JazzRoc versus “Chemtrails”

Contrail Facts and “Chemtrail” Fictions

Posts Tagged ‘kerosine

Trails Seen from Space

with 5 comments

PAGE CONTENTS

ATLANTIC OCEAN – MID-EUROPE – THE CROW INSTABILITY – MORE ABOUT VORTICES – THE 9-11 VORTEX – THE “THIRD” TRAIL – SUPERSATURATION – “GAPS” – FUEL VENTS – AIRBUS 340 RTO BRAKE TEST

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

ATLANTIC OCEAN

atlanticsat

A monochrome view of the North Atlantic Ocean by AtlanticSat shows Greenland, Iceland, the British Isles, and part of Norway. Prominent in the photo is a north-south ridge of high pressure, with cold dry air to the west, and warmer wetter air to the east. Aircraft approaching or leaving this ridge have struck permanent contrail conditions on its west side. The trails are at even intervals which suggest there are only TWO great-circle routes involved (London-New York and London LAX) with regular flights from each. The stratosphere (where the trails are) is obviously moving north-to-south.
The trails peter out approaching or leaving the British Isles, where the wetter conditons don’t obtain (for a change).
Chemtrailers must ask themselves why the pilots’ aim was so poor…

MID-EUROPE

mid-europe

Here we are centered roughly over Hamburg; Copenhagen is right center top and the Baltic Sea further to the right. We are looking at a “triangle” of air travel activity between Kiel (center top), Berlin (bottom right) and the Rhineland (bottom left).
You can see evidence that the stratosphere is sliding along at possibly 100kph from the northwest – maybe!

THE CROW INSTABILITY

TRAIL 5

I originally thought these were local control surface vortices, but I have been better advised since, by Jay Reynolds. Thanks, Jay!

MORE ABOUT VORTICES

The Crow instability is a vortex pair instability, and typically goes through several stages:
– A pair of counter rotating vortices act upon each other to amplify small sinusoidal distortions in their vortex shapes (Normally created by some initial disturbance in the system).
– The waves develop into either symmetric or anti-symmetric modes, depending on the nature of the initial disturbance.
– These distortions grow, both through interaction from one vortex on another, and also ‘Self Induction’ of a vortex with itself. This leads to an exponential growth in the vortex wave amplitude.
– The vortex amplitudes reach a critical value and reconnect, forming a chain of vortex rings.

Initially the vortex pair falls rapidly downward. Perturbations of the vortices from the ambient atmosphere grow in a sinusoidal mutual inductance instability (the Crow instability). Eventually the vortices touch, reconnect and form vortex rings which oscillate, interact with themselves and the atmospheric turbulence and stratification, and finally dissolve. During their lifetime the rings continue to drop, giving rise to the periodic series of puffs often seen in contrail evolution.
These are spin-stabilized and follow the deflected air and take a while to spin to a stop. Ice is precipitated out of the -40 deg C water vapor in the vortex vacua. Altogether an intriguing visual phenomenon!
http://www.cerfacs.fr/cfd/wake_vortex_26.php is a useful reference…

And this low-quality video reveals…

And this high-quality video shows how far our understanding has progressed…

# A vortex (plural: vortices) is a spinning, often turbulent, flow of fluid.  Any spiral motion with closed streamlines is vortex flow. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortices

Vortices display some special properties:
* The fluid pressure in a vortex is lowest in the center (where the speed is greatest) and rises progressively with distance from the center. This is in accordance with Bernoulli’s Principle. The core of a vortex in air is sometimes visible because of a plume of water vapor caused by condensation in the low pressure of the core. The spout of a tornado is a classic and frightening example of the visible core of a vortex. A dust devil is also the core of a vortex, made visible by the dust drawn upwards by the turbulent flow of air from ground level into the low pressure core.

* The core of every vortex can be considered to contain a vortex line, and every particle in the vortex can be considered to be circulating around the vortex line. Vortex lines can start and end at the boundary of the fluid or form closed loops. They cannot start or end in the fluid. (See Helmholtz’s theorems.) Vortices readily deflect and attach themselves to a solid surface. For example, a vortex usually forms ahead of the propeller disk or jet engine of a slow-moving airplane. One end of the vortex line is attached to the propeller disk or jet engine, but when the airplane is taxiing the other end of the vortex line readily attaches itself to the ground rather than end in midair. The vortex can suck water and small stones into the core and then into the propeller disk or jet engine.

* Two or more vortices that are approximately parallel and circulating in the same direction will merge to form a single vortex. The circulation of the merged vortex will equal the sum of the circulations of the constituent vortices. For example, a sheet of small vortices flows from the trailing edge of the wing or propeller of an airplane when the wing is developing lift or the propeller is developing thrust. In less than one wing chord downstream of the trailing edge of the wing these small vortices merge to form a single vortex. If viewed from the tail of the airplane, looking forward in the direction of flight, there is one wingtip vortex trailing from the left-hand wing and circulating clockwise, and another wingtip vortex trailing from the right-hand wing and circulating anti-clockwise. The result is a region of downwash behind the wing, between the pair of wingtip vortices. These two wingtip vortices do not merge because they are circulating in opposite directions.

* Vortices contain a lot of energy in the circular motion of the fluid. In an ideal fluid this energy can never be dissipated and the vortex would persist forever. However, real fluids exhibit viscosity and this dissipates energy very slowly from the core of the vortex. (See Rankine vortex). It is only through dissipation of a vortex due to viscosity that a vortex line can end in the fluid, rather than at the boundary of the fluid. For example, the wingtip vortices from an airplane dissipate slowly and linger in the atmosphere long after the airplane has passed. This is a hazard to other aircraft and is known as wake turbulence.

Cause and effects
A wing generates aerodynamic lift by creating a region of lower air pressure above it. Fluids are forced to flow from high to low pressure and the air below the wing tends to migrate toward the top of the wing via the wingtips. The air does not escape around the leading or trailing edge of the wing due to airspeed, but it can flow around the tip. Consequently, air flows from below the wing and out around the tip to the top of the wing in a circular fashion.  This leakage will raise the pressure on top of the wing and reduce the lift that the wing can generate. It also produces an emergent flow pattern with low pressure in the center surrounded by fast-moving air with curved streamlines.  Wingtip vortices only affect the portion of the wing closest to the tip. Thus, the longer the wing, the smaller the affected fraction of it will be. As well, the shorter the chord of the wing, the less opportunity air will have to form vortices. This means that for an aircraft to be most efficient, it should have a very high aspect ratio.  This is evident in the design of gliders.  It is also evident in long-range airliners, where fuel efficiency is of critical importance.  However, increasing the wingspan reduces the maneuverability of the aircraft, which is why combat and aerobatic planes usually feature short, stubby wings despite the efficiency losses.

Another method of reducing fuel consumption is the use of winglets, as seen on some modern airliners such as the Airbus A340. Winglets work by forcing the vortex to move to the very tip of the wing and allowing the entire span to produce lift, thereby effectively increasing the aspect ratio of the wing.  Winglets also change the pattern of vorticity in the core of the vortex pattern, spreading it out and reducing the kinetic energy in the circular air flow, which reduces the amount of fuel expended to perform work by the wing upon the spinning air. Winglets can yield worthwhile economy improvements on long-distance flights.

Visibility of vortices due to water condensation and freezing

The cores of the vortices are sometimes visible because water present in them condenses from gas (vapor) to liquid, and sometimes even freezes, forming ice particles.  The phase of water (i.e. whether it assumes the form of a solid, liquid, or gas) is determined by its temperature and pressure.  For example, in the case of liquid-gas transition, at each pressure there is a special “transition temperature” Tc such that if the sample temperature is even a little above Tc, the sample will be a gas, but if the sample temperature is even a little below Tc, the sample will be a liquid; see phase transition.

For example, at the standard atmospheric pressure, Tc is 100 °C = 212 °F.  The transition temperature Tc decreases with decreasing pressure (which explains why water boils at lower temperatures at higher altitudes and at higher temperatures in a pressure cooker; see here for more information).  In the case of water vapor in air, the Tc corresponding to the partial pressure of water vapor is called the dew point. (The solid-liquid transition also happens around a specific transition temperature called the melting point. For most substances, the melting point also decreases with decreasing pressure, although water ice in particular—in its Ih form, which is the most familiar one—is a prominent exception to this rule.)
Vortex cores are regions of low pressure. As a vortex core begins to form, the water in the air (in the region that is about to become the core) is in vapor phase, which means that the local temperature is above the local dew point. After the vortex core forms, the pressure inside it has decreased from the ambient value, and so the local dew point (Tc) has dropped from the ambient value. Thus, in and of itself, a drop in pressure would tend to keep water in vapor form: the initial dew point was already below the ambient air temperature, and the formation of the vortex has made the local dew point even lower.
However, as the vortex core forms, its pressure (and so its dew point) is not the only property that is dropping: the vortex-core temperature is dropping also, and in fact it can drop by much more than the dew point does, as we now explain.
To a first approximation, the formation of vortex cores is thermodynamically an adiabatic process, i.e. one with no exchange of heat. In such a process, the drop in pressure is accompanied by a drop in temperature, according to the equation

Here Ti and pi are the absolute temperature and pressure at the beginning of the process (here equal to the ambient air temperature and pressure), Tf and pf are the absolute temperature and pressure in the vortex core (which is the end result of the process), and the constant γ is about 7/5 = 1.4 for air.
Thus, even though the local dew point inside the vortex cores is even lower than in the ambient air, the water vapor may nevertheless condense—if the formation of the vortex brings the local temperature below the new local dew point. Let us verify that this can indeed happen under realistic conditions.  For a typical transport aircraft landing at an airport, these conditions are as follows: we may take Ti and pi to have values corresponding to the so-called standard conditions, i.e. pi = 1 atm = 1013.25 mb = 101\,325 Pa and Ti = 293.15 K (which is 20 °C = 68 °F).

