replicant: "fracking hell" ?

What's that?
Mar 4, 2014 at 3:38 PM | Registered Commenter jferguson

Reasonable question. Deserves a straight answer.

Everything to with fracking from start to finish. Especially in the context of present day events, 'slickwater fracking'. Everything about slickwater fracking is fracking hell and should be stopped.

I apologize. Is that a straight answer?

"sometimes they are genuine vapour trails and sometimes they are chemtrails
Likewise with clouds."

I do not believe you ever are looking vapour trails. Modern commercial aircraft jet engines preclude their formation. Chemtrails are chemtrails. They are never vapour trails. Like wise clouds. Clouds do not look like chemtrails and chemtrails do not look like clouds.

"But there is no visible difference between vapour trails and chemtrails - I have to perform a mental process - reflectionand then it will be apparent which are which"

So what are you trying to say? That chemtrails do exist and you distinguish them? If there's no visible difference, how do you distinguish them? Oh, you are trying to be funny. By cleverly assuming that I am distinguishing chemtrails a nd vapour trails. Ho, ho, ho. Good one.

Its not. We're just having a discussion about internet visualization

I hesitate to interject in case this "chemtrail" thing is some sort of joke that I'm not getting. But I have not the slightest idea what this discussion of "chemtrails" is all about...

"I do not believe you ever are looking vapour trails. Modern commercial aircraft jet engines preclude their formation. "
Jet engines - and piston - engines have always produced vapour trails - they eject hot water vapour from burning kerosene into super cold atmosphere - they've almost got to produce vapour trails.

I said "modern commercial jet engines" preclude the creation of chemtrails. While not extinguishing the creation of vapour trails completely, for our purposes one can say that there are no vapour trails in the sky. So that's your first argument that is incorrect.

If a person reflects that does not mean he must decide whether or not something exists. If I reflect on the sun I am not questioning the existence of the sun, I am reflecting on what it is, how it got there. So if I reflect on chemtrails I refer to the process of understanding. Not the process of trying to open someone's eyes. Or belabour the point to someone who for private reasons has ulterior purposes for ignoring what he sees.

Martin A, I think you may be trying to converse with a Turing-bot.

"sorry Mike - I;ll explain later"

"you seem to be dismissing me as a clown."

Not a clown, but some one who hides behind the pretense of something else. In that sense I have restricted patience. However it can only be noted what we see in the skies are being passed off as vapour trails and of no special interest or of any special consequence is, to put it in any colloquial parlance - playing it dumb. A position not befitting a grown man who spends his days connected to the web

Well obviously 6 gallons of water per linear mile is not going to spread out until they stretch several degrees to each side of the flight path and at the same time still maintain horizon to horizon continuity. And most importantly even, last for days. What do you want me to say? Do you honestly believe I should pretend that you are taken by this argument? But not only by this argument. Crazy flight paths like u-turns. Chemtrail pilots writing in the sky? But anyways, I get caught in the loop of pretending people are unaware. I find that claim even more unbelievable than the chemtrails themselves. (Different kinds of unbelief)

Martin, as you have been so helpful to me here, allow me to return the favor. I took this from WUWT, dated September 2, 2013.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/02/chemtrails-or-contrails-another-alarmist-issue-without-scientific-context/

"Otherwise, you'd have explained in a line or two what they are."

I have explained in a line or two. And I haven't told you what they are because the definitive understanding is unfolding presently. However, I have told you what they aren't and I've told you where to look. But you don't accept these statements. And you create arguments like 6 gallons of water can now cover the sky and last for days when previously contrails lasted only a few seconds. It's an impossible argument. Naturally I can't help but be amused or bored depending on the inventiveness of your response.

"spraying the population with unspecified chemicals"

"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Since we know they aren't vapour trails, what possibilities remain? You can certainly take your pick. It's just that vapour trails isn't one of them.

"You'll find I said nothing about "6 gallons of water can now cover the sky and last for days when previously contrails lasted only a few seconds". "

That's correct, I said that. You brought up the fact of 6 gallons of water. I used that statement to point out that this fact means chemtrails cannot be mistaken for contrails since chemtrails do in fact cover the sky and last for days. Ipso facto they cannot be contrails since this is not how contrails behave.

