Debunked: Dane Wigington's Claims That UV is "Off The Charts"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've updated the graph to show UVA and UVB divisions (at 320nm)

The area under the graph to the left or the right of the grey line is the power from UVB or UVA. You can see the ratio of UVB to UVA in space (about 1:4) and on the ground (hardly any UVB).
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Interesting stuff, Mick. It really shouldn't be necessary to 'defend' against Wigington's claims about ozone depletion being at catastrophic levels or anything else UV related since his figures are so outside of reality, ie. readings over the UVB constant in space. regardng mineral dust, he has made some consistent clams about mineral dust that simply are not true:
1. That CARB (California Air Resources Board) says they don't test for aluminum.
2. Particulate containing aluminum does not cross the Pacific Ocean and enter North America.

Dane Wigington said:
3) According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which has studied aerosols migrating from China and other locations around the globe, elevation in aluminum ratings are NOT due to any aerosols that may be migrating from China due to their industry.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineering-dangerous-proposal-or-lethal-reality/
Dane Wigington said:
In California for example, State Water Quality stopped testing for aluminum in 02′. CARB (California Air Resources Board) also does not even look for such contaminants. This author personally attended a high level CARB closed door meeting in Sacramento California which was arranged by a congressional representative. There were 5 high level CARB officials in attendance. I was told to my face that they are mandated to test for “combustion particulates only”. The rest of the air samples apparently go out the window. Certainly it would be hard to find what you are told not to look for.
http://educate-yourself.org/ct/howtostopthespracying01dec12.shtml



True as far as industrial air pollutants in general, but when CARB have done studies on Asian dust events in CA they certainly did find aluminum in that mineral dust and used the ratio method of comparing aluminum to various other common crustal elements to geolocate the source of the dust and quantify the proportion of dust from local vs Asian sources.

This 2003 paper at the CARB website:
Asian aerosols in North America: Extracting the chemical composition and mass concentration of the Asian continental aerosol plume from long-term aerosol records in the western United States
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/ict/docs/asian-aerosols03.pdf

If you debate him, he has shown that he will use those same talking points again and again because he probably believes them, and it can be shown that they are demonstrably false. If he does not use them, they become your talking points to demonstrate how he has been misinformed and spread the misinformation to others. There are also his supposed dust tests that he claimed to have analyzed but refuses to show. There is also the so-far anonymous hydrogeoelogist wh told him there should be no aluminum found in rainwater. CARB and the tests Steve Funk has made debunks that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So, the meter they use for UVB is a UV513AB, mfg. by General Tool and Instruments Co. It sells for $177.95 on the website he references, $164 elsewhere. The product manual http://www.generaltools.com/assets/images/manuals/UV513AB_Manual.pdf is pretty sketchy, and does not explain the proper way to derive a UVB value.
In theory, since the A/B meter claims to measure A+B, then it should be just as they are doing it (B = A+B - A). The problem is that it's a low quality meter, with a seemingly random response curve. Suitable only for giving relative results, not absolute readings.

It does seem so incredibly wrong though that I suspect there might be something else going on. I await the videos.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If you debate him, he has shown that he will use those same talking points again and again because he probably believes them, and it can be shown that they are demonstrably false. If he does not use them, they become your talking points to demonstrate how he has been misinformed and spread the misinformation to others. There are also his supposed dust tests that he claimed to have analyzed but refuses to show. There is also the so-far anonymous hydrogeoelogist wh told him there should be no aluminum found in rainwater. CARB and the tests Steve Funk has made debunks that.
Yes. I think the best tactic if someone engages Dane, or someone similar, in debate again would be to know all of their talking points ahead of time, and very concisely debunk all of them as quickly as possible before he brings them up (assuming they are actually bunk, he does sometimes raise some real issues). I was really not prepared enough.
 
Last edited:

TomC

Member
He should publish. If he's that confident, send it for review and get it published. If what he says is true, then it's seminal science a journal will snap it up.

Write a paper, submit it to some journals, and people might start taking him seriously. The media would probably pay attention.

If it's rejected by peer review, reasons will be given that he can address. If the reasons are spurious, then he can claim it's one big giant cover up and again maybe the media will take an interest.

This a claim being made that can actually be supported by verifiable evidence, unlike most of the other claims which are purely speculation.

