It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Interview of Dane Wigington of GeoEngineering Watch

page: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. Nevertheless, I will try to clarify your point for you.

Civil aviation and the environmental challenge


For every tonne of kerosene burned, 1.23 tonnes of water vapour are emitted in the engine exhaust plume. At altitude in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, under conditions of low ambient temperature and high relative humidity, the exhaust stream is cooled by mixing with the ambient air and the water vapour condenses to form a visible trail. Minute particles in the exhaust stream, mostly soot and aerosol particles produced during combustion, provide the nuclei for condensation. The trail may evaporate again within a short time or it may persist as an identifiable contrail for an hour or more. As time passes, a persistent contrail is distorted and dispersed by wind shear to form cirrus cloud which is similar in character to naturally occurring cirrus.



As regards contrails themselves, the conditions under which they can form are reasonably well understood, as are the conditions under which they quickly evaporate again. For contrails to persist and to degenerate into cirrus the air within the contrail, when the engine exhaust is extensively mixed with the ambient air, must be saturated or supersaturated with respect to ice. However, because the engine exhaust adds heat as well as water vapour to the air mass, the critical conditions of temperature and humidity for a contrail to persist depend on the propulsive efficiency of the engine. As engines have become more efficient, mean exhaust temperatures have fallen and the temperature-humidity boundary for the creation of a long-lived contrail has moved upwards, so that contrails are found in warmer air today than in the 1970s.


And, from the same study, my point:


The aircraft of today consume 70% less fuel, are 20dB quieter and emit substantially fewer pollutants than the first generation of jet airliners.


So when you say:




In modern engines more stuff isn't burned up though. There is less.



All I'm saying is that there are fewer pollutants and less water vapor coming out of the engine. Less fuel used...yes. And that accounts for the water vapor. But the engine is also more efficient in vaporizing pollutants because it is continuous. That's why there's usually no black smoke coming out of commercial jets.

Continuing with your explanation, I'm just assuming here that you're saying the engine runs cooler because less of the escaping exhaust is coming in contact with combustion processes. It is, instead, bypassing those.

In order to have a contrail persist, or even to have a contrail at all, you need water vapor in an area that is usually pretty dry. You need particles to start the nucleation process in an area that is notorious for sparsity of these. And it has to be very cold. These conditions will give a spurt of a contrail but for it to persist, and spread, conditions need to continue like this.

There needs to be a glut of water vapor and particles.

And, if you're going to say that conditions, temperature conditions, for contrail formation exist, that's all you can say. You can say that a cooler engine disturbed the existing temperature condition a bit less than a hotter engine but then you'll still have to figure out where the water vapor and particles came from in this efficient engine to produce the contrail. And you'll also still have to figure out why it grew and persisted in ambient air.




posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


You really don't get this at all do you (hardly surprising given your track record). Modern engines are more efficient. That doesn't mean they burn less fuel overall, it means they burn LESS FUEL PER POUND OF THRUST but they produce a hell of a lot more thrust than they used to. Do you understand that? Do you want me to draw you a diagram?

So the engines are still producing plenty of water vapour but that's not where VIRTUALLY ALL of the water vapour that forms a persistent and spreading contrail comes from. IT'S ALREADY IN THE ATMOSPHERE the ice crystals in the trail from the engine just provide the nuclei for it to form ice on



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


No, I won't, because it is not merely a matter of temperature, it is also the relative humidity of the air the plane is flying through, something you see to have completely missed. When relative humidity is high, lots of moisture is already present. This is information on which you yourself have posted within the last few hours, maybe you should read that document?

Burning one tonne of fuel still produces 1.25 tonnes of water, just like it always did. That hasn't changed, so highly compressed bypass fan air plus water content of jet exhaust equals far more contrail prevalence than with older types. When air is less humid you get short trails as the water ice sublimates. When it is very humid, the saturation of the ambient air prevents sublimation and the trail persists.

It is always freezing cold around 30,000ft and water is always present in the air, just in varying quantities, so I don't know why you think contrail conditions should be rare?

