Home/Blog
Fig. 1. “Study of Cirrus Clouds”, painting by John Constable, circa 1822. Cirrus as a cloud type was first defined by Luke Howard in 1802.
2025 isn’t just the current year, or a Heritage Foundation project of conservative principles for political action for the new Republican President. In the 1990s it was also the result of an Air Force directive to “examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future“.
As a partial response to that directive, several students at the Air War College in 1996 produced a document, largely theoretical in content, entitled Weather As a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025. That document, which was declassified in 1998, seems to have provided sufficient evidence some people needed to claim that our government has been secretly modifying the weather, altering the atmosphere, poisoning us with chemicals, or whatever else you can think of.
Now, as a general rule, I’m not against conspiracy theories. For example, it has become clear that experts knew early on that the COVID-19 virus likely did indeed come from a lab leak in Wuhan, China, and one might reasonably conclude there was a conspiracy to hide such evidence. Even the New York Times says we were misled. Conspiracies exist.
But not everything we see in the world that we perceive as a threat is the result of a conspiracy, and some people are just easily triggered by what they see. Many years ago I attended a local town hall meeting where a congressional candidate was speaking. During the Q&A period, an appropriately-attired biker dude got up and wanted to know what the candidate was going to do about all of the “chemtrails” the biker saw in the skies above him as he traveled around the country. The candidate provided a an appropriately vague and soothing response.
So, how did this “chemtrail” theory arise?
It seems to be a combination of peoples’ misunderstanding of the clouds they see in the sky combined with increasing distrust in our government, fueled by the 2025 Air Force study alluded to above. It also seems to be exacerbated by lesser standards of math and science education in recent decades, leading to a new generation of adults who can not critically examine claims made by others.
Contrail Production by Jet Aircraft is Well Understood
For those of us who know meteorology, those visible cloud streaks left behind travelling jets are “contrails” (condensation trails), produced during the combustion of jet fuel. The chemistry of jet fuel combustion is well understood, which includes the by-products of that combustion. During combustion, 1 kg of jet fuel produces about 1.3 kg of water (hydrogen in the fuel combines with oxygen from the atmosphere to produce H2O, water). That water exits the jet engine as water vapor in such high concentrations at extremely cold temperatures (around generally -30 to -50 deg. F) that there is much more water than the atmosphere can hold without condensation (cloud formation) occurring.
As a result, trails of cirrus clouds (contrails) are produced. Depending upon the relative humidity (RH) of the surrounding environmental air, those contrails can either rapidly evaporate (if RH is very low), leaving essentially no visible evidence, or can persist and even expand in coverage for many hours if the RH is high. In a high RH environment, jet-produced cirrus can actually scavenge water vapor from the surrounding atmosphere, causing continued growth of the contrails.
Fig. 2. Four-engine contrails produced by jet aircraft. Different illumination situations can change the contrail appearance, just as is the case with natural cirrus clouds (source).
The presence of wind shear (changing wind direction or speed with height) can cause distortion of the resulting clouds into myriad shapes. Often, the resulting jet-produced cirrus clouds are not easily distinguishable from natural cirrus clouds produced by weather systems; other times they are easily distinguishable. Literally as I was writing this, I took a picture out my office window showing both natural and jet-produced cirrus clouds.
Fig. 3. Natural and jet-produced cirrus clouds at sunrise, Huntsville, Alabama, 19 March 2025.
But when, and why, did the “chemtrail” conspiracy theory theory gain traction? And why does it persist today? The theory posits that the visual trails of condensed water vapor seen behind jet aircraft operating at high altitudes in reality represent the spraying of chemicals for some nefarious purpose(s). I routinely see comments on X and Facebook from people alarmed at the “chemtrails” they see. Those evil purposes of chemtrail production range from geoengineering (purposely changing the climate) to mind control and the spread of sickness that can be treated by pharmaceutical companies to increase their profits. Many weather experts have tried to debunk these ideas, for example Cliff Mass, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington.
Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
So, does the U.S. Air Force now own the weather in 2025, as predicted in the 1996 report? Of course not. Most of the theoretically possible technologies in that report for either clearing clouds, or creating clouds, in the battlefield did not exist in the 1990s. The report is full of pie-in-the-sky concepts, including cloud seeding to produce precipitation (the subject of much civilian research in recent decades), but admits “artificial weather technologies do not currently exist. But as they are developed, the importance of their potential applications rises rapidly.”
Yes, there have been experiments (mainly civilian) extending back to the 1950s involving seeding clouds to get them to precipitate. This involved dropping a chemical, such as dry ice or silver iodide crystals, to help convert super-cooled water droplets into precipitation. Project Stormfury, started in the 1960s, researched seeding hurricanes in the periphery to reduce the intensity of the central part of the cyclone, which is where most of the damaging winds and storm surge occur. But the idea was abandoned when it was realized hurricanes already convert almost all of the condensed cloud into precipitation anyway, without any help from humans.
This isn’t to say that it is impossible to seed clouds and produce precipitation, at least on a very localized basis in specific weather situations. But the research results have been mixed, and generally speaking, unless a cloud is getting ready to precipitate anyway, seeding doesn’t do much to the cloud, except make it precipitate sooner rather than later. People have a greatly exaggerated perception of what humans can do to purposely impact weather processes.
Now, I’m not privy to any weather modification technologies that DoD might have in the works. But after nearly a half-century of working in weather and climate, I can tell you there is little we can do to affect weather, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Let’s examine the AF report example of creating or clearing clouds in the battlefield. Imagine a wartime situation where the AF wants to clear a cloud (or fog) to allow precision visual identification of a target for bombing. Theoretically, this could be done with a powerful microwave directed-beam energy source (maybe from a special aircraft flying just ahead of a missile-carrying aircraft) to temporarily evaporate the cloud water. To give some idea of the energy that would be required to do that, we can compute how much energy is required to evaporate a path of fog having dimensions of 100x100x100 meters having a liquid water content of 0.1 grams water per kg of air. Assuming maybe 25% or so of the directed microwave beam energy will go into heating air and evaporating the liquid water, one can estimate the energy required of such a directed-beam device would be around 1 billion Watts (1 billion Joules of energy produced for 1 second). This is indeed in the realm of the estimated power output of DoD directed beam energy sources, at least from the ground. I have no idea whether such a large energy source could be produced by an aircraft.
But, even if the Air Force could, would they even want to? I’m pretty sure smart weapons now exist which have passive microwave technology allowing a target to be seen through relatively modest cloud cover.
So, What About Chemtrails? And Geoengineering?
As far as I can tell, the AF report cited above does not mention technologies that would disperse chemicals through jet exhaust (or other aircraft orifices). Besides, if such chemtrails exist, they are spreading their “chemicals” over everyone, including the families of the people conspiring to cause chemtrails.
Why would anyone do that?
Isolated photos do exist of jets dumping fuel, which comes out of different special wing ports, away from the engines. Sometimes this is cited as evidence of chemicals being spread for nefarious purposes. But this “fuel jettisoning” is a rare occurrence, usually in emergency situations, and is estimated to occur less than once per 100,000 commercial flights.
But there has been lots of research into whether jet contrails inadvertently affect climate, which would be a case of accidental geoengineering. Contrails reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface (a cooling effect), but that is more than offset by their reduction in the infrared (IR) cooling of the climate system, leading to a net heating. The best estimates are that global jet traffic produces less than 0.1 Watt per sq. meter of net radiative heating of the climate system, which is in the noise level (by comparison, natural solar heating and infrared cooling of the global-average climate system is ~240 Watts per sq. meter). Locally, where there is lots of air traffic, that value goes up to possibly 0.5 Watts per sq. meter, which is probably still not detectable in the presence of natural variations in temperature. An early study of the temperature effects of a jet traffic shutdown after 9/11 were later debunked by a subsequent study.
Now, what IS being discussed is the possibility of carrying large quantities of sulfur into the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) to produce sulfur dioxide aerosols in an attempt to slightly reduce incoming sunlight and so partially offset global warming. This is an example of what “geoengineering” usually refers to. This would require huge amounts of sulfur compounds and many jet flights to even come close to the natural cooling effects of a major volcanic eruption, the most recent example of which was the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. That eruption injected an estimated 15-20 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere, which resulted in cool-ish summers over Northern Hemisphere land areas in 1992. Personally, I don’t ever see this happening because there would be too much public resistance to the idea.
But no one bats an eye when Mother Nature does it.
And the few news reports you see where supposed experiments involving the ground-level release of a few kg of sulfur compounds to test the idea of altering clouds are laughable. The EPA estimates that in 2023, 1.7 million tons of SO2 were released in the U.S. from anthropogenic sources. That is over 9 million pounds per day. Compare that to the “experimental” release of a few pounds by some headline-grabbing “researchers”. As I said… laughable.
A Major Reason for the Hysteria: Jet Contrails are Visible
Chemtrail hysteria would not exist if not for the fact that jet contrails are visible. Cars and trucks also produce huge amounts of water vapor, which is sometimes seen as condensed water in cold or high-RH conditions. The reason they don’t persist is that at the temperatures and air pressures present at ground level, the air can hold orders of magnitude more water vapor without cloud formation than jet-altitude air can hold.
But no one accuses car drivers (or car manufacturers) of purposely poisoning our air with chemicals, do they?
Yes, cars produce some chemicals as a by-product of combustion (all invisible), and through EPA regulations some of those chemicals have been greatly reduced with new fuel formulations, engine design changes, and catalytic converters. But cars are never blamed for producing chemtrails because, generally speaking, we never see those emissions (including the water vapor emissions). But we DO see jet contrails.
Finally, one part of the problem is that our public education system has produced too many science-illiterate adults. They are susceptible to crazy ideas spread by attention- (and money-) seeking charlatans, some of whom might be convinced that a chemtrail conspiracy exists. Too many people today seem to be incapable of independent, critical thought.
After all, who would doubt evidence such as this?:
Thank you. This article will be a great tool to help fight against the chem trail chatter. Its almost worse than the climate change claptrap. People believe the strangest things …
Derp.
Dr Spencer.
TL;DR
It’s not only “lesser standards of math and science education in recent decades, leading to a new generation of adults who can not critically examine claims made by others.”
It is also that people are getting dumber.
Because evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence, and with no natural predators to thin the herd, it has simply rewarded those that reproduce the most and left the intelligent to become an endangered species. All this healthy and peaceful living with those mandatory inoculations and subsidized health care is depriving our !d!ots from their well-deserved opportunities to
remove themselvespursue happiness. Why, even our cars our safer than ever!Here’s a link from my confirmation bias library in support of this view: https://futurism.com/neoscope/human-intelligence-declining-trends
Evolution takes a lot longer to have any effect. Until recently we had the Flynn effect of increasing intelligence, (which didn’t have anything with evolution to do either). Education, healthcare, food and so on is what matters in the short run. Today mobile phones and social media are ruining a generation.
Great document. I’ll start sharing it along with the https://contrailscience.com/how-to-debunk-chemtrails/ I generally give to people stressing out over the concept.
I have two notes to add:
1) Some people acknowledge the existence of “normal” contrails, but point to those that spread out as the true chemtrails. Those likely are from jet exhaust into supersaturated air, i.e. a relative humidity greater than 100%. The normal contrail condensation occurs, but that creates cloud condensation nuclei that water vapor is “glad” to condense on.
The mass of stuff required to leave a stream of expanding nasty chemicals also applies here.
2) When I hear a jet flyover when I’m outside, I like to look at it to gauge the humidity at the airplane’s level. I especially like to do that when a big ol’ Canadian High has brought in a big pile of dry air, then the reward is spotting the airplane that is _not_ leaving a contrail.
Then I hop over to https://www.flightradar24.com/ to see what sort of loud airplane is and what its altitude is.
Yes, if RH is high, the cloud will spread horizontally by turbulent diffusion and growth from environmental water vapor. Also, spread is often caused by directional wind shear with height, since the turbulent diffusion spreads the contrails vertically as well as horizontally. This is an additional source of horizontal spread.
It is also possible to have rows of contrails. Since the jets fly on designated routes, the contrails form in the same place over and over with the jet traffic. If there is a crosswind, then each new trail moves laterally forming rows as more jets pass.
The contrails themselves cause slight warming on net. Then you have to consider the GHG(misnomer) and aerosols the big jets put out. On net I suppose its still warming, but Id like to know more about the combustion of kerosene.
