Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Contrail/ Chemtrail Research Thread

page: 34
67
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by tommyjo
The utter ignorance of aviation continues! His ignorance is simply mind numbing!


So I take it your one of those debunker trolls he is referring too?





Next you'll be calling me a paid 'disinfo agent and gooberment shill' . You chaps will still be scratching your heads in decades to come. Contrails will still be there and no governments will collapse nor will people be brought to justice, simply because there was nothing there in the first place. Some of you guys need that bogey-man. Some of you can't even work out why there is a gap between the engine and the formation of a contrail.

Remember Mathius and his 'no gap' theory


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Peekay is as bad as Tanker Enemy in presenting this so-called 'positive proof'. Pure mind numbing ignorance of aviation twisted to present a conspiracy theory.




posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



So if you multiply those numbers in the diagram by three... that sure is a lot of trailing chemicals spewing out of jets PER HOUR multiplied by the number of jets flying any given hour 24 hours a day


This is well known.

But, why multiply "by three"?


There aren't that many tri-jets around any more. So, either two engines per airplane, or four. Twin-jets are FAR more common.

In any case......the SAME figures would be applied to every diesel car, truck and railroad locomotive too.....and, any diesel generator that a person runs for electricity power supplies.

Gasoline (in YOUR automobile) will also produce a cocktail of similar chemicals, every time ---- the proportions vary, and the various emissions devices (catalytic converters, etc) mitigate it somewhat.....

....but, how many cars are there, in the World, compared to airliners??

Go ahead.....do your own research. Find out the total consumption (in gallons) of gasoline, either World-wide, or just the USA (or anywhere) by ground vehicles. Add in diesel fuel consumed, too.

Then, see how many gallons of Jet-A1 is used, to compare.

WHO is doing the most "polluting"??

In the diagram, by far the largest component of the emissions is CO2. Carbon dioxide. Same with other fossil fuels. Three times as much CO2 as water.

The other chemicals are tiny, in comparison.

Next on the list is NOx, Nitric Oxide, and Nitrogen Dioxide (a gas too). At 6-20 kilograms per metric tonne.....1,000 kilograms in one metric tonne, so what? 0.6% to 2% of each unit of fuel burned....

By the way:


In areas of high motor vehicle traffic, such as in large cities, the amount of nitrogen oxides emitted into the atmosphere as air pollution can be significant. NOx gases are formed everywhere where there is combustion – like in an engine.



The next larger component is CO -- Carbon Monoxide. About one tenth as much as the NOX.

Others are miniscule.

Let's put this into perspective, however.....CO2 occurs in nature (you are emitting it RIGHT NOW!! I presume you are breathing, correct??)

So, the NOX......worst case, 20 kilograms of, again, a gas.....per 1,000 metric tonnes.

Typical New York to Los Angeles trans-con.flight is about 6 hours. Typical for a B-767 or B-777 fuel burn per hour is about (it varies, but we can average) 6,000 pounds per hour, per engine. So, call it 72,000 pounds of fuel burned on the flight. One metric tonne = 1,000 kg = 2,200 pounds. 72,000 / 2,200 = 32.73 'tonnes'.

So, if you get about 20 kg of NOX for each 'tonne', then 20 x 32.73 = 654.6 kilograms total (1,440.12 pounds).

Spread out and diluted across about 3,000 miles of airspace.......that's about 2 pounds diluted into each mile distance....and, we haven't talked about the other two dimensions in a three-dimensional World, of width and height.....

Now....step outside next to a very busy highway, and breathe in deeply....marvel at the wonderful aromas that waft your way, from the cars and trucks passing by.......



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
This is well known.
But, why multiply "by three"?


Well the data in the image is per ton... and you said 6000 lbs which in my books is 3 tons per hour
Do the math



WHO is doing the most "polluting"??


Airplane... because;
a) you forgot to add all those military planes with the really nasty fuels
b) airplanes pollute high up where the particles stay in suspension longer while cars pollution settles to the ground faster


In the diagram, by far the largest component of the emissions is CO2. Carbon dioxide. Same with other fossil fuels. Three times as much CO2 as water.


CO₂ is not a concern... plants love the stuff
Cow farts and volcanoes put that out all the time. Surely your not one of those global warming nuts?


The other chemicals are tiny, in comparison.


The other chemicals are the point of concern... and they are NOT that tiny... especially the ones added to the chemtrail planes


Hey thanks for the chemistry lesson
And yeah we should dump cars too and switch to electric...

GO CHEVY VOLT!!!!!!

or even Hydrogen...

