posted 10-20-2002 10:29 AM            

Julian, it can only be surmised that your idea of freedom of speech is one where you can say anything you like others are prohibited from challenging your assertations. True freedom I see.

Look, if you're going to type something up charging that the government or any other institution is spraying people with high-altitude aircraft, you've got to understand that there are people out there that don't agree with your theories. Cry all you want, but that's the way it is.

"A contributor, who goes by the i.d. PacerLJ35, and who refers to themselves as a Government Shill, as if that is a joke"

First, that's an automatic function of posting at Mav's board, not something I chose to call myself (government shill, that is). It's a bit like how you call yourself "New Member", as if that's some kind of joke.

"takes issue with the claim that ethyene dibromide is in jet fuel. Claiming that it comes exclusively from 'Rense or some other chem-friendly website', he says that referring to their assertions will not hold up, 'because, in the legal world, that’s called ‘heresay’ [sic].'
It is genuinely questionable just how much true intellectual capacity actually does reside in the 'debunker' community."

So.....what are you getting at? There is NOTHING, except rumors posted on chemtrail websites, linking EDB to jet fuel. Your quote above is at best a diversionary tactic, because you didn't even attempt to prove me wrong. Julian (or whatever your name is)....show me proof of EDB, and maybe we'll have a real debate.

"and who referred to themselves as Sheeple - combining 'sheep' and 'people', as if being a willing, unthinking victim of government policy is a joke!"

Again, that's a function of Mav's board, not something we make up ourselves. Your meager attempt at using that as ammo is wasted energy.

"PacerLJ35 then proceeds to try to pretend that the letter to the editor has no merit."

I don't have to pretend. It doesn't because it's filled with b.s., has no organization, does not utilize factual information to present and validate your theories, and was more or less a blind stab to complain about debunkers, much like this latest piece of penmanship.

"
He begins by focusing on the lines where I describe chemtrails as forming X’s, forming H’s, being in parallel lines, curving, or forming elaborate patterns. He explains it away as the just the normal pattern of flights, with no plan in mind.
But I wasn’t specifically asserting that there was any plan to form those particular shapes. I was only accompanying the photographs that went along with the letter to the editor when I sent it out to the newspapers. Before condemning someone for doing something, PacerLJ35 would do well to make sure that they are doing it!"

Now, supposedly, these Xs, Ys, Hs, parallel lines, etc were supposed to show flight paths that are abnormal, but you seem to shoot yourself in the foot by saying that the patterns mean nothing. If they don't mean anything, why mention it?

"He also takes issue with the oily appearance of chemtrail induced clouds, saying it’s caused by refraction.
But it is also a form of refraction that gives oil its sheen"

Refraction is refraction. It doesn't matter if light is being refracted through oil, water or a glass prism, it's still the same thing. There is no such thing as an "oily refraction"...just refraction. It's a physical phenomenon of a material splitting light into the various components.

"I accuse chemtrails of ruining the appearance of the sky, to which PacerLJ35 rejoins: 'And I’m sure all the automobile exhaust that hazes the sky over really enhances that sky!'
The 'debunkers' want to convince others that chemtrails contain only ice crystals. One of the last things they should do is link the action of chemtrails with what automobile exhaust does!"

I'm not linking chemtrails to auto exhaust at all. Perhaps you should go back and reread what I said. I said that the HAZE in the sky is caused by auto and industrial pollutants, NOT airplanes streaking by at 35,000 feet.

"A chemtrail in the sky would guarantee that a cumulus cloud would not come about, through whatever means it normally would come about, if the chemtrail were not there!"

OK Julian, where's your documentation? And as I attempted to state before, there's nothing that would link your perceived coincidence together. And I'm pretty sure I know what the response to this will be...."Ha! the debunker slime demands documentation, when it's obvious that I know what I see! What is this...documentation...they speak of?"

"Wind not being a function of air layers means that air layers do not come into play in forming wind! And that is precisely what I said! I said, in fact, that there is no layering when wind occurs! For that matter, too, wind is not a function of 'air pressure', but, rather, a difference in air pressures! Wind occurs, in general, when one air mass, usually of higher pressure, moves to displace another, generally of lower pressure. But, to displace it, that means that it does not go around it or overlay it!"

