Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Concrete examples of false claims on 'chemtrails' • FRANCE 24 English" video.
-
11
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@therocknrollguitarlounge7057
"are you a pilot?"
No, neither are you. I'm a climatologist specialising in ground based remote sensing. However, that has no bearing on this conversation. Your dispute lies with the fundamentals of atmospheric and meteorological science and basic aviation not me. Address the subject not the individual.
"Do you have proof those planes are empty? Send me video before you get on the jet of the empty jet. If not stfu you have no solid proof to debunk what is being seen here in California. Dont debunk what you have no proof of."
Sigh. Yet another conspiracy believer that fails to understand burden of proof. Since you are the one making the claim, the latter is incumbent upon you, the onus does not lie with myself or any other party to establish a negative/absent. Surely you are able to comprehend that? If not, I suggest you refer to a simple thought experiment to illustrate this called 'Russell's Teapot'.
If I were to claim to you that Mr.Ed had spawned a family of talking horses the responsibility would lie with me to substantiate that claim. I wouldn't expect you to scour the entire equine world on a mission to disprove it. Your dumb, childish chemtrails conspiracy theory debunks itself through being a physical and mathematical impossibility. That you are completely ignorant of atmospheric science and aviation is the sole reason that you have been duped by it.
Regarding "those planes" - do you have any comprehension of the weight of material contained in any of these trails that you are observing versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing them? Of course you haven't.
"and like I said get out once in a wile and observe."
And like I said, you'll find that's precisely what the fields of atmospheric and meteorological science and aviation do. It's also my line of work and I've spent the last two and half decades measuring.
"The science tou talk about has no relevance to what is being done up there."
You'll find that atmospheric chemistry, meteorology and aviation has everything to do with what's "being done up there". I suggest that you understand the process of contrail formation, dry and adiabatic lapse rates, dew point and relative humidity in addition to supersaturation in respect to ice. As I said, this information is free for all to access and governed by physical laws, mathematical axioms and therefore has a voice of its own. Nothing to do with me.
"It doesnt fit the observational proof."
The persistent contrails that you are observing have been witnessed, documented, recorded, measured and studied for in excess of eighty years and since the early advent of powered aviation. Your ignorance of the science behind it and your personal incredulity has no bearing whatsoever upon the real world.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dansiwek3593
Ah right.
Yes you are correct. Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. So actually, the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what the contrails that you term 'chemtrails' are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh Jeez.
Firstly, David Keith's research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is entirely that. It is a hypothetical concept that has not even progressed beyond computer modelling and research paper and hasn't even reached the stages of small scale trial. It is highly unlikely given appreciable the challenges such as logistics, cost, environmental unknowns and international governance, that it would ever be employed - even as a last ditch measure to arrest global temperature increase.
Bill Gates has nothing to do with SAI beyond lending vocal support a decade ago and making a donation to Harvard's geoengineering research initiative.
I think you mean John Brennan, the former head of the CIA, whose 2016 voluntary address to the Council on Foreign Nations concerned 'Transnational Threats to Global Security' which was appropriated and dishonestly framed by chemtrail conspiracy theorists. Why don't you listen to what he actually said instead of gullibly falling for some sensationalist You Tube video strapline? I can provide you with a full transcription if you wish. Brennan doesn't advocate the idea of SAI, completely the opposite, he warns of the dangers that it poses to international relations and the environmental unknowns.
What does any of this have to do with a dumb conspiracy theory centred around the misidentification of aircraft contrails that have been observed, recorded, documented and studied for in excess of 80 years and since the early advent of powered aviation?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1