posted 11-16-2003 03:42 PM            

quote:

---

Here's a quote that Senior Ferreyra chose to ignore:
"We had seen a big change in the California Current ecosystems since the late 1970s, and in this report we looked at the possible mechanisms accounting for that change. We found that the most likely cause is a change in the upper-ocean heat content," said McGowan..." ... "The authors caution that similar forces impacting ecosystem populations could emerge elsewhere, especially if ocean temperatures continue to rise. They say their results demonstrate that significant changes in sea-temperature..."

---

Míster Sore Throat (note the accent on the i as writen in Spanish), I thought you were capable of reading and understanding, alas... I made it very clear that "Possibly" does not mean "for sure". Apparent correlations does not mean there is a "cause and a consequence".. Furthermore, I pointed out later that: "(may, might, possible cause, is likely, etc only show they are not sure of their own conclusions.

I have highlighted in red examples of what I insist is purley "wild guessing" in science, a shot in the darkness, "possible mechanisms, most likely cause, could emerge, if, etc, that prove nothing, and only reveals great "uncertainties in the theory (just theories, keep that in mind). What is frigthening for educated people is these uncertainties are the basis for instilling a severe psychosis about the environment, and are used to push bans and regulations on almost anything that wakes up the fears of the greens. "An ounce of fear and passion is worth a ton of facts and logic", as Professor Fred Singer always says.

quote:

---

What Senior Ferreyra conveniently overlooks are sources I provided discussing significant glacial retreat presently documented throughout the world; Alaska, Africa, Kazakhstan, United States, South America, etc.

---

By the way, did you get the data from the World Glacier Monitoring Society that back your claims? We would appreciate it very much if you could post here the data extracted from that higly respectable and scientific organization. It would be embarrasing for you if I had to do it.

quote:

---

No small wonder that there have been age old tensions between these neighboring Latin American countries... and with attitude such as Senior Ferreyra's, no surprise that so many Argentinians "disappeared" in the '70s.

---

How cheap can you get, Míster Sore Throat! I never thought such a discriminating comment could have ever entered the disussion. So outlandish! As if the United States have not had tensions with other countries (I would say, the whole wordl). Perhaps with people like me, there was some "desaparecidos", but with peope like you is how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were blasted, Dresde, Germany, an "open city" of no military value was reduced to ashes in one savage night bombing - along with 140,000 children, women and old people. Do not forget NAPALM is an American invention, by people like you.

But, unfortunately for you, Míster Sore Throat, I was sent to jail during the "desaparecidos" period, accused of having guns at home. No wonder, as I was one of the biggest gun collectors in Argentina. However, I did not disappear, and was released because I had nothing to do with terrorism and subversion. I must point out, though, that the number of 30,000 "disappeared "given by the Madres of Plaza de Mayo and the leftist propaganda, is a gross exaggeration, an utter lie. The governamental Commission that came after de military regime investigated the disappearances (CONADEP), and managed to present 1648 files of disspaeared people. After a 4 year war against a guerrilla as cruel and tough as Shinning Path, 1648 "disappeared" seems to be an amazingly low figure - especially if we compare it with the thousands of Vietcongs, Iraqis, Panamenians, Dominicans, Koreans, - - - - - - - (fill the empty space with countries where Americans have been making wars). I have nothing against the American People - just against the Corporate Government they have. I have lived for years at the US, I have sisters in law that are Americans, I have American cousins, aunts, uncles and nephews. So I like the US and its people. But you should try to put in office better people.

quote:

---

The ozone hole over Antarctica is a seasonal event and the mechanism of action is well known. What was significant about this year's hole is that it was much larger, with a greater degree of ozone depletion, than that documented by previous decades of data.

---

Míster Sore Throat, That is unaccurate. (Note that I am not saying you are lying, because you really believe in the information you were provided by the scientific establishment). Fact is, if you read George Dobson's book of 1968, "Exploring the Atmosphere", chapter 6, you would learn that the low ozone values he detected in 1957 have not been recorded again. Dobson's book make an extraordinary reading. Everybody concerned with the fate of the ozone layer should read it, especially you, "Chentrailers" that seem so worried about the issue..Why don't you do the same? It was published by Oxford University Press. Try Amazon.com.

Then comes the "trends issue", either with global warming or ozone depletion, or deforestation, or desertification, or population increase, or any green scare promoted during the past 40 years. Trends are not for ever. They vary, they disappear. Take the case of a newborn baby: If the growing trend continues, by the age of 17 we would have a 21 feet tall teenager.

quote:

---

That the hole doesn't persist is not a surprise, nor does it make the case that Senior Ferreyra contents that "There is nothing to worry about".

---

Of course it makes the case. If the hole persisted and expanded into increasing latitudes, there would be reasons for concern. But is has not happened, nor there are any signs that it would do it in the near or far future. Why some years the hole is big, and some other years is incredible small? If chlorine and CFCs were eating ozone away, then the increase in size of the hole would be sustained. That is not the case. It has never been. It will not be.

quote:

---

It's truly amazing how Senior Ferreyra sweeps away such large bodies of data that don't support his point of view, and in his utter frustration is reduced to name calling." ... "What people will notice in Senior Ferreyra's approach is an extremely selective use of data to support his position, ignoring or attempting to discredit that which does not agree with his point of view."

---

Look who's talking! Míster Sore Throat, you are twisting facts in order to accomodate them to suit your interests. You have doing the same thing you accuse me of doing, but at an incredible extent. You also sweep away the large amount of data I supply. I guess we are heading nowhere (at least with you). Not so with other people whose emails are flooding my inbox, related to this discussion in Chemtrails.

quote:

---

Throughout the ages there have been similar types... look what they did to Galileo...unpopular "beliefs" at the time...which made the ruling powers quite nervous...they found this to be heresy and it disrupted their current world view.