Oh boy...here I go:

"Wind not being a function of air layers means that air layers do not come into play in forming wind!"

Nice play on words. Air layers CAN contribute to forming pressure gradients, which can create shear layers, gust fronts, etc. So although air masses (better term) can contribute to forming wind, wind is still the sole function of air pressure.

"I said, in fact, that there is no layering when wind occurs"

Yes, you did say that, but it's not a true statement.

"For that matter, too, wind is not a function of 'air pressure', but, rather, a difference in air pressures"

Uh, that makes it a *function* of air pressure.

"Wind occurs, in general, when one air mass, usually of higher pressure, moves to displace another, generally of lower pressure"

That's basically what I said....air pressure. And yes, air masses will ride up over another air mass....it's called a *frontal system*.

"A point of this revelation, though, is that the government never even acknowledged anything like that kind of dumping before the first of the letters to the editor I sent out"

Re: the egg whites thing. The government didn't say much about it because, for God's sake, they were releasing egg whites in a very limited test. Who cares? I wouldn't care, and it would just be another waste of space on the morning newspaper.

"They would insist that the government had better things to do than go around releasing a white powder from airplanes"

Again, this was a very limited test. The government isn't flying over the entire nation dumping egg whites on everyone from 35,000 feet! The government has done a plethora of other tests too, which probably never made the headlines. During certification for the Lear 45, I read in a book that they sprayed a compound consisting of colored ice over the airplane to determine it's anti-icing abilities. And yet, nothing was ever published of this sanctioned government FAA test, spraying ice with some unknown chemical coloring agent in it!

"He insists that science and reason are two related but totally different things.
But reason is supposed to lead to science"

This was in response to your obvious play on words with the NMSR title. First, they are different words, but related. And if they were the same, then one wouldn't have to lead to the other. One *would* be the other.

"If you are involved in science, you, presumably, also use reason"

True, which is why they are related, but not the same word. Reason is not a synonym for science.

"PacerLJ35 insists that haze only forms below about 10,000 feet"

Is that what I said? Let's go check, shall we. Here's what I said: "I have seen a thick haze down low, close to the ground, abruptly clearing up around 8-10,000 feet"

Where in there did I insist that haze only forms below 10,000 feet? In that particular example it was around 10,000 feet.

"Yet even the chemtrail 'debunkers' admit that what they term 'contrails' do spread out and form a blanket of haze! "

I have never said that contrails form haze. Never. Find the quote, Julian. I have admitted that contrails can seed cirrus cloud formations.

posted 10-20-2002 08:00 PM            

We debunkenoids can get longwinded too.

If you really read and grasped all of the "debunking" material that has been written on this board and others, you would understand why nobody specifically refuted your assertions. They have been refuted in countless postings that countered the same worn-out arguments and fantasies, yes fantasies, that were listed at length in your original letter. It gets really boring reviewing and rewriting all of the facts that support the argument that chemtrails are nothing other than ice crytals freezing out of the air because they were nucleated by the normal exhaust of a common everyday jet engine encumbered by no malice or toxic chemicals. But allow me a little thought train addressing one your points.

Your understanding of the Dr. Minnis's discussions on relative humidity is apparently a bit skewed. If you read his papers on the subject, you would learn that the main source of uncertainty, in addition to the sparse radiosonde network, is the dry bias in the current observing system. That is, the measurements are too dry. Thus, one can assume that the atmosphere is much moister at high altitudes than is currently measured. Thus, contrails should form and persist more often than the measurements indicate.

The sparse measurement system is supplemented by a rather extensive network of satellites. While the exact quantitative interpretation of satellite water vapor imagery is still being developed, it is well established that when the image is dark (warm), the upper troposphere where airplanes fly is pretty dry. If the so-called chemtrails are not condensed from existing water vapor, then why are they never observed when satelite water vapor imagery indicates a dry upper troposphere? Don't believe me? Have a look at the dark areas in the satellite water vapor loops and then look at the infrared pictures. See any contrails? Oops, I'm sorry, chemtrails?

