MikeC
Closed Account
Because pollution from aircraft engines is a well known and appreciated source of pollution - why would you not want to know about the exhausts from various mixtures??
What can debaters and debunkers agree upon regarding chemtrails.
- Thread starter George B
- Start date
Because pollution from aircraft engines is a well known and appreciated source of pollution - why would you not want to know about the exhausts from various mixtures??
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
One mixture was so low as to be below ground transportation low sulfur levels . . . one was near the maximum allowed 3,000 ppm . . . which is about six times the average concentration normally burned . . . why not use the average concentrations burned 500 ppm . . . that would be realistic to test pollution parameters . . .
Belfrey
Senior Member.
They are only "facts" if you make them into something entirely different from what chemtrails activists believe. If you say that by "sprayed", you mean really it's just a consequence of the ordinary process of jet fuel combustion, which under certain atmospheric conditions leads to persistent contrails, then I think that most chemtrails believers would consider that as something entirely different from and unrelated to what they're concerned about.
There are real, legitimate reasons to be concerned about pollution from jet aircraft (including the contrails themselves), as with other sources of pollution. But they are very far afield from the claims of chemtrails advocates. It's a red herring.
MikeC
Closed Account
And it would be completely useless for determining what the range of exhausts might be from the allowable range of sulphur concentrations in fuel.
Why would you just want an average when sulphur content in jet fuel does vary?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The discussion was to lower the concentration not increase it . . . If I were interested in determining the impact on contrail visibility, pollution, and persistence I would test the direction I expected the concentrations would be going in logical steps . . . from present customary levels toward reduced concentrations not toward the maximum that was not being experienced and would not be in the future . . .
No, you did not. If you did you'd win a Nobel Prize for discovering a easily rectifiable cause of climate change, hence saving billions of dollars.
Are you really just here to debate then? Uninterested in learning anything? Really just want to win arguments?
Come on. You don't win by twisting the phrasing of the argument around so you are semantically correct. You win by figuring out what is going in in the world.
Try to arrive at a better shared understanding. You are just wasting time here. I'm swiftly running out of patience.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
I am an individual. I do not believe that persistent contrails are chemtrails, so I am not a chemmie.. I am stating that 1) We are being sprayed with jet emissions, 2) They contain a chemical (sulfur), and 3) That desulfurizing jet fuel would lead to 25% less air pollution, and 4) that it would also lead to a 10% climate change. Debunk me, not the chemmies. It's a whole new theory. I call it "Chemspraying". It involves sulfur, not heavy metals. Debunk chemspraying, not chemtrails. Can ya?
MikeC
Closed Account
So even you would not test it only at average levels - you would test it at a range of levels.
I see nothing in the study itself (available in full here) that suggests it is a "discussion [to] lower the concentration not increase it" - it is a study of the characteristics at "high", "normal" and "low" concentrations of sulphur.
the high concentrations were done at 2700 and 2830ppm, the "normal" was a single test at 850ppm, and the low concentrations were 6 ppm.
So in fact they did test an average - "normal" level.
And what did they conclude? Well sulphur does appear to affect the numbe and size of aerosol particles - high sulphur means moer particles that are smaller. but it does not affect the amount of water ice generated or surface concentration of the contrail.
Also they conclude that the type of engine is possibly more important to the contrail characteristics than the concentration of sulphur, and that power settings may also be quite important but they could not make a conclusion about that.
I see nothing in the study itself (available in full here) that suggests it is a "discussion [to] lower the concentration not increase it" - it is a study of the characteristics at "high", "normal" and "low" concentrations of sulphur.
the high concentrations were done at 2700 and 2830ppm, the "normal" was a single test at 850ppm, and the low concentrations were 6 ppm.
So in fact they did test an average - "normal" level.
And what did they conclude? Well sulphur does appear to affect the numbe and size of aerosol particles - high sulphur means moer particles that are smaller. but it does not affect the amount of water ice generated or surface concentration of the contrail.