---

Now you compare yourself with Galileo. I hope you have the same qualifications as his did. But this is not for me to say. By the "overwhelming" data "proving" Global Warming and Ozone Hole theories are correct, it follows that an "unpopular belief" would be what the skeptics and other millions of scientists think about these hoaxes. There is no such thing as "scientific consensus" on anything. Scientists have NEVER HAD ANY CONSENSUS ON ANYTHING.

quote:

---

But really Senior Ferreyra, is it necessary to stoop to name calling?

---

I make the same question to you, Míster Sore Throat. At least you have a real name to call me: Señor Ferreyra, but your "nickname" sometimes is difficult for me to remember and I get confused. On the other hand, the one that began calling me "pompous", "and riding horses""distinguished" any more. Good, that is OK with me too, as it is a step forward towards the peace.

I think you are so Sore to me because you cannot print in your posts the Spanish letter "Ñ", and have to limit yourself to write Senior instead of Señor. Look here how easy is to to write the Ñ:

posted 11-16-2003 05:33 PM            

Regarding recent warming trends, SEÑOR Ferreyra states, "Of course the instrumental record NASA_GISS refer to are artificial temperatures measured in artificial environments like cities and international airports. They are climatically irrelevant due to urban heating from concrete jungles. The only uncontaminated record of atmospheric temperature comes from the satellites, operating since 1979."

Perhaps you will find this article of interest SEÑOR Ferreyra (yes, I am addressing you directly):

Research Team Says "Recent" Warming Trend Is Global
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-02o.html

A team of Michigan and Canadian researchers has found that over the past half-century, the rocks of Earth's continental crust have warmed significantly, similar to the warming of the oceans, atmosphere and ice reported by other investigators last year.
Showing that the continents have warmed along with the other principal components of Earth's climate system indicates that the warming of our planet has been truly global, the researchers say.

"Our findings remove any last doubt that this is anything other than a global phenomenon," says Henry Pollack, U-M professor of geological sciences, who collaborated on the work with U-M assistant research scientist Shaopeng Huang, U-M graduate student Jason Smerdon, and Hugo Beltrami of St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia. The researchers report their work in the April 15 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, a leading geology journal.

"Until recently, the story of global warming has been built up primarily on the basis of temperature measurements at the surface of the land and oceans," says Pollack.

"These measurements have been painstakingly acquired and put together, and there has been enough information to reconstruct a temperature history for the Earth's surface for the past 140 years. But it's all based on surface measurements."

That approach was augmented about a year ago when another group of researchers determined how much heat had been gained during the last half of the 20th century throughout the atmosphere, the depths of the oceans, and the cryosphere (the portion of Earth's surface where water is in solid form such as sea ice, snow cover, glaciers, ice caps and permafrost). However, their analysis left out one major component of the climate system: continental rock, which covers almost 30 percent of the planet's surface.

Now, Pollack, Beltrami and colleagues have completed the picture by determining how much the continental rock has warmed in recent centuries. The scientists based their analysis on temperature readings taken by lowering sensitive thermometers into holes drilled from Earth's surface into rock formations on six continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, and Australia).

These readings can reveal how temperatures have changed in the past, because the heat that surface rocks absorb from the atmosphere travels slowly downward into subsurface rocks, leaving a distinct signature in the rocks.

Signals from short-term daily or seasonal variations penetrate only a few meters, and Earth quickly "forgets" them, but temperature changes that take place over hundreds of years are preserved in deeper rock.

The researchers' calculations, based on data from 616 bore holes, found evidence of an increase in the heat content of the continents over the past 500 years, with more than half of that heat gain occurring during the 20th century and nearly one-third of it since 1950.

"The magnitude of the warming we estimate is very similar to that which has come from the studies of the ocean, atmosphere and ice," says Pollack. "We believe it makes a persuasive case that the warming has been truly global."

**************************************

Let us be patient with SEÑOR Ferreyra and hope that he will come up with something more original than an off hand, and unsubstantiated criticism, of the work of these US and Canadian researchers.

After a while we will have amassed quite of list of institutions which SEÑOR Ferreyra claims are in error...that is he who is correct in the analysis of current climate change.

Let me assure you SEÑOR Ferreyra, that I too am amused.

posted 11-16-2003 07:34 PM            

quote:

---

Showing that the continents have warmed along with the other principal components of Earth's climate system indicates that the warming of our planet has been truly global, the researchers say.

---

I have never denied there has been a warming in the last 140 years, starting about 1860. That is something everybody knows and accept. This is the result of a natural process, the emergence from an abnormal cool period called, as everybody knows, the Little Ice Age. This period followed what climatologist used to call (before the advent of the "warming hysteria") as the Optimum Climate, also known as The Medieval Warm Period. There is ample data, either proxies or historic chronicles that demonstrate this periods were real. No arguing here among serious scientists, although Maan, Bradley, and Hughes, tried to deny it with its really sloppy statistical work known as the "Hockey Stick".

However, as I told you in my previous posts, this study has been "audited" (not reviewed by journal picked experts) by professors Ross McKitric and Stephen McIntyre, showing the wrong statistical methodology used, the "cherry picking" of data, etc. I will not enter here in longer details, as I gave you the direct link to the paper. It has been posted in the web for scientists, experts and common people as us to review it, and find what is wrong with their conclusions. Everybody in this forum must go to that link and read it throughly. becasue it says things that you would not believe if I told you. In case somebody is too lazy to go to the previous page, here iti is again: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html "Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series".

What is in discussion on the "warming" issue is, firstly, the origin or cause for it, and the amount of the increase, this last factor affected by errors and bias in instruments and locations. Another matter under discussion, is the effects this warming will have on our civilization, if catastrophic or beneficial. As GCM (General Circulation Models), those computerized models used by predict the future climate, say the warming will be around 2 to 4º C, and the effect will be catastrophic, a big hype resulted from this prediction - that most climatologists prefer to call "prophecies".

