JazzRoc versus “Chemtrails”

Contrail Facts and “Chemtrail” Fictions

Posts Tagged ‘conspiracy

Introduction

with 44 comments

PAGE CONTENTS

STOP PRESS – PERSONAL COMMUTER? – INTRODUCTION – THE REAL REASON FOR “CHEMTRAILS”? – FREEFALL & TERMINAL VELOCITY – HOW TO MAKE SNOW – VISION – CONTRAIL Q&A – STAR’s RESOURCES – A SINGLE LONG-RANGE FLIGHT AND AN OCEAN LINER! – MY YOUTUBE PRESENCE – PEAK OIL – SNAKE OIL – AMAZING PLANE TRAIL – A SKEPTIC’S BOOKSHELF

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page

ICE CRYSTALS AND HALOS

Polar ice crystal samples

The link “Atmospheric Optics and more” will help anyone to understand the reasons underlying the many discrete halo features which are both probable and possible. It also gets a mention under “Ignorance” on my page here.

STOP PRESS

14th December ’11 – Free Fall and Terminal Velocity on this page
5th December ’11 – Ice Crystals and Halos on this page
18th January ’11 – 9-11 VORTEX in “Trails Seen from Space”
14th January ’11 – THE REAL REASON FOR  “Chemtrails” on this page.
18th December ’10 – CHAFF (& RADAR) in “Careful With That Cloud”
11th December ’10 – WAKES OF WAR in “WW2 CONTRAIL STORY”
02 August ’10 – OBZELITE in “Breathtaking quotes” in “Genuine Bull”
16th July ’10 – MORONS STUMBLE INTO OFFICE in “Driving Round Town”
10th July ’10 – JONES JOINS IN in “Jet Spray”
24th June ’10 – SNAKE OIL and more on my YT presence on this page
19th June ’10 – SUPERCOMPUTING THE CLIMATE in “Penrod”
13th June ’10 – CSI FLAKES CNUTS in “Contrails”
03rd June ’10 – FUN IN THE SUN in “Established”
19th May ’10 – MAKING THE 777 in “Me Driving Round Town”
05th May ’10 – HOLE PUNCH SATELLITE CHEMTRAILS in “Here”
23rd April ’10 – VOLCANIC ASS, ER, ASH in “Trails didn’t exist back then”
13th April ’10 – “TRUTHSEEKER” SITES BANNING HYPOCRISY on this page
09th April ’10 – OUTSIDE IN in “Not Coming”
07th April ’10 – THE STORY OF STUFF in “Stratosphere”
26th March ’10 – KSLA in “Jet Spray”
25th March ’10 – MY YOUTUBE PRESENCE on this page
4th March ’10 – MORE ABOUT VORTICES in “Trails Seen From Space”
23rd February ’10 – FALLACIES in “Established”
19th February ’10 – SONIC BOOM MEETS SUNDOG in “Stratosphere”
16th February ’10 – DISCOVERY? in “Another Page from YouTube”
11th February ’10 – 91177info in “Another Page from YouTube”
3rd February ’10 – CHEMTRAILS AND FALSIFICATION in “Careful With That Cloud”
2nd February ’10 – NOMEANSNO in “Not Coming”
15th January ’10 – THE WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION in “6 Porkies”
10th January ’10 – STAR’s RESOURCES on this page
08th January ’10 – “Chemtrails” video in “Bamboozled”
03rd December ’09 – “JET STREAMS” in “JET SPRAY”
29th November ’09 – “EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?” on this page.
27th November ’09 – “YouTube 3” in YouTube SLUGS IT OUT in “YOGHURTS”
12th November ’09 – “YouTube 2” in “YOGURTS” and “PEAK OIL” on this page.
23rd October ’09 – “CHEMTRAILS” in “Careful With That Cloud”
20th October ’09 – “GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH” reworked in “GLOBAL DIMMING”
15th October ’09 – “REVEAL EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE” in “6 PORKIES”
13th October ’09 – “YouTube 1” IN “YOGURTS”
9th October ’09 – “HOW TO MAKE SNOW” on this page.
6th October ’09 – “DEFINITELY” in “D BOOTS THE DIVA”
4th October ’09 – “CREPUSCULAR SHADOWS” in “Circle of Confusion”
27th September ’09 – “BOENOID” in “BAMBOOZLED”
26th September ’09 – “CONTRAILS” on this page
22nd September ’09 – “GW ROOM 103” in “Global Dimming”
8th September ’09 – “BLUE LIGHT SCATTERING” in “BAMBOOZLED”
1st September ’09 – “RUSHFAN” in “ROBERT”

20th August ’09 – “AEROSOLS” IN “6 PORKIES” and “(THEY ARE) LEGION” in “JET SPRAY”
13th August ’09 – “A BLACK HOLE” in “BAMBOOZLED”
11th August ’09 – “FRACTALS IN NATURE” in “ESTABLISHED”
8th August ’09 – “EXPONENTIAL TIMES” in “ESTABLISHED”
4th August ’09 – “THE END OF LITTLE GREY MEN” in “THE EARTH ROTATES”
29th July ’09 – SKEWED VIEWS OF SCIENCE in “STRATOSPHERE”
26th July ’09 – BALONEY DETECTION KIT in “BAMBOOZLED”
19th July ’09 – THE CASE AGAINST CHEMTRAILS and STARS15K’s REFERENCE LIST in “Careful With That Cloud”
12th July ’09 – MEAT in “LETTER”
11th July ’09 – AGW DENIALIST FRAUD in ““GLOBAL DIMMING”
21st June ’09 – UNCINUS added to “BREATHTAKING QUOTES” in ““GENUINE BULL”
20th June ’09 – Richard Dawkins’s book reviews in A SKEPTIC’S BOOKSHELF on this page (an article on Creationist Dirty Tricks to follow)
19th June ’09 – “MINNIS AT WORK” in
“Driving Around Town” and “STERN’S ‘DUMBEST CONSPIRACY EVER” in “SLEEPS”
9th June ’09 – “SOME REAL SCIENCE” in “PENROD”
6th June ’09 – “ISSUE (2)” in “ISSUE”
2nd June ’09 – “Genuine Professionals” in “Genuine Bull”
29th May ’09 – “Disproving AGW” IN “Global Dimming”
24th May ’09 – “The Skies over Britain” in “What’s It All About?”
22nd May ’09 – “WAKEUPCALLCHANNEL Control” in ““WWII Persistent Contrail Story”
21st May ’09 – “Friends” in ““Music from my Synth – Jazz/Rock”
20th May ’09 – “Big Gun FIRES” in “Global Dimming”
15th May ’09 – “A SKEPTIC’S BOOKSHELF” on this page…
10th May ’09 – “BREATHTAKING QUOTES” in
“GENUINE BULL”
9th May ’09 – “AMAZING PLANE TRAILS” on this page…
8th May ’09 – “Watts up with THAT?” in
“Trails didn’t exist back then”
7th May ’09 – “Global Warming Room 102” in “Global Dimming”
1st May ’09 – “TRUTH ORIGINS” in “Trails didn’t exist back then”
30th April ’09 – The Theory of Everything in “Established”
30th April ’09 – David Cenciotti’s Weblog in “D Boots the Diva”
29th April ’09 – Contrail Article by Airliners.net in “Contrails”
28th April ’09 – Website “ChemCon Alert” arrives in “Circle of Confusion”
23rd April ’09 – Contrailscience Comedy Spot in “Contrails”
22nd April ’09 – Ian Plimer is convincing in “Global Dimming”
2nd April ’09 – “Andrew Johnson” (to be cont’d.) in “Another Waste of Time”
25th March ’09 – “Will Thomas” (NOT cont’d.) in “Trails didn’t exist back then…”
thomas1

I think he DID believe it, but didn’t want his “punters” to do so. He CLOSED DOWN his comments section. I took a copy…

Personal Commuter?

INTRODUCTION

This blog is a compendium of most of my activities at first on most of YouTube’s “chemtrail” video comments boxes during the latter half of 2007, continuing on into 2008, where I was banned from YouTube (following a comments campaign against all the sites promoting their fraudulent presentation of a Boeing 777LR prototype aircraft as a spraying aircraft). I then spent time at David Icke’s website forum, the Outlaw website forum, and “All Aircraft are Not Involved”. All of these promoted chemtrail speculation, without allowing contrary views.
As I write in December 2011 I am subscribed to “Opposing Digits”, “ConCen”, and “League of Reason” website forums, but have spent little time there. Forums which are open to debate don’t cover this topic. Forums which aren’t seem to be collapsing, or else have hardened their ranks against debunking – as if it were the greater sin…

The National Gas Turbine Establishment, Pyestock, Hants
The National Gas Turbine Establishment, Pyestock, Hants

This blog uses hypertext, so you can click on it and read the references revealed.

My interest arose from my perceiving that the MAIN ARGUMENT of ‘chemtrailers’  – “persistent contrails are ‘chemtrails’ because ordinary contrails fade away” – is FALSE.

I am a scientist and engineer, having begun my career way back in 1962 as a student apprentice aeroengineer working at the National Gas Turbine Establishment, Pyestock.
https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/about/
Following an exposition on the nature of contrails, this blog is alphabetically-sorted under titles which are either the correspondent or the topic under consideration. It is often angry (a characteristic of chemtrailers, who believe they hold the moral high ground) but is worth persisting with, for it uncovers many fascinating aspects of this multiple paranoia.
In spite of what you may have heard:
Contrails are the only trails regularly produced by high-flying aircraft, and have been known to be persistent on occasion since 1922.
They are produced by either the freezing temperature acting on steam (which is the combustion product of the aircraft’s engines), or also the reduction in pressure of the air flowing over its wings bringing dissolved water vapor out of solution in the atmosphere.
There have been no cases of poisoning, no samples of fuel ever found to contain poison, no aircraft found ever to contain poison tanks, and no whistleblowers (out of hundreds of thousands of aircraft and airport workers).
The real reason for the increasing persistence of contrails is the increase in air travel, which has increased FIFTYfold since the mid-fifties.
In NO CASE have any of my many “chemtrail” correspondents EVER argued the SCIENCE of the matter.
Their normal response is to immediately label my argument (normally a scientific one) as “disinformation”, which leaves me rather baffled, and forces me to go on the offensive, and pick out the logical flaws (rich pickings) with which I am left. I am reminded of a quote from the late Andrew Lobacewski’s “Political Ponerology” which follows:

.

The psychological features of each such crisis are unique to the culture and the time, but one common denominator that exists at the beginning of all such “bad times” is an exacerbation of society’s hysterical condition. The emotionalism dominating in individual, collective, and political life, combined with the subconscious selection and substitution of data in reasoning, lead to individual and national egotism. The mania for taking offense at the drop of a hat provokes constant retaliation, taking advantage of hyperirritability and hypocriticality on the part of others. It is this feature, this hystericization of society, that enables pathological plotters, snake charmers, and other primitive deviants to act as essential factors in the processes of the origination of evil on a macro-social scale.”

.

I have (mostly) deferred to American English usage and spelling since that is the majority of origin. Text by anyone else is in italics. I have on occasion added comments (I’ve been learning too!) which I have prefixed with an asterisk*.
A word about people who have helped me directly and indirectly. First and foremost is Uncinus of contrailscience, who has helped me to confront the mysteries of WordPress, as well as providing me and everyone else with good advice and courtesy in both the physics of the atmosphere and the gentle art of reason.
And my thanks to Steve Andrews, the Bard of Ely, who put me on to this subject in the first place, argued furiously with me at first, became persuaded of my reasoning, and graciously became my champion. Steve has a heart of gold.
And a word about your comments. I’ll publish them when they genuinely advance everyone’s understanding. Hatemail, or uninformed dissension from anonymous people will be removed. Here we go…

hatemail

THE REAL REASON FOR “CHEMTRAILS”??

They are a MYTH constructed for the gullible by the cynical.
Advertising revenue is available to the cynically-employed. All they have to do is stimulate turnover on their site, in the manner described in “How to start a Chemtrail Scare for Fun and Profit” at my page entitled “Here”.

A recent note from a friend clarifies this:

FREEFALL & TERMINAL VELOCITY

A tribute to the pioneering of Col Joe Kittinger. You can make the distinction between the above terms here:

HOW TO MAKE SNOW

This shows a quick way to do this. Of course, the weather outside is minus twenty degrees. You’ll notice that water in its liquid and vapor forms wastes no time turning into a fine white smoke reminiscent of – a contrail.


Contrails are formed at even colder temperatures in the stratosphere, where the air pressure is two-tenths of what it is at sea level. But they too are ICE.

VISION

CONTRAIL Q&A

This I have shamelessly lifted from “Contrail Education” at:
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/faq.html
Chemtrailers will often tell you that “authorities” and “the powers that be” will never give you information about chemtrails. This is quite true, but for the same reason that it’s hard to get information about fairies. The authorities are, on the other hand, eager to give anyone who asks information about contrails…
dancerfairy
Q: Where do contrails form?

A: Contrails are human-induced clouds that usually form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km – about 26,000 ft) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40ºC). Because of this, contrails form not when an airplane is taking off or landing, but while it is at cruise altitude. (Exceptions occur in places like Alaska and Canada, where very cold air is sometimes found near the ground.) Thus, people who live under major air traffic routes, not people who live near major airports, are those who will see the most contrails. (However, some major airports are also under major air traffic routes, which can lead to confusion.) You can use an Appleman chart to predict contrail formation for your area. Of course, a contrail cannot form if no airplane passes through.
Q: Why are there more short-lived contrails than persistent contrails?
A: For a particular geographical location, it may seem that there are more of one type of contrail than another. Actually, the type and number seems to depend on the amount of moisture and temperature in the atmosphere where the plane is flying. If the area is fairly dry, then more short-lived contrails might be observed. If there is more moisture, such as along the east coast of the United States, there might be more persistent contrails observed. To look at observations from other areas, you might like to visit the GLOBE website and click on the Data Access button.
http://www.globe.gov/r
Q: What causes the swirling pattern in a contrail?
A: The swirling pattern in a contrail is caused by the vortices coming from the tip of the aircraft. A vortex is a swirling of air coming from underneath the tip of the plane and wrapping upward over the top of the wingtip. This is due to the difference in pressure caused by the curved shape of the wing. The process of having less pressure on the top of the wing and more pressure on the bottom of the wing provides “lift” for the aircraft.
Q: Why are we able to see contrails on some days but not on other days?
A: In order for the contrail to form, there must be enough moisture in the high levels of the atmosphere for the ice crystals to form around the airplane exhaust. If the upper atmosphere is very dry, contrails will not easily form, or will be of the short-lived type.
Q: Do contrails drastically affect weather patterns?
A: Originally scientists believed that the contrails behaved like cirrus clouds to actually make the climate warmer. However, there have been studies conducted that have scientists rethinking their earlier ideas about contrails. This is one of the major questions that has to be researched at NASA and one of the reasons we are putting so much emphasis on contrails. When air traffic over the US was halted after the 9-11 incident, scientists got a rare look at the skies with only a few military jets flying. They were able to analyze the effects of some of these contrails and realized that their earlier notions about contrails’ effects were not totally accurate.
Q: Has there ever been observation of rain from contrails?
A: Typically, rain clouds are low level clouds which are made up of water molecules. These water molecules then come together to form water drops (liquid) which eventually fall to the ground as rain drops. Since contrails are high level clouds, the moisture within them forms ice crystals which do not come together to form any form of precipitation (rain).
Q: Why are contrails white? Contrails are formed from the exhaust of an air plane. We usually think of exhaust as being black and dirty.
A: Almost all cloud droplets (and snowflakes) have a very small particle (aerosol) at their core. But the particle is MUCH smaller than the cloud/ice/snow particle. When light passes through the crystal, it is reflected or bent (refracted) by the cloud or ice particle, which makes it appear white to an observer. Therefore, what makes the contrail look white is the water (frozen into a crystal), rather than the exhaust particle. Note that sometimes the optical effects through these crystals can also produce colors, much like rainbows in water drops. You will only see these when the Sun-crystal-you geometry is aligned in certain ways.
Q: Why can we see a jet high in the sky, yet it is not making a contrail?
A: For a contrail to form there must be enough moisture in the air and the temperature must be cold enough to form ice crystals at the altitude at which the jet is flying. If the temperature is too warm or the air too dry, contrails will not form.
Q: There is a persistent contrail in the sky, and the middle portion of the contrail has disappeared. Is the disappearance caused by wind or air temperature?
A: For all or part of the contrail to disappear, there is a lack of moisture to maintain formation of the ice crystals. It may be possible for air currents to move drier air into the area of the contrail, which would cause that portion of the contrail to evaporate.
Q: Why are so many of the persistent contrails we see so narrow in width, almost a pencil line?
A: The type of contrail you are describing is a persistent contrail, and, in particular, one which is non-spreading. For a persistent contrail to spread, there must be enough extra moisture in the air for additional ice crystals to form. If there is a limited supply of moisture, a persistent contrail may form, but will not spread.
Q: In which layer of the atmosphere do we normally see contrails?
A: Contrails usually form in the upper portion of the troposphere and in the lower stratosphere where jet aircraft normally fly, generally between about 8 and 12 km altitude (~26,000 to 39,000 feet). They can also form closer to the ground when the air is very cold and has enough moisture.
Q: Is it possible to observe contrails as indicators of changing weather?
A: If a contrail is persistent or persistent spreading, then the upper atmosphere contains large amounts of moisture. If a contrail is short-lived, then the upper atmosphere is relatively dry. This was used by sailors and can be used today to somewhat predict the weather. Short-lived contrails may indicate fair weather, and persistent contrails may indicate an approaching change in the weather or precipitation. The weather signal is somewhat analogous to that of natural cirrus clouds.
Q: There were two planes in the sky. One was flying north/south and left a persistent contrail. The other plane was flying east/west and did not leave a contrail. Why did one plane leave a contrail, but the other did not?
A: The two planes were flying at different altitudes – air traffic control has rules for spacing flights in different directions – so that the north-south flight path contained more moisture or was at a lower temperature than the east-west flight-path. The amount of moisture in the stratosphere* can change considerably in a short vertical distance. It depends strongly on the origin of the particular air mass. There are also variations in the efficiency of aircraft engines, which can affect whether or not a particular plane will leave a contrail.

  • The stratosphere has different properties from the troposphere, which we are familiar with, because we live in it. The stratosphere is stable, and layered, and counterintuitively is COLDEST at its base – the tropopause. The layers of which it’s comprised vary in thickness from tens to thousands of feet. “Stratum” is the Latin for “layer”.

STAR’s RESOURCES

I’m happy to include here STARS15K’s reference list – all except my own site and some spoof sites. By leafing through this material and absorbing it, you could become sufficiently science-aware to be able to continue this blog yourself, for example. 🙂
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMASM06_778/PV2006_1414.pdf
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-articles/read.main?id=85
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(1997)036%3C1211%3AAEMTPW%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/94176.pdf
http://www.answers.com/topic/chemtrail-conspiracy-theory
http://www.answers.com/topic/contrail
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/science.html
http://www.borderlands.com/contrails/contrail.htm
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/class/contrail.html
http://contrail.gi.alaska.edu/misc/Stuefer_HyannisOct04.pdf
http://contrailscience.com/
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/contrails.pdf
http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/climatepapermar04.pdf
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm
http://www.iangoddard.com/contrail.htm
http://www.iangoddard.com/contral2.htm
ftp://ftp.pa.op.dlr.de/pub/Gierens/TAC/Gierens_contrails_oral_060629.pdf
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMASM06_778/PV2006_1414.pdf
http://profhorn.aos.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap15/contrail_applet.html (this site has a graph for you to set conditions and will fly a plane with the expected contrail formation at the top)
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/contrail_controversy.shtml
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1997/B/199701880.html
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1999/A/199900242.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040428061056.htm
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/media/news6-97.html
http://students.ou.edu/J/Thomas.A.Jones-1/contrail.html
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/fgz/science/contrail.php?wfo=fgz
http://www-angler.larc.nasa.gov/satimage/products.html
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/sass-ref.html
http://deoxy.org/meme/AviationSmog_Talk
http://www.areco.org/pdf/ParticulateEmissionsJetEngines1996.pdf
http://www.csicop.org/si/2009-02/radford.html
http://biblion.epfl.ch/EPFL/theses/2004/2975/EPFL_TH2975.pdf
http://www.knmi.nl/velthove/aircraft.html
http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/aviation/contrails.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14605078/Contrails-facts
http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/pa1c/GRL22_1501-1504_1995.pdf
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/aviation/035.htm (this link has many chapters, be sure and drop the menu down to get the full report.)
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/13175/2007/acpd-7-13175-2007-print.pdf
http://www.skepdic.com/chemtrails.html
http://chemcon.2020oregon.net
http://www.dropletmeasurement.com/ (I just found this link on a chemtrail board. The poster claimed it showed chemspray planes. It doesn’t, it shows a company that does sampling and measurement IN SITU. I keep telling people that’s how a contrail would have to be tested, and this company can and does just that.)
http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-research/various%2001.htm
http://www.astro.ku.dk/holger/IDA/notes.html (This site is older and some links might not work. It is a good representation that contrails are studied all over the world, though)
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resources/activities/appleman_student.html
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4027http://www.dhmo.org/
http://www.thebulletin.org/files/064002006_0.pdf A really well-done, balanced piece on geo-engineering. Not about chemtrails, but a good guide to use when considering that as a possible use/motive for chemtrail use.
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resources/presentations/contrails_scool.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13115866/Chemtrailscc-the-Not-So-Secret-Ingredient-022009 This is a pro-CT publication, but has a diagram of the chemical process of jet fuel through an engine and a statement that any metallic aerosol will remain suspended for days. These go against what I’ve been told by CT here. The conclusions reached, I do not agree with. Other research has shown that the barium in Stadis 450 after combustion is significantly small enough it might even NOT show on certain tests, being within the expected “norm” of background.
http://profhorn.aos.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/04/19/leaving-a-trail/
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/rayshad.htm This is the entire site address, which is very cool. It also contains past galleries I have only begun to explore.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/contr1.htm This shows contrail shadows, aka ‘black beams’ or ‘black contrails’. There are two pages with explanations.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz215.htm This page shows contrail shadows, but most importantly, two jets flying at the same altitude with different contrails. The reason? Something stated often, difference in the jet engines. One is more efficient than the other. So it happens, but for a known reason.

A SINGLE LONG-RANGE FLIGHT AND AN OCEAN LINER


What could they possibly have in common? (Except that they might share the same route.) Well it is this: in a saturated stratosphere, a five thousand kilometre flight of a long-range jumbo jet is able to release EIGHTY THOUSAND TONS of water ice into the air. This is the weight of a large ocean liner in water ice…
“No! Get away with you! This cannot be true!”, I hear you say. But it IS true.
From the paper “Contrails to Cirrus—Morphology, Microphysics, and Radiative Properties”:
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf
“The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 16 Kg per meter.” That means a 5000 kilometer flight (THROUGH SATURATED AIR) would put down 80,000 tons of trail material… Whoa! Wait a minute! Isn’t a jumbo’s fuel load about 250 tons? So where does the rest come from? The answer is OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE! Read the paper for yourself.
con-cirr
“Look up” say chemtrailers, “they are spraying you!”
Well, they are NOT. The ice formed by combusting kerosine for the plane’s jet engines is SEEDING the deposition of further ice out of the saturated air. Furthermore, that ice never falls directly as rain. Instead it evaporates into lower tropospheric air, and might, a day or a week or a month later, take its part in the country’s rainfall.
Sadly, the best region for smooth and stable long-distance flight is this very cold and sensitive region of the tropopause and lower stratosphere, and its occasional huge reaction sends a visual message of change to those people who neither possess or seek understanding of the science underlying it (and consequently don’t have the right to pronounce upon it) – chemtrailers.
But that “message of change” is distorted beyond meaning. At present, scientists say, the effect upon the atmosphere of all this deposition is “within the noise”, meaning that no significant changes to the weather have taken place. Fifty years from now, if air transport continues to increase at today’s rate, then persistent contrails will significantly affect the weather.
Ah, but fifty years from now we will have run out of oil…
DF-ST-90-05759

MY YOUTUBE PRESENCE

I am present at the YouTube channel “beachcomber2008“.

My main interest is in the development and promotion of a practical self-sufficiency in food and housing as a default state and natural right of existence.

…and contains within it such nuggets:

—-ANTARCTIC CHALLENGE—-
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=VST38YI4

—-SMALL CHANGE FOR BIG CHANGE—-
Ralph Nader has been about a bit….
Maybe his book is the other jaw of a pincer movement.

—-PERMACULTURE IS THE ONLY SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
as it is a process of healing both for the planet and the human soul
Both deeply practical and analytical, permaculture is OUR ONLY REAL HOPE

—-F-L-Y-I-N-G—S-A-U-C-E-R-S—A-N-D
—-R-E-L-A-T-E-D—M-Y-T-H-S—A-N-D
—-T-H-E—H-U-N-T—F-O-R—R-E-D
—-O-C-T-O-B-E-R—-
These began in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947.
They were the result of REAL SCIENCE EXPERIMENTATION in the Cold War period immediately after the Second World War.
These secrets are now in the public domain.
Unfortunately, so is the “flying saucer” myth which emanated from the US gov’t’s PUBLIC FALSE EXPLANATION
Richard Muller explains all in this marvellous lecture.

—-E-M-E-R-G-E-N-C-E—-
“Emergence” is a property of Nature, which from the very simplest possible origin has developed an ever-increasing complexity.
At every point in time of this expansion and complexity increase, and triggered by the random event of the moment, Nature’s properties have exhibited, do exhibit, and will exhibit an increase in complexity by the addition of a new ecological form of existence – an additional plane of reality – an entirely new way of BEING..
The emergence of life from non-life is such a case, as is that of evolution and the emergence of plants and animals, the emergence of the human brain and language.
As Murray Gell-Mann states “You don’t need more stuff to get more stuff!”

The failure of our species to recognize this, along with its need to dominate and control itself, has caused us to commit our biggest error – RELIGION.
Only if, and not until, we to a man adopt a rational and natural approach to life, and forswear ALL religion as fiction, will we solve the Earth’s problems and travel to the stars.
——————————————

H. G. WELLS’S “WAR OF THE WORLDS” WONDERFUL QUOTES

“We have learned now that we cannot regard this planet as being fenced in and a secure abiding place for Man; we can never anticipate the unseen good or evil that may come upon us suddenly out of space.”

“Few people realise the immensity of vacancy in which the dust of the material universe swims.”

“By the toll of a billion deaths man has bought his birthright of the earth, and it is his against all comers.
For neither do men live nor die in vain.”

SEA WATER FARMING COULD BEAT GW
Using 38 species of salt-tolerant plants along 37,000 miles of desert coastland could save the planet for human beings.

WATCH MICHAEL RUPPERT
What we have been saying will happen IS happening right now.
We’re past PEAK OIL, and nothing will ever be the same ever again.
Considering the next three decades, life decisions from now on will always have a “or death” element to them, and it will be an ever-increasing element. The sooner that you consider making such a (better-informed) life-decision, the less threatening will be your future.
Be sure to watch this video: “COLLAPSE”
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=7SJYAHD6

CREATING EDEN
At present Man is a careless parasite of the Earth. My ambition is to see Man face up to the task of becoming the gardener of the earth. There is no finer ambition for the first sapient ape in the Universe than to create “Eden”… and for the first time.

MUSICAL HISTORY
Check out my musical playlist, which is a sporadic journey backwards through time sampling the music I enjoyed.

THE THOUGHTS OF EPICTETUS:
Be careful to leave your sons well instructed rather than rich, for the hopes of the instructed are better than the wealth of the ignorant.
Control your passions lest they take vengeance on you.
Difficulties are things that show a person who he is.
Do not seek to bring things to pass in accordance with your wishes, but wish for them as they are, and you will find them.
First learn the meaning of what you say, and then speak.
First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do.
Freedom is not procured by a full enjoyment of what is desired, but by controlling the desire.
A wise man does not grieve for things he hasn’t, but rejoices for those he has.
If evil is spoken of you and it’s true, correct yourself, if it’s a lie, laugh at it.
If one oversteps the bounds of moderation, the greatest pleasures cease to please.
If your brother wrongs you, remember not so much his wrongdoing, but more than ever that he is your brother.
If you seek truth you will not seek victory by dishonorable means, and if you find truth you will become invincible

About Me: I’m a very skeptical guy. To convince me you have to present me with incontrovertible evidence.
There are some obvious facts about life which appear to be insufficiently considered by everyone. Namely these:
i) People are in general too incompetent to be perfect bastards
ii) If you’re cold it’s better to put on a woolly than light a fire
iii) Your back garden can grow more food than you could believe, and
iv) You’re the first earth animal to have developed an intellectual capability, so respect nature, garden the earth and nurture all life.

In my opinion, if we hold the above in our forethought we stand every chance in building Eden.
We need to appreciate how much more powerful we all will be if we work WITH nature and not against it.
Religion is a great enemy of this approach (science – subjecting reality to analysis and devising strategies to improve upon it) and so I am a great enemy of it.

————————————————
WHAT TO DO WITH A CHEMTRAIL VIDEO

1. RATE it ONE STAR every time you visit.
2. FLAG comments which support the video with a RED THUMBSDOWN.
3. STATE clearly and simply in the COMMENTS exactly why you believe the video to be fraudulent or inciting hatred.
5. FLAG the video for incitement to hatred, and FLAG IT ONCE MORE for fraudulent claims if either or both is appropriate. STATE clearly and simply in the comments exactly why you believe the video to be fraudulent or inciting hatred.
6. WRITE to the channel explaining exactly why you have taken the actions you have.

—————————————————
The reason we have not been able to find any legitimate proof that chemtrails exist is because they simply do not exist. The term is an internet creation to make condensation trails aka contrails sound more sinister.
When you actually look at the facts you can see the argument in support of these chemtrails quickly reduces to nothing more than a bundle of pseudo-science, assumptions, misguided correlations and unqualified uneducated personal testimony.
I have yet to find for myself one argument for the existence of these chemtrails that does not skirt around the real results from real studies from real accredited sources. Instead, I have just found these arguments to resort to personal attacks and contradictory statements.
For example, how can one argue that the government is lying to us to cover this up and at the same time use government information taken out of context as the proof chemtrails exist? Logically, if this is the huge conspiracy, involving thousands of people, falsified studies and an extreme government cover up, wouldn’t it be the simplest thing for these conspirators to simply remove these links?
Of course, this is speculation on my part and should be taken as such. Though I have been a professional in this matter I don’t believe anyone should be convinced on my word alone just as I will never be convinced by your word alone.
What we do have, however, is science and legitimate information. Anyone can access these studies and weigh both sides of this argument and make an educated decision. For me the answer is simple; chemtrails do not exist and so this conspiracy does not exist.
Contrails DO exist. Everyday, the number of airplanes in our skies increases as does the number of contrails they leave behind.
Instead of trying to justify our paranoia with fictional conspiracies, we should be looking at what is actually going on in the world we have created for ourselves.
Our air is polluted, our water is polluted, our earth is polluted, we don’t need to create something like “chemtrails” to prove this. Instead of creating “government conspiracy” in our minds we should acknowledge the real perpetrators – ourselves.
We drive the cars, we fly in the planes, and we ignore the effect each one of us has on the environment around us. No one wants to see the blood on one’s own hands… It is easier to blame some external enemy than to acknowledge one’s own contribution to an increasingly polluted planet.
We desperately need to stop pointing fingers and start taking responsibility for our own actions.
We need to ask ourselves the hard questions; “What actions or inactions am I taking that contribute to the problem and what am I doing to create a solution?”
The answer is yours, and yours alone, to reconcile with yourself.
“As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.” -Voltaire

Written by Manmanatee on August 4, 2009. (It took me almost a year to rediscover the originator. Ed – 25th July 2010.)

PEAK OIL






SNAKE OIL

A SKEPTIC’S BOOKSHELF

This is just the start of what I have discovered to be an over-ambitious project. I therefore welcome the assistance of ANYONE who has either read a book on this list for which there is an inadequate reference or description, which he or she can improve on, or knows of a book that should be on this list, and would kindly give me the info. I shall quote your entry. 🙂

The Millenium Project Bookshop – 96 books about Pseudoscience. (Courtesy of the Millennium Project.)

This is a collection of books related to the Pseudoscience category in The Millenium Project. All commissions from sales in the Health Fraud, Vaccination and Pseudoscience categories are donated to the Australian Council Against Health Fraud to help in the fight against quackery.

Pseudoscience

200% Of Nothing: An Eye-Opening Tour Through the Twists and Turns of Math Abuse and Innumeracy” by A. K. Dewdney.
One of the common threads through racism, medical quackery and pseudoscience is the abuse of statistics. Sometimes this is deliberate, sometimes it is just an indication of the ignorance of the speaker, but always it is a means of confusing or deceiving the listener. This guide to the absurdities of some mathematical claims helps to level the playing field.

The Age of Wonder : How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science” by Richard Holmes

Astrology : True or False? – A Scientific Evaluation” by Roger B. Culver and Philip A. Ianna
“Astrology: True or False?” offers a complete and extensive summary of available evidence on astrology’s basic definitions, concepts, and effectiveness. The authors’ research revealed thousands of predictions gone “bust” – from the start of World War III to claims about the existence of an “anti-Earth” orbiting on the other side of the sun. They studied the famous twenty-year cycle” of presidential death and disaster, the “moon cycles” of crime and murder in major cities, and the incidences of major personality traits in certain sun signs. Their conclusions, while disappointing to the determined believer in astrology, are nevertheless refreshingly rational.

Astrology : What’s Really in the Stars?” by J.V. Stewart
Rather than offering a blistering critique of astrology, Stewart reveals discrepancies within horoscopic astrology’s own framework to let the reader decide whether there is any merit to this ancient scheme of things.

Astrology Disproved” by Lawrence E. Jerome
Why do people believe in astrology? In these uncertain times many long for the comfort of having guidance in making decisions. They would like to believe in a destiny predetermined by astral forces beyond their control. However, we must all face the world, and we must realize that our futures lie in ourselves, and not in the stars.

Bad Astronomy : Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing ‘Hoax’” by Phil Plait.

Bad Medicine : Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Distance Healing to Vitamin O” by Christopher Wanjek.

Bad Science” by Ben Goldacre.

The Beginner’s Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize” by Peter Doherty.
Bizarre Beliefs” by Simon Hoggart and Mike Hutchinson.

The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design” by Richard Dawkins.
There’s a little story to tell about this link. As you might surmise, I have been acquiring these links by using a search engine, and normally taking the top item of the search return list as likely to provide the most succinct and accurate review – a BIG mistake when an arch-enemy of science such as Philip Johnson (a lawyer) has somehow subverted the search engine dynamics to put his “review” at the top of the returns – not just ONCE but FOUR times. The ENEMIES of science work deep into the long nights, using any and every means they can to diminish scientific progress and promote their fear-based myth culture. I know what I’m talking about here – Philip Johnson is a mightily-crafty individual who manages to conceal his LIES across hundreds of pages – if you take the trouble to analyse his weasel words you’ll eventually discover his lies and hypocrisy – his agenda. One cannot imagine ANY situation where the reverse (Dawkins “bumping” destructive “reviews” of Johnson’s books up Internet search engine lists) would EVER be true. What absolutely abysmal behaviour this is! So I now include this review instead:
Dawkins has never hidden his advocacy role in describing how evolution works and how poorly our culture understands what’s going on around us. More than simply anticipating obstructionists such as Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box, Dawkins aims his criticism at all who adhere to the Judeo-Christian assertion that humanity has some divine mandate to exercise “dominion over the earth”. Clearly, that belief will be the undoing of the species and perhaps life itself if it isn’t shed and a better understanding of the interaction of life attained. The best place to start attaining that understanding starts with this book. Buy it, loan it, give it to those who need to learn what life’s all about – our children. [Stephen A. Haines – Ottawa, Canada]
To Richard, my heartfelt apologies.
To You the reader, please let me know if you discover any other similar instances…

The Borderlands of Science : Where Sense Meets Nonsense” by Michael Shermer.

Bullshit and Philosophy” by Gary L. Hardcastle and George A. Reisch (Editors).

Bully for Brontosaurus : Reflections in Natural History” by Stephen Jay Gould.

Chemical Sensitivity : The Truth About Environmental Illness” by Stephen Barrett and Ronald E. Gots.
One of the unifying principles of ‘alternative medicine’ is the horror of chemicals. Not things, of course, like ricin and botulism toxin which are natural and therefore not chemicals, or cyanide which is not a chemical when it comes from apricot seeds. The only problem with the chemical-free vacuum of space is the radiation.

Climbing Mount Improbable” by Richard Dawkins.
Endorsements
‘A beautiful, barnstorming, thunderclap of a book’ – Mail on Sunday
‘A cracking good book on evolution’ – John Gribbin in the Times Educational Supplement
‘Mount Improbable … is Dawkins’s metaphor for natural selection: its peaks standing for evolution’s most complex achievements: the human brain, the squid’s eye, and the albatross’s aeronautical prowess … exhilarating – a perfect, elegant riposte to a great deal of fuzzy thinking about natural selection and evolution’ – Robin Mackie in the Observer
‘One of the most gifted storytellers of our generation … he is a missionary who writes like an angel. He is to Darwinism what Saint Paul is to Christianity’ – Mike Maran in Scotland on Sunday
‘The parables – rivetting biological narratives, enthralling as the Arabian Nights tales – continue to ring the changes. Yet the central message – that DNA transcends the significance of the organism – remains the same … organisms are merely vehicles for genes … This is vintage Dawkins’ – John Cornwell in the New Scientist
‘An elegant series of lectures on Darwinian selection … Dawkins continues a tradition of scientific writing from Galileo to Darwin’ – Ian Thomson in the Daily Telegraph
‘Dawkins has done more than anyone else now writing to make evolutionary biology comprehensible and acceptable’ – John Maynard Smith in the Sunday Times

Cosmos” by Carl Sagan.
The book of the television series.

Deception & Self-Deception : Investigating Psychics” by Richard Wiseman.

The Demon-Haunted World : Science As a Candle in the Dark” by Carl Sagan.
Science is not test tubes, atom bombs and pollution, it is a way of thinking that separates superstition from knowledge. It is a way of deciding what is real and what is fantasy. Many of the sites listed in The Millenium Project are here because this distinction is not detected or recognised.

Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience” by Martin Gardner.

The Dose Makes the Poison : A Plain-Language Guide to Toxicology” by Alice Ottoboni.
A common tenet of both ‘alternative medicine’ and loony environmentalism is that you can’t have too much of a good thing or too little of a bad thing. Of course, if you believe in homeopathy you would believe in anything, but in real life it is possible to have harmless concentrations of dangerous things.

An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural” by James Randi.

The Extended Phenotype : The Long Reach of the Gene” by Richard Dawkins.
‘One feature of life in this world which, like sex, we have taken for granted and maybe should not, is that living matter comes in discrete packages called organisms. In particular, biologists interested in functional explanation usually assume that the appropriate unit for discussion is the individual organism. To us,’conflict’ usually means conflict between organisms, each one striving to maximize its own individual ‘fitness’. We recognize smaller units such as cells and genes, and larger units such as populations, societies and ecosystems, but there is no doubt that the individual body, as a discrete unit of action, exerts a powerful hold over the minds of zoologists, especially those interested in the adaptive significance of animal behaviour. One of my aims in this book is to break that hold. I want to switch emphasis from the individual body as focal unit of functional discussion. At the very least I want to make us aware of how much we take for granted when we look at life as a collection of discrete individual organisms.’

Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds” by Charles MacKay.
This book was first published in 1841 and told about panics and hysterias of the past. Updating the book to today would just require the addition of a chapter on the Internet stock craze, an update to the witchcraft chapter to include mention of recovered memory syndrome, satanic ritual abuse and alien abductions, and a new chapter about Y2K madness.

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science” by Martin Gardner.
This is an extremely depressing and sad book, because it was written more than 50 years ago and it reads like it was written yesterday. Who would have thought that idiocies like scientology, chiropractic, homeopathy, perpetual motion machines, belief in flying saucers, and the nonsense about Atlantis and the pyramids would survive into the twenty-first century? The book is subtitled ‘A study in human gullibility’. Tragic.

Fear of Food : Environmentalist Scams, Media Mendacity, and the Law of Disparagement” by Andrea Arnold.
Half the people in the world go to sleep hungry and what food they can get is inadequate and poor, yet people keep telling us that our food is dangerous and we should not do things that could produce safe, nutritious food for people who need it.

The Flamingo’s Smile : Reflections in Natural History” by Stephen Jay Gould.

The Flight from Science and Reason” by Paul R. Gross, Norman Levitt and Martin W. Lewis.

Flim Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions” by James Randi.
‘I am constantly amazed by the things that people will believe in. This book is a classic exposure of nonsense, much of which has somehow survived into the twenty-first century.’

Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries : Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology” by Kenneth L. Feder.

Full Facts Book of Cold Reading” by Ian Rowland.
This is the definitive book on cold reading. It explains everything there is to know about this limitless technique! How can you apparently tell complete strangers about names, dates and events that mean something to them? This book, the most authoritative ever written on cold reading, explains it all! Learn how to do the trick even better than John Edward does it.

Goddess Unmasked : The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality” by Philip G. Davis.

Gulliver’s Travels” by Jonathon Swift.

Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe” by Victor Stenger.

Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes” by Stephen Jay Gould.

Higher Superstition : The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science” by Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt.
There is a famous painting by Goya called ‘The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters’. It is what this site is about and what Gross and Levitt’s book is about. It has taken centuries to refine science as a means of discovering and knowing the truth, yet science, reason and rationality are under attack by second-rate minds who want to put us and reason back to sleep.

How Mumbo-jumbo Conquered the World” by Francis Wheen.

How Not to Test a Psychic: Ten Years of Remarkable Experiments With Renowned Clairvoyant Pavel Stepanek” by Martin Gardner.

How to Think about Weird Things : Critical Thinking for a New Age” by Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn.

How We Believe : The Search for God in an Age of Science” by Michael Shermer.
Shermer makes the distinction between belief, non-belief and unbelief, and describes his own transition from one state to another. Religion and Science have different roles in society, and this book looks at the boundaries and overlaps which are legitimate for each.

Humbug!” by Jef and Theo Clark.

In Pursuit of Satan : The Police and the Occult” by Robert D. Hicks.
Influence” by Robert B. Cialdini.

Investigating the Unexplained” by Melvin Harris.

Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes.

Making Monsters : False Memories, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria” by Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters.

The Mask of Nostradamus : The Prophecies of the World’s Most Famous Seer” by James Randi.

Memory Distortion : How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past” by Daniel L. Schacter (Editor).
Much nonsense is talked about what goes on inside the mind and what it means to remember things and events. This book collects some essays from experts who can brush aside that nonsense and explain what it is about memories that we can trust and what we can’t.

The Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould.
Gould has been criticised for being a bit cruel and nasty (and even a bit inaccurate) in his criticisms of people who didn’t know the things we know today, but it is a useful book to show how science can change as more is learned about something. There is no doubt that science is influenced by the culture of the time, but the difference between science and non-science or pseudoscience is that the real thing can break away from culture when the facts demand it.

A Modest Proposal and Other Satires” by Jonathan Swift.

The Myth of Repressed Memory : False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse” by Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham.
An entire industry has grown up around the absurd idea that children can be subjected to atrocities like sexual abuse and cannibalism and not remember any of this until some ‘therapist’ reconstructs the memories for them. This book exposes this nonsense for what it is – a vicious attack on children and families by people prepared to knowingly lie to support a crazy ideology.

National Science Education Standards
A landmark effort that involved thousands of teachers, scientists, science educators, and other experts across the country, these standards echo the principle that learning science is an inquiry-based process, that science in schools should reflect the intellectual traditions of contemporary science, and that all Americans have a role in improving science education. This document is invaluable to education policy-makers, school system administrators, teacher educators, individual teachers, and concerned parents.

The New Age : Notes of a Fringe-Watcher” by Martin Gardner.

Nibbling on Einstein’s Brain : The Good, the Bad and the Bogus in Science” by Diane Swanson.

Objections to Astrology” by Bart J. Bok and Lawrence E. Jerome.
A statement by 192 scientists, including 19 Nobel Prize winners, who call the “science” of astrology a deception based on “magic and superstition.”

On the Wild Side” by Martin Gardner.

The Panda’s Thumb : More Reflections in Natural History” by Stephen Jay Gould.

A Physicist’s Guide to Skepticism” by Milton A. Rothman.

Pseudodoxia Epidemica: Or, Enquiries into Very Many Received Tenentes, and CommonlyPresumed Truths” by Thomas Browne.

Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction” by Charles Wynn and Arthur Wiggins.
There is a difference between science and pseudoscience, between reality and fantasy. This book shows you how to tell the difference.

Remembering Satan” by Lawrence Wright.

River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life” by Richard Dawkins.

Science : Good, Bad and Bogus” by Martin Gardner.

Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?” by Paul Kurtz, Barry Karr and Ranjit Sandhu.
Science Versus Religion” by Tad S. Clements.

The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins.

Skeptics and True Believers” by Chet Raymo.

The Skeptic’s Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions” by Robert T. Carroll.
Featuring close to 400 definitions, arguments, and essays on topics ranging from acupuncture to zombies, The Skeptic’s Dictionary is a lively, commonsense trove of detailed information on all things supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. It covers such categories as alternative medicine; cryptozoology; extraterrestrials and UFOs; frauds and hoaxes; junk science; logic and perception; New Age energy; and the psychic. For the open-minded seeker, the soft or hardened skeptic, and the believing doubter, this book offers a remarkable range of information that puts to the test the best arguments of true believers.

The Skeptic’s Guide to the Paranormal” by Lynne Kelly.

Smoke and Mirrors: The Devastating Effect of False Sexual Abuse Claims” by Terence W. Campbell.

The Sorcerer of Kings: The Case of Daniel Dunglas Home and William Crookes” by Gordon Stein and James Randi.

The Story of Evolution” by Joseph McCabe
Published in 1911, free from Project Gutenberg.

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” by Stephen Jay Gould.

Superstition : Belief in the Age of Science” by Robert Park.

The Theory of Evolution” by John Maynard Smith.
Evolution is one of those fundamental theories in science, like relativity, heliocentricity, gravity, blood circulation, atomic structure and quantum mechanics of which it can realistically be said that the idea introduced a paradigm shift in scientific thinking. Modern science would be primitive and crippled without it. This book provides excellent ammunition for the fight against those who would replace evolution with superstition.

The Trouble with Science” by Robin Dunbar.
The title of this book might suggest that it is anti-science, but in fact the author posits that science is a natural part of human existence (and even that of some animals) because it is about how organisms explain and interact with the world around them. The author has produced a very good summary of the philosophical path through Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend, and there is commentary about the relationship between religion and science which mightn’t please Richard Dawkins but which provides a credible explanation for the ubiquity of religion across societies (and which allows for religion to be abandoned when better knowledge comes along).

The Truth about Uri Geller” by James Randi.

Unweaving the Rainbow : Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder” by Richard Dawkins.
Believers in superstition and magic often accuse scientists, atheists and other rational thinkers of denying or even destroying mystery and beauty. Dawkins points out in this book that there is so much wonder and excitement in truth and reality that it is unnecessary to make up explanations.

The Varieties of Scientific Experience : A Personal View of the Search for God” by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.

Victims of Memory: Sex Abuse Accusations and Shattered Lives” by Mark Pendergrast and Melody Gavigan.

Voodoo Science : The Road from Foolishness to Fraud” by Robert Park.
The scientific method is the best thing we have come up with to find out about how the universe works. This book is about the misuse of science and how it differs from science done badly. Both are bad, but at least bad science can be corrected. Mad science is more difficult to overcome.

Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic” by Martin Gardner.

Why People Believe Weird Things : Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time” by Michael Shermer.
I am continually amazed by the sorts of things that people can believe without any evidence to support the belief, and often in spite of comprehensive evidence against the belief. Faith is a wonderful thing, but it can’t make facts disappear.

Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and the Selfish Gene” by Niles Eldredge.

Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History” by Stephen Jay Gould.
.

einstein_010

Bamboozled

with 3 comments

PAGE CONTENTS

BAMBOOZLED – BALONEY DETECTION KIT – BOENOID – BARD OF ELY BLOG RESPONSE –  A BLACK HOLE – BLUE LIGHT SCATTERING – CHEMTRAILERS WE LOVE YOU (NOT!)

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…

BAMBOOZLED

carl

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.) – Carl Sagan

BALONEY DETECTION KIT

b075PB_lg

As a society it falls upon us as individuals to live our lives using the best judgement possible.

For each of us it wasn’t always that way: as children we instinctively believed what our parents told us, which was a powerful defense mechanism that generally kept us out of harm’s way.

As we grow up this gullibility has to be exchanged for a healthy cynicism and sound judgment which will afford some protection from the intentional deception of sociopaths.

BOENOID

This is a comment posted at Uncinus’s excellent site Contrailscience late Sept 2009. It is rare to find such professionalism and terse accuracy in “chemtrailer” writing, and here is an experienced and technically competent writer presenting an opposite point of view. No surprise, there:

boeing factory

For what it is worth, I am a Boeing engineer with 20 years of experience in the aerospace industry.

* There are no special tanks anywhere on our airplanes to hold chemicals to be sprayed out.

* There are no spray nozzles on the airplanes either, unless you count the emergency fuel dump nozzles on the widebody jets.

* This can be readily ascertained by simply looking through an airplane before the interior wall panels are installed. Here is a list of all the tanks which are on a jetliner:

** Fuel, potable water, waste water, engine fire suppressant (Halon + other stuff), cargo fire suppressant (just Halon), hydraulic reservoirs. On the new airplanes you will also see tank-like devices which generate nitrogen to inert the fuel tanks.

* Further, there is no room for such stuff to get installed. You would have to carry TONS of liquid to make spray trails independent of the exhaust condensation, and the only liquid we carry tons of is Jet-A fuel.

* In Everett Washington, the Seattle flight museum has a restoration center where you can go see dismantled airplanes being readied for display in the museum. The work is done almost entirely by volunteers. I assume other flight museums have similar workshops. If you can find one where you live, go to the restoration center and see the planes up close. There’s no where to hide a sprayer system where it wouldn’t be seen by maintenance crews.

* The Boeing final assembly plant is open for tours by the public, and VIPs from all over the world can get close-up tours. The airplanes are built in a staggered sequence, so that two airplanes side-by-side are usually being made for two different airlines.

* The majority of Boeing’s production is sold overseas. In fact, the company is the nation’s largest exporter.

* Thus, if a domestic airplane was modified for “chemtrail production” in the factory, it would be as easy as pie for a foreign VIP to walk over and say, “What are these fancy tanks and sprayers on the American plane which aren’t on my airplane?”

* If any airplane WAS modified for chemtrail to add chemtrail sprayers, the thousands of Boeing employees would have to know. I don’t work in Fuels, and I can identify every tank and tube in the wing area.

* If thousands of Boeing employees knew, then so would thousands of supplier employees who go through our factories, thousands of airlines employees who go through our factories, and all the FAA and NTSB and DOT people as well. Also, our airplanes and factories are inspected by the Aviation Authorities of foreign countries (like EASA from Europe) and they would also need to be in on the conspiracy.

* There would simply be too many people involved to prevent this from leaking out. If the chem trail sprayers were being added in the factory, the secret would be out.

* So what if the chemtrail sprayers were being added by an aftermarket shop?

* You’re back to the same problem. It takes hundreds of people to design, build, and install a major modification on a jetliner, and the mod shops are just as open as Boeing is. You wouldn’t be able to keep the secret.

* Further, most airlines have their planes maintained by outside suppliers, who would have to be in on the conspiracy. Those who do their own maintenance do the work in open bays that again would make it easy to view the modification.

* And you have the same problem that you need to get thousands of maintenance people, suppliers, and certification authorities in on the conspiracy. It would have leaked by now. All it takes is one guy with a cell phone camera, and the world would know.

* So what if they somehow managed to do all this stuff anyway? Now you have to realize that somebody, somewhere, has to be pumping TONS of chemtrail chemicals into these mysterious hidden tanks on the airplanes. You would need a fill valve, and a distribution system, and special trucks carrying the chemicals disguised as fuel trucks. That would take thousands more people to be in on the conspiracy.

* One giveaway would be two fuel trucks pulling up to the same jetliner – one with the fuel and one with the chemicals. Remember, we’re talking about tons of liquid here.

* It just doesn’t work – you would need independent chemical fill ports, and somebody, somewhere, would notice.

* And while we’re talking about it, remember that every jetliner pilot has to check the weight of the plane and calculate a talk off runway length and other factors. The charts are the same for every jetliner of a given type, but if there really were chemtrail sprayers, then the charts for those airplanes would have to be different to account for the tons of chemicals that might be on the airplane.

* So, I really don’t think there is any way to hide the sprayers on jetliners. Too many people would have to know, and it would be too easy to detect by passerby.

* So, what if the chemtrail chemicals are in the jet fuel? This wouldn’t require ANY visible modifications to the airplanes, and far fewer people would have to know about the conspiracy.

* This would be harder to refute, BUT, you would have to discard the “on and off” contrails as being caused by pilots turning sprayers on and off. All the fuel on the plane came from the same fuel trucks and the same fuel tanks, so the supposed chemtrail would have to be continuous from takeoff until landing. I think that would have been noticed by now.

* So to my mind, that pretty much eliminates the possibility of using jetliners to create chemtrails.

* Which means you have to be using military jets, and thousands of them, flying unnoticed back and forth on normal commercial routes. So now you have to have all the air traffic controllers in on the conspiracy as well.

* And the planes will again need special tanks for the chemicals, and special fill ports, and special sprayers, and special tanker trucks filling the chemical tanks on the planes, special non-military suppliers delivering the stuff, and you’re right back to the same issue of needing to keep thousands of people from talking.

Bottom line:
You would need a special delivery system on the airplanes.
You would need a special fill system.
You would need independent tanker trucks.
You would need a separate supply chain.
You would need thousands and thousands of people to hold their tongues, and never have even ONE person leave any incriminating evidence in a safe deposit box to be discovered after their deaths.

It ain’t happening.

q8flight

BARD OF ELY BLOG – A RESPONSE

bard-1

BARD BLOG

“Although chemtrails are conspicuous in our skies and thousands of sites exist about the menace the mainstream media and the authorities are very quiet about the matter or ignore and deny their existence. This of course, adds fuel to the conspiracy theories!

But it’s not just the media and the officials that are silent because there is a similar wall of silence from successful singer-songwriters and rock stars as well as celebrities in general! What does this mean? is there some memo that gets circulated warning that if you mention chemtrails your contract is terminated? Are people too scared to mention such stuff in public? What is going on?

I say we need people who can get the media exposure to come forward on this matter! We need stars to talk about chemtrails on live TV and radio!

I believe we need protest songs about chemtrails! If anyone knows of any please let me know!”

There is no evidence that I have seen that trails in the sky are anything except the water and carbon dioxide (and trace amounts of NOX) left by the passage of gas turbines in the stratosphere.

Now water is drinkable, carbon dioxide is respired by plants to make sugar, and the NOX combines with water to form dilute nitric acid which forms nitrates on contact with soil, helping plants to grow.

The majority of trails in the skies of Earth cross the US continent, so it is they that will bear the brunt of this “contamination”. So be it. Their plants will grow a little better, is all. Although the daily burning of a million tons of kerosine seems massive to you, in relation to the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere it is NOTHING.

ALL of Man’s conflagrations, his best efforts annually, will raise the sea level by 0.0000000000001 per cent, for instance (approximately).

Now, as to whether STRANGE COMPOUNDS are surreptitiously being introduced into burning gas turbines, in order to distribute them as an aerosol throughout the Earth’s atmosphere, why on Earth would anyone do that? (It would HAVE to be THROUGH the turbine because spray devices external to the motor would have to be plainly visible).

It just doesn’t stand up to any logical consideration.

Your ignorance has lead to your paranoia.

I blame Western Culture as a whole for failing to instil a minimum but requisite standard of scientific knowledge for the technological conditions under which we live.

Desist this crap!

“I totally disagree! Please do some research Tony! I have been researching this for a long time! The planet is being geoengineered under Caps & Trade schemes. there are many things being done including weather modification which I have seen in the UK and here and is all known about if you dig deep! Try californiaskywatch.com for starters.”

Seeding clouds for rain with silver iodide crystals (or powdered tea!) is completely harmless. It IS NOT “weather modification”!

I have checked through the website above and NONE of the things mentioned bears ANY relationship to NATURAL VULCANISM, let alone the masses of the land, atmosphere and oceans.

The amount of ocean: imagine a cubic mile of ocean. One mile square, up to the height of Vilaflor from sea level. Got it?

Then imagine 500,000,000 of them.

Counting them at the rate of one per second will take you SIXTEEN years.

The ocean weighs 114,398,298,100,000,000 tons. One hundred and fourteen thousand trillion tons. That’s a HUGE dilution factor…

open_sea_sm

“you can watch trails that last and spread and no trails or old style contrails at the same time, you can watch planes with no trail start a trail and then stop. you can have a day or period of a day with old style normal clouds and blue sky followed by loads of chemtrails and a sky turned to a mass of fake clouds and haze”.