Also they conclude that the type of engine is possibly more important to the contrail characteristics than the concentration of sulphur, and that power settings may also be quite important but they could not make a conclusion about that.
MikeC
Closed Account
did you have some supporting data for these claims, or are they just your assertions?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So they did it for academic reasons . . . since all external discussions are about reducing sulfur concentrations . . . seems to be an impractical use of research time and money to me . . . the other study which you didn't mention tested concentrations in the single digits and in the 200s ppm . . . here they stated these were in the levels expected to be seen in use . . . that makes sense . . .
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
They are the assertions of an M.I.T. professor.
'Overall, desulfurising jet fuel would reduce aviation's impact on public health by perhaps a quarter, but may increase its climate impact by about a tenth,' notes lead author Steven Barrett of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), US. 'If you compare the costs and the benefits they come out as being broadly even in our analysis.'
MikeC
Closed Account
You would have to ask them - to me it looks like they did it to determine what differences there would be in the contrail aerosols at different sulphur concentrations.
you may choose to call that "academic reasons" - I presume you intend that as some sort of dismissive statement from your later comments.
But so what? it is what it is, ther may well be other discussions about lowering the level of sulphur in jet fuel but why does this have to be part of that discussion? Or perhaps it is - I dont' know.
In any case it seems to me that you have been busy making assumptions and conclusions without actually reading the paper, and now you do nto want to talk about those assumptions and conclusions because you weer wrong to make them.
That is another pretty common tactic I see - making claims, and when those claims are shown to be not correct trying to raise some other issue to divert attention - a red herring - or, as in this case you now choose to dismiss the study because it was done "for academic reasons"???
you may choose to call that "academic reasons" - I presume you intend that as some sort of dismissive statement from your later comments.
But so what? it is what it is, ther may well be other discussions about lowering the level of sulphur in jet fuel but why does this have to be part of that discussion? Or perhaps it is - I dont' know.
In any case it seems to me that you have been busy making assumptions and conclusions without actually reading the paper, and now you do nto want to talk about those assumptions and conclusions because you weer wrong to make them.
That is another pretty common tactic I see - making claims, and when those claims are shown to be not correct trying to raise some other issue to divert attention - a red herring - or, as in this case you now choose to dismiss the study because it was done "for academic reasons"???
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If it wasn't for academic reasons . . . what was it for ???? I did not dismiss the study at all . . .
MikeC
Closed Account
cool - well thanks for that.
Well in that case your claims are simple to debunk:
1/ your source says nothing about us being sprayed with jet emissions.
2/ Your source does say that jet exhaust contains sulphur.....but since you have used perjorative language and claimed that these "jet emissions" aer being "sprayed on us" and it is these "jet emissions...spray" that contains the sulphur that is just semantic nonsense from you.
3/ Your source does not say the reduction in fuel would not lead to "25% reduction in pollution". It says, paraphrasing, that it would, PERHAPS, reduce "aviations impact on public health by a qurter" - I don't know how you managed to misquoet so badly, but it is right there in your link!!
4/ your source says nothing about a "10% climate change". It says that the cost of reducing sulphur in jet fuel is an estimated 2% increase in life-cycle CO2 emissions - and that is during the desulphurisation process - it is not the result of combustion of the jet fuel, so it would be happening at ground level, not in flight. 10% is not mentioned anywhere.
Happy to have helped you get those right
MikeC
Closed Account
to determine the difference in aerosol characteristics between high and low sulphur fuels - like I said already and as it says in the paper. Beyond that you would have to ask the authors - not me!!
you have stopepd talking about its contents and conclusions, and you said it seems like an "impractical use of research time and money to me". Looks like dismissal and avoidance to me.
you mentioned another study that I missed - you are right - sorry - looking at the other one now.
OK - I've looked at this one - what about it is significant in your mind? Just that you do not see why anyone would bother??