But GCM have long be shown as flawed because, when the data for periods 200 - 400 years ago is entered in them - and then "run backwards" - they give results showing the Earth should be about 4º C warmer than present temperatures. This is a sign that climate modelin is still a highly imperfect tool and cannot be trusted for climate predictions. However, the Anglia GCM run in England and the one run in Canada, are the ones most frequently used to give false and catastrophic predictions.

Even so, as the Medieval Warm period was 2º C warmer than present days, one has to wonder if the predicted "warming" will be so catastrophic or, as claimed by many serious scientists, it will be higly beneficial for all human activities. Especially if we consider that during the Medieval Warm Period, there was a jump forward in human economic, agricutural, and cultural activities unparalleled in history. It was the time when Erik the Red colonized Greenland (why was it green?) vineyards where grown in the south of England, and its wine industry compited with the French and German wineries. Right now, there are no vineyards in England, even with the horrid summer "heat wave" because the winters are still too cold for the activity.

quote:

---

"These measurements have been painstakingly acquired and put together, and there has been enough information to reconstruct a temperature history for the Earth's surface for the past 140 years. But it's all based on surface measurements."

---

Let us hope McIntyre and McKitric do not take that temperature reconstruction (mostly proxies) and show it has been made with the same flawed methodology used by Mann et al.,. As they themselves acknowledge, the reconstruction is based on surface measurements, and this implies there will be many important errors caused by ancient and faulty instrumentation, way of taking measurements, differences among thermometers used (they were not digital), locations of the weather stations, and more. We shall have to wait until the study is released to see if there has been the corresponding corrections made for taking into account the "urban heat island effect" and, of course, contrast the last years in their records (from 1979 up) against NOAA's satellite records. We might get some surprises. So, for the time being, the post you made does not add a milligram to the weight of your arguments.

The rest of the article has nothing deserving a comment, as it keeps saying there has been a warming, etc., etc., something no one deny.

quote:

---

"Let us be patient with SEÑOR Ferreyra and hope that he will come up with something more original than an off hand, and unsubstantiated criticism, of the work of these US and Canadian researchers." ... "After a while we will have amassed quite of list of institutions which SEÑOR Ferreyra claims are in error...that is he who is correct in the analysis of current climate change."

---

If you think what I have said is unsubstantiated criticism, then MÍSTER Sore, you know nothing about climatology. And against your amassed list of institutions I can contrast a similar (or perhaps larger) number of institutions that claim - and have already proved - your institutions are in error.

But who cares, anyway? "Global Warmers" are the owners of the United Nations and the IPCC. They have the pan by the handle. But seeing the strong opposition coming from everywhere, the handle is becoming too hot to hold!

posted 11-16-2003 08:40 PM            

SEÑOR Ferreyra does admit that we are in the midst of a period of global warming, but perfers to take that tack that this will actually be a benefit....an interesting gambit, which of course is also totally hypothetical and unsubstantiated.

One need only to look at the suffering in drought parched regions of the earth to understand his willingness to overlook the growing human suffering and economic impacts of the climate change we are experiencing.

I am also amazed at his reckless assertions which are completely untrue. An example:

SEÑOR Ferreyra states "Right now, there are no vineyards in England, even with the horrid summer "heat wave" because the winters are still too cold for the activity."

The fact is, there are many:

http://www.internetwineguide.com/structure/ww/v&w/europe/uk/vwuk.htm

Global Warming May Help Vintages
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39113-2003Nov14.html

Yet another example SEÑOR Ferreyra detachment with reality. He is so obsessed with defending a increasingly discredited point of view he resembles the captain going down with the Titanic...resolute to the end.

It will be interesting to see if he has the cajones to admit, forthrightly, that he has the capacity to be in error.

Let's watch... this will be fun.

By the way, for those interested, this site is loaded with well referenced information on the issue of global warming:

http://www.climatehotmap.org/

An example:

Global warming fingerprint
Glaciers melting

Alaska

A study of 67 glaciers shows that between the mid-1950s and mid-1990s the glaciers thinned by an average of about 1.6 feet (0.5 m) per year. Repeat measurements on 28 of those glaciers show that from the mid-1990s to 2000-2001 the rate of thinning had increased to nearly 6 feet (1.8 m) per year. Alaska has experienced a rapid warming since the 1960s. Annual average temperatures have warmed up to 1.8°F (1°C) per decade over the last three decades, and winter warming has been as high as 3°F (2°C) per decade.

Reference: Arendt, A.A., K. A. Echelmeyer, W. D. Harrison, C. S. Lingle, V. B. Valentine, 2002. Rapid wastage of Alaska glaciers and their contribution to rising sea level. Science, 297: 382-386
Alaska Regional Assessment Group, 1999. Preparing for a changing climate; The potential consequences of climate variability and change: Alaska. Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.

I assume the journal Science meets your demanding peer review requirements SEÑOR Ferreyra?

More GLOBAL, not regional, glacial retreat evidence:

So how could this be, such a worldwide trend in glacial retreat? By the way, from reading SEÑOR Ferreyra's selective assertions, would you expect this to be true?

In any event, perhaps these FACTS about man's alteration of our atmosphere with greenhouse gases are contributing to the ACCELERATED WARMING that has been documented:

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

Sorry that this graph doesn't reporoduce well, but here is the link, it's worth looking at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/carbdiox.html

And here is the important take home message from these data:

This graph shows the increase in the atmospheric concentration of Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and Antarctic temperature from 420,000 years ago until prior to the industrial revolution.

The grey color represents CO2 concentrations, and the scale on the far left refers to the CO2 values. As can be seen in the graph to the left, pre-industrial levels (~280 ppmv) were similar to previous interglacials (times which were not considered an 'ice-age' - as now). The present, post-industrial atmospheric level of CO2 concentration is around 370ppmv, which on this graph would be off the scale.

By the way, let's not forget to see if SEÑOR Ferreyra has a psyche that allows him to admit that he can be wrong.

