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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Leifer

Senior Member.
From what I've read, many older trees are on the decline. But global warming from other anthropological issues are the general suspected cause........not overt geoengineering.
(see video)
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3488105.htm
Note....this is due to drought, not UV burning. It's a rainfall issue.........the leaves are not "burning". The trees are not getting enough water, and dying from the inside-out....not from the outside-in.
These scientists are great lovers of the earth and it"s life. For Dane and Foote to claim these researchers are lying, is an insult Dane refuses to acknowledge. Dane seems to be claiming they are lying.
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
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.

I was skeptical about that at first, but here it is in a published paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614895
In Francis Mangels and Barbara Coulter's garden, they are using black shade cloth as a UVB barrier. That wouldn't be effective for most crops since it would block just as much visible light as UV.
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
Barbara Coulter's letter shows she didn't bother to read the Geoengineeringwatch post in which Roger Foote explained what meters he used. She mentioned to me a year ago that I should read Geoengineeringwatch to become informed. Other than that, the most glaring error is that she says methane destroys ozone. The EPA says no way:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/defns.html

It is probably marginally relevant to mention that she has a relationship with Francis Mangels.
Second file is my letter from the previous week for reference.
 

Attachments

  • MountShastaHerald.pdf
    582.4 KB · Views: 474
  • UVB Pseudoscience.pdf
    255.8 KB · Views: 480

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Barbara Coulter's letter shows she didn't bother to read the Geoengineeringwatch post in which Roger Foote explained what meters he used. She mentioned to me a year ago that I should read Geoengineeringwatch to become informed. Other than that, the most glaring error is that she says methane destroys ozone. The EPA says no way:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/defns.html

It is probably marginally relevant to mention that she has a relationship with Francis Mangels.
Second file is my letter from the previous week for reference.

I see this as an excellent opportunity to cast light on the error-prone research practices of the chemtrail community.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
She mentioned to me a year ago that I should read Geoengineeringwatch to become informed. Other than that, the most glaring error is that she says methane destroys ozone. The EPA says no way:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/defns.html

I can't completely blame her for not knowing that the Wigington claims of high UVB are so wrong. She may not even understand what you very succinctly and accurately explained showing that the levels he claims do not even exist out in space. If she relies solely on geoengineeringwatch for her information, she will see no response to the conundrum between the Wigington claims and the UVB constant in space. Wigington and Foote have no response because there is no way to explain away their error.

However, it appears to me that either the EPA site you link to is in error or too much is being read into it in this case. I'm not positive but it appears that in the case of the EPA glossary, it is speaking to the ozone depletion potential of a substance which is regulated for certain uses such as refrigerants and not strictly speaking about methane as a gas which could deplete ozone.

After some digging, I have come to understand that there is indeed a mechanism by which methane can act as a sink for ozone in the stratosphere.
Methane is not alone in this action, other completely naturally produced substances such as water vapor and nitrogen oxides in the upper stratosphere and sulfuric acid(from volcanoes) in the lower stratosphere tend to reduce ozone.

The specific action of methane which reduces ozone is when it is oxidized to H2O, OH, and HO2, unstable hydroxides referred to HOx.
These radical and unstable compounds can also react with ozone (O3) thus acting as a 'sink' decreasing the steady-state level of ozone in the stratosphere. You can read a detailed explanation here.

However, methane is a common, natural gas produced by the gut of animals and insects, anaerobic decomposition in wetlands and even plants. There is a global methane cycle and the relative levels are interesting.

mcycle.JPG

What is so far unclear to me is whether or not the relatively modest increase in methane we have seen has any significant effect on ozone levels. When compared to ordinary water vapor and nitrogen oxides which play exactly the same role as natural 'sinks' for the steady-state concentration of ozone, does methane play an increasing role?

Obviously, if the catastrophic methane releases claimed to be in progress by Wigington were actually happening, the situation would be clearly awful, but that notion has been debunked much to Wigington's consternation by men as qualified as Gavin Schmidt. Yes, Wigington's response was that Schmidt is just a "shill".

So, if you want to debunk the claims of Wigington being repeated by Coulter, you need to understand that his claims about methane depleting ozone might be technically true, but his actual claims are that the following are already underway:

a) an ongoing catastrophic methane release is responsible for
b) catastrophic ozone loss that this is responsible for
c) his claimed UVB levels.

