Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

What the fuck do NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, or the EPA have to do with conducting a simple sample collection to prove the claims the chemtards make? Methinks you are trying, quite unsuccessfully, to throw up a strawman.

Come on you get real . . . if the science is not perfect and convincing to the agencies above you have wasted your money and effort. People like you would be all over it in a skinny second, no one would listen except 'us kooks' and you know it. To convince ourselves is not the reason for the budget it is to prove to the world that it exists.

However, I don't need in situ samples, the testimony and research from the above agencies is quite enough to convince people that real changes have occurred in their atmosphere and the changes are caused through known processes that have increased the number and frequency of aircraft induced cirrus clouds.



For someone who apparently slept through sixth grade science you are remarkably ill informed as to scientific method.

Who care what these agencies say if your science is solid? Solid science speaks for itself, it is not subject to vote or consensus.

So rather than actually getting samples you prefer to rely on unsupported claims, hearsay, rumor and internet codswallop, flapdoodle, dingbattery and loon drool.

I ask again, what the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting that results in your profound stupidity?

Can't you read . . . the testimony and research from the above agencies . . . so the above agencies (NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, or the EPA) engage in unsupported claims, hearsay, rumor and internet codswallop, flapadoodle, dingbattery and loon drool? You first heard it here . . . I think we need to ask Congress to defund these idiots.

What the fuck do NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, or the EPA have to do with conducting a simple sample collection to prove the claims the chemtards make? Methinks you are trying, quite unsuccessfully, to throw up a strawman.

Come on you get real . . . if the science is not perfect and convincing to the agencies above you have wasted your money and effort. People like you would be all over it in a skinny second, no one would listen except 'us kooks' and you know it. To convince ourselves is not the reason for the budget it is to prove to the world that it exists.

However, I don't need in situ samples, the testimony and research from the above agencies is quite enough to convince people that real changes have occurred in their atmosphere and the changes are caused through known processes that have increased the number and frequency of aircraft induced cirrus clouds.



For someone who apparently slept through sixth grade science you are remarkably ill informed as to scientific method.

Who care what these agencies say if your science is solid? Solid science speaks for itself, it is not subject to vote or consensus.

So rather than actually getting samples you prefer to rely on unsupported claims, hearsay, rumor and internet codswallop, flapdoodle, dingbattery and loon drool.

I ask again, what the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting that results in your profound stupidity?

Can't you read . . . the testimony and research from the above agencies . . . so the above agencies (NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, or the EPA) engage in unsupported claims, hearsay, rumor and internet codswallop, flapadoodle, dingbattery and loon drool? You first heard it here . . . I think we need to ask Congress to defund these idiots.



No, George, the increase in contrails is to be expected with the change from older style commercial transport engines and a larger fleet of aircraft flying.

The chemtards, on the other hand, see some sort of conspiracy in the above facts.

You really don't understand much about aviation, do you, George.

What the fuck do NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, or the EPA have to do with conducting a simple sample collection to prove the claims the chemtards make? Methinks you are trying, quite unsuccessfully, to throw up a strawman.

Come on you get real . . . if the science is not perfect and convincing to the agencies above you have wasted your money and effort. People like you would be all over it in a skinny second, no one would listen except 'us kooks' and you know it. To convince ourselves is not the reason for the budget it is to prove to the world that it exists.

However, I don't need in situ samples, the testimony and research from the above agencies is quite enough to convince people that real changes have occurred in their atmosphere and the changes are caused through known processes that have increased the number and frequency of aircraft induced cirrus clouds.



For someone who apparently slept through sixth grade science you are remarkably ill informed as to scientific method.

Who care what these agencies say if your science is solid? Solid science speaks for itself, it is not subject to vote or consensus.

So rather than actually getting samples you prefer to rely on unsupported claims, hearsay, rumor and internet codswallop, flapdoodle, dingbattery and loon drool.

I ask again, what the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting that results in your profound stupidity?

Can't you read . . . the testimony and research from the above agencies . . . so the above agencies (NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, or the EPA) engage in unsupported claims, hearsay, rumor and internet codswallop, flapadoodle, dingbattery and loon drool? You first heard it here . . . I think we need to ask Congress to defund these idiots.



