JazzRoc versus “Chemtrails”

Contrail Facts and “Chemtrail” Fictions

Posts Tagged ‘sublime

Contrails

with one comment

PAGE CONTENTS

CONTRAILS by WIKI – CONTRAILS by AIRLINERS.NET – CONTRAILSCIENCE COMEDY SPOT – CLOUDS – COWBRAIN – CHEMTRAIL HISTORY – CSI FLAKES CNUTS

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

CONTRAILS

WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION

contrails

Contrails or vapor trails are condensation trails and artificial cirrus clouds made by the exhaust of aircraft engines or wingtip vortices which precipitate a stream of tiny ice crystals in moist, frigid upper air. Being composed of water, the visible white streams are not, in and of themselves, air pollution. However, contrails generated by engine exhaust are inevitably linked with typical fuel combustion pollutants. Contrails might also be considered visual pollution.

Contents
* 1 Condensation from engine exhaust
* 2 Condensation from wing-tip pressure
* 3 Contrails and climate
3.1 September 11, 2001 climate impact study
* 4 See also
* 5 Related matters
* 6 References
* 7 External links

How a Turbo Fan Jet Engine Works

The main products of hydrocarbon fuel combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapor.


At high altitudes this water vapor emerges into a cold environment, and the local increase in water vapor can push the water content of the air past saturation point. The vapor then condenses into tiny water droplets and/or desublimates into ice. These millions of tiny water droplets and/or ice crystals form the contrails. The energy drop (and therefore, time and distance) the vapor needs to condense accounts for the contrail forming some way behind the aircraft’s engines. The majority of the cloud content comes from water trapped in the surrounding air.  At high altitudes, supercooled water vapor requires a trigger to encourage desublimation. The exhaust particles in the aircraft’s exhaust act as this trigger, causing the trapped vapor to rapidly turn to ice crystals. Exhaust contrails usually occur at above 26,000 feet. where the temperature is below -40°C (-40°F).

Condensation from wing-tip pressure

Main article: wingtip vortices

tip-vortices

The wings of an airplane cause a drop in air pressure in the vicinity of the wing. This brings with it a drop in temperature, which can cause water to condense out of the air and form a contrail but only at higher altitudes. At lower altitudes, this phenomenon is also known as “ectoplasm.” Ectoplasm is more commonly seen during high energy maneuvers like those of a fighter jet, or on jet liners during takeoff and landing, at areas of very low pressure, including over the wings, and often around turbo-fan intakes on takeoff.

Contrails and climate

contrails-space

Contrails, by affecting cloud formation, can act as a radiative forcing. Studies have found that contrails trap outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth and atmosphere (positive radiative forcing) at a greater rate than they reflect incoming solar radiation (negative radiative forcing).

Therefore, the overall effect of contrails is warming. However, the effect varies daily and annually, and overall the size of the forcing is not well known: globally (for 1992 air traffic conditions), values range from 3.5 mW/m² to 17 mW/m². Other studies have determined that night flights are most responsible for the warming effect: while accounting for only 25% of daily air traffic, they contribute 60 to 80% of contrail radiative forcing.

Similarly, winter flights account for only 22% of annual air traffic, but contribute half of the annual mean radiative forcing.

September 11, 2001 climate impact study

911_conspiracy_a_skeptics_view

It had been hypothesized that in regions such as the United States with heavy air traffic, contrails affected the weather, reducing solar heating during the day and radiation of heat during the night by increasing the albedo. The suspension of air travel for three days in the United States after September 11, 2001 provided an opportunity to test this hypothesis. Measurements did show that without contrails the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 degree Celsius higher than immediately before; however, it has also been suggested that this was due to unusually clear weather during the period.

clear

See also

* Aviation and climate change
* Cirrus cloud
* Global dimming
* Ship tracks
* List of environment topics
* Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Related matters

* Aurora aircraft are hypothesized high-technology Black project aircraft which leave “donuts-on-a-rope” contrails.

(But “donuts-on-a-rope” contrails are known to be an occasional consequence of the normal wave vortex of normal aircraft. The two vortices which comprise the wave vortex of an aircraft occasionally grow to interfere with each other, and generate coupled vortices at right angles to the original pair. These look like “smoke rings”, or “donuts”. See “The Crow Instability” in “Trails from Space”: https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/03-trails-seen-from-space/ )

References

1. NASA, Contrail Education FAQ
2. Ponater et al., GRL, 32 (10): L10706 2005
3. Stuber, Nicola; Piers Forster, Gaby Rädel, Keith Shine (June 15, 2006). “The importance of the diurnal and annual cycle of air traffic for contrail radiative forcing”. Nature 441: 864-867. DOI:10.1038/nature04877.
4. Travis et al., J. Climate, 17, 1123-1134, 2004
5. Kalkstein and Balling Jr., Climate Research, 26, 1-4, 2004

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

Contrail
* Contrails.nl: Pictures of Contrails and Aviation Cirrus (-Smog), from 1995 on.
* Abstract of article in Nature announcing research results of contrail temperature change study
* Clouds Caused By Aircraft Exhaust May Warm The U.S. Climate
* Contrails over the USA
* Effects of contrails on ground astronomy
* Contrail simulator (Java applet) — interactively shows how temperature and humidity of the surrounding air affect contrail formation and characteristics
* Contrails: What’s Left Behind Is Bad News, article by Nick Onkow from March 4, 2006
* Night flights give bigger boost to global warming

CONTRAILS

An Article by Airliners.net

Contrails: What’s Left Behind Is Bad News
By Nick Onkow

Nick Onkow offers an informative and illuminating exposé on the detrimental effects of contrails to our environment. Contained herein is an undeniably important article not just because of its content, but because it breaches a topic so commonly overlooked, and so consistently regarded as harmless.

“Our ideals, laws and customs should be based on the proposition that each generation, in turn, becomes the custodian rather than the absolute owner of our resources and each generation has the obligation to pass this inheritance on to the future.”

.

There is some irony in that statement which defends the argument that it is the obligation of the living population of Earth to leave an environment in the best condition it can for the succeeding generation. Why the irony? It was said by world famous aviator Charles Lindbergh, the first pilot to cross the Atlantic Ocean alone. He was concerned about the way the environment was beginning to be affected by humans on an increasingly larger scale and at the time, his aerial view of land development was rare.

Today the aviation industry is larger than many people would have ever imagined it would be and it is only going to grow more as the population of Earth climbs past six billion and national economies grow with it. The nature of commercial aviation includes some detrimental results to the environment. Fuel is burned and the exhaust fills the atmosphere, but cars, trains, and ships do the same. Jet aircraft, however, have a unique form of harming the environment that is associated exclusively with them: contrails. They are the long, thin clouds that are blasted out of the exhaust nozzle of jet engines at high altitudes. Some days they fade away within a few minutes and they pose no threat. It is the days that perfect conditions exist when they do their damage, drifting and expanding to several thousand square miles and blanketing the lowest atmosphere of Earth through the night, unnaturally trapping heat. Some argue that contrails have no effect on the environment but evidence indicates this opinion is not valid. Several solutions to the problem exist. Jets could fly at different altitudes, or engine standards could be raised so that insurance rates are less for those that are friendlier to the environment. Knowledge from the military stealth aircraft program could be incorporated into civilian aviation to avoid contrails, or contrail forecasts could be incorporated into flight planning process so that contrail-prone routes and altitudes are avoided. Contrary to some opinions, contrails have indeed helped raise the temperature of North America and the entire planet since the start of the jet age and continue to do so, making a long-term plan to reduce them a plan that needs to be initiated.

an1

Photo © Josef P. Willems

Contrails are essentially clouds and are the same effect as seeing one’s breath on a cold, damp day. The narrow bands of ice crystals gradually expand into a cirrus-type high-altitude cloud if conditions are just right. Just how often are the conditions conducive to their formation? “At flight altitudes, conditions that support contrail-generated cirrus exist 10% – 20% of the time in clear air and within standing cirrus”. Although this is a small percentage, the diverse weather of North America coupled with the staggering number of commercial flights in the air results in at least some part of the United States being good contrail weather on any given day. Worldwide, contrails are estimated to cover 0.1% of the Earth’s surface area and that number is forecast to rise to 0.5% by 2050.

There is some debate over just how effective this cirrus cloud coverage is at raising the average temperature of the land it covers. A NASA study conducted in the USA between 1975 and 1994 found the average temperature to have increased by 1°F . Though a single degree may seem trivial, the incredibly large scale that it applies to makes it significant since just 9°F separates our current average temperature from the last Ice Age. In one study conducted by meteorologist Keith P. Shine, data from satellites was used to prove that only one percent of the increase in clouds throughout the world has been from aircraft. There are also inherent flaws in some of the research performed by NASA. One problem is the difficulty that scientists have distinguishing a suspected contrail cloud from a natural cirrus cloud in satellite images. Skeptics of the theory that contrails do not have an impact on weather argued this theory with some success until a significant event occurred in North America, the main testing grounds of contrail research.

Contrails or Cirrus Clouds? - Newfoundland, 7 May 1999

Contrails or Cirrus Clouds? - Newfoundland, 7 May 1999

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was the aforementioned event, and it was likely to have excited meteorological researchers involved in contrail impact studies. The national airspace was shut down for three days, something that had not yet occurred since the jet age began in the 1960s and is not likely to occur ever again. Scientists took advantage of this unique three day period in history that lacked contrails. What they learned was shocking and is enough evidence to effectively silence any counterargument to their case. One measure of climate is the average daily temperature range (DTR). For thirty years this had been recorded and extra cirrus clouds in the atmosphere would reduce this range by trapping heat. “September 11 – 14, 2001 had the biggest diurnal temperature range of any three-day period in the past 30 years,” said Andrew M. Carleton. Not in three decades had there been such a large temperature spread between the daytime highs and the nighttime lows. Furthermore, the increase in DTR during those three days was more than double the national average for regions of the United States where contrail coverage was previously known to be most abundant, such as the midwest, northeast, and northwest regions. The specific increase in the range was 2°F, which in three days was twice the amount the average temperature had increased over a thirty years time period. This is evidence that contrails do alter the climate of the land they drift above.

Northeastern U.S., 11 Feb. 1999

Northeastern U.S., 11 Feb. 1999

There are several methods that can be explored that will help reduce the role that contrails play in global warming. The easiest way to avoid this global warming through contrail cirrus clouds is to have jets fly at different altitudes. Flying higher than the typical 30,000 to 40,000 feet would usually stop contrails from forming, as would flying lower. Each of these options is, unfortunately, made unrealistic by consequences associated with them. Besides performance limitations of the aircraft above the normal cruising altitudes, airplanes begin flying in the lowest layer of ozone that is found in the tropopause (the dividing line between the lowest two layers of the atmosphere). As for flying lower, the decrease in altitude results in denser air and higher air resistance. This increases fuel burn, which increases the amount of carbon dioxide emitted, negating any benefits from eliminating contrails.

Ruling out drastic changes in altitude, another option might be to increase the emission standards of jet engines and with that only insure airplanes with the newer, cleaner engines. Tests were performed with a NASA jet aircraft examining the effect of sulfur levels in jet fuel exhaust. During the airborne test one engine was run on normal jet fuel and the other engine was run on fuel that emitted exhaust with a lower sulfur content. The high sulfur engine, representing most jet engines on modern commercial aircraft, produced a contrail that lasted through a larger range of temperatures and formed faster out of the engine. The low sulfur engine did the opposite. “Aircraft generate an invisible aerosol trail which enhances the background level of condensation nuclei, in particular regions with dense air traffic at northern latitudes and near the tropopause”. These condensation nuclei are the tiny particles that give water vapor the ability to condense to liquid droplets. The International Civil Aviation Organization is in favor of making polluting, obsolete aircraft uninsurable. While this option would not completely eliminate contrails, it would narrow the window of conditions needed to form them, making them less common.

Photo © Josef P. Willems

Photo © Josef P. Willems

A third solution to avoiding the large-scale creation of contrails is just that – avoidance. Partly through military research, new methods of forecasting the formation of contrails have been learned. This was a result of stealth aircraft that are not detectable by radar but are easily spotted from the ground if a contrail is following it. A program was initiated by the Air Force Weather Agency with the goal of improved contrail prediction techniques by closely examining the weather that was conducive to their formation. The program, run in 2000, used radiosondes (weather balloons) to measure water vapor content and temperature at different altitudes compared to actual observations of aircraft in the area. The end result was a success: “The statistical model produced a correct diagnosis of contrail occurrence or nonoccurrence for 85% of the observations”. Statistical contrail forecasting, then, is the easiest way for this problem to start being dealt with. Returning to the fact that only 10% to 20% of the country’s airspace is conducive to forming contrails at any given time, that leaves at least eighty percent available for use, and that is not even accounting for the third dimension of altitude which could be used in avoidance.

One way to do this would be to equip each aircraft with a device that detects the conditions that were confirmed in the Air Force study as being conducive to contrail formation3. The Federal Aviation Administration or Environmental Protection Agency could monitor these from the ground to see when an aircraft is flying in one of these areas. Incentives to use other airspace or altitudes could be put in place to reduce the number of jets flying there, such as reduced taxes on fuel or airport fees, or an extra tax or fine on aircraft that fly through the airspace that will leave a cirrus cloud drifting behind.

The North Sea, 15 May 1998

The North Sea, 15 May 1998

Unfortunately, aviation will always have some detrimental impact on the environment. What is most important, then, is reducing those impacts to the extent practicable. Through studies it has become apparent that contrails expanding into cirrus clouds do have some impact on the weather and the environment. Global warming is already a concern, and although the extent to which contrails are contributing to global warming is debatable, it cannot be argued that they have no effect. Using weather forecasting to predict areas where cirrus clouds will form from contrails should eventually be used in combination with devices on aircraft and cleaner engines with lower emissions (especially of contents such as sulfuric acid) to actively reduce the negative effects of contrails. As the aviation industry grows, limiting its negative impact on the environment will be a difficult challenge, and reducing the amount of heating that has already taken place as a result of high-flying aircraft will be an even greater challenge.

Photo © Jeffwell

Photo © Jeffwell

References:
1. Carleton, Andrew M. “Climatology: Contrails Reduce Daily Temperature Range.” Nature. 8 August 2002.
2. Graham-Rowe, Duncan. “High Flyers are Scourge of the Skies.” New Scientist. 19 October 2002, Vol. 176, Issue 2365.
3. Jackson, Artie. “Statistical Contrail Forecasting.” Journal of Applied Meteorology. February 2001, Vol. 40, Issue 2.
4. Minnis, Patrick. “Contrail Frequency over the United States from Surface Observations.” Atmospheric Sciences Research. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA. 12 August 2002.
5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Operational Significant Event Imagery Image of the Day, February 11 1999.
http://www.osei.noaa.gov/OSEIiod.html.
6. Schumann, U. “In Situ Observations of Particles in Jet Aircraft Exhausts and Contrails for Different Sulfur-Containing Fuels.” Journal of Geographical Research. 1996, Vol. 101, Issue D3.
7. Watson, Traci. “Plane Trails in Sky Turn Up the Heat Below, Study Suggests.” USA Today. 29 April 2004.

Written by Nick Onkow. Nick Onkow is a pilot, a flight instructor, and a photographer, whose photographs can be found here at airliners.net. Based on the amount of study invested in this topic, we consider him an expert on contrails and their environmental effects.

Comments:

IsuA380B777 2006-03-10 – Dear Nick. An excellent and well researched article. Regards

N62NA 2006-03-12 – Very well put together. I hope other a.netters will take the time to read through your excellent article.

AFEaviator 2006-03-14 – Very interesting article! I know you article is directed specifically at contrails, but you mention the wide temperature variance during the no fly days post 9/11. I am curious if the margin was less or more in large commercial traffic cities. There has been some very interesting studies about large cities producing their own weather effects and I am curious how this no-fly time period may have affected them.

KLM685 2006-03-18 – Congratulations for this piece of excellent work! I used to have geography classes with this teacher from Alaska. She always condemned everything she considered as pollution…that means everything. So one day she talked about how contrails damaged the atmosphere, etc… Thanks to this article I’m now able to put the puzzle together. Amazing research. Well done! Alonsou

Xjramper 2006-03-26 – Very interesting read. There are two things I would like to argue. One was weather. That information seems to be lacking, to prove that the drastic change in the temperatures were not caused by a massive frontal system. The other thing that I see is that it was a 3 day observation. What this is telling me is that the earth reversed 40+ years (14,600+ days) of jet pollution and showed that great of a climatic change in 3 days. Seems a little unrealistic to me. zach

Goboeing 2006-03-26 – The jet pollution from the preceding 40 years of flying did not disappear. What did disappear for three days were the jets that produced the contrails that form cirrus clouds. The cirrus clouds expand, drift, and trap heat at night. That results in less cooling. During the three days, there were no contrails over the U.S. and therefore no jet-made cirrus clouds to trap the heat. Nick

Xjramper 2006-03-27 – First, I did not say they disappeared. Secondly, I would like to see numbers that were recorded during this time. Is there a link that these are available? Because I randomly looked at 5 cities around the country and noticed little to no difference to the change in temperature. Thanks…zach

Goboeing 2006-03-27 – The fourth source at the bottom of the article has the numbers I think you are looking for. It is fairly lengthy but they are in there. Picking five cities at random does not give an accurate idea of a change in the usual daily temperature range (DTR). You’d have to compare the min and max temperatures in 24 hour periods and frontal systems and local weather can affect that. Nick

Tornado82 2006-04-06 – Sorry Nick, nice editorial opinion article but scientific evidence isn’t gathered in 3 days of records to research something as long-term as climatologic facts. Your sampling is simply way too small, and is heavily affected by the unrelated climatology of that three-day span. This is why most of us in the meteorological community never embraced the “findings” of the September 11th tragedy timeframe as anything but a loose hypothesis.

Just prior to 9/11 was one of the first pattern-shifting frontal passages of the transition season for that fall. Meteorological/climatological fall begins Sept 1, regardless of the equinox. The atmosphere was relatively dry across much of the nation, with crystal-clear skies (even before the tragedy occurred) thanks to the strong high pressure over that period, and still the relatively high Mid-September sun angle. The day time temperatures soared with a well mixed, dry atmosphere across much of the country, especially the Northeastern quadrant where contrails would typically be most prevalent, and where the most observing stations are. A nearly 1030 mb high pressure is quite strong for that time of year, and was anchored over our country bringing a shot of polar air with it. Of course, as will almost always happen in one of these types of atmospheres, decoupling occurred at night. No more mixing is occuring in the atmosphere, the wind becomes very calm, and cold air quickly sinks to the surface with no vertical motion (mixing) to support it. This happens nearly every time you get one of these types of atmospheric setups, it is just that people looked at it with more interest due to the lack of contrails. Additionally, with the upper-level atmospheric setup over much of that time, contrails would not have been very prevalent anyways.

The larger-than-usual diurnal range was caused simply by a very well mixed atmosphere in the daytime, with a very decoupled atmosphere at night, and the magnification of this type of atmospheric setup occuring over a large portion of the nation at the time. Adding to the huge diurnal range is that this occurred when the SST’s and Great Lakes, and any other water-body surface temperatures are near their annual peaks, eliminating any “sea breeze” or “lake breeze” effect to moderate the temperatures. Based on the surface dew points, sky conditions, and decoupling leading to lack of nighttime winds in the time period studied, the low temperatures are right where they should have been. You would have needed much more time to sample effect, or a very sophisticated computer modelling system to replicate the event. So far, neither has happened, and I pray to God that there is no more chance of another catastrophe closing our nation’s airspace in a similar manner.

Bwood 2006-04-17 I find this article hard to believe. The idea that the clouds that form from contrails are trapping in heat to me sounds ridiculous. Now before you attack me I know that clouds do trap heat and can keep temperatures higher at night but the clouds we are talking about are at 30000-50000ft. They are so thin you can see through them. For the heat to be trapped at ground level they would have to be lower and only a few hundred to thousand feet off the surface. Also over half the world’s entire atmosphere is between ground level and 8000 feet. If these contrails were lower then maybe but not at thirty to forty thousand feet. I know that the ozone is high up in the upper atmosphere as well but this is a layer of gas that is supposed to block in radiation from the sun. Clouds do not have the same affect. The sun’s radiation goes through clouds and that is why you can get sunburned on a cloudy day. The radiation also can bounce back up through the clouds to the ozone layer. The radiation is what harms us and the atmosphere. It is not that heat itself bounces back from the ozone layer it is the sun’s radiation that bounces back that heats up our atmosphere. Tell me how warm it is on a winter’s night when it is totally clear and 10 degrees below zero then tell me how extra warm it feels when there are some cirrus clouds at 50000ft and it is supposed to be ten degress below zero. It will feel exactly the same. I think the real danger comes from the jet exhaust itself and not water vapor 6-9 miles off the ground. I also feel that there are far greater polluters in this world. Read March 06’s National Geographic that came out on coal plants. There is where we are going to kill our planet. That and cars. Coal plants are the real danger. Jets burn jet A which is basically kerosene or a slightly modified diesel fuel. This has its advantages since it produces only hydrocarbons as pollutants and emits no sulfur or nitrogen pollutants like cars or power plants, however it does produce carbon dioxide. That is a study that should be done. What are the affects of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere? I think that the study (or I should say so-called study) done for the three days after 9/11 is not anything that you can come to a conclusion from. It is only three days of data and you can not call something like that a fact after only three days of data. There are too many factors that can cause interference with this so called tested and true study. You would need years of data in different conditions and weather to figure out if this was true. I really cannot accept the idea that contrails that are just water vapor are covering the sky, blocking in the heat from the ground and warming our planet by several degress. If that was the case then everyday that we have clouds the temperature of the earth should rise and cause global warming. People have to remember that there is more than one factor that goes into our climate and weather patterns. I agree that airplanes are pollutors and that something should be done about it. However aviation right now does not have the technology to make “hybrid or alternative fuel planes.” Ethanol is being tested for smaller piston engines but is only in the earliest experimental stages. You are not going to see an Airbus A380 running on corn or hydrogen anytime soon. I think that more research should be done to try and eventually turn planes away from petroleum and to another clean source but it is decades away. We should try to focus our “energy” on making cars and powerplants (by far the greatest polluters on our planet) carbon dioxide-free within the next ten to twenty years. It is possible but the red tape and political issues are enormous. We all need to write our congressmen and women along with the president to get more funding and support for zero emission power plants and cars. Which by the way as of right now we know how to make coal plants and cars zero emisson but no one is doing it on the large scale. Let’s focus our interests on the big and correctable polluters first and then expand out from there.

Mdgg2009 2006-06-23 Chemtrails, not contrails. 😦

Apart from the grisly flatus of that final comment, my reasoning agrees with Tornado82. There were other reasons for the figures for that 3-day period which make more sense to me. The conclusions of the article are not correct.

However I heartily recommend Airliners.net as a high-quality source of pictures, news, and comment…

CONTRAILSCIENCE COMEDY SPOT

on 25 Jun 2008 Post 126 the Gregger


so basicly what this website is telling me is that everything i see in the sky is normal. tick tack toe grid patterns are normal and when the sky is covered from horizon to horizon with “Jet crap” i should just go outside and do some strenuous activities, breath deep and don’t worry?

Hanfbauer bei der Ernte

I’m sorry Shill. i don’t buy it. Where are the bees?

beesjpg

why is there more statick electricity in the air (more now than i have ever noticed)? I know what HAARP is.

harp1

i know what a cloud is.

cloud

and i know what a shill is!

shill

…….over a thousand tornadoes this year in the midwest. A “freek” electrical storm in June in california.!

freek

Can’t wait for that sack of cement to come flying through my roof on the fourth of july when they’re trying to make a “Nice day” for us to view the fireworks.

bob

Oh hey and make sure you catch the olympics in china this year. Should be nice out. They’ve forcasted no rain for the duration of the games. Sweet! Hard hat and suntan lotion.! ……..as for the “suckerfish” on the tail of that plane? well i hate to say it but my little HP foto devise is a piece of poo. i’m in the market for a faster camera with a fat zoom so I can get those fotos my debunker friends need to see. ……time to go out and play. I see a little square of blue sky left out there. better go get in it before it becomes a concloud. breath deep SR#$%^.

patch

From Uncinus of contrailscience.com as of 24.04.09, an early photo of WW2 trails...

From Uncinus of contrailscience.com as of 24.04.09, an early photo of WW2 trails…

Clouds

High Clouds (Family A): Cirrus (Ci) • Cirrus uncinus • Cirrus Kelvin-Helmholtz colombia • Cirrostratus (Cs) • Cirrocumulus (Cc) • Pileus • Contrail
Middle Clouds (Family B): Altostratus (As) • Altostratus undulatus • Altocumulus (Ac) • Altocumulus undulatus • Altocumulus mackerel sky • Altocumulus castellanus • Altocumulus lenticularis
Low Clouds (Family C): Stratus (St) • Nimbostratus (Ns) • Cumulus humilis (Cu) • Cumulus mediocris (Cu) • Stratocumulus (Sc)
Vertical Clouds (Family D): Cumulonimbus (Cb) • Cumulonimbus incus • Cumulonimbus calvus • Cumulonimbus with mammatus • Cumulus congestus • Cumulus castellanus • Pyrocumulus • Pyrocumulonimbus

cumulus congestus

cumulus congestus

COWBRAIN

Statement 1 – “contrails form at a wing-span distance from bottom of plane”. – UNTRUE. The formation distance behind the plane depends on its VELOCITY, AND THE TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY OF THE AMBIENT AIR. Your statement is a rough approximation only.

Statement 2 – “sudden short gaps in the trails” – ARE CAUSED BY PLANES FLYING THROUGH “WAVES” OF MORE HUMID AIR, rather like dolphins swimming through waves in the sea.

Statement 3 – “same time try to explain their day-long endurance/spreading claiming the higher levels have uniform saturation. – FALSE. THEY SPREAD IN SATURATED AIR. AT WHATEVER HEIGHT.

Statement 4 – “spraying tests of germs upon millions of citizens”. – FALSE. IT WAS FROM A BOAT TEN MILES OFFSHORE FROM A SOUTH COAST TOWN, AND A HARMLESS (KILLED) AND IDENTIFIABLE BACTERIUM, AND SO INEFFECTIVE AS TO BE TOO DIFFICULT TO MEASURE (and therefore repeated).