We're watching.

posted 11-16-2003 08:58 PM            

.....But who cares, anyway? "Global Warmers" are the owners of the United Nations and the IPCC. They have the pan by the handle. But seeing the strong opposition coming from everywhere, the handle is becoming too hot to hold!.....

"Global Warmers" - what a catchy name. Is dis a new religious sect or something?

posted 11-16-2003 10:46 PM            

We are all familiar with governments saying one thing and doing something else. Who is to say that the motives for the US government's keeping alive the "global warming is a fiction" lobby are not purely political, that they judge it expedient to have a clientele that believes everything is well with the planet, and at the same time proceed on the basis that everything is not well with the planet, implementing their geo-engineering non-solutions.

posted 11-16-2003 11:35 PM            

.....Who is to say that the motives for the US government's keeping alive the "global warming is a fiction" lobby are not purely political, that they judge it expedient to have a clientele that believes everything is well with the planet, and at the same time proceed on the basis that everything is not well with the planet, implementing their geo-engineering non-solutions.

That is what is happening, I believe.....

posted 11-17-2003 01:56 AM            

You get half a point here, with the vineyard stuff. I must acknowledge I should have said "commercial scale vineyards", but that was implied in my post, when referring to competing against french and germans wines. Anyhow, I went into a tour in British vineyards and found something quite interesting: there are not many, as you said - just 11, and the 12th is an hotel for "honeymooners". They sell wine but they do not make them. They sell wines from California, USA. (eech!).

The list of the vineyards follows, and I have numbered it for easy reading. Before getting into the analysis, you should note that they mention Romans as introducing the vineyards into England, and you should remember the historical era: the year circa 900 AD, when the Optimun Climatic or Medieval Warm period was in full rise. Then, vineyards disappeared from England, as I told you before, until 1968, when the first vineyard was planted again, well in the South of England. (3. Adggestone Vineyard, Sandwon, Isle of Wight.

You should note, however, that these are not fully commercial vineyards, as their size makes impossible a large enough production. They are small business, more oriented to tourism than wine business. And this has an explanation, as stated by the owners of Davenport Vineyards (No. 1 in the list below). Read it and wil know why winemaking in England is kind of an amateurish occupation. They all have hotels, and the money comes from the tourists visiting the place, not by winemaking. After the list, I am showing a map of southern England, taken from the MET archives, during the hottest week this summer - the Heat Wave" - showing isothermal lines. In here it is interesting to note how clearly is revealed the "urban heat island effect", London being the center of it. I used Corel PhotoPaint for cropping the map and drawing the green squares with the reference number and county name. Piece of cake!.

You'll notice in the map that few miles away, in the coast northeast of London, temperatures were 10º C lower! This should give something to think about, to those who claim there is no such thing as "urban heat island effect", so there is no need to correct surface temperature records for correcting an inexitent effect. They are the same "scientists" that commented at an IPCC gathering "We must do something about those satellites". They are debunking their sloppy designed tehory. They may even lose they jobs and stop going to all those fancy resorts in exotic places to attend those merry "Climate change" meetings. And we, taxpayers, are paying for their caviar and champagne!

***********************************************

1. Davenprot Vineyards: At Hazel Street Farm, Horsmonden, Kent

The first vines were planted in 1991 and have been productive since the 1993 harvest. The site is south facing, on a gentle slope. Soils are clay with a sandy loam top soil. This vineyard is very sheltered and retains the heat from even a cool summer day. Despite the shelter of windbreaks and woodland, the vines have never been affected by late spring frosts, making it possibly the only vineyard in the south east to completely escape the very late 1997 frost that affected the area so badly.

This 4 acre vineyard was planted in 1993 and has been brought up with largely organic management techniques - no chemical fertilizers, no herbicides since 1997 and mainly organic fungicides. The site is planted on a steep west facing slope, with good hedges and windbreaks to give shelter from the winds. Soil is a sandy/clay loam with a well-drained sandstone subsoil. The area is very rich in iron, and this was exploited by the Romans who extracted and smelted the iron ore at Limney Farm. The vineyard was hit by frost in 1997 which set back the cropping date by a year. As a result our first commercial crop was harvested in 1999.
***********************************************
2. New Wave Wines. Tenterden, Kent: At New Wave Wines we source our grapes from vineyards all over Southern England from Essex to the Isle of Wight.
***********************************************
3. Adggestone Vineyard, Sandwon, Isle of Wight: One of the oldest vineyards in Britain, Adgestone is set on a south facing slope in ten acres of outstanding natural beauty overlooked by Brading Down, just half a mile from the Roman Villa - The Romans, it is believed, planted their vines on this site. It would be nice to think that Roman Gentry at their bacchanalian feasts drank wine grown on these same slopes some 2000 years ago. This area of vineyard, first planted in 1968 is on a chalky soil on a south facing slope, in an ideal climate which is frost free.

***********************************************
4. Three Choirs Vineyards: Newent - Gloucestershire - GL18 1LS - England.
***********************************************
5. Bow-in-the-Cloud Vineyard : Noahs Ark, Garsdon, Malmesbury , Wiltshire.

Bow-in-the-Cloud vineyard was planted in 1992 and 1993 and has been producing wine for corporate customers and local trade since 1995. It comprises 4.6 acres but so far only 3 have been planted - one acre of Bacchus, one of Seyval Blanc and one of Schönburger.
***********************************************
6. Cwm Deri Vineyard, In West Wales, U.K.
***********************************************
7. Sharpham: Situated on the banks of the River Dart near Totnes in South Devon, our vineyards, creamery and organic dairy farm have been producing wines and unpasteurised cheeses for over twenty years to local, national and international acclaim.
***********************************************
8. Carr Taylor - Westfield, Hastings, East Sussex, six miles north of the historic town of Hastings: The south coast of England has some of the best conditions for wine growing in the UK. Carr Taylor estate was founded in 1971 (Map: south of London).
***********************************************
9. Denbies Wine Estate - Surrey: Error 404.
***********************************************
10. Carters Vineyards - Suffolk/Essex: http://www.englishwines.com/ = Error 404.
***********************************************
11. Wooldings Vineyard: http://www.wooldingsvineyard.co.uk%20/ = error 404-
***********************************************
12. The Vineyard at Stockcross: Newbury Berkshire: not a vineyard, but a luxury Hotel for honeymooners. They sell wines, but do not make them.
***********************************************

see how all these vineyards are locatred well inside the huge area covered by the "urban heat island" that has become the UK since the early 30s. An analysis if the isothermals in MET records show this quite clearly.