BTW the later one references this one, the 2 authors of this one are among the authors of the later one.
given the time frame - 1995 and 1997 - it seems to me that getting some accurate science about contrails would be very important to climate studies of the time - I recall there was a lot of discussion in aviation magazines in the 1990's about reducing NOx and SOx pollutants, and it was an era when acid rain was still very much in the public eye and climate change was just starting to be so.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Its agreed upon by both sides of the debate that jets produce emissions. You can choose whatever verb you would like to describe this production.
See #1
THAT is semantics. by you. You miss the broader issue I am illustrating and reduce my argument by changing direction. The percentage is not the issue. The health implications are CAUSED by pollution. If you think that the extra sulfur is not pollution, then I do not know what to say to that...
A tenth is 10%
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
They did a study, so there is supporting data.
MikeC
Closed Account
Yes you can - I prefer to use the ones that are used in teh source rather than introduce perjorative terms.
Indeed.
You made a specific claim - do not blame me because you could not be accurate. Tehre is nothing in the source that says a 25% reduction in pollution. Indeed I imagine that if you could reduce sulphur from, say, 600ppm to 6ppm then you would get a 99% reduction in the SULPHUR pollution....but nothing at all in CO2 or NOx or Soot pollution.
Your statement is simply wrong.
there is nothing about a tenth OR 10% in the article. there is 2%...which is 1/50th - and it is 2% of CO2 - not 2% of "gloal warming". And it is 2% of the "life cycle" but it does nto say the life cycle of what - it might well be of the a/c - I don't know.
but again you have got it wrong.
You asked for debunking - it was easy.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
If I give you my presentation and it is inaccurate, and then I do not clarify my statements, then you would be able to say my argument is flawed. However, I have clarified my statements, and now you are willfully ignoring that clarification. Please be self aware of this before you make your next posting. I will clarify more thoroughly.
1) A chemical is being introduced into our atmosphere by jets, which could be greatly reduced by desulfurizing jet fuel.
2) It is causing climate change to some degree which some experts consider significant.
3) it is causing pollution which contributes to adverse health effects in the general population.
4) it's those persistent white lines in the sky.
3 out of 4 are facts. Chemtrail theorists got #4 wrong completely, and #1 partially wrong. The idea that we are being polluted (#3) and that it is affecting climate (#2) however, was spot on.
1) A chemical is being introduced into our atmosphere by jets, which could be greatly reduced by desulfurizing jet fuel.
2) It is causing climate change to some degree which some experts consider significant.
3) it is causing pollution which contributes to adverse health effects in the general population.
4) it's those persistent white lines in the sky.
3 out of 4 are facts. Chemtrail theorists got #4 wrong completely, and #1 partially wrong. The idea that we are being polluted (#3) and that it is affecting climate (#2) however, was spot on.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
'Overall, desulfurising jet fuel would reduce aviation's impact on public health by perhaps a quarter, but may increase its climate impact by about a tenth,' notes lead author Steven Barrett of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), US. 'If you compare the costs and the benefits they come out as being broadly even in our analysis.'
Rico
Senior Member.
What this argument really comes down to is how bold we make certain claims and what words we attach to them.
Yeah, planes do leave an environmental footprint and they do pollute. I'm not sure I would use the word "spraying," however, nor necessarily attach this to the whole notion of "chemtrails," given how accusatory these words are, but to each their own. According to SD's cited article, it seems EASA and FAA are sponsoring research into desulphurizing fuel anyways, so I'm not sure if this is really worth that much of a debate/debunking. At least the scientists and the aviation authorities are looking into a better alternative, which is a step in the right direction.
If the argument is for no pollution ('spraying') and no environmental impact (climate change vs. health), then we can only dream on, as I don't see that happening anytime soon unless we were to scrap aviation altogether.