Contrails are a stratospheric phenomenon (not in the troposphere, where your weather is). The stratosphere is generally stable, layered (like an onion skin) with layers of water/air solutions at various temperatures and humidities. When they are moving in different directions to each other (and falling slightly) they form CIRRUS clouds. When they fall without any relative motion, they form CIRROSTRATUS clouds.

strato

Sometimes the layers are supersaturated and only require flying through (say by glider wings) to condense out water and form clouds. They understandably may get somewhat upset when a clumping great turbofan whistles through them. Sometimes (when the layer is SATURATED) the upset is permanent, but in general the stratosphere is less than saturated, and you see a temporary contrail which trails the plane for say a mile or so, before being re-absorbed. On days when the layers are ALL saturated, the contrails will hang there ALL DAY.

Contrails are WATER, and you are not being sensible.

“you can have a day or period of a day with old style normal clouds and blue sky”.

What you are talking about here is the TROPOSPHERE, which is the air between the ground and the stratosphere.

This is the atmosphere as you experience it at ground level. It is THE BULK of the total atmosphere, half of which is to be found beneath twelve thousand feet.

The STRATOSPHERE is to be found at DOUBLE that height and above, to a height of sixty thousand feet. It is relatively rarefied, very cold (-80 deg F, colder than Mars) and TRANSPARENT.

It is the atmosphere beneath twelve thousand feet which is responsible for the blue in the sky (by scattering of white light – the blue “scatters” whilst the red continues straight on).

On bad days in the latter part of WWII, the stratosphere was supersaturated when USAF Flying fortresses set out to precision-bomb German targets in their thousands. The Germans could see them coming from three hundred miles away, without radar, and could adjust their fighter attacks with time to spare. Bad days, with hundreds of bombers littering the path back to Blighty.

Do you suppose those bombing raids were chemical attacks?

“listen Tony I don’t see why you feel the need to insult me!”

No insult intended. I DESCRIBED you.

“i didn’t start this argument and if you have nothing f—ing better to do with your time f— off”.

It’s not an argument. It’s a discussion. I consider it important to correct the foolishness of a friend.

“I know what I see and have the opinions of thousands of others who see likewise”.

You don’t “know” what you see. That’s the point. You’re blogging others down a foolish path. That I feel compelled to prevent. The opinions of other deluded people don’t count for much, do they? Nor should you help to delude them, should you? It would be harmful, even evil, wouldn’t it?

“i certainly don’t need to be insulted by someone I thought was a friend”.

Then don’t FEEL insulted. You’re not the only person that has been foolish in the world are you?

I have given you an accurate account of what it was you thought you had seen. You have been given the benefit of my scientific experience.

Would it have been kind to remain silent?

You should should consider yourself assisted, helped, loved, by this friend, and as a consequence GIVE THIS STUPIDITY UP!

stupidity_test

A BLACK HOLE

Cygnus X-1

BlackHole

BLUE LIGHT SCATTERING

It seems to be normal for chemtrailers not to understand why our skies are blue.

Where were these people in junior school, or in science class? Outside?

White light is a MIXTURE of visible light frequencies. The Sun (which is the main source of all light by which we see, is a very hot body which radiates photons of many frequencies, some of which are so energetic that they would harm us if they could pass through our atmosphere – but they cannot.

What does pass through is mainly a tight group of frequencies, spanning just over an octave, which our eyes can see.

Our eyes have evolved to make use of these frequencies – naturally.

spectrum

Wikipedia: Rayleigh scattering

rp1

Rayleigh scattering causes the blue hue of the daytime sky and the reddening of the sun at sunset
rp2

It is more dramatic after sunset. This picture was taken about one hour after sunset at 500m altitude, looking at the horizon where the sun had set, showing the more intense scattering of blue light by the atmosphere relative to red light.

Rayleigh scattering (named after the English physicist Lord Rayleigh) is the elastic scattering of light or other electromagnetic radiation by particles much smaller than the wavelength of the light. It can occur when light travels in transparent solids and liquids, but is most prominently seen in gases.

Rayleigh scattering of sunlight in clear atmosphere is the main reason why the sky is blue: Rayleigh and cloud-mediated scattering contribute to diffuse light (direct light being sunrays).

For scattering by particles similar to or larger than a wavelength, see Mie theory or discrete dipole approximation (they apply to the Rayleigh regime as well).

Small size parameter approximation
The size of a scattering particle is parametrized by the ratio x of its characteristic dimension r and wavelength lambda:

r1

Rayleigh scattering can be defined as scattering in the small size parameter regime x < 1. Scattering from larger spherical particles is explained by the Mie theory for an arbitrary size parameter x. The Mie theory reduces to the Rayleigh approximation.

r2

The amount of Rayleigh scattering that occurs for a beam of light is dependent upon the size of the particles and the wavelength of the light (lambda). Specifically, the intensity of the scattered light varies as the sixth power of the particle size and varies inversely with the fourth power of the wavelength.

The intensity I of light scattered by a single small particle from a beam of unpolarized light of wavelength lambda and intensity I0 is given by:

r3

where R is the distance to the particle, lambda is the scattering angle, n is the refractive index of the particle, and d is the diameter of the particle.

The angular distribution of Rayleigh scattering, governed by the (1 + cos^2*lambda) term, is symmetric about the plane normal to the incident direction of the light (i.e. about lambda = 90°), and so the forward scatter equals the backwards scatter. Integrating over the sphere surrounding the particle gives the Rayleigh scattering cross section.

The Rayleigh scattering coefficient for a group of scattering particles is the number of particles per unit volume N times the cross-section. As with all wave effects, for incoherent scattering the scattered powers add arithmetically, while for coherent scattering, such as if the particles are very near each other, the fields add arithmetically and the sum must be squared to obtain the total scattered power.

rp4

Rayleigh scattering from molecules
A 5 mW green laser pointer is visible at night due to Rayleigh scattering and airborne dust. Rayleigh scattering from molecules is also possible. An individual molecule does not have a well-defined refractive index and diameter. Instead, a molecule has a polarizability a, which describes how much the electrical charges on the molecule will move in an electric field. In this case, the Rayleigh scattering intensity for a single particle is given by

r4

The amount of Rayleigh scattering from a single particle can also be expressed as a cross section s. For example, the major constituent of the atmosphere, nitrogen, has a Rayleigh cross section of 5.1×10^-31 m^2 at a wavelength of 532 nm (green light). This means that at atmospheric pressure, about a fraction 10^-5 of light will be scattered for every meter of travel.

The strong wavelength dependence of the scattering (~lambda-4) means that blue light is scattered much more readily than red light. In the atmosphere, this results in blue wavelengths being scattered to a greater extent than longer (red) wavelengths, and so one sees blue light coming from all regions of the sky. Direct radiation (by definition) is coming directly from the Sun. Rayleigh scattering is a good approximation to the manner in which light scattering occurs within various media for which scattering particles have a small size parameter.

Reason for the blue color of the sky
Rayleigh scattering is responsible for the blue color of the sky during the day. Rayleigh scattering is inversely proportional to the fourth power of wavelength, which means that the shorter wavelength of blue light will scatter more than the longer wavelengths of green and red light. This gives the sky a blue appearance.

Conversely, looking toward the sun, the colors that were not scattered away – the longer wavelengths such as red and yellow light – are visible. When the sun is near the horizon, the volume of air through which sunlight must pass is significantly greater than when the sun is high in the sky. Accordingly, the gradient from a red-yellow sun to the blue sky is considerably wider at sunrise and sunset.

Rayleigh scattering primarily occurs through light’s interaction with air molecules. Some of the scattering can also be from aerosols of sulfate particles. For years following large Plinian eruptions, the blue cast of the sky is notably brightened due to the persistent sulfate load of the stratospheric eruptive gases. Another source of scattering is from microscopic density fluctuations, resulting from the random motion of the air molecules. A region of higher or lower density has a slightly different refractive index than the surrounding medium, and therefore it acts like a short-lived particle that can scatter light.
References
Rayleigh scattering at Hyperphysics
Maarten Sneep and Wim Ubachs, Direct measurement of the Rayleigh scattering cross section in various gases. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 92, 293 (2005).
C.F. Bohren, D. Huffman, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles, John Wiley, New York 1983. Contains a good description of the asymptotic behavior of Mie theory for small size parameter (Rayleigh approximation).
Ditchburn, R.W. (1963). Light (2nd ed.). London: Blackie & Sons. pp. 582–585.
Chakraborti, Sayan (September 2007). “Verification of the Rayleigh scattering cross section”. American Journal of Physics 75 (9): 824-826. doi:10.1119/1.2752825.
Ahrens, C. Donald (1994). Meteorology Today: an introduction to weather, climate, and the environment (5th ed.). St. Paul MN: West Publishing Company. pp. 88–89.

syrian 747

And so when we see aircraft from the ground (this is a Syrian Air Boeing 747) we cannot expect to see its markings. They have been “scattered” away. You will only see its markings by taking pictures of it from up close.

CHEMTRAILERS WE LOVE YOU

(NOT!)

It’s that moment when you have engaged your sophisticated and educated brain in a discussion with a chemtrailer and he suddenly starts talking about vertical “chemtrails” and challenges you to to justify those… You point out that only some fighter aircraft can travel vertically, and this guy says no, it was a “tanker aircraft” and while you are wondering what the hell, you realize that he doesn’t understand perspective at all, and he’s really talking about trails coming towards you and passing overhead you. Which means, of course, that you’re wasting your time with exotic explanations involving crossing shuttle routes.

Or when someone sends you a picture of a broken trail, and you can see that it had been a continuous trail before some crook had photoshopped it. So you tell him it’s a fraudulent picture, and so he sends you a color-processed copy so damned effective that you can see each individual photoshop spraying pass, thinking he has proved his point. I drew lines and arrows pointing exactly where it was occurring, and he still couldn’t see it.

Enough from me.

I want information, not a video of some guy’s grass saying “chemtard” over and over. ”

But, that is what this video IS! You are complaining because I didn’t give YOU what YOU want in this video?! Are you f*****g kidding me?! I didn’t force you to come here and make the assumption that I’m supposed to “teach” you something! I make it PERFECTLY clear in my videos that I’m not here to educate any lazy and ignorant chemtard! I tried that in the past… It wasn’t worth my time. Learn for yourself!
I even make it PERFECTLY clear in the “info” area that I don’t have time to be wasting on f*****g ignorant chemtards! Where do you see ANYTHING about me being an information booth?! Who said it’s MY f*****g job to educate YOU?!?

I must say he seems reasonable to me. Stars, save me…

KeystoneSTARS

A Page from YouTube

leave a comment »

PAGE CONTENTS

91177info – A PAGE FROM YOUTUBE – ALTN – ALUMINUM/BARIUM – ANDERS – DISCOVERY?

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page… 

91177info

91177info
The chemtrail petition has the necessary signatures to get a response from the government. 600 so far but if anyone would like a personal email detailing what our government is doing or is aware of please see the top link.
 

beachcomber2008
the report states that the BEST DISPERSAL HEIGHT IS 80,000 FEET.  Only U2s and X15s fly up there, and all they can carry is cameras and electronics.  That altitude is TWICE AS HIGH as the CEILINGS of modern aircraft and is IMPOSSIBLE TO REACH WITH ANY TYPE OF TANKER.  That’s why they conclude that SEEDING OCEAN CLOUDS and FEEDING IRON TO OCEAN CENTRES are the only routes immediately viable.  They haven’t done those either, unfortunately.  It makes RUBBISH out of your video post, doesn’t it? 

The ideal place for spraying is the stratopause, but no aircraft can reach that height.

91177info
Yes they do seed clouds. There are private companies that do as such and videos of companies cloud seeding on youtube.  I am very happy with my video as it has added to the pool of information which thousands of researches are finding out and adding to themselves.  Some information may be speculative, some may be far fetched but I believe I was the first to find these documents of the UK government actually suggesting adding chemicals to aviation fuel and making it available on youtube.
 

 
 
 
 
 

the temperature of our atmosphere

 

beachcomber2008
You are proposing something, on the other hand, which you REALLY know nothing about.  It therefore seems “reasonable” to you to behave the way you do.  Any scientist or engineer who reads what you write will shake their head.  Where were you when brains were handed out?  You can’t even find the relevant research materials, which are freely available on the net.  You also appear unable to read.  If DEFRA claims it would be difficult to do, then they haven’t done it.  You don’t appear to notice that. 

91177info
Yes I know I haven’t been able to give as much attention to the subject of chemtrails and find the necessary documents.  I was distracted by the swine flu last year and the so called deadly pandemic we were supposed to be in.  Which turned out to be a false alarm and a way for our governments to syphon off tax payers money.  They lied it was a false alarm.  This vid is 10 months old so maybe I should return to investigate chemtrails.  After the petition at 10 Downing St which ends in March.
 

beachcomber2008
Truly infantile. “Look, a plane is flying overhead and there are some rocks on the ground shaped like the letter C.  It’s a clue!  Proof for chemtrails!”.  You’ll never be taken seriously by anyone with critical faculties who can weigh evidence.  You’ll just continue to talk amongst your buddies with the same psychological disposition about your escapist fantasies and waste the time of your other friends, pestering us with the latest “proof” for your delusions. Yes, I actually read the document. 

91177info
You’re the one who is delusional.  In fact, looking through your comments for the last six months – You’re a total fruitcake. You are also a liar and I hate liars.  Now which document did you think you read?  hmm?
 

beachcomber2008
@91177info, Stephen Salter made a submission to this committee – this: 

You’ll find it on my channel and also at jazzroc. wordpress. com on my “Jet Spray” page because it’s a brilliant and cheap idea.  Yes, I actually read the document. many times, many places.  All this stuff is just the consideration of options, many of which are dead ducks.  You lack the nous to make any sensible discrimination whatsoever.  Scientific understanding, if you ever found it, might help you… 

91177info
There is no government legalisation and private companies can virtually spray what they want up there as it been reported on MSM.  So really you don’t have a clue what is being sprayed.  Of course you would say it is just water vapour.  You started your comment thread very defensive/protective and rude.  You think all is well and no damage is being caused to us or our earth, fine.  That’s your instinct.  Mine says something is not right and there are millions of other people who feel the same.
 

beachcomber2008
@91177info, I actually C&P’d someone else’s comment which exactly suited this.  I’m not talking about INSTINCT.  I’m talking about EXPERIENCE.  I KNOW there is nothing in the trails and I can PROVE there is nothing in the trails.  You can neither KNOW or PROVE anything.  Aviation fuel is made up to a recipe by the admixture of conditioners to a locally-made petroleum distillate, so it will be subtly different wherever the plane refuels.  But there’s only one type of jetfuel and it’s for ALL planes. 

TBA4Freedom
beachcomber2008, Obviously you didn’t read the entire 163 pages…I can tell by what you are saying. Pull it up again and READ it this time…..then come back and debate with us.
 

dbootsthediva
Isn’t it quite the coincidence that Mars has quite an abundance of sulphate.  Perhaps those tubes we have seen on Mars are them harvesting minerals.  Great video. 

maryjaneofthejungle
Chemtrails also (amongst other chemicals) contain barium. The EPA states dose factors under 2 parts per billion is safe from harm.  Rainwater collected after chemspraying has been found to have up to 6 parts per billion.  Jet fuel sometimes referred to as JP-5 or JP-8 is regulated by the Department of Commerce.  Good luck getting a hold of them.  When no1 gives us an answer or we’re completely ignored on a subject we can only believe its something we’d not take well.  Then again I’d ignore any scrambled answer they’d “come up with” at this point.  Two good reasons. Vitamin D kills the flu virus.  And the spray contains chemicals to help the viral envelope fuse with lung cells for easier infection. 

ramptondayrelease
Well done for blocking that muppet. Good info here. 

dickyco2
Contrails, Climate Changing Clouds of Combustion spewed by 8mile high Oil burning “Smogliners” whose exhaust products acts as the nucleus for the formation of ice crystals that are Contrails ,that persist spread to form Contrail-Cirrus a days heat trapping ( as clouds tend to do) thermal blanket of exhaust cloud.  This is Geo-engineering.  Contrails.  Climate Changing Clouds of Combustion.  FairyChemTales a Big Oil spray story to cloud the Environmental Disaster of Vast Oil Burning. 

UkTruthSeeker2009
Chemtrails day & night in UK the sun rarely shows and when it does they are back to cover it.  EVIL GOVERNMENTS. 

nrgstream
Help heal the planet, google ‘orgonite’. It’s a simple compound anyone can create in their backyard with fairly inexpensive, widely-available materials which balances ambient energy by turning the negative energy into positive energy, with many easily-confirmed effects. Orgonite does this continuously, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without electricity. 

gtb393
Truely infantile. “Look, a plane is flying overhead and there are some rocks on the ground shaped like the letter C.  It’s a clue!  Proof for chemtrails!”.  You’ll never be taken seriously by anyone with critical faculties who can weigh evidence. You’ll just continue to talk amongst your buddies with the same psychological disposition about your escapist fantasies and waste the time of your other friends, pestering us with the latest “proof” for your delusions. Yes, I actually read the document. 

91177info
gtb393 ??? Joined April 24 2007 Channel Views 0 No Favourites No Uploads Comments 0 Channel Comments 0 Now I really do not need to ask what drew you to my vid do I??  All your appearance has done is reaffirm to the thousands of subscribers that:
A: There really is something going on.
B: You’re a SHILL.
C: You’re EVIL
D: You are not welcome here
E: You’re now on my BLOCKED list 

Wecknachricht
now we can go to every official government agencies and present the document and ask for explanation… 

starywron
Great find, mate.  thanks for share it with the rest of us here.  Jazzroc – where are you now, you old fool and lier? 

91177info
BocScar is either working for the CDC or Baxter. He has several accounts jazzroc and stars15k, he has been paid to do this. He/She is using an avatar which is used by the CDC and is listed in the pdf documents that Jane Burgermeister sent me. See my website link on my profile for more info.  There are other shills which have been paid to do this. But BocScar is classic and very persistent. You just have to read through the comments to see what I mean. Love to those that want it. Jason x 

boxa888
hey the weather up here has been weird so far, the whole month of june has been rain, i think its a new record here in this area lol. 

UkTruthSeeker2009
I have a few shills as well youtube is crawling with them trying to confuse chemtrails with contrails LOL There is no argument we’re not stupid I was looking for stuff today and googled reports in the UK AND FOUND ONE AT GLOBAL RESEARCH UK 

91177info
Try this site all the evidence is here in photos/maps and graphs.  asp bnl gov/  Just replace the space with an .  I will get back to this but the swindle flu is the main headlines lol 

BocScar
I never heard of jazzroc and stars15 is a 40 yr old woman.  You’ll need to work harder to pass the detectives exam. 

91177info
Now why on earth would you come back to this video and reply to a new comment thread which wasn’t in reply to one of yours?  I have been waiting for this test for 2 weeks and actually I have just passed my detective exam because you fell for my trap.  BocScar you are a shill, your icon is one used in Baxter International labs which can be seen in Jane Burgermeister’s file charges.  Goodbye. 

graverobber35
Well, dickhead, since you are from england, you HAVE to love moslems. they have taken over your bloody country. Yes, I like guns, that is one of our freedoms here in the US. And I do like women. That would obviously offend a faggot like you. blow it out your windpipe, abdul. 

91177info
Actually, what you say you like doing to women tells me it is actually YOU that has faggot tendencies!  Another moron that uses the same username throughout the web and his email address. You paranoid racist anal loving moron. 

91177info
I am very sorry to use the terminology that graverobber35 has used. They are not words I use and I only used them in context to what he was saying to me. 

graverobber35
Sorry , I lost my tin foil hat in the flood. 

91177info
You lost a lot more than that. Your nothing more than a muslim hating gun loving womanising thug.  This user said that: “mohammed was a child molester” on hardyk1’s channel.  By the way always make sure the barrel of your gun isn’t blocked, not being psychic or anything 😉
 
BocScar
Did you even bother to read the conclusion?  “It is clear from the assessment of geo-engineering options presented here that there are large uncertainties regarding the effectiveness, impacts, technical feasibility, cost and risks of all the schemes considered. As a consequence of these uncertainties, we feel that it is premature at this stage to draw firm conclusions on the feasibility of implementing the schemes discussed”.  They don’t even know if geoengineering is possible! 

91177info
Bother? I’m well bothered.  They are getting private companies to do this. They are? testing it out now! Trying different chemicals and mixtures. With out consulting or warning the public.  Why?  Because we are expendable and our lives and heath doesn’t matter.  It really makes me angry.  I mean really fucking angry. 

BocScar
Did you read the report’s conclusion? They say that they don’t know if geoengineering is even possible.  If they admit in the report that geoengineering might not even be possible, how can you use the report as proof that “chemtrails are real and I believe are happening now with out public consultation.” 

91177info
Because they are lying, thieving, murdering bastards. They killed over a million Iraqi civilians on this plagiarised dossier: Downing Street’s dossier against Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is accused of plagiarism.  Channel Four News has learnt that the bulk of an intelligence dossier heralded by Colin Powell at the UN yesterday, was copied from three different articles – one written by a graduate student”.  BocScar, Do you really think they will tell us the truth after the above quotes? 

BocScar
 -Because they are lying, thieving, murdering bastards.- I’m talking of the DE & CC document referenced in the video.  On the one hand you accept this document when it speaks of stratospheric aerosols, but on the other hand you reject it when it states that geoengineering might not even be possible.  So is the DE&CC document true or a lie? 

91177info
What do you think I think? 

BocScar
I’m not sure what you think.  I’m not sure. You seem to agree with the parts of the DECC document that fit your preconceived notions, and disagree with the parts that don’t.  You use this government document to “prove” they are conducting geoengineering, but ignore the part where it says that geoengineering might not be possible.  I’m asking for clarification. 

91177info
Going back a couple of months, people like Stars15k, o0Nighthawk0o, Shilltastic and possibly you were stating there was no evidence of such programs and chemtrails were just water vapour. Nothing was and could be sprayed in the skies.  This is a government document which states such programs and is inviting private research companies to share their research and knowledge.  These programs are happening right now.  Stop moving the goal posts.  Chemtrails are real. 

BocScar
-These programs are happening right now.- So according to you the government is publicly inviting research companies and publishing feasibility studies on the Internet while at the same time secretly spraying the sky in full daylight, hoping nobody will notice.  The DECC document offers possible quick fix solutions to mitigate global warming and then it cautions that these solutions are dangerous and might not even be feasible. 

91177info
Private companies are spraying yes.  So at last you acknowledge chemtrails.  Thankyou. 

BocScar
What are private companies spraying in the air? 

91177info
You tell me.  You’re paid to do this “argumentum ad hominem” 

BocScar
You are the one that claims private companies are spraying.  I assume you know what you are talking about.  So please tell me, what private companies are spraying?  I really want to know. 

91177info
Hold on let me look in the yellow pages. 

BocScar
So, I take it you don’t know.  You claim private companies are conducting secret spraying operations but can’t even name one of them.  How can you conclude that private companies are involved?  On what are you basing your statement that private companies are involved? 

neptuneey
We live in a Corporate world, they’re all Private companies. Even you are a corporation. 

BocScar
What’s your point? 

neptuneey
Just looking for human qualities..  U failed. 

BocScar
This isn’t a philosophical discussion about human nature.  The guy made a concrete statement that private companies are spraying the air.  If he knows these companies are private then he must also know their names. 

91177info
If you could just stop beating your bishop for a moment and look at the reply I have sent you. 

BocScar
Stating that the scientific community is researching solutions to our environmental mess is not acknowledging “chemtrails”.  The word “chemtrail” implies covert programs to dumb down the population or block out the sun by deliberately using chemicals.  I do not acknowledge “chemtrails” and I’ve tried to point out that neither does the DECC document. 

91177info
Chemical Contrails then.  Spraying or releasing chemicals via aerosol or the exhaust of aircraft fuel.  They are doing exactly what it says on the tin.  It is interesting you say “dumb down”??  That is very telling BocScar.  I’ve been talking about Global Dimming. 

BocScar
I’ll ask you again.  What are private companies spraying in the air? 

91177info
Page 26 of the pdf states “if other parties, countries and institutions wished to develop a shared approach, DECC would be interested in sharing expertise, and in helping to develop an initial detailed scoping study”.  Google these: ukca ac uk – GLOMAP – SLIMCAT/TOMCAT – CiTTyCAT – EU Aerosol IP – AEROCOM emissions/validation – EUSAAR data 

BocScar
They are looking to partner with the private sector to “develop an initial scoping study”. initial… study…   How do you conclude from that statement that private companies are currently engaged in a global dimming campaign?  These are either feasibility studies, environmental studies and one of them only tries to set research protocols for data base sharing… but never mind…  Which one of those companies is currently engaged in a covert global dimming campaign? 

91177info
WOW BocScar how do “YOU” know about these sites and give an answer so quickly?  Can you do me a favour here?  Please swear on your families life, the generations of your family which are now in the spirit world and ALL the genetic strain of your family in the future that YOU, are not involved in any way with chemtrails, chemical contrails, the military, and the government. And you are just some regular youtube user.  So I BocScar swear (You fill in the rest here) 

BocScar
You told me about the sites…  so I looked at them.  These people can loosely be characterized as atmospheric researchers.  I swear I am not in the service of any government or any secret society to misinform anyone about anything nor am I involved directly or indirectly in perpetrating illegal covert chemical campaigns against the atmosphere or the population. LOL  Look… you make statements like “private companies are spraying”,  “chemtrails are real”.  I’m asking you to explain yourself because I don’t see it.  Every time one asks for some kind of evidence you guys point to publicly available government documents produced by the same government you claim is secretly conducting the spraying.  You claim the DECC document proves “chemtrails” but ignore its conclusion that geoengineering is not advisable and may not even be feasible. 

91177info
Thankyou for swearing BocScar.  All I know is what I see and what I have researched.  I am an artist by trade and I paint landscapes.  I love to draw clouds.  I am always looking at clouds ever since I was 4 years old and my mum pointed out a face in the cloud.  From then on I have always looked up at clouds and I have made faces out of what I see.  Back in February during a landscape photography assignment I became aware of the chemtrails, white lines. That is when the spraying started in my area.  I am a very aware person, I follow the seasons and live with nature.  I love sunsets and follow the moon.  I know where it will be rising with a given tree in my area.  I count the swallows that come and nest here and count the new brood that leaves.  I have a photographic memory and have over 200 art and photography books and know which picture is in which books.  I don’t like change.  BocScar, I know what contrails are.  The white lines now in the sky are not normal, they really aren’t right. 

BocScar
Without a doubt, increased contrail formation has an environmental impact.  I just challenge the notion that it is a covert government operation to block the sun or kill people.  Contrails are a consequence of air travel, just like smog is a consequence of car usage.  I’m just a regular guy and I have never seen any evidence of weather modification other than cloud seeding.  I don’t consider atmospheric research to be geoengineering nor do I consider persistent contrails to be “chemtrails”.  I’ve read the DECC document and it’s a preliminary assessment paper that concludes there are large uncertainties regarding the effectiveness, impacts, technical feasibility, cost and risks of geoengineering. 

dickyco2
BocScar.  Well said.  You must be aware these sad simple believers and their voodoo video Priests of Piffle havent the faintest idea of the Planet they are on or how it works.  But they do share a genuine concern for what they see outside above them.  And so they and you should.  A Jet exhaust made 6-8mile high layer of reflective day heat trapping cloud, Contrail-Cirrus, is a Climate Changing Cloud of Combustion.  A Global unintended Geo-engineering Environmental Disaster. 

91177info
Just google “Downing St dossier plagiarised”.  They lied, they have committed murder.  Something is NOT right here.  Me thinks they will do it again. 

WellSightedGentleman
me too, Bocscar, if hes not being paid by this industry, is totally mind wiped on all of these issues about weather modification, save your energy, Bocscar is insincere and just soapboxs for attention, good or bad.  He knows it’s real he spends everyday trying to talk “WITNESS'” down from what thy’ve seen. But he has no argument at all, he just flames through disjointed arguments, a waste of time dewd 

91177info
He was convincing, but easy to put right.  Thanks for that info. 

BocScar
-if hes not being paid by this industry, is totally mind wiped –  Once again the you demonstrate your ability to come to conclusions without facts.  The same logic leads you to believe “they” are secretly modifying the weather in full daylight and nobody but astute YouTube videographers are clever enough to notice. 

euro944t
Chemtrails are obvious to children now.  They have to say something now.  You rather them disclose it’s part of bio weapons and psych warfare Haarp EMF weapons?  Climate control is a cover story. Now run out and push this disinfo to your neighboors so they pay carbon taxes and believe Al Gore’s scam. 

dbootsthediva
Thank you for this very informative video.  Chemtrail particles are now beginning to be included in Science books and being taught in high schools.  Some Science books are referring to it as ‘PARTICLE AIR”.  See Centerpoint Learning Science 1  Essential Interactions Science Book Section 5:19 Solutions for Global Warming. Peace. 

Skywitness
Here’s and interesting patent: Powder contrail generation  United States Patent 3899144 abstract:  Light scattering pigment powder particles, surface treated to minimize inparticle cohesive forces, are dispensed from a jet mill deagglomerator as separate single particles to produce a powder contrail having maximum visibility or radiation scattering ability for a given weight material. 

BarbarianRebellion
Of coarse you realize that these are the same quacks who are intentionally poisoniong our children with vaccines and makeing males of every species sterile with plastics. And now we are letting them tinker with the only planet we have! 

stuanemma
It actually reads that like they are already doing this and are wondering whether or not doing it on Global level will work… 

1995firefly4dr
don’t want to be the ‘bad guy’ here, but all this document is saying what they have ‘researched’ to be possible solutions to their made-up crisis. It’s certainly no proof of them admitting they are doing the chemtrails currently. 

lithcowtown
very well put together congrads. Geoff 

sorrowfulsun
Excellent work. Thank you! 

WellSightedGentleman
great research!  yep obama announced in jan or feb this year that they may ‘have-to’ fill the sky with aluminium particles to deflect the sun.  theyve backed off here for four days now (touch-wood) after several weeks of constant disbursal.  I am curious as to why they have been so busy over populated areas, a bit sus in light of the foreseen risk to public health. 

BocScar
-after several weeks of constant disbursal.- Disbursal?  I someone handing out money?  What exactly do you believe they are dispersing? 

91177info
Anything they want, under the guise of global warming.  Modern medicine is all about nano particles and aerosol dispersion. 

BocScar
Modern medicine is the only reason we are not being killed by Smallpox like the 500 million that died from it in the 20th century. Nutrition and modern medicine is why our lifespans have doubled.  If “they” have a plan to kill us then better food and medicines are a very strange way to go about it. 

20OnELoVe12
GMO is not a better form of food.. Have you ever watched the commericals for medicine. HA I would rather have whatever it is then all the side effects. Also almost all of them say on rare occasion death may occure. The meds for depression, & ADD, MAKE you a zombie/ makes you want to kill your self or someone else.  AND they have cures for many things that DON’T involve MMM BUT they would rather keep taking the money. BTW Check out Denver international airport Video, and the stonehenge one also. 

BocScar
Ya right! You would rather have the disease then suffer possible side affects of the medication. Tell yourself that the next time you need Penicillin or if you ever get cancer. 

91177info
Very interesting avatar BocScar, can I ask where you got it from? 

BocScar
Google images. I think I typed the keyword “symbols”. I’ve always found the image geometrically interesting. 

20OnELoVe12
Penicillin is a natural antibiotic.  Another things I also stated was that they have cures USING natural things to cure such diseases or illness.. They to have the CURE for cancer and diabates…I CAN’T SPELL sue me if anything is wrong.. LOL.. For things such as RLS, Sleeping or non sleeping issues or if my minds run in circles do to ADD.  NO I WILL not take what they have made.  They have moved AWAY from the things nature gives us & that is scary. 

BocScar
If Penicillin is a natural derivative or not is irrelevant to my comment. You said you would prefer to suffer the disease than possible side affects from the treatment.  Good for you.  I don’t care if you can’t spell or express yourself any more than I care if you refuse to take prescribed medication. 

20OnELoVe12
I will take medicine if it is Natural that is what I’m saying.. if you don’t care why did you come back an waste time typing.  Anyways,,, CHEMtrails are real… Good luck with seeing that.. Peace to you 

BocScar
Bla bla bla… If you ever get cancer, you will take anything that will save your life, whether it’s “natural” or not. 

20OnELoVe12
All this time and you come back BLA BLA BLA you don’t know me.. If I ever develop cancer.. I WILL FIGHT each and every doctor and/or Organization for the REAL cure that they have hidden from Humanity… TRUST THAT… Cancer HAS A CURE… 

thetruthergirls
Weed oil, laetrile (B17), MMS, lots of things. 

ExquisiteDoom
Without inflamations, you CAN’T? get cancer. Thought you’d like to know. 

91177info
If the earth is allowed to do its natural thing. Extra sun and heat/radiation will evaporate MORE water from the oceans, so creating more natural cloud cover, then natural rain. They don’t want that, they only want death to tell you the truth.  They are not in harmony with the earth just their ego sociopathic conversations at the dinner table. 

WellSightedGentleman
someones getting money to fly around in no particular route to disburse particulated dust that effect the weather. To ‘disburse’ means to ‘spread out” it isnt a term money specific.  What they are disbursing is currently under investigation and double blind back testing is now being performed in several reputable universities to determine exactly whats in the air in the disbursal areas.  I told u b4 Its not an issue of belief why do you debunkers always fall back on the same emotive arguments? 

BocScar
-double blind back testing is now being performed in several reputable universities – Links please.  I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that nowhere in any of these studies will they mention “chemtrails” or “secret government dimming operations”.  These are probably typical environmental studies but you guys use them as evidence that someone is looking into your paranoid claims. 

BocScar
You know for a fact that they are spraying but you don’t know what they are spraying.  OK.  Let’s start with this: How do you know they are deliberately spraying chemicals? 

silkcat51
What gets me when I point out/complain about this to others is that they tell me–there couldn’t possibly be a deliberate poisoning agenda, because they would be poisoning their own children/families.  Don’t know what to say back. 

bushdidit2u911
great research! there are similar documents” not as specific” on the CFR website under the title”geo-engineering” where obamas team had recently updated the site to include planetary engineering techniques! but this blows that away!  awesome work!  is there a link to the original document!  would love to see and spread to all!!!! 

stuanemma
In the description… 

danielvincentkelley
You know what might shut down this operation?  A pilots strike.  Anytime you board an aircraft or are within air shot of an airliner pilot, you should educate them about chemtrails being aluminum and pathogens and neither being healthy for people. If enough pilots knew that they were killing their own sons and daughters with their flying spraying aluminum, maybe they’d strike. Airport protests also sounds like a good idea. 

jbreezes
I just heard the second person from NC who is a patriot claim contrails ALWAYS looked the way chemtrails do.  Shows how successfully the media (with the subliminals and chemtrail backgrounds) have conditioned people to believe it’s always been like this and is normal.  The f*ckin media suceeded.  Check out ironhorse’s vid on clipser. Arrgh 

danielvincentkelley
Patriot?  More likely traitor and on the pay roll of the disinformational establishment.  I stopped a random state senator on the street outside the statehouse and asked if he noticed the chemtrails pointing at the sky.  He asked me why they’re spraying.  I told him the global warming excuse AND that it’s aluminum and pathogens and more likely REALLY to murder people.  He seemed genuinely interested and mildly aware, like he had noticed.  People pretending they don’t see it are most likely traitors. 

WellSightedGentleman
the real downside being that the generation “y” who are present in abundance online, havnt experienced alot of unmanipulated weather in their life.  Born after 85′ and these young adults have nothing to rate the appearance of the sky against.  Therefore theyre quite unconcerned with ‘them’ making clouds… easily fooled by the bogus ‘disinf’ websites that abound online.  theyve been blinded.  our hope is with the older generations who can remember. 

philwarinsky
This is the format of a decent video – loaded with information.  Thankyou. 

gangstagrannie
Yes, they do appear to spray more at night. Hands up who’s noticed the thick fog we often get overnight in the season they call ‘summer’? 

Diatonic135
dude, since february this year i’ve been seeing them.  it’s warm where i live plus i camp a lot, so since february i’ve seen an incremental increase in chemtrailing. 

GODLOVESUSSOMUCH
Hey my dear and intelligent friends! I truly hope that none of you are fooled by their attempts to say they are trying to prevent climate change and its quickening pace! Mankind may be 1% at fault, but It’s not us alone AT ALL, causing the Globe to warm, its Solar Cycles, over 30000 scientists have proven this and know it, as millions of others do! The elite know they can’t reverse it, they? know many prophetic events will occur before Global Warming’s effects even reach a height! God Bless all! 

gangstagrannie
Yes GODLOVESUSSOMUCH, you are right. ALL of the planets are warming – even the uninhabited ones – which proves without doubt that this is a ‘natural’ occurrance.  Don’t people ever think back to their school days?  THEY taught us that climate change has occurred in the past and that mankind survived it – even without paying carbon tax!  LOL to the carbon tax!  Thanks for continuing this truthful point, that any sane person can and will see, sadly many intelligent people hold on to what some corrupted or misinformed scientists, have stated as true science, when its not! Keep spreading the good truth bro, even that which is not sugar coated, just as God did not sugar coat the times we are in & nearing. There are troubles ahead, yet an eternally happy ending for those that seek the path of love & truth found in Christ!  God Bless! 

danielvincentkelley
First Chemtrails is no solution for global warming. Global warming is about done anyhow. We’re running out of oil to pollute the skys with and the north pole already melted into the oceans which has a chilling effect that has been studied and shown to cause ICE AGE in an average 3 years. Ice Age is the new problem. 2nd, it’s not about whether people will survive, of course we will. But its a matter of what living conditions we’ll experience and it’s not looking good at all. 

91177info
Very true I made a video about this 2 weeks ago. There are so many different reasons for why the spraying is happening and over night they could decide to spray something totally different. People are getting used to seeing white lines in the sky so if they decided to suddenly spray Agent US or Brucella people wouldn’t even know or question, they would say “That plane is low today” As the elite are safely underground. 

GODLOVESUSSOMUCH
Yooo MR 77info! That’s the truth of this sick matter right there, they don’t care and even though they are not at all ashamed of their evil agenda, they definitely do much more spraying at night, to secure that their plans will not be headed or stopped like history has shown their plans to be, and they will again…They don’t learn, at least that which is important! Also so true how they try to make these trails seem so casual, putting them in tv media advertisements, even games and movies! =) 

A PAGE FROM YOUTUBE

CHEMTRAIL VIDEO COMMENTS 

wow, the american media has hit a new low. no wonder there are so many stupid people who believe in chem trails, with the american population trusting everything the media throws in front of them it is no wonder that people believe in chem trails.
—————————————————————————-
chemtrails 

Chemtrails are well documented tainted airplane exhaust comtrails saturating and obliterating our skies with deadly toxins. Soda pop is an out dated term for carbonated sugar water. Why are there so many hateful naysayers trying to obscure discussion and critical research into these matters? Hmmm…
—————————————————————————-
No, why are you SO STUPID as to believe that:
1. Contrails CAN’T be persistent.
2. Their contents can be collected by trays on the ground, and NOTHING else will get in the trays.
3. That the US can AFFORD to cover the Earth in Barium, Aluminum, Silver.
4. That it is POISONING you (yet NO-ONE has died).
5. That passenger planes CAN be fitted with poison sprays, yet no-one DIES, “FINGERS”, GETS INFECTED.
—————————————————————————-
gourmet-soda-pop 

“Chemtrails” ARE SODA POP. Put them through a carbon filter for sure, and each mile of “chemtrail” will get you a crate of soda pop.
The stratosphere is stable and layered like an onion with layers of differing humidities. A “saturated” layer will NOT reabsorb the trail, which will slowly fall and form stratus or cirrus cloud. That is what you see…
Want some soda pop? I’m nuts for soda pop! Are you?
—————————————————————————-
Yo Jazzroc–when they do go live with the mass extermination and you’re dying from Ebola, enjoy that soda (you probably like the stuff that has Aspartame in it). Meanwhile, a global network of responsible citizens is forming to confront this menace.
—————————————————————————-
“Responsible citizens” are people who THINK before they ACT. In your case, you’ve a job ahead of you – to LEARN to THINK. I’d rather that people like you were supporting the NWO – you’d mess them right up!
—————————————————————————-
1) We need an comprehensive global ban on these practices. 

2) There needs to be an international inspection regime over all aircraft worldwide with criminal penalties for the existence of aerosol dispersal devices. 

3) National security exclusions to FOIA requests need to be abrogated and immediate worldwide disclosure of these practices documented. 

Document redaction should be criminalized.
—————————————————————————-
Jolly good. Best use the UN for this. Haha. But apparently (so the scuttlebutt goes!) the UN is PART of the conspiracy to, er, depopulate… 

Best draw up a World Citizens’ Army then. Then fly about from airport to airport enforcing… 

Those that don’t can get their videocams out and film you “spraying” as you go, and SHOOT you when you land… 

firing_squad1 

ALTN2

‘You’re quoting a research report.’ 

Correct. From 1992. Spraying operations began by most people’s accounts, in late 1998. 

Keep in mind, this report was authorized by Congress and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences. This report concludes that this technique of aerial spraying is the most cost effective and efficient method (of the varius options mentioned) for increasing planetary albedo in response to a “global warming” scenario. 

Senior researchers, faculty, theoreticians, atmospheric scientists, department heads and CEO’s from a multitude of prestigious institutions took part in this report. 

The Smithsonian, Harvard, General Motors, Cambridge, MIT, Yale, World Resources Institute, National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Oxford, Brookings Institution, Columbia University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carnegie-Mellon University, Princeton University, Brown University, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and there’s more, if you look. 

‘It’s the title, isn’t it? Filming a harmless event with the false implication of harm can cause needless distress and foment discord, even if you believe you’re saving the world…’ 

I’d like you to start a journey of discovery, that is, if you are willing. Since we agree that even if it’s water up there, and nothing harmful at all… you will now begin to see the darker side of the science of geoengineering. 

Google this US patent: US5003186 

Notice the patent holder? Hughes Aircraft (now Raytheon) is one of the US’s largest defense contractors in the area of Aerospace. 

Read what’s in the mix, my friend… 

‘2. The method of claim wherein said material comprises one or more of the oxides of metals.’ 

‘…aluminum oxide’
‘…thorium oxide’
‘…Welsbach materials’
 

You read up on Welsbach materials. That’s your homework assignment.  

ALTN3

A method is disclosed for reducing atmospheric warming due to the greenhouse effect resulting from a greenhouse gases layer. The method comprises the step of seeding the greenhouse gas layer with a quantity of tiny particles of materials characterized by wavelength-dependent emissivity or reflectivity, in that said materials have high emissivities in the visible and far infrared wavelength regions and low emissivity in the near infrared wavelength region. Such materials can include the class of materials known as Welsbach materials. The oxides of metal, e.g., aluminum oxide, are also suitable for the purpose. The greenhouse gases layer typically extends between about seven and thirteen kilometers above the earth’s surface. The seeding of the stratosphere occurs within this layer. The particles suspended in the stratosphere as a result of the seeding provide a mechanism for converting the blackbody radiation emitted by the earth at near infrared wavelengths into radiation in the visible and far infrared wavelength so that this heat energy may be reradiated out into space, thereby reducing the global warming due to the greenhouse effect. 

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5
,003,186.PN.&OS=PN/5,003,186&RS=PN/5,003,nh-P186
 

Very interesting. I have a few questions: 

Do commercial turbofan engine injectors safely pass these refractory solids between 10 and 100 microns? 

How do filamentary materials figure in all this? 

Or biological materials? 

You realise that a single “coating” (1 particle/sq.cm) for the US weighs 170,000 tonnes? and you’d have to renew it? 

Well, 170,000 tonnes is within any major paint manfr’s brief I suppose. But DELIVERY would be HARD. 

And treating the globe would be outside our capabilities.  

ALUMINUM/BARIUM

The Aluminum-Barium argument is rendered obsolete by the YouTube clip below 

 

Why squander fuel, occlude your skies, and poison your population, when this CHEAPER AND MORE PRACTICAL operation can be carried out in the South Atlantic and Pacific? 

The clip is one of FIVE WAYS TO COOL THE EARTH – a googlevid. 

The price of space mirrors and artificial trees is FAR too high, rocketed sulfur FAR too risky, only this idea and ocean phytoplankton feeding make sound practical and economic sense, can be begun TODAY, and carried out in WEEKS. 

Co-opting living creatures is a million times MORE EFFECTIVE than employing technology. 

  

ANDERS

I DON’T believe what any government says, ever. If it said “It’s a fine day”, I’d run out and check BOTH front AND back. And THEN I’d REMAIN NERVOUS 

What SO pisses me off is that FAR TOO FEW PEOPLE think PROPERLY 

Do you realise HOW WEAK a people is when it doesn’t have sufficient scientific understanding? When it CANNOT follow a LOGICAL train of thought? 

When it lacks the basic life-skills to SURVIVE technological collapse? 

CT supporters are HARDENED in their weakness. They FEAR science, which is in truth their ONLY salvation. They don’t know how to farm, make clothes, make things, make provisions – they barely know how to cook. If the NWO WERE to “depopulate” them, they’d murder each other at the doors of empty supermarkets 

There are MANY ironies. Earlier govt attempts to protect people from germ warfare are NOW construed as “practice” attempts at depopulation. 

SMALL experiments of geo-engineering are NOW considered PROOF of of govt attempts to reduce immunity. The list goes on and on…. 

If there is to be a conflagration (and 2012 seems about right to me!) then I REALLY DON’T WANT TO BE INVOLVED. I DO NOT WANT TO BE KILLED IN SOME GADARENE STAMPEDE! 

Maybe human “civilisations” CANNOT LAST. It is ANOTHER IRONY, it seems to me, that once we lived in continual fear of NUCLEAR SPASM (THE BANG!) and now it seems it’s going to be SOCIO-ECONOMIC COLLAPSE (THE WHIMPER!) brought about, in part, by the CHEMTRAIL PARANOIA. The rest, and greater part, of course, seems to be the moral collapse of the US govt. 

EVERY PILLAR of the “chemtrail” hypothesis proves on examination to be UTTERLY FALSE. It is based on BAD SCIENCE and LOOSE ASSOCIATION. It is a complete and utter CHIMAERA – a tragic waste of time – only distinguishable from WARFARE by its LACK OF DEATHS. 

But it has PLENTY OF VICTIMS, and PLENTY MORE TO COME… 

Jesus casting out the Gadarene Swine

Jesus casting out the Gadarene Swine

DISCOVERY?

beachcomber2008


@tgambill
“911-martial-fourth planned coup-1934-1963-1972-Executive O 11647-11731-1973-Failed-passed -Trilateral Com-1974-Obama-three weeks”
Great stuff.  Means bugger-all when “chemtrails” turn out to be plain old contrails and you turn out to be bottom of your class in atmospheric physics.  How long have you spent in this totally useless activity?  Just think how much of your life you would save if you went to school.  Just think of the good things you could have been doing instead.

irojioqopiewjr

Sure it just so happens.  Why should I believe you when all you do is spread hatred.  Only you will be on here 24/7 next week and thereafter unless you change your account name again. The vulgar way you speak to others in these chat rooms I hope I never have to see you in the hospital or call your hotline

fricktionvixen


I spend a total of 2 hours a day ridiculing those who continue sick fear mongering practices. It’s just so happened that I have a week off from work. How about you?  I am employed, I work 2 jobs to support my family.
1. I am an Emergency 911 operator and
2. Bio/chemical technician.

tgambill

Those with the alleged IQ are being very stupid about this time unless they wake up before the next 911, martial law, a fourth planned military coup.  Three planned military coups were attempted in our history as evidenced by congressional investigation in 1934, one in 1960 -1963 and that scum named Nixon planned one from 1969 to 1972, as evidenced by Executive Order 11647 and 11731 in 1972 to 1973.  Failed but passed on to the Trilateral Commission in 1974. Obama completed this plan three weeks ago.
Science is made up by the money and control by the Masons, CFR, and Rockefeller foundation money. Try again with your fantasies. History is proven to be fabricated, science goes out to the Agenda set by the emerging world order. 300 microbiologists were murdered around the year 2000 to 2002….the names are available.  You best wake up before our next civil war and martial law does.
@frick….I spend no hours, I know they are real. Factual Documented Scientific information….lol….:)) Oh, like the age of the universe, or the we now came from fish or better yet, Global warming?  Please, I’ll read Wizard of Oz another Illuminati production for fun. 🙂

irojioqopiewjr

How many hours in a day do you spend ridiculing others and spreading your lies?  24/7.  You’re on all the pages doing the same thing.  Gosh you sure do spend a lot of time 24/7 on pages that you know are just hoopla.  You must be part of the 22% of unemployed Americans.  You’ve got too much time on your hands or your getting paid by Cass Sunstein and his COINTELPRO agency.
Expanding chemtrails can be seen daily now in my town. This is not even physically possible but it happens daily. Look up!

fricktionvixen

lol great comment moneymail002.  ‘your overlords’ – My overlords are your overlords according to your belief system.  If such overlords exist they’re in power and you are just a simple taxpayer just like the rest of us.  lol  So why would you think you’ve gained freedom from them?  How many hours in a day do you spend convincing yourself that chemtrails are real?  I wish you spent and equal number of hours reading factual documented scientific information and used some constructive critical thinking as well.  Perhaps you would discover that the world isn’t such a scary place after all.

moneymail002

Why do people sit there and say their government IS doing this or that?  All of your “proof” is based on unproven assumptions and has no validity whatsoever; it originates in this RELIGION that says the government and scientists are some sort of entirely separate social tier concerned mainly with the destruction of the rest of society.  Yet for some reason you seem shocked when people with an IQ and an understanding of science above those of the average monkey refuse to believe your crap.

fricktionvixen

cointelpro?  Goodness, did it ever cross your mind that perhaps these people who are commenting in regards to the propaganda TrutherD1 is spreading, are simply stating hard scientific facts to disperse the multitude of crap built up around stupid conspiracy theories?

tgambill

The conspiracy is true.  The crap is made up of those lying about a conspiracy theory…there is no theory.  It is fact.  Most all of the events today and in the past are part of this unified conspiracy.  The evidence is irrefutable.  If you want I can send you the references, thumbnail list, of 8 pages and a chronology that is supported by scholarily research that covers over 140 pages+ a summary. bring it on.

beachcomber2008

@tgambill
I know your “list”.  It is pseudoscience.  Your “evidence” isn’t refutable because it isn’t evidence.  8 pages of pseudoscience only has value as COMPOST.  ALL your miserable “work” has been through contrailscience. com and jazzroc. wordpress, com and been torn to shreds.  Such shreds are plant food.  Are you a plant?  Do you photosynthesize?  You certainly don’t THINK.

tgambill

lol….you types are all alike.  You actually think that your useless diatribe is effective.  There isn’t a history or economic professor that could refute the truth.  They can lie, and then go to the CFR bank as they are prostitutes for the eiltes like Ayn Rand was.  You just might have a point.  Its easier for you people to lie and deny since you apparently have no soul.  The truth however won’t be denied in due time.  There is nothing you can do about that.
Oh, your overlords are getting ready to pull something. They just don’t know that they are signing their own death warrant.

beachcomber2008

@tgambill
Yeah.  It’s been tough here in Tenerife.  My God, man, it RAINED here last night!  I had to pick my way round the puddles as I walked down the town with my dear little dog to buy some bread and ham for my breakfast.  Then when I returned to my desk I discovered I was in “communication” (apparently) with a blind and stupid egocentric arsehole blowing out compost, and believing it to be “truth”.  SCIENCE refutes your miserable and pathetic lies with ease.  “History” “Economics”? LOL

fricktionvixen

Well said beachcomber2008.

barubba

YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS: ULTIMATE PROOF OF CHEMTRAIL SPRAYING!  watch?v=MRUqogeAgHo  watch?v=VLA0yejkeYM  watch?v=qSDkdOpjiSc&feature=re lated

TheOcturian1111

NASA = Admit Zero!  We are not idiots, we are a collective, we are oneness, we are 11:11 we are awakened giants.

eruditemaestro1

@beachcomber2008
Thank you so much for the compliments!  I appreciate your acknowledgement of my informative channel.  By all means, you are welcome to view my channel at any time.  Bye bye for now JAZZ(BANNED)ROC.

Derfglouglou

ffs… Nut cases from A to Z…

Razr89A

Why do people sit there and say their government isn’t doing this or that, instead of actively questioning said government?  Why defend something you have no idea about..

beachcomber2008

@Razr89A
Why propose something of which you are completely ignorant?  You do.  The reflection of this ignorance is the ignorance you so foolishly project upon others.  It is confirmed by the lies you have already accepted.  And the consequences of which, which you haven’t,  because you certainly lack the means to foresee them.  The bill for this life course direction will be paid in full by you – one day.

tgambill

@truther..those that are going after you are more than likely cointelpro. Alex Jones gets his stuff from them and in fact works for the elites as does Ron Paul (Mason) and Naomi Wolf.  They are the ones pretending to be on our side but work different roles for the globalist.

TrutherD1

@tgambill, Thanks for the heads-up – I know you’re right. For the last few months the same guys have been responding with aggression and ridicule even of legitimate and recognized science.  It quickly became obvious their whole mission here is to parrot the govt. story and ridicule and distract good people seeking honest answers.

tgambill

Now, link the chemicals with mind control, ELF and GWEN Towers, and HAARP.  This should really get your interest peaked when “DISCLOSURE” and “Day of Declaration” comes in July, with the Benjamin Creme and this weirdo named Maitreya. They work together.  The chemtrails have Barium Oxide, Aluminum Oxide (rainbow colors) and Barium Chloride on occasion.  The purpose is to destroy the immune system and in fact the chemicals have killed off the bee population.  The bees account for 80% of the natural food supply.  This will aid in the food genocide later to support Kissinger’ NSSM 200 Depopulation Plan to reduce the worlds population.  In heavy spraying causes seizures, Pre-mature births, lung problems, etc…it is a conspiracy, fact.

firstwave2

show yourself shill’

TrutherD1

@beachcomber2008, Yeah they send weather balloons once, twice a day, sometimes hourly.  If conditions say no contrails ’til 10km and you see a low-level trail it would make sense to become suspicious.

beachcomber2008

All the fraudulent Rosalind’s questions have normal scientific answers.  Patrick Minnis is the foremost expert on satellite atmospheric studies.  Particulates made of ICE CANNOT BE POLLUTION.  Viruses, fungi and bacteria, are brought down by the water in the atmosphere.  William Thomas doesn’t seem to notice that complaints come from cities, which ARE places you DO get viruses, fungi and bacteria.  A bollocks programme, and a bollocks post…

TrutherD1

@beachcomber2008, Do you work for the government?  What’s the harm in investigating?

beachcomber2008

@TrutherD1
investigating something for which there is already an accurate and cogent explanation is a waste of time which would have been better spent investigating something worthwhile.  You and the fraudulent bitch above are worse than useless – YOU are just about as harmful as you can get without actually “chemtrailing” yourself.  Do I make myself clear, DUMMY?

ar5281ar

heavy chemtrails again today! DAILY when i can see the blue skies!

lipoicacid

Research ”ENMOD” treaty at the U.N. site, State department website and read ”Between Two Ages”.  The water supply is ”poisoned” and so now is the food supply genetically modified.  This was done decades before without approval by ”representatives”.

TrutherD1

Discovery basically avoids the real issue. Just search for “chemtrails” and check any other result than this one. LOL

AgentHuggyBear

Powerful stuff!, great video mate!.  Check out peyote the band on my space.  The track “Don’t Waste Any Time” mentions this stuff.  Nice to hear this message making it into the mainstream!

sedg1

@brad213 – they are creating ‘ climate change’ to unite the world into a one world government, and to acheive the ‘mother earth ‘cults agenda.

lipoicacid

I always leave room for doubt…  but I will you are right on because I have some of the evidence.

brad213

We all breathe the same air.  What would anyone benefit from poisoning the oxygen within our atmosphere.  Wouldnt it be easier to poison our water supplies?

ar5281ar

scaremenga, you really are brillant aren’t u?  have you checked out the unemployment rate lately?  god, there’s SO MUCH work out there isn’t there!  LMAO!  p.s. the perfect slave believes he’s free, u are a perfect slave!  chemtrails daily when i can see the blue skies!

barubba

YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS: ULTIMATE PROOF OF CHEMTRAIL SPRAYING!  watch?v=MRUqogeAgHo  watch?v=VLA0yejkeYM

finodigrassio

chemtrails are there to prohibit ufos from entering our atmosphere. research the magnetic and energetic properties of chemtrails and probable
ufo propulsion systems

socaljay45001

can you tell me more about this?

MrBlueSky36863

Here’s an interview with a guy who used to be on the inside of the chemtrails project, aka clover leaf?  Give it a listen, make up your own mind.  it won’t let me post this thing for some reason, so I’ll try it without the URL, instead just put the following into the youtube search browser.  Ex government employee talks about chemtrails

mrfatandslow

i really dont know what to say. you need to slow down and think about what your saying!