Your next argument will be: but the sprayers need the moisture to make their spraying chemicals effective! Maybe, but those same dark areas are where the air is sinking from the "spraying" levels down to lower levels, sometimes, as far as the surface. If you want to spray and cause some effect on the surface, wouldn't you want to spray in the dark areas?

Ah, but the next argument is: if they spray in the dark areas, then the "chemicals" will fall out of the atmosphere and then they can't be effective as a shield for global warming. But what you fail to realize is that contrails cause more warming just like most other junk that is released at high altitudes. Yes, Dr. Travis said they cause cooling at the surface during the day. But what he did not reveal is that they heat the upper tropsphere as much or more than they cool the surface. And contrails form at night if the planes are flying. Thus, if the conspiracy is creating contrails to stop global warming they will not have much luck cause they haven't done their homework.

But the next argument is: But I have been telling you, it's not contrails, it's chemicals that only block the sun and do not act like contrails that block infrared radiation and thereby cause a warming. So, the chemicals only cause a cooling. Yikes, maybe that's true. But if it was, then you would not be able to see the chemtrails in the satellite infrared imagery. Omigosh, if you look in the imagery, there they are. Looks like that chemical they are spraying acts just like contrails.

And the next argument is:

posted 10-20-2002 08:39 PM            

Contrails trap heat in the atmosphere by reflecting infrared radiation emitted from the Earth's surface.

In 1999 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculated that contrails from the world fleet of 12,000 civil airliners contribute as much to global warming as the CO2 their engines pour out as they burn jet fuel... Contrails could be eliminated if aircraft reduced their altitude from about 33,000 feet to between 24,000 feet and 31,000 feet, depending on the weather.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992926

Reading the article in it's entirety, the reader finds that the only trade-off is a 4% increase in fuel consumption and some sort of 'unassesed' possible burden on air traffic controllers.

Here in Tampa we have been under constant artificial cloud cover for 36 hours straight. If Canex is correct is in his assertion that these are simply harmless and uninspired contrails (despite scientific evidence that they are increasing global warming), they could be easily eliminated. A four percent increase in ticket prices would more than cover increased fuel cosumption costs on the part of the airlines.

The enviroment would win. Human beings would win. Even the oil industry would see an increase in jet fuel sales. Not just a win-win situation, a win-win-win situation.

So why isn't it being done?

It must be because of that unassessed theoretical, possible extra burden on air traffic controllers... right?

IF Canex is right, then the FAA and the airline industry are endangering the future of living organisms (including yours truly) on this planet and scaring the living sh_t out of a lot people for absolutley no unresolevable reason at all.

The only other plausible explanation is that someone else is doing so for a reason.

Based on the evidence, I subscribe to the latter theory. It has been my experience that the failures of our species have more to do with misguidance than they do with outright stupidity. I doubt our current dilemma is any sort of exception to that rule.

posted 10-20-2002 09:31 PM            

But assuming a 4% increase would be had at 24,000 feet, my Learjet would burn about an extra 200 lbs per trip. This would also increase the amount of CO2 being emitted by the aircraft, negating much of the gain created by decreased contrails.

There are a number of reasons why both pilots, management and ATC would have heartburn over keeping everyone low.

1. Pilots wouldn't like it because it makes their job of deviating for weather systems harder. On a typical summer day, flying at FL240 would require frequent deviations around thunderstorms, increasing flight time (and subsequently increasing fuel burnt). The 20's are the worst altitudes to fly for weather. In the 30s you have a reasonable chance of flying over a storm, or deviating less around the upper reaches of a large storm.

2. Flight departments wouldn't like it because flying lower decreases true airspeed, increasing flight time. The lower altitude also increases fuel burn (coupled with the longer flying time it increases fuel consumption even more). That would increase fuel bills quite a bit. And pilots would spend alot more time flying around storm build-ups, increasing fuel burns even more. Flying in the 20s for any trips less than 300 miles just isn't economical.

3. ATC would hate it because it would lop off about 15,000 feet of normally useable airspace (about the highest air traffic normally goes is to about FL450). This would create more traffic snafus, increase departure and arrival delays, and increase the number of aircraft having to divert and/or hold (also increasing your fuel burn even more).