Yeah, planes do leave an environmental footprint and they do pollute. I'm not sure I would use the word "spraying," however, nor necessarily attach this to the whole notion of "chemtrails," given how accusatory these words are, but to each their own. According to SD's cited article, it seems EASA and FAA are sponsoring research into desulphurizing fuel anyways, so I'm not sure if this is really worth that much of a debate/debunking. At least the scientists and the aviation authorities are looking into a better alternative, which is a step in the right direction.
If the argument is for no pollution ('spraying') and no environmental impact (climate change vs. health), then we can only dream on, as I don't see that happening anytime soon unless we were to scrap aviation altogether.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
to determine the difference in aerosol characteristics between high and low sulphur fuels - like I said already and as it says in the paper. Beyond that you would have to ask the authors - not me!!
you have stopepd talking about its contents and conclusions, and you said it seems like an "impractical use of research time and money to me". Looks like dismissal and avoidance to me.
you mentioned another study that I missed - you are right - sorry - looking at the other one now.
OK - I've looked at this one - what about it is significant in your mind? Just that you do not see why anyone would bother??
BTW the later one references this one, the 2 authors of this one are among the authors of the later one.
given the time frame - 1995 and 1997 - it seems to me that getting some accurate science about contrails would be very important to climate studies of the time - I recall there was a lot of discussion in aviation magazines in the 1990's about reducing NOx and SOx pollutants, and it was an era when acid rain was still very much in the public eye and climate change was just starting to be so.
So if I am going to study Sulfur reduction to decrease acid rain . . . I am going to use fuels that are six times the concentration of those commonly used . . . infact I am going to have to go out of my way to find the fuel or spike existing fuel to accomplish this . . . sounds like from an experimental design perspective to be a lot of effort . . . must have been important to the researchers . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Let's get back to the purpose of the Thread . . . where can we find agreement . . . I have agreed to the following . . .
Let's see if we can find other agreements . . .
Originally Posted by George B
I would agree that there is no repeatable, scientifically validated, direct evidence that chemtrails exist as well as there is no evidence that can rule out the possibility they could exist in some form . . .
Let's see if we can find other agreements . . .
R
Rude bastard
Guest
[Banned User - Post Deleted]
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Can we agree what the purpose of a patent is and that there is no guarantee that filing a patient will result in the item, concept, device, technology will ever be used. . .
The purpose of patent law is to encourage innovation, by granting inventors legal rights which permit them to protect their original inventions.A patent is a right granted by a government which permits an inventor to prevent others from making, using or selling the invention for a fixed period of time, absent permission from the inventor. After that period of time expires, the invention becomes public property.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/intellectual_property/patent_law.html
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Can we also agree that the following patent is often cited by chemtrail advocates as evidence to support their theories . . .
United States Patent 5,003,186A method is described for reducing atmospheric or global warming resulting from the presence of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, i.e., from the greenhouse effect. Such gases are relatively transparent to sunshine, but absorb strongly the long-wavelength infrared radiation released by the earth. The method incudes the step of seeding the layer of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere with particles of materials characterized by wavelength-dependent emissivity. Such materials include Welsbach materials and the oxides of metals which have high emissivity (and thus low reflectivities) in the visible and 8-12 micron infrared wavelength regions.Inventors: David B. Chang, I-Fu Shih
Chang , et al. March 26, 1991
Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming
Original Assignee: Hughes Aircraft Company
Current U.S. Classification: 250/505.1; 244/158.1; 250/503.1;250/504.00R
International Classification: G21K 100
http://www.google.com/patents/US5003186
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Can we not agree that the above cited patent was submitted by agents of Hughes Aircraft Company (now Raytheon Corp) in March 1991 and they were seeking to protect their rights to the use of the above detailed technology to be used in future efforts to mitigate global warming . . .
Sorry . . .I have to run will return much later to continue . . .
Sorry . . .I have to run will return much later to continue . . .
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
I would agree that SO FAR there is no repeatable, scientifically validated, direct evidence that chemtrails exist as well as SO FAR there is no evidence that can rule out the possibility they could exist in some form.
