Another example of Facebook chemtrails denier, claim to be PhD in science, but have wrong understanding of contrails.

This happen in Facebook , alternate link

Aji Condro
Most chemtrails denier are scientifically illiterate too. Or simply deny science.
Edited · Like · 2 · Edit · Saturday at 10:21am

Neil Penn
I have a B.Sc. in physics, a B.Math(Hons) and currently have my PhD in physics out for external examination (all degrees earned at the University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia). I have conducted $450,000 of industry funded research in the last 10 years and have owned my own scientific consultancy for 12 years.

I consider myself very highly literate in my own field of science and sufficiently literate in atmospheric physics to assure you that it is easily demonstrable that chemtrails are physically impossible.
Like · 1 · Saturday at 2:00pm


Aji Condro
Then Neil Penn, can you explain about what is contrails? Most simply explain wrong or out of date. Why being a PhD in physics make you know contrails? What is your source book for contrails, and can you take photo of the page explaining contrails?
Like · 1 · Edit · Saturday at 5:26pm


Neil Penn
Contrails are just a natural consequence of injecting a stream of water vapour into air below -40C that is high enough in humidity that the ice crystals don't sublimate. I have many papers on this subject in my archives but it's not possible to post them here. There are text books on clouds that date back to the 1940's which discuss persistent contrails. Thanks you for taking my comment seriously, it shows that you have an inquiring mind.
Like · 1 · Saturday at 6:15pm


Aji Condro
See? You have wrong understanding for contrails. Sorry, but the science today do not describe contrails that way.

If you know the science of contrails, you would surely mention the importance of particle in contrails creation.

Example:
LEOTC Project, Minister of Education, the Royal Society of New Zealand, The Kiwi Kids Cloud Identification Guide
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/SCOOL/pdf/Kiwi_Kids_Cloud_Guide.pdf
"Contrails are formed when particles from aircraft jet engines mix with the water vapour in the air. The water vapour condenses and freezes around the particles causing long white trails across the sky."

http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/contrail-edu/science.html
"Contrails are clouds formed when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) that exist in aircraft exhaust. Some of that water vapor comes from the air around the plane; and, some is added by the exhaust of the aircraft.
The exhaust of an aircraft contains both gas (vapor) and solid particles. Both of these are important in the formation of contrails. Some elements of the exhaust gasses are not involved in contrail formation but do constitute air pollution. Emissions include carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons such as methane, sulfates (SOx), and soot and metal particles."
Like · 1 · Edit · 1 hour ago

Neil Penn
Correct. Jet exhaust is predominantly CO2 and water vapour with traces of combustion by-products that can act as condensation nuclei. I didn't think you were asking for the contents of jet exhaust, I thought you were inquiring into PERSISTENCE of contrails and this is unrelated to the nature of the condensation nucleii. My apologies for misinterpreting your imperfect English. Do you believe that persistent contrails are something other than the normal products of jet fuel combustion, or do you just use the word "chemtrail" to describe a persistent contrail?
Edited · Like · 1 hour ago

Aji Condro
Do you have source for this claim bellow?
" I thought you were inquiring into PERSISTENCE of contrails and this is unrelated to the nature of the condensation nucleii"

Are you saying that the amount of particle have no relationship with contrails thickness / visibility / persistence?
Like · Edit · 56 minutes ago


Neil Penn
No / no / yes.
Like · 54 minutes ago

Aji Condro
If you do not have source for such claim, how did you know?.

What do you know about the scientist opinion about contrails? would they care, do not care or very worry about contrails?

The amount of particle have high influence on contrails behaviour.
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=NtoEz62LlAQC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=%22completely+eliminate+sulfur%22+contrails+jet+exhaust&source=bl&ots=dgyVjyuAkH&sig=wEbsAkklSLnfpz6X4lN9Wv2goOA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Y8EIUYfTDo7LrQeR7YD4Ag&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=fals
Particle formation in jet aircraft exhaust and contrails for different sulfur containing fuels

"Abstract: - A series of experiments has been performed observing contrails formation of twin-angine jet aircraft (ATTAS-VFW 614 and Airbus A310-300) run with different sulfur containing fuels on the two engines at the same time. The fuel sulfur mass content was varied from 2 to 5500 ppm. The results suggest that contrails particles form mainly from soot particles. The higher the sulfur content the more the soot particles get activated as condensation neclei. Particles start condensing in the liquid phase but have to freeze quickly, and the water vapor mass accomodation coefficient must be larger than about 0.2 both for liquid and ice particles, in order to form a visible contrails within 25 m after the aircraft as observed."

