Ice meteors, climate, sceptics
Brian Sandle
last evening. Said to be travelling at 450 Km per hour.
Linkname: Scientist says ice meteors a sign of climate change - 10/1/2002
- ENN.com
http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/10/10012002/reu_48569.asp
Scientist says ice meteors a sign of climate change
Tuesday, October 01, 2002
By Emma Ross-Thomas, Reuters
[reuters2.gif]
MADRID, Spain -- A Spanish scientist says global warming may be to blame
for giant blocks of ice that fall from clear skies and rip gaping holes
in cars and houses.
Jesus Martinez-Frias has spent the last two-and-a-half years
investigating so-called megacryometeors -- ice meteors -- which tend to
weigh more than 22 pounds and have been known to leave five-foot holes in
houses. He fears the formation of these hailstonelike blocks on clear
days could be a worrying symptom of climate change.
"I'm not worried that a block of ice might fall on your head ... but that
great blocks of ice are forming where they shouldn't exist," said
Martinez-Frias, director of planetary geography at Spain's Astrobiology
Center in Madrid. "Components of the atmosphere like ozone and water are
changing in different levels of the atmosphere.... We think these signs
could be evidence of climate change," he said.
While Martinez-Frias said he was far from certain as to why the ice
meteors formed, he said they were neither hoaxes nor blocks of ice
falling from the bars or bathrooms of passing aircraft, as skeptics have
suggested.
"We're not talking about hoaxes," Martinez-Frias said. "It's very easy to
tell real and false ice blocks apart. It's not water from airplane
toilets.... It's isotopic composition bears the signature ... of Iberian
rain."
SMASHING WINDSHIELDS
Ice clouds made from crystallized vapor trails of aircraft are well known
to pilots, but Martinez-Frias suggests that because global warming
involves one level of the atmosphere getting colder while another gets
hotter, some ice clouds now remain longer.
Their centers then fall through the atmosphere, bouncing and gathering
mass, to end up smashing through a car windshields or, more frequently,
landing softly in a field, he suggested.
The first megacryometeor found this year in Spain -- by a startled farmer
riding his tractor in Soria -- weighed 35.27 pounds. Three others were
found later, bringing the world total over the last decade to more than
50. But Martinez-Frias said only around one-fifth of the ice meteors are
ever found.
An ice meteor weighing around 440 pounds has been found in Brazil,
Martinez-Frias said. Other blocks have been found in Mexico and
Australia.
Some scientists doubt whether hail can form on a clear day. "Solid ice
cannot form in the absence of thick, highly visible clouds," Charles
Knight, a hail expert at the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder, Colo., was quoted as saying in a supplement of
Science journal.
But geologist Roger Buick of the University of Washington in Seattle told
the same publication that a model created by Martinez-Frias and his team
showing ice can form on a clear day was an "important advance in that it
thoroughly documents and provides an explanation for a spectacular
phenomenon."
Copyright 2002, Reuters
All Rights Reserved
Toolbox
Printer-friendly version
[transparent-pixel.gif]
E-mail this story to a friend
[transparent-pixel.gif]
ENN Wildlife Guides
0
[butterfly-guide.jpg]
[spacer.gif] [spacer.gif]
Find out what's in your backyard.
[spacer.gif] [spacer.gif]
enter e-mail:*
____________
enter zip code:*
__________ [go_button.gif]-Submit
* required
[spacer.gif]
[_] send me ENN newsletters
[spacer.gif]
[_] send me eNature.com newsletters & special offers
0
Talk Back
Let us know what you think about this story in ENN's Forum Discussion
Area.
[transparent-pixel.gif]
Home | News | In-Depth | Interact | Business Center | About ENN | Become
an Affiliate | Take Our Survey | Contact Us
ENN is a registered trademark of the Environmental News Network Inc.
Copyright © 2004 Environmental News Network Inc.
Brian Sandle
> While Martinez-Frias said he was far from certain as to why the ice
> meteors formed, he said they were neither hoaxes nor blocks of ice
> falling from the bars or bathrooms of passing aircraft, as skeptics have
> suggested.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3544936&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
gives:
****
Auckland University physics lecturer David Krofcheck said a 5kg block falling
from a plane at 3050m would hit the ground at 400km/h.
"It wouldn't have had much friction, so there would have been plenty of
energy to punch a hole through the roof.
****
Or about 100 meters per second. Since the acceleration due to gravity is 10
that means it would only have been in the air for 10 seconds. That would not
be enough time for ice to form. If it came out of or off a plane it would
have to have been ice already.
Rupert
what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, or
alternatively the most simple answer is probably the most likely.
It's much more likely that this ice came from an aircraft than an
atmospheric anomaly, decribed by some obscure theory only demonstrated in a
model with no empirical evidence to support it.
"Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:10747095...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
Brian Sandle
> Occam's Razor applies well here - that is one should not increase, beyond
> what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, or
> alternatively the most simple answer is probably the most likely.
> It's much more likely that this ice came from an aircraft than an
> atmospheric anomaly, decribed by some obscure theory only demonstrated in a
> model with no empirical evidence to support it.
There is the isotopic constitution which would show whether the water is from
terrestrial sources, via an aircraft tank, or from the atmosphere.
Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
> In sci.geo.meteorology Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
>> While Martinez-Frias said he was far from certain as to why the ice
>> meteors formed, he said they were neither hoaxes nor blocks of ice
>> falling from the bars or bathrooms of passing aircraft, as skeptics have
>> suggested.
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3544936&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
> gives:
> ****
> Auckland University physics lecturer David Krofcheck said a 5kg block falling
> from a plane at 3050m would hit the ground at 400km/h.
> "It wouldn't have had much friction, so there would have been plenty of
> energy to punch a hole through the roof.
> ****
> Or about 100 meters per second. Since the acceleration due to gravity is 10
> that means it would only have been in the air for 10 seconds. That would not
> be enough time for ice to form. If it came out of or off a plane it would
> have to have been ice already.
Radio New Zealand Summer Report has given that it happened to a neighbouring
property a week ago, that time a number of blocks but nothing large enough to
do damage.
So the events are probably connected.
What is the largest block of ice that can form on a plane?
To get a downward velocity of that amount they would only have to drop from
600 metres. Are planes shaking a bit or warming enough over Auckland that ice
falls off?
I see a vapour trail going high over Christchurch on a regular basis. Does
anything like that happen over Auckland? Refer the well-known ice trails.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/airfri2.htm
Terminal Velocity Examples
Falling object Mass Area Terminal velocity
Skydiver 75 kg 0.7 m^2 60 m/s 134 mi/hr
Baseball (3.66cm radius) 145 gm 42 cm^2 33 m/s 74 mi/hr
Golf ball (2.1 cm radius) 46 gm 14 cm^2 32 m/s 72 mi/hr
Hail stone (0.5 cm radius) .48 gm .79 cm^2 14 m/s 31 mi/hr
Raindrop (0.2 cm radius) .034 gm .13 cm^2 9 m/s 20 mi/hr
Data from Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Table 6.1.
So we see why the earlier hail stones did not do damage - smaller and less
speedy.
I am not sure what the terminal velocity of the said 5kg block would be.
For golf ball size to be dropping 7,000 metres would take 3 or 4 minutes.
Hail stones usually have to move up and down a few times, electrostatically
driven, to form. The layers in them can be seen.
The greenhouse effect keeps terrestrial heat in the lower layers of the
atmosphere. So the upper atmosphere gets colder. That would produce faster
freezing as well as a larger time to freeze in if something was there to
nucleate the block. Note that colder air will hold less water vapour so
super-saturation would occur more easily and water tend to deposit on any
nucleus already there. But this greenhouse cooling must be happening rather
higher than 7000 metres.
Could be some climatic conditions forming over Auckland owing to some local
conditions. I once saw a thunder/lightning display on the northern side of
Banks Peninsula and it stayed there for half an hour or more, with brilliant
displays of lightning, every third or fourth hitting the sea.
Brian Harmer
<bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
>What is the largest block of ice that can form on a plane?
And where on the airframe does it form? A block of ice of the
magnitude shown on TV would not improve the flying qualities of a wing
... I assume that any such block could not be formed except near some
outlet on the fuselage or at a junction between the fuselage and a
flying surface.
Dennis M. Rodgers
Brian Sandle wrote:
> A several kilogram block of ice fell through the roof of an Auckland house
> last evening. Said to be travelling at 450 Km per hour.
>
>
> Linkname: Scientist says ice meteors a sign of climate change - 10/1/2002
> - ENN.com
> http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/10/10012002/reu_48569.asp
>
>
> Scientist says ice meteors a sign of climate change
>
> Tuesday, October 01, 2002
> By Emma Ross-Thomas, Reuters
> [reuters2.gif]
>
> snip...
Brian Sandle
Yes, well I always wondered whether these meteors should be on the
meteorology newsgroup. Maybe pilots would know know more about it.
Are there any condensation outlets on planes which form 5kg icicles near
them? Maybe some formation flyers would have seen them. When do they drop
off?
Gib Bogle
The suggestion I saw was that it fell from a wing, not from a toilet.
The physics involved in a massive block forming in a clear sky through
natural causes is so mind-boggling as to be virtually inconceivable.
Probably ice meteor incidence is correlated with aircraft traffic.
Gib
Brian Sandle
> I'd file this one right next to "chemtrails".
In what respect?
Brian Harmer
<bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>The suggestion I saw was that it fell from a wing, not from a toilet.
>The physics involved in a massive block forming in a clear sky through
>natural causes is so mind-boggling as to be virtually inconceivable.
>Probably ice meteor incidence is correlated with aircraft traffic.
So that comes back to the question of the mechanics of ice formation
... the aircraft is flying along at high speed and high altitude. I
can imagine thin sheets forming on the wing, but big lumps like that?
What would it do to the aerodynamics of the wing?
Why aren't there aircraft falling out of the sky as a result of thse
monstrous arctic landscapes on the wings?
Brian Sandle
> The suggestion I saw was that it fell from a wing, not from a toilet.
If these large blocks formed on wings they would affect the aerodynamics
wouldn't they?
> The physics involved in a massive block forming in a clear sky through
> natural causes is so mind-boggling as to be virtually inconceivable.
> Probably ice meteor incidence is correlated with aircraft traffic.
A normal tiny meteor can act as a nucleus for ice to form.
Meteors are heated by the heat from the air they compress in front of
them. Some of their surface melts off, but once they get into the denser
atmosphere they can be going rather slow take quite a while to land and
get cooled by the cold air.
There is nothing suspicious about water vapour in clear sky weather. Ever
noticed dew in clear weather? As the air cools in the evening it becomes
able to hold less water vapour. A supersaturated condition forms and water
is deposited on the nearest object available. Quite a lot of dew can be
formed in a few minuters when the dew point is reached. Same thing with
water being heated to 100 degrees Celsius in a smooth vessel. Then if
something rough is put in the steam is allowed to form and it may boil
over.
Where are the data about upper atmosphere temperature and global warming?
Barry Phease
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:15:59 +1300, Gib Bogle
> <bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>The suggestion I saw was that it fell from a wing, not from a toilet.
>>The physics involved in a massive block forming in a clear sky through
>>natural causes is so mind-boggling as to be virtually inconceivable.
>>Probably ice meteor incidence is correlated with aircraft traffic.
Hail stones can be as big as cricket balls. There is no upper limit to
their size. Clear sky still contains considerable amounts of moisture.
Understanding the maths involved would be incredibly difficult though.
> So that comes back to the question of the mechanics of ice formation ...
> the aircraft is flying along at high speed and high altitude. I can
> imagine thin sheets forming on the wing, but big lumps like that?
>
> What would it do to the aerodynamics of the wing?
>
> Why aren't there aircraft falling out of the sky as a result of thse
> monstrous arctic landscapes on the wings?
Aircraft undoubtedly DO ice up from time to time. Mostly it happens when
flying through storms. It certainly does affect their aerodynamics. Is
it common enough, and are the icicles big enough to explain ice meteors?
Let's just say that the new theory is interesting, but requires a bit of
corroboration.
--
Barry Phease
Gib Bogle
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:35:42 +1300, Brian Harmer wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:15:59 +1300, Gib Bogle
>><bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The suggestion I saw was that it fell from a wing, not from a toilet.
>>>The physics involved in a massive block forming in a clear sky through
>>>natural causes is so mind-boggling as to be virtually inconceivable.
>>>Probably ice meteor incidence is correlated with aircraft traffic.
>
>
> Hail stones can be as big as cricket balls. There is no upper limit to
> their size. Clear sky still contains considerable amounts of moisture.
> Understanding the maths involved would be incredibly difficult though.
A cricket ball is a long way from the 10 Kg blocks under discussion.
What do you mean, there is no upper limit on the size of hailstones?
Could one be as big as an elephant?
In any case, we don't see single large hailstones, we see showers of
hailstones with a range of sizes, up to cricket ball size, and always in
conditions of thick cloud. Of course all air contains water, but the
first manifestation of high moisture levels is cloud formation. If the
moisture content is high enough rain, ice or snow forms.
Severe icing on aircraft sometimes causes them to crash.
Gib
Bruce Hamilton
>So that comes back to the question of the mechanics of ice formation
>... the aircraft is flying along at high speed and high altitude. I
>can imagine thin sheets forming on the wing, but big lumps like that?
>
>What would it do to the aerodynamics of the wing?
>
>Why aren't there aircraft falling out of the sky as a result of thse
>monstrous arctic landscapes on the wings?
Check out aircraft deicing fluids, they are applied to the wings of
aircraft on the ground to prevent ice forming whilst on the ground,
usually some form of water-glycol ( more recently propylene glycol )
with other material that leaves a thin film on the wing to prevent
further icing whilst taxiing and taking off.
Planes that aren't deiced can have lift problems, but once airborne
the airflows will prevent ice forming and the ram air heating
probably also prevents ice forming on surfaces.
I'm sure there are other readers that can add detail to what the
curent operational practices are for aircraft de-icing, including
any heaters on critical wing surfaces.
Bruce Hamilton
Brian Harmer
Hamilton) wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:35:42 +1300, Brian Harmer
><brian....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>So that comes back to the question of the mechanics of ice formation
>>... the aircraft is flying along at high speed and high altitude. I
>>can imagine thin sheets forming on the wing, but big lumps like that?
>>
>>What would it do to the aerodynamics of the wing?
>>
>>Why aren't there aircraft falling out of the sky as a result of thse
>>monstrous arctic landscapes on the wings?
Snip
>Planes that aren't deiced can have lift problems, but once airborne
>the airflows will prevent ice forming and the ram air heating
>probably also prevents ice forming on surfaces.
That's what I thought. That's why I am having difficulty visualising
this iceblock forming. To borrow from another thread, we are talking
of a rock cake, not a pikelet here. This was a big LUMP of ice.
Dennis M. Rodgers
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:15:59 +1300, Gib Bogle
> <bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The suggestion I saw was that it fell from a wing, not from a toilet.
>>The physics involved in a massive block forming in a clear sky through
>>natural causes is so mind-boggling as to be virtually inconceivable.
>>Probably ice meteor incidence is correlated with aircraft traffic.
>
>
> So that comes back to the question of the mechanics of ice formation
> ... the aircraft is flying along at high speed and high altitude. I
> can imagine thin sheets forming on the wing, but big lumps like that?
>
Airframe icing occurs when the airplane flies through
supercooled water droplets. Under normal circumstances, at
temperatures below about -15 C, atmospheric H2O is in the
form of vapor or ice crystals. Aircraft at flight level
altitudes do not accrete ice. When airframe icing does
occur, it forms on the leading edges, not in thin sheets on
the wings.
