From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon conspiracy.svg

This Conspiracy theories related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Bullshit about evaporation time and misleading physics[edit]


The physical background is total crap here. At first,
Contrails are formed when these hot exhaust gases mix with rarefied cool air. In a process similar to cloud formation, the water freezes quickly, forming a white haze of microscopic ice crystals which is essentially — and merely — an elongated cloud.
leads you astray. The reason for the clouds condesation not CO2 or water from the engine. It is SOOT (or dust particles), when atmospheric conditions are right
On days when cirrus cloud formation is occurring, there is more moisture in the upper atmosphere, and consequently, contrails may linger longer before evaporating. Since cirrus clouds often precede a general overcast or haze, the casual observer could easily assume that the contrails have caused the overcast, or become the overcast. The persistence of contrails varies with weather conditions: sometimes they dissipate almost immediately, but often they will persist for hours
is another misleading piece of false physics. Basically, you say that once condensed evaporates, the sky becomes clean. That is misinformation. SOOT does not disappear in minutes or hours. It keeps serving as crystallization nuclei for the CLOUDS TO RE-APPEAR as soon as comfortable conditions are back. Take the dew point chart [1] of Relative Humidity. There is an area at low temperature and high humidity (upper left corner) where you have 100% condensation of the vapour into clouds. There is also opposite corner, at high temperature and low moisture, where clouds never appear. In the rest, cloud availability depends on the nuclei. Yes, clouds are formed by nuclei. The temperature may be low, -40 celsies, the moisture could be sufficient for the crystaillization but it does not happen. Condesnation needs nuclei. And here comes the plain, with all the soot exhausted. Happy water molecules attach to the soot particles. Why should they evaporate? They should not at all. Only if atmospheric conditions change (temperature and moisture). The evaporation/condensation may alternate itself until your soot falls upon the Earth, which may take days. All these days you will see the clouds. Guess what will your sky look like -- WP:Global Dimming. Read about it. Think how it is possible that single trail can cover the half of the sky (watch more chemtrail lapses to admire that). Then, start (re)writing the article. Here wikipedia confirms my statement
Water requires a non-gaseous surface to make the transition from a vapour to a liquid; this process is called condensation. In the atmosphere, this surface presents itself as tiny solid or liquid particles called CCNs. When no CCNs are present, water vapour can be supercooled at about -13°C (8°F) for 5-6 hours before droplets spontaneously form (this is the basis of the cloud chamber for detecting airplains in the air). In above freezing temperatures the air would have to be supersaturated to around 400% before the droplets could form.
--Valtih1978 (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, you confused the formation of precipitation with contrails. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that I look in the sky and the into the physics and see something whereas there is nothing there? Is "perception" a magic word to deny the impact of seeding, the fact of seeding itself? --Valtih1978 (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with chemtrails[edit]

Learn science - specifically chemistry and 'about the atmosphere.'

Become a technical person or scientist.

Be recruited into the aerospace/plane manufacturing companies, and get a position in the engine and (claimed) chemtrail production unit.

Redesign the engines so they do not produce chemtrails.

Job done. (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, no one has ever infiltrated anything to actually show they exist after all these years. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
What proportion of those believing in chemtrails (not of the skywriting/Red Arrow) would have the IQ/abilities to get involved in the manufacturing companies to investigate the mater further? (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
My personal opinion? I am surprised most survive the process of putting on their shoes. Considering how many spray vinegar in the air to get rid of them, which blows back into their own eyes, I think that's a safe opinion. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Vinegar to get rid of what - shoes, chemtrails, eyes?
The sort of people who go into aeronautical design and atmospherical analysis are unlikely to believe in chemtrails as described in this article (as distinct from 'potential pollutants' and 'accidental intakes whether or not of a feathered kind.') (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
| Take a look, it's a pretty funny video. The thing is once people learn how stuff actually works, and don't paply logic that's absurd for cartoons, it's amazing how they don't believe in conspiracies. - EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
"Redesign the engines so they do not produce chemtrails." Designing a jet engine that does not produce contrails would probably violate the laws of physics.--Petey Plane (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
My point was that chemtrailists should try and 'resolve the problem' in a practical way (which results in their becoming informed of the practicalities)

Those who put chemtrail chemicals into 'jumped up crop-spraying planes operating at high altitudes' are also going to be affected by the chemicals.