Nucleation and Atmospheric Aerosols 1996
books.google.co.id
Like · Edit · 48 minutes ago

Aji Condro
Not posting source is the common behaviour of chemtrails denier too.
Like · Edit · 46 minutes ago

Neil Penn
You have now simply become belligerent. I will no longer engage with you unless you provide a source for the claim "Not posting source is the common behaviour of chemtrails denier too."
Like · 44 minutes ago

Aji Condro
Many chemtrails denier will stop replying after I post link from scientific community.
Like · Edit · 43 minutes ago

Aji Condro
Here is the evidence, that despite denier claim to be scientific, they never post link to scientific site to support their claim:
http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2013/08/26/evidence-of-deliberate-disinformation-in-chemtrails-group/

If you spot source from those denier link, let me know. Because I don't see it.

Besides I already proven that you have wrong understanding for contrails.
Edited · Like · Edit · 35 minutes ago

Aji Condro
How dare you claim to be scientific but you do not post source?

How can I know that your source can be trusted?
Edited · Like · Edit · 36 minutes ago

Neil Penn
Once again, I am part of the "scientific community", of which you clearly are just an internet participant, and your distastefulness is escalating. You seem unaware that the Schmidt-Appleman criterion for contrail formation, and the additional requirement for supersaturation over ice for contrail persistence, are thermodynamic phenomena. Particulate is required as condensation nuclei (this is universally understood) but more or less particulate influences density/visibility of the trail, not WHETHER it will form.
Like · 32 minutes ago

Aji Condro
If your source is not from internet, give me the title of the book and who wrote them.

Yes, contrails can form without particle. But are they more common than contrails that form from particle?

What do you know about the scientist opinion about contrails? would they care, do not care or very worry about contrails?
Edited · Like · Edit · 27 minutes ago

Neil Penn

Aji Condro, excuse me but how dare you ask me "How can I know that your source can be trusted?" when you have posted a link from "thetruthdenied"?? That's amazing.
Like · 27 minutes ago


Neil Penn
Gierens (2006) is an easy introduction.

http://elib.dlr.de/45218/1/g-214.pdf
Like · 24 minutes ago

Neil Penn
Ari, Gierens also collaborated on this poster which discussed aerodynamic contrails that form without exhaust particulates. The persistence or otherwise of these trails is a different matter and unrelated to WHETHER they will form or not.

http://contrailscience.com/files/Gierens_Aerodynamic_poster_060625.pdf
Like · 18 minutes ago

Aji Condro
The link to thetruthdenied are evidence that chemtrails denier do no post source for their claim. It contain link to facebook post that people can verify themself.

Your g-214.pdf link do not support your claim. But thanks for your link, I really appreciate it.
Edited · Like · Edit · 14 minutes ago

Aji Condro
Your Gieren link:
"show that condensation sometimes starts right above the wings of cruising aircraft. This demonstrates the existence of contrails DIFFERENT from the well studied jet exhaust contrails. The present study is a first investigation of the conditions that lead to the appearance of aerodynamic contrails."

They talk about different kind of contrails....
Edited · Like · Edit · 7 minutes ago

Neil Penn
Steufer and Wendler discuss the thermodynamic contrail factor in this conference paper. Note that the parameters are just temperature and relative humidity.

http://contrail.gi.alaska.edu/misc/Stuefer_HyannisOct04.pdf
Like · 13 minutes ago

Aji Condro
From g-214.pdf:
"In the wake of an aircraft, the humidity can reach transiently very high
supersaturation, sufficient to let the EXHAUST PARTICLES act as condensation nuclei."

Why you do not mention it when I ask you what is contrails?

What do you know about the scientist opinion about contrails? would they care, do not care or very worry about contrails?
Like · Edit · 12 minutes ago

Aji Condro
Stuefer_HyannisOct04.pdf has no data for the concentration of particle. the parameters are just temperature and relative humidity because that is what they can measure.

Particle concentration are not mentioned simply because they can't measure it.
Like · Edit · 8 minutes ago

Aji Condro
What do you know about the scientist opinion about contrails? would they care, do not care or very worry about contrails?
Like · Edit · 8 minutes ago

Neil Penn
We have discussed this already: it is accepted that there are condensation nuclei present for droplets to form. Note Gierens poster that I linked, where there were no exhaust particulates involved in the aerodynamic contrail formation.