Skywitness

Chemtrail spraying is boldly being done right over unprotected civilian populations, such as what is happening in the following video: v=uRoNDxAWQo4

scaremenga

Again with the go back to sleep?  Isn’t the job of “Truthers” to wake those who are asleep up?  LOL.  Yeah, I should be asking that question.  Why would they want to kill us slowly?  So they can have more work to do?  it would be easier to enslave us all, especially if they are as advanced as you people say they are.  How do you know how much they plan to eliminate? Did they publish a “NWO Manifesto” somewhere?

ar5281ar

WOW is right!  CONtrails daily when i can see the blue skies! scaremenga and mrfatandslow PLEASE go back to sleep or just get a good copy of the 911 commission report, should keep you sheeple busy for YEARS!

MsSmileyA

WOW to all u idiots who really beleive that our government is trying to take care of you=== UR A BUNCH OF IDIOTS!  It’s because of ignorant people like you that these things are going on.  Use COMMON SENSE!  Look in the sky.  When would normal planes blow out THICK FLUFFY clouds of smoke that hang in the air for hours up to a full day?  THEY DONT!  &if you’ve ever seen these planes – they will blow out the chemicals and stop.  If this was normal engine ejections they would continue the whole flight!

mrfatandslow

whats it like to live a life of such deep paranoid thoughts that you believe the goverment wants to kill you?  enjoy your fantasy world!

QuietRiot91

@scaremenga
“Why would the “NWO” want to destroy the population.”  Are you sure you should really be asking that question?  That is in fact one of their “goals” if you will.  They plan to eliminate about 90% of the worlds population.

KrazedKitten

scaremenga a lot of it has to do with weather manipulation and radar obscuration.  Unfortunately, what they’re using to do this is not healthy for us to be breathing.

golfisgreat123

no your a stuped fucking bastard when a jet engine burns its fuel you get vapor that comes out the back which is harmless water freezing

jrnesbit

problem with opinions is some of them have no base or real concrete evidence, and a lot of opinions are formed by subjective, emotional thinking instead of logical thought.  So most of these things you call opinions are instead theories or speculations.  I just saw yesterday for the first time in my life about 30 “trails” in the sky in my area.  I have a couple ideas of what they are, but I have not encountered enough evidence either way to sway me into a conspiracy opinionist.

ar5281ar

scaremenga please go back to sleep, awesome vid KarakulBrigand!  watch STESSO AEREO, SCIE DIVERSE!  4 trails only 2 persist!  awesome catch!  i see someone doesn’t like this one, they spammed u! lol! ANOTHER day with chemtrails here in s.e.wisconsin today, daily when i can see the blue skies!  just gotta observe daily and not believe WORDS that are fed to you! ps. polarized sunglasses are a priceless tool!
 
scaremenga

LOL. I thought the mission of people like you were to wake up these “sheeple” and here you are telling me to go back to sleep, into my world of “fantasies”.  I’d rather die in me sleep, metaphorically speaking, than die wide awake.  That’s just me.  ROFL.  Don’t call me an ignorant loser either.  I used to believe in chemtrails too, but evidence I found on a variety of unbiased websites, like the one with the largest datebase of aircraft photos, has obviously reversed my views.  couldn’t help this, but aren’t you guys feeding me words right now?  In the form of videos and flame comments?  You’re no better than the people you’re “fighting against”!

KarakulBrigand

Watch this vid: STESSO AEREO, SCIE DIVERSE! same plane, different trails!  Four trails two persist two do not.

brownsugar15068

set up because they know once they scare everybodi into getin the swine flu shot there are gonna be plenty of deaths oh and guess what isnt that what they want to depopulate the planet so there will be less people to control in the new world order do research because im not making any of this up to scare anyone its all fact there are tons of videos on youtube that that prove me right thanks for the complement also an f ur taught to keep an open mind then open ur mind to some research

scaremenga

I did do some research.  I was also taught that just because someone has an opposing viewpoint, doesn’t mean they are wrong.  Everyone’s entitled to their opinions, just as you are.  Were you taught that in school?  There’s tons of videos that prove me right too.  Why would the “NWO” want to destroy the population.  Who wants to rule a crippled population?  Even if they dominate the world, then they’ll have billions of sick *frankly* losers under their whips. How fun.

brownsugar15068

yes I have no clue wat a grid system or sumthin is maby I should look it up but if our govornment loves us so much why do they have fema camps set up all over the usa why do they have concrete cofins ur an idiot and yes they do because they dont want us riseing against the new world order there tryna creat okay in high school they teach you to obey obey obey and college is just more enslavement for the people why do people go to college get out an work at walmart if thats the case then you dont need to go to college u brainwashed dummy they also tryna kill us with there swine flu shoots why do we need mercury and swaline in out bodies cuz they tryna kill us and these are some of the ingr
 
scaremenga

I’m not brainwashed to obey; the exact opposite in fact.  All of my teachers, especially my AP Euro teacher, encourages us to maintain an open mind.  He links Europe’s sour past with ignorance and obedience.  And if there’s anybody against total obedience, it would be me.  Did I ever judge you personally?  No.  So there’s no purpose to call me an idiot.  If swine flu shots are so bad, don’t get them.  You’re not forced to.  Instead of accusing, maybe you should research the grid system. contrails

jnoort

I am sorry I pissed you off.  What does the space preservation act actually say about chemtrails?  Contrails can be persistent, if the humidity of the surrounding air is high.  It’s not rocket science.  If the air is dry, the contrails will sublimate quickly, turning the ice crystals into water vapour.  If the air is humid, the surrounding air can’t hold more water than it already does, and the contrail is persistent.

brownsugar15068

Umm I dont have to sit in front of a computer to view chemtrails I can walk out side ansee them all over the sky like some one is spraying chemicals in an orderly fashion so to your answer ur question you are the dumb one

scaremenga

I’m the dumb one for saying that the government doesn’t want dumb people?  Which they don’t?  Why are contrails showing up in an orderly fashions?  Why don’t you Google the flight grid for your local area, you’ll notice that it’s comprised of lines following “orderly fashion[s]”, it keeps air traffic in a structured matter.  Better yet, why don’t you get the tail numbers of these sprayers?  And then track them online?  Maybe you’ll be able to see they aren’t government-sprayers, and just innocent pax.

Conspiracy Theories

with 10 comments

PAGE CONTENTS

CONSPIRACY THEORIES – CONTRAIL FORECAST CHARTS – CONTRAIL FORMATION – CONTRAILS CON-TRICK

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page… 

CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Conspiracy theories find menace in contrails

conspiracy

A new conspiracy theory sweeping the Internet and radio talk shows has set parts of the federal government on edge.

The theory: The white lines of condensed water vapor that jets leave in the sky, called contrails, are actually a toxic substance the government deliberately sprays on an unsuspecting populace.

Federal bureaucracies have gotten thousands of phone calls, e-mails and letters in recent years from people demanding to know what is being sprayed and why. Some of the missives are threatening.

It’s impossible to tell how many supporters these ideas have attracted, but the people who believe them say they’re tired of getting the brush-off from officials. And they’re tired of health problems they blame on “spraying.”

“This is blatant. This is in your face,” says Philip Marie Sr., a retired nuclear quality engineer from Bartlett, N.H., who says the sky above his quiet town is often crisscrossed with “spray” trails.

“No one will address it,” he says. “Everyone stonewalls this thing.”

The situation Marie and others describe is straight out of The X-Files. He and others report one day looking up at the sky and realizing that they were seeing abnormal contrails: contrails that lingered and spread into wispy clouds, multiple contrails arranged in tick-tack-toe-like grids or parallel lines, contrails being laid down by white planes without registration numbers.

ct

Believers call these tracks “chemtrails.” They say they don’t know why the chemicals are being dropped, but that doesn’t stop them from speculating. Many guess that the federal government is trying to slow global warming with compounds that reflect sunlight into the sky. Some propose more ominous theories, such as a government campaign to weed out the old and sick.

Exasperated by persistent questions, the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration joined forces last fall to publish a fact sheet explaining the science of contrail formation. A few months earlier, the Air Force had put out its own fact sheet, which tries to refute its opponents’ arguments point by point.

“If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it’s, ‘Well, you’re just part of the conspiracy,’ ” says atmospheric scientist Patrick Minnis of NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. “Logic is not exactly a real selling point for most of them.”

conspiracy_thinking

Nothing is “out there” except water vapor and ice crystals, say irritated scientists who study contrails. Some, such as Minnis, are outraged enough by the claims of chemtrail believers that they have trolled Internet chat rooms to correct misinformation or have gotten into arguments with callers.

“Conspiracy nonsense,” snorts Kenneth Sassen, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Utah. “These things are at 30,000 to 40,000 feet in the atmosphere. They’re tiny particles of ice. They’re not going to affect anyone.”

The cloud-forming contrails that conspiracy theorists find so ominous are “perfectly natural,” Minnis says. The odd grid and parallel-line patterns are easily explained as contrails blown together by the wind, scientists say.

conspiracy_tot2

 CONTRAIL FORECAST CHARTS

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resources/activities/appleman_student.html

 CONTRAIL FORMATION

Normal contrails DO form in fairly high humidity. When formed in 100% humidity they will NEVER disappear. If the humidity of that particular stratospheric layer is REDUCED, then in exact proportion the life of that trail will be reduced. This CAN happen; the layer can be lifted from beneath by a rising CUMULUS cloud in the troposphere. But the typical way they disappear is that LOCAL to the trail, the humidity has already been increased by the processes forming the trail: over time the increased humidity “leaks” away from the locality by gaseous diffusion, allowing the trail (of ice crystals) to sublime back into water vapor. Otherwise generally over time, layers FALL, COOL, humidity rises, trails get bigger. 

CONTRAILS CON TRICK

There is a new and ominous controversy concerning aircraft contrails and their supposed ill-effects. People with little or no scientific understanding are whipping up a furore over – nothing. This tends to leave all the real ills of the world unattended, and let’s face it, those we know of already are too great and too many to be sufferable. But how much worse it is when the (already!) deluded dream up new imaginary ills! With too much on our plates already, we are forced to concern ourselves with additional spurious delusions which, if they were to be taken seriously, would diminish our capacity to adapt to change, and ultimately to survive the upcoming onslaught.

delusion

A typical passenger transport plane (medium haul) burns 30 tons of fuel and thus unloads 30 tons of ice and 20 tons of gaseous oxides (mostly carbon dioxide) into the stratosphere every trip it makes.

troposphere

The troposphere contains about 80% of the atmosphere and is the part of the atmosphere in which we live, and make weather observations. In this layer, average temperatures decrease with height. This is known as adiabatic cooling, i.e. a change in temperature caused by a decrease in pressure. Even so, it is still more prone to vertical mixing by convective and turbulent transfer, than other parts of the atmosphere. These vertical motions and the abundance of water vapour make it the home of all important weather phenomena. It is turbulent and unstable because it is at its warmest at its base. The troposphere’s thermal profile is largely the result of the heating of the Earth’s surface by incoming solar radiation. Heat is then transferred up through the troposphere by a combination of convective and turbulent transfer.

218983909_8f8cb9111b

This is in direct contrast with the stratosphere, where warming is the result of the direct absorption of solar radiation. It is at its coldest at its base, and is stable and non-turbulent. If you have ever observed (or been in) a house fire, and looked up at the ceiling of a room with a fire in it, there you can see that the behaviour of the air is similar: the hottest part of the fire is against the ceiling, and the layers of air beneath (at decreasing temperatures) are stratified and somewhat mysteriously stable.

The troposphere is around 16 km high at the equator, with the temperature at the tropopause around –80 °C. At the poles, the troposphere reaches a height of around 8 km, with the temperature of the tropopause around –40 °C in summer and –60 °C in winter.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/secondary/teachers/atmosphere.html

Annual passenger jet aircraft fuel consumption is estimated to be 300 million tons. That may seem a lot, but it’s a CUBE with sides a hundred yards long. in actual fact.

http://www.after-oil.co.uk/runways.htm

The weight of the atmosphere is 5.25 petatonnes.

http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/astron-2.htm#MA

One can see (using a quick calculation) that, as a proportion of the weight of the atmosphere, the burnt fuel comprises FIVE MILLIONTHS OF A PER CENT. It would take 200,000 years to half-fill the atmosphere with aircraft exhaust emissions at their present rate!

Now, the water, the gaseous oxides and sulphates may have a hardly appreciable effect on Global Warming (they are only 3.5% of anthropogenic combustion), but are as NOTHING when compared with the Earth’s volcanoes.

There are 1,500 active volcanoes on land and maybe TEN THOUSAND active volcanoes under the sea. Beneath are a few links:

http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4886
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/interior/volcanism.html
http://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/volcano-profile.html?source=G2308

The term “active” means “constantly emitting steam, gases, magma, and ash”. It is hard to quantify the total emitted by the land volcanoes, but let us assume they average a million tons of each per year. That will give us fifteen hundred million tons of steam, fifteen hundred million tons of gases, fifteen hundred million tons of magma, fifteen hundred million tons of ash.

“Hey”, you might say, “aren’t you making free with all those hundred millions of tons?” – and I would answer you thus: “A million tons of rock makes a cone 243 feet high. So I’m suggesting that the annual volcanic production of rock is equivalent to fifteen hundred of these rock cones. See what I mean?”

To put that estimate into perspective, the largest known eruption, Tambora, put 200 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere in a single event!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A781715

Getting back to the point, it can be reasonably argued that contrails are at least FIFTEEN TIMES LESS IMPORTANT THAN VOLCANOES when it comes to having an effect on our atmosphere, whether warming it or cooling it…

So forget ALL of this bullfish about contrails/chemtrails. Yadda barium, yadda aluminum, yadda cooling, yadda dimming, yadda morgellons, yadda toxins……..You can bet your boots that anyone who advocates this idea is an ignorant dupe, with NO IDEA of the magnitude of the Earth and the events that truly moderate its climate.

volcanoupi_468x3111

Global Dimming

leave a comment »

PAGE CONTENTS

GLOBAL DIMMING – “GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH” FALSE! – DISPROVING AGW – GONE NUTS (PLANET) – GRIDS – GUARDIAN (UK GOVT ADMITS “SPRAYING”) – (and Sequel) – GW Room 101 – GW Room 102 – GW Room 103 – Big Gun Fires – AGW DENIALIST FRAUD!

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page… 

GLOBAL DIMMING

dimming

The 300 million tons of aviation kerosene burnt annually make up just 3% of the world total anthropogenic combustion, and hence makes up only a thirtieth part of global warming and dimming.

In general, it is CARBON DIOXIDE that contributes to global warming and PARTICULATES and WATER that contribute to global dimming.

So there is a risk that as we clean up our combustion activities we will INTENSIFY global warming.

But aviation plays only a THREE PER CENT part in all of this.

smog

And maybe this is a solution to global warming:

 

  

“GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH” – FALSE!

No doubt you’ve seen “An Inconvenient Truth” and some of the MYTH counterclaim videos that have been out and about.

Well, perhaps it’s time you studied what the UK Meteorological Office has to say about it. You can spend your time at leisure over the graphs and charts and not be rushed onwards by a commentator inside a video. It’s a good idea to EXPAND EVERY IMAGE.

Or you could consider what wonderingmind42 has to say, here:

It is well worth reading the notes that accompany this, and following up many of his other videos.

Perhaps then you’ll agree that Global Warming is NOT myth. Or read on…

If you don’t, then maybe you have a religion with pseudo-scientific postulates – or dyslexia – or maybe you need to read on…

pair_example_highres

On the left is a photograph of Muir Glacier taken on August 13, 1941, by glaciologist William O. Field; on the right, a photograph taken from the same vantage on August 31, 2004, by geologist Bruce F. Molnia of the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

 gwshrinking-glaciers

 Now you could say these glaciers are selected because they are receding. So here is a table of glacier lengths for sixteen more glaciers, showing in every case a dramatic shrinkage since the industrial revolution. “Sometimes they have increased” I hear you say. But what is the trend?

As they shrink, they are cooling the Earth, but once they have disappeared, they won’t be doing that, will they?

Not only that, but they had a high albedo, reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space. The low-albedo rock they reveal, on the other hand, will not reflect this radiation, which will add to Earth’s solar heating. It may be one of our many “tipping points”, NONE of which we should desire to test, for we are in this test tube.

glacier-lengths

 

Human-Induced Climate Change – a Load of Hot Air

Ian Plimer is currently Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide. He was previously a Professor in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne. He is also a prominent member of the Australian Skeptics. He was awarded the Clarke Medal by the Royal Society of New South Wales in 2004. 

 

Yes. Yes, I go with this antipodean gentleman. And with the gent who finishes this chapter. GW is bullshat upon….

Charlton Heston died not long ago. Here is what he has to say about Man and the Earth.

And here is another viewpoint, “Life After People”:

http://moviealien.com/play.php?v=4939078184096254535&s=goo

DISPROVING AGW

The following is an article I’ve discovered which addresses ALL the main the main points of the AGW argument and demolishes them one-by-one. From:

 “Watts Up With That?”: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/24/disproving-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-problem/#more-7993

Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem – Leonard Weinstein, ScD – April 25, 2009

(Leonard Weinstein received a B.Sc. in Physics in 1962 from Florida State University. He started work at NASA Langley Research Center in June 1962. While at Langley, Leonard obtained his Master and Doctor of Science degrees in Engineering from the George Washington University. He continued to work at NASA Langley until June 2007, ending as a Senior Research Scientist. Dr. Weinstein has had a career that is recognized for innovation. He has over 90 publications, including 11 patents. He has received numerous awards, commendations, and recognitions for innovative experimental research, including an Exceptional Engineering Achievement Medal, an IR-100 award, the 1999 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Engineer of the year, the James Crowder Award, and over 40 other awards and recognitions for innovative experimental research. Dr. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.)

A theory has been proposed that human activity over about the last 150 years has caused a significant rise in Earth’s average temperature. The mechanism claimed is based on an increased greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic increases in CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, cement manufacture, and also from increases in CH4 from farm animals and other causes. The present versions of the theory also include a positive feedback effect due to the increased temperature causing an increase in water vapor, which amplifies the effect. The combined result are used to claim that unless the anthropogenic increases of CO2 are slowed down or even made to decrease, there will be a continuing rapid increase in global temperature, massive melting of ice caps, flooding, pestilence, etc.

In order to support a theory, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the theory, and the predictions then need to happen. While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a theory, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the theory is flawed or even wrong. Some predictions are absolute in nature. Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light by the Sun is such a case. It either would or would not bend, and this was considered a critical test of the validity of his theory of general relativity. It did bend the predicted amount, and supported his theory.

Many predictions however are less easily supported. For example weather forecasting often does a good job in the very short term but over increasing time does a poor job. This is due to the complexity of the numerous nonlinear components. This complexity has been described in chaos theory by what is called the butterfly effect. Any effect that depends on numerous factors, some of which are nonlinear in effect, is nearly impossible to use to make long-range predictions. However, for some reason, the present predictions of “Climate Change” are considered by the AGW supporters to be more reliable than even short-term weather forecasting. While some overall trends can be reasonably made based on looking at past historical trends, and some computational models can suggest some suggested trends due to specific forcing factors, nevertheless, the long-term predicted result has not been shown to be valid. Like any respectable theory, specific predictions need to be made, and then shown to happen, before the AGW models can have any claim to reasonable validity.

The AGW computational models do make several specific predictions. Since the time scale for checking the result of the predictions is small, and since local weather can vary enough on the short time scale to confuse the longer time scale prediction, allowances for these shorter lasting events have to be made when examining predictions. Nevertheless, if the actual data results do not significantly support the theory, it must be reconsidered or even rejected as it stands.

The main predictions from the AGW models are:

1. The average Earth’s temperature will increase at a rate of 0.20C to 0.60C per decade at least to 2100, and will continue to climb after that if the CO2 continues to be produced by human activity at current predicted rates.

2. The increasing temperature will cause increased water evaporation, which is the cause for the positive feedback needed to reach the high temperatures.

3. The temperature at lower latitudes (especially tropical regions) will increase more in the lower Troposphere at moderate altitudes than near the surface.

4. The greatest near surface temperature increases will occur at the higher latitudes.

5. The increasing temperature at higher latitudes will cause significant Antarctic and Greenland ice melt. These combined with ocean expansion due to warming will cause significant ocean rise and flooding.

6. A temperature drop in the lower Stratosphere will accompany the temperature increase near the surface. The shape of the trend down in the stratosphere should be close to a mirror reflection of the near surface trend up.

The present CO2 level is high and increasing (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/). It should be fairly easy to show the consequences of AGW predictions if they are valid.

  dnc49xz_16c9wzvh73_b

Figure 1. Global average temperature from 1850 through 2008. Annual series smoothed with a 21-point binomial filter by the Met Office.

(http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/)

It should be noted that the largest part of the last 150 year increase in CO2, which is blamed on human activity, did not occur until after 1940, so the largest temperature rise effects should have occurred in that time. The proponents of AGW have generally used the time period from 1970 to 2000 as the base line for an indicator of the rapid warming. In that base line period, the average temperature rose about 0.50C, which averages to 0.160C per decade. The claim was then made that this would accelerate due to continuing increases in CO2 level. However if we look at the temperature change from 1940 through 2008, the net increase is only 0.30C. This is due to a drop from 1940 to 1970 and a slight drop from 2000 through 2008. Now the average rise for that period is only 0.040C per decade. If the time period from 1850 through 2008 is used as a base, the net increase is just under 0.70C and the average rise is also 0.040C per decade! It is clear that choosing a short selected period of rising temperature gives a misleading result. It is also true that the present trend is down and expected to continue downward for several more years before reversing again. This certainly makes claim 1 questionable.

The drop in temperature from 1940 to 1970 was claimed to have been caused by “global dimming” caused by aerosols made by human activity. This was stated as dominating the AGW effects at that time. This was supposed to have been overcome by activity initiated by the clean air act. In fact, the “global dimming” continued into the mid 1990’s and then only reduced slightly before increasing more (probably due to China and other countries increased activity). If the global dimming was not significantly reduced, why did the temperature increase from 1970 to just past 2000?
A consequence of global dimming is reduced pan-evaporation level. This also implies that ocean evaporation is decreased, since the main cause ofocean evaporation is solar insolation, not air temperature. The decreased evaporation contradicts claim 2.

Claim 3 has been contradicted by a combination of satellite and air born sensor measurements. While the average lower Troposphere average temperature has risen along with near ground air temperature, and in some cases is slightly warmer, nevertheless the models predicted that the lower troposphere would be significantly warmer than near ground at the lower latitudes, especially in the tropics. This has not occurred!

The following is a statement from: Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1
Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research – April 2006 – “While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved”.

Claim 4 implies that the higher latitudes should heat up more than lower latitudes. This is supposed to be especially important for melting of glaciers and permafrost. In fact, the higher latitudes have warmed, but at a rate close to the rest of the world. In fact, Antarctica has overall cooled in the last 50 years except for the small tail that sticks out. See:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061013/20061013_02.html
Greenland and the arctic region are presently no warmer than they were in the late 1930’s, and are presently cooling! See:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/17/cooling-the-debate-a-longer-record-of-greenland-air-temperature/
The overall effect of Antarctic and Greenland are now resulting in net gain (or at least near zero change) of ice, not loss. While some small areas have recently lost and are some are still losing some ice, this is mostly sea ice and thus do not contribute to sea level rise. Glaciers in other locations such as Alaska have lost a significant amount of ice in the last 150 years, but much of the loss is from glaciers that formed or increased during the Little Ice Age, or from local variations, not global. Most of this little ice age ice is gone and some glaciers are actually starting to increase as the temperature is presently dropping. For more discussions on the sea level issue look at the following two sites:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dnc49xz_19cm8×67fj&hl=en
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

This indicates that claim 5 is clearly wrong. While sea level will rise a small amount, and has so since the start of the Holocene period, the rise is now only 10 to 15 cm per century, and is not significantly related to the recent recovery from the little ice age, including the present period of warming.
The claims in 6 are particularly interesting. Figure 2 below shows the Global Brightness Temperature Anomaly (0C) in the lower Troposphere and lower stratosphere made from space.
a) Channel TLT is the lower Troposphere from ground to about 5 km
b) Channel TLS is the lower Stratosphere from about 12 to 25 km

dnc49xz_17c4cjn5g2_b

Figure 2. Global satellite data from RSS/MSU and AMSU data. Monthly time series of brightness temperature anomaly for channels TLT, and TLS. Data from: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

The anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow troposphere warming for Channel TLT (Lower Troposphere). The three primary El Niños during the past 20 years are clearly evident as peaks in the time series occurring during 1982-83, 1987-88, and 1997-98, with the 1997-98 being the largest. It also appears there is an aditional one at 2007. Channel TLS (Lower Stratosphere) is dominated by stratospheric cooling, punctuated by dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991). In these, and other volcanic eruption cases, the increased absorption and reflectivity of the dust and aerosols at high altitudes lowered the surface Solar insolation, but since they absorbed more energy, they increased the high altitude temperature. After the large spikes dropped back down, the new levels were lower and nearly flat between large volcanic eruptions. It is also likely that the reflection or absorption due to particulates also dropped, so the surface solar insolation went back up. It appears that a secondary effect of the volcanic eruptions is present that is unknown in nature (but not CO2)!

One possible explanation is a modest but long-term drop in Ozone. It is also clear that the linear fit to the data shown is meaningless. In fact the level drop events seem additive if they overlap soon enough for at least the two cases shown. That is, after El Chicon dropped the level, then Pinatubo occurred and dropped the level even more. Two months after Pinatubo, another strong volcano, Cerro Hudson, also erupted, possibly amplifying the effect. It appears that the recovery time from whatever causes the very slow changing level shift has a recovery time constant of at least several decades.
The computational models that show that the increasing CO2 and CH4 cause most of the present global warming all require that the temperature of the stratosphere drops while the lower atmosphere and ground heat up. It appears from the above figures that the volcanic activity clearly caused the temperature to spike up in the Stratosphere, and that these spikes were immediately followed by a drop to a new nearly constant level in the temperature.

dnc49xz_18cxsnnhg3_b

It is clear from the Mauna Loa CO2 data http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) that the input of CO2 (or CH4) from the volcanoes did not significantly increase the background level of this gas, and thus this cannot be the cause of the drop in the stratospheric temperature.

The ramp up of atmospheric CO2 also cannot explain the step down then level changes in high altitude temperature. Since the surface temperature rise is supposed to be related to the Stratosphere temperature drop, and since a significant surface rise above the 1940 temperature level did not occur until the early 1980’s, it may be that the combination of the two (or more) volcanoes, along with Solar variability and variations in ocean currents (i.e., PDO) may explain the major causes of recent surface temperature rises to about 2002.

In fact, the average Earth temperature stopped rising after 2002, and has been dropping for the last few years!

The final question that arises is what prediction has the AGW made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the theory. It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed. That is not to say there is no effect from human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a problem.

There is also almost surely some contribution to the present temperature from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it seems to be small and not a driver of future climate.
Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!

GONE NUTS (PLANET)

“for the real answers” – I’m talking about your poor science and you’re off about the NWO!

“THEIR plan/agenda is simply for nuts” – I’m with you.

“JAZZROC IS A PLANT BY THE US”http://www.myspace.com/jazzroc

“GREAT SPIRIT—-CHARGE” – you left the planet here…

“you BELIEVE the OFFICIAL 911 COMMISSION report” – er, NO.

“unsuspecting masses” – I used to think that a bad thing, until I met the SUSPECTING MASSES.

“we been conditioned” – NO, UNEDUCATED and left in charge of a directionless mind…

“unravel this mess” – you couldn’t unravel a woolly jumper.

“Rise of the 4th Reich” – this would be a putsch by bankers (optional w).

“head these assholes off at the pass” – I had a sudden vision – never mind…

“Increased solar output” – NOT TRUE.

“The NWO” – probably YOUR b——-e.

“and don’t hand me that bullshite” – it’s all coming the other way.

“of course this is a perspective issue” – ain’t that the truth.

“they are formed right behind these craft” – I’ve never seen any AHEAD. (except for “black laser light” ones. 😀

“SNEAKY activity going on above” – make your mind, above, below, to one side, where? 

GRIDS

grids

The STRATOSPHERE is a still and stable part of our atmosphere compared with the TROPOSPHERE, which is the part in which we live, and experience CUMULUS clouds, and rain and thunderstorms.

However there is such a thing as THE PREVAILING WIND which we experience at ground level. It is actually THE PREVAILING MOVEMENT OF THE COMPLETE ATMOSPHERE.

There are in the stratosphere layers of air with varying humidities which slither over each other with small relative motions and in so doing sometimes cause HIGH CIRRUS clouds, enabling you to see the relative motion. Otherwise YOU CANNOT SEE ANY MOTION OF THAT AIR BECAUSE ALL THESE LAYERS ARE TRANSPARENT. The motion relative to each other is technically LAMINAR motion – it is smooth and pretty frictionless, without turbulence, and quite unlike the troposphere beneath.

Anyway, imagine a SEQUENCE of aircraft flying (and throwing contrails) from A to B along the same overland line, which is NOT NECESSARILY in line with the prevailing atmospheric motion. Although they are flying THE SAME OVERLAND COURSE, what you’ll see is a SERIES OF LINES PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER as the atmosphere passes by.

Now imagine another contemporaneous SEQUENCE of aircraft flying (and throwing contrails) from C to D along another overland line at roughly RIGHT ANGLES to the first (they’d be assigned a different altitude) and you’ll get a RECTANGULAR GRID OF CONTRAILS IN THE SKY, as the prevailing movement of the atmosphere continues to bear them away. It’s easier to sketch this idea with a pencil than it is to describe it in words. You could imagine printing a letter X in the same spot, but the paper is being smoothly moved in one particular direction. You’ll always produce a grid.

There’s NO SPRAYING going on – just your regular passenger shuttle traffic, but on a day with a PARTICULARLY HUMID ATMOSPHERE.

Even on a clear blue sky day the air contains water. I looked out recently and it was such a sky, checked the Relative Humidity (65%) and in a minute or two had calculated that this CLEAR BLUE SKY contained within a radius of SIX miles and a height of FIVE miles THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TONS OF WATER. APPROXIMATELY!

clear-blue-sky

 GUARDIAN

(UK GOVT ADMITS “SPRAYING”)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4398507,00.html

This was research into the best means of defense against germ and toxic gas attack conducted in various parts of the south-west of England, in the light of a direct threat by the Soviet Union, immediately following the Second World War. The trials were conducted sporadically and secretly for twenty years (as far as released information tells us), involving up to ten small-scale experiments each year, under the auspices of Porton Down.

Atomized materials were dispersed from barges ten miles off-shore, vans travelling along country lanes, and a specially-converted Canberra twin-jet bomber flying at 2000ft.

The materials were water, killed and identifiable bacteria, and zinc cadmium sulfide powder.

Research has been carried out to determine whether there were  any identifiable cases of infection or poisoning occurring as a consequence of these trials, which may yet still be continuing. It found none.

It seems to me that there was (and is) a legitimate responsibility of any government to determine the best possible defense against attacks such as these, the risk of which has abated only little, since the breakup of the USSR.

Furthermore, the targeting of the Tube System in bomb attacks, and the Tokyo Subway System in a nerve gas attack, might well have increased such secret defensive activities of the British Government. A bloody good thing too…

Of course, a BETTER still defense approach might be to have BETTER relationships with the world’s peoples than that enjoyed at present.

We have failed to ensure this – it’s OUR responsibility.

porton-down

SEQUEL

A conversation with ICEWHALE re the Guardian story Oct 1 2008

promote the falsehood that the bacteria were somehow ‘marked’.

Falsehood?

when faced with the possibility that you might be wrong

No chance.

you claim that such matters are irrelevant

I claimed your whole post was irrelevant, as this is.

you are in danger

Of dying of tedium only.

you are plain wrong

We’ll see… (yawns)

method of identification / radioactively-labelled antibody

Ah, the MARKER! A little titter runs across the room…

I must admit I have difficulty understanding this statement (inconsequential post hoc sophist) /  1949 – 1975

That’s because you ARE one. Inconsequential and mostly post hoc. 1975 being 33 years ago.

one scientist

That makes me wrong, then.

And your evidence for this claim is

The disappearance of the USSR, the Cold War, the Berlin Wall, er, HISTORICAL.

during a ‘crash programme’ corners are cut  / ‘old boys network’ / ethical concerns

Preparations for defence, war, deterrence? Best take a long time, eh? And lose like gentlemen coughing softly into our cravats…

It also occurred more recently / retrospectively

Tut, tut, such a rush…

the UK Government would

It would indeed. It has responsibilities.

puerile claims of ‘sophistry’ / harm to your case

You’re a lawyer? That could explain your sophistry. Not guilty m’lud.

exposed to appreciable doses

I’m sure the MARKER appreciated them.

their properties had been changed

Not sufficiently for the MARKER not to work, therefore not sufficiently for the body’s defences not to work, either.

capable of growth and causing disease

A property of many bacteria on your nose right now. Even as it lengthens…  (But not a property of the KILLED bacteria in question!)

pneumonias and sepsis in vulnerable people / capable of causing disease in immunocompromised people / human pathogen

Life’s a risky business, especially when it includes threatening enemies who make statements like “we will bury you”. That risk necessarily extends to the population when it enters the hideous equations of war. A finger hovered over the button on more than one occasion in the sixties.

But IN THIS CASE the KILLED BACTERIA would be NUTRITIOUS. Eat a piece of cheese, why don’t you?

massive bacterial aerosols in populated areas / significantly contaminated by an uncharacterised bacteria / refuse to rule out conducting future large-scale experiments / unable to confirm whether the public will receive prior warning

Yes. Tough aren’t they? WAR isn’t a tea-party, icewhale. If and when such a thing might begin, it might be considered practical to eliminate timewasting wiseacres like yourself, with a view to shortening the war.

But IN THIS CASE the KILLED BACTERIA would be NUTRITIOUS. Eat a piece of cheese, why don’t you?

The holding of such attitudes, icewhale, is a practical form of defence. It suggests to a putative enemy that it wouldn’t be nice to tangle with such a bunch of bastards. Nice guys get into wars which they then don’t win. I’m a pacifist myself, and I reckon Sun Tzu had it off pat when he suggested the same.

who can say that they weren’t involved in secretly spraying populated areas of the UK?

Who, indeed?

I hope you don’t waste any more of my time with paralogisms, casuistry, quibble, speciousness, and the meshes and cobwebs of sophistry…

ct13

 Global Warming Room 101

These are taken from the comments in the Daily Telegraph March 15th 2009, and reflects contention without facts, until the last…

Comments

How many other mainstream newspapers would print this. Good on you. All you have to do is listen to the remarks of the GW believers to expose it for what is really is – a Religion. Dissenters are silenced for example and any critisism is savaged as heresy. That’s not science, it’s religion.

The dream of an old man, who will die before he awakes.

 global_warming_bull

In reality the scaremongers are wrong and we didn’t suffer a Katrina hurricane more often or every year as the scaremongers predicted. Algore predicted eleven years ago that “in ten years the levels of the ocean will rise enough to cover up small islands” but in reality no islands have been swallowed up and in fact because of volcanic activity there are more islands now than then.
I am all for doing what we can to stop pollution, real pollution. I believe in conservation and recycling. I don’t believe that global warming is a problem and I don’t believe that making CO2 a pollutant and trading it on the world market as a commodity will result in anything more than making a few rich people richer, like the oil speculators did last year. The oil speculators had to face reality when the price dropped off dramatically and many of them lost money which will stop them from doing it again, but there’s no reality check for this commodity called CO2 pollution.

“the most costly and economically-damaging package of measures ever imposed on mankind” – Whoa, just who is scaremongering here?

The really annoying thing about the whole debate is the Ecomentalists will always be right. Even if the Chris Bookers of the world are correct, and the world shows a net cooling trend, the Al Gore acolytes will claim that this is a result of their intervention.

The past two winters in Chicago have been among the coldest in the last 100 years. Where is Al Gore’s hot air when we need it?

global-warming

We just enjoyed 8 feet of snow this winter. Last year we had the second highest snowfall since records have been kept. In the last two years it has snowed in Baghdad, Alabama, Georgia and other unlikely venues. All the while, the nattering nabobs continue to prattle on about “global warming” as if they don’t have access to the real world where the rest of us live. We can all agree that Al Gore is a true believer, as are most of Hollywood. Why then, have they not altered their behavior at all? Mr. Gore uses an astonishing amount of power. Hollywood has just finished its fourth or fifth major awards ceremony beamed to every household on the planet. Movies, sports, entertainment and the various other frivolities that make life enjoyable continue unabated, but we’re to believe there’s a crisis so immediate that if we don’t start sucking the CO2 from the atmosphere this instant we’re all going to stew in our own juices?

Simple reason. The Green Agenda is overwhelmingly dominated by Lefties. Since when has the Loony left ever embraced true scientific evidence, as opposed to populism and mass hysteria?

Why is the UK subject to social fads to the point of economic chaos. Is there a reason why global scaremongering has to be the politics of the 21st century?

I’m impressed with Steve’s withering sarcasm. After all, science gave us the atom bomb so if it’s ‘scientific’ it must be good, right? In my opinion there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the global warming theory. And are you people seriously proposing that we should all stop heating our homes in winter? Why not get worked up about real things like deforestation and dwindling fish stocks instead? If you really want to do something about the environment then campaign to change the insane ec regulations that currently cause thousands of tons of fish to be dumped at sea.

The irony of a climate change sceptic complaining about not being listened to, or an absence of serious debate is almost too funny for words. Perhaps Mr Booker might reflect on the thought that had there been less resistance and more serious debate 20 years ago we might not have reached the state of hysteria and scare-mongering we seem to be in now. People scream loudest just before the plane crashes!

Fascinating article, and worth reading in close detail.

Firstly the Heartland Institute is a lobbying group that fights any kind of regulation of big business, and plays pretty fast and loose with the truth. They are still claiming that evidence of harm from smoking is a conspiracy of doctors, campaigning that is well funded by tobacco companies, and that evidence for global warming doesn’t exist, again well funded by oil companies – all the time while claiming the scientific consensus is a conspiracy.
I’d like to know if they started the proceedings with an apology for last years “550 scientists who deny global warming”, which so completely misrepresented the real views of most of the scientists listed. A little masterpiece of dishonesty and misrepresentation – still being quoted by Charlie Booker.

Christopher, the reason that nobody in the media covered the Heartland Institutes conference, is that the “la la la, it’s not really happening” argument has been thoroughly discredited, and the institute is a rightwing thinktank wholly tainted by its vested interest in returning to the status quo and funding from interest groups like Exxon Mobile. Whereas Copenhagen was newsworthy as you have legitimate, qualified, impartial scientists at the top of their profession giving the latest updates and ideas. Hope this provides some (rather obvious) clarification.

Mr. Booker does a good job describing and distinguishing between the two conferences. Too bad that the discussion about the Heartland Institute meeting is on page 2 … at least a number of commenters read that far! I spent yesterday viewing the videos and reviewing the presentation material. Good food for thought. The reason the politicians have cranked up ‘Global warming’ is to stop the wealth transfer to Middle Eastern states. Pure & simple. The rise in Islamic banking and political influence has the west spooked, so we are now moving towards alternative energy. Expect BP and Shell to diversify in the coming years, probably buying banks or Energy utilities.

Christopher Booker: living in fantasy land. Luckily the shrill ravings of him and his ilk are being given less and less notice, as the rational majority favour evidence over conspiracy theories. He’s left telling us to ignore well-respected science academies from around the world while championing his pet free-market thinktank, the Heartland Institute.

combating-global-warming-map

Christopher, got one, even one, respected scientific institution that agrees with you? Of course not. Back to your shrill bleating and paranoia.

Whether Global warming is or isn’t true is pretty irrelevant. Surely the fundamental problem is the West’s reliance on oil. Scare mongering tactics are being used to reduce consumption/ encourage research into alternatives. Plus ca change.

Humans took all of history to reach a population level of around 2.5 billion just after WW2. Then in a mere 60 years or so since then that figure has almost tripled. There is the underlying reason for ALL our ecological and climatic problems. Anything we do will be a waste of effort against that stark fact.

It is so refreshing to be given a more balanced view on climate change after so much media and political hysteria.

Grateful American: “Americans are clearly no longer the worst-educated Westerners” – Overpaid, Oversexed, Over here! and now Over-educated, if you please!

Wow, a whole half-million dollars? That kinda pales into insignificance against the cost of the Copenhagen conference, doesn’t it? and didn’t Al Gore spend $4 million dollars on his waterside home in San Francisco [note the waterside bit]? That from his earnings from the “ludicrous and entirely inaccurate” [according to the High Court, not me] film and his carbon trading company, and just how much is made from carbon trading, and how much is “invested” in the various academics making a nice living thanks to this arrant nonsense. Do any of the supporters know how much [or rather how little] CO2 there actually is in the atmosphere ? No I thought not – they never do. Though I suspect Professor Lindzen does. Its about 0.035%.

This the same Heartland Institute who have received over half a million dollars funding from ExxonMobil? Not that I’d suggest that that has anything to do with their stance. Just like the money they receive from the tobacco industry has nothing to do with their stance against legislation on smoking.

In his book “Red Hot Lies” the author Christopher Horner describes how global warming alarmists use threats, fraud and deception to keep you misinformed. In this book the following is a quote made by Mr George Monbiot, that Environmental Guru: “Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned” (page 69). Mr Monbiot calls this irony.
The alarmists wish to stifle dissent. The question should be asked just what is it that they have got to hide. Keep on writing, Mr Booker.

climate-change23

I used to respect your views but since your highly questionable doubts regarding Darwin and evolution were publicised, I suspect that you are a wishful thinker rather than using verifiable facts based on strong evidence to support your case. You scoff, but remember the Millennium Bug! Planetary catastrophe was narrowly averted only by the co-ordinated efforts of thousands of IT experts, painstakingly and meticulously lining their pockets at taxpayers’ expense. The biggest problem the world faces today is over-population – that creates all the other problems of dwindling resources, etc.

I note that the Prince of Wales has again added to the scaremongering, this time giving us a time-frame of fewer than 100 months. Has anyone noticed that the Earth is actually cooling and has been doing so for the last 11 years or more? The models and calculations have repeatedly been proved to be incorrect and those that are on the GW bandwagon spout their nonsense littered with “could”, “might”, “estimated” with nothing remotely accurate. It’s time these people took real jobs and left science fiction to those who entertain by doing so.

Thank you so much for publishing this article. Man-made CO2 as an engine for global warming is a great steaming pile of buffalo droppings, a hoax, bad science, Flat-Earth nonsense. I contributed to a thread on the Guardian website about global warming and was the object of furious invective from an outraged “global warmer”. I had suggested that the engine for warming and cooling of the planet was the state of activity of the sun. I further pointed out that the Sun is now in a quiescent phase, and the process of global cooling had now begun (the last winter was the coolest in a decade). I predicted that next winter would be even colder, and the winter beyond, colder yet. I also mentioned the interesting detail that the polar ice-caps on our sister planet, Mars, had been shrinking, along with those on earth. (This had been noted by an orbiting satellite and reported in the magazine “Nature”). All of this infuriated the “global warmer”, and our exchange ended when he uttered the classic big whopper of the CO2 brigade, that what I was trying to suggest ran against the collected wisdom of the “entire scientific community”.

The world of “science” has brought us many myths: “bacteria cause disease, “smoking is harmful to your health, “natural selection shaped the species of the earth, “the earth is round,” and so forth. And now science offers the myth of climate change. What rubbish! Bless Christopher Booker for exposing modern science for what it is: a wicked and evil obstacle to mindless superstition.

 global-climate-change-effects_5106

Yes, the climate change extremists can shut up. Global warming is a lie, and climate change is a big joke.

How is it that the Telegraph can print and deliver millions of printed papers to all corners of the country in less time than it takes them to post comments on blogs?

Did you notice the ice on Kilimanjaro in the comic relief film of the celebrity climb? Wonder if Gore did?

I feel so saddened to have read this article. I hope that he is right and that nobody does listen to the so-called ‘real’ climate change experts. I also hope that Christopher Booker will look back in shame and take responsibility for his damaging comments.

climate-change1

James Lovelock has said recently in Vanishing Face of Gaia that that the range of evidence from IPCC climate models is so wide and varied as to be not useful for politicos to base their policies on reliably, so it seems that Mr Booker isn’t so far wide of the mark. Me? I’m gonna buy me some shares in Vestas Wind Systems or Clipper Windpower or Suzlon Energy and ride the bubble and get a free holiday out of feeling pious. But, seriously folks, this recording of all your trips and holidays and journeys out of the UK that is being billed as a security measure will doubtless lead to more sanctimony and moralising about carbon footprints and subsequent taxation on your income/capital/ bin contents/ lifestyle/ etc., for the good of all… of course… Escape whilst you can ?

climate-change3

So Nick Griffin supports your arguments Mr Booker. Says it all. I only visited this website to see what the other side is up to, and my god it’s frightening.

Once again, Christopher Booker sheds light on the inside of this internationally-organised corrupt can of worms. Just like the ‘Natural England’ organisation – there is nothing natural or even honest in the ‘climate change’ itinerary. The whole concept is to control and to tax whilst simultaneously ensuring open debate or dissent is rigorously denied any opening. It must be fought – quite simple really – even in the face of the Grauniads who would make climate-change denial a similar crime to holocaust-denial (and even I grant that one of them did indeed occur – and it wasn’t the one warming the Earth!) We desperately need more honest journalists (and a few honest Editors) to publish the real “FACTS” behind the climate SCAM – before the world’s governments give all our money away to corrupt bankers who are providing the present wonderfully convenient smoke-screen for them.

Even if your complacency regarding the greenhouse gases and climate, was justified, which I don’t believe it is, we would still have to adopt identical policies to prevent ocean acidification. No doubt you believe this is all alarmist nonsense as well.

I am so glad that finally there are scientists out there who are finding the courage to question this so-called climate change. Al Gore has been making a very tidy packet from all this. Creating fear in young people is criminal, and he should be sued by parents everywhere.

I was delighted to run across this article and the accompanying comments. Americans are clearly no longer the worst-educated Westerners. A challenge for you who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Produce one recent college textbook that supports your position.

climatechangetimeline

Discovery channel had a good idea recently, in order to reforest areas you parachute in saplings. To perform the experiment they used 8 helicopters and 2 medium-sized planes. The result, I have no idea… they never said what happened with the saplings. I suspect that the whole experiment cost half a million with a 20% success rate. Their other experiment wasn’t much better and used even more fuel than the choppers. A man with a horse and cart would have achieved a much better success rate (+90%) at a lot less cost, a lot less cost! But that doesn’t fit with the Enviro-Nazis’ or the bleeding-heart liberals’ agenda.

You’re seriously going to accept the findings of the Heartland Institute? Its really great to see tobacco and oil lobbiests calling themselves a scientific think tank. I seriously find it hard to take an organisation that defends the taxes charged on smokers seriously. Meanwhile 1 year of global cooling vs the more than 50 year upward trend that we are seeing doesn’t really match up, does it? But thats ok, your science teaches you that the Earth is flat and God will make everything OK as long as we kill terrorists and go to church on Sundays…

Follow the money – whose opinions are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel and other extractive industries? I look at pedigree: the pedigrees of those arguing calmly with science on their side, and those arguing ferociously from a political position that everything is hunky-dory and we have no need to worry about global climate change. I know which lot I would rather trust with my life and possessions.

Ricky. Some of the people posting here are paid by the oil companies. And others by the Sierra Club, Theresa Kerry and George Soros.

 climate_change2

The global warming fraud is a deliberate ploy to wind back civilisation. It’s Nazism all over again – mass death. If you wipe out industrial civilisation, you wipe at least 5 billion people from the planet. We need more technology not less. Nuclear is clean, safe and necessary on a large scale – around 6000 power stations are needed worldwide to bring the world up to a decent standard of living, and to arrest the ongoing decline in living standards.

The modern environmental movement arose out of the wreckage of the New Left. They call themselves Green because they’re too yellow to admit they’re really Reds. Why do you think Lenin’s birthday was chosen to be the date of Earth Day? The only underlying theme that makes sense of all Greenie policies is hatred of people. Hatred of other people has been a Greenie theme from way back. In a report titled “The First Global Revolution” (1991, p. 104) published by the “Club of Rome”, a Greenie panic outfit, we find the following statement: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

ct21

Professor Lindzen is reported in www.logicalscience.com to have claimed that no one seems to be able to explain the growing Greenland ice sheet. Anyone living in northern climes – even Forrest Gump-like non-scientists – can tell you the heaviest snows take place in the ten degrees centigrade just below freezing. The colder it gets after that, the less snow falls because of the inability of very cold air to hold moisture. Living as I do in Anchorage, Alaska, I know that a clear sunny winter day usually means biting cold temperatures. It is warmer temperatures that explain the heavier snowfall in Greenland, leading to a buildup of the ice sheets. With even warmer temperatures those heavier snowfalls will be offset by melting in areas above freezing. This is just one example pointing out Lindzen’s cluelessness. Please check out the logicalscience website for more of the same.

The US, UK, and Israeli militaries needlessly produce huge amounts of CO2 and they are the greatest threat to human and planetary survival — a greater threat than Al Qaeda, Iran, China, and Russia combined. We must stop the Iraq and Afghanistan wars immediately if we want to save the planet. Why are we producing huge amounts of CO2 to get control of the Middle East oil when we shouldn’t even be using oil anyway?

Do politicians take any notice of these expressions of public opinion? How long do we wait for D. Cameron to make apologies about Tory climate fatuities? Or do we have to find other parties to vote for?

I thought that the earth was still coming out of the last ice age – how are we going to stop this happening.

climate-change-action3

I agree with you 100%, Mark Denny. Liberals want to scare, intimidate, and/or imprison anyone who doesn’t agree with their agenda. They are nothing more than modern-day Nazis.

This is nothing more than vile propaganda. I really believe climate change denial should be an imprisonable offense. Hundreds of millions of people will die if something isn’t done… I know this because my children are brainwashed/taught these very things in school. If they argue against the ‘facts’, they’ll come home with low grades. And schools (and indeed universities) are hardly the places to make political points now, are they?

Rush was right! I remember when radio-talk-conservative ripped Gore years ago. He said that the left would create a crisis and offer solutions to save us through government-controlled bureaucracy and (but of course) new taxes. In America Obama has already penciled in 700+ BILLION carbon taxes in the coming years. This has become a sad money game with insiders controlling the message and developing the self-benefitting solutions.

climate_change_600

If you keep catching the prophets in lies, on facts which are easily verifiable, it becomes foolish to believe the unverifiable, like whether a computer model was programmed correctly. Al Gore lied or obfuscated repeatedly in his movie. He implied global warming caused the Aral Sea to dry up, when in fact the major sources of water, the Syr Darya and Amu Darya were dammed and diverted by the Soviets for irrigation. The Soviets dug a 1375 km canal diverting the water of the Amu Darya all the way across the Kara Kum desert to Ashgabat! The dam on the Syr Darya at Kairakkum holds back a freshwater reservoir the Tajiks tongue-in-cheek call the “Tajik Sea”. Al Gore showed pictures of glaciers melting since the 1940’s.

Well, I live near Chicago, and where I live used to be under a glacier a mile thick; glaciers have been melting continuously since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago! Al Gore showed us the Vostok ice core graphs. What he didn’t bother to mention is that if you download the data and study it closely, you see that temperature LEADS CO2 by 400 years on average. Governments have responded to this revelation. Two years ago it was easy to find this data and examine it closely.

Now you go to government web sites and they have scrunched up time scales and plotted with wider pen widths so that the pen width is wider than the 400 year antithesis. I saw one dot UK website that even had the chutzpah to compress the CO2 scale with respect to the temperature scale, shift the CO2 plot up, and then proclaim that yes, CO2 is almost always behind temperature, but look at the bottom of the chart, it is in front (it is actually above) temperature, so CO2 must start the heating! If countries are going to brazenly manipulate data to promote a fraud, they need to get their act together!

You must also keep in mind these are the same people who have made and continue to make perfectly safe and energy-efficient refrigerants illegal to manufacture, because of an ozone hole which mysteriously stays in one spot exactly coinciding with the flow of charged particles from the auroras. If refrigerant were causing ozone depletion, how would the refrigerant know what exact spot on earth to be over to cause a chemical reaction in cold thin freezing air moving hundreds of miles an hour, especially over a darkened pole, when sunlight is supposed to trigger the reaction? Compare in your mind how much energy is in an aurora, whose energy comes from solar flares and once caused so much DC charge to flow it caused a major blackout in Canada, versus a minuscule trace of completely inert molecules with fluorine-carbon-chlorine bonds. We have gone back to the unenlightened ages when religions dictated science.

Note: the “inert molecules” are actually CATALYTIC in function, and thus immediately “crack” another ozone molecule, and so on, until they are finally “cracked” themselves by high-energy atmospheric photons. It is the rate of fluorocarbon catalysis versus the rate of fluorocarbon breakdown which is the issue here. There are other issues with anthropogenic oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. AND there are 10,000 ACTIVE VOLCANOES.
.

What makes Professor Lindzen the most distinguished climatologist in the world? I do not see any reason other than the fact the he agrees with the author’s viewpoint. I hear that this Professor also believes that the relationship between smoking and lung cancer is highly exaggerated. Is he the most distinguished medical expert as well? The point is that Professor Lindzen discredits himself by commenting on areas where he does not have any expertise, thereby coming across as a naysayer, a contrarian. And by the way, he is also associated with organizations receiving money from ExxonMobil and the likes. That can amount to a conflict of interest too.

Perhaps this issue would be taken more seriously if less airtime was given to clowns like Prince Charles and more to real experts on the subject.

Well said once again CB. Why is no one willing to listen? Has anyone in Government the guts to open their ears & minds & query the copious self-serving drivel served up by Mr Gore etc.. ?

ct3j2

To Ricky and all the others who believe in man-made global warming known as AGW, I’m going to make this simple so even your group can understand it. Al Gore said the Earth was having a fever. To this I ask one simple question.
Can anyone, scientist or not, tell me what temperature the Earth SHOULD be? The answer is NO. Before you believe in this junk have someone answer this question. Because without knowing this answer you don’t know if the so called warming (man-made or not) is warming us to where we should be. After this it does get a little harder to follow so the greenies that just drink kool-aid might not be able to follow. Remember the ultimate assertion is AGW. If there is global warming, or as they now like to call it climate change, then it depends on if it is natural or caused by man. If it is natural then your own arguments say we need to do NOTHING as this interferes with the natural cycles.
The first problem is to determine if we are warming or cooling. This all depends on your time reference. For example, is the stock market going up or down? For a year and a half the answer is down. If we pick 1990 as a starting point then up. The reason most chicken littles pick 1850 is because that was a very cool point in history. If we pick 1998 or the 1930’s we have had cooling. What all this means is that we really aren’t warming or cooling, but the climate does change over time.
So the real bottom line question is: “Is this change is caused by man?” This is the AGW hypothesis. I’m going to use two words that many greenies will have trouble understanding. Correlation and causation.

Correlation is where observations show that one event is linked to another observation. For example there is a correlation on who wins the Super Bowl and how the stock market does for the rest of the year. But no one except a fool would think that the winner of the Super Bowl CAUSES the stock market to go up or down. Now all the so called AGW scientists claim that CO2 causes climate change.
First, let’s see if there is a correlation. In looking at the data and ice cores there is a correlation. The only problem is that CO2 trails (meaning “is after”) temperature increases by 800 years. Oops! Since they can’t show a leading correlation scientifically, they can’t show causation.
But let’s go one step further and claim that CO2 does impact climate change. How much of this is man made? We need to know how big CO2 is in relation to all greenhouse gases, what percentage of all CO2 is man-made and finally the proposed reductions. CO2 is less than 5% of all greenhouse gases and man contributes less than 20% of that. Finally they want to reduce (not eliminate) this amount by 20% at the most. Many are just reducing 5% or less. So 20% of 20% of 5% results in a total reduction of .2%. If the expected temperature increase is 3 degrees then we can expect all the money spent on CO2 reductions to result in .006 degrees of temperature reduction. WOW!
So now that I have explained all this for the greenies I don’t want to hear from them unless they answer these points. And stay off the 9 billion people thing. Unless you want to commit mass murder it has zero bearing on the AGW argument.

climate-change-ice 

Global Warming Room 102

This I discovered at WIRED:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/humans-halfway-to-causing-dangerous-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comments

I frequently find the comments to be FAR more interesting than the articles!  🙂

globe_east_2048 

2briang 04/30/09
@Synesius : “CO2 abundance was twice the current value during the Miocene epoch (7-23 million years ago) and the climate was temperate but cooling. It was ten times the current value at the beginning of the Eocene (56-37 million years ago)and the climate was tropical and cooling. Facts are stubborn things. The “Warmies” count on people not knowing any.”
Gee….how do you think the quality of life was for reality-based, fact-driven people such as yourself during those epochs ? I wonder if you think that it is a fact that humans and dinosaurs co-existed on earth ?
The “fact” is that the Earth will survive us all, and will prevail through all kinds of climatological events. The issue is, my children and grandchildren (and yours) will not.

SteveNordquist 04/30/09
2briang that’s awesome, just as long as we mate with actual well-adapted to 23m year old conditions dinosaurs the kids will be all right.
I’m gonna need some new parenting…theme park equipment.