No, George, the increase in contrails is to be expected with the change from older style commercial transport engines and a larger fleet of aircraft flying.

The chemtards, on the other hand, see some sort of conspiracy in the above facts.

You really don't understand much about aviation, do you, George.

So you admit that 'us kooks' are seeing their sky filled with more and more persistent contrails and more and more cirrus clouds which is having climatic effect. And if so . . . what do you attribute the increase of persistent contrails and cloud formation from . . . and don't tell me the new engines that isn't enough . . . why are new engines creating persistent contrails . . . I thought they were suppose to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases?

How the fuck did you get from axial flow turbojets, to more fuel efficient high bypass turbofans to greenhouse gasses?

You best talk to your dealer, clearly you are ingesting bad drugs.

How the fuck did you get from axial flow turbojets, to more fuel efficient high bypass turbofans to greenhouse gasses?

You best talk to your dealer, clearly you are ingesting bad drugs.

You still didn't answer my question . .. how do the new engines create more persistent contrails and cirrus clouds? The promised trade off was that they would produce fewer greenhouse gases and use less fuel per long haul passanger mile.

How the fuck did you get from axial flow turbojets, to more fuel efficient high bypass turbofans to greenhouse gasses?

You best talk to your dealer, clearly you are ingesting bad drugs.

You still didn't answer my question . .. how do the new engines create more persistent contrails and cirrus clouds? The promised trade off was that they would produce fewer greenhouse gases and use less fuel per long haul passanger mile.




Do you know the various types of engine used on FAR Part 25 aircraft, George? If not, go study a little.

How the fuck did you get from axial flow turbojets, to more fuel efficient high bypass turbofans to greenhouse gasses?

You best talk to your dealer, clearly you are ingesting bad drugs.

You still didn't answer my question . .. how do the new engines create more persistent contrails and cirrus clouds? The promised trade off was that they would produce fewer greenhouse gases and use less fuel per long haul passanger mile.




Do you know the various types of engine used on FAR Part 25 aircraft, George? If not, go study a little.

I will when you answer my question . . . how do the new engines create more persistent contrails and cirrus clouds?

How the fuck did you get from axial flow turbojets, to more fuel efficient high bypass turbofans to greenhouse gasses?

You best talk to your dealer, clearly you are ingesting bad drugs.

You still didn't answer my question . .. how do the new engines create more persistent contrails and cirrus clouds? The promised trade off was that they would produce fewer greenhouse gases and use less fuel per long haul passanger mile.




Do you know the various types of engine used on FAR Part 25 aircraft, George? If not, go study a little.

I will when you answer my question . . . how do the new engines create more persistent contrails and cirrus clouds?



So now the dodger of questions DEMANDS answers?

Ever hear the phrase "Go piss up a rope?" I bet you have.

I still want to know how you got from old axial flow turbojets to high bypass turbofan engines and then tried to confuse issues with comments about greenhouse gas.

Go read FAR Part 25 in detail, George. Have a grownup help you with the big words.

How the fuck did you get from axial flow turbojets, to more fuel efficient high bypass turbofans to greenhouse gasses?

You best talk to your dealer, clearly you are ingesting bad drugs.

You still didn't answer my question . .. how do the new engines create more persistent contrails and cirrus clouds? The promised trade off was that they would produce fewer greenhouse gases and use less fuel per long haul passanger mile.




Do you know the various types of engine used on FAR Part 25 aircraft, George? If not, go study a little.

I will when you answer my question . . . how do the new engines create more persistent contrails and cirrus clouds?



So now the dodger of questions DEMANDS answers?

Ever hear the phrase "Go piss up a rope?" I bet you have.

I still want to know how you got from old axial flow turbojets to high bypass turbofan engines and then tried to confuse issues with comments about greenhouse gas.

Go read FAR Part 25 in detail, George. Have a grownup help you with the big words.