It is an entirely different, and purely thermodynamic, matter as whether a contrail will persist. You have been given ample information to now know this.

You are now asking me to speculate on the cares and worries of other scientists and I have nothing to offer on that. I think we are pretty well done now aren't we? You have reading to do.
Edited · Like · 5 minutes ago

Aji Condro
Yes, we are done. It is proven that you are wrong but you deny it. And you are the one who need reading.

You dare to claim that the persistent contrails that people see is aerodinamic contrails. When it is obvious that most of the research for contrails are aimed to jet exhaust contrails.

Bellow is a story of youtube chemtrails denier that lie about scientist worry for contrails.
http://d-trail.blogspot.com/2013/09/youtube-disinformation-debunked.html

I will share this post in full without editing and let the reader decide who is correct.

All about Chemtrails : Youtube disinformation - "Debunked: ChemTrails and ChemClouds"
d-trail.blogspot.com
Edited · Like · Edit · Just now

Neil Penn
I don't know if the difficulty here is the language barrier but be sure to include this:

"You dare to claim that the persistent contrails that people see is aerodinamic contrails. When it is obvious that most of the research for contrails are aimed to jet exhaust contrails."

Now, anyone who reads this and has English as their first language will see that this thread has been entirely about jet exhaust contrails and only towards the end did I introduce Gierens' poster about those (pretty cool) aerodynamic contrails. I did so to show that not all contrails require exhaust particulates as condensation nuclei.

I will respectfully pass on your invitation for to me to read some BlogSpot about what some people have said on YouTube.

Farewell
Edited · Like · 5 minutes ago

As usual, chemtrails denier ignore the particle significance in contrails creation, Neil Penn claim: "Contrails are just a natural consequence of injecting a stream of water vapour into air below -40C that is high enough in humidity that the ice crystals don't sublimate.". No mention about particles.

The last replay is in relation toNeil Penn assumption that " Particulate is required as condensation nuclei (this is universally understood) but more or less particulate influences density/visibility of the trail, not WHETHER it will form."

I already mention that contrails can be aerodinamic. But I believe that the majority of contrails that people see is contrails from jet exhaust contrails.

NASA ask people to watch contrails (explained more at previous article). Their description of contrails for that project page is:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration - The Contrail Education Project - Contrail Science

What are contrails?

Contrails are clouds formed when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) that exist in aircraft exhaust. Some of that water vapor comes from the air around the plane; and, some is added by the exhaust of the aircraft.

The exhaust of an aircraft contains both gas (vapor) and solid particles. Both of these are important in the formation of contrails. Some elements of the exhaust gasses are not involved in contrail formation but do constitute air pollution. Emissions include carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons such as methane, sulfates (SOx), and soot and metal particles.

In that page contrails only refer to contrails from jet engine, where particles is the important part of contrails creation.

NASA ask people to help them observe contrails, their description of contrails mention particles, we can assume that relevant discussion about contrails should mention particle. I believe this should answer Neil Penn post " I did so to show that not all contrails require exhaust particulates as condensation nuclei.". Yes, aerodinamic contrails exists, but particle induced contrails is more dominant. And in NASA's case, contrails refer to exhaust contrails. They ignore aerodinamic contrails. It seems Neil Penn care more about aerodinamic trails and seems to even use aerodinamic trails property to explain exhaust contrails.

Also Neil Penn claim about universally understood:  "Particulate is required as condensation nuclei (this is universally understood)", is wrong.. As shown by this wrong description of contrails by Mick West:
Contrail Science - Hybrid Contrails – A New Classification

Exhaust contrails are formed by the mixing of the hot humid exhaust of the engines with cold humid surrounding air, creating long streamers of clouds. If the conditions are right then these can persist and spread. These are the most common type of contrail observed.

The link also mention Aerodinamic contrails. No mention about particles at all in that description of exhaust contrails. There is not mention about particles in Neil Penn earlier post about contrails too. It is nice that even Mick West admit that exhaust contrails is the most common type of contrails though. I don't have chance to ask what Neil Penn think about this.

Claim of universally understood is a lie considering  MrGopherHead clearly deny the significance of particles in contrails creation, how this chemtrails denier call scientist chemtard, shown in the second part in link bellow:
Youtube disinformation - "Debunked: ChemTrails and ChemClouds"

Most chemtrails denier deny science.