PS: Deborah, it is 5:00 in the morning, and I must go to bed. Tomorrow is going to be a hard day for me at our ranch. You'll have to wait your turn. I was missing your cheerleading in behalf of Sore Throat. You both for sure make a good team. Don`t go away.

posted 11-17-2003 10:19 AM            

The International Cristo Redentor tunnel connecting Mendoza with Chile remained today closed to traffic, due to a blizzard in the high mountains, while 250 trucks remained stuck at the nearby town of Uspallata. Gendarmería {border Army patrol} reported that "this is an surprising blizzard", and that "this kinf of event has not been recorded for many years, in this time of mid November", that forced the closure of the Andean pass."

For a better understanding of the meaning of this event, we must remember that the tunnel is at 3,200 metres altitude in the Andes, at about 33ºS latitude. A corresponding location for the Northern Hemisphere is San Diego, Cal. or Atlanta, Ga. Weather records show that snowfalls end in the area at early September, so skiers can enjoy the sport until about September 21st (I ski there, but in July or August).

This event does not amaze me, as I expected this to happen, as we had in our nearby mountains in Córdoba (the same 33ºS, but barely 2,000 metres altitude) a beautiful snowstorm at mid October, something that is absolutely unusual at that time of the year. This kind of event had been recorded back in the 20s, (in Córdoba and the Andean pass), but since then, we have not had this snowfall so late in the year. We are almost 30 days away from reaching the peak of temperatures for our usually hot summer station!

I am fully aware that this strange cold events are caused by "global warming" - if we are to believe IPCC claims based on its crummy climate models and its incredible theory of "catastrophic global warming".

I can only smile.

By the way, i have noticed readers to this topic have increased to 372 - from the meager 18 at the moment of my entering the forum. I should charge Chemtrails for the propaganda. I had a hint for this to be happening, when emails began to flow into my inbox - none of them saying "you`re wrong". People has been accesing our webpages, and got my email from there. In case somebody is too lazy to visit the site, I will post my email address now: shuara@fullzero.com.ar .

See you later.

posted 11-17-2003 12:54 PM            

In another topic in the forum, I saw a nice response by PHXPilot (http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000083.html#14) that is worth posting here. I find it quite relevant to our topic.

quote:

---

1. If you started a website claiming that dogs are actually disguised aliens from mars, you would get alot of debunkers there too. Its human nature to want to prove someone else wrong. And the easier a theory is to disprove, the more and more debunkers you are going to get. The sheer number of smart, informed, intelligent people disproving this theory should be enough to send up warning flags. If the theory had no holes, and was flawless, there would be no debunkers because they would have nothing to feed off of.

---

Well, after being until now in a defensive position, as Napoleon Bonaparte once said: "Never interrupt an enemy when he is making a mistake" I left you put up you "copy&paste" show. Napoleon also said: "Our righy flank is falling, the left flank is disbanding, the front is hardly sustaining. The time has come to attack!". He had troops in reserve, of course, while the enemy had thrown all the meat on the barbecue.

By reading your posts, it seems that you know almost everything there is to know about climatology and atmospheric sciences, allowing you to adopt a patronizing stance with a foolish "global warming theory" debunker. So show this forum the degree of knowledge you have, by answering very easy questions on basic meteorology and atmospheric dynamics. Noblesse oblige, I must warn you there is a catch to my questions. The catch is: they are too simple.

This is a True/False questionaire: provide the answer and your brief explanation for it.

posted 11-17-2003 01:34 PM            

"Deborah, it is 5:00 in the morning, and I must go to bed. Tomorrow is going to be a hard day for me at our ranch. You'll have to wait your turn. I was missing your cheerleading in behalf of Sore Throat. You both for sure make a good team. Don`t go away.

Señor Ferreyra"

Sepor Ferereyra I am waiting my turn also, and not planning to go away.

posted 11-17-2003 04:11 PM            

"I believe this "project" is just that: a project in the feverish minds of some wackos. If it really were for real, it would be, of course, a tremendous crime going on."

I suggest that, if you have not already done so, you should read Jay Michaelson's Manhattan Project paper,
[URL=http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html]

which provides a very detailed defence of geoengineering (including spraying of aerosols: chemtrails, in other words) as a proposed response to global warming.

In the light of what is revealed in Michaelson's paper a more reasonable question than how it could be possible for a geoengineering/chemtrails programme to be in operation would be how it could be possible for a geoengineering programme NOT to be in operation, given that it is authoritatively perceived as being so necessary.

To argue that global warming is fictitious proves nothing about whether geoengineering is occurring, because all that one has to show is that powerful interests BELIEVE (or act as if they believe) that global warming is not fictitious. You, I think, would be the last to deny that there are such lobbies proclaiming the reality of global warming.

If by saying that a global geoengineering/chemtrails project would be a crime you mean that it would not be permitted under existing international law, you are certainly on stronger ground. Michaelson acknowledges that even a multinational geoengineering project might be illegal "insofar as it causes transboundary effects, beneficial or not."

But this illegality, taken in conjunction with the perceived necessity of a solution to perceived global warming, would be a more likely explanation for the SECRECY of a geoengineering/chemtrails project than proof that it is non-existent or fictitious.

