Chemtards and their chemtrails

[159th_Viper]

Somewhere there's a Chemtard reading this thread and chucklin' merrily over his gourd of Spring Water.......:P

[asparagin]

Nope...quantum mechanics say otherwise. The notion that half life can be analogous to the chemical phenomenae is way wrong.

 

A stable molecule will stay the same untill something from the exterior, massive amounts of energy decomposes back to its elements or a catalyst triggers reagents to form other molecule(s).

 

So you know, Co2 exist on stars, so they can stay stable in hugely energetic neviroments, and so it does in space and planets alike. Its doesnt break apart spontanously by itself. This is a ludricous missconception.

 

Different conditions.. so what, just an extra index. Half-life of cheese under refrigerator conditions.

The definition of half-life maybe started with spontaneous processes, but generally speaking it means only a fraction of a defined time.

 

And now please tell me which quantum mechanic effect are you referring to?

[asparagin]

Somewhere there's a Chemtard reading this thread and chucklin' merrily over his gourd of Spring Water.......:P

 

you got me :D

[Pilotasso]

Different conditions.. so what, just an extra index. Half-life of cheese under refrigerator conditions.

The definition of half-life maybe started with spontaneous processes, but generally speaking it means only a fraction of a defined time.

 

And now please tell me which quantum mechanic effect are you referring to?

 

Shared electron bonds their specific layer energy. They are very well quantified and predictable.

[asparagin]

And what is it that they say otherwise?

[Pilotasso]

Spontanous break down contradicts it directly.

[asparagin]

There is no spontaneous, there are only conditions.

[hitman]

Ehm, CO2 is colorless, you cannot see it (if you could, you would see your own breath). CO2 doesn't break naturaly over time, it's a stable molecule.

 

ok. 1- i know CO2 is colorless, and 2- we expel CO. the first being carbon monoxide, the latter being carbon dioxide. lets pretend that im Not totally lost here, k?

[Vault]

That's a joke right?. We don't expel CO you'd be dead if you did. We expel Nitrogen, CO2 and small amounts of Oxygen.

[hitman]

last i heard we inhale nitrogen, oxygen and that stuff cars expel out the tail pipe. carbon monoxide is what cars spray out. carbon dioxide is what sustains plant life. carbon monoxide poisoning comes from leaking exhaust fumes Not bad breath. if we all did expel carbon monoxide then the whole world was doomed from the start.

[winz]

lets pretend that im Not totally lost here, k?

sry, but you are

 

CO2 - carbon dioxide (also result of organism oxygen metabolism)

CO - carbon monoxide

[hitman]

sry, but you are

 

CO2 - carbon dioxide (also result of organism oxygen metabolism)

CO - carbon monoxide

 

I was wondering if i was correct on that, since mono means one and di means more than one. Just so everyone knows, its Hitmans day at work to be bored so im allowed once a year to go off on my stupid tangents once in a while. thanks for the correction.

[Krebs20]

I was ay the local airport with my cousin. Cloudy, sorta crappy November day. He was taking me up for my first long flight in his Cirrus SR20. There was no icing airmet out be decide to fill the de icing fluid for the the wings.

A new lady working for the fbo asked me how much to charge for fuel. I responded with I didn't add fuel I put in.... my cousin interrupted me with, We put weather seeding in. I did everything to keep a straight face and a mechanic busted out laughing and went to the hanger.

 

Weather seeding she asked? Cousin said. Yep. We plan to make it snow here today.

 

Looks at me. Really?

Oh yes. You should go home early tonight. We are going to make it storm.

She gave us a crazy look. You guys have a good flight.

 

We took our trip south and 6 inches of snow fell on the airport over the next 2 days. We returned on the 3rd day. She was working and came out to greet us.

Don't you ever start a storm like that again. It's just wrong! I was stuck 3 hours because of you!

She knows better now. But for the 1st month she worked there, she refused to dispatch my airplane. It's still a funny joke at the airport. She still calls me the weatherman.