RichardHead | 04/30/09
Lots of sharp people here. FYI Al Gore is subsidized by Exxon Mobil. When the CO2 is captured under his plan, Exxon Mobil will be the benefactor in 2 ways. They will be paid to dispose of the CO2, by injecting it into unused oil wells. When the CO2 enters the oil field, it will allow capture of oil by forcing it to flow to low production wells, increasing the ability to pump it to the surface, so more oil is available to burn.
Follow the money. Global warming is great for oil. Do you really believe Exxon Mobil is a stupid company?

Curly | 04/30/09
Why are we not told of the concentration of CO2 in the air now versus what it was each decade from 1970 to present? If the concentration is not increasing then CO2 is not the problem.
There is another problem. Many or even most in the environmental movement have brought lawsuits to prevent the building of nuclear power plants. How many thousands of tons of CO2 could have been prevented from being released into the atmosphere if the nuclear power plants had been built? It is very disingenuous of the ‘environmentalist’ today to now say we have to reduce the CO2 emissions.
If I remember global history correctly the northern hemisphere (at least) had large ice flows down to somewhere around Arizona area. My question is where are the ice flows now? They existed long before humanity had made an impact on the earth. Was there global warming before man? HUM, Maybe man is not making the impact that he is being accused of.

thisthinghere | 04/30/09
science ignorance – 1: the state of lacking knowledge or comprehension of what science is, how science is undertaken using the scientific method, and the actions and responsibilities of scientists 2: a state characterized by the mistaken belief that the scientific method is a “thing”, a device, an object or a law that only one side in a scientific debate is allowed to use, while the other side in that debate can only whine.
clinical examples of condition:
1: “when people disagree with something that science has said is proven, all they have to do is whine a lot. there’s no reason for them to do their homework, to use the scientific method to come up with a BETTER theory. No, they can just whine, and that will magically disprove decades of work by thousands of scientists”
2: Galileo, Copernicus, all those guys did was whine. They didn’t use science to show the church’s theories about the motion of the heavens and the Earth’s place in the solar system were ignorant and wrong. all they did was whine, and somehow people just felt like believing them.”
3: “All scientists do all day is sit around and come up with things they want to believe in. and then they force everyone to believe in it too. science is just about belief”
4: “A scientific law in science is a law because that’s just what a majority of people want to think. there’s no experimental basis or calculations to back it up”
5: “What’s so unfair about science is that once a scientist has proven a hypothesis, no one else can use the scientific method to come up with a better experiment to prove a better hypothesis. this is the tyranny of science. that the scientific method can only be used by special people, and is not a gift for all of humanity that anyone can use.”
6: “The reason why there are so many hypotheses and theories about dark matter, and strings, and god particles, etc., is just because all those scientists haven’t come up with something they all believe in, not because the experiments so far are coming up with different, contradictory results. it’s about all the scientists coming up with something to believe in, not about coming up with such a smart hypothesis and smart experiment that no matter how scientists test it, they always end up with the same result”
7: “When 90% of scientists agree on something, it’s not because they’ve reviewed the experiments and calculations and that 9 out 10 of them have independently arrived at the same conclusion, it’s because they’re all drinking and golfing buddies”
8: And the 10% of scientists who have reviewed the experiments and calculations and independently arrived at a different conclusion don’t have to use the scientific method to come up with a better experiment to prove a better hypothesis. all they have to do is whine and that makes all the experiments and calculations of the 90% automatically wrong”
9: “The burden is on scientists to prove other scientists wrong, to prove a negative. it is NOT to prove a BETTER, more accurate, or more elegant hypothesis, theory or law.”

samagon | 04/30/09
Sorry everyone, I’ve been really gassy lately, which is causing more global warming, and localized seat warming. I would also like to add that this man-bear-pig-flu thing that is going around may be a blessing, if it ever gets to india and china, assuming it kills off half of their populations. that would cut down on the CO2 production from that part of the world by a large margin.

joenz | 04/30/09
Astro posted: “None of you are likely scientists, so just shut the hell up. Most of you people are just some average schmoe who have no clue about anything.” Follow the money idiot. I am an electrical engineer and I currently have a job designing solar panels. I am employed partly because of global warming theories. Other “scientists” are getting paid to do global warming research. The people paying them EXPECT them to find results supporting global warming theories! Climatologists that publicly report data that does not agree with mainstream global warming theories are swiftly fired and called nutcases. Most people around the world that speak against global warming claims are not nut cases, but instead they are not comfortable being HEAVILY TAXED because the government says “Don’t worry, we have scientists saying we need your money.”

papajon0s1 | 04/30/09
No, I don’t buy this for one second. And no, I don’t have the time, talent, or treasure to do my own extensive Global Warming research. I don’t have time to go get my own ice core samples or determine levels of sea ice or measure how much CO2 is whereever. I also don’t buy into any computer modeling because computer models many times can’t predict the next days weather let alone conditions years ago or years into the future.
All I know is what I read and clearly there is plenty of “disputable evidence” because there are plenty of arguments on both sides. What angers me is being forced into environmental policy based on what may or may not be true. Once you start claiming that the data is not arguable I know it’s crap and in no way should you make policy based on that.
Don’t you ‘green’ folk realize when you get into your “we ALL have to do x or y or x” or “We all should get behind green technology this or greeen technology that” that you instantly turn off a huge portion of your audience? Once you sound like an elitist lefty uber-enviro-nazi you might as well be talking to a brick wall.
You need a new way of presenting your data without all the pretentious alarmist crap. That said, I’m all for things like alt-fuel vehicles where I can pay pennies per mile over dollars. I’m happy when there isn’t crap and litter all over the streets. No one likes a smog-filled city or a lake so polluted even the rats won’t go there. But seriously, there seems to be a reasonable environmentalism that is no longer here and it has been replaced with complete idiotic bunk.

phira360 | 04/30/09
If we are going to try to help climate change, then why are you spending so much time on the computer reading and typing this? This is a bit ironic.

zerocontrol | 04/30/09
If you have 9 minutes of your life to watch a video THIS IS ONE TO WATCH. No it’s not one of those annoying, stupid videos. It’s very down to earth straight forward and most important real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

BrianScience | 04/30/09
32,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, say that Global Warming/Climate Change is NOT caused by humans. See: http://bit.ly/qOmhr
Where is the science to prove humans are the cause of GW/CG?? Fact: CO2 levels rose AFTER Global Warming started, NOT before. FACT: The most prevalent “greenhouse gas” is WATER VAPOR, not CO2! This article did nothing to refute these facts.

AJ | 04/29/09
Oh noes! 1!! 11!! With all those tons of CO2 up in the air, it’s only a matter of time before great big chunks of the sky start falling on us! Good thing we have those stones in Georgia to tell us all what to do after the Ecopocalypse.
Do these climate change models also take into account the global disruptions that will be caused by the massive solar flares that previous modeling experts (i.e. Mayans) have predicted occurring in December, 2012?
I hate to quote Sarah Connor, but it is important to remember that future has not been written. While information like this is good to be aware of, its veracity can only be proven over time. It is important to note that these models are only theories (as in string theory where there’s a lot of doubt, as opposed to the theory of evolution where there is none [at least among intelligent & rational persons]).
Basing global economic policies on sketchy science that relies far too much on single variable, hockey stick-type graphs is not a good long term plan. What happens when the next crisis du jour crops up and all our efforts to reduce CO2 have created some other ecological nightmare? The only thing that can truly be relied upon is the Law of Unintended Consequences. No matter what we do to fix our present circumstances, it will have negative ramifications that will need to be dealt with in the future.
My recommendation is to plan and prepare for the worst, but avoid disrupting the entire world economy in attempt to fix something that isn’t necessarily broken.

shut-the-fuck-up 

mhungry | 04/29/09
There’s a real problem with these numbers and the concern over CO2. We seem to forget that some things on this planet breathe CO2. What about the CO2 removed from the atmosphere by these plants? I haven’t seen that taken into account very often in these studies.
This leads to my “best way to be green” tip: Plant more plants and cut down less trees. There you go. Simple and effective.

photoprinter | 04/29/09
I have never seen an article about CO2 that EVER mentions the atmospheres self-cleaning function. It’s called RAIN. And @mhungry, don’t worry about the cutting of trees. At least in this country, logging companies plant more trees than they cut down. If they did not, soon they would not have any product to sell.

Crashz | 04/29/09
ok so… AJ, let me ask you this, if you saw cracks slowly forming in a fish tank, would you fix it before or after the tank breaks and spill all of the fish on the floor, if we don’t start slowly fixing it now, later on it will probably be worse for us if we try a radical change (another analogy comes to mind of jumping into freezing water, but one analogy is my limit per rant)
mhungry, the plants you speak of cannot keep up with what we are putting out, in fact, we are eliminating the very plants that you speak of in our rain forests which produce most of our breathable air. So therefore the values that are removed by the plants are probably in there, it just doesn’t contribute to the reduction of the CO2 fast enough.
I’m not some green freak, I’m just a critical thinker.

lukelea | 04/29/09
I’m with Freeman Dyson on this one. Global warming, on balance, may be good for the human race and there is not much we can do about it anyway.

Angema | 04/29/09
“Don’t worry about cutting down trees.” Thats the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. “At least in this country . . .” Yeah. Its too bad this country doesn’t span the globe. “. . . logging companies plant more trees than they cut down.” Yeah. Its too bad all forested land isn’t owned by logging companies. Forested land even in the U.S. is decreasing. Most of this isn’t due to logging companies, true. Its due in large part to land fragmentation and conversion to feed our suburban lifestyle. That does not mean it isn’t a problem.

LandShark | 04/29/09
Huh… just halfway?

cspearow | 04/29/09
Climate change happens. We are going to deal with it, not prevent it.
Climate change is kind of like starving African children or the killing of baby Harp seals: nobody likes it, but just try to get anybody to spend their own money to stop it.

MentorMatt | 04/29/09
MHUNGRY, you are absolutely right, as is Freeman Dyson. The plants absorb humongous amounts of CO2.
Problem is, mhungry, you only wrote a small comment, while the article that cites bogus computer simulations actually has a big blue planet picture all over it…
Expose climate fearmongers for what they are… and they include Wired.

cirby | 04/29/09
That’s odd… Up until recently, five (or six, or seven) degrees Centigrade by 2100 was the “point of no return” for Global Warming. That was the amount we were going to see by the end of this century, according to Al Gore and the IPCC. Even now, the Weather Channel is pushing the “Six Degrees” meme.
All of a sudden, it’s TWO degrees by 2060 or so (well below the previous predicted curve – this would make 2100 about four degrees hotter than the 1980s, when Global Warming was first predicted).
Sounds like someone noticed that we’re not going to make the six (or five, or whatever the current worst-case scenario is) degrees, so they have to revamp their predictions. Again. So, instead of “parts per million” (which has been the measuring standard for the whole extent of the debate), they decided to move the goalposts to “total tons of carbon dioxide”.
Beware the “round number prediction.” When you see a scientific prediction that uses something like “one trillion tons,” it almost always means someone chose that amazing number for political reasons, not from any scientific one. It sounds scary, so they use it, and make the equations fit. They pick dates 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 years down the road, not because science actually predicts anything, but because people automatically accept long-term predictions divisible by ten.
If this were real science, it would be something like “in about 63 years, plus or minus five, the temperature will be X degrees, plus or minus Y.”
Remember the “several meters of sea level rise by 2100?” Which became, after some actual math, less than half a meter (or, possibly, a couple of inches)? Or the melting of all of the ice in 10 (or 100, or whatever) years? Which, as it turns out, is either not really happening (Greenland), is cyclical and reversing (the North Pole), or trending in the opposite direction (Antarctica).
Why is it that every time the GW catastrophists have to make revisions to their work, it’s always in the downward direction?

steelerfanhw | 04/29/09
I think that global warming was created in one of Al Gore’s bad dreams. Look throughout history and you will find that there have been significant climate changes that have shaped the earth we call home. Like the stock market, I say that we should let the climate run its course and not try to manually change it.

VinsonDaly | 04/29/09
Well then after the pandemic we should expect some improvement.

steelerfanhw | 04/29/09
How is that?

derekris | 04/29/09
Whatever — the swine flu will kill all of us and then it won’t matter. The irony of scientific sensationalism is that no one will be around to celebrate when it finally predicts something with perfect accuracy.

swine-flu-sci-2003

damasterwc | 04/29/09
The ‘evidence’ is computer models. Very inaccurate computer models that scale 1 pixel to 200 square miles or so. WTF!@!!! they said financial derivatives would never blow out cuz their computer models told them so. take a lesson from the blood-sucking speculators: computer models are fine for modeling conditions within a computer, they do not, however, model reality.
fyi: world ocean temperatures have decreased in the last 5 years, and Antarctic ice cover is at the largest it’s been in 20 years. Why do you think there is the sudden push to pass these draconian bills? They know the warming of the 20th century is over and they’re trying to get their shit passed before enough of us realize it’s bullshit. wake the f*&# up!

Scriptable | 04/29/09
I’m with the vast majority of scientists and the evidence on this one — rapid and irreversable global climate change is caused by human activity. Pray to Jesus as much as you like, it aint gonna change the facts.

steelerfanhw | 04/29/09
The climate is volatile, and I believe that if we try and help, it will only make problems worse. It will cause problems that actually are irreversible.

johnsbrn | 04/29/09
mhungry: Do you really think climatologists are not aware of the existence of plants? Their effects are well known and have been studied extensively. The fact is, plants aren’t a carbon sink, they are just a temporary store. Throughout the year plants take in and release carbon dioxide. Most of the carbon is also released when they die or are burned.
photoprinter: exactly what is the mechanism by which rain scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere? Rain will mix with some carbon in the atmosphere (very minimal), which is they released back when the water evaporates.
Global warming is real, there is indisputable data to back that up, the only thing in question is how much of it (if any) is caused by us. At the end of the day, no one wants to suck on a cars tailpipe or live next to a coal power plant, so whether you think we are the cause or not let’s focus on cleaning up the air to improve our quality of life and create sustainable energy sources. If a by-product of that happens to be less global warming, then that’s great too.

tonygotskilz | 04/29/09
@ Crash – “ok so……. in fact, we are eliminating the very plants that you speak of in our rain forests which produce most of our breathable air. ….
You may be a critical thinker but not a critical reader obviously. The majority of our breathable air does not come from tree, or rainforests. It comes from algae.
And thats the problem with people who comment on the environment. They hear something thats in vogue, it sounds good so they repeat it, then the next idiot believes it cause he read it on the interwebs…
I challenge anyone who believes in global warming being affected by man to do some research into climate change written pre-1990’s. We have not been recording statistics on temperature and C02 emissions for long enough to have any clue what we are dealing and therefore I personally believe we should not go making changes to anything until we have at least enough facts to make an informed decision instead of just snap judgements… But I’ve beaten this horse many times and although it looks dead it’s still walking around.

wsci_03_img0407

nickbrooks | 04/29/09
I’m going to cancel my subscription to Nature (where this research is published). Why bother to read the science first hand in one of the world’s most respected peer-reviewed scientific journals when I can read such intelligent analysis by non-specialists who know better than the scientists on the comments pages of Wired? What was I thinking?

kflanagan | 04/29/09
What about sunspots and the extended solar minimum we are now in? 2008 and 2009 have proven to be the lowest sunspot activity in 100 years and the earth has been cooling since the last solar max in 2000.
To quote Harvard astrophysicist Dr Soon: “If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it’s very, very useful in terms of science and society in my opinion.”

designguybrown | 04/29/09
An interesting phrase that underlines the whole article: “… Reducing emissions steadily over 50 years is much cheaper and easier and less traumatic than allowing them to rise for 15 years and then reducing them violently for 35 years….” This may not necessarily be true with future full implementation of dramatic technological innovations, comprehensive change-over of energy sources, and firmly accepted take-hold of policy initiatives.
Which further brings up the idea of conservation -vs- technology when it comes to guiding consumers and companies with policy – it may not be possible to fully focus on both. It may be more successful to wait for technologies, thus staying wealthy in the meantime, (with easy adaptation and minimal sacrifice) that will allow a continual increase in living-standard so that we can afford consumables in the future that hide all the emission-increase and energy-usage in a great technology. Think of how far developed and widespread renewable energy sources will be by then. The costs of sacrificing now may not allow us to afford more potent technologies later on (i.e. 15 years from now). Just a thought.

steelerfanhw | 04/29/09
Well it doesn’t help that alternative energies are not very cost effective. Taking oil away from Americans is like taking away McDonald’s from an obese person.

rimshot515 | 04/29/09
Sure, global warming is occurring. Sure, the temperature of the planet may rise two degrees. Sure, carbon dioxide levels are rising.
But where is the research depicting specific, measurable, catastrophic events resulting from this? And don’t you dare say hurricanes, or I will have the British government slap you in the face with their bill to include the evidence that it is not the result of global warming.
Side point: CO2 levels follow temperature rises, not the other way around. Looking back at the Medieval periods, when there was a sh!tload of coal powered plants, global warming occurred, and CO2 subsequently rose. It’s a cycle.
Additionally, plants function best at higher concentrations of CO2. In fact, farmers use this technique to produce higher yields of crops. That, along with the opening of new shipping lanes in the North and revealing of mineral deposits and mammoth fossils, depict global warming as a good thing, not bad.
Finally, there have been several periods where global warming has stopped and even decreased, while we kept truckin’ along in our SUV’s. For example, global temperature has not risen for the past decade. Between 1940-1970, temperature actually decreased as we spat tons of CO2 into the air with the massive production of military equipment and inefficient cars.
So no cause for alarm. Enjoy the weather!

LouSkannen | 04/29/09
How can computer “projections,” basically hypotheses expressed in computer code, be taken as credible evidence of that which they posit? Only observed evidence, measurement, can scientifically support hypotheses. And the evidence supporting climate models so far is at best mixed, at worst, non-supportive in the short term and who knows for the long term. They predict the past well (often); the future…?
I’ve been reading on this issue for years and have yet to find credible evidence that recent climate change of whatever metric is significantly different globally because of our presence than is natural.
How utterly predictable that the UN body charged with determining how significantly man is changing climate has found that man IS changing climate – and the situation demands immediate government, nay, international, action! Duh…
At least the Nature article simplified things, kinda like a notorious algorithm recently described on this site simplified determining investment risk. That certainly turned out well.

plaasjaapie | 04/29/09
Repeat after me “Trofim Lysenko”.

Synesius | 04/29/09
“Climate Science” is to the Left what “Creation Science” is to the right: nonsense used to promote an agenda.
CO2 abundance was twice the current value during the Miocene epoch (7-23 million years ago) and the climate was temperate but cooling. It was ten times the current value at the beginning of the Eocene (56-37 million years ago)and the climate was tropical and cooling.
Facts are stubborn things. The “Warmies” count on people not knowing any.

mikesd | 04/29/09
Wow. I thought Wired was a magazine for smart people. Where did all the jr. scientist commenters come from. Planetary science has known CO2, methane, etc. are the gases that hold an atmosphere to a planet (and trap the sun’s energy) for over a hundred years.
Now, suddenly, all the Fox News viewers are pretending they can rewrite basic third grade science to suit their selfish brand of politics. Good luck.

nerevolution5 | 04/29/09
Like one of the brightest scientists on the planet, Michio Kaku said (on the topic of Global Climate Change) it seems it will take a catastrophe before humans react.
It’s natural for any species to change their habits only when something isn’t working *currently*. The economy broke again, everybody tries fix it. Swine flu suddenly starts killing people, so airports around the world cancel flights to/from Mexico. So far, climate change has had no immediate impact on human life. As I expected, the majority of the people commenting on this article don’t care about it.
Until coastal cities become flooded by melting polar caps, and farms can’t grow the crops they used to because of a lack of rain, or too much rain, chances are nothing will change.
It’s rather interesting that people say “why modify our climate, let it run its course!” when we’re *already* modifying it.
I think the important thing that humans will need to come to is that they need to learn how to prevent catastrophes before they happen. It seems a lot of people think everything will just work out on its own. The ones who say climate change isn’t “going to happen” probably also don’t believe the Earth will one day be sucked into a black hole. Just because we don’t see it happening doesn’t mean it won’t ever happen.
It’s unfortunate, but like I said, people will continue to deny Climate Change or shrug it off until something apocalyptic happens. Just like the sudden tight security at all airports since 9/11. Just like the sudden attention to bridges when the Minnesota bridge collapsed.
Humans will only reach a new level of intelligence when we take action *before* these things happen.

Scriptable | 04/29/09
The arguments presented here against climate change are reminiscent of the banna proof that God created use 6000 years ago, or the peanut butter jar proof against evolution. Simplistic and wrong, but appealing to those of below-average intellect.

Crystal_girl | 04/30/09
Excuse me Al Gore, I have a question. What about all of the CO2 emitted by the rapidly expanding number of mobile sources called human beings? Even if we discontinued use of all fossil fuels, our expanding human population is emitting ever increasing amounts of CO2. Not to mention all other forms of animal life. So should we have a cap and trade system for babies too?? Why don’t we just start planting a lot more trees?
I for one am not ready to give up my car or my electricity, and it is the height of arrogance for us in the West to tell China and India that they may not industrialize in order to raise the standard of living of their peoples.

Synesius | 04/30/09
FYI Crystal_Girl, of the 30 billion tons of CO2 produced annually by humans, about 2 billion come from exhaling, as you rightly point out. You are also correct in assuming that the Warmies WILL use this issue to control who can have babies. Scratch a Leftist and you will almost always find a totalitarian.
BTW, termites produce around 55 billion tons of CO2, almost twice our output. People who advocate planting trees should think twice; trees are termite food. Do we really want to encourage those little CO2 emitters to multiply?

termites_large

martinp | 04/30/09
@Crystal_girl – first of all, I don’t see any mention of Al Gore in the article, so why do you bring him up? Somehow I don’t think you actually even bothered reading the article before posting.
And to address your argument, humans breathing out CO2 do not contribute to climate change since that CO2 came from plants that absorbed it from the atmosphere a few months or years earlier. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades, so this kind of emission makes no net contribution. The problem is CO2 that has been locked away for a long time, ie fossil fuels.
Honestly the strongest argument in favor of AGW is the weakness of the alternative explanations. This comments thread is a perfect example.

dobermanmacleod | 04/30/09
I would like to correct the author of this article-one trillion tons (a teraton) is an overestimation: we now have evidence from the Earth’s history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a teraton of gaseous carbon compounds.
As a consequence the temperature in the Arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored.
We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves. In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die.” (The Revenge of Gaia.)
By the way, here is what Climate Code Red says:
–Human emissions have so far produced a global average temperature increase of 0.8 degree C.
–There is another 0.6 degree C. to come due to “thermal inertia”, or lags in the system, taking the total long-term global warming induced by human emissions so far to 1.4 degree C.
–If human total emissions continue as they are to 2030 (and don’t increase 60% as projected) this would likely add more than 0.4 degrees C. to the system in the next two decades, taking the long-term effect by 2030 to at least 1.7 degrees C. (A 0.3 degree C. increase is predicted for the period 2004-2014 alone by Smith, Cusack et al, 2007).
–Then add the 0.3 degree C. albedo flip effect from the now imminent loss of the Arctic sea ice, and the rise in the system by 2030 is at least 2 degree. C, assum ing very optimistically that emissions don’t increase at all above their present annual rate! When we consider the potential permafrost releases and the effect of carbon sinks losing capacity, we are on the road to a hellish future, not for what we will do, but WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.
Frankly, I don’t know where the author arrives at the conclusion that a teraton (one trillion tons) is what gets us to 2C. We are already in a “fool’s climate” where our sun-dimming pollution is cooling the Earth at least 1 degree C.

Astro | 04/30/09
None of you are likely scientists, so just shut the hell up. Most of you people are just some average schmoe who have no clue about anything. This is the real deal science, so all of you idiots just stay out and refrain from leaving idiotic comments. This is what happens when a bunch of ignorant and idiotic masses think that they could have a say on something they know nothing about.

dobermanmacleod | 04/30/09
By the way, it is too simplistic to judge global warming based upon the weight of carbon in the air, because all carbon is not created equal. For instance, compare CO2 and CH4. Each molecule has the same amount of carbon, but the methane is 100 times more powerful the first ten years as carbon dioxide (70 times more powerful the first twenty years, and 23 times more powerful overall).
In other words, the same amount of carbon can be vary in global warming strength by a factor of 100! I need to add that there is more carbon in CH4 contained in ice than all the oil, coal, and natural gas combined. Worse, the ice needs only to melt to release the carbon, whereas the oil, coal, and natural gas release the carbon into the air when burned.

600px-methane-3d-space-filling_svg

memphisrambler | 04/30/09
If for some reason man’s pollution was causing global cooling, what would be the cry? Glaciers and antarctic sea ice is increasing, and the ocean levels are falling. Colder winters are causing humans to use too much energy for heating. Growing seasons are becoming shorter and crops are diminishing. Humans are freezing to death. People are migrating to warmer climates. Civil unrest everywhere. Frankly I would prefer global warming.

Kane | 04/30/09
Hey, I may be an ‘average schmoe’ but even I know all the evidence indicates global warming is total B.S. (according to the best Exxon Mobil PR research money can buy). Burn it, burn it all! bwaaahahahaha

iamconcerned | 04/30/09
Ok… however informative this article is… I’m sorry but I have to ask… what exactly should I as an individual do? After reading one of the previous comments, I just want to ask, what do you mean attempt to fix something that isn’t necessarily broken? Correct me if I’m wrong, but there are GIGANTIC HOLES in our ozone layer! How much more broken do you want us to get… before we start fixing?
Also… I don’t personally care much for organic chemistry and carbon molecules… but hiding the fact… which is… WE ARE A FEW DECADES AWAY FROM TOTAL MELTDOWN! – by talking about how heavy or light or what kind of chain a molecule forms is NOT helping anything.

Atlas_Rocket | 04/30/09
Astro, your articulate response clearly demonstrates the superior intellect of a true rocket scientist in our midst. Thank you for your words of enlightenment.

dkraft | 04/30/09
Not even an animal would debase itself thus. Wired just lost all credibility publishing this crap. Or maybe it’s April 1st…  No.  All credibility.

roncee | 04/30/09
Ok, you’re on to us. It’s a right wing conspiracy to flood S.F. off the map.

Scriptable | 04/29/09
I’m with the vast majority of scientists and the evidence on this one — rapid and irreversible global climate change is caused by human activity. Pray to Jesus as much as you like, it ain’t gonna change the facts………
The problem with your stance is that the majority of scientists do not support the global warming theories being put forth by Al Gore and his minions. In fact, it’s the other way around; more than twelve times the number of scientists dispute Al Gore and the UN panel’s junk science. Here’s a site that will help you understand that Al and company are full of it!……..
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

BigEarlXXX | 04/30/09
What about the thousands of tons of CO2 that are emitted by plants everyday while they undergo photosynthesis? I say we kill all the plant life on the earth. It is the ONLY way we can reduce the carbon footprint.

Highlowsel | 04/30/09
OMG the Earth is WARMING! OMG the Earth is COOLING! OMG We’re impacting the PLANET! OMG We’re NOT! Back and forth and all around the argument goes; meanwhile all the evidence piles up. Don’t’cha just feel this must have been what it was like in the early moments on the Titantic?
Anyway; for me it comes to this. I’m a simple man. I tend to think simply. There are over 6 Billion of us on this planet. It’s really a very small, enclosed, room. And we’re ALL smoking big fat cigars. Chain-smoking them in fact. I don’t know about you but the last time I was in such a setting the air got real stale, real quick. This analogy works be it an enclosed room, or (in effect) an enclosed planet. At least it works for me.
Or think of it this way. Why is it people can accept the logic of our current atmosphere, the one we all so blithely live in and breathe, ultimately stemming from planetary BIOLOGICAL forces and functions and yet go on to argue that the human species in all its manifestations as a biological entity is not be having an impact? Is that logical? To paraphrase Ripley (Aliens II), have IQ’s just dropped 20 points in the last generation or two around here?
Anyway…to go along with this simple thinking I’ve a simple conclusion. The impact stems from too many humans in too small a space. We will have to learn to control our numbers as well as our actions or, ultimately, Mother Nature (the final arbitrature so long as this is our sole home) will do it for us.

Morisato | 04/30/09
Thing is the economy is already broken and the way we’re dealing with CO2 emissions and such isn’t really getting us any cleaner by far. In the end, we’ll only actually do something once it happens. Human nature teaches us to act when it is a high state of alert. Only then will people actually come together and do something as a species. Other than that, we could be careless about the environment and others since that is what most of the majority of who we are. Remember, most, not all… but still a majority.
So yes, let us prepare for the worst or enjoy its end and go out with a BANG!

SteveNordquist | 04/30/09
Someone whack AJ with the revised Keynes and point out that that’s an economics science, and that the CO2 graphs are not the same as the original hockey-stick graphs. Thanks.
Then tell them plot coupons for actual burning things are not available at mere hollywood film rates. And reduce AJ’s credit rating to 200 and take away AJ’s FRB TAF access, because of failure to understand consequences or even RTFA.
Oh yeah…is this like, a bad time to disrupt the entire world economy? Because you know, it’s on.
That one is the major one; the idiot who thinks rain cleans atmospheric hydrocarbons, please step up.
Atmospheric cleansing is a temperature-sensitive hydroxy mechanism which is not rain. Rain does nothing special to CO2 gas and only happens below a mile in altitude (a bit higher in Eugene, OR); the atmosphere runs on appreciably to 14km up.
Look up the details and check out the TiO2 self-cleaning megatrend going on. Know that NorthAmerican forestry is bupkiss in actual CO2 management except in its own locale; it’s a net carbon source, especially with the west drying out and sometimes flaring a bit.
See the nice free book boingboing cited, _Sustainable Energy without the hot air.
Cirby, get out on your planet and tell me the ice is all there. Get me some nice thick core samples from this decade that aren’t fishery exhaust. Take at least 2 of your senses with you.
Everyone else, learn to critically read scientific articles. They called the easy journals _Science_ and _Nature_ so it’s easy to spot ‘em and practise. If you do not want to practise, we will not be taking your analysis on any computer models or who manages them. It’s OK, you just won’t be paid.
So I’m coming to Alexis here. You picked the understated quote in isolation and didn’t say 2 degrees warmer from -when-; that made it hard to follow. That ‘the numbers presented in their research are probabilistic’ could not have helped less (and you can find longer terms around, even.) If you rummage in a hydrogen atom, you will hardly ever find that electron or some nucleus, much less a Fermi Surface, but you should still rely on them. What these studies do is pull the trigger on diverse action managing seed stock (in case we get tired of Soylent products) and industrial processes so investments can actually last long enough to make profit. It’s been done! Yeah, I know, DRAM is made out of love and rainbows in oversupply, but try it sometime.

AntonioSosa | 04/30/09
An increasing number of scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states: ”There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…”
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
Progressive (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the United Nations and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes and increase the cost of energy, which will limit development, destroy our economy and enslave us.

ElizabethM | 04/30/09
Great article, frightening though it is.

iamconcerned | 05/1/09
Mr. Samagon…….who the hell do you think you are? I have to agree India and China are countries with large populations….but that does NOT mean we emit the most amount of greenhouse gases in the air…
In fact the more the developed countries the more their fuel usage…. I would think that this fact is pretty DUH! Besides this, global powers (I do not wish to mention names, unlike some people here) have indicated the most emissions of carbon levels….so please check your facts.
I would think this is a forum to discuss solutions to problems like these or at least if not productive advice then sensitive consultations. So bickering like this and pointing fingers will not in anyway help. I am also sorry to have done the above myself….but really some people can just get on your nerves!

WHODUNNIT | 05/1/09
Current global warming started about twelve thousand years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene ice age. In Utah, the Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake and the Bonneville Salt Flat were a single Bonneville Lake, twenty-six thousand square miles.
If you look at the edges of this basin, you see “bathtub rings” called wave terraces. As global warming continued, the glaciers melted, leaving dry desert across the North American Southwest.
The Deep Sea Drilling Project found that the Mediterranean Basin has been like the Great Salt Lake four times, as ice ages have lowered Earth’s oceans below the Gibraltar to Morocco “valley”, and villeges lie under considerable sediment due to Man’s burning and harvesting of former jungle and forest from Europe to Iran, leaving rock and subsoil.
The melting of the vast glaciers had absolutely nothing to do with Man, and future ice ages will move over the continents again, as they have many times before.
If Al Gore really cared about global warming, he would scrap his Gulfstream Jet (carbon credits do not suck carbon out of the air, they just make Al millions in unearned profit from those stupid enough to try to manufacture something under “cap and trade”).

snowmaneasy | 05/3/09
RE:Zerocontrol suggests we view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
This is the most pathetic attempt to justify the spending to date in the name of Global Warming of approx $50 billion….
It is almost as bad as putting the polar bear on the endangered list because a computer model predicts that the ice in the arctic will be gone by 2100….
My take on all of this is that we have lost the plot…

GW Room 103

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of CO2′ will have ‘little impact’ on temps” – from New Zealand Climate Science

duffy

Professor Geoffrey G Duffy
DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRS NZ, FIChemE, CEng

Dr. Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University  of Auckland, NZ. Duffy received the New Zealand Science and Technology Silver Medal, in 2003 from The Royal Society of New Zealand.  And has published 218 journal, peer-reviewed papers and conference papers including 10 patents and 62 technical reports.

Duffy’s full bio is here: http://www.ecm.auckland.ac.nz/staff/ggd

annual

Climate is always changing, and always will.  There are seasons.  There are day-night (diurnal) cycles.  At any one location, heat energy from the sun varies during the day.   Energy from the sun is affected by local conditions and clouds.   Heat absorption depends on whether it impacts water or land … and even then, the type of land (desert, forest, snow covered land), or the layout of the land (continental masses, or islands surrounded by seas).  In some parts of the world temperatures are climbing on average, and in some areas they are dropping.  Warming is not occurring everywhere at once and hence ‘global warming’ is a misnomer.

So what are the key players in ‘Climate Change’?  The major driver is the sun. 

 sun

Warming depends on the sun.  Cooling is due to the lack of sun’s energy.  Radiant energy enters the earth’s atmosphere.  Air (on a dry basis) consists mainly of nitrogen 78.08% and oxygen 20.94%.  Of the 0.98% remaining, 95% of that (ie 0.934%, or almost all) is the inert gas argon.  Carbon dioxide CO2 is a trace.  It is less than 400ppm (parts per million) or 0.04% of all the atmosphere (on a dry basis).  Surprisingly, less than a fifth of that is man-made CO2 (0.008% of the total), and that is only since the beginning of the industrial era and the rapid increase in world population.

The atmosphere however is not dry!  The next major constituent of air apart from oxygen and nitrogen is water, as a vapour and a condensed liquid. The atmosphere is comprised of about 1-3% water vapour [At 20°C and 100% humidity there is 0.015kg water/kg air or 1.5%: at 50% Humidity, 0.008kg water/kg air or 0.8%: and in warmer climate at say 30°C, 100% humidity, 0.028kg water/kg air or 2.8%].  Water vapour condenses to form clouds and it is by far the most abundant and significant of the greenhouse gases.  Water accounts for about 95% of the greenhouse effect.  The main atmospheric ‘intermediary’ between the sun and earth is water, and thus it dictates the behaviour of the earth’s climate. Without water vapour in particular and other greenhouse gases in the air in general, the surface air temperatures worldwide would be well below freezing.  The sun clearly must be a much bigger influence on global temperatures than any of the greenhouse gases, even water and CO2.  Carbon dioxide is about 1/60 of water in air!!   It clearly is not the major player even though it is wise to minimise man-made emissions like particulate emissions, and CO2 and other gases where practically possible.

Variable and unstable weather conditions are caused by local as well as large-scale differences in conditions (wind, rain, evaporation, topography etc).  They naturally induce either warming or cooling locally, regionally, or worldwide.  We all have experienced how on a cloudy/sunny day that clouds strongly affect our sensations of both heat and light (infrared energy and visible light).  Clouds do several things!   The atmosphere may be heated by clouds by emitting latent heat of condensation as water vapour condenses.  But clouds can both heat the atmosphere by reducing the amount of radiation transmitted, or cool the atmosphere by reflecting radiation.  So of all the affects that can influence heating and cooling in the atmosphere and on earth, clearly water is the main greenhouse ‘gas’.  Other greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide CO2, methane CH4, oxides of nitrogen etc) are 1/60 to 1/30 smaller in both quantity and effect.  So with all ‘greenhouse gases’ including water, human activity accounts for only minute amounts, just 0.28% of the total greenhouse gases.  If we exclude the key one, water, then human activity would only account for about 5.53% of the total greenhouse effect.  This is minute in the total picture whatever way we look at it.

Unfortunately a lot of estimates and predictions are strongly based on theoretical computer models. Many now even trust models and their ‘theoretical results’ more than actual measurements and facts from reality. Computer analysis requires that the earth be ‘cut’ into small, separate areas (actually volumes), each being analysed for heat input/outputs and other gas/vapour fluxes.  Even so the computational analysis domain size (basic computer grid elements) is huge, 150km x 150km by 1km high, with the current computer power.  It is so large that the effects of even the very large clouds are not individually included; and that includes clouds in our visual horizon.  The spatial resolution is therefore very poor.  Supercomputers cannot give us the accuracy we need.   Modellers therefore use parameters: ‘one factor fits’ all, for each of the domains (a kind of a ‘fudge factor’).  This is sad, as water as vapour in clouds is 30 to 60 times more significant than other minute amounts of other greenhouse gases.  Clearly climate simulations and thus predictions can be in serious error unless the actual cloud effects are well defined in the models.  It is not only the number and spacing of the clouds in that 150 square kilometre area, but also cloud height effects, and cloud structure.  These factors are not accounted for at all.  Typhoons are still not represented in most models.  Many tropical storms and local intense rain downfalls say in a 50km radius cannot be ‘seen’ by the models. Volcanic eruptions and large forest fires are extremely difficult to model. These emit enormous tonnages of small particulate matter that have immense shielding effects and interactions in the atmosphere. The slow diffusion of the smoke on windless days, and the more rapid turbulent dissipation on windy days are both very difficult to model or predict.   We are simply ‘not there yet’ in the simplest events.

The inter-zonal effects of such larger-scale movements like the Gulf stream, or the El Nino–El Nina patterns, are not really greatly understood, and virtually impossible to model.  The ‘noise’ (random fluctuations) in the results from the computer models is often greater than the magnitude of the computer readout results themselves!  It is really surprising why model computer-forecasts are trusted for periods of say 30 – 50 or so years, yet weather forecasts are often very inaccurate even over a 2 or 3 week period.  A good model should be able to ‘predict even the recent past’.  The fact that these models cannot, clearly shows that we should shift our thinking and trust away from computer models to longer-term analysis of actual data, and to understanding the real physical mechanisms and processes (the ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ factors).  Someone has said; “if tomorrow’s weather is inaccurately modelled and predicted, how can we pretend to predict long-term climate changes?”

Linearising short-term, random fluctuations in weather changes and temperature changes is scientifically untenable (weather and climate changes should be studied over very long periods if reliable trends are to be discerned).  Much credence is given to the ‘hockey-stick effect’ of temperature data (upward swing in mean temperature over just the last decade or so) proposed and adopted by the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).  Nations have grabbed this and are using this to base their policies for actions on global warming effects, and the implementation of controls on carbon-based emissions by carbon taxing.  The very computer programme that gave IPPC those results was recently rigorously tested by inputing random numbers, and the computer-generated readout gave the same upward data trend with this meaningless input.  This makes a mockery out the IPPC report and subsequent actions.  Of course IPPC cannot admit to that now, as their report has been regarded as ‘gospel’ by many nations.  In stunning direct contrast, actual data (not idealistic models) from remote sensors in satellites have continuously measured the world’s temperature and have shown that the trend in the warming period ended in 2001.  Actual satellite measurements show that the temperature has dropped about 0.60°C in the past year, when compared to the mean recorded 1980 temperature.  Observations from the Hadley Centre show that global temperature has changed by less than 0.050°C over the past decade!  Also 1998 was distinctly warmer than 2006 because of the El Nino event.  Why can’t we believe actual accurate data?

A man-made ‘greenhouse’ does not create new heat.   A man-made ‘greenhouse’ can only increase the residence time or hold-up time of heat just like a blanket.  Likewise in the atmosphere, the ‘greenhouse effect’ acts as a mechanism to smooth out fluctuations or rises and falls in temperature (that is advantageous).  It is a dampener!  It cannot be a dominant factor for global temperature change.  It is the sun that gives the heat energy and drives temperature change.  Simply, if the sun’s energy decreases, then the ‘global’ temperature will fall; with or without any greenhouse effect (and vice-versa).

But we must also consider the location of the effects.  The surface of Earth is 70 % water.  Water has a far greater heat carrying capacity than land; or even the atmosphere itself.  Most of the incoming heat from the sun is absorbed by the seas and lakes (simply because they occupy 70% of the world’s surface area).  When we compare that with land masses, a lower proportion of heat is reflected from watery zones to participate in the greenhouse effect.  The greenhouse effect is mainly a phenomenon of the land surface and the atmosphere because land masses lose most of the heat they receive during the day by the action of overnight radiation.  To multiply that effect, the atmosphere loses heat rapidly out into space by rainfall, convection and radiation, despite the greenhouse effect.  So the large surface area of water over the world and the heat storage of water, are far more significant than any atmospheric greenhouse effect.   The oceans really control the transport of water vapour and latent heat changes into the atmosphere (latent heat is heat needed to convert water-to-vapour, or conversely is given up when vapour goes to water), and this is far more significant than sensible heat changes alone (non changes in the state of water).

The seas take a long time to warm up or cool down when compared to land.  This means the storage of total heat by the oceans is immense.   As mentioned, heat energy reaching the land by day is soon radiated back out into space at night.  But there are also zonal differences!  The sun’s energy at the equator is consistent all year round, and in this region the larger proportion of surface area happens to be the ocean water.  The dominant heat loss is primarily at the poles with each pole alternating as the main loser of heat.  As a result there are severe cyclical variations in temperature with the seas and ice caps having the dominant effects in energy changes and hence temperature effects. If the erroneously-called, ‘global warming’ was occurring now we should see it now.  Oceans would be expanding and rising; in fact over the past two years, the global sea level has decreased not increased.  Satellites orbiting the planet every 10 days have measured the global sea level to an accuracy of 3-4 millimeters (2/10 inch inches) [see sealevel.colorado.edu].  Many glaciers are receding but some are increasing.  Glacial shelves at the poles melt and reform every year because there are periodic seasonal changes; these alone show dramatically just what changes can occur from summer-to-winter-to-summer again and again.  Dramatic changes?  Yes; but they are perfectly normal and to be expected.

It is also important to highlight that CO2 is not a pollutant.  It is vital for plant, tree, and food-crop growth.  The basic principle of equilibria shows that when A and B make C and D, then C and D will react to form more A and B.  Hence, as CO2 is produced, it will ‘react’ to produce more oxygen and cellulosic carbon through the well-known chlorophyllic process. Tree, plant, and food-crop production goes up markedly.  With low amounts of CO2 in the air we would have severe food crop deficiencies.  This process occurs with plankton too.  But over and above this chemical-biochemical reaction is the simple physical equilibrium process of solubility.  As the seas cool, more CO2 dissolves in the water, and CO2 in the air reduces (and vice-versa).

Other extremely important insights can be gleaned from the ice-core record.  If CO2 was the main contributor to climate change, then history would reveal that the levels of CO2 would precede the mean temperature rise around the globe.  In fact it is the opposite!  Increases in CO2 have always lagged behind temperature rises and the lag involved is estimated to be 400 to 800 years. The core samples show that there has never been a period when CO2 increases have come before a global temperature increase.  Any recent apparent temperature upward trend cannot be linked to CO2 increases.  There is no physical evidence to support that.  In fact there is the high probability that the more likely explanation of an overall warming trend is that we follow the ‘recent’ Little Ice Age, 400-600 years ago. There was also a Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP) that preceded that too!

The heat from the sun varies over a number of solar cycles which can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years (the main one is the cycle of 11 years).  The earth also has an irregular orbit around the sun. These and other effects like the gravitational effects of the planets of the solar system, combine to affect the sun’s magnetic field. Solar fares and sunspots affect the amount of heat generated from the sun.  In fact, there is an excellent correspondence in general warming on earth with increased sun spot activity.  The graphical correlation of sun-spot activity and the earth’s mean temperature changes is quite amazing.   It appears that the activity of the dominant ‘heat supplier’ (the sun) has a far greater affect on weather (and therefore climate change) than any traces of atmospheric gases.

It is also interesting to note that NASA’s Aqua satellite system has shown that the earth has been cooling since 1998.   This corresponds with measurements from the Argos sub-ocean probes that the ocean is cooling.  This is in stark contrast with the proposals from many ‘climate alarmists’.  The solar effect is huge and overwhelming and there must be time delays in absorbance and build up in energy received by earth and ocean masses.  But the warmer the Earth gets, the faster it radiates heat out into space. This is a self-correcting, self-healing process.

The sun directly drives the El Nino–El Nina current motions that drive temperature changes world-wide.   The sun sets up evaporative cycles, drives larger air and water currents or cycles, and changes weather patterns and therefore climate change.  The varying degrees of lag and out-of-phase changes cause periodic oceanic oscillations.  The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO cycle) turns from warming to cooling depending on the net warming or cooling effect of the sun. This occurs quite rapidly.  From about 1975 to 2000 there was a strong El Nino warming period (a positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).  Now there is a La Nina period, and this has a cooling or decrease in warming (negative PDO).  In essence the ENSO and PDO switching is caused directly by the sun. Also there are similar periodic oscillations in other oceans (Atlantic and the Arctic oceans).

The panic to do something about climate change has led to some unrealistic and unsustainable actions.  For example, Bio-fuels from grain will greatly increase food prices and roughly 30 million people are expected to be severely deprived.  The USA will use up to 30% of the annual corn crop for alcohol production for vehicles alone.  Ethanol production requires too much energy to be economical.  The actual cost/liter is much the same as other liquid fuels, but the liters/kilometer consumed by vehicles is much higher than petrol, and well-meaning motorists will have to use far more ethanol.  Just one tankful of ethanol for a SUV is obtained from enough corn to feed one African for a year. Worldwide the ethanol plant subsidies in 2008 will total $15 billion.  A 2008 study on bio-fuels has shown that the CO2 emissions will actually double if carbon-rich forests are cut down.

Well, what about all the latest pictures, videos and TV programmes on climate change?   Yes, there is a lot happening!  Weather patterns are changing in many parts of the world and some catastrophic events seem to point to the earth warming.  Even over our lifetime we have observed many weather pattern changes where we live.  But what we observe (the ‘effect’) in a relatively small time-span cannot honestly be connected directly to any supposed ‘cause’ without investigating all the mechanisms that cause change.  It is so easy to grab onto the notion that the increase in fossil-fuel burning and subsequent growth in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is directly the major cause.  Even from season to season we see snow and ice-covered mountains thaw, and massive areas of the Antarctic ice shelf melt, but in just 6 or so months they are restored.  We are not alarmed at these annual changes!  So why can’t we see that climate changes occurring all over the world now (not as big as these dramatic annual changes) are simply similar but on a larger time-scale.  We have the ice-core and sea-bed core evidence at least to show us that this has happened in recent centuries.  These are in harmony as to changes in CO2 with time and variations in temperature over time.  There is no indication that one causes the other!   History also tells us that there have been significant cooling periods over the last 1,000 years.

Climate and local weather are forever changing.  Sure, we must minimise pollution of our air and water systems with obnoxious chemical and particulates, and not treat them as ‘sewers’.  But even doubling or trebling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.

CARBON DIOXIDE CO2
BEST ESTIMATES OF THE LOCATION of CO2  as carbon (C)

Giga tonnes Gt (BILLION tonnes)
Atmosphere                                                   750 Gt
Oceans – surface                                       1,000 Gt
Oceans –  intermediate / deep                  38,000 Gt
Vegetation (soil, detritus)                             2,200 Gt
41,950 Gt

Annual EXCHANGE of CO2

Ocean surface – Atmosphere                              90 Gt
Vegetation – atmosphere                                     60 Gt
Between Marine biota and Ocean Surface          50 Gt
Oceans( surface-to-deep)                                  100 Gt
Human emissions* (coal, oil, nat. gas)        6 Gt  <2% 306 Gt

bucko36:
“Carbon dioxide CO2 is a trace. It is less than 400ppm (parts per million) or 0.04% of all the atmosphere (on a dry basis). Surprisingly, less than a fifth of that is man-made CO2 (0.008% of the total), and that is only since the beginning of the industrial era and the rapid increase in world population.”
Imagine that!!!

Richard deSousa:
Were Dr. Duffy and George Bush separated at birth? 😉 Seriously, Dr. Duffy’s post is quite impressive. There has been studies by other scientists relating to the saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere but the AGWers seem to rely on their computers to predict that CO2 drives the ever increasing temperatures up. I can’t quite believe their virtual reality scenario.

Andy Schlei:
This is a great article. I’m sending it to many, many friends.

Richard deSousa:
Actually, I wasn’t commenting about ears but the striking facial resemblance.

Steven Hill:
Well, that about covers what I have read and think about Man Made Climate Change….
There is no climate change that man has caused.
It’s that big large orange ball in the sky.

David Segesta:
Must be some typos here; “At 200C and 100% humidity there is 0.015kg water/kg air … and in warmer climate at say 300C”
Where is it 200C or 300C ?
BTW OT But here’s an article from Patrick Michaels on the “United States’ Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9619

Bern Bray:
“less than a fifth of that is man-made CO2 (0.008% of the total)”
Go into your favorite text editor and type a period, then print the page. That’s about .008% percent of the total (depending on font size).
Please explain to me how that little dot is going to cause the rest of the page to burst into flames.

deadwood:
I admire the courage of Dr. Duffy. I hope he has tenure. I expect that the usual crowd of AGW promoters will be writing off his article as another Exxon-financed denier/delayer piece written by a non-climate scientist.
Since I do not expect the major media to carry this article, I thank you Anthony for doing your part in making the truth available through your blog.

David L:
I think it should read 200 or 300 degrees K. Actually, degrees K doesn’t make sense either, I think it’s simply a missing decimal point.
REPLY: degree symbols ° got transmogrified somehow, fixed now – Anthony

Leif Svalgaard:
(Duffy) – The heat from the sun varies over a number of solar cycles which can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years (the main one is the cycle of 11 years). The earth also has an irregular orbit around the sun. These and other effects like the gravitational effects of the planets of the solar system, combine to affect the sun’s magnetic field. Solar fares and sunspots affect the amount of heat generated from the sun. In fact, there is an excellent correspondence in general warming on earth with increased sun spot activity.
We have been over this before, but the barycenter and planetary tides mechanisms do not operate on the Sun. This is bad science [not even that, actually, pseudo-science, rather], and detracts from whatever merit the article may otherwise have.

Steve:
Off topic – first upturn in Arctic sea ice extent http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv Site here http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Alan S. Blue:
With 218 publications under his belt, he’s well past any concerns about getting tenure.

John F. Pittman:
I think it is 20 degrees (symbol) C. That is standard atmosphere, standard temperature pressure. With his education, one the first things you have to learn is 20 C dry and wet, which is which, and what it means when you solve engineering problems.

Austin:
How much heat loss do the Ice Age Glaciers at their hight represent?
If the Oceans dropped 200 feet and all that water was water vapor before it was precipitated out into SNOW ( not just water – you have to add both the heat of vaporization and the heat of fusion ) – then what is that heat loss?
Has anyone noticed that on a cold winter day you are cold indoors, despite the room being the same temp as in the summer? What is the effect of cooling off the upper atmosphere to its ability to transmit heat into space more efficiently?
I like his point about typhoons – they move enormous amounts of heat into space – and they are not modelled.

Mark Nodine:
David Segesta (13:41:55) : Must be some typos here; “At 200C and 100% humidity there is 0.015kg water/kg air … and in warmer climate at say 300C”
I think the “0? before the “C” was supposed to be a degree symbol.
REPLY: Fixed thanks, pasting somehow killed the ° symbols. -Anthony

Craig D. Lattig:
As Leif points out, there is a “Hmmmm” moment in this article… but short of sending out multiple copies of Roy Spencers book, this is the best primer on climate I’ve seen to send out to my liberal arts friends who walk around clutching Al Gore’s book to their chests while hinting that I am an uninformed fossil… or worse. I’m passing it around with an evil grin attached….. cdl

Ric Werme:
David Segesta: Must be some typos here; “At 200C and 100% humidity there is 0.015kg water/kg air … and in warmer climate at say 300C”
Where is it 200C or 300C ?
It should read 20°C or 30°C, assuming I got the degree symbol right, &deg;, assuming I got the ampersand symbol right.
Oh, there’s one I can cut & paste, 20°C or 30°C
Then there is the text where they use lower-case o , e.g. 20oC. Argh. I generally just say 20C or 293K or 68F and that seems to work okay.

Chris H:
I guess it’s just me, but this article just sounds like a regurgitation of everything us AGW skeptics have been saying – he’s not adding anything new, not even a new perspective (at least from my super skimming of it).

Alex Llewelyn:
Off topic, but interesting BBC article about Carbon capture & storage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7584151.stm
You won’t be able to read most of the article if you haven’t got a subscription, but here’s a New Scientist article saying Stone Age man held off an ice age by releasing greenhouse gases from farming and land use change.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19926721.600-the-ice-age-that-never-was.html?feedId=climate-change_rss20
Absolute nonsense of course.

DennisA:
Another typo: IPPC instead of IPCC, but a good summary, useful for forwarding to politicians.

Stephen Wilde:
Hmmm. Some of the phrases are remarkably similar to phrases in my series of articles at http://co2sceptics.com/
I’m gratified that he seems to agree with me on those points.

Neil Fisher:
Hi Leif, you said: “We have been over this before, but the barycenter and planetary tides mechanisms do not operate on the Sun.”
I wouldn’t doubt you on anything solar related, but this seems disingenuous to me in face of SIM correlations and (correct) predictions WRT sunspot numbers, ENSO events etc. I watched these unfold and they are spookily accurate to date. I guess that it could be a coincidence, but it sure seems to me that such analyses have predictive power. We shall no doubt have to wait and see, but I am curious to know what it would take for you (and others) to accept that there may be something to this after all. To date, I see 10 years of climate predictions and 4 ENSO events correctly predicted, which is pretty impressive (especially the ENSO events – years in advance is significantly better than any other system). Of course, they can be said to be somewhat vague, but what climate/weather prediction is not?

Dennis:
Hmmmm, Stephen Wilde, I visit your Site constantly and I think you are right!
But this is what it’s all about….getting the PROPER, ACCURATE, stories out there to inform and explain how much of a Hoax AWG is….A number of People here stated that they were going to tell their Friends…Yes, and tell the One’s especially on the Fence. You will not convince the True Lieberals…They are TOTALLY on Emotions, no common sense!! Al Gore and Consensis need to be knocked down..

Michael Hauber:
Funny thing, the sun represents only about 0.001% of the entire sky when we look up. How could anything so small have any influence on our climate..

jeez:
Good counterpunch Michael H, even if I don’t agree with your point of view.

Leif Svalgaard:
Neil Fisher: “To date, I see 10 years of climate predictions and 4 ENSO events correctly predicted, which is pretty impressive (especially the ENSO events – years in advance is significantly better than any other system). Of course, they can be said to be somewhat vague, but what climate/weather prediction is not?”
The problem is that the Barycenter/Tides/SIMS, etc [I will call them BTSs from now on] are not unique in their predictions. There are many other ’solar’ mechanisms that their adherents claim have predictive power and many have predicted that with a less active sun, we should get some cooling. Since BTSs are unphysical [the energy is not there, there are no forces, the tides are 1 millimeter high, etc] one would prudently go with one of the physically plausible models if one were to entertain the solar influence idea.
It reminds me of this anecdote: In deepest Africa there is a tribe that claims that beating of tam-tam drums during a solar eclipse will restore the Sun. They are spookily accurate: in fact, their method has never failed.

H:
Having lived in Auckland, NZ for a couple of years I am absolutely amazed that a Kiwi has come out and relied on science and observation in this debate. Generally Kiwis are all about feelgood symbols and looney left wing politics. It all about the “vibe”, even more so than Canadians. (Gross generalisation but fun!)
Leif Svalgaard has identified a weakness in the article and there were other typos (eg. “IPPC”). They do detract, but having said that it was a good summation of many issues in terms lay people, like me, can understand.

Robert Wood:
In all the Anglosphere countries, except India, global warming is becoming a hot political issue – amongst the political class, not the people. New Zealand is most advanced, with the labour government trying to push through parliament an ugly climate control bill, or whatever it is called.
But, as in Britain and Australia, the people are saying: “Hang on, you want energy to be even more expensive?”.
We have a federal election coming up in Canada where the opposition “Liberal” party is running on a $14 billion tax grab under the excuse of saving the planet. They call it the Greenshift, whereby good honest hard-earned green money is shifted from your pocket to the state coffers.