The Air Force COIL program was a “megawatt class” laser. Lots of things limit laser weapons much beyond those levels. Certainly GW lasers aren’t in the cards.
Thanks for the physics discussion of chem trails. I attribute the passion of the conspiracy theorists, however, to the same one that drives the flat Earthers, fake moon landing crowds. Facts don’t matter. I’ve posted photos of squadrons of B-17’s streaming contrails saying these have been there since high altitude aircraft. Facts don’t matter.
And now millions are dancing to the human caused climate change mantra. Facts don’t matter.
Interesting that you reject the conspiracy theories about chemicals but accept the conspiracy theories of climate change denial.
ent…climate change denial??? The problem here is not climate denial, rather it is a denial of the incorrect definition of climate being applied by alarmists.
I have seen no significant evidence of any climates changing anywhere in the world.
All of the climates listed in this wiki article have clear, distinct properties. Show me one of those sub-types of climate that have changed significantly since 1850?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_classification
Besides, how much would you expect a climate region to change based on a 1C average warming? I fear that what you define as climate is nothing more than natural variations in local weather.
The left always accuses the deniers of being in a cult. Trish Regan does a great exposing how the left parrots the same talking points and they demonstrate how they are the cult. Ent, Willard, Ark, Blinny, Nate, Barry, etc. are all part of the same Global Leftist Cult.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG6ORiNc_yc
The left always accuses the deniers of being in a cult. Trish Regan does a great exposing how the left parrots the same talking points as they demonstrate how they are the cult. Ent, Willard, Ark, Blinny, Nate, Barry, etc. are all part of the same Global Leftist Cult.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG6ORiNc_yc
So, Tim Walz and other Democrats are calling Elon Musk every name under the Sun, slandering the guy, calling him a Nazi. Walz also said he was a Nepo baby, claiming that he is a product of Nepotism. What a liar. The left lies folks. Space X just launched their 450th Falcon rocket into space. Musk rescued the stranded astronauts. Space X has far exceeded every other space program including NASA. The guy is an incredible gift to humanity and the Democrats are mercilessly attacking him for doing what? Trying to cut huge government waste and fraud. The left loves their waste and fraud.
He IS a Nazi.
What are you talking about? Someone who doesn’t want to see the country collapse under the weight of its debt is a Nazi? Leftists live in an alternate universe.
Stephen moans about being accused of being in a denialist cult.
Then accuses promoters of mainstream science as being in a cult!
“country collapse under the weight of its debt”
Stephen. It would be great if they were actually trying to solve the Debt problem. But they are definitely not.
They are destroying small but important gov programs that produce insignificant cuts to spending, while planning to make larger cuts to gov revenues, to benefit mainly the wealthy, thus making NET additions to the Debt!
Meanwhile they offer no plans to fix the real sources of the Debt problem: are Medicaid Medicare and Social Security.
There are simple fixes available though. Raise the income level at which payroll taxes are applied.
Nate says:
”Stephen moans about being accused of being in a denialist cult.
Then accuses promoters of mainstream science as being in a cult!”
That’s because ”mainstream science” as an idiom is an oxymoron.
Believing in an oxymoron is not a bad description of a cult when that same belief is held by a significant number of people.
Science is comprised of a myriad of discoveries outside of the mainstream.
All you spout around here is ignorance and can’t back up simple proofs such as your anti-vax claims about RFK Jr below. You simply extract that from ”mainstream yellow journalism” which expresses what ever sells newspapers and thus profits holders of intellectual property rights.
That’s the origin of the idiom ”mainstream science” and that is also why its an oxymoron and those that believe this to be science is in fact a cult. Science is not a popularity contest so the word ”mainstream” is completely incompatible. Scientists that believe it are no different than a cargo cult. The people not profiting from it that believe it are merely their victims and often become tools of the corruption and willing ignorant members of the cult without any realization it is cult.
> an oxymoron
Rather a pleonasm.
I think most people get what mainstream science is, and who opposes it.
Anti-vaxxers oppose it. Climate science deniers oppose it. Flat Earthers oppose it. Non-spinners also.
Nate says:
”I think most people get what mainstream science is, and who opposes it.”
Nate actually gets something right, obviously accidentally. The majority of the nation voted against the scammers and the green new scam. But apparently Nate hasn’t gotten the memo yet.
Science is not decided by public vote, thankfully, or by Presidential Executive orders.
Though the new admin is trying to censor science that they don’t like. Reminds me of the 1930s in Germany, when ‘Jewish’ science like Relativity was censored and banned.
You continue to not get it, Nate. Science isn’t decided. It is falsified.
Nate what evidence do you have any science has been censored by the Trump administration?
Google it, there are tons of news articles about it.
“The U.S. Department of Agriculture has directed agency officials to review and remove content related to climate change from its public websites, according to internal emails obtained by ABC News.”
“Farmers depend on climate data. Theyre suing the USDA for deleting it.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/31/usda-climate-change-websites-00201826
Nate said:
”Though the new admin is trying to censor science that they dont like. Reminds me of the 1930s in Germany, when Jewish science like Relativity was censored and banned.”
I asked:
”Nate what evidence do you have any science has been censored by the Trump administration?”
You avoided answering the question. Obviously you were lying again.
False. F*k off.
Obviously I am correct. Nate just gets mad.
Thats your problem Nate. Mainstream science is nothing but mainstream media to you. Its all political science. 100% of it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/does-the-air-force-own-the-weather-in-2025-origins-of-the-chemtrail-theory/#comment-1701521
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2470279-us-scientists-rebuild-climate-risk-map-deleted-from-government-site/
https://www.newsweek.com/farmers-sue-agriculture-department-climate-information-government-website-2035619
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/climate/government-websites-climate-environment-data.html
“Vast quantities of climate and environmental information have been removed from official websites in the past months. Scientists are trying keep it available.”
Nate says:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2470279-us-scientists-rebuild-climate-risk-map-deleted-from-government-site/
https://www.newsweek.com/farmers-sue-agriculture-department-climate-information-government-website-2035619
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/climate/government-websites-climate-environment-data.html
Vast quantities of climate and environmental information have been removed from official websites in the past months. Scientists are trying keep it available.
The first link isn’t science it instead speculation as they clearly state.
”In December, FEMA published an interactive map on its website detailing how climate change could affect the risk of hurricanes, floods, wildfires and other hazards across the”
Notice the word ”could”. As we know none of these impacts have as yet been identified by science. Its just a political thing government wants to fund to gain votes from worriers. Trump will lose those votes. You can’t ask for anything more than that as its certainly not a censorship of science.
The second link says:
”Wes Gillingham is a New York farmer and board president of the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, which is one of the groups suing the USDA for what the lawsuit calls an “unlawful purge” of climate information.
Gillingham told Newsweek that many farmers rely on the USDA site for information on climate-smart farming practices and technical assistance for grants and loans designed to help farmers adapt to climate impacts such as drought, floods and changes in growing seasons.”
Wes Gillingham is just pissed that the government isn’t going to continue to fund him. This has nothing to do with science. Spreading around smart farming practices is what community cooperatives and associations are supposed to do, proving their value, by expanding their memberships and dues to fund it. Some poor guy homeless on the street doesn’t benefit from this. It in fact harms him instead in favor of supporting farmers whose main clientele are the elites. The money will be better spent supporting RFK Jr. who is attempting to help everybody be healthier.
I can’t address the third link as its an ad for a subscription to an elitist newspaper rather than information available for all, especially those who can’t afford to buy a lot of subscriptions. May as well be pay TV.
Again you have shown no cases of censorship nor obviously any evidence that you even know what censorship is. Its certainly not rooting out waste, fraud and abuse.
I think everyone here gets what grade school game Bill is playing.
It is whatever Nate says, Bill must say the opposite.
Nothing to do with facts, truth or reality.
Thus, Bill’s posts can be safely ignored.
Yes nothing to see here. Nate is playing traffic cop telling you to move on that he really doesn’t want to consider the quality of science Nate offers up in the form of copyrighted mainstream media. . .that is the only support he can offer for his scientific belief system.
Rather than post a science paper that has been censored, which obviously he can’t do as apparently the only known science censorship effort has been conducted by the institutional special interests who act as the gatekeepers of science funding and publishing. Certainly there have been no incidences of mobs breaking into and destroying books, papers, and property of these institutions beyond those that the institutions themselves wanted to protect.
What we are seeing in college riots, selective prosecution, destruction of personal property (e.g keying and burning of Teslas), attacks on the elderly whose only crime was to show the wrong political colors, and denial of access to those institutions to their beneficiaries have generally and lopsidedly been endorsed by those same institutions and their employees.
Its pretty damned shameful.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/rfk-jr-david-geier-vaccines-autism-hhs-cdc-health-trump-administration-policy-184c242f?mod=opinion_lead_pos2
I watched an interview with the musician “Prince” once in which he said that every time a plane emitting “chemtrails” flew over his neighborhood, everyone started fighting.
Water vapor does that to people.
Its going to get bad when people start driving Hydrogen powered cars.
Nice article. It illustrates how easy it is for people to find what they want on the internet to feed their conspiratotial thinking.
Such as anti-vaxxers like our HHS Secretary. Thus we are getting unnecessary breakouts of deadly infectious diseases that we had wiped out.
But people feel that they can do their own research. Which means finding snippets of out-of-context information, while lacking the training and expertise to detect misinformation.
And weather variability and unusual weather events are “evidence” of climate change. Got it!
Off topic..
In general all of the media over-hype weather events.
In some cases those are predicted to be enhanced by climate change.
Nate says:
”Nice article. It illustrates how easy it is for people to find what they want on the internet to feed their conspiratorial thinking.”
Fully expected from a disastrously failing overly bureaucratic education system that manufactures falsehood after falsehood with intent like above from Nate. Of course no bureaucrat is ever being deceived by a over hyping media pushing a political agenda. . . right? It more direct than that and its original source is typically the bureaucracy. Its only that other ignorant media that ever gets it wrong and skepticism of the media only grows from that. LMAO!
Nate says:
”Such as anti-vaxxers like our HHS Secretary. Thus we are getting unnecessary breakouts of deadly infectious diseases that we had wiped out.”
RFJ Jr is not an anti-vaxxer. RFK Jr. has stated that all 6 of his children received their full childhood schedule of vaccinations with his blessings. There probably isn’t a better way to refute the conspiracy theory that Nate gobbled up like a cod on a clam.
And as to diseases that have been allegedly eradicated there are none. Google AI explains for the one disease claimed to have been eradicated, small pox.
”Smallpox was officially eradicated globally in 1980. Since then, there have been no reported cases of smallpox worldwide.
The last naturally occurring case of smallpox was in Somalia in 1977. The virus remains stored in secure laboratories in the United States and Russia for research purposes.”
For the diseases that are uncommon in US (Nate says ”wiped out”)
Even Google doesn’t have the balls to be honest here completely compromised in woke culture to tell the obvious truth.
They say:
”Measles outbreaks often originate from international travelers returning to areas with low vaccination rates, or from the spread of the virus within communities with lower immunity.”
International travelers returning from areas with low vaccination rates?
What about international travelers coming to the US from areas of low vaccination rates?
Aren’t travelers ”returning” from those areas highly vaccinated?
LOL!
And what about catch and release of illegal border crossers? We were putting their children they drug along with them in our schools.
It is only logical that these illegal border jumpers coming from areas with low vaccination rates have by far the lowest vaccination rate in the low vaccination rate nation.
You can’t find hardly anything about this issue in mainstream media as nitwits try to blame RFK Jr.
This article is an exception that I had to drop Google search engine and bring up Duck Duck Go to find:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/3000352/vaccinating-migrants-border-crisis/
https://apnews.com/article/rfk-jr-vaccine-trump-science-autism-9b99621b01f11b7f0bdc81e5a0b82d2b
https://newrepublic.com/post/192059/rfk-jr-vaccines-flu-covid-hhs
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)02603-5/fulltext
“A stark example of the devastating impact of vaccine misinformation is Samoa’s 2019 measles outbreak.3 In this island nation of 200 000, more than 5700 people were infected and 83 people died, most of whom were young children. Samoa’s Ministry of Health cited Kennedy’s visit and his rhetoric as exacerbating vaccine hesitancy at a crucial moment.4 Kennedy’s non-profit, Children’s Health Defense, contributed to this atmosphere of mistrust just months before the outbreak.4 Samoa’s experience underscores how even one prominent anti-vaccine figure can ignite a public health crisis.”
