I think I know What Chemtrails are... and it's worse than you can imagine!

reply to post by Zaphod58


yes you are right, its hard to prove a (potential) negative.
but its not impossible.
you, for example, could also take samples of said chemtrails and prove they dont contain anything .
that would be a way to disprove them. so it is possible.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


youre right i called ppl shills at first, but i have since taken it back and apologized for it

reply to post by network dude


thats ok buddy you didnt offend me!! not on any deep level anyway so there is no need for apology

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Im disappoint in you, i was on your side first but since then i have seen tons of proof showing the NON existance of chemtrails, and all you have proven so far is theories from within your own head.

please sir, please dont get mad at me i dont mean it that way. i just mean, please show something substantial something we all can review. please!

Korg Trinity
Chemtrails in my hypothesis are designed to create clouds with high albedo qualities even if the conditions for natural clouds to form do not exist.

My logic is sound, even if you are struggling to grasp where I am coming from.

Korg.

Except, there is no evidence to support your hypothesis - all research shows that what people call chemtrails cause a small net warming; geoengineering has been proposed that would increase low level clouds that do have a cooling effect, and there have been suggestions we ought loot to prevent contrails forming - but there is no research paper anywhere that proposes creating contrails. Unless you can show otherwise?

Also, as pointed out, any high level spraying operation would likely be concentrated in tropical regions for greater dispersal.

Thus, whilst an interesting hypothesis, it does not stand up to scrutiny.

And anyway, even if it is right, it doesn't seem to be causing any cooling! IMO the counter hypothesis that there is a delierate conspiracy to increase global warming by creating more cirrus cloud is more valid and better matched by the facts.

Korg Trinity

mrthumpy

Korg Trinity

network dude
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

But, contrails are clouds. Man made clouds, and a guy who think himself really smart once said:

Korg Trinity
No not at all...

I am saying that yes absolutely under the right conditions contrails do indeed linger for hours and spread out..... Under certain conditions....

However those conditions do not occur on a daily basis all over the planet at the same time now do they?

The logic can be drawn from an old saying....

"If it looks like a spade and digs a hole then it must be a spade....." It's flawed logic.

In the case of Contrails they look like Chemtrails under only certain conditions... whereas chemtrails look like chemtrails under all conditions...

Hence the logic dictates that contrails and chemtrails are different.

Peace,

Korg.

Peace,

Korg,

So it seems that clouds can only exist in very rare situations. How could you expect to have the rules change for your clouds to form when contrails must follow the same rules of science?

Are your clouds special?

My logic is sound

edit on 10-10-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

In your mind maybe but that's because you don't understand the physics of it

Actually, I do understand the physics of it very well, which is why I have the confidence that my hypothesis could very well be correct.

It's those that keep trying to counter with this and that and thus far have not been able to come up with anything that could prevent my original ascertain from being possible.

Like your counter argument of plane carriage volume, but you all are missing variables to set your counters in concrete.

Trust me there is no physical scientific law that could prevent my hypothesis from being reality. As I have said before this is not the question here. But the real question is, is it happening right now in front of our eyes.

I personally believe that given all the evidence, there is a lot to suggest that it is indeed happening, and as there is no scientific law that could prevent it from being true, then given the evidence it is not only possible but highly likely that if at the very least testing of, or actual full scale operation of chemtrails is occurring right now.

Korg.

Why do persistent contrails persist?

exiteternity
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

yes you are right, its hard to prove a (potential) negative.
but its not impossible.
you, for example, could also take samples of said chemtrails and prove they dont contain anything .
that would be a way to disprove them. so it is possible.

You would need to test every single trail though otherwise you wouldn't have proved it

reply to post by mrthumpy


no it would be enough to test a single trail that ppl claim is a chemtrail
that way you would have proven it

reply to post by exiteternity


The problem is that if you only test one, and show it's not a chemtrail, then the people that are convinced that they're spraying will just say, "you sampled the wrong trail." And until you find something that proves them right, you'll have always sampled the wrong trail. You can convince some people, like you for example (much respect by the way for being open minded, and willing to examine the evidence), but there will always be some that will refuse to believe that your samples prove that chemtrails don't exist.

reply to post by Zaphod58


i think ure wrong about that.
i think if u would sample something that ppl say its a chemtrail,
and prove it to be nothing but air

you would have certainly disproved it to a big extent
and thank you for the positive remark, it is very ncie of you to acknowlidge it.

reply to post by exiteternity


You may be right, I may be right. Sooner or later someone will take the time to do it, and post results and we'll find out.

