Ice Budget (viability of the argument)

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
A simple "How much does a contrail weigh per mile" might be a good way of phrasing it. How much does a cloud weigh?

"Persistent trails can't be chemtrails - do the math!"
While there isn't enough aerosol load in an aircraft to produce a trail made up of simply the payload, there is nothing preventing the supersaturated atmosphere from using the nuclei from the exhaust and/or aerosol theoretical payload from triggering a persistent contrail . . . so a Chemtrail of some small parts per million concentration is still quite possible . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
While there isn't enough aerosol load in an aircraft to produce a trail made up of simply the payload, there is nothing preventing the supersaturated atmosphere from using the nuclei from the exhaust and/or aerosol theoretical payload from triggering a persistent contrail . . . so a Chemtrail of some small parts per million concentration is still quite possible . . .

But if an "aerosol theoretical payload" would trigger a persistent contrail, then regular exhaust would too. Jet exhaust has both water and condensation nuclei.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But if an "aerosol theoretical payload" would trigger a persistent contrail, then regular exhaust would too. Jet exhaust has both water and condensation nuclei.
Yes, If conditions are right a trail will form . . . period . . . however, one cannot use the premise that just because an aircraft cannot carry enough payload to produce a persistent trail in suboptimal air . . . this somehow disproves that chemtrails can exist . . . it simly does not mean a persistent trail observed cannot be a Chemtrail . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, If conditions are right a trail will form . . . period . . . however, one cannot use the primise that just because an aircraft cannot carry enough payload to produce a persistent trail in suboptimal air this somehow disproves that chemtrails can exist . . . it simly does not mean a persistent trail observed cannot be a Chemtrail . . .

The argument here is that what people are calling "chemtrails" cannot be comprised of just chemicals. For example it CANNOT be titanium dioxide, as the plane could not carry enough.

Would you agree with that?

You seem to be saying that there could be something being sprayed, but if it were there or not then the trail would look the same? Which is kind of a moot point.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The argument here is that what people are calling "chemtrails" cannot be comprised of just chemicals. For example it CANNOT be titanium dioxide, as the plane could not carry enough.

Would you agree with that?

You seem to be saying that there could be something being sprayed, but if it were there or not then the trail would look the same? Which is kind of a moot point.
Yes, I would agree with your top statement . . .

There is no research available that I am aware of which will tell us what concentrations of aerosols released at altitude will appear like in optimal or suboptimal (for contrail formation) air. . . there are a few papers on different sulfur concentrations in jet fuel . . . so I would say any discussions regarding visibility and chemtrails is moot . . . they follow the same physical laws that any aerosol would . . . just like any aircraft exhaust or fairy dust . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
It's a negligible part of the final persistent contrail, but it does need to be enough to momentarily raise the relative humidity above 100%. So while it's a small amount, it's not negligible.

each mass of fuel burned generates 1.24 times that mass of water - 1 tonne of fuel generates 1.24 tonnes of water in the exhaust - I got this from a SwissAir site but have never been able to find the source since :(

RundTreibstoffeEmissionen_2col.gif
 

Attachments

  • exhaust compostition.gif
    exhaust compostition.gif
    8.2 KB · Views: 324

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
each mass of fuel burned generates 1.24 times that mass of water - 1 tonne of fuel generates 1.24 tonnes of water in the exhaust - I got this from a SwissAir site but have never been able to find the source since :(

https://www.swiss.com/web/EN/about_...irs/environment/Pages/fuel_and_emissions.aspx

although the original might be from here, a german text book.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030630231450/http://www.adv-net.org/de/gfx/um_emissionen.php



The text "abhângig von den Betriebsbedingungen in Reiseflughöhe" means "depending on the operating conditions at cruise altitude"

(JFDee) "Ruß" in the image means "soot".
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
there could be something being sprayed, but if it were there or not then the trail would look the same? Which is kind of a moot point.
No.