LOL! Nate produces misinformation from three unreliable and unvetted sources as the basis of his opinion. Seems to me you are doing exactly what you were trying to impugn others for doing Nate.
None of the articles brought any evidence and the article on Samoa claims that RFK Jr statements caused an epidemic of measles like a few months after his visit.
I recall that children get their vaccines before they first go to school. Where is the evidence that the outbreak involved them and didn’t involve people who had already made their own decisions?
Where is a recording of the dastardly things they are alleging Kennedy said?
None of it. Further all the articles are political hit pieces that Nate here absolutely believes if and only if it comes from the left side of the aisle and disbelieves if it comes from the right side.
All you did here Nate is prove my point. You have nothing. That you are somebody who absolutely believes stuff for which no evidence exists and you take that position consistently whether there is evidence of not as long as its coming from a viewpoint on your preferred side of the aisle and you disregard any evidence not favored by your party.
Nah. The sources are fine, and accurate in their facts.
Nate says:
”Nah. The sources are fine, and accurate in their facts.”
LOL! Sez you and who else? Who cares what you say or anybody else says, claims, or lies about? Where is the evidence any of it is accurate?
The articles are accurate. Who cares that you claim, as always without evidence, that they arent..
RFK Jr has left a long paper trail.
Obviously Nate has no knowledge of where to find any of it due to his obedience to his daddy and the ”mainstream yellow journalism”.
Not for one minute does Nate even want to be perceived as questioning his daddy by even looking for any of it and actually produce a verifiable quote from RFK Jr as evidence.
He understands well that even refusing to declare the absolute certainty of his daddy’s declarations will be viewed as being a traitor to his daddy’s greedy ambitions to tell everybody else what is good for them. So he won’t even look for evidence of his daddy’s claims. If he had found any he could easily link us to them in today’s connected world where even guys believing they are acting surreptitiously keying certain cars have video cameras trained on them much less publicly and intentionally promoting not taking vaccinations using their star powers.
But for Nate having any doubts about what scientists say and have done is a sacrilege. Kennedy is well grounded. He is not going to say anything is ruled out when limited and/or non-independent work has been accepted by an obviously failed and corrupted bureaucracy.
Its like Nate’s belief in ”mainstream science” as if science certainty had anything to do with popularity. What we have are failed bureaucratic educational and health systems with practically zero accountability. These have devolved down to virtual welfare societies where the only objective appears to be welfare for itself. No accountability. There is a whole lot more accountability in private enterprise, including full liability and success based on reputation. For way too long the bureaucracy has been protected from this by attacks on anybody who questions the bureaucracy. That is all thats going on with RFK Jr and Nate can’t stand it. Why? What’s his role?
Nate says:
”The articles are accurate. Who cares that you claim, as always without evidence, that they arent..”
Nate expresses his absolute faith in mainstream media in the political process.
And of course Nate believes that disparagement of RFK Jr should stand unless somebody proves he never said anything that would qualify as such.
Guilty until proven innocent. Yeah Nate really has his stuff together here. NOT!
Nate says:
”RFK Jr has left a long paper trail.”
Yes indeed he has. But why can’t you find any part of this long paper trail that supports your thoughts on it. And why do you hold those thoughts? You haven’t informed us of your agenda.
Bill you are just gish galloping to nowhere. No evidence provided. Your post can be ignored.
I get it Nate. Your only argument is to not argue and ignore any and all facts.
You know what gossip and propaganda are don’t you? Neither is based in facts. All you are saying about RFK Jr is gossip or propaganda as you can produce no facts to support your argument and you want to blame me for your shortcomings. Simple as that.
Its not my job to justify your claims. Its always the claimant’s job. That is even how the scientific method works when it hasn’t been corrupted as well.
Who has been spreading misinformation on Chemtrails?
RFK Jr, of course.
https://www.newsweek.com/rfk-jr-chemtrails-conspiracy-theory-1987708
Climate varies within the short term and long term and is layered with cycles upon cycles, all caused by nature. To say there is a high probability that humans have changed the variability without any evidence other than where the temperature has resided recently has no basis.
Sheesh, Nate changes the topic because he can’t support what he previously complained about.
Some of us believe what gets conspiracy theories real legs is active avoidance of discussion and research. i.e. impugning anybody who even listens and responds. Why do you think Joe Rogan is so popular and puckerbutt politicians aren’t?
Thats why we generally love Nate. At least he is willing to talk and argue about his own superstitions. Like his concerns about anybody saying anything contrary to what he sees as the official narrative. He even goes so far to try to support the official narrative, albeit mostly unsuccessfully as its difficult to fill in the scientific gaps in our knowledge without established facts.
the most insidious version of it is claiming science knows all. Its obvious that any topic Nate chooses to talk about. . .thats his approach.
Like believing we scientifically understand natural climate change.
I recall my wife spending weeks protesting the wide spread spraying of malathion over Los Angeles and watching the planes transit at night in grid patterns. The government does have a history of doing stuff like that. Jerry Brown at least was honest about it. That’s not always the case.
It seems to me that Roy puts the correct spin on it. Understanding how much water vapor is produced by a gallon of fossil fuel burning suggests one should look to more evidence than just contrail clouds and also gain some more understanding of nature.
For example, one has wonder how much UHI error in temperature records due to non-random sampling is produced from populated areas. Discussing that can lead to all sorts of good research. Understanding how things work naturally is difficult but doable if you look closely at all the variables.
Maintaining a healthy skepticism of government is actually wise. Remember the primary observable feature of fascism is big government not small government. It is only difficult to distinguish fascism from communism and other forms of socialism on that score. One thing a big government advocate can’t stand is any speech contrary to the ”official” narrative. I am fine with people expressing their fears about government. Makes for good conversation like this thread that only starts to devolve when folks start impugning individuals willing to talk about controversial topics.
We notice Bill offers no facts to rebut my posts, just the usual random stream of thought bubbles.
The point is Nate that its not on me to prove that RFK Jr never said he believed contrails were some sort of conspiracy.
Its on you to demonstrate that your attack on RFK Jr has any merit and that you aren’t just lying. . .like you do a lot.
Obviously you can’t do that or you would have. So you resorted to suborning a lie.
You did the same thing when you claimed RFK Jr was anti-vax. You just continued to suborn a lie and when confronted on it you changed the topic to chemtrails and suborned a different lie.
“Its on you to demonstrate that your attack on RFK Jr has any merit and that you arent just lying.”
Bill, as always, attacks the messenger, while the cited sources speak for themselves.
Indeed the cited sources provide more than enough evidence that they couldn’t find a single RFK Jr quote that supports their claims.
Yet Nate bit on it like a cod on a clam.
Shut up.
Once again Nate makes himself irrelevant by making statements with zero foundation. The fact remains that there is zero certified evidence of any actual climate change anywhere on earth that can be directly tied to human activity. Warming by whatever means is not automatically climate change.
Weather variability and extreme weather events do not demonstrate a change in the climate that can be distinguished from naturally occurring effects. All claims of Climate change are in this category of things that cannot be tied to anthropogenic warming.
Let’s be clear, warming has an extremely high probability of being related to human activity. There is an equally high probability that natural variability is involved as well. When I see Michael Mann on television making statements claiming he is certain that the recent LA fires are a direct result of climate change, I have to ask if he is trying to be a serious scientists, or is something else going on.
The recent warming period of 2023 and 2024 still has no solid explanation, but many theories. What happens if 2025 is an equally dramatic cooling period?. What will the climate change people say? That is a valid question, not a prediction.
Anyone who is accusing climate change skeptics of being against science, or opposing the scientific method, while claiming absolute certainty that climate is changing due to human activity, needs to take a good look in the mirror.
“The fact remains that there is zero certified evidence of any actual climate change anywhere on earth that can be directly tied to human activity”
Then:
“Lets be clear, warming has an extremely high probability of being related to human activity.”
Because of what? Evidence? Yes evidence.
Who knows what you mean by ‘certified evidence’?
In science we have evidence, but never absolute certainty.
Me: “In general all of the media over-hype weather events.
In some cases those are predicted to be enhanced by climate change.”
It’s also quite bizarre that Tim thinks these two very uncontroversial statements are
” statements with zero foundation”
For those playing along with the home game, we need to define a few things.
Weather is the current condition. It is not climate.
Warming is a very broad term that may be natural or human caused, and it may be local or global. It is not just what the climate advocates want it to be, and it does not automatically infer a change in climate locally or globally.
Climate represents a very broad range of weather conditions and does not limit weather from involving possible extreme or unusual events.
Hype is what the news media does to sell news and and it is what advocates do to the push their agenda. Hype usually contains some element of science such as a study containing highly speculative assumptions and conclusions. Hype is closely related to a political tool called spin.
Climate models and their associated conclusions cannot possibly predict the future. Claiming that some effect is “predicted” by climate models is not valid science. None of the climate models predicted the recent warming of the last few years.
My concern with Nate is related directly to his constant knee-jerk reaction to reasonable and thoughtful posts by myself and others. His method of taking single sentences or phrases out of context to distort the meaning of, or dumb-down, a complex statement is annoying at best, and does not contribute anything of intellectual value. Thus my conclusion that Nate has become irrelevant despite my suggestions that he put some thought into his posts and quote people honestly
“reasonable and thoughtful posts by myself and others.”
Bwa ha ha!
As usual had knee jerk reactions to my reasonable posts above.
Your posts are full of hyperbole.
“There is zero cerified evidence”
what is certified anyway?
“while claiming absolute certainty”
No scientist is.
And ignorant claims,
“All claims of Climate change are in this category of things that cannot be tied to anthropogenic warming.”
Temperatures are an aspect of climate.
IF warmer, it is changing.
As I correctly noted, there are specific predictions of changes in certain types of extreme weather.
“and does not contribute anything of intellectual value. Thus my conclusion that Nate has become irrelevant”
False, yet more hyperbole, and being psychologically unable to handle anyone pointing out flaws in your reasoning.
So let’s see I pointed out your misinformation about heat pumps.. I presented information about the improvements in COP vs temperature of them, that you seemed unaware of.
“Climate models and their associated conclusions cannot possibly predict the future.”
Failure to understand what they are and do. Hyperbole
“Claiming that some effect is predicted by climate models is not valid science. ”
Absurd. In 1981 Hansen and collaborators used a climate model trained on previous record of 100 y, to predict the warming and its effects such as sea ice decline, over the next 4 decades. It made reasonable assumptions about CO2 growth.
It proved remarkably accurate within error.
I did a search for Michael Mann LA fire claims. Here is a sample of what I found. To be fair, most were supportive of him:
This one contains a screen shot of the CNN interview I watched live. Some here have accused me of making it up. To be fair, it largely defends Mann but not fully.
https://pesacheck.org/missing-context-climate-change-did-play-a-role-in-the-la-fires-673160dbe46c
[This post on X (formerly Twitter) claiming that wildfires that affected Los Angeles (LA) in the United States were not caused by climate change is MISSING CONTEXT.]
Here is an example of a scientist getting political and perfectly misstating what he call Santa Ana Wind season. Watch the video.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/michael-wnek/2025/01/10/msnbc-host-michael-mann-blame-addiction-fossil-fuels-la-fire
[Dr. Mann asserted the fires were a preventable tragedy and that they resulted from the continued use of fossil fuels. This, according to him, led to an overlap between the fire season and the Santa Ana wind season as well as less rainfall, all of which he concluded is tied to the large-scale warming of the planet from the burning of fossil fuels.]
This one contains a scientific analysis that Mann is wrong, and another screen shot of the CNN interview that actually did happen.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/firestorm-of-lies-the-real-reasons-behind-californias-outbreak-of-fires/
I stopped reading after:
“As the Los Angeles-area wildfires continue to burn, the leftist media have..”
I need to remind people again that the denialist blogosphere is not a good source of science facts. In fact they are very likely to be cherry picked and misrepresented.
People mainly getting their science ‘facts’ from such sources are very likely to be misinformed and to end up making absurd claims.
Tim S says:
”The fact remains that there is zero certified evidence of any actual climate change anywhere on earth that can be directly tied to human activity.”
Yes Nate will argue there is evidence short of certified.
But evidence short of being certified falls short every
time to some degree or the other.
1) one cannot rule out natural warming as the proof of a negative is not a scientific endeavor. Thats especially true when the most obvious climate change would arise from earth’s exposure to the sun and how that involves time and distance and changes to solar intensity hasn’t been thoroughly investigated.