BOYCOTT EXXON support Royal Dutch Shell... sock it to Bush Oil Co


Because who knows what toxic wastes those good ole boys put in that gas to get rid of it



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Chemtrail update in my area.. a couple of days ago we had perfect blue skies to the east... then I notice something else.. the sprayers have been out since early morning too in the west and "finishing off" in a few spots.. my 89yr old grandmother even noticed something wasnt natural with the trails that kept expanding across the sky.. 89!

Now the strange part.. A huge storm front was coming in, you could see it coming from the west.. then it just stopped right at the furthest point west where the chemtrail started.. weather prediction was rain a certainty.
The next day there were no planes.. the same exact storm front in size approached from the same direction and kept coming and with it, the rain.

Coincidence right?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by PrecogPsychicSensitive
 


Oh, Crikey!!

Contrails form because of the approaching weather changes!! Contrails don't "cause" weather, nor affect weather.

Really, this is just such basic science, isn't it still taught in the third or fourth grade??



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
The scariest part about Chem Trails to me (since they dont exist)

Is how good of a idea it is....



Congratulations, you paranoid people may have just aided the enemy.
edit on 2/25/2012 by truthinfact because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
Oh, Crikey!!
Contrails form because of the approaching weather changes!! Contrails don't "cause" weather, nor affect weather.
Really, this is just such basic science, isn't it still taught in the third or fourth grade??


Well Herr Pilot it seems you are WRONG again


Let me attempt to educate you... with science. Google this term "contrails warming effect"


Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails

Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from those formed naturally. These 'spreading contrails' may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.


www.nature.com...

Earth Warmed by Trails of Clouds that Jets Leave Behind
by Wynne Parry, LiveScience Senior Writer


The long, feathery lines of condensation that form behind aircraft, called contrails, have more of an immediate warming effect on the Earth's surface than the carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases that the aircraft emit, a new study calculates.


www.livescience.com...

So I can [post a hundred more similar articles PROVING that scientists, REAL ONES, actually agree that contrails DO form clouds and effect the weather...

So please stop spreading you disinfo agenda and go do a little real research. Your getting as bad as the other chap... the one with the weed whacker avatar
Funny, still shows him as an active member, but haven't heard from him in some time....

Its all about truth, right?




posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by truthinfact

[redacted] no point



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Dear 'herr' zorgon....

.....there are, as yet, unknown factors at work, and conflicting scientific studies into the over-all effects of what airplane contrails, or whether, indeed, Cirrus Aviaticus actually have on over-all GLOBAL climate.

Since the actual INFLUENCE of airplanes is quite limited.....on a GLOBAL scale:

24 Hours Of Air Traffic - Atlantic Sphere View

Or this other representation.....in another "map" view":



We who are familiar with MAPS know the various ways that a sphere, such as our EARTH, can be mapped in various ways. Right??

"World Map - Wiki Version"

( ^ ^ ^ ) just for educational reasons, I might add.....



TRY to do the math, please.....

Also, zorgon. speaking of math...I want YOU to chew on this:


Originally posted by ProudBird

Since this thread is (tangentially) discussing the so-called "chemtrails".....I think this next bit is VERY interesting. It discusses the hypothetical of jettisoning jet fuel....kerosene.....which, BTW, is pumped out at a pretty fast rate. On the Boeing 767, if all pumps are working (normal electrical power to all pumps) and both "dump" valves open, the rate is about 2,500 pounds per minute (there are cute little "calculations" we can use in our heads, to estimate the time needed, depending on the amount of weight we have to eliminate).

Anyway, @2,500 ppm, that is about 373 gallons per minute.

I say that for those who believe in "chemtrails"....just so they can think about it!



The wake turbulence behind the aircraft makes most of the fuel released through the nozzles vaporise into a fine mist, which remains in the atmosphere until being broken down by the sun's energy into carbon dioxide and water. Only a minimal amount of the dumped kerosene actually reaches the ground. If a fuel dump is made at the minimum altitude of 1,500 m, given a ground temperature of 15°C and assuming that the air is still, then it is calculated that 8% of the total fuel dumped will reach the ground. Assuming the aircraft was flying at the minimum speed of 500 km/h, this results in the ground being affected by 0.02g per square meter, which is the equivalent of a spirit glassful of kerosene spread over an area of 1,000 m2.

The above assumes total stillness of the air, which is in fact highly unlikely. Even the slightest air movements, which automatically stir the air up, make fuel evaporate almost entirely before it can reach the ground. This explains why even the most sensitive monitoring equipment has not yet succeeded in discovering kerosene-related impurities in plant and soil samples taken after a fuel dump.



And people think that airplanes are "spraying" them!!


Here's the source...sorry, it's in German. Google will happily 'translate'.....


edit on Sat 25 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
...sorry, it's in German. Google will happily 'translate'.....


