Interview of Dane Wigington of GeoEngineering Watch

luxordelphi
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.

Have you forgotten you question???

It was for evidence of humidity in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere - the readings answer that do they not?

luxordelphi
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 a RR Trent 900 producing 84000lbf thrust WITHOUT burning ANY kerosene

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

Please look up and see cirrus clouds. Failing that try and read this www.geo.uzh.ch...

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

Please try and get your head around this ciresweb.colorado.edu...


Do you really not know how contrails form, persist and grow? Seriously?

mrthumpy


Please provide something that shows a RR Trent 900 producing 84000lbf thrust WITHOUT burning ANY kerosene

Here you go - the graphs on page 5 of this pdf summary of the GE90 specifications show it uses absolutely NO fuel in cruise - 'cos the SFC (specific fuel consumption) is zero!

Or perhaps not........

Aloysius the Gaul

mrthumpy


Please provide something that shows a RR Trent 900 producing 84000lbf thrust WITHOUT burning ANY kerosene

Or perhaps not........

Definitely not, Page Not Found

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

Clouds?

reply to post by network dude

Clouds?

Let's not forget wind, unless certain people think wind comes from planes too.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


I was taking baby steps.

reply to post by mrthumpy


I think you are missing my points. The outrageously persistent contrails that we all discuss in this forum are not forming during take-off and landing. They are forming at cruise (allegedly). So asking for flow rates at cruise, kerosene to kerosene, is, imo, not out of line. And, as you yourselves have found, in that search, the ludicrous ratings that airlines put out and the ridiculous computing that goes into them can, at times, give a zero (0) flow rate for cruise.

Further, according to a recent study (which I don't endorse or deny) suggests that heterogenous, not homogenous nucleation is preferred for cirri and further that mineral dusts (aluminosilicate) and heavy metals, not black carbon soots, are the preferred method and particle for cirri formation.

Clarifying the Dominant Sources and Mechanisms of Cirrus Cloud Formation

And, tit for tat, since you link a thesis paper, I'll link one too. (Again - not endorsing nor denying.)

Contrail And Cirrus Cloud Avoidance Technology

And the cutest thing of all, from this paper, abominably simple, is, wait for it...: a rear view mirror. lol

Earlier methods for contrail avoidance included a simple rear mirror installed in the cockpit to allow pilots to observe whether a contrails forms behind the aircraft or not. If so, he would simply climb/descend to an altitude where no more contrail would form in the aircraft wake.

How cute! How clever! No environmental impact statement needed. And today's technology (I had one in my old Southwind) can provide a little TV that shows what's happening out the back. Diabolical! All without chemicals!!

reply to post by luxordelphi

Further, according to a recent study (which I don't endorse or deny) suggests that heterogenous, not homogenous nucleation is preferred for cirri and further that mineral dusts (aluminosilicate) and heavy metals, not black carbon soots, are the preferred method and particle for cirri formation.

I don't think that's exactly what it said.

Formation of cirrus clouds depends upon the availability of ice nuclei to begin condensation of atmospheric water vapor. While it is known that only a small fraction of atmospheric aerosols are efficient ice nuclei, the critical ingredients that make those aerosols so effective has not been established. We have determined in situ the composition of the residual particles within cirrus crystals after the ice was sublimated. Our results demonstrate that mineral dust and metallic particles are the dominant source of residual particles, while sulfate/organic particles are underrepresented and elemental carbon and biological material are essentially absent. Further, composition analysis combined with relative humidity measurements suggest heterogeneous freezing was the dominant formation mechanism of these clouds.

No mention of heavy metals and the part about "sulfate/organic particles are underrepresented and elemental carbon and biological material are essentially absent." is not surprising considering:

Measurements were made in air traffic corridors although contrails were not specifically targeted.

ETA:

I think you are missing my points. The outrageously persistent contrails that we all discuss in this forum are not forming during take-off and landing. They are forming at cruise (allegedly).

Conversely, consider that if the trails are from the "chem" then why are they not visible on ascent/descent?

mrthumpy

Aloysius the Gaul

mrthumpy


Please provide something that shows a RR Trent 900 producing 84000lbf thrust WITHOUT burning ANY kerosene

Or perhaps not........

Definitely not, Page Not Found

Hmmm....ok - try this - note it is an automatic download of a pdf

luxordelphi
And the cutest thing of all, from this paper, abominably simple, is, wait for it...: a rear view mirror. lol

Earlier methods for contrail avoidance included a simple rear mirror installed in the cockpit to allow pilots to observe whether a contrails forms behind the aircraft or not. If so, he would simply climb/descend to an altitude where no more contrail would form in the aircraft wake.

How cute! How clever! No environmental impact statement needed. And today's technology (I had one in my old Southwind) can provide a little TV that shows what's happening out the back. Diabolical! All without chemicals!!

Now who in the world would need that, the stupid pilot should know if his chemtrail switch was on or off, He shouldn't need a mirror. Unless.........

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


The topic was an interview with Dane Wittington. Originally, I listened to the first 10 minutes and discovered that today's jet engines are incapable of creating today's outrageously persistent contrails.