2) climate is more than just surface exposure to the sun. Its also atmospheric exposure and chemical processes such as clouds, ozone, and thermodynamic processes that occur in the atmosphere.
3) Arguments in this forum have pretty much settled on the thermodynamic outcome of how a warming atmosphere could change surface. But to establish this one must abandon the untested conclusion that the atmosphere gets warmer via having greenhouse gases.
We have some evidence that could be true as GHG absorb surface radiation. But its also likely true that the mean temperature of the atmosphere is cooler with GHG than without GHG. At what point does the atmosphere change its trajectory of warming or cooling via exposure to high frequency radiation as GHG’s change?
The only layer of the atmosphere without GHG is a lot hotter than the layers with GHG. Thats the thermosphere and the thermosphere has no GHG.
Further when water vapor, the most influential GHG, becomes nearly extinct as you go up in the atmosphere the lapse rate reverses.
then upon full or very near full extinction it transfers over to a dominate CO2 that then cools as you go up. But at the CO2 extinction zone of the mesosphere it starts warming again
Its not really possible to quantify where we are at here. And a cooling atmosphere would cool the surface not warm it. An atmosphere with no GHG would be at least as warm as the surface or perhaps 2 to 4 times as warm or more. Certainly the thermosphere demonstrates that propensity, heat accumulating until monotomic oxygen and/or nitrogen become photoactive. Its pretty obvious that the thermosphere is hot because of the highest of the solar frequencies emitted by the sun. It isn’t possible it came from surface longwave. The surface just isn’t hot enough.
4) Separate from the above. We ignore effects orbit speed variations within our eccentric orbit that is influenced by gravity from other objects in the solar system and beyond that effects how much sunlight receive.
We only really recognize long term effects of tilt and precession of the earth’s axis and wave our hand over an imagined 100,000 year cycle of eccentricity. Yet actual papers review Milankovic’s work state that shorter termed cycles show up in his research.
NASA actually recognizes the movements of Jupiter and Saturn. They also took advantage of the gravitational influences of all 4 gas giants on a planetary cycle that is only available once every 175 years to send Voyager II on a mission of visiting all these planets in one Grand Tour. Something not to be repeated again until the mid 22nd century. This shortened the trip to Neptune as I recall by about 60% while allowing visitation to the other 3 planets. So instead of the diversions being a time penalty it shortened the trip dramatically.
Its interesting that Milankovic’s original translated works is listed as unavailable or not listed at all in libraries that should house it. You can’t find it in the serbian library online catalogs and while listed in the Library of Congress in the US with a catalog number its labeled as unavailable. It may only be unavailable to us serfs. You might need a secret password to get access or maybe somebody with power stole it.
Then we turn to instrument and proxy temperature records. And low and behold variations in temperatures do vary in time with the movement of planets. Its very hard slogging without computer aids or access to large computerized databases. I can only imagine how Milankovic managed to slog through that before the time of computers. One would have to believe he could have done so much more with computer databases and rudimentary computer models that corresponded to the ideas he had in his head.
Certainly without actually doing that work one cannot handwave all this away and continue to make the claim that all known natural phenomena has been scientifically eliminated and moved to the ignored side of the ledger.
Bill, you overestimate the interest of folks here in reading yet another 15 paragraph monologue of random thoughts from you.
A list of major questions in science that cast doubt on the theory of anthropogenic warming causing all the warming we have seen need to be answered is hardly random thoughts.
Apparently you can’t scientifically dispute a single one of them or your response would be different.
Thanks for calling attention to that.
Even your reply to Tim S was totally lame. Gee nothing needs to be certified. . .we are so smart we can guess our way through this.
Bottom line is if you had any answers at all to any of the statements including Tim’s. . .it would be much smarter for you to answer the questions if you believe they have been answered with some papers on the matters being discussed.
But obviously you can’t and actually its equally obvious you don’t care.
Nah. Just not worth talking to you.
I think Bill’s compilation was very interesting and summarizes a lot of our thoughts. We don’t know what we don’t know. And, Nate, we believe you and your ilk are advancing your agenda in the name of science while you crap all over science.
Well no surprise there.
He and you can have a nice friendly heart-warming conversation about who you both hate.
We don’t hate you, Nate. You can’t help it. You have a leftist brain.
Indeed we love Nate. Those who chose not to argue really are the ones that don’t care or have ulterior motives.
Many of my “chemtrail” friends claim they didn’t see this, or this many, when they were growing up, so it has to be a new thing. I point them to the fact that there are over three times as many domestic airline flights now than there were in 1970. I also imagine the larger aircraft must burn more fuel, increasing the amount of water vapor they are emitting. Of course, none of that makes a difference to the true believer. But it may keep someone else from falling off that cliff.
Side note: earlier versions of heavy lift jet military jet aircraft sometimes used water injection to help make intake air more dense. Example that I am aware of is KC-135 Tanker (Boeing 707 base). As designs advanced this was no longer required. When water injection was engaged, those aircraft left great contrails.
roy…”I can tell you there is little we can do to affect weather, either intentionally or unintentionally”.
***
Would it e fair to infer, based on your statement, that since climate is defined loosely as an average of long-term weather, that there is little we can do to control climate?, intentionally or unintentionally?
Generally speaking, yes. I *do* believe some (or even most) of recent warming is from many decades of the global release of CO2 from various human activities. The result has been “little” change, as opposed to a “lot” of change or “no” change.
Is nearly 1.5 C little?
“Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 C”
Was that change also little? Cuz it had a huge impact on the Earth.
Nate,
Huge impact? Yeah, it allowed humans to flourish. I vote for more warm.
So you agree that 1.5 C is not ‘little’ or insignificant.
Cuz that was the point.
–So you agree that 1.5 C is not little or insignificant.
Cuz that was the point.–
If average ocean temperature increased by 1.5 C, it would be a lot.
Urban heat island effect can be more than 5 C, and an Urban heat island effect of 2 C is quite insignificant.
A global cooling of about 5 C, would make Earth as cold as it has every been, a global warming of 5 C, would not get close to the warmest, Earth has ever been. Instead, it around Earth’s normal temperature- when it’s not in an Icehouse global climate, and Icehouse global climates are rare in Earth’s history of the last billion of years.
“There are five known icehouse periods in Earth’s climate history, namely the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan (also known as Early Paleozoic), Late Paleozoic and Late Cenozoic glaciations”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
‘if average ocean temperature increased by 1.5 C, it would be a lot.’
Only the upper mixed layer of the ocean is able to warm in response to surface warmth. The bottom layer will remain cold so long as we have cold water sinking st the poles.
I believe we’re within the natural temperature variability we’ve been in for millions of years. Unfortunately it means that it will return to substantially cooler at some point and humans will suffer.
Also, my point was humans flourish during warm. So, I’m glad for the significant increase. Much better than a significant decrease.
–if average ocean temperature increased by 1.5 C, it would be a lot.
Only the upper mixed layer of the ocean is able to warm in response to surface warmth. The bottom layer will remain cold so long as we have cold water sinking at the poles.–
The globally cooling of polar regions is significant element of our icehouse global climate. And that about 80% of our tropical area being open ocean is another significant element of it- all of it, shaped by global plate tectonic movement.
That the Antarctic continent occupies southern pole could be said to be a defining element of this Late Cenozoic Ice Age. And a significant element of it, is it’s mixing of oceanic waters.
Though in terms our latest and coldest part Late Cenozoic Ice Age, people regard the northern polar region as casual reason, particularly in regards to the formation large land ice sheets.
roy…many of us are having problems logging on to your site. We get ‘Forbidden’ errors. Whereas many of us have found a solution to get around this, I fear that normal users may be blocked and give up on your site.
I suspect the problem is Amazon’s Cloudflare app, which is used by many sites to protect them from hackers and spammers. I have seen many people complaining on the Net that Cloudflare is also blocking many legitimate users.
I have actually witnessed distinct, well-defined rows of clouds like those at the link in my area of Vancouver, Canada.
They are called altocumulus undulatus clouds…
https://media.sciencephoto.com/image/e1200666/800wm/E1200666-Altocumulus_undulatus_clouds.jpg
also…
https://earthsky.org/earth/undulatus-clouds-wavy-rows/
yes, a totally different phenomenon from contrails. It takes just the right combination of nearly-saturated water vapor content and atmospheric stability to allow traveling waves to produce rows of condensed cloud water in the rising air regions and clear air in the sinking air regions.
Good post, Roy!
But facts are irrelevant to members of chemtrails cult, same mechanic as in the cult of global warming.
Now, if we assume there really is a chemtrails conspiracy, this “spraying of the atmosphere” is being done by “someone” to control the population. In the US, the Obama and Biden regimes must have been mostly responsible for this.
However, in early november 2024 they became aware of the deplorable fact that this spraying did not work, or that it caused a very large number of Americans to vote for Trump.
I got a chuckle from the “photo” of a cockpit panel showing the “CHEMTRAILS” switch.
The internet always has clear “evidence” of whatever one believes.
That’s why beliefs ain’t science.
tim s…”…warming has an extremely high probability of being related to human activity”.
***
Upon what ‘scientific’ evidence do you base your claim? How much warming? I could agree if you claimed an insignificant amount of warming as revealed by the Ideal Gas Law but to claim all warming since 1850 has a high probability of being caused by humans, there is simply no direct proof.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner revealed, quite correctly, that the amount of heat a trace gas can add to a larger gas mix is related to ita mass percent. Why are alarmists claiming a much higher rate of heat diffusion into a larger mix than can be physically diffused?
I have heard all sorts of rebuttals such as a tiny amount of ink (about 0.04%) in a solution can turn the entire solution murky. Perhaps if CO2 was coloured red, it might add a slight hue of pink to the atmosphere, I don’t know. But, what does that have to do with heat and temperature, which work on an entirely different set of scientific principles?
In order for CO2, at 400 parts per million, to raise the temperature of the atmosphere, each CO2 molecule must transfer heat to 2500 atmospheric molecules. Both the IGL and the heat diffusion equation reveal clearly that C02, with a mass percent of about 0.06, can transfer no more than about 0.06C per 1C rise in atmospheric temperature.
I call that insignificant. Alarmist, in their zeal to justify anthropogenic warming, have pulled numbers out of a hat, like a 9% to 25% warming, depending on the amount of WV. Such numbers come from a logarithmic guess, not hard science.
Even if they are right, as Syun Akasofu has claimed, the numbers ignore any rewarming from the Little Ice Age. He claimed that is an error. How is it possible to ignore rewarming from an event that caused glaciers to grow immensely globally over a 400+ year period?
The irony is that claims are being made that the Himalaya are losing ice due to anthropogenic warming but they offer no proof that the Himalaya did not expand enormously during the LIA.
“that the amount of heat a trace gas can add to a larger gas mix is related to ita mass percent”
Gordon, for the 47th time you completely ignore optics. Because of optics it can be the case that a miniscule fraction of impurity atoms in a material can result in nearly 100% of certain wavelengths of light being abs.orbed.
For example depending on which miniscule impurity is present, Aluminimum Oxide will be either a red Ruby or a dark blue Sapphire.
The same is the case for Co2 in the atmosphere. It’s fraction is .04 %. But can abs.orb nearly 100 % of certain
wavelengths of energy carrying IR light
“Both the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation limit the amount of heat it can transfer to its mass percent in the atmosphere which is roughly 0.06%.”
If this were true, then from space you would predict that only 0.06% of the energy would be removed by the atmosphere in the CO2 band, eg @ 15 microns.
Does this reduction at 15 microns in the energy passing through to space, look like, 0.06% reduction to you Gordon?
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fred-Ortenberg/publication/291164378/figure/fig2/AS:648594344390664@1531648350772/Spectrum-of-Earth-Thermal-IR-radiance-recorded-from-space-a-Desert-Sahara.png
No. It is obviously more like a 60% reduction.
So this is direct evidence that you are wrong Gordon.
bill h…”None of the articles brought any evidence and the article on Samoa claims that RFK Jr statements caused an epidemic of measles like a few months after his visit”.
***
Kennedy does not get his info from sites that specialize in conspiracy theories. neither is he a stupid person, he has a degree in law and has practiced in the field.
Two of his contributors are Calley and Casey Means, both highly educated. Casey means has an MD who was a surgeon. I have heard both speak and although I consider them both to be overly-exhuberant, what they claim has a sound basis in fact.
Re measles…Dr. Stefan Lanka has a long-standing offer of 100,000 Euros for anyone who can produce a single paper that proves the measles virus exists. He does not claim measles does not exist, only that no one has produce bona fide research to prove the virus exists.
