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

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.

The lower temperature of the large volume of air would naturally lower the temperature of the smaller volume of air . . as long as they are in contact with each other (mixed). I would suspect the new temperature would be a rough average of the two volumes of air.

All the crap aside people are correct in feeling the amount of ambient contrails and cirrus clouds are increased within their lifetime. They see contrails in climatic conditions and in areas of the country where they were rare in years past. The rate of cloud seeding is on a dramatic increase and climatic research is on the increase. Military and the Forest Service use of Chaff has made news services when they were ignored before. People are spooked . . . they don't understand and the simply don't trust the government.

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.

The lower temperature of the large volume of air would naturally lower the temperature of the smaller volume of air . . as long as they are in contact with each other (mixed). I would suspect the new temperature would be a rough average of the two volumes of air.



And the exhaust stream temp has what effect on contrail formation?

All the crap aside people are correct in feeling the amount of ambient contrails and cirrus clouds are increased within their lifetime. They see contrails in climatic conditions and in areas of the country where they were rare in years past. The rate of cloud seeding is on a dramatic increase and climatic research is on the increase. Military and the Forest Service use of Chaff has made news services when they were ignored before. People are spooked . . . they don't understand and the simply don't trust the government.

There are a lot more planes in the air and flight paths than when I was a kid. That's because there are a lot more people. More planes means more contrails. But I guess that's just too simple and logical to be considered.

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.

The lower temperature of the large volume of air would naturally lower the temperature of the smaller volume of air . . as long as they are in contact with each other (mixed). I would suspect the new temperature would be a rough average of the two volumes of air.



And the exhaust stream temp has what effect on contrail formation?


The lower the stream temp the quicker the vapor probably forms nuclei and or ice crystals which result in more persistent trails and eventually cirrus clouds in the right conditions. Research suggests the smaller the nuclei the greater the albedo effect of the cloud formed by them . . . thus higher rates of climate cooling.

I remember when all this chemtrail stuff started on the
internet. It was back in the mid 90s and all the crap
they claimed conflicted with what I learned growing up
next to an airport and flying in my dad's aircraft. I
watch world war 2 movies and wonder how the chemtrail
folks can ignore those and not try to claim that we were
spraying the hell out of Japan or Germany back then!

What's funny is way back then people where claiming that
the spraying was directed a them, when there would be no
way that anything they saw in the sky would have come down
at their location.

The lower the stream temp the quicker the vapor probably forms nuclei and or ice crystals which result in more persistent trails and eventually cirrus clouds in the right conditions. Research suggests the smaller the nuclei the greater the albedo effect of the cloud formed by them . . . thus higher rates of climate cooling.



You were fine right up to the last sentence.

The lower the stream temp the quicker the vapor probably forms nuclei and or ice crystals which result in more persistent trails and eventually cirrus clouds in the right conditions. Research suggests the smaller the nuclei the greater the albedo effect of the cloud formed by them . . . thus higher rates of climate cooling.



You were fine right up to the last sentence.

O.K. what is your take on the albedo effects of the persistent cirrus, nuclei, etc.?

I remember when all this chemtrail stuff started on the
internet. It was back in the mid 90s and all the crap
they claimed conflicted with what I learned growing up
next to an airport and flying in my dad's aircraft. I
watch world war 2 movies and wonder how the chemtrail
folks can ignore those and not try to claim that we were
spraying the hell out of Japan or Germany back then!

What's funny is way back then people where claiming that
the spraying was directed a them, when there would be no
way that anything they saw in the sky would have come down
at their location.

People's emotions are a big part of the story. The release of particulate or aerosols within the air by anyone is not well regulated by any umbrella authority in the US or the World for that matter. The ASCE (American Society of Engineers) is as good as it gets except for an occasional environmental impact statement. Ask BP about that one. When aircraft are overhead and they are spraying or contrail-ing most people have no idea what is going on. They will latch on to almost anything someone suggests. This is a problem and should be addressed better than it has by the authorities. Bad on them.

You know what George, I just don't see why whoever you claim is responsible would go to so much trouble. If one can accept that the powers that be are trying to poison us (playing the devils advocate here for arguments sake), it would be much easier and controlled to target people through food or water. If they are spraying over populated areas on purpose, they are also contaminating resources that would be left for them after the die off. Why would they shit in their own water supply, why would they poison the soil and why would they risk contaminating people of their own in the process. It just doesn't make sense because it is impossible to target anyone with accuracy.

O.K. what is your take on the albedo effects of the persistent cirrus, nuclei, etc.?



On a global scale? I have no idea. I could see a number of possible scenarios, but I do not know which of them, if any, reflect reality. The atmosphere is really rather poorly modeled because there are so many interactions on so many scales that could have an impact.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a fool or is trying to sell you something.