If this alleged ice meteor was solid ice, it is likely that
it leaked from a faulty valve from the aircraft's water
storage tank or wastewater tank, accumulated into a large
ice mass, then broke free from the aircraft as the aircraft
descended into warmer air.
Most aircraft icing involves rime ice, which is white and
obviously a mass of crystals, almost "fluffy' looking.
Clear ice accumulation on an aircraft only occurs as the
aircraft transits a volume of large supercooled droplets
similar to a freezing drizzle condition.
You can't believe everything you read in the paper.
Dennis M. Rodgers
In the respect that it falls in the "urban legend" category,
and will get the attention it deserves.
It is clearly not a meteorological phenomenon, and since it
would not survive entry into Earth's atmosphere from space,
it is clearly not an astronomical phenomenon. That leaves
few options. It is either magic, or it fell from an
aircraft. I accept the airplane explanation.
Grant
>
> Or about 100 meters per second. Since the acceleration due to gravity is 10
> that means it would only have been in the air for 10 seconds.
not really relevant, since the object would have long since reached
terminal velocity and wouldn't be accelerating at all.
Grant
>
> Hail stones can be as big as cricket balls.
Sure. And meteorologists understand how hailstones that large form.
> There is no upper limit to
> their size.
There is, however, a limit for all practical purposes, which is
determined the strongest, most persistent updraft you could find in a
thunderstorm. That in turn is limited by the maximum convective
instability you could hope to ever find in the atmosphere. Which in
turn is limited by .. well, never mind. Suffice it to say that large
hailstones are invariably produced by powerful thunderstorms, and these
don't seem to be implicated in the story reported above.
> Clear sky still contains considerable amounts of moisture.
> Understanding the maths involved would be incredibly difficult though.
>
There is no accepted meteorological mechanism that could explain the
formation of ANY size "chunk" of ice out of clear air. The best you
could hope for out of clear air would be delicate snow crystals formed
by sublimation. Hailstone growth requires copious amounts of
supercooled cloud and/or frreezing raing for the hailstone to accrete as
it falls.
Grant
> Planes that aren't deiced can have lift problems, but once airborne
> the airflows will prevent ice forming and the ram air heating
> probably also prevents ice forming on surfaces.
Actually, this isn't quite true.
In-flight icing is one of the most serious hazards a pilot can
encounter. Ice adds weight and reduces lift, and it's possible for this
process to continue until the aircraft literally falls from the sky, as
has happened on many occasions.
Any aircraft that flies for any length of time through supercooled
clouds or rain will experience ice build-up, unless it is equipped with
deicing boot or heaters. Most small single-engine aircraft are not,
while larger aircraft generally are on leading edges of wings and
control surfaces. Of course these dont help with ice buildup on other
parts of the plane, which is what you get when a plane is parked in
freezing rain or heavy snow.
Once airborne, the thickness of the ice accumulation on leading edges
would have to be pretty exceptional to threaten the ability of a large
jet to fly, and airliners rarely spend much time in cloud during ascent
or descent unless they get stuck in a holding pattern.
Grant
>>The physics involved in a massive block forming in a clear sky through
>>natural causes is so mind-boggling as to be virtually inconceivable.
>>Probably ice meteor incidence is correlated with aircraft traffic.
>
>
> A normal tiny meteor can act as a nucleus for ice to form.
>
You could calculate the time it takes to grow a 10kg chunk of ice under
the most extreme plausible conditions of atmospheric supersaturation.
See ch. 4 of Wallace and Hobbs.
But it would be a pointless exercise, because the answer would be
measured in weeks or months, and you could never hope to keep your chunk
of ice suspended in the atmosphere longer than a few minutes, once you
got past a few grams.
And you wouldn't get a clear chunk of ice anyway by this mechanism;
you'd get a big porous mass of ice crystals.
> Where are the data about upper atmosphere temperature and global warming?
Here's a factoid that might help put things into perspective: typical
water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are below 4 parts per
million, relative to air. And air at, say, 50 km altitude has a density
on the order of 1 gram per cubic meter. So to grow a 10 kg chunk of ice
at that altitude would require you to figure out a way to quickly
condense onto one object *all* of the water vapor in 2.5 cubic
*kilometers* of ambient air.
Bottom line: I tend to think the stories about chunks of ice out of the
clear sky, while possibly true in some sense, have nothing to do with
meteorology in any form, let alone global warming.
Could someone be deliberately tossing junks of ice out of passing
aircraft? Recall the crop circle "mystery" -- it eventually was
acknowledged to be a hoax -- by the hoaxers themselves - after countless
"experts" had been quoted as saying, "it can't be a hoax."
Bob Harrington
Or just rain water collecting in the aircraft's landing gear wells, flap
tracks, spoiler or leading edge slat wells, or any of dozens of other
internal areas of a modern aircraft structure - that freezes when the
aircraft reaches colder levels, and is dislodged through aerodynamic
effects, movement of control surfaces or landing gear, etc. Which would
easily explain large blocks of ice that bear "the signature ... of
Iberian rain."
Though still get a chuckle remembering a Seattle TV reporter doing a
story on a similar incident several years ago in which a faulty aircraft
toilet drain lead to a large block of ice damaging a residence. He
explained that the toilets use a blue-colored liquid, but seemed truly
puzzled as to why the chunk of ice he held in his hand was green in
color...
Bob ^,,^
geezer
"Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:10747095...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
And I think they are not.
Bruce Hamilton
wrote:
>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>> Planes that aren't deiced can have lift problems, but once airborne
>> the airflows will prevent ice forming and the ram air heating
>> probably also prevents ice forming on surfaces.
>
>Actually, this isn't quite true.
>....
>Any aircraft that flies for any length of time through supercooled
>clouds or rain will experience ice build-up, unless it is equipped with
>deicing boot or heaters. Most small single-engine aircraft are not,
>while larger aircraft generally are on leading edges of wings and
>control surfaces. Of course these dont help with ice buildup on other
>parts of the plane, which is what you get when a plane is parked in
>freezing rain or heavy snow.
>
>Once airborne, the thickness of the ice accumulation on leading edges
>would have to be pretty exceptional to threaten the ability of a large
>jet to fly, and airliners rarely spend much time in cloud during ascent
>or descent unless they get stuck in a holding pattern.
>
>> I'm sure there are other readers that can add detail to what the
>> curent operational practices are for aircraft de-icing, including
>> any heaters on critical wing surfaces.
Thanks for the clarification. I suspected there would be people out
there with more knowledge. My understanding of new generation ground
de-icing fluids is that they intentionaly leave a film that prevents
ice crystal formation in the air for well into the takeoff period -
presumably for the rise through cold clouds.
I recalled there were de-icing heaters on the wings of large planes,
but wasn't sure about smaller planes. I've just googled aircraft ice,
and found this site, which is self-promotional, but has some
background
http://www.autm.net/pubs/survey/2000/dartmouthairplane.html
[ begin extract ]
Air transportation is particularly vulnerable to every form of ice
there is, from snow and slush on the ground to freezing fog aloft.
Since the earliest days of aviation, pilots have well known how
dangerous flying can be when ice forms on wings and tail sections of
aircraft. Icy buildups as thin as a few thousandths of an inch on
critical surfaces can easily wreck an airplane's aerodynamics, both on
the ground and in the air, leading to loss of control and catastrophic
accidents.
Since 1970, ice has been blamed for more than 35 serious commercial
aircraft crashes around the world. Almost all of the crashes occurred
on takeoff, after deicing procedures on the ground failed, weren't
done properly or weren't done at all. The worst calamity happened on
Dec. 12, 1985, when an Arrow Air Douglas DC-8 suddenly lost altitude
after leaving the runway at Gander, Newfoundland. All 256 people
aboard died.
As the primary weapon in fighting ice accumulation on grounded planes,
airlines resort to warm baths of antifreeze (ethylene glycol) sprayed
onto planes' wings and tail assemblies right before takeoff.
[ end extract ]
Bruce Hamilton
Robin Klitscher
B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
<snip>
>
>I recalled there were de-icing heaters on the wings of large planes,
>but wasn't sure about smaller planes. I've just googled aircraft ice,
>and found this site, which is self-promotional, but has some
>background
>
>http://www.autm.net/pubs/survey/2000/dartmouthairplane.html
>
Try googling on "aircraft icing". Whence:
http://www.caa.govt.nz/fulltext/safety_booklets/aircraft_icing_handbook.pdf
which at first sight seems to contain all you'd ever need to know!
--
Robin Klitscher
Wellington ("Harbour City") NZ
Brian Sandle
> Or just rain water collecting in the aircraft's landing gear wells, flap
> tracks, spoiler or leading edge slat wells, or any of dozens of other
> internal areas of a modern aircraft structure - that freezes when the
> aircraft reaches colder levels, and is dislodged through aerodynamic
> effects, movement of control surfaces or landing gear, etc. Which would
> easily explain large blocks of ice that bear "the signature ... of
> Iberian rain."
The ice has a cubic look about it in the photo. And Jim Salinger, senior NZ
climate scientist was reported on Radio NZ as syaing that it was `square'.
Are we now looking at
(1) whether undercarriage of planes goes down over St John in yesterday's
weather
(2) whether there are any cubically shaped cavities?
But the photo says the `remains of the block'.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3544936&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
If it weighed 3 to 5 kg it should have been some 14 to 17 cm cubed. It
doesn't look quite that compared to the hand it is in. Would it have kept its
shape in its `remains' state?
How does ice cleave when it hits?
> Though still get a chuckle remembering a Seattle TV reporter doing a
> story on a similar incident several years ago in which a faulty aircraft
> toilet drain lead to a large block of ice damaging a residence.
I suppose a big icicle formed and cracked off.
He
> explained that the toilets use a blue-colored liquid, but seemed truly
> puzzled as to why the chunk of ice he held in his hand was green in
> color...
Freezing temperature?
Brian Harmer
<bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
>The ice has a cubic look about it in the photo. And Jim Salinger, senior NZ
>climate scientist was reported on Radio NZ as syaing that it was `square'.
>
>Are we now looking at
>
>(1) whether undercarriage of planes goes down over St John in yesterday's
>weather
>(2) whether there are any cubically shaped cavities?
>
>But the photo says the `remains of the block'.
Hmmm ... I'd be investigating whether anyone in the neighbourhood had
recently built a trebuchet or other seige engine.
John B
in Wanganui a day or two ago. It was a fine sunny day. Probably from an
aircraft de-icing. Ice was travelling at an estimated speed of 450 kph.
John B
"Bruce Hamilton" <B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz> wrote in message
news:400f46dd....@newshost.comnet.co.nz...
Brian Sandle
What's that?
TV just showed the block as a not too thick rectangular shape with a bit of
a projection on one end, and another fragment, I think.
John B
news:9%IPb.18395$ws.23...@news02.tsnz.net...
> A 5kg block of ice came through the kitchen roof of an elderly couple's
home
> in Wanganui a day or two ago. It was a fine sunny day. Probably from an
> aircraft de-icing. Ice was travelling at an estimated speed of 450 kph.
> John B
John B
Peter Ashby
He, He, Nice one Brian. Never ascribe to strange phenomena what can be
ascribed to adolescent instincts.
Peter
Brian Tozer
I think it is very unlikely that it would be able penetrate a roof if it had
been propelled from such a device.
Apparantly a near neighbor had a similar incident a few days ago and has
some remnants in her deep freeze.
Apparantly they are also on the flight path for incoming overseas planes at
times, but I didn't see the TV news so this may be old info.
I hope there is a clear explanation in due course.
Brian Tozer
Brian Harmer
<bria...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>Peter Ashby wrote:
>> Brian Harmer <brian....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>> Hmmm ... I'd be investigating whether anyone in the neighbourhood had
>>> recently built a trebuchet or other seige engine.
>>
>> He, He, Nice one Brian. Never ascribe to strange phenomena what can be
>> ascribed to adolescent instincts.
>>
>> Peter
>
>I think it is very unlikely that it would be able penetrate a roof if it had
>been propelled from such a device.
Brian, the Romans built them to hurl solid objects against castle
walls. Why do you think a modern lightly made domestic dwelling would
be impervious to a large object hurled from one?
>Apparantly a near neighbor had a similar incident a few days ago and has
>some remnants in her deep freeze.
All the more reason to look for the seige engine!
Enkidu
<brian....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>On 21 Jan 2004 20:12:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
><bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>What is the largest block of ice that can form on a plane?
>
>
>And where on the airframe does it form? A block of ice of the
>magnitude shown on TV would not improve the flying qualities of a wing
>... I assume that any such block could not be formed except near some
>outlet on the fuselage or at a junction between the fuselage and a
>flying surface.
Just guessing, but water would flow from the front to the rear of the
wing, if the plane travels through a cloud for example, so that if it
froze, it would freeze towards the back of the topside of the wings,
where there is a low pressure area (relatively). I wouldn't think that
water from toilets or other internal sources would find its way to the
outside. Don't they use internal tanks? If it did escape it would be
ejected forcibly by the pressure difference, surely? Don't modern
planes have warming devices to prevent ice build up?
Lot's of questions!
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
steve
>
> And I think they are not.
They provided a rationale for their hypothesis....
....and you provided.....
.....nothing.
Enkidu
<brian....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:15:59 +1300, Gib Bogle
><bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>The suggestion I saw was that it fell from a wing, not from a toilet.
>>The physics involved in a massive block forming in a clear sky through
>>natural causes is so mind-boggling as to be virtually inconceivable.
>>Probably ice meteor incidence is correlated with aircraft traffic.
>
>So that comes back to the question of the mechanics of ice formation
>... the aircraft is flying along at high speed and high altitude. I
>can imagine thin sheets forming on the wing, but big lumps like that?
>
>What would it do to the aerodynamics of the wing?
>
>Why aren't there aircraft falling out of the sky as a result of thse
>monstrous arctic landscapes on the wings?
>
Ice on the wings was given as the cause of many early plane crashes, I
believe.
Enkidu
<brian....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 23:32:46 GMT, B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
>Hamilton) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:35:42 +1300, Brian Harmer
>><brian....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>So that comes back to the question of the mechanics of ice formation
>>>... the aircraft is flying along at high speed and high altitude. I
>>>can imagine thin sheets forming on the wing, but big lumps like that?
>>>
>>>What would it do to the aerodynamics of the wing?
>>>
>>>Why aren't there aircraft falling out of the sky as a result of thse
>>>monstrous arctic landscapes on the wings?
>
>Snip
>
>>Planes that aren't deiced can have lift problems, but once airborne
>>the airflows will prevent ice forming and the ram air heating
>>probably also prevents ice forming on surfaces.
>
>
>That's what I thought. That's why I am having difficulty visualising
>this iceblock forming. To borrow from another thread, we are talking
>of a rock cake, not a pikelet here. This was a big LUMP of ice.
>
We had a plane engine fall in our school playing field once. The
school was under the flight path into Heathrow. I don't know if it had
ice on it. <grin>
Cheers
steve
>
> You can't believe everything you read in the paper.
No...but then some people remain sceptical rather than think a thing through
or look at the evidence.
The Flat Earth Society would be one example as would be the people who deny
man landed on the Moon.
Brian Sandle
> Brian Sandle wrote:
>>>The physics involved in a massive block forming in a clear sky through
>>>natural causes is so mind-boggling as to be virtually inconceivable.
>>>Probably ice meteor incidence is correlated with aircraft traffic.
>>
>>
>> A normal tiny meteor can act as a nucleus for ice to form.
>>
> You could calculate the time it takes to grow a 10kg chunk of ice under
> the most extreme plausible conditions of atmospheric supersaturation.
> See ch. 4 of Wallace and Hobbs.
> But it would be a pointless exercise, because the answer would be
> measured in weeks or months, and you could never hope to keep your chunk
> of ice suspended in the atmosphere longer than a few minutes, once you
> got past a few grams.