[Pilotasso]

:huh:

 

:D

[EtherealN]

thanks for the correction.

 

A few more corrections may be needed though. ;)

 

what im getting at is that you only see greenhouse gases over populated areas and its always localized

 

Wrong. Tell that to, for example, methane traps in siberian permafrost or under lakebeds. Also, greenhouse gases last until they are consumed in a reaction (like when a plant whiffs up some CO2 and uses the Carbon and release the O2, giving us something to breathe). If CO2 is emitted in, say, Los Angeles it'll go into the atmosphere and stay there until something does something to it. Cut down more plants while use more cars... It's as simple as accounting. ;)

 

its warm in the cities nowadays?

 

Oh come on. Don't make the "it was cold here this winter, therefore there is no global warming" mistake, because it really is silly. See that word "global" and contrast it to the word "here"? Then google the two words "weather" and "climate". ;)

 

if CO2 is as persistent as you people believe, this planet would have been a big stinking ball of Shit for over a century

 

If you want an extreme example of how "persistent" CO2 is and the fun stuff that it can do, check out the climate on Venus. ;)

 

Now of course, it doesn't quite translate, but greenhouse gases is a main contributor to the extreme heat on the venusian surface. Conversely, greenhouse gas emission is one of the proposals for how to make Mars habitable ("terraforming").

 

The difference between Venus and Earth is as follows:

1) Earth has life.

2) Earth life consume CO2, die, and deposit the carbon into the ground

3) Earth life continues to advance.

4) Earth life finds the carbon that previous life spent a few billion years extracting from the atmosphere and depositing into the ground and has the idea to get it up and re-deposit it: but into the atmosphere.

 

Seriously hitman, you need to take a whole-picture view to this, and you need to learn the science to make sure that you don't end up talking about "half-life" of CO2. It does mean that you lose credibility on the topic - but once corrected it should also mean that you lose credibility towards yourself: ask yourself, if you are able to make a mistake like that, who is most likely to know what they're doing on this topic? You, or 95% of the world's climatology experts?

 

(And by the way, that list some people are trotting about with scientists doubting this whole thing: well, I've looked through large parts of it and I frequently find myself wondering why people would consider dentists and medical doctors and similar "scientists" as experts in this field. It's as stupid as that other list of people like mathematicians and law professors doubting evolution as if anyone cared about their opinion within the field of biology. ;) )

[asparagin]

One day we'll be one line just like this:

 

[Avilator]

I was ay the local airport with my cousin. Cloudy, sorta crappy November day. He was taking me up for my first long flight in his Cirrus SR20. There was no icing airmet out be decide to fill the de icing fluid for the the wings.

A new lady working for the fbo asked me how much to charge for fuel. I responded with I didn't add fuel I put in.... my cousin interrupted me with, We put weather seeding in. I did everything to keep a straight face and a mechanic busted out laughing and went to the hanger.

 

Weather seeding she asked? Cousin said. Yep. We plan to make it snow here today.

 

Looks at me. Really?

Oh yes. You should go home early tonight. We are going to make it storm.

She gave us a crazy look. You guys have a good flight.

 

We took our trip south and 6 inches of snow fell on the airport over the next 2 days. We returned on the 3rd day. She was working and came out to greet us.

Don't you ever start a storm like that again. It's just wrong! I was stuck 3 hours because of you!

She knows better now. But for the 1st month she worked there, she refused to dispatch my airplane. It's still a funny joke at the airport. She still calls me the weatherman.