There wouldn't be a gap in the trail at all, and furthermore the exhausts immediately after the engines would SHINE. The reason why afterburning fighter jet engines shine is HOT UNBURNT CARBON PARTICLES*. Metal particles are WAY more effective.

* Tri-methyl aluminum would be an effective accelerant for fighter jets if you didn't care that they turned night into day. And those directable nozzles they use would drop off in seconds. Burning metals are VERY VERY HOT. Think THERMIC LANCE. :)
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
each mass of fuel burned generates 1.24 times that mass of water - 1 tonne of fuel generates 1.24 tonnes of water in the exhaust - I got this from a SwissAir site but have never been able to find the source since :(
RundTreibstoffeEmissionen_2col.gif
That twenty grams of soot (in very small particles, if not atoms) that are generated by burning a ton of jet fuel is WELL capable of seeding ALL available atmospheric water vapor that can be possibly seeded, with particles to spare.

It's a bit like the "Caesar's dying breath" argument - every intake of breath you take throughout your life possibly includes ONE MOLECULE from that exhalation, because of the sheer NUMBERS of molecules involved, and the time that has elapsed to ensure thorough mixing. There will be particles left over which as the trail falls which will seed more ice, evaporate and be rereleased, to recycle again, ad infinitum. It is a very dynamic process. But not visible. Except as a trail, of course...

EVERYTHING exhausted can seed further ice deposition in saturated conditions. 17% of the Earth's stratosphere is saturated at any time, according to a 1992 research paper. (I've lost the reference! :( )

Eventually it ends up as dirty rain to fall on land or sea. Don't leave your washing out for longer than it takes to dry... :)
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No.

There wouldn't be a gap in the trail at all, and furthermore the exhausts immediately after the engines would SHINE. The reason why afterburning fighter jet engines shine is HOT UNBURNT CARBON PARTICLES*. Metal particles are WAY more effective.

* Tri-methyl aluminum would be an effective accelerant for fighter jets if you didn't care that they turned night into day. And those directable nozzles they use would drop off in seconds. Burning metals are VERY VERY HOT. Think THERMIC LANCE. :)
I don't understand . . . are you saying if metallic aerosols are sent through a jet engine combustion . . . then there would be no break in visibility between the engine and the rest of a visible contrail??? How about Sulfur compounds??
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I don't understand . . . are you saying if metallic aerosols are sent through a jet engine combustion . . . then there would be no break in visibility between the engine and the rest of a visible contrail??? How about Sulfur compounds??
Absolutely.

Sulfur burns with a relatively (compared with metals) dull blue flame. There is a small fraction of a per cent in aviation kerosine, and this may well contribute to the faint blue-ness one can see if one peers into the exhaust of a gas turbine in dark conditions (at a distance :) ). Sulfur dioxide gas is invisible, so becomes part of the trail "gap".

No metal oxides are invisible, and before they form the metals SHINE at 1100 deg C, which is the turbine exit temperature. Shining is a VISIBLE phenomenon.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Jazzy,

Do you have any sources or research which indicates and/or supports your position regarding the continuous visibility of a contrail spiked with metallic contaminates from engine to persistent contrail ???
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
The chemtrail advocates claim that the optically visible trails they see contain metal.
Dispersing chaff trails contain metal, and are visible on radar.
The chemtrail advocates have pointed to chaff trails dispersing from a point source at windspeed and direction on radar, but have failed to point out any purported "chemtrails" on radar.

For grins:

 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Jazzy, do you have any sources or research which indicates and/or supports your position regarding the continuous visibility of a contrail spiked with metallic contaminates from engine to persistent contrail ???
Your own eyes and memory will do, I think.

Jay's subsequent post, and FIREWORKS in general.

GOLDEN RAIN (and Jay's post) are instances of particulate carbon. Those CRACKLY JOBS are particulate aluminum*.

Which is the brighter? LOL.