Remember also that engines are vastly bigger than they were, the diameter of a Rolls Royce Trent 1000 cowl is bigger than the cabin diameter of a Boeing 737, for example, so all comparisons are relative. The combustion core of that Trent engine, and it's contemporaries, is bigger than a 1970's Spey or JT8D, all by itself. The fuel savings of HBPR engines was essential to make today's bigger aircraft realistic propositions without having planes like the A380 powered by 20 engines, which is how many Conways it would take at 20,000lb thrust each to match the power it has. Just think of the fuel burn and pollution that would create!



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


The substances sent to a lab showed cancer cells developing in a petri dish perhaps?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


can cancer cells survive outside the body?
www.scienceforums.net...


You can provide it with nutrients etc in a petri dish and it would survive for an amount of time. Not indefinately though. Some cancer cells have such incredible regenerative properties they are almost immortal.
The thing with human cells is they have become specialized, enhancing the abilities of the organism as a whole, but losing thier independace, for example a muscle cell relys on blood cells to bring glucose (one example) and take away waste products.
So in a dish yes and on its own no.


So unless these cells were in a petri dish, you were lied too. But please, continue to believe them, I am sure MOST of what they say is true.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   

network dude
So unless these cells were in a petri dish, you were lied too. But please, continue to believe them, I am sure MOST of what they say is true.


Apparently you're content to assume the cells were not in a petri dish.

Why would you do that?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Out of curiosity, when you are shown that you were lied to, does it make you think about any other suspect information you have been given, or do you just blindly believe things because they fit with your agenda?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Mary Rose

network dude
So unless these cells were in a petri dish, you were lied too. But please, continue to believe them, I am sure MOST of what they say is true.


Apparently you're content to assume the cells were not in a petri dish.

Why would you do that?


Because I cannot imagine petri dishes falling from the sky. If that happened, I would be thinking of stranger things than chemtrails.

edit to add:
Please tell me you were just joking when you asked that.
edit on 20-3-2014 by network dude because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Now you're being ridiculous.

The substances were sent to a lab where they have petri dishes.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Yes, the substances that fell from the sky in a "chemtrail". So you want me to believe that cancer cells, that cannot live outside the body, unless they are in a controlled environment and in a petri dish, just fluttered down to be collected and identified?

Please let me know if I have any of that wrong.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by network dude
 


Now you're being ridiculous.

The substances were sent to a lab where they have petri dishes.


Better yet, please tell me where these cells were before they arrived in the petri dish.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Hmmm, no reply for five hours despite being on here a few minutes ago. Has the penny dropped, I wonder?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


In all fairness, I would have ran away too.




posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mrthumpy
 


No need for insecurity. It is possible to embrace both of our viewpoints.

Please provide something that shows the flow rate at cruise. Please make sure it compares kerosene to kerosene.

Please provide something that shows water vapor in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere not placed there by jets.

Please explain this nonsense:




IT'S ALREADY IN THE ATMOSPHERE the ice crystals in the trail from the engine just provide the nuclei for it to form ice on



Remain calm. It's going to be what it is.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 




Please provide something that shows water vapor in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere not placed there by jets.

I think I'll go with cirri on that one.

ETA:Oh, just look up!
Wish I thought of that originally. I coulda been a contendah, but I blew it!



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   

luxordelphi
Please provide something that shows water vapor in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere not placed there by jets.


how about the relative humidity plots from a couple of hundred stations worldwide??

The include relative humidity percentages up to altitudes in the order of 30,000 meters - 100,000 feet - the max height may vary each day at each location.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


If you're going to claim, as you have, that the dot-dot-dot contrails are due to variable humidity, you're going to have to do better than a couple of hundred stations world-wide.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Are you talking about dot matrix skywriting or something else?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Thank you, hall monitor...the plural of cirrus is cirri. Who knew??!!

So what can you tell me about my area: I live in the desert. There is no visible cirrus (cirri?) here except from jet spray. It's all from jets. There are no storm fronts. Rain is rare. Chemtrails are everyday. Clouds are rare. Jet cirri are everyday.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





Thank you, hall monitor...the plural of cirrus is cirri. Who knew??!!

I patrol the language arts (do they still call it that?) wing occasionally.

I can't answer those questions right now. I'm needed in the library.

ETA: Can't upload pics but here's a link earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

You never see anything like that? (Back to the library)
edit on 20-3-2014 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)







 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join