Unless there is some sort of vortex.
> And you wouldn't get a clear chunk of ice anyway by this mechanism;
> you'd get a big porous mass of ice crystals.
Like hoar frost? It's incredibly patterened, but quite solid, not porous, I
think.
>> Where are the data about upper atmosphere temperature and global warming?
> Here's a factoid that might help put things into perspective: typical
> water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are below 4 parts per
> million, relative to air. And air at, say, 50 km altitude has a density
> on the order of 1 gram per cubic meter. So to grow a 10 kg chunk of ice
> at that altitude would require you to figure out a way to quickly
> condense onto one object *all* of the water vapor in 2.5 cubic
> *kilometers* of ambient air.
Any reason for 50 km? Most of the air where vortices could do anything is in
the troposphere.
> Bottom line: I tend to think the stories about chunks of ice out of the
> clear sky, while possibly true in some sense, have nothing to do with
> meteorology in any form, let alone global warming.
> Could someone be deliberately tossing junks of ice out of passing
> aircraft?
I have heard of frogs raining down. Seemed genuine.
Recall the crop circle "mystery" -- it eventually was
> acknowledged to be a hoax -- by the hoaxers themselves - after countless
> "experts" had been quoted as saying, "it can't be a hoax."
Ha ha, yes. It became quite a hobby of the `sceptics' or pranksters to show
how it could be done. How did they hoax the real crop circles in which the
bent over wheat is said to keep growing - it is not trampled? Enlightenment
please.
(Though I think this example, from the shape of the block has been formed in
some sort of mold. Either that or cleaved off somehow.)
Dennis M. Rodgers
>
>>explained that the toilets use a blue-colored liquid, but seemed truly
>>puzzled as to why the chunk of ice he held in his hand was green in
>>color...
>
>
> Freezing temperature?
blue + yellow = green
Brian Sandle
Yes, but I am just giving a reminder of my interest in atmospheric
temperatures at various leves.
I have looked for data on greenhouse atmospheric temperature change. Though
planes do not go high enough for the effect,Though planes do not go high
enough for the effect, the models said that while the lower atmosphere gets
warmer, higher in it it gets cooler.
I seems that lidar measurements over the poles, measuring above where
balloons can go, have shown in autumn (fall), upper atmosphere temperatures
to be considerably colder than the models predicted. Though at other times of
the year they matched. Down-welling with its pressure increasing and
therefore temperature increasing effect was found to be much less than
expected, I understand, in autumn. I am not sure if it is known how that
might relate to greenhouse.
Grant
>
> Unless there is some sort of vortex.
>
not sure how a vortex would affect my arguments
>>And you wouldn't get a clear chunk of ice anyway by this mechanism;
>>you'd get a big porous mass of ice crystals.
>
>
> Like hoar frost? It's incredibly patterened, but quite solid, not porous, I
> think.
>
"Feathery" is the word that came to mind the last time I examined thick
hoarfrost. Porous in the sense that you have needle-like or dendritic
crystals growing into a feathery mass, as opposed to a uniform glaze of
ice. Note by the way that hoar froast, which grows by sublimation from
the vapor phase, is different than rime ice, which is less porous. The
latter involves the accretion of supercooled droplets and requires a
visible cloud. It's the same process involved in hail and graupel
formation, whereas hoar frost is more analogous the formation of snow.
>>>Where are the data about upper atmosphere temperature and global warming?
>
>
>>Here's a factoid that might help put things into perspective: typical
>>water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are below 4 parts per
>>million, relative to air. And air at, say, 50 km altitude has a density
>>on the order of 1 gram per cubic meter. So to grow a 10 kg chunk of ice
>> at that altitude would require you to figure out a way to quickly
>>condense onto one object *all* of the water vapor in 2.5 cubic
>>*kilometers* of ambient air.
>
>
> Any reason for 50 km? Most of the air where vortices could do anything is in
> the troposphere.
If tropospheric vortices are involved in producing large chunks of ice,
then they're also producing clouds. I thought the issue at hand was one
of ice chunks falling out of the clear blue sky, and more specifically
out of the stratosphere. But maybe I haven't been reading closely enough.
>
>>Bottom line: I tend to think the stories about chunks of ice out of the
>>clear sky, while possibly true in some sense, have nothing to do with
>>meteorology in any form, let alone global warming.
>
>
>>Could someone be deliberately tossing junks of ice out of passing
>>aircraft?
>
>
> I have heard of frogs raining down. Seemed genuine.
>
I think the prevailing view on that is that the frogs were probably
swept up into the air by a tornado or waterspout. Although I have to
admit that most such accounts have aspects that are hard to explain, IF
you take them at face value.
>
> Recall the crop circle "mystery" -- it eventually was
>
>>acknowledged to be a hoax -- by the hoaxers themselves - after countless
>>"experts" had been quoted as saying, "it can't be a hoax."
>
>
> Ha ha, yes. It became quite a hobby of the `sceptics' or pranksters to show
> how it could be done. How did they hoax the real crop circles in which the
> bent over wheat is said to keep growing - it is not trampled? Enlightenment
> please.
That's precisely one of the arguments the "experts" used. And then the
hoaxers showed that it's really not that hard to bend the stems without
breaking them.
David Pears
<brian....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>Brian, the Romans built them to hurl solid objects against castle
>walls. Why do you think a modern lightly made domestic dwelling would
>be impervious to a large object hurled from one?
I don't know. But I bet I'd have fun finding out!
David
Brian Harmer
You bet. However, I'd bet the explosive disintegration depicted in the
seige scenes in LOTR-ROTK wouldn't occur.
Bob Harrington
There you go making rash assumptions that the engine fell off an
airplane, when it could just as easily have condensed out of the
atmosphere on its own! >;^)
Bob Harrington
>> Recall the crop circle "mystery" -- it eventually was
>> acknowledged to be a hoax -- by the hoaxers themselves - after
>> countless "experts" had been quoted as saying, "it can't be a hoax."
>
> Ha ha, yes. It became quite a hobby of the `sceptics' or pranksters
> to show how it could be done. How did they hoax the real crop circles
> in which the bent over wheat is said to keep growing - it is not
> trampled? Enlightenment please.
The same way the %#&$ lawn keeps growing no matter how many "mow rows"
you apply to it? =)
The crop circle crowd seem to be awfully good at looking at something
not all that overly impressive and instantly deciding it was humanly
impossible. Others might call this "wishful thinking" or "delusion" -
kinda like the "Rods" scam from a few years back.
Brian Harmer
<rch.N...@blarg.net> wrote:
>Enkidu wrote:
>> We had a plane engine fall in our school playing field once. The
>> school was under the flight path into Heathrow. I don't know if it had
>> ice on it. <grin>
>
>There you go making rash assumptions that the engine fell off an
>airplane, when it could just as easily have condensed out of the
>atmosphere on its own! >;^)
Ooooohhhhh .... sarky! :-)
Brian Sandle
> Brian Sandle wrote:
>>
>> Unless there is some sort of vortex.
>>
> not sure how a vortex would affect my arguments
>>>And you wouldn't get a clear chunk of ice anyway by this mechanism;
>>>you'd get a big porous mass of ice crystals.
>>
>>
>> Like hoar frost? It's incredibly patterened, but quite solid, not porous, I
>> think.
>>
> "Feathery" is the word that came to mind the last time I examined thick
> hoarfrost.
Though `feathery' gives the impression that it would be easy to break. But
it is soldily attached to whatever it grows on.
Porous in the sense that you have needle-like or dendritic
> crystals growing into a feathery mass, as opposed to a uniform glaze of
> ice.
Though not crushable as I have seen it, there were not filaments
projecting into the air.
Note by the way that hoar froast, which grows by sublimation from
> the vapor phase, is different than rime ice, which is less porous. The
> latter involves the accretion of supercooled droplets and requires a
> visible cloud. It's the same process involved in hail and graupel
> formation, whereas hoar frost is more analogous the formation of snow.
What I saw was a tremendous pattern on a car roof top where there had been
very slight air movement.
>>>>Where are the data about upper atmosphere temperature and global warming?
>>
>>
>>>Here's a factoid that might help put things into perspective: typical
>>>water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are below 4 parts per
>>>million, relative to air. And air at, say, 50 km altitude has a density
>>>on the order of 1 gram per cubic meter. So to grow a 10 kg chunk of ice
>>> at that altitude would require you to figure out a way to quickly
>>>condense onto one object *all* of the water vapor in 2.5 cubic
>>>*kilometers* of ambient air.
>>
>>
>> Any reason for 50 km? Most of the air where vortices could do anything is in
>> the troposphere.
> If tropospheric vortices are involved in producing large chunks of ice,
> then they're also producing clouds. I thought the issue at hand was one
> of ice chunks falling out of the clear blue sky, and more specifically
> out of the stratosphere. But maybe I haven't been reading closely enough.
I don't think the original article mentioned stratoshpere, though I guess
that is the part of the atmosphere which would be cooling under global
warming? Your argument about the amount of water vapour there is quite
convincing. However what about clouds that form at 50km over the polar
regions?
>>
>>>Bottom line: I tend to think the stories about chunks of ice out of the
>>>clear sky, while possibly true in some sense, have nothing to do with
>>>meteorology in any form, let alone global warming.
>>
>>
>>>Could someone be deliberately tossing junks of ice out of passing
>>>aircraft?
>>
>>
>> I have heard of frogs raining down. Seemed genuine.
>>
> I think the prevailing view on that is that the frogs were probably
> swept up into the air by a tornado or waterspout.
Yes. How far could they be thrown?
Although I have to
> admit that most such accounts have aspects that are hard to explain, IF
> you take them at face value.
>>
>> Recall the crop circle "mystery" -- it eventually was
>>
>>>acknowledged to be a hoax -- by the hoaxers themselves - after countless
>>>"experts" had been quoted as saying, "it can't be a hoax."
>>
>>
>> Ha ha, yes. It became quite a hobby of the `sceptics' or pranksters to show
>> how it could be done. How did they hoax the real crop circles in which the
>> bent over wheat is said to keep growing - it is not trampled? Enlightenment
>> please.
> That's precisely one of the arguments the "experts" used. And then the
> hoaxers showed that it's really not that hard to bend the stems without
> breaking them.
Do you a ref? It seems the bend looks more like the sort in a plant which
has been grown in a pot then turned on its side. Though I cannot verify
that except pass the ref, which also gives they are produced very rapidly,
and the confusion engendered by "sceptics"' film arrangements.
Linkname: Discovery Channel Crop Circles
URL: http://www.oregonuforeview.com/discchancrop.html
Last Mod: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:22:04 GMT
size: 122 lines
Eric Hocking
Sorry to drop in out of lurking, but I always found it amusing to
watch ET cropcircle proponents squirm when I pointed out at
sci.skeptic that;
During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
but the farmer from crop fields.
During the ban no crop circles were recorded in the English
countryside.
The first crop circle in England to be recorded was the day after the
walking ban was lifted in that county.
Very community minded is our ET.
--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Brian Sandle
Any decent scientist knows
(a) correlation is not causation
(b) to check the data.
(a) About 90% of the walkways were open in September 1991 in Britain.
Linkname: CropCircleInvestigated
URL: http://www.geocities.com/hbccufo/CropCircleInvestigated.html
Crop Circles Return Three Years Later
by Gordon Hoekstra
Citizen Staff, September, 2001
They'rrrrre baaaack !
Crop Circles have been discovered again in Vanderhoof, almost three years
to the day they were firs found in a ripe oat field just off the airport
runway.
[...] The researcher said tests performed on the oat samples
in a U.S. lab later confirmed the Crop Circles were genuine: that is to
say there were cellular changes in the oats not found in known hoaxes.
So that they occurred world over again at the end of foot and mouth in
Britain may or may not be just a coincidence.
(b) Though I now confound myself somewhat by giving this:
Linkname: Weird Wiltshire - Crop Circles - News Archive
URL:
http://www.thisispewsey.co.uk/wiltshire/leisure/weird/231001.html
First published on October 23
THE foot and mouth epidemic may have hampered the search for crop circles
in Wiltshire's corn fields but the people who spend time looking for them
still managed to record some incredible formations.
[...]
In spite of the foot and mouth restrictions which meant that the croppies
had to keep away from fields and could not fly overland, about 40
formations were officially recorded in Wiltshire.
Not sure how they did it.
Eric Hocking
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> > Sorry to drop in out of lurking, but I always found it amusing to
> > watch ET cropcircle proponents squirm when I pointed out at
> > sci.skeptic that;
>
> > During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
> > government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
> > but the farmer from crop fields.
>
> > During the ban no crop circles were recorded in the English
> > countryside.
>
> > The first crop circle in England to be recorded was the day after the
> > walking ban was lifted in that county.
>
> > Very community minded is our ET.
>
> Any decent scientist knows
> (a) correlation is not causation
Fine - put forward another explanation for the correlation between
lifting footpath bans and the late 2001 appearance of circles in
British crops.
> (b) to check the data.
Ah, let's just do that shall we?
> (a) About 90% of the walkways were open in September 1991 in Britain.
Since I specifically stated 2001, what has this to do with my post?
Feb 27 2001 announcement on footpath closures.
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/newsrel/2001/010227d.htm>
> Linkname: CropCircleInvestigated
> URL: http://www.geocities.com/hbccufo/CropCircleInvestigated.html
>
<snip>
>
> So that they occurred world over again at the end of foot and mouth in
> Britain may or may not be just a coincidence.
I did not say worldwide - I quite specifically said "English" circles.
The fact remains that the first cropcircles to appear in BRITAIN, were
found and probably created (as per the cropcircle database site) in
late/end of May. Just as the FMD footpath restrictions were being
eased.
So, what caused the cessation of circlemaking in Britain that year?
Surely footpath closures wouldn't have had any effect on airborne ET?
The only restriction was on *human* access on the ground to crop
fields. I'm sure it's purely coincidental that the lifting of those
restrictions correlate with the first appearance of new circles in
May.
> (b) Though I now confound myself somewhat by giving this:
>
> Linkname: Weird Wiltshire - Crop Circles - News Archive
> URL:
> http://www.thisispewsey.co.uk/wiltshire/leisure/weird/231001.html
>
>
> First published on October 23
> THE foot and mouth epidemic may have hampered the search for crop circles
> in Wiltshire's corn fields but the people who spend time looking for them
> still managed to record some incredible formations.
All created in May after the FMD restrictions were eased. This as per
the cropcircle database site:
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=April>
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=May>
> [...]
> In spite of the foot and mouth restrictions which meant that the croppies
> had to keep away from fields and could not fly overland,
The above statement seems to imply that circles *might* have been
created prior to May 2001, but the croppies were unable to find them
merely due to to the fact that they were not allowed to do air
searches. That's patently untrue as per the Hansard record of May 9
<http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo010509/text/10509w19.htm>
The aviation bans were that you could not fly *below* 500ft over
infected land or *below* 1000ft over the livestock cremation sites.
There was nothing to stop croppies flying over at 1500ft plus scouring
for circles.
So to claim that there *might* have been circles created before May is
moot, since they can't prove it happened and I can't prove it didn't.
> about 40
> formations were officially recorded in Wiltshire.
The NUMBER of circles is irrelevant, it is WHEN they appeared. Here's
part of my post from 2001, one of the council links is dead and see
this link for May 2001
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=May>
"This is the Hampshire County Council notice regarding F&M
http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/footmouth.html
Guess when it's dated? You got it 11 May. It links to an emergency
plan for
Hants: http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/scudamore.html
dated March.
And of course, the first one in England turned up in? Hampshire - on
May
16. http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=uk01ab
When Wiltshire opened up
http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/download/news/sc10411_order.html
Lo and Behold! A crop circle turns up in Wiltshire.