:lol:

[hitman]

A few more corrections may be needed though. ;)

 

 

 

Wrong. Tell that to, for example, methane traps in siberian permafrost or under lakebeds. Also, greenhouse gases last until they are consumed in a reaction (like when a plant whiffs up some CO2 and uses the Carbon and release the O2, giving us something to breathe). If CO2 is emitted in, say, Los Angeles it'll go into the atmosphere and stay there until something does something to it. Cut down more plants while use more cars... It's as simple as accounting. ;)

 

 

 

Oh come on. Don't make the "it was cold here this winter, therefore there is no global warming" mistake, because it really is silly. See that word "global" and contrast it to the word "here"? Then google the two words "weather" and "climate". ;)

 

 

 

If you want an extreme example of how "persistent" CO2 is and the fun stuff that it can do, check out the climate on Venus. ;)

 

Now of course, it doesn't quite translate, but greenhouse gases is a main contributor to the extreme heat on the venusian surface. Conversely, greenhouse gas emission is one of the proposals for how to make Mars habitable ("terraforming").

 

The difference between Venus and Earth is as follows:

1) Earth has life.

2) Earth life consume CO2, die, and deposit the carbon into the ground

3) Earth life continues to advance.

4) Earth life finds the carbon that previous life spent a few billion years extracting from the atmosphere and depositing into the ground and has the idea to get it up and re-deposit it: but into the atmosphere.

 

Seriously hitman, you need to take a whole-picture view to this, and you need to learn the science to make sure that you don't end up talking about "half-life" of CO2. It does mean that you lose credibility on the topic - but once corrected it should also mean that you lose credibility towards yourself: ask yourself, if you are able to make a mistake like that, who is most likely to know what they're doing on this topic? You, or 95% of the world's climatology experts?

 

(And by the way, that list some people are trotting about with scientists doubting this whole thing: well, I've looked through large parts of it and I frequently find myself wondering why people would consider dentists and medical doctors and similar "scientists" as experts in this field. It's as stupid as that other list of people like mathematicians and law professors doubting evolution as if anyone cared about their opinion within the field of biology. ;) )

I stand by my statements simply because this planet adapts to everything. How many ice ages have we had? How many times had this planet been a jungle? If anyone has noticed, a big chunk of the earth revolves around us every 28 or so days, I have to think that greenhouse gases isnt going to end all life. Im no chemist or a scientist, but I am logical, and it doesnt make any sense to me knowing that within a few million years, all of what we done here will disappear. For good. :music_whistling: Single cell bacteria will flourish as always, fungi will always exist here, and what not will continue to thrive until the sun envelops our planet.

[EtherealN]

I stand by my statements simply because this planet adapts to everything.

 

What the planet adapts to is irrelevant.

 

I have to think that greenhouse gases isnt going to end all life.

 

No-one says they will.

 

Im no chemist or a scientist, but I am logical,

 

That's the problem though - any logical construct, however good and valid, is rendered null and void if the in-data is bad. As it is in your case, indicated by the above quotations - you are attacking things that are beside the point.

 

The planet doesn't give a crap about whether a global temperature rise causes sea levels to go up by 10 meters. Know what cares about that?

 

You.

 

Because 90% of major goods transport hubs would be shut down by that - including the ones that you import your computer parts with, ~50 percent of your oil, etcetera. And let's not forget that roughly 3 billion people would have to be relocated.

 

Basically, it's not a case of everybody-dies. That's solely the domain of things like cometary impacts and fun stuff like that. But it would cause economic damage the likes of what we've never seen when every single shipping port has to be relocated and a large portion of arable lands in the heavily populated areas of the world flood - doublewhammy: no bulk import, drastically reduced domestic production; hello famine. This is not a magical problem - this is a problem because of how we have built our infrastructure. There is of course also the problem of whole nations going hungry and going to war over arable land further from the shores...

 

But as you correctly noted: the planet still won't give a damn.

Edited June 23, 2010 by EtherealN

[asparagin]

How many ice ages have we had? How many times had this planet been a jungle?

But as you correctly noted: the planet still won't give a damn.

 

Two planets meet:

1: What's up with you, you look bad.

2: Yeah, I have homosapiens..

1: Oh don't worry, I had that too.. it will pass.