It could also explain why some governments are so insistent on denying the reality of global warming. Such denials would be a very appropriate way of deflecting attention from the fact that the chosen options for dealing with global warming are illegal. Of course if changes in the relevant international law can be negotiated, this kind of denial will become less necessary. There is much evidence that efforts are being made in this direction.

If they are successful, will you still be of the opinion that global spraying of toxic aerosols from aircraft is, or will be, a "tremendous crime"?

posted 11-17-2003 05:05 PM            

quote:

---

Senor Ferreyra, this thread is entitled "The Shield Project". This is what you have written in relation to "The Shield Project": "I believe this "project" is just that: a project in the feverish minds of some wackos. If it really were for real, it would be, of course, a tremendous crime going on." ...

If they are successful, will you still be of the opinion that global spraying of toxic aerosols from aircraft is, or will be, a "tremendous crime"?

---

By all means. But I would need at least ONE solid and undisputable piece of evidence. And as far as I have been researching into the subject, I have found nothing that fits into the category of "solid evidence". I don't deny there may exist such evidence, but it has not surfaced yet. "Circumstancial evidence" is not enough to send a presumed criminal to the chair. Although this has happened, and innocent men were executed, this should make us more cautious about pointing accusing fingers without solid evidence.

On the other hand, as you contacted me through my website, and invited me to participate in this debate with an email reading (partially)

And what if other people in this board insist that I keep participating in the debate?

posted 11-17-2003 05:35 PM            

One of the most important things to note about the so-called Antarctic ozone hole is that some of the most complex and least-understood atmospheric chemical reactions occur during the four-to-six-week duration of the ozone hole. The Polar Vorex seals the Antarctic atmosphere during this period, creating what is essentially an extraordinary chemical reaction vessel. As we can see in the next figure, very dramatic changes occur in the chemical composition of the stratosphere as one flies from outside the vortex to the vessel inside. The concentrations of many chemicals drop dramataically, including water vapor, nitrogen oxidesm and ozone. At the same time, the concentrations of other chemicals, like chlorine monoxide, increase dramatically.

The boundaries for these extraordinary changes in chemical concentrations is the wall of the Polar Vortex. Think of it as a sealed chemical reactor vessel inside which there is a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole, and an ozone hole - all occurring simultaneously. This chemical conditions exists nowhere else on Earth, except perhaps the short-lived Arctic polar vortex. The graph above was common at scientific meetings, but seldom at public forums or in the news media. Why don't those who fret about the ozone hole also worry about the nitrogen oxide hole, and so on?

Explaining this complex chemistry has been a major problem for the proponents of the ozone depletion theory. From their standpoint, the "discovery" of the hole in 1985 was both a blessing and a curse: a blessing because it revived their sagging fortunes; a curse brcause F. Sherwood Rowland's theory could not possibly account for the depletion.The latest version of Rowland and Molina theory predicted a 5 percent depletion of ozone over 100 years. In Antarctica, scientists were observing depletions of 50 percent in a few weeks!. Then, a few weeks later, the ozone level was back to "normal" again.

It took two years for the ozone depletion propagandists to come up with an explanation for this anomalous situation. The "depletion gang" were not disturbed by their own contradictory pronouncements. An article by Martyn Chipperfield in Nature, Jan. 24, 1991, for example, triumphally proclaimed: "It is now beyond doubt that stratospheric ozone is being destroyed by chlorine derived from man-made CFCs". In the nex paragraph, however, Chipperfield warns that "... many quantitative details of the Antarctic ozone depletion remain unexplained..."

Mario Molina devised and unbelievably complex chemical theory called "heterogeneous" or "dimer" chemistry (Molina and Molina, 1987). the theory requires very cold temperatures, below -78ºC, which occur in the Antarctic atmosphere only a few weeks of the year. It also requires the formation of polar satrospheric louds, which are made up of nitric acid, instead of the water that makes up normal clouds. Finally, Molina's new theory requires sunlight at just the right time.

These conditions can occur in Antarctica only after three to four months of complete darkness enable the stratosphere to cool own to -78ºC. Then, at the very moment that spring returns and sunlight strikes Antarctica, at that moment, all conditions being right, the stratosphere being primed, the sunlgiht supposedely sets off a series of very complex reactions that break apart the molecules in which chlorine is bound, freeing individual chlorine atoms to wander about and destroy the ozone layer.

Molina's chemical formulas are as follows:

(M) is a "collisional chaperone" (a hard surface) for N₂ and O₂, as put by Molina.

The net result of this series of complex chemical reactions is two ozone molecules (O₃) will be turned into three oxygen molecules (O₂). This is the heart of the explanation that CFCs are depleting ozone in Antarctica. The so-called "chloro-catalytic process" that has scared the hell out the common people.

Please note that CFCs are not involved at all in Molina's chemical reactions. The chlorine comes instead from two "reservoirs" ClONO₂ and HCl, natural atmospheric compunds.

Second, ice (a hard surface) is needed to begin the reaction, which is why the polar stratospheric clouds are required. The ice is found only when temperatures are colder than –78ºC and an altitude of between 12 and 20 km.

Third, without sunlight (hv stands for a photon of UV radiation) this reaction could ot occur.
Let us concentrate on reaction (5). This crucial equation says that when a molecule Cl₂O₂ (chlorine peroxide) is struck by UV radiation, it will break up nto a Cl atom , which goes on to destroy ozone molecules, and ClOO.

The ClOO (sometimes known as OClO) is then presumed to undergo a molecular collision against an ice crystal to give up molecular oxygen and a free chlorine atom. The crucial thing is: Given that the theoretical mecanism has never been definitely established in the laboratory, does the chemistry work like this in the stratosphere?