.Do jet engines produce pollutants/the equivalent of whatever petrol and diesel engines emit? (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to solve a problem (chemtrails) that does not exist. Jet engines do produce exhaust, similar to cars, but proportionally much less, as a modern jet turbine is significantly more efficient than an internal combustion engine (ICE). (Turbines are also combustion engines, as they turn energy from burning fuel into motive power) Exhaust is, essentially, the unused portion the fuel used for combustion, due to sub 100% efficency natural to any real world system. The less efficient the reaction, the more concentrated (and usually more visible) the byproduct is. Visible contrails are created by condensing water vapor, and are not the visible exhaust byproducts of the aircraft. You do often see the visible dark exhaust from aircraft when they are taking off, as their turbines are not able to operate efficiently at low speeds and altitudes, as well as significantly more thrust being needed to gain altitude (as apposed to maintaining altitude). The volume of polluting exhaust that is produced by the world's planes, in comparison to pollution produced by the ICEs of the world's cars, is infinitesimally small.--Petey Plane (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Ignorance enlightened :) Perhaps there should be a comment in the article to the effect 'Like all carbon-fuel engines jets produce some exhaust, but significantly less than cars, and this does not form part of the chemtrail.' (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
✔ I've added something like this, citing a NatGeo article. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

My initial point was that 'the chemtrail believers' and 'those actually willing to learn about the topic' - which includes that part of the general population who get no further than 'OK airplane trails are my breath in winter, but airplane engines must produce some emissions and CO2 like petrol diesel engines - "they" should reduce this as far as possible (including different types of planes, videoconferencing, whatever) and is there any contribution to the hole in the ozone layer?) are likely to be mutually exclusive. (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, people should do what they think of as important...and if people desire to reduce emissions then they should go out and do so instead of complain about it. I agree there. Education is one key, as airplane exhaust does not deplete the ozone layer. A majority of what contrails are don't really do any damage, as they are mostly water, it would be good to lower impurities like Sulfur (a cause of acid rain) and reduce CO2 emissions from engines themselves. That seems out of scope to the conspiracy of chemtrails. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
'Planes are up there and the hole in the ozone is up there and we can see atmospheric pollution' and wondering if there is a connection can be rational. Those who have 'a vague notion of what is involved and a scattering of knowledge' (and are willing to have their ignorance enlightened) are not normally going to be the subject of RW negativity (but may need to be given a few pointers as to where to look). (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Um, I am not sure I get this one. If people want an education without being at RW there things called universities (some have free classes online), or community colleges, or encyclopedias, or libraries with texts, or online papers at scientific organizations like NOAA. I am fairly confused these need to be presented as options because these should be common knowledge.
As for planes cause ozone depletion because they fly high...that's nonsensical. They don't fly as high as the ozone layer and they don't produce the chemicals to do it. It's like saying the people who lived near Fukushima caused the radiation contamination because they existed in the same location. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I was giving a hypothetical example given people's tendency to agglutinate 'seemingly vaguely connected facts': and a websearch 'planes and the ozone layer' gives a number of seemingly reasonable answers. The distinction is between 'people who wish to/are willing to have their ignorance enlightened' and 'those who wish to be deliberately or maliciously ignorant.'

Should "display planes' coloured smokes" (what is the correct term? Is the same 'stuff' used in sky writing?) be included in the 'actual chemtrails'? (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

that's covered under "sky writing", same stuff.Petey Plane (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Neurological smackdown[edit] Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 18:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What about footage?[edit]

This video here shows plenty about chemtrails and all. You guys seem to be pretty sub par with your fact checking to be honest. (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You mean, the crank video mishmash titled "TOP SECRET Mission - Chemtrail Pilots SPRAYING BLOOD Cause Face to Face Near Mid-Air Collisions !!!"? Jesus, dude. Get out of your fractally wrong cerebral funhouse while you still can. We're rooting for you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Given the nature of aerosols and other releases into the atmosphere - the powers that be will be just as affected as the rest of us (the rain falls on the righteous as well as the unrighteous) so they will be affected just as much. (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

True — yet another reason why chemtrails are completely bogus. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Prime candidate for future Gold[edit]

If there's a missional bronze article out there that deserves to be worked-through and eventually golded, it's got to be this one. We have the material, the sources, the hits, etc... We just need to make the article less bad. Longer and better. Just saying, people. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've given it another pass through. More people's input would be helpful. Bongolian (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Aiming for Gold[edit]

The topic of chemtrails is highly missional. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with Chemtrails evangelists.[edit]

I've found that saying that Chemtrails are totally real and composed of Dihydrogen Monoxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide and Hydric Acid tends to keep them busy for a while. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Enough of the stupid water term hoax, its as stale as old bread.--King Rimuru 17:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Should one mention these or would it only alarm them further? Anna Livia (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)