines burn the same amount on the ground at idle, than they do at cruise power settings at high altitudes. To go to lower altitudes, will generally result in a higher fuel burn, and more crowded airspace, more ground delays, and more pollution

All because certain people "feel" that its bad, and could be used to hide something. You can feel whatever you want, but feelings are not evidence of anything.

1) RF is a measurement of pollution impact. . . Either resulting in warming or dimming. . .

2) A mitigation scheme . . .
http://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/publications/2011/ATM2011_Sridhar.pdf 2% increase in fuel and 70% decrease in TRAILs. *Contrail avoidance research. . .

3) My feelings are based on other information. . . I have not presented everything yet. . .

 

[George B]

For which there is zero evidence.

So we've got all the government sint he world conspiring to not do anything about contrails, so they can be used to perform experiments, which have no measurable effect?

And they changed to law to make those experiments illegal, so people would not realize they were doing them??

And NOAA scientists wondering about why there are more particulate in the stratosphere since 2000 than their models predicted. . .

 

[Mick West]

And NOAA scientists wondering about why there are more particulate in the stratosphere since 2000 than their models predicted. . .

They are wondering if it's from volcanoes, and/or pollution, and from what locations. They are not wondering if it's from a secret spraying program.

 

[George B]

They are wondering if it's from volcanoes, and/or pollution, and from what locations. They are not wondering if it's from a secret spraying program.

Because they don't even acknowledge it even exists. . . Don't you think . . . If someone (an acknowledged authority) had announced that Stratopheric Injection of Sulfur compounds had been ongoing since 1999. . .they would have listed it as a plausible factor?

 

[Noble1965]

Because they don't even acknowledge it even exists. . . Don't you think . . . If someone (an acknowledged authority) had announced that Stratopheric Injection of Sulfur compounds had been ongoing since 1999. . .they would have listed it as a plausible factor?

If there is no evidence to support the claim...there is no evidence to support the claim! Your assumptions, speculation and suspicions are just that...

 

[George B]

I think George is correct there. That's global radiative forcing, not local. The huge local effect was in the other paper cited, regarding some unusual measurements.

http://www.mendeley.com/research/a-...ntrails-evolving-into-contrailinduced-cirrus/




Given the vast amount of uncertainty in the radiative forcing topic, and the quite small contribution to global warming, the idea of contrails being the result of any kind of conspiracy of inaction seems pretty ridiculous.

One must remember . . . The required climatic perturbation to push the mean global temperature just one Or more degrees C per year was calculated to be within the range of 20 million Metric Tons of Sulfur Compounds . . . This was thought to be possible through aircraft injection alone of a relative small fleet. . . .http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Because they don't even acknowledge it even exists. . . Don't you think . . . If someone (an acknowledged authority) had announced that Stratopheric Injection of Sulfur compounds had been ongoing since 1999. . .they would have listed it as a plausible factor?

George, the reason I asked you to study the actual graph was hoping you would see that those aerosol reading don't show an increase over the 1960's levels. Look at it again and you will see:
This is a larger view "Mauna Loa Apparent Transmission":
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/1112

The point of the paper was to show how PERSISTENTLY VARIABLE aerosols are, and the graph does so quite well.

You simply cannot support ANY claims of aerosol increases using the data, no matter what you say they know or don't know about the reasons for them to be variable. The data shows that there is no increase above what is known to be "persistently variable"!

For any significant forcing you have to look at 1982 or 1992 when there were significant eruptions, see where the graph heads off the charts and transmission decreased? THAT is an increase in aerosols, not the pissy little "persistently variable" background changes the paper was actually written about.

 

[Noble1965]

One must remember . . . The required climatic perturbation to push the mean global temperature just one Or more degrees C per year was calculated to be within the range of 20 million Metric Tons of Sulfur Compounds . . . This was thought to be possible through aircraft injection alone of a relative small fleet. . . .http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf

Again, is this just a byproduct of normal contrails? None of this shows that any of it is intentional.....and the means to an end.