You have no idea the number of times that on our way into Washington or NY, the controller asks "Josa XXX, do you want to go up or down? I gotta move you for traffic seperation". If there was an FAA directive keeping traffic down low, the controller's only choice would be to consider already clogged altitudes, or lateral seperation (and that's 2 miles all the way around...most controllers will try to keep you 5 miles away even though that's not required till you get to FL290).

Even with the advent of RVSM, that won't matter a bit flying in the 20s because RVSM reduces the standard 2,000 foot seperation mins above FL290 to 1,000 feet. Everything in the 20s is already at 1,000 feet seperation, and that's not going to change.

posted 10-20-2002 10:13 PM            

Well, speaking stricly as someone who gives a damn about the air we breathe and sustainability of life on this planet, I must say that I consider such remarks unfathomable.

Now, when there is a military objective to be accomplished then contrail suppression becomes oh-so-do-able! (as evidenced by the development of contrail-surpressing additives, which are another possible solution that wouldn't require pilots or ATC to work a little harder and stand the chance of being accused of being a responsible citizen or human being in general).

Folowing this absurd train of 'logic', we should all be doing 60 MPH in 15 MPH school zones. We'd enjoy greater fuel efficiency, personal convenience and we'd get out of the rain quicker (and public safety be damned).

The scientifically established facts, once again:

1. Contrails are an environmental scourge, due to their contribution to global warming.

2. Contrails could, quite easily, be completley eliminated, either by establishing a lower maximum atlitude for long-distance flights - or by an additive that would require no extra mental stimulation for Air Traffic Controllers.

3. This being accomplished, the governments and military of several nations could, in one well swoop, end the chemtrail controversy and restore faith in their institutions.

posted 10-21-2002 12:10 AM            

Environmental scourge? That's going a bit far. As far as global climate change is concerned, contrails are certainly *adding* to the problem, but by far they aren't the primary source. And it would be inconveniencing more than just a "few" controllers....it would inconvenience all of them by capping altitudes.

"... I must say that I consider such remarks unfathomable"

And speaking as someone who's intimately familiar with the air traffic system in this country, I'm just saying that's reality.
It's a bit like asking auto drivers to only drive on one single highway to reduce emissions....not going to work well. Too many airplanes in not enough space.

"Folowing this absurd train of 'logic', we should all be doing 60 MPH in 15 MPH school zones. We'd enjoy greater fuel efficiency, personal convenience and we'd get out of the rain quicker (and public safety be damned)."

Actually, the example you provided is pretty far off. First of all, speed isn't everything....airplanes typically cruise at an airspeed that conserves fuel, not blazing along at warp speed. And it's not just rain we're avoiding. A thunderstorm is very dangerous, and large airliners have emerged from thunderstorms with dents from hail, upside down pointing at the ground due to the turbulence. One DC-9 had its wings permanently bent several inches up due to the turbulence.

posted 10-21-2002 12:59 AM            

quote:

---

Environmental scourge? That's going a bit far.

---

A statement of opinion by someone with a less-than-unbiased relationship with the aviation industry. What has been requested by the sceptics is scientific evidence, which is what is being presented.

quote:

---

it would be inconveniencing more than just a "few" controllers....it would inconvenience all of them by capping altitudes.

---

I was referring to the relatively 'few' controllers who would be possibly 'inconvienced' as opposed to the somewhat larger population of this planet Earth who would stand to benefit.

quote:

---

I'm just saying that's reality.

---

What your saying is that inconveniencing a few hundred (or thousand) people whose job it is to deal with the inconvenient is more important than the health of our atmosphere and our ecosystem's sustainability. Again, unfathomable.

quote:

---

Actually, the example you provided is pretty far off. First of all, speed isn't everything....airplanes typically cruise at an airspeed that conserves fuel, not blazing along at warp speed

---

The issue here (if there is one that you can hang a hat on ) is fuel efficiency. An automobile travelling at 60 MPH is more efficient than at 15 MPH, but presents a risk to it's immediate environment. An aircraft travelling at 33,000 ft leaving trails is more efficient, but also presents a hazard to it's immediate (and not so immediate) environment.

quote:

---

A thunderstorm is very dangerous, and large airliners have emerged from thunderstorms with dents from hail...

---

Dents? Again we're comparing a little time in the body shop with a global environmental
scourge (according to scientists familiar with the issue).