Statement 5 – “Spiderwebs” LIE

Statement 6 – “Anthrax” LIE

“CHEMTRAIL” HISTORY

A brief history of “Chemtrails”

chemtrail6_thumb

“Chemtrails” are supposedly long lasting contrails that are being deliberately created by the government for some sinister purpose. In reality, these contrails just look like normal contrails. It’s a fringe conspiracy theory that spread over the internet, mutating as it goes for survivability. But where did it begin? What is the origin of the word “chemtrail”, and who started this particular conspiracy theory?

Google Groups archives internet news-groups back to 1981, but the earliest mention of chemtrails was from May 8th, 1999: on alt.fan.art-bell: “this cartilage gel that Art’s plugging could be used for the joint ache that chemtrail victims complained about last night… say… wait a minute…maybe chemtrails were deployed to boost cartilage gel sales…! Here we have mention of chemtrail victims, and “joint ache” as a symptom.*

skeptic3

* “Joint ache” is a symptom of both diabetes and arthritis, which are known to be consequential to being over-weight. The western diet is the most likely causative agent in these cases.

In may of 1999, we have this: CHEMTRAILS OVER AMERICA Issue #2 April 7-16, 1999: “dear friends and concerned sky-watchers”, a March 17, 1999 radio interview going out to 15 million listeners – again referencing the Art Bell show. So it seems that radio show was perhaps the start of the phenomena. The “Chemtrails over America” bulletin apparently had issue #1 on march 9, 1999. That also seems to be about the time people started taking photos of normal contrails.

Judging by the earliest postings, it seems like hypochondria plays a large part. People start to connect the contrails with illness, and suspect they must contain some kind of poison.

Looking at the previous year (1998) on usenet, there is NO mention of chemtrails. The word “contrail” crops up 324 times, mostly in reference to meteors and rockets. There are a few references to the affect of contrails on climate change. But NOTHING about deliberate contrail creation, or anything like “chemtrails”.

ctc1

The web site chemtrailcentral.com was registered on May 6th, 2000, about a year after the “chemtrail” idea was created. The earliest archived page from there indicates a lot of local media involvement, and their archive indicates nothing before 4/24/2000, which said: “Monday a KHOU crew met with Chemtrail Tracking USA Club co-founders Lorie [Kramer] and Dona of Houston and member Rhonda from Ft. Worth, as well as other local members of the Yahoo! based club for the taping of a story on Chemtrails and public concern over their purpose and health impact. Reporter Ron Travino and cameraman Nathan visited for several hours at the house of Lorie, taping, talking, asking questions, and viewing photos and videos.”

On chemtrailcentral, there’s actually a thread about the history of chemtrails. There, people give their recollections of how it all started. Most date it to late 1998 or 1999. A few people report earlier contrails (1989, 1991), and then surmise it must have stated earlier.

A post there by 3T3L1 quotes chemtrail debunker Jay Reynolds on the derivation of the word “chemtrails”. Posted on August 26, 2001 at 09:06:54 AM by Jay Reynolds was a statement by Val Valerian (pseudonym for Former USAF captain [John] Grace) in April 1999. “Grace/Valerian recognized that the power of suggestion worked against his claim and proposed coining a new term more suggestive of his claim.” That does not sound unreasonable, since the earliest reference to the word is April 1999. This page claims to be reporting from March 29th 1999, but could have been written after the fact, based on photos taken that day. It’s archived back to October 1999.

The original pages from Val Valerian/Valdemar Valerain/O.H. Krill/John Grace, can be found on archive.org. The earliest real mention of spraying on his pages dates back to emails on 13 Jan 1998. “John Grace is a UFO conspiracy theorist who published several books on shadow governments and suchlike. He also faked documents to support arguments in his books.”

huckster

CSI FLAKES CNUTS

This is an interesting interlude involving this “mention” of “chemtrails” in an episode of CSI.

I’m no fan of this series: I don’t believe the “science”, I don’t believe the timing, I don’t believe the “visualizations”, I don’t believe the camp crappiness of the script and the COLOR is an abuse to vision. It has the values of Star Trek Series 1.  Ug.

The HYPOCRISY mounted by the “brothers” is intense, approaches saturation, then exceeds it into supersaturation. I bet you thought it was only water that did that, but the bruvs don’t know about water – so they’re alone.

beachcomber2008
Someone who talks about chemtrails IS an “anti-american” & a “domestic terrorist” This had already become part of my thinking. It was EASY. I used LOGIC.
1. CNUTS offer NO sensible evidence that chemtrails exist. They are therefore slandering hard-working innocent people from airport aprons to executive boardrooms.
2. They use FEAR to condition people against the scientific truth of the matter in favor of lies which further their aims. TERRORISTS use fear to attain their objectives, too.
@readmuch
“Whether” – neither
“one day” – never
“ignore truth” – & b a CNUT
“u’re a disgrace” – to the Cosmos I apologize – 4 u
“to stupid” – 2 spell correctly?
“corruption” – “Power” started that 11000BC
“a great threat” – U aren’t 4 U know zip
“your caliber” – 50 cal long range sniper
“lies” – as in LIBRARY
“same ppl” – Yes. Ppl generally
“Your agenda” – I’m sorry – science is the reverse of what u suggest
“Gotta love manipulation” – Spk 4 urself
“understand(ing) is challenging” – How would U know?
@WellSightedGentleman – S.A.G. ops?
Ah – The “American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting held in San Diego February 18-22, and “a group of protestors” & “Could it be that one of these groups is being deceived?”
APOPHENIA was defined by Klaus Conrad in 1958 as the “unmotivated seeing of connections accompanied by a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness.”
The “group of protestors” must have been looking for the hospital…
Make shit up about a noisy ignorant rabble, won’t you?
CNUT wastrel..

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 pop psychology is a real hallmark of the so-called enlightenment of your generation, isnt it?

TrutherD1
beachcomber writes on YouTube from his fake chemtrail plane ufo fireball orb…  lol


beachcomber2008
@TrutherD1 “beachcomber writes on YouTube from his fake chemtrail plane ufo fireball orb… lol”
Yes, I do. Read it, watch it. Follow its links… 🙂
UFOs and fireballs I don’t deal with, except that I found “Piece for a Jigsaw” by Leonard G. Cramp to be (and remain) utterly fascinating
If by “fireballs” you mean STABLE PLASMA SPHERES or “ball lightning” then I AM very interested in that
My 2pworth, UFOs appear to be trans-substantial to me, and their physics unknown!
“PROTT” is an old SF story

TrutherD1
@beachcomber2008 Ball lightning’s cool but I mean fireball meteor-UFOs, yes I agree made of energy or something… but seemingly intelligent. Check this out full screen and watch 9 of them fall

also


We should stop fighting and wake up… Thx for refs. @WSG I was only half-joking, I know you’re a skeptic of this stuff, so sorry to challenge your beliefs 😛


beachcomber2008
@TrutherD1 Oh dear, you made me waste some time
The first (“don’t tell me it’s an aircraft!”) – it’s an aircraft
The second (“note how the orb moves to tail”) – the “orb” is a HIGHLIGHT, and moving down the axis of polished cylinders and cones is EXACTLY what highlights do
ORBS, in these FAILED scenarios, are ALWAYS out-of-focus highlights
My physics teacher wife rates these as “U”
This failure is the stock-in-trade of 2nd Technician Rimmer of Red Dwarf
You know, the HOLOGRAM who killed the crew

WellSightedGentleman
@TrutherD1 @TrutherD1 oh rofl his response says it all. hahaha

Evantheowl
remember the 5th of November

TrutherD1
Hi guys. Hi beachcomber. *glare* 😛 As you were. In-sky’d job.

WellSightedGentleman
having watched this we can now see clearly how poor old beachcomer2008 who suffers life altering apophenia is easliy triggered amd ‘programmed’ by the MSM to respond as he does. I believe he actually feels CSI is right on the money here, like so many television addicts he doesn’t have a clue about what’s going on outside, he gets his frivolous opinions from subversive programs such as this. We simply ‘protest’ Geoenigeering & are not terrorists. Giveup TV beachcomer2008 save us your delusion.

DianeDi
@WellSightedGentleman I could not have said this better myself. Please, do not let these TROLLS get the better of you. You are a strong being with so much knowledge. The TROLLS only try to bring you down… I say NAY NAY….. damn them – and please continue telling them off. BRAVO for you… Tell the trolls to read the document I posted -The Regulation of Geoengineering, UK House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee-Chances are no one will,  far too brain dead from fluoride poisoning.


beachcomber2008
Hi, usual suspects, talking dirty again
By “dirty”, I mean without a clue as to the science & logic of what you’re talking about, telling lies about people you don’t know, who possess boots you aren’t worthy to lick. THAT sort of “dirty”
The GAP that you see before a trail begins tells you there are NO metals present, for if there were, they’d SHOW in that gap
AFTER the turbine, where you INSIST there is a spray nozzle, the space is? fully occupied by a THRUST REVERSAL SYSTEM
Engines CAN’T SPRAY!

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 those who have studied enough of the nature of the dispersed particles, and literature, know that to ‘spray’ again, like the term ‘chemtrail’ is also only a common vernacula term that refers directly to the C.E ‘scattered’ particulates that are left in the emission trails(chemtrails) that persist enough to modify the atmospheric environs. Semantics are not enough of a divisive point to turn any who protest the S.A.G in the sky.
So do you like to lick the boots of elitists?


beachcomber2008
@WellSightedGentleman Aerosols are as old as the Earth
Recent studies show that 86% of airborne aerosols are natural
The remaining man-made ones are made by the power industry, manufacturing industry, travel (mostly road!) and farming
I AM an elitist in your terms
ANYONE who has passed his exams and is properly knowledgeable IS elite
That is what the word “elite” MEANS
I point that out to as a guide to a better way of life than the one you presently follow
So lick my, er, SANDALS, ignorant fuck!

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 anyone who passes their exams, rofl, you really are ignorant.
so who do i lie about to whom thou are so worthy as to not lick their shoes, as you do?
Who are these ‘graduates’, that you think compose the elite in your small little world that i allegedly lie about?
Calling everyone CNUTS who do not accept your rubbish excuse for sound information sources, says everything about the caliber and quality of your education and frankly you fail. It speaks for itself. u disappointment


beachcomber2008
@WellSightedGentleman Not as disappointing as you, I think, who have no legitimate excuse for your behavior, calling science “rubbish” and believing that EDUCATED people are PROGRAMMED people
Your sorry campaign is a REACTIONARY effort against established science, and has NOTHING to replace it with except your own sorry ass
It only exists as a vehicle for your self-promotion
Your “newspeak” is something George Orwell never envisaged and would be horrified by
WSG = Mr. Magoo and as blind as a bat

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 legitimate excuse, well we cant count on you to protect the marginalised innocent victems of the SAG can we?
you defend elitists who sponsor the S.A.G
But i support the position of holding those who scatter pollutants on purpose, 2 be held accountable now and into the future for what they’re doing. No regulation of climate engineering, an all out Bann is required, this is good enough “excuse” for publishing video evidence of what the british royal society says must be disclosed

Spright0
so what
are people breathing? it can’t be too harmful, right?

Kitswain59
youtube CSI Reptilians


beachcomber2008
Denying science is like self-denial
It’s a science-based world, unstably perched upon half-gone oil, where the oil is used to produce our food, not just get us about, and the world itself is hotting up
As the oil goes west, Africans will have the pleasure of watching us begin to look like they do, we’ll shrink in size and develop stick limbs and pot bellies, while the East will be entirely unaffected, and look on with horror
Science is the knowledge of the natural world
Reject it – and die

WellSightedGentleman
looking at the ratings, 72 thumbs ups, 2 thumbs down, those two would be beachcomer2008 and his sockpuppet which he uses to support his deluded paranoid notions.

AcidSh33tz
waky waky, sheeples

zetetic0void
Darn … if only one of this professor’s ‘conspiracy theories’ listed had been “propaganda placed in the mass media and television programs to control citizens thinking”, people may have clued in – well at least for a few minutes before the McDonald’s ads made them hungry.
however, there is always the rare chance that some people in media want to at least interject certain ideas into the mainstream. So they put them into shows but they labelled as wacky – but still, they are then planted into the public where they may cause more discussion.

beachcomber2008
@zetetic0void It’s just a dumb script where some scriptwriter (who wanted to get paid) managed to squeeze the topic in for a few seconds
A small opportunity to kick someone who cannot strike back – a popular sport
The fact that in this case it was someone WORTH kicking is completely accidental
If you believe otherwise, well, you WOULD, wouldn’t you?
You already believe a “military”-like campaign to control the weather is under way
All you needed was jet contrails and a stubborn denial of science

HumanSayNo
Amazing work, keep exposing more of this type of placement!


Crashmagproductions1
Wow those writers for that show are aware of the truth and evil


WellSightedGentleman
ohlol, soo hence being pro-american, means to accept things like chemtrails, tsunami bombs, and water flouridation. More than enough tests, conclusivly proving the S.A.G material is in our environment in abundance now, have been compiled, that talking point, like aluminium in drinking water, is moot. As for setting off explosives to cause tsunamis probably, its not an idea i have espouse. GreaT example of contempory newspeak.


beachcomber2008
@WellSightedGentleman
There is an alternative to either “newspeak” or your SLUSHTHINK
If there were just an inkling of science in your bones you would KNOW that what you espouse reduces to nothing more than a bundle of pseudo-science, assumptions, misguided correlations and unqualified and uneducated personal testimony
Furthermore, they too frequently reduce to LIES and OUTRIGHT FRAUD. Shall I reel off three of them right now?
Some of you are ignorant, some malevolent, but ALL are despicable

M1STYWORLD
Trying to control the sheeple again lol Hey x always marks the spot got loads of them 🙂

nodonjuan
I almost flipped when I saw this. I liked CSI NY but I don’t think I will be watching it.

iwasthatdolphin
‘Head games’ at its most pernicious ! Great catch…TV sucks. 5’s

PURVASHADASTAR
Yes, watch out for this propaganda and also watch out for Alex Jones. Anyone who tells you that it’s not at least partly a sunblock program is misleading you. People like AJ have an ideology that doesn’t allow for certain possibilities like global warming. AJ will do so much to discredit those who are interested in the truth with his endless speculation stated as fact.


beachcomber2008
@PURVASHADASTAR Andrew Johnson or Alex Jones? Both, actually
Believe it or not, scientists are ALSO interested in TRUTH
They don’t BELIEVE in science because it is a system of non-belief
A “LEAP” of faith is SPECIFICALLY DISALLOWED in science
Modern Science is MATHEMATICALLY based, generates HARD numbers, makes TRUE predictions, and is INFINITELY closer to reality than your endless & pseudoscientific speculation, also stated as fact
You are EXACTLY what you accuse others of being
Apophenia again.

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 seeing as that you, are accusing everyone else of apophenia, it seems clear to us that it is in fact you who have that dreaded diseased condition. again, we are nothing but peaceful protestors of excessive pollution, we get used to disturbed accusatory character attacks such as you do..
realise you are really quite ethically corrupt
so how many people now have you accused of your own illness you poor sod?
we know
scientism is your religion,
when will you wakeup to that fact?


beachcomber2008
Not ODD, but a VICTIM
A victim of APOPHENIA, an obsessive disorder where the victim preserves an antisocial midset by IGNORING the reasons which don’t agree with his mindset
It sounds innocuous, but leads to behavior which damages all that person’s social relationships and may go on to damage others.
“As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.” – Voltaire
It is absurd to assign meaning to Xing trails when 87,000 flights cross US skies EVERY DAY

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 you propogate the same deluded alarmism as those who have produced this program. You lie about persistent contrails from the fifties and you know i know it! your wordpress dosuments are propogandist folly
You think you’re some kind of genius, what, as climate engineer?
or will you lie about that too?
One lie begets another and you’re not capable of telling the truth.
you’re a charlatan.


beachcomber2008
@WellSightedGentleman No, spit it out, get to the point….:)
Personally I DETEST CSI. I have just stopped the audio so as not to hear it
I think it’s vile and glib and I detest the altered color values too
The program is as natural as its color is. A grisly reverie of the American Dream with a set of values taken straight out of the first series of Star Trek
I think anyone who follows it to be defective in their scientific understanding, or just plain defective
What do YOU think?

uturniaphobic
Love it! propaganda on HIGH! he actually used “anti-American” and all those valid concerns in the same sentence. …This dude has no scruples to take part in this show with issues painted in such a way, none of these actors do in my opinion. Sold!

BarbarianRebellion
unbelievable!!?


beachcomber2008
Persistent contrails are typically made of THIRTY-FIVE POUNDS OF ICE CRYSTALS PER YARD OF FORWARD FLIGHT, seeded? with microimpurities so dilute that if these crystals were melted they would easily pass a test for fresh water
That is what is found when scientists survey them. These surveys have been repeated EVERY DECADE since the fifties
Authorities will ALWAYS DENY doing something they haven’t actually done
Apophenics cannot handle this. Are YOU one?

azzurrino630
What is the soundtrack??

seekYEthetruth
Well caught…  Definitely something going on here…
The actors should be ashamed of themselves..   But they wont…

Pepsifx357
WOW! Water Flouridation: Is used in most U.S. Cities and that is an Indisputable fact. U.S. Patents can confirm that chemtrails have been used since Vietnam, hell, there’s even? a documentary on the affects of this method of cloud seeding. Tsunami Bombs? Haven’t heard that one. I doubt it exists. This is clearly “Propaganda Placement,” which is also documented. The fact that people call this conspiracy, is merely because they are ignorant. Not stupid, just ignorant.


beachcomber2008
@Pepsifx357 People who KNOW ANYTHING about fluoridation can SPELL the word
Patents confirm nothing
There’s a patent for a hotel on the Moon – why don’t you visit it?
Scotty can beam you there…
The collapse triggering energy to start a tsunami requires access to a position of maximum strain energy five to ten miles down? through solid rock
Scotty can place you there too…
Now, BACK TO REALITY – why don’t you WIKI “apophenia” and check out whether you’re not just ignorant, but mentally ill?

Pepsifx357
@beachcomber2008 Alright then,? all Tsunami crap that doesn’t exist aside, you tell me why over the past 20 years, airplanes have gone from short 1/4 mile long contrails, to long plumes that create clouds? Or why water FLUORIDATION is on a list on T.V. like it is some conspiracy theory?


beachcomber2008
@Pepsifx357 Since they started making large pressure cabins for airplanes, air travel has increased FIFTYFOLD, OR 5,000 %
As a child I saw persistent trails in the midfifties
Now there are FIFTY times more of them
As they all tend to fly through the same patch of air, releasing water, then they are also making the sky locally WETTER
Those plumes ARE clouds
But WETNESS is what the trails respond to, and are made of
At 35,000 feet & -40 degrees all “wetness” is ICE or VAPOR
jazzroc.wordpress.com

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 you deny the fact of aerosol pollution, advertant or not. the trails filmed throughout the internet are not occuring above 30,000 ft, rather they’re being emitted at the same height if not lower than general cloud height which is what?


beachcomber2008
@WellSightedGentleman Let’s assume your eyes ARE good, for a moment
How good is your sense of perspective?
You know that parallel lines converge to a single vanishing point?
You know that a 7 miles high trail CROSSES? THE HORIZON when it is TWO HUNDRED MILES AWAY?
You know trails GROW, SPREAD, and FALL two miles vertically downward before they evaporate beneath the tropopause?
You know that when they do so they are around FOUR MILES UP?
Aerosols in Earth’s air comprise 86% natural, 14% anthropic

MrAmbrister

Watch and pause on that time. Then tell me if you actually believe that 5 or more “passenger planes” all flew out that way only to turn back after realizing they had forgot to bring In-flight snacks, or if there may be something else going on.

dbootsthediva
Thank you Very well put together and pointing out a very disturbing fact about the media downmplaying our reality of CHEMTRAILS and that their are in the action to “condition” the public’s perception of this reality
great clip

KamikazeKoscki
The oil spill, created for many reasons. One in particular mentioned that I happen to agree with is that it not only controls the food supply but it also allows chemtrails to be sprayed without protests. The entire southeast will have to be evacuated within the next 3 to 6 months to the disaster relocation centers in Tennessee, Illinois, Missouri New York and Pennsylvania…  The influx of detainees will further strain the resources of the states and


beachcomber2008
@KamikazeKoscki
“then those nice young men in their nice white suits came to take you away…
Away to the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time..”
It was in the UK hit records once
You can’t catch ME out

zetetic0void
@beachcomber2008 haha, I remember that song – we had this record of weird songs as a kid – Shaving Cream, Transfusion, The Streak..etc

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 and you think there aint slush between your ears?
you’re a joke.
chemtrails conspiracy is aa overt media subterfuge program to sheild stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. Beachcopmer2008 like to think he drive the talking points, but he doesnt live under geoengineered skies. That why he has NEVER been able to demonstrate anything- to refute visual emperical evidence.

ar5281ar
@WellSightedGentleman, must be a good vid if beachcomber2008 showed up! i wonder who faithinscience is now? ask beachcomber2008 for me why i see CONtrails daily now when i can see the blue skies when five years ago i would have to wait a week or 2 to see a “persistant contrail”! p.s. if he tells u something about increased jet travel just google: shrinking airlines to find the truth! BOOM BANG BOOM, eyes to the ground cause the show’s in the skies, right beachcomber?


beachcomber2008
@ar5281ar Haha. I just Googled “growing airlines” and what did I find? LOL
If you insist on disregarding true data, such as the easily-obtainable year-on-year air passenger travel statistics, and published science papers on the progressional development of aircraft contrails into cirrus clouds, then so be it, there’s nothing that can be done for you
It is YOU who is using FEAR as a way of suppressing reason, not I
It is YOU that holds to a belief which has no evidence to support it
YOU…

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 sounds like you’re getting hysterical, again. Please see a doctor.


ar5281ar
@beachcomber2008 the great chemtrail debunker that is inspired by a failed magician that admits everything he has done in his life is to decieve people: James Randi! BOOOOM BANG BOOM, eyes to the ground because the real trick is in the sky isn’t it? what’s funny is all people have to do is observe daily to see the truth & your irelevant words. p.s. try some polarized sunglasses, they are a must!

SpookyFan
@ar5281ar Way to quotemine. Be honest about the purpose of that quote. Randi says it to state the obvious – in other words the things magicians do on stage are illusions. Your framing of the quote shows dishonesty.

toxsickdog
Sit down & be a good American. Drink your daily fluoride, Breath in your daily barium/aluminum fortified with morgellons fibers. remember fiber is good for You.
And make sure You are getting the recommended daily allowance of TV bullshit like CSI,  It keeps You in the matrix. Dont ever think out of the box that would be “Anti-American”. & lastly do the obama pledge & be a servant slave, It’s what You need to be a good American.

DianeDi
Well done – and I couldn’t agree with you more! Turn of the brainwashing machine aka television. I have posted a video response, and for those that still think chemtrails don’t exist, perhaps the document in this video will help them decide. It’s titled “The Regulation of Geoengineering”. The summary on page 3 admits outright that they have been spraying us, although on a small scale. My question is what do they call a large scale. They are looking at UN to monitor this project globally.

Matey3
I donno what CSI is and I dont give a damn about that filthy TV all together, they make me sick to look at their ugly faces but the CSI eats shi*!
the bastards days are numbered.
all of them, from their bosses the dirty cheap pirates turn 2 bank robbers, down to their boot licking lowlife vultures… all of them,
the new world disorder bastards are going to be in bottom of hell soon.


zzentityzz
Good job…
Perhaps someday we may actually reach through the fog that has been placed around many…  and have them actually see the reality that we live in…  not the false one that has been created to control us..
Then again…  perhaps…  we are the few…  that will forever see…  while the rest remain blind.
All we can do is try…  Thanks for making this…  Keep up the good fight!

finefilth
you are being sprayed with massive amounts of fascist poison
they are spraying AGAIN today massively…just look up!
you are being sprayed with massive amounts of fascist poison

spencehj
Damn those anti-florid terrorist! Everyone knows the US government cares about our teeth.

edmontonskypoison
This is happening world wide by these sick cowards.
We need to find and prosecute these criminals.

whitehawk22
Chemtrails are serious anti-life assaults on everything they infiltrate — which is US and our FOOD CHAIN. Chemtrails are making organic gardening/farming impossible… and setting the stage for ONLY GMO FOOD (corporate-controlled and sold… and NON-seeding for the future; you HAVE to BUY from them) This is as serious as it gets people.
Thank you for posting this CSI clip – what a crock.


UncleHempy
google – “Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts”


Gyrxiur
@UncleHempy Exactly!

UncleHempy
“owning the weather in 2025” — google search for air force 2025

Sinpup79
LOL… water flouridation is not a conspiracy theory, it’s completely admitted! Great job on this one, keep fightin the good fight.

wenaolong
@Sinpup79 Yeah, but your “Anti-American” and probably also an “Anti-Semite” if you don’t like the fact that this shit is put in your water supply… It is a drug, and it is put in your water supply, and you are Anti-American because you know this and don’t like it. It’s almost demoralizing to realize that they put this shit out there because the figure most of these monkeys walking around with fluoridated nervous systems don’t really even give a shit. Hilarious.

Sinpup79
@wenaolong I am by no means anti-american, I am anti NWO, and that is not even to say that I don’t believe we should have a new world order, it is only to say that the NWO is being run by the same people who ran the old one… and where I live there is not flouride in my water supply. Neways, thanks for judging me based a short statment of fact that you tend to agree with…. weirdo 😛


wenaolong
@Sinpup79 As to the NWO position, I hold an identical one as far as that goes. It isn’t the newness that’s the problem, it’s the oldness of the “new” world order that is the problem. As to the fluoride, it’s in most places, especially MAJOR CITIES, where its effects are most important for control/disease infliction purposes. I didn’t judge you, the statements I made referred to a general condition of persons at this time, not directed at you. I’m weirder than you can imagine, in a good way.
Good luck, by the way. Make good choices and get good results, whatever those may be for you. I know I am doing so and will continue to. In your situation, whatever it may be, don’t waste your time fighting unwinnable wars, and you’ll be fine. In my case, I’ve already won, since I don’t unduly fear death, and I lust after joy. When you are motivated by fear, you’ve lost. Only when you are motivated by joy, is there anything worth winning. Peace in.

whole2th
US Patent # 5,003,186 should convince all but those who choose to “see no evil” that chemtrails are a real phenomenon.

Pepsifx357
@whole2th Score one for U.S. Patents! They’ve been using chemtrails since Vietnam.