[hitman]

My point is that i Dont care if it happens. what im saying is that its happened before, it'll happen again, and its Not going to be because of a few hair sprays or whatever. it'll happen because its a never ending cycle. about that hole in the ozone at the south pole, has anyone thought that its there because the earth is a giant magnet and the south pole is the direction of travel of lines of flux? Nah no one ever proved it even though its more logical than a few hydrocarbon molecules. there theories may be sound but that doesn't make them any less stupid making everyone believe its our fault.

[diveplane]

Are you aware of the number of people building conspiracy theories around plain old contrails, calling them chemtrails and believeing it's a plot to somehow do.. something to us?

A friend of mind is a believer and I just don't know how to help him. :huh:

 

whats his theory on the the so called chemtrails?> i have been informed what they are for,

i take it with a pinch of salt.

i have researched into some of this stuff, some of it cant be proven or disproven.

again its all taboo in most peoples eyes, ufos and conpiracy stuff = labelled a nut or its all just bull.

when you research some of them it only gets more complicated.

still left with more ????

 

most of the stories are mixed with false planted disinformation hoax stories video pics,however there is elements of possible truths in some of this, picking out the truth jigsaw parts is the difficult part, and what keeps many searching on.

Edited June 25, 2010 by diveplane

[EtherealN]

Seriously, hitman...

 

The hole in the ozone layer wasn't caused by "a few hydrocarbon molecules". If you want to be specific the biggest thief there was dichlorodifluoromethane, which as you can see does not contain hydrogen. Not that that topic is directly linked to global warming anyhow - different issue.

 

And yes, it is a never ending "cycle" (though it is a lot more chaotic than a cycle) - do some ice core research and you can notice that temperature seems strangely correlated with CO2 and methane contents in the atmosphere. (Gaseous H2O is also a greenhouse gas, btw, but a very very weak one compared to CO2 and especially compared to Methane.)

 

Further, "travel lines of flux" is a funny hypothesis for explaining the ozone hole - how come the hole doesn't follow the magnetic anomalies then? Remember: the magnetic south is not the same as geographic south - not even close.

 

As for it being "logical", how so? The magnetic field has been there for quite a while, so why wasn't there a hole in the ozone layer from the beginning of time? Why is there no correlation between variation in field strength and ozone depletion?

 

Seriously, your definition of "logical" leaves a lot to be desired, and once again you are basically saying that you are not a chemist, not a climatologist, not a physicist, but your idea of "logic" somehow trumps thousands of people that each spent 10 years or more studying these things AFTER being both postgrad as finishing a PhD... Seriously, that's arrogant in the extreme. You basically have a preconceived notion and is grasping at straws trying to defend said notion.

 

If it's all so simple, I'm sure you could whip up a paper in no time and get a nobel prize in no time. Just don't start talking about half-life of CO2 in it... ;)

 

Oh, and stop watching that hilariously silly "The Great Global Warming Swindle" movie. They are about as honest as Ben Stein's Expelled - that is, they lie through their teeth and their lies are well documented. :)

 

But that said: I know where you are coming from. 3 years ago I was a relatively diehard denier. Then I started reading the actual research instead of newspaper op-ed's and fraudulent movies.

 

My point is that i Dont care if it happens. what im saying is that its happened before, it'll happen again, and its Not going to be because of a few hair sprays or whatever. it'll happen because its a never ending cycle. about that hole in the ozone at the south pole, has anyone thought that its there because the earth is a giant magnet and the south pole is the direction of travel of lines of flux? Nah no one ever proved it even though its more logical than a few hydrocarbon molecules. there theories may be sound but that doesn't make them any less stupid making everyone believe its our fault.

Edited June 24, 2010 by EtherealN

[sniffer]

Friends believing chemtrails it's nothing new. Got 1 or 2 too :) No help to them and if they're fine with this it's ok. I started worry when our religious media try to proove that water flood in Poland is chemtrails dependent... :doh:

[asparagin]

Since when does "religious media" need "proofs"?

Back to middle ages..