* A constituent of thermite, remember? Which when ignited, is so energetic that it robs the oxygen from iron oxide powder and generates a temperature of 2,500 deg C...
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
The chemtrail advocates claim that the optically visible trails they see contain metal. Dispersing chaff trails contain metal, and are visible on radar. The chemtrail advocates have pointed to chaff trails dispersing from a point source at windspeed and direction on radar, but have failed to point out any purported "chemtrails" on radar.
A very telling point. Even as aluminum oxide, that trail would be opaque and reflective to radar, no matter what its frequency. I missed that. You live and learn.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
A very telling point. Even as aluminum oxide, that trail would be opaque and reflective to radar, no matter what its frequency. I missed that. You live and learn.
What if particulate is released without the heat of exhaust . . . for example volcanic particulate (ash) which sometimes contains elemental aluminum (if I am correct) is not visualized on radar . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member


 

MikeC

Closed Account
You guys are talking around each other - radar can detect ash clouds with good enough signal processing, but a/c weather radar is optimised for seeing water and does not see fine ash cloud.

That is why the device is possibly useful for aircraft.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
You guys are talking around each other - radar can detect ash clouds with good enough signal processing, but a/c weather radar is optimised for seeing water and does not see fine ash cloud.

That is why the device is possibly useful for aircraft.
Yes, weather radar has been detecting volcanic ash clouds in Iceland since the 1970's.

I never expected chemtrail believers to be using aircraft weather radar..... LOL
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems that leaves the only remaining suspect for aerosol injection that would be difficult to detect would be SO2 or some other sulfur species . . .

Another potential might be . . . Bismuth tri-iodide . . . basically cloud seeding . . . not high enough concentration to visualize on radar . . .

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
To what end??

Either substances could be used for Geoengineering . . . be injected by aircraft whose payloads are sufficient to be effective, and may or may not be visible or persistent . . . thus IMO defeating the ice budget issue and still be considered a Chemtrail . . .

Note: The trail would also not likely be visualized by radar . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
How would the Bismuth defeat the "ice budget issue"?

BTW since when were we at war with the "ice budget issue" that it needed defeating??:confused:

I think you are rambling again
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
How would the Bismuth defeat the "ice budget issue"?

BTW since when were we at war with the "ice budget issue" that it needed defeating??:confused:

I think you are rambling again

I was showing how the Ice Budget argument would not argue against the existence of a common geoengineering Chemtrail scenario . . . I am not denying it argues against the idea of sufficient payload for visible and persistent powder, soot or smoke, etc . . . I doubt many serious Chemtrail advocates think it possible either . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I think you are going OT on the "ice budget" -AFAIK the point is that there cannot be enough particles of any visible substance to create visible trails other than ice, and that the actual amount of water introduced by jet engines is not as much as previously thought - most of the ice in a contrail comes from the surrounding atmoshere.

It has no other bearing other than that.

I do not beleive there is such a things as a "serious chemtrail advocate" - the phrase is an oxymoron.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think you are going OT on the "ice budget" -AFAIK the point is that there cannot be enough particles of any visible substance to create visible trails other than ice, and that the actual amount of water introduced by jet engines is not as much as previously thought - most of the ice in a contrail comes from the surrounding atmoshere.

It has no other bearing other than that.

I do not beleive there is such a things as a "serious chemtrail advocate" - the phrase is an oxymoron.
So I am saying it is a very limited argument and would convince few that chemtrails could not exist . . . and whether you believe it or not there are serious Chemtrail advocates . . . you are constantly at war with them . . . or are you???
 

MikeC

Closed Account
People say chemtrails are long white lines in the sky - invisible chemicals like SO2 are irrelevant to that, but the ice budget argument is highly relevant to it and does show that they are not possible.

Whether that will convince a true believer is, of course, a moot point.

Perhaps you are discussing covert geo-engineering rather than chemtrails? If so didn't you do that already??

I am not at war with anyone.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
People say chemtrails are long white lines in the sky - invisible chemicals like SO2 are irrelevant to that, but the ice budget argument is highly relevant to it and does show that they are not possible.

Whether that will convince a true believer is, of course, a moot point.