Spright0
@whole2th Hughes Aircraft Patent # 5,003,186. Weather modification, chemtrails. Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming. A method is described for reducing atmospheric or global warming resulting from the presence of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.


beachcomber2008
@Spright0 20080270152 Patent Trolling Application – by Halliburton
Yes – this Application, by a Halliburton Patent Attorney, seeks a Patent for “Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party”.
So troll away
You’re on borrowed time

Spright0
@beachcomber2008 how dare you call me names old man


beachcomber2008
@Spright0 Are you a CNUT? All you need do is learn to understand what science is. Then there’s NO possibility of your remaining a CNUT
I mean, it’s a bit CNUTTY to believe you can spray biological material through a high-pressure flame at 2,400 degrees F and expect it to survive
They don’t believe this in hospitals
And metals in flames MAKE COLORS – is the Firework Industry wrong?
And billions of tons of these metals have been “sprayed”
But they’re NEVER found in air samplers?
“CNUTS” rings true

Spright0
@beachcomber2008 this isn’t going no where have you missed one of your tv shows today? why you picking an argument with everyone all souls have their own beliefs you aint nobody to tell us what to believe in i say fuck it we all are breathing it in watch the animatrix old one and you’ll see chemtrails in there you a pro american thats your belief i dont care i don’t know you but when the time comes you’ll regret everything right now your living you life as lie gizzer


beachcomber2008
@Spright0 U izz de lie gizzer, & I argue with CNUTTINESS. I wouldn’t piss on a CNUT if his pants were on fire, and as they always lie, their pants are always burnin’, burnin’
Beliefs are held without evidence. That’s what a belief is – something which requires no evidence to support it
I hold to NO belief – only to facts with supporting evidence
Slandering ANYONE without any supporting evidence is a moral and an ethical crime, and also a criminal offence
Stupidity and idleness are NO defense

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 slandering who?
is your apophenia playing up again?
you may need to see a doctor.


beachcomber2008
@WellSightedGentleman I see your astroturf account has temporarily depleted itself
Slandering me and other hard-working people
I hope by “tsu specialist” you meant oriental antiques or breeding dogs
because your “aluminum particulates are biological” smear becomes more plausible
Where are these particulates emitted from?
Why aren’t they visible in the trail gap?
How does the finely-divided biological material survive the 2,400 deg F flame?
If you cannot show HOW they are delivered
Do they EXIST?

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 you’re the fool whose stating that biological agents are being dispersed – though there are patents to freeze dry biological agents into nano particles – this is not what im stating.  you smear yourself saying so, ive stated over and again that theyre scattering what they say they are, alumina Al2So3.
A TSU specialist works in an operating theater, we eliminate biological agents, creating an aseptic environment.
Along your track of thought seems you deny agent orange chemtrails also.
heh aluminium isnt a biological agent, just like you’re not a scientist. But i dont really need to point this out, its obvious
But then you are speaking for your very nieve view of established science, really you’re a fail,  just look at the above statement you’ve made, and you want to be perceived as credible?
the idea they’ve never found air sample is contrary to the truth, just like your silly assumptions that aluminium particulates are biological.
i was a tsu specialist.
@Spright0 nah they got a new dingbat on his account, or that ‘old codger’ is just having a meltdown.
probably the later, except that he’s adopting all of faithinsciences abusive tendancies and aggresive attitude. Seen it all before, these guys from ‘contrailscience’ have no argument whatsoever, though they continue to try shamelessly in the face of sound argument they cannot rebuke, good luck to them. I feel sorry for anyone who is uncritically sucked into their illusion.


Spright0
@WellSightedGentleman copy that

mercuryman74
Remember, CSI is only a fictitious show dealing with make believe crimes and make believe characters designed to disinform, distract , and steal our time away from discussing important matters such as why we are being bombarded everyday with chemical aerosol spraying and why do our governments allow poisons to be dumped in our drinking water?
As for fluoride being mentioned on the list of conspiracies, yes fluoride is a poison. Yeah lets put it in our drinking water eh? What a great idea and it must be good for your teeth too eh? Yeah it must be but who made that discovery, are you sure its good for you? Someone must have won a Nobel Prize for making this discovery? Where are the clinical studies and papers supporting this claim? The answer is…nowhere. A lot of countries have woken up to this blatant lie.
Are we really that stupid to keep falling for such blatant propaganda? Well, not all of us. I love the way they described how idiotic it is to mistake contrails for chemtrails when (because there is such a major and obvious difference between the two) it is technically impossible to get them confused! STEVEDIGIBOYtv may be spot on. Its bound to scare the crap out of any credible person daring to mention this controversial man made phenomenon and the stupidity of it.
I cant believe how desperate the authorities must be about keeping this criminal activity quiet! To use hollywood stooges (actors) to suck us into no longer believing what our own eyes see in the sky reeks of desperation. drmatt357 you would be surprised what goes on behind your back and the audacity of what our governments get up to.


drmatt357
I don’t know if I believe the chemtrail thing. Why can’t someone just capture some of this “trail” and analyze the contents. That would be easy and put an end to the discussion. I can’t believe that they’re crop dusting us without anyone checking these clouds. George Lopez can’t bang some broad without the entire world finding out but they can dust entire cities? I’m suspicious!

islandonlinenews
@drmatt357 it has been analyzed by news channel 4 look up chemtrails in the news. it contains aluminum, barium, arsenic and other chemicals.

tfrenn
@drmatt357 the elite want people to be distracted with unimportant issues like George Lopez banging some ho so they don’t focus on important issues that matter….Keep us focusing focusing on these dumb fucking celebrities instead of really serious issues.

JASONANDTRACI
@drmatt357 Hello friend the government calls it GEOENGINEERING, they admit it now. So there is no reason to believe anything. Go to COuncil on Foreign Relations website and search: GEOENGINEERING and watch the entire conference on it. Just because it’s not on cnn or fox doesn’t mean it’s real. WAKE UP your reality has been distorted by the controlled media.

syko52
@drmatt357 Yes, chemtrails have been declassified and confirmed. Everyone said ppl that believed in chemtrails were CRAZY, LOONS, and PARANOID NUTS! They’ve been chemically analyzed, and it’s true, chemtrails have been real this whole time. For all those YEAR AND YEARS everyone called those that knew the truth crazy and now EVEN THE GOVERNMENT THEMSELVES have admitted to spraying barium, titanium, aluminum, and tons of other crap into the air out the back of jets in the name “secret climatology”


beatnikcafe
@drmatt357 News 4 in Los Angeles did a story about chemtrails in San Bernadino County and they interviewd goverment officials who claimed that the strange substance was actually pollen. The investigator sent the sample to a lab and they discovered among other chemicals Barium. Even more damning to the goverment officials that claimed it was pollen was the fact that no organic material was found by the lab. There were dozens if not more witnesses to this.

OdinsHenchman
@drmatt357 “Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality” – Michael Ellner


readmuch
@drmatt357
It’s been done many times the info is out there, just look!
1st water vapor melts as the jet fly’s over I’m sure you’ve seen it.
Chemtrails do not melt and have been recorded over a 100 miles? long I’m sure you’ve seen that too.
There is a difference Oh and I see a video link to right of screen I’m sure you see that as well.
Wake up ! how long can this ignorance continue on so many levels


beachcomber2008
@readmuch How did I miss you?
“1st water vapor melts” STEAM IS “water vapor”. When it exhausts it cools from 1100 to -40 deg C and FREEZES to very fine ice crystals and microspherules of water
If the air has a high and competing water vapor pressure then CRYSTALS they will remain at such a temperature – or in your pseudoscience gibberish
“Chemtrails do not melt”
“Wake up ! how long can this ignorance continue on so many levels”
I agree, but for different reasons
Our search techniques differ, too

readmuch
@beachcomber2008
I don’t know probably when they were passing out BRAINS you chose EGO. I’ve watched this crap going on for over 10 years and listened to rhetoric such as yours as well. Your words mean nothing when common sense is all it takes to know the subject matter at hand. There is plenty of proof to show that your explaination is full of holes so don’t waste my time with your BS. Massage your intelligence with those who are not aware, there are plenty to choose from.

beachcomber2008
@readmuch Sadly for you, the “rhetoric” is SCIENCE

readmuch
@beachcomber2008
Same to you, for ignoring the SCIENCE that prove’s the falsehoods of your beliefs.
A cup 1/2 full seems to be a better way to look at things for me as I discover so many lies perpetuated and propagadized through avenues of deciet, so many believe in as it is I have no interest in educating anyone when multitudes of info is available to us all.
Taking advantage is a choice – or not!


beachcomber2008
@readmuch You guys exhibit the very behavior you accuse others of, and give yourselves a name the exact opposite of what you are
Also you can’t spell, and write with single figure ages and IQs
You in particular DON’T read much, which is why you call yourself READMUCH
Telling lies comes easy to you too, which probably explains why you cannot spot them either as you “seek” the “truth”
“All that glisters is not gold” Have fun with the iron pyrites, it’s for you
proves, propagandized, deceit – 😦

readmuch
@beachcomber2008
Mirror mirror on the wall who’s the fairest of them all.
You love to point the finger LOL what a waist of my time you are!
Good God 🙂 look at the time you have spent with so many others throwing out slanderous comments. WOW, how sad.
This started from your attack, prostituting your ideals of BS looking for attention suffering from mad blindness/reason, I’m sorry but you must be very lonely.
I’ve read plenty you clearly have not.
Be sure and proof read my spelling LOL


beachcomber2008
@readmuch NO
YOU started the attack
An attack on TRUTH
An attack on professional people in a professional industry
An attack designed to boost your self-image and self-esteem
An attack you believe to be without risk to yourself
How hypocritical
How WRONG
How SAD
LIFE is a zero-sum game
When you take away HONESTY
Then a DISHONEST life will be your reward
and a death with DISHONOR will be its close

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 yeah right, a ‘secret’ professional industry that maintains gagg orders to protect the public from the obvious public health risk aerosol dispersal imposes.
So you are resorting to threatening people now, how ‘professional’
Arguing with you is a condescension on our part.
You wants some truth dewd:
You’ll be licking the filthy feet of plutocrats for the rest of you existence.
threatening people, how civil, perhaps you hook up the trailer and hit the road pal.
abuse deserve ban


beachcomber2008
@WellSightedGentleman I need do nothing – it is your own behavior which threatens you
Life is important to each of us, for we only get one shot at it
Ignorance of what you do will NOT serve as a defense, and
responsibility for what you do, you will be unable to evade
You have NEVER stated HOW alumina gets “sprayed” by engines
because you DON’T KNOW. Nor does anyone! How is it done?
Tell this gas turbine expert how it’s done, bozo
“Somehow” doesn’t cut it
Nor does changing the subject to ORANGE

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 so im lying about the gas turbine industrialists am i?
As is MSM reports, publications from the UK House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee – the royal society declares disclosure!
Scroll down and see i already stated that particulates, dry, need not be sprayed, rather scattered. The ‘somehow’ is fairly straight forward with a little know-how. As an engineer, i thought you’d have a greater insight into the possibilities of inovation, but clearly you only echo mainstream


beachcomber2008
@WellSightedGentleman Of course, I see it now, SCATTERED, not SPRAYED
then like Kevin,”it only proves you to be a little ODD”
Do you suppose that fanjets look that way because they’ve a
little team of Irish navvies shovelling nano-aluminum out of the back?
They must be shovelling out all the time – it could be that when they get tired
THAT’s when you get a gap in the trail
Scatter, eh, and that scattering creates the persistent trails, does it?
Well, that’s enough ALTERNATIVE ENGINEERING ROFL

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 well if you had’nt spent all your time on the ytube trying to attack individuals for sharing this information but had read only ONE of the published documents that details the activities of the S.A.G ops you may not look so ignorant now. Of course you are not a conspiracy theorist, but you allegations are misplaced, why terrorise us – we only inform.
You are not very creative for an engineer, but i? guess most of you are just glorified maintanece men, only the few actually invent


readmuch
@beachcomber2008
your delusional everything you say is directed right back at you the true hipocrite, it’s laughable so blow it out your ass moron.
It’s amazing that only those you believe to be professional are! LOL stop it quit waisting my time your almost freaky.
I never welcomed your OPINION and never asked for it, so GO AWAY – LOL
Thank you 4 your example of lunacy and how much more I will reject democratic ideology of shove it down your throat. F O
sincerely


beachcomber2008
@readmuch I am here to say that this grim TV series is accidentally CORRECT when it says you are “conspiracy theorists”
But that is to give you all FAR too much credit
Your “strategy” is to pitch an argument with a slight technical advance on what you believe the public thinks, and then call ANY expert you confront an agent of the conspiracy itself
I get it, we ALL understand it
In fact you will adopt ANY action which produces “greater results”, won’t you?
And THAT behavior of yours PWNS you

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 all the information reiterated thoughout these videos is published through the MSM and official publications from those seeking to regulate and control the current S.A.G operations, not a ramshakled one off websites that invent their own apologetics for the immense atmospheric destruction created by the aviation industry. You can publish anything on wordpress, doesnt make it established, just as anyone can create an anonymous website and propogate anything they like
.

beachcomber2008
@WellSightedGentleman
“You can publish anything on WP”
Yes, indeed. And for NOTHING, to boot
“immense atmospheric destruction created by the aviation industry” is an assertion which isn’t borne out by ANY EVIDENCE, fortunately for the rest of us
I invite any1 curious to use the relevant search words and ADVANCED SEARCH & “-chemtrail -spray -aerosol -nwo -conspiracy” to filter out CNUT crap and leave you with meaningful & serious science research info
IF I were just a normal guy I’d use WP.. 🙂

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 …as you claim to be an expert in jet engines, perhaps you can be useful and share with us the nature of the jet fuel Stadis 450, maybe you could explain why it isnt sold anywhere else than in the US? maybe discuss the ‘trade-secret’ compounds within it?
Yes people need to become aware of the terrible pollution that the aviation idustry is creating, that industry is one of the most unregulated in the world.
Airlines, unlike us ‘normal’ folk dont pay tax on the fuel they use


beachcomber2008
@WellSightedGentleman
Stadis 450?
If you weren’t a moron you’d see that Stadis stands for
STAtic DIScharge” and is a clever way of rendering the fuel electrically-conductive and therefore unable to develop high voltages and sparking across pump nozzles on hot dry airport aprons
Unfortunately for you (again!) it’s a SAFETY FEATURE obviously used by the elite to make sure they don’t die, and really useful to Americans, especially in the desert belts of the US
Incidentally useful to the rest of us

WellSightedGentleman
@beachcomber2008 so you dont know what they put in it then…
some expert


beachcomber2008
@WellSightedGentleman Whatever the organic compound is, it has the ability to conduct electrons down its length. Colloidal graphite would work, for instance. As it has to pass through the engine it should combust to GAS and not to SOLIDS. It’s not important to me, 4 it is a TRACE compound used in small quantities, Redex is similar in gasoline. I’m no expert on that either. 🙂
I believe we’re ALL sufficiently expert to know that “Stadis” is a timewaster for you
so find something else, Eccles

readmuch
@beachcomber2008
Wow! It is incredible to see people of your caliber take advantage of the freedoms of speech to perpetuate lies created by the same people who created the word conspiracy theorist in the 1st place. Your agenda can only be to keep others as ignorant as possible to be sure and walk your walk. (Hitler comes to mind but only from the official story you bank your life on and that’s another issue.) Gotta love manipulation and you ware it well. To understand that, is very challenging
This video must have extreme truth to it for you to want to gain so much attention on it with so many others. I suppose they could take it down which I have seen them do many X’s with other videos but from a different view it would be better to allow this BS to go on in hopes it is not given a chance for others to know of the corruption going on right over our heads. Most are to ignorant to want to know, those of us whom have come out of the box are a great threat to the establishment.
Whether you’re a part of the problem of officialdom through Illuminate or secrete societies to better their interests, I don’t really give a damn. I would only hope that one day you might pay a heavy price for helping to ruin the lives of millions and mother nature/earth herself.
If you want to ignore the truth as the writers of this program have while bringing the issue to the forefront. Then you are a disgrace to all of humanity.
I will not believe you are to stupid to know.


beachcomber2008
@drmatt357 They have, of course
Several times since the 1950s
jazzroc.wordpress.com “A SINGLE LONG-RANGE FLIGHT AND AN OCEAN LINER!” links to a paper where ground- and satellite-based LIDAR was used to provide physical and chemical analysis of specific identified PERSISTENT trails left by commercial passenger aviation schedule flights. It found the trails to comprise THIRTY-FIVE POUNDS OF ICE CRYSTALS PER YARD OF FORWARD FLIGHT, seeded with microimpurities so dilute as to pass for fresh water


Drowzyy
@drmatt357 there have been people who have had its contents analyzed. i have a video of a local news channel who reports their findings on it. ima post it when i find it

beachcomber2008
@drmatt357 Scientists did, back in ’53
& then again & again up to the present
After they did this they ALWAYS wrote a paper about it too
The thing is, CNUTS cannot find these papers because they DO NOT WISH to find them, & LACK THE WIT to find them
CNUTS invent words like CHEMTRAIL AEROSOL SPRAY CHEM NWO SHEEPLE etc
Scientists, being normal, don’t
SO you use ADVANCED SEARCH and the EXCLUDE words facility, into which you stuff all those “chemtrailer” DIRTY words
And Robert is your father’s brother

mascar33
Black is white, up is down, now wash your prozac down with your beer and vote for your favorite idol.

STEVEDIGIBOYtv
As well as branding the term chemtrails (not geoengineering) in this episode for average peeps think of the fear it puts in professionals thinking of going public or even discussing it. That may be the ultimate purpose,

beachcomber2008
@STEVEDIGIBOYtv Whenever you look for confirmation of a theory that you hold yet ignore, or fail to find, DISCONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE, then you proceed down a path of foolishness and pseudoscience. NO professional thinker, be he an architect, engineer, biologist, chemist, physicist or mathematician would EVER make such a serious mistake. It’s a scientific world we live in, and its collapse beneath the crushing weight of scientific ignorance and antiscience which you profess would certainly kill you

bab8649
More propaganda…  we know the truth ass holes.

MsReefs
G’day from Melbourne Australia. The media are doing the same downunder.. every reality show you see or advertising that has sky in the background is mostly full of chemclouds but they never mention them. Even our radio stations bring out the spin doctors when concerned citizens ring them reporting horizon to horizon chemtrails. Good luck to you all trying to alert media or authorities!

RTBreal
If this isn’t the most obvious brainwashing, …. wow hahahah maybe some sheeple will look into it… nahh.

swamigi
Great video and nice exsample how they programe people

RussAimz
Thanks for posting this vid. Wow, first time that I’ve heard the word Chemtrail on TV and main stream too.

STEVEDIGIBOYtv
Glad I do not have cable, glad you made this great clip!

kimdaviscali
Wow, and they even got some Apple product placement in with the iTampon, I mean iPad…. today Van was HAMMERED with chemy’s… it would have been an AWESOME day had it not been dumped on …sigh

TIGITOE
OMG – yeah you fully right !!!

Established

with 2 comments

FALLACIES – ESTABLISHED – EURODELE – EVER – EVERYTHING – EVIL – EXHAUST – EXPONENTIAL TIMES – EXTREME – FIRST CONTRAIL PHOTO – FORTRESSES – FRACTALS IN NATURE – FROZEMAN – FUN IN THE SUN
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…

FALLACIES

Making an argument

Although often we make arguments to try to learn about and understand the world around us, sometimes we hope to persuade others of our ideas and convince them to try or believe them, just as they might want to do likewise with us.  To achieve this we might use a good measure of rhetoric, knowingly or otherwise.  The term itself dates back to Plato, who used it to differentiate philosophy from the kind of speech and writing that politicians and others used to persuade or influence opinion.  Probably the most famous study of rhetoric was by Aristotle, Plato’s pupil, and over the years philosophers have investigated it to try to discover the answer to questions like: What is the best (or most effective) way to persuade people of something?  Is the most convincing argument also the best choice to make?  Is there any link between the two?  What are the ethical implications of rhetoric?  Although we might take a dim view of some of the attempts by contemporary politicians to talk their way out of difficult situations with verbal manouevrings that stretch the meaning of words beyond recognition, hoping we’ll forget what the original question was, nevertheless there are times when we need to make a decision and get others to agree with it.  Since we don’t always have the luxury of sitting down to discuss matters, we might have to be less than philosophical in our arguments to get what we want.  This use of rhetoric comes with the instructional manual for any relationship and is par for the course in discussions of the relative merits of sporting teams.
In a philosophical context, then, we need to bear in mind that arguments may be flawed and that rhetorical excesses can be used to make us overlook that fact.  When trying to understand, strengthen or critique an idea, we can use a knowledge of common errors – deliberate or not – found in reasoning.  We call these fallacies: arguments that come up frequently that go wrong in specific ways and are typically used to mislead someone into accepting a false conclusion (although sometimes they are just honest mistakes).  Although fallacies were studied in the past and since, as was said previously, there has been something of a revival in recent times and today people speak of critical thinking, whereby we approach arguments and thinking in general in a critical fashion (hence the name), looking to evaluate steps in reasoning and test conclusions for ourselves.

Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are common errors of reasoning.  If an argument commits a logical fallacy, then the reasons that it offers don’t prove the argument’s conclusion.  (Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the conclusion is false, just that these particular reasons don’t show that it’s true.) There are literally dozens of logical fallacies (and dozens of fallacy web-sites out there that explain them).

Fallacies of Distraction

False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three or more options.

From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false.

Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn.

Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition.

Appeals to Motives in Place of Support

Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force.

Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy.

Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences.

Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author.
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true.

Changing the Subject

Attacking the Person:
(1) the person’s character is attacked.
(2) the person’s circumstances are noted.
(3) the person does not practise what is preached.

Appeal to Authority:
(1) the authority is not an expert in the field.
(2) experts in the field disagree.
(3) the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious.

Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named.

Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion.

Inductive Fallacies

Hasty Generalization:  the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population.

Unrepresentative Sample:  the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole.

False Analogy:  the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.

Slothful Induction:  the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.

Fallacy of Exclusion:  evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.

Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms

Accident:  a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception.

Converse Accident :  an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply.

Causal Fallacies

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc:  because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other.

Joint effect:  one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause.

Insignificant:  one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect.

Wrong Direction:  the direction between cause and effect is reversed.

Complex Cause:  the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect.

Missing the Point

Begging the Question:  the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.

Irrelevant Conclusion:  an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion.

Straw Man:  the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition’s best argument.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Amphiboly:  the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations.

Accent:  the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says.

Category Errors

Composition:  because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property.

Division:  because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property.

Non Sequitur

Affirming the Consequent:  any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A.

Denying the Antecedent:  any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B.

Inconsistency:  asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true.

Stolen Concept:  using a concept while attacking a concept on which it logically depends.

•Ad Hominem
•Appeal to Authority
•Appeal to History
•Appeal to Popularity
•Circularity
•Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
•Correlation not Causation
•Inconsistency
•Generalisation
•Restricting the Options
•Slippery Slope
•Straw Man
•Tu Quoque
•Weak Analogy

You need to be able to recognise each of these fallacies, and also to explain what is wrong with arguments that commit them.  Once you’ve learned what the fallacies are, pay attention and see if you can spot any of them being committed on TV, the radio, or in the press.  it’s fascinating to see how the conspiracy-theorist’s minds work.  They seem to be especially fond of (all of them, really):

Biased Sample
Perhaps the most basic error in the use of empirical data is simply “misrepresenting” it.  This can occur in a number of ways.  One possibility is simply deliberate distortion, claiming that a data set proves something when it doesn’t.  If people have an agenda, and set out to prove it, they may reach for the first bit of evidence they can find that even seems to fit their position.  Closer examination may show that the evidence isn’t quite as supportive as was first claimed.  Alternatively, someone confronted with potentially problematic evidence for their position may misrepresent it to make the problem go away.  A similar error can be committed accidentally.  Sometimes when people look at a data-set they see what they want or expect to see, rather than what is actually there.  The effect of our presuppositions on our interpretation of evidence should not be underestimated.  It can lead to conclusions being drawn which simply aren’t supported by the evidence.  A further way in which data may be misrepresented is if it is presented selectively.  A varied data set can be described focusing in on certain sections of it.  The data set as a whole is thus misrepresented; it is effectively replaced by a new set comprising of unrepresentative data.

Insufficient Data
A common problem with evidence sampling is drawing conclusions from “insufficient data”.  This is related to the generalisation fallacy.  To prove a theory, it is not enough to observe a couple of instances that seem to support it.  If we want to know what percentage of the population take holidays abroad, we can’t find out by asking five people, calculating the percentage, and applying the result to the population as a whole.  We need more data.  This raises the question: how much data is enough?  At what point does a data-set become sufficiently large to draw conclusions from it?  Of course, having enough data is not a black-or-white affair; there is no magic number of observations which, when reached, means that any conclusion drawn is adequately supported.  Rather, sufficiency of data is a matter of degree; the more evidence the better.  The amount of confidence that we can have in an inference grows gradually as more evidence is brought in to support it.

Unrepresentative Data
Simply having enough data is not enough to guarantee that a conclusion drawn is warranted; it is also important that the data is drawn from a variety of sources and obtained under a variety of different conditions.  A survey of voting intentions conducted outside the local Conservative Club is not going to provide an accurate guide to who is going to win the next general election.  A disproportionate number of people in the vicinity will be Conservative voters, and so the results of the survey will be skewed in favour of the Tory party.  The sample is not representative.  A survey to find out what proportion of the population own mobile phones would be similarly (though less obviously) flawed if it were conducted near a Sixth-Form College.  The sample of the population would be skewed towards teenagers, who are more likely than average to own mobile phones, distorting the figures.  Collecting data from a variety of sources is one thing; collecting it under a variety of conditions is another.  A survey of what type of vehicles use local roads conducted at a variety of locations, but always at the same time of day, would not yield representative data.  Conducting it during rush-hour would mean that commuter-traffic would be over-represented in the results; conducting it in the evenings might mean that public transport would under-represented in the results.  Differences in what types of drivers drive at what times would need to be factored in when designing the experiment.  The quality of a data-set is thus not just a matter of how much data it contains, but also of how representative that data is likely to be.  To minimise the problem of “unrepresentative data”, evidence must be collected from as wide a range of sources as possible, and under as varied conditions as possible.

Appeal to Force
(Argumentum Ad Baculum or the “Might-Makes-Right” Fallacy): This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion.  It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader.  If the debate is about whether or not 2+2=4, an opponent’s argument that he will smash your nose in if you don’t agree with his claim doesn’t change the truth of an issue.  Logically, this consideration has nothing to do with the points under consideration.  The fallacy is not limited to threats of violence, however.  The fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash–financial, professional, and so on.  Example: “Superintendent, you should cut the school budget by $16,000.  I need not remind you that past school boards have fired superintendents who cannot keep down costs.”  While intimidation may force the superintendent to conform, it does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget was the most beneficial for the school or community.  Lobbyists use this method when they remind legislators that they represent so many thousand votes in the legislators’ constituencies and threaten to throw the politician out of office if he doesn’t vote the way they want.  Teachers use this method if they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as the teachers, or risk failing the class.  Note that it is isn’t a logical fallacy, however, to assert that students must fulfill certain requirements in the course or risk failing the class!