"NO", says Igor J. Eberstein of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. In a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters in May 1990, Eberstein demonstrates that the most likely path of chlorine peroxide photodissociation is into two ClO radicals; that is, back to the monomer. A secondary path of diassociation is Cl₂ and atomic oxgen. (If this is getting too technical, please forgive me, but there is no layman explanation for these complex reactions. On the other hand, if someone does not undestand this chemical reactions, he/she shouldn't be into ozone layer discussions defending something he/she does not fully understand. This comment is not directed to you, Sore and Debbie, as you know everything needed to defend your stand).

The ozone depletion theorists conveniently ignore these least-energy pathways, a fundamental law of thermodynamics, with no exceptions whatsoever. They claim that the chemical reactions goes this way:

According to Eberstein, "There is no proven chemical mechanism to account for the creation of the ozone hole. This is a very serious failure. If you have a theory, you should be able to provide a definitive mechanism. Otherwise is pure speculation. This Antarctic ozone depletion issue has to be put on a more solid scientific basis." Should we classify Eberstein as a "skeptic", a "debunker", an "unsubstantiated critic", or perhaps as a "characteristic pompous "academic", on the take from those who rape and pillage the earth to support their profits".

But Eberstein is not alone in criticizing the chemical hocus pocus. Writing in the Journal of Geophysical Research, on Oct. 20, 1990, G.W. Lawrence and his associates demolish a popular version of Molina's Equation (6) and the presumed gas-phase photodissociation of chlorine oxide to free up chorine. After a sreies of very complex experiments in the laboratory, Lawrence, Clemitshaw, and Apkarian (1990) conclude:

Sunlight is another requisite element in Molina's "dimer" chemistry. Sunlight is the "trigger" for the chemical reaction that destroy ozone molecules; this is why the ozoe hole appears only at the beginning of the Antarctic spring, although the chlorine molecules have been there all throughout the winter darkness.

Again, reality intrudes. The National and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) anounced on September 1990 that its polar satellites were detecting the development of the ozone hole a full month before the appearance of sunlight. In other words, the hole is well developed before sunlight strikes Antactica, exactly the opposite of what Molina heterogeneous chemistry theory claims. If chemical reactions are creating the hole, these reactions are occirring in the darkness, which invalidates the theory.

Not surpisingly, the news media ignored the importance of the NOAA discovery in refutig Molina's dimer chemistry. Instead, the press played the news to another scare story, reporting that the NOAA satellites data showed Antarctica ozone depletion to be more serious than originally thought, because the hole was - unexpectedly - appearing early.

Molina got the Noble Prize in chemistry in 1995, along with his teacher, F. Sherwood Rowland and Paul Crutzen, not for their scientic work by itself, but for the "political implications that saved mankind from an impeding catastrophe", breaking away from Nobel's basic conditions for awarding the Prize: "For outstanding achievements on sciences, that lead to industrial progress and the benefit of mankind".

A blatant example of how science has been politically abused, clearing the ground for more junk and fraudulent science, and for absurd international treaties of tremendous effects on global economies - and none on the rise of CO₂ and amelioration of poverty and hunger in the world.

posted 11-17-2003 07:12 PM            

His quote:

"Well, after being until now in a defensive position, as Napoleon Bonaparte once said: "Never interrupt an enemy when he is making a mistake" I left you put up you "copy&paste" show. Napoleon also said: "Our righy flank is falling, the left flank is disbanding, the front is hardly sustaining. The time has come to attack!". He had troops in reserve, of course, while the enemy had thrown all the meat on the barbecue."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This actually may be entirely appropriate.

My response:

posted 11-17-2003 10:12 PM            

What about those very simple questions I begged you to answer? Are they too difficult for your "copy & paste" scheme? Or is that you have not yet found the answers in your precious internet?

On the other hand, you dissapoint me. I thought I had a real contender.

I think all the 470 + readers that this topic has by now deserve your comments on the my reply to the vineyard matter, or the "cherry picking" methodology used by the IPCC for its "set of 20 glaciers in retreat".

By the way, go back to the chart and see that from the 20 glaciers shown, 12 began their retreat before 1900, and one of them, Minapi, in the Karakorum, was growing while the others were retreating. Overall, the glaciers in the list began their retreat about 200 years ago, in average. Don't blame me or my grandfather.

ADVANCING GLACIERS:

NORWAY

Ålfotbreen
Briksdalsbreen
Nigardsbreen
Hardangerjøkulen
Hansebreen
Jostefonn
Engabreen: (Engabreen is the second biggest in Norway. Is a glacial tongue of the Svartisen glacier, that has been growing in a sustained manner since the 60s, when a period of heavier rains settled on the region.

Norway's glaciers are growing at a record pace. The Briksdal glacier front is growing at the record pace of 18 cm daily.

From 1992 to 1997, the Briksdal grew by 322 meters (1,062 feet). At its current pace, the ice-cap is expected to extend three kilometers (1.86 miles) from its current position within 50 to 60 years, placing it right at the front door of the popular Briksdal tourist cafe.

Norway's glaciers growing at record pace

AGENCE-FRANCE PRESSE
Sunday, May 24, 1998

*******************************************

World Glacier Monitoring Service 1989 report in Science magazine, which showed 55 percent of mountain glaciers in Europe and the United States advancing after 1980. (That means a "global ADVANCE).

Click in the link to see mass balance of Norway's glaciers: http://www.nve.no/

Click on "English" (on top of the page), then click on "Water", then "Hydrology," and finally on "Glaciers and Snow". You'll see a list of the most important glaciers in Norway.

CANADA
Helm Glacier
Place Glacier

ECUADOR
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier

SWITZERLAND
Silvretta Glacier

KIRGHIZTAN
Abramov

RUSSIA
Maali Glacier

NEW ZEALAND
Pictures show that ALL 48 glaciers in the South Alps have been growing in the last year. The advance is in the head of the glacies, up in the mountains, where thay have gained more ice than the one they lost.

