# Errors in Cliff Carnicom's Halo Measurements?

#### CbIncus

##### Member
It seems to me that I've discovered some important errors in Carnicom's article "Halo Measurements": http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/halo1.htm. It states:

If measurements indicate a deviation from that result, it
informs us that the materials forming the
aircraft-generated halos, cirrus and cirro-stratus cloud
decks are no longer composed solely of ice as is often
claimed. The measurements do indicate such a deviation. Initial
halo measurements suggest that the hexagonal prisms of
uniform size and associated cirrus and cirro-stratus cloud
decks are not composed solely of ice as is usually
claimed.

1. Carnicom calculates the angular dimensions of a 22-deg. halo with A = 360 deg/6 (hexagonal prism) and n = 1.31.

D = 2 [arcsin(nsin1/2A)]-A or D = 21deg. 50min. 30”sec.

The equations are correct, but the result is valid only for the middle of the visible spectrum. Later he measures distance at the photos between the center of the sun and inner part of halo ring. This means that n refraction index should be changed to 1.3072 (red part of the visible spectrum). The D angle now becomes 21 deg. 37 min. 37.77 sec.

2. There should be a mistake in the calculations of the absolute error in D = (d / 21cm) * 2arctan(5.25/f) with errors of deltad = 0.08 cm and deltaf = 0.3 cm. We'll use the Lagrange formula for obtaining this result:

Partial derivatives (D in degrees):

a) for d: f(d) = d/21*2*arctg(5.25/16.7) = 1.662061807*d. The partial derivative is 1.662061807 and the part of absolute error 1.662061807*0.08 = 0.1329649446 (degrees).
b) for f: f(f) = 12.8/21*2*arctg(5.25/f) = 1.219047619*arctg(5.25/f). The partial derivative in radians is -20479954636/(3199992912*f^2+88199804637) (computed with http://www.numberempire.com/). Substituting f = 16.7 gives us -0.0208842 (the absolute value is 0.0208842) and the absolute error = 0.0208842*0.3 = 6.26526e-3. In degrees this is 0.3589729556.

Total error is 0.1329649446+0.3589729556 = 0.4919379 (degrees) = 0 deg. 29 min. 30.98 sec.

The real value of D computed by Carnicom is 21 deg. 16 min. +- 0 deg. 29 min. 30.98 sec. The precomputed value of 21 deg. 37 min. 37.77 sec is within the error margin.

I'm interested if some errors exist in my computations.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Jay Reynolds

##### Senior Member.
I encourage you to send this to Carnicom and see how he responds. Let s know if/how he responds, if none is forthcoming, we can perhaps use another avenue.
Jay

#### Mick West

Staff member
I've not gone though the equations. But they also need to be viewed in conjunction with his measuring technique, which seems to be using a pre-2000 video camera. This does not seem like a very high resolution method, and also does not account for possible lens distortion.

#### CbIncus

##### Member
Jay, I'll send my calculations to Carnicom in the future, but now I want my work to be checked for mathematical errors. It won't be well if I present something incorrect to him.

#### lotek

##### Active Member
Good job thankyou, however not a whole lot of his science is... well, science. his biology is especially atrocious. However mathematical proofs are more effective than picking on someone's awful lab technique!

#### Mick West

Staff member
The equations are correct, but the result is valid only for the middle of the visible spectrum. Later he measures distance at the photos between the center of the sun and inner part of halo ring. This means that n refraction index should be changed to 1.3072 (red part of the visible spectrum). The D angle now becomes 21 deg. 37 min. 37.77 sec.