We will take the relative humidity to be a comfortable 35% (dew point of 4.1 °C = 39.4 °F). This corresponds to a partial pressure of water vapor of 820 Pa = 8.2 mb.

We will assume that in a vortex core, the pressure (pf) drops to about 80% of the ambient pressure, i.e. to about 80 000 Pa.
Let us first determine the temperature in the vortex core. It is given by the equation above as


Next, we determine the dew point in the vortex core. The partial pressure of water in the vortex core drops in proportion to the drop in the total pressure (i.e. by the same percentage), to about 650 Pa = 6.5 mb. According to a dew point calculator at this site (alternatively one may use the Antoine equation to obtain an approximate value), that partial pressure results in the local dew point of about 0.86 °C; in other words, the new local dew point is about equal to the new local temperature.
Therefore, the case we have been considering is a marginal case; if the relative humidity of the ambient air were even a bit higher (with the total pressure and temperature remaining as above), then the local dew point inside the vortices would rise, while the local temperature would remain the same as what we have just found. Thus the local temperature would now be lower than the local dew point, and so the water vapor inside the vortices would indeed condense.
Under right conditions, the local temperature in vortex cores may drop below the local freezing point, in which case ice particles will form inside the vortex cores.
We have just seen that the water-vapor condensation mechanism in wingtip vortices is driven by local changes in air pressure and temperature. This is to be contrasted to what happens in another well-known case of water condensation related to airplanes: the contrails from airplane engine exhausts. In the case of contrails, the local air pressure and temperature do not change significantly; what matters instead is that the exhaust contains both water vapor (which increases the local water-vapor concentration and so its partial pressure, resulting in elevated dew point and freezing point) as well as aerosols (which provide nucleation centers for the condensation and freezing).
Condensation of water vapor in wing tip vortices is most common on aircraft flying at high angles of attack, such as fighter aircraft in high g maneuvers, or airliners taking off and landing on humid days.

Observations
A vortex can be seen in the spiraling motion of air or liquid around a center of rotation. Circular current of water of conflicting tides form vortex shapes.
Turbulent flow makes many vortices. A good example of a vortex is the atmospheric phenomenon of a whirlwind or a tornado or dust devil. This whirling air mass mostly takes the form of a helix, column, or spiral. Tornadoes develop from severe thunderstorms, usually spawned from squall lines and supercell thunderstorms, though they sometimes happen as a result of a hurricane.

In atmospheric physics, a mesovortex is on the scale of a few miles (smaller than a hurricane but larger than a tornado). On a much smaller scale, a vortex is usually formed as water goes down a drain, as in a sink or a toilet. This occurs in water as the revolving mass forms a whirlpool. This whirlpool is caused by water flowing out of a small opening in the bottom of a basin or reservoir. This swirling flow structure within a region of fluid flow opens downward from the water surface.

Instances

* In the hydrodynamic interpretation of the behavior of electromagnetic fields, the acceleration of electric fluid in a particular direction creates a positive vortex of magnetic fluid. This in turn creates around itself a corresponding negative vortex of electric fluid.
* Smoke ring : A ring of smoke which persists for a surprisingly long time, illustrating the slow rate at which viscosity dissipates the energy of a vortex.
* Lift-induced drag of a wing on an aircraft.

* The primary cause of drag in the sail of a sloop.
* Whirlpool: a swirling body of water produced by ocean tides or by a hole underneath the vortex where the water would drain out, such as a bathtub. A large, powerful whirlpool is known as a maelstrom. In popular imagination, but only rarely in reality, they can have the dangerous effect of destroying boats. Examples are Scylla and Charybdis of classical mythology in the Straits of Messina, Italy; the Naruto whirlpools of Nankaido, Japan; the Maelstrom, Lofoten, Norway.

* Tornado : a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. A less violent version of a tornado, over water, is called a waterspout.
* Hurricane : a much larger, swirling body of clouds produced by evaporating warm ocean water and influenced by the Earth’s rotation. Similar, but far greater, vortices are also seen on other planets, such as the permanent Great Red Spot on Jupiter and the intermittent Great Dark Spot on Neptune.

* Polar vortex : a persistent, large-scale cyclone centered near the Earth’s poles, in the middle and upper troposphere and the stratosphere.
* Sunspot : dark region on the Sun’s surface (photosphere) marked by a lower temperature than its surroundings, and intense magnetic activity.
* The accretion disk of a black hole or other massive gravitational source.
* Spiral galaxy : a type of galaxy in the Hubble sequence which is characterized by a thin, rotating disk. Earth’s galaxy, the Milky Way, is of this type.

# VORTEX – The Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment or VORTEX, field projects study tornadoes. VORTEX1 was the first time scientists completely researched the entire evolution of a tornado enabling a greater understanding of the processes involved with tornadogenesis. …

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VORTEX

THE 9-11 VORTEX

As explained previously, vortices that come into contact with each reconfigure each other, regenerating intermediate “rings”, and ALL vortices will “stick” to a plane surface – like the ground (tornado), or the face of a building (World Trade Center Tower 2).

The Boeing 767, weighing around 180,000 kilograms and traveling at 260 meters/second, was pulling up in about a 2G banking turn before it struck the tower, so the energy it was putting into its (invisible) WAVE VORTEX was twice the normal, it occurred to me, so might not there be EVIDENCE of its existence in the smoke and dust after the collision?

Evidence there is, in embarrassing plenty. Embarrassing for “no-planers”, anyway, if they were to be well-informed and curious enough to CONTINUE TO WATCH after the collision took place. An oxymoron, I think.

Check back to confirm this if you like…

So now “no-planers” would HAVE to claim that the video artists that “falsified” these images were experts in aerodynamics as well.

To which the answer is OCCAM…

.

THE “THIRD” TRAIL…

apu-3.jpg

In this case the fifth… is the trail left by the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) which is a normal (but small) gas turbine/electrical generator set. As with the main engines, it burns kerosine to form carbon dioxide and steam. As with the main engines, it leaves a trail. But where’s it coming from?

SUPERSATURATION

“the whole plane is spraying”

TRAIL 13

When stratospheric air is very clean and stable it may contain MORE water vapour than it does when it is described as having 100% Relative Humidity. The slightest disturbance to it will cause ice crystals to precipitate out of it. It cannot go into super-saturation if there are ANY nucleative materials of any sort in this air.
Here is just such a case, which occurs on occasion in the sub-tropical stratosphere. The trail forms by “burst condensation” into super-cooled droplets which are microscopic initially and can refract sunlight by interference. Over a small space of time these droplets grow progressively as water vapor deposits more supercooled water into them. As they progressively increase their size they run through a progression of light frequencies which they interfere with. This is NOT a refraction effect.

Chemtrailers claim the colors to be indicative of “foreign materials” which is quite the reverse of the truth; only pure water will do this, and only pure air will have become supersaturated in the first place.
The fact that in supersaturated conditions, large aircraft can place thousands of tons of ice into the stratosphere is covered by the paper “Contrails to Cirrus” mentioned in the INTRODUCTION page.
https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/01-compendium/

“GAPS”

TRAIL 6

“Gaps” are claimed by chemtrailers as “evidence that planes are spraying”. Such gaps will of course appear in any persistent contrail where the stratospheric air RH falls below 100%. Generally, of course, the humidity tails off gradually, and the transition of trail-to-no-trail is quite indistinct.
In THIS case, the “transition” is a hard and sharp right angle. Too sharp, in fact, for a whirling twin-vortex contrail… Close inspection of the “sky” each side of the “gap” shows it to be comprised of a chemtrailer’s vertical “airbrush strokes”! Naughty!

FUEL VENTS

vent

Here we have an aircraft actually spraying something; it’s fuel. If some in-flight emergency occurs and the plane must make a quick landing, it must first lose weight, for it cannot land at its take-off weight. Some of its fuel must GO.

Chemtrailers are quick to claim this shot as “spraying evidence”.

conspiracy-pixels

6 Porkies

with 4 comments

PAGE CONTENTS

6 PORKIES – AEROSOLS – THE ATMOSPHERE – THE WMO – ATMOSNAPS

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

 

“PORK PIE” = “LIE”  – Cockney rhyming slang. 

porkpie

6 PORKIES

“Obviously your alleged credentials are fraud” – has your short-term memory passed away? ONE.

“A true person of Science would step forward and lay all questions to rest” – ditto, and I have. Check my comments here. Check http://www.contrailscience.com. Check http://www.myspace.com/jazzroc TWO.

“You do nothing” – I COULD start pasting again… THREE.

“It is safe to assume that people’s claims must have basis” – assuming is the only action you do. Why not educate yourself in science? FOUR.

“I’d like nothing more than for someone to prove nothing is going on” – FIVE.

“You are by far not only a fraud but a coward as well” – GIANT PORKY NUMBER SIX.

AEROSOLS

What a great porky this one is!