He recently proved in a German court that claims of cell death due to a viral infection are bogus, simply because no controls were put in place to prove the healthy cells used did not die on their own due to pre-treatment. For whatever reason, the cells are set up to die due to pre-starvation and that is compounded by adding antibiotics to prevent a bacterial infection. Lanka proved those methods will kill the cells on their own.
He has based his claims on extensive research with viruses in which he claims he has never encountered an infectious virus that operates as claimed. In fact, through extensive research into the history of viruses he proves that the research is fraught with misinformation.
He does not claim that viruses do not exist or that they are not infectious, just that no one has proved it with a rigorous scientific experiment.
He has claimed that the bird and swine flues have never been related to a virus and that these diseases in animals have been well known as being caused by the abhorrent and unhealthy conditions in which animals are kept. In other words, the maladies known as swine and bird flu have been around longer than the claim a virus is the cause.
Ironically, covid was traced back to a market place in Wuhan where meat was being kept in unhygienic conditions. The Wuhan scientists who claimed they did not physically isolate a virus, they only inferred one based on RNA found in samples taken from the lungs of infected people.
We rely far too much on research that was achieved through questionable paradigms over the years. Once those paradigms are established they are hard to budge and these days, it has become even more difficult to question them since anyone who tries has a good chance of being ostracized or even losing their jobs.
“He does not claim measles does not exist”
It’s just magic.
Gordon Robertson
The same people who believe in Chemtrails also believe people like Lanka!
There is a known weather-affecting geoengineering effect, even if unintentional: Urban heat islands. There is this extra heat, and extra thunderstorms downwind from urban heat islands where local convective thunderstorms can occur.
Weather,the air temperature etc., it is all the convective heat exchange from the planetary surface accumulated solar energy.
Atmosphere doesn’t get warmed by the solar rays. Air gets warmed when in contact with surface. The air is very cold up there on mountains.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Due to the La Nina effect, surface temperature extremes may occur in summer due to a decrease in cloud cover.
O jakim La Niña mówisz, Ren?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
This is one of the weakest La Niña episodes since long a time.
The decrease in the strength of the solar wind will extend periods of extreme sunshine on the continents.
You can see the temperature drop over the equator, both in the stratosphere and troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_EQ_2025.png
Something is missing.
Clean air act has a major impact on SO2 emissions since 1980s.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so-emissions-by-world-region-in-million-tonnes
In the same time global temperatures are up.
Cloud cover is down.
It is worth to mention!
To repeatedly use Presidential power to punish individual organizations who have opposed the President’s policies in legal proceedings: is it an abuse of power?
What say you?
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/trump-executive-order-jenner-block-law-firm-chicago-dc-andrew-weissman/
You”ve got it backward, Nate. The “abuse” is coming from the courts and corrupt law firms.
What Trump is doing is called “draining the swamp”.
Good Point Clint…. yes there are some on the lost left that don’t get it yet… maybe they never will. But the massive fraud waste and purposeful abuse of out tax payer money is just a horrid horrid situation we need to correct. the ‘machine’ that sucks in both dems and repubs just due to human greed needs to stop.
For the past decade plus i have had a front row seat to this corruption and lately I have had enough. I helped some folks out dig up that 20 billion in EPA cover up fund shell game.. was in the meetings on the thursday after election day when they pulled it off and thought they got away with something.
We need to end PACs and especially those PACs that fund federal grants into them and then donate heavily to politicians.
“is it an abuse of power?”
It’s a political weaponization of the Presidency, and since Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits Bills of Attainder, Trump uses Executive Orders.
Meanwhile, Hegseth, Trump and Waltz outright smearing Goldberg. Is it defamatory?
“Youve got it backward, Nate. The abuse is coming from the courts and corrupt law firms.”
If they were corrupt then they would be charged with a crime, but they weren’t. So this is just made up.
If the court judges were ‘abusing’ their power, they would be impeached.
But they haven’t been. So this is just made up.
In fact the SCOTUS chief justice has pointed out that Trump has right to appeal, of course he has lost most appeals.
Wrong again, Nate. “Bias” is not a crime that can be easily proved. An honest judge is supposed to recuse himself, if his decision might be affected by his politics or his wife’s income.
Our “justice” system is terribly corrupt. One State, I think it was Maryland, even decided that the GHE nonsense was “fact”! That’s corrupt judges perverting science.
“Bias’ is not a crime that can be easily proved”
Then you dont know what ‘corrupt’ means.
When Nate figures out he’s lost another one, he resorts to his false accusations.
What will he try next?
“The law firm Jenner & Block sued the Trump administration on Friday, seeking to stop an executive order leveled against the firm this week that could cripple its ability to represent clients.
Today, Jenner & Block filed a lawsuit to stop an unconstitutional executive order that has already been declared unlawful by a federal court. We expect to prevail quickly, the law firm said in a statement.”
NYT
I say that abuse breeds abuse. At least some of these law firms were involved in unethical activities. A security clearance is a privilege not a right. They took a gamble that Trump would not be elected and they lost. Obama, Comey, McCabe (yes, the one who now has a steady job at CNN), the Lover Birds, and many others all abused their authority. Trump learned it from them.
Should the 51 former intelligence officials, who attempted to defend Hunter Biden with Russia allegations, and interfere in 2020 election, be allowed to retain their security clearance? Can they be trusted?
Nate should face reality and admit that the 2024 election was winnable for the Democrats. They made a huge mistake trying to push Kamala Harris onto the public. It was Democrats and Independents in the “swing states” that elected Trump. Biden blames “Barack” and Pelosi. Who do you blame?
Ark: It’s a political weaponization of the Presidency…..
Ark, you funny? Not one time were you concerned with actual weaponization from Obama and then Biden.
“At least some of these law firms were involved in unethical activities.”
Come on people. What we see here is post-hoc rationalization for obvious abuse of Presidential power to intimidate political opposition.
The intimidations has one purpose: to stop law firms from bringing very valid cases against the administration’s other abuses of power, which so far have been largely successful.
We see the same in many areas, arbitrary and capricious exercise of government power to stop free-speech they don’t like, or political activity they don’t like.
Security clearances are revoked all the time.
Bottom line is any law firm promoting the Steele Dossier for money should have their clearances revoked or acted to hide the Hunter laptop.
Its obvious why the previous administration would not act on that deception which was obviously political in nature. And I am sure they did the same thing.
It goes hand in hand for those who allowed unvetted people to come into the country to try to legitimize their actions. Same for waste, fraud, and abuse. Looking for any shred of mitigating evidence may be good for them but probably not good for the country.
The constitution divides up the power without regard to party. Rules that recognize party are come from all 3 branches of the government and vary over time at their pleasure. Meaning of course when relations are good and cooperative recognizing the other party is maximized.
But we did go down the uniparty route favoring the elitists over the general population that is now coming to an end. And the only response has been to claim its the other side who is a fascist or communist or socialist. Which says something pretty significant about literally ”big” government. The bigger it gets the more corrupt it gets.
The law firm “Jenner and Block has been an active part of the legal challenges against Mr. Trump’s executive orders”
had nothing to do with the Steele dossier.
If you cannot provide any evidence in court it did not happen.
https://apnews.com/article/tufts-student-detained-massachusetts-immigration-08d7f08e1daa899986b7131a1edab6d8
Good example, a student, legally in this country, arrested off the street in Boston, and transported to Louisiana to be imprisoned.
“Her only known activism, colleagues said, was co-authoring an op-ed in a student newspaper that called on Tufts University to engage with student demands to cut ties with Israel.”
That and many other similar cases, are attempts to intimidate people from making speech that the govt does not like.
Next it could be you.
She’s here on a student visa and actively supporting Hamas. Deport her.
Wrong Stephen. Foreign students legally in this country have free speech rights also. We want to hear the perspectives of people from other parts of the world. I gave a right to hear these perspectives and not have them suppressed through unreasonable arrest and imprisonment of these people.
Look, I’m Jewish. Yet I, along with many others object to many of Israel’s policies that result in effectively ethnic cleansing of a whole group of people, the Palestinians.
And I object to blanket US support for these policies. As was the opinion expressed by the imprisoned student
You don’t have to agree with me. But you should agree that the government has no right to suppress these views.
Nate says:
”Good example, a student, legally in this country, arrested off the street in Boston, and transported to Louisiana to be imprisoned.”
It might help if you actually understood the law. If you did what your daddy told you, probably the mainstream media, you would dismiss.
Bottom line is a deportation is not considered to be an arrest. So you entire premise is simply a lie.
A deportation is a civil procedure not a criminal procedure. Thus there has been no arrest for speaking her mind, no criminal charges, and no violation of her rights, citizen or otherwise.
All we ever get from your side is disinformation.
Nate,
No not wrong. Is your mind so twisted with your leftist ideology that you are incapable of seeing truth? Yes, she has a right to free speech, here. We also have a right to deport her. No foreigner has a right to a visa. They are here as our guest. We can take away that visa for any reason. Maybe she can have her free speech back home where she came from. Wait! No she can’t. They don’t have free speech where she came from. Maybe she might want to go home and reflect about her decision to publicly support terror groups.
Ethnic cleansing. This is a leftist propaganda term. There is no ethnic cleansing. There are no Palestinians. Palestine never existed. Israel is surrounded by people who hate them and want every Jew eliminated. They are surrounded by people who have no qualms about burning Israeli babies in their cribs. Nate, how can you be a Jew? Just because your ancestors were Jews doesn’t make you a Jew. Judaism is a religion. Just because someone’s parents were Christian, doesn’t make them a Christian. You have to earn it.
“Maybe she might want to go home and reflect about her decision to publicly support terror groups.”
No evidence of that offered. Just speech critical of Israeli and US policies.
Which I and many others agree with, and I am no supporter of terrorists.
Reminds of the McCarthy era.
Then you should not complain if Americans abroad are imprisoned for their speech.
Nate says:
” ”Maybe she might want to go home and reflect about her decision to publicly support terror groups.”
No evidence of that offered. Just speech critical of Israeli and US policies.”
Why would there be any evidence offered? There was no arrest, there were no criminal charges.
She apparently is in the deportation process in Louisiana. Your articles are speculating a great deal and talking about ”it appears” rather than facts.
No doubt the facts will come out and maybe her visa was improperly revoked. But we will have to wait and see rather than get our panties all twisted up before we know the facts.
Nate said:
”Reminds of the McCarthy era.
Then you should not complain if Americans abroad are imprisoned for their speech.”
McCarthy was going after US citizens Nate. Not deporting rude guests.
If you want to consider detention for deportation to be an imprisonment. . .it happens everyday to US citizens who are regularly denied entry to a foreign nation or who have overstayed a visa. Bidens four years
I haven’t heard anything from you complaining about that even though it has been going on forever. Are you really that clueless? I kind of doubt it. Sounds more like a bad case of TDS.
Oh, you looking in mainstream media for evidence? Wrong place.
nate [GR]that the amount of heat a trace gas can add to a larger gas mix is related to ita mass percent
[Nate]Gordon, for the 47th time you completely ignore optics. Because of optics it can be the case that a miniscule fraction of impurity atoms in a material can result in nearly 100% of certain wavelengths of light being abs.orbed.
For example depending on which miniscule impurity is present, Aluminimum Oxide will be either a red Ruby or a dark blue Sapphire.
***
Nate…you are confusionng light with heat. They have nothing in common as energies. Light is composed of an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and it has a frequency. It has no mass. Optics refers only to light and the properties of light when it is bent away from its path.
Heat is mass-dependent, that is, it cannot exist without mass, since it is the kinetic energy associated with atomic motion.
We are talking about the ability of CO2 to warm the atmosphere. CO2 has no optical qualities to speak off in relation to atmospheric heating. It can only transfer heat created when it absorbs surface radiation to other atoms/molecules in the atmosphere. Both the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation limit the amount of heat it can transfer to its mass percent in the atmosphere which is roughly 0.06%.
Besides, the amount of IR CO2 can absorb depends on the altitude and the intensity of surface IR reaching it. IR intensity near the surface can affect CO2 but the IR is subject to the inverse square law and by the time it goes beyond a few feet it is far too weak to produce a significant heating effect in the CO2.
I have demonstrated that using a ring on an electric stove. The large rings here in North America, have a rating of 1500 watts which is much hotter than an equivalent surface area radiation. If you turn on a 1500 watt ring and allow it to heat till it is cherry red, you can barely feel any radiative effect beyond a few feet. Any heating effect is likely due to air heated at the ring surface and convected to your hand.