Perhaps you are discussing covert geo-engineering rather than chemtrails? If so didn't you do that already??

I am not at war with anyone.

For what you are saying to be correct . . . white lines in the sky to the Chemtrail advocates must only be caused by the contents in the aircraft without assistance of atmospheric conditions . . . that is not supported IMO by my research and discussions with advocates . . . there is more diversity of opinion than you might imagine . . .

 

Jazzy

Closed Account
If sulfur were to be used, it would be quickly apparent to everyone concerned.

Although the trails would appear the same, growing in the same manner as they fell, subsequent aircraft would be flying through them. Their occupants would be breathing in dilute sulfuric acid mist at a cabin pressure of 6000 feet. That wouldn't be endurable for more than a few seconds.

The basic oxide of aluminum is refractory, and its fine dust could be breathed in. It wouldn't be good for you in the same way that finely powdered glass isn't. Barium oxide is rather like quicklime. Less pleasant, and nearly as nasty as sulfuric acid mist.

I'm not guessing here. I have worked in petrochemical plants and have breathed most weird things at most times. My favorite is NaO. The one good thing I can say about that is it removes all traces of acne quite quickly. :)
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If sulfur were to be used, it would be quickly apparent to everyone concerned.

Although the trails would appear the same, growing in the same manner as they fell, subsequent aircraft would be flying through them. Their occupants would be breathing in dilute sulfuric acid mist at a cabin pressure of 6000 feet. That wouldn't be endurable for more than a few seconds.

The basic oxide of aluminum is refractory, and its fine dust could be breathed in. It wouldn't be good for you in the same way that finely powdered glass isn't. Barium oxide is rather like quicklime. Less pleasant, and nearly as nasty as sulfuric acid mist.

I'm not guessing here. I have worked in petrochemical plants and have breathed most weird things at most times. My favorite is NaO. The one good thing I can say about that is it removes all traces of acne quite quickly. :)
I think you are assuming concentrations far beyond those required to gain geoengineering effects . . . the high troposphere or lower stratosphere is not the same environment you are speaking of . . . I am sure commercial aircraft have transversed an area of cloud seeding (at of course much lower altitudes) for example before, without ill effects . . . we are only talking about maybe as little as one million metric tons of sulfur compounds injected into the global stratosphere over one year . . . When 20 Tg was injected into the stratosphere in 1991 from Mt Penatubo no such ill effects were reported . . . http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I think you are assuming concentrations far beyond those required to gain geoengineering effects . . . the high troposphere or lower stratosphere is not the same environment you are speaking of
Indeed.

The outside air needs a threefold compression before entering the cabin.

I am sure commercial aircraft have traversed an area of cloud seeding (at of course much lower altitudes) for example before, without ill effects
True. But they traverse them. And a momentary microdosage of silver iodide will not poison a 150lb mammal.

we are only talking about maybe as little as one million metric tons of sulfur compounds injected into the global stratosphere over one year . . . When 20 Tg was injected into the stratosphere in 1991 from Mt Penatubo no such ill effects were reported . . . http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo
That isn't a lot by the standards of Earth.

But apart from its acidity, sulfur dioxide is also a greenhouse gas, and migrates in the upper stratosphere to the poles where it forms a complex set of reactions with oxides of nitrogen to increase the area of the ozone hole.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Indeed.

The outside air needs a threefold compression before entering the cabin.


True. But they traverse them. And a momentary microdosage of silver iodide will not poison a 150lb mammal.


That isn't a lot by the standards of Earth.

But apart from its acidity, sulfur dioxide is also a greenhouse gas, and migrates in the upper stratosphere to the poles where it forms a complex set of reactions with oxides of nitrogen to increase the area of the ozone hole.

We survive major sulfur injections continually . . . the last major one was 1991 with Penatubo . . . Geoengineering levels are proposed to be several magnitudes lower, are temporary and can be engineered to cease within months of a critical and unexpected side effect . . .
 

Related Articles

Top