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=uk01aq "
> Not sure how they did it.
Waited in the pub until walking restrictions were lifted?
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" - P.J. O'Rourke.
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
Brian Sandle
> Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message news:<10748902...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
>> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> > Sorry to drop in out of lurking, but I always found it amusing to
>> > watch ET cropcircle proponents squirm when I pointed out at
>> > sci.skeptic that;
>>
>> > During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
>> > government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
>> > but the farmer from crop fields.
>>
>> > During the ban no crop circles were recorded in the English
>> > countryside.
>>
>> > The first crop circle in England to be recorded was the day after the
>> > walking ban was lifted in that county.
>>
>> > Very community minded is our ET.
>>
>> Any decent scientist knows
>> (a) correlation is not causation
> Fine - put forward another explanation for the correlation between
> lifting footpath bans and the late 2001 appearance of circles in
> British crops.
>> (b) to check the data.
> Ah, let's just do that shall we?
>> (a) About 90% of the walkways were open in September 1991 in Britain.
> Since I specifically stated 2001, what has this to do with my post?
I meant 2001. It was in an offical PDF file which I cannot find again, with
the history of F&MD.
> Feb 27 2001 announcement on footpath closures.
> <http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/newsrel/2001/010227d.htm>
>> Linkname: CropCircleInvestigated
>> URL: http://www.geocities.com/hbccufo/CropCircleInvestigated.html
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> So that they occurred world over again at the end of foot and mouth in
>> Britain may or may not be just a coincidence.
> I did not say worldwide - I quite specifically said "English" circles.
But I am pointing out it could be world wide.
> The fact remains that the first cropcircles to appear in BRITAIN, were
> found and probably created (as per the cropcircle database site) in
> late/end of May. Just as the FMD footpath restrictions were being
> eased.
Search your database for any country April 2001, there is only one result,
and that is an acknowledged art work.
> So, what caused the cessation of circlemaking in Britain that year?
> Surely footpath closures wouldn't have had any effect on airborne ET?
> The only restriction was on *human* access on the ground to crop
> fields. I'm sure it's purely coincidental that the lifting of those
> restrictions correlate with the first appearance of new circles in
> May.
They started appearing world over in May.
>> (b) Though I now confound myself somewhat by giving this:
>>
>> Linkname: Weird Wiltshire - Crop Circles - News Archive
>> URL:
>> http://www.thisispewsey.co.uk/wiltshire/leisure/weird/231001.html
>>
>>
>> First published on October 23
>> THE foot and mouth epidemic may have hampered the search for crop circles
>> in Wiltshire's corn fields but the people who spend time looking for them
>> still managed to record some incredible formations.
> All created in May after the FMD restrictions were eased.
That is correlation not proven causation.
This as per
> the cropcircle database site:
> <http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=April>
> <http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=May>
>> [...]
>> In spite of the foot and mouth restrictions which meant that the croppies
>> had to keep away from fields and could not fly overland,
> The above statement seems to imply that circles *might* have been
> created prior to May 2001, but the croppies were unable to find them
> merely due to to the fact that they were not allowed to do air
> searches. That's patently untrue as per the Hansard record of May 9
> <http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo010509/text/10509w19.htm>
> The aviation bans were that you could not fly *below* 500ft over
> infected land or *below* 1000ft over the livestock cremation sites.
> There was nothing to stop croppies flying over at 1500ft plus scouring
> for circles.
Maybe they misunderstood.
> So to claim that there *might* have been circles created before May is
> moot, since they can't prove it happened and I can't prove it didn't.
You like the correlation, and searching world wide back to Nov 2000 there are
very few. Just a couple on ice, one reported on ice too thin to walk on.
>> about 40
>> formations were officially recorded in Wiltshire.
> The NUMBER of circles is irrelevant, it is WHEN they appeared. Here's
> part of my post from 2001, one of the council links is dead and see
> this link for May 2001
> <http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=May>
> "This is the Hampshire County Council notice regarding F&M
> http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/footmouth.html
> Guess when it's dated? You got it 11 May. It links to an emergency
> plan for
> Hants: http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/scudamore.html
> dated March.
> And of course, the first one in England turned up in? Hampshire - on
> May
> 16. http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=uk01ab
> When Wiltshire opened up
> http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/download/news/sc10411_order.html
> Lo and Behold! A crop circle turns up in Wiltshire.
> http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=uk01aq "
>> Not sure how they did it.
> Waited in the pub until walking restrictions were lifted?
Somewhere I read it is admitted that some farmers create them as they get
grants for people to come on to their land.
Then the scientific tests should be different.
Brian Sandle
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Fine - put forward another explanation for the correlation between
>> lifting footpath bans and the late 2001 appearance of circles in
>> British crops.
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/index.html
then go to foot and mouth.
2001 has very similar figures for April as 2000 and 2002.
Brian Sandle
> drop sci.geo.meteorology from the list. Thank you.
Grant suggested that ice meteors be in the crop circle category of fakes.
But are they fakes, for if they aren't all then that argument may have to
be ruled out.
No-one has commented on polar stratospheric cloud. Grant pointed out how
thin the atmosphere is there. They occur in the winter. Maybe conditions
are sufficient to make clouds of water from cometary fragments. Can any
large fragments get through?
We touched on vortices. Vortex theory was advanced by Kelvin and Thomson,
but superceded by the particle theory, though particles were found to have
spin. Maybe spin can have a laser effect. Sorry about the dreaming. The
simple wind vortices would seem to produce too irregular a form to be
recognised as a crop circle.
Is there any theory of how smoke rings can bounce off one another, and can
that happen with any atmospheric clouds?
Brian Sandle
> No-one has commented on polar stratospheric cloud. Grant pointed out how
> thin the atmosphere is there. They occur in the winter. Maybe conditions
> are sufficient to make clouds of water from cometary fragments. Can any
> large fragments get through?
> We touched on vortices. Vortex theory was advanced by Kelvin and Thomson,
> but superceded by the particle theory, though particles were found to have
> spin. Maybe spin can have a laser effect. Sorry about the dreaming. The
> simple wind vortices would seem to produce too irregular a form to be
> recognised as a crop circle.
> Is there any theory of how smoke rings can bounce off one another, and can
> that happen with any atmospheric clouds?
Grant said that if vortices were present which could form ice meteors then
there would be clouds, too. But is it possible to have in the upper
atmosphere a wind sort of like the Antarctic katabatic, 350 km/hr with a
clear sky?
What is the velocity of wind in the clear air turbulence which affects
aircraft?
Dennis M. Rodgers
Maybe you could find a science fiction newsgroup where this
stuff might be well received. It has no relationship to the
science of meteorology.
Crop circles are not caused by any meteorological process.
Large (10 kg) masses of ice falling from the sky are not
caused by any meteorological process.
Brian Sandle
>>
>> Is there any theory of how smoke rings can bounce off one another, and can
>> that happen with any atmospheric clouds?
>>
> Maybe you could find a science fiction newsgroup where this
> stuff might be well received. It has no relationship to the
> science of meteorology.
How about making some comment on the scientific quesitons I put, the high
cloud, the katabatic, the clear air turbulence. Then we can proceed.
Brian Sandle
> In article <10752480...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>,
> Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
>> Dennis M. Rodgers <Dennis.M...@noaa.gov> wrote:
>> > Brian Sandle wrote:
>> >> Is there any theory of how smoke rings can bounce off one another,
>> >> and can that happen with any atmospheric clouds?
>> >>
The oceans are not well-mixed, in fact layers of temperature and salinity
occur. So can regions of atmosphere avoid mixing, too? That is being asked
to look for general furthering of knowledge, with the vortices only
connected by uncritical brainstorming.
>> > Maybe you could find a science fiction newsgroup where this stuff
>> > might be well received. It has no relationship to the science of
>> > meteorology.
>> How about making some comment on the scientific quesitons I put, the
>> high cloud, the katabatic, the clear air turbulence. Then we can
>> proceed.
> For large hail (or indeed small hail) high cloud other than Cb anvils is
> irrelevant.
The high cloud question was introduced to find its explanation. What
amount of water per cubic metre is needed for a very visible cloud? Does
this lend to the theory that cometary ice fragments may be producing it,
therefore, some fragments may come further down?
> Katabatic winds are a downslope phenomenon requiring a stable atmosphere
> in which convection (and therefore hail) will not occur.
These winds I mentioned to draw attention to wind velocities which can
occur.
Moving to CAT of course it is velocity gradients which cause trouble, and
tear wings/engines off aeroplanes. But I suspect higher gradients may be
linked to higher velocites.
> Clear air turbulence (CAT) by definition requires clear air and therefore
> no clouds to produce hydrometeors.
Dew is produced without clouds.
Airflow at jetstream level (where CAT
> is most common) may well influence the development of supercell
> thunderstorms which can produce large hail - but noone is talking about
> these being present when ice blocks fall are they?
Not in the immediate area.
> NOTE lumps of ice of tennis ball size require extreme vertical (up)
> currents in very wet clouds. Bigger than these, either unnatural causes
Such as?
or
> clumping of fallen ice is most likely. Natural icefall will be more or
> less spherical; brick-shaped ice has to have an artificial origin. Natural
> hail does not fall as isolated single stones.
A nucleus is needed. A micrometeor may be one. A piece of broken pottery
in a superheated liquid does not produce boiling throughout.
Though Grant pointed out the lack of water mass available in uppoer
atmosphere.
Could a brick shape result from cleaving?
Some of the ice meteors are reported as 50 kg.
In this case as I said I presumed earlier that it could be ice from an
opening aircraft undercarriage. But we need to be quite sure of all the
science before ruling out anything in general.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Eric Hocking
"Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:10751526...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
OK - so *most* of the rights of way were open by Sept 2001, this still has
nothing to do with my statement that there is a correlation between lack of
circle building while the blanket bans were in effect, does it? Further I
pointed out ath there is a correlation between the staged openings of rights
of way, county by county, and the appearance of the first circles in 2001 in
those counties corresponding with those openings.
> > Feb 27 2001 announcement on footpath closures.
> > <http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/newsrel/2001/010227d.htm>
> >> Linkname: CropCircleInvestigated
> >> URL:
http://www.geocities.com/hbccufo/CropCircleInvestigated.html
> > <snip>
> >> So that they occurred world over again at the end of foot and mouth in
> >> Britain may or may not be just a coincidence.
> > I did not say worldwide - I quite specifically said "English" circles.
>
> But I am pointing out it could be world wide.
A point that is quite irrelevant to the discussion though. Blanket bans on
countryside rights of way were only in place in Britain due to FMD in 2001.
What influence would these bans have on walking in a field in Canada or New
Zealand?
> > The fact remains that the first cropcircles to appear in BRITAIN, were
> > found and probably created (as per the cropcircle database site) in
> > late/end of May. Just as the FMD footpath restrictions were being
> > eased.
>
> Search your database for any country April 2001, there is only one result,
> and that is an acknowledged art work.
And this has what to do with my statement about the timing of crop circles
appearing in May in areas where blanket bans on access to rights of way were
being eased?
> > So, what caused the cessation of circlemaking in Britain that year?
> > Surely footpath closures wouldn't have had any effect on airborne ET?
> > The only restriction was on *human* access on the ground to crop
> > fields. I'm sure it's purely coincidental that the lifting of those
> > restrictions correlate with the first appearance of new circles in
> > May.
>
> They started appearing world over in May.
As they do each year - but in Britain and specifically England (ie as per my
initial point) they did not appear in fields that had blanket bans on
access. They only started to appear after these bans were lifted. At least
address the point I am making rather than going off on irrelevant tangents.
> >> (b) Though I now confound myself somewhat by giving this:
> >> Linkname: Weird Wiltshire - Crop Circles - News Archive
> >> URL:
> >>
http://www.thisispewsey.co.uk/wiltshire/leisure/weird/231001.html
> >> First published on October 23
> >> THE foot and mouth epidemic may have hampered the search for crop
circles
> >> in Wiltshire's corn fields but the people who spend time looking for
them
> >> still managed to record some incredible formations.
>
> > All created in May after the FMD restrictions were eased.
>
> That is correlation not proven causation.
Give reasonable alternatives to my point then. What caused the different
timing and distribution of circle building in 2001? The correlation between
the appearance of circles, county by county, and the lifting of blanket bans
in those counties, while quite a coincidence, is certainly a compelling
coincidence. Have you compared the timing and distribution of circles in
2001 when the bans were in place and those in 2000 and 2002 when no
countryside movement bans were in place?
> This as per
> > the cropcircle database site:
> >
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=Apri
l>
> >
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=May>
>
> >> [...]
> >> In spite of the foot and mouth restrictions which meant that the
croppies
> >> had to keep away from fields and could not fly overland,
>
> > The above statement seems to imply that circles *might* have been
> > created prior to May 2001, but the croppies were unable to find them
> > merely due to to the fact that they were not allowed to do air
> > searches. That's patently untrue as per the Hansard record of May 9
> >
<http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo01
0509/text/10509w19.htm>
> > The aviation bans were that you could not fly *below* 500ft over
> > infected land or *below* 1000ft over the livestock cremation sites.
> > There was nothing to stop croppies flying over at 1500ft plus scouring
> > for circles.
>
> Maybe they misunderstood.
Maybe, regardless, their statement that they were not able to fly over
fields to look for circles is untrue. To imply that this is a reasonable
explanation for the lateness of sightings in 2001 holds much less water than
my statement that there were not cirlces being made because the people on
the *ground* who make the circles were banned from entering fields during
that time.
> > So to claim that there *might* have been circles created before May is
> > moot, since they can't prove it happened and I can't prove it didn't.
>
> You like the correlation, and searching world wide back to Nov 2000 there
are
> very few. Just a couple on ice, one reported on ice too thin to walk on.
What's with these irrelevant tangents? I'm not talking about worldwide, I'm
talking about the timing and distribution of circle building in England 2001
and what affect the FMD countryside ban had on it.
> >> about 40
> >> formations were officially recorded in Wiltshire.
>
> > The NUMBER of circles is irrelevant, it is WHEN they appeared. Here's
> > part of my post from 2001, one of the council links is dead and see
> > this link for May 2001
> >
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=May>
> > "This is the Hampshire County Council notice regarding F&M
> > http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/footmouth.html
> > Guess when it's dated? You got it 11 May. It links to an emergency
> > plan for
> > Hants: http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/scudamore.html
> > dated March.
> > And of course, the first one in England turned up in? Hampshire - on
> > May
> > 16. http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=uk01ab
> > When Wiltshire opened up
> > http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/download/news/sc10411_order.html
> > Lo and Behold! A crop circle turns up in Wiltshire.
> > http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=uk01aq "
> >> Not sure how they did it.
> > Waited in the pub until walking restrictions were lifted?
>
> Somewhere I read it is admitted that some farmers create them as they get
> grants for people to come on to their land.
Then you were misled.
Farmers do not receive grants for people coming onto their land. Who would
be giving out these grants by the way?
Farmers can claim some insurance for vandalism, it does not cover the cost
of the lost crop. Anecdotally, I have heard that circle builders have
offered some cash compensation at times, but the farmers lose more in
damaged crop than they make up in these nonexistent grants.
About all they can do is ask for an "entry fee" from people who want to
access their fields to view a circle.
> Then the scientific tests should be different.
What tests are these? Why should they be different? And what has that got
to do with the farmer anecdote above?
--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Attempting spam blocking - remove upper case to reply.
Eric Hocking
"Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:10751563...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
Hmm, 3 in April 2000, 0 in April 2001 and 1 in 2002.
Noted the 2001 was by an artist. The comments on the next two are amusing
"Very amateurish looking" and "Fairly rough looking". Must have been
apprentice aliens trying it out for the first time!