There is a need to maintain an appropriate balance between growth of aviation, economic
benefits and environmental consequences. Towards meeting this objective, the U.S. is
transforming its aviation system in the form of dynamic, flexible and scalable Next Generation
Air Transportation System (NextGen) to meet future aviation demand while being responsive to
continuously evolving social, economic, political and technological changes (Joint Planning and
Development office (JPDO)/NextGen, 2008). The environmental strategy is at the heart of
NextGen with an objective of environmental protection that would allow sustained aviation
growth. On the climate front, the NextGen environmental goal is to limit or reduce impact of
aviation greenhouse gas emissions.

Go read FAR Part 25 in detail, George. Have a grownup help you with the big words.

Go read FAR Part 25 in detail, George. Have a grownup help you with the big words.

Part 25
This Part contains airworthiness standards for airplanes in the transport category. The majority of airplanes up to 12,500 lb Maximum Takeoff Weight are type certificated in the normal, utility or acrobatic categories so most airplanes certificated to Part 25 have Maximum Takeoff Weights greater than 12,500 lb, although there is no lower weight limit.

The Boeing 737 and later types, and Airbus A300 series, are well-known airplane types that were certificated to FAR Part 25.
Most of the Federal Aviation Regulations, including Part 25, commenced on February 1, 1965. Prior to that date, airworthiness standards for airplanes in the transport category were promulgated in Part 4b of the US Civil Air Regulations. The Boeing 707 and 727 are two well-known airplane types that were certificated to CAR Part 4b.

O.K. what does this have to do with the amount of persistent contrails and cirrus clouds?

How the fuck did you get from axial flow turbojets, to more fuel efficient high bypass turbofans to greenhouse gasses?

You best talk to your dealer, clearly you are ingesting bad drugs.

You still didn't answer my question . .. how do the new engines create more persistent contrails and cirrus clouds? The promised trade off was that they would produce fewer greenhouse gases and use less fuel per long haul passanger mile.




Do you know the various types of engine used on FAR Part 25 aircraft, George? If not, go study a little.

I will when you answer my question . . . how do the new engines create more persistent contrails and cirrus clouds?



So now the dodger of questions DEMANDS answers?

Ever hear the phrase "Go piss up a rope?" I bet you have.

I still want to know how you got from old axial flow turbojets to high bypass turbofan engines and then tried to confuse issues with comments about greenhouse gas.

Go read FAR Part 25 in detail, George. Have a grownup help you with the big words.

There is a need to maintain an appropriate balance between growth of aviation, economic
benefits and environmental consequences. Towards meeting this objective, the U.S. is
transforming its aviation system in the form of dynamic, flexible and scalable Next Generation
Air Transportation System (NextGen) to meet future aviation demand while being responsive to
continuously evolving social, economic, political and technological changes (Joint Planning and
Development office (JPDO)/NextGen, 2008). The environmental strategy is at the heart of
NextGen with an objective of environmental protection that would allow sustained aviation
growth. On the climate front, the NextGen environmental goal is to limit or reduce impact of
aviation greenhouse gas emissions.



Which has NOTHING to do with contrails, George.

But since you have the aeronautics knowledge of a horny baboon, and since you have not read AWS/TR 93/001 you do not know why high bypass turbofans MUST create more contrails than older axial flow turbojets.

But homework has never been your strong suit, has it, George?

How the fuck did you get from axial flow turbojets, to more fuel efficient high bypass turbofans to greenhouse gasses?

You best talk to your dealer, clearly you are ingesting bad drugs.

You still didn't answer my question . .. how do the new engines create more persistent contrails and cirrus clouds? The promised trade off was that they would produce fewer greenhouse gases and use less fuel per long haul passanger mile.




Do you know the various types of engine used on FAR Part 25 aircraft, George? If not, go study a little.

I will when you answer my question . . . how do the new engines create more persistent contrails and cirrus clouds?



So now the dodger of questions DEMANDS answers?

Ever hear the phrase "Go piss up a rope?" I bet you have.

I still want to know how you got from old axial flow turbojets to high bypass turbofan engines and then tried to confuse issues with comments about greenhouse gas.

Go read FAR Part 25 in detail, George. Have a grownup help you with the big words.