Carnicom quotes from "The nature of light and colour in the open air" 1954 By Marcel Gilles Jozef Minnaert, having a best measurement of 21d50m, but Minnaert also measures to the red edge , not to the middle of the spectrum, and still gets 21d50m

Last edited:

#### CbIncus

##### Member
Mick, the source is quite strange. There are sites with similar information, which show angular dimensions of red inner ring equal to 21 deg. 42 min. and 21 deg. 37.2 min.:

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/circ1.htm
http://ice-halo.net/wiki/atoptics/y...veta-v-kaplyah-i-kristallah/halo/list/22-halo (in Russian)

I've checked my absolute error computations by trial and error substituting the d+deltad and f-deltaf values into the formula. The result was around 21.77 deg, and the deviation is near 30 ang. min. So I can my results to Carnicom.

Staff member

#### CbIncus

##### Member
I sent my calculations to info@carnicominstitute.org more than two days ago and still got no answer from Carnicom. I think he won't answer me, because I presented some irrefutable evidence of errors in his papers. He just can't call me a "shill" or a "government-paid agent".

#### CbIncus

##### Member
Two days ago I've received a very interesting reply from Carnicom about his halo measurements. He published my corrections in his article http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/halo1.htm, even saying that

It seems to me that the conclusions presented immediately above are entirely sensible and correct, and that the primary conclusion of the original paper is indeed false.

It's a shift to more logical approach, I think. Mick, Jay, will it have reason to debate with Carnicom about his "Contrail Formation Model": http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/model1.htm?

#### Jay Reynolds

##### Senior Member.
Two days ago I've received a very interesting reply from Carnicom about his halo measurements. He published my corrections in his article http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/halo1.htm, even saying that

It's a shift to more logical approach, I think. Mick, Jay, will it have reason to debate with Carnicom about his "Contrail Formation Model": http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/model1.htm?

After trying for a few years between 1999 and 2001 and getting no response, a decade ago I gave up trying to correct Carnicom.

Though I made a year-long Freedom of Information Act campaign and was ultimately successful in forcing the EPA to respond to him about his web samples, he won't get a sample analyzed properly after I identified exactly how to do it:

#### Mick West

Staff member
Two days ago I've received a very interesting reply from Carnicom about his halo measurements. He published my corrections in his article http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/halo1.htm, even saying that

It's a shift to more logical approach, I think. Mick, Jay, will it have reason to debate with Carnicom about his "Contrail Formation Model": http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/model1.htm?

That's quite unexpected. Since you've managed to engage him in communication, do you think you might be able to communicate the more blunt errors that were identified here:

The halo calculation is neither here or there for most chemtrail enthusiasts, but his purported proofs of contrails not being able to persist as used much more commonly.

Last edited:

#### CbIncus

##### Member
Mick, this is a copy of the email which I'll probably send to Carnicom tomorrow. I'd like to know others' opnions about it.

I'd like to discuss with you (Carnicom) the article The RH Deception http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/rh1.htm. If I correctly understand it, the conclusions will be the following:

1. Contrail persistence is impossible, and a "persistent contrail" (also known as a chemtrail) is an evidence of a geoengineering/poisoning operation.

2. Even at high relative humidities, contrails persist only for 3-10 times longer than at low ones.

But there's it's impossible to know what modification of RH is used. Because contrails consists of ice particles (at temperatures -40...-60 deg. C supercooled water immediately turns to ice), RH with respect of ice should be included. In this case evaporation changes to sublimation.

Picolitre volumes of liquid water can be cooled in the laboratory to about –39 °C before freezing occurs and this homogeneous nucleation temperature is usually denoted as Thomo or Thom (Koop and Zobrist 2009, Stan et al. 2009).

Let's take typical contrail conditions: T -50 deg. C, P 250 hPa, RH w.r.t. water 80%. Thermodynamics of water according to Goff-Gratch will be later used.

1. Sublimation critical pressure (Pcrit) is calculated for 100% RHi. So for -50 deg. C it is equal to 3.92989 Pa. The calculated property must be compared to partial pressure of water vapor (Ppart), not to entire atmospheric pressure. If Pcrit is greater than Ppart, sublimation is possible because more molecules leave ice surface than accrete to it. If Pcrit is smaller than Ppart, sublimation is impossible because the air is saturated w.r.t. to ice. In these conditions accretion on existing ice particles will be observed.