If you're right Dane follow the scientific process, write a paper
 

Belfrey

Senior Member
He gives weird links with regard to the tree damage issue:
The first is an old page about ozone depletion (it's even headed with disclaimers saying "Out of Date - This website has not been updated for some years. This website has been left as it may still contain useful content"). It doesn't say anywhere that trees are/were having problems as a result of this. It may have popped up when he did a Google search because it was posted by "Dead Trees Publishing". The second talks about tree damage caused by excessive ozone pollution at ground level, not from UV.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
So, the meter they use for UVB is a UV513AB, mfg. by General Tool and Instruments Co. It sells for $177.95 on the website he references, $164 elsewhere. The product manual http://www.generaltools.com/assets/images/manuals/UV513AB_Manual.pdf is pretty sketchy, and does not explain the proper way to derive a UVB value.
This is a generic Taiwan made meter sometimes private labeled as General Tool, Sper Scientific, Sentry, etc:


manufacturer site: http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/238915099/UltraViolet_Meters_UV_Meters_ST_513.html

Sper scientific: http://66.240.201.216/scart/public/database/repository/other/Instruction_Manuals/850010-i.pdf

Dane could send to Taiwan and get one with the "Wigington" name on it. Possibly junk.

Dane is stretching his guy reading the meter. Says he is a "40-year environmental metering veteran." From what I see, he's an audio guy.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A review of the Sper Scientific version:
http://www.amazon.com/Sper-Scientif...dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Your links was for the UVC meter, here's the UVAB manual (attached).

Of note:


Also you need to zero adjust it.

Hand held UV meters are notoriously unreliable. A review of claibrated medical UV lamps in the UK found a variance of 18% for UVA and 60% for UVB
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15214904

Also see attached PDF Sources of error in UV radiation measurements for some technical reasons why these meters can go wrong.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
He gives weird links with regard to the tree damage issue:
The first is an old page about ozone depletion (it's even headed with disclaimers saying "Out of Date - This website has not been updated for some years. This website has been left as it may still contain useful content"). It doesn't say anywhere that trees are/were having problems as a result of this. It may have popped up when he did a Google search because it was posted by "Dead Trees Publishing". The second talks about tree damage caused by excessive ozone pollution at ground level, not from UV.
And his SciAm phytoplankton link says the decline is from increased temperatures, not UV. And the various "increased UV for ozone depletion" all seem to be about ozone holes, not a general declines. The Arctic ozone hole was given appropriate coverage, and was recently explained as being mostly due to the weather.http://www.upi.com/Science_News/201...ctic-ozone-hole-explained/UPI-17541363051817/

A very weak set of "evidence"
 

Steve Funk

Active Member
Mick West said:
In theory, since the A/B meter claims to measure A+B, then it should be just as they are doing it (B = A+B - A).
Are you convinced that was what the manufacturer meant?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick West said:

Are you convinced that was what the manufacturer meant?
Yes. The reason I thought it was a ratio was that was the only way the incredibly off numbers would makes sense.

With more information, it now seems more likely that the meters are just way off, or there's some user error.

Clearly they are wrong though, which is the bottom line.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
Without sarcasm the simple way to solve this would be to use a UVB meter, especially in view of the calibration and range differences of the meters used. What about a whip round through PayPal?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Without sarcasm the simple way to solve this would be to use a UVB meter, especially in view of the calibration and range differences of the meters used. What about a whip round through PayPal?
It's certainly the logical step. I'm just rather adverse to spending money on things that already evidently bunk. I'm not sure it's worth it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I see Roger Foote has updated his response with some more detail, showing the meters and the measuring setup.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dont-believe-uv-radiation-levels-are-off-the-charts/
(Archived: http://archive.is/hysum)





And some amusingly backwards debunking:

So Roger notes that I said UV in space was 1366 w/m2. He then claims to correct this figure to 1353.
To back this up, he provides a link to an article that says that 1353 was too low.
The article says the real figure is 1367 w/m2.

So his correction was incorrect, and the article he links to gives basically the same figure I gave in the first place.
 
Last edited:

David Fraser

Senior Member
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick can I say just stand away.
One more thing! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
via
While there has been some variation in the measurement of the solar constant, it's all basically in the same ballpark, and makes no difference to the inaccuracy of the UVAB reading - for that to be accurate the power spectrum of the sun would have to change, and we'd all be dead.
 

solrey

Senior Member
If they did not zero it properly then their readings could be high like that.

http://www.generaltools.com/assets/images/manuals/UV513AB_Manual.pdf

Now if one chose to zero it incorrectly on purpose, it would be a simple matter of zeroing it under a UV lamp. That's one reason why the whole process, from zeroing to final reading, needs to be documented in an uncut/unedited video. I mean, I truly do not trust those people.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
If they did not zero it properly then their readings could be high like that.

http://www.generaltools.com/assets/images/manuals/UV513AB_Manual.pdf

Now if one chose to zero it incorrectly on purpose, it would be a simple matter of zeroing it under a UV lamp. That's one reason why the whole process, from zeroing to final reading, needs to be documented in an uncut/unedited video. I mean, I truly do not trust those people.
They don't trust anyone, so it is not unreasonable for us to not trust them.