There is a need to maintain an appropriate balance between growth of aviation, economic
benefits and environmental consequences. Towards meeting this objective, the U.S. is
transforming its aviation system in the form of dynamic, flexible and scalable Next Generation
Air Transportation System (NextGen) to meet future aviation demand while being responsive to
continuously evolving social, economic, political and technological changes (Joint Planning and
Development office (JPDO)/NextGen, 2008). The environmental strategy is at the heart of
NextGen with an objective of environmental protection that would allow sustained aviation
growth. On the climate front, the NextGen environmental goal is to limit or reduce impact of
aviation greenhouse gas emissions.



Which has NOTHING to do with contrails, George.

But since you have the aeronautics knowledge of a horny baboon, and since you have not read AWS/TR 93/001 you do not know why high bypass turbofans MUST create more contrails than older axial flow turbojets.

But homework has never been your strong suit, has it, George?

So the lower exhaust temperatures of the new jet engines increase the relative humidity of the exhaust plumes and thus trails appear in dryer relative speaking conditions than normal and become more persistent.

Ho hum. Chemtrails. One of the silliest kook topics on the net. Not even fun to debunk like Zetatalk.

Ho hum. Chemtrails. One of the silliest kook topics on the net. Not even fun to debunk like Zetatalk.

I know it is a drag . . . I am getting real tired of it myself. However, I promised I would do the debate tomorrow and that is what I am going to do . . . sorry you guys have had to suffer along with the process.

Care to show me where I mentioned lower exhaust temps, George? You didn't . . . I did.

Oh right, you can't. I didn't mention it.

The AVERAGE temp of the exhaust for a high bypass turbofan is lower than a comparable thrust turbojet, but do you know why?

Bet you don't.

Ever look at the temp profile behind an operating high bypass turbofan? Bet not.

I think a horny baboon may edge you out on the aerospace engineering front, George.

Care to show me where I mentioned lower exhaust temps, George? You didn't . . . I did.

Oh right, you can't. I didn't mention it.

The AVERAGE temp of the exhaust for a high bypass turbofan is lower than a comparable thrust turbojet, but do you know why?

Bet you don't.

Ever look at the temp profile behind an operating high bypass turbofan? Bet not.

I think a horny baboon may edge you out on the aerospace engineering front, George.

The indirect effects of water vapour (contrails and contrail-cirrus) and particles from aircraft may play a major role in the climate impact of air traffic. The contrail formation is affected by the engine propulsion efficiency, which grows with decreasing exhaust gas temperature. An engine performing with a higher overall propulsion efficiency causes plume conditions which during mixing reach a higher relative humidity for the same ambient temperature, thus causing contrails also at a higher ambient temperature. This paper is aimed at finding technical solutions for the aircraft engines that temporarily decrease the propulsion efficiency, and thereby may alleviate the formation of contrails.

Ho hum. Chemtrails. One of the silliest kook topics on the net. Not even fun to debunk like Zetatalk.

I know it is a drag . . . I am getting real tired of it myself. However, I promised I would do the debate tomorrow and that is what I am going to do . . . sorry you guys have had to suffer along with the process.



It would not be such a drag if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, or if you did not hallucinate replies that only you can see or read....

Care to show me where I mentioned lower exhaust temps, George? You didn't . . . I did.

Oh right, you can't. I didn't mention it.

The AVERAGE temp of the exhaust for a high bypass turbofan is lower than a comparable thrust turbojet, but do you know why?

Bet you don't.

Ever look at the temp profile behind an operating high bypass turbofan? Bet not.

I think a horny baboon may edge you out on the aerospace engineering front, George.

The indirect effects of water vapour (contrails and contrail-cirrus) and particles from aircraft may play a major role in the climate impact of air traffic. The contrail formation is affected by the engine propulsion efficiency, which grows with decreasing exhaust gas temperature. An engine performing with a higher overall propulsion efficiency causes plume conditions which during mixing reach a higher relative humidity for the same ambient temperature, thus causing contrails also at a higher ambient temperature. This paper is aimed at finding technical solutions for the aircraft engines that temporarily decrease the propulsion efficiency, and thereby may alleviate the formation of contrails.



Now, what is the average exhaust plume temp of a high bypass turbofan versus the exhaust plume temp of a comparable thrust turbojet?