You simply cannot feel or sense the heated ring beyond 4 feet. The notion of IR heating in the atmosphere is highly over-rated. It produces an insignificant amount of heat for the atmosphere.
“Nateyou are confusionng light with heat. They have nothing in common as energies.”
Missing the point that IR light that is abs.orbed in a gas heats it. And the energy in IR light, if it were not abs.orbed by Co2, would be lost to space.
Instead the heat is retained in the Earth system, which results in a warmer Earth.
“CO2 has no optical qualities to speak off in relation to atmospheric heating. It can only transfer heat created when it absorbs surface”
Contradictory statements. Clearly it’s optical properties ENABLE it to heat the atmosphere via transfer from the surface.
“Both the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation limit the amount of heat it can transfer to its mass percent in the atmosphere which is roughly 0.06%.”
False! As noted, a tiny fraction can still ab.sorb ~ 100% of the energy.
Nearly 100% of the energy in red light passing through a blue sapphire will be abs.orbed by a miniscule fraction of impurity atoms.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/does-the-air-force-own-the-weather-in-2025-origins-of-the-chemtrail-theory/#comment-1701458
This proves you wrong, Gordon
Nate and gordon STILL can’t understand the definition of “heat”. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy from “hot” to “cold”. It is NOT thermal energy, it is the TRANSFER of thermal energy, from “hot” to “cold”.
Even poor Norman has learned what “heat” is. Nate and gordon continually demonstrate they know less about science that poor Norman. They can’t learn.
Clint weirdly thinks Gordon and I agree on heat transfer.
clint is showing improvement, he now admits that the energy being transferred is thermal energy. Christos was good enough to explain that the word ‘therme’ in Greek means heat, therefore thermal energy is heat.
Clint is still confused, however, since he thinks heat is the transfer of heat.
As early as 1800, scientists were well acquainted with the meaning of heat. It began before 1800 when Count Mumford began studying the heat produced when cannons were bored. There was so much heat produced it could boil water. Those scientists said nothing about heat being the transfer process, they called it what it is, the energy produced by drill cutting through metal and which we feel when we touch something that is hot.
It was not till recently that some scientists, who are more philosophers than scientists, began to obfuscate the meaning of heat, re-defining it as the transfer process not the actual heat being transferred. Since Clint learns all his pseudo-science from reading such propaganda, he gets to be silly by denying what heat really is….a form of energy.
Clint is also confused about flux. He thinks it is not energy, but what else could it be than a representation of energy, particularly field energy like electromagnetic energy. We use vectors to indicate the motion of a mass but when a set of vectors, representing a flux field, moves through a unit area, we have no problem acknowledging what the vectors represent.
There is no point using vectors and fluxes to represent something if there is nothing there to represent.
Flux can be the intensity of EM energy passing through an area per unit second, but the flux itself is just a human definition of the energy field passing through that area. We need vectors and flux field to do calculations, so both are simply human representations of something real. like energy.
“so both are simply human representations of something real. like energy.”
As are just about every measured quantity defined by science.
Point?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/U0kNAF7BFN0?feature=share
Octogenarian POTUS Donald Trump, who began his second term in the White House with a televised marathon signing dozens of legally binding executive orders without bothering to read any of them, admitted Wednesday night that his team of handlers had not bothered to brief him on four US Army soldiers who went missing during a training exercise in Lithuania earlier that day.
This comes just a day after a Signal chat accidentally leaked by his team to an Atlantic journalist showed Vice President J.D. Vance appearing to oversee military operations in Yemen in the aging Commander in Chief’s stead.
The president was asked Wednesday if he had been briefed about the men, who disappeared during a scheduled tactical training exercise outside Pabrade, Lithuania, according to a statement released by the U.S. Army Europe and Africa public affairs office in Wiesbaden, Germany. “No, I haven’t,” Trump replied simply.
Wait, so four US soldiers go missing during a training mission, their vehicle is found submerged in a swamp without them in it… and he hasn’t even been briefed yet?
I think the ONLY reason Trump hasn’t said anything about this is because he hasn’t been told how to blame it on Biden. Yet.
Ark, it’s pathetic to use an unfortunate tragedy in an attempt to support your cult beliefs.
But, that’s what you do.
Almost 48 hours have passed since being informed that 4 members of the U.S. Army were MIA and presumed perished in Lithuania but trump STILL has not made an announcement. We don’t even know if Trump has been briefed yet!
A group of 50 soldiers and heavy equipment from the Polish Armed Forces has arrived in Lithuania to assist in the ongoing search operation for a US Army M88A2 Hercules armored vehicle and 4 missing soldiers. They have been joined by a specialized U.S. Navy dive team from the Navy Commander, Task Force 68, who flew in from Rota, Spain.
I STILL have not seen Hegseth or Trump say anything about the four missing American soldiers.
This morning, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) Gen. Cavoli, Allies, and the people of Lithuania, stood as one at the Cathedral Basilica in Vilnius, united in prayer for the missing US soldiers.
Has Trump or Vance thanked Lithuania yet for trying to find the four US Soldiers?
https://ibb.co/VWfqSvtm
Oil and gas execs denounce Trump’s ‘chaos’ and ‘uncertainty’ in first survey during his second term.
“The administration’s chaos is a disaster for the commodity markets,” one respondent wrote. “‘Drill, baby, drill’ is nothing short of a myth and populist rallying cry. Tariff policy is impossible for us to predict and doesn’t have a clear goal. We want more stability.
Another respondent – echoing many of the comments – stated “the key word to describe 2025 so far is ‘uncertainty’ and as a public company, our investors hate uncertainty.” Another frequently expressed concern was Trump’s declared intention to drive U.S. oil prices lower – which will discourage investments in new projects and reduce earnings.
https://www.juneauempire.com/news/oil-and-gas-execs-denounce-trumps-chaos-and-uncertainty-in-first-survey-during-his-second-term/
“Respondents” are too often not a valuable source of information.
And it appears the “oil and gas execs” need to learn what “cost-value-profit” is all about.
Drill, baby, drill.
President Trump moved on Thursday to punish the law firm WilmerHale, where Robert S. Mueller III worked before and after he served as special counsel in the Trump-Russia investigation, expanding his widespread campaign of retribution.
In an executive order, Mr. Trump hit the elite firm with many of the same penalties that he had applied to its competitors who had taken on cases or causes he did not like.
He directed the cancellation of all government contracts with WilmerHale, and the suspension of any security clearances of its employees. The order also barred WilmerHale employees from federal buildings, banned them from communicating with government employees and prevented them from being hired at government agencies.”
Nyt.
Corrupt lawyers lead to a corrupt society.
Again, Clint is confused about corruption, and accuses everyone of it.
If there were evidence of their corruption they would most certainly be prosecuted, because they have not bent the knee to the King, as the corrupt NY Mayor did.
Their only ‘crime’ was to represent clients bringing valid cases against the government.
“The President breaks a bedrock legal principle by targeting the law firm for representing clients he doesnt like.”
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board
Re:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/does-the-air-force-own-the-weather-in-2025-origins-of-the-chemtrail-theory/#comment-1701457
Law firms like Wilmer Hale are putrid cesspools of deep state bureaucrats that use their contacts to get fat contracts to enrich themselves and their cronies to perpetuate the deep state cesspool.
“Law firms like Wilmer Hale are putrid cesspools”
Yes Stephen, we understand how much you despise anyone who your ‘Dear Leader’ hates.
Now your challenge is to actually figure out what they have done wrong.
Clint R
Far worse are power hungry Tyrants that lie all the time and do whatever they want! Then attack any who dare oppose them. People like you are a far greater threat to our system but you are a blind man being led by a blind Fox News!
Looks like the northern hemisphere’s annual maximum sea ice extent occurred around March 22. Of course, sea ice extent does not change synchronously across the Arctic. For instance, ice extent in the Bering Sea continued to expand a week after the Arctic-wide maximum, while ice extent in the Sea of Okhotsk peaked more than a week prior to the Arctic-wide maximum.
Most significantly, the maximum extent was the lowest annual maximum in the 47 year satellite record.
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph
Gordon Robertson.
1/ You’re conflating two distinct and independent concepts, predictability and measurability. Even if a phenomenon is difficult to predict it can still be measured at any given moment with high precision.
2/ You’re confusing sea ice extent (a two dimensional measurement) with sea ice volume (three dimensional).
Sea ice extent is relatively easy to measure using satellite remote sensing, providing a clear indicator of the ice’s coverage and how it changes seasonally. Sea ice volume, on the other hand, is more challenging to estimate due to the added complexity of ice thickness.
3/ According to your past comments you’ve been reading the same book for two years now. If and when you finish it you might consider the following:
Shokr, Mohammed and Sinha, Nirmal. Sea Ice: Physics and Remote Sensing. American Geophysical Union and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2015.
This is how the so-called mainstream media which is actually the left-wing liberal media lie to you, while pretending to present objective facts. This is called propaganda.
https://apnews.com/article/x-musk-sale-xai-b245f463076ac9b72c41f92160dc77eb?
[bought the site then called Twitter for $44 billion in 2022, gutted its staff and changed its policies on hate speech, misinformation and user verification and renamed it X.]
You can not get anymore mainstream than the AP. The above may seem like a reasonable and accurate statement. The problem is that it leaves out the most important element, and they never attempt to fill in the blanks later in the piece. The fact is that Musk changed the policy that allows the government to censor content. Those are the people who got fired (gutted its staff?). There is now factual proof of this with emails and other documentation. That is so dishonest that the term propaganda it too soft and gentle. It is a lie.
“bought the site then called Twitter for $44 billion in 2022, gutted its staff and changed its policies on hate speech, misinformation and user verification and renamed it X”
Where are the lies in here?
Hate speech is any speech you leftists don’t like.
Here it is for those with their head buried in the sand, or wherever, from that bastion of conservative commentary, Newsweek:
https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-colluded-twitter-suppress-free-speech-where-outrage-opinion-1768801
[For the past few weeks, journalists have been reporting on what they’ve found in the “Twitter Files”thousands and thousands of documents they were given access to by Twitter’s new owner and CEO, the billionaire Elon Musk. The revelations have been astonishing and deeply troubling, exposing solid evidence of collusion between top executives at the FBI and their cozy counterparts at Twitter.
FBI leadership and Twitter censors conferred constantly about how to shut down political speech based on its content, confirming the suspicions of, well, anyone who was paying attention. And it proves without a doubt that over the past few years, countless Americans have undergone a real violation of their First Amendment rights.
The First Amendment mandates that government can’t abridgemeaning limit or censorspeech based on its content. Even if attempting to advance the noblest of causes, government actors must not collide with this constitutional guardrail. The Constitution simply isn’t optional. Government officials must treasure it like gold and defend it like hearth and home.]
All these leftists here like Nate, Barry, Blinny, RLH, are living oxymorons. Oh, how they hate on Musk. Isn’t Musk the primary reason the cost of EV’s have plummeted the last 10 years? Haven’t they been pushing all the attributes of EV’s and how they will save the planet and everyone should be forced to own an EV? And, Musk has made it possible by making them affordable. What do they do? Hate on him. He should be their God.
Not good. And the censorship of political speech peaked during the 2020 election, while Trump was President, with the involvement of his DNI, Director of National Intelligence.
“By mid-Sept, 2020, Chan & Roth had set up an encrypted messaging network so employees from FBI & Twitter could communicate.
They also agree to create a virtual war room for all the [Internet] industry plus FBI and ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence].”
“In this virtual “war room,” the FBI made dozens of requests to censor political speech. Twitter chirpily complied.”
“His DNI” who is his current CIA director, Ratcliffe.
“Musk himself has alleged the communications show government censorship, suggesting Twitter acted “under orders from the government” when it suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story.
But so far, none of the released messages explicitly show the FBI telling Twitter to suppress the story. In fact, the opposite view emerges from sworn testimony by an FBI agent at the center of the controversy.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/fbi-agents-tech-executives-deny-government-ordered-twitter-to-suppress-hunter-biden-story/
“Matt Taibbi, one of the journalists Musk tapped this month to comb through Twitter internal messages for evidence of free speech violations, said himself on December 2 that “there is no evidence – that I’ve seen – of any government involvement in the laptop story.”
Right on schedule, in a reply to my comment about media bias and propaganda comes the biggest and most blatant lie of them all. The only people who might think the FBI was involved in the laptop coverup would be someone who has been living in a cave for a few years.