Appeal to Popularity
The “appeal to popularity fallacy” is the fallacy of arguing that because lots of people believe something it must be true.  Popular opinion is not always a good guide to truth; even ideas that are widely accepted can be false.  An example is: “Pretty much everyone believes in some kind of higher power, be it God or something else.  Therefore atheism is false.”

Two million people watching does not mean a video is true.  Just because a lot of people believe something, does not make it true; consequently, just because a lot of people do not believe or understand something, does not make it false.
Faced with waning public support for the military escalation in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that the war is worth fighting and signaled for the first time he may be willing to send more troops after months of publicly resisting a significant increase.  Gates urged patience amid polls showing rising disenchantment among the public with the war effort, saying the American military presence in Afghanistan was necessary to derail terrorists.” – Associated Press, Sept 3rd, 2009.
The appeal to popularity is almost automatically controversial at times, as sometimes the right move is unclear or sophisticated.  Robert Gates is choosing to go against the grain because he feels he is justified by a greater cause than appeasing popular opinion.
Be also careful of an Appeal to Unpopularity.  A lot of pseudoscience claims they are being persecuted by the mainstream, and there is thus a conspiracy to keep their knowledge hidden.  The number one way to avoid both of these appeals is to stick to the data and ignore the marketing.  I’ll give you a hint: real science does not depend on flashy graphics or bold typeface every other word, just to get your attention because the truth can speak for itself.  Go against the flow…
Science is all about defeating the Appeal to Popularity.  The idea is that people are inherently flawed and easily fooled.  The best way to know something is to try your damnedest to prove it wrong.  If you actually prove something right, make sure you send it to numerous other scientists and see if they can prove you wrong.  It’s humbling and time consuming, but it is the reason your monitor is beaming photons into your optical lobe right now.  Science struggles with acceptance because the populace usually despises its cruel, sometimes boring conclusions.  No gods on Olympus?  Fooey!  No psychic healing?  Frogswallop!  Besides, I don’t want to be a loner with obscure views, so I’m going to go with the flow… and if I’m wrong, then everyone’s wrong, so who cares?
Think of Mob Rule.  Imagine you are a black man in the 1700’s and some racist white folk are about to lynch you for the crime of being born.  Almost everywhere you turn, you find nothing but racism.  You know it’s absurd, all the claims they make about you, since you know yourself better than their superficial judgments.  You have facts, and evidence; they have hate, and ignorance.  Now do you care?  Sometimes it’s dangerous to go against the flow, there are bullies at every stage in life.  The cruelty of others is endless, and thus the will to fit in is powerful.  It is hard to resist the “Appeal to Popularity”.  The key is to always question the facts, to buy based on reality not perception.  Are you sick and your friend is suggesting some sort of weird “new age” treat­ment?  Ask an expert, read some journals, examine some tests.
The Appeal to Popularity is usually a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It usually starts off as a perception with a low sample size, and grows larger not because it is efficient at what it claims, but is effective at marketing itself, since it is essentially a feed­back loop of ever increasing loudness.  Your turn… Can you think of a moment where you, or someone you know of, fell for the “Appeal to Popularity”?

Circularity
“Circular” arguments are arguments that assume what they’re trying to prove.  If the conclusion of an argument is also one of its reasons, then the argument is circular.  The problem with arguments of this kind is that they don’t get you anywhere.  If you already believe the reasons offered to persuade you that the conclusion is true, then you already believe that the conclusion is true, so there’s no need to try to convince you.  If, on the other hand, you don’t already believe that the conclusion is true, then you won’t believe the reasons given in support of it, so won’t be convinced by the argument.  In either case, you’re left believing exactly what you believed before.  The argument has accomplished nothing.  An example is: “You can trust me; I wouldn’t lie to you.”

Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
“Necessary conditions” are conditions which must be fulfilled in order for an event to come about.  It is impossible for an event to occur unless the necessary conditions for it are fulfilled.  For example, a necessary condition of you passing your A-level Critical Thinking is that you enrol on the course.  Without doing so, there’s no way that you can get the qualification.  “Sufficient conditions” are conditions which, if fulfilled, guarantee that an event will come to pass.  It is impossible for an event not to occur if the sufficient conditions for it are fulfilled.  For example, a sufficient condition of you passing an exam is that you get enough marks.  If you do that, there’s no way that you can fail.  Some arguments confuse necessary and sufficient conditions.  Such arguments fail to prove their conclusions.  An example is: “People who don’t practise regularly always fail music exams.  I’ve practised regularly though, so I’ll be all right.”  Not having practised regularly may be a sufficient condition for failing a music exam, but it isn’t necessary.  People who have practised regularly may fail anyway, due to nerves, perhaps, or simply a lack of talent.

Correlation not Causation
The “correlation not causation” fallacy is committed when one reasons that just because two things are found together (i.e. are correlated), there must be a direct causal connection between them.  Often arguments of this kind seem compelling, but it’s important to consider other possible explanations before concluding that one thing must have caused the other.  An example is: “Since you started seeing that girl your grades have gone down.  She’s obviously been distracting you from your work, so you mustn’t see her anymore.”

Inconsistency
An argument is “inconsistent” if makes two or more contradictory claims.  If an argument is inconsistent, then we don’t have to accept its conclusion.  This is because if claims are contradictory, then at least one of them must be false.  An argument that rests on contradictory claims must therefore rest on at least one false claim, and arguments that rest on false claims prove nothing.  In an argument that makes contradictory claims, whichever of those claims turns out to be false the arguer won’t have proved their conclusion.  This means that it is reasonable to dismiss an inconsistent argument even without finding out which of its contradictory claims is false.  Examples are: “Murder is the worst crime that there is.  Life is precious; no human being should take it away.  That’s why it’s important that we go to any length necessary to deter would-be killers, including arming the police to the teeth and retaining the death penalty.”  This argument both affirms that no human being should take the life of another, and that we should retain the death penalty.  Until this inconsistency is ironed out of the argument, it won’t be compelling. Also: “We don’t tell the government what to do, so they shouldn’t tell us what to do!” These were the words of an angry smoker interviewed on the BBC News following the introduction of a ban on smoking in enclosed public places in England.  Her claim that she doesn’t tell the government what to do is instantly refuted as she proceeds to do just that.

Generalisation
Arguments often use specific cases to support general conclusions.  For example, we might do a quick survey of Premiership footballers, note that each of the examples we’ve considered is vain and ego-centric, and conclude that they all are.  (Or we might offer one example of an argument that moves from the specific to the general as evidence that others do the same.)  We need to be careful with such arguments.  In order for a set of evidence to support a general conclusion, the evidence must meet certain conditions.  For example, it must be drawn from a sufficient number of cases, and the specific cases must be representative.  The more limited or unrepresentative the evidence sample, the less convincing the argument will be.  Arguments that base conclusions on insufficient evidence commit the “generalisation fallacy”.  Examples are: “Smoking isn’t bad for you; my grandad smoked thirty a day for his whole life and lived to be 92.” and “Estate agents are well dodgy. When we moved house… [insert horror story about an estate agent inventing fake offers to push up the sale price].”

Restricting the Options
We are sometimes faced with a number of possible views or courses of action.  By a process of elimination, we may be able to eliminate these options one-by-one until only one is left.  We are then forced to accept the only remaining option.  Arguments that do this, but fail to consider all of the possible options, excluding some at the outset, commit the “restricting the options” fallacy.  An example is: “Many gifted children from working class backgrounds are let down by the education system in this country.  Parents have a choice between paying sky-high fees to send their children to private schools, and the more affordable option of sending their children to inferior state schools.  Parents who can’t afford to pay private school fees are left with state schools as the only option.  This means that children with great potential are left languishing in comprehensives“.  Quite apart from any problems with the blanket dismissal of all comprehensives as inferior, this argument fails to take into account all of the options available to parents.  For the brightest students, scholarships are available to make private school more affordable, so there is a third option not considered above: applying for scholarships to private schools.  Unless this option can be eliminated, e.g. by arguing that there are too few scholarships for all gifted children to benefit from them, along with other options such as homeschooling, the conclusion that children with great potential have no alternative but to go to comprehensives is unproven.

Ad Hominem
“Ad hominem” is Latin for “against the man”. The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself.  Ad hominems can simply take the form of abuse: e.g. “Don’t listen to him, he’s a jerk”.  Any attack on irrelevant biographical details of the arguer rather than on his argument counts as an ad hominem, however: e.g. “that article must be rubbish as it wasn’t published in a peer-reveiwed journal”; “his claim must be false as he has no relevant expertise”; “he says that we should get more exercise but he could stand to lose a few pounds himself”.

Tu Quoque
“Tu quoque” is Latin for “you too”.  The tu quoque fallacy involves using other people’s faults as an excuse for one’s own, reasoning that because someone or everyone else does something, it’s okay for us to do it.  This, of course, doesn’t follow.  Sometimes other people have shortcomings, and we ought to do better than them.  We can be blamed for emulating other people’s faults.

Straw Man
“Straw man” arguments are arguments that misrepresent a position in order to refute it. Unfortunately, adopting this strategy means that only the misrepresentation of the position is refuted; the real position is left untouched by the argument.  An example is: “Christianity teaches that as long as you say ‘Sorry’ afterwards, it doesn’t matter what you do.  Even the worst moral crimes can be quickly and easily erased by simply uttering a word.  This is absurd.  Even if a sinner does apologise for what they’ve done, the effects of their sin are often here to stay.  For example, if someone repents of infanticide, that doesn’t bring the infant back to life.  Christians are clearly out of touch with reality.”  This argument distorts Christianity in a couple of ways.  First, it caricatures repentance as simply saying the word ‘Sorry’.  Second, it implies that Christianity teaches that all of the negative effects of sin are erased when one confesses, which it doesn’t.  Having distorted Christianity, the argument then correctly points out that the distortion is ludicrous, and quite reasonably rejects it as “out of touch with reality”.   The argument, however, completely fails to engage with what the Church actually teaches, and so its conclusion has nothing to do with real Christianity.

Appeal to Authority
An “appeal to an authority” is an argument that attempts to establish its conclusion by citing a perceived authority who claims that the conclusion is true.  In all cases, appeals to authority are fallacious; no matter how well-respected someone is, it is possible for them to make a mistake.  The mere fact that someone says that something is true therefore doesn’t prove that it is true.  The worst kinds of appeal to authority, however, are those where the alleged authority isn’t an authority on the subject matter in question.  People speaking outside of their area of expertise certainly aren’t to be trusted on matters of any importance without further investigation.

Appeal to History
There are two types of “appeal to history”.  The first is committed by arguments that use past cases as a guide to the future.  This is the predictive appeal to history fallacy.  Just because something has been the case to date, doesn’t mean that it will continue to be the case.  This is not to say that we can’t use the past as a guide to the future, merely that predictions of the future based on the past need to be treated with caution.  The second type of appeal to history is committed when it is argued that because something has been done a particular way in the past, it ought to be done that way in the future.  This is the normative appeal to history fallacy, the appeal to tradition.  The way that things have always been done is not necessarily the best way to do them.  It may be that circumstances have changed, and that what used to be best practice is no longer.  Alternatively, it may be that people have been consistently getting it wrong in the past.  In either case, using history as a model for future would be a mistake.  An example is: at the start of the 2006 Premiership season, some might have argued, “Under Jose Mourinho, Chelsea have been unstoppable in the Premiership; the other teams might as well give up on the league now and concentrate on the Cup competitions.”

Weak Analogy
Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison between two cases.  They examine a known case, and extend their findings there to an unknown case.  Thus we might reason that because we find it difficult to forgive a girlfriend or boyfriend who cheated on us (a known case), it must be extremely difficult for someone to forgive a spouse who has had an affair (an unknown case).  This kind of argument relies on the cases compared being similar.   The argument is only as strong as that comparison.  If the two cases are dissimilar in important respects, then the argument commits the “weak analogy” fallacy.

Slippery Slope
Sometimes one event can set of a chain of consequences; one thing leads to another, as the saying goes.  The “slippery slope” fallacy is committed by arguments that reason that because the last link in the chain is undesirable, the first link is equally undesirable.  This type of argument is not always fallacious.  If the first event will necessarily lead to the undesirable chain of consequences, then there is nothing wrong with inferring that we ought to steer clear of it.  However, if it is possible to have the first event without the rest, then the slippery slope fallacy is committed.  An example is: “If one uses sound judgement, then it can occasionally be safe to exceed the speed limit.  However, we must clamp down on speeding, because when people break the law it becomes a habit, and escalates out of control.  The more one breaks the law, the less respect one has for it.  If one day you break the speed limit, then the next you’ll go a little faster again, and pretty soon you’ll be driving recklessly, endangering the lives of other road-users.  For this reason, we should take a zero-tolerance approach to speeding, and stop people before they reach dangerous levels.”

Appeal to Ridicule
The “appeal to ridicule” is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.”  This line of “reasoning” has the following form:  X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).  Therefore claim C is false.  This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false.  This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”  It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non-fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim.  One form of this line of reasoning is known as a “reductio ad absurdum” (“reducing to absurdity”).  In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim.  For example: “Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist.  However, this is absurd.  Think about this: white males are a minority in the world.  Given Bill’s claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists.  Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations.”  Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.  Some examples of “appeal to ridicule” are: “Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition fees, but that is just laughable.” and “Support the ERA?  Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks!  Hah! Hah!” and “Those wacky conservatives!  They think a strong military is the key to peace!”

Post hoc ergo propter hoc
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc”, Latin for “after this, therefore because (on account) of this”, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, “Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.”  It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.  It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.  “Post hoc” is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality.  The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.  Most familiarly, many cases of superstitious religious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.

Alias: Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.  Translation: “After this, therefore because of this”, Latin.  Type: Non Causa Pro Causa Forms.  Event C happened immediately prior to event E.  Therefore, C caused E.  Events of type C happen immediately prior to events of type E.  Therefore, events of type C cause events of type E.
Example:  “The only policy that effectively reduces public shootings is right-to-carry laws. Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime.  In the 31 states that have passed right-to-carry laws since the mid-1980s, the number of multiple-victim public shootings and other violent crimes has dropped dramatically.  Murders fell by 7.65%, rapes by 5.2%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. … Evidence shows that even state and local handgun control laws work.  For example, in 1974 Massachusetts passed the Bartley-Fox Law, which requires a special license to carry a handgun outside the home or business.  The law is supported by a mandatory prison sentence. Studies by Glenn Pierce and William Bowers of Northeastern University documented that after the law was passed handgun homicides in Massachusetts fell 50% and the number of armed robberies dropped 35%”.
Source: “The Media Campaign Against Gun Ownership”, The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 33, No. 11, June 2000. Source: “Fact Card”, Handgun Control, Inc.

Analysis of the Examples

Counter-Example:  Roosters crow just before the sun rises.  Therefore, roosters crowing cause the sun to rise.

Exposition:  The Post Hoc Fallacy is committed whenever one reasons to a causal conclusion based solely on the supposed cause preceding its “effect”.  Of course, it is a necessary condition of causation that the cause precede the effect, but it is not a sufficient condition.  Thus, post hoc evidence may suggest the hypothesis of a causal relationship, which then requires further testing, but it is never sufficient evidence on its own.

Exposure:  Post Hoc also manifests itself as a bias towards jumping to conclusions based upon coincidences.  Superstition and magical thinking include Post Hoc thinking; for instance, when a sick person is treated by a witch doctor, or a faith healer, and becomes better afterward, superstitious people conclude that the spell or prayer was effective.  Since most illnesses will go away on their own eventually, any treatment will seem effective by Post Hoc thinking.  This is why it is so important to test proposed remedies carefully, rather than jumping to conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence.

Analysis of Examples:
These two examples show how the same fallacy is often exploited by opposite sides in a debate, in this case, the gun control debate.  There are clear claims of causal relationships in these arguments.  In the anti-gun control example, it is claimed that so-called “right-to-carry” laws “effectively reduce” public shootings and violent crime.  This claim is supported by statistics on falling crime rates since the mid-1980s in states that have passed such laws.  In the pro-gun control example, it is claimed that state and local gun control laws “work”, presumably meaning that the laws play a causal role in lowering handgun crime.  Again, the claim is supported by statistics on falling crime rates in one state. However, the evidence in neither case is sufficient to support the causal conclusion.
For instance, violent crime in general fell in the United States in the period from the mid-1980s to the present, and – for all that we can tell from the anti-gun control argument – it may have fallen at the same or higher rates in states that did not pass “right-to-carry” laws.  Since the argument does not supply us with figures for the states without such laws, we cannot do the comparison.
Similarly, the pro-gun control argument does not make it clear when Massachusett’s drop in crime occurred, except that it was “after” – “post hoc” – the handgun control law was passed.  Also, comparative evidence of crime rates over the same period in states that did not pass such a law is missing.  The very fact that comparative information is not supplied in each argument is suspicious, since it suggests that it would have weakened the case.
Another point raised by these examples is the use of misleadingly precise numbers, specifically, “7.65%” and “5.2%” in the anti-gun control example.  Especially in social science studies, percentage precision to the second decimal place is meaningless, since it is well within the margin of error on such measurements.  It is a typical tactic of pseudo-scientific argumentation to use overly-precise numbers in an attempt to impress and intimidate the audience.  A real scientist would not use such bogus numbers, which casts doubt upon the status of the source in the example.  The pro-gun control argument, to its credit, does not commit this fallacy.  This suggests, though it doesn’t nail down, an appeal to misleading authority in the anti-gun control one.

Sibling Fallacy:  Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Source:  T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) (Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 131-132.

Resources:
Julian Baggini, “Post Hoc Fallacies”, Bad Moves.
Robert Todd Carroll, “Post Hoc Fallacy”, Skeptic’s Dictionary.

Moving the goalpost
“Moving the goalpost”, also known as “raising the bar”, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.  In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.  This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.  Moving the goalpost can also take the form of reverse feature creep, in which features are eliminated from a product, and the goal of the project is redefined in such a way as to exclude the eliminated features.  An example is: Bella Donna claims that Sybil Antwhisper, her room-mate, is not sharing the housework equitably.  Sybil tells Bella to go away and itemize and record who does what household tasks.  If Bella can show that she does more housework than Sybil, then Sybil will mend her ways.  A week passes and Bella shows Sybil clear evidence that Sybil does not “pull her weight” around the house.  Sybil (the advocate) responds: “That’s all very well, but I have more work and study commitments than you do – you should do more housework than me… it’s the total work of all kinds that matters, not just housework.”  In this example the implied agreement between Bella and Sybil at the outset was that the amount of housework done by both parties should be about the same.  When Sybil was confronted by the evidence however, she quickly and unilaterally “changed the terms of the debate”.  She did this because the evidence was against her version of events and she was about to lose the argument on the issue as originally defined.  By “moving the goalposts”, Sybil is seeking to change the terms of the dispute to avoid a defeat on the original issue in contention.  The term is often used in business to imply bad faith on the part of those setting goals for others to meet, by arbitrarily making additional demands just as the initial ones are about to be met.  Accusations of this form of abuse tend to occur when there are unstated assumptions that are obvious to one party but not to another.  For example, killing all the fleas on a cat is very easy without the usually unstated condition that the cat remain alive and in good health.

Non sequitur in normal speech
The term “non sequitur” is often used in everyday speech and reasoning to describe a statement in which premise and conclusion are totally unrelated but which is used as if they were.  An example might be: “If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me.”  However, there is no actual relation between buying a cell phone and the love of all people.  This kind of reasoning is often used in advertising to trigger an emotional purchase.  Other examples include: “If you buy this car, your family will be safer.”  (While some cars are safer than others, it is possible to decrease instead of increase your family’s overall safety.) and “If you do not buy this type of pet food, you are neglecting your dog.” (Premise and conclusion are once again unrelated; this is also an example of an appeal to emotion.) and “I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining.”  (The conclusion is a non-sequitur because the sun can shine while it is raining.)

Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
The “fallacy of the undistributed middle” is a logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.  It is thus a syllogistic fallacy.  More specifically it is also a form of non sequitur.  It takes the following form: All Zs are Bs.  Y is a B.  Therefore, Y is a Z.  It may or may not be the case that “all Zs are Bs,” but in either case it is irrelevant to the conclusion.  What is relevant to the conclusion is whether it is true that “all Bs are Zs,” which is ignored in the argument.  Note that if the terms were swapped around in either the conclusion or the first co-premise or if the first premise was rewritten to “All Zs can only be Bs” then it would no longer be a fallacy, although it could still be unsound.  This also holds for the following two logical fallacies which are similar in nature to the fallacy of the undistributed middle and also non sequiturs.  An example can be given as follows:  Men are human.  Mary is human.  Therefore, Mary is a man.

Affirming the Consequent
Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur: If A is true, then B is true.  B is true.  Therefore, A is true.  Even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises.  This sort of non sequitur is also called “affirming the consequent”.  An example of affirming the consequent would be: If I am a human (A) then I am a mammal. (B)  I am a mammal. (B)  Therefore, I am a human. (A)  While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises: I could be another type of mammal without also being a human.  The truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of its premises – it is a ‘non sequitur’.  Affirming the consequent is essentially the same as the fallacy of the undistributed middle, but using propositions rather than set membership.

Denying the Antecedent
Denying the antecedent, another common non sequitur. is this: If A is true, then B is true.  A is false.  Therefore B is false.  While the conclusion can indeed be false, this cannot be linked to the premise since the statement is a non sequitur.  This is called denying the antecedent.  An example of denying the antecedent would be:  If I am in Tokyo, I am in Japan.  I am not in Tokyo.  Therefore, I am not in Japan.  Whether or not the speaker is in Japan cannot be derived from the premise.  He could either be outside Japan or anywhere in Japan except Tokyo.

Affirming a Disjunct
Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy when in the following form: A is true or B is true.  B is true.  Therefore, A is not true.  The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are both true.  This fallacy stems from the stated definition of or in propositional logic to be inclusive.  An example of affirming a disjunct would be: I am at home or I am in the city.  I am at home.  Therefore, I am not in the city.  While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises.  For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could have her home in the city, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false.  This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

Denying a conjunct
Denying a conjunct is a fallacy when in the following form: It is not the case that both A is true and B is true.  B is not true.  Therefore, A is true.  The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are both false.  An example of denying a conjunct would be:  It is not the case that both I am at home and I am in the city.  I am not at home.  Therefore, I am in the city.  While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises.  For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could neither be at home nor in the city, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false.  This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

Logically Fallacious Fallacies

by James W. Benham and Thomas J. Marlowe

Ad hominem arguments are the tools of scoundrels and blackguards.  Therefore, they are invalid.
If you had any consideration for my feelings, you wouldn’t argue from an appeal to pity.
What would your mother say if you argued from an appeal to sentiment?
I don’t understand how anyone could argue from an appeal to incredulity.
If you argue from an appeal to force, I’ll have to beat you up.
You are far too intelligent to accept an argument based on an appeal to vanity.
Everyone knows that an argument from appeal to popular opinion is invalid.
Circular reasoning means assuming what you’re trying to prove.  This form of argument is invalid becuase it’s circular.
As Aristotle said, arguments from an appeal to authority are invalid.
Post hoc ergo proptor hoc arguments often precede false conclusions.  Hence, this type of argument is invalid.
Using the Argumentum ad Consequentiam makes for unpleasant discussions.  Hence, it must be a logical fallacy.
The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. If three repetitions of this principle haven’t convinced you, I’ll just have to say it again: the argumentun ad nauseum is invalid.
Ancient wisdom teaches that the argumentum ad antiquitatem is invalid.
An argument is emotional and no substitute for reasoned discussion.  But proof by equivocation is a kind of argument.  Thus, a proof by equivocation is no substitute for a valid proof.
If we accept slippery slope arguments, we may have to accept other forms of weak arguments.  Eventually, we won’t be able to reason at all.  Hence, we must reject slippery slope arguments as invalid.
A real logician would never make an argument based on the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.  If anyone who claims to be logical and makes arguments based on this fallacy, you may rest assured that s/he is not a real logician.
An argument based on a logical fallacy often leads to a false conclusion.  Affirming the consequent often leads to a false conclusion.  Therefore, affirming the consequent is a fallacy.
The fallacy of the undistributed middle is often used by politicians, and they often try to mislead people, so undistributed middles are obviously misleading.
Reasoning by analogy is like giving a starving man a cookbook.
Non sequitur is a Latin term, so that’s a fallacy too.
And I bet the gambler’s fallacy is also invalid – I seem to be on a roll!

In a way, it makes me sad — because some of these folks are clearly intelligent and well-spoken… but haven’t been armed with even a basic grounding in scientific method or the traps of various logical fallacies.  It says quite a lot about our educational system.

References
Barker, Stephen F.  The Elements of Logic. Fifth Edition.  McGraw-Hill, 1989.
Cedarblom, Jerry, and Paulsen, David W.  Critical Reasoning.  Third Edition.  Wadsworth, 1991.
Copi, Irving M., and Cohen, Carl.  Introduction to Logic.  Eighth Edition.  Macmillan, 1990.
Rand, Ayn Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.  Second Edition. Penguin, 1990.
Links
Brian Yoder’s Fallacy Zoo
Charles Ess, Informal Fallacies
Fallacies: The Dark Side of Debate
The Galilean Library Guide to Fallacies
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacy entry
Logical Fallacies .Info
Michael LaBossiere’s Fallacies Introduction
Philosophy.Lander.Edu, Introduction to Logic, Informal Fallacies
Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies
Wheeler’s Logical Fallacies Handlist

ESTABLISHED

am-i-blocked

I can’t reply on drewswebsite because he has BLOCKED me.  He’s the seventieth site to do this so far.

There could be THREE OR MORE transparent layers of air of DIFFERENT HUMIDITIES, only ONE of which condenses a “VAPOR TRAIL”, within the short-haul civil aircraft band between 30 and 35 thousand feet. Layer thicknesses of differing humidities are frequently only hundreds of feet thick and ARE CONSTANTLY VARIABLE in speed, direction, temperature and humidity. Aircraft are spaced ten miles apart on the same level for a particular route, and conflicting routes are nowadays 1000ft above or below each other.