O.K. what is your take on the albedo effects of the persistent cirrus, nuclei, etc.?



On a global scale? I have no idea. I could see a number of possible scenarios, but I do not know which of them, if any, reflect reality. The atmosphere is really rather poorly modeled because there are so many interactions on so many scales that could have an impact.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a fool or is trying to sell you something.

I have obviously read a lot of research and comments regarding this whole mess over the last several days and there seems to be a group of scientists making assumptions regarding albedo and contrail induced cirrus clouds . . . let me see if I can find you some sources . . .

Greenhouse gases and cirrus clouds regulate outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and cirrus cloud coverage is predicted to be sensitive to the ice fall speed which depends on ice crystal size. The higher the cirrus, the greater their impact is on OLR. Thus by changing ice crystal size in the coldest cirrus, OLR and climate might be modified. Fortunately the coldest cirrus have the highest ice supersaturation due to the dominance of homogeneous freezing nucleation. Seeding such cirrus with very efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei should produce larger ice crystals due to vapor competition effects, thus increasing OLR and surface cooling. Preliminary estimates of this global net cloud forcing are more negative than −2.8 W m−2 and could neutralize the radiative forcing due to a CO2 doubling (3.7 W m−2). A potential delivery mechanism for the seeding material is already in place: the airline industry. Since seeding aerosol residence times in the troposphere are relatively short, the climate might return to its normal state within months after stopping the geoengineering experiment. The main known drawback to this approach is that it would not stop ocean acidification. It does not have many of the drawbacks that stratospheric injection of sulfur species has. [link to iopscience.iop.org] /

snip chemtard bs

Oh, and apologies commentator, not directed at you, just quoted the last post is all.

Very good thoughts . . . I don't think there is an easy answer for that position; however, I do have several suggestions to your hypothetical.

1. TPTB are immune to the aerosols or particulate.
2. TPTB are not concerned about the aerosols because they are not intended to poison people or plant life . . . there may be an effect but it is long term
3. The goal of aerosol release is global in nature and not targeting any particular location specifically
4. Climate control or EMP protection may be the goal not population control

But you left out 5. Chemtrail advocates are wrong.

O.K. what is your take on the albedo effects of the persistent cirrus, nuclei, etc.?



On a global scale? I have no idea. I could see a number of possible scenarios, but I do not know which of them, if any, reflect reality. The atmosphere is really rather poorly modeled because there are so many interactions on so many scales that could have an impact.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a fool or is trying to sell you something.

I have obviously read a lot of research and comments regarding this whole mess over the last several days and there seems to be a group of scientists making assumptions regarding albedo and contrail induced cirrus clouds . . . let me see if I can find you some sources . . .

Greenhouse gases and cirrus clouds regulate outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and cirrus cloud coverage is predicted to be sensitive to the ice fall speed which depends on ice crystal size. The higher the cirrus, the greater their impact is on OLR. Thus by changing ice crystal size in the coldest cirrus, OLR and climate might be modified. Fortunately the coldest cirrus have the highest ice supersaturation due to the dominance of homogeneous freezing nucleation. Seeding such cirrus with very efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei should produce larger ice crystals due to vapor competition effects, thus increasing OLR and surface cooling. Preliminary estimates of this global net cloud forcing are more negative than −2.8 W m−2 and could neutralize the radiative forcing due to a CO2 doubling (3.7 W m−2). A potential delivery mechanism for the seeding material is already in place: the airline industry. Since seeding aerosol residence times in the troposphere are relatively short, the climate might return to its normal state within months after stopping the geoengineering experiment. The main known drawback to this approach is that it would not stop ocean acidification. It does not have many of the drawbacks that stratospheric injection of sulfur species has. [link to iopscience.iop.org] /



There are a lot of assumptions made by a lot of people. And they are just that: assumptions.

*Chemtrail debunkers*

Please try and rationalize these video's away for me, it should be entertaining.

First Intl. Chemtrail symposium Belgium may, 2010 (part 1/21)--->
[link to www.youtube.com]

I'd also like an explanation as to why there aren't heavy amounts of xxxtrails in the sky every day of the week 24/7 with the heavy airtraffic in any major city yet some days the sky is clear?