The non-scientific word-association goes aerosol – hair spray – sprayers (truly inspirational!)

aerosol-can-2

TO THIS:

YouTube_-_Documentary_Validates_Chemtrails_and_Weather_Warfare-20090725-091314

But never a thought to CHECKING UP what the REAL MEANING (scientific meaning) of aerosol ACTUALLY IS:

Aerosol – from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Aerosol – contamination in northeastern India and Bangladesh.
Technically, an aerosol is a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in a gas. Examples are smoke, oceanic haze, air pollution, smog and CS gas. In general conversation, aerosol usually refers to an aerosol spray can or the output of such a can.
The word aerosol derives from the fact that matter “floating” in air is a suspension (a mixture in which solid or liquid or combined solid-liquid particles are suspended in a fluid). To differentiate suspensions from true solutions, the term sol evolved – originally meant to cover dispersions of tiny (sub-microscopic) particles in a liquid.
With studies of dispersions in air, the term aerosol evolved and now embraces both liquid droplets, solid particles, and combinations of these.

Workplace exposure
Concentrated aerosols from substances such as silica, asbestos, and diesel particulate matter are sometimes found in the workplace and have been shown to result in a number of diseases including silicosis and black lung. Respirators can protect workers from harmful aerosol exposure. In the United States the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health certifies respirators through the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory to ensure that they protect workers and the public from harmful airborne contaminants.

Effect on climate
Aerosols over the Amazon each September for four burning seasons (2005 through 2008). The aerosol scale (yellow to dark reddish-brown) indicates the relative amount of particles that absorb sunlight. Anthropogenic aerosols, particularly sulfate aerosols from fossil fuel combustion, exert a cooling influence on the climate which partly counteracts the warming induced by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. This effect is accounted for in many climate models. Recent research, as yet unconfirmed, suggests that aerosol diffusion of light may have increased the carbon sink in the earth’s ecosystem.

Recent studies of the Sahel drought and major increases since 1967 in rainfall over the Northern Territory, Kimberley, Pilbara and around the Nullarbor Plain have led some scientists to conclude that the aerosol haze over South and East Asia has been steadily shifting tropical rainfall in both hemispheres southward.

The latest studies of severe rainfall declines over southern Australia since 1997 have led climatologists there to consider the possibility that these Asian aerosols have shifted not only tropical but also mid-latitude systems southward.

Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the atmosphere are a form of pollution which can give rise to smog and act as a greenhouse gas. Their persistence in the atmosphere is affected by aerosol droplets of water.
In 1964 long chain fatty acids, either naturally produced from marine organisms dispersed into the atmosphere by wave action or man-made, were found to coat these droplets. In 2006 there was a study of the effect of the LCFA on the persistence of NOx, but the long term implications, although thought to be significant, have yet to be determined.

So AEROSOL means this:

aerosol_clouds
Or this:
aerosol-692
A REALTIME study of aerosol presence (made by satellite) all over the world may be obtained here, and here is a representative image, from which you can see the satellite passes 90 minutes apart.
aersl_omi_2009

There is a video made over a fortnight showing the main aerosol action occurs travelling westward on a line passing through BANGLADESH and the SAHARA DESERT. It is MAN-MADE – the consequence of many hundreds of millions of humans living close to the poverty line…  slash-and-burn, cooking fires, forest fires, vegetable farming decomposition, volcanoes…

No aircraft contrails are found anywhere NEAR this line…

So much for the “chemtrailers” and their “the NWO is poisoning the whole world” theory…

rd-table

THE ATMOSPHERE

What is it?

atmosphereearth

It’s a mixture of invisible element and compound gases; nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapour, argon, neon, and trace amounts of other inert gaseous elements. This mixture keeps us in a healthy condition, and imbalance in this mixture can poison and/or kill us. We would all prefer to be at Standard Temperature and Pressure, which is 20 deg C (70 deg F) and 1000 millibars (14.7 lb/in2).

Standard Temperature and Pressure occur at Sea Level, but the atmosphere may reach up to 200Km or more (the INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION orbits at 400Km and you can bet there’s very little atmosphere, if any, at that height!) The following diagram is a graph of atmospheric pressure against height over sea level (altitude). The space station height is three graph-heights higher than the graph below.

pressure_altitude.jpg

There is an asymptotic fall-off of pressure with altitude which is easy to see. This, when combined with the concomitant drop in temperature lends weight to the understanding that the stratosphere cannot bear much loading of contrail ice before it saturates, and cannot absorb more.

The region just immediately higher than the tropopause (at approximately 26,000 feet to 39,000 feet) is the region where passenger aircraft fly, for reasons of safety and economy.

The pressure above the tropopause is one-fifth that at sea level, but at the high cruising speed of 550 miles per hour, there is sufficient dynamic lift for safe and stable flight.

This region is the CAUSE of the “chemtrail” controversy, for it is COLD, STABLE, and INCAPABLE of absorbing large amounts of combustion steam as water vapor. As a consequence this steam cools to microscopically-fine ice crystals, which form – TRAILS behind the aircraft.

And the following is a diagram of air dewpoint and temperature plotted against height above sea level (altitude).

humidity.jpg

If you look at the dewpoint line (on left) you can see it move continually leftward with increase in height above sea level. This powerfully indicates that with increasing height, the atmosphere is increasingly incapable of absorbing the exhaust water formed by burning kerosine in gas turbines.

Looking at the temperature (lapse rate) line on the right, you can see that it moves leftward with increase in height above sea level, until it reaches the tropopause, where it starts to edge to the right again. You can see that after the tropopause the atmosphere gets WARMER with increasing height. The concave shapes to both dewpoint and temperature here indicate some energy input – either solar ‘focusing’ from tropospheric clouds, or jet stream mixing energy – it is hard to guess.

Another couple of points. This chart was obviously made on a cold day; the sea level temperature is just sub-zero. However, two hundred metres higher, and the air temperature is five degrees higher. Bumps and dips in these two lines show where you may infer the presence of clouds.

top_of_atmosphere

There is much more to learn about our atmosphere than I have given here, but I can heartily recommend this link to the UK’s Met Office.

After that you can answer these questions (can’t you!).

atm-qs.jpg

As further confirmation I strongly recommend AtOptics

atopticsatm.

And a word to the “wise”. There is a lot of scuttlebutt going around which says “Global Warming is just a myth started by our duplicitous governments as a means of extracting additional taxes”. Well I remember a time when it was thought we were headed directly for a new ice age.

(This was just a journalistic ruse. The next Ice Age will occur approximately 16,000 years from the present.)

Since then, it is true that government funds are available for the investigation of GW to the detriment of other research, and that horrible thing “political correctness” has raised its ugly head above the horizon, but the facts are too numerous to mention that the climate is warming, but also that other facts remain unmentioned, which leaves a question of politics…

greenhouse_effect

See “Global Warming is a Myth” under G in this blog.

https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/19-global-dimming/

gw

THE WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION

One of the major purposes of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), as laid down in its Convention, is “To facilitate worldwide cooperation in the establishment of networks of stations for the making of meteorological observations as well as hydrological and other geophysical observations related to meteorology, and to promote the establishment and maintenance of centres charged with the provision of meteorological and related services”.

Accordingly, WMO Members operate, in a coordinated manner, complex networks in space, the atmosphere, on land and over oceans. In 2007, Members decided to work towards enhanced integration of both the WMO Global Observing System (GOS) and WMO co-sponsored observing systems such as the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) and Global Climate Observing System (GCOS). This concept is called the WMO Integrated Global Observing Systems (WIGOS).

  weather balloon

Currently, more than 10000 manned and automatic surface weather stations, 1000 upper-air stations, over 7000 ships, more than 100 moored and 1000 drifting buoys, hundreds of weather radars and over 3000 specially equipped commercial aircraft measure key parameters of the atmosphere, land and ocean surface every day. The space-based component of the WMO Observing System contains operational polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites and also R&D environmental satellites complementing ground-based global observations. These activities are coordinated within the Global Observing System (GOS) of the World Weather Watch (WWW) of WMO. Several WMO Programmes sponsor or participate in the operation of several global observing systems. Other global observing systems, e.g. the global hydrological networks (WHYCOS), function principally on a national or regional level.

Observation programmes such as the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) and the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) will continue to play a major role in improving the collection of required data for the development of climate forecasts and climate change detection. WMO’s Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) provides data for scientific assessments and for early warnings of changes in the chemical composition and related physical characteristics of the atmosphere that may have adverse affects upon our environment. Through its Instruments and Methods of Observation Programme (IMOP), WMO ensures that meteorological instruments, including manual and automatic ground-based stations and space-based observing systems, are accurate and provide standardized data.

WMO monitoring and observing systems will be a core component of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), aimed at developing a comprehensive, coordinated and sustained Earth observation system of systems to understand and address global environmental and economic challenges.

ATMOSNAPS

This is, of course, a silly word coined by me to introduce these pictures of Earth’s atmosphere which have been taken by some of the NASA Space Shuttle astronauts from the International Space Station.

I find them most stimulating and interesting. We spend all our time with a “flat-earther” viewpoint, looking up at clouds and failing to see them for what they truly are.

Moment of Launch - "the twang's the thang!"

Moment of Launch - "the twang's the thang!"

Shuttle lift-off at Cape Kennedy

Shuttle lift-off at Cape Kennedy

Out on a limb...

Out on a limb...

A massive cumulo-nimbus from above...

A massive cumulo-nimbus from above...

A Saharan sandstorm leaves the West Coast of Africa

A Saharan sandstorm leaves the West Coast of Africa

Eddies form in Cirrus clouds passing over a Mediterranean isle

Eddies form in Cirrus clouds passing over a Mediterranean isle

A sunset from space...