I'm only sorry that I didn't say that earlier, I should have said it several days ago. That was actually a very nice debate we had, and it was fun to have one that didn't degenerate into "You're an idiot!"

exiteternity
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

i think ure wrong about that.
i think if u would sample something that ppl say its a chemtrail,
and prove it to be nothing but air

you would have certainly disproved it to a big extent

and thank you for the positive remark, it is very ncie of you to acknowlidge it.

edit on 10-10-2013 by exiteternity because: (no reason given)

To some extent yes but you wouldn't have proven the negative unless you could say absolutely that none of them were chemtrails. Whereas all the believers would really need to do is test one and find it didn't just contain virtually all ice and bingo.

exiteternity
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Im disappoint in you, i was on your side first but since then i have seen tons of proof showing the NON existance of chemtrails, and all you have proven so far is theories from within your own head.

please sir, please dont get mad at me i dont mean it that way. i just mean, please show something substantial something we all can review. please!

I couldn't give a monkeys whether I measure up to your expectation or now.

My assessment is that you have either fallen for the debunkers without any credible or proven evidence to state that my hypothesis is wrong, or are part of a plan to discredit yourself.

Either way I couldn't care less.

Unless someone can come and give solid evidence as to why my ascertation is physically impossible then it is still a possibility...

For all those that want to talk about chemtrails non existence, could you then explain why CO2 levels continue to rise, yet there is a cooling in process concerning our global climate!

Korg.

Korg Trinity

exiteternity
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Im disappoint in you, i was on your side first but since then i have seen tons of proof showing the NON existance of chemtrails, and all you have proven so far is theories from within your own head.

please sir, please dont get mad at me i dont mean it that way. i just mean, please show something substantial something we all can review. please!

Unless someone can come and give solid evidence as to why my ascertation is physically impossible then it is still a possibility...

You've still to explain how you can manage to get clouds to form when the humidity is too low for clouds to form. You've still to explain how you know the humidity is too low. You've still to explain how you prevent the clouds from dissipating once you've managed to get them to form in an environment that wouldn't normally support them.

Until you do that then your assertion is physically impossible.

mrthumpy

Korg Trinity

exiteternity
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Im disappoint in you, i was on your side first but since then i have seen tons of proof showing the NON existance of chemtrails, and all you have proven so far is theories from within your own head.

please sir, please dont get mad at me i dont mean it that way. i just mean, please show something substantial something we all can review. please!

Unless someone can come and give solid evidence as to why my ascertation is physically impossible then it is still a possibility...

You've still to explain how you can manage to get clouds to form when the humidity is too low for clouds to form. You've still to explain how you know the humidity is too low. You've still to explain how you prevent the clouds from dissipating once you've managed to get them to form in an environment that wouldn't normally support them.

Until you do that then your assertion is physically impossible.

I HAVE EXPLAINED... AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN...

It's like playing Motzart to the deaf!

If you want an answer then I suspect you will have to re-read the thread once more and maybe then you will grasp the concept.

Korg.

Korg Trinity

mrthumpy

Korg Trinity

exiteternity
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Im disappoint in you, i was on your side first but since then i have seen tons of proof showing the NON existance of chemtrails, and all you have proven so far is theories from within your own head.

please sir, please dont get mad at me i dont mean it that way. i just mean, please show something substantial something we all can review. please!

Unless someone can come and give solid evidence as to why my ascertation is physically impossible then it is still a possibility...

You've still to explain how you can manage to get clouds to form when the humidity is too low for clouds to form. You've still to explain how you know the humidity is too low. You've still to explain how you prevent the clouds from dissipating once you've managed to get them to form in an environment that wouldn't normally support them.

Until you do that then your assertion is physically impossible.

I HAVE EXPLAINED... AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN...

I get the concept but you haven't explained how it could possibly work

mrthumpy

Korg Trinity

mrthumpy

Korg Trinity

exiteternity
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Im disappoint in you, i was on your side first but since then i have seen tons of proof showing the NON existance of chemtrails, and all you have proven so far is theories from within your own head.

please sir, please dont get mad at me i dont mean it that way. i just mean, please show something substantial something we all can review. please!

Unless someone can come and give solid evidence as to why my ascertation is physically impossible then it is still a possibility...

You've still to explain how you can manage to get clouds to form when the humidity is too low for clouds to form. You've still to explain how you know the humidity is too low. You've still to explain how you prevent the clouds from dissipating once you've managed to get them to form in an environment that wouldn't normally support them.

Until you do that then your assertion is physically impossible.

I HAVE EXPLAINED... AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN...