As you suggested I do in an earlier post, check the data. Go also to the
county news releases on when and where the blanket bans were lifted and then
have a look at when and where the circles started to appear in 2001.
By limiting yourself to a single resource, you're not getting the whole
picture and limit the points of view you can put forward. In counter to the
cropcircleresearch site <http://www.circlemakers.org/> specifically
http://www.circlemakers.org/totc2001.html for their 2001 round up.
--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
Bob Harrington
> In article <10753417...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>,
> Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
>> Rodney Blackall <rbla...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
>> The high cloud question was introduced to find its explanation. What
>> amount of water per cubic metre is needed for a very visible cloud?
>> Does this lend to the theory that cometary ice fragments may be
>> producing it, therefore, some fragments may come further down?
>
> dry air (I cannot find my upper air tables since I moved house): no
> (they would 'burn up' on entry: cirrus clouds precipitate frequently
> - hence "mares tails".
>
>>> Katabatic winds are a downslope phenomenon requiring a stable
>>> atmosphere in which convection (and therefore hail) will not occur.
>
>> These winds I mentioned to draw attention to wind velocities which
>> can occur.
>
> lines can produce lots of hail, but not single lumps of ice.
>
>> Moving to CAT of course it is velocity gradients which cause trouble,
>> and tear wings/engines off aeroplanes. But I suspect higher gradients
>> may be linked to higher velocites.
>
> There are theoretical limits to the possible shear around jetstreams.
> A straight 200 kn jet is probably LESS likely to be a source of CAT
> than a 60 kn flow around a sharp trough.
>
>>> Clear air turbulence (CAT) by definition requires clear air and
>>> therefore no clouds to produce hydrometeors.
>
>> Dew is produced without clouds.
>
>
>>> Airflow at jetstream level (where CAT is most common) may well
>>> influence the development of supercell > thunderstorms which can
>>> produce large hail - but noone is talking about these being present
>>> when ice blocks fall are they?
>
>> Not in the immediate area.
>
> will have to land pretty close to the nadir of their generation unless
> given a large horizontal vector by the source.
>
>>> NOTE lumps of ice of tennis ball size require extreme vertical (up)
>>> currents in very wet clouds. Bigger than these, either unnatural
>>> causes
>
>> Such as?
>
>
>>> or clumping of fallen ice is most likely. Natural icefall will be
>>> more or less spherical; brick-shaped ice has to have an artificial
>>> origin. Natural hail does not fall as isolated single stones.
>
>> A nucleus is needed. A micrometeor may be one.
>
> encounters a fragment of ice on its way up through a Cb cloud.
>
>> A piece of broken pottery in a superheated liquid does not produce
>> boiling throughout.
>
>
>> Though Grant pointed out the lack of water mass available in upper
>> atmosphere.
>
> Good man.
>
>> Could a brick shape result from cleaving?
>
> cleaving?
>
>> Some of the ice meteors are reported as 50 kg.
>
>> In this case as I said I presumed earlier that it could be ice from
>> an opening aircraft undercarriage. But we need to be quite sure of
>> all the science before ruling out anything in general.
>
> something really weird?
I believe it's called "Occam's Blinkers"...
Brian Sandle
> In article <10753417...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>,
> Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
>> Rodney Blackall <rbla...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [Snip]
>> The high cloud question was introduced to find its explanation. What
>> amount of water per cubic metre is needed for a very visible cloud?
>> Does this lend to the theory that cometary ice fragments may be
>> producing it, therefore, some fragments may come further down?
> At 30 000 ft and -40 deg saturation is something like 0.1 g per kg of dry
> air (I cannot find my upper air tables since I moved house): no (they
> would 'burn up' on entry: cirrus clouds precipitate frequently - hence
> "mares tails".
I wonder what volume they have.
Grant says air has mass of only 1 gram per cubic metre at 50 km altitude.
So 0.1 g water will saturate a volume of 10 metres cubed. So 100 g will
saturate a volume of 100 metres cubed, and 100 kg a volume of 1 cubic
kilometer. Whereas Grant said there would be 10kg of water in 2.5
kilometres cubed. Some explanation needed.
Does a cometary fragment totally melt in the atmosphere whatever its size?
>> > Katabatic winds are a downslope phenomenon requiring a stable
>> > atmosphere in which convection (and therefore hail) will not occur.
>> These winds I mentioned to draw attention to wind velocities which can
>> occur.
> So, we have hurricanes then, not normally associated with hail. Squall
> lines can produce lots of hail, but not single lumps of ice.
>> Moving to CAT of course it is velocity gradients which cause trouble,
>> and tear wings/engines off aeroplanes. But I suspect higher gradients
>> may be linked to higher velocites.
> Velocity is a vector, therefore "higher velocity" is meaningless.
Isn't `velocity' quite often used as an abbreviation for `magnitude of
velocity'?
There
> are theoretical limits to the possible shear around jetstreams. A straight
> 200 kn jet is probably LESS likely to be a source of CAT than a 60 kn flow
> around a sharp trough.
Giving a higher gradient.
Now what size lump of ice would 200 knots be the terminal speed for,
causing it to hang there while large volumes of air went past?
>> > Clear air turbulence (CAT) by definition requires clear air and
>> > therefore no clouds to produce hydrometeors.
>> Dew is produced without clouds.
> Dew does not fall from the sky!
But it demonstrates water can come from clear air when there is something
to condense on.
>> > Airflow at jetstream level (where CAT is most common) may well
>> >influence the development of supercell > thunderstorms which can
>> >produce large hail - but noone is talking about these being present
>> >when ice blocks fall are they?
>>Not in the immediate area.
> Since bricks are notorious for their poor aerodynamic performance they
> will have to land pretty close to the nadir of their generation unless
> given a large horizontal vector by the source.
Think of terminal speed, the difference between the brick speed and the
wind speed. Gave some terminal speeds earlier in the thread.
>> >NOTE lumps of ice of tennis ball size require extreme vertical (up)
>> >currents in very wet clouds. Bigger than these, either unnatural
>> >causes
>> Such as?
> Aircraft as you suggest below
>> > or clumping of fallen ice is most likely. Natural icefall will be more
>> > or less spherical; brick-shaped ice has to have an artificial origin.
>> > Natural hail does not fall as isolated single stones.
>> A nucleus is needed. A micrometeor may be one.
> Read about hail formation. Usually starts when a supercooled raindrop
> encounters a fragment of ice on its way up through a Cb cloud.
Do they have such different terminal speeds as to collide a lot?
>> A piece of broken pottery in a superheated liquid does not produce
>> boiling throughout.
> Is this relevant.
Yes if a micrometeor acts analogously to the broken pottery.
> Does 'bumping' continue in the rest of the liquid?
Rather explosive big bubbles usually happen at where the liquid contacts
the smooth hot vessel surface. If lots of other bubbles are present
will they merge?
>> Though Grant pointed out the lack of water mass available in upper
>> atmosphere.
> Good man.
So it would take quite a duration of ascending jet stream with
supersaturated air.
>> Could a brick shape result from cleaving?
> No. Thor uses a hammer, not a chisel. Who/what else would do the cleaving?
When it hits a roof.
>> Some of the ice meteors are reported as 50 kg.
>> In this case as I said I presumed earlier that it could be ice from an
>> opening aircraft undercarriage. But we need to be quite sure of all the
>> science before ruling out anything in general.
> So we are to rule out the most likely explanation and look for something
> really weird?
Just be quite sure we are not overlooking anything about greenhouse
stratospheric - tropospheric cooling.
Eric diverted my followup to Grant's parallel of crop circles to ice
meteors out of this newsgroup. But I see he has not been able to answer
the statistics in my reply. In the database he refered us to, the first
crop circle in UK in May 2001 occurred in an area still under FMD control.
Later in the month the numbers did not differ significantly from 2000. He
has not produced the clearance date of FMD in the other crop circle area
that month for correlation.
Brian Sandle
> In article <10756459...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>,
> Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
>> Rodney Blackall <rbla...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [Snip]
>> > At 30 000 ft and -40 deg saturation is something like 0.1 g per kg of
>> > dry air (I cannot find my upper air tables since I moved house): no
>> > (they would 'burn up' on entry: cirrus clouds precipitate frequently
>> > - hence "mares tails".
>> I wonder what volume they have.
>> Grant says air has mass of only 1 gram per cubic metre at 50 km
>> altitude. So 0.1 g water will saturate a volume of 10 metres cubed. So
>> 100 g will saturate a volume of 100 metres cubed, and 100 kg a volume
>> of 1 cubic kilometer. Whereas Grant said there would be 10kg of water
>> in 2.5 kilometres cubed. Some explanation needed.
> Explanation is very simple, 50 km is a LOT higher than 30 000 ft and
> saturation values far smaller!
>> Does a cometary fragment totally melt in the atmosphere whatever its
>> size?
> Almost instant flash sublimation at those temperatures. (You don't often
> see red-hot ice cubes.)
Yes I see ice would have enough energy in the form of kinetic to melt and
boil itself with a speed relative to earth of only about 1/13 of earth's
orbital speed around the sun.
> [Snip]
>> Isn't `velocity' quite often used as an abbreviation for `magnitude of
>> velocity'?
> It should not, especially in meteorology where direction of movement is
> absolutely critical.
Terminal velocity?
> [Snip]
>> >> Dew is produced without clouds.
>> > Dew does not fall from the sky!
>> But it demonstrates water can come from clear air when there is
>> something to condense on.
> Yeah - and the result is clouds!
No, dew drops on the psint.
> [Snip]
>> > Read about hail formation. Usually starts when a supercooled raindrop
>> > encounters a fragment of ice on its way up through a Cb cloud.
>> Do they have such different terminal speeds as to collide a lot?
> Once a drop / stone has formed its terminal velocity increases and so it
> is overtaken by rising cloud droplets on ascent, and barges through them
> on descent.
So it can pick up s lot of water.
>> >> A piece of broken pottery in a superheated liquid does not produce
>> >> boiling throughout.
>> > Is this relevant.
>> Yes if a micrometeor acts analogously to the broken pottery.
> A micrometeor is NOT analogous to broken pottery.
Well say an imperfection on the base of a smooth vessel which allows the
steam to bubble up from that point.
> [Snip]
>> So it would take quite a duration of ascending jet stream with
>> supersaturated air.
> Jet streams have miniscule vertical vectors.
What breaks the wing off an airplane?
> [Snip]
Touching on the ozone thread, what is done in atmospheric mathematical
modeling in terms of the reduced mass of air which early morning sunlight
will traverse to impinge on cloud at 50 km vs cloud at 10 km say?
Rodney Blackall
<bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
> Rodney Blackall <rbla...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <10756459...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>, Brian Sandle
[Snip]
> >> Isn't `velocity' quite often used as an abbreviation for `magnitude
> >> of velocity'?
> > It should not, especially in meteorology where direction of movement
> > is absolutely critical.
> Terminal velocity?
Direction is implicit - towards the centre of the Earth.
> > [Snip]
> >> >> Dew is produced without clouds.
> >> > Dew does not fall from the sky!
> >> But it demonstrates water can come from clear air when there is
> >> something to condense on.
> > Yeah - and the result is clouds!
> No, dew drops on the psint.
I do not understand "psint".
> > [Snip]
> >> > Read about hail formation. Usually starts when a supercooled
> >> > raindrop encounters a fragment of ice on its way up through a Cb
> >> > cloud.
> >> Do they have such different terminal speeds as to collide a lot?
> > Once a drop / stone has formed its terminal velocity increases and so
> > it is overtaken by rising cloud droplets on ascent, and barges
> > through them on descent.
> So it can pick up s lot of water.
To a maximum size of, say, a grapefruit. And NOT single blocks but lots
and lots of bits - surely you have seen a hailstorm yourself?
[Snip]
> > A micrometeor is NOT analogous to broken pottery.
> Well say an imperfection on the base of a smooth vessel which allows
> the steam to bubble up from that point.
The atmosphere has vast numbers of condensation nuclei for both liquid and
solid particles (see CCN and ICN in glossaries).
> > [Snip]
> >> So it would take quite a duration of ascending jet stream with
> >> supersaturated air.
> > Jet streams have miniscule vertical vectors.
> What breaks the wing off an airplane?
Turbulence on the fringes of jets (usually the cold edge and top side).
Motion may be violent but the depth is usually only a few thousand feet.
Severity of turbulence is partially related to the speed of the a/c
through it.
> > [Snip]
--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03h
Eric Hocking
<sniparoo>
>
> Eric diverted my followup to Grant's parallel of crop circles to ice
> meteors out of this newsgroup.
As requested by participants here - it's off topic as far as they're
concerned.
> But I see he has not been able to answer
> the statistics in my reply. In the database he refered us to, the first
> crop circle in UK in May 2001 occurred in an area still under FMD control.
Hampshire - no. Wrong. Cite provided.
> Later in the month the numbers did not differ significantly from 2000. He
> has not produced the clearance date of FMD in the other crop circle area
> that month for correlation.
Quite disengenous of you to make these accusations in a thread that we
were asked not to continue. But just for the record (and this can be
checked via GoogleGroups) after a couple of replies to you, you cut my
ENTIRE reply, replete with numbers, URLs for all the references and
request for you to back up your argument. When I provided a
chronology chart you totally misinterpreted it to suit your own
preconception of the matter.
Let's pursue this on the remaining ngs that the thread has been left
on and where the thread has been renamed "FMD and Cropcircles (was Re:
Ice meteors, climate, sceptics)" for those at all interested in
pursuing this.
Apologies to s.g.m regulars.
--
Eric Hocking
Brian Sandle
> Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message news:<10756459...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
> <sniparoo>
>>
>> Eric diverted my followup to Grant's parallel of crop circles to ice
>> meteors out of this newsgroup.
> As requested by participants here - it's off topic as far as they're
> concerned.
Grant puts ice meteors in the same category as crop circles, that they may be
hoaxes. Is not that a sort of suggestion that it would be unusual for such a
large block of ice to fall from an aircraft?
>> But I see he has not been able to answer
>> the statistics in my reply. In the database he refered us to, the first
>> crop circle in UK in May 2001 occurred in an area still under FMD control.
> Hampshire - no. Wrong. Cite provided.
We have convered that on nz.general.
>> Later in the month the numbers did not differ significantly from 2000. He
>> has not produced the clearance date of FMD in the other crop circle area
>> that month for correlation.
> Quite disengenous of you to make these accusations in a thread that we
> were asked not to continue.
One person asked us not to.
But just for the record (and this can be
> checked via GoogleGroups) after a couple of replies to you, you cut my
> ENTIRE reply, replete with numbers, URLs for all the references and
> request for you to back up your argument. When I provided a
> chronology chart you totally misinterpreted it to suit your own
> preconception of the matter.
My post here was to draw your attention to the nz.general article that you
had not been replying to, and is again. That the start of the crop circle
season in Wiltshire, where the most occured in UK in 2001, was only the 12th
latest start since about 1978, and that 7 starts had been later, according to
the database.
> Let's pursue this on the remaining ngs that the thread has been left
> on and where the thread has been renamed "FMD and Cropcircles (was Re:
> Ice meteors, climate, sceptics)" for those at all interested in
> pursuing this.
> Apologies to s.g.m regulars.
To whom you seem to wish to have the last word on this matter.