You have the answer in your hand and did all along, but you either refuse to or are incapable of putting the pieces together.

Ho hum. Chemtrails. One of the silliest kook topics on the net. Not even fun to debunk like Zetatalk.

I know it is a drag . . . I am getting real tired of it myself. However, I promised I would do the debate tomorrow and that is what I am going to do . . . sorry you guys have had to suffer along with the process.



It would not be such a drag if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, or if you did not hallucinate replies that only you can see or read....

I am not a chemical engineer, aeronautical engineer, or even a private pilot . . . most people who believe in Chemtrails aren't either . . . that is the point.

Ho hum. Chemtrails. One of the silliest kook topics on the net. Not even fun to debunk like Zetatalk.

I know it is a drag . . . I am getting real tired of it myself. However, I promised I would do the debate tomorrow and that is what I am going to do . . . sorry you guys have had to suffer along with the process.



It would not be such a drag if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, or if you did not hallucinate replies that only you can see or read....

I am not a chemical engineer, aeronautical engineer, or even a private pilot . . . most people who believe in Chemtrails aren't either . . . that is the point.

Care to show me where I mentioned lower exhaust temps, George? You didn't . . . I did.

Oh right, you can't. I didn't mention it.

The AVERAGE temp of the exhaust for a high bypass turbofan is lower than a comparable thrust turbojet, but do you know why?

Bet you don't.

Ever look at the temp profile behind an operating high bypass turbofan? Bet not.

I think a horny baboon may edge you out on the aerospace engineering front, George.

The indirect effects of water vapour (contrails and contrail-cirrus) and particles from aircraft may play a major role in the climate impact of air traffic. The contrail formation is affected by the engine propulsion efficiency, which grows with decreasing exhaust gas temperature. An engine performing with a higher overall propulsion efficiency causes plume conditions which during mixing reach a higher relative humidity for the same ambient temperature, thus causing contrails also at a higher ambient temperature. This paper is aimed at finding technical solutions for the aircraft engines that temporarily decrease the propulsion efficiency, and thereby may alleviate the formation of contrails.



Now, what is the average exhaust plume temp of a high bypass turbofan versus the exhaust plume temp of a comparable thrust turbojet?

You have the answer in your hand and did all along, but you either refuse to or are incapable of putting the pieces together.

Don't know yet but I will try to find out . . .

Ho hum. Chemtrails. One of the silliest kook topics on the net. Not even fun to debunk like Zetatalk.

I know it is a drag . . . I am getting real tired of it myself. However, I promised I would do the debate tomorrow and that is what I am going to do . . . sorry you guys have had to suffer along with the process.



It would not be such a drag if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, or if you did not hallucinate replies that only you can see or read....

I am not a chemical engineer, aeronautical engineer, or even a private pilot . . . most people who believe in Chemtrails aren't either . . . that is the point.

That is the point. Chemical engineers, aeronautical engineers, and private pilots laugh at this shit. How is it that people that can't even fly a plane on a video game know more than the people that fly for a living? As I said, one of the silliest kook topics around.

Care to show me where I mentioned lower exhaust temps, George? You didn't . . . I did.

Oh right, you can't. I didn't mention it.

The AVERAGE temp of the exhaust for a high bypass turbofan is lower than a comparable thrust turbojet, but do you know why?

Bet you don't.

Ever look at the temp profile behind an operating high bypass turbofan? Bet not.

I think a horny baboon may edge you out on the aerospace engineering front, George.

The indirect effects of water vapour (contrails and contrail-cirrus) and particles from aircraft may play a major role in the climate impact of air traffic. The contrail formation is affected by the engine propulsion efficiency, which grows with decreasing exhaust gas temperature. An engine performing with a higher overall propulsion efficiency causes plume conditions which during mixing reach a higher relative humidity for the same ambient temperature, thus causing contrails also at a higher ambient temperature. This paper is aimed at finding technical solutions for the aircraft engines that temporarily decrease the propulsion efficiency, and thereby may alleviate the formation of contrails.



Now, what is the average exhaust plume temp of a high bypass turbofan versus the exhaust plume temp of a comparable thrust turbojet?