Wigington has failed to provide any credible evidence for any of his chain of claims a,b, or c.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
At GeoWatch Sept 12, 2013 (today) Dane's newest article....
"Global Cooling or Global Warming, Which is it?"
He posts a few graphs and links used to prove his points, but from the very sources (or affiliated sources) he claims are being falsified......
(bolding by me)
The first graph is from
.....who also uses NOAA and other US gov't data in their research.

The other graph is from the Polar Science Center, University of Washington.
The Polar Science Center is definitely working in relation with NOAA....

He links to "Weather Underground" (wunderground), now owned by The Weather Channel (weather.com)
The NWS basically is NOAA, along with the U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

Am I limiting this post to a simple critiquing/destroying of his sources ?.....Yes, but only in the terms he lays out. (his conditions of source credibility)
I'm attempting to show that his claim that data is "radically falsified", is itself nullified by his use of the very sources he critiques......(if we are to believe his assessment)

I don't disagree with the gist of the article, but I believe he is pushing towards demonizing "official" agencies in order to replace his own facts and figures, for reinforcement of his other geoengineering ideas and claims (like UV).
....it's basically cherry-picking, and fear-mongering.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
On his 8/31/13 Geoengineeringwatch radio episode, Dane amplified and expanded on these claims that data is being faked. He said:

Dane Wigington said:
@9:57 "People look at Nasa as some kind of detached benevolent organization that's here for the good of humanity and my god, how much further from the truth can that be? Its nothing more than a branch of the military-industrial complex that's designed to baffle people and fed them propaganda that they readily scarf down."

On his website, Wigington describes Gavin Schmidt of NASA this way:

Dane Wigington said:
In the first half hour a caller asked NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt (NASA) what was being sprayed from aircraft to form grid patterns in our skies. Mr. Schmidt responded in no uncertain terms, “There are NO chemicals in the trails, nothing is being sprayed”. How is it possible a “scientist” can say he knows this for certain under any circumstances? Especially when there are countless videos of jet aircraft clearly sprayingposted everywhere on line? Even up close and personal videos of military KC- 10s and KC-135′s that inarguably show the spray nozzles and the jets shutting on and off. There are three possibilities here, Gavin Schmidt is either totally ignorant of the subject of which he is a recognized “expert”, he is clinically blind, or he is a blatant liar. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/climate-scientists-arrogance-and-lies/

In the above article, he describes three other scientists the same way. So according to Wigington, who is a high school graduate, the entire scientiifc community are all either ignorant, blind, or paid liars and he probably feels he same way about anyone else who disagrees with him.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Yes, Wigington seems to think he is intellectually head and shoulders above anyone who disagrees with him. In this vid at about 18:00 he makes the brash claim that no one will dare debate him.

QUOTE DANE WIGINGTON: "We have challenged such people to ANY online debate... have never, ever been accepted. In fact, I issue that challenge on the air right now. I will debate, on air, anyone. I don't care what their credentials are... and I've yet to be accepted for any such debate."

 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
Jay Reynolds said.
After some digging, I have come to understand that there is indeed a mechanism by which methane can act as a sink for ozone in the stratosphere.

Interestingly, here is a source which says methane contributes to the formation of ozone in the troposphere, where ozone is harmful:
https://www.globalmethane.org/about/methane.aspx
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Anyone can take a basic course on the atmosphere. Yale has a 51 lecture course on youtube called:

The Atmosphere, the Ocean and Environmental Change (GG 140)


Here is lecture #32 "The Ozone Layer"

Below you can skip forward to particular topics......
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/trace_gases/ch4/flask/surface/ch4_brw_surface-flask_1_ccgg_month.txt
This is raw data on monthly average methane levels at Point Barrow, Alaska. Based on hand calculations, the average annual methane levels have increased from 1884 parts per billion in 2008, to 1900 parts per billion in 2012. That is an increase of 0.85%, or 0.21% annually. The annual increase suggests a possible cause for concern, but not an arctic methane emergency. The seasonal l fluctuation appears to be greater than the year to fluctuations. Highest levels are always in December, January and February, Lowest usually in June. This could indicate that something other than warming is the prime driver. If anyone has the ability to work more with this data, it would probably show uninteresting results in an interesting way.
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
Dane is using the broken record technique. keep repeating the same arguments, no matter how ridiculous, and some people will believe them. I'm surprised they are not backing off on the radiation issue and changing the subject, but I guess I shouldn't be.

upload_2013-9-25_8-8-10.png
upload_2013-9-25_8-8-46.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.
Dane is using the broken record technique. keep repeating the same arguments, no matter how ridiculous, and some people will believe them. I'm surprised they are not backing off on the radiation issue and changing the subject, but I guess I shouldn't be.
Has he ever granted to recording the measurements and put a video of it online, as he promised in the discussion with Mick?