I hope meteorologists do not get hypnotised into two-valued thinking. The
`sceptic' approach is to pander to the low two-valued level of logic, and
create and perpetually try to reiforce the perception that there are two
camps, the one camp the believers, and the other camp the ones who claim that
since some circles are acknowledged as hoaxes then all are. In between is the
real world. The crop circle database has one mention of `fungal ring'. That
term does not produce as many results on a web picture search as the
technical term `fairy ring', which has the same meaning. Maybe there are only
real fairy rings and hoax ones, and none produced otherwise. The real
ones used to be thought to be associated with fairies, and of course
mushrooms sometimes. Then they would be copied for secret magic or religious
ceremonies - sort of `cargo cult' stuff with UFOs maybe. Then there would be
the religious antagonists to that with debunking and detraction.
And I think strange things happen with weather magic, too, sometimes, don't
they? So there is that argument, let alone the `Is there global warming and
if there is is it greenhouse, and if it is greenhouse is it anthropogenic,
and if it is anthropogenic did it start with early agriculture 15,000 years
ago?' sort of thing, battle.
Currently the question of whether rockets poison any catalytic ozone process
in stratosphere which does not mix much, having its temperature inversion, is
being cogitated about on sci.environment. That follows on from the original
discussion of whether ice meteors may be related to greenhouse causing
reduced temperature above a certain levele in the atmosphere. Such
temperature ond loss of ozone can result from polar stratospheric clouds,
and rockets and airplanes put water into the stratosphere.
Eric Hocking
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:<10756459...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
> > <sniparoo>
> >> Eric diverted my followup to Grant's parallel of crop circles to ice
> >> meteors out of this newsgroup.
> > As requested by participants here - it's off topic as far as they're
> > concerned.
> Grant puts ice meteors in the same category as crop circles, that they may
be
> hoaxes. Is not that a sort of suggestion that it would be unusual for such
a
> large block of ice to fall from an aircraft?
OK - then keep the discussion here on ice and pursue FMD elsewhere.
> >> But I see he has not been able to answer
> >> the statistics in my reply. In the database he refered us to, the first
> >> crop circle in UK in May 2001 occurred in an area still under FMD
control.
> > Hampshire - no. Wrong. Cite provided.
> We have convered that on nz.general.
No, *I* covered this on nz.general, this was your response to the cite I
refer to above...
[..]
You snipped the entire discussion and totally ignored the points I raised.
Which is pretty hypocritical considering your excuse for rekindling the
discussion over here was "to draw your attention to the nz.general article
that you had not been replying to, ..." You do realise that I'm not in the
same time zone as you, don't you? Also, there is life outside of usenet,
but hey, you ignore most of my replies, so I'm not surprised you decided to
ignore my post of the 4th saying it'd take a day or two to post the charts
online.
<snip>
> My post here was to draw your attention to the nz.general article that you
> had not been replying to, and is again. That the start of the crop circle
> season in Wiltshire, where the most occured in UK in 2001,
One, just to repeat myself, the total number has nothing to do with the
recording of the first of the year.
Two, if by "where the most occurred in UK in 2001" you mean that as a
percentage of the total UK, 2001 was the greatest for Wiltshire, I suggest
you go and have another look at the database. 1998 and 2000 were the recent
peaks with 54% and 51% respectively. 2001 was 45%
> was only the 12th
> latest start since about 1978, and that 7 starts had been later, according
to
> the database.
Here's the annual average count, in 5 year blocks from the database:
1980-84 3
1985-89 11
1990-94 111
1995-99 110
2000-03 105
Pre-1990 there is scant useful data to be starting trend analyses.
> > Let's pursue this on the remaining ngs that the thread has been left
> > on and where the thread has been renamed "FMD and Cropcircles (was Re:
> > Ice meteors, climate, sceptics)" for those at all interested in
> > pursuing this.
> > Apologies to s.g.m regulars.
>
> To whom you seem to wish to have the last word on this matter.
>
> I hope meteorologists do not get hypnotised into two-valued thinking. The
> `sceptic' approach is to pander to the low two-valued level of logic, and
> create and perpetually try to reiforce the perception that there are two
> camps, the one camp the believers, and the other camp the ones who claim
that
> since some circles are acknowledged as hoaxes then all are.
When the database recorders conclude that a crop formation that spelt out
the word "COCK" and another that spelt out some obscure Canadian band's name
as "probably a hoax" you really have to wonder what their benchmark is for
"real" circles are...
> In between is the
> real world. The crop circle database has one mention of `fungal ring'.
That
> term does not produce as many results on a web picture search as the
> technical term `fairy ring', which has the same meaning.
Fungal ring, is the "technical term" and the botanical phenomenon is well
understood.
Why introduce fairies into the discussion?
> Maybe there are only
> real fairy rings and hoax ones, and none produced otherwise.
> The real
> ones used to be thought to be associated with fairies, and of course
> mushrooms sometimes. Then they would be copied for secret magic or
religious
> ceremonies - sort of `cargo cult' stuff with UFOs maybe. Then there would
be
> the religious antagonists to that with debunking and detraction.
Again with the wild conjecture and non sequiturs. "real" and "hoax" fairy
rings? "Religious antagonists" debunking fairy rings? Where do you get this
bunkum?
> And I think strange things happen with weather magic, too, sometimes,
don't
> they?
Weather "magic" now? Your first argument to me in this ng started with
"Any decent scientist knows
(a) correlation is not causation
(b) to check the data."
You missed
(c) magic is not a scientific theorem
> So there is that argument,
Magic is not an arguement position?
> let alone the `Is there global warming and
> if there is is it greenhouse, and if it is greenhouse is it anthropogenic,
> and if it is anthropogenic did it start with early agriculture 15,000
years
> ago?' sort of thing, battle.
I have never heard of anyone sane arguing that anthropogenic driven global
warming started 15,000 years ago. Cite?
> Currently the question of whether rockets poison any catalytic ozone
process
> in stratosphere which does not mix much, having its temperature inversion,
is
> being cogitated about on sci.environment. That follows on from the
original
> discussion of whether ice meteors may be related to greenhouse causing
> reduced temperature above a certain levele in the atmosphere. Such
> temperature ond loss of ozone can result from polar stratospheric clouds,
> and rockets and airplanes put water into the stratosphere.
But, as you say,
"Any decent scientist knows
(a) correlation is not causation
(b) to check the data."
Which is it then? If (a) above is correct, neither my conjecture that
there's a correlation between FMD and the late recording of circles in the
UK and your rumination that there's a correlation between shuttle launches
and ozone layer thinning are not valid. You seem to think correlation is a
valid tool for your arguments, backed by speculation and lack of an
understanding of chemistry, yet not valid for mine, backed by data and
references.
Feel free to have the last word - but try not to introduce the "energy
jamming" by the Russians during the moon shots, OK? Try to stick to the
point at hand.
Brian Sandle
> "Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:10761390...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
>> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> > Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:<10756459...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
>> > <sniparoo>
>> >> Eric diverted my followup to Grant's parallel of crop circles to ice
>> >> meteors out of this newsgroup.
>> > As requested by participants here - it's off topic as far as they're
>> > concerned.
>> Grant puts ice meteors in the same category as crop circles, that they may
> be
>> hoaxes. Is not that a sort of suggestion that it would be unusual for such
> a
>> large block of ice to fall from an aircraft?
> OK - then keep the discussion here on ice and pursue FMD elsewhere.
OK I have set followups to alp.paranormal.crop-circles
>> >> But I see he has not been able to answer
>> >> the statistics in my reply. In the database he refered us to, the first
>> >> crop circle in UK in May 2001 occurred in an area still under FMD
> control.
>> > Hampshire - no. Wrong. Cite provided.
>> We have convered that on nz.general.
> No, *I* covered this on nz.general, this was your response to the cite I
> refer to above...
Sorry, I should have said that you have already made a comment about
Hampshire.
But I was not getting very far with what you were posting. For example you
gave in support of your Hampshire comment:
http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/scudamore.html
It was published on 20 Mar and the only date it gave:
British Waterways will be re-opening some canals from 26 March and is
discussing re-opening some towpaths with local authorities;
> [..]
> You snipped the entire discussion and totally ignored the points I raised.
> Which is pretty hypocritical considering your excuse for rekindling the
> discussion over here was "to draw your attention to the nz.general article
> that you had not been replying to, ..." You do realise that I'm not in the
> same time zone as you, don't you? Also, there is life outside of usenet,
> but hey, you ignore most of my replies, so I'm not surprised you decided to
> ignore my post of the 4th saying it'd take a day or two to post the charts
> online.
I tried to economise for the moment by getting to the salient point, by
replying:
"How about you do a nice little table of when and where crop circles
appeared in UK with the dates that restrictions were lifted, as that is
your claim and it is a bit hard to look up. Then we can try to decide what
percentage level of significance can be attached to any correlation in the
data set, given the amount of data."
You did decide to turn attention to Wiltshire, but I am not totally convinced
by your dismissal of the investigators `taped-off' claim in Hampshire.
> <snip>
>> My post here was to draw your attention to the nz.general article that you
>> had not been replying to, and is again. That the start of the crop circle
>> season in Wiltshire, where the most occured in UK in 2001,
> One, just to repeat myself, the total number has nothing to do with the
> recording of the first of the year.
I am justing dealing then with the first each year. Though earlier you were
talking about the masses appearing there in late May.
> Two, if by "where the most occurred in UK in 2001" you mean that as a
> percentage of the total UK, 2001 was the greatest for Wiltshire, I suggest
> you go and have another look at the database. 1998 and 2000 were the recent
> peaks with 54% and 51% respectively. 2001 was 45%
Yes, what I was thinking, that it may be the most overall. Therefore to have
more at a point in time there is not so unlikely.
>> was only the 12th
>> latest start since about 1978, and that 7 starts had been later, according
> to
>> the database.
> Here's the annual average count, in 5 year blocks from the database:
> 1980-84 3
> 1985-89 11
> 1990-94 111
> 1995-99 110
> 2000-03 105
> Pre-1990 there is scant useful data to be starting trend analyses.
Well in 1991 the the first for Wiltshire was Jun 9. 96 Jun 1.
>> > Let's pursue this on the remaining ngs that the thread has been left
>> > on and where the thread has been renamed "FMD and Cropcircles (was Re:
>> > Ice meteors, climate, sceptics)" for those at all interested in
>> > pursuing this.
>> > Apologies to s.g.m regulars.
>>
>> To whom you seem to wish to have the last word on this matter.
>>
>> I hope meteorologists do not get hypnotised into two-valued thinking. The
>> `sceptic' approach is to pander to the low two-valued level of logic, and
>> create and perpetually try to reiforce the perception that there are two
>> camps, the one camp the believers, and the other camp the ones who claim
> that
>> since some circles are acknowledged as hoaxes then all are.
> When the database recorders conclude that a crop formation that spelt out
> the word "COCK" and another that spelt out some obscure Canadian band's name
> as "probably a hoax" you really have to wonder what their benchmark is for
> "real" circles are...
It is simple-minded to think a scientist would accept that just because one
group of people hoaxed a crop circle that it would have to be the same group
writing extra words in it. Ever heard of tagging competition?
>> In between is the
>> real world. The crop circle database has one mention of `fungal ring'.
> That
>> term does not produce as many results on a web picture search as the
>> technical term `fairy ring', which has the same meaning.
> Fungal ring, is the "technical term" and the botanical phenomenon is well
> understood.
> Why introduce fairies into the discussion?
The term has captivated scientists. They use it a lot: see Medline. Even
fairiefungin a potent toxin.
>> Maybe there are only
>> real fairy rings and hoax ones, and none produced otherwise.
>> The real
>> ones used to be thought to be associated with fairies, and of course
>> mushrooms sometimes. Then they would be copied for secret magic or
> religious
>> ceremonies - sort of `cargo cult' stuff with UFOs maybe. Then there would
> be
>> the religious antagonists to that with debunking and detraction.
> Again with the wild conjecture and non sequiturs. "real" and "hoax" fairy
> rings?
Indeed.
"Religious antagonists" debunking fairy rings? Where do you get this
> bunkum?
There is religious competition in some circles.
Then there are the things like Transcendental Meditation about which you will
find a lot of controversy on the net. Have you seen the photos of
`levitation' of persons in the lotus posture? They are of course fun photos
playing on the word `levitation' which is really about engendering a mind
state by bouncing in the lotus posture. Then someone calls them hoaxers when
they are photographed at the top of their bounce and it is called
`levitation', which normally people thinking to be meaing floating in the qir
for longer periods.
>> And I think strange things happen with weather magic, too, sometimes,
> don't
>> they?
> Weather "magic" now? Your first argument to me in this ng started with
> "Any decent scientist knows
> (a) correlation is not causation
> (b) to check the data."
> You missed
> (c) magic is not a scientific theorem
It is interesting that a number of physical scientists, including Sir William
Crookes had cnnection with the Theosophical Society, which studies latent
powers.
>> So there is that argument,
> Magic is not an arguement position?
Argument referred back to the `religious' antagonism.
>> let alone the `Is there global warming and
>> if there is is it greenhouse, and if it is greenhouse is it anthropogenic,
>> and if it is anthropogenic did it start with early agriculture 15,000
> years
>> ago?' sort of thing, battle.
> I have never heard of anyone sane arguing that anthropogenic driven global
> warming started 15,000 years ago. Cite?
http://kenethmiles.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_kenethmiles_archive.html
Wild rice was first cultivated 7500 years ago, and irrigated
paddies started appearing in the archeological record around
5000 years.
As Ruddiman concludes "[i]n summary, the 'anomalous' late
Holocene CH4 increase cannot be explained by nature forcing, but
it coincides closely with innovations in agriculture that
produce methane in abundance."
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide atmospherics concentrations have oscillated in a
similar fashion to methane as the earth moves through it's full
orbital cycle. Approx. 8000 years ago, a similar event happened.
[...]
"(1) clearance must begin near
8000 yrs BP (when the CO2 rise began) on a small, yet
'non-negligible' scale; (2) clearance must grow large enough by
~2000 yrs BP to explain ~80% of the pre-industrial CO2 anomaly;
and (3) the negative oscillation of 4 to 10 ppm after 2000 years
BP also need an explanation."
>> Currently the question of whether rockets poison any catalytic ozone
> process
>> in stratosphere which does not mix much, having its temperature inversion,
> is
>> being cogitated about on sci.environment. That follows on from the
> original
>> discussion of whether ice meteors may be related to greenhouse causing
>> reduced temperature above a certain levele in the atmosphere. Such
>> temperature ond loss of ozone can result from polar stratospheric clouds,
>> and rockets and airplanes put water into the stratosphere.
> But, as you say,
> "Any decent scientist knows
> (a) correlation is not causation
> (b) to check the data."
> Which is it then? If (a) above is correct, neither my conjecture that
> there's a correlation between FMD and the late recording of circles in the
> UK and your rumination that there's a correlation between shuttle launches
> and ozone layer thinning are not valid.
If you followed my continuation on sci.environment I point out that when
solar activity is partialled out the correlation drops by a good factor. I
yet have to put in halocarbons and parital out both. Maybe there will still
be something to explain.
You seem to think correlation is a
> valid tool for your arguments, backed by speculation and lack of an
> understanding of chemistry,
No-one knows rocket chemistry totally. As for the ozone reactions I have been
giving they are quite accepted.
yet not valid for mine, backed by data and
> references.
You said there was a cluster (starting late) when the FMD restricitons were
lifted. Then you say quantities do not matter. So it is hard understanding
how to communicate to you. What is a cluster if not a quantity?
And your statistics are a bit licentious. The database gives a creation as
mid April, and you give it an exact date as Apr 15. I do not know how it is
known what creation dates are anyway. Better to use discovery dates.
> Feel free to have the last word - but try not to introduce the "energy
> jamming" by the Russians during the moon shots, OK? Try to stick to the
> point at hand.
They allowed the energy, should I say frequency, with the English language
transmission to get through.
I think jamming casts light on detracting.