A sunset from space...

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

Barium

with 9 comments

PAGE CONTENTS

BARIUM – BIGGER FOLLOW-UP

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

 Barium

(from Wikipedia)

Name, Symbol, Number: barium, Ba, 56
Chemical series: alkaline earth metals
Group, Period, Block: 2, 6, s
Appearance: silvery white

barium-view

Standard atomic weight 137.327(7) ug·mol-1
Electron configuration [Xe] 6s2
Electrons per shell 2, 8, 18, 18, 8, 2

barium-shells

Physical properties

Phase: solid
Density 3.51 g/cm3
Liquid density at m.p.: 3.338 g/cm3
Melting point: 1000K (727°C, 1341°F)
Boiling point: 2170K (1897°C, 3447°F)
Heat of fusion: 7.12 kJ/mol-1
Heat of vaporization: 140.3 kJ/mol
Heat capacity: (25°C) 28.07 J/mol/K
Oxidation states: 2 (strongly basic oxide)
Magnetic ordering: paramagnetic
Electrical resistivity: (20°C) 332 nO/m
Thermal conductivity: (300K) 18.4 W/m/K
Thermal expansion (25°C) 20.6 µm/m/K
Mohs hardness: 1.25
CAS registry number: 7440-39-3

barium-electronshellReferences

Barium is a chemical element, it has the symbol Ba, and atomic number 56. Barium is a soft silvery metallic alkaline earth metal and is never found in nature in its pure form due to its reactivity with air. Its oxide is historically known as baryta but it reacts with water and carbon dioxide and is not found as a mineral. The most common naturally occurring minerals are the very insoluble barium sulfate, BaSO4 (barite), and barium carbonate, BaCO3 (witherite). Benitoite is a rare gem containing barium.
It is a metallic element that is chemically similar to calcium but more reactive. This metal oxidizes very easily when exposed to air and is highly reactive with water or alcohol, producing hydrogen gas. Burning in air or oxygen produces not just barium oxide (BaO) but also the peroxide. Simple compounds of this heavy element are notable for their high specific gravity. This is true of the most common barium-bearing mineral, its sulfate barite BaSO4, also called ‘heavy spar’ due to the high density (4.5 g/cm³).
It has some medical and many industrial uses:
* Barium compounds, and especially barite (BaSO4), are extremely important to the petroleum industry. Barite is used in drilling mud, a weighting agent in drilling new oil wells.
* Barium sulfate is used as a radiocontrast agent for X-ray imaging of the digestive system (“barium meals” and “barium enemas”).
* Barium carbonate is a useful rat poison and can also be used in making bricks. Unlike the sulfate, the carbonate dissolves in stomach acid, allowing it to be poisonous.
* An alloy with nickel is used in spark plug wire.
* Barium oxide is used in a coating for the electrodes of fluorescent lamps, which facilitates the release of electrons.
* The metal is a “getter” in vacuum tubes, to remove the last traces of oxygen.
* Barium carbonate is used in glassmaking. Being a heavy element, barium increases the refractive index and luster of the glass.
* Barite is used extensively in rubber production.
* Barium nitrate and chlorate give green colors in fireworks.
* Impure barium sulfide phosphoresces after exposure to the light.
* Lithopone, a pigment that contains barium sulfate and zinc sulfide, is a permanent white that has good covering power, and does not darken in when exposed to sulfides.
* Barium peroxide can be used as a catalyst to start an aluminothermic reaction when welding rail tracks together. It can also be used in green tracer ammunition.
* Barium titanate was proposed in 2007[1] to be used in next generation battery technology for electric cars.
* Barium Fluoride is used in infrared applications.
* Barium is a key element in YBCO superconductors.

bariumenema

History

Barium (Greek barys, meaning “heavy”) was first identified in 1774 by Carl Scheele and extracted in 1808 by Sir Humphry Davy in England. The oxide was at first called barote, by Guyton de Morveau, which was changed by Antoine Lavoisier to baryta, from which “barium” was derived to describe the metal.

barium-table1

Occurrence

Because barium quickly becomes oxidized in air, it is difficult to obtain this metal in its pure form. It is primarily found in and extracted from the mineral barite which is crystallized barium sulfate. Barium is commercially produced through the electrolysis of molten barium chloride (BaCl2)

barium-1

Compounds
The most important compounds are barium peroxide, barium chloride, sulfate, carbonate, nitrate, and chlorate.

Isotopes
Naturally occurring barium is a mix of seven stable isotopes. There are twenty-two isotopes known, but most of these are highly radioactive and have half-lives in the several millisecond to several minute range. The only notable exceptions are 133Ba which has a half-life of 10.51 years, and 137Ba (2.55 minutes).

barium-poster

Precautions
All water or acid soluble barium compounds are extremely poisonous. At low doses, barium acts as a muscle stimulant, while higher doses affect the nervous system, causing cardiac irregularities, tremors, weakness, anxiety, dyspnea and paralysis. This may be due to its ability to block potassium ion channels which are critical to the proper function of the nervous system.
Barium sulfate can be taken orally because it is highly insoluble in water, and is eliminated completely from the digestive tract. Unlike other heavy metals, barium does not bioaccumulate. However, inhaled dust containing barium compounds can accumulate in the lungs, causing a benign condition called baritosis.
Oxidation occurs very easily and, to remain pure, barium should be kept under a petroleum-based fluid (such as kerosene) or other suitable oxygen-free liquids that exclude air.
Barium acetate could lead to death in high doses. Marie Robards poisoned her father with the substance in Texas in 1993. She was tried and convicted in 1996.

barium-firework

 

 

BIGGER FOLLOW-UP (TO “SODA POP” LEADER)

soda-pop-1

ADDRESSED TO YOUTUBE “CHEMTRAIL” VIDEO SITES

Jet engines MAKE soda pop. Decane is the chemical name for aviation kerosine, or JP-8*. The combustion formula goes:
2*C10H22 + 31*O2 -> 20*CO2 + 11*H2O, or
DECANE + OXYGEN -> CARBON DIOXIDE + WATER

And as MOST OF US know:

CARBON DIOXIDE + WATER = FIZZYPOP

*JP-8 is modern aviation kerosine. It is safer, with a higher flashpoint that the JP-4 it has superseded. It has anti-corrosion and anti-gelling additives, but does NOT contain Ethylene Dibromide (which was once used to dissolve the lead oxide produced by tetra-ethyl lead anti-knock gasoline).

There could be THREE OR MORE transparent layers of air of DIFFERENT HUMIDITIES, only ONE of which condenses (at -40 deg) an ICE CRYSTAL TRAIL, within the short-haul civil aircraft band between 30 and 35 thousand feet. Layer thicknesses of differing humidity are frequently only hundreds of feet thick, and aircraft are spaced ten miles apart on the same level for a particular route, and conflicting routes are typically 2000ft above or below each other.

So you’ll see SOME planes laying ice crystal trails while others don’t – it depends which transparent stratospheric layer the plane is flying through. These layers themselves aren’t perfectly flat – they roughly conform to the ground profile AND any rising CUMULUS clouds. So even if the plane flies straight and level, it may be the layer it is in slopes gently down or up, and an ice crystal trail either appears or disappears. You have to remember these layers, though different, are ALWAYS themselves transparent.

So you can’t SEE them. You can only see which layer is really humid by a plane throwing a “vapor trail” in it. Typically stratospheric layers begin ABOVE the TROPOPAUSE, which is where our ground level weather STOPS. The layers vary in thickness, more densely packed close to the TROPOPAUSE, thinning out to nothing much above twelve miles up. It’s very smooth and calm up there (although it may have a high speed with respect to the ground).

panic-2
Unlike what it is DOWN HERE. This rising panic ensues from an under-educated public. Had you all been properly taught about the weather as schoolchildren, this would be a NON-TOPIC.

Respiratory ailments may well be on the increase, but so is the planting of unusual crops which emit unusual pollens, auto fumes are still on the increase, and urban photochemical smogs are also on the increase. It is known (by some) that the COMBINATION of pollens, auto fumes, and urban smog can cause severe auto-immune failure, asthma, and death in the young, weak, or elderly.

auto

If there are MORE “vapor trails” in the sky than there used to be, then the answer is that there is MORE AVIATION TRAFFIC and MORE WATER IN THE ATMOSPHERE. It isn’t very wise to look upwards and blame “soda pop” for combinatory effects which are happening down here, solely because you can’t understand how the atmosphere works. It certainly doesn’t help you to find a REAL solution to the REAL problem.

Video posts like this are WRONG, and risk scenarios as HARMFUL as a TSUNAMI.

Would YOU call a tsunami EVIL? No you wouldn’t, because a tsunami lacks INTENT.

Would I call this video post EVIL?

ucs-cartoon1

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...

Letter

leave a comment »

PAGE CONTENTS

LETTER – LETTIS PREY – LIES, DAMNED LIES – LIES II – LINK – LINKUE – LIZ – LOOKING AT WATER – LUDOSOPHIST – LYNN – MARC 1 – MARC 2 – MARIUS – MEAT

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

LETTER 

alex

 Thanks very much for the video. I have seen it before. I think Alex Jones is doing a service for Alex Jones. I detest his style, and suspect his motives.