 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
What kind of paper is this? Just a local? Will some perplexed scientist likely be joining in the discussion?

Does his expert Foote endorse the results?
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
What kind of paper is this? Just a local? Will some perplexed scientist likely be joining in the discussion?
Does his expert Foote endorse the results?
It's just the local weekly. I doubt that any skeptical scientists would be attending unless I lobby them. Foote wrote some of the debunk the debunkers thread, but I don't know whether he is coming Friday. They wouldn't let me be on the discussion panel.
 
Last edited:

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
I revised and upgraded this handout a little, since Dane says he is bringing well referenced sources. Any comments?
 

Attachments

  • Are we really being fried by.doc
    32 KB · Views: 571

Belfrey

Senior Member.
This schematic is from Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies, Blackstock et. al. The number for incoming solar radiation, 34.2 mw/cm2, is a lot higher that the solar constant, about 13.7. Anyone know how they derived this number?
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.5140.pdf
They give incoming solar radiation as 342 W/m^2. The average solar constant is around 1,361 W/m^2. Taking into account that only half of the earth is facing the sun, and most of it not at a direct angle, the incoming solar radiation averaged over the earth's surface as a whole is about 1/4 of what it would be if the earth were shaped like a flat plane facing the sun - that's where they get the 342 figure.
 
Last edited:

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
They give incoming solar radiation as 342 W/m^2. The average solar constant is around 1,361 W/m^2. Taking into account that only half of the earth is facing the sun, and most of it not at a direct angle, the incoming solar radiation averaged over the earth's surface as a whole is about 1/4 of what it would be if the earth were shaped like a flat plane facing the sun - that's where they get the 342 figure.

Thanks, got it. And I was off by a factor of 10 on my units conversion.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, the key term there is "globally averaged". The planet is radiating out long wave heat in all directions, so to calculate the radiative forcing effects you need to consider the entire globe (dark side and all), and factor the incident angles to the sun.

It would really make more sense to me to consider the total, rather than an average. But the result is the same.
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
So if you are measuring solar radiation at noon at 40 degrees north latitude, I am guessing it would be about 76% of what you would get at the equator. cos 40 degrees is .766. But I don't know whether atmospheric filtering is linear.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So if you are measuring solar radiation at noon at 40 degrees north latitude, I am guessing it would be about 76% of what you would get at the equator. cos 40 degrees is .766. But I don't know whether atmospheric filtering is linear.

There's two factors - the surface area of the earth covered by a given cross-section of incoming solar radiation and the amount of atmosphere that those rays goes through.

However, if you point the collector at the sun, then you are ONLY getting sunlight that is attenuated by the atmosphere. If you were on the moon (no atmosphere) then you would get the same reading anywhere on the light side, but there's still less sunlight actually hitting the surface at the lunar poles.

upload_2013-9-26_9-3-48.png
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
I've purchased a UV meter with a matched UVC attached sensor. I get "zero" readings for UVC (sunlight, at noon, 1 hour period, Los Angeles, summer, clear sky).
(Vilber Lormat VLX-3W)
It's a better meter than they are using.
I am in the process of verifying it reads UVC correctly....with a UVC germicidal lamp, and various filters.
I plan to make a video addressing all his UVC claims.

Also available are sensors for UVB and UVA.......but they are expensive.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
On Wigington's last broadcast, Saturday, Oct 5, 2013 he made it clear enough that he is aware that the UV levels he is claiming are higher than what would be found in space. Not in so many words, though, because he didn't directly speak about it. He simply dismissed our point in a derogatory way and repeated his false claim that what he calls the "Reptile meters" cannot rea UV from sunlight. The wole broadcast was bizarre, because he has been forced by a letter writing campaign to address the many chemtrail believers who remark to him that global warming has taken a pause. Incredibly, Dane is claiming that geoengineering actually makes the climate warmer!