The radical left-wing media and social media companies did not need the FBI to show them how to behave. They knew what they needed to do, and people ask why Trump behaves like he has been mistreated. The one and only major broadcast media that got the story right was Fox News. The New York Post also had it, but they were outright censored and boycotted by everyone with the exception of Fox. No social media would run the Post story or allow it to be reposted.
Tucker Carlson, of all people, had the one-hour interview with Tony Bobulinski on October 27, 2020. Every word has been verified by the lap top contents. There was an entire week before the election for any legitimate news organization to interview or at least vet Tony. The pawn shop owner was also available, but they hide the story. Instead, they all ran the fake Russia story without any attempt to verify or substantiate any of it.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6205116000001
Those who get cooties from watching Fox can find it on YouTube.
“The revelations have been astonishing and deeply troubling, exposing solid evidence of collusion between top executives at the FBI and their cozy counterparts at Twitter.”
seemed to be your biggest concern.
But now it turns out it wasn’t the FBI censoring the Hunter laptop story after all, even though Elon was sure of it, your posted article was sure of it, the House committee was sure of it.
Fox News, the National Enquirer and NY Post throw loads of BS at the wall, and once in a great while something sticks.
And I would simply to ask the thoughtful and civic minded Tim, what did the public need to know from Hunters laptop to help them make an informed decision on who to elect President in 2020?
Nate says:
”what did the public need to know?”
that Joe Biden had been caught as an influence peddler to friend and foe alike. A politician for sale. Its a big deal that his son was his bagman in areas where Biden was involved in controversial actions for cash.
AFA the laptop story is concerned, the FBI working secretly through the Aspen Institute, headed up by former FBI agents, pre-bunked the laptop story as being Russian disinformation. This was before it there was public knowledge of the story.
See: https://stefanik.house.gov/2023/11/icymi-stefanik-questions-journalists-on-federal-government-s-involvement-in-social-media-censorship-of-the-hunter-biden-laptop-scandal
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/FBI-Election-Interference-Report-FINAL–10-30-24-.pdf
Obviously the FBI had to work clandestinely on a suppression story such as this. But they are the ones who had the laptop, they knew the importance of it, and at least some people in the FBI selectively leaked information about it to outside interests used as sympathetic surrogates.
This is of course in addition to the other findings of Taibbi and Shellenberger.
this corruption set in motion the conversion of Musk and many highly regarded journalists to leave the democrat party due to its corruption and disregard for the Constitution. I left in 2004 when I became aware of the fake science they were peddling in support of radical environmentalist groups hugely profiting off the yellow journalism and government favors that was enriching a lot of people, supporting a lot of non-productive jobs, overriding good science, and harming those who could least afford it while treating them like a mushroom farm with fake promises, lip service, identity politics, and permanent residence in the welfare gulag. It had ceased being a party supporting labor.
What we have seen is a lot of radical leftist rioting and assassination attempts that largely started with violence at Trump’s first term inauguration under the banner of anti-fascism which was a baseless charge against Trump by the democrat party.
For the FBI’s part the folks known to be involved are in the process of getting fired as they should be.
“that Joe Biden had been caught as an influence peddler to friend and foe alike.”
Investigated by House impeachment commitee, nothing found.
Nate wants people to believe that propaganda serves the public good. There is a very significant segment of the population that honestly think the factual news stories on Fox News and The New York Post are just made up out of thin air. Sadly, and much more destructive is the belief that the radical left-wing media is giving you the whole story.
There is a guy on CNN named Jake Tapper who is doing a documentary series on scandals. Last year he did a story on Valerie Plame that was so twisted, that I rate it as a lie. He would have you believe that she was outed by the Bush administration. The fact is that a guy named Robert Novak broke the story on his own because he knew something was wrong. He asked the right people the right questions. Nothing was leaked that did not start with a question from Novak doing what honest journalist are supposed to do. At this moment, Wikipedia says the story was “leaked”. That is a lie.
The most important fact was never mentioned by Tapper. Plame’s husband wrote a dishonest oped as a paid political operative to the Kerry campaign. He lied about doing a public service rather than being paid to write the oped and other facts. That was the story. Novak could smell something wrong and investigated.
More recently, Tapper did a hit-piece on the Anita Hill story. This one is simple. Either Anita Hill is a bold face liar with good motivation, or Clarence Thomas is the very most unusual person on earth. There is no third option. Not mentioned by Tapper is the fact that no other person on earth has ever heard Thomas use swear words. Yet we are supposed to believe the filth peddled by Hill. All of the witnesses on her behalf who were “not allowed to testify” were people who were fired by Thomas for poor performance. One had a documented statement that she would “get back” at Thomas.
The final insult against Thomas was this crap. “We asked Thomas for his comment and he declined.” Why would he dignify this filth.
This is the crap the media peddles. This is why the campaign against Fox News is dangerous. Telling the other side of the story is vitally important. Telling half of the story and then claiming the other side is false is a serious problem.
No Nate, you and your crowd do not get to decided what information the public is allowed to see.
Tim,
what did the public need to know from Hunters laptop to help them make an informed decision on who to elect President in 2020?
Or did you just desire an October taint on Biden.
Also what was $787 M Fox settlement with Dominion about?
“Yet we are supposed to believe the filth peddled by Hill”
Filth or fact? How do you know which, Tim?
When its a woman vs conservative man, you always seems to be able to discern which is the truth teller…
Nate says:
” ”that Joe Biden had been caught as an influence peddler to friend and foe alike.”
Investigated by House impeachment commitee, nothing found.
—————————–
Nate willingly selects self ignorance.
They found out he was an influence peddler immorally enriching his family. However there is nothing illegal about that for the politically favored elite. Its only illegal if you are somebody like Democrat Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.
That’s why Trump pardoned him and the Jan6 convictees due to the unprincipled exercise of police powers in violation of the 14th amendment to the Constitution. The equal protection under the law amendment put in place in 1868 by the Republicans.
Nate says:
”Also what was $787 M Fox settlement with Dominion about?”
What it was about is it was a civil case that only required 7 out of 12 jurors to punish Fox. Case was held in Wilmington, Delaware.
”Biden won overwhelmingly in his hometown of Wilmington, earning 26,698 votes to Trump’s 3,580.”
Just 787 million reasons why the case had merit…
For those who have not been following the news, the sad truth is that Rudy Giuliani has lost his mind. He did obtain Hunter’s laptop, but that is not why Fox got in trouble. The problem was that people doing commentary thought it was fun to pretend Rudy was reporting factual information. It had zero to do with their factual reporting, except to quote Rudy.
[Dominion focused on allegations made between November 2020 and January 2021 by hosts Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, and Jeanine Pirro. Guests who often appeared with these hosts included Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, both of whom have also been sued individually by Dominion in federal court. During pre-trial discovery, Fox News’ internal communications were released, indicating that prominent hosts and top executives were aware the network was reporting false statements but continued doing so to retain viewers for financial reasons.]
As a result, Fox decided to spend about 20% of their petty cash to fix the problem.
[With the jury seated and attorneys about to make their opening statements, Davis announced Dominion and Fox News had reached a settlement. Fox agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million. At the time of the settlement, Fox Corporation had $4.1 billion cash on hand. Deadline Hollywood reported that the payment would be tax-deductible for Fox.]
For those who have not been following the news, the sad truth is that Rudy Giuliani has lost his mind. He did obtain Hunter’s laptop, but that is not why Fox got sued. Fox got sued because people doing commentary thought it was fun to pretend Rudy was reporting factual information. It had zero to do with their factual reporting, except to quote Rudy.
As a result, Fox decided to spend about 20% of their petty cash to fix the problem.
Tim wants people to believe that perpetuating propaganda is AOK and serves the public good if it supports the right-wing narrative.
And he demonstrates that if lies serve to confirm an audience’s core beliefs, then being a megaphone for such lies can be highly profitable.
nate…(and Norman)….”If this were true, then from space you would predict that only 0.06% of the energy would be removed by the atmosphere in the CO2 band, eg @ 15 microns.
Does this reduction at 15 microns in the energy passing through to space, look like, 0.06% reduction to you Gordon?
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fred-Ortenberg/publication/291164378/figure/fig2/AS:648594344390664@1531648350772/Spectrum-of-Earth-Thermal-IR-radiance-recorded-from-space-a-Desert-Sahara.png
No. It is obviously more like a 60% reduction.
So this is direct evidence that you are wrong Gordon”.
***
Nate…and Norman, since Norman backs Nate…you are once again comparing apples and oranges. Infrared energy is not heat and claiming a 60% dip in a graph has nothing to do with the heat this CO2 can produce in the atmosphere.
We are not interested in a generic energy, we are only interested in the amount of heat that CO2 can create in the atmosphere. We must differentiate between IR and heat since they are two different forms of energy. Heat cannot pass through the atmosphere as radiation, only by convection.
If you look closely at graphic (a), you can see it is in mW/cm^2 {see graph (b) for units}. That’s how little IR is absorbed by CO2. However, if you integrate it over the entire spectral gap it comes to about 28 watts/ m^2. Comparing that to the actual average surface power emission of say 230 w/m^2, 28 watts is about 12.2% of the total surface radiation.
Mind you, graphic (a) is taken from the Sahara at 50C, so the surface radiation will be higher. In general, the amount of surface IR absorbed by CO2 is roughly 10%.
That has nothing to do with the amount of heat the same CO2 can diffuse into the much larger atmosphere. The amount of heat that can be transferred by CO2, at 0.04% of the atmosphere, to the rest of the atmosphere, is covered by the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation. That’s where the 0.06 warming comes from.
You guys need to understand that no heat is leaving the surface via IR for the simply reason that as the IR is produced the heat related to it disappears. Heat can be recreated if absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere but the amount of heat it can produce is limited to its mass percent. There is only so much heating a gas at 0.04% of another set of gases can diffuse into those gases. For CO2, the amount of heat that can be diffused is 0.06C per 1C rise in temperature of the entire atmosphere.
Furthermore, as I pointed out in my original post, IR, once it leaves the surface, is rapidly dissipated by the inverse square law. That means it is useless as a heating agent beyond a few feet.
That fact has been conveniently ignored y Tyndall, Arrenhius, Callandar, and all modern alarmists.
“Infrared energy is not heat and claiming a 60% dip in a graph has nothing to do with the heat this CO2 can produce in the atmosphere”
Weird. Where do you think the abs.orbed energy goes? Obviously into the atmosphere.
And once abs.orbed it warms the molecules of the atmosphere. And that thermal energy is not lost from the Earth system to space, as it would have been without CO2. That is the GHE.
Does the IR that water abs.orbs warm the atmosphere?
Of course. And with GHE warming, there is more water vapor in the atmosphere. It is a positive feedback mechanism.
Nate
Robertson is really one of the dumbest posters on this blog.
” Furthermore, as I pointed out in my original post, IR, once it leaves the surface, is rapidly dissipated by the inverse square law. That means it is useless as a heating agent beyond a few feet. ”
*
His ignorance of facts is directly proportional to his unwilling to learn.
I just need to remind his ridiculous trial to explain on the basis of NOAA’s trivial explanation of how anomalies are constructed – instead of looking how Roy Spencer does this job…
*
It’s easy to understand how satllite-borne devices measure IR emitted by Earth:
https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/news/feature-articles/seeing-earth-new-light
“and once absor.bed it warms the molecules of the atmosphere”
The molecules of the atmosphere are already warm from conduction and convection.
ark…”For instance, ice extent in the Bering Sea continued to expand a week after the Arctic-wide maximum, while ice extent in the Sea of Okhotsk peaked more than a week prior to the Arctic-wide maximum”.
***
The Arctic sea ice extent is unpredictable hence unmeasurable, since winds and ocean currents are constantly packing the ice together then separating it. I am currently reading a book on explorers who first encountered the Arctic while searching for the NW Passage between about 1600 and 1850 and they report the same conditions back then even though there was far more ice, even in summer, due to the Little ice Age.
I mean, how does one measure ice extent from a satellite when the ice floes pack together to the extent that they pile on top of each other to form pressure ridges, that are tiny mountains of ice up to 40 feet high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_ridge_(ice)
“Pressure ridges are the thickest sea ice features and account for up to 3040% of the total sea ice area[3][4] and about one-half of the total sea ice volume”.
If half of your entire sea ice extent is piled on top of other ice, how does one measure the total?