I get the concept but you haven't explained how it could possibly work

I have explained this too... If you had bothered to look at any of the sources I have cited here.

Korg.

Korg Trinity
For all those that want to talk about chemtrails non existence, could you then explain why CO2 levels continue to rise, yet there is a cooling in process concerning our global climate!

It's not the first time it's happened.

This isn’t the first time in recent years that global temperatures have disobeyed the models presented by global warming activists. From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent. From 1900 through 1945, by contrast, global temperatures rose rapidly despite a lack of coal power plants, SUV’s, and substantial carbon dioxide emissions.

Actually, the fact that temperatures remain flat even as carbon dioxide levels continue to rise is a devastating rebuke to assertions that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are causing a global warming crisis.

www.forbes.com...

Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurred after the CO2 increase (Figure 2).

www.skepticalscience.com...

Korg Trinity

mrthumpy

Korg Trinity

mrthumpy

Korg Trinity

exiteternity
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Im disappoint in you, i was on your side first but since then i have seen tons of proof showing the NON existance of chemtrails, and all you have proven so far is theories from within your own head.

please sir, please dont get mad at me i dont mean it that way. i just mean, please show something substantial something we all can review. please!

Unless someone can come and give solid evidence as to why my ascertation is physically impossible then it is still a possibility...

You've still to explain how you can manage to get clouds to form when the humidity is too low for clouds to form. You've still to explain how you know the humidity is too low. You've still to explain how you prevent the clouds from dissipating once you've managed to get them to form in an environment that wouldn't normally support them.

Until you do that then your assertion is physically impossible.

I HAVE EXPLAINED... AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN...

I get the concept but you haven't explained how it could possibly work

I have explained this too... If you had bothered to look at any of the sources I have cited here.

Korg.

Summarise for me then please and be sure to address those specific points I raised just a few posts back.

mrthumpy

Korg Trinity

mrthumpy

Korg Trinity

mrthumpy

Korg Trinity

exiteternity
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Im disappoint in you, i was on your side first but since then i have seen tons of proof showing the NON existance of chemtrails, and all you have proven so far is theories from within your own head.

please sir, please dont get mad at me i dont mean it that way. i just mean, please show something substantial something we all can review. please!

Unless someone can come and give solid evidence as to why my ascertation is physically impossible then it is still a possibility...

You've still to explain how you can manage to get clouds to form when the humidity is too low for clouds to form. You've still to explain how you know the humidity is too low. You've still to explain how you prevent the clouds from dissipating once you've managed to get them to form in an environment that wouldn't normally support them.

Until you do that then your assertion is physically impossible.

I HAVE EXPLAINED... AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN...

I get the concept but you haven't explained how it could possibly work

I have explained this too... If you had bothered to look at any of the sources I have cited here.

Korg.

Summarize for me then please and be sure to address those specific points I raised just a few posts back.

o.k. fine as you don't appear to want to go back and re-read.

in Summary...

You can seed a cloud and induce rain by introducing particulate into a rain baring cloud. This occurs due to increasing the mass of the condensation within the cloud and therefore causing it fall from the cloud as precipitation.

However,

If you were to add a very low mass particulate into an area where humidity was sufficient to create a cloud naturally this would have the opposite effect of the above cloud seeding. Due to the increase in surface area of the particulate and because of the particulates low mass, more condensation is required to form clouds that could precipitate.

Now what about areas where the conditions are not right to form clouds naturally...

This could be because of the form the humidity is in, an example is this which I posted earlier...



What Are Clouds Made Of

We know that clouds are made of water vapor, what we don’t know or at least forget is the important role that condensation plays in making clouds visible. For the most part water vapor is invisible. This is proven by the fact that the air we breathe regularly has some water vapor as part of its composition.

However we don’t see it since its apart of the air. Condensation is what makes water vapor visible. Basically high temperatures excite water molecules until they change from a liquid state to a gaseous one. However lower temperatures can cause enough water vapor to condense back into liquid form.

This small amount stays as very small droplets that can stay suspended in the air mostly thanks to small dust particles that they attach themselves to. It is pretty much the same way you see small bits of glitter suspended in clear glue. The drops are small enough to stay trapped in the air until condensation reaches a point of no return making rain.

One result of this is that light becomes reflected and refracted. This is what makes clouds visible.

So... if you were to lower the freezing point of h2o there would be more liquid to condensate onto the particulate. The effects of this would be clouds where there would not naturally be clouds, with sufficient volume of low mass particulate you could create very high albedo clouds.

The science behind all of what I have said is accurate and proven.

Peace,

Korg.