You all have countered with cooler engines, thrust and the total nonsense that these engines are spewing ice.

And yet, to prove your assertions, you are unable to put up even one chart that shows fuel flow rates at cruise, kerosene to kerosene.

You are unable to put up anything that shows that a cooler engine creates more contrails. All you have put up is a debunking site that says we need two different charts to show engine efficiency. And another paper that shows infighting over Appleman - even theoreticists can't agree on what conditions create contrails.

You have failed to show that black carbon soots are creating contrails. You have failed to show that today's engines are releasing more water vapor at cruise. All you have said is that today's engines are less efficient and more polluting than yesterday's.

Why do you constantly ignore atmospheric chemistry and physics? The psychopaths behind the trashing of our skies are not ignoring these. They are using them to their advantage.

Why would you continue to believe a propaganda machine that puts out information, which, extrapolated, shows zero (0) fuel consumption at cruise? Doesn't that tell you anything?

(And, btb, I listened to a bit more of the interview and would like to move on to discussing other interesting revelations between 18 and 19 minutes of the interview so either put up or shut up on the efficient engine issue.)

reply to post by luxordelphi

The topic was an interview with Dane Wittington. Originally, I listened to the first 10 minutes and discovered that today's jet engines are incapable of creating today's outrageously persistent contrails.

No, you discovered that he made that claim. Unfortunately it resonates with your confirmation bias apparently. Do you have evidence his claim is true?

I'll do one more for now.

You have failed to show that black carbon soots are creating contrails.

Contrails or condensation trails are the upper ice crystal clouds produced by jet aircraft. They are visible line clouds generated by water vapor emissions that form behind an aircraft flying in sufficiently cold air. These ice clouds have been known to form through the freezing processes involving water droplets that are formed a priori on the soot (black carbon or BC) and sulfuric acid particles emitted from aircraft and/or background aerosol particles.

geotest.tamu.edu...

Much more at the link.

I'm not a piggy.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Why do you constantly ignore atmospheric chemistry and physics?

Well why do you ignore science and what they tell you, especially concerning contrails that persist?

Why would you continue to believe a propaganda machine that puts out information,

Oh my, are you seriously going to say something like that after listening to a Dane Wigington load of BS and believing it?

I was about to post the Michael J. Murphy video where he admits persistent contrails exist, and after watching that, I decided not to. You people (chemtrail believers) have ignored science in favor of fantastic conspiracies. You have disregarded common sense in favor of lunacy. You deserve to be misled. You deserve to have others who are willing to ignore facts to blindly follow you.

Chemtrail are as real as you want them to be.

reply to post by luxordelphi


From what you wrote there, about what you *think* has been said about engines despite it not being said at all, it really doesn't matter what anyone posts as you will simply say it is something else.

luxordelphi
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

You are unable to put up anything that shows that a cooler engine creates more contrails.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "cooler engine" - kerosene burns at pretty much the same temperature regardless of what engine it is in AFAIK.

But possibly you are referring to high-bypass vs low bypass ratio engines, where the bypass air is not burned and hence the overall engine exhaust is cooler .....



That problem is easily solved.

You have failed to show that black carbon soots are creating contrails.

and so what - why would that be important?

You have failed to show that today's engines are releasing more water vapor at cruise.

A pretty meaningless statement - more fuel is burned these days, so more water is created.....what other measure would be relevant??

All you have said is that today's engines are less efficient and more polluting than yesterday's.

I'm pretty sure you have that exactly the wrong way around.

Why do you constantly ignore atmospheric chemistry and physics?

which bits of atmospheric chemistry and physics would "we" be ignoring then?

The psychopaths behind the trashing of our skies are not ignoring these. They are using them to their advantage.

You have failed to show that there are any "psychopaths behind the trashing our skies" .......

Why would you continue to believe a propaganda machine that puts out information,....

You haven't shown that science is a propaganda machine.....just saying....

.... which, extrapolated, shows zero (0) fuel consumption at cruise? Doesn't that tell you anything?

it tells me you don't know what you are talking about.

but as long as we're on roll of things that haven't been shown - you haven't shown any verifiable evidnce chemtrails exist at all.

luxordelphi
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

You all have countered with cooler engines, thrust and the total nonsense that these engines are spewing ice.

Can you explain why you think that is total nonsense?

luxordelphi
All you have said is that today's engines are less efficient and more polluting than yesterday's.

Not that I expect any display of good character from you, but could you point out where anyone said this?

The exact opposite was said, many many times. But that is par for the course in the land of chemtrails. Obfuscate, lie, and twist to suit your needs.

Depending on the airline, the average service life of an aircraft is about 20 years. Jet aircraft burn enormous quantities of carbon-producing fossil fuel (although modern high-bypass jet engines burn significantly less fuel than earlier turbojet models)

www.executivetravelmagazine.com...

reply to post by network dude

Not that I expect any display of good character from you, but could you point out where anyone said this?

Good luck with that.

As we have seen in the past this will be a twisted version of what was actually said, but that is if you get a reply at all.