Glenn:
Leif said: “We have been over this before, but the barycenter and planetary tides mechanisms do not operate on the Sun. This is bad science [not even that, actually, pseudo-science, rather], and detracts from whatever merit the article may otherwise have.”
If by before you mean the “Astronomical Society of Australia” post, then you haven’t shown this is pseudo-science, only that you disagree. Others, including Ian Wilson, held positions that this is science. Maybe not a well established theory, but it seems there is either a correlation of multiple events, or the AU journal and peer-review process isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. That seems to be effectively what you are saying.
“We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System. We propose that this synchronization is indicative of a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Jovian planets and the Sun.” http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/138/paper/AS06018.htm
Professor Duffy pointed out some bad science, and it is curious you didn’t comment on that, on a blog that is concerned with AGW. You don’t even say whether there is any merit at all in this post’s article at all. Could you explain the science behind your comment below concerning the cause or mechanism for why big cycles start out with a bang, or is your comment based on a “well it always seemed to happen that way in the past” observation?
“The big [cycles], they start out with a bang. One month, there may be none, the next month they may be all over the place,” Svalgaard told New Scientist.” http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14652-suns-face-virtually-spotfree-for-months.html
Leif: “It reminds me of this anecdote: In deepest Africa there is a tribe that claims that beating of tam-tam drums during a solar eclipse will restore the Sun. They are spookily accurate: in fact, their method has never failed.”
If that really is a good anecdote, then replace the beating of the tam-tams with an unintelligent source or force, and explain the correlation.

Kip:
Michael Hauber: “Funny thing, the sun represents only about 0.001% of the entire sky when we look up. How could anything so small have any influence on our climate..”
I suppose if one were to throw out the distinction of radiative heat produced by .001% of empty sky versus .001% of thermonuclear sky (the sun) that would be a relevant point. I don’t think anyone would disagree that it gets colder when the sun is down or covered.
Also, what is the capacity for CO2 to store heat versus water vapor versus the other common elements and compounds in the atmosphere?

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “the AU journal and peer-review process isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. That seems to be effectively what you are saying.
Peer-review seems to have failed for many AGW-papers too, wouldn’t you say? Or maybe the peers also have an agenda… Could you explain the science behind your comment below concerning the cause or mechanism for why big cycles start out with a bang, or is you comment based on a “well it always seemed to happen that way in the past” observation?”
The straw man you trot out is easy to deal with [you could have done it yourself]. Here is the argument:
Assume that all cycles have the same length, say 11 years. Assume that maximum comes about halfway through the cycle, after 5 years. A large cycle with 200 ’spots’ at maximum will then have an average growth rate of 200/5 = 40 spots/year [coming out with a bang]. A small cycle with 50 spots at maximum will have a growth rate of 50/5 = 10 spots/year [coming out with a whimper].
Detailed dynamo models can do better, they predict that stronger cycles are shorter, and that their maximum comes earlier than halfway. This just makes the growth rate even faster [more BANG].
In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.

Leon Brozyna:
A fine Executive Summary for “the science is not settled” position. Now if someone would just present a copy to Senator McCain…

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “If that really is a good anecdote, then replace the beating of the tam-tams with an unintelligent source or force, and explain the correlation.”
[sigh] Correlations don’t need to be explained as they are not necessarily causations.

Ric Werme:
Craig D. Lattig: “As Leif points out, there is a “Hmmmm” moment in this article….but short of sending out multiple copies of Roy Spencers book, this is the best primer on climate I’ve seen to send out to my liberal arts friends who walk around clutching Al Gore’s book to their chests while hinting that I am an uninformed fossil… or worse. I’m passing it around with an evil grin attached…”
I think Lucy’s http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm is a much better thing to give to environmentalists. It covers more terrain, has good links, and is written by an environmentalist.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “Professor Duffy pointed out some bad science, and it is curious you didn’t comment on that, on a blog that is concerned with AGW. You don’t even say whether there is any merit at all in this post’s article at all.”
That is because the question whether on physical grounds the BTSs make sense have nothing at all to do with AGW. I speak of what I [think I] know and leave the rest to whomever has an interest in that.

DAV:
Leif Svalgaard: “It reminds me of this anecdote: In deepest Africa there is a tribe that claims that beating of tam-tam drums during a solar eclipse will restore the Sun. They are spookily accurate: in fact, their method has never failed.”
Yet science also proceeds using similar logic. Don’t want to get all meta here but I doubt there are many models that haven’t been “proven” by statistical correlation to experiment. Until a better explanation is provided the tribe is behaving and believing reasonably.
I tend to agree that small effects (like BTSs, as you call them) are unlikely causes but any correlation to surface features still tickles curiosity and until it can be shown to be purely coincidence, they can’t be ruled out.
By “better” explanation, I of course mean something that can be demonstrated to work as well as the drum beating method vs. a purely logical argument.

Glenn:
Leif: “the AU journal and peer-review process isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. That seems to be effectively what you are saying. Peer-review seems to have failed for many AGW-papers too, wouldn’t you say? Or maybe the peers also have an agenda…”
I haven’t seen any AGW papers from the AU journal, so I couldn’t comment on whether peer-review has failed or they are following an agenda. However, I see no correlation in the IPCC models and reality, other than their drawing a target around the arrow in the side of the barn and calling it prediction.
Could you explain the science behind your comment below concerning the cause or mechanism for why big cycles start out with a bang, or is you comment based on a “well it always seemed to happen that way in the past” observation?
“The straw man you trot out is easy to deal with [you could have done it yourself]. Here is the argument:”
I don’t see where I provided a strawman. I simply asked you about what you were quoted as saying. A strawman is an attack on a false position of your opponent. You either said what NewScientist claimed or you didn’t. If you didn’t, it’s not my fault. Seems you have no problem with it, though. So did you answer my question about mechanism below?
“Assume that all cycles have the same length, say 11 years. Assume that maximum comes about halfway through the cycle, after 5 years. A large cycle with 200 ’spots’ at maximum will then have an average growth rate of 200/5 = 40 spots/year [coming out with a bang]. A small cycle with 50 spots at maximum will have a growth rate of 50/5 = 10 spots/year [coming out with a whimper]. ”
I’m not going to assume anything, especially that cycles all have the same length. And an average certainly can not be used to determine whether a cycle “comes out with a bang”. Perhaps you have a different perception of what that phrase means, though. Rate can change during an ascending cycle and still be a big or mediocre cycle. This depends on cycle length, which I’m sure you are aware. I asked you for the cause of your claim, and this ain’t it.
Detailed dynamo models can do better, they predict that stronger cycles are shorter, and that their maximum comes earlier than halfway. This just makes the growth rate even faster [more BANG].
So are these models based on a known and understood mechanism?
In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.
I didn’t see the argument. I saw a theoretical cycle of a certain length and a certain amount of spots, an unsupported claim of models, and a “it’s always happened that way in the past” correlation.
The next cycle could start out with a bang (say your 40 spots a year), you would (it appears) predict a “big” cycle, then max out after a year, and your prediction would be wrong. Is that not possible? If not, why not? What is the mechanism?
Looking at these cycles, I don’t see where one could predict the peak (big one) based on the upslope.
http://blog.ltc.arizona.edu/azmasternaturalist/Sunspot%20cycle.JPG

Glenn:
Leif: “[sigh] Correlations don’t need to be explained as they are not necessarily causations,”
Double sigh. Science progresses by observing correlations. You’ve done it yourself: “In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.”

Leif Svalgaard:
Ric Werme: “I think Lucy’s http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm is a much better thing to give to environmentalists. It covers more terrain, has good links, and is written by an environmentalist.”
As long as she doesn’t pollute it with BTS [as she was considering].

DAV:
Yet science also proceeds using similar logic. Don’t want to get all meta here but I doubt there are many models that haven’t been “proven” by statistical correlation to experiment. Until a better explanation is provided the tribe is behaving and believing reasonably.
Granted that much science is done in order to explain some new phenomenon that has been observed, but some of the grandest theories were not. Einstein’s General Relativity [and even Special Relativity, as he claims that he did not know about the Michelson-Morley experiment] and Dirac’s relativistic quantum mechanics were not, but on the other hand predicted brand-new stuff, never dreamed off before.
I tend to agree that small effects (like BTSs, as you call them) are unlikely causes but any correlation to surface features still tickles curiosity and until it can be shown to be purely coincidence, they can’t be ruled out.
‘Scientific Relativism’ – that every theory is good as any other – is false. And in science, nothing can be ruled out, but to be ‘ruled in’, theories have to mesh with the existing corpus of existing theories or uniquely explain something observed that has no explanation within existing paradigms. [I don’t want to go too Meta, either; so, perhaps, enough about the philosophy…]

kum dollison:
Until I see some Proof that this is anything more than opinion, I’ll have to assume that everything, else, he said was just opinion, also.
What makes is worse is, after several years of studying this I’m 99.9% convinced that the above statement is NOT true.
Yikes, the part that I need to see the proof on is this: For example, Bio-fuels from grain will greatly increase food prices and roughly 30 million people are expected to be severely deprived.

Traciatim:
Robert Wood, I believe you have misread the Canadian Liberal ‘The Green Shift’ (not to be confused with Green Shift Inc, who is suing the Liberal Party over use of the name) plan.
The Green Shift is a plan to tax fuel use in combination with wide reaching income tax cuts that should help lessen the impact to citizens.
Their plan seems pretty sound, you increase taxes on fuel use, you send rebates to income earners and seniors, you destroy the manufacturing and energy sectors and they move all their jobs off shore, price of good increase causing the central bank to increase rates widening the unemployment fall out as people lose their businesses and homes, and when nobody can afford anything . . . voila . . . no more CO2 problem.
As you can tell, I won’t be voting Liberal thanks to ‘The Green Shift’.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “Maybe it is just because English is not my mother tongue, but since you wrote: “the AU journal and peer-review process isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.” I interpreted that to mean peer-review in general, otherwise I would have expected: “the AU journal and its peer-review process…” On the other hand the “isn’t” is maybe a sign that could be interpreted to mean that its wasn’t intended.
I don’t see where I provided a straw man. Since the question did not start a new paragraph, I interpreted it as being a continuation of the general criticism of me within the first half of the paragraph. A straw man is an attack on a false position of your opponent.
I interpreted your question [and the use of “Well, ..” as an attempt to cast doubt on my statement of our understanding of the growth of the cycle, relegating it to the same status of the correlations that I don’t support. So did you answer my question about mechanism below? I’m not going to assume anything.”
This sounds very nice, but seems to be intended to cast doubt on somebody that does make simplifying assumptions to illustrate the point [the physicist who starts out “assume a spherical cow of uniform density” when trying to explain something to farmer Jones…]
Rate can change during an ascending cycle and it may still be a big or mediocre cycle. This depends on cycle length, which I’m sure you are aware. I asked you for the cause of your claim, and this ain’t it.
Just after the calculation of the average rate, I, of course, relaxed the assumptions and pointed out that a more sophisticated treatment is possible.
So are these models based on a known and understood mechanism? A ‘model’ in my use of the word is an encoding of our understanding of a physical process [‘known’ is too big a word] so my answer here is a qualified yes.
I didn’t see the argument. I saw a theoretical cycle of a certain length and a certain amount of spots, an unsupported claim of models, and a “it’s always happened that way in the past” correlation.
See, it is as I suspected, an attempt to show that I too just rely on past correlations.
The next cycle could start out with a bang (say your 40 spots a year), you would (it appears) predict a “big” cycle, then max out after a year, and your prediction would be wrong. Is that not possible? If not, why not? What is the mechanism?
[sigh] almost anything is “possible” [is it possible that the lottery ticket I just bought will bring me untold riches? – certainly, but I’ll not bank on it, or rather: my creditors won’t]. The question is: “it is plausible?”.
The following paper may give you a feeling for the answer to that question: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 381, Issue 4, pp. 1527-1542, 2007 [also at http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2258]  Solar activity forecast with a dynamo model  Jie Jiang, Piyali Chatterjee and Arnab Rai Choudhuri1  ABSTRACT  Although systematic measurements of the Sun’s polar magnetic field exist only from mid-1970s, other proxies can be used to infer the polar field at earlier times. The observational data indicate a strong correlation between the polar field at a sunspot minimum and the strength of the next cycle, although the strength of the cycle is not correlated well with the polar field produced at its end. This suggests that the Babcock-Leighton mechanism of poloidal field generation from decaying sunspots involves randomness, whereas the other aspects of the dynamo process must be reasonably ordered and deterministic. Only if the magnetic diffusivity within the convection zone is assumed to be high (of order 10^12 cm2/s), can we can explain the correlation between the polar field at a minimum and the next cycle. We give several independent arguments that the diffusivity must be of this order. In a dynamo model with diffusivity like this, the poloidal field generated at the mid-latitudes is advected toward the poles by the meridional circulation and simultaneously diffuses towards the tachocline, where the toroidal field for the next cycle is produced. To model actual solar cycles with a dynamo model having such high diffusivity, we have to feed the observational data of the poloidal field at the minimum into the theoretical model. We develop a method of doing this in a systematic way. Our model predicts that cycle 24 will be a very weak cycle…
The important sentence is this one:“the Babcock-Leighton mechanism of poloidal field generation from decaying sunspots involves randomness, whereas the other aspects of the dynamo process must be reasonably ordered and deterministic”. Namely that the start of a cycle must be reasonably ordered and deterministic. This bears on your “you would (it appears) predict a “big” cycle, then max out after a year, and your prediction would be wrong”, in the sense that the orderly and deterministic start of the cycle would make that unlikely [and that is all we can say].
Looking at these cycles, I don’t see where one could predict the peak (big one) based on the upslope.
If you look at the red curve, maybe you can see it better. The first two cycles are, perhaps, easier.
Or compare a really small cycle http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cycl12.html with a large cycle http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cycl19.html
Some of the ‘jitter’ you see that looks like ‘false starts’ that fizzle are just left-over stuff from the previous cycle. We can tell from the magnetic polarities if a ’spurt’ is really new-cycle spots or old-cycle remnants.
The main point is that we think we know why there is such a difference in slope [e.g. see the paper that I cited] and why we think that we can use the slope in predicting the next cycle. Do I have to say that this is a difficult business and that prediction is hard? On the other hand, we are not stumbling in the dark either, and there are good physical reasons for why we think as we do, and that it is not based on just coincidences and not-understood correlations.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “Double sigh. Science progresses by observing correlations. You’ve done it yourself: “In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.”
No, you misunderstand how science works. What I cited was the observation of a prediction coming from our understanding of the process.

Ravalli County News » Blog Archive » “Even doubling or tripling the amount of CO2′ will have ‘little impact’ on temps”
[…] Interesting, but fairly long article by Professor Geoffrey G Duffy. […]

Mark Nodine:
From the original article: It is really surprising why model computer-forecasts are trusted for periods of say 30 – 50 or so years, yet weather forecasts are often very inaccurate even over a 2 or 3 week period. This is something that was one of my primary beefs about the global circulation models when I first started studying up on AGW in January.
It seemed completely unreasonable to me to expect that solving the Navier-Stokes equation from unknown boundary conditions on a fixed-size grid that’s obviously too large to deal with turbulence could produce any kind of non-garbage answer.
However, in thinking further about the problem, it seems to me that the situation may well be analogous to making statements about an ensemble average using thermodynamics without having to solve the wave equations for every particle that makes up the system. In other words, it may be possible/reasonable to predict macroscopic trends without being able to model all the microscopic details.
Mind you, I’m still not sold on the validity of the GCMs, especially given our limited knowledge of how to model water vapor, but the possibility of developing a reasonable long-term model does not seem as far-fetched as it once did.

Graeme Rodaughan:
Hi Kum, Re Bio-Fuels impact on food prices. Check out:
http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/ID-346-W.pdf
http://www.fao.org/righttofood/publi08/Right_to_Food_and_Biofuels.pdf
http://www.bioenergy-business.com/index.cfm?section=lead&action=view&id=11236
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h0RVoVwPFlD8MXLYyQbxHamr9NYw
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7331921.stm
Obviously if Governments direct TAX subsidies to create an industry that inefficiently turns food into fuel – there will be those who suffer.
IMO, without tax subsidies the scale of bio-fuels would be very much reduced.

Neil Fisher:
Leif: “Since BTSs are unphysical [the energy is not there, there are no forces, the tides are 1 millimeter high, etc] one would prudently go with one of the physically plausible models if one were to entertain the solar influence idea.”
OK, thanks for replying – I wish there were more such as yourself willing to edu-macate us plebs. 😉 I shall continue to keep an eye on this, as I have for the last decade or so – it’s nothing if not interesting (to me, anyway)!

Leif Svalgaard:
Mark Nodine: “However, in thinking further about the problem, it seems to me that the situation may well be analogous to making statements about an ensemble average using thermodynamics without having to solve the wave equations for every particle that makes up the system. In other words, it may be possible/reasonable to predict macroscopic trends without being able to model all the microscopic details.”
I would strongly agree with Mark. We have the same problem in Astro- and Solar physics. A good example is the evolutionary track in the Hertzprung-Russell diagram of a star. We can calculate the variations over millions, even billions of years of the size, temperature, and luminosity of stars from their mass and chemical composition. Or at the other end of the time-scale, simulate the explosion and implosion of supernovae.
For all this to work, we need to know the physics and the boundary conditions. It should, of course, be granted that an evolving star or an exploding supernova is actually a much simpler system than the Earth’s climate. But the task does not seem impossible.

Graeme Rodaughan:
OT: “Also a quote: “Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Director General Jacques Diouf agrees. He says it is incomprehensible that “$11bn-$12bn (£5.6bn-£6.1bn) a year in subsidies and protective tariff policies have the effect of diverting 100 million tonnes of cereals from human consumption, mostly to satisfy a thirst for vehicles”. link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7435439.stm.”
I wonder if James Henson will call for the “CEOs of Bio-Fuel Companies” to be tried for “crimes against Humanity” refer to http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
The un-intended consequences of poorly thought out AGW based policies are coming home to roost.
Is this the Precautionary Principle at work? Act without evidence in case something bad happens.
Doctors have a principle “First do no harm” that I wish that our politicians would adopt.

Glenn:
Leif: “No, you misunderstand how science works. What I cited was the observation of a prediction coming from our understanding of the process.”
I believe I understand how science works well enough. You cited nothing, Leif. Nor was prediction in what you claimed: “In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.” That is not a reference to a prediction come true.
Cite some predictions, and let’s see them come true. If they don’t, according to scientific methodology, your theory is falsified, or at least on very shaky ground. The NASA guy has made two or three, and they haven’t come to pass yet. In the meantime, why haven’t you simply provided the cause for your claim of “big cycles start with a bang”?

David VK2IDM:
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis  Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Having read the above summation, a maunder minimum would seem to be the best thing that could happen right now. Not because it might cool the earth but simply for the timely testing of the GISS model and the settling of many arguments.
FTR, I find the above summary a bit contradicting WRT the stated almost nil forcing of SI compared to GHG and yet they still include SI as an input to their short term climate forecast.

Pamela Gray:
Leif, would you speak to coronal holes? The k-index indicated stuff from a recurring coronal hole put a ding in Earth’s magnetosphere Wednesday night enough to open up some radio frequencies and create some northern lights. In fact, its been dinging us everytime the hole rotates into view. This time the ding was greater. It takes about 36 hours for a coronal hole event to reach us. With solar wind up, would we be getting some cosmic ray hits that would result in higher counts here on Earth? Also, where is this coronal hole? Aren’t they supposed to be near the poles during minimums? Does the stuff that comes out of them bend around to give us a direct hit? And finally, how are holes different from CME’s?

Glenn:
Leif: “On the other hand, we are not stumbling in the dark either, and there are good physical reasons for why we think as we do, and that it is not based on just coincidences and not-understood correlations.”
Fine, but that doesn’t mean that correlations alone are pseudo-scientific.
Your good physical reasons do not seem to be ironclad, either. A model or a theory explains and predicts the actions of what you call good physical reasons. There is no “I think” in science, there is either support or falsification. So until you are able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of the Sun, I suggest you not come down so hard on those that observe correlations and admit to not knowing the underlying mechanism, as does Ian Wilson’s AU paper. He didn’t identify a mechanism for example as “planetary tides”, you did. At least the abstract reads “However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling.”
But I see nothing pseudo-scientific in “We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System”, assuming that this evidence is observable. What I would call pseudo-science is to make claims about cause or mechanism and predictions or models from that knowledge which are wrong.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “Why haven’t you simply provided the cause for your claim of “big cycles start with a bang”?”
I think I did that.

J. Hansford:
Michael Hauber: “Funny thing, the sun represents only about 0.001% of the entire sky when we look up. How could anything so small have any influence on our climate..” Which is a perfect example of perception as opposed to reality…. The sun is percieved to be small… But it is actually huge… Thus its effects are substantial.
Now what he is trying to parallel, is the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere versus its effect…. However, CO2 is a small portion of the atmosphere… Not an apparent smallness of effect because of distance. But a real difference…. CO2 is at small percentages and is insignificant.
The next argument he would introduce would be that cyanide is poisonous at minute quantities… Wrong again as per the explanation above… This goes to toxicity. Cyanide in reality has certain physiological properties that are real, known and has a huge actual metabolic effect… So it isn’t a small effect but instead a large effect.
CO2 has no large and measurable effect….. Otherwise the empirical evidence would support it without a doubt with overwhelming observations of effect. CO2’s effect on climate must be modeled in order for the Flawed Hypothesis of AGW to continue its shambling existence…. Cyanide needs no modeling to prove its toxicity. You gasp, turn blue and fall down.
Just thought I’d reiterate, the actual from the apparent, the real from the fantasy.

Leif Svalgaard:
Pamela Gray: “It takes about 36 hours for a coronal hole event to reach us. With solar wind up, would we be getting some cosmic ray hits that would result in higher counts here on Earth?” – Because the solar wind speed is higher in the hole than next to it, as the sun rotates, wind of different speeds are emitted in the same direction, where the fast wind then runs into the slow wind and compresses the material [and tangles up its magnetic field]. It are those compression regions that turn away cosmic rays, so a strong recurrent hole will result in a [small, a few percent] recurrent variation of the cosmic ray flux. You see that here: http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/COSRAY/days.htm
“Also, where is this coronal hole? Aren’t they supposed to be near the poles during minimums? Does the stuff that comes out of them bend around to give us a direct hit?” – Here you can see both the polar coronal hole [the North pole is tipped towards up, so we see that one better]: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_195/512/
“The high-speed stream does not come out the polar hole [although there is some ‘bending down’].” – It comes from the dark area near the equator [a little bit south] and a bit to the right of the center.
“And finally, how are holes different from CME’s?” – Yes, very much so. A CME is kind of the opposite of a coronal hole. coronal holes are areas in the corona where the density is very low [hence their darkness] basically because the stuff that was in the middle of the coronal holes has left the Sun.
A CME cmoes from a region of high-density coronal matter tied up and trapped in a sort of magnetic ‘hang-mat’. If the magnetic field that holds up the matter becomes perturbed it may ’snap’ and expel the matter. This can be directly seen: the trapped stuff [called a ‘filament’] begins to vibrate and shake for minutes or even hours before ‘blowing’. The stuff is connected magnetically to the sun and as a long ‘tongue’ intrudes into the ambient solar wind and further compresses it. The end effect of this hitting the Earth is almost the same as that from a normal solar wind compression region I talked about first: magnetic storms, aurorae, cosmic rays variations, energetic particles, etc.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “but that doesn’t mean that correlations alone are pseudo-scientific.” – Yes if the correlations have an unphysical component. The sun feels no forces in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System [except for the insignificant tidal forces] and can thus not be coupled to anything, so correlating with what it cannot be coupled with is pseudo-science.
“Your good physical reasons do not seem to be ironclad, either.” – ‘Seem” ? I would like you to give a detailed critique of Jiang et al.’s paper before making such a statement. And, again, there is nothing ‘ironclad’ in science.
“There is no “I think” in science, there is either support or falsification.” – Complete bunk! I have been a scientist for 40 years and know hundreds of scientists personally. Science is a lot less objective than you think [no pun]. Each scientist forms his/hers own view of the evidence and forms a personal opinion which governs what he/she believes or thinks [or whatever equivalent word you want to use – cogitate, perhaps] about the subject. Things are not black and white. Even after, what some would consider falsification, others still cling to their beliefs.
So until you are able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of the climate, I suggest you not come down so hard on those that observe correlations and admit to not knowing the underlying mechanism.
“We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System” – to my knowledge, no such evidence exists. I have been studying solar rotation for decades and no such variations have been observed. I also recognize that no arguments of any kind can rock the faith of a true believer [in scientific relativism], but it is my nature to try anyway.

kum dollison:
Graham, let’s fact check him. 100 million tonnes would be 3 Billion, 928 Million bushels. That’s bushels of cattle feed. People, poor or otherwise, don’t eat Field Corn. Cattle eat field corn. They are, in turn, eaten by rich Americans, Europeans, and Asians. In fact, we don’t really export corn to Africa. We didn’t when corn was $.04/lb; and, we don’t now that corn is $0.10/lb. That’s the main reasons I can’t see poor Africans harmed.
If, however, we wanted to we could always plant the 34 million acres that we’re currently paying farmers not to plant. Anyhow, when we reach our goal of fifteen billion gallons of ethanol from corn we will be using about 5 billion bushels (out of a crop of about 13 billion bushels. However, we will get back the feeding ability of about 2 Billion bushels in the form of distillers grains, a cattle feed that is superior to corn.
So, here’s the deal. We’ll use about 23% of a crop that we don’t export to Africa, anyway; and, we’ll retain the ability to produce much more than that if the market desires, just by planting the land that we’re currently paying farmers NOT to plant. I could say a lot more, but it’s getting late and I’ll spare you, other than to say I have a hard time trusting someone’s opinion on a subject I know little about when they pontificate authoritatively (and incorrectly) on something I do know a little about.

Leif Svalgaard:
So until you are able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of the Sun, I suggest you not come down so hard on those that observe correlations and admit to not knowing the underlying mechanism.
So until you are able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of the Climate, I suggest you not come down so hard on those that observe correlations and admit to not knowing the underlying mechanism was what was intended. That one cannot do something perfectly does not in itself validate any old other idea. If I postulate that CO2 ’seems’ to be the course of all evils, you would not come down hard on me if I admitted to not knowing the underlying mechanism unless you were able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of Climate, right? That is at least how I read your statement.

Glenn: “Cite some predictions, and let’s see them come true. If they don’t, according to scientific methodology, your theory is falsified, or at least on very shaky ground. The NASA guy has made two or three, and they haven’t come to pass yet.”
Here is a citation of my prediction:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L01104, doi:10.1029/2004GL021664, 2005. Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest cycle in 100 years? Abstract: Predicting the peak amplitude of the sunspot cycle is a key goal of solar-terrestrial physics. The precursor method currently favored for such predictions is based on the dynamo model in which large-scale polar fields on the decline of the 11-year solar cycle are converted to toroidal (sunspot) fields during the subsequent cycle. The strength of the polar fields during the decay of one cycle is assumed to be an indicator of peak sunspot activity for the following cycle. Polar fields reach their peak amplitude several years after sunspot maximum; the time of peak strength is signaled by the onset of a strong annual modulation of polar fields due to the 7.25 degree tilt of the solar equator to the ecliptic plane. Using direct polar field measurements, now available for four solar cycles, we predict that the approaching solar cycle 24 (2011 maximum – we are probably off by a year here) will have a peak smoothed monthly sunspot number of 75 ± 8, making it potentially the smallest cycle in the last 100 years.
So far, that prediction looks pretty good, in contrast to that of the NASA ‘guys’ you mentioned. We shall see shortly, if I know what I’m talking about.

Richard Patton:
Mark Nodine: “However, in thinking further about the problem, it seems to me that the situation may well be analogous to making statements about an ensemble average using thermodynamics without having to solve the wave equations for every particle that makes up the system. In other words, it may be possible/reasonable to predict macroscopic trends without being able to model all the microscopic details.”
I think this depends on whether climate is chaotic just like weather. Mandelbrot seems to have shown this: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=396
I think the fact that many aspects of climate tend to display LTP / scale-free behavior is also indicative of it being fundamentally chaotic and thus not predictable.

Leif Svalgaard:
You can read the prediction paper at: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf

Julian:
Leif, I know you are at odds with Tilmari at http://solarcycle24.com/ global warming exchanges, but is it quite out of the question that magnetic/electrical influences from the giant planets rather than gravitational are the cause of coincidences with Jovian cycles and climate variations/cycles that he records over millenniums?

Tim Lindt:
Leif Svalgaard: “Assume that all cycles have the same length, say 11 years. Assume that maximum comes about halfway through the cycle, after 5 years. A large cycle with 200 ’spots’ at maximum will then have an average growth rate of 200/5 = 40 spots/year [coming out with a bang]. A small cycle with 50 spots at maximum will have a growth rate of 50/5 = 10 spots/year [coming out with a whimper]. Detailed dynamo models can do better, they predict that stronger cycles are shorter, and that their maximum comes earlier than halfway. This just makes the growth rate even faster [more BANG].”
In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it. Well if we have but 10 years to a cycle and 5 are turned “on” – assuming 100 to 200 spots…  this is a bang… if we have 5 spots for the 5 years “on” this is a whimper… you don’t have to graft it or be a PHD to get that.
Hey the sun is a burning device built to power up this earth and works like one that goes into low off times by flickering out like a candle at the end of the wick/wax, then starts back up like a cold engine detuned.
It’s there in the sun spot numbers from 1749 till now. I couldn’t believe my eyes as I looked at the minima (Dalton). One predictor that is not talked about here is the holy bible. It says ”They will flee the cold north”. Well maybe it is here and now, that this will come to pass. Jetzt und hier!!!!!
Leif keep up the good work and keep an open mind too. passing the word … warn thy people!

Mike Borgelt:
Mark Nodine: “However, in thinking further about the problem, it seems to me that the situation may well be analogous to making statements about an ensemble average using thermodynamics without having to solve the wave equations for every particle that makes up the system. In other words, it may be possible/reasonable to predict macroscopic trends without being able to model all the microscopic details.”
The kicker is “may”. I’d like some mathematical proof that even though the GCMs produce things that look like real weather patterns, that the averages of these are in fact representative of future climate and will correspond with the real climate.
At first glance this seems reasonable but is it really? I suspect this should be amenable to a mathematical proof but I’ve not seen any discussion on this. Is this assumption just lightly made because it sounds so reasonable?
This also raises the possibility that it may be possible to model the macroscopic trends without going in to the microscopic details(GCMs) which perhaps may be more fruitful, along the lines of the thermodynamics example.
One other point: AFAIK the GCMs do model hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones. I once heard Manabe give a seminar on GCMs in 1971during my meteorology course and he said his model was giving trouble in that it generated too many hurricanes and not enough typhoons. When asked about this (we all were puzzled by this as they are the same weather phenomena) he clarified by saying that they were occurring at the wrong frequencies in different places.

Dr. M.A. Rose:
Anthony, an excellent paper/presentation on the whole concept of greenhouse gas effects, strong on logic, common sense. Why not send it to the major media outlets and see if any of them pick it up. Test how much control the climate warming lobby exerts.

RobJM:
Can someone tell me why a small force (like CO2) can have a large effect in climate science, while the rest of the universe has to obey the laws of thermodynamic, ie 1st law: energy cannot be created or destroyed, aka every action has an equal and opposite reaction. therefor a small force like CO2 cannot create a large effect.
2nd law: entropy must always increase, ie law of diminishing returns. for instance climate scientists think that the system is dominated by positive feedbacks. This is the same as saying I made a perpetual motion device, it cannot exist.
Le Chatelier’s principle: a system at equilibrium will resist any forcing, aka any system at equilibrium must produce negative feedback.
Positive feedback can only occur when something snaps back to equilibrium after the system resisted a force. for instance the energy that produces a nuclear explosion (the classic positive feedback) was stored as a form of negative feedback during a supernova.

Ranting Stan:
I’m always a little reticent to post on here as I am not a scientist and a little slow on the uptake generally, but one of the things I often see quoted is that correlation does not imply causation. Can anyone tell me if it works the other way around – i.e. does non-correlation prove non-causation?
I’m sure the answer will be “not necessarily” but I thought I’d ask anyway.
Also, given that man’s contribution to CO2 levels is relatively small compared to the natural and has varied considerably over time – from none at all to around 3% now (possibly more during the period 1940-1970?) could someone explain why it is that whenever I see a plot of temperature against CO2 it is always the temperature anomaly against total CO2? Should it not be temperature anomaly against CO2 anomaly? Would it not make sense to strip out the naturally occuring element before we plot temperature rise against CO2 rise? I’d be interested to see how such a graph pans out given that man’s CO2 emissions rose fastest during a period when temperature fell (1940-1970), but temperature appears to rise fastest at a time when the increase in mans emissions slowed.
Or maybe we should strip out mans contribution to CO2 and see how temperature increase pans out against naturally occuring CO2 levels?

Simon Turnbull:
I never could believe that a mouse’s f*rt in the middle of a ten acre field would ruin the crop. (A first class article in an excellent website!)

Steve:
That bloke who reckons he’s going to kayak to the North Pole (hee, hee). His blog is removing ALL comments that are not supportive. Steven Goddard, yours has gone, and so have all three of mine. Just posted one now asking this question – invite others to do the same.
http://polardefenseproject.org/blog/

Leif Svalgaard:
Julian: “but is it quite out of the question that magnetic/electrical influences from the giant planets rather than gravitational are the cause of coincidences with Jovian cycles and climate variations/cycles that he records over millenniums?”
In a conducting plasma magnetic/electrical changes propagate with the Alfven speed, somewhat analogous to the sound speed in air. The solar wind is ’supersonic’ in the sense that it moves away from the sun 11 times faster than the Alfven speed, i.e. 11 times faster than magnetic/electrical changes can propagate towards to sun. It is like swimming upstream at 1 mph in a river flowing downstream at 11 mph: you’ll never get upstream.

Tim Lindt:
If we have but 10 years to a cycle and 5 are turned “on”, assuming 100 to 200 spots… this is a bang… if we have 5 spots for the 5 years “on” this is a whimper… you don’t have to graph it or be a PHD to get that.
Apparently Glenn doesn’t get it, as he claims I have not made my case and explained this so he can understand it. One predictor that is not talked about here is the holy bible. Matthew 7:7 says it well.

TonyB:
Maybe the BBC is softening its attitude too! http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/sceptics.shtml

Stephen Wilde:
The basic mechanism described by Mr Duffy was previously set out in my article: http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1041 which has appeared worldwide and has had over 10,000 readings on the Co2sceptics site alone. Various sentences are virtually identical save for a few cosmetic changes and his title: “Climate Change – The Real Causes” appears to be just a rewording of my title: “Global Warming and Cooling – The Reality”.
Whilst I am happy that anyone might wish to use my material I do think there should be proper attribution.

jmrSudbury:
I just heard on the radio news that they are now trying to say that smog contributes to global warming and has been largely overlooked as a forcing.
Oi! — John M Reynolds

Dee Norris:
What kum dollison is not saying is that as the price for corn goes up, farmers are switching crops to the more profitable corn feed stocks for the biofuels. Then the supply of these other grains and cereals goes down, so the price goes up.
Furthermore I disagree with his calculation as he does not account for the fuel needed to harvest the feed stock for biofuel, further increasing the total amount of feed stock needed be grown to break even nor is he allowing for crop rotation and other good farming practices.
I did an analysis of several of the alternative fuels as part of a local effort to stop the construction of industrial wind-turbines here in the Catskills and will try to dig up the article I wrote for the local paper. Note: I apologize if I got your gender incorrect.

MarkW:
I guess it’s just me, but this article just sounds like a regurgitation of everything us AGW skeptics have been saying – he’s not adding anything new, not even a new perspective (at least from my super skimming of it).
The important thing is that he’s saying it. Nobody pays attention to us. Him, they might. Just because correlation does not prove causation is not evidence that correlation is never indicative of something deeper.

Ric Werme:
Neil Fisher: “Hi Leif, you said: “We have been over this before, but the barycenter and planetary tides mechanisms do not operate on the Sun.”
I wouldn’t doubt you on anything solar related, but this seems disingeneous to me in face of SIM correlations and (correct) predictions WRT sunspot numbers, ENSO events etc. I watched these unfold and they are spookily accurate to date. I guess that it could be a coincidence, but it sure seems to me that such analyses have predictive power. We shall no doubt have to wait and see, but I am curious to know what it would take for you (and others) to accept that there may be something to this after all. To date, I see 10 years of climate predictions and 4 ENSO events correctly predicted, which is pretty impressive (especially the ENSO events – years in advance is significantly better than any other system). Of course, they can be said to be somewhat vague, but what climate/weather prediction is not?”
My problem with BTSs include:
1) We’ve beaten this to death once before. It’s a mass of fetid flesh.
2) Objects orbit others based on gravitational attraction (and various relativistic complications). That’s dependent on mass and distance.
3) Well layered spherical masses can be modeled as points.
4) Objects distorted by tides cannot be modeled as points. This is used to good effect in near polar Earth orbits.
5) Barycenters do not have mass.
6) I’m rather fond of the statistical links between sunspot cycles and Jupiter, even though articles like http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html have to abuse the data to come up with the links.
Barycenters are just a mathematical convenience and are probably quite useful if you are dealing with point-like objects and keep in mind that a barycenter is not a physical object. They are not necessary for any orbital calculations and I’m sure they fall apart when used with anything that looks like a tide.
Still, if barycentric hypotheses can be used successfully for predictions, they’re useful. Instead of arguing here with WordPress’s abysmal search technology, your time would be better spent coming up with a prediction for the next 20-100 years and putting it on a web page for all to see. I’d be glad to add it to http://wermenh.com/climate/ . While orbital dynamics are chaotic in all but a few trivial systems, the Solar System can be predicted with great accuracy for the several thousands or millions of years, so 20-100 is easy. Then we could get back to sitting back and enjoying watching the show.

Stephen Wilde:
Some evidence to support my earlier posts, then I’ll give it a rest:
Global Warming and Cooling- The Reality (Wilde)
Climate Change-The Real Causes (Duffy)
The presence of the sun must be a much bigger influence on global temperatures than the greenhouse characteristics of CO2 on its own. (Wilde)
The sun clearly must be a much bigger influence on global temperatures than any of the greenhouse gases. (Duffy)
The greenhouse effect, as a whole, may smooth out rises and falls in temperature from other causes. (Wilde)
The ‘greenhouse effect’ acts as a mechanism to smooth out fluctuations or rises and falls in temperature. (Duffy)
The greenhouse effect is mainly a phenomenon of the land surface and the atmosphere. (Duffy)
The greenhouse effect is mainly a phenomenon of the land surface and the atmosphere. (Wilde)
The strongest sunlight reaching the Earth is around the Equator that is primarily oceanic. The equatorial sun puts heat into the system year in year out whereas loss of heat is primarily via the poles with each alternating as the main heat loser depending on time of year. (Wilde)
The sun’s energy at the equator is consistent all year round, and in this region the larger proportion of surface area happens to be the ocean water. The dominant heat loss is primarily at the poles with each pole alternating as the main loser of heat. (Duffy)
I believe that ENSO switches from warming to cooling mode depending on whether the sun is having a net warming or net cooling effect on the Earth. Thus the sun directly drives the ENSO cycle and the ENSO cycle directly drives global temperature changes. Indeed, the effect appears to be much more rapid than anyone has previously believed. (Wilde)
The sun directly drives the El Nino–El Nina current motions that drive temperature changes world-wide. (Duffy)
The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO cycle) turns from warming to cooling depending on the net warming or cooling effect of the sun. This occurs quite rapidly. (Duffy)
there are similar periodic oscillations in other oceans such as the Atlantic and the Arctic (Wilde)
Also there are similar periodic oscillations in other oceans (Atlantic and the Arctic oceans). (Duffy)
When we compare that with land masses, a lower proportion of heat is reflected from watery zones to participate in the greenhouse effect. (Duffy)
more of the incoming heat is absorbed by water as compared to land and a lower proportion is reflected to participate in the greenhouse effect. (Wilde)
The heat from the sun varies over a number of solar cycles which can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years (the main one is the cycle of 11 years). The earth also has an irregular orbit around the sun. These and other effects like the gravitational effects of the planets of the solar system, combine to affect the sun’s magnetic field. Solar fares and sunspots affect the amount of heat generated from the sun. (Duffy)
The heat from the sun varies over a number of interlinked and overlapping cycles but the main one is the cycle of 11 years or so. That solar cycle can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years and appears to be linked to the gravitational effects of the planets of the solar system combining to affect the sun’s magnetic field which seems then to influence the amount of heat generated and incidentally affects the number of sunspots. (Wilde)

Erl Happ:
Professor Duffy has logically and methodically covered the big picture. The notion that CO2 content of the atmosphere might be responsible for the pattern of temperature decrease and then equally strong increase that has been seen at high latitudes in both hemispheres, in winter, since 1948, does not add up. There has been little change in temperature at mid latitudes and a slight increase in the tropics in summer. He points to the importance of warming and cooling events and the tropical ocean in these words:
Let us recognize common sense when we see it. Lets look at the data for the different latitudes and hemispheres and be a little analytical. ‘Global temperature’ is a big distraction. Polewards of 40° latitude radiation exceeds insolation. Between 40°N and 40°S energy gain from the sun exceeds that radiated. Energy is picked up by the tropical ocean and moved to high latitudes. If there is a gain in th energy absorbed in the tropical ocean it shows up as an increase in temperature at high latitudes.
Here is the model that explains the variation. Imagine yourself standing out in a blizzard with an electric blanket wrapped around your middle and you will get the general idea. What we have to do is to explain the fluctuation in energy supply to the part of the body inside the blanket. A moments reflection will reveal that the answer must have something to do with changing cloud cover, i.e. albedo.
The link between the sun and changing albedo in the tropics must be explained if we are to rid ourselves of this monkey on the back. Outgoing long wave radiation varies directly with the Southern Oscillation index. El Nino events involve a fall in OLR as the tropical oceans absorb energy while La Nina events involve a loss of stored energy and a fall in sea surface temperature. These warming and cooling events are experienced right across the tropics. The Pacific happens to be the most dramatic manifestation because it is a very large ocean and the effect of the near conjunction of Tierra Del Fuego and the Antarctic Peninsula.
Let’s focus on the big picture and not get distracted in argument about peripheral details, The barycentre notion is one of these.
La Nina’s commonly occur at sunspot maximum. This overwhelms any effect from changing irradiance. Irradiance changes very little over long periods of time. the two aspects of solar activity that change strongly over time are ultraviolet radiation and the solar wind.
The answer lies not in knowing more about the sun. It lies in knowing a lot more about how the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output.

Here’s the Duffy quote that did not appear on cue: “The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO cycle) turns from warming to cooling depending on the net warming or cooling effect of the sun.The dominant heat loss is primarily at the poles with each pole alternating as the main loser of heat. As a result there are severe cyclical variations in temperature with the seas and ice caps having the dominant effects in energy changes and hence temperature effects.”

kum dollison:
Dee, any corn farmer will tell you that total fuel used for planting, cultivation, harvesting, etc. is less than 8 gal/acre. In as much as, an acre, after accounting for distillers grains, yields about 700 gallons of ethanol the ” energy needed to grow” argument loses a lot of steam.
And, again, we only row-crop 250 million acres (out of 1.2 billion arable acres. – We used to rowcrop 400 million acres in the U.S.) That means we have 150 million acres formerly row-cropped land lying fallow, or used for light grazing.
Dee, 70% of the most poverty-stricken in the world are subsistence farmers. These are the people that have suffered the most from the subsidized crops grown in the U.S. and Europe. Five Dollar Corn, if their governments will allow them to sell it, and export it, might cure more malnourishment in the 3rd world than all the “poverty programs, combined.
Bottom line: Field Corn has gone up a nickel/lb. and there is, according to a recent stufy from Stanford University, between 1.0, and 1.2 Billion Acres of Abandoned Farmland in the World.
Dee, there are Tremendous amounts of money involved in outcome of this. It is really not all that hard to get articles published, even in the “prestigious” journals if the money is right. One needs to be Very careful in choosing the “heroes” in this particular case.

Leif Svalgaard:
At http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2833 Schüssler explains why the correlation between growth rate and solar cycle size works: A robust correlation between growth rate and amplitude of solar cycles: consequences for prediction methods  Authors: Schüssler, R. Cameron M.  Publication Date: 06/2008, ApJ accepted Abstract
We consider the statistical relationship between the growth rate of activity in the early phase of a solar cycle with its subsequent amplitude on the basis of four datasets of global activity indices (Wolf sunspot number, group sunspot number, sunspot area, and 10.7-cm radio flux). In all cases, a significant correlation is found: stronger cycles tend to rise faster. Owing to the overlapping of sunspot cycles, this correlation leads to an amplitude-dependent shift of the solar minimum epoch. We show that this effect explains the correlations underlying various so-called precursor methods for the prediction of solar cycle amplitudes and also affects the prediction tool of Dikpati et al. (2006) based upon a dynamo model. Inferences as to the nature of the solar dynamo mechanism resulting from predictive schemes which (directly or indirectly) use the timing of solar minima should therefore be treated with caution.

Dee Norris:
@Kum – I didn’t disagree with your conclusions regarding Africa. I don’t disagree with your statements on abandoned farm land.
The fuel usage per acre which you quote is for pure petro-diesel, not bio-diesel blend. Forget trying to harvest corn using ethanol. I hear the farmers at the local Mom’s Diner grumble about fuel per acre all the time and I buy a great deal of hay for my own horse.
Crop derived bio-fuels would not be cost competitive without the massive government subsidies. There may be better solutions in the pipe, but it always comes down to energy out < energy in. In a cooling world, the energy needed to grow the feeder stocks will get higher (or more likely the return will get lower and lower).
The technology exists to feed the world, provide clean water, what is missing is the funding. Another reason NOT to support AGW is the money spent on trying to prevent it is basically thrown away when it can be used to for better, nobler purposes.

Hessischer:
Ranting Stan: “Non-correlation does not prove non-causation.”
You are unlikely to observe linear correlation between weight and radius of ballbearings but you’ll see it if you test with radius cubed. But radius and weight are certainly related. More subtle relationships will be less easily revealed.
If naturally occurring CO2 can be assumed constant its presence or absence will not affect an estimate of correlation. The appearances of plots are just that, presentational matters.

Gary Gulrud:
“The answer lies not in knowing more about the sun. It lies in knowing a lot more about how the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output.” Money quote.

Leif Svalgaard:
Gary Gulrud: “The answer lies not in knowing more about the sun. It lies in knowing a lot more about how the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output.” Money quote.
Except that two factors play a role:
1) the reaction [if any] is at or below the noise-level and is therefore not of practical significance
2) the Sun varies less than thought only a few years ago
So, the answer lies not in knowing more about the sun or of how little the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output, but in understanding the internal oscillations of the system and the interplay between atmosphere, ocean, lithosphere, and biosphere [including man]. Using ’solar influence’ as a dumping ground for what we can’t ascribe yet to something else [as has been done ever since Giovanni Battista Riccioli first did this is 1651] has not proven very fruitful.

Here is some information about the ‘global cooling crisis’ in the mid 1600s: http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/currentunder/honours/history/general/9resources/parker_2.pdf
and the search for causes: In search of causes: Opinions of Hermann of Hesse (stars), Increase Mather (comets), Raymundo Magisa (volcanoes), Giovanni Battista Riccioli (sunspots)  Observations of Christopher Scheiner (1626) and Johannes Hevelius (1642-4) and the ‘Sunspot Minimum’ (1643-1715). The fatal cycle: volcanoes plus sunspot minimum -> solar cooling -> more ‘El Niño’ events (1640, 1641, 1647, 1650) -> more volcanic eruptions.
We have not progressed a lot in the intervening 350 years…

Gary Gulrud:
“Five Dollar Corn, if their governments will allow them to sell it, and export it, might cure more malnourishment in the 3rd world than all the “poverty programs, combined.” Last year’s $5 dollar corn is a significant cost for a family living on $1 per day. They have to have something to sell in return at comparative advantage. This year corn planted was down 6% because more acreage went into wheat and soy (acreage available for more rice is limited) as their prices have skyrocketed with worldwide shortages (rice as well). These, along with rice are superior foodstuffs in terms of calories, nutrients and variety of preparations. This year corn is already over $7 and should soon turn higher as cool weather lowers yields on the remaining fields not destroyed by flooding.
Meanwhile, here in the cornbelt, gas extended with ethanol remains 10% more expensive per mile than petrol at the pump. Just this year two ethanol plants preparing to go online suspended operation in ND. They would have lost money and their investors saw no end to that prospect. Ethanol is crashing due to market forces and government can only exacerbate the trend.

Bob Tisdale:
Ranting Stan: “I always enjoyed looking at the long-term graph of the monthly change in CO2. It clearly resembles the NINO3.4 anomaly curve (and most other variables impacted by ENSO) in its rises and falls.”
There are lots of studies that discuss the link between ENSO and CO2. Just so happens I’m finishing up a post on it. I’ll throw up a link when I’m done. Might not be till this evening.

kum dollison:
Dee, the difference between petro-diesel, and bio-diesel is somewhere between 0%, and 10% fuel efficiency, depending on the engine, and circumstances. In other words, as regards EROEI of biofuels, it’s insignificant. And, yes, ethanol-powered farm equipment would work just fine. An ethanol-optimized tractor will give comparable (if not better) performance to a diesel tractor.
As for profitability, even at today’s corn prices the ethanol refineries are making a profit selling ethanol at $2.20/gal. The price of Wholesale Unleaded, today, is $2.70. BTW, it looks like Bluefire, and the other “Municipal Waste to Ethanol” technologies will come in at less than $1.50/gal.
Also, you might ask yourself this question. “What would the price of gasoline be if we weren’t using over 600,000 Barrels/Day of Ethanol. At least one major Wall Street Firm thinks you would be looking at an Extra $.50/gal. What would that add to the cost of a box of cornflakes?

Bill Marsh:
Leif, I agree with your comments about the planetary gravitic effects. Don’t those gravitic tides affect earths orbit though, adding some more eccentricity to the orbit and thus affecting solar irradiance?

Stephen Wilde:
Professor Duffy has expressed regret at his inadvertent failure to attribute so I’ve agreed that his article is unobjectionable on the basis that he acknowledges my input.

kum dollison:
Gary, I’m not going to use up any more of Anthony’s bandwidth arguing biofuels. I did want to point out that the part of the author’s article that dealt with something I was familiar with was very suspect.
As for your comment; you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Corn, today, is about $5.25 bu at the elevator: http://ncga.ncgapremium.com/index.aspx?mid=28566
As for “mileage,” it’s very complex. Most cars will get Better mileage on a twenty, or thirty percent blend of Ethanol than on a ten percent blend. Having said that, the “average” car will give up about 1.5% mileage on e10 vs gasoline, but straight gasoline will cost about 3% more. Ethano isn’t “crashing.” We’re using more every day, despite the fact that Big Oil, and the Meat Industry is trying hard to kill it every day.

Mark Nodine:
Ranting Stan: “could someone explain why it is that whenever I see a plot of temperature against CO2 it is always the temperature anomaly against total CO2? Should it not be temperature anomaly against CO2 anomaly?”
An anomaly is simply the value of a series after subtracting out a constant representing some reference period. From a graphical standpoint, it results in shifting the graph up and down, or alternatively, in changing the labels on the y-axis while leaving the shape of the curve the same. So graphing an anomaly against a total is pretty much the same thing from the standpoint of eyeballing the data as using two anomalies or two totals.
In practice, people use the temperature anomaly because it’s readily available and gives some sense of how unusual the current temperatures. The four different temperature series use different reference periods, so their anomalies have different magnitudes even if the actual temperatures are identical.

Mike Bryant:
Bob Tisdale, just wondering if the satellite temperature data could be graphed showing the earth in three separate regions, north, south and central? I have a feeling that such a graph might show something unexpected. Thanks, Mike Bryant

Leif Svalgaard:
Bill Marsh: “I agree with your comments about the planetary gravitic effects. Don’t those gravitic tides affect earths orbit though, adding some more eccentricity to the orbit and thus affecting solar irradiance?”
No, they do not, as it is the barycenter that moves around. Here is a plot [from Alexander’s paper] showing what the distance [and also the TSI] between the sun and the Earth should be according to BTS: http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA10.png and here is what is actually observed [in terms of TSI: the black curve]: http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA11.png with the data points from the previous figure added in [the red dots]. As you can see, the observed TSI does not match the BTS prediction. BTW, you might be able to discern some VERY small wiggles in the black curve [e.g. one near the top in 1993]. Those are the variations caused by solar activity. Note how utterly insignificant [like 50-100 times smaller] they are compared to the regular march of the sine-wave due to the smoothly varying sun-earth distance.

Jack Linard:
I for one have had enough of the the smug, arrogant, condescending and boorish Lief Svalgaard. Lief is always right. Nobody may question his right to be right. Lief knows the sun and the sun knows Lief. Lief adds nothing to any discussion, except to ensure that Lief’s right to be right is respected. Proof, justification, implications, explanations, etc, are nowhere to be found. As an engineer, I find it difficult to tolerate this degree of sanctimonious science.

claire:
Can’t we just admit that, as humans, we don’t really know everything about our impact on the environment? Maybe we can just play it safe and drive a little less, in case all the paid-off scientists are wrong (cough.. cough… bogus science reports saying that cigarettes are “healthy” half a century ago)

jmrSudbury:
NOAA released their Sept sunspot graph. They truncated the left side of the red curves slightly, but those prediction high and low lines are unchanged otherwise that I can see. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/sunspot.gif – John M Reynolds

Gary Gulrud:
Leif, please, how does the author’s point morph into your own? Because he didn’t provide the itemized list? “So, the answer lies not in knowing more about the sun or of how little the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output, but in understanding the internal oscillations of the system and the interplay between atmosphere, ocean, lithosphere, and biosphere [including man].” BTW, I am on a Palin binge and can’t get back.

Leif Svalgaard:
jmrSudbury: “NOAA released their Sept sunspot graph. They truncated the left side of the red curves slightly, but those prediction high and low lines are unchanged otherwise that I can see.”
They, of course, need to move the red curves to the right, but since it is an official product, they cannot do that without excessive bureaucratic hassle. so expect the curves to be more and more silly in the future until the Panel makes another prediction [if ever].

Gary Gulrud: “Please, how does the author’s point morph into your own? Because he didn’t provide the itemized list?”
I don’t know what you mean and why it matters. I used his phraseology and added what I consider important. Namely that the Sun is not a player, no matter how badly we want him to be [for many disparate reasons].

Bruce Cobb:
Namely that the Sun is not a player, no matter how badly we want him to be [for many disparate reasons].There you go again, Leif, with your anti-sun ideology. Sorry, not buying it. You sure talk a good game, though.

Jack Simmons:
Here are some correlations I’ve noticed: In the fall, bears go into hibernation. Winter follows. When bears come out of hibernation, winter ends. Therefore, bears hibernating causes winter. First cell phones went into use in 1977. Each cell phone generates heat. Cell phone usage has gone up with global temperatures. Therefore, cell phone usage is the cause of global warming. Isn’t science wonderful? With such a small investment in facts, one can reap a rich reward. And on small things having a big impact: I don’t have to worry about that little train down the track. It is really, really tiny so I can just take my time moving my car off the track…

Leif Svalgaard:
Bruce Cobb: “There you go again, Leif, with your anti-sun ideology. Sorry, not buying it. You sure talk a good game, though.”
It is not fair to call it ideology. It is the result of 40+ years of study of this and of familiarity with hundreds of scientific papers purporting this or that [or no] claim. Now, tell me why you don’t buy it.

Leif Svalgaard:
Jack Simmons: “I don’t have to worry about that little train down the track. It is really, really tiny so I can just take my time moving my car off the track…”
Naaw, just stay put and let the train pass under your car…

Tamara:
Kum, just one little thought about those poor subsistence farmers in Africa who would benefit from $5/bu corn: what do you think subsistence farming means?
These are not people with the infrastructure, technology, water resources or capability of producing exportable crops. As it is, their farming/land-clearing methods are resulting in desertification of the environment. If $5/bu corn would save them, they’d already be selling it to us (though I’m sure their governments would reap the rewards, rather than the actual farmers).
It isn’t global warming or fat Westerners that are causing the poverty that afflicts these people, it is a complex mix of regional conflicts, corrupt governments, and the chaos left over from Imperialism.
If the Africans want to sell me some nice thick, juicy wildebeest steaks, I’ll be happy to lift them out of poverty.

mcauleysworld:
What a wonderful site! There is intelligent life out there after all. Thank you.

kum dollison:
Tamara, I will agree that those African farmers have many problems, starting with terrible governance in many cases. I was just trying to make the point that whether we feed corn to cattle and sell the beef to rich Koreans, or whether we extract some of the starch for ethanol before we feed the protein to the cattle, and then sell the beef is not one of them.

Jack Linard:
Oh dear. I had the bad taste to question the beLiefs of those who believe that the sun has no influence on climate. Sorry, Anthony – I was a fan. I’m an AGW skeptic (with qualifications to justify my position).