So you’ll see SOME planes laying vapor trails while others don’t – it depends WHICH transparent stratospheric layer a particular plane is flying through.

Jet exhausts are NITROGEN, STEAM, and CARBON DIOXIDE at 2000 deg C (with traces of NOX and SOX). This cools RAPIDLY in an ambient stratospheric air temp of between -40 and -80 deg C to a FINE “WHITE SMOKE” OF ICE CRYSTALS in N2 and CO2.

If the stratospheric layer it is in is SUPERSATURATED (more than 100% humid), the ice crystals accrete more ice, get heavier, and fall faster.

If the stratospheric layer it is in is SATURATED (exactly 100% humid), the ice crystals REMAIN, but SLOWLY DIFFUSE TO FILL the stratolayer. The powerful WAVE VORTEX generated by the aircraft wing continues for tens of minutes after the aircraft has passed by, slowing to a stop very slowly.

If the stratospheric layer it is in is BELOW SATURATED (less than 100% humid), the ice crystals will slowly SUBLIME back into vapor AND THE TRAIL WILL DISAPPEAR.

The 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 THE CONTRAIL EITHER APPEARS OR DISAPPEARS as it enters a NEW stratospheric layer with a DIFFERENT HUMIDITY. 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 vapour trail in it. Typically stratospheric layers begin ABOVE the TROPOPAUSE, which is where our ground level weather STOPS. It is NOT POSSIBLE TO PREDICT FROM TABLES STRATOSPHERIC LAYER TEMPERATURES FROM GROUND LEVEL TEMPERATURES.

The stratospheric 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 – the layers slide over each other WITHOUT MIXING. Layers with HIGH GROUND SPEEDS are called JET STREAMS.

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.

At this point someone will interject “Your Theory…” and I want to plainly cut this short.

THIS IS ESTABLISHED ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS and NOT MY THEORY.

If you wanted to PASS ANY EXAMINATION IN THIS FIELD then you HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THIS TO BE THE TRUTH.

EURODELE

Eurodele, at least you are TRYING to ask questions, but:

“why many jets, laying persistent contrails, would converge in time and space 100 miles from any large airport” – Easy. The speed of stratospheric layers over your head can reach 100mph. If contrails are persistent, then they could have been laid just an hour previously “over” an airport. Next time you see this phenomenon, time the movement of trails from horizon to horizon, and estimate the speed of the stratosphere

“strangely concentrated and patterned jet trails through or over which other jets can pass with normal contrail dissipation” – From FIVE miles beneath, you CANNOT TELL between “through” and “over”. This makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE if one (invisible!) layer is HUMID, and the layer above or below it (also invisible!) is DRY. Contrailscience cannot be held responsible for your failure to INTERPOLATE information…

EVER

horse-feathers

Look, Ever, I am a normal guy looking at PURE BUNK: this last statement of yours. The proof that this last statement of yours is HORSE FEATHERS can be found by any sensible person merely by going to their LIBRARY, and READING any book they like which covers ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS. Now you wouldn’t object to that, would you?

“I’m one of the many victims” – of an industrial economy.

“They are spraying” – IT IS MAKING AUTO FUMES, PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG, AND INDUSTRIAL POLLUTANTS.

“I will not go out to see them because my asthma is terrible” – ASTHMA IS CAUSED BY THE ABOVE AND ALSO BY POLLEN.

“Whatever these things are” – I thought you KNEW

“they are indeed making people sick” – People have been made ill by industry for 150 years in your country.

“The quality of the air is so poor in the Bronx and lately it is worst than ever” – Your country is producing effluents at an ever-increasing rate

“I wonder why” – NO YOU DON’T. You have already come to a WRONG CONCLUSION.

“Debunkers/ experts/ authorities on/ chemtrails/80-90%/ real info/hidden propaganda” – Why did you write this and why the quotes? What hidden propaganda? There’s NOTHING hidden here – check my channel – I’m a MUSICIAN here.

“If you are a Musician, why do you get so defensive about this topic? I see that you spent a lot of time proving your point, great.” – I am defending (quite literally) – nothing. I am ATTACKING false and dangerous beliefs.
The Bard of Ely (with whom I have worked) enjoined me to support his “chemtrail” blog. When I read it I was astonished – I’d never met such rubbish in my life. I knew FROM EXPERIENCE (I’m an ex-aeronautical engineer) that the whole idea was wrong for a HOST of reasons. I thought that a small campaign of scientific advice would clear it up – more fool me! There have been 60 Google pages listing my attempts.

My main concern is with HEALING. If one suffers from the delusion that aircraft are deliberately spraying you with substances to make you ill, and you ARE living in polluted air, then any illness you get merely serves to CONFIRM your delusion. If, however, I manage to convince a person such as YOU, suffering from such a delusion, that after all, aircraft are NOT spraying you, you may PERMIT yourself recovery from what was a temporary state of illness. You also have a choice: to MOVE to cleaner air, or to AGITATE to remove the sources of pollution.

agit

There is a third and most important point, that almost NO-ONE has any confidence in our system. This is because PAST APATHY has allowed the wrong people in. The ONLY WAY to get the government you want is to BE the government you want. Frank Zappa was right: you MUST stand for office.

obama

The very best outcome of this “chemtrail” movement would be a NEW PARTY – neither Republican nor Democrat – which would seek to redress ALL the terrible imbalances to Nature that we have created, whilst preventing both a cultural CRASH, and a Global Warming CRISIS.

But you’ll never do it without a full understanding of SCIENCE…

EVERYTHING

New Developments of the Theory of Everything

2950673908_430413742f

(Nothing whatsoever to do with “chemtrails”, but I don’t care!)

theory-of-everything-2

Startling progress has been made towards a final physical theory of Everything (sometimes called TOE) which unifies and brings into comparison the disparate Theories of Relativity and Quantum Fields.

If true, the gaps in our knowledge will be displayed. That which we don’t know that we don’t know – we will know!

And here are more references for you to follow up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

http://www.mkbergman.com/?p=409

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/largehadroncollider/3314456/Surfer-dude-stuns-physicists-with-theory-of-everything.html

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/articles/kaku.asp

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077361/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Everything-Origin-Fate-Universe/dp/1893224546

071115_e8

EVIL

hear-no-evil

“serve to cause confusion to the issue” – That seems to be YOUR role here as it is QUITE OBVIOUS that what comes out of a gas turbine IS what makes SODA-POP.

“attempt to make rational people who are making observations and discussing their experiences appear to be conspiracy nuts and/or uneducated” – ANY “rational” person would know to read up on technical aspects BEFORE “making observations and discussing their experiences” especially if they felt they were uninformed.

technical-aspects

“You are using faulty logic and classic emotion based redirection (example “This rising panic ensues from an under-educated public”) as the basis of your argument” – the public IS under-educated. YOU are under-educated. YOU are KNOWINGLY using faulty logic and classic emotion based redirection when confronted with my challenge that you ARE under-educated (see the subject of EVIL below).

“These are exactly the tactics that are used to manipulate rather than uncover the truth” – for you this statement ISN’T a discovery!

“You should know that your posts are smacking of someone with an agenda” – and yours positively REEKS of one.

“government plant” – AHA! We’re sophisticated these days at http://www.myspace.com/jazzroc – hope you like the blog, piccies and music.

“No one mentioned anything about what the trails were” – DISINGENUOUS hypocrite! I quote – “Obvious trails, definitely converging” – “latest plane curving at same angle” – “they just keep coming” – “it’s pretty obvious” – “that’s the one” – “somebodies doing something” – “really strange spiralling effect” – “they’re just non-stop”. My, my, how “INNOCENT” you really are….

“YOU were the one to put forward a theory for what they are” – It is THE EXPLANATION made from an understanding of atmospheric physics. It isn’t a “theory”. It is established atmospheric science. Your “chemtrails” are a theory.

“YOU said the video post is “wrong” which makes no sense – my video was only making an observation that something is going on” – OF COURSE it is wrong. If I hadn’t typed in “CHEMTRAILS” I wouldn’t have pulled you up. That very WORD is a LIE with no basis.

“In additional YOU brought up the subject of evil, no one else here did” – IT IS EVIL TO KNOWINGLY MISDIRECT AND TERRORIZE OTHERS.

evil-calls-1l

EXHAUST

The stratosphere temperature at the tropopause NEVER RISES ABOVE -40 deg C.

In A FRACTION OF A SECOND the exhaust, a mixture of NITROGEN, STEAM, AND CARBON DIOXIDE cools down from 2000 deg C to -40 deg to form a WHITE SMOKE OF FINE ICE CRYSTALS in a column of N2 and CO2 gases.

In HIGH HUMIDITIES that trail will PERSIST and even GROW. In LOW HUMIDITIES the ICE will SUBLIME to invisible WATER VAPOR.

EXPONENTIAL TIMES

There is no-one alive that can possibly be sufficiently clued-up on this. Whether you’re a specialist or a generalist makes no difference – from now on some aspect of our developing world is going to take you completely by surprise.

There is no doubt that one day soon an off-the-shelf computer will possess a greater processing power than the Human Brain.

But in the interim we will all have created (and endured) a startingly-exponential rate of change which could easily be totally out of our control. In the generation after the next we might well have produced a computer powerful enough to help us regain control of our civilization, but in the meantime – we’ll just have to rough it.

EXTREME?

Extreme? I find myself arguing with people who know the extremes of NOTHING. They’re hardly capable of anything. They know the extents of their boundaries, and kinda suppose that the rest of the world goes on just a bit longer…

Chemtrailers are like people who are hammering their hands with hammers and complaining about the pain. They know no extremes other than their own extremities.

Extreme?

THIS IS EXTREME!

“S-I-C-K ! !”  “D-U-D-E ! !” 🙂

FIRST CONTRAIL (PHOTO)

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m18/JazzRoc/Contrails/stpauls.jpg

FORTRESSES

ff

“other planes left Con trails that vanished” – then the trails were left in a DRY layer.

“other planes did not have trail” – they ALWAYS leave a trail in the stratosphere, but it may be VERY SHORT.

“at various heights” – ABOVE FIVE MILES?

“other trails lingered, spread” – then the trails were left in a SATURATED layer.

“are these trails Chem or Con trails” – CONTRAILS.

“I don’t know, I’m not a bird or a scientist” – I DO know. I AM a scientist.

“length/linger/sheet/layer/haze/slide/spray pattern/within 5-10 minutes/suspicious” – just coincident with a WET layer of the stratosphere.

“not natural/condensation trails” – you’re not a bird or a scientist, remember?

“know that planes dump fuel/not sure they dump it this low” – a plane that dumps fuel is doing it in order to survive an immediate landing. Being mobile it normally goes out to sea to do it, and will be LOW DOWN. Your chances of seeing THAT are RARE indeed.

“don’t know if it is fuel or something else/fuel = chemical” – EVERYTHING is a chemical, unless it is an ELEMENT. You’re not a bird or a scientist, remember?

“This is not the first time” – that aircraft have left persistent contrails in saturated air? Flying Fortresses in 1943 certainly did!

b-17_flying_fortress

FRACTALS IN NATURE

Fractal calculations have an ever-expanding relevance to the task of understanding Nature with the tools of Science.

FROZEMAN

first of all, the theme by thomas tallis is very good and the pictures too, i am from germany, so my english is a little bit poor.

it seems to me that you have a good knowledge about atmospheric procedures, so i want to ask you a question.

i have watched “chemtrails” for over 2 years now, and i am still not clear, if it’s chemical spraying or normal contrails.

i understand the “layers of differing humidities” principle, that can explain some “chemtrails”. so that i see here a “chemtrail” and there a normal contrail. ok but i have filmed airplanes that have no contrail at all, and beginning to spray, and make an longstanding contrail and then stop it, to make no contrail again.

the confusing thing here is for me is that this airplane made a wingwidth stripe almost direct behind the plane. so you dont’ see two or four stripes, or how much engines it had, you see only a thick stripe all over the wingspan and it stays for hours and diffuses to thick cloud, and before it had no contrail and after that, and it sprayed at the end some little short trails, as if it stop the spraying, and there nor come a little bit of it. you can literaly see how it sprays. and in the spray direct behind the plane there were colours in the trail, because of the angle to the sun.

what do you think of that, how is it possible, if an airplane had two or four engines that it can make such a trail, and then the trail stays for “ever”? thanks for your time, and sorry for my english. i am waiting for your answer.

Hi FROZEMAN – I appreciate your English, and how hard it is to write in a different language… I’m glad you liked my music video. It makes the hard work (and a lot of musical pleasure) even more worthwhile.

The plane was NOT “spraying”. “Chemtrails” don’t exist. It is ONLY contrails that exist. The phenomenon you describe is the trail of ice crystals left by an ordinary passenger jet flying through a supersaturated stratosphere. *The separate engine trails become “bound up” in the wave vortex of each wing – these may be more than fifty metres across.

Read my blog at https://jazzroc.wordpress.com, especially SCIENCE ON TRAILS. It is towards the end of the alphabetically-sorted compendium.

There, a scientist describes carefully how and why the whole body of an airplane generates a trail in a supersaturated stratosphere.

“Saturation” is a term used to describe how the air is “full” to its limit with water vapor. Ice cannot sublime into the air, and so cannot “disappear”. Trails laid in such conditions persist indefinitely.

“Supersaturation” occurs in calm clean “laminar” conditions, where the air becomes “over its limit” with water vapor, and just needs the slightest disturbance to precipitate out its overload of ice. Trails laid in such conditions get LARGER and HEAVIER and FALL….

The ICE crystals in the trail generated by the wings and body are microscopic in size and can REFRACT and DISPERSE light by INTERFERENCE, which accounts for the colors one can sometimes see.

Ordinary cirrus clouds also produce (on occasion) such coloured effects. They are called PEARLESCENT CIRRUS. There is another name for them – NACREOUS CLOUDS.

There used to be stories of a pot of gold to be found at the foot of every rainbow. Now science shows that everyone sees a different rainbow, and there is NO WAY you can approach its foot – ever.

“Chemtrails” are like this; a myth which, like a rainbow, disappears as soon as science looks at it. Let it go…

FUN IN THE SUN

It is only very rarely that I return to Blighty. I do it when I feel strong enough within myself to withstand a WEEK (well, three weeks max) of its brute power and brazen importunity.

I had a truly wonderful time whizzing through London on an Oystercard to yak with old buggers my age about software, businesses, engineering, aircraft, steam trains, (nothing about cars – hardly), beer, booze, and women. (All the women we know, by the way, talk about us, so it’s only fair to even up the ante. If they let us.)

Anyway, that aside I was aghast that once again British weather was making with the knee-freezing combination of 18 deg C and 85% humidity as I departed, mercifully freeing myself from being charged 30 pee to pee.

Back to a balmy 32 degrees, I discovered THIS idiocy had, as they say, GONE VIRAL. So – possible fun!

NOTE: Comments text arrives higgledy-piggledy according to the vagaries of YouTube, so sometimes you have to fish around to find the connections. This amuses me considerably…

beachcomber2008
Missymoo, have you just removed a concealed compliment to me, because your PROGRAMMING just kicked in?
Tch. Tch. Naughty, naughty…
wise pensioner who knows name calling is unbecoming” just made me blush from head to foot, and now we’re BOTH blushing
Too embarassing… LOL )

MissyM005
I am looking forward to seeing this documentary and informing other people about it as well. I think it’s fantastic! Well done to the makers. 🙂


beachcomber2008
Another irritating thing…
Chemtards are woolly-headed, I know, and cannot describe anything because even if their eyes are good, their brain doesn’t work
So let me tell you EXACTLY what CHAFF really is
It is ANY electrical conductor of an exactly specified LENGTH
In large amounts they REFLECT electromagnetic radiation (RADAR) with a wavelength of EXACTLY the same length
This was called WINDOW and used by the Allies in WW2 to confuse German radar air defences and prevent huge bomber losses
Then it was aluminum-coated paper, now it is zinc-plated glass fibres – which I think isn’t so nice and biodegradable
But in neither case is it harmful or poisonous – the fibre length is in the range 15-45 millimetres depending on the radar frequencies used by the enemy, and cannot be ingested by living beings
The amounts involved in a chaff release are in pounds – small beer
ANYONE using CHAFF as a scare tactic is a “terrorist”
Just as ANYONE using CHEMTRAILS as a scare tactic is a “terrorist”

The common (and mistaken) agricultural practice of PLOWING
GUARANTEES windborne dust, therefore windborne aluminum and barium
Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor
Once the water vapor becomes RAIN, then that rain will fall into a rain gauge so that some poor ignorant girl can become the victim of another slimy and vicious “chemtrail” video
Contrails are the IQ test that “chemtrailers” FAIL

MissyM005
beachcomber seems like a bit of a shill but not for the big pharma as expected I think for a much different organisation perhaps one they would tell u doesn’t exist. Iluminating ppl with the BS. Don’t let his desperate negative explanations get 2 you. You know the truth when it is presented, don’t let him second guess your well versed inner knowing of Truth. The trick of giving you the truth shrouded amongst lies esp regarding aluminium and barium – truth but lies moulded to deceive you.


beachcomber2008
@MissyM005 If you KNEW scientific method, missymoo, then all you have to do is
SHOW THE EVIDENCE
There’s absolutely NO POINT in telling others not to believe what I say
It is THE EVIDENCE that counts
and those white lines in the sky ARE evidence – evidence of CONTRAILS
It IS the TRUTH that aluminum and barium are in SOIL
and TRUE that soil dust puts aluminum & barium in RAINWATER
And also TRUE that that I’m a PENSIONER
You can call me the PAT CONDELL of chemtards
Who are YOU, MISSYMOO?

MissyM005
Comment removed


beachcomber2008
Quoting myself: “Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor”
And as a consequence you will find in your rain gauge ALUMINUM and BARIUM – courtesy of your local farmer
Then, if you are ignorant, you may appear on a “chemtrail” video
In the old days we had Jacques Tati, Benny Hill, Monty Python, Bill Hicks
Now “chemtrails” – a whole world of a comedy of errors

Aluminum is the MOST PLENTIFUL metal in the Earth’s crust
Not far down the list is BARIUM
You find BOTH in SOIL – CLAY is aluminum silicate
Exposed soil becomes dried and makes DUST which becomes easily WINDBORNE
The common (and mistaken) agricultural practice of PLOWING
GUARANTEES windborne dust, therefore windborne aluminum and barium
Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor
ALL plants are “aluminum resistant” because they EVOLVED in aluminum-rich conditions
Your ignorance…

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
Despite ALL the crap you wrote in this post, THE EPA CERTIFIED LAB SAID 0.5 MICROGRAM PER LITER IN RAIN WATER IS NORMAL. 3450 IS 6900 TIMES NORMAL YOU CEREBRAL MIDGET.


beachcomber2008
Energydrain, I WAS impressed by your little search, and must confess I KNOW the way it could be done
Forming large amounts of tungsten is very nearly impossible
Forming NIMONIC (nickel/molybdenum steel alloy) is a little easier
EVERY PART of the exhaust turbine section of a gas turbine is air-cooled from the rear face of the alloy sheet material they’re made of
Your “tube” would have to be streamlined concentric pipes of nimonic alloy
They would HAVE to be BROKEN for EVERY refit
whistle, whistle

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
The liar bastard in you said that jet fuel burns at 2400 degrees Celsius. The maximum temperature for (JET A-1) fuel is 980 Celsius.
The following have melting points higher than that: Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Cobalt, Titanium, Chromium, Iridium, Molybdenum, Tungsten, Carbon


beachcomber2008
@EnergySupply2008 Hey, kiddo, I’ve just been back to the FAST exhibition at Farnborough where they have a cutaway Rolls-Royce Conway engine with the combustion temperature labelled at 2,400 degrees Centigrade
Why don’t you go there and tell them (the designers and manufacturers) that they are wrong?
And I know for a fact that the delivery requirements for the Welsbach materials in Teller’s paper were 80,000 feet. It kinda stood out, you know
Melting point isn’t a good indicator. Softening point IS

And while you’re watching the documentary, you will see that the WHOLE of the work force, and the technical staff, live and work right round the plane
The wings are glued together, so there is NO WAY of picking them apart to RETROFIT “stuff”
This means EVERY ONE OF THEM, including the lady with the glue gun, would have to know the “chemtrail” equipment installed
EVERY FITTER in EVERY WORK BAY ALL OVER THE WORLD would have to know about Energydrain’s “tungsten pipes”
Yet no whistleblowers
STRANGE

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
There are whistle blowers, you just have to look for them. Two aircraft mechanics found that tubing was leading to the lighting protection rods on the wings and they had been hollowed out. When his supervisor spotted him looking too closely, he was suspended for two weeks. They threaten whistle blowers with losing their jobs and blacklisting them.


beachcomber2008
@EnergySupply2008 There’s nothing you find that I haven’t already found
Ignorant people everywhere like conspiratorial conversations and activities because it makes them feel important
Intelligent people everywhere are NOT impressed by threats or blackmail or blacklists
If there WAS any truth in any part of this it would have been gone already
So HOW DO YOU get the Welsbach materials up to 80,000 feet?
In WHAT FORM is the barium/aluminum distributed?
Stop changing the subject & answer my questions

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
You wrote: “There’s nothing you find that I haven’t already found”
YOU are delusional. I found rain water tests, patents, geo engineers talking about spraying 44 BILLION 92 MILLION pounds of aluminum per year and so much more that cannot be covered adequately with this 500 character limit shitty interface. I already told you, the patent calls for 32800 feet and they could spray lower if they wanted to really blast us with aluminum particles in our lungs.


beachcomber2008
It has always puzzled me…
Why do chemtards believe “chemtrails” are used to fight Global Warming, when they are known to be Global Warming DENIERS?
Why do they believe EVERYONE but them corrupt?
In my experience, clever people who study hard and pass exams in engineering do so because THEY LOVE THE SUBJECT
All my classmates did. They also loved cars, beer, music and the opposite sex
Entering some corrupt organization is the LAST thing they would do
You should watch “The Making of the 777”

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
This will solve your puzzlement. 2900 flights per day needed to deliver 44 BILLION 92 MILLION pounds of aluminum PER YEAR to the atmosphere. RAIN RAIN RAIN water tests showing up to 6900 times more aluminum than normal. Class is over.


beachcomber2008
Energydrain: “chemtrail patent 5,003,186 issued to HUGHES AIRCRAFT, which talks about adding the aluminum to the fuel
was formulated by someone who WASN’T a gas turbine engineer
There are patents for a hotel on the Moon – so it must exist
Why don’t you go there?
Scotty can beam you up
You will find thousands of morons already there

Energydrain: “Tungsten melts at 3400 degrees Celsius. Care to try again you shit for brains?”
I’m terribly sorry. You ARE correct about its melting point
To confirm, could you check the price and availability of tungsten tubing?
When that’s done, we could consider you to have won the argument
Where can you get it, and how much it costs, price and availability
Shouldn’t take a moment
Just get back to me

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
The current price for tungsten is $297 per metric ton (2204.6 US pounds) Only 13.5 cents per pound. It is used in incandescent light bulbs, cathode-ray tubes such as TV and computer monitors, vacuum tube filaments, heating elements, and rocket engine nozzles. 2009 production was 53 tons.


beachcomber2008
@EnergySupply2008 Hey, that’s good.
Did you find any tubing?

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
I am not in the market for tungsten tubing right now. When I need some I will look up suppliers.


beachcomber2008
Aerosols are always present in the atmosphere, otherwise there wouldn’t be any clouds at all
Aerosols are generated by the oceans, forests, tundra, and volcanoes (85%) – and the industrial and farming activities of Man (15%)
Aerosols have existed in Earth’s air for FOUR POINT FIVE BILLION YEARS
That’s a little ahead of Edward Teller and chemtards
Why aren’t we BURIED in them?
WATER transports them down to land and sea
Even when extinction-event asteroids fell, the aerosol effects were GONE in 10 years

stephenbowman311
Shit. I had to rewrite it so many times because youtube blocks me every time I write something because I talk shit to all you shills. BTW. They don’t use commercial airliners. But seriously… all spelling aside, Shit will leave your mouth. Nasty.


beachcomber2008
@stephenbowman311 Yes, YT has a shit filter
It’s a pity it doesn’t apply it to shitty vids like this one
The thing is that it doesn’t know shit about science, just as you don’t, so it is unable to discriminate diahorrhea from honey, just as you can’t
I extend my sympathies to both of you and other chemtards everywhere
It must make shopping difficult
How do they deliver Welsbach materials to 80,000 feet? Mmmmm……

stephenbowman311
@beachcomber2008 Its funny you consider this to be a shitty vid, but you look through the comments and you’ve been here for a long time. I know plenty about science. Mostly because of my BA in Biology. I just came to F with you shills for a while and talk shit. Your not here for facts anyway. You are here on your shift spewing disinfo. I don’t go shopping. Thats for the women.

Chemtard.. I like that. Its new… Its fresh.

beachcomber2008
@stephenbowman311 “I know plenty about science. Mostly because of my BA in Biology”
What’s a B.A. in Biology? Since when was Biology an ART?
I got my degree in the sixties before DUMBING DOWN took place
I have been, and my wife presently is, a physics teacher, and I know for a fact that Advanced level today is what Ordinary level physics was for me
So don’t bullshit me, bro’
Tell me, how do YOU think they get the Welsbach materials up to 80,000 feet?
Divine intervention?

erniepond
@stephenbowman311
Well, I am terribly sorry, but you have not posted anything at all scientific!
Like explaining where all the barium and aluminum comes from and why?
Where does the 100 to 200 millions tons of aluminum come from considering the total world yearly production is only 33 million tones?
In other words, the uneducated authors of this video just do not know enough to make out a viable case!
Why should any sensible person take this cause at all seriously?


EnergySupply2008
@erniepond1
The video corrects it to 10-20 megatons with an annotation and you know it. David Keith, when asked 10 megatons will gave no human health impacts, does not offer a different number.
I have already posted twice, if you go to Worldal.com you will see that world production of alumina (aluminum oxide) is 67 megatons per year, yet you insist on lies and being a scumbag that it is 33 megatons per year.


erniepond
@EnergySupply2008
Your knowledge of chemistry is pitifully small. Aluminum metal and alumina are two entirely different compounds. Aluminum has a formula weight 27 while alumina, aluminum trioxide, has a formula weight of 102. Thus 102 grams of alumina contains 54 grams of aluminum.
Thus the world output of 67 million tones of alumina would represent some 35 million tones of aluminum, EXACTLY what I said.
That is enough of this paranoidal Chemnut rubbish for tonight! Thanks for the laugh!