 

[George B]

If there is no evidence to support the claim...there is no evidence to support the claim! Your assumptions, speculation and suspicions are just that...

I simply disagree . . . Because scientists are through IMO bias prevented from considering a factor does not mean the factor is imaginary. . . .there is simply no way they could acknowledge an Intentional Injection Source without losing their profrssional status and funding. . . .

 

[Mick West]

I simply disagree . . . Because scientists are through IMO bias prevented from considering a factor does not mean the factor is imaginary. . . .there is simply no way they could acknowledge an Intentional Injection Source without losing their profrssional status and funding. . . .

That kind of presumes that all the scientists int he world are aware of the conspiracy.

Scientists have not found any inexplicable rise in aerosols.

 

[George B]

Again, is this just a byproduct of normal contrails? None of this shows that any of it is intentional.....and the means to an end.

Noble, I think you need to read the cited research . . . It is how to reduce global warming by using Stratopheric Injection . . . And has nothing to do with normal Trails . . .

 

[PCWilliams]

One must remember . . . The required climatic perturbation to push the mean global temperature just one Or more degrees C per year was calculated to be within the range of 20 million Metric Tons of Sulfur Compounds . . . This was thought to be possible through aircraft injection alone of a relative small fleet. . . .http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf

I feel like we're arguing over whether it's sunny outside while sitting in a windowless room. If you want to know if it's sunny outside, look outside. If you want to know if chemtrails are real, test contrails.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

One must remember . . . The required climatic perturbation to push the mean global temperature just one Or more degrees C per year was calculated to be within the range of 20 million Metric Tons of Sulfur Compounds . . . This was thought to be possible through aircraft injection alone of a relative small fleet. . . .http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf

Yes, and that would mean the sort of changes in transmission seen in 1982 and 1992 with Pinatubo and El Chicon, which sends the transmission down and off the charts. It simply isn't happening, George, and the paper YOU cited shows this. You can't twist the data to show any such perturbation, man!

 

[Noble1965]

I simply disagree . . . Because scientists are through IMO bias prevented from considering a factor does not mean the factor is imaginary. . . .there is simply no way they could acknowledge an Intentional Injection Source without losing their profrssional status and funding. . . .

I simply disagree. You are using your PERSONAL world view to determine what science knows/doesn't know about the atmosphere without actually knowing WHAT they know..or have found in the atmosphere. You have no evidence that any scientist has found anything which they are keeping to themselves because they are concerned about losing their professional status and funding. That's PURE conjecture, assumption and speculation. You have NOTHING to support such statements.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I feel like we're arguing over whether it's sunny outside while sitting in a windowless room. If you want to know if it's sunny outside, look outside. If you want to know if chemtrails are real, test contrails.

And if you want to claim that stratospheric aerosols are perturbing solar transmission, citing a paper that shows no such perturbation is a losing battle!

 

[George B]

George, the reason I asked you to study the actual graph was hoping you would see that those aerosol reading don't show an increase over the 1960's levels. Look at it again and you will see:
This is a larger view "Mauna Loa Apparent Transmission":
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/1112

The point of the paper was to show how PERSISTENTLY VARIABLE aerosols are, and the graph does so quite well.

You simply cannot support ANY claims of aerosol increases using the data, no matter what you say they know or don't know about the reasons for them to be variable. The data shows that there is no increase above what is known to be "persistently variable"!

For any significant forcing you have to look at 1982 or 1992 when there were significant eruptions, see where the graph heads off the charts and transmission decreased? THAT is an increase in aerosols, not the pissy little "persistently variable" background changes the paper was actually written about.

I will take another look . . . Thanks

 

[Noble1965]

Noble, I think you need to read the cited research . . . It is how to reduce global warming by using Stratopheric Injection . . . And has nothing to do with normal Trails . . .

No, ADDED materials COULD be utilized for such a thing. You haven't showed that anyone has INTENTIONALLY added anything above and beyond what is normally associated with the normal sources including man made and natural sources.