Captain Henry Larsen of the RCMP cutter, St. Roch, the first boat to sail the NW Passage both ways, in the 1940s, talked about this. It took the St. Roch two years to go trough the Passage west to east, because sea ice had piled toward the Canadian north coast and they could not get through. On the return trip, east to west, they sailed through in 87 days.
BTW, the St. Roch now resides in a museum in Vancouver.
At first it was a hypothesis. And it was a wishfull hypothesis.
What if there is not a +33C atmospheric greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface?
And if there is some – how much it is then?
Because if there isn’t a strong atmospheric greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface, then the 1,5C temperature rise since the predindustrial era, then that 1,5C temperature rise cannot be related to any greenhouse warming effect whatsoever.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If the 1,5C global temperature rise since the predindustrial time to be attributed to the CO2 content rise from 280 ppm to 400 ppm (a 120 ppm rise), then the entire 400 ppm the currect CO2 content should warm Earth’s average surface temperature by ~5C.
Water wapor ~ 1% H2O content is ~10000 ppm, or it is 25 times that much.
Let’s calculate: 25 * 5C = 125C
125C + 5C = 130C
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“then the entire 400 ppm the currect CO2 content should warm Earths average surface temperature by ~5C.”
Where from? Show us the GHE theory that predicts that.
Hey you just discovered your first hole in GHE Theory.
It is, more likely, Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth has a higher (N*cp) product.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Oh how interesting!
Suddenly, Moon’s rotation has disappeared again…
But… when we look at Vournas’ site:
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
we see however this:
” We have discovered that Earth on average is much warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates very much faster than Moon. “
Christos has clarified what he meant. Remember, his native language is Greek and he is trying admirably to converse in English, a difficult language to learn.
When Christos speaks of the Moon rotating, he actually means it is changing orientation through 360 degrees per orbit of Earth. That is explained by curvilinear motion without local rotation. Christos has made it clear that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis.
The point he is trying to make is as follows. As the Moon moves with a curvilinear motion, which causes one side then the opposite side to face the Sun, one side then the other becomes very hot. During the 14 days when one side faces the Sun, it becomes very hot while the other side, facing space, becomes very cold.
The hot side faces the Sun when the Moon is on the far side of the Earth from the Earth then the opposite side face the Sun for 14 days when the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun. Due to the longer conditions of extreme hot and extreme cold, the Moon’s average temperature is lower than Earth’s average.
Meantime, the Earth, rotating every 24 hours has a higher average temperature. The point Christos is making is that planets with a higher rotational speed tend to be hotter than planets with a slower rotational period. Even though the Moon does not rotate on a local axis, the effect is similar.
Thank you, Bindidon.
The correct is saying that “Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth has a higher (N*cp) product.” It is a combined forcing. Moon has both much lower than Earth. Much slower rotation, and much lower average surface specific heat.
*************
Thank you, Gordon.
Bindidon doesn’t distinguish between rotation about the local axis, and rotation along with the axis.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Obviously…there is a typo. “….when the Moon is on the far side of the Earth from the Earth….” should obviously be “….when the Moon is on the far side of the Earth from the Sun….”.
What a government we have!
“Leaders at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ordered staff this week not to release their experts assessment that found the risk of catching measles is high in areas near outbreaks where vaccination rates are lagging, according to internal records reviewed by ProPublica.”
https://www.propublica.org/article/measles-vaccine-rfk-cdc-report
Expert assessment?? This is the same outfit that led us into believing HIV would cause AIDS in the heterosexual community. Even after Luc Montagnier, who won a Nobel for discovering HIV, claimed HIV would harm no one with a healthy immune system, the CD.C continued the scam that HIV is a highly contagious virus that will lead to AIDS in heterosexuals.
Last time I looked, they were still spreading the propaganda that HIV is causing wasting syndrome in sub-Saharan Africa. That was the only link the WHO and the CD.C had to AIDS affecting both hetero-and homosexuals, and the theory is full of nonsense.
Wasting syndrome, or slim disease, was known long before HIV to be caused by malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections like malaria. Suddenly, the real parasites at the WHO and CD.C were harassing poor, malnourished Africans who drank polluted water and suffering from malarial infections as having achieved their plight through a sexually transmitted disease.
To enable their scam, they included wasting syndrome as an opportunistic AIDS disease. That is not the only opportunistic infection listed under the AIDS umbrella that makes no sense. TB is known to be caused by a bacterium, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and people with TB are normally treated for a bacterial infection.
Here’s the scam. If a person with TB has no signs of HIV, they are treated for a bacterial infection. If they test positive for HIV, they are treated with potent antivirals compounds THAT CAN CAUSE AIDS!!! In fact, they have to go on a course of these antivirals for life.
The original antiviral, AZT, was used initially as a chemotherapy drug for cancer. it was discontinued because it was too harsh for patients to bear. No problem, give it to people with AIDS…for life. According to expert, David Rasnick, the newer HAART antivirals are little better.
That is only part of the nonsense perpetuated by the CD.C and their big brothers, the WHO.
Let’s not get into the recent covid hysteria in which these two also led the way.
Meantime, in Germany, Stefan Lanka has a long standing offer of 100,000 Euros to anyone who can produce proof, in one scientific paper, that the measles virus has been isolated. A guy named Bardens claimed it and the lower court awarded him the prize. However, the lower court stupidly ignored Lanka’s stipulation that the proof must be contained in one paper. Upon appeal, a higher court reversed the decision, meaning, to date, no one has offered proof that the measles virus exists.
That’s not to say it doesn’t exist but why are scientists having so much trouble proving it? Surely one of them could use 100,00 Euros.
“This is the same outfit that led us into believing HIV would cause AIDS”
Oh well, you lost everyone after that..
Likely one of your sleaziest cherry picks. I said…”This is the same outfit that led us into believing HIV would cause AIDS….***in the heterosexual community***.
Then again, there is ample proof out there that HIV is unrelated to AIDS. Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, admitted he saw no virus on an electron microscope. Rather, he inferred a virus using retroviral theory that could not be proved. No HIV test, or covid test for that matter, looks for a virus, they look for RNA, which has never been proved to be related to either virus.
Later, Montagnier admitted HIV is harmless, being unable to harm anyone with a healthy immune system. Peter Duesberg had been saying the same years before Montagnier. Both agreed, in the end, that the cause of AIDS is lifestyle and that has been amply backed by the stats over the years which show clearly that 90+% of AIDS deaths involved people in very high risk lifestyles, just about all of them being men.
Monogamous male homosexuals simply don’t get AIDS nor do people who are not heavy users of drugs, like IV drug users.
What virus can distinguish men from women?
Nate, you claim to have a degree and be a teacher. Now we know you are little more than someone who runs on emotions, totally oblivious to truth.
Then, in another post, Nate turns to authority figures. I callaim, based on the Ideal Gas Law, that CO2 is limited to a 0.06 C warming for each 1C warming of the atmosphere. If Nate knew anything at all about the IGL, he could easily confirm that, instead, he whines about the requirement of an authority figure.
Nobody believes your ignorant crap on AIDS.
nate….[GR]”Infrared energy is not heat and claiming a 60% dip in a graph has nothing to do with the heat this CO2 can produce in the atmosphere
[Nate}Weird. Where do you think the abs.orbed energy goes? Obviously into the atmosphere.
And once abs.orbed it warms the molecules of the atmosphere. And that thermal energy is not lost from the Earth system to space, as it would have been without CO2. That is the GHE.
***
You are still missing the point, Nate. You are assuming that the amount of IR absorbed by CO2 and converted to heat amounts to a hill of beans.
I have tried to explain, using the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation, that the amount of heat CO2 can transfer to the rest of the atmosphere is limited by its mass percent in the atmosphere. CO2 has only an overall gas percent of 0.04%, which translates to 400 ppmv, which is 400 parts per million.
If each of of those CO2 molecules absorbs surface IR and converts it to heat, then it has to distribute that heat to the rest of the atmosphere. The heat diffusion equation covers that because diffusion refers to the transfer of heat from one gas to the other gases in a mixed gas. The equation tells us that the amount of heat CO2 can transfer is limited to its mass percent, which is closer to 0.06%.
There is a fundamental problem here. Supposedly the CO2 is in thermal equilibrium with the other gases in the mix. If a molecule absorbs IR and warms, how much does it warm and how does it transfer that heat to the other 2500 molecules surrounding it? Not a trivial problem as suggested by climate alarmists who have arbitrarily assigned a warming factor of 9% to 25%. It makes no scientific sense that trace gases could warm the entire atmosphere to that extent.
Here’s another limiting problem. If a CO2 molecule absorbs IR and warms, it cannot transfer heat to warmer molecules below it (2nd law), only to cooler molecules above it. Supposedly the molecules are moving randomly, up, down, and laterally. How does one predict to which molecules the CO2 will transfer heat?
That’s the problem, the anthropogenic theory is poorly thought out and based on an unexplained science. The theory was most likely dreamed up by climate modelers, hardly the kind of scientists required to figure this out.
“I have tried to explain, using the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation, that the amount of heat CO2 can transfer to the rest of the atmosphere is limited by its mass percent in the atmosphere”
Unsuccessfully. To be convincing find a legit source that agrees with you.
You cannot explain the deep valley in the observed Earth IR emission spectrum.
We all know about the Ideal Gas Law, but you mis-apply it here while ignoring optics and observational data.
nate…”You cannot explain the deep valley in the observed Earth IR emission spectrum”.
***
Of course I can, and I did. You just don’t want to hear it, made obvious by your lack of a scientific reply The deep valley you mention is measured in “milliwatts”, one-thoudsandths of a watt. The surface emits hundreds of watts. It’s obvious that your drawing represent an insignificant absorp-tion of surface IR by CO2.
The entire drawing you submitted is obviously in error and aimed at enhancing the mythical powers of CO2. It is well know that H20 vapour is a far more effective agent for converting infrared to heat yet water vapour is shown in the graph as having a fraction of the power of CO2.
Obviously, the notch in your diagram is so prominent because the shot was taken over the Sahara Desert which is bereft of water or water vapour. Had the shot been taken over a higher humidity region, the CO2 notch would not be seen due to the predominance of WV in such an atmosphere. Even at that, the amount of heat produced by WV absorp-tion is equally insignificant.
I question whether that is taken from actual data or sketched based on opinion.
“If you look closely at graphic (a), you can see it is in mW/cm^2 {see graph (b) for units}. Thats how little IR is absorbed by CO2. However, if you integrate it over the entire spectral gap it comes to about 28 watts/ m^2”
Yep. Which ain’t 0.06 %!
binny belches bile…”Robertson is really one of the dumbest posters on this blog.
His ignorance of facts is directly proportional to his unwilling to learn.
***
Not an intelligent word addressing the point I made about the effect the inverse-square law has on surface IR emissions. I explained in detail how IR dissipates so rapidly from a 1500 watt electric stove ring that it cannot be detected by a hand held 4 feet away. Yet, Binny and other alarmists spread the nonsense that a much weaker form of radiation from the surface can affect CO2 molecules at any height.
—–
The Binny stomach rumbles more bile…
“Its easy to understand how satellite-borne devices measure IR emitted by Earth:
https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/news/feature-articles/seeing-earth-new-light ”
Not a word in the article regarding how the IR measurements are made and nothing about CO2 at all.
Nate posted a graphic the other day showing a deep notch in surface IR emission spectrum. He failed to grasp that the notch is measured in milliwatts/centimetre squared while the surface emissions are measured in several hundred watts/m^2. In other words, the notch Nate regards as meaningful is totally insignificant.
Neither Nate nor Binny have an interest in what makes scientific sense, both are hung up on propaganda from authority figures. How can they discuss science when neither can discuss the Ideal Gas Law a fundamental law covering gas behavior.
FYI the units mW/cm2/micron/steradian
To convert to W/m2 emitted from a surface, we need to multiply by 10 to convert MW/cm2 to W/m2 then by 2*pi steradians for a hemisphere, then by ~ 3 microns for the width of the CO2 peak, then by 0.6 because that is the reduction.
So that is 0.6*2*pi*10*1.3*3 mW/cm2/micro/st = 114 W/m2.
The total emitted from a 320 K bkackbody is 567 W/m2.
So the reduction is about 20 % of the total.
This is much much MUCH more than 0.06 %
The Ideal Gas Law explains why CO2 outflow increases as level increases and why human e-time is the same as natural e-time and why human CO2 flows through the atmosphere and doesn’t accumulate in the atmosphere.