By way of comparison, how many aviation related fatalities have occured from thunderstorms versus, say, bird strikes, terrorist activities, mechanical failure and/or pilot error?

posted 10-21-2002 06:42 AM            

It's a statement made by a limited group of people. Nearly every other source that has studied contrails admits there is a factor to climate change, but that it's NOT signficant enough for them to label it a "scourge"

"What your saying is that inconveniencing a few hundred (or thousand) people whose job it is to deal with the inconvenient is more important than the health of our atmosphere and our ecosystem's sustainability. Again, unfathomable"

It's not simply an inconvenience, Chem. It's a safety problem. And it would cause aircraft to burn ALOT more fuel (did the people who came up with the 4% figure that without taking into considerations changes in true airspeed, weather problems and ATC delays?), which would INCREASE the pollution, negating any gains from cutting back on contrails.

"An aircraft travelling at 33,000 ft leaving trails is more efficient, but also presents a hazard to it's immediate (and not so immediate) environment"

Again, I would bet the bank that the increase in fuel burn, coupled with the increase in safety hazards, would make reducing (notice reduce, not eliminate) contrails secondary.

"Dents? Again we're comparing a little time in the body shop with a global environmental
scourge (according to scientists familiar with the issue).

By way of comparison, how many aviation related fatalities have occured from thunderstorms versus, say, bird strikes, terrorist activities, mechanical failure and/or pilot error?"

It's more than dents, Chem. Severe/extreme turbulence...that can kill passengers and literally tear wings off of airplanes. And yes, there have been more aircraft lost to weather than bird strikes and terrorists. Alot more.

posted 10-21-2002 02:37 PM            

Using the Learjet 35 flight manual, which has Garrett TFE731-2-2B turbofans (about a 2.5:1 bypass...medium), I got the following fuel burn numbers.

As for an average, the TFE731 is a very common engine found on a number of different types of business jets, and it has similar characteristics to many other types of turbofans. And with my experience working with other engines (namely the P&W JT15D and the J69 turbojet) the Garrett is just as efficient if not more efficient than other engine models.

The data below assumes an operating weight of 15,000 lbs, at ISA, in a cruise configuration (ie not climbing or descending):

FL350: 1206 lbs/hr

FL300: 1415 lbs/hr

FL250: 1720 lbs/hr

So, going from 35,000 to 30,000 shows an increase of about 15%. Going from 30,000 to 25,000, the increase is nearly 18%. And going from 35,000 to 25,000 shows an increase of nearly 30%.

Considering that if the FAA capped altitudes to 30,000 feet (about the max height specified in the article), many aircraft would be forced to fly in the lower 20s due to congestion for safety reasons. Fuel burn would increase even further.

So, just based on fuel burns for a rather common jet engine, it shows that fuel burns would be well in excess of a 4% increase.

Chem, do you really think that decreasing contrails SOME (the article did not say it would eliminate them) and trading it for a 15-30% increase in fuel emissions, plus the hazards of increased thunderstorm penetrations and collision hazards would be worth the trade-off?

Not to mention that those fuel figures are 1 for 1 comparisons. It doesn't take into consideration the decrease in true airspeed (meaning slower ground speeds = more flying time = more fuel burnt), nor does it take into consideration fuel burned coping with traffic congestion and weather deviations. In reality, the aviation industry would burn even more than the percentages I quoted above.

posted 10-21-2002 03:17 PM            

A quick glance at a Lear jet manual is hardly comparable to a year long simulation undertaken by scientists at the Imperial College in London. Call me crazy, but I'm apt to consider the study to be more comprehensive (and therefore more accurate).

I'd certainly like to see the study itself, and the methodology utilized to confirm what I think I already know (that the difference in fuel consumption at varying altitudes is different for a large commercial jet than it is for a Lear).

Thank you for honestly addressing the 'safety' issue. Since it has been ascertained that thunderstorms and the occasional hail-storm are somewhere near the bottom of the list where aviation safety is concerned, we can once again turn our attention to fuel efficiency.

Nolan, The Imperial College of London and the New Scientist state, and I quote, that:

Eliminating contrails offsets extra CO2 from engines.