Tamara:
True, that isn’t the problem. And, it may be that $5/bu corn isn’t really a problem, at least not in the U.S. Corn already has industrial uses other than ethanol, so it’s really just a matter of expanding corn’s utility. But, people (a.k.a. the marketplace) should have the ability to choose, to some extent, how they spend their hard earned money. My choice is to be able to purchase meat and chicken to put on my family’s table. If the two choices are: 1) Eat meat, or 2) the salvation of the planet, I will take the salvation of the planet. Most rational people would. The ethanol debate isn’t about just finding another use for corn. It is about government (and world government) mandated and subsidized use of food stuffs to produce biofuels in a misguided bid to save us from ourselves. I am paying my government to increase the price of the meat on my table in order to save me from a trace gas that may or may not be warming the planet by a degree or so (which is consistent with the post-ice age warming rate). Frankly, that chaps my hide.
Also, you have mentioned that the people in developing countries are not affected by our use of corn for ethanol, because we don’t export corn to them. But what about the foodstuffs that they are using in their own countries to produce biofuels (soybeans, beets, sugarcane, etc.)? Do you also argue that this does not affect food prices in developing countries (serious question. If there is a reason, I’d like to know it.)? Was it just ignorance that has led to rioting? Is it a concern that there are regimes who would deem it much more satisfying to sell ethanol to Western nations rather than feed their own people?

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, I share your view that gravitational influences would have no direct effect on the Earth’s climate systems. However I have seen it suggested that the combined gravitational effects of the planets in the solar system will move the barycentre of the solar system around and that the position of the barycentre in relation to the position of the sun will have an effect on the sun’s inner workings and result in changes in output possibly linked to the observed solar cycles. Would you go along with that ?

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde: “the position of the barycentre in relation to the position of the sun will have an effect on the sun’s inner workings and result in changes in output possibly linked to the observed solar cycles. Would you go along with that?”
No, I would not, for reasons that I have stated here several times [the main one being that the sun is following a geodesic in a curved space and feeling no forces]. IMHO, hitching your writings [and Duffy’s by extension] to BTS effects diminishes the paper.

Stephen Wilde:
“Outgoing long wave radiation varies directly with the Southern Oscillation index. El Nino events involve a fall in OLR as the tropical oceans absorb energy while La Nina events involve a loss of stored energy and a fall in sea surface temperature”
Erl, I was puzzled by the above and wonder whether it is the right way round. El Nino releases energy stored in the ocean to the atmosphere so there should be a rise in OLR and a decrease in stored energy (unless the sun is in an active phase and still adding energy faster than it is being released). Vice versa for La Nina which holds energy back from the atmosphere with a fall in OLR and an increase in stored energy (unless the sun is in a quiet phase and unable to add energy faster than it is still being released.
It is quite correct that it is a matter of overall system balance as Leif has said rather than any necessary substantial solar variation but in a highly sensitive ocean regulated system very small solar changes could indeed have a significant effect over enough time. Each phase of the PDO is 30 years so 60 years or nearly six solar cycles for a full PDO cycle which could throw up sizeable variability from small slow solar changes.
Remember too that there are a lot of square metres on Earth’s surface so even a change in irradiance of one unit or less per square metre will multiply up to a sizeable amount of energy.

“The position of the barycentre in relation to the position of the sun will have an effect on the sun’s inner workings and result in changes in output possibly linked to the observed solar cycles.”

Would you go along with that ?

Leif Svalgaard:
No, I would not, for reasons that I have stated here several times [the main one being that the sun is following a geodesic in a curved space and feeling no forces]. IMHO, hitching your writings [and Duffy’s by extension] to BTS effects diminishes the paper.”
My wording differs from Duffy’s to the extent that my article does not rely on any particular cause for the solar cycles. All my article requires is that there are solar cycles and historically there have been observed real world correlations over several centuries.
My curiosity on the point arises from this item which seems able to make reasonable predictions on the basis of planetary influences on solar behaviour. I dont pretend to know the definitive position myself. http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#intro

RobJM:
If two patterns are in harmony then there is a very high likelihood of a physical connection, since without a connection the two waves will move out of phase. So if A and B are in harmony then either A causes B or B cause A or C cause A & B. If a pattern on the sun is in harmony with a pattern on the earth then there must be a physical connection.
By the way, is there any comments on why a small CO2 forcing can have a large effect in clear violation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics? Or why a system driven by positive feedbacks (as climate is often described) is actually a description of a perpetual motion device, clearly impossible. Cheers

Bob Tisdale:
Mike Bryant, sorry, but I don’t have time today to create graphs that I won’t be using at my blog. But here’s a link to the RSS MSU data broken down by latitude: http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_1.txt
And here’s a link to the UAH MSU data that’s also broken down by latitude: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
I’m surprised you haven’t been able to find the comparison graphs by doing a google image search. They should be out there. I know I’ve seen them.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde: “My curiosity on the point arises from this item which seems able to make reasonable predictions on the basis of planetary influences on solar behaviour. I dont pretend to know the definitive position myself. http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#intro
I do not see a table with “post-dictions’ of past cycles and their errors or skill score [maybe I just missed it in the mass of numbers] and the only real prediction I can find is for cycle 24 to be 30-60 with maximum in 2014. As I have said before, there are other theories [e.g Cliverd et al. based on different ‘cyclomania’:
Predicting Solar Cycle 24 and beyond  Authors: Clilverd, Mark A.; Clarke, Ellen; Ulich, Thomas; Rishbeth, Henry; Jarvis, Martin J.  (British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK); Publication: Space Weather, Volume 4, Issue 9, CiteID S09005  Publication Date: 09/2006  Origin: DOI: 10.1029/2005SW000207 Abstract
We use a model for sunspot number using low-frequency solar oscillations, with periods 22, 53, 88, 106, 213, and 420 years modulating the 11-year Schwabe cycle, to predict the peak sunspot number of cycle 24 and for future cycles, including the period around 2100 A.D. We extend the earlier work of Damon and Jirikowic (1992) by adding a further long-period component of 420 years.
Typically, the standard deviation between the model and the peak sunspot number in each solar cycle from 1750 to 1970 is +/-34. The peak sunspot prediction for cycles 21, 22, and 23 agree with the observed sunspot activity levels within the error estimate. Our peak sunspot prediction for cycle 24 is significantly smaller than cycle 23, with peak sunspot numbers predicted to be 42 +/- 34. […] or a maximum in the [wide] range 8-76.] that predict similar numbers, therefore a ‘hit’ cannot be taken as unique support for any of these.
At any rate, I missed the skill score statistics that shows that this method works. All ‘prediction’ methods claim a high success rate, otherwise they would not have been brought forward, but clearly they cannot all be correct, so a mere claim that it works cannot be taken as evidence that ‘this is it!’.

Leif Svalgaard:
RobJM: “If two patterns are in harmony then there is a very high likely hood of a physical connection, since without a connection the two waves will move out of phase. So if A and B are in harmony then either A causes B or B cause A or C cause A & B. If a pattern on the sun is in harmony with a pattern on the earth then there must be a physical connection.”
Absolutely. This was the [correct] argument a hundred years ago for a connection between sunspots and geomagnetic storms. But show me the pattern in the climate that is in harmony with a pattern in the Sun.
Now, there is a little twist. There are LOTS of such patterns and LOTS of people that claim them. The problem is that these people do not agree as to what and when. If they all did [as they now agree on the harmony patterns of sunspots and magnetic storms – there is no debate any more] then we would not have this discussion.
So, you will have to show why your patterns are superior to anybody else’s patterns.

John F. Pittman:
Leif, I am sure that you have explained this before. Although in general, I agree with your statement >> BTW, you might be able to discern some VERY small wiggles in the black curve [e.g. one near the top in 1993]. Those are the variations caused by solar activity. Note how utterly insignificant [like 50-100 times smaller] they are compared to the regular march of the sine-wave due to the smoothly varying sun-earth distance.<< However, the other problem is that I thought that TSI was greater in the time when the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, as indiacted by your graph where December is greater than June.
In that CO2 is well mixed, then shouldn’t global warming in the southern hemisphere be greater than northern hemisphere? The IPCC indicate such a small portion of the W/m^2 proves manmade global warming. That difference, in your graph, is so small, and yet, it is the actual and proven cause of recent global warming per IPCC. After all, the GCM’s which also prove global warming, in description, have a thermal barrier at the tropics. However, CO2, being nearly an ideal gas, is dispersed through atmosphere relatively evenly; except; it is noted, and accepted, that it is somewhat less concentrated in the polar regions, due to the known temperature relationship for water and gas phases.
Could you provide the same insights to this difference of TSI in the cycle you graphed, and the IPCC claims for southern versus northern hemispheres? I mean, after all if the sine wave is smoothly varying and the southerm hemisphere receives such an appreciable amount more than the northern, what explanation will explain the difference that the southern is cooler than the northern? I would say that it is the difference between the amount of land versus ocean in the respective hemispheres. However, with evaporation, the thermal capacity of water is much greater than soils, due to the fact that the triple point of water is 0C at standard temperature and pressure. I wonder how one can use W/m^2 as a standard in a system where the main GHG is water which has a 1:273 ratio for comparing actual heat of water (ocean) versus water vapor (GHG). Yet one of the admitted weaknesses, therefore one of the weaknesses of the proof, is that GCM’s either do not do water cycles ( a single lumped parameter) or cannot model water cycles if they try.
Further, these same models are promoted as being able to do regions, less that their grid size, and determine whether it will be drought or flodd up to 100 years in the future. With what you have posted on TSI, what would it take to accept/prove the claims stated above? If the claim is that the southern hemisphere has more water, and yet shows less temperature increase than the northern hemisphere, is this not proof, at least indirect proof, that water is actually a negative feedback, rather than a positive one?
Further, one the principle reactions is that mass that heats, expands; and for air systems, this means that the tendency on the atomic and molecular level is to rise, taking heat and mass upwards where it can release the energy in our system. This is a conservative approach. Also, in that air under conditions of boundary, the most energetic atoms/molecules, on a empirical basis, are the ones that tend to rise upward (outward in a compressed cylinder), which means that the atoms/molecules that exit are in a state of higher energy than those remaining in that state. That temperature, all things being equal as the IPCC have claimed, is a good measurement of heat/energy in the earth system means this approach is an even more conservative approach..this is based on how the IPCC justify their computation and recognition of climate sensitivity.
Yet, this claim by the IPCC appears to fail a most cursory examination. Could you provide some insight with respect to TSI?

kum dollison:
Tamara, the other Major Ethanol-producing country is Brazil. They make ethanol from sugar cane grown in the southern/central parts of the country. The Cerrano where they grow soybeans has, according to their government, 150 Million Acres of fertile land lying fallow. Their government has stated that they could replace every drop of gasoline in the U.S. and never cut down a tree, or fail to feed a single Brazilian.
Stanford Univ. states that their are 1.2 Billion Acres of Abandoned Farmland in the World.
With all the noise of Gas Prices going up, and Down, and Speculation, etc. etc. keep one thing in mind. Many really smart oil analysts think that around 2011 the world is going to start running very short on Oil. Even now, Exports from Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Nigeria, among others, are Declining. Add to that the fact that production from our own North Slope, and Gulf of Mexico is Declining, and that the U.K., China, and Indonesia are now Importers rather than exporters, and you might get a glimpse of the problem developing.
In short, Tamara, the main argument for forcing the Energy companies to develop biofuels is not grounded in Climate. If it was, believe me, I’d feel the same as you.

Leif Svalgaard:
John F. Pittman: “Could you provide some insight with respect to TSI?”
Most of your long comment on the difference between the Northern/southern Hemisphere I do not know any good answers to. My hunch [like yours] is that the different distributions of Land/Sea is crucial. When we try to evaluate the impact of TSI, we must remember that what actually matters is not TSI, but what is left after the albedo has taken its cut. And the albedo over Sea and Land [and the cloud cover] is different. This all is taken into account, or so the modelers tell us, so I guess there should be no mysteries. Perhaps somebody more qualified that I on this, could take it from here…

Bob Tisdale:
Ranting Stan: “Here’s the link to the graph of the month-to-month changes in CO2 that bears a striking resemblance to the NINO3.4 anomaly curve.
http://i34.tinypic.com/2sb0k6g.jpg
And here’s the link to the post that compares it to NINO3.4 and other SST data sets: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/09/atmospheric-co2-concentration-versus.html

John F. Pittman:
Though you do not know a good answer, perhaps as I do when looking at phenomena, you could comment on the orders of magnitude as you did for TSI. After all, with a 1:273 lever against and using temperature for climate sensitivity and the very physical reaction of gas to excitement by an energy source (sun or CO2 enhancement), how can one take these account and say there is a positive feedback?
When I showed using a twice conservative approach even ignoring this 1:273 ratio, that the feedback is negative you would reply >> we must remember that what actually matters is not TSI, but what is left after the albedo has taken its cut. And the albedo over Sea and Land [and the cloud cover] is different. This all is taken into account, or so the modelers tell us, so I guess there should be no mysteries<< So I show that it is about 1000 times (273 x 4, if not 273 x 2 x 4 = 2000 times more), 3 orders of magnitude unlikely, very much like your TSI.
You reply with a albedo that has been measured IIRC varying about +/-10% for +/- 3 SD for all changes from frigid to much warmer than present. However, using your graph where it is 110 units of 1365 (average) which is a 8% and we compare 10% x .3 (land/ocean ratio) we get 3% with a relative linear trend since the IPCC used delta Temperature to compute sensitivity, and an 8% that has land and water. But since I like conservative approaches, soil has a typical water content of 30%. Now our value goes to 1% with this linear IPCC delta. But it does not stop there. Soil, and especially soil with water has a good insulating affect of about 2.6. My favorite example of this, is that where I live, dogs dig under bushes into the dirt to cool themselves; you could look up insulating properites od common elements.
Anyway, 1%/2.6 = 0.4%. So now we are about an order of magnitude less for the albedo effect. Note that this effect also is coupled with the 1:273, and transpiration is noted by the IPCC. So the effect of water, regardless of the IPCC assumptions decrease this 0.4% versus 8%. So that it approaches two orders of magnitude, if the change in water vapor is significant. It is, as can be determined from physcometric charts when you compare say desert versus the USA south east. As this approaches 2 orders of magnitude less, does it not approach the difference in TSI that you corrected (or took them to task, as they may believe)??

Leif Svalgaard:
John F. Pittman: “does it not approach the difference in TSI that you corrected (or took them to task, as they may believe)?”
John, I cannot follow you. What is your point? Instead of guessing, I’ll try to describe my point of view [which is what I know].
Currently, there is a large difference [~100 W/m2] between TSI in January [when we are closest to the sun] and July [farthest away]. The climate system adjusts to this recurring disparity in ways that depend on the distribution of Sea and Land. Complex systems don’t adjust instantaneously and perfectly everywhere, although on the average things will balance out quite well. If you add very small perturbations [solar activity] to the signal, the effect of these will be hard to distinguish from the imperfections of the adjustment. That is why we don’t see a big solar cycle effect. Over long periods of time, the Earth’s orbit changes and the annual wave in TSI changes accordingly [the Sea/Land distribution also changes, perhaps on even longer time scales] giving rise to glaciations or other major climate changes because the changes in TSI are much larger than those associated with the solar cycles (~1 W/m2).
The players in the adjustment process are the Land/Sea distribution, oceans currents, salinity changes, volcanoes, and the biosphere [I may have left a few out].
This process has gone on for eons, and will continue for eons. Sometimes these adjustments takes just decades and at all times the system is in continuous flux around its equilibrium.
I mentioned that TSI changes are built in to the climate models, but as far as I know, just as fixed boundary conditions [using a ‘typical’ average TSI]. I don’t know if this makes sense, but I do also don’t know that it does not. One thing I have asked the modelers [e.g. Gavin Smith] to do is to ‘crank up’ the TSI and/or its annual variation and/or the superposed solar variation and in this way run some ’sensitivity’ test runs, but to no avail.
I have in general a low opinion of IPCC because of its political control and [perhaps] goals, but I don’t really have an opinion on the AGW issue, except perhaps that [coming from a cold country] I think warm is better than cold.

Hans:
Excellent story, thank you.

Erl Happ:
Stephen Wilde: “I was puzzled by the above and wonder whether it is the right way round.”
Thanks for the question. Can I ask you to look at my admittedly unorthodox explanation of the phenomena in post of today on the Svalgaard 8 thread on Climate Audit.
Alternatively look at: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/bulletin_tmp/figt1.shtml
There is nothing internal about the ENSO oscillation. Tropical warming events are generalized and not confined to the Pacific and they involve a fall in outgoing long wave radiation. The energy is absorbed by the ocean where it raises temperatures. It can not be both absorbed and emitted. A warming event is the result of a fall in albedo. Density and spread of cirrus cloud in the tropics varies inversely with 200hPa temperature. Temperature at 10-11km altitude is driven directly by the sun with an amplitude of variation much greater than at the surface. There is appreciable ozone at 200hPa and enough water vapour to form multi branching microscopic ice crystals that have a high reflectivity value. Both ozone and ice will heat with an increase in incoming solar radiation. There is a much greater variation in ultraviolet light than total solar irradiance.
So, cirrus cloud comes and goes with the change in relative humidity at 200hPa. Tropical albedo is about 24% with about a 6% decrease over south east Asia during an El Nino event. Of course, ‘an El Nino event’ is a parcel of variable proportion and so too will be the change in albedo.

John F. Pittman:
I have the essentially same POV, as far as I can tell. However, I do not assume that GCM’s are correct. Rather the opposite. My point above that you did not follow was that the average +50 W/m^2 occurred in the southern hemisphere, with the northern hemisphere at an average of -50 W/m^2 with respect to each other for the 100 W/m^2 difference. A quick estimate from the IPCC is 7.5 W/m^2/degree K for the current temperature difference of the average temperature versus the black body earth which translates to 2.3 K difference between the Northern and Southern hemisphere. I agree with that there are sea land distributions. My point is that: in that models are said by the modellers do a poor job of the water cycle; and from the known physics +50 W/m^2 and a delta T of about .3K (NH average – SH average), when it should be opposite sign and larger; these indicate that assuming the GCM’s are correct is shown to be a bad assumption, based on the TSI data you provided, the known differences of the SH versus the NH, and what the modellers themselves say.

Leif Svalgaard:
John F. Pittman: “I have the essentially same POV, as far as I can tell. However, I do not assume that GCM’s are correct.”
I must be singularly inept in explaining my view. I have made no assumption about GCMs being correct. What I was suggesting was a stringent test of their ability to model the impact of TSI correctly. And I suspect they will fail.
The average +50 W/m^2 occurred in the southern hemisphere, with the northern hemisphere at an average of -50 W/m^2 with respect to each other for the 100 W/m^2 difference. But six months later, it is the other way around, so whatever difference it made would be reversed six months later and symmetry would be restored, no?

John F. Pittman:
No, you were not inept. I misunderstood.
Yes, it will. But that is the time when albedo changes should be greatest. I agree about the restoration by the cycle. Thanks for helping clarify my thinking.

Stephen Wilde:
Erl, Thanks for your reply. There seems to be an important issue here regarding the ENSO mechanism which may impact on my ideas. Would you agree to an exchange of private emails so that I can decide whether what you say should affect my pronouncements?
I can be contacted on wilde.co@btconnect.com – Stephen

statePoet1775:
Leif, I will avoid the B word but wouldn’t the sun’s motion on its geodesic distort the magnetic field far from the sun versus the field near the geodesic? TIA  P.S. I learned geodesic from an another poster but can’t spell his name yet.

Leif Svalgaard:
statePoet1775: “wouldn’t the sun’s motion on its geodesic distort the magnetic field far from the sun versus the field near the geodesic?”
The geodesic has to do with gravity not magnetic fields, so the answer is “no”, and distorting a magnetic field far from the sun does not seem to be an efficient way of making spots on the sun…

statePoet1775:
Leif, Thanks. I guess I should ask a neutron star expert about how a magnetic field behaves in differently warped space.

Glenn:
More on Ian WIlson’s article from ABC, for those who haven’t read the full article: “For many years scientists have recognised an apparent connection between the strength of sunspot activity and the movement of the sun in relation to solar system’s barycentre, which is driven by the combined gravitational forces of Jupiter and Saturn. But no one has been able to explain the connection.
“There are really only two possible interactions, and neither of them is feasible,” Wilson says.
Read more at http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/07/02/2292281.htm?site=science&topic=energy

Leif Svalgaard:
statePoet1775: I guess I should ask a neutron star expert about how a magnetic field behaves in differently warped space.
Whatever her answer, it would hardly have application to the weak gravitational fields found in the solar system which is the case I was referring to.

Glenn: from the blurb: “They say that when the sun’s orbital motion changes, so too does its equatorial rotation rate, which provides strong circumstantial evidence that there is a spin-orbit coupling mechanism operating between Jupiter and Saturn and the sun.”
Except that no variation of the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate has ever been clearly demonstrated. I would be glad to comment on any claim to the contrary if provided with a link.

Ric Werme: Leif Svalgaard: Glenn: from the blurb: “They say that when the sun’s orbital motion changes, so too does its equatorial rotation rate, which provides strong circumstantial evidence that there is a spin-orbit coupling mechanism operating between Jupiter and Saturn and the sun.”
How can the equatorial rotation rate change? For that to happen, you need a torque, and in a gravitational system, the best way to do that is with a difference in the gravitational attraction between the “left” and “right” sides. As far as I know, stars aren’t lumpy enough for that.

statePoet1775:
Leif Svalgaard: … whatever her answer, it would hardly have application to the weak gravitational fields found in the solar system which is the case I was referring to.  Well, I guess my half baked thought was that the magnetic lines of force might get wrapped around the sun or twisted because of the different geodesics they propagate through. I was not thinking of sunspots. Reminds me of my adolescence too much. Thanks for your patience, Leif.

Glenn:
Leif: “Except that no variation of the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate has ever been clearly demonstrated. I would be glad to comment on any claim to the contrary if provided with a link.”
Don’t know what weight “clearly” demonstrated has here, I’m just going on Ian WIlson’s AU article that assumes the equatorial rate is not constant.
“The Role of the Sun in Climate Change By Douglas V. Hoyt, Kenneth H. Schatten” on page 193 graphs “faster” and “slower” rates.
Another, “We have found the existence of a statistically significant 17-yr periodicity in the solar equatorial rotation rate.”
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17116387
I’m sure you are aware of more than this, but my opinion is that not much of anything about the Sun has been “clearly demonstrated”.

Leif Svalgaard:
A paper [by usually reputable people whom I know personally] that may come closest to ‘demonstrating’ a long-term variation is: Long-term variations in solar differential rotation and sunspot activity  J Javaraiah  L Bertello  R K. Ulrich
ABSTRACT: The solar equatorial rotation rate, determined from sunspot group data during the period 1879-2004, decreased over the last century, whereas the level of activity has increased considerably. The latitude gradient term of the solar rotation shows a significant modulation of about 79 year, which is consistent with what is expected for the existence of the Gleissberg cycle. Our analysis indicates that the level of activity will remain almost the same as the present cycle during the next few solar cycles (i.e., during the current double Hale cycle), while the length of the next double Hale cycle in Sunspot activity is predicted to be longer than the Current one. We find evidence for the existence of a weak linear relationship between the equatorial rotation rate and the length of sunspot cycle. Finally, we find that the length of the current cycle will be as short as that of cycle 22, indicating that the present Hale cycle may be a combination of two shorter cycles.
SUGGESTED CITATION: J Javaraiah, L Bertello, and R K. Ulrich, “Long-term variations in solar differential rotation and sunspot activity” (2005). Solar Physics. 232 (1-2), pp. 25-40.

You can see it at: http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4114&context=postprints
You can also link to their figure that shows how the equatorial rotation supposedly has varied: http://www.leif.org/research/SolarRotRate.png
You will, I’m sure, agree that this is pretty flimsy. Not the ’strong evidence’ that I at least would require in order to overthrow Einstein’s Equivalence Principle.
Just like with sun/weather-climate relations there are scores of such papers all showing flimsy ‘evidence’ with all kind of periods from day-to-day, 154 days, 1.3 years, 7 years, 11 and 22 years, etc. None of them convincing. I’ll certainly agree with you when you say that “my opinion is that not much of anything about the Sun has been “clearly demonstrated”” and therefore I cannot accept the ‘evidence’ of Wilson et al.

I forgot to draw attention to the final statement of their abstract: “Finally, we find that the length of the current cycle will be as short as that of cycle 22, indicating that the present Hale cycle may be a combination of two shorter cycles, sort of indicative of the uncertainty of the whole thing.”

Glenn:
Leif, Wouldn’t this be a clear demonstration of rotation rate variation?
“The equatorial rotation rate shows a systematic variation within each cycle. The rate is higher at the beginning of the cycle and decreases subsequently. Although quite small, the variation of solar differential rotation with respect to Zürich sunspot type was found. ”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u0q85tv07532q253/

Leif Svalgaard:
another flimsy paper on solar rotation and activity is one where I am a co-author: http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf
one of its conclusions is: the more magnetic the Sun is, the more rigid is its rotation.

Glenn:Wouldn’t this be a clear demonstration of rotation rate variation?
“The equatorial rotation rate shows a systematic variation within each cycle. The rate is higher at the beginning of the cycle and decreases subsequently. Although quite small, the variation of solar differential rotation with respect to Zürich sunspot type was found. ”
No, not IMHO. First, only three cycles were studied [=low statistical significance]. Second, the small changes they find are not of the kind that Wilson needs, namely a 179-year cycle, if I understand him correctly. Over the 11.86 year period of Jupiter, Saturn can be all over the place. He can not take any old variation as evidence. It has to be a specific and unique kind. I have to admit that I have only seen his abstract: I’m not going to pay $35 to read a paper that is in conflict with General Relativity. When Wilson came out with the paper, he was saying “I have irrefutable evidence that blah blah blah, but because of Intellectual Property Issues I cannot show it to you”. That kind of put me off, right there. If you have his paper, maybe send it to me.
The ‘finding’ also conflicts with our flimsy finding in http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf [Figure 1 does not show any such jump at the start of each cycle]. Typical of relationships that are on unsure ground and not generally accepted. If you continue your search you can find scores of such papers. I have read most of them over time as they came out. We have measured the solar rotation rate very carefully at Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) at Stanford since 1976 and see no systematic variation. I was one the builders of WSO and a preliminary paper describing the instrument, the data, and the results can be found at http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980ApJ…241..811S
Subsequent data up to the present fully corroborate the early results. It just so happens that I am kind of an expert on this 🙂

Glenn:
Leif, you said that “no variation of the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate has ever been clearly demonstrated.”
I believe that my refs and yours show that rotation rate has been observed to vary. Here’s a couple more: “The degree of the equatorial acceleration of the surface differential rotation is also found to have undergone the same 100 year periodic modulation during the same interval, reaching a minimum at cycle 14, a maximum at cycle 17, and a minimum at cycle 21 in antiphase with the modulation of M.”
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112447180/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
“The equatorial rotation rate, increases with time or decreasing magnetic activity during the declining phase of solar cycle 23.”
http://www.noao.edu/staff/rhowe/disk2k8b/data/2008/agu08/rk.pdf

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: Leif, you said that “no variation of the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate has ever been clearly demonstrated.”
I thought if was evident that the meaning was the no variation of the kind needed to explain the effect has been clearly observed. I elaborated on that like this: ”Second, the small changes they find are not of the kind that Wilson needs, namely a 179-year cycle, if I understand him correctly. Over the 11.86 year period of Jupiter, Saturn can be all over the place. He can not take any old variation as evidence. It has to be a specific and unique kind.”
A offered a link to the claimed variation at http://www.leif.org/research/SolarRotRate.png to show how poor the correlation was.
One of your examples claimed: “The equatorial rotation rate shows a systematic variation within each cycle. The rate is higher at the beginning of the cycle and decreases subsequently. ”
The new one from Howe says: “The equatorial rotation rate, increases with time or decreasing magnetic activity during the declining phase of solar cycle 23.”
Can’t you see that these are contradictory? and that therefore no “clear demonstration” has been made?
I’m sure you can find many more such contradictory claims and, perhaps, with judicious selection further your case…Which specific variation does Wilson advocate as evidence for his claim?

Thomas J. Arnold:
European politicians running round like headless chickens claiming that the end of the world is nigh!! – should be forcibly sat down and made to read this article.
Man-made global warming the new ‘orthodoxy’ replacing conventional belief. So many more immediate and pressing problems to address, but therein is the reason. Like Putin’s adventures in Georgia to deflect the populace away from economic and social inertia at home. So we Europeans are led down the garden path, towards global warming hysteria, leading our thoughts away from the real issues.
The End of the World barring a super volcano or a massive meteorite, or total Armageddon is not nigh! (maybe)

Stephen Wilde:
As I see it:
1) There is a clear correlation between climate and solar cycle activity and length over centuries
2) Statistically a relationship appears to exist between the planets and the sun which enables solar cycle lengths to be estimated some time in advance.
3) Leif has kindly indicated which mechanisms cannot cause the observed link
4) It would be wrong to ignore the connection just because we have not yet nailed the cause.
5) We can make rough and ready climate predictions from observing solar behaviour even if the cause of the link is not known especially if we combine solar behaviour wiuth multidecadal oceanic oscillations as per my various articles at CO2sceptics.com

Stephen Wilde:
1) There is a clear correlation between climate and solar cycle activity and length over centuries
If this first point does not hold, then the other ones don’t matter. So, let’s start with this one. About 150 years before the Maunder minimum, there was another solar Grand Minimum, the Spoerer minimum [named after Gustav Spoerer, who is the real discoverer of the Maunder minimum]. The Spoerer minimum was even ‘deeper’ than the Maunder minimum, yet there was no Little Ice Age then. If anything, the temperature had a local maximum during the Spoerer minimum. So, I’m not so hot on the ‘clear correlation’.
There are different ways you can try to ‘rescue’ the correlation:
like time delays, bad data, Government cover-up, etc, but then it ceases to be ‘clear’.
2) Statistically a relationship appears to exist between the planets and the sun which enables solar cycle lengths to be estimated some time in advance.
If this weren’t true then the rest of the points don’t matter. So, once again, show me the relationship. The weasel word ‘appears’ may be indicative. Either there exists a statistically significant relationship based on solid data or it is just smokes and mirrors that give the appearance of a relationship. In science we often use a different weasel word when we are not sure. We would say: “the data suggest a relationship”, or “we suggest that blah, blah, blah”. This leaves the door open for a graceful exit, should it be needed, but also means that the jury is still out.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde : “Dropping points 1) and 2) is AGW neutral.” The ‘correlations’ and their statistical ’significance’ are independent [or should be(!) if we want to be scientifically honest] of whether one adheres to AGW or not [if not, then one is not honest about it as ideology becomes the driver]. Now, it is perfectly OK to state “I believe that the Sun is doing it”. The problem comes when one tries to use one’s belief to determine policy and thereby impact on others. Or, rather, that changes the issue from a scientific one to a political one. There is nothing wrong in letting political ideology drive policy, as long as one realizes that that is what it is and not is not trying to hide behind science.

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, Pointing to the Spoerer minimum to discredit all subsequent correlations is merely a debating point. As you say there is the issue of lag, inadequate records then and length of that minimum and overall I am inclined to ‘believe’ the correlations from LIA onwards. However the current global temperature response to the quietening sun since the peak of cycle 23 seems pretty persuasive unless it goes into reverse pretty soon without a reactivated sun or a strong El Nino. That will be a real test. As regards the planets and the sun the jury is indeed out from my viewpoint since I don’t really need it for my ideas. I was curious about your view on the link that I provided. It seems that the chap concerned has been predicting a 13 year cycle 23 for some time on the basis of statistics from solar and planetary movements. Even he accepts that his ideas are tentative and that he is not sure why there seems to be a connection. I note your views and your knowledge base but even you cannot know more science than has yet been discovered or ascertained. If the statistical correlation continues to be useful then it should be taken seriously. Observations always trump models and theories, even mine.

Glenn:
Leif: “One of your examples claimed: “The equatorial rotation rate shows a systematic variation within each cycle. The rate is higher at the beginning of the cycle and decreases subsequently.” The new one from Howe says: “The equatorial rotation rate, increases with time or decreasing magnetic activity during the declining phase of solar cycle 23.” Can’t you see that these are contradictory? and that therefore no “clear demonstration” has been made?” No, each article relates to behavior associated with specific solar cycles. The variations in rotation rate observed to occur *in relation to* cycles may seem contradictory, but it isn’t at all clear that is the case. Regardless, we are not talking about a simple association between rotation rate and solar cycle, but only whether solar equatorial rotation rate varies. Whether or not you don’t think observed variations are “of the kind necessary” or that the planetary orbits are “all over the place”, doesn’t mean that there is no association. Many things are all over the place, and often there is no simple correlation of associated events, especially when multiple variable factors are involved. Take the weather for instance. Leif, that the physical reasons have not been found doesn’t mean that the association found is wrong or violates relativity or standard models. If there is a reason, the effect on Earth as well as the Sun from dynamic spin-orbit coupling mechanisms are likely to be complex and subtle to observation.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde: “Pointing to the Spoerer minimum to discredit all subsequent correlations is merely a debating point.” I don’t do ‘debating points’. There are not ’subsequent correlations’, there should be only one correlation which should include whatever data we have. There was a Spoerer minimum, temperature was higher then, there was a Maunder minimum, temperature was lower then, there was a Modern maximum (1940s), temperatures were higher then, there is a Modern decline [the last 30 years], temperatures has been higher [and the last couple of years can’t be called ‘climate’ yet]. On top of all that there is volcanic activity [e.g. Tambora]. I am inclined to ‘believe’ the correlations from LIA onwards. I call that cherry picking. So, you would believe that the higher temperatures since the 1980s are due to the [unquestionable] decline in solar activity that we have had? solar activity didn’t start declining yesterday. However the current global temperature response to the quietening sun since the peak of cycle 23 seems pretty persuasive unless it goes into reverse pretty soon without a reactivated sun or a strong El Nino. That will be a real test. Not at all. If the PDO etc are due to internal oscillations that are now going towards a cooler regime, the fact that the Sun is also quiet is just a coincidence. There is no test here. Even if it goes the other way and temperatures jump up, you could still say “Oh that is just AGW overwhelming the Sun”, again no test. It is all belief. Correlations are not causation, so without mechanisms there can be no test. If a correlation persists long enough and its statistical significance thereby is strengthened enough one might at some point be forced to accept the correlation as a sign of an underlying mechanism [that we just don’t understand yet], but the correlations are poor and have only a few degrees of freedom [like 5 or 6 data points]. This is due to something that used to be called ‘positive conservation’ and now more often is referred to as ‘autocorrelation’. A classic example is the sunspot cycle. If you observe the Sun every day, then in the course of a cycle you accumulate 4000 data points. How many of these are independent? Or equivalently, what is the ‘number of degrees of freedom’? The answer is 20, and the reason is that if the sunspot number today is high it was also high yesterday and will be high tomorrow, too. As regards the planets and the sun the jury is indeed out from my viewpoint since I don’t really need it for my ideas. That was my original point. To hitch your ideas to the planetary influences weakens your paper [or was it Duffy’s 🙂 ] and ideas. All I said was that it “detracts from whatever merit the article may otherwise have”, without commenting negatively on those other merits. If you want to combat AGW, the Sun is a poor co-combatant. There are much better arguments against [or for, as your belief goes] AGW, rooted in physics [some even mentioned in your/Duffy’s article].

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn, we are not talking about a simple association between rotation rate and solar cycle, but only whether solar equatorial rotation rate varies.
No, it has to vary the right way. Suppose it varied from day to day would you call that strong empirical support for spin-orbit coupling? Actually, solar physicists once thought [Howard and Harvey, 1970] that there were such very large day-to-day variations. Our research at Stanford [that I referred to earlier] showed that those variations were spurious [cause by scattered light and other instrumental defects] BTW, the ’solar equatorial rotation rate’ is a misnomer. What is measured is not solar rotation, but winds in the solar atmosphere. One of your references [by Howe] uses the correct term: ‘zonal flows’. There are flows in the solar atmosphere just like there are the ‘trade winds’ in the Earth’s. These flows have little to do with the rotation of the Sun, and at any rate are found far from the places where solar activity is generated. If there is a reason, the effect on Earth as well as the Sun from dynamic spin-orbit coupling mechanisms are likely to be complex and subtle to observation. And yet Wilson calls it “strong circumstantial evidence”, and that is my problem with the whole thing. I will grant all kinds of subtle, negligible, hard-to-observe effects, but I object to foist those upon the public as ’strong evidence’. The public deserves better.

I wish our moderator could be persuaded to correct on the spot trivial typos when urged to do so by the poster. Howard and Harvey 1070 should be Howard and Harvey 1970, of course. This would conserve bandwidth.
[Reply by John Goetz: Your comment above seems mildly irritated, as if the several moderators on this site just aren’t moving fast enough for you. However, I would like to point out that your post with the typo had not yet been seen by a moderator (probably because it is Sunday afternoon and most of us are busy doing other things) and had yet to even be approved. That said and speaking for myself, I don’t as a matter of practice correct any typos unless specifically asked in a comment awaiting moderation. Then, when I do correct the typo, I delete the comment asking for the correction, thus saving a minuscule amount of bandwidth.]

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, Solar activity hit a peak at the top of cycle 19. Since then there has been a slow decline which is now accelerating. Throughout the 30 years you refer to the sun was historically very active. Throughout that period there was warming. In my view it was adding heat throughout and cannot be ignored. Since we take different views on that 30 year period there is nothing more either of us can say to persuade the other. Only time and research will resolve the issue.

Leif Svalgaard:
[Reply by John Goetz: Your comment above seems mildly irritated, as if the several moderators on this site just aren’t moving fast enough for you….]
Not irritated at all [and thanks for correcting the typo]. It is just that in the past, i had been told that it was the policy of the blog not to correct anything even if asked for immediately by the author, and I just went by that assumption [the first three letters of that word are appropriate for that]. Good to know that the policy has changed. Keep it up. Thanks.
[Reply by John Goetz: It may still be Anthony’s policy, and this is where the moderators may exhibit some inconsistency. When a correction is requested, it does take some time – not a huge amount – to locate the comment needing modification. Then the change must be made in the editor and the comment updated. When Anthony was moderating this site on his own, I can understand why he did not want to spend any more time than necessary on that type of activity. Now that there are other moderators helping him out, you are sure to see some inconsistency in how each of us deal with comments. We do our best, but it is going to happen.]

jeez:
It is usually a judgment call on the part of the moderator. Not all procedures are so granually quantified. ~ charles the moderator.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, Solar activity hit a peak at the top of cycle 19. Since then there has been a slow decline which is now accelerating. Throughout the 30 years you refer to the sun was historically very active. Throughout that period there was warming. In my view it was adding heat throughout and cannot be ignored. Did I ignore that? What is problematic is that the Sun was not extraordinarily active the last 30 years. Cycles 11 and 10 were as active as the most recent cycles 22 and 23, and even cycle 19 was probably less active than cycle 4 [in the 1780s]. See, e.g. Nature 436, E3-E4 (28 July 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04045; Climate: How unusual is today’s solar activity? Raimund Muescheler Fortunat Joos2, Simon A. Mueller & Ian Snowball
So the activity-declining sun can hardly be blamed for the 30 years of heat as that kind of heat should have been present during cycle 10-11 and 4-5 as well [which it was not]. This is what I meant by saying that the correlations are lousy. But surely, the Sun is not the only source of climate variability, as more research and data will eventually show.

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, If you read my articles you will see that I postulate that increased or decreased solar activity will normally only have a global temperature effect if it is sufficiently in phase with the average global state of all the oceanic oscillations whether negative or positive globally. I tend to the view that such a combination would swamp all the multitude of other potential variables because most of those other variables operate to counteract one another. It would be useful to know what the state of those oscillations was during those other cycles you mention but since that is not realistic we can only observe what happens from now and see whether my description of the solar/oceanic combination continues to fit developments as they occur. My articles also take the view that solar cycle length is the main factor as regards solar variation and this link suggests a reason for the Spoerer and Maunder minima having different outcomes: http://www.lund.irf.se/workshop/abstracts/abstract_poster_miyahara.pdf  Additionally a positive set of oceanic oscillations could well counteract a period of solar minimum.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, If you read my articles you will see that I postulate that increased or decreased solar activity will normally only have a global temperature effect if it is sufficiently in phase with the average global state of all the oceanic oscillations whether negative or positive globally. My articles also take the view that solar cycle length is the main factor as regards solar variation […] Additionally a positive set of oceanic oscillations could well counteract a period of solar minimum. In view of the uncertainties and poor data involved, it is quite reasonable to speculate on different causes and interactions. We do it all the time, that is how fresh ideas get injected into the mix, but what is quite wrong to do is to play down [or simply omit] that these are just speculations or postulations [or ‘views’]. Neither Duffy’s nor your [I take it – as Duffy’s apparently is just a slight rewording of yours 🙂 ] articles are honest about the speculative aspects. Instead it is claimed in no uncertain terms that The major driver is the sun and The solar effect is huge and overwhelming, and THAT is my problem with them. And it ought to be clear that we are not talking about the effect of turning off the Sun and all the silly comments related to that, but about minute variations of solar output convolved with natural oscillations of the system, etc. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard people say “so, you don’t think it is the sun! try to turn it off and see what you get! you d*** f***!”.

Glenn:
Leif: If there is a reason, the effect on Earth as well as the Sun from dynamic spin-orbit coupling mechanisms are likely to be complex and subtle to observation. “And yet Wilson calls it “strong circumstantial evidence”, and that is my problem with the whole thing.” You seem intent on creating the appearance that Wilson has proposed a mechanism, a physical reason(s) for the observed associations. He didn’t in the abstract of his AU paper, “However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling”, nor did he in the ABC news article, “”It is one thing to show an association and quite another to show cause and effect. We have to be very careful, but we will know in a few years,” he says.” Again, observing, testing and making predictions based on associations is not pseudo-scientific. The association can be falsified, just as a theory that includes physical mechanisms can be falsified. Your problem with this has been with the physics (violates relativity), with the science (pseudo-science without mechanism) and with the lack of “clear demonstration” of the observations and the association itself. Sounds like you just don’t like it. But can this paper have been this bad and ever passed peer-review? Or as I suspect, what Wilson says is true, that researchers have seen connections before and that he did show evidence of a correlation and is looking for the reason, and that in my book is science being practiced. You seem to want more “clear” evidence, but again I have no idea how to quantify that. Is there clear evidence that CO2 increases in the atmosphere leads to a warming planet?

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, Additionally a positive set of oceanic oscillations could well counteract a period of solar minimum. Adding in more variables just further decreases the number of degrees of freedom. This is irrespective of if the new conditions are correct or not, but as long as all we have to go by are correlations without mechanisms, the thing that matters is the ‘number of degrees of freedom’. If that number drops too low [say below 10] the whole thing could well be spurious. Anyway, you don’t see these considerations in the media, so perhaps a blog like this might be useful as a counterweight against the ’science is settled’ mentally [which is equally prevalent in declaring “the sun is the driver of climate”].

Glenn, Sounds like you just don’t like it. But can this paper have been this bad and ever passed peer-review? In my book there is no such thing as ‘not liking it’. What the data demonstrates and theory explains is what you go with. One without the other is just speculation [which may or may not be true]. And, yes, bad papers often pass peer review. Weren’t Mann’s hockey stick papers peer reviewed? Is there clear evidence that CO2 increases in the atmosphere leads to a warming planet? Many peer reviewed papers say so. Nobel prize winners say so. But none of those make it therefore true. What is true, IMHO, is that CO2 does heat the planet. The only question is how much? A temperature increase of +0.000001 degrees is also a heating of the planet, so your question is ill-posed. A better question would be if there is evidence that increasing CO2 will put the Earth in peril? I don’t think so, but you are welcome to disagree, because at this point it is politics and not science.

He [Wilson] did show evidence of a correlation…  Have you seen his evidence? As I have confessed before, I haven’t, because he wouldn’t send it to me unless I paid $35. If you have seen his evidence and have his paper, would you please send it to me at leif@leif.org . If you haven’t seen the paper and his evidence, how can you say that he did show such evidence … that is just hearsay, then.

Stephen Wilde:
Lief, My articles are clear that I am expressing an opinion even if one can extract emphatic sentences and quote them out of context. Not much point putting forward an opinion so cautiouly that no one considers it seriously. Wasn’t it Hansen himself who justified his approach by pointing out that no one would have taken him seriously unless he had got down from the fence? Sauce for the Goose etc. At least I also provide suggestions as to how my ideas could be shown to be wrong by future real world changes. I am content to agree with you that the science is certainly not settled and given time I am sure the competing assertions will be whittled down by real world data. It’s a shame that new thought on the subject is more often appearing in blogs such as this rather than amongst the members of the scientific establishment but I think that is now changing.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, My articles are clear that I am expressing an opinion even if one can extract emphatic sentences and quote them out of context. Not much point putting forward an opinion so cautiously that no one considers it seriously. So said Chicken Little 🙂 Then Duffy did add something to his plagiarism of your articles: there is not a single ounce of caution about what is the driver of climate in ‘his’ article, and that is really what I was commenting on. Not really on yours. Shame on me, I took your word for Duffy’s just being essentially yours (so didn’t go to the trouble of checking you on this)

Ric Werme:
Stephen Wilde, Pointing to the Spoerer minimum to discredit all subsequent correlations is merely a debating point. As you say there is the issue of lag, inadequate records then and length of that minimum and overall I am inclined to ‘believe’ the correlations from LIA onwards. However the current global temperature response to the quietening sun since the peak of cycle 23 seems pretty persuasive unless it goes into reverse pretty soon without a reactivated sun or a strong El Nino. That will be a real test. Perhaps. Don’t forget the correlation with the PDO, especially in the last year or so. I’m pretty content with a link between solar activity and climate, but when Leif points out how weak the potential links are I remember how little I know. As for the upcoming test, be sure to include the PDO, all other known and plausible links, and most of all include the unknown links, especially the real ones. 🙂

Bruce Sanson:
Dear Dr Watts – I have recently sent out letters outlining my ideas on climatology. This might even be considered a theory. Have you a postal address so I could send you a copy, if you are interested? Dr B.A.Sanson dental surgeon Whangarei New Zealand
REPLY: If it is review you seek, why not outline it here first. The group of people that frequent this forum can tell you right away if the ideas have merit. – Anthony

Bruce Sanson:
Basically, climate is controlled by the solar wind which varies over the surface of the sun. Strong solar winds impact the earth’s atmosphere, closing over the polar atmosphere, limiting heat escape in the winter, and to a less extent limiting solar irradiance in summer, hence creating a smaller ice melt. Total yearly ice melt drives sst either warmer or cooler depending on its size. Sst drives the global climate. Hemispheric bias occurs because of the earths orbital inclination to the solar systems invariant plane. The earth tends summer in the suns northern hemispheres solar wind and winter in the in the suns southern hemispheres solar wind. Since about 1975 the solar southern hemisphere has dominated, the a positive phase of pdo. this is a brief outline without the supporting graphs etc. sincerely bruce.

Leif Svalgaard:
Bruce Sanson, The earth tends to summer in the sun’s northern hemisphere’s solar wind and to winter in the sun’s southern hemisphere’s solar wind. Apart from summer/winter reversed in NZ from Calif., there is a factual error in your statement. The Earth is South of the solar equator from December 7 to June 7 and North of the solar equator from June 7 to December 7. In fact, just today, the Earth is as far North as it can go (all of 7 degrees). You may ponder if that does something to your idea.

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, Thanks for that. However, since I’m not expecting disaster from human causation I don’t think the Chicken Little comment is valid in relation to me. Could well have problems from natural causation though.
Ric, Point taken but if you read what I say you will see that I say that PDO and ALL the oceanic oscillations globally at any point in time need to be averaged out and combined with any variation in the solar signal to ascertain what the global temperature trend is likely to be. The diagnostic indicator of warming or cooling at any particular time is the position of the jet streams and the relative dominance of the high pressure systems either side of the jet streams. My view is that the scale of the combined solar/oceanic driver swamps all other influences over time but that there are many other global and local processes that work to stabilise the changes in either direction caused by the solar/oceanic driver. Furthermore I believe that it is the oceanic oscillations that amplify and suppress over multidecadal time periods the relatively small but often cumulative solar variations. Time will tell.

Stephen Wilde:
Bruce, I’m not sure that ice melt could be a cause rather than a consequence of SST variations. After all it is warm sourthern water flowing into the Arctic Circle that keeps open water at or around the North Pole in varying amounts. The Antarctic melt is much less variable because the south pole is on a continental land mass. To my mind the elephant in the room is the past solar insolation stored in the oceans and being released only intermittently via the positive and negative phases of the multidecadal oceanic oscillations. You have correctly noted the power of SST in changing the temperature of the atmosphere up or down but personally I think you have placed the cart before the horse.

Bruce Sanson:
Leif, I appreciate that the the hemispheric variation is only a couple of weeks but I don’t need palm trees in Greenland. The hemispheric temperature difference over 33 yrs is only approx. 0.25 degrees C. I did talk from the northern hemisphere perspective on an American site-sorry. As for ice melt being an affect, I charted melt from the cryosphere today site and it looks far more like a driver than a recipient of temperature.

Leif Svalgaard:
Bruce Sanson, I appreciate that the hemispheric variation is only a couple of weeks. I do not understand what you mean by that, but if you are happy with it …

Rob:
Just one question for the brilliant minds on this blog, The Little Ice Age ended abruptly about 1850, what started the warming?

Leif Svalgaard:
Rob : The Little Ice Age ended abruptly about 1850, what started the warming. I’m not so sure that it ended ‘abruptly’, see e.g. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/cet.html
 
Stephen Wilde:
Rob, It might have been something to do with this but Leif disagrees: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif  I do agree with Leif to the extent that TSI may well not be an adequate explanation on it’s own but it looks pretty suspicious even if the historical variance has been overstated.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde – It might have been something to do with this but Leif disagrees: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif
I do agree with Leif to the extent that TSI may well not be an adequate explanation on it’s own but it looks pretty suspicious even if the historical variance has been overstated. This is indeed ‘junk science’. Keep showing old, outdated plots. Not even Judith Lean believes that old plot anymore. She even agrees that no long-term variation has been detected. See her slide on page of her presentation at SORCE in 2008: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/S1_02_Lean.pdf
Her conclusion about the contributions of the different sources of TSI: 5-min oscillation ~ 0.003% – 27-day solar rotation ~ 0.2% – 11-year solar cycle ~ 0.1% – longer-term variations not yet detectable – ……do they occur? Thus, bottom line: The variations that we thought [10-20 years ago] were present are no longer thought to be so. Lean [with Wang] updated the old useless 2000 reconstruction in 2005, and now she even acknowledges that THAT one is not correct. You can see the evolution of the thinking about TSI over the last 20 years here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf and here: http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-LMSAL.pdf [page 20].

Stephen Wilde:
According to page 20 all the reconstructions bear a similar shape and all appear to show greatest activity during the recent warming. The only difference is in the amount of variation. Who is to say that the current estimates are any more accurate than those of 20 years ago? All are based on a collection of assumptions. It’s simply a matter of climate sensitivity not a complete absence of a solar signal. As I’ve already said the oceans could achieve the necessary amplification or suppression of even a small solar signal over periods of 60 years covering a full positive and negative PDO cycle spread across nearly six solar cycles. Additionally there are also a lot of square metres on the planet surface let alone around the outside of the atmosphere. An apparently small solar signal can be partly a result of choosing such a small area subdivision. Multiply it up to planet size and there’s a sizeable amount of heat energy involved however much one tries to minimise any solar signal. I think one has to start from observations and subject to lags due to say oceanic reactions to solar changes there is enough correlation between solar cycle behaviour and changes in global temperatures to persuade me that the issue must be recognised and given due weight. Of course others may disagree.

Bruce Sanson:
I am sorry for not making myself clear. The southern hemisphere ice form period is approx. march 22 – september 22 making it inside the solar S.H. march 22 -june 7, then the solar N.H. june 7 – september 22. This makes it 2 weeks longer in the solar N.H. But the period of maximum variability of ice form is at the end of the ice form cycle – firmly within the solar N.H. time frame. Please check the “spaceweather.com” site to check the coronal hole induced high velocity solar winds which occurred august 10 and 18 2008 then compare dates to their effects on ice formation (S.H.) at this time at the “cryosphere today” site. Interestingly shortly afterwards the induced early ice melt appeared to effect a change in the daily SOI viewed at the Australian site ENSO WRAP UP.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, according to page 20 all the reconstructions bear a similar shape and all appear to show greatest activity during the recent warming. First of all, the old reconstruction should be discarded. It does not matter what they show. The recent reconstruction shows about equal activity during intervals around 1780s, 1850s, and 1990s. The only difference is in the amount of variation. But isn’t that the all-important difference? Does it not matter if the amount is 0.0000000000000000001% versus 10%? Who is to say that the current estimates are any more accurate than those of 20 years ago? All are based on a collection of assumptions. The people making the estimates say so. They [we] carefully update the ‘assumptions’ all the time in view of what we learn. The recent ones are really better than the old ones. This is not just assumptions. Turning this around, if all are based on a collection of assumptions, then they cannot be taken as strong evidence that the sun has changed its output, so your observational support falls away. Multiply it up to planet size and there’s a sizeable amount of heat energy involved however much one tries to minimise any solar signal. One is not trying to ‘minimise any solar signal’. One is trying to assess how big it is, without the built-in bias that lies in the phrase ‘trying to minimise’. Trust me, solar physicists would be motivated to maximise [if anything] the solar signal, as it will make their field all that more important, with funding, prestige, etc. And, multiplying up does not change the relative proportions of the change wrt the total, it is still only 0.1%, here is enough correlation between solar cycle behaviour and changes in global temperatures. This is precisely the point. What correlation? and with what significance? Oh, I’m well aware of the hundreds of correlations that are claimed, but select from all those, the ONE that you think is compelling enough for you to make the above statement. and we can discuss that one in detail.

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, You ignore my point about the amplifying/suppressing role of the oceans over nearly six solar cycles. Even longer time scales could be involved due to the time it takes for an initial change in trend to work through all the oceans. If climate sensitivity is high as a result of oceanic amplification or suppression then a small solar variation is not a problem. There is no other source of energy other than the sun unless one includes geothermal flux or undersea volcanic activity (which I don’t). I have mentioned elsewhere that going back to 1960 all the changes in global temperature change correlate with a combination of long or short solar cycles as modulated by the prevailing positive or negative oceanic oscillations at the time. I have seen data that takes the correlation back to 1900 but cannot recall where. I do not seek to try and persuade at this point. I am content to wait for more changes in trend to see whether the correlation continues to hold.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde – “You ignore my point about the amplifying/suppressing role of the oceans over nearly six solar cycles. Even longer time scales could be involved due to the time it takes for an initial change in trend to work through all the oceans.”
No, I’m not ignoring that point. It means that the swings in climate are really controlled by the oceans [which I have no problem]. The article at the very top of this post, does not mention that driving role of the oceans at all, but treats the oceans just as a passive recipient of solar heat, moving it around a bit. All this is a far cry from “The solar effect is huge and overwhelming “. I’m confident that several hundred of years from now when we have amassed enough data, that we can finally beat down the noise and prove that the tiny solar variations do have a minuscule effect after all.

Stephen Wilde:
Thanks Leif, we are not far apart. It’s a shame that Duffy confused the issue. The reason I insist on including the sun as well as the oceans is that the sun is the initial source of the energy so solar variations over time should have a significant role in dictating the power or weakness of the oceanic component. I think it may turn out that solar variations alone are of greater influence than you currently believe but that is only intuition on my part and we will have to wait and see.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde – “I think it may turn out that solar variations alone are of greater influence than you currently believe but that is only intuition on my part and we will have to wait and see.”
We cannot base policy and the teaching of children on ‘intuition’; this is where we part ways.

Stephen Wilde:
All scientific propositions start from observations interpreted by intuition which directs the initial investigations. Open mindedness as to the outcome is, however, essential. There is no implication for public policy or the teaching of children as far as I am concerned since I am neither a politician or a teacher. If your mind is closed then indeed we must part ways.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde – “All scientific propositions start from observations interpreted by intuition which directs the initial investigations. Open mindedness as to the outcome is, however, essential.”
This is not how science works. The outcome must fit into the current mainstream paradigm to be generally accepted. Open mindedness has nothing to do with it. Now and then [but very rarely] does the outcome trump the paradigm and a scientific revolution takes place and the paradigm is replaced by a new paradigm, which serves as dogma until the next revolution. 99.9% of what scientists do is within the current dogma [paradigm] as is proper. There is no implication for public policy or the teaching of children as far as I am concerned since I am neither a politician or a teacher. See the discussion about solar influence on this thread: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/an-inconvenient-youth/

moderators – I’m misusing your generosity but I did it again: There is no implication for public policy or the teaching of children as far as I am concerned since I am neither a politician or a teacher.

Flanagan:
Leif: unfortunately for you, the bulk of climate models developed in the 50s and the 60s where I do not think there was such a large ecological lobby, as you call it. They didn’t change physics since then, and the predictions are still of the same type: warming. stephen: there have been numerous studies about the effect of the sun. Thay all conclude that solar activity can explain fluctuation around the increase of temps observed today, but not the increase itself!

Stephen Wilde:
Flanagan, I’m not aware of any convincing assessment of the quantitative difference between fluctuation around the increase in temperature observed (until recently) and the increase itself. Over time, fluctuations up or down combine to become any underlying trend whether it be warming or cooling. It is the scale of the contributing factors that is important and I take the view that human CO2 is an insignificant player for reasons set out extensively in my articles at CO2sceptics.com. In comparison ocean and sun are hugely powerful with all other variables being minor though numerous and having the overall effect of approximately cancelling each other out.