2. Current water vapor pressure Pcur for given T and RH (P is not included in the equation) is calculated with the same GG equations for water and ice references. We get 129.2359%. So the sublimation is impossible, and the contrails do persist and spread.

#### Mick West

Staff member
Mick, this is a copy of the email which I'll probably send to Carnicom tomorrow. I'd like to know others' opnions about it.

I'd like to discuss with you (Carnicom) the article The RH Deception http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/rh1.htm. If I correctly understand it, the conclusions will be the following:

I'd say "your conclusions are the following" or "the conclusions of the article are the following"

1. Contrail persistence is impossible, and a "persistent contrail" (also known as a chemtrail) is an evidence of a geoengineering/poisoning operation.
"is an evidence" should be "is evidence"

2. Even at high relative humidities, contrails persist only for 3-10 times longer than at low ones.

But there's it's impossible to know what modification of RH is used. Because contrails consists of ice particles (at temperatures -40...-60 deg. C supercooled water immediately turns to ice), RH with respect of ice should be included. In this case evaporation changes to sublimation.

Let's take typical contrail conditions: T -50 deg. C, P 250 hPa, RH w.r.t. water 80%. Thermodynamics of water according to Goff-Gratch will be later used.

1. Sublimation critical pressure (Pcrit) is calculated for 100% RHi. So for -50 deg. C it is equal to 3.92989 Pa. The calculated property must be compared to partial pressure of water vapor (Ppart), not to entire atmospheric pressure. If Pcrit is greater than Ppart, sublimation is possible because more molecules leave ice surface than accrete to it. If Pcrit is smaller than Ppart, sublimation is impossible because the air is saturated w.r.t. to ice. In these conditions accretion on existing ice particles will be observed.

2. Current water vapor pressure Pcur for given T and RH (P is not included in the equation) is calculated with the same GG equations for water and ice references. We get 129.2359%. So the sublimation is impossible, and the contrails do persist and spread.

"But there's it's impossible to know what modification of RH is used." should be more direct, "However, you are using the wrong type of RH, relative humidity with respect to water (RHw) is only correct if the contrail consists of liquid water"

Possibly over complicating it. You might want to first directly state the case of "at typical contrail conditions RHw of 80% is equivalent to RHi of about 130%, hence the contrail will persist indefinitely", then "in more detail ..." and then the rest.

#### Ross Marsden

##### Senior Member.
I would use the terms saturation partial pressure of water vapor, and partial pressure of water vapor like this:
(You also need to provide the calculated value of the Current water vapor partial pressure.)

1. Saturation partial pressure of water vapor (Pcrit) is calculated for RH with respect to ice of 100%. So for -50 °C it is 3.92989 Pa (0.0393 hPa). If Pcrit is greater than Ppart, sublimation is possible because more molecules leave the ice surface than accrete to it. If Pcrit is smaller than Ppart, sublimation is not possible because the air is supersaturated with respect to ice to ice. In these conditions accretion on existing ice particles will be observed; ice particles will grow in size until enough water vapor has been removed from the air that the air is no longer saturated with respect to ice.

2. Current water vapor partial pressure (Pcur) for given T and RH (-50°C, RH w.r.t. water 80%) is calculated with the same Goff-Gratch equations for water and ice references. The RH with respect to ice is 129.2359%, and the water vapor partial pressure is ???? Pa. Pcur is greater than Pcrit, the air is ice-supersaturated, and so sublimation is not possible, and the contrails will persist. If there is wind shear, they will be stretched and spread.

You should provide a link to a resource about the Goff-Gratch equations... perhaps this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goff–Gratch_equation

Staff member
Last edited:

#### CbIncus

##### Member
Thanks Mick and Ross for your help. I've just sent the email with the corrections above.

Related Articles