"How long the condensation lasts depends pretty much on the relative humidity of the air. If you think they always used to last for just seconds, you are simply mistaken. Where did you get that idea?"

From science. Contrails of modern commercial high by-pass jet engines very rarely produce any contrails, (ie: only in ideal conditions) and when they do they generally last only a few seconds. Yes, this is science. On some rare blue moon night you may get a contrail to last a bit longer. But your statement is completely irrelevant since what we are witnessing is a total onslaught of spraying far beyond any conceivable circumstances you imagined you thought you could explain. It is childish and preposterous for an educated and normally intelligent person to confuse the phenomena in question with contrails.

"Since we know they aren't vapour trails". If you don't know what they are and they look like vapour trails,"

They don't look like, act like, seem like, could be confused with, mistaken for or otherwise misinterpreted as contrails.

I keep telling you they aren't vapour trails and don't look like vapour trails and you come back with the claim that "they look like vapour trails...so maybe they are" Why shouldn't I mock you?

Just take this last bit of your post. "I asked a straight question but instead of giving a straight answer, you mocked me".

I have given you straight answers each and every time. But your responses and arguments are repetitive and so become inconsequential. They run from pretending to be a naïve waif, unfamiliar with the dirty possibilities of modern politics and warfare, to having no trouble at all in producing the calculations for the water vapour output of a jet engine. But nothing else seems to be handy. Just questions that you pretend to be pained to ask me. Why shouldn't I mock you? You feign some insult yet you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge past statements and continue on as if no discussion had taken place.

"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

We know they aren't contrails because we can see that they aren't.

Please, carefully reread my posts and you will find I have already stated my position several times. They cannot be mistaken for contrails or clouds and they come out of the rear of commercial aircraft. They are as obvious as the back of your hand. You don't even need me to answer your questions. Look up and you can see for yourself. And since you yourself understand that six gallons of water per mile dispersed at 40,000 ft. could not, under any circumstances produce aircraft trails extending the length and breadth of the sky.

But I understand. This crowd is the no-seeums crowd. This is as opposed to Bible thumpers see-ums. They tell you to see without any evidence, and you tell people to not see against all evidence. The see-ums vs. the no see-ums. Two sides of the same coin.

"making vapour trails - which behave like normal vapour trails. Yesterday they remained in place as long as I watched and were still there when I got on with other things."

Well then obviously they're not vapour trails are they since we both know that there is not nearly enough water vapour from combustion to create what you see. That's just a scientific fact.

"I'm not sure what 'slickwater fracking' is but I think there is probably wide agreement here that ordinary fracking for natural gas is almost wholly beneficial"

Well this is really your only position. You play dumb. You don't see anything but con trails and you haven't any idea of what slickwater fracking is. But stepping aside your impoverished acting we must ask to whom it is beneficial. That's the question. But that is only half the question. The other half is to whom is it harmful. Well both questions are easy. It is beneficial to wall street conmen, fracking companies, the military and the sleazy government officials who get to keep their paychecks. It is harmful to everybody else. But when in the playing dumb game, other peoples property and values aren't of much consideration now are they.

"It provides the prospect of cheap and plentiful energy, with all the benefits that brings, into the distant future."

It doesn't provide cheap energy by any means. It destroys ground water. Increases health costs, destroys peoples livelihood, destroys their life, endangers their health. It is ridiculous to assume we must continue with shale gas or we will come to dire straights. The truth is that continuing with shale gas drilling will decimate whole areas of countryside. I have another thread where I posted numerous links to the dangers of fracking. Those dangers aren't hard to find. But playing dumb is probably the only response you know.

"- It avoids the environmental damage of coal mining (including subsidence for underground mining) and coal burning."

At least coal mining is relatively local. Whereas with the case of fracking, once the ground water is ruined, it is ruined without any help of remediation for an indefinite period of time. Ground water also travels through not well known paths using less well known distances over time. Contaminated ground water moving underground to destroy other peoples drinking water...Bit what would that concern an educated man like yourself?

"It reduces CO2 production"

That is really just the biggest piece of bullshit there and of negligible import. Of far more importance are the myriad of chemicals being leaked continuously from old and/or damaged equipment. Toxic chemicals being released in evaporation ponds and on and on.

"- It means the potential of freedom from reliance on unstable or unreliable countries for essential energy supplies."