EnergySupply2008
@erniepond1
YOU are a total idiot. According to you 35 million tons of aluminum is turned onto 67 million tons of aluminum oxide and there is no aluminum left over to have aluminum for other purposes.


beachcomber2008
I like the way this has “gone viral”
With little effort thousands of chemtards line up to get drubbed
So energydrain thinks there are tungsten nozzles at the back of turbofan engines
Well, the NEXT time I go flying I shall take a camera and snap away at them
I WON’T ask the captain if he can fly at 80,000 feet because I know the answer (he cannot) and I wouldn’t want him to think I’m a moron – or a CHEMTARD

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
“Tungsten nozzles at the back of turbofan engines”
Obviously they would install nozzles that can withstand the temperature.


beachcomber2008
Edward Teller’s idea requires aircraft to LIFT the Welsbach materials to EIGHTY THOUSAND FEET, otherwise they won’t stay up for long
Unfortunately for Edward (and chemtards) only the U2 and the X15, and maybe the B1 can get up there
That’s certainly the reason why “chemtrails” don’t exist
Chemtards point at passenger plane contrails
and that’s why sensible people KNOW chemtards are just plain stupid
Contrails are an intelligence test which chemtards fail

stephenbowman311
@beachcomber2008 If you talk out of your ass too much, you make start to shit out of your mouth!


beachcomber2008
@stephenbowman311 Hey, I like your thought process (tourrettish, like mine)
Is it like your spelling?

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
HUGHES AIRCRAFT chemtrail patent 5,003,186 calls for spraying at 32,800 feet and says 10-100 micron sized particles will stay aloft for up to one year. Geoengineer David Keith wants to use NANO sized particles. A nano is 1000 times smaller than a micron and estimates particles will stay aloft for 2.5 to 4 years.


beachcomber2008
mikemb123: “condensation does not require aerosols”
NO. It ALWAYS REQUIRES AN AEROSOL
AEROSOLS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS PRESENT
When they are NOT present to allow condensation, the saturated vapor becomes SUPERSATURATED
Why are the dunces in the classroom shouting from the teacher’s desk?

visry
Excellent trailer…subbed!


erniepond
@visry
I guess the Chemnuts satisfy their paranoia just just posting some nonsense they took from some other dud Chemtrail nonsense video.
OK so be it !



Written by JazzRoc

November 5, 2008 at 1:00 am

Posted in atmosphere, Aviation, contrails, science, Truth, Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Not Coming

with 2 comments

This is a lenticular cloud - and not an Adamski Scoutship

PAGE CONTENTS

NOMEANSNO – NOT COMING – NOT HEALTHY – NOTHING – NOTRAILS – NUTS (TO SOMEONE WHO BLOCKED ME) – OFFICIAL (VERSION) – OGRISH – OUTSIDE IN – PAINT – PENITENT (The Longest Day II)

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

NOMEANSNO

People queuing up to be poisoned by a sprayer whose pilot was just too lazy to switch the spray off

This gentleman really means “No!” He has decided the way it is, and anything that doesn’t fit the way he sees it, is OUT.

Hey Jazzy, you seem to find me about every 6 months or so. I can’t return comments on the re:on off video so i thought I would PM you. First to set it straight, are you debunking this guy?:
/watch?v=E0AzCIzDf6I&NR=1
I know there is more to this whole topic than meets the eye. I am professionally trained in the field of thermal transfer and am fully aware of the conditions of our atmosphere. I have a better than average grasp of physics. And am a practicing expert in philosophy.
That said, any information you have of the current global attempts at controlling/modifying the weather would be appreciated. I have gleaned from our “discussions” that you know more than you are letting on. Why do the bulk of your ilk argue in the same manner? Act open to discussion yet when the chips are down, retreat behind a veil of name calling. G

First to set it straight, are you debunking this guy?:

No. Michio is setting things straight here. A whole generation of radiation meters under-read a while back. The first time such meters went into space they read NOTHING. This was because the radiation overexposure SATURATED them. All that needs to be done is add some redundancy to the network, so that info can be moved out of the way of the storm. Satellites in earth’s shadow remain useful, and advance warning of approaching storms is already in place.

I know there is more to this whole topic than meets the eye. I am professionally trained in the field of thermal transfer and am fully aware of the conditions of our atmosphere. I have a better than average grasp of physics. And am a practicing expert in philosophy.

I don’t believe you at all. Anyone with the slightest grasp of physics knows you are barking up the wrong tree.

wobbly moment as spray pilot misses the switch in the gloom

That said, any information you have of the current global attempts at controlling/modifying the weather would be appreciated.

There are none. Just you bunch talking up a storm.
1. Teller’s Bar/Al Welsbach materials need placing higher in the atmosphere than planes can fly.
2. It’s possible to make liquid organic metals but they are expensive, corrosive, prone to spontaneous ignition, and don’t pump easily. If burnt in a turbofan they would destroy it in seconds,
3. If burnt in a turbofan there would be no GAP in the trail between the exhaust and the trail beginning. Instead the exit flame would be colored green or white.
These three objections, coupled with the fact that a jet is a 2000 deg F FLAME rule out completely ANY chemtrailer notion. One’s enough…

I have gleaned from our “discussions” that you know more than you are letting on.

Of course I do. It’s a huge field and 500 chrs is a small space to play in.

Why do the bulk of your ilk argue in the same manner? Act open to discussion yet when the chips are down, retreat behind a veil of name calling.

It’s a product of your hypocritical rose-tinted glasses worn as part of a partisan group. The opposite of what you say is almost always the truth. I certainly find personally that any chemtrailer’s assertion is a negative pointer to the truth of any matter. Faithinscience is abusive, and stands alone. I am normally abused after my first question which receives no answer, The abuser never seems to notice what he does. It’s almost like “Tourettes syndrome”.
In atmospheric physics the behavior of aircraft has been well understood for sixty years. Hundreds of papers have been written minutely examining the contents of trails to thousandths of a percent. These days they are measured and assayed using laser interferometry from satellite or ground.
It is known that in the stratosphere a jumbo can lay down thirty-five pounds of ice for each yard of forward flight. Did you know that?
The ice laid in what is technically known as a “persistent spreading contrail” can be ten thousand times heavier than the exhausted ice. Did you know that?
Now can you put one and one together and see what your mind has been doing to you?

I did not know that, and still don’t. I can not find any corroborating evidence to support such a claim, Ice is 977 times denser than vapour – a far cry from 10,000.
If Michio Kaku is so sure about a coming solar storm, you think nothing is being done about this? You don’t know about haarp and the other 25 such devices around the globe. The inventor/developer of this technology is on the record stating its scope of use?
I am well aware of contrail science, but normal contrails do not act this way, at least they didn’t when I was younger. If the reason for the extra spreading of contrails as of late, is normal, there is serious pollution issues in the stratosphere. And we should be rallying to put an end to this waste.

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf
You cannot find corroborating evidence because you only find “chemtrailer” lies. To avoid them you must use “Advanced Search” and include “-chemtrail” and “-aerosol” in your search terms. Then if you search for “paper stratosphere aviation combustion ice trail cirrus cloud”, for instance, you get an entirely different set of results.
We’re all sure of the approaching storm. The solar cycle is well understood. I’ve told you something is being done about this. HAARP has nothing to do with this. The Sun can be hundreds of times more powerful than HAARP. The scope of use doesn’t extend as far as countering a solar storm – nor could it ever.
You aren’t aware at all of anything. You do look silly contradicting thousands of clever hard-working people. Everything you have been talking about and believe about “chemtrails” is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY REAL SCIENCE. Since when was ICE pollution? When water vapor comes out of solution in the air of the stratosphere at -40 deg F and seven miles up, it materializes as PURE ICE. The initial “pollution” of the internal combustion engine becomes diluted TEN THOUSAND TIMES. That makes it quite fresh…. As I have told you previously, EVERY word you utter points in the opposite direction to TRUTH. You waste my time. Go to a library.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V95-3V5YS7F-1C&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1998&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1186771367&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4c14e8bcc11a5d4214e1afea2634d331
This is exactly how i use the term aerosol. You are an ass. Well? Facts: you can’t back such a bs statement: “The ice laid in what is technically known as a “persistent spreading contrail” can be ten thousand times heavier than the exhausted ice.”

“Well? Facts: you can’t back such a bs statement: ‘The ice laid in what is technically known as a “persistent spreading contrail” can be ten thousand times heavier than the exhausted ice.'”

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf
This reference I gave to you previously.
Page 17, second column second para: “The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 1.6 x 10^4 gm per meter, some three to four orders of magnitude greater than the water vapor released by typical jet aircraft, also similar to previously reported values.”

Do you want more DIRECT CONTRADICTION, or is that enough for you? By the way “orders of magnitude” means “powers of ten”. FOUR orders is 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 = 10,000… Got it? Further searches along the lines I have already indicated to you will bring up further corroboration. If you have the courage to undertake it…

3 to 4 is a fair jump. would you not agree? And from a nasa science lab to boot. “ahh a thousand, ten thousand whats the diff! ”
There is ample eye witness testimony, doctor reports and interviews, lab reports, professional statements, police fireman… all leaning towards a large scale effort to prepare for the solar storms. HAARP may be a small but crucial element in this effort. To think a govt agency would state something intentionally erroneous is preposterous! ***warren commish, 911 commish *cough-cough*

It stated the facts precisely. It is YOU who pretends otherwise. It’s only one of many papers which all say similar things. Some of them are in different languages. The last time I looked there were hundreds. There’s none so blind as one who does not wish to see.
You ask for an example then give a spurious reason to dismiss it. You call BS and then weasel out.
Preparation for high solar activity is normal. Your slant on it is absurd. I’m sure you’re unaware how you’re now changing the subject. Warren Commission? Far out! Go back to school. Unless you haven’t been in the first place. And write me no more.

so you agree with Michio but not me? YES
There is absolute proof of world wide under ground construction. SO?
From Gates’ Norwegian seed cave to the Denver Airport, yet you deny this????? NO
The sun is about to do something never witnessed by modern man. BALLS
The scope of the ability of haarp includes protection from such an event. BALLS
Warren commission’s magic bullet and the 911 commission’s magic passport should raise the hackles on the most conservative of skeptics. BALLS
so you agree with Michio but not me? YES

The sun is about to do something never witnessed by modern man. BALLS
This is WHAT Michio stated, so one of your answers here is wrong, or balls is an affirmative to you. Which is it?
And as for the passport laying on the street unscathed, if you buy that then you are an idiot. there is no way a passport went through that explosion and ended up unscathed a few blocks away. no way. This, M. Atta’s passport was planted.

It’s going through an active phase so it MIGHT do something never before witnessed. That doesn’t mean it will. The way you interpret these facts is the BALLS. Same goes for the passport. You cannot conceive of it so for you it is inconceivable. While you fail to interpret these events, the REAL events are passing you by…

btw your response fits 3 of these:
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html#Twenty-Five_Rules_of_Disinformation__

It would, whether or not I was a “disinformer”.
This whole approach (of yours) IS disinformation. Everything “chemtrail” is LIES AND EYE-BULGING HYPOCRISY.
You only have to visit a library to find real information.
“Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require… or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.”
This above statement is out of YOUR literature. It APPLIES TO YOU.
Have you noticed how your OWN information NEVER recommends you visit a library? According to your “sources” it is often a “fact” that existing sources have been “tampered with”. Does that seem plausible to you? Each book made by the million, circulated to thousands of libraries, sold privately to hundreds of thousands of people. Each reclaimed and altered?
Every day some pathetic individual tasks me about conspiracies, smogs, fuels, contrails, 9-11, with some pet theory that seems entirely original to him. It’s not original. It’s all been done, and probably in the planning stage, by people trained and qualified and with your best interests to heart, for they have to live in your world too. They have already proved their intelligence and willingness to work hard. All you have to do is the same.
In the meantime, shut up with the crap. That worked for me, it could do so for you.

Have you noticed how your OWN information NEVER recommends you visit a library?
WTF? I started this whole thing off, asking if you, or that faith dude, if you had read Dr Eastlund, or Dr Begich or William Thomas, all available in libraries. You are an asshole, your “holier than thou” attitude would get a boot in the ass in person.

Only if I don’t smack you first. I read such technical books BEFORE Eastlund, Begich and Thomas. And I avoided being a creep too. The FACTS are holier than either of us. You’re the one who can’t deal with a technical report made by the finest scientists in their field. Learn to stand on your feet.

NO, Michio stated, “around 2012 the sun’s magnetosphere WILL flip, sending out a shockwave of radiation”, not might, or may. The unknown is the effect this will have on communications and the grid. So you are giving Mr Kaku the same “know it all” attitude. As for chemtrails, you know the causal effects pertaining to contrail formation, and could you not envision a way to increase this effect? People already have. Patents exist and have been bought by the US Navy.

ISS and Shuttle before the Sun

It won’t be doing anything it hasn’t done before “around 2012”. The reason why there will be an unknown effect of communication is that we have a higher dependency on this rather radiation-sensitive machinery known as microelectronics than we had the last time around. Any other reason you come up with will be a readout on your condition. The action of a turbofan on a low-pressure low-temperature supersaturated stratosphere could not be more extreme than it already is. Which you would understand if you have studied the subject, Which you have not. There are patents for a hotel on the Moon. Why don’t you go there? Now. While you’re there you could take a book or two… Make’em science books…

So then you do disagree with michio, man are you hard to converse with. Alter your comments and ignore facts for insults, like you are stupid, instead of saying “this is where you are wrong” type comment. I take it you did not even listen to the link of the leading physicists of our time.

The reason I am hard to converse with is that I break concepts down to their essentials where you cannot. You cannot, because you bring an agenda to the table of your own which you will support at all costs – as you have just demonstrated, for the above reasoning slipped by you as though it wasn’t there. Telling you where you are going wrong isn’t an insult. You’ll know it when I insult you. You’ll have to improve your stature first.

the navy hasn’t bought up all the moon hotel patents have they? By the time you are satisfied on this subject it will be too late. Again, insults instead of FACTS.
FYI: “…that the magnetic field of the sun undergoes a drastic change every 11,500 to 12,000 years.” That would make it modern man has never seen this occur. Of course you will bitch about the term modern man, I am referring to historic records, not evolutionary records. Oh we should check if you believe in evolution first, could be a whole can of worms with you.
Other time around? you are confusing this coming event with recorded c.m.e. events that have been witnessed. this pole shift has not been ever witnessed by a modern civilization. I am not extrapolating comments or theorizing on events, I am taking physicists words for the truth.
What i do think about is if there is proof our world leaders know about this and are doing anything to prepare/prevent or protect us from this coming solar storm. And by all accounts they are, yet you choose to insult and languish in your knowledge, acting like there is nothing in this world you don’t fully grasp. Shame.

“…that the magnetic field of the sun undergoes a drastic change every 11,500 to 12,000 years.”
Does that make the change due NOW, 500 years from NOW, or some time in-between?

I’m not about to instruct you, even if you look to me as pathetic as a goldfish that’s just flopped out of its tank. DO your own work. I had to do the same. “Modern”. LOL

See, yet again insults. Water off a ducks back, my e-asshole. You seem satiated with the power of ten in your facts, where as this one is what like 5%, Kaku and others have seen this event as happening in 2012, why do you think that could be? Our sun is acting the oddest it has since we have been observing it, yet you know better. Oh wise one!

Satiated with LOGIC, more like. You should try it some time.

there will be credible samples retrieved soon enough. You will doubt those at first as well.
one last thing: why does no one direct me to info on how the trail from a plane will thin out, width-wise, turn into virga and cover a quarter of the sky. Not one source for the science behind this, and not to mention this has only been occurring for the last 20 years or so. Pollution, perhaps. Then should this not be a wake up call to clean up our act. The tons of fuel burned daily to cart people around is mind boggling. 230 million gallons per day according to BP. Could this not be the factor increasing the so called persistent contrails?

The reasons why “no-one directed” you is that the explanation is complex. It is actually there, in the reference I gave you. In the report.
Simply speaking, it is helped by the aircraft’s wave vortex. The trails are swept up in it, turning inside out many times within it for several minutes. Vortex motion ceases some fifty miles behind the aircraft. The slight downward angle of the vortex would put that end hundreds of metres lower in the stratosphere. Trails ALWAYS fall. Also the two side-by-side trails can interfere with each other, and “link” together in what look exactly like smoke rings. This is called “the Crow Instability”.

As a consequence the underside of the trail adopts a “sawtooth” appearance. Each “tooth” is a virga. At every virga centre is a downward-moving column of air. This is where much of the ice deposition takes place. Because of the increased weight of the heavier ice particles they fall faster.
This whole process continues, falling through, until the surrounding stratospheric layer has no ice to give. As the particles fall down through the lower stratosphere they are falling into COLDER air, which supports them. The layers may be drier, so they evaporate there. (But generally the reverse is true: the layers get less capable of holding water vapor in solution as the temperature falls). It is possible that only when the ice crystals reach the warmer air beneath the tropopause, they finally evaporate. This will be normally a level surface. Hence the flat grey underside appearance you typically see. That underside will be between four and five miles high at European latitudes.

What I have written here is itself an over-simplification.
If you are really interested in knowing more, my blog offers many sources. You just have to follow the links till you get to the papers, and then look up the references the papers themselves leave. Do that for a while and you will know at least as much as I do, Maybe.

no, no, no…  you are describing a natural event, the persistent contrail.
In a week or so I will put together a video SHOWING what I am talking about. One of your cohort, jesuslives57, went through this same argument. I am referring to the complete thinning out of a trail, till it is spread wide open, filling the sky! Maybe you have never seen this occur. That would explain your position. There is no reason for a normally produced contrail to act like this, without some extra factor.
See, I have read up on all of this, have research atmospheric sites and have emailed meteorologist…all with no answer for my question. Most ignore, some, like you, repeat the known information, some like jl57, deny this is from planes!
I witnessed a plane over Victoria BC two summers ago. It flew directly over the city left three circular blobs, relatively small. These expanded until the sky was overcast. I phoned to get a friend to video them but no luck. These were not any way normal.

“The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 1.6 x 10^4 gms per meter, some three to four orders of magnitude greater than the water vapor released by typical jet aircraft, also similar to previously reported values.”
This FACT is what you cannot accept. Many research papers have discovered the same basic information since 1953 when contrails were first analyzed in depth. You say “There is no reason for a normally produced contrail to act like this, without some extra factor” and I am telling you the extra factor is SUPERSATURATION. You must have seen this word before. You just DON’T REALLY KNOW WHAT THIS IS. So study it. Study THE PHASES OF WATER. Use the advanced search exclusion process to find yourself some REAL TRUTH and not the lies you are accustomed to reading. You will discover SCIENCE and put away childish dreams.

why are you such an asshole? were you abused as a child? Look at the images from the 40’s of persistent contrails then look up! see the difference?
I am positive you do not know the effect I am writing about, as you are not addressing the topic.
I am professionally trained in thermodynamics, and am an adult. so you can eat your condescending attitude, shit it out and eat it again. I didn’t say I was mature. I went through some old videos, none really capture clearly what I have ONLY stated. And we must be very clear for you so you don’t dodge the point, yet again. I will post a video soon enough with your name on it, then please comment on how your non-belief in added particulate is responsible. There are doctors on record stating they treat the symptoms of exposure to these chemicals. They must be lying, ill educated morons also.

“There are doctors on record stating they treat the symptoms of exposure to these chemicals. They must be lying, ill educated morons also.”

How do you KNOW these symptoms are the result of “exposure to these chemicals”? Is that what the doctors actually stated? Were they actually a doctor, and not a fraud like Hildegarde Staninger?
What “linkage” is there here? Did someone say they saw a trail in the sky seven miles up?
If repeating hearsay and drummed-up uneducated witness testimony and the creepiness of people like Staninger doesn’t make you a lying, ill-educated moron, than I don’t know what will. Thanks for assuming that was what I was thinking. It saved me the effort.
“I am professionally trained in thermodynamics” yes, I heard you before. I don’t believe you were “trained” at all. Shown a book and videos, and asked questions, more like.
You don’t seem open enough to thinking to be educable. I obtained my training at the National Gas Turbine Establishment in its heyday, working on and designing modifications to gas turbines and test chambers.

I have my own empirical evidence of manufactured trails, relating them to you would be pointless. If Dr Hildegarde Staninger is such a moron, like me, why is the CDC conducting an investigation into Morgellon’s/unexplained dermopathy also? I guess they are full of morons too. Must be tough being so smart and trapped in that pathetic body! Well they say one is either smart or good looking, can’t have both!
I do not need to prove my education to you, but I am a refrigeration mechanic, energy transfer is a large part of the training. 5 years worth.
and needless to say top of my class. Your training should let you know that factors can be altered, there is ample proof to believe this effect is possible.

“One of your cohort, jesuslives57 went through this same argument.” And you call ME an asshole. JL57 and I haven’t ever exchanged more than a couple of dozen words. If you want to know who MY cohort is – it’s YOU. It’s a wonderful life…

“I have my own empirical evidence of manufactured trails, relating them to you would be pointless”
If empirical, it’s a first. Congratulations on your Nobel Prize.

“If Dr Hildegarde Staninger is such a moron, like me, why is the CDC conducting an investigation into Morgellon’s/unexplained dermopathy also?”
Because it is unexplained?

“9i guess they are full of morons too. Must be tough being so smart and trapped in that pathetic body! Well they say one is either smart or good looking, can’t have both!”
You must be REALLY good-looking! 🙂

“I do not need to prove my education to you, but I am a refrigeration mechanic, energy transfer is a large part of the training. 5 years worth.and needless to say top of my class.”
It’s a pity trusting the expertise and professionalism of thousands of atmospheric scientists wasn’t part of your curriculum. Perhaps if you don’t have it you cannot appreciate it.

“Your training should let you know that factors can be altered, there is ample proof to balieve this effect is possible.”
My training tells me persistent contrails exist, and things without any evidence for them need hard EVIDENCE before they are deemed to replace things which are KNOWN to exist.

If you had such evidence you would have rammed it down my throat, I’m sure. Here’s mine:
THE CLEAR INVISIBLE NATURE OF THE TRAIL “GAP” IS PROOF OF NO METALS BEING PRESENT.
NO ORGANIC MATERIALS CAN PASS THROUGH A FLAME WITHOUT COMBUSTING.
TURBOFAN ENGINES CAN PRODUCE AN ICE TRAIL 10,000 TIMES LARGER THAN THEIR ICE OF COMBUSTION.

Empirical: originating in, or based on, observation or experience. Does this mean something else to you? I gave you the smart/ugly thing, you always go the cheap’n’easy route?
I never claimed anything about a gap, typical for the angry rebuttal types is to lump all together, I suppose I think there is a problem with the water because rainbows appear in lawn sprinklers, like that dbootsthediva person. Well now you have gone from a blanket denier to a “waiter for proof”, baby steps. The nozzles are placed, not in the combustion, but out the plane body, there are plane mechanics on record stating there are 500 gallon tanks on these planes. There are patents on aerosol delivery systems, bought up by the US navy, that detail such systems.

empirical :originating in or based on observation or experience. Does this mean something else to you?
Hard evidence.

i gave you the smart/ugly thing, you always go the cheap’n’easy route?
I never claimed anything about a gap.

NO. I’m telling you the GAP proves the absence of metals.

Well now you have gone from a blanket denier to a “waiter for proof”, baby steps
It’s just my experience of waiting and being disappointed by the trite crap “revealed” to me..

the nozzles are placed, not in the combustion, but out the plane body, there are plane mechanics on record stating there are 500 gallon tanks on these planes. There are patents on aerosol delivery systems, bought up by the US navy, that detail such systems.
Apart from the fact that ANYONE could type up a shitstorm (and they do) – there’s NOTHING. The PTB have obviously had a total success there… Patents – go visit the Moon.

trusting the expertise and professionalism of thousands of atmospheric scientists
like the Canadian govt scientists that have had a gag order placed on them?
NO ORGANIC MATERIALS
who said anything about organic? The last decade has brought about monumental advances in polymers.

like the Canadian govt scientists that have had a gag order placed on them?

No. Like the REST OF THE WORLD for SIXTY YEARS.

who said anything about organic? The last decade has brought about monumental advances in polymers.

Polymers ARE organic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

That’s all very stupid. Perhaps I should apply, eh? There’s enough STUPID as there is.

NOT COMING

contrails-3

“If these are CONTRAILS, then WHY are they not coming from the engines” – THEY ARE*. It takes a SPLIT SECOND for jet exhausts to cool from 1100deg C to -40deg C. That can be up to 800 feet away at operational altitude. *Except in the case of aerodynamic trails and highly-supersaturated air.

“Contrails disappear within minutes” – NO. They can disappear in SECONDS in DRY AIR, or NOT DISAPPEAR AT ALL in SATURATED AIR, or ANYTHING IN-BETWEEN.

“some are indeed contrails, but lots of them are NOT!” – If you UNDERSTAND what I have just written then you NOW KNOW THIS STATEMENT TO BE UTTERLY WRONG.

NOT HEALTHY

fitness

They are indeed not healthy, but both are fitness itself compared with science-hating conspiracy fruitloops.

Volcanic action is twenty times more dangerous than aviation combustion, works 24/7, and doesn’t worry me either, because I know that Life air-conditions it. Fresh air itself was once volcanic effluent.

Something sensible to worry about would be the removal of forests and phytoplankton, but you don’t do sensible, do you?

forest

NOTHING

(The life’s work of dbootsthediva):

“‘secret’, ‘hidden in plain sight’ weather eng HAARP” – There’s NOTHING as HIDDEN as something which DOESN’T EXIST. HAARP is a radio establishment IN THE MIDDLE OF ALASKA – A QUARTER WAY ROUND THE GLOBE.

“In the UK it’s mainly used to create the depressing uniform dull grey sky which has now become accepted as standard ‘British weather'”FALSE. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY – WELL, WAY BACK TO THE SIXTIES…

“But HAARP isn’t the only thing at work here” – IT ISN’T AT WORK HERE. IF IT WORKS AT ALL IT’S LINE-OF-SIGHT.

cloudbuster

“orgonite cloudbuster” – NOR IS THIS. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE BUT FAKE.

“‘mackerel sky’ clouds just materialising out of nowhere” – NO. SUNLIGHT IS ADDING ENERGY TO THE BOUNDARY LAYER AIR, WHICH RISING, CONDENSES OUT SOME OF ITS WATER VAPOR AS CLOUD. THE EXPRESSION “MACKEREL SKIES” IS CENTURIES OLD…

“getting it in May 2006” – AND BOY YOU GOT IT.