Eric Hocking
"Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:10763293...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > "Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
> > news:10761390...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
> >> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> > Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<10756459...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
> >> > <sniparoo>
> >> >> Eric diverted my followup to Grant's parallel of crop circles to ice
> >> >> meteors out of this newsgroup.
> >> > As requested by participants here - it's off topic as far as they're
> >> > concerned.
<snip>
> OK I have set followups to alp.paranormal.crop-circles
And I have added sci.skeptics - just didn't want the n.gen and s.g.met
people to think that I can't back up my argument.
> >> >> But I see he has not been able to answer
> >> >> the statistics in my reply. In the database he refered us to, the
first
> >> >> crop circle in UK in May 2001 occurred in an area still under FMD
> > control.
> >> > Hampshire - no. Wrong. Cite provided.
> >> We have convered that on nz.general.
> > No, *I* covered this on nz.general, this was your response to the cite I
> > refer to above...
>
> Sorry, I should have said that you have already made a comment about
> Hampshire.
> But I was not getting very far with what you were posting. For example you
> gave in support of your Hampshire comment:
> http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/scudamore.html
> It was published on 20 Mar and the only date it gave:
> British Waterways will be re-opening some canals from 26 March and is
> discussing re-opening some towpaths with local authorities;
For starters - this is the notification of closure, but you did miss, under
the heading
"What you can do now" ... (their emphasis on "now");
"In some places you can:
- stay in caravans or tents
- walk, ride, cycle or drive on rights of way or in open countryside . . ."
Let's remember that there were no cases of FMD in Hampshire.
So let's recap.
Some RoW were open in late March.
2nd April <http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1659.html>
"Rights of Way will be assessed starting tomorrow with a proposal to re-open
some by the end of the week. Code of conduct signs for walkers using these
newly opened public rights of way are to replace 'closed' signs."
3rd April National Nature Reserves are opening
<http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story.asp?ID=263>
15th April RoW status
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010525064645/http://www.hants.gov.uk/maps/path
s/su86.html>
Note that the circle was on the field between Old Winchester Hill fort and
Meonvale Farm, bounded by two open bridleways and a minor (sealed) road.
18th April many NNRs are open - most notably Old Winchester Hill fort.
<http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/warning1.asp?P=5&S=>
4 May Hampshire County Council is to review its policy on re-opening
footpaths and other rights of way in light of recent Government guidance for
Local Authorities to accelerate the re-opening of footpaths in areas free of
Foot and Mouth disease.
Obviously not fast enough as,
8th may - Hansard "There is no reason why the worst performing authorities
should not achieve a similar or better performance. I urge all councils, and
especially those without infected areas, to make significant progress
towards reopening their rights of way wherever it is safe to do so."
<http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo01
0508/text/10508w10.htm>
10th May Significantly almost 20% of the rights of way network and the
majority of countryside sites are already open
<http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1719.html> and it is noted that "Farmers
will be able to apply to the Council Council for new 'No Entry' signs to
close paths.." only if specific livestock related conditions apply.
So, from the Crop Circle Field Report: uk01ab
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/reports/uk01ab.html>
"The formation, located south west of the hill fort, was seen first by farm
hand Ernie who noticed it from his cottage on the morning of 12 May."
(remembering that the NNR and the bridleways surrounding this field have
been open for 3 weeks)
"I was given permission to conduct scientific tests in the formation by the
farmer and I went in on Sunday 20 May..."
Point 1. If FMD restrictions were in place, the farmer would have been
breaking the law to allow people onto restricted land.
Point 2. From the above references you can see that there were no
restrictions on access to the site or on the surrounding Rights of Way due
to FMD. Indeed they were lifted 3 weeks previously.
Point 3. According to the crop circle site, the Meonvale Farm circle was
the first in 2001.
Therefore my statement that the first circles in 2001 in the UK only started
to appear in areas where FMD restrictions had been lifted.
Oh, and let's just visit the article written specifically to debunk the
position I take;
"Foot and Mouth Disease 2001 - correcting the media myths"
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/index.html>
It says, "There has been much disinformation put about by the media,
claiming that the 2001 season only really took off after the re-opening of
the countryside after the Foot and Mouth disease closures. As you can see
from the diagram above (which I created for this purpose).There was one
reported crop circle (inside a Foot and Mouth restricted area at Winchester
Hill in Hampshire) reported in April, which compares with no circles in 1996
and only two in 1997 and 1998."
Incorrect.
1. The Hampshire circle was created in MAY.
The first and only circle found in April 2001 in the UK was created by an
artist in Somerset.
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb2?d=uk01aa> .
2. The Hampshire circle was created _ after FMD restrictions had been
lifted_
<snip>
> I tried to economise for the moment by getting to the salient point, by
> replying:
> "How about you do a nice little table of when and where crop circles
> appeared in UK with the dates that restrictions were lifted, as that is
> your claim and it is a bit hard to look up. Then we can try to decide what
> percentage level of significance can be attached to any correlation in the
> data set, given the amount of data."
>
> You did decide to turn attention to Wiltshire,
As I explaine - it comprises nearly 50% of the total in the past 5-6 years
AND had pretty good FMD references to RoW closure.
> but I am not totally convinced
> by your dismissal of the investigators `taped-off' claim in Hampshire.
Hope you're convinced now...
> > <snip>
> >> My post here was to draw your attention to the nz.general article that
you
> >> had not been replying to, and is again. That the start of the crop
circle
> >> season in Wiltshire, where the most occured in UK in 2001,
> > One, just to repeat myself, the total number has nothing to do with the
> > recording of the first of the year.
>
> I am justing dealing then with the first each year. Though earlier you
were
> talking about the masses appearing there in late May.
Please try to get your story straight.
That line contradicts each and every statement I have posted on this
subject. I have repeatedly said that it is not the total number that is
important, but the timing and distribution.
Quote one post that this has not been my stated position.
> > Two, if by "where the most occurred in UK in 2001" you mean that as a
> > percentage of the total UK, 2001 was the greatest for Wiltshire, I
suggest
> > you go and have another look at the database. 1998 and 2000 were the
recent
> > peaks with 54% and 51% respectively. 2001 was 45%
>
> Yes, what I was thinking, that it may be the most overall. Therefore to
have
> more at a point in time there is not so unlikely.
Hang on, hang on "I was thinkg that it may be the most overall"?
Your immediately previous line in this post is "I am justing dealing then
with the first each year.".
Which is it. Total or First. No wonder you quote me incorrectly, you can't
even remember YOUR position on this discussion.
> >> was only the 12th
> >> latest start since about 1978, and that 7 starts had been later,
according
> > to
> >> the database.
>
> > Here's the annual average count, in 5 year blocks from the database:
> > 1980-84 3
> > 1985-89 11
> > 1990-94 111
> > 1995-99 110
> > 2000-03 105
> > Pre-1990 there is scant useful data to be starting trend analyses.
> Well in 1991 the the first for Wiltshire was Jun 9.
WOW - from a total of 6 for the month for the entire UK, and only 52 for the
entire year.
> . 96 Jun 1.
Yep - pretty remarkable variance that, and that first one in 1996 was also a
hoax!
Only 83 for the entire UK that year. I wonder if BSE had anything to do
with that?
I decided to restrict my look back to the same period as the crop
researchers did for their article on "Foot and Mouth Disease 2001 -
correcting the media myths". Seemed reasonable since they thought that this
was a good enough period to demonstrate a trend.
<snip>
> > When the database recorders conclude that a crop formation that spelt
out
> > the word "COCK" and another that spelt out some obscure Canadian band's
name
> > as "probably a hoax" you really have to wonder what their benchmark is
for
> > "real" circles are...
>
> It is simple-minded to think a scientist would accept that just because
one
> group of people hoaxed a crop circle that it would have to be the same
group
> writing extra words in it. Ever heard of tagging competition?
You know perfectly well that that was not the point I was making, but since
you repeatedly attempt to misquote me, let me reiterate.
My objection was not that these were hoaxes, but that the researcher's
approach to categorising circles is predisposed to non-manmade circles. I
gave these as examples of that bias.
<snip>
> > Why introduce fairies into the discussion?
>
> The term has captivated scientists. They use it a lot: see Medline. Even
> fairiefungin a potent toxin.
Junk scientists get as much print space as any on Medline.
<snip>
> > Again with the wild conjecture and non sequiturs. "real" and "hoax"
fairy
> > rings?
>
> Indeed.
I'm not going to be deliberately obtuse and take this to mean "indeed there
are real and fake fairy rings" instead of "Again with the wild conjecture
and non sequiturs".
What the hell is a hoax fairy ring and to what purpose are they constructed?
> "Religious antagonists" debunking fairy rings? Where do you get this
> > bunkum?
>
> There is religious competition in some circles.
For debunking fairy rings? Oh, please...
> Then there are the things like Transcendental Meditation about which you
will
... snip because it is yet another non-related tangent. Is there anything
you don't believe in btw?
> >> And I think strange things happen with weather magic, too, sometimes,
> > don't
> >> they?
>
> > Weather "magic" now? Your first argument to me in this ng started with
> > "Any decent scientist knows
> > (a) correlation is not causation
> > (b) to check the data."
> > You missed
> > (c) magic is not a scientific theorem
> It is interesting that a number of physical scientists, including Sir
William
> Crookes had cnnection with the Theosophical Society, which studies latent
> powers.
Yeah, yeah and Newton was into astrology. Try quoting a scientist that
hasn't been dead 100 years.
> >> So there is that argument,
> > Magic is not an arguement position?
>
> Argument referred back to the `religious' antagonism.
>
> >> let alone the `Is there global warming and
> >> if there is is it greenhouse, and if it is greenhouse is it
anthropogenic,
> >> and if it is anthropogenic did it start with early agriculture 15,000
> > years
> >> ago?' sort of thing, battle.
>
> > I have never heard of anyone sane arguing that anthropogenic driven
global
> > warming started 15,000 years ago. Cite?
> http://kenethmiles.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_kenethmiles_archive.html
Interesting - you did rather exaggerate the 15,000 years though...
<snip rocketry - I read it, but leave s.g.m to discuss>
>
> yet not valid for mine, backed by data and
> > references.
>
> You said there was a cluster (starting late) when the FMD restricitons
were
> lifted.
Quote the post. This from my very first post:
"During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
but the farmer from crop fields.
During the ban no crop circles were recorded in the English
countryside.
The first crop circle in England to be recorded was the day after the
walking ban was lifted in that county."
Note the use of the word "first". Throughout this conversation you have
misquoted and misrepresented my statements.
> Then you say quantities do not matter.
Not "then" - "from the outset".
> So it is hard understanding
> how to communicate to you. What is a cluster if not a quantity?
SInce it has no bearing on my stated position nor posted content - who
cares?
> And your statistics are a bit licentious. The database gives a creation as
> mid April, and you give it an exact date as Apr 15.
I find it hard to represent mid-April as a date function in Excel, so 15th
is pretty good for mid-month, I use 21st for late, btw.
> I do not know how it is
> known what creation dates are anyway. Better to use discovery dates.
All the data I quote, as does the crop circle research "distribution
analysis", is based on the observed dates.
> > Feel free to have the last word - but try not to introduce the "energy
> > jamming" by the Russians during the moon shots, OK? Try to stick to the
> > point at hand.
>
> They allowed the energy, should I say frequency, with the English language
> transmission to get through.
>
> I think jamming casts light on detracting.
I have no idea what you mean, and as I said, I have no desire to discuss it.
Eric Hocking
"Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<c096gc$1di$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> [note follow-ups set to alt.paranormal.crop-circles and sci.skeptic]
> "Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:10763293...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
> > Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > "Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:10761390...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
> > >> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >> > Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:<10756459...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
> > >> > <sniparoo>
> > OK I have set followups to alp.paranormal.crop-circles
> As I explaine[d] - it comprises nearly 50% of the total in the past 5-6 years
<snip fairy and magic diversion>
> > [you contend use of correlation is valid for your argument] yet not valid for mine, backed by data and
<snip energy jamming diversion>
So, three days later and no response Brian. Rather ironic given your
statement at the top of this post "But I see he [ie. me] has not been
able to answer the statistics in my reply."
--
Eric Hocking
Brian Sandle
> Well, this post seems to have killed the discussion.
I'll just take a little bit at the moment
> "Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<c096gc$1di$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
>> [note follow-ups set to alt.paranormal.crop-circles and sci.skeptic]
>> "Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
>> news:10763293...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
[...]
>> The first crop circle in England to be recorded was the day after the
>> walking ban was lifted in that county."
>>
>> Note the use of the word "first". Throughout this conversation you have
>> misquoted and misrepresented my statements.
>>
>> > Then you say quantities do not matter.
>>
>> Not "then" - "from the outset".
>>
>> > So it is hard understanding
>> > how to communicate to you. What is a cluster if not a quantity?
>>
>> SInce it has no bearing on my stated position nor posted content - who
>> cares?
So going back quite a while, you were talking of the first *circles*:
I wrote:
>> Search your database for any country April 2001, there is only one result,
>> and that is an acknowledged art work.
You wrote:
> And this has what to do with my statement about the timing of crop circles
> appearing in May in areas where blanket bans on access to rights of way
were
> being eased?
You have been using April events in other years to bolster your statistics.
If they were not occurring anywhere much then in 2001 then that could be the
reason why they were not occurring in Wiltshire in April 2001.
Eric Hocking
news:4c7fcdcb7...@cropcircleresearch.com...
> Ooooh. someone's referring to an article on my site....
Yep, we've been bandying about your data for a week or so now.
> In article <fa173f58.04021...@posting.google.com>,
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > Point 1. If FMD restrictions were in place, the farmer would have
been
> > > breaking the law to allow people onto restricted land.
>
> Wrong. The crop circle appeared before people visited it. That Old
> Winchester Hill formation appeared during the time when access was
> restricted. Lucy visited it when restrictions had been removed.
From the report on your site
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/reports/uk01ab.html>
"[the circle was]...located south west of the hill fort, was seen first by
farm hand Ernie who noticed it from his cottage on the morning of 12 May."
> > > Point 2. From the above references you can see that there were no
> > > restrictions on access to the site or on the surrounding Rights of Way
> > > due to FMD. Indeed they were lifted 3 weeks previously.
>
> No they weren't. My father is the local countryside warden for that area
> and I can state that when that crop circle appeared it was most definitely
> restricted due to foot and mouth.
Your statement that this field was covered by FMD restrictions on the 12th
May, the earliest date we have for the circle is incorrect - regardless of
you recollection or your father's.
I gave a pretty thorough chronology of the Government and County
directives on FMD - these categorically state that Hampshire rights of way
and were opening during April/May. Particular note should be made of the
County directive c1730 below which outlines the directive from MAFF that
says it considered it safe to reopen RoW. Note also that Hampshire was
listed as one of the counties that was slow on responding to this directive
in government question time as recorded in the 8th May Hansard. Lastly, note
that the Fort reserve bordering the field was opened 18th April and
particularly note the RoW status map of 15th May
show that all the Rights of Way surrounding or accessing the field were also
open.
The directive from MAFF in March categorically states that the restrictions
will be most carefully applied in fields where there are stock and
recommended even then that paths crossing other fields should be considered
for opening.
28th March This is the Governement Order particular to FMD - it outlines
exactly what the restrictions are.
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010413172211/www.maff.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/
fmd/business/guidancel.asp>
Guidance for local authorities in England on public access to the
countryside on the rights of way network.
Including guidance on the Foot and mouth disease (Amendment) (England)
(No.4) and Amending Orders 2001
Remember, there were no outbreaks of FMD in Hampshire, therefore none of
point 5 on this page applies, but points 6 to 9 apply directly to RoW.
2nd April <http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1659.html>
"Rights of Way will be assessed starting tomorrow with a proposal to re-open
some by the end of the week. Code of conduct signs for walkers using these
newly opened public rights of way are to replace 'closed' signs."