I think you have ME wrong. I have been an anarchist since 1964, voting socialist and occasionally green. I am also an atheist. I believe we MUST do something with THIS life because it is the only one we have. I’m entirely with Richard Dawkins on this.

richard

Perhaps it was wrong of you to call me an idiot – an emotional reaction of some sort. Perhaps you believe you know something about science or the atmosphere. If you disagree with me about what I have said about contrails on the principles of physics as demonstrated by the atmosphere then you are VERY WRONG, and need to go to a library and read a textbook about the atmosphere that you can feel secure hasn’t been written by the CIA or FBI.

Since I was made aware of this subject I have discovered around sixteen hundred video websites studying contrails and calling them chemtrails, claiming special properties for them which I know to be the common properties of WATER when suspended in AIR.

At NO TIME has there been anything SIGNIFICANT offered – no evidence whatsoever has been offered – merely assertions by people who appear to be self-deemed “experts” because they have repeatedly pointed video cameras at the sky.

When I point this out I collect abuse like yours, accusations of being a government disinformation agent, and my comments BLOCKED in a rather UNDEMOCRATIC way.

As I have written MANY times now I write to YOU: For all I know, some clandestine organization IS out to get us, using some aspect of functional science. The ONLY WAY to defeat such efforts will be by using GOOD SCIENCE, OBJECTIVITY and TRUTH. Not BAD SCIENCE, HYPOCRISY, and LIES.

Read my blog… 

LETTIS PREY

JEFFLETTIS“retards/ helping/ disguise/ cover/ evil/ you’ll get yours/ your foolishness/ lead people astray/ your suffering/ complete/ Traitors to your own kind/ no stopping the NWO/ crafting this for centuries/ very powerful entities/ toward our destruction/ happy ending/ lot of suffering/ Evil will have its hour/ light will prevail” – HEAVENS ABOVE! YOU’RE MAD, RELIGIOUS, AND HAVE READ DAVID ICKE. CERTIFY YOURSELF!

bonkers21 LIES, DAMNED LIES,

 AND ‘COUNTERKNOWLEDGE’

Outright fiction is being peddled as historical and scientific fact, warns Damian Thompson in an extract from his provocative new book.

Counterknowledge: How We Surrendered to Conspiracy Theories, Quack Medicine, Bogus Science and False History

George Bush planned the September 11 attacks.
The MMR injection triggers autism in children.
The ancient Greeks stole their ideas from Africa.
“Creation science” disproves evolution.
Homeopathy can defeat the Aids virus.
Do any of these theories sound familiar? Has someone bored you rigid at a dinner party by unveiling one of these “secrets”? If so, it is hardly surprising. In recent years, thousands of bizarre conjectures have been endorsed by leading publishers, taught in universities, plugged in newspapers, quoted by politicians and circulated in cyberspace.

This is counterknowledge: misinformation packaged to look like fact. We are facing a pandemic of credulous thinking. Ideas that once flourished only on the fringes are now taken seriously by educated people in the West, and are wreaking havoc in the developing world.

We live in an age in which the techniques for evaluating the truth of claims about science and history are more reliable than ever before. One of the legacies of the Enlightenment is a methodology based on painstaking measurement of the material world. That legacy is now threatened. And one of the reasons for this, paradoxically, is that science has given us almost unlimited access to fake information.

Most of us have friends who are susceptible to conspiracy theories. You may know someone who thinks the Churches are suppressing the truth that Jesus and Mary Magdalene sired a dynasty of Merovingian kings; someone else who thinks Aids was cooked up in a CIA laboratory; someone else again who thinks MI5 killed Diana, Princess of Wales. Perhaps you know one person who believes all three.

Or do you half-believe one of these ideas yourself? We may assume that we are immune to conspiracy theories. In reality, we are more vulnerable than at any time for decades.

I recently met a Lib Dem-voting schoolteacher who voiced his “doubts” about September 11. First, he grabbed our attention with a plausible-sounding observation: “Look at the way the towers collapsed vertically. Jet fuel wouldn’t generate enough to heat to melt steel. Only controlled explosions can do that.” The rest of the party, not being structural engineers (for whom there is nothing mysterious about the collapse of the towers) pricked up their ears. “You’re right,” they said. “It did seem strange…”

Admittedly, no major newspaper or TV station has endorsed a September 11 conspiracy theory. But more than 100 million people have watched a 90-minute documentary, Loose Change, directed by three young New Yorkers who assembled the first cut on a laptop. The result is super-slick: computer-generated planes glide menacingly towards their targets, to the accompaniment of a funky soundtrack; buildings collapse in a comic theatrical sequence. This is one cool movie – and a masterpiece of counterknowledge.

The makers suggest that a missile, not an airliner, hit the Pentagon; that the occupants of Flight 93 were safely evacuated at Cleveland Hopkins airport; that the panicked calls made by the passengers were faked using voice-morphing technology.

The directors make basic errors and play outrageous tricks: quotes from experts and official documents are cherry-picked and truncated. Airline parts are misidentified and pictures cropped in a way that leaves out inconvenient rubble and wreckage. “Expert testimony” is lifted from the American Free Press, a hysterical news service with strong links to the far Right.

Yet the makers of Loose Change are pushing at an open door. More than a third of Americans suspect that federal officials assisted in the September 11 attacks or took no action to stop them. September 11 conspiracy theories have gained such a following in France that even a member of President Sarkozy’s government has suggested that President Bush might have planned the attacks. Christine Boutin, the housing minister, when asked in an interview whether she thought Bush might have been behind the attacks, said: “I think it is possible.”

Another who believes this is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, who reckons that September 11 could not have been executed “without co-ordination with [US] intelligence and security services”. Ahmadinejad is also a well-known Holocaust denier, having referred publicly to “the myth of the Jews’ massacre”.

In the world of counterknowledge, wild theories are constantly mating and mutating. As the editor of Skeptic magazine, Michael Shermer, puts it: “The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking, as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics.”

We do not normally think of creationism and maverick physics as conspiracy theories; but what they have in common with Loose Change is a methodology that marks them as counterknowledge. People who share a muddled, careless or deceitful attitude towards gathering evidence often find themselves drawn to each other’s fantasies. If you believe one wrong or strange thing, you are more likely to believe another. Although this has been true for centuries, the invention of the internet has had a galvanising effect. A rumour about the Antichrist can leap from Goths in Sweden to Australian fascists in seconds. Minority groups are becoming more tolerant of each other’s eccentric doctrines. Contacts between white and black racists are now flourishing; in particular, the growing anti-Semitism of black American Muslims has been a great ice-breaker on the neo-Nazi circuit.

In June 2007, the home page of The Truth Seeker, a conspiracy website, included claims that Aids is a “man-made Pentagon genocide”, that Pope Paul VI “was impersonated by an actor from 1975 to 1978”, that new evidence about the Loch Ness monster had emerged – plus a link to Loose Change.

Yet, as we saw earlier, more than 100 million people have seen that film. In the 21st century, bogus knowledge is no longer confined to self-selecting minority groups. It is seeping into the mainstream, cleverly repackaged for a mass market. This crisis goes beyond traditional political ideology. Yes, the Left has helped to spread counterknowledge by insisting on the rights of minorities to believe falsehoods that make them feel better about themselves. Afro-centric history aims to raise the self-esteem of black youngsters by feeding them the fantasy that the origins of Western civilisation lie in black Africa. Last year, a British government report revealed that some teachers are dropping the Holocaust from lessons rather than confront the Holocaust-denial of Muslim pupils.

But Left-wing multiculturalists are not the only guilty ones: entrepreneurs are turning counterknowledge into an industry. Publishing houses pay self-taught archaeologists and pseudo-historians large amounts to turn fragments of fact into saleable stories. Titles are placed in the history sections of bookshops whose claims have been thoroughly demolished – yet the publishers carry on bringing out new editions.

The dividing line between fiction and non-fiction is becoming increasingly hard to draw. These days, public opinion is so malleable that a product does not even have to pretend to be fact in order to affect perceptions of truth: the success of The Da Vinci Code has persuaded 40 per cent of Americans that the Churches are concealing information about Jesus.

Meanwhile, publishers, television channels and newspapers are making huge profits from another branch of counterknowledge: alternative medicine. Unqualified nutritionists make claims for vitamin supplements and “superfoods” that are unsupported by scientific literature; conveniently, these people often have a commercial interest in selling the supplements in question.

Fashionable advocates of alternative medicine, and the executives who profit from them, are as reliant on counterknowledge as any bedsit conspiracy theorist. Their miracle diets and health scares undermine science by distorting the public understanding of cause and effect, and therefore of risk.

The fingerprints of the alternative medicine lobby are all over the worst British health scare of recent years, in which thousands of parents denied their children the MMR triple vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella following the dissemination of flawed data linking it to autism. In that case, distrust of orthodox medicine increased the danger of a measles epidemic.

But that is nothing compared to the impact of medical counterknowledge in underdeveloped countries. In northern Nigeria, Islamic leaders have issued a fatwa declaring the polio vaccine to be a US conspiracy to sterilise Muslims: polio has returned to the area, and pilgrims have carried it to Mecca and Yemen. In January 2007, the parents of 24,000 children in Pakistan refused to let health workers vaccinate their children because radical mullahs had told them the same idiotic story.

These incidents cannot be dismissed as examples of medieval superstition: these people are not rejecting life-saving vaccines because they reject modern medicine, but because their leaders are spouting Islamic takes on Western conspiracy theories. Counterknowledge, with its ingrained hostility towards a political, intellectual and scientific elite, appeals to anti-American, anti-Western sentiment in the developing world.