Answer to the second question . . . temperature and relative humidity change daily, hourly, etc. Air mixes constantly. Thus the micro-environments for Trail formation and persistence changes dramatically from day to day even hour to hour at different altitudes. Usually contrails are visible only at higher altitudes where temperature are more extreme. . . which means only long haul commercial aviation will result in contrails. High performance Military aircraft engines are not designed to conserve fuel as much as to provide thrust and their vapor trails are released at higher temperature . . . resulting in different trail dynamics than commercial aircraft. Answer . . . it is complex and you need to know the temperature, altitude, relative humidity, and even the engine type before one can truly predict with confidence the likelihood of contrail persistence. In general long haul aviation is on the increase, high efficiency commercial engines are on the increase, and thus the number and frequency of persistent contrails and cirrus clouds resulting from the new activity have increased. So research into the climatic effects of cirrus cloud reflectivity (albedo effects) are on the increase.


Look at these Threads: Thread: Newest Chemtrail Poll (NOW): Choose the (best) reason for Chemtrails? . . . see results as they happen! . . . see results of last poll!!!
Thread: Chemtrail Poll . . . do you think chemtrails are real? See the Results NOW!


And come to the Chemtrail debate at 8:00 PM EST today.
I think 'The Debunkers' have had enough of Chemtrail talk on this thread. . .

It's not so much being sick of hearing about chemtrails in particular as it is being sick of hearing about problems without any solutions being offered. Anyone can point out a problem . . .

Answer to the second question . . . temperature and relative humidity change daily, hourly, etc. Air mixes constantly. Thus the micro-environments for Trail formation and persistence changes dramatically from day to day even hour to hour at different altitudes. Usually contrails are visible only at higher altitudes where temperature are more extreme. . . which means only long haul commercial aviation will result in contrails. High performance Military aircraft engines are not designed to conserve fuel as much as to provide thrust and their vapor trails are released at higher temperature . . . resulting in different trail dynamics than commercial aircraft. Answer . . . it is complex and you need to know the temperature, altitude, relative humidity, and even the engine type before one can truly predict with confidence the likelihood of contrail persistence. In general long haul aviation is on the increase, high efficiency commercial engines are on the increase, and thus the number and frequency of persistent contrails and cirrus clouds resulting from the new activity have increased. So research into the climatic effects of cirrus cloud reflectivity (albedo effects) are on the increase.


Look at these Threads: Thread: Newest Chemtrail Poll (NOW): Choose the (best) reason for Chemtrails? . . . see results as they happen! . . . see results of last poll!!!
Thread: Chemtrail Poll . . . do you think chemtrails are real? See the Results NOW!


And come to the Chemtrail debate at 8:00 PM EST today.
I think 'The Debunkers' have had enough of Chemtrail talk on this thread. . .


If you actually watch the video they have done open jar samples and soil samples not to mention a local news station investigated the reports and contacted (some agency not sure) that confirmed that they were spraying aluminium and other despersants in the air in northern california I believe. Not to mention FOIA reports where they admit to doing as such. I understand its a long video series but the information is there.

Here is some more research from Houston, TX ->
[link to www.chemtrailcentral.com]

I cannot remember the Moon being 'stopped' in the sky for 2 hours ever.

I attribute the two events to the wobble the Zetas have mentioned from Planet X caused magnetic and particle fields. But really why can't other people notice these things?

They are there for all to see, so why don't they? Are we so far from knowing about nature that we do not notice these things as a 'modern' world?

It's not so much being sick of hearing about chemtrails in particular as it is being sick of hearing about problems without any solutions being offered. Anyone can point out a problem . . .

I am sick of hearing about chemtrails on a pole shift/planet x thread. If I wanted to debate with chemtards there are hundreds of threads I could choose to participate in.

Now back to the pole shift, Nancy thinks this ningtard has given an excellent report:

Hi Nancy

I have been paying close attention to the times of sunrise and moonrise stated officially by the Naval Observatory for my location and twice in the last week things were not as they should be.

On Saturday July 3rd, the sun was supposed to rise at 4.55 am as it did the days before and after, but that morning the sun was very far north and completely above the horizon at 4:20!

On Tuesday morning July 6th, my wife and I got up at 3 am because of the heat, and went outside to see a beautiful waning crescent moon in the east. We commented on it and appreciated where it was in relation to our door, and she went back to bed. I walked outside with a cup of coffee at sunrise [4:55] and it was in the exact same position, not having moved the 30 degrees [1 degree every 4 minutes toward the west minus 1 degree every two hours toward the east] that it should have moved!

I cannot remember the Moon being 'stopped' in the sky for 2 hours ever. I attribute the two events to the wobble the Zetas have mentioned from Planet X caused magnetic and particle fields. But really why can't other people notice these things? They are there for all to see, so why don't they? Are we so far from knowing about nature that we do not notice these things as a 'modern' world? I imagine that your chickens let you know when sunrise occurs, so have you noticed these things yourself? Did I get that right? Thank you

The posters seem to feel their observations are real . . . I don't see how they can validate them . . .