Bruce Sanson:
Anthony, you never said what you thought of my ideas?

Tony:
Interesting points. Can you provide references to the above statements so I can investigate further? Thanks in advance.

Big Gun FIRES

AGW Denialists FRAUD

What was I thinking? Thanks, Greenman, for putting me straight…

It has become quite obvious to me that the AGW denialist case has been gravely damaged by their palpable fraud and misrepresentation.

I’m all in favor of scientific argument and debate about such a massive topic as the Earth’s climate. Controversy and even invective have their place. But there’s no place for fraud whatsoever.

One the bad things that fraud does is weaken its surrounding arguments – even when they might be correct. As a consequence the whole debate loses an important degree of intensity.

The Global Warming deniers, exactly like Creationists and Chemtrailers, use downright fraud, cherry-picking, quote-mining, straw men arguments in their desperate need to sway opinion in their direction. It’s hard to tell between them. Spits.

The Earth warms, and warms by processes pretty well accounted for by science.

Anthropogenic warming IS occurring and it is definitely time right now to do something about it.

I don’t think that CARBON taxes will do anything useful at this stage. The sensible thing to do is to prepare the world for the inevitable MIGRATIONS of both Man, animals and plants which will become necessary to avoid chaos and disaster. I see no sign of this. This “preparation of the world” is the unique property of Mankind, and we should exercise it NOW.

Meanwhile, I’m going to be amending my comments about volcanoes throughout my blog (which I admit are grossly incorrect) and commend to you these videos:

  

 

 

randi1

James Randi - debunker par excellence...

Jet Spray

leave a comment »

PAGE CONTENTS

JONES JOINS IN – JET SPRAY – JET STREAMS – JONTY – JP – JPI – JQA – KAPENINA – KNOW FOR A FACT – KONDRIX – KSLA – LAUGHTER – LESS THAN – LETTER TO 4 – (THEY ARE) LEGION

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…

JONES JOINS IN AFTER TEN YEARS

Alex Jones has always been a louche popularist. No great intensity of thought here – a small brain behind a big, BIG, mouth. The “chemtrail” market was obviously TOO SMALL for hime to consider adding to his own, but, obviously and sadly, it must have GROWN to a size too large to ignore. So here it arrives, no doubt in its entirety, warts and all, nothing too crappy not to have been previously debunked.

Scientists Admit Chemtrails Are Creating Artificial Clouds
Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Friday, July 2, 2010

Scientists now admit that emissions from aircraft are forming artificial clouds that block out the sun, precisely what geoengineering advocates like top eugenicist and White House science advisor John P. Holdren have called for, but the article tries to insinuate that the effect is caused by natural “vapors,” when in reality it can be attributed to chemtrails that contain substances harmful to humans. “The phenomenon occurs when aircraft fly above 25,000ft, where the air temperature is around minus 30C. This causes water vapor emitted by the engines to crystallise and form the familiar white streaks across the sky, known as contrails,” writes Oliver Tree for the Daily Mail. “Reading University’s Professor Keith Shine, an expert in clouds, said that those formed by aircraft fumes could linger ‘for hours’, depriving those areas under busy flight paths, such as London and the Home Counties, of summer sunshine.”
“Experts have warned that, as a result, the amount of sunlight hitting the ground could be reduced by as much as ten per cent. Professor Shine added: “Over the busiest areas in London and the South of England, this high-level cloud could cover the sky, turning bright sunshine into hazy conditions for the entire area. I expect the effects will get worse as the volume of air traffic increases.” The report also makes reference to a 2009 Met Office study which found that high-level winds did not disperse contrails that later formed into clouds which covered an astonishing 20,000 miles.
Of course, this is no natural phenomenon as the article claims. Ten years ago, contrails from jet aircraft disappeared within minutes, yet apparently we are led to believe that the same substance is now causing the trails to linger for hours and form into clouds. This is impossible without something within the substance having been changed.
Mainstream science and academia has gone from dismissing chemtrails as a fantasy of paranoid conspiracy theorists to now accepting that they exist but claiming that they are natural and not artificially induced. In reality, chemtrails are the consequence of the agenda to geoengineer the earth in the name of combating climate change, a science vehemently backed by people like John P. Holdren, who in his 1977 book Ecoscience advocated poisoning the water supply to involuntarily sterilize humans as part of a “planetary regime” that would control every aspect of our existence. The fact that such eugenicists are now in control of geoengineering programs that will have a direct impact on our health is alarming.
Geoengineering programs have also been promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations, which is one of the main steering committees behind the implementation of global governance. A recent report issued by the UK government also calls for the UN to exclusively regulate world wide geoengineering of the planet in order to stave off man made global warming. Discussion of geoengineering technology is often framed as a future consideration, yet governments are already conducting such programs at an advanced stage.
The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program was created in 1989 with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and is sponsored by the DOE’s Office of Science and managed by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research. One of ARM’s programs, entitled Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC), is aimed at measuring “cloud simulations” and “aerosol retrievals”. Another program under the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Science Program is directed towards, “developing comprehensive understanding of the atmospheric processes that control the transport, transformation, and fate of energy related trace chemicals and particulate matter.”
The DOE website states that, “The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate: aerosol formation and evolution and aerosol properties that affect direct and indirect influences on climate and climate change.”
U.S. government scientists are already bombarding the skies with the acid-rain causing pollutant sulphur dioxide in an attempt to fight global warming by “geo-engineering” the planet, despite the fact that injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere carries with it a host of both known and unknown dangers.
The proposal to disperse sulphur dioxide in an attempt to reflect sunlight was discussed in a September 2008 London Guardian article entitled, Geoengineering: The radical ideas to combat global warming, in which Ken Caldeira, a leading climate scientist based at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California, promoted the idea of injecting the atmosphere with aerosols. “One approach is to insert “scatterers” into the stratosphere,” states the article. “Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide. Dispersing around 1m tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year across 10m square kilometres of the atmosphere would be enough to reflect away sufficient amounts of sunlight.” Experiments similar to Caldeira’s proposal are already being carried out by U.S. government-backed scientists, such as those at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C, who last year began conducting studies which involved shooting huge amounts of particulate matter, in this case “porous-walled glass microspheres,” into the stratosphere. The project is closely tied to an idea by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen, who “proposed sending aircraft 747s to dump hugequantities of sulfur particles into the far-reaches of the stratosphere to cool down the atmosphere.” Such programs merely scratch the surface of what is likely to be a gargantuan and overarching black-budget funded project to geo-engineer the planet, with little or no care for the unknown environmental consequences this could engender.
What is known about what happens when the environment is loaded with sulphur dioxide is bad enough, since the compound is the main component of acid rain, which according to the EPA “Causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to the damage of trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees above 2,000 feet) and many sensitive forest soils.
In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation’s cultural heritage.”
The health effects of bombarding the skies with sulphur dioxide alone are enough to raise serious questions about whether such programs should even be allowed to proceed. The following health effects are linked with exposure to sulphur – Neurological effects and behavioral changes – Disturbance of blood circulation – Heart damage – Effects on eyes and eyesight – Reproductive failure – Damage to immune systems – Stomach and gastrointestinal disorder – Damage to liver and kidney functions – Hearing defects – Disturbance of the hormonal metabolism – Dermatological effects – Suffocation and lung embolism
According to the LennTech website, “Laboratory tests with test animals have indicated that sulfur can cause serious vascular damage in veins of the brains, the heart and the kidneys. These tests have also indicated that certain forms of sulfur can cause foetal damage and congenital effects. Mothers can even carry sulfur poisoning over to their children through mother milk. Finally, sulfur can damage the internal enzyme systems of animals.” Fred Singer, president of the Science Environmental Policy Project and a skeptic of man-made global warming theories, warns that the consequences of tinkering with the planet’s delicate eco-system could have far-reaching dangers. “If you do this on a continuous basis, you would depress the ozone layer and cause all kinds of other problems that people would rather avoid,” said Singer. Even Greenpeace’s chief UK scientist – a staunch advocate of the man-made global warming explanation – Doug Parr has slammed attempts to geo-engineer the planet as “outlandish” and “dangerous”. Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who recently proposed a bizarre plan to send spaceships into the upper atmosphere that would be used to block out the Sun, admits that geo-engineering could cause “conflicts between nations if geoengineering projects go wrong.”
Given all the immediate dangers associated with bombarding the atmosphere with sulphur dioxide, along with the unknown dangers of other geo-engineering projects, many people are concerned that “chemtrails” are a secret component of the same agenda to alter the Earth’s eco-system. The fact that chemtrails are blocking out the sun, which is precisely what the geoengineering advocates call for, strongly indicates that they are an integral part of this dangerous and wide-reaching program.
The Government Is Already Geo Engineering The Environment – This graphic proposes, “Spraying aluminum powder and barium oxide into high levels of the atmosphere, again delivered by aircraft, to increase planetary reflectance (albedo) and cloud cover.” High levels of barium have been found in substances associated with chemtrails. Reports of chemtrails, jet plumes emitted from planes that hang in the air for hours and do not dissipate, often blanketing the sky in criss-cross patterns, have increased dramatically over the last 10 years. Many have speculated that they are part of a government program to alter climate, inoculate humans against certain pathogens, or even to toxify humans as part of a population reduction agenda. In conducting Google searches, one finds discussion, such as this example, of using sulphur dioxide as a jet fuel additive to be dispersed over the world during routine commercial flights. “I suggest that both the sulphur dioxide and the silica particles could be delivered into the stratosphere by dissolving an additive in jet aviation fuel,” writes engineer John Gorman, who has conducted experiments to test the feasibility of such a scenario. “We would want to burn fuel containing the additive specifically when the aircraft was cruising in the lower stratosphere,” he adds.
In 2008, a KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature. The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a “hallmark of chemtrails.” KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.” The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality confirmed that the high levels of Barium were “very unusual,” but commented that “proving the source was a whole other matter” in its discussion with KSLA. KSLA also asked Mark Ryan, Director of the Poison Control Center, about the effects of Barium on the human body. Ryan commented that “short term exposure can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and that long term exposure causes blood pressure problems.” The Poison Control Center further reported that long-term exposure, as with any harmful substance, would contribute to weakening the immune system, which many speculate is the purpose of such man-made chemical trails.
Indeed, barium oxide has cropped up repeatedly as a contaminant from suspected geoengineering experimentation. KSLA also put aerosolized-chemical testing in its historical context, citing a voluminous number of unclassified tests exposed in 1977 Senate hearings. The tests included experimenting with biochemical compounds on the public. KSLA reports that “239 populated areas were contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969.” One of the accepted truisms of scientific study is the fact that if scientists are proposing an idea, then those scientists with access to the bottomless pit of black-budget secret government funding are already doing it. It is highly likely that chemtrails are merely one manifestation of “geo-engineering” that is taking place without proper debate, notification or any form of legality, and with a callous disregard for the potential dangers to both our health and our environment.

This is a classic “chemtrails” exposition. It quotes a long stream of irrelevant references and debunked claims as if they were brand new.

One can only assume that Alex Jones weighed the strength of support for this MYTH and decided he would have some of it.

COMMENTS SECTION

(Some preliminary chatting and preening has been removed)

Buzzard Says:
Not once does this article mention the fact that cloud cover causes a green house effect and increases global warming effect. this article makes it seam that governments are fighting real global warming, as if it is real. that is a farce. It also never mentions that our US government is also behind this crap, or how extensive a problem this is all over the US. Just imagine our Representative are using our own money to mess up our health and food supply.

Green Leader
Reply:
The article is bogus, indeed. The problem is widespread among NATO countries. What they do is spray SiO2 to break-up hidrogen bonds in cloud water droplets and reflecting heat back to the soil, increasing global warming. The SiO2 helps create ‘false cirrus’ clouds. The Barium Titanate and Aluminum are for ‘other purposes’. Google Barium Titanate + chemtrails & find out for yourself. The website from Spain I referred just above explains how things are done.

JazzRoc Reply:
1. If silicon dioxide were to be sprayed through a turbofan, it would PLATE and ERODE the exhaust turbine in seconds, the engine would be destroyed in a couple of minutes. Why did they stop flights during the Icelandic ash incident earlier this year?
2. It wouldn’t “break-up hidrogen bonds” if it WERE to be sprayed. The SAND on every seashore in the world is made of it, and the SEA is FULL of hydrogen bonds. Don’t go near the beach, eh?
3. Aluminum is a constituent of CLAY and is found in SOIL. Mechanized agriculture makes DUST. Dust may become wind-borne. Surprisingly, raindrops may encapsulate it, and LO it can fall in your tray. Proof of aluminized chemtrails?
4. Barium titanate is a remarkable material in a multitude of ways, many of them yet to be discovered. But as a material to be in a trail left at NORMAL height, it would only “work” for a few days. The height at which the expense of doing it proves viable is 80,000 feet, which only fighters and the lightly-built U2 can reach. NO “tanker” gets to HALF that altitude.
5. If you really believe that some specialist chemtrail disinfo site in Spain knows something that two hundred thousand qualified atmospheric scientists don’t, then you need to visit a library and ask for help. At least, a library…

Green Leader
Reply:
Government troll:
1) Who says the stuff can only be sprayed through the exhaust turbine?
2) The dust is nano particulate, all it takes is a little bit to interfere with water’s particular cohesive properties.
3) Clay is flake-like and has a high Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC). The aluminum dust is nano particulate. When they spray ham radio comms drop. That’s how we first found out we were being sprayed metal dust–the ham freaks spoke up.
4) The Barium and other nasty stuff is sprayed at lower altitudes. I’ve seen drones fly over my house at relatively low altitudes clearing their chemical tanks–as if farting. The drones have NO numbers, markings, insignia whatsoever. I used to be a very strong man who could do farm work day in and day out. The detox I’ve gone through is painful but am recovering my health.
5) Jesús Torres Toledo is a Sephardim Giddeon, a warrior of Yahweh. Yours truly is also one, plus an Ivy League educated environmental scientist.
6) I know how to treat people and dogs from this illness.
7) The NATO generals behind this will be charged, tried, sentenced and imprisoned for crimes against humanity. There’s absolutely nothing they can do about it. Nothing. It’s Yahweh’s fight and he never loses.

JazzRoc Reply:
1) “Who says the stuff can only be sprayed through the exhaust turbine?” – Is it an INVISIBLE spray, then? Then why say the trails laid by the aircraft are “chemtrails”? Surely, if they are INVISIBLE then you wouldn’t have noticed in the first place. And if they ARE visible then they ARE exhaust trails. It’s YOU that is confused here, not me.
2) “The dust is nano particulate, all it takes is a little bit to interfere with water’s particular cohesive properties.” – “Nano” merely means VERY SMALL, or measurable in MICROMETERS. The size of a water molecule is 95 PICOMETERS, or at least a HUNDRED TIMES SMALLER. So you want to slice a potato with a battleship?
3) “When they spray ham radio comms drop” – but ham radio comms rise and fall with the passage of day and night, because they are bouncing off the Kennely-Heaviside Layer, which moves dynamically with rising and falling solar illumination. No “spraying” is needed.
4) “I’ve seen drones fly over my house at relatively low altitudes clearing their chemical tanks” – A pity you didn’t video it. Do you know that no-one has managed this? Strange, isn’t it? Quite often, people who get older become less physically able. They’ve be known to die, as well, especially when they pass 70 years old.
5) “Jesús Torres Toledo is a Sephardim Giddeon, a warrior of Yahweh. Yours truly is also one, plus an Ivy League educated environmental scientist” I couldn’t care less about your other delusions. Just the delusion that you know anything about science.
6 & 7 prove your delusion.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
JazzRoc is a disinfo agent and for your information the planes spray the stuff from sprayers attached to the bottom of the plane. It is not the exhaust. Furthermore there are lots of video of chemtrails being laid. IdIOT!

fallout4real Reply:
Dude, I can honestly smell the schill emanating from you. Why do waste your time here trying to convince people that what we know is wrong? If your so right why are here? We are just a bunch of crazies!! Why do photos exist of spray nozzles on the belly of these unmarked jets with chemicals pouring out? Why do the pilots of these planes refer to themselves as “human chemtrailer 1? You really need to “Look at the big picture” before you tell us how it is!

JazzRoc Reply:
Yes, you ARE a bunch of crazies. You are keen to slander people you don’t know without ANY evidential basis except your pseudoscience and the lies you tell each other.

You’re lying now, for I’m merely a retired aeronautical engineer and industrial designer with a lifetime’s experience behind me, which is WHY I’m telling you that you are a terrorist.

Science is based on evidence. It is NOT based on “evidence” gleaned from listening to confidence tricksters like Carnicom which is designed merely to CONFIRM your anti-authoritarian predispositions.
I too am anti-authoritarian, but it didn’t stop me from pursuing a lifetime’s career in engineering.
You all exhibit a laziness to conduct proper research, and a fixed rigidty of mind which makes it very unlikely you will ever understand that talking about “chemtrails” gets you straight into

SCIENCE, and scientists will EJECT you vigorously as soon as you begin to spout PSEUDOSCIENCE.
They say that creationists don’t understand why atheists laugh at them. Well, the same thing exactly applies to “chemtrailers” with scientists and engineers laughing at them too.

fallout4real Reply:
Jazz you call me a liar yet with my crazy little paragraph, I can capture your attention with out writing a book or double think!! I am a small independent business owner and I don’t give a crap what you call me because I don’t depend on the system like you, a simple schill !!!! Wake up or shut up you liar!

FreedomLover Reply:
jr, all you are is an arrogant so-called scientist probably hired to anger and “disinfo” anyone who has their finger on the corrupt pulse of the illuminati. For all your scientific book-learning, you are a fool regarding life, relationships and the hereafter. You have slammed every commenter, trying to make yourself look smarter and better.
Take your arrogant attitude where it would be better appreciated, like the CFR. If you were REALLY on the side of the world’s people, you would take your sterile book-learning and use it to save the world’s people. The only solution you are proposing is for everyone here to ignore the problem and it will go away. Oh, wait, you’re saying there isn’t even a problem. So basically we’re all wasting our time. In which case you’re also wasting yours coming here to debunk a “myth” you are telling us doesn’t even exist. NOW who’s the crazy one? You don’t have any more time left on this planet than most, so there is certainly a more productive use of your time than responding to a bunch of crazy people.
You’re busted. Troll somewhere else.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Don’t be fooled, this is a secret military op. Most of the reps don’t even know about it. The sheeple are everywhere.

clockwise lives Reply:
YOU ARE THE NEW SHEEPLE….YOU! BLIND LOYALIST!

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Who is it you think I’m loyal to? I’m loyal to the truth.

fallout4real Reply:
IDIOT

JazzRoc Reply:
TIC: “Don’t be fooled, this is a secret military op. Most of the reps don’t even know about it. The sheeple are everywhere.”
(Titters backstage)

larry Says:
Oil in gulf is raining tirds on yo head.

patrick11 Says:
OK, so chemtrails are the same thing as contrails? I thought they were different!

FreedomLover Reply:
They ARE hugely different. Contrails are just jet exhaust that freezes at high altitude then dissipates fairly quickly. CHEMTRAILS come from the specialized nozzles on wings and/or fuselage of a plane and are sprayed out NOT from the engines. This is a deliberate spraying from chemical tanks inside the aircraft. There are videos all over the web that show fairly close-up views of the spraying, and a couple of photos of the planes on the ground. Just google them – chemtrail planes.

JazzRoc Reply:
They can all be found DEBUNKED on the page entitled “‘Chemtrail’ Aircraft Photos”, here:
http://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail/

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Gov. shill alert!

JazzRoc
Reply:
Your abuse doesn’t constitute a strong argument, does it?

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
None of your science can debunk that we are being sprayed by military ops. If they were so harmless, they wouldn’t be secret. But logic doesn’t play in, now does it? Continue your disinfo campaign, we will never shut-up about chemtrails.

Johnny Canuck Reply:
How could contrails form from an aircraft flying below a Cumulus cloud, on a beautiful Summer’s day with blue sky and puffy Cumulus clouds? Why, at the end of the day was the entire sky a murky haze? Why did I experience sickness akin to chemical or metallic poisoning, shortly after observing these aircraft leaving trails that lasted all day? I never get sick, except for a cold or two, and especially in Summer. Say what you will, but I cannot come up with an answer to these questions except chemicals being dispersed in the atmosphere by aircraft.
Science is not transparent, a lot of things are being done that defy all moral grounds, and a lot of Scientists are on the payroll of big corporations and will “prove” anything they want the public to believe. I’m sorry, but science is no longer noble, it has become evil and without conscience. Proof: the Global Warming debacle. Pure unabashed hokum, and the idiots are still running around like chickens with their heads cut off going “Global Warming, Global Warming, Global Warming. Oh, I forgot Al Gore is a genius and invented the Internet. Hah-hah, there’s a great fellow who is standing up for “Science” and “Truth”, eh? Got any great quotes from this spokesmen? ( I could use a laff). Things are not all that rosy in the Laboratories, I’m afraid.

JazzRoc Reply:
Contrails can form aerodynamically over the wings of aircraft flying in somewhat warmer, lower and more humid conditions. They look rather different and are cut up by the invisible engine trails. Cumulus clouds normally have a cloudbase between three and fifteen thousand feet, and that UPPER limit is around the LOWER limit for aerodynamic contrails. It seems unlikely to me.
What seems MORE likely is that you mistook a LARGE airplane HIGH up for a SMALLER airplane LOWER down. This is a common mistake to make, as there are no other objects to reference against. To KNOW the true height of an overflying aircraft you need a rangefinder and sextant.
Persistent contrails spread as they fall. Quite often there will be several stratospheric layers each moving horizontally on different headings. This spreads the trail. When the spread trail “meets its doom” it will be at the altitude which has sufficient warmth to evaporate the ice back to water vapor. This will generally be level and flat, so all you will see from underneath is boring greyness.
GW is a rising thermometer. To deny it is the ultimate foolishness. Yes, folks, disregard your thermometers, it’s REALLY COOLING. This argument, of course, is a mere distraction from the plain fact that YOU SHOW AND DISCUSS NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMTRAILS. I’m talking REAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. If you feel such evidence unnecessary, then you need treatment, probably for APOPHENIA.

MontgomeryScott Says:
WOW! The ‘Y’ versus ‘X’ dicotomy is especially ‘active’ on THIS PARTICULAR WEB-POSTING!

PS: A way to slightly lighten up the point that is attempting on being made here.

soupofdefish Says:
Funny you all act like you all doubted this until same asshole tells you its so. I grew up next to a base and seen planes all my life. Contrails always faded out quickly. Then one day Around 1980 I noticed them staying longer. I mentioned this to my mom but got the usual shrug kids get. Been talking about it ever since. Then I found internet and seen that many others noticed. Didn’t feel so alone after that. I didn’t need some dick weed to tell me they are not natural. I was a dumb kid and could tell the difference. What is wrong with the rest of the people that they could not remember when contrails always faded away? The rest of you need some f—ing conviction!

FreedomLover Reply:
Don’t be too hard on the sheeple. I didn’t know about any of this 2 years ago. At first I didn’t want to believe it either. Somebody spraying me like a bug to kill me (slowly)? What normal person would want to wrap their mind around the truth that some jerk they didn’t even know wants them dead? It’s awfully mind-blowing. And extremely stressful to know there is no way to get to them to stop them. Try to get on one of the military facilities where these planes are based and you’ll get shot first, then if you’re still alive they will interrogate your arse,probably never seeing the outside of a detention facility ever again!

Johnny Canuck Reply:
Welcome to the club. Sometimes it makes more sense to bash yer head against the wall, than try to convince people as to what is happening, right in their faces. Anyways, good for you and your observations. We’ve got to keep on pushing, even if it seems futile. Try turning people on to the documentary “Aerosol Crimes” by Clifford Carnicom, it’s a real eye-opener.

JazzRoc
Reply:
Soupofdefish, FreedomLover, and Johnny Canuck: I’ve been around airports all my life. I saw my first persistent trail at age ten in 1954. I knew what it was even then. That’s the way it is when you are fascinated with aircraft, and learn to build and fly model ones. You might have grown up to study Science and become an aeronautical engineer as I did and actually MEASURED exactly what the output of a turbojet is. Then you would discover that the BRICK WALL you are forever bashing your heads against is actually a PERSONAL PROBLEM. The problem is that of only accepting statements that CONFIRM your prejudices. This is ENTIRELY OPPOSITE to the way Science must be directed in order for it to succeed. Your minds contain only pseudoscience. This will make you into a human lemming, apt to swarm and dive off cliffs when confronted by social pressures.

Tough. Get out of it if you wish to save your neck.

FreedomLover Reply:
Your overinflated ego is so huge I’m surprised you haven’t exploded yet. Get out there and blow your horn some more. You’re not loud enough yet. While you’re at it, blow some more smoke. You’re still visible. You want to see a jerk with personal problems, look in the mirror. I already know I’m a jerk, that’s why I needed and still need a Saviour. You haven’t found out yet. Pity.

JazzRoc Reply:
I reckon being alive gives everyone a personal problem, don’t you? Prepackaged solutions involving the superstitions of a nomadic tribe 4,000 years ago aren’t likely to solve the problems of the modern world, are they? You have been coddled in an industrialized age, and passively waiting for the chickens to come home to roost. Meanwhile you’re carrying out a terrorist attack upon the passenger air transport industry because you BELIEVE, without the slightest proof, that aircraft are poisoning the sky, when it is KNOWN (by air samplers everywhere) that air contaminants are entirely normal, and that the trails visible in the sky, in all their forms, have been known and understood since they were first observed in 1921. This manifestation of your uneducated state strikes at the social cohesion of our society. You ARE the “dark forces” that your “Revelations” predicts.

FreedomLover
Reply:
And you are a very intelligent black ops disinfo agent. The proof is all around yet you deny it. I’m anything but passive. I have no intention of denying anyone air transport. This world as we know it, is coming to an end. You yourself don’t deny that the air is polluted, and you also deny the source(s) of the pollution. Yes, your horn is loud enough now, you satanic lying freak.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
RIGHT ON sodf! When in doubt use your own logic!

JazzRoc
Reply:
I wouldn’t know. I’m not in doubt, and YOU are NOT logical.

Texas IdentityCrisis
Reply:
Oh, you mean you are not in doubt that chemtrails are harmless contrails and you can’t recognize any logic from me? I’m trying to tell ya, lay off the flouride, the GMO, the vaccines, stay outta the chemtrails…..it’s really hard to think on that stuff.

JazzRoc Reply:
I am in no doubt whatsoever that ALL the trails you see in the sky are HARMLESS.
Fluoride is a soluble halogen salt which is EASILY eliminated by the human body if it meets a SMALL excess. The body REQUIRES trace amounts of it.
Genetic modifications are in general NO DIFFERENT from NATURAL MUTATIONS, except that they are DIRECTED. Natural mutations can be “dangerous” too. I share with you anxiety about some mutational possibilities. I wouldn’t want a world full of TRIFFIDS any more than you. I don’t eat GM food.
Vaccines aren’t “risk-free”, any more than cycling is. But they offer a world without epidemics, which is like offering a world without war. Take the opportunity (accept them), or not, where you increase your own risk od disease considerably, and increase everyone else’s risk to a certain extent. This latter position is IMMORAL.
I live on Tenerife in the Canary Islands in the sub-tropical Atlantic Ocean. Virtually no overflights…

FreedomLover Reply:
No wonder you’re out of the loop. You live in the Canary Islands – for how many years? Of course there are no overflights. There aren’t enough people there to bother with for those who are into depopulation. You don’t see the crap being sprayed nearly every day over the heavily populated areas of the world. Well, enjoy yourself for the few years you have left before this world destroys itself.
I bet you have some great explanation about the oil gusher too, that has already destroyed the gulf of Mexico. You seem intent on trying to convince everyone that there are no conspiracies and that everything is pure science put into practice for the good of humankind. Sorry, pal. That’s not the way it is. You live in a place pretty close to what most of us would call paradise. Unfortunately that’s not the case for the rest of the world.
The Bible says that in the last days evil men will wax worse and worse. Just when we think they can’t come up with any new atrocities, they once again blow our minds. Maybe you grew up and worked in a time when vaccines and technology boomed and were beneficial to mankind. You’re under the mistaken impression that the evil men who have taken over our planet would never hijack that technology and use it against the world’s people. Listen to Kissenger, Gates, Rockefeller and Rothschilds, among others, spout their one-world depopulation agenda. Follow the money, how it’s spent, where it’s invested – and by whom. You’ll get your answers and it’s no neat little package like you want to believe. Better get your head out of the sand – literally.

trestradapalma
Says:
This is what happens when Americans repeatedly elect neotards who believe they are smart enough to think for the rest of us but who in reality possess the cognitive powers of a stone.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
This is also what happens when you let the Military Industrial Complex do whatever it wants.

JazzRoc Reply:
It didn’t want to dumb YOU down, but here you are…

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Oh, you speak for the MIC?

JazzRoc Reply:
Of course not. I was involved politically in the early seventies when the neocons dismantled further education in Britain – being a teacher at that time.

kingkurtis Says:
i sold cars in 2000 in Washington st. (on the coast, Mount Vernon)…in car sales, there are periods of standing and waiting, outside, with many sales staff. I noticed the criss cross lines of what i thought was vapor. What was compelling was that the lines, widened out, and changed what was a sunny warm day, into a totally cloudy day. The individual spray lines, would just widen out and join with the other expanding lines….and you could see the definition of the edges of the now puffy trails. you could actually see the overall sky picture if you will was a textured pattern like a huge quilt. Like a blanket whose pattern is obvious. The people I worked with were as stunned as i was. A few days certain planes actually turned in huge arcs, and went back to where they came from. Leaving a circle cloud….no kidding…Having just gotten internet in ‘99, i did some clicking and yes this is real. Plane height is not the deal either, if you can count the engines, it aint 30000 feet. Human eye cant discern a plane at 5 miles.3 yes. At least better. Still have spraying here. This summer, it hasnt reached 75 yet. Not since last September….my 2 cents

JazzRoc Says:
“Amateur” people without ANY understanding of how to conduct science have coined a whole new range of terms and created a pseudoscience which has packed the WEB so densely that it has become almost impossible to find REAL SCIENCE in it.
People trying to distinguish the TRUTH through this fog of innocent MYTH and malevolent DISINFORMATION have this task to do:
Use ADVANCED SEARCH in GOOGLE.
Use the EXCLUDE WORDS function to exclude the following words:
CHEM AEROSOL CHEMTRAIL SPRAY NWO MORGELLONS BARIUM ALUMINUM 9-11 HAARP
Scientists will NEVER use the above words in their experimental reports.
Then search for:
“paper aviation saturated atmosphere contrails”
The last time I looked, this search got 645 scientific research papers.
Any one of them will show the depths of ignorance plumbed by “chemtrails”.
The whole concept of “chemtrils” is a worthless and meaningless FIFTH COLUMN, a powerful distraction from solving the problems of respiratory disease, agriculture and industrialization, global warming, global dimming, TRUE conspiracies (whatever they may be), and social cohesion.
“Chemtrailers” are TERRORISTS, sometimes unwitting, sometimes not. It’s about time we all dispelled this product of ignorance and fear

FreedomLover Reply:
Wow, how deluded can you get? Peer review is just a bunch of like-minded paid assassins slapping each other on the back. I’m sure there are good scientists out there, but just like any other leadership-related career, if you’re not willing to work with the globalists and keep your mouth shut about the real agendas, you end up dead. Exclude all the conspiracies the govt has against us and you get purely the rhetoric and propaganda.

JazzRoc Reply:
We are all capable of self-delusion. All you have to be is unaware.
In your case you are unaware that the Earth has been busy contaminating and decontaminating itself for aeons, and that ALL insoluble material in the atmosphere ends up as sediment on the ocean floor, and all the soluble material will dissolve in the sea.
Exclude Man from this and the Earth wouldn’t notice at all.
You are unaware that anybody with science training can spot you at once as a person who merely researches to prove a point you already believe. Because of YOUR belief system there is NO WAY you can ever allow yourself to change your mind. Your mind, in a sense, is ALREADY BROKEN, and any conclusions you come to will be increasingly worthless over time.
Peer review is conducted anonymously or not at all.
The very fact that you adhere to the belief that engine trails contain metals (or biological material) CONFIRMS your lack of reasoning ability, for if that were to be true, the the engine trail GAP would be bright green or brilliant pink/white, the engine would be destroyed in seconds, and NO biologicals withstand 2,400 degrees Fahrenheit.
So you make unsubstantiated and impossible claims, call me deluded, and infer that I’m deluded?
Though never having met a “globalist”, I’m sure I’d prefer it to meeting you with your mindless pseudoscience and baseless slander…

FreedomLover Reply:
For your information, the earth doesn’t spew metallic salts into the air every day all over the planet. I didn’t know any of this prior to 18 months ago, but reading about it and seeing it happen right before my eyes, putting the pieces together (which you have miserably failed to do or you are a disinfo agent), is what is known as “waking up”. I never believed that biologicals and these metallic salts come from fuel exhaust and never SAID that, but are sprayed from tanks inside the planes, not coming in contact with the jet fuel. I stated so in one of my earlier posts. So you really wanted to attack me without bothering to read what I wrote. You want, by your own words, to exclude all evidence that there is a conspiracy going on in the CFR and other groups to which these globalists belong against the earth’s people, when they have been QUOTED saying they want 90% of the population gone? THAT is what makes you a disinfo agent. Ignoring all evidence presented except what promotes YOUR theory. Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

JazzRoc Reply:
“the earth doesn’t spew metallic salts into the air every day all over the planet”
Yes it does. There are at least 11,500 active volcanoes working day and night. So you’re WRONG.
“are sprayed from tanks inside the planes” – INTO WHERE? There are no switches, pipes, or tanks that fit that description. The trails laid as recorded by YT videos are all coming from the engines of passenger jets in the stratosphere. The extraordinary notion that the hundreds of thousands of aircraft half had some sort of “black” retrofit needs some EXTRAORDINARY PROOF, of which you supply NONE.
“You want, by your own words, to exclude all evidence that there is a conspiracy going on in the CFR and other groups to which these globalists belong against the earth’s people”
NO. I want to exclude the words of liars and mythmakers from the thermodynamics that occurs when aircraft fly in the stratosphere. While you make up lies about this you must be excluded. Strangely enough, if you follow my recommendations you DO actually find words written by ordinary non-fraudulent and non-mendacious scientists. Science is successful because it includes NO LIES about the natural world. My theory IS that of atmospheric science. I can produce a long list of chemtrail FRAUD. It’s the only thing you people cling to.  “Truthseekers”? What an irony….

Texas IdentityCrisis
Reply:
I guess JazzRoc never heard of Climategate, which is evident by his utter worship and blind eye for scientists.
http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemrl dot htm
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=chemtrail+planes&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=-LMwTJDDIsSblgfWyLCiCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB8QsAQwAA
If it were up to me, you’d be tied to a chair under the chemtrails everyday. Then we could do experiments on YOU, to see if there are any unhealthy results of the constant exposure.

Green Leader Reply:
I would make him eat chemtrail-contaminated iguana meat breakfast, lunch & dinner for an extended period of time. But then, he might claim he got sick because iguana meat is forbidden by the Torah.



JazzRoc Reply:
Hey, funny! Nothing to do with the topic, though. More to do with you than me, I think…


Texas IdentityCrisis
Reply:
I’m just sayin’, if they are so harmless, why are all the elite so pale? Why don’t you sit in them all day and tell me what you think? Oops, my bad, there goes that logic again, and I know you have no tolerance for that.

Bumper Sticker Says:
Chemtrails are like pest spray, and we’re the pests!


inalienable rights Says:
To the commentators who claim that chemtrails have existed since WWII and are not new to our skies: I’ve flown the USA since the early 1950s and at no time did we ever see chemtrails such as we see now. Starting in the 1990s there has been a major, significant, and alarming change. There is absolutely NO resemblance to current chemtrails compared to the ‘con’ trails of pre-1990s. If commentators claim that chemtrails existed since WWII, they can only mean that there was a sporatic testing done in those years that was not part of the USA or world skies. To say that today’s chemtrail world crisis has existed previously is in my opinion, a total lie or misrepresentation. All accurate observers since the 1940s would agree with this opinion.

Johnny Canuck Reply:
Thank you for your info. It’s disheartening knowing this stuff is real, and having people look at you like you are a Looney Tune.

JazzRoc Reply:
Well, I’ve seen the videos of film shot on the 1000-bomber raids which shows the skies turning white with persistent spreading contrails. For about fifteen years there was a bit of a lull in air travel due to the expenses involved bucketing about the troposphere at 250 mph. Then pressurized transport at 550 mph in the stratosphere became possible, and air travel increased by fifty times. All accurate observers agree that persistent contrails (dubbed “chemtrails” by some) have existed ever since they were first created in, er, 1921.

CRASH Says:
I gotta say, I just feel better lately that I havent seen them for a while, I mean, more at peace around the phenom, I took pics, made vids, posted links, joined forums, commented here, and over all, Im kinda tired of it, It stresses Me out, I just came to the conclusion that the planes are leaving long lingering jet trails of Sh8T in the sky, period, Its just that simple, and its depressing and dissapointing and MUST affect the Planet, or WILL eventually, in a very BAD way, I dont care whether its tanker planes or CIA Evergreen airlines or global geoengineering, we ALL see it, all over the sky and theres NO debate on that! If you run your car in a closed garage, it will kill you..RIGHT? so whats the difference? give it some time, a few years, and it will be common knowledge that mankind done F*cked up w/ the planes, the oil, the food, the water, the meds, the vaccines, the wars, the economy, the cloning, the chemicals and toxins in everything, just, be aware of it all man, thats all..



JazzRoc Says:
Those trails are very nearly pure ice – so pure they could probably out-compete your tapwater in purity.
The combusted kerosine and air deep in the heart of the multi-spool turbofan become a mix of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, steam, and trace compounds at a temperature of 2,400 degrees Fahrenheit. This mix is transparent at that temperature, and you see a GAP before the trail forms. That gap represents the time it takes to COOL to MINUS 40 degrees Fahrenheit.
The STEAM part resolves to microscopic droplets of supercooled water nucleated around trace compound molecules, which freeze over a second or so to ice. However, this isn’t happening in a vacuum, but in a cold low-pressure mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor, the atmosphere of the stratosphere.
Water seems simple at first glance, but it has the unusual properties of supercooling, superheating, and supersaturation.
Supersaturation is the property that water has of dissolving in excess as vapor into a TOTALLY CLEAN atmosphere. The addition of ANY FINE PARTICLES into a volume of air in such a cold and supersaturated state will cause INSTANT SNOW.
As these particles of SNOW fall through this supersaturated layer of the stratosphere, they will PUT ON WEIGHT BY A FACTOR OF TEN THOUSAND. THAT is why you see trails. THAT is why I’m telling you it’s purer than your tapwater.
DO the math. Of course, you still have the unalienable right to crash, if you wish.

FreedomLover Reply:
Troll alert.

JazzRoc Reply:
Your lying makes you the troll.

Johnny Canuck Reply:
Mind the gap! You know, the one between your ears!

JazzRoc Reply:
Sorry, it’s all filled in with an understanding of atmospheric science and turbofan thermodynamics, cosmology, design in the aviation and manufacturing industries, music, and art.
https://jazzroc.wordpress.com

FreedomLover Reply:
Your “gap” is filled with BS globalist propaganda. Bet your eyes are brown.

JazzRoc Reply:
Hazel. Gone over to grey.
As an anarchist for over forty years, “globalist propoganda” isn’t of much interest to me, thanks.
It might be nice to have only one govt. There again. it might not. It would depend on its transparency and accessibility. Not having “national interests” to address, there would be NO NEED for secrecy, would there? Except for business secrets.
Freedom is an abstract concept. The practical reality of freedom is that it is the measure of both your ability to ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY and REMAIN VIGILANT. If you fall down with either of these you shall not be free.

You have a problem with both…
FREEDOM and RESPONSIBILITY are mutually-exclusive. THAT is what makes freedom an abstraction.
You may LOVE it, but you CAN’T have it…

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Then drink it moron. You’ll never convince anyone here, we don’t drink the tap.


TheNorthernSurvivalist
Says:
Here in Southwestern Washington, I wonder how much spraying is happening when overcast? Makes me want to take cover when seeing mass chemtrail spraying, followed by clouds and rain. So, how many of ya all have your nuke/chemical survival kits?

JazzRoc Reply:
It will still be happening – even when you don’t see it.
Conditions in the stratosphere are STABLE and rarely affected by the troposphere (which you experience).
Ice will come of solution in the atmosphere and deposit itself upon the trail WHENEVER the layer an airplane flies through a stratospheric layer which happens to be SATURATED with water vapor.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Right, that’s why these poison planes fly back and forth, round and round, in front of the sun and moon. Tell it to your dumbed down granny.

JazzRoc Reply:
There aren’t any “poison planes” – just passenger planes.
There are 87,000 DAILY overflights of the US. That’s EVERY DAY.
You see them when you see their trails. You almost never see them otherwise.
You assume, when there are no trails, that there are NO planes. FAIL.
You also assume that the same plane turned round to spray YOU again. FAIL.
You seem as intelligent as my cat. Sorry, Claws.

semicollegiate Says:
It could be that the new fuel efficient engines put out more clean water and that is the reason for bigger streaks. It could be that the planes are mapping out the exact top of the troposphere for future use. They want to know where to place a given technology to get a specific effect.



JazzRoc Reply:
The new fuel efficient engines ARE marginally more efficient, but that isn’t the point.
They are TEN TIMES larger than the engines in the Boeing 707s that began the fifty-fold expansion of air travel, and burn TEN TIMES more fuel to make a trail TEN TIMES bigger than they were in the fifties.
The troposphere is an oblate spheroid of air which swivels its axis wrt the earth from summer to winter. It is turbulent, always in motion, and is mapped daily by satellite-borne scientific instruments.
This has been happening since the eighties.
Knowing the temporary topology of the tropopause has no utility for geoengineering because any materials would be rainwashed to the sea the next time a cumulonimbus anvil swept by.
The troposphere is DYNAMIC and TURBULENT.

semicollegiate Reply:
Since efficient engines burn the fuel more completely and since fuel is carbon and hydrogen, fuel efficient engines would output more water and co2, dry ice, than the older engines that didn’t burn all of the fuel run through them.
The advertisements that I’ve heard for Doppler Radar as being nessesary to see moisture in low pressure systems made me think that maybe the trails allow or facilitate somekind of measurement or test. Maybe the pilots are getting expirience in maintianing flight at the boundary layer, tropopause, or getting experience with whatever. Sometimes equations can approximate dynamic and turbulent fluid flows.



JazzRoc Reply:
“Since efficient engines burn the fuel more completely and since fuel is carbon and hydrogen, fuel efficient engines would output more water and co2, dry ice, than the older engines that didn’t burn all of the fuel run through them.”
Combustion efficiency was the first thing I studied as an undergraduate. This WASN’T “book-learning”, by-the-way, it was “hands-on” a whole variety of internal and external combustion engines, including turbojets. The achievement of near-perfect combustion in a flame tube was well-understood by the Germans and the British by 1940.
No, the “increase in efficiency” of modern turbofans is achieved by ducting and convecting as much heat as possible to the annular ring of compressed air BEHIND THE FAN. This RAISES PRESSURE, and therefore ADDS to the THRUST already contributed by the COMBUSTION PART OF THE MOTOR. Additionally, the cylinder of cooler air around the hotter air reduces the noise which the process makes.
Pressures and temperatures inside these engines are INTENSE: ALL the components that follow combustion are made from very high-grade steel alloys, and are hollow and have cold air passing through them, otherwise they’d be GONE…
The real reason they make bigger trails is that they are BIGGER ENGINES.
“The advertisements that I’ve heard for Doppler Radar as being nessesary to see moisture in low pressure systems made me think that maybe the trails allow or facilitate somekind of measurement or test. Maybe the pilots are getting experience in maintaining flight at the boundary layer, tropopause, or getting experience with whatever.”
A radar system will “see” ANY conductive material which has a cross-sectional length which is SIMILAR to the wavelength of the signal that the radar set transmits.  Satellites such as GOES already have laser equipment which can MEASURE the size of ice crystals in contrails or cirrus. Also LIDAR is used from ground stations for the same purpose. You don’t have to FLY to collect such data.
http ://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf
Also, all long/medium distance large aircraft are directed by ATC to fly at a specific height in the stratosphere. They are NOT directed through bumpy and low-visibility parts of the troposphere, where they might meet transponderless VFR light aircraft, except of course for take-off and landing. “Sometimes equations can approximate dynamic and turbulent fluid flows.” Oh, yes!
http ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU6M5hAe-TU


semicollegiate
Reply:
Interesting info thanks. It stands to reason that engines are bigger because classes of planes which had 4 engines in the past now typically have 2 engines. I didn’t know that this was from a 10 fold increase in power. Unstated but in mind by me, my mistake, was that more efficient engines have cleaner, simpler, purer exhaust. Impurities usually cause agglutinization and therefore cleaner exhaust leaves more individual particles. More particles means larger volume, larger surface area, and bigger trails.
I think the chemtrail assertion is not proven but is possible. Your comment, the fact about Arkansas being a Barium mining area, thanks again, is something I would have noticed before I made a final judgment about it.

At the Prison Planet Forum, from which I’ve been banned, I suggested taking samples at the surface of the soil and comparing them to samples taken deeper in the groung. If the Barium was from spraying it would have a higher concentration on the surface. That still would NOT prove spraying because man puts water everywhere and water can have Ba.
In the second point the paper states “It is based upon the fortuitous occurrence of an unusual set of essentially parallel contrails”. Some of the contrails that make true believers are single contrails that over the course of hours spread out to cover 20 to 30 % of a clear sky with a dubiously off-white, with a hint of prismatic spectrum, slimy polymer looking cloud.
I have had a few flying lessons in very old Cessenas and I wondered if there is a design of private aiplane in which the pilot could visually inspect all of the load bearing metal. Everytime we did climbing stalls I worried about it.
I bet the formulae in that vortex video are complex functions of god-awful integrals.



Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
They want to own the world through weather, think about it, he who can control the weather can rule the world! Plus, they can make people sick and kill them slowly, while making millions off their sickness. EUGENICS and WAR is what this is all about!



JazzRoc Reply:
Nobody can control the weather. To make it do what you want, you’d HAVE to relinquish control elsewhere. You need to understand the size of the Earth. (CLUE: its surface area is FIFTY times greater than that of the United States.)
In the US, OVEREATING “makes people sick and kills them slowly”. Supersize YOU.
Educated people don’t discuss “eugenics” anymore since they understand genetics and evolution, and KNOW that fascist “master race” manipulation will NEVER WORK unless you resort to COMPLETE EXTINCTION. This latter is possibly only achievable through a massive nuclear spasm or an asteroid strike.
One-by-one…

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
For a scientist, you are pretty naive.

JazzRoc Reply:
For a non-scientist, you are worse than the usual.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
To JazzRockforBrains – http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_control

semicollegiate Reply:
I saw a weather effect in early july 2006, I think it was the 10th. After the 4th anyway. Heading north on I-5 in Northern California there was an unusual storm. Clear sky above and to the east. On the west from the southern horizon to the northern horizon was a solid cloud bank. Looked like fog, like one big cloud, like a rolled tarp, but it was 5000 to 10000 feet up. Right in the middle on the front easternmost edge, was a single cumulonimbus cloud shaped like the forcastle of a sailing ship without the spar. “Laying” on top of that were 15 or so parallel and evenly spaced contrails whose ends formed a circle. Like a webber bbq grill without the ring around edge laying on the front of a 10 foot long model of a 17th century sailing ship. First thing that came to mind for me was HAARP but I suppose formation flying could have caused the same arrangement.
That particular storm caused forest fires throughout northern california, summoned fire brigades from all over the west, and burned until the first rain in October. Nobody else at the couple truckstops I was at saw it.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Keep watching, what JazzRoc doesn’t get, is the best scientists are the ones who observe.

semicollegiate Reply:
They are above the law. Or maybe the law is tailor made for them. They don’t need us to grow food or beat up their neighbors anymore.

American Truth Says:
Anyone having breathing problems! I am and also lost my voice VCD

Snow Reply:
I am and for some reason, I’m getting thirsty.

Marc Says:
Here in Frankfurt Rhein Main region (Germany) has been covered by chem trails daily for many years.

JazzRoc Says:
This is a quote from a scientific paper entitled “ON THE POSSIBILITY OF WEATHER MODIFICATION BY AIRCRAFT CONTRAILS”:
“It is then evident that, whenever and wherever persistent contrails are being produced, the airlines are conducting a seeding operation in which each passing aircraft deposits nuclei in numbers at least comparable to a ground-based seeding attempt. The coverage is global in extent, and while random in the sense that airline flights are not scheduled with weather modification in mind, it is not really random with respect to meteorological conditions.”

“Fine,” you might say, “this is EXACTLY what we’re talking about.”
But when was this written?
1970.
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescu&#8230;..0-0745.pdf
So what does the page heading “Scientists Admit Chemtrails Are Creating Artificial Clouds” by Paul Joseph Watson for Prison Planet.com, Friday, July 2, 2010 REALLY MEAN?
Has it JUST suddenly discovered this 1970 science paper? Was this paper secret?
No. The paper wasn’t secret. Scientists don’t work in secrecy, but TRANSPARENTLY, with both friends and enemies able to read every word they write. They did so then, and they do so now.
This journalist, and Prison Planet also, were slipshod in their work and never got ANYWHERE NEAR where the truth lies. I don’t think they believe in real research at all. They only wish to promote their current agenda.
If you REALLY wish to discover the real truth then follow the procedures laid out in my first comment here. If you do, you will rediscover the link I mention here.
For those of you who do not wish to see this, well find something else to do. I think even less of you than you of me, believe me. Don’t ask me to go into details.

Dunagan Says:
Sulfur is possibly one of the chemicals eroding the ozone layer, by acting as a catalyst for halides. Once you get rid of that you create an endless dependency on the chem-trailing industry to block UV artificially. Sulfur is considered bad enough that reusable washable scrubbers are require in Australia on diesel vehicles. Synthetic diesel is another solution. The practice in North-America was to add metal nanoparticles to diesel fuel to hide the pollution and make it invisible. It proved to be disastrous to the environment however. Just be warned about Mad Scientists — they will do things that are absolutely wrong at times. The largest chem-trail contractor I believe is the CIA company Evergreen. So the people that have in the past sprayed the population with poisonous chemicals, using people as experimental lab rats, are in behinds this madness. Would you rather trust nature or the CIA to decide what you breath. God give us a break from the insanity.

Green Leader Reply:
Yahweh has taken this matter personal. Watch what will happen to those responsible – you WILL laugh!

JazzRoc Reply:
I’m laughing now.
300,000,000 tons of sulfur dioxide blew into the stratosphere when Tambora erupted.
What happened as a consequence? The Earth cooled by a couple of degrees for a couple of years…
It is NOT POSSIBLE to “get rid of” the ozone layer. Ozone is made CONTINUALLY by the absorption of the energy of SUNSHINE by molecules of OXYGEN.
The season why stratospheric temperature increases with altitude is BECAUSE the by-product of this energy exchange is an INCREASE in thermal energy. The UV wavelengths responsible are absorbed by the TOP of the atmosphere first, and are GONE by the time they have reached as far down as the tropopause. As for the “CIA deciding” what you breathe – I just KNOW you are innumerate with respect to the size of the Earth. The area of the United States is ONE FIFTIETH the area of the Earth.
Fear management is best achieved by EDUCATION. You should try it.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
You should stop listening to the lies of secret military ops disinfo campaign and the nefarious scientist who help create it. Every wonder why so many scientist die every year? All one needs is logic to figure things out. I knew something was up just through observation and having been around before this spray campaign went full on. Scientists tried to convince us of global warming, they destroyed real evidence which didn’t agree. Fortunately infowarriors are educated and observant.

JazzRoc Reply:
Their lies or YOUR lies – interest me not at all. You aren’t at all aware of how tramelled your mind is, and you’ve already spent FAR too much time accepting ideas which CONFIRM your preconceptions, and rejecting everything that doesn’t fit. In effect, you have damaged your mind. Don’t give it a thought. I don’t.

FreedomLover Reply:
OBVIOUSLY! LOL

RBBB Says:
The newscast was from a t.v. station in Louisiana. The pics at the chemtrails section of my website: reverendbillybobbuck.com/aapip are from Louisiana. All taken by me. Be sure to pick up the 3 songs for download, gratis, in the music section. Take it easy.

GoodShootinTex Says:
Hey Truth Brings Freedom, The chemtrails have stopped over Central Texas for about the last six weeks. If the chemtrails were only ordinary jet exhaust, how do you explain their recent vanishing? This is when my friends and family finally got it. I asked them why they didn’t see any chemtrails recently? I asked them if JET TRAVEL had suddenly ceased during the past month and a half? Well, what happened, have all the jets been grounded? Have people stopped flying? I don’t know why they’ve stopped, but I am glad they are not spraying us here. Easy way to wake people up, I talk to my sons so that others can here us at soccer games or at the park. I’ll say “Wow, why no lines in the sky, nobody flying today”

truthbringsfreedom Reply:
Between flightpath changes (they do change you know) and weather changes, contrails have been that sporadic for my entire life. Not trying to prove you wrong, just relating my personal experience. I can go for days without seeing one jet in the sky, and then see 7 in one day. Same goes for contrails behind the jets. One thing is for certain… long lasting contrails did not start 10 years ago. Can you at least agree to that. If not, then you’re in denial of the truth. And by the way… doesn’t Bush live in Texas along with a bunch of other globalist elites? Do you really think he would be poisoning the air he breathes every day. Think. Obviously they take the fluoride out of their water. But do you really think he gets alerts for when they’re spraying and goes into a special room with its own oxygen generator and doesn’t go outside for 3 days?

dead_squirrel Reply:
Bush bought real estate properties in Latin America, so it would be foolish not to think bush would not travel in there without your knowledge (why not help the extermination of a nation that hates him and fly constantly?). Latin America doesn’t get as much chemtrails as other countries because the fraudsters consider it a piece a cake compared to US and it is where many of these small people make their big pharma investments. -squirley

GoodShootinTex Reply:
truth?brings freedom, what do you mean flightpath changes, that is laughable and a complete fraud to even pretend that flights are not taking place over central texas with our civil and military tansportation hubs. Are you ignorant or a troll. Flights take place over my house EVERY day of the year, all year, year in and year out. If they are taking place, and weather patterns are fairly stable (especially in the upper atmosphere) why have the chemtrails stopped? FACT: Chemtrails have stopped for about the last six weeks FACT: Flights have continued
… How much does the NWO pay you to troll?


truthbringsfreedom
Reply:
Hey GoodShootinTex, Have you ever seen it go for 6 weeks without raining? I have. That is weather related. There can be perfectly legitimate reasons that contrails are not occurring for 6 weeks. I’m not ignorant or a troll. I’m *not* trying to disprove chemtrailing. I’m trying to get you and inforwars to admit truth as part of getting to the bottom of all this. Let’s start with one truth, one piece of common ground we can agree on. There is at least one thing for certain, given the history of aviation photos available to the public. Long lasting contrails did not start 10 years ago. Can you at least agree to that? Well, can you? If not, then you’re in denial of the truth. The truth is out there, but instead you see “trolls” and “ignorant people” on the “NWO payroll” if they acknowledge it. You’re a nutcase dude.
Also, dead_squirrel, you have no proof whatsoever that Bush leaves TX when they spray. You’re just making stuff up to provide evidence for your conspiracy. Sorry, your imagination is not what I consider “best evidence.” Also, there are more elitist globalists in TX than just Bush. Let me guess, they all fly to Bush’s property together, right?
Also, Wash. D.C. is full of globalists. However, there are contrails all over the skys of DC and VA. and MD, where they all live. So according to you, these people are knowingly poisoning themselves. Does that make any sense to you? Then why do you want me to believe it?