Islamic countries, in particular, have embraced counterknowledge to a remarkable degree. In 2006, the Pew Research Centre asked Muslims in Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and Pakistan whether Arabs carried out the September 11 attacks. The majority of respondents in each country said no. Indeed, most British Muslims – 56 per cent – also thought that Arabs were innocent. A quarter of British Muslims believe that “the British Government was involved in some way” with the London terrorist bombings of July 7, 2005.

The battle between knowledge and counterknowledge is not just a struggle to protect the public domain from bogus facts. It has profound implications for the safety of the West. And, make no mistake about it: this is a battle we are losing.

‘Counterknowledge: How We Surrendered to Conspiracy Theories, Quack Medicine, Bogus Science and False History’ by Damian Thompson 

bonkers
bonkers

LIES

“Please quote any “lie” I have mentioned to you” OK, WILL DO

“The main thing necessary for these to form is when the temperature and dew point are within 5 degrees” – FALSE
“Checking the upper air data will give insight to conditions” – FALSE
“you confirm that the trails are indeed chemtrails” – LIE
“no credentials” – LIE
“are a government debunker” – LIE
“unwilling to put your status as a person of knowledge on this issue” – LIE
“your spam postings” – LIE
“over and over you continue to waste space” – LIE
“you offer no information” – LIE
“Post after post you avoid this”
– LIE
“with alleged credentials you speak with disrespect” – LIE
“You have not been criticized yet your replies are repeatedly childish” – LIE
“You must dance because you sure dance around the issue” – LIE
“your time wasting typing” – LIE
“all you discuss is how a cloud forms” – LIE
“doesn’t have the guts to do the real science” – LIE
“you more afraid to find out there is something than I am to find out there isn’t” – LIE
“no scientist is willing to use science to prove once and for all what is in the trails” – LIE
“so called experience” – LIE
“Useless posting and disinformation” – LIE
“of a so called engineer” – LIE
“I have made no claim of any lethal status” – IMPLICIT LIE
“you sit back and take part by numerous useless posts” – LIE
“sham” – LIElies

That’s TWENTY-TWO LIES and TWO ERRORS. About average for a chemtrailer. 

LINK

there are ALL SORTS of technical reasons why the chemtrail hypothesis is wrong. http://www.contrailscience.com is clear and explicit. Take ANY KEY WORD and enter it into Wikipedia. Read ANY MODERN TEXT BOOK you can find on the PHYSICS OF THE ATMOSPHERE. It will pay you to read up on EARTH SCIENCE AS WELL. Good luck with your video work. 

LINKUE (A QUOTE)

This is about attacks on atheism by religious bigots.

It’s analogous…

Your irrational, misinformed and frightening diatribe against Atheists starkly illustrates what we are up against; the most hateful, bigoted, and unfounded attacks on us by people awash in religious fervor, frequently claiming biblical justification, and employing flagrant lies and the vilest of hate-speech. For most of the last 2000 years, people like myself have fared poorly at the hands of people like you. We have literally been hunted, imprisoned, tortured and killed for the unforgivable sin of having arrived at a different opinion than the dominant religion mandates.

constitution

Only the Constitution and the First Amendment have protected free citizens of good conscience from the witch-burning mob mentality that mindless hatred justifies and facilitates. If people like you had their way, we would find ourselves once again living in a country where it was lethal and criminal to be an Atheist or to disagree with the official religion. That is exactly the way it is handled by the Taliban. 

LIZ

email me and finally admit to the spraying of aerosols. and u should be thirsty its 1 side affect. all u do is debunk the word chemtrail, nothing else. debunk your goverment programming and then u will see the truth. lol charcoal filte r(doesnt filter out 5 microns or less u white liar. i guess this will be deleted also. so admit to the spraying of aerosols. as u can c i am not hiding from you so why hide from my question. the funny thing is that almost all your posts on the subject are true but don’t relate to topic and mislead… so how much u getting paid anyway?

I have replied to you personally – twice – but you haven’t responded.

Chemtrails DO NOT EXIST AT ALL. Contrails have been KNOWN to persist since 1940, where airplane fighter battles occurred over London shortly after the start of WWII. Since the PERSISTENCE of contrails is the ONLY justification for “chemtrails”, it seems only correct to DEBUNK them.

You may not know of a half-micron charcoal filter, but I DO.

Aerosol “sprays” may be purchased from your hardware store. Those, and agricultural spraying, are the only “aerosol sprays” that exist.

I am glad that you think that “almost all” of my “posts on the subject are true”. Which posts do you think are NOT?

It is TYPICAL of your PARANOIA that you think that ANY government would go to the ABSURD lengths of putting a TEAM of people ONE-ON-ONE to deal with YOU, and others like you.

Get real. I’m living in a more-or-less broke and income-less state on a warm island where poverty doesn’t strike the individual as hard as it does in the “temperate zone”, and I just get by.

The only thing that motivates me is the HUGE LIE you live within.

Read my blog and get yourself properly up-to-date. 

LOOKING AT WATER

You’re looking at WATER…

Lung and skin diseases are caused by pollens+auto fumes+photoreactive smog, and can kill the young and old.

1500 active volcanoes (24/7) make Man’s efforts puny by comparison. Living plants have been turning THIS into FRESH AIR for 3 billion years. Worry about auto fumes, photoreactive smog, deforestation, and loss of ocean phytoplankton. Be reasonable. 

LUDOSOPHIST

“The key, in my opinion, is not holding 100% certainty (i.e. belief) in anything, because it simply violates the mathematical conservation of probability.

You’ll have to forgive my initial reaction, the government under which I live has a well documented history of using disinformation agents to dilute the effectiveness of movements. In the case of Chemtrails, the thing that gives it such traction (including in my own psyche originally) is that it plays off isomorphic circumstances (the use of depleted uranium in Iraq, the general pollution of our community, the proliferation of wireless and cellphone radiation) while having an implicit base of data. The problem as you describe is in that inference, knowing that relative humidity can be stratified through different levels of the atmosphere causes all that data to be inferred a bit more plainly.”

Bless him… he toned his “probability” down to a reasonable 5%! And came up with THIS :

LYNN

Lynn, please stop worrying. Go to the library and pick up a comprehensive book about the Earth’s atmosphere, and relax. The only new thing going on is the the GLOBE is gently WARMING, and the skies are MORE HUMID as a consequence. Trails ARE made of ICE particles and ARE going to hang all days in our new WETTER skies. It is TRUE that blue skies will be rarer, but it really means more storms and rain. That’s ALL! 

MARC 1

Where do you live? Approximately will do… (!)

Re dusts: inspect under microscope. Collect together similar grains, and dissolve in hydrochloric acid. Check on appropriate websites (don’t know – try US chemistry programs) and see if you cannot identify the metals. They normally arrive from power stations. Even coal-burning ones produce radioactive effluents. (Most nuclear plants emit less, normally).

As for crap all over you, there was a time when you never had reason to look, and it was STILL all over you! The same goes for plane flights and all the rest you notice. Before you WEREN’T looking: it’s called the “observer effect”. The classic is when you get yourself a new vehicle to drive you SUDDENLY notice all the other vehicles which are the SAME.

Cirrus clouds COOL during daytime by REFLECTING sunlight back into space before it has had time to WARM the Earth. During the night they WARM by reflecting back the heat (IR light) that would have radiated back into space.

The NET result is the status quo. Making the gross assumption that the albedo increase is of the order of 2% (it is!) then that is an increase over the US and Europe ONLY – which is ONLY 3% of the Earth’s surface.

So, you are rabbiting on about 2% of 3% – WHICH IS 0.06%! Another way of describing this is 0.006:1 or 1:1,667.

In Statistics we talk about the concept of SIGNIFICANCE. That’s 6% of the whole.

Compared with THAT this WHOLE IDEA of yours is LAUGHABLY INSIGNIFICANT. 

MARC 2

Well, you insist – I HAVE to believe you.

Get the particles analyzed. Carry a vidcam ALWAYS and VIDEO the buggers ALWAYS. It IS possible to deduce the range from the image size – takes a little maths – that’s all.

Find the relevant authorities, take the EVIDENCE to them (copy it first!) and CHALLENGE them. Cover your ass…

I have two friends with interesting stories…

The first discovered (while working in a network video editing suite) that the neocons had inserted subliminal (satanic!) cues into a pre-election video piece on Tony Blair. His tape copies were WIPED (he says) by a Hercules with a special magnetic RING which fried his tapes from 50M over his house. He IS a nervous, unstable, paranoid type, but maybe he wasn’t once…

The second lives in Camden Town and had his tap water privately analyzed. He discovered it to be WELL over the limit in heavy metals and faecal solids (shit!), in spite of the council’s claims otherwise. He HASN’T been bothered by authorities: he’s kept his NOSE CLEAN. He is one of the toughest guys I know… He turns up at council meetings and hounds them and hounds them…

Try this Vaughan-Williams’ composition – he’s a Welshman like me.

We are a more Latin race than you Saxons… 

MARIUS

“I’ve heard you’ve gotten acquainted with JP” – much to my surprise, yes

“I’m Marius” – and I’m Tony

“Nice to meet you” – hmm. We’re not “meeting”. Meeting would be better…

“He told me you were well worth the talk” – How does he know?

“In contrast to almost all of the other You tube haters and bots” – Ah, hatred. T-shirt.

“I wonder about these chemtrails, being into conspiracy theories” – me too. JFK is reason enough.