“makes HAARP effects more obvious” – YOUR LUNACY MORE OBVIOUS…

“formation of artificial clouds” – YEAH, JUST AROUND YOU…

“prevents the grey cloud layer forming completely” – IN THE WINDMILLS OF YOUR MIND…

“leaving white clouds in an obvious strange pattern” – LEAVING THEM THE WAY THEY WERE…

altocumulus

altocumulus

“There’s also a few chemtrails in the background” – OF COURSE!

“28 secs into it, did you catch a plasma EM field?” – YEP, MY $33 WEBCAM CAME WITH A CONVERSATION GENERATOR WHICH DOWNLOADS INTO PERFECT GIBBERISH

“58 secs Sensor Orb alert. and 1.01 too?” – SEE? GIBBER. GIBBER.

“Quantum Cryptography/clouds morph/smaller images/another image altogether” – GIBBER. GIBBER. GIBBER.

“tree leaves/pixels” – GIBBER. GIBBER.

“aerosol carbon coenzyme” – GIBBER “helps create” – A COSMETIC? “catalyst” – MAGIC SCIENCE WORD.

“chemtrail can expand instead of dissipating” – GIBBER!

“No stratus or cirrus cloud formations without the help of the synthetic plasma field” – ALL SINGING AND DANCING GIBBER!!!

wizard-of-oz

“We are not in Kansas anymore” DOROTHY “not real clouds” – ESSENTIALLY WRONG!

“ultrafine powders & transparent liquids of multi layered metallic silica oxides varieties, bacteria, and chemicals to create different catalysts for different cryptography effects”

magic-hat

BAGS OF MAGIC SCIENCE WORDS!

WAIT A MINUTE. CRYPTOGRAPHY IS THE WRITING OF CODES SUCH AS THE MORSE CODE AND THE DECRYPTION OF ENIGMA!

“ive seen chemtrails here in New Zealand & the exact same thing happens with the weather, what are they doing?” – I WILL DECRYPT THIS FOR YOU:  NOTHING.

NOTRAILS

Hi notrails,

The air in ANY clear blue sky ALWAYS contains WATER. It’s in the form of VAPOR. Water vapor is a CLEAR INVISIBLE GAS.

Reference to standard physical tables gives you the means to work out the ACTUAL amount of water present in a clear blue sky, and at a ground temperature of 23 deg C and a RH of 65% it works out that there’s 3,300 tons of INVISIBLE WATER VAPOR in the CLEAR air to the horizon from where you are standing.

In general, when you are looking at THE TROPOSPHERE with its blue sky with rising cumuli, it pays to remember there’s LITTLE DIFFERENCE IN WATER CONTENT between BLUE SKY and CLOUDS.

The STRATOSPHERE above ALSO contains water vapor. Its temperature just above the TROPOPAUSE is NEVER warmer than -40 deg C. Due to the INTENSE COLD and the THIN AIR, much less vapor can be held in the air, before it exhibits SATURATION or even SUPERSATURATION.

A passenger airplane at 35,000 ft and 550mph deposits its exhaust in the form of CO2 gas and ice crystals at, say,  50lb per mile. That’s about 25 lb of water per mile, laid as a “cirrus” cloud of intensely frozen ice crystals. The craft has a large wave vortex which acts as a “mixer” for the crystals and they are spread into that stratosphere’s layer.

If the RH of the layer is less than 100% then those crystals SUBLIME into water vapour, the trail DISAPPEARS, and THE LAYER’S RH RISES.

If the RH of the layer is 100%, the layer is said to be SATURATED, and the CONTRAIL PERSISTS INDEFINITELY.

If the RH of the layer is greater than 100%, the layer is said to be SUPERSATURATED, the CONTRAIL not only PERSISTS INDEFINITELY but also GAINS WEIGHT as water vapor freezes ONTO the contrail’s ice crystals. The HEAVY trail material increases its rate of descent (ice crystals are ALWAYS falling).

Now it should be OBVIOUS to you that REPEATED PASSAGES of AIRCRAFT through stratospheric layers INCREASE the RH of the layer to SATURATION, and WHEN that happens, TRAILS WILL PERSIST AND SPREAD TO FILL THE LAYER. BLUE SKIES WILL BE GONE…

SO – CHEMTRAILS ARE A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION.

AND THEN YOU PROJECT UPON OTHERS YOUR CONFUSION, AND YOUR HATRED.

Thanks for the imaginatively-titled cloud pictures. Always gratefully received. Your land is less of a desert than Tenerife. In fact it is very beautiful.

hawaii

You’re a lucky man. Or could be…

NUTS (TO SOMEONE WHO BLOCKED ME)

nuts

I didn’t say you were nuts, did I? Check. Thanks for not censoring me, some have. For evidence, follow a civil jet with a quick light plane trailing a fine net & capture bottle. Analyse it yourself. I never found results like the ones claimed on my engine test bed.
The annual (24/7) volcanic action of Earth’s 1500 active land volcanoes outdoes Man’s 300 million tons of jet fuel by 2000%. Life has converted it into fresh air for at least 3 billion years. Worry about the forests and phytoplankton. Whoops…

OFFICIAL (VERSION)

Contrails can remain visible for very long periods of time with the lifetime a function of the temperature, humidity, winds, and aircraft exhaust characteristics.

Contrails can form many shapes as they are dispersed by horizontal and vertical wind shear.

Sunlight refracted or reflected from contrails can produce vibrant and eye-catching colors and patterns.

Observation and scientific analysis of contrails and their duration date back to at least 1953.

The National Airspace System of the United States is oriented in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000 foot increments of elevation (1000 feet after the introduction of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima in 2002-2004).

Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails.

More contrails are seen in recent years due to the growth in the civil aviation market.

OGRISH

lingering contrail is not the best description” – Oh, yes it is!

A contrail will remain visible for longer with different humidity and temperature but thinning and creating cloud cover?” – Supersaturated air THICKENS the trail so much it falls as PENDULES. You have seen them…. As a trail IS ICE it IS CIRRUS CLOUD. As for filling a stratospheric layer, that’s EASY, the WAVE VORTEX supplies the energy. Some of that energy is STILL THERE half an hour later…. If you knew ANYTHING at all about the atmosphere (which you don’t) you’d pipe down… As it is you’re loudmouthing away, and I can’t stop you.

haarp2

Read the patent holders comments about the multiple uses of H.A.A.R.P.” – It’s used to HEAT a line-of-sight AREA of the ionosphere. It is less effective than my microwave is for warming my tea. It’s a research establishment studying aspects of the near-vacuum in the ionosphere. It cannot be aimed directly at your arse unless you’re flying at 110,000 ft over Alaska…. and if you were, you wouldn’t feel a thing…. being a radio establishment it has strategic possibilities, but catalyzing clouds over Europe, for instance, is not one of them. It has the “beam focussing power” of Mr. Magoo.

mr_magoo

N.A.S.A.’s comments on ozone replacement” – Go like “stop air travel and your problems will disappear (until the next volcanic eruption)”.

U.S.A.F.’s fuel additives” – Boron hydride? Nitromethane? Pfft – a few fast fighters? Solid additives to fuels would be REALLY DANGEROUS to the planes. Liquid additives couldn’t include aluminum or barium for various technical reasons. BLOOD PRODUCTS are a JOKE – surely? *(Since this I realize you were reanimating the MYTH that there is Ethylene Dibromide in JP-8). Wrong!

world wide spray programme” – Unachievable. THE WORLD IS FIFTY TIMES THE AREA OF THE UNITED STATES!

German airforce admits to mass spraying“* – A MOMENTARY CHAFF RELEASE IS NOT “MASS SPRAYING”. How is your ability to be LOGICAL? *(Since then I have discovered that this was a fraudulent mis-translation of the original German. Vicious.)

U.S. sprays radar imaging materials over Afghanistan” – Pfft. Next can please….

reports from pilots and air traffic controllers” – EVERY ONE OF THEM SO FAR OUT OF CONTEXT AS TO BE A LIE. More fraud.

real events happening above us daily” – A million tons of combusted kerosine = a million tons of stratospheric ice, mostly sublimed to water vapour, is what is REALLY happening daily.

I do not deny alot of the footage and discussion on the net is ill-informed and plain wrong” – GOOD.

William Thomas’ analysis of this subject” – HAVEN’T SEEN IT. SHALL LOOK.

it is not as simple as you try to write it off as in your videos and comments” – OH, YES IT IS! My videos are MUSICAL. Shows how hard YOU research…

I can provide url’s to all this information” – Oh, God. Send them.

And a final note your formula is for carbonated water not soda pop” – Haha. True, but a damned sight closer than ANY chemtrail statement!

soda-syphon

Hahahahaha… …you all think you’re original and it’s the same old PAP! POP?

In return for wading through WT and your urls I demand you check out my blog.

There are at least SOME TRUE THINGS stated there…..

OUTSIDE IN

PAINT

paint

“aluminum, anthrax*, lupus*, fungus*, silver iodide*, barium, bacteria*, titanium” – Those marked * would be incinerated by a gas turbine. A turbofan’s exhaust is as STERILE as a hospital SURGERY. The rest you will find are COMMON INGREDIENTS OF HOUSEHOLD PAINT (Well, not the barium or silver)..

“the COMBINATION of pollens, auto fumes, and urban smog can cause severe auto-immune failure, asthma, and death in the young, weak, or elderly”

pollution

I’m quoting myself here. Didn’t you read it? HERE IS YOUR ANSWER!

PASSION

“Admire your passion” – that’s me – passionately pissed-off by brainless panic-mongering.

“prior to 1998 are extremely rare” – Cheap video cameras were. Persistent contrails WEREN’T.

“of military origin” – Military? THEY take pictures of EVERYTHING.

“trails are spewing directly from the plane” – EASILY HAPPENS in super-saturated air. You ought to thank your lucky stars when you see that, for it means THE AIR IS VERY CLEAN.

“FAA tells contrails appear a wing-span distance from back” – That’s a ROUGH GUIDE. That distance REALLY depends on the VELOCITY of the plane and the TEMPERATURE and HUMIDITY OF THE AMBIENT AIR.

“you consider temp as well, not only humidity” – Do you think I don’t know that?

“The avg temp easily estimated even from ground temp measurement” – NO IT IS NOT. It is a ROUGH GUIDE through the TROPOSPHERE and NO GUIDE AT ALL AFTER THE TROPOPAUSE. ABOVE THE TROPOPAUSE THE TEMPERATURE IS NEVER WARMER THAN -40 DEG C. IT CAN BE -80 DEG C.

“ground temp of 30 C or more it is hardly likely that a plane flying low enough 2 be visible by the naked eye could produce a normal contrail” – IF IT’S ABOVE THE TROPOPAUSE THAT WON’T BE A TRUE STATEMENT, WILL IT?

“let alone a lasting plume” – In SATURATED AIR in the STRATOSPHERE there is NO WAY those ICE CRYSTALS WILL DISAPPEAR. Sunlight REFLECTS OFF them. That is WHY they are WHITE.

PENITENT (The Longest Day II)

SweetiePie
Informative hub. I learned something new.

Bard of Ely
Thanks for responding, SweetiePie!

randomlight
Nice summation; well done.

Fabrizio
Hi Bard, good article. Yes, chemitrails are real but important is detect and differe them from the common contrails. Of course, the amount of metallic matter in them is a good way for understand they are not a simple condensation.

Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting, randomlight and Fabrizio!

Darol (cd4sunshine)
Very nicely put Bard although the small part about reference to “persistant contrails vs. Chemtrails” really makes no difference as the USAF is gonna say no matter what ya wannna callem, they have always been there and ain’t hurtin’ no one,,,,,RIGHT

Bard of Ely
I am sure you are right, Darol, but I put that in because I know Rosalind thought it was important and I was attempting to give as full a picture as possible!

shipsuperstore
Many a conspiracy at the top they will never tell us, thanks for the insight and I did see the show you referenced on Discovery. Good job.

Bard of Ely
Thank you! It was good that Discovery did a program on it and even though it didn’t really go very far it nevertheless was one of the first reports by the media to give any coverage to the subject!

Madhavi Bhatia
Dear Bard, this is a rather horrifying subject. I’ve never actually heard of this before. The only chemical trails that i”ve heard of are the ones behind jet planes and of course spills of pesticides and insecticides that are sprayed by planes on the american and russian farms. Would you please write a more encyclopedic article on this on the copper wiki. My friends and i would be extremely grateful. The site is http://www.copperwiki.org Do check out some of the articles on sunscreen and eco fibres and please do send feedback when and if you get the time. thanks

Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting, Mhadavi, and I agree it is a “horrifying subject” and this is perhaps why some people go into denial about it and say everything is OK and it’s just vapour trails. This puzzles other people who are alarmed by what they can see in the sky and what they have found out. And these trails and skies covered in the artificial clouds they make is a new occurrence. If you look at photos from around the world from over ten years back there are normal skies with blue skies and white clouds ot perhaps grey ones but never skies streaked with trails and skies covered in whitish haze from such trails. It just doesn’t add up! When I left the Uk in 2004 the sky wasn’t covered in trails but when I went back in 2007 it was! Something has changed! If you add in the admitted reports of military chaff then of course people will be concerned. Whatever is going on it has, as you can see here, spawned a whole new terminology and a movement of people. If I can find time I will submit an article for that site so thank you for the suggestion!

Life_of_Purpose1
Bard, Great post! I have been talking to people about chemtrails quite a bit. It is about awareness and getting others informed. Most people have not even a second thought to look up and see the obvious “writing in the sky”. They are getting better and better in making them look like nice, natural whispy clouds to fool the sheeple. We notice how there will be criss crosses all over the sky one day and the next couple, none. I wonder if we will ever know the truth, what they are, why, and how do they detirme where they spray. There have been many postulations of the ominous reasons to spray of which include keeping us from evolving spiritually and acheiving enlightenment. I find it an interesting speculation as most things in this world, especially instituted by the government, do carry this side effect. Looking forward to learning and sharing more…Namaste, Dre

The How To Hub
A little timeline – I am 31 years old and have grown up in Australia. As a teenager I used to see the trails and think they were cool, you know like the air force jets with the coloured smoke displays…..my perspective as an adult is ….HORROR. What kind of world are we going to leave our future generations?

Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting, Dre and Shaye! Dre, I have heard the points you have made but I thank you for posting them here for others to read. Shaye, I have a British friend who doesn’t accept that chemtrails are harmful but who thinks they are pretty. Personally I think, and a lot of people share this opinion, whether they are harmful or not, a sky with old-fashioned fluffy clouds that make ptictures in the sky for the mind’s eye is far superior aesthetically to a sky graffitied with lines and criss-crosses and finally a whitish haze of false cloud. And that is another part of it – weather forecasts nowadays often talk about haze and hazy conditions. We never used to have all this haze but had skies with clouds or without but not the mess that is so often there now. As Dre, has pointed out some days there is none of this and then the skies return to how they were meant to be.

Karen Ellis
We have them here in Oregon as well. It seems this is a world wide problem? On the days that chemtrails are being used, the planes criss-cross the sky and before you know it, instead of a beautiful blue-skyed day, you have complete overcast.

Bard of Ely
Yes, Karen, and the picture you describe is being reported over and over and over again and IF anyone manages to get any sort of response from anyone official they will say that what is being seen is normal and they are harmless contrails! How can it be harmless to cut out the light with such a cloud cover? Of course, it can’t! We never used to have skies like these! Thanks for posting!

The Bull
Bard, Wow…You have opened my eyes and mind at the same time… I live in the Northeast on the coast of the US…minutes from the Bush compound – Walkers point. The airspace is littered with intenational flights heading to Boston’s Logan and various NY hubs. We also maintain one of the largest US Airforce runways at Portsmouth, NH Pease Air base (only SAC refuling now). The resulting asthma, allergies, flu-like illness, respiratory and sinus problems, nose bleed, fatigue and depression, tinnitis, sight problems and inflammation of the eyes, dizziness, skin rashes, high blood pressure and pneumonia STATISTICS would be very interesting to calculate for this region. Do you have any ideas how I may find this information out statistically? The Bull

Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting, Bull! I don’t personally know how you’d get such answers but I would thank that someone at the chemtrailtrackingusa forum would and what’s more the members would welcome such an idea – there is often the call there for ways of doing something that produces scientific data that can be given to the authorities and the debunkers so they can be asked to explain it! In other words we need to be able to talk their language back at them. Please consider joining and posting there if only for the one thread. The link is at the bottom of my article.

rmr
Very informative! I have been reading about contrails for years, but I have never heard them referred to as chemtrails before. I have noticed, though, that many of them do seem to have a lot more hang time lately. I live relatively close to a major airport, and have noticed that, on some days, there are upwards of 100 contrails in the sky, while on others there are only a few.

Bard of Ely
Thanks for your feedback, rmr! You have a mystery there whether they are harmless or not! Debunkers of the subject say the trails only persist in certain atmospheric conditions to which my question is why did such conditions not exist until in the last decade or so in which chemtrails have been reported? There are two airports on this island and plenty of planes in and out but mostly no chemtrails, however, when I went back to Cardiff in Wales last year the skies were covered in trails daily as was the airport there and it didn’t used to be like that!

Lou Purplefairy
Great hub Steve, and as you well know a subject close to my heart as an active campaigner for the awarenes of persistent contrails (chemtrails). We have lots and lots of PC (persistent contrails) here in Devon UK, and most ppl do not bat an eyelid at them, till I alert them to the possibility of what they actually are and how to tell them apart from real contrails. Most ppl are surprised that this subject is not covered by the media, and the intelligent ones are concerned by its conspicuous abscence, as it it not even ridiculed as a hoax in the media. I have witness chembows (as you know) sun halos and a myriad of PC’s in various formations. The freak weather we have had in economically poor areas in recent times is confirmation for me that some sort of NWO plan to eradicate “the useless eater population” is in full swing. I still do my research and blog on the matter.

Bard of Ely
Thanks for the feedback, Lou, and yes, I know you know what is going on!

JazzRoc
You may believe that chemtrails are real, O Bard, but you are wrong. You are wrong, and you cannot prove you are right. Your “proof” is that “thousands of people say so”. These people that “say so” share many, and perhaps all, of the attributes of people that believe the Earth is flat, the Sun goes round the Earth, that God made Man “in his own image” (6,000 years ago!), and we CANNOT possibly have evolved from an ape-like creature five million years ago, that we are “imbued with a soul”, and if we “please God” we will “go to Heaven” after our body dies and rots. These people are DELUDED by their own ignorance and fear. They, on the whole, suffered through their educational period (personally I found it unpleasant even while top of the a-stream in a grammar school) and never learned to respect the opinions of people more able than they were to grasp essential scientific principles. Otherwise they would, of course, believe the word of atmospheric scientists who have for decades been telling these people that persistent contrails are a natural by-product of large-scale mass air transit.
The first queries as to why the sky turned white were made in the late fifties and early sixties, so the topic is NOT exactly a new one. Even before that collisions occurred between close-flying Flying Fortress bombers on 1000-bomber daylight bombing raids on Germany between 1943 and 1945 when they too turned the skies white with the exhausts from their 18-cylinder radial engines in particularly cold and humid conditions. If a million tons of kerosine are burned daily (yes!) in the stratosphere, which is thin and cold and easily humidified with relatively small amounts of water, then large areas of the sky are going to turn WHITE. This is the “white” of ice crystals – water! The rest is fanciful paranoia, with a small amount of LIES, DECEIT and FRAUD. For that, blame Carnicom and some ignorant and some shameless YouTubers. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you were better-educated, Bard, you would be. Your activity is harming society. I have amassed quite a lot of support literature at https://jazzroc.wordpress.com and invite your response…

Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting your opinions, Jazzroc, however, I am no further convinced by your arguments!

JazzRoc
Perhaps after all you REALLY ought to read my wordpress blog. In it you will find confirmation of everything I have mentioned above, and directly-attributable quotes from specialist atmospheric scientists, graphs, details and photographs of almost all relevant material, specific proofs of chemtrailers’ fraudulent claims and blow-by-blow debunks of EVERY chemtrail claim. What more can one do, when confronted by a deluded and harmful person who is determined in his ignorance to do further harm? Well, advise you NOT to visit the US, I suppose. THERE they have the Patriot Act (which is not my idea of nice legislation!) What you are doing falls within the parameters of that act, and newly-trained and less sympathetic people there might well take it upon themselves to “educate” you, seeing as you are obviously determined never to do the job yourself.
Even in a British society noted for its tolerance of stupidity you might find that at some time in the near future (these are changing times!) your ignorant disregard of scientific principles, technocratic excellence and social decency will cause you to fall foul of the law. Don’t ever say I didn’t warn you…

Bard of Ely
JazzRoc, I have read your blog, and as it happens it is now probably being read by some freemasons – as I saw earlier that one has left a link to it and a recommendation in the Universal Freemason’s message board of which I am a member. I have told you that I don’t agree with you but you do not appear to be able to agree to disagree but become insulting and threatening in tone (warning me) and how you expect anyone to want to hear from you when you adopt these ways I really don’t know. However, as I have also told you, I don’t believe that this subject should all be a one-sided debate of chemtrail believers agreeing with chemtrailbelievers and on the other side the scientific debunkers all debunking – I would suggest that both sides have much to learn but they cannot do so if stuck viewpoints are held! You happen to believe in science and have a lot of faith in it and I don’t simple as that. You don’t believe in God and I do!
I happen to agree with you that there are people who are ill and blaming chemtrails may not be ill from chemtrails but from other sources. I also agree with you that the crosses are in completely different levels of the sky and only look like crosses from down below. You see I don’t totally disagree with you but on the other hand I am convinced that chemtrails are very real and that weather modification is one definite use they are being put to, but I have told you that before.
You call people “uneducated” but what does that mean? It means that they don’t happen to agree with the official version of things perhaps – I certainly don’t! Scientists can and do lie and if you want an example, fluoride is one that springs to mind and mercury amalgam being another! There are many people active in the opposition to chemtrails who are educated to university standard eg Dr Stephen McKay whom I have mentioned in the article. I happen to have a BA degree, a diploma in media, 5 A-levels and 6 O-levels and that counts as educated by most people’s standards. Education though is often indoctrination and manipulation turning out people to carry on the system and brainwashed to believe what they are told not to think for themselves!

JazzRoc
“it is now probably being read by some freemasons” – what a horrible thought! “Universal Freemason’s message board of which I am a member” – what, another horrible thought! “insulting and threatening in tone” – without a doubt you are a fool, for you are still ever-ready to accept baseless arguments and reject the remorseless logic of mine. I advised you not to visit the US, nor Britain after 2012. Personally I’ll admit to finding it difficult to be pleasant to someone like you who is practically as dangerous as a bomb-wielding terrorist with your spreading of lies and fear. I regard you now exactly the way I regard arms dealers. You are living in a safe spot and a safe era where your wickedness is going unpunished, but that won’t last for ever. “you expect anyone to want to hear from you” – I certainly won’t lie to gain plausibility like the people YOU believe. “both sides have much to learn” – Science and the truth of Science is not a democracy. Only ONE side is utterly ignorant in this case, and it’s YOURS. You have learnt nothing and are telling lies as a consequence. “You happen to believe in science and have a lot of faith in it” – I put no FAITH in Science. That’s like putting FAITH in Mathematics. Is one FAITHFUL to LOGIC, or merely LOGICAL? “You don’t believe in God and I do!” – Which God is this? The jealous one? The one who made the Universe in six days six thousand years ago? “I am convinced that chemtrails are very real” – As real as your god, santa claus, and the tooth fairy. “weather modification is one definite use they are being put to” – Sure thing. The three million four hundred thousand tons of barium required to provide a mono-molecular coating over the whole Earth would only take eighty-five thousand tanker sorties using one and a half million tons of fuel. And, of course, next week, you’d have to repeat it, etc.
“You call people “uneducated” but what does that mean?” – It means believing “weather modification is one definite use they are being put to”. “Educated” is what I have just demonstrated to you: the ready use of mathematics and a true knowledge of the properties of the Earth to show you just what foolishness you speak. “I happen to have a BA degree, a diploma in media, 5 A-levels and 6 O-levels and that counts as educated by most people’s standards” – Hmm. And I’ve seen those standards fall year after year. By my standards you are DIM. If I were as dim as you are I’d keep my stupid mouth shut. It seems you are too dim to understand how dim you are. That IS a shame… “believe what they are told, not to think for themselves” – How ironic! Shine a light on that…ah, but your batteries are low, and your light bulb glows a faint orange… lacking scientific understanding, you cannot see how misled you have been, and how misleading and dangerous you now are.

Bard of Ely
It appears from all that that we are no longer friends seeing as you keep on insulting me and are so bigoted in your views. You do not allow others freedom of thought and opinion and are another form of the thought police. Yes, I do believe people like David Icke and Clifford Carnicom whom you condemn. I have tried to present a balance of views here by letting you have your say and included them in the article above but it clearly isn’t working and maybe this is why all the chemtrail sites block you?
The Freemason who has posted your link found it here where you posted it and that is freedom of information as it should be! Seeing as you think so lowly of me now what do you make of Beck who has released a new song called Chemtrails? I applaud him for putting the subject in the mainstream world of pop music!

Eric Graudins
I’ve never heard of chemtrails. Thanks for writing this hub. JazzRoc – If your case is correct, you’ve considerably weakened it by the way you have chosen to argue your point here.

Bard of Ely
Hi Eric! Thanks for posting!