Don't be absurd. It will do nothing of the kind.

"In talking about "fracking hell" you seem to imply there are some downsides to fracking."

Duh-uh

Here's my ha'peth worth for what it's worth. Entropic man clearly has a science base and in discussion attempts to push a stance based on the science which I personally don't understand but then many in this entire arena adopt similar behaviours.

I personally have a more philosophical viewpoint in that time will tell as it does with all things.

However, that is not to say any are necessarily wrong. My own field is medical and the better part of a decade in higher education has given me a sense of what scientific argument is about. I now just say that I have grave doubts about the narrative.

With respect to Chandra, I honestly get an impression of a decent enough sort who just happens to have very strident views. Chandra, for the record, until the last four or five years I also held views as vociferously as you still do. In fact, if we had ever found ourselves at the same meetings you would have voted to have me excluded as an extremist!!..I kid you not.

The facts changed though and so did my view.

Matters are clearly not as the likes of Greenpeace/IPCC etc would have us believe. This suggests to me at least that the real agenda lies elsewhere but that is an entire discussion in it's own right.

I don't think I have ever come across a field of scientific debate that has polarised attitudes to the degree that is seen with the climate debate. There are clear ideological boundaries which again seems curious, to my eye anyway.

Chandra, I have a sense (and apologies if I'm wrong) that you also don't feel the ground you have occupied for so long being quite as stable as it used to be. I want you to note that I very much know what that feels like and I (hope) would like to speak for many by saying that no-one here will attempt to make any "political" capital by saying "huh, we told you so" etc if you stated any doubt on any area of the climate debate.....

All are entitled to alter a viewpoint...In fact, it almost defines human activity.

It is a very uncomfortable transition though to be sure and one even loses friendships as a result.

In brief I certainly do not feel Chandra devalues the debates (slightly pejorative but not in the Zed category) and certainly not Entropic Man....I'm entitled to think he has it wrong but then so might I.

Ah well, that's my verbiage over with for the day.

""Well then obviously they're not vapour trails are they since we both know that there is not nearly enough water vapour from combustion to create what you see. That's just a scientific fact. "

No it is absolutely not 'a scientific fact'. Do you understand physics at any level whatever?"

There is no point in having a discussion. It is absolutely a scientific fact. The fact is that it is physically impossible for water vapour to create what you see. You like playing dumb because that is your only option.

"Planes at altitude have *always* produced vapour trails - just take a look at photos of the sky while the Battle of Britain was going on. That's a fact."

Here of course you are no longer just playing but have moved on to being dumb. Comparing what, piston driven engines notoriously difficult to tune to different altitudes with modern high bypass turbo fans. What don't compare jet engines with rocket engines. You might get some more mileage out of that. What do you care. An engine is an engine right? Wow, we are really, really impressed with your historical knowledge. Maybe if you expanded that knowledge just a bit to include engine type we could elevate this discussion above grade school. But doubt it.

"You keep on that I am 'playing dumb' 'impoverished acting' I don't know what more I can do than assure you that I am not"

What you can about that of course is to learn a little bit of science regarding vapour trails and how much water vapour could be expanded and still be visible and persistent. To pretend that what you see above is water vapour is a very good example of the moral and intellectual poverty of many of the posters on this site.

- so far as I can see, groundwater is a non-issue. The depths are completely distinct. My well doesn't give a toss about what goes on a few hundred feet down.

But that's as far as you can see. So now it is at least clear why I was suggesting at the beginning you couldn't see the contrails. You are myopic. Anybody who thinks that separation at depths and levels of a few hundred feet when it comes to the ground beneath their feet is in serious need of remedial education. Where do you think ground water comes from and where do you think ground water is draining to? Nevermind, That's probably a question that requires a little better eyesight.

It doesn't even require any education to understand that what you see isn't water vapour. All it takes is common sense. 6 gallons of water per mile would never create water vapour trails of the kind you have now apparently witnessed. And most certainly it would never create vapour trails that are as low as you described that you witnessed. Low enough to recognize aircraft type. There is zero chance of any kind that what you see are water vapour trails.

This of course doesn't begin to address the myriad of other issues that show what an idiotic viewpoint that is that what you see are water vapour trails. But I wouldn't want to cloud your vision. You are having enough trouble as it is.