And yes, the word 'eliminating' does appear in this article and in the context of the study. Please re-read the article... it isn't terribly long.

posted 10-22-2002 05:47 PM            

"You're comparing raw data on a small personal jet, primarliy used by wealthy businessmen and bling-bling rap stars with a year long simulation of traffic over the busiest parts of Europe"

Biz jets make up a significant amount of the air traffic flying over your head. And they aren't just reserved as toys for the ultra-wealthy. Many corporations own and operate business jets and allow ANY of their personnel to travel on the aircraft to further company business. You don't need to be a CEO to ride on one.

Operating a business jet is often cheaper than continuously buying expensive airline tickets. Believe it or not, but flying 6 people to a meeting in a Learjet will run about $2,000. Buying airline tickets for those 6 people can run from $3,000 to $5,000. So they save money AND they can run their own travel schedule.

Even the USAF Learjet fleet isn't limited to just Generals and Admirals. We carry ANY passengers requiring official duty travel, regardless of rank. I've picked up many plane-loads of enlisted sergeants before.

Back to the numbers. If people were to go by what you're inferring, you'd think that 90% of the jet aircraft (civil) in the US are airliners, with only a few occassional biz jets floating around. Here's the cold hard statistics, Chem:

"There are over 10,000 turbine-powered aircraft in the worldwide business jet fleet, 7,000 of which operate here in the United States" -NTSB

"Boeing officials said there were 7,069 commercial jet transports registered in the U.S. as of Sept. 23. (2001)" -Aviation Week & Space Technology Magazine.

So, about 50% of the civil jet aircraft in the US are business jets. And several significant models of aircraft use the TFE731....all Learjets, most Falconjets, most Hawkers...the list goes on.

And, just for good measure, I took the liberty of looking at British stats, too (since that's the general area where this study came from). In the UK, there are 5,432 aircraft registered in the weight category that includes biz jets. Granted, some of these are tubroprops, but a large chunk of them are jets.

Then, only about 1,687 aircraft are registered in the weight categories corresponding to airliners. Again, not all are jets, but most are. So biz jets actually make up a substantial percentage of even the UK fleet.

So, looking upon this data, it's hard to dismiss the fuel numbers from the TFE as being insignificant, considering that half of the aircraft leaving contrails and flying overhead use engines identical or similar to the TFE.

"A quick glance at a Lear jet manual is hardly comparable to a year long simulation undertaken by scientists at the Imperial College in London. Call me crazy, but I'm apt to consider the study to be more comprehensive (and therefore more accurate)."

The Lear manual is very accurate. It's derived from actual flight tests, and it's legal for us to use it for fuel planning.

The study's basis for it's fuel numbers can from some statistical maneuvering, then added into an unproven computer model that spit out a number. It hasn't been flightchecked, and it hasn't been validated by any other data.

The study stated that it received higher fuel burns ranging from 1% (best case) to 7% (worst case). I KNOW from experience that both of those numbers are way too low. Most of the pilots I fly with have heavy jet experience, flying C-5s, DC-10s and the like, and the Learjet's fuel efficiency characteristics are reasonably in line with its heavier cousins.

And unless the TFE is just an extraordinarily inefficient engine, I see a huge disconnect from the TFE's increases of 10-20% and the study's increases of 1-7%. They aren't even in the same ballpark. Something in their "computer model" is skewed. Perhaps it didn't take into account the slower ground speeds at lower altitudes? Who knows. But it's off.

Again, their study = computer model. My info = flightchecked, validated with years of operating experience.

"One that did take into consideration the need for different aircraft to fly at different altitudes to avoid collisions"

Backtracking a bit, the study simply required the computer to avoid collisions and fly charted routes. It did not take into consideration weather deviations, route changes and traffic congestion. It used a one-day sample of air traffic to represent the entire 365-day period. Hardly a good sample.

"that the difference in fuel consumption at varying altitudes is different for a large commercial jet than it is for a Lear"

Raw fuel consumption, yes. But both airline engines and the Lear's TFE engine are both high-bypass turbofans that are very similar in fuel efficiency. Although the commercial airliner engine may burn MORE fuel per given power setting and altitude, percentage-wise, you're not going to see a huge disconnect that the study obviously shows.