Funny, too was hearing Russ Tanner cower down when asked his position on anthropogenic global warming. Tanner has long proclaimed AGW to be "A Hoax", http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&topic=10795&gonew=1#.UlR0ANK-rKU

but Dane was able to get him to stutter along an wholly unintelligible non response. In other words, Russ knows who his daddy is.......

http://globalskywatch.com/gwr/
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
On Wigington's last broadcast, Saturday, Oct 5, 2013 he made it clear enough that he is aware that the UV levels he is claiming are higher than what would be found in space. Not in so many words, though, because he didn't directly speak about it. He simply dismissed our point in a derogatory way and repeated his false claim that what he calls the "Reptile meters" cannot read UV from sunlight
I'm not sure any meter knows if it's reading sunlight or not, other than if it's sensetivity gets peaked because of intensity value. UV is UV. The whole reason for a reptile UV meter is so that the lamps emulate the sun...so.....

I've searched, and as far as I can find, I am the only one to independantly attempt to verify these UV claims.
The problem is how to get this info out there. I am blocked from posting on their sites.
I figure one simple way is to title the youtube video so that it is included in any search for "Wigington" "UV" "claims tested".....or some similar title.
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
Can good science be anonymous? I don't know but it detracted from the credibility of the chemmie UVB research when they described the researcher as someone with 40 years of experience, but didn't name him until pressed. It was also one more flaw in the Belfort report that it was published anonymously. More important, though is to describe your research methods in sufficient detail that someone else can reproduce the experiment to see whether they get the same results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method I'm looking forward to your video.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Can good science be anonymous? I don't know but it detracted from the credibility of the chemmie UVB research when they described the researcher as someone with 40 years of experience, but didn't name him until pressed. It was also one more flaw in the Belfort report that it was published anonymously. More important, though is to describe your research methods in sufficient detail that someone else can reproduce the experiment to see whether they get the same results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method I'm looking forward to your video.
I think good science can be anonymous, but it definitely also has to repeatable.

The Belfort report's anonymity does nullify its usefulness as an argument from authority, and that's basically all that it is. It's not reporting on any new research or evidence that supports the "chemtrails" idea.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Here are my new videos.....using my meters to gather UV measurements.....different readings from those of Dane/Foote's.

I made these on my only day off from a busy work week. I had no script. Plus I wanted to have fun doing these.
I'm a little tepid on my "style" of presenting the evidence. I could have been very straight-forward, and edited/reduced all the info in a more straight-forward manner......but I included some humor and emotion.
I can re-do the entire series, if people here think that would be warranted.
Also, I possibly should have had a section on the mis-calculations Dane and Foote had with their UVa/UVb results.
I assembled all of them in a "playlist" to make them easier to find on youtube, as a set.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDxeBFS1d9XTm9Gr2h6S2ukZxr3m4RnZx
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member.
I'll send the link to Dane Wigington. We'll see his reply.
I suspect he will find some fault with my measurements.....but why would that be any different than me finding fault with his ?
If he finds any legitimate faults, I will attempt to correct them (scientifically).......something he would not rather attempt to do, when the reverse is the case.

Here i my private email to Dane, about being blocked at the geo engineering comment section.
 
Last edited:

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight If Wikipedia is right, the typical total UV readings on the earth's surface at noon should be 3.2 milliwatts/cm2, of which about 3.04 should be UVA. So Roger's readings of about 7 appear to be too high, but your readings of 1 something appear too low. I enjoyed the videos.
 

EpsilonVonVehron

New Member
Great job on the video presentation. I do think that you should do one summarization vid, the attention span of people researching these things for themselves (including myself) means that many may not get all the way through.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Great job on the video presentation. I do think that you should do one summarization vid, the attention span of people researching these things for themselves (including myself) means that many may not get all the way through.
Good idea....I'll work on a "quick version"....of the already extended version......and link to both.

note...I started losing my voice well before this video.....I had a 80 hour work week....and fairly little sleep.
 
Last edited:

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
I thought your voice sounded good, but there were too many pauses. If you are doing part of it in front of a web camera, it isn't too hard to have a script on one side of the screen and scroll down it with a mouse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Rico Debunked: Dane Wigington's Undeniable Footage of Jet Aircraft Spraying [Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 42
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Dane Wigington's- “Heavy Wet Snow” Is Now Often The Norm Contrails and Chemtrails 45
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Dane Wigington's Video for CBC Conference Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Jay Reynolds Debunked- Dane Wigington's 10 "bullet" points regarding geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 34
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top