I would be very interested in seeing what happens if they put a pane of plain non-adulterated glass over their sensor(s).

The glass should block nearly all the UVB and essentially turn the UVAB meter into a UVA meter which could be compared to their other UVA meter.

A simple common sense test which should give some valuable information.

Similarly, they could then use a UV lens filter which should block out all UV, and see if their meter(s) zero out.

Wow. common-sense.jpg
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
They don't trust anyone, so it is not unreasonable for us to not trust them.

I would be very interested in seeing what happens if they put a pane of plain non-adulterated glass over their sensor(s).

The glass should block nearly all the UVB and essentially turn the UVAB meter into a UVA meter which could be compared to their other UVA meter.

A simple common sense test which should give some valuable information.

Similarly, they could then use a UV lens filter which should block out all UV, and see if their meter(s) zero out.

Wow. View attachment 3996
I think that is wrong. They totally trust anyone who says what they want to hear and totally MIStrust anyone who says anything which undermines their basic beliefs. AND... they have a long track record of being intellectually dishonest. They skew anything and everything in order to support their preconceived conclusions. THAT is why not to trust them. I realize this is a generalization but I don't see any way around it.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Dane begins his latest article doubling down on his claims about UV with a bunk filled sentence designed to capture the uninformed:

Most have already noticed how incredibly hot the sun feels in recent years.

The rest of his webpage speaks about supposedly high levels of ultraviolet light.

Dane, you can't see, feel, taste or hear anything in the ultraviolet spectrum.

I almost think he is selectively prefacing things with bunk to weed out folks who are able to see his errors, a sort of selection that guarantees only the uninformed read further.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Dane begins his latest article doubling down on his claims about UV with a bunk filled sentence designed to capture the uninformed:



The rest of his webpage speaks about supposedly high levels of ultraviolet light.

Dane, you can't see, feel, taste or hear anything in the ultraviolet spectrum.

I almost think he is selectively prefacing things with bunk to weed out folks who are able to see his errors, a sort of selection that guarantees only the uninformed read further.
People can post bunk faster than you can correct it- it's like trying to put out a grass fire with a fly swatter. Sort of related to your sig line.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
I'm sure this doesn't belong in this thread, so move it or delete as desired.


If I'm not mistaken, Dane(or somebody else) says, here, that contrails trap heat, but the claim is also that the trails are designed to produce "dimming". Aren't those direct opposites?
 

TomC

Member
I'm sure this doesn't belong in this thread, so move it or delete as desired.


If I'm not mistaken, Dane(or somebody else) says, here, that contrails trap heat, but the claim is also that the trails are designed to produce "dimming". Aren't those direct opposites?
Yep, he's not entirely wrong...... There is heaps of research going on in the atmospheric science world trying to determine if high altitude cirrus clouds (of which contrails are one particular type, and of course persistent contrails can spread into cirrus cloud sheets) have a net warming or cooling effect on the earth..

The cooling effect comes from the fact that the cloud is generally very bright white in the sky and this reflects some of the sun's short wave radiation back into space, meaning less energy reaches the surface.

The warming effect comes from the property of all clouds to absorb and then reflect back some of the long wave radiation emitted from the earth back down to the surface.

As far as I am aware results of studies so far are inconclusive, some imply slight net warming, others slight cooling, there's not enough data. It could just be that the two effects pretty much cancel each other out. So I guess technically you could argue he is wrong on both counts!
 

Steve Funk

Active Member
This is actually one of the better reviews of the UV513 from Amazon.

 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
So, just like they need to start over on their rain water tests (and test for silicon/aluminum ratio to rule out ordinary mineral dust like atmospheric scientists do), they need to start over on this UV testing with a proper meter.

Dave is correct, you can't compare apples to oranges. If they want to challenge the international community's ozone or UV measurements, they need to meet or exceed the quality of that instrumentation, not buy some cheap non-NIST traceable Taiwan $200 meter and make pronouncements that the entire world's instrumentation is fake and an apocalypse is upon us. .

They need the gold standard, a Kipp and Zonen Brewer Spectrophotometer.
http://www.kippzonen.com/?productgroup/26142/Brewer+Spectrophotometer.aspx
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
So, just like they need to start over on their rain water tests (and test for silicon/aluminum ratio to rule out ordinary mineral dust like atmospheric scientists do), they need to start over on this UV testing with a proper meter.