JazzRoc Reply:
A jet exhaust turns into a trail when the increased humidity of the air it has just flown through approaches saturation.
Quite often as the trail expands, the humidty drops below critical and then the trail appears to vanish.
I say “appears to” because, of course, the COLUMN of increased water vapor concentration remains, but is no longer visible.
I can show you vids of long-lasting contrails from 1943, and eyewitness accounts as well.
Whatever the ex-president does (he’s probably conspiring somewhere right now). I’m sure he doesn’t waste his time conforming to the straightjacket of an ignorant myth.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Plus, watch the sides of the sky, they are still spraying! I have noticed a reduced spraying in the past few weeks in E. TX. Beautiful skies and clouds like I haven’t seen in a loooong time.
But they haven’t stopped completely. But good idea pointing out that flights are still as normal, but the chemtrails aren’t
!

dead_squirrel Says:
SO they wanna keep the atmosphere cooler? I say we make it hotter despite the obvious global warming phenom… If all these chemicals go down it’s ’cause they are heavier than the air below. If that’s so, then the air below them, if hotter, will cause the particles to glide down towards the cooler air streams. Hot air goes up, cooler air goes wherever the wind blows.
I’m gonna try installing mirrors flat on the ground on my neighborhood, every one else may copy this in order to dispel these hot particles to areas other than your home. I can’t guarantee they’ll work for nightime spraying though. -squirley

JazzRoc Reply:
You will have to modify your theory, because although the temperature gets COLDER as you climb until it gets as cold as MINUS ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY DEGREES FAHRENHEIT at the tropopause (25,000 feet), then after that the temperature RISES.
The stratosphere (where long-distance aircraft operate) is STABLE and layered BECAUSE its temperature rises with altitude.
Trails made at 35,000 feet have TWO MILES to fall downwards into progressively-cooling air, and this is what they do.
Particles remaining in a gas cannot have a temperature different from the gas.
In the case of engine exhausts, the gas molecules (of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and superheated steam) take about an EIGHTH of a second to cool from 1,300 degrees C to -40 degrees C.
That’s pretty fast…

dead_squirrel Reply:
My guess is that the particles fall at night then. So you’re right, the theory needs revision. But at night there is a need to know where the highest concentration of particles are. A laser visible at night and dawn using Raleigh scattering should be a chemtrail hunter’s tool. -squirley

JazzRoc Reply:
A GOES satellite is in orbit doing just that. Ground stations using LIDAR are also used.
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sa&#8230;..MC2006.pdf
Of course, these scientists (hundreds of them using the world’s finest instrumentation) appear to know nothing, for they find that trails are made of ICE – with tiny NON-METALLIC impurities.

FreedomLover Reply:
Just as in the “global warming” hoax, which proof was leaked (thank you hackers), much of technology and its “documented” results has been hidden from what the NWO calls “sheeple”.
The proof was leaked that the so-called scientists cooked the books to make global warming look real, when it is only a scam to push the cap & trade tax through. The agenda is to make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer, totally obliterating the middle class. You’re obviously in the rich man’s camp, so you have a lot to lose if the people wake up and start revolting. No wonder you’re so adamant about trying to blow the truth out of the water. Come on, it can’t be cheap to live in the Canary Islands. And you’ve obviously got a lot of time to spend here blasting people. Post anything, even lies about how WE are messing up the planet, and dump the propaganda on the evening news, and people believe it.


Texas IdentityCrisis
Reply:
Check out chemtrail busters, they do exactly what you are describing.

GoodShootinTex Says:
Earlier this spring when we were still getting sprayed, I would walk through the lawn and my feet would be covered with a fine grained reddish dust. I would have to wash my feet and legs with the hose. Now that they have stopped spraying us, I don’t have to wash that cr@p off my feet anymore. I should have gotten a sample and let Texas A&M tell me what was in it. If it starts again, I will find out. When the Revolution occurs, the people who ordered this upon us should be strung and hung. Buy guns, ammo, food, and water purification tools. See You at the Riots!

crazycanuck Says:
I read recently that sperm whales have high amounts of heavy metals in their blubbler, particularly aluminum and cadmium which are in chemtrails. Aluminum is in treated water supply so could be coming from both chemtrails and water effluent. Not a great deal of pressure on the politicians to stop chemtrails and stop aluminization of water supply.

Insanity Says:
Poison, I can believe, like in Moonraker, kill us all off when they’ve got the cleanup solution stashed away. I can also picture them triggering an ice age, or even just cooling off the planet a bit to contract agricultural activity and starving off billions of people. I also see them trying to position themselves for an artificial fresh water shortage. Bottom line, these people are sick, twisted and you are all fools for paying anything into their system. Why can’t you stop shopping at Walmart, buying new cars, and why don’t you buy a lathe or a set of tools or something instead of a worthless plasma screen? Get building your own local system and they can’t terrorize you anymore with theirs.

JazzRoc Reply:
I don’t believe they have the time for much in that direction. Nor do they have the capability.
The real damage “they” are doing to the US is in allowing groundwater contamination and destroying field topsoil by plowing. With reduced microclimate wind protection (they’ve chopped down the trees) the topsoil just BLOWS AWAY.
But I’m just talking about manufacturing administrators, local politians, and farmers here…
Who EXACTLY do you mean by “they”?

Highlanderess Says:
All those side effects huh? Well, maybe that explains the behaviors of all the nutcases I have to speak with on a daily bases on my call center job.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Notice on heavy chemtrail days how people seem stressed to the nines.

Green Leader Reply:
More:
1) dogs desperately try to get indoors.
2) birds don’t fly around nor sing
3) meteorologists on TV look scared
4) surviving remaining bees stay in the hive
5) there are no rainbows
6) cumulus clouds dissapear and false cirrus appear
7) Green Leader curses the uncircumsized infidels destroying nature

JazzRoc Reply:
That’s apophenia. You are looking for signs to CONFIRM your preconceptions. That will REALLY ruin your (or someone else’s) existence one day. It’s the same sort of behavior which led to the torturing and killing of old single women as “witches”. The “test” was to “duck” them in the local pond. If they came up drowned, they were INNOCENT (but went to Heaven, obviously). If they came up alive, they were GUILTY, and were burnt at the stake. NICE.
Any animal with body fat will accumulate heavy metals there. Do you have fat? You’re doing it too. Heavy metals are part of the earth, as is Life itself. You will find them in soil. Plants you eat grow in that. Do the metals go straight through them to you? No. Not exactly. The plant wil sequester and excrete the metals. Why? Because aeons ago plants that didn’t, died.
You are no different from the plants. You also sequester and excrete heavy metals. You and the plants are both in a state of dynamic equilibrium, and can (and do) take a certain amount of contamination in your stride. Aluminum IS used to DEFLOCCULATE the water supply. It does this job as an INSOLUBLE compound which DOES NOT go on to contaminate the supply.
So WHY would there be “pressure on the politicians to stop chemtrails and stop aluminization of water supply” when “chemtrails” are a MYTH, and there’s NO “aluminization”?

Texas IdentityCrisis
Reply:
I guess increased cancer, Alzheimer’s and asthma, etc., have nothing to do with anything. Just it’s in the earth and the earth is causing all these increases in disease despite your beloved scientists/science. I guess volcanoes are causing these increases YA SCIENCE EXPERIMENT FREAK!

JazzRoc Reply:
Everything ALWAYS has SOMETHING to to with anything. Cancers form from irritation and genetic predisposition. Alzheimer’s is caused by dietary problems and genetic predisposition. Asthma is an allergic reaction to do with the genetic predisposition of the immune system and exposure to pollens, dusts, and diesel particulates. Your identity crisis follows from your inadequacy in maths and science and a certain gullibility.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Riiight, everything is due to genetics. That’s science for ya! Get real douche.

JazzRoc Reply:
NO. Everything is due to COMBINATIONS of these inputs with genetics. The inputs are variables. The genetics may respond in multitudinous ways to such variables. Of course, I forget, you’re intellectually-challenged. Tip: science is about measurement, calculation, and prediction. That’s REAL.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Riiight, science it too hard for us dummies to understand. :/

TAKE THE POWER BACK Says:
Over the past month I have been watching the skies with my binoculars cause that’s all I’ve got. I live about 30 miles from Travis airforce base. Its hard to track these planes but there is a lot of what I call spraying going on. They will spray so much that there will be a haze in the sky as if there was a fire. I’m no scientist but something isnt right here and everyday people don’t even notice it. Good luck

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Use your eyes, ears, and all other senses, logic. Yeah man, there is something amiss. Get that s—e on video!

TAKE THE POWER BACK Says:
One thing I don’t get is if the water crystallizes at 25000 ft at minus 30c then why isn’t there trails at night?

JazzRoc Reply:
There are.

Contrail Observations over Southern and Eastern Asia in NOAA/AVHRR data and Comparisons to Contrail Simulations in a GCM
http ://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a778783829~db=all
“400 NOAA-14 satellite scenes from four months of the year 1998 were analysed. Both regions show sufficient air traffic to produce an observable amount of contrails. Thus we are able to measure for the first time contrail frequencies in the tropics and compare it to a nearby mid latitudinal region. The annual average of the daily mean contrail cloud coverage is 0.13% for the Thailand region and about 0.25% for the Japan region. For both regions the contrail cover is largest during spring. The daily cycle shows surprisingly high contrail coverage during night in spite of lower air traffic densities during night time.”

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
There are, they love to spray when nobody’s watching. Watch when there’s a full moon, you’ll see ‘em flying all around it trying to block it.

JazzRoc Reply:
Gibberish.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Well I don’t need a scientific report to determine what my eyes can see.

JazzRoc Reply:
You see the Sun go round the Earth. Does the Sun ACTUALLY go round the Earth? Assuming you say “No”, then EXACTLY WHY do you believe this?

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Seriously, you are debating whether or not I can see the planes flying back and forth, round and round, covering the sun and moon with chemtrails? You want me to not believe my own eyes? Your grandeous and general ideas about what people think who come to this site, is rather an obvious training on our supposed ‘beliefs’, weirdo. Tell your handlers, they write training manuals as poorly as they write history books. Full of s$#!

Snow Says:
Chemtrails are being sprayed here today as we speak. Having a bit of a breathing problem and I’m getting thirstier.

djjasonxxx Says:
UK US POLICE STATE 2010 PART 2 G20 FOOTAGE AND MORE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM_W-nVTVQg

Highlanderess Says:
We are destroying ourselves with chemtrails, big pharma, vaccinations, car exhausts and the crap they’re putting in our foods to make them addicting….just to name a few.

JazzRoc Says:
Quoting from the leader article: “The DOE website states that, “The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate: aerosol formation and evolution and aerosol properties that affect direct and indirect influences on climate and climate change.”
The above statement is TRUE, but the way you interpret this sentence is NOT.
“Forcing” here is a technical term talking about the NATURAL physics that takes place whether Man exists or NOT. It does NOT mean anything to do with Mankind FORCING these changes,
The planes used to fly through the lower atmosphere have devices to PULL IN air to analyze, and NOT to PUSH OUT air to contaminate.
http://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail/
It is TYPICAL in sites like this to push ignorance and nisunderstanding as far as possible, and to hide the truth.
“90% of EVERYTHING is CRUD” – THEODORE STURGEON
“The other 10% is SCIENCE” – JAZZROC

duck Says:
Everyone should record video of any plane spraying a chemtrail with the date and time documented on the video. Then take the video to the FAA and file a FOIA request to find out who owns the plane and, thereofore, who is responsible for the chemtrail. We can then go after the owner of the plane with a lawsuit to try to open this can of worms and make them face the music.

JazzRoc Says:
Texas IdentityCrisis: “To JazzRoc – so you are suggesting this is not a secretive military op?”
It’s not ANY SORT of op. It’s just what happens when internal combustion engines fly through the stratosphere. It’s produced by burning hydrocarbon fuels. It’s WATER.
Not only that, but only a ten-thousandth of the water of a large speading trail comes from the plane’s fuel.
The rest COMES OUT OF THE AIR as accreting ICE (probably at around 30,000 feet) and RETURNS TO THE AIR (probably beneath 20,000 feet) as it evaporates in the warmer air to WATER VAPOR.
None of the trails you see come from anywhere except the engines – and those engines would be DESTROYED by passing metals through them. Think Iceland and volcanic dust – which is similar.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
So you ascertain, with all your scientific knowledge, yet neglecting logic, that because you believe it, it is so. You assume a lot and your sort of assuming is dangerous. So much for those who lean on science, who’ve yet to realize science is subject to corruption and those who are of the worlds smartest, murder can even be a job related benefit. Further, you embrace some science and other science you ridicule. There has been plenty of testing and scientific observation on the matter to make it clear, that chemtrails ain’t contrails. Therefore you, all by yourself, have discredited those YOU blindly follow. As well as your beloved and somehow in your mind, faultless science. Science may faultless, humans and scientists aren’t. The latter are inherently corruptible. Chemtrails are real, vaccines are poison, flouride is deadly, FEMA camps are real, and 911 was an inside job. Climategate has all but destroyed the globalwarming movement, etc., get it? The MIC does not have your best interest at heart. Got it?

JazzRoc Reply:
I don’t BELIEVE anything. Science is NOT a belief system. Belief means requiring no physical evidence. Science ALWAYS requires hard evidence, with reason to follow. People are sometimes corrupt, but science is not, nor is mathematics. And, by-the-way, scientists follow SCIENCE, not OTHER scientists.
I embrace science, yes, but “chemtrail” science is an OXYMORON. Those two words just cannot come together without seeming funny. EVERY chemtrailer test or assertion is a FAIL. You guys have NEVER been correct. EVER.
“Chemtrails are real, vaccines are poison, flouride is deadly” – see what I mean? FAIL. You really don’t deserve to live in modern times. And the word is FLUORIDE.
“FEMA camps are real” – That’s a FAIL on your projected usage.
“and 911 was an inside job” is a FAIL on logical and engineering grounds. You are crediting the Bush administration with FAR TO MUCH CAPABILITY.
“Climategate” “destroyed” nothing at all. It did show that GW deniers didn’t mind stealing and privacy intrusion in their desperation to carry out their orders. They represent about 3% of the world’s atmospheric scientists. The other 97% DISAGREE.
“The MIC does not have your best interest at heart” That was said by Dwight D. Eisenhower as he left office in 1961. I believed him then, and I still do.
It’s YOU that’s doing the assuming here. You are concentrating NOT on whether the TOPIC is CORRECT, but on whether or not I am some sort of shill. How, when you so consistently stray from the point, can you EVER be correct?
Science is the closest anyone will ever get to the HARD, PHYSICAL, FACTUAL TRUTH. If you call yourself a “truthseeker”, yet deny science, you’re heading for a world of FAIL.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
I reject global warming science, where scientist bought and paid for, altered, fabricated, and destroyed evidence. I reject science that says military airplanes aren’t spraying civilians and all our food and water sources with deadly chemical spray, so they can curb global warming. Scientist are murdered, follow other scientists, and are corruptible. There is no logic or engineering proof that the buildings collapsed on themselves from fire on 911, if there is you should provide it. Fema camps can easily be located on Google maps, Flouride was used by Hitler to sterilize and dumb down, The MIC is running the black op chemtrails. People who believe everything ’scientific’ they hear, without using their own logic are certainly subscribing to a belief system. It would appear you are oblivious to your own inability to understand science.

JazzRoc Reply:
“I reject global warming science, where scientist bought and paid for, altered, fabricated, and destroyed evidence” – Reference? Produce it and let’s see.
“military airplanes” – Then WHY does almost every YT vid show passenger planes? Do you realize that 70,000 tanker flights would be needed, and that these planes CANNOT REACH the stated altitude of 80,000 feet?
“Scientist are murdered, follow other scientists, and are corruptible” – of course – they’re people. But are they murdered etc, in greater numbers than any other sector of the population?
“There is no logic or engineering proof that the buildings collapsed on themselves from fire on 911?” – Yes there is, and you’ve seen it. You just don’t understand it.
I’ll tell you a little true story. I was searching for an approximate value for the potential energy stored in a WTC tower, in order to figure out its potential heat value, and therefore how much steel it could POSSIBLY melt if ALL that energy were converted into heat.
The answer is 2,700 tons of steel. (Provided by a “truther” engineer who, for some reason, thought it was necessary to demonstrate that because ALL the tower steel hadn’t melted, then there was no possible reason for a pit of molten steel to exist at the base of the towers, other than foul play, etc., etc.)
Of course, in the pit was a few hundred tons of molten steel (out of the 2,700), and the rest of the energy was spent pulverizing concrete, heating up a lot of air and dust, and making a racket.
That engineer must have been as popular as a sausage in a synagogue.
“It would appear you are oblivious to your own inability to understand science” – said the DUNCE to the physics teacher – on the web. Well smack my gob. LOL

FreedomLover Reply:
It’s time to stop responding to JazzRoc. This is a troll. An intelligent troll, but still a troll, using “science”, which these days is full of liars to prove points that go directly against the evidence and trying to make us all look like fools. Not all scientists are liars, but many are involved in the rape of the earth and its people for profit, and the ones who rebel against the globalists end up dead. JR has obviously NEVER seen a chemtrail. He says a million can testify to what he sees. Probably so, but millions MORE are experiencing the results of this chemtrail fallout. So his points are invalidated. Pure science could fix this earth, but globalists are using pure science to destroy it.

Texas IdentityCrisis Reply:
Yes sir, you are right, he’s hell bent.

JazzRoc Reply:
Chemtrailers are TROLLS en masse. Sites like these exist, chemtrailers think, merely so that “truthers” may compare notes and agree with each other.
But there has NEVER been a greater MUTILATION of MEANING and TRUTH than this cockeyed “movement”, well, not since Orwell’s “1984?
Not a single CNUT can debate rationally or interpret evidence intelligently.
The BEST way to understand one is to INVERT THE MEANING OF EVERYTHING THEY WRITE OR SPEAK.
Without exception, they are ALL on the fast and easy road to F – A – I – L
They all go “JazzRoc, you’re OH so perfect, eh?” – (Well, NO, I’m fallible actually!)
ANd Jazzy replies “NO! It’s YOU! That’s SUCH CRAP! TRY TO DO BETTER – SAVE YOURSELF!”
etc., etc.
Calling normal people trolls when you’re one yourself, calling competent professional experienced people “sheep” and “shills” when you all bleat together like a pack of sheep yourselves – these are ESPECIALLY irritating habits you ALL share.
But the way you handle “truth”, wow, THAT really takes the biscuit.

FreedomLover Reply:
Oh, and I see you’re above all that. You obviously are in the NWO camp, trying desperately to discredit those who threaten your cushy little existence by disseminating the truth. It’s not going to work. You might as well give up. The “sheep” have awakened, and they’re pissed. Go crawl back into your hole – you’re not wanted here. So you admit (tongue in cheek) that you’re fallible. Fallible people look to God to fix their failings. I’ve got news for you, poor excuse for a compassionate human being. Science VALIDATES the Bible. The Bible talked about the “circle of the earth” while people still believed in a “flat earth” lie. You want the truth – well, actually you don’t – but wait just a couple of years. They’ll go fast. It will be in your face.

Lion Reply:
Barium anomaly preceded the KT boundary event. (Is PP’s glass the same as Springerlink’s orthoclase (silicate)?
springerlink . com / content / v671181266t15g8h /
Abstract Maastrichtian–Danian strata of the Cauvery basin as well as selected sections of NE-Mexico, Guatemala and Israel record Ba anomalies, away from the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary (KTB) in addition to common occurrences of geochemical and stable isotopic anomalies across the KTB. Ba anomalies were recorded in monotonous shallow marine sandstones of the Cauvery basin (south India) which contain minor amounts of Ba-orthoclase. Barium anomalies were observed also in shallow marine carbonates in sections of Israel, NE-Mexico and Guatemala. Calculation of excess Ba with reference to PAAS (Post-Archaen Average Australian Shale), comparison of coeval geochemical anomalies, depositional pattern and associated petrographic and mineralogical features of the Cauvery basin revealed that while a first Ba peak was related to detrital influx, the second Ba peak was coincident with sea level fall which in turn may have been influenced by emission of volatile hydrocarbons and resultant climatic changes. In view of intrinsic involvement of Ba in various geochemical processes and occurrence of Ba anomalies in K/T sites distributed around the world (NE-Mexico, Guatemala and Israel), it is suggested that probable causes of such widespread Ba-anomalies should be taken into consideration while analyzing end Cretaceous events. These observations support the views espoused by many workers who have stated that the K/T boundary was also accompanied by many non-catastrophic events that might have contributed to environmental stress on marine fauna, as a result of which selective multi-stage extinctions occurred.
I perceive a propagandist theme, in which “Earth changes” are mundane, daily business – caused by mankind, and under its control. ‘All we have to is come together…’ (agree to collectivist mandates.)

JazzRoc Reply:
Earth changes are OBVIOUSLY not under our control.
As for COMING TOGETHER, are we to take our example from the US?
Religion needs DEMOLITION before we can become a global collective.
Subtleties might be developed AFTER we get rid of the BIG STUFF, eh?

Lion Says:
I find it annoying that humankind is given credit for affecting everything, until there is no wonder left in the natural world; some guy must be causing this, or it is my fault.
The epicenters of earthquakes of inconceivable forces dot the globe. Gas bubbles rise from untouched springs in the hidden tarpits and volcanic mountains of every continent. Yet, one borehole is said to damage the crust beyond repair, because you took the car out on a short ride. Airborne sulfur and glass are blamed on airtravel, because you bought a trinket over the internet.
Many places, with “traditional’ character, outwardly, were given entitlements by the govt to keep things the way they were, like game reserves with people living on them. Even as his mental freedoms were stymied, and applied knowledge became overwhelmed with trolls in every media, the little guy knew he witnessed global de-industrialization, for decades. After a global treaty, prophesied in the Bible, people are reduced to fighting on horseback, with swords and bows, but well-kept, well-studied, and well-connected televangelists go through odd, mental contortions to explain it. Most people were never so coordinated with their surroundings as to be certain that hygiene, shelter, and nutrition were natural miracles. “For three [things] the earth is disquieted, and for four [which] it cannot bear: For a servant when he reigneth; and a fool when he is filled with meat; For an odious [woman] when she is married; and an handmaid that is heir to her mistress.” – from Proverb 30. Aren’t these people really asking you to pick up their slack? Your humble pleasures are being taken from you, to cover for the misdeeds of others.

JazzRoc Says:
Quoting from the lead article here:
“In 2008, a KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature.”
The newscast focuses on Barium, which its “research” shows is a “hallmark of chemtrails”. KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.” The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality confirmed that the high levels of Barium were “very unusual,” but commented that “proving the source was a whole other matter” in its discussion with KSLA.”
If you watch this video you can see immediately something is wrong here. It’s 68.8, not 6.8, and it’s not parts per million, it’s parts per billion. So it’s actually 0.0688 parts per million. So what of “three times the toxic level set by the EPA”? They are referring to the EPA Limits, as quoted by the CDC: “The EPA has set a limit of 2.0 milligrams of barium per liter of drinking water (2.0 mg/L), which is the same as 2 ppm [parts per million].” So the EPA limit is 2 ppm (2000 µg/L), and the tests actually found 0.0688 ppm (68.8 µg/L), just 3.4% of the allowable limit.
That limit’s not really a “toxic level” either. There’s no evidence that it would be toxic even at that level (which, remember, is 29 times higher than what was actually found). The world health organization has set a drinking water level of 7 ppm after doing studies into the health effects of barium.
Summary:
* Samples of water were collected in August 2007, in Stamps Arkansas, by leaving some bowls outside for a month.
* The resultant dirty water was tested by KSLA and was found to have the same amount of barium in it as most municipal tap water.
* The reporter misunderstood the results, and said there was a lot of Barium.
* The reporter now admits he was mistaken, and that he found no evidence for chemtrails.
http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/
Debunking EVERY “chemtrail” MYTH, one-by-one:
https://jazzroc.wordpress.com
Oh, yeah.
Stamps, Arkansas, is SLAP BANG in the middle of a BARIUM MINING AREA.

No shit.

Texas Identity crisis: “I’m just sayin’, if they are so harmless, why are all the elite so pale? Why don’t you sit in them all day and tell me what you think? Oops, my bad, there goes that logic again, and I know you have no tolerance for that.”
Are “the elite” pale? I’ve seen the queen in Southport, and, come-to-think-of-it, yes, she was pale… Are pale people harmful? Do “the elite” live in Tenerife, Spain? Tell me.

FreedomLover Reply:
Looks like it. Sounds like it, smells like it. You must be one of the globalists.

TheExorcist Says:
I told you so.

JazzRoc Says:
FreedomLover:
“No wonder you’re out of the loop. You live in the Canary Islands – for how many years? Of course there are no overflights. There aren’t enough people there to bother with for those who are into depopulation. You don’t see the crap being sprayed nearly every day over the heavily populated areas of the world. Well, enjoy yourself for the few years you have left before this world destroys itself.”
Eight years. There’s an hourly overflight from Europe to Brazil/Argentina which strikes heavy trails on occasion. The island gets covered by Saharan sandstorms a few times each year. Now, THAT’s an absolute TREAT of particulates. By the way, WHEN particulates are in the air you will find NO rainbow effects. This is a PROOF that chemtrailers are WRONG when they say that particulates cause “chembows”. They DO NOT, and there’s a million people here who could testify to that.
“I bet you have some great explanation about the oil gusher too, that has already destroyed the gulf of Mexico. You seem intent on trying to convince everyone that there are no conspiracies and that everything is pure science put into practice for the good of humankind. Sorry, pal. That’s not the way it is. You live in a place pretty close to what most of us would call paradise. Unfortunately that’s not the case for the rest of the world.”
I’ve worked in a few oil site offices, so I know fairly well what must have taken place. The managerial class shares a similarity with chemtrailers, in that they really believe it’s possible to BEND the rules of physics. Well it’s not, and other people paid the price. So far it all looks very incompetent to me. Horrific.
“The Bible says that in the last days evil men will wax worse and worse. Just when we think they can’t come up with any new atrocities, they once again blow our minds. Maybe you grew up and worked in a time when vaccines and technology boomed and were beneficial to mankind. You’re under the mistaken impression that the evil men who have taken over our planet would never hijack that technology and use it against the world’s people. Listen to Kissenger, Gates, Rockefeller and Rothschilds, among others, spout their one-world depopulation agenda. Follow the money, how it’s spent, where it’s invested – and by whom. You’ll get your answers and it’s no neat little package like you want to believe. Better get your head out of the sand – literally.”
I’ll take no advice from someone who follows the 2000 year old writings of a bunch of semitic natives of the Middle East, thanks. Nor am I interested in the moneyed class.
The world will NOT destroy itself as long as people like me (builders) avoid taking advice from people that cannot build – like you. There’s no chance of that happening…

FreedomLover Reply:
My “building” is way different from yours. This world as it is was not meant to last. You completely ignore the warnings gathered from the globalists’ own mouths, so when trouble comes to you, you’ll still deny that anything sinister is being put into practice. Google the Georgia Guidestones and read the “commandments” carved in stone. Then think about what it means to most of the people on this planet. Think DEEPLY, maybe the truth will come to you. Unless of course you’re a globalist yourself and believe that you’re above all this. Have a nice life, while it lasts. I’ll not be responding to you again.

JazzRoc Says:
Jazzroc: You see the Sun go round the Earth. Does the Sun ACTUALLY go round the Earth? Assuming you say “No”, then EXACTLY WHY do you believe this?
Texas IdentityCrisis: “Seriously, you are debating whether or not I can see the planes flying back and forth, round and round, covering the sun and moon with chemtrails? You want me to not believe my own eyes? Your grandeous and general ideas about what people think who come to this site, is rather an obvious training on our supposed ‘beliefs’, weirdo. Tell your handlers, they write training manuals as poorly as they write history books. Full of s$#!”
You didn’t answer my question. Again.
How can you expect to win a discussion point by resorting to abuse? Again.

calisurfer Says:
I have been looking at what is called the so-called chemtrail phenomenon for awhile and pass through here every now and then. It looks like a debunker that makes the rounds also is here. That would be JazzRoc.
People have shouted shill. I doubt that. The dose of clear thinking he provides could serve as an antidote to things some others serve up.
Carnicom was mentioned. If you listen to him we are all infected with something awful.
When approached through email for abc steps in blood work so some people at a university with access to an electron microscope could take a look the silence was deafening. Wrote that one off.
JazzRoc is secure in what he knows, has looked at some of the outlandish claims, and justifiably counters some of them though relation of what he knows to be. He is, however, “stuck,” (as are most… notice I did NOT say everybody) in his own world. “I’m merely a retired aeronautical engineer and industrial designer with a lifetime’s experience behind me, which is WHY I’m telling you that you are a terrorist.” ““Chemtrailers” are TERRORISTS…”
These statements are from someone who is terrified himself. In response to this he may well say he is terrified by the ignorance of others. His reality will likely one day crack. Hope he is able to make it through it. Those who have witnessed first hand the incongruities regarding regular air traffic and some of what is taking place overhead are looking for answers. JazzRoc doesn’t have them. It would be nice if he did, for then the matter could be laid to rest. Strange times. Strange things. And sometimes some very strange things in the sky. I think some things touched upon in quantum mechanics regarding perception and what is real have come into play in some of it. And JazzRoc, I too am obliged by and to the scientific method and mathematics.
People, don’t hate JazzRoc. And JazzRoc, don’t hate people. Don’t use your background and knowledge as an excuse in doing so. Your background and knowledge have their limits. You’ve bumped into the edges of them and are self-confined.

FreedomLover Reply:
Cali, much of the world’s issues start out good. But like anything technological, mental, emotional, spiritual, they CAN be corrupted. What Jazzrock doesn’t understand is that very few things remain “pure”. Even the laws of thermodynamics state that everything decays. Whether he believes it or not, the globalists have hijacked science and are using it to play out their agenda, which is removing approximately 90% of the people from this planet. Georgia Guidestones – their agenda is literally written in stone! From Kissenger, Holdren and others’ mouths, directly quoted, is the eugenics philosophy. THAT is what Jazzroc is failing to see.
Most humane people can’t wrap their minds around the fact that someone they don’t even know wants them dead. People are precious to God. He created us to have companionship with Him, and He also gave each one free will to choose that – or not. We expect basic goodness from people – using their free will to treat us with dignity, compassion and respect. But when they choose with that same free will to abuse and even kill us, it doesn’t seem to make sense until we awaken to the fact that there is another entity loose on this planet (satan), whose hatred for humanity is beyond human understanding. I am speaking to those who have a consciousness of God, but I am a born-again believer in Jesus Christ and I will NEVER recant that commitment or be ashamed to call Him Lord and Saviour. We are all going to die someday, whether the NWO lets us live to old age and die in our sleep in our beds (probably not), or something else takes us out. “For it is appointed unto man ONCE to die, and after this the judgment.” We can deny what God has said all we want, but it’s like gravity. There are spiritual laws just as there are physical laws. Jump off a building denying the law of gravity and someone will still have to clean up the bloody mess. How hard can it be to see the truth except when someone has on deception-colored glasses?
And in addition, what else could we expect from liars except lies?
Anything that can be put down on paper or spoken can be falsified. “Global warming” debunked. Emails that were not supposed to be made public verifying that scientists “cooked the books”, deliberately reported measurements that were not true. So they’re being paid to falsify what should have been purely scientific measurements over the course of several years because it fits the Cap & Trade bogus agenda that is being forced on the world’s people in order for greed and corruption to prosper. These people have been caught bold-faced lying to the masses. What more is it going to take before we realize we can’t trust these people to have our best interests at heart?


JazzRoc
Reply:
“Much of the world’s issues start out good. But like anything technological, mental, emotional, spiritual, they CAN be corrupted. What Jazzroc doesn’t understand is that very few things remain ‘pure’.”
One of the FIRST things one does before a match (if one wishes to win) is to NEVER underestimate your opponent. You just have…
“Even the laws of thermodynamics state that everything decays.”
Hmm. Yet electrons circle the nucleus of an atom frictionlessly for EVER…
“Whether he believes it or not, the globalists have hijacked science and are using it to play out their agenda, which is removing approximately 90% of the people from this planet.”
The last time I looked, the population was still rising, and there were no specially-overcrowded hospitals. The last “mass die-off” I can recall (excluding earthquakes and tsunamis) was 40,000 pensioners in France in 2004 – due to the highest recorded temperatures in France since records began.
“Georgia Guidestones – their agenda is literally written in stone! From Kissenger, Holdren and others’ mouths, directly quoted, is the eugenics philosophy.”
The snags with this idea are that a) NO-ONE CAN SEE INTO THE FUTURE, and b) EUGENICS DIED FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY UNDERSTANDING OF GENETICS. Totally dead, that one…
“Most humane people can’t wrap their minds around the fact that someone they don’t even know wants them dead.”
What’s this? YOU obviously weren’t affected by the Cold War and Mutually-Assured-Destruction? LOL
“People are precious to God. He created us to have companionship with Him, and He also gave each one free will to choose that – or not.”
NOT. You believe words written by nomadic desert tribesmen four thousand years ago in the Middle East, added to by “jobbing” Essene psychedically-enhanced priests in Palestine, and finally compiled by a convocation of cardinals in Istambul? Bravo! Ah, but you were taught to abandon reason from childhood starting at an age when your parents should have been kinder to you, and taught you to respect reason. Tough. Mine were kinder.
“We expect basic goodness from people – using their free will to treat us with dignity, compassion and respect. But when they choose with that same free will to abuse and even kill us, it doesn’t seem to make sense until we awaken to the fact that”
Good until this point. Gibberish thereafter. The fact that the lowest human emotion is FEAR, and if these people fear us, it might be we have given them reason to do so. Consider Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure, those people who ARE manipulating the rest of us may well be in “spasm” too. Fear is the LOWEST emotion because of the paralyzing effect it can have on rational thought. Religion uses fear (of death) to manipulate its congregations. Anyone for Heaven? Better than Hell, eh? You don’t return from there… eternal torture… God revenges…
Chemtrails uses fear to manipulate its “customers”. Colloidal silver, orgone, coriander, anyone? Don’t disagree with me, you SHILL.
“And in addition, what else could we expect from liars except lies?”
Well, you’re a LIAR, and I expect better of you.
“Anything that can be put down on paper or spoken can be falsified.”
Not if it is Science. Until it is. Then, not if it is Science. Keep repeating that.
“Global warming” debunked.”
By tobacco interests? What keeps debunking this debunking are mass die-offs of old people in hot weather. There will be more…
“Emails that were not supposed to be made public verifying that scientists “cooked the books”, deliberately reported measurements that were not true. So they’re being paid to falsify what should have been purely scientific measurements over the course of several years because it fits the Cap & Trade bogus agenda that is being forced on the world’s people in order for greed and corruption to prosper. These people have been caught bold-faced lying to the masses. What more is it going to take before we realize we can’t trust these people to have our best interests at heart?”
Here your lack of scientific understanding has REALLY LET YOU DOWN. Neither you nor the data-burglars are capable of interpreting the science shorthand employed.
It’s rather similar to the ARM aerosol planes. These SUCK. They DON’T BLOW. They are gathering data. What for? Understanding how and why atmospheric particulates are DIMMING the solar flux. They are NOT proof that the PTB plan to spray you.
It all boils down to this:
If you don’t know what your talking about, shut up, and go to a library, and study up. Keep quiet until you REALLY know what you’re talking about, and before you begin, learn the rules of debate and the pitfalls of thinking, so that you may properly respect the rights of those who may not agree with you.
Notice I say LIBRARY.
“These statements are from someone who is terrified himself. In response to this he may well say he is terrified by the ignorance of others. His reality will likely one day crack. Hope he is able to make it through.”
Wrong. For “terrified” read “horrified”. I am a cheerful and courageous person who has built and flown his own airplane, and never shied away from a fight. I hate bullies and respond, you might say, very badly to them. It may be the reason I had more than sixty jobs in my working life.
“Those who have witnessed first hand the incongruities regarding regular air traffic and some of what is taking place overhead are looking for answers. JazzRoc doesn’t have them. It would be nice if he did, for then the matter could be laid to rest.”
Wrong again. Are you afflicted by dyslexia? Persistent contrails were first witnessed in 1921, persistent spreading ones in 1943, they have occurred (as they MUST) EVERY TIME ANY AIRCRAFT HAS FLOWN THROUGH SUPERSATURATED AIR.
Just because apophenics have clustered their myth-making abilities to fabricate “chemtrails” over the last decade, they should be believed? Of course not. They should be TREATED.
You must have missed it before, so I’ll restate it right now: there is NO physical evidence as to the existence of chemtrails, just as there isn’t to God, Jahwe, Jehovah, Allah, fairies, witches, hobgoblins, and the SPAGHETTI MONSTER.
If there’s NO evidence for whatever – DO NOT BELIEVE IN IT, and do yourself a favor. Live your life as best you can, as if it were your ONLY opportunity, for it IS your only opportunity.
DO NOT support the PTB. That’s easily done by NOT USING MONEY. Build a passive solar home. Gather your food and energy. Practise PERMACULTURE. Say goodbye to the PTB.
There are some helpful and directing videos here:

http ://www.youtube.com/user/beachcomber2008  And yes, I am a musician:

http ://www.reverbnation.com/artist/artist_songs/38493

calisurfer Says:
“counters some of them though relation of what he knows to be.” through. I will be breaking out a new keyboard today. That has been happening too often.

JazzRoc Reply:
I know what you mean. The sides of the keys get rougher over time.

Mothman Says:
We see the spraying, the results and even the jets spraying all over the world. We should ask who pays for this spraying and if this is an international effort are the costs shared?
Knowing who pays should be followed by who controls the whole operation? The jets, the pilots, the chemical transport to the aviation assets, the people? Who are these individuals or groups involved?
We must begin to ask who is involved and why? When they use national security as an excuse, then I would use Congress or the Senate to ensure that what is being done is not some complete and total UN program that impedes on our sovereignty while it forces the American public to pay for something that is designed to kill the populations of the world.

Mr. Clear View Reply:
Look. You’ve been fed a bunch of hogwash and believe it. Red herrings are thrown at you and you eat them. If it was all designed to kill you, how come you are still sitting and typing?
It’s the progeny of the Star Wars program. Toys for big boys. Crud spewed for hitting by rf to make a plasma to play with. Some dedicated planes for when more precision is necessary.
Sub-micron particles of aluminum in jet fuel that are small enough to polish the blades rather than destroy the engine outright in commercial. Any health side effects are besides the point of it all, and are just a bonus. Like a multinational that has one tentacle in the cigarette biz and another in cancer drugs. Are the people that get a paycheck and have the zeal for the toys overly concerned about you? About as much as those who sent and then tracked the soldiers in Plumbbob’s Smoky.

FreedomLover Reply:
It’s a SLOW kill, just like every other thing these maggots put into place. If they attacked the world’s people all at once with a single weapon, the people would wake up and rise up in revolution. Do some clear research on Hitler and what his cronies did to people. These are not simple killers. They are the type that would pull the wings off a butterfly, watch it crawl around for half an hour and then fry it with a magnifying glass. They love misery, suffering and torture. These are not sane or happy people. We have to get over the delusion that they know what’s best and have our best interests at heart. They don’t. Get over it.

JazzRoc Reply:
You must be simple. Well, simple person, there is NO such thing as a “spraying nozzle” fitted to ANY aircraft which produces the trails you see in the sky. TRAILS are made by COOLING the turbofan engine exhaust down from 1300 to -40 degrees Celsius between 25,000 and 40,000 feet up in the stratosphere. They are made by the COMBINATION of the COLD and the HUMIDITY of the air they are laid in. “Chemtrails” are MYTHOLOGICAL and NOT TRUE. Being FALSE, there is NO NEED to ask who originated them, just as there is NO NEED to wonder whether the SPAGHETTI MONSTER created JEHOVAH. Your UN paranoia is a great laugh, thanks for that.

Lion Reply:
You never explicitly tell us what you would acknowledge as evidence of chemtrails, God, or the criminality of the UN.

JazzRoc Reply:
That would be worthless hypothesizing.
First:
Demonstrate CHEMTRAILS.
Demonstrate GOD.
Demonstrate UN criminality.
They’re YOUR ideas, not mine, so DEMONSTRATE them to me.

FreedomLover Reply:
Just wait around a couple more years. There is no convincing you now. But you’ll see. Unfortunately by the time you crawl out of that comfortable little shell of a neat little scientific world view that says everything is done for the good of mankind and there are no tyrants, it will probably be too late.

JazzRoc Reply:
Of course there are tyrants. Societies need to kurb them. To do so they need “good intelligence”. I couldn’t agree more.
But let us consider WHAT intelligence might be “good”, shall we?
I’ll make the suggestion that BAD SCIENCE, WRONG INFORMATION, EYEWITNESS STATEMENTS, and FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION do NOT produce GOOD INFORMATION.
In time of WAR, the side with poor intelligence LOSES.
DO YOU WANT TO LOSE?
Do you want me fighting against you?
Are you waiting for Nibiru? LOL

FreedomLover Reply:
Get thee behind me, satan. You’re using your super-intelligence and super-ego AGAINST the world’s people. You’re exposed and defeated. The minute you deny there are evil people in the world who use everything in their power to carry out a depopulation agenda, your words are no longer worth considering, no matter how logical or book-learned you are. These brutal maggots have MONEY – get it? Money can buy a whole lot of suffering for those they deem unworthy of life. From their own mouths come the words “too many people on earth, we have to do something about this.” Here’s a good idea. Go to Rockefeller, Holdren, Pelosi et al, and preach your scientific gospel to them. Change their minds about what they’re doing. Use your scientific expertise to help the human race instead of killing them off. By your inaction, your complete failure in offering ANY beneficial solutions, you’re contributing to the suffering and death of millions. That smells like NWO. Who died and made you God anyway? Who gave you the authority to puff yourself up and say that because you have some training and experience, that makes your life more valuable in God’s eyes than some poor half-starved child in a third-world country? Your arrogance stinks.

ShieldsRdown Says:
Danger In The Sky – The Chemtrail Phenomenon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdtLTyNOB0A

JazzRoc Reply:
Has a debunker in its midst – Beachcomber2008. That guy is ME.

DreamToShare Says:
SHINING DUST is what we see now a days. Run your hand on a dusty area and hold it under the sun light, it shines.

truthorconsequence Says:
Interestingly enough, our skies have been suspciously clear since the BP spill happened…could it be that the bulk of those chemicals that have been sprayed via air are now being dumped into the Gulf? Has NALCO been linked to chemtrail related activity?

FreedomLover Reply:
I don’t know. We’ve had no chemtrailing for 2 days now, skies clear of clouds, but a persistent haze that makes the throat and eyes sore. And electric discharge that used to only happen in the winter.

JazzRoc Reply:
By “electric discharge” you mean STATIC ELECTRICITY. That means your air is DRY.
A persistent haze that makes the throat and eyes sore is PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG which has been trapped in an INVERSION. Inversions form over cities, especially where the cities are sited geographically in a “bowl” of surrounding hillsides. If you are concerned about the air you breathe then complain to your local govt.

FreedomLover Reply:
They don’t listen. Neither do you.

TAKE THE POWER BACK Says:
I’m not here to argue I’m hear to ask questions. Why is it when I see a fighter jet as a spec shooting across the sky there’s no contrail? Why aren’t contrails constant if they are just water vapor? seems to me they are tuned on and off.

JazzRoc Reply:

The air that creates a contrail is THIN. One tenth the pressure at ground level. It’s cold. At this time of the year it will be -40 degrees Fahrenheit. It’s humid. It will be 85% Relative Humidity or greater. It’s HIGH UP. It will be anywhere over about 25,000 feet. I say “anywhere” because it will be trapped in a relatively thin and flat LAYER (or several of them) anywhere between 25,000 and 45,000 feet. Above this height the temperature is rising with altitude, and conditions become less favorable.
The kicker is that these layers of differing humidity are all TRANSPARENT and cannot be distinguished from the ground. I have noticed that it is possible to spot them from the aircraft by looking at the horizon. Jet streams in these layers are fast-moving and can be fairly opaque with fine ice crystals. Planes passing through them make thick trails in these conditions.
Freedom Lover:
“jr, all you are is an arrogant so-called scientist probably hired to anger and “disinfo” anyone who has their finger on the corrupt pulse of the illuminati. For all your scientific book-learning, you are a fool regarding life, relationships and the hereafter. You have slammed every commenter, trying to make yourself look smarter and better.”
You haven’t contested a single point I have made. Instead you resort to AD HOMINEMs like there were no tomorrow. These ad homs you can neither prove, nor I disprove. They’re TIMEWASTERS. I can understand WHY you would rather waste time than get to the truth: you don’t want to lose an argument.
“Take your arrogant attitude where it would be better appreciated, like the CFR.”
It is MORE ARROGANT of you to speak from a position of ignorance than it is for me to speak from a position of experience.
“If you were REALLY on the side of the world’s people, you would take your sterile book-learning and use it to save the world’s people.”
I have already told you my experience is hands-on. I have never designed anything which I didn’t make, or get made, as a working prototype. I am a fully-experienced machinist. And a draughtsman. And an inventor. And a designer.
“The only solution you are proposing is for everyone here to ignore the problem and it will go away. Oh, wait, you’re saying there isn’t even a problem. So basically we’re all wasting our time. In which case you’re also wasting yours coming here to debunk a “myth” you are telling us doesn’t even exist.”
I’m asking you to IGNORE A PROBLEM WHICH DOESN’T EXIST. There are plenty of conspiracies left to check out.
“NOW who’s the crazy one? You don’t have any more time left on this planet than most, so there is certainly a more productive use of your time than responding to a bunch of crazy people.”
I’m retired already. Your problem, apophenia and ignorance is CURABLE. There is work to do. Finding a counter-effort to the Tea Party and Neocon moves might be a good isea, for instance.
“You’re busted. Troll somewhere else.”
As you haven’t contested a single point of science which I have made, interested onlookers might consider YOU “busted”.
Until you conduct a proper debate, it’s YOU who is the troll.

FreedomLover Reply:
“I have already told you my experience is hands-on. I have never designed anything which I didn’t make, or get made, as a working prototype. I am a fully-experienced machinist. And a draughtsman. And an inventor. And a designer.”
Then why are you wasting your time here? God has blessed you with knowledge and inventive gifts, yet all you’re doing is blasting those with whom you disagree. Technology exists that could enable every single one of the earth’s people to live in relative comfort, yet here you sit not doing a damned thing to help anyone, but egotistically trying to tell everyone they are wrong. You have not said one positive thing to encourage anyone, but instead used your scientific jack-boots to stomp everyone’s face.
I am not an engineer. I don’t have knowledge of aeronautics and other such things, but I DO listen to people, and have intuitive power to read the intent behind the words. In the case of the globalists, that’s really not difficult. These globalists have been quoted as saying they want 90% of the world’s people gone. There is declassified evidence that chemtrails DO exist and that they have been used for terraforming and modifying the earth’s weather to use as a weapon (droughts, floods). Yet with the evidence right in your face, you still deny it. So either you’re a troll, sent here with disinfo (good disinfo, I’ll grant you that), or you’re so deceived by the world system that you can’t grasp the truth. Which is it?

JazzRoc Reply:
“Then why are you wasting your time here? God has blessed you with knowledge and inventive gifts, yet all you’re doing is blasting those with whom you disagree.”
That’s another of my gifts. I should have used it sooner in my life, for sure, but I’m certainly not going to miss the opportunity to use it now. My advice is TRUE and GOOD. Follow it.
“Technology exists that could enable every single one of the earth’s people to live in relative comfort, yet here you sit not doing a damned thing to help anyone, but egotistically trying to tell everyone they are wrong. You have not said one positive thing to encourage anyone, but instead used your scientific jack-boots to stomp everyone’s face.”
You’re correct, technology does indeed exist that will EASILY save the Human Race from distress, let alone extinction, and I’ll admit I’m NO LONGER trying to do so, that’s true, but I DID spend thirty years trying. How long have YOU spent? But you’re also quite WRONG: I have indeed offered my best advice here on these pages. If you haven’t noticed, yet received one of my boots in your face, it was indeed well-deserved. Look again.
“I am not an engineer. I don’t have knowledge of aeronautics and other such things, but I DO listen to people, and have intuitive power to read the intent behind the words. In the case of the globalists, that’s really not difficult. These globalists have been quoted as saying they want 90% of the world’s people gone.”
These people are both cushioned AND alienated, and I’ll buy that. I wouldn’t trust them any further than I could throw them either. But they only have as much power of you as you allow them. If you don’t use their money they have NO power over you at all.
“There is declassified evidence that chemtrails DO exist and that they have been used for terraforming and modifying the earth’s weather to use as a weapon (droughts, floods). Yet with the evidence right in your face, you still deny it.”
Sorry, the scientist in me sees NO evidence whatsoever. You should trust my judgement here – I know, fat chance.
“So either you’re a troll, sent here with disinfo (good disinfo, I’ll grant you that), or you’re so deceived by the world system that you can’t grasp the truth. Which is it?”
The only non-troll part of YOU is this SLIGHT tendency you have to discuss something with me. The rest is ALL troll.
“Good disinfo” is a classic oxymoron.
I used to be a warm, open-hearted, and somewhat gullible person in the early sixties. The LAST time I was deceived was around 1984. The man responsible for that deception is in a Los Angeles jail right now facing a 170-year sentence.
“JR, do you really think you’re going to escape everything that’s coming on the world? You can go join the elite in their deep underground military bases and maybe survive for awhile. But you’ll still die one day. What then? I’m trying to be kind in response to your swaggering scoffing, but you make it pretty darned hard.”
I have NO WISH to escape the future. However my children and grandchildren deserve better than your poor imagination can envisage. The “elite” have no desire for me, and the feeling’s mutual. So I’ll die. I won’t be worrying after that. Sorry about the difficulties I seem to put you in, but (yawns, forgets)…
“Oh, and I see you’re above all that. You obviously are in the NWO camp, trying desperately to discredit those who threaten your cushy little existence by disseminating the truth. It’s not going to work. You might as well give up.”
Tut-tut. You blow hot, you blow cold… I’m more concerned with protecting the interests of my grandchildren. And my aims aren’t THAT high either. I KNOW that what (you might call) CASUAL onlookers are going to think. Let me tell you this. They are going to see a theme with a PERSISTENT OPPOSITION running through it. They can choose either way, it’s no matter. There’s just NOT GOING TO BE a visibly-consistent consensus. And that will work. The continual dissonance has a way of working itself through the subconscious mind more frequently, and ONE DAY, could be (certainly has been!) years away, you will ask yourself again exactly why you disagreed with me, and re-examine your own motivations for doing so.
“The “sheep” have awakened, and they’re pissed.”
I used to live in North Wales. Do you know that sheep invented VELCRO? They learned it by sticking themselves to thornbushes (right up in the air). I used to pick them off the hawthorns when their plight become unbearable to watch. A minute or two laughing, then – pluck.
“Go crawl back into your hole – you’re not wanted here. So you admit (tongue in cheek) that you’re fallible. Fallible people look to God to fix their failings.”
No, seriously, I AM fallible. The point is that to be responsible you have to humbly admit to youself that you ARE fallible. You then stand a greater chance of remedying your mistakes BEFORE you make them.
“I’ve got news for you, poor excuse for a compassionate human being. Science VALIDATES the Bible. The Bible talked about the “circle of the earth” while people still believed in a “flat earth” lie. You want the truth – well, actually you don’t – but wait just a couple of years. They’ll go fast. It will be in your face.”
The Earth is an oblate spheroid. The North Pole is five miles closer than the South Pole to the DEAD CENTER of the Earth. Hot stuff there, dense nickel/iron plasmatic solid core, fission-driven to a temperature as hot as the surface of the Sun.
I live on a small volcanic desert made by a natural, soft “concrete” formed by the action of rainfall on what was once a massive pyroclastic flow. Above me fertile volcanic soils, above them hardwoods and fruit trees, above them pine forests, above them ragged and sour volcanic ridges through which run sleek greyhound-like wild dogs. Below me the shoreline replete with shrimps and other tasty arthropods, crabs, pretty fish, and pretty tasty fish. Get me?
“Just as in the “global warming” hoax [snip] cap & trade tax through.”
I thought we’d covered this. The whole thing’s a scam by 3% self-appointed experts – with 97% of atmospheric scientists in direct opposition. A bit of DISPARITY there…
“The agenda is to make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer, totally obliterating the middle class. You’re obviously in the rich man’s camp, so you have a lot to lose if the people wake up and start revolting. No wonder you’re so adamant about trying to blow the truth out of the water.”
I’m the grandson of a Welsh coal-miner, thanks, with nothing in the bank. I’m part of your “poor, poorer” sector. But as I’m 66 I collect a (slightly low) state pension. My last job was as a physics teacher. I’m married to a physics teacher, too. It just goes to show that you can work hard all your life – and still get SNAFU’d. In a more numerate and technically-competent world – I’d have saved the world. (LOLs insanely)
“Come on, it can’t be cheap to live in the Canary Islands. And you’ve obviously got a lot of time to spend here blasting people.”
Of course it can be cheap-ish. It’s dearer than the States, I reckon, but the food’s better.
As for “blasting” people, a sort of English politeness works with scientists (because the words count) but not with emotional or religious non-scientists. Emotive issues must be raised immediately, in order to draw attention to physical evidence and reasoned logic.
“Post anything, even lies about how WE are messing up the planet, and dump the propaganda on the evening news, and people believe it.”
If you are American or British you ARE messing up the planet. It’s about time you took responsibility for your situation.
I tried for a very long time, and left Britain with a whole bunch of physical ailments (stress, mostly, with a worsening hay-fever) which have all now departed, mercifully.
All the better to blast you with. 🙂

FreedomLover Reply:
First of all, I’m going to swallow my pride and apologize for letting anger get the best of me.
Now, I am going to put this very plainly. I can see you’ve had a hard go of it. Like most people trying to make it in this world, you got shot down.
1. Chemtrails are real. You’re not going to convince anyone here that they are not. Documentaries have been done – at least one – where the govt FREELY admits they have been terraforming the earth. You’re not going to get around that, no matter how hard you try. These globalists aren’t interested in pure, unadulterated science (they corrupt it all the time to suit their agenda), so even if that were the only reason, they are your enemy as well as mine.
2. There is a deeper agenda than you are willing to examine, namely a satanic force loose on this planet. The illuminati, aka globalists, aka “elite”, are aligning themselves with the devil. They openly brag about their exploits at Bohemian Grove and their satanic rituals. Even if you don’t believe in eugenics, they DO, and they are using their money and power to put it into practice. They are living out what they believe, like it or not, admit it or not.
3. Death gets us all in the end, whether it is asleep in our beds at 99 years of age, or something sooner and more sudden. You scoff at God. Bad idea. He designed you; you are a walking miracle, but you reject His very existence. God holds humans accountable for what they do with His SON, Jesus Christ. If you reject the only way God provided to allow us access into His presence, then there is only one other place you can go, and you chose it yourself. After all, He IS God, and He has every right and the authority to set the limits on who gets into His heaven and the way. This is not MY opinion, and I won’t take your slamming personally. I would urge you to consider your immortal soul.

TAKE THE POWER BACK Says:
Jazz and freedom thanks for taking this way out of line and o.t. You two are smarter than I but I know when to s.t.f.u. you might wanna think about that next time you bombard everyone with your b.s.

JazzRoc Says:
“First of all, I’m going to swallow my pride and apologize for letting anger get the best of me. Now, I am going to put this very plainly. I can see you’ve had a hard go of it. Like most people trying to make it in this world, you got shot down.”
Stretching a tenous “belief system” here, thanks for being attentive. I may have been shot down but at least my “parachute” opened.

“1. Chemtrails are real. You’re not going to convince anyone here that they are not. Documentaries have been done – at least one – where the govt FREELY admits they have been terraforming the earth. You’re not going to get around that, no matter how hard you try. These globalists aren’t interested in pure, unadulterated science (they corrupt it all the time to suit their agenda), so even if that were the only reason, they are your enemy as well as mine.”
Chemtrails are MYTHOLOGICAL. You managed to convince yourself of their existence without any real evidence, so it is definitely possible to retrace your steps to find out where you took the wrong fork, find a bit of evidence you MISSED, and take a different path.
The ORIGIN of the trail is a case in point. There is a GAP in the trail before it forms. Metal ions would be VISIBLE IN THAT GAP. Metal ions are used in fireworks to COLOR the FLAMES. The engine exhaust is a FLAME. If it isn’t COLORED there aren’t any METAL IONS.
So it’s NOT the engines that are laying the trail – it comes from the body. Now you sometimes see body trails, from the galley/washbasins, and also from the Auxiliary Power Unit, but they are real small, and discontinuous.
So WHERE can these metal particles be coming from?

“2. There is a deeper agenda than you are willing to examine, namely a satanic force loose on this planet. The illuminati, aka globalists, aka “elite”, are aligning themselves with the devil. They openly brag about their exploits at Bohemian Grove and their satanic rituals. Even if you don’t believe in eugenics, they DO, and they are using their money and power to put it into practice. They are living out what they believe, like it or not, admit it or not.”
And they worry me more than anyone does – we agree. The only difference between them and Nazis is they don’t seem to have working extermination camps anywhere.
“3. Death gets us all in the end, whether it is asleep in our beds at 99 years of age, or something sooner and more sudden. You scoff at God. Bad idea. He designed you; you are a walking miracle, but you reject His very existence. God holds humans accountable for what they do with His SON, Jesus Christ. If you reject the only way God provided to allow us access into His presence, then there is only one other place you can go, and you chose it yourself. After all, He IS God, and He has every right and the authority to set the limits on who gets into His heaven and the way. This is not MY opinion, and I won’t take your slamming personally. I would urge you to consider your immortal soul.”
I don’t suffer from your over-riding fear, as I have shrugged off my religious programming. I accept that OBLIVION FOLLOWS DEATH. And oblivion is what you fear. Your religion provides you comfort against that fear, and it must be nice. But there is no evidence for life after death.
Your “soul” is the electrochemical CONFIGURATION of that piece of MEAT inside your skull which you call your brain.
Life on Earth began abiogenically, died, began, died, began (etc.) and finally survived to evolve 3.8 billion years ago, and every cell in every SINGLE, SEPARATE living being on Earth is taking part in further evolution RIGHT NOW. NOTHING IS MORE IMPLACABLE AND GOD-LIKE than the SUM