Somehow, according to the study, biz jets must suffer greatly higher fuel burns flying lower whilst airliners don't have much of a fuel burn change at all. But I know that's not the case. Every turbofan in the world is going to have a fairly dramatic change in fuel burn between cruising at 35,000 and 25,000 feet. Not to mention that if the study included all flights in the upper atmosphere, a significant portion of them would be using the same type of engine I'm talking about.

"Eliminating contrails offsets extra CO2 from engines"

posted 10-22-2002 07:43 PM            

Let me introduce some more mental stability in this thread.

A Boeing 777 will have the following numbers based on a two engine long range cruise with Rolls Royce Trents at a 440,000 weight.

At FL390, .840 Mach/480 Knots TAS
Fuel Flow: 13,500 Lbs/Hour
(Approx 28.125 pounds per mile, or 4.2 gallons per mile)

At FL250, .695 Mach/418 Knots TAS
Fuel Flow: 13,800 Lbs/Hour
(Approx 33.01 pounds per mile, or 4.93 gallons per mile)

If my math is right, I figure a 17.4% increase in fuel usage for a given trip for an airplane that is problably the most efficient airliner out there.

Please have julianpenrod proofread this so I can correct any errors

posted 10-22-2002 08:23 PM            

I'll adress the points you personally make, Pacer. Unless you are willing to accept that I am/was a USAF Captain assigned to counter-intelligence (and a 'radical environmentalist' to boot), you'll have to question the wisdom of buying into Jay Reynold's rather 'unique' worldview (as well as the quality of his information). 'Nuff said.

Again, your arguement centers around published fuel efficiency for a single aircraft. No studys, no simulations, just a couple lines from the manual. If I was to present even an opinionbased on such sparse data I would be laughed off the internet. Since you have been notably civil and honest with me thus far, I will refrain from doing so.

When one compares the amount of CO2 emmitted by Learjets, compared with large commercial aircraft, you will, I'm sure, discover that the Lear represents a drop in the bucket comparatively speaking.

This is the point I was hoping to make and I haven't the faintest interest in the military rank of the passengers you taxi around the country. If there is any thing noteworthy and relevant included in your post, it's the difference in the percentage of business jets here in the US vs. Britain. This is a factor which might actually come into play for any theoretical similar stateside study.

quote:

---

Chem, you know as well as I do that that particular conclusion is predicated on the average 4% fuel burn increase.

---

No, I don't know *where* the contrail vs. C02 emission line is drawn with respect to eachs harm to the environment. The study says it's do-able, and worth doing (based upon climate change considerations alone).

I have stated my own opinion of why it may be worth doing for other reasons. Judging from the level of resistance I have seen forthcoming from you (and your research assistant) I am beginning to have my doubts.

Deborah was absolutely right. It doesn't matter whether you call them chem or con. It doesn't matter what scientfic references you cite. You start taking any positive steps towards resolving the problem and you get exactly the same response.

Both sides could, in theory, support a plan of action that would eliminate (with a bit of planning) CONTRAILS. The scientific studys I've seen thus far indicate this would have nothing but a positive effect on our environment. This being accomplished, one could reasonably expect that the days of stumbling around underneath an almost perpetual cover of cirrus aviaticus would come to an end. Unless, of course, this is a premeditated program to create just that, and altitude caps be damned.

For the first time ever, the debunkers that have responded here and elsewhere have shown absolutley no interest in proving themselves right. It must be that they harbor a 'radical environmentalist' streak and the threat of increased CO2 emissions is holding their egos in check (ignoring, for the moment, the contrail suppression additives that the military has developed for their own uses and emerging drag-reduction technology that promises a 30% reduction).

This is very, very do-able. But unless I see something other than 'pro-contrail' arguements forthcoming here, I'm afraid continuing in this direction doesn't do anything to advance our understanding of the larger issue or bring anyone closer to a solution.

Which, I am beginning to suspect, is exactly what is intended.

Since John Reynolds and Pacer have shown no interest in doing so, perhaps someone else from the debunking community will show some interest in proving me wrong...