Here is a debate we can find out if we agree with.
I noticed something yesterday riding a bike from the store. A big white plane (with a persistent contrail) made a sharp 45 degree turn then by the time I got home 10 minutes later, made another this time slight 45 degree turn in the opposite direction. How is this strange flight pattern explained? It looked something like this.
Secondly, most contrails I see are "pencil thin". Some are persistent enough to last a long time, but they don't spread out. They last a long time, then slowly disappear. You would think that the longer they sit there, the more spread out they would get. Well if they are spreading out they must be REAL thick.. So why dont thin trails last as long as the ones that spread out? You would think the thin (area) trails would last longer since they are "thicker" (composition) because they are not spread out..
Thirdly, I know you can't tell the exact height of an airplane in the sky by visual detection, but these two planes BOTH come underneath a cloud so that is a visual reference marker that they are BOTH under the altitude of the cloud and you can tell both planes are in about the same area. Why are the trails so utterly and completely different?
It was most likely not 45 degrees, it just looks like that from edge on. It was likely a course correction with an S turn, See:
http://contrailscience.com/identifying-a-curved-contrail/
Thin trails are not "thicker", they stay thin because the humidity is low, so no new ice accretes. But not too low so they instantly fade away. The thick trails spread out because humidity is high, and the ice crystals grow in size, and sink, spreading vertically, and then eventually get spread out more fully by wind shear.
Because they are at different altitudes. Both being under (or over) a cloud does not mean they are at the same altitude.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
I have seen persistent contrails at lower altitudes than regular contrails. How is this possible?
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
What about temperature? Temperature is warmer when you are closer to the ground. You need COLD temperature to produce contrails and even colder temperature for them to persist.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Nooo, it was flying straight towards me, then made a noticeable sharp turn to the left, which was close to 45 degrees. Maybe 44, maybe 46. But I know what I saw and it was about 45 degrees. then it flew straight for about 10 minutes, and then made a wide turn in the opposite direction, making a wide 45 degree angle. It looked more like a question mark than an S. The drawing I made is not exactly how I saw it. It was hard to recreate.
Rico
Senior Member.
Temperature isn't uniform in the air either. On a cold winter day, it's going to be much colder lower to the ground than it would be on a summer day, for instance. Mixed with variable humidity, contrails can occur and persist in many different altitudes.
Rico
Senior Member.
Making a 45 degree turn isn't all that unusual. Plane could be using a navigation beacon to change course (I do this all the time if I'm flying on an airway, and sometimes those airways turn at large angles), or the plane may be being vectored around by air traffic control if they were in controlled airspace (depending on where you live). I've had ATC vector me around in circles before just to clear the way for traffic. In your case, it sounds more the latter. Where do you live? Are you sure it's the same plane? You said you biked for 10 minutes, and generally, if it were a jet, it should be long gone (either landed, or gone somewhere else) by the time you got home.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Thats not accurate. The persistence of any contrail is due to the level of humidity not the temp.
You can have humid layers below drier areas...even though both layers are cold enough for contrails to form- only the lower trails will persist.
Met Watch
Moderator
I would invite you to look at a Skew-T chart and see how temperature and humidity can change as you ascend through the atmosphere. In fact, just for convenience sake, I'll provide one or two of them. The red line is temperature. The green line is thew dew point. It does not necessarily get colder as you ascend - there are such things as temperature inversions. Same with humidity - it does not necessarily get drier as you go higher.
Here is an excellent one from this morning in Bismarck - note that surface temperature is almost freezing and that at 900 mb - about 3,000 or 4,000 feet - it jumps to 15° C and doesn't match the surface again temperature until 650 mb - well above 10,000 feet. Also notice how irregular the dew point is - and how it is more humid at 850 mb than at the surface.
Hope this clears up this misunderstanding.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well Mick . . . will you agree with the above statement?
Similar threads