In thre years, a notorious advance should be occurring at the foot of the Fox and Franz Joseph glaciers. (May, 27, 2003

UNITED STATES
- Colorado
Geologists Discover Unexpectedly 100 Glaciers in Colorado. (Hawaii Tribune Herald, October, 7, 2001, by Joseph B. Verrengia. AP-NY-10-04-01)

- Washington (Mt. Rainier* y Mt. Shuckson)

- Montana (Glacier Park)

- Alaska (Mt. McKinley y Hubbard).

- Greenland ice cover is growing.

- So is doing Antartica ice cover,

-According to Science magazine (Jan, 2002) new measurements show that frozen parts in Antarctica are growing in thickness. (That's why the Larsen-B barrier collapsed).

-A week before, an article in Nature reported that the hard deserts in the Antarctica - for a long time considered an alarm bell for the climatic change - have cooled noticeably since mid 80s.

Construction crane buried in deep ice

*******************************************

Enough for today. We'll give you some time to answer those easy questions. Please, do it. Yes?

posted 11-17-2003 10:33 PM            

Is he gulty of simple careless and sloppy research? ... or does he in fact intentionally prevaricate in a futile effort to substantiate his increasingly tenuous position?

Case in point:

Earlier in this thread discussing the reality of global warming, and in this case, impact on agriculture, SEÑOR Ferreyra emphatically stated, ""Right now, there are no vineyards in England, even with the horrid summer "heat wave" because the winters are still too cold for the activity."

When I provided evidence that proved him wrong (via a cut and paste of a link), the "Honorable" Ferreyra backpeddles and states,

"You get half a point here, with the vineyard stuff. I must acknowledge I should have said "commercial scale vineyards", but that was implied in my post, when referring to competing against french and germans wines. Anyhow, I went into a tour in British vineyards and found something quite interesting: there are not many, as you said - just 11, and the 12th is an hotel for "honeymooners". They sell wine but they do not make them. They sell wines from California, USA. (eech!)."

You notice that he doesn't have the cajones to simply admit that he was wrong. What he does next is even more laughable, he spends considerable effort to plot the locations of all eleven vineyards that I provided him in my post.

And then, drumroll....

the "Brilliant Scientist" Eduardo Ferreyra claims that there reason that this is possible is because all the ELEVEN vineyards "are located well inside the huge area covered by the "urban heat island" ".

You got that? Eduardo Ferreyra claims that the only reason these vineyards can exist is because they are being heated by cities. ...and this based on a SINGLE day of weather data!

Right!

But here's the reality...as quick as Eduardo Ferreyra moves to create a story to cover his sorry ass, he once again didn't even both to check the facts, or worse, he choose to hide them.

There are, in fact, presently 330 vineyards in England contributing 10 million pounds to the British economy.

And projections are that they will soon growing grapes in Scotland...

Climate change will allow Scotland to develop wines
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/scotland.cfm?id=1269642003

There's the "cut and paste" SEÑOR Ferreyra.

Hoisted on your own petard.

And we must all note your unending arrogance to claim that I initiated a "moronic diversionary movement".

Have you forgotten just who brought a discussion of Napoleon Bonaparte to this thread?

I simply slammed the door.

Truly astounding hypocrisy and obfuscation at work here.

And speaking of work... I was not fortunate enough to be able to exist off of inherited wealth from my parents.

I will be traveling for the balance of the week on business and will be unable to engage in your continued dismantling until I return next weekend.

My verdict to date... you've been drinking too much of your Argentine wine ...which by the way they sell at Trader Joe's for 2 bucks a bottle. Thank you for leaving the California wine for us natives.

posted 11-17-2003 11:01 PM            

You write:

"You contacted me through my website, and invited me to participate in this debate with an email reading …

(snip)

Mr Ferreyra,
I don't know if you are being deliberately misleading here or are genuinely confused. I never sent you any e-mail message. I don't know your e-mail address.

If you look at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/99988

You will see that I ask someone posting there under the name of mcbymyself to tell you, who were asserting that “The Shield Project” is a fraud, that you could if you wish, here at CTC reiterate this charge to David Stewart , who took the “Shield Project” interviews.

It was clearly mcbymself who sent you the e-mail and it is he that you are quoting, not I, (apart from extracts of my postings at chemtrailtrackingusa that mcbymyself is quoting to you).

Mcbymyself knows that chemtrails are not a fiction but he does not believe the explanation that they are a response to global warming. Like you, he does not believe in the reality of global warming. He therefore thinks that global warming cannot be an explanation for chemtrails.

You say that if you had evidence that a global geoengineering/chemtrails programme is under way, you would think it criminal.

Well then, see http://hdgc.epp.cmu.edu/eppclass/wwwboard/messages/35.html

Quote:
"Your question (2) was on how long geoengineering measures such as seeding the atmosphere with aerosols would give us?

Here there are multiple tradeoffs at stake and there is no definitive time answer to your question. It depends how much we want to trade off some things versus other things. For instance we can continue to seed the atmosphere with aerosols (or put sails in space) to increase the earth's albedo to keep pace with the increase in greenhouse forcing. We will just have to keep putting more and more aerosols up as the greenhouse forcing increases with time. This will get more and
more expensive (unless the delivery cost of putting them into the stratosphere comes down with time) and the side effects of spreading aerosols through the stratosphere will also presumably increase the more we put up there (aerosols will fall out of the stratosphere into the troposphere and so will pollute the tropsosphere. On the plus side, we'll have great sunsets!). At some point we might decide that
the cure (aerosols in the stratosphere and attendent costs and side effects) is worse than the disease (greenhouse warming). But that is a multi-valued trade-off and it is not easy to say just when the tradeoff point is reached."

posted 12-01-2003 05:35 PM            

Most regretfully I have been unable to stop by and keep up on my reading of these posts and subjects.

I find all of this debate on the reality of global warming to be heart warming. Kind of off kilter considering that the official US stance now is that there is a global warming taking place. Heard it on CNN.

As for Grapes in the UK - who would have thunk it? Always learning something new.

cheers

David