What can debaters and debunkers agree upon regarding chemtrails.

[George B]

not unless you can show how such an experiment could be done through a commercial airline without anyone noticing?

At the least it would require approval of the required modifications by the appropriate regulatory agency, it would require engineers to design and mechanics to implement those modifications, it would require scientists to design the experiment and analyse the results. It would require ATC to direct and pilots to fly particular flight profiles.

So you think one (1) aircraft could not be modified, fly missions in restricted or low volume air space on a routine mission specified as checkout flights or something similar . . . as in after engine changes or modifications . . . it is done all the time. . .

 

[George B]

Yet again you conflate your statements - you said you had not seen any tabulated information about the sources of anthropogenic sulphur generation - I showed you such a table, and you seem completely unable to admit that yes, such information exists.

does it include estimates - sure. does it allow for unidentified sources sure - but, nonetheless you have still been shown such a table.

Wanting it to be moer accurate is an admirable goal - one which I think is probably not achievable to the extent you sem to want (it includes no estimates and no assumptions) - but by all means advocate for more research into atmospheric aerosols - i agree with you that it needs to be doen.

I just get irritated when you constantly change your "story" - it sems to me you are out to do anything you can not to admit I answered any given question of yours, or filled a gap you identified in your knowledge!

Edited to add:

Here's the IPCC's stocktake on anthropogenic GHG generation - another place you could find the information you had not seen.

Another thing that irritates me is you lack of critical thinking - I get the impression you simply dismiss "estimates" as if they make data meaningless or something like that. however unless you know the nature of the estimates and the size of the potential errors they may involve you do not have a basis for being dismissive.

For example if you make an estimate as to the amount of GHG from "unknown sources" as being 5% of the total then that involves a great deal less uncertainty than an estimate of 50% of the total. If you aer serious about tacking down uncertainty then you need to be investigating how large or small these estimates actually are.

I did for the principal issues . . . volcanic sulfur contributions . . . see #190 above . . . others have very little consequence to the stratospheric concentration of Sulfur . . . see #184 above . . . tropospheric contributions are small and are based upon calculations of fuel burns, etc. . . which are subject to identifying all fuel burned . . . wood, coal, animal fat, dung, grass, on and on . . .

 

[MikeC]

So you think one (1) aircraft could not be modified, fly missions in restricted or low volume air space on a routine mission specified as checkout flights or something similar . . . as in after engine changes or modifications . . . it is done all the time. . .

Are you deliberately trying to bait me or something with such inaccurate paraphrasing and strawman drivel???

Try addressing the issue instead of addressing your own poor understanding of what I wrote.

 

[HappyMonday]

Do you mean a new thread about the scientific reliability, accuracy, precision of atmospheric data used to make climatic decisions???

Call it what you like.

 

[MikeC]

Is that it . . . you want me to acknowledge that there were estimates and extrapolations in the cited material I had not seen before in the format in the document. . . sure there is a listing of sources of man-made sulfur in the atmosphere in the document I had not seen . . . if that is what you want . . . . you have it . . . my issue is the accuracy, precision and how the data was formulated . . . that has not changed . . .

Do I "want me (you) to acknowledge that there were estimates and extrapolations in the cited material I had not seen before in the format in the document"??

NOOOOOOO...........why do you consistently misrepresent what I write??!!!!!!

 

[George B]

Are you deliberately trying to bait me or something with such inaccurate paraphrasing and strawman drivel???

Try addressing the issue instead of addressing your own poor understanding of what I wrote.

I said the following . . .

Note: Can we agree that an experiment such as this one could easily be implemented on a small scale without notice????

Content from External Source

I did not bait you . . . if you think that sorry . . .

 

[George B]

Do I "want me (you) to acknowledge that there were estimates and extrapolations in the cited material I had not seen before in the format in the document"??

NOOOOOOO...........why do you consistently misrepresent what I write??!!!!!!

What is your point?

 

[MikeC]

I have no problem with hte post where you asked if it could be done - why don't you address the post I was replying to - the one where you said:

Originally Posted by George B

So you think one (1) aircraft could not be modified, fly missions in restricted or low volume air space on a routine mission specified as checkout flights or something similar . . . as in after engine changes or modifications . . . it is done all the time. . .

I'm a freaking aircraft mechanic - I used to modify components all the bleedin' time - and of course it can be done - I said it could be done and I outlined who would have to know about it being done.

Why don't you adress that???

 

[MikeC]

What is your point?

that you are out of your depth if you cannot understand a fairly simple concept along the lines of you said you had not seen some info, and you were provided a link to that info.

 

[George B]

that you are out of your depth if you cannot understand a fairly simple concept along the lines of you said you had not seen some info, and you were provided a link to that info.

And I said I had not seen it before . . . I said It exists in one place . . . but it is moot . . . the research into stratospheric sulfur concentrations shows man-made ground source sulfur has minimal effect on stratospheric levels . . .

 

[George B]

I have no problem with hte post where you asked if it could be done - why don't you address the post I was replying to - the one where you said:



I'm a freaking aircraft mechanic - I used to modify components all the bleedin' time - and of course it can be done - I said it could be done and I outlined who would have to know about it being done.

Why don't you adress that???

Come on . . . You really think a governmental agency wanting secrecy cannot pull off the engineering, security and mechanical retrofitting of one aircraft without spilling the beans . . . all they have to do to fool ATC is designate it as a military craft and mission . . .

 

[George B]

I have no problem with hte post where you asked if it could be done - why don't you address the post I was replying to - the one where you said:



I'm a freaking aircraft mechanic - I used to modify components all the bleedin' time - and of course it can be done - I said it could be done and I outlined who would have to know about it being done.

Why don't you adress that???

If you had read the cited paper not just the abstract you would have also known that a fuel additive was suggested as an alternative . . . since the volume of substance was less than sulfur injection the number of informed individuals would be potentially rather small, especially for one aircraft . . . and since it is essentially cloud seeding on the upper troposphere one might be able to use some of the higher flying aircraft already used by weather modification companies . . .

2.2. Delivery mechanism

Since commercial airliners routinely fly in the region where cold cirrus clouds exist, it is hoped that the seeding material could either be (1) dissolved or suspended in their jet fuel and later burned with the fuel to create seeding aerosol, or (2) injected into the hot engine exhaust, which should vaporize the seeding material, allowing it to condense as aerosol in the jet contrail. The objective would not be to seed specific cloud systems but rather to build up a background concentration of aerosol seeding material so that the air masses that cirrus will form in will contain the appropriate amount of seeding material to produce larger ice crystals. Since the residence time of seeding material might be on the order of 1–2 weeks, release rates of seeding material would need to account for this. With the delivery process already existing, this geoengineering approach may be less expensive than other proposed approaches.
http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102/fulltext/

Content from External Source