JazzRoc
Eric, my case is correct. If I were arguing with someone who simply misunderstood contrails I might be more polite, but there is more to it than that. You would do well to leaf through https://jazzroc.wordpress.com
Bard: “we are no longer friends” – that’s as it should be. You won’t find arms dealers in my list of friends either. “you keep on insulting me” – I keep on describing you as an ignorant person who is way above your head, and causing harm within our society by insisting that people you do not know are deliberately poisoning the whole of our society, using baseless assertions and faulty reasoning. You’ve GOT to be stupid, because I cannot see you as THAT intelligent and malevolent. “so bigoted in your views” – I see you’ve decided I’m not “programmed” (that’s the usual one) so I must be simply bigoted. It seems to me that you consider the understanding of science to be a form of bigotry. Well, we live in a scientific and technological world, and here we are using that very technology to conduct this argument. You are arguing with a man who has tested jet engines in their test beds, helped in the construction of the supersonic wind tunnel used to test the Concord’s engines, helped in the construction of the nuclear decanning plant in Windscale, helped in the construction of the world’s first ethernet network, and the world’s first modern electric city car. (And many other things, but that’s by-the-by). I know exactly how gas turbines work and exactly how their exhausts work in the stratosphere, and exactly how the stratosphere functions from my personal work experience. This isn’t a “view”. I can BUILD these things.
You turn up with your “fear of science”, read a whole bunch of foolish and baseless and totally inaccurate assumptions in a scientific field you don’t understand at all, and accuse INNOCENTS of attempted GENOCIDE. Who is the BIGOT here?
“You do not allow others freedom of thought and opinion” – This IS “freedom of thought and opinion”. How can your statement be correct? “are another form of the thought police” – Really! “I have tried to present a balance of views” – We aren’t talking about a “balance of views”. Science is not a “balance of views”. You’re either CORRECT or WRONG. “it clearly isn’t working” – It’s working fine from my perspective. You are doing EVIL and I’m trying to prevent you, albeit unsuccessfully so far. I’m trying to sting you into some feeling of remorse for what you are doing, and hoping that you might, after all, educate yourself out of your delusion.
I’m also showing others that this ludicrous topic is opposed by scientists and other educated people. It is we who are doing things in this society, we who provide the wealth and power for travel and information systems (like this one) to the benefit of everyone. We have been able to do this by years of poorly-paid study, experiment and practice. We are professionals and deserve respect for our abilities and achievements – not this ignorant and shocking diatribe to which we are subjected.
In 1981, as our small team of electronics engineers clustered around an oscilloscope in a Wood Green laboratory which was demonstrating for the first time in the world that it was possible to send information down a wire at a rate of a hundred megabits per second (and we knew we were witnessing the start of a world revolution in information), nothing would have led me to believe that twenty-seven years later I would find myself using this fabulous system to conduct arguments about contrails with dumbed-down and deluded pseudo-scientists. How IRONIC!

Bard of Ely
“I’m trying to sting you into some feeling of remorse for what you are doing, and hoping that you might, after all, educate yourself out of your delusion.” – You are trying to tell me what to do and how to think and no one has the right to do that to anyone else! Do you send your insulting opinions to all the well known authors/speakers who believe and talk about chemtrails or do you only post your one-sided opinion and rudeness on the sites of people like me and those who post chemtrail videos? And if you feel that America and the UK would find my opinions illegal, then if you are right then it only goes to show that these countries are fascist non-democratic police states, which many believe anyway.
When we first met I thought we could get on well but clearly I was wrong. I do not like arguments and this is what this is. We had a big falling out before in which I deleted you at Myspace and swore and you have detailed that in your blog. I am not going to react with anger that way this time but as you admit here we are no longer friends I will delete you at Myspace. If Kingfisher is ever a money-making success I would see that you got your share. It seems that is all we share. I am not surprised that people at YouTube and chemtrail sites complain about you if this is an example of how you act. It is not a debate about a subject but a rude verbal assault by you who will not tolerate others having their beliefs or opinions or to post these in public
.

Eric Graudins
How timely. Tim Flannery, one of Australia’s top scientists has proposed that Global Warning could be slowed by injecting sulphur into the top levels of the atmosphere. He says that it could be put there by mixing it with jet fuel. This would be called “Global Dimming”.

Bard of Ely
Thanks for the link, Eric! Yes, I saw the news on this proposed insanity at Alex Jones’ site.

Debbie Peace love
Hi Bard Are you sure that Jazzroc isn’t a fox news presenter because he sure does sound like one to me. When they lose their arguments they resort to petty playgrond name calling and insults. Because they have lost the debate and cannot bring an intelligent debate to the table.
As you are aware I take a keen interest in chemtrails. Anyone who tells me they do not exist had better open their eyes and look up to the sky! You would have to be blind not to see them. Over here in the UK they make pretty pictures of chemtrails. We get the noughts and crosses obviously pilots having a game of tic tac toe. Well they have to dump whatever their dumping so they may of well have some fun. We get circles, loads of pretty pictures over here. Does not look to me as if they are planes with people on board and places to go! Why are the planes that are chemtrailing PLAIN White with NO markings! Planes usually advertise who they are up in the skies.
Why has there been a huge increase in breathing problems? Considering less people smoke. Also this new phenomenia Morgellons? Doctors are asking this question too. Also this may have something to do with the honeybee’s demise too.
Why does the mainstream media keep silent about chemtrials. If they were ordinary contrails I am sure we would have had something on the media by now trying to debunk the “Chemtrail Theorists” However, their silence is deafening. Also as many people have noticed our weather is fine until the planes come and low and behold we have rain! Oh I suppose its all coincidence. I am sorry but there are too many “Coincidences” concerning chemtrails.
Why is jazzroc so angry? If he disagrees with you on chemtrails then that is his prerogative. However, to call you all the names he has called you shows he has something to fear. I wish jazzroc could give us some facts and figures to why you are wrong because he proves nothing. Yes I understand he worked on engines big bloody deal! does not prove a thing!
IF you don’t want to believe what is right in front of your eyes. Then that is up to you. However, the best way to hide something is to put it in full view. When someone throws nasty insults and name calling. Especially to someone who is very well read on his subject. The insult thrower is shown to be what he is. A fool.

Bard of Ely
Debbie, thank you very much for posting and your support on this! To be fair to Jazzroc, though he doesn’t extend much fairness to me, he does provide a lot of info in his blog, which he has provided the link for and is worth reading, however, it doesn’t satisfy me or put my worries to rest on the subject, as I have already pointed out. It is a shame that it appears that Jazzroc has got himself excluded from sites where he could be hearing in detail from people living with illnesses they attribute to chemtrails and reports of daily coverage of their skies like get reported at chemtrailtrackingusa group for example. However, it seems that he doesn’t want to listen to what others say but just believes he is right so they must be wrong and then he wishes to impose his views on them, which I have called a bigoted approach. When they fail to accept what he says he does what he has done to me – he becomes very rude, threatening and insulting.
I think the point you raise on the media silence is a very valid one. Jazzroc would probably say the media cannot report on something that doesn’t exist but I would say the media has reported in great detail on things that don’t exist such as the weapons of mass destruction that were never found and other government lies. And if there is nothing to fear from the chemtrails then why doesn’t the media get someone who can explain it to do so? Why doesn’t Jazzroc volunteer instead of carrying on his barrage of insults and debunking posts? I would have thought the media could call upon scientific ‘experts’ to explain the matter but they do not do so! Maybe Beck’s song Chemtrails will bring the subject into the public mainstream arena where it belongs. According to Wikipedia, his song has been played on BBC R1, which maybe the first time the BBC has used the word chemtrails. I searched their site long ago and it isn’t there, although contrails are and defined as harmless
.

JazzRoc
Debbie Peace Love: “Are you sure that Jazzroc isn’t a fox news presenter” – I’m a retired engineer living fifteen miles away from the Bard in Tenerife. Are you sure you aren’t being abusive here? “open their eyes and look up to the sky” – and you’ll see contrails. If you look at the sky you’ll see the Sun go round the Earth. Now, DOES the Sun go round the Earth? “Does not look to me as if they are planes with people on board and places to go!” – You can tell all that from seven miles beneath? You should get a job in Air Traffic Control. They need you! “Why are the planes that are chemtrailing PLAIN White with NO markings” – Your first unwittingly ignorant question. It’s a physical phenomenon called “blue light scattering”. Educate yourself. Try WIKI. “Why has there been a huge increase in breathing problems considering less people smoke?” – Because there has been a huge increase in arable farming, with new crops with new pollens, industry is still increasing using exotic materials with dangerous dusts when cutting and grinding without adequate air filtration, because urban photochemical smogs are still increasing, and finally because power stations are burning less safe materials as the world’s oil supplies dwindle. The Western diet of over-processed foods with too much meat and too little fruit, coupled with high-stress levels and poor exercise regimens and contaminated water supplies doesn’t help at all. Overall, this is an already complex intermix of factors by itself, requiring a massive statistical effort to sort out – before you come along with IMAGINARY ills. “Also this new phenomenia Morgellons? Doctors are asking this question too?” – Look it up in WIKI. In Science as a whole, FACTS are established using DUPLICATION of results and PEER REVIEW of research. This HASN’T HAPPENED WITH MORGELLONS’ CLAIMS. Ergo – it’s NOT Science and NOT TRUE. “Also this may have something to do with the honeybee’s demise too.” – May it? See above. You must remember that scientists get famous for discovering things, so the pressures are there to make these discoveries. See above. “Why does the mainstream media keep silent about chemtrials?” – They have tried it on, burnt their fingers, and won’t do it again! “Also as many people have noticed our weather is fine until the planes come and low and behold we have rain!” – Or perhaps, the humid air that creates the contrails eventually causes rain? “Oh I suppose its all coincidence. I am sorry but there are too many “Coincidences” concerning chemtrails.” – There are too many “coincidences” in the minds of those that are deluded!
“Why is jazzroc so angry?” – I should cheer when ignorant “Chicken Littles” accuse innocent people of attempted mass murder, should I? “to call you all the names he has called you shows he has something to fear.” – Of course I have something to fear! STUPIDITY is a DANGEROUS thing in a technological world! “I wish jazzroc could give us some facts and figures to why you are wrong because he proves nothing.” – I doubt whether you could appreciate proof if you met it. You need a modicum of scientific understanding which you’ve already demonstrated you don’t have. However, there’s always WIKI and my blog “Yes I understand he worked on engines big bloody deal! does not prove a thing!” – A bit more than that, dear. I’m a scientist. And an artist. And a musician. “IF you don’t want to believe what is right in front of your eyes. Then that is up to you. However, the best way to hide something is to put it in full view.” – The sun – does it ACTUALLY go round the earth? “When someone throws nasty insults and name calling.” – They need to be STOPPED! Your hypocrisy is showing! Or hadn’t you noticed that CHEMTRAILS insult hard-working, decent professional people (and anyone else who has a modicum of commonsense)? “Especially to someone who is very well read on his subject. The insult thrower is shown to be what he is. A fool.” – All that glitters is not gold. You may read, but you patently do not understand. A fool is what YOU are.
Bard: “it doesn’t satisfy me or put my worries to rest on the subject” – You demand to be spoon-fed scientific understanding, but it doesn’t come that way. You must study for years for such understanding to arrive. If you DO NOT HAVE this understanding, you will NEVER be satisfied. In the interim, perhaps you could moderate your pseudo-scientific assertions….
“he could be hearing in detail from people living with illnesses they attribute to chemtrails – it seems that he doesn’t want to listen to what others say” – I thought it was I that was the insulting person. I have read what people have said, and it is obvious that there is no direct link. We ALL breathe in a mass of dusts, pollens, viruses and bacteria with every breath we take. Our bodies have a tolerance for doing this which has been EARNED by the deaths of countless millions of our predecessors over four billion years.
“I have called a bigoted approach” – The correct approach to YOUR “chemtrail” bigotry.
“he becomes very rude, threatening and insulting” – How is it that you continually forget the nature of your claim? Why can’t you see that you ARE what you claim ME to be?
“why doesn’t the media get someone who can explain it to do so?” – Because it is too difficult and boring a job for them (they would LOSE ratings)!
“the media could call upon scientific ‘experts’ to explain the matter” – I am such an expert. How successful am I?
“contrails are defined as harmless” – And of course they are. It is YOUR BEHAVIOUR that is harmful.

Bard of Ely
Jazzroc, I will let Debbie reply to you here if she so wishes. I would ask you this: if what you say are harmless contrails and harmless cloud cover resulting from them cut out the sunlight getting through do you not think it is likely to affect bee navigational ability when it has been established by SETI that sunlight is the main navigation tool for the insects? Please see: http://www.setiai.com/archives/000064.html So whether its water vapor converted to ice or toxic particles the result is surely the same – less light gets through. This can be clearly seen when sun halos form as they do now we have these trails so often in the sky!

JazzRoc
Really, Bard, I wonder what happens when you address yourself to read something! I could answer your question from my internal understanding, but just in case there was a built-in trick I addressed myself to the text in question, and found it answered your question completely!
“if what you say are harmless contrails and harmless cloud cover resulting from them cut(ting) out the sunlight getting through do you not think it is likely to affect bee navigational ability when it has been established by SETI that sunlight is the main navigation tool for the insects?” NO. Like all navigating animals on Earth, bees are NOT reliant on the visible Sun for navigation. Any such creatures that were SOLELY reliant upon the Sun would have been rendered extinct by the first large volcanic outburst or cometary impact than obscured the Sun for a sufficiently large period. And there been quite a few of these over the preceding 500,000,000 years. Bees sense the Sun, polarized light, landscape features, magnetic fields, and use two techniques of distance measurement (the latter one “optical flow” is new to me, but entirely unsurprising). What follows is a direct quote from the article: “All of these senses are redundant. That is to say, remove any one of them and the bee will probably still be able to navigate without problems. When the sun is obscured by clouds or trees, but patches of blue sky are still visible, the honey bee is able to use polarized light as a backup navigation system. The light coming directly from the sun is unpolarised. Some of this sunlight, however, is scattered by air molecules and a pattern of polarized light is set up in the sky. This pattern consists of a roughly circular set of gradients centered around the sun. The polarization is at its most intense at a 90′ angle from the sun. By detecting the polarization angle bees are able to infer the location of the sun. Exactly how they manage to do this is still unknown.”
Did you actually READ this? It ANSWERS the question you put to me! Do you know what “redundant” means in this context?
“So whether it’s water vapour converted to ice or toxic particles the result is surely the same – less light gets through.” – Here you once again demonstrate your scientific ignorance. “Toxic particles” cannot flow through the gas-turbine injectors. Injectors are hardened steel precision-ground tubes with very small internal diameters. Flow-control valves also clog if fine solids pass through them. In fact, they must both be protected by a high-capacity low-micron filter, which, of course, would stop solids. DUSTS PUT OUT ENGINES. Passenger aircraft are built down to a price by civilian businesses. Their wings contain spars, tanks and control equipment. They are built to very tight tolerances and riveted or glued down firmly. They do not have “empty spaces” and “extra pumps and nozzles” built into them for CHEMICAL ATTACK.
“Less light gets through” – It has been demonstrated by two different scientists using two different techniques in two different parts of the Earth that incident sunlight falling on the earth has been reduced by at least 15% over the last forty years. It is attributed to the industrial revolution, not just in the west, but in the middle and far east – it’s the consequence of COMBUSTION IN GENERAL. It is known that the contribution of air travel is 3% of this.
“This can be clearly seen when sun halos form as they do now we have these trails so often in the sky!” – The Sun has formed halos in the Earth’s stratosphere for four-and-a half billion years. The ice crystals that form such a halo are PURE. Any more than the single nucleating molecule at its centre (which every water droplet or ice crystal needs to form at all) and crystal formation is interfered with, and the halo effect disappears also.
You should know this, Steve, as we FREQUENTLY see halo effects round both Sun and Moon here, but NEVER when the KALIMA dust is in the sky. Hadn’t you noticed?

Bard of Ely
Yes, I know what redundant means but was thinking that if sunlight is the main tool then this could be what has messed them up and I note that they are OK here where we do not get many trails or blanket coverage with artificial cloud. Back in the UK where I went I saw trails and white cloud covering large areas made by these trails and the bees have nearly vanished so I joined the dots.
You make an excellent point about the halos and I know that they are dependent on water vapor so dust (or particles) should not produce this effect. I have to admit what you say makes sense to me on that.
If solid particles cannot go through the engines, which makes sense to me too, how did Teller’s sunscreen proposal work or this new madness by Prof Flannery of wanting to use sulfur? To my knowledge both aluminum (Teller) and sulfur (Flannery) are solids.
I assume that these substances would be sprayed from tanks with nozzles etc that you say are not in passenger planes but whilst that may well be the case, what about military planes? Surely they can have these adaptations?

JazzRoc
“I know what redundant means but was thinking that if sunlight is the main tool” – and there’s your paradox – “redundant” means “if an element is removed, the function of the remainder persists”.
“blanket coverage with artificial cloud” – All these clouds are cirrus. In supersaturated air the ice crystals of cirrus clouds, whether natural or man-made contrails, will gain weight and fall until they become diffuse clouds of water droplets (stratus) or if they reach the ground – fog. This fog, whatever its origination, is practically pure water. The impurities (and we’re talking fractions of a percent here) will be soot (from a gas turbine) or aluminum silicate (from the land) or methyl sulfide (from the sea). NONE of these will poison bees. The most likely killer of bees is a virus. The second most likely killer is a bacterium. The third most likely is a fungus. The fourth most likely is another strain of bees. Use your commonsense. Cities and industrial landscapes occupy about 2% of the Earth’s surface area – there may be cumulative effects for which they share a worldwide responsibility, like increasing proportions of carbon and sulfur dioxides in the air, but aircraft have only a 3% share in this. It is more likely that Nature itself is killing the bees.
It is very unfortunate (but obviously true) that these bee enemies are also arranged in the order of being the most difficult to discover. You have to remember (if you ever knew) that due to the incredible scales involved, finding a specific lethal bacterium on a bee might be like finding a single unknown person in a city, and that finding a single lethal virus on a bee (it might be INSIDE a bacterium!) might be like finding a single unique person on Earth – namely VERY much harder than finding a needle in a haystack – in fact well-nigh impossible.
“I joined the dots” – but only the dots you could see…”how did Teller’s sunscreen proposal work or this new madness by Prof Flannery of wanting to use sulfur” – Teller’s proposal was never answered. Flannery’s was to use rockets, but this engineer can tell you now that the whole proposal was flaky, and very much more likely to do harm than good. After all, what is acid rain? (Er – sulfur dioxide meets water – makes sulfuric acid!) How good is THAT for trees? “To my knowledge both aluminum (Teller) and sulphur (Flannery) are solids” – It isn’t impossible to turn both into organic liquids. Sulfur is fairly easy, aluminum difficult and expensive. (Barium is much more difficult and is so dense and reactive that specially-lined tanks and mechanical stirrers would be required!)
However on the scale of the Earth you can forget it. I’ve told you already that a single shot of barium for the Earth would require 3.4 million tons. That’s for a single pass… Can you envisage the US (and who else could it be?) shelling up for 85,000 KC105 tanker flights on a weekly basis, when its economy is about to go down the tubes? The whole idea is ridiculous. The surface area of the Earth is fifty times larger than the United States.
“what about military planes?” – It’s your best argument, but doesn’t pan out when you consider the logistics. See above.
You say you have read my blog. I can tell you’re not telling me the truth, for this is thoroughly answered there, and here I’m forced to repeat myself.
As I have said before, Steve, you cannot defeat me using scientific argument, because I know the science involved. If you really get down to basics (and of course you can’t!) I would fight you all the way and still end up the winner.
Your side knows this and has found other ways to defeat me – by blocking, by corruption, by fraud, by lying. But never by science. Blocking and corruption are beyond my powers to overcome, but occasionally I have defeated fraud. And lies are easy to deal with.
What I would like for you to do (apart from stopping making all these false assertions!) is come up with questions which really challenge me, and not questions which any book on atmospheric physics or topical science programme can answer.
And here is one for you. In my blog there is a link to a fascinating British invention which provides a safe, easy, cheap and reversible method of controlling and reducing Global Warming. What is it?

Bard of Ely
Tony, I have had a big realisation and not sure how I missed this apart from by association – I saw trails and white hazy skies and sun halos and my logic said the halos were caused by what was in the trails. However, because I was believing the trails were bad I was assuming the halos had to be too and had read how they are a sign in the Hopi system of the end of this system which added to my belief they are bad. But in doing this I was failing to see something I know – that halos form when there is water vapour, not when there is dust or particles. Therefore, looking at this now it means that the white trails and white artificial cloud cover would appear to be, as you and other non CT-believers have said, water vapour turning to ice crystals! This means that “chembows” would also be made of water. This means a lot that I have been believing was wrong!

fant 169

JazzRoc
Crumbs, Steve. Answers like this REALLY pull the rug out from under my feet! I am so accustomed to dogged argument that I don’t really know now what to say. 🙂 Except, of course, that there is much more to this than what we have covered so far, and even if “chemtrails” don’t exist, then for sure most ills suffered by both Man and Nature are STILL down to Man!
My point all the way through my “campaign” against “chemtrails” is that WHILE “chemtrails” are the focus of attention, the REAL problems are NOT ADDRESSED.

Namely, people ARE suffering from lung and skin allergic reactions, and possibly dying. These people will be the young, the old, the poor, and people who have already been weakened by some other disease. Not having “media share”, they can slip away without causing a stir or attracting attention. Awful. And I’m fairly sure that’s happening, not from any particular facts I possess (except perhaps my own intense allergy to Britain’s summer months!), but from a half-century of experience in the ways of the world.
I have watched the quality of Britain’s air, water, and food drop decade by decade. And the quality of life! The fuddy-duddy “Empah” values, stiff-upper-lip, reserve, and artificial politeness PRESERVED a life quality we have LOST. Lack of stress! Peace!
I’m also concerned about CARS. In the sixties the Conservative transport minister Dr. Beeching removed half our rail network. This rail network was a web of railway that reached to every town and virtually every village in the country. It was a fabulous real estate asset because it was JOINED UP, and could hence be converted – perhaps into a clean and efficient tramway, or a road, or a canal, or an information highway. Or maybe left as part of a modern automatic railway. Well, once broken up and flogged off as packets of land no longer joined up, that which cost the Victorians SO much trouble was cast to the wind…
In the seventies there was the Oil Crisis, when the price of oil tripled overnight. “Now” I thought “there is bound to be a drive towards light and efficient people movers!” What did we build? 4 by 4’s, juggernauts as big and heavy as the monsters built in the US during the fifties! The SUPERMARKET “juggernauts” drove across our valleys in the eighties, removing trees and hedges and small-holdings in their factory-farming “techno-park” drive to produce consistently-sized, brightly-coloured, poisoned, tasteless “vegetable” (or “animal”) pap, leaving in their wake air filled with herbicides, pesticides, and pollens, and sordid concentration camps of bird and animal suffering. And then the cars. Without a decent railway or bus system or information system we were forced into cars. (Not you, Steve, I know.) Thousands of cars. MILLIONS of cars. On occasion the M25 was a stationary six-lane CAR PARK (with all engines running) for a HUNDRED MILES. What in God’s Name sort of LUNACY is THAT? Cars, poisoned air, poisoned water, denatured food, the mass-torture of birds and animals. Rudeness in public. Temporary and demeaning employment. Fraud in Banking and Insurance. Mortgage and Equity crises. Lying politicians. Foreign war. STRESS… BRITAIN!
Chemtrails are simply (apart from their nonexistence) SURPLUS TO REQUIREMENT.
The anti-GW invention is the salt-spray trimaran of Dr. Stephen Salter. Apart from turning the skies of the southern Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans somewhat leaden (and reducing the violence of storms in the area, and providing refuge for shipwrecked sailors) these devices do no harm whatsoever. Only five hundred of them are needed, and they can be switched off overnight if that were necessary.

Bard of Ely
Tony, please see the update I have added. I can admit I was wrong about a lot of it and felt I should make a public statement here explaining my reasoning. Thank you, because in the course of this I have understood how I was ignoring facts or overriding them due to my belief in the basic chemtrail conspiracy and my mistrust in scientists and official authorities. I would think that has happened with many of the other people who haven’t given you a chance or really read all you have had to say!

JazzRoc
“This means a lot that I have been believing was wrong!” – Steve, that was a gracious (and almost unique!) apology which temporarily took my breath away. It is unusual for a “chemtrail” adherent to back down over anything. The only previous instance I can recall was – you – about a year ago. Yet, after that, you soon got into full swing again. So may we look at your phrase “a lot that I have been believing” and pick it apart a little? Can you now be believing that yes, there ARE poisons being dispensed, but they DON’T make white lines in the sky? Perhaps you now believe that no, they CAN’T be passenger planes, but they CAN be military KC105 tankers which are NOT laying visible trails? Invisible trails of WHAT might these be? Do you know how many KC105s there are – compared with the number required to carry out Edward Teller’s proposal? (ET – the original “Strangelove”!) NOT ENOUGH. Not enough tankers, not enough fuel, not enough barium.
Did you notice the satellite image of the whole of the North Atlantic Ocean in my blog that showed contrails as a grid of white lines concentrated ONLY over the middle of the ocean (where there was a huge north-south cold front!) with virtually no contrails over the land anywhere? If they were “spraying”, WHY would that occur? Did you see the “chemtrailer” version of a (on-off) “gap” in a contrail that was patently photoshopped into existence? Did you see the Sciechimiche video claiming to be the inside of a “spraying” aircraft which was “fabricated” from a photo of the interior of the Boeing 777 Long Range Prototype, which at the time contained interconnected barrels of water (in place of the seating) for directly testing the consequences of varying its centre of gravity?
I hope you COMPLETELY understand that there is NOT A SINGLE WORD OF TRUTH in ANY PART of the “chemtrail conspiracy”, and that some of the “claimants” are NOT DELUDED but actively FRAUDULENT. And “Geo-engineering” is not necessarily a dirty word…
Steve, I looked at your stop press, and it warmed my heart to see it. But it is an afterword in your Hub entitled “Are Chemtrails Real, and Contrails a Con?”, so I suppose the end results of this episode may still be deleterious, and a distraction from solving our true difficulties. I hope you will soon return to your laudable activities in the fields and woods of permaculture, wildlife, wild foods, conservation and Nature.

Bard of Ely
I will have a look at that video now! I do not claim to know how many planes the miltary has or where they hold them. I have seen the “inside a tanker” video you refer to and am well aware of the reality of that episode having been caught up in it personally online. I read a lot of the conspiracy authors and watch their lectures and the majority have included chemtrails as a reality and I find it hard to believe they are all knowingly lying, especially when I know that much of the other material covered is true. So I have to conclude they blind themselves as I have done. I have taken down my STOP CHEMTRAILS banners at Myspace because they show trails which you have convinced me are water vapour and until anyone can prove anything to the contrary I am as of now not promoting CTs as a reality. In fact when I have the time I will do a rewrite of what I have posted above here probably and stick it on Myspace. JazzRoc was he right? Yes, but nobody wanted to know!
I would much prefer to stick to things I do know about such as nature but in this case I got involved in it by seeing skies that are not as they used to be, which you have convinced me is caused by far more water being in them, and I assume this was the case when this happened before as you have detailed regarding past occurrences of persistent contrails.

JazzRoc
I notice that you’ll find on the YouTube co-display page an article by Alex Jones concerning the Sun’s role in Global Warming, where he suggests this coming Solar Cycle will show the Sun’s brightness increasing by 50%. In the 4.6 billion years (and 200 million solar cycles) since the Sun and its solar system formed, the Sun has increased its brightness by (I think) 27%. This means that the mean brightness increase of the Sun per cycle is 0.000000135%. The