No thanks Google doesn't quite get it right



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


OK, zorgie......do the "translate" for us.

Understanding that languages do not always "translate" directly....we know this. My best "other" language is French. I realize the concepts are different, and the phraseology different.

But, since English is (primarily) Germanic-based....with a smattering of other lingual influences.....we can usually derive a base standard agreement.....usually.......



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
But, since English is (primarily) Germanic-based....with a smattering of other lingual influences.....we can usually derive a base standard agreement.....usually.......


Well the biggest problem with French and German (and Russian) is that you have to reverse some text after translation to get it sounding right like here you say twenty one and we say 'one and twenty' (ein und zwanzig)

Ist Ihr neues Konto auch mit dem Schlüsselwort Chemtrails ausgelöst?




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Yeah?

So what?

(or, What so?)

It's like Moulin Rouge in French.....literally, "Windmill Red" in English.

This is common.

In English, we put the modifier first....in some other languages, the modifier is after the noun.....big deal!!!



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
So what?
(or, What so?)


I am quite sure you got the message
Don't make me spell it out



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Why wouldn't you spell it out?
what are you hiding??



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

I'm not the one who is hiding



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
Since the actual INFLUENCE of airplanes is quite limited.....on a GLOBAL scale:



Hmmm these guys seem to think otherwise....



4.1. Airplanes


Existing small jet fighter planes, like the F-15C Eagle (Figure 2a), are capable of flying into the lower stratosphere in the tropics, while in the Arctic, larger planes, such as the KC-135 Stratotanker or KC-10 Extender (Figure 2b), are capable of reaching the required altitude. ......


The Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk can reach 20 km without a pilot but costs twice as much as an F-15C. Current designs have a payload of 1-1.5 tons. Clearly it is possible to design an autonomous specialized aircraft to loft sulfuric acid precursors into the lower stratosphere, but the current analysis focuses on existing aircraft.

Options for dispersing gases from planes include the addition of sulfur to the fuel, which would release the aerosol through the exhaust system of the plane, or the attachment of a nozzle to release the sulfur from its own tank within the plane, .......

The military has already manufactured more planes than would be required for this geoengineering scenario, potentially reducing the costs of this method. Since climate change is an important national security issue [Schwartz and Randall, 2003], the military could be directed to carry out this mission with existing aircraft at minimal additional cost. ...

Unlike the small jet fighter planes, the KC-135 and KC-10 are used to refuel planes mid-flight and already have a nozzle installed. In the tropics, one option might be for the tanker to fly to the upper troposphere, and then fighter planes would ferry the sulfur gas up into the stratosphere (Figure 2b). It may also be possible to have a tanker tow a glider with a hose to loft the exit nozzle into the stratosphere.



climate.envsci.rutgers.edu...

And then theres David....talking about cloud formation and "chemtrails"

Oh, what was this dude thinking anyways?

Would these be kind of "chemtrails...or contrails?




Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission
of condensible vapor from aircraft

Jeffrey R. Pierce
Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
www.agu.org...



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Yes you are - you are refusing to "spell out" whatever it is.

Why?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Nice attempt at switching the conversation flow to suit your needs:


Hmmm these guys seem to think otherwise....


I was NOT referring to any conceptual future designs that might wish to utilize airplanes for "stratospheric" releases of any sort.

It was blatantly clear what I was referring to! In the context of the conversation flow, and in my response.

This is very disingenuous of you, altering my meaning by QUOTE MINING me out of context!!!

Now......find ANY evidence of the activities and concepts suggested as possible mitigating technologies, that are currently only in the theoretical stage and may NEVER be implemented.....ANY evidence of any of them actually occurring, right now.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Oh, this is hilarious!!


Ist Ihr neues Konto auch mit dem Schlüsselwort Chemtrails ausgelöst?



I got your meaning pretty clearly......is this close?:


Your new account is also triggered by the keyword chemtrails?



Herr zorg.......there is this handy-dandy little feature of ATS.....it is a page titled "myATS". On that page I can tailor whch Forums I wish to feature, and any new threads that are posted in those selected Forum show up right away.....right on top, newest to oldest.

You see, it is also possible to "subscribe" to a Thread and a Forum as well....without even bothering to make a post to it......it is rather clever, you click on "Subscribe" in a box, upper left top of page in a Thread.

Also, the order in which your desired Forums will be displayed on "myATS" can be altered to suit your preference, with the up/down arrow buttons.

You should try it some time.....instead of expressing a "faux" aura of paranoia about ATS accounts that can be "alerted" by specific "keywords". LOL.......

....Or, I could say, "Yeah, I have a special 'keyword' alert system! I call it the *Mark 2* method.....it is powered completely by my two eyeballs....."





new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join