Clear in Tampa today, after 36 hours of non-stop chemtrail activity and 90% white-out conditions.

posted 10-22-2002 08:33 PM            

Contrails could be eliminated if aircraft reduced their altitude from about 33,000 feet to between 24,000 feet and 31,000 feet, depending on the weather.

posted 10-22-2002 08:59 PM            

FL330 13600 Lbs/Hour
464 Knots TAS

FL310 13650 Lbs/Hour
452 Knots TAS

posted 10-22-2002 10:21 PM            

Well, Thermit's research tends to confirm Pluto Beach's observations. Trails left by identified commercial craft occured primarily at 35,000 ft. and above... and nothing below 30,000 ft.

Given the same atmospheric conditions as this real-world study, there would be no need to cap at anything lower than 30,000 ft (or exceed the 0.0003663 decrease in fuel efficiency for a Boeing 777), other than the congestion of air corridors at higher altitudes.

Apparently the Imperial College study takes this into account and provides the much higher 4% increase in CO2 emmissions.

posted 10-23-2002 01:46 AM            

I would in 50 words or less like to address this one statment of chem's regarding deborah :

Deborah was absolutely right. It doesn't matter whether you call them chem or con. It doesn't matter what scientfic references you cite. You start taking any positive steps towards resolving the problem and you get exactly the same response.

in a very important way yes it does matter to me as a father, as I have written before the fear factor of willy thomas and carnicom and the "spraying" "sickness" "culling" element of chemtrails is very scary to the layman...joe six-pack if you will...and mainly why I joined the ranks over 3 years ago to find out why and if need be to fight against the dregs of society that would perform this on it's own citizens....

originally the implication had me thinking very negative things at the time, due to my extreme distrust of bill clinton, and known past government experiments and negligence thereof, I had been very suspicious of to begin with, so I swallowed the spraying idea in whole, to the point where on days of persistent contrail coverage I would keep my kids indoors and I would do the same, to do this type of scare tactic to negatively force involvement of people in an issue is past the stage of morally wrong it's criminal in nature...

and certainly why chem or con it does matter...

after about 6 months I knew better on the sickness aspect...and after 3 plus years know better altogether...using fear to mislead and involve people in what is an environmental issue is way wrong...

so chem or con does matter...

barring isolated tests for national defense using new tools and advances in science for weather modification...that go on I don't care what anyone says...this clearly (chemtrails) is an environmental issue...of which I'm most definately on the side of doing something about, contrails are everywhere...you cannot move away from them...I've tried !

if there is a idea on the table to surpress contrails and not hinder normal commerce and travel to the point of absurdity and not choke the economy that affects people's job's and lives, then I would be more than happy to sign on...

in that respect chem or con matters very much so....

again thanks for the informative conversation chem, pacer, pluto....

posted 10-23-2002 08:04 AM            

It's possible that additives could quell contrails, but it would seem ironic that people who have spent the better part of the last several years fighting something called "chemtrails" would champion a chemical additive to prohibit condensation trails.

Another solution is the proposed "free flight" system currently being studied by the FAA. This along with several new approach capabilities would greatly improve traffic throughout the US. The current system of radio navigation aids and radar vectors to channel aircraft into specified departure and arrival corridors is limited.

But free flight is still a ways off in the future. As it stands now, I'm not convinced that capping cruising altitudes in the very near future is a safe solution, nor one that would result in any positive tradeoffs.

posted 10-23-2002 06:11 PM            

I dislike repeating myself, so let me break this down in simple terms so that I don't have to do so again.

After three years of concentrated efforts to force disclosure or come to an exact understanding of what the hell is going on above our aheads, we are no closer to resolving the problem. This, to me, is unacceptable.

By pursuing a course of action that will eliminate (not reduce) contrails (which alone have proven themselves to be an environmental scourge) there will be zero possibility of anyone telling you that the insane conditions you are probably witnessing on an almost daily basis are 'just contrails'.

An end to plausible deniability. Absolutely nowhere to run and nowhere to hide for anyone interested in blanketing civilian poulation centers with artificial 'clouds'... for whatever reason.

That being said, again, I appreciate your knee-jerk reaction if for no other reason than I think that it's important to judge even knee-jerks at this stage of the game.

Believe me, if theseeker is willing to support the elimination of contrails (and Pacer at least grudingly so), then I expect that prying the