Dave is correct, you can't compare apples to oranges. If they want to challenge the international community's ozone or UV measurements, they need to meet or exceed the quality of that instrumentation, not buy some cheap non-NIST traceable Taiwan $200 meter and make pronouncements that the entire world's instrumentation is fake and an apocalypse is upon us. .

They need the gold standard, a Kipp and Zonen Brewer Spectrophotometer.
http://www.kippzonen.com/?productgroup/26142/Brewer Spectrophotometer.aspx
Do you think they do that on a daily hire or even a discount for a Bank holiday weekend??
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's a price list of a different company. They would be fine with the $3,000 EPP2000-HR

They need something that actually gives a spectrum, and not just a single figure.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Here's a price list of a different company. They would be fine with the $3,000 EPP2000-HR

They need something that actually gives a spectrum, and not just a single figure.
Whatever they cost, it is worth it for their peace of mind. Between Thomas Conigliaro of Skyder, Inc. and Dane Wigington there are millions of dollars available, Michael Murphy says he has a $2 million dollar donor ready. They say there is a genocide, a crime against humanity. Just do it, Dane. Put up or shut up. Sooner or later people will start looking closer and you'll be forced to back down on ridiculous clams. This isn't jactance, life has a habit of catching up to false claims and you WILL be held accountable.
 

Leifer

Senior Member
It's a small world.
I thought the name "Roger Foote" of http://www.footecontrolsystems.com/footecontact.html sounded familiar ....

He is a very good designer of pro-audio recording devices.
I've engaged with him on-line in the past about audio issues, projects, and theory.....on one or two audio forums.
I don't know him personally.

It's one of those strange things...when a seemingly logical, intelligent, and friendly acquaintances ... reveals illogical opinions that require large amounts of speculation.
Apparently he is also involved with sorts of "energy reduction" and wireless water-level sensors........so he seems to care about the environment.
I think he is angry and mistrusting of the gov't.....so-much-so that science if thrown-out the window.....or that enough bias removes logical investigation.....and I think Dane is leading him along.
He lives in Redding, CA.


 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
How can he possibly think they have zero commercial air traffic over Redding? There's over a hundred flights a day. Does not bode well.
 

Leifer

Senior Member
I wrote the last post on that forum thread.

Whenever I fly from LA >>north, to Oregon or above.....we are always over land at cruising altitude....the whole way.
Unless there is a storm, Mt Shasta is always seen to my right, and the ocean horizon is in the distance to the left.
I always try for a window seat, and try to pinpoint landmarks the whole flight. Shasta is hard to miss.

We'll see if I get a reply.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Dane has known all about the large amount of airliner traffic over his area for a long time. If he hasn't explained this to Foote and his other local followers, it is an inexcusable case of deliberate deception.
see:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-only-four-airliner-flights-day-over-mt-shasta-ca.622/

=================================
Email sent 7/1/12:
Jay Reynolds <thechief762@gmail.com>
7/1/12



to admin, Dane, Francis, Edward, whtagft





Francis, Dane, Michael, Ed, and Mauro,

This puts to rest all of your people's contention that there is little
commercial traffic over Mt. Shasta. If you wanted to claim that what
you see are non-commercial flights, you should have done this first,
years ago obviously, and especially after I told you how to do so.
That you haven't, and especially after Ed Griffin asked you to do this
as Chairman of the C.A.G.E., tells me this sort practical research is
either beyond your comprehension or simply rejected for your own
personal reasons unknown to me.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/622-Debunked-Only-Four-Airliner-Flights-Day-over-Mt-Shasta-CA

Now, if you still insist that what you see couldn't possibly be
commercial flights, or if you wish independent confirmation of your own for the exact
identity of the planes you see, there is a way to do so. I have already previously shown you this as well.

Just develop some skill in contrailspotting like these folks have
done, and come up with high definition images of the planes
themselves. As you can see, the unique identifying tail numbers of the
planes can be recorded from the ground.

Examples of contrailspotting:
http://www.luchtzak.be/forums/viewforum.php?f=25
more examples and how-to-do-it:
http://www.skystef.be/contrail.htm

If you have any conscience, you will clear this up very quickly
because sooner or later your people will find out that you have had
this information for years and will begin asking you what you knew and
when, and wondering why you swept this under the rug. Some might even
see this as a cover up. To be mistaken is one thing, forgivable. But
to have others who trust and believe in you, then become aware that
you have hidden information from them, is quite a different
matter.....
It is a violation of trust, and a form of deception.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top