You have the answer in your hand and did all along, but you either refuse to or are incapable of putting the pieces together.

Don't know yet but I will try to find out . . .



Think logically, George.

If you surround a high temp core of gas with a very large volume of much lower temperature gas, what happens to the AVERAGE temperature of that gas.

Simple logic and everyday experience will tell you the answer.

Care to show me where I mentioned lower exhaust temps, George? You didn't . . . I did.

Oh right, you can't. I didn't mention it.

The AVERAGE temp of the exhaust for a high bypass turbofan is lower than a comparable thrust turbojet, but do you know why?

Bet you don't.

Ever look at the temp profile behind an operating high bypass turbofan? Bet not.

I think a horny baboon may edge you out on the aerospace engineering front, George.

The indirect effects of water vapour (contrails and contrail-cirrus) and particles from aircraft may play a major role in the climate impact of air traffic. The contrail formation is affected by the engine propulsion efficiency, which grows with decreasing exhaust gas temperature. An engine performing with a higher overall propulsion efficiency causes plume conditions which during mixing reach a higher relative humidity for the same ambient temperature, thus causing contrails also at a higher ambient temperature. This paper is aimed at finding technical solutions for the aircraft engines that temporarily decrease the propulsion efficiency, and thereby may alleviate the formation of contrails.



Now, what is the average exhaust plume temp of a high bypass turbofan versus the exhaust plume temp of a comparable thrust turbojet?

You have the answer in your hand and did all along, but you either refuse to or are incapable of putting the pieces together.

Don't know yet but I will try to find out . . .



Think logically, George.

If you surround a high temp core of gas with a very large volume of much lower temperature gas, what happens to the AVERAGE temperature of that gas.

Simple logic and everyday experience will tell you the answer.

Thanks for the info . . . makes sense.

Ho hum. Chemtrails. One of the silliest kook topics on the net. Not even fun to debunk like Zetatalk.

Ho hum. Chemtrails. One of the silliest kook topics on the net. Not even fun to debunk like Zetatalk.

I know it is a drag . . . I am getting real tired of it myself. However, I promised I would do the debate tomorrow and that is what I am going to do . . . sorry you guys have had to suffer along with the process.



It would not be such a drag if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, or if you did not hallucinate replies that only you can see or read....

I am not a chemical engineer, aeronautical engineer, or even a private pilot . . . most people who believe in Chemtrails aren't either . . . that is the point.

That is the point. Chemical engineers, aeronautical engineers, and private pilots laugh at this shit. How is it that people that can't even fly a plane on a video game know more than the people that fly for a living? As I said, one of the silliest kook topics around.



Indeed. Well said!

Care to show me where I mentioned lower exhaust temps, George? You didn't . . . I did.

Oh right, you can't. I didn't mention it.

The AVERAGE temp of the exhaust for a high bypass turbofan is lower than a comparable thrust turbojet, but do you know why?

Bet you don't.

Ever look at the temp profile behind an operating high bypass turbofan? Bet not.

I think a horny baboon may edge you out on the aerospace engineering front, George.

The indirect effects of water vapour (contrails and contrail-cirrus) and particles from aircraft may play a major role in the climate impact of air traffic. The contrail formation is affected by the engine propulsion efficiency, which grows with decreasing exhaust gas temperature. An engine performing with a higher overall propulsion efficiency causes plume conditions which during mixing reach a higher relative humidity for the same ambient temperature, thus causing contrails also at a higher ambient temperature. This paper is aimed at finding technical solutions for the aircraft engines that temporarily decrease the propulsion efficiency, and thereby may alleviate the formation of contrails.



Now, what is the average exhaust plume temp of a high bypass turbofan versus the exhaust plume temp of a comparable thrust turbojet?

You have the answer in your hand and did all along, but you either refuse to or are incapable of putting the pieces together.

Don't know yet but I will try to find out . . .



Think logically, George.

If you surround a high temp core of gas with a very large volume of much lower temperature gas, what happens to the AVERAGE temperature of that gas.

Simple logic and everyday experience will tell you the answer.

Thanks for the info . . . makes sense.



That doesn't answer the question, George.

What makes sense? Explain so we know you have absorbed the lesson.