“I’m having a real hard time sorting out the bullshit from the authentic conspiracies” – The Bard of Ely mentioned it (I’d never heard of it before), explained the theory, and we nearly came to blows over it.

bard

The Bard of Ely - he's green but he ain't mean...

Before I knew it I was OFF his site, expunged out of existence… if there was anything GUARANTEED to PISS ME OFF, I’d JUST met it. So off I stooged into YouTube laying waste to all and sundry. The Bard and I have made up since…

“I’ve barely seen some of the videos on chem trails, but it seems as if there is not any proof by anyone?” NOTHING. Not only that, EVERYTHING I’ve heard is SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG – not INACCURATE – BUT WRONG. About SEVENTY sites are LYING fit to bust.

“Is this mainly some sort of conspiracy theory hype? “let’s jump on the conspiracy wave”-thing?” – There is MONEY TO BE MADE ON SITE HITS. Don’t do it myself, and only learnt about it by a chance remark from ONE of the offenders who more-or-less suggested I hadn’t an OUNCE of business sense. That put me in the picture.

“Canary Islands, was it? Is it nice there?” – It’s 25 deg C right now blue skies – some mackerel cloud – 72%RH (wet for here)

“I’m from Norway, myself. It’s nice, I guess – those dark winter days, the booze…. Not a lot of people though. 4.7 million” – half that here

“Have a nice day!” – and you, Marius. Any friend of JP is a port in the storm.

MEAT

(From OMNI, April 1991. This story, which was a 1991 Nebula nominee, has been appearing around the internet lately without the author’s name attached. Several people were kind enough to alert him, but the truth is he’s more flattered than offended. )

THEY’RE MADE OUT OF MEAT by Terry Bisson

“They’re made out of meat.”

“Meat?”

Meat. They’re made out of meat.”

“Meat?”

“There’s no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They’re completely meat.”

“That’s impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?”

“They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don’t come from them. The signals come from machines.”

“So who made the machines? That’s who we want to contact.”

“They made the machines. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. Meat made the machines.”

“That’s ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You’re asking me to believe in sentient meat.”

“I’m not asking you, I’m telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they’re made out of meat.”

“Maybe they’re like the orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage.”

“Nope. They’re born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn’t take long. Do you have any idea what’s the life span of meat?”

“Spare me. Okay, maybe they’re only part meat. You know, like the weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside.”

“Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads, like the weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They’re meat all the way through.”

“No brain?”

“Oh, there’s a brain all right. It’s just that the brain is made out of meat! That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.”

“So … what does the thinking?”

“You’re not understanding, are you? You’re refusing to deal with what I’m telling you. The brain does the thinking. The meat.”

“Thinking meat! You’re asking me to believe in thinking meat!”

“Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal!  Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?”

“Omigod. You’re serious then. They’re made out of meat.”

“Thank you. Finally. Yes. They are indeed made out of meat. And they’ve been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years.”

“Omigod. So what does this meat have in mind?”

“First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the Universe, contact other sentiences, swap ideas and information. The usual.”

“We’re supposed to talk to meat.”

“That’s the idea. That’s the message they’re sending out by radio. ‘Hello. Anyone out there. Anybody home.’ That sort of thing.”

“They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?”

“Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat.”

“I thought you just told me they used radio.”

“They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat.”

“Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?”

“Officially or unofficially?”

“Both.”

“Officially, we are required to contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing.”

“I was hoping you would say that.”

“It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?”

“I agree one hundred percent. What’s there to say? ‘Hello, meat. How’s it going?’ But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?”

“Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can’t live on them. And being meat, they can only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact.”

“So we just pretend there’s no one home in the Universe.”

“That’s it.”

“Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you probed? You’re sure they won’t remember?”

“They’ll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we’re just a dream to them.”

“A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat’s dream.”

“And we marked the entire sector unoccupied.”

“Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?”

“Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again.”

“They always come around.”

“And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the Universe would be if one were all alone …”

Director: Stephen O’Regan
Cast: Tom Noonan, Ben Bailey, Gbenga Akinnagbe, and Brenda Della Casa
Director of Photography: Paul Niccolls
Music: Bob Reynolds

pc0100371
westward view just before sunset at Las Americas

Science on Trails

leave a comment »

PAGE CONTENTS

SCIENCE ON TRAILS – SERIOUS – SHOULD – SKYWITNESS

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

SCIENCE (MAINSTREAM) ON TRAILS

contrails-a

USAF – “Contrails can remain visible for VERY LONG PERIODS OF TIME with the lifetime a function of the temperature, humidity, winds, and aircraft exhaust characteristics.”
.
WIKI – “Observation and scientific analysis of contrails, and their duration, date back to at least 1953.”
.
EPA – contrails can last for hours and GROW IN SIZE by taking water from the surrounding atmosphere. The trails spread due to “air turbulence created by the passage of other aircraft, differences in wind speed along the flight track, and possibly through effects of solar heating” – CSI (started by Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov)
.
John Day, meteorologist – “Contrail formation, depends on the relative humidity of the atmosphere – the ratio of what is to what could be at a particular temperature. When relative humidity is low, contrails dissipate within seconds. But when relative humidity is high, especially at the subzero temperatures of the upper atmosphere, the addition of even a tiny amount of water vapor acts as a catalyst. Under these conditions, contrails may linger and spread to cover the whole sky. …At length, Day extracted from his bookshelf a well-thumbed edition of Peterson’s Field Guide to Clouds and Weather, which he co-authored in 1991 (a good 10 years before chemtrails became widely discussed), turned to the section on contrails, and pointed to a photograph of a thick, white plume–a plume that looked for all the world like a chemtrail…” – http://wweek.com/flatfiles/News1982.html
.
Patrick Minnis of NASA’s Langley Research Center *- “If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it’s, ‘Well, you’re just part of the conspiracy’ … Logic is not exactly a real selling point for most of them. The cloud-forming contrails that conspiracy theorists find so ominous are perfectly natural” – http://usatoday.com/usatonline/20010307/3117139s.htm

.

* Dr. Minnis’s career is outlined in “Penrod”: https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/26-penrod/
.
NMSR Reports, Vol. 5, No. 12, December 1999 – “In summary, there is no evidence that these “chemtrails” are other than expected, normal contrails from jet aircraft that vary in their shapes, duration, and general presentation based on prevailing weather conditions. That is not to say that there could not be an occasional, purposeful experimental release of, say, high altitude barium for standard wind tracking experiments. There could also be other related experiments that occur from time-to-time which release agents into the atmosphere. However, not one single picture that was presented as evidence indicates other than normal contrail formation.”

contrails-b

“The variation in presentation is explained by the tropospheric conditions and, to some extent, the positioning of aircraft engines. When the troposphere experiences a relatively stable, supersaturated condition (water vapor in excess of 100% humidity without condensation), then any disturbance that causes formation of ice crystals provides nucleation surfaces for the supersaturated moisture to condense upon. When a jet engine burns its fuel, the major byproduct is water vapor. When the exhaust passes over the rear stabilizer of an aircraft, the tips or ends of the stabilizer cause the exhaust to expand rapidly. When it does, the temperature decreases rapidly within a turbulent flow, and ice crystal formation is forced.

contrails-c

Generally, this makes it look as if the jet were spraying a cloud from the ends of the stabilizer. If the atmosphere is not at saturation, the contrail will not persist. The formed ice crystals will sublimate into the surrounding atmosphere. Hence, the appearance of a short, well formed vapor trail. If the water content is very low, then no discernible contrail will form at all. All the exhaust water will be absorbed by the atmosphere before there is time to form ice crystals.
.
If the atmospheric water content is not consistent with altitude (picture atmospheric “waves” of high water vapor content below a layer of low water vapor content much like waves on the ocean), then a jet will alternately pass through air that allows contrail formation and air that does not.
.
This gives the appearance of a dashed line if the plane is flying at, or near the perpendicular to the waves. If the atmosphere is highly supersaturated, then the formed ice crystals may act as nucleation centers for a continual spreading of the contrail. In other words, the contrail actually causes the supersaturated moisture to condense, spreading out from its original path. This causes the formation of a cirrostratus cloud structure, far in excess of what would occur from a simple contrail.”

contrails-d

One other phenomenon observed is the formation of contrails off wing surfaces along with the engine exhaust contrails. This can be caused when the air is highly supersaturated and the expansion of the air coming off of the wing surface is sufficient to cause ice crystallization. In this case, it appears that the whole plane is leaving a trail. This can often be observed by a passenger flying in a commercial airplane when entering cold, supersaturated air, particularly in the winter when close to a storm front.”
.
M. Kim Johnson, Physicist – “There were no pictures or evidence that indicated anything other than the above contrail formation phenomena. Anecdotal stories of persons getting sick after contrails from obviously supersaturated tropospheric conditions lend no basis for belief that there are chemicals or biological agents being released. This type of story provides as much credence to “chemtrails” as does the belief that drinking milk is causally linked to heroin addiction. (Almost all heroin addicts in the US drank milk as children.)”

h1

 SERIOUS

“those in power crimes against humanity” – Those in power normally commit their crimes against anyone who threatens them – closest first.

“google these” – Done that, have t-shirt.

“I get ill, I feel nauseous and get disoriented from them” – Illness, nausea and disorientation are more often the consequences of the western diet and stress levels.

“UFO’s hovering close proximity to trails” – are more likely to be PLASTIC BAGS borne aloft. You don’t see’em elsewhere because you’re ONLY looking for trails.

“Los Angeles defiantly purposeful” – Isn’t one of the LARGEST AIRPORTS IN THE WORLD (LAX) NEARBY?

“turn off/on same paths” – Contrails through layers of differing humidities.

“above and in clouds” – Where clouds are there is MORE WATER.

“clouds dissipate/spread out/NO RAIN” – Stratospheric clouds will go OVER THE HORIZON before they have fallen and warmed sufficiently to cause rain.

“NEVER disappear” – WELL, THEY DO DISAPPEAR, DON’T THEY?

“dissipate/fall to earth/city/fog” – SEA MIST, AUTO SMOG. I’VE BEEN THERE TOO.

“watching for years now” – YEAH, ME TOO.

“Other jets fly close in altitude and areas, with rapidly dissipating trails” – You are SEVEN MILES BENEATH and are UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH INVISIBLE STRATOSPHERIC LAYERS WITH DIFFERING HUMIDITIES FROM BENEATH.

“(other) trails spread into a web covering the entire sky from an operation” – ARE THE CONSEQUENCE OF NORMAL PASSENGER SHUTTLE ROUTES AT ANGLES TO EACH OTHER.

“Jets should not be making turns” – YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS.

mac

 SHOULD

“Go ahead and post your theories” – this is known science as in http://www.contrailscience.com

“if you really are a government plant, go suck a chemtrail” – No. I’m an educated Welshman who despises charlatans.

“We would still think the world was flat if we listened to your method of reasoning” – so you’re plainly anti-science, then?

“Everyone SHOULD be questioning and exploring what’s going on (unless of course you have an agenda to obfuscate the truth!)” – then how come you haven’t managed to find a good science textbook?

“It’s counter productive to denounce people’s ideas on the basis that you (condescendingly I might add) believe they are unsure or uneducated” – There’s ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT IN MY MIND that you are EITHER uneducated OR evil. More likely uneducated, yet literate enough to indulge yourself in sophistry. There’s NOTHING productive about your pseudo-science.

“In my mind there has not yet been a convincing explanation as to what the Chemtrails are” – so you’re plainly anti-science, then?

“you are suggesting that it is evil to explore any theory unless you are sure it’s true” – I am suggesting that it is EVIL to PROMULGATE any theory unless you are SURE it’s true. Your MISDIRECTION?

“You are also implying that since you are sure of your explanation” – IT’S IN ANY SCIENCE TEXTBOOK COVERING THE ATMOSPHERE.

“everyone else’s is wrong and evil” – No, let’s be particular. YOURS is wrong and evil.

“That reasoning goes against the advancement of science and progress” – YOUR reasoning goes against the advancement of science and progress.

st

 

 SKYWITNESS (1)

 “what you’re made of” – Hi, SKYWITLESS, here you are arguing with me on someone else’s site. You can’t do that on your own site because YOU HAVE BLOCKED ME. You appear to be made of hypocrisy.

“trails” APPEAR TO BE “turned on and off” because THE PLANE FLIES “through layers of differing humidities” – Were you to attempt to PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THE ATMOSPHERE, you would soon see that that way the stratospheric layers slide over each other without intermixing GUARANTEES that they will posses DIFFERENT HUMIDITIES AND TEMPERATURES. A CLUE – sometimes the boundaries between layers ARE turbulent, and you will SEE CIRRUS APPEAR. Best done when sunning yourself on a beach.

“Show us one video that supports” – NO VIDEO! TRY READING!

“this claim of yours” – IS WELL-DOCUMENTED ESTABLISHED ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, not “MY CLAIM”. It is UP TO YOU TO READ AND LEARN.

“NWO forces cannot control the free-will of people” – YOU ARE PRAYING.

“They are scared to death of the people becoming united in one mindset and purpose” – YOU ARE CHANTING.

“A people like this can defeat the NWO forces” – YOU ARE INTONING.

“This is why they send people like jazzroc to make noise and try and sow confusion” – AND NOW YOU ARE LYING.

“but just laugh at people like jazzroc and send them on their way” – Yes, tell others not to think. Liar. Hypocrite. Coward.

liar

 SKYWITNESS (2)

Skywitness
Hi ludosophist, as you know anyone can say anything about chemtrails; however video evidence of jets spraying chemtrails is much stronger than the words of anyone who says that chemtrails don’t exist. If you don’t believe that chemtrails are being sprayed, then how do you explain the numerous videos which show them being turned on and off? Do you also agree with Jazzroc’s explanation of how this happens? If you don’t want to call them chemtrails, then what do you want to call them?

ludosophist
They key here is rational weighing of evidence. The off/on thing is the only loose end Jazz didn’t tackle, or maybe I skipped that part accidentally.

(He did.)
If you could zoom in to a nozzle device, and actually show that, it would be evidence. Personally, considering the history of nasty shit the government has done (assasinations, depleted uranium, etc.) I don’t rule it out, but after learning more about relative humidity distribution I have to weight that they’re more likely contrails.
Skywitness
Perhaps one day I will be able to zoom in and capture the spray nozzles. At this time however, I have numerous videos showing jets turning the chemtrail spray on and off. Take a look at the videos and tell me if you still think the on/off action is a result of relative humidity distribution. If you still think that these are normal contrails can you find any reputable books that explain how contrails can do such a thing?

ludosophist
Here’s my rationale:
1) It’s plausible, there is an evil oligarchy with a lot of power that does stuff like this on smaller scales.
2) It maybe not be possible because you can’t burn barium into an aerosol.
3) P(god exists) < P(Chemtrails) < P(Bin Ladin Dead)
4) Argentina has few of these trails to speak of because there is little commercial airflight and no active airforce. Or, the NWO wants to reserve it for recreation. Either way, I’m moving there.
5) Hyper-inflation, food shortages.

jazzroc
Skywitness, if you just video the sun rising in the East, and setting in the West (assuming that “chemtrails” allow you to do this) you will do two NEAT things:
1) You will PROVE that the Sun goes round the Earth.
2) You will BURN out your camera chip, and give us ALL a break…
Skywitness
Your talk is cheap…Provide a science book that explains how a jet trail coming from a jet already in flight can go on and off. You said: “trails” APPEAR TO BE “turned on and off” because THE PLANE FLIES “through layers of differing humidities” – Were you to attempt to PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THE ATMOSPHERE, you would soon see that that way the stratospheric layers slide over each other without intermixing” Where’s the science book that backs up your claim? Put up or shut up.

JazzRoc
CHECK WIKI. STRATOSPHERE. There’s enough in that page for one to infer what I’ve told you. Work it out for yourself. I’ll be damned if I’ll lead you by the hand through the ONE PAGE after you have slandered me for six months. Perhaps your physics is too miserable to cope.. should I care? Alternatively: jazzroc.wordpress.com
Skywitness
CHECKMATE!!! The self-proclaimed 63 year old scientist, who when asked to provide a science book to back up his scientific claims about why a contrail appears to go on and off, can’t do it. The bottomline is you can’t do it because there is no science that backs up your bogus claim. Your defeated in the open field…Surrender your sword. Do the right thing now and tell ludosophist and the rest of the world why you have chosen to lie continously about the ongoing chemtrail spray program.

JazzRoc
Mr. sophisticated game-player, I like your vid so much that I bunged it in my video log. Thanks very much! I DID cover off/on, several times and rather thoroughly. I also uncovered a “chemtrailer” airbrushing one into existence… and it’s a popular picture quoted in several vids…
JazzRoc
AS WIKI (ON THE PAGE I INDICATED) SAYS: “It is stratified in temperature, with warmer layers higher up and cooler layers farther down, which makes the stratosphere dynamically stable”
THIS MEANS THAT THE STRATOSPHERE IS LAYERED (LIKE AN ONION) AND IS LARGELY UNAFFECTED BY THE TROPOSPHERE, WHICH IS WHAT I’VE ALWAYS MAINTAINED.
THAT PAGE GOES ON TO SAY: “horizontal mixing of gases components proceeds much more rapidly than vertical mixing” – WHICH IS ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING THAT THE LAYERS WILL NATURALLY BE OF VARYING HUMIDITIES, BECAUSE THEY RECEIVE THEIR WATER FROM THEIR SIDES AND NOT FROM ABOVE OR BELOW. THEY ARE “HUMIDIFIED” MAINLY BY A PHENOMENON CALLED “QUASI-BIENNIAL OSCILLATION”. “The QBO induces a secondary circulation that is important for the global stratospheric transport of tracers such as ozone or water vapor”.
THIS QUASI-BIENNIAL OSCILLATION IS THE PRIMARY “PUMP” FOR THE MOVEMENT OF WATER VAPOR THROUGH THE STRATOSPHERE. THERE IS, OF COURSE, NOW, A SECONDARY SUPPLY OF WATER VAPOR FROM PASSENGER PLANES AS THEY EITHER HUMIDIFY IT – OR MAKE PERSISTENT CONTRAILS.
“bottomline is you can’t do it” WHOOPS “because there is no science that backs up your bogus claim” AND “You’re defeated in the open field…Surrender your sword.” AND “you have chosen to lie continously about the ongoing chemtrail spray program” ARE THUS THE WORDS OF A STUPID SLANDEROUS IDLE LAYABOUT WHO THINKS THAT OTHERS ARE AS LAZY AS HE IS, LACKING AS HE DOES THE IQ TO UNDERSTAND WHEN HE’S BEATEN (ONCE AGAIN).

hercules_in_new_york