3rd April National Nature Reserves are opening
<http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story.asp?ID=263>
18th April many NNRs are open - most notably Old Winchester Hill fort.
<http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/warning1.asp?P=5&S=>
27th April <http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1697.html>
"FARMERS HELP COUNTY OPEN UP MORE PATHS
Hampshire County Council's strategy to re-open rural paths is now well
underway. 4,000 letters have been sent
to farmers, landowners and parish councils to ask them to identify paths on
their land without livestock nearby
that might be suitable. The response from the farming community has been
overwhelming, and more than 250 rural
paths have now been re-opened."
4th May <http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1730.html>
"NEW PROPOSALS FOR RE-OPENING RIGHTS OF WAY
Hampshire County Council is to review its policy on re-opening footpaths and
other rights of way in light of recent Government guidance for Local
Authorities to accelerate the re-opening of footpaths in areas free of Foot
and Mouth disease. The Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)
advised that it considers it safe to open all public footpaths except those
which cross farm land where there is no fence or wire separating susceptible
farm livestock from walkers on the paths."
8th may - Hansard
<http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo01
0508/text/10508w10.htm>
"There is no reason why the worst performing authorities should not achieve
a similar or better performance. I urge all councils, and especially those
without infected areas, to make significant progress towards reopening their
rights of way wherever it is safe to do so."
15th May (I had mistakenly said April) RoW status
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010525064645/http://www.hants.gov.uk/maps/path
s/su86.html>
Note that the circle was on the field between Old Winchester Hill fort and
Meonvale Farm, bounded by two open bridleways and a minor (sealed) road.
This status report was issued on a Tuesday and shows the status of those
public rigths of way around the field for the preceding weekend.
> > > Point 3. According to the crop circle site, the Meonvale Farm circle
> > > was the first in 2001.
> Indeed. So what?
The "So what?" is that the above references show that this field was not
under FMD restrictions and that the NNR above it and the RoWs surrounding it
all had been opened just a few weeks earlier to this appearing. On your
site you make particular reference to it as proof that circles appeared in
FMD restricted zones.
This is not the case.
> There were actually a few formations which appeared
> during the F&M restrictions. There were also a couple in Wiltshire.
I'm presuming you're talking about the Pewsey and Barbury Castle sites?
I have a number of RoW notices that show that the RoWs were being opened
around Pewsey from 11th April. As soon as I can identify the paths in the
RoW Orders issued by Wiltshire council I'll be sure to share them with you
(on another PC as I write this).
As for Barbury Castle, it was recorded on the 29th May and no mention or
estimation is made of when it was built.
For the record, Wiltshire Council announced a reopening of RoW across the
county on the 15th May.
See the 24th May press release:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010605091722/www.wiltshire.gov.uk/latest_news/
getnews.php3?id=46>
Id: 46 - Thursday 24th May 2001 09:50 - Press Release
PR 401 Wiltshire opens up for May Bank Holiday
The May Bank Holiday will see the majority of Wiltshire's Rights of Way
legally reopened - the first couThee May Bank Holiday will see the majority
of Wiltshire's Rights of Way legally reopened - the first county in the
South West to adopt such a policy.
On 15th May Wiltshire County Council's Policy and Resources committee
announced a reopening of Rights of Way across the county with some
exceptions. [I will find these exceptions for you Paul]
From Saturday 26th May the only paths to be legally closed will be those
going directly through farmyards or those used as milking tracks. Farmers
will be issued with new notices to be put up only in those locations.
There is also an option for farmers to erect a notice asking walkers to stay
out of fields with large concentrations of livestock. This will only be an
advisory notice and will not be legally binding.
++++ end quote
Note that as from 15th there are only SOME exceptions to the lifting of
restrictions and from the 26th there are NO LEGALLY BINDING restrictions at
all in Wiltshire.
> > > Therefore my statement that the first circles in 2001 in the UK only
> > > started to appear in areas where FMD restrictions had been lifted.
> Sorry. Incorrect.
Please read the above and indicate where I am in error.
> > > Incorrect.
> > > 1. The Hampshire circle was created in MAY.
> Hmm. I shall double-check my original notes and photos, and correct the
> article if applicable.
It's applicable.
<snip>
> > > 2. The Hampshire circle was created _ after FMD restrictions had been
> > > lifted_
>
> Again, wrong. I know this from first hand experience, as I live in the
area.
This may well be - but I have provided council and government references to
show that you have your dates and recollection is wrong.
Please indicate where the government and council orders and directives
disagree with my statement.
> > > "During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
> > > government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
> > > but the farmer from crop fields. During the ban no crop circles were
> > > recorded in the English countryside.
> This statement is incorrect.
Please indicate exactly where this statement is incorrect, in light of the
references I gave above
> > So, three days later and no response Brian. Rather ironic given your
> > statement at the top of this post "But I see he [ie. me] has not been
> > able to answer the statistics in my reply."
>
> Well, I'm rather late into this thread myself, as I tend to only lurk in
> here infrequently, due to the very high noise/signal ratio of intelligence
> discussion.
On this we agree. In fact back in 2001 when you and I discussed this we
stood off and agreed to disagree. While I'm willing to repursue this, I'm
about to leave on a 3 week business trip, so my responses may be a little
erratic over the next few weeks.
Eric Hocking
Paul, I'm having to access this thread via Google, so if you wish me
to respond to any of your posts, could you either remove the
Archive-NO command or cc me in email? Thanks.
<snip>
> > There were actually a few formations which appeared
> > during the F&M restrictions. There were also a couple in Wiltshire.
>
> I'm presuming you're talking about the Pewsey and Barbury Castle sites?
>
> I have a number of RoW notices that show that the RoWs were being opened
> around Pewsey from 11th April. As soon as I can identify the paths in the
> RoW Orders issued by Wiltshire council I'll be sure to share them with you
> (on another PC as I write this).
I worked out why I wasn't able to use these RoW opening notices for
the Pewsey area. The RoW notices from the Wiltshire council only
applied to RoW in the restricted area. This map, from the Wiltshire
council site shows the FMD Restriced Area for Wilsthire.
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010626054724/www.wiltshire.gov.uk/download/planning/wiltsmap.gif>
In Pewsey it runs north of the railway line.
The Pewsey White Horse and the field that the circle appeared in are
south of the railway line.
This circle appeared in an area OUTSIDE of the FMD Restricted zone in
Wiltshire.
(on the above map, it's about where the s in "Manningford Abbots"
appears)
From March/April RoW were being opened outside of the restriced area.
Rather than give you the complete chronology, here are the salient
news releases and Orders.
[If you want to look up the complete lot, here's the list to review
from February through June:
PR264, 267, 271, 275, 364, 370, 372, 373, 377, 378, 380, 393, 401, 420
Id: 23 3rd May, Id: 35 11th May, Id: 47 24th May, Id: 48&49 24th May
(these are the declarations with the RoW schedules attached)]
To continue:
Id: 18 - Friday 27th April 2001 15:00 - Press Release
PR 373 Latest footpath re opening guidelines
Using the most recent guidelines from MAFF, Wiltshire County Council,
in consultation with local Parish and Town Councils, is continuing to
reopen various lengths of paths and bridleways across the county.
However, at present not all paths are open.
[...]
The public are requested to keep dogs on leads, to avoid contact with
cattle, sheep, pigs and Deer and not to walk through pasture land.
Note - "public are requested ... not to walk through PASTURE land"
(nothing about crops)
Lastly, this Order released by the Wiltshire County Council:
<http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/latest_news/getnews.php3?id=48>
[...]
Id: 48 - Thursday 24th May 2001 17:10 - General News
Foot And Mouth Disease - Declaration Opening Rights Of Way
Wiltshire County Council
Foot And Mouth Disease - Declaration Opening Rights Of Way In The
District Council Areas Of West Wiltshire, Kennet And Salisbury
Further To Article 37A Of The Foot And Mouth Disease Order 1983 (As
Amended)
Wiltshire County Council declares open the Rights of Way network in
the District Council areas of West Wiltshire, Kennet and Salisbury in
the County of Wiltshire WITH THE EXCEPTION OF those Rights of Way
which go through farmyards and/or farm buildings on farms or which are
tracks used to move livestock. This declaration replaces all earlier
declarations in the District Council areas of West Wiltshire, Kennet
and Salisbury.
This declaration takes effect at 5 p.m. on Friday 25th May 2001 and
continues in force until further notice.
[...]
So to summarise:
1st circle for 2001 - Hampshire 11th/12th May
FMD restrictions just lifted
15th May status of RoW surrounding field
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010525064645/http://www.hants.gov.uk/maps/paths/su86.html>
2nd circle for 2001 - Wiltshire 25th May- covered above.
FMD restrictions just lifted
3nd circle for 2001 - Wiltshire 29th May
FMD restrictions lifted 26th May
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010605091722/www.wiltshire.gov.uk/latest_news/
getnews.php3?id=46>
Id: 46 - Thursday 24th May 2001 09:50 - Press Release
PR 401 Wiltshire opens up for May Bank Holiday
The May Bank Holiday will see the majority of Wiltshire's Rights of
Way legally reopened - the first county in the South West to adopt
such a policy.
[...]
From Saturday 26th May the only paths to be legally closed will be
those
going directly through farmyards or those used as milking tracks.
Farmers
will be issued with new notices to be put up only in those locations.
That just about rounds me out as far as offering references to show
that:
In the UK in 2001, the appearance of the first crop circles coincided
with FMD restrictions being lifted by the relevant County Councils on
access to the fields where the circles were subsequently found.
--
Eric Hocking
Brian Sandle
[...]
> In the UK in 2001, the appearance of the first crop circles coincided
> with FMD restrictions being lifted by the relevant County Councils on
> access to the fields where the circles were subsequently found.
That correlation is showing a bit more clearly now.
Note I have recently pointed out a fair correlation between space shuttle
launches and ozone loss between 1980 and 2002. That is about 0.4 when it is
done by rank correlation and 0.6 by Spearman's. The significance level is
95%. That is a bit of a puzzle since shuttles are not the only rockets
launched though they are quite large.
Then I introduced solar activity, so three variable are interacting. Solar
activity is known to increase ozone, (unless it gets too strong, when it
destroys it.)
I then partially correlated shuttle launches and ozone level holding solar
activity mathematically partialled out. The partial correlation of shuttle
flight numbers to ozone loss then dropped right down to 0.2. That indicates
that the original fairly large correlation of flights to ozone loss was
tending to be a spurious result.
It turned out that the correlation between shuttle flights and solar activity
was about -0.6 (Spearman's). This means shuttles were not being sent up so
much in solar activity, activity of the level which might be increasing
ozone.
Now that is all preliminary work, needing a lot of checking and thought. But
it indicates how a correlation which at first seems high may need more
investigation.
You have hoaxers, you say, obeying signs warning people about FMD when they
know there is none in the area. They are obedient to that but they are still
prepared to destroy crops. Then you say it is not worth making the `circles'
if the public are not allowed in since they will not be seen.
Note that the circles the world over in 2001 started to occur after the FMD
restrictions in UK were being lifted. How could there be any connection?
Weather? Just maybe the lifting of FMD restrictions also related to weather,
so the correlation of circles to FMD is spurious. Animal disease could be
related to weather in that it spreads more when animals are more confined or
being fed in winter conditions.
Do crop circles appear in bad weather? Do the hoaxers go out in bad weather
or does the affect work on damp crops?
Do fungal rings occur in wet weather?
Eric Hocking
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > In the UK in 2001, the appearance of the first crop circles coincided
> > with FMD restrictions being lifted by the relevant County Councils on
> > access to the fields where the circles were subsequently found.
>
> That correlation is showing a bit more clearly now.
Thank you for acknowledging that finally.
<snip shuttle and ozone argument - that's your baby to prove to
someone else>
> Now that is all preliminary work, needing a lot of checking and thought. But
> it indicates how a correlation which at first seems high may need more
> investigation.
Agreed - and it paid off by me being able to demonstrate that none of
the first three circles that appeared in the UK appeared in FMD
restricted zones, and further ,they appeared very soon after the
restrictions were lifted in those counties.
> You have hoaxers, you say, obeying signs warning people about FMD when they
> know there is none in the area. They are obedient to that but they are still
> prepared to destroy crops.
No argument from me there, I never set out to analyse the motives of
"hoaxers", merely to show that the defence put up by crop circle
researches is inaccurate.
> Then you say it is not worth making the `circles'
> if the public are not allowed in since they will not be seen.
When did I say, or even hint at this? Yet again you attempt to put
words in my mouth.
> Note that the circles the world over in 2001 started to occur after the FMD
> restrictions in UK were being lifted. How could there be any connection?
There is none and I have never postulated that there ever was. Why
would restricted access to UK fields have anything to do with access
to fields in other countries?
> Weather? Just maybe the lifting of FMD restrictions also related to weather,
> so the correlation of circles to FMD is spurious.
We have discussed possible weather connections at least three times -
you changed your mind and decided that there was no connection between
weather and the late appearance of circles in the UK.
If you have changed your mind (again) - the burden of proof is on you
to demonstrate that the "bad weather" argument forms a better
correlation with the first 3 circles in the UK than does the lifting
of FMD bans in those counties.
I gave you a hint a couple of posts ago on how you could do this -
agriculture deparment sowing/crop maturation/harvesting times and
yields.
> Animal disease could be
> related to weather in that it spreads more when animals are more confined or
> being fed in winter conditions.
Which was not the case with FMD. Rather than desperate conjecture,
why don't you come up with a specific argument. Just as I have done.
> Do crop circles appear in bad weather? Do the hoaxers go out in bad weather
> or does the affect work on damp crops?
Do the research and you tell me. THis is your conjecture, not mine.
> Do fungal rings occur in wet weather?
And who cares? As it has nothin to do with the discussion at hand.
--
Eric Hocking
Brian Sandle
> Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message news:<10771795...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
>> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> > In the UK in 2001, the appearance of the first crop circles coincided
>> > with FMD restrictions being lifted by the relevant County Councils on
>> > access to the fields where the circles were subsequently found.
>>
>> That correlation is showing a bit more clearly now.
> Thank you for acknowledging that finally.
It was not at all clearly stated with the way you gave it before.
> <snip shuttle and ozone argument - that's your baby to prove to
> someone else>
What I was trying to prove is about statistics. Sorry I wrote Spearman's
when I meant Pearson's both times.
>> Now that is all preliminary work, needing a lot of checking and thought. But
>> it indicates how a correlation which at first seems high may need more
>> investigation.
> Agreed - and it paid off by me being able to demonstrate that none of
> the first three circles that appeared in the UK appeared in FMD
> restricted zones, and further ,they appeared very soon after the
> restrictions were lifted in those counties.
That is the correlation, only.
>> You have hoaxers, you say, obeying signs warning people about FMD when they
>> know there is none in the area. They are obedient to that but they are still
>> prepared to destroy crops.
> No argument from me there, I never set out to analyse the motives of
> "hoaxers",
Though you did say that they were keeping out when the Govt said to, that
they are obedient. Why would they be, because notices, or taping off was
not with what the Govt was stating? They knew to ignore taping and
notices, why did they not know to ignore the Govt since it was known there
was no FMD in the area in Hampshire, you said?
merely to show that the defence put up by crop circle
> researches is inaccurate.
According to them the Hampshire area was taped off.
>> Then you say it is not worth making the `circles'
>> if the public are not allowed in since they will not be seen.
> When did I say, or even hint at this? Yet again you attempt to put
> words in my mouth.
I was stating that as a question. Thank you for saying you do not agree.
These people are prepared to destroy crops, they have no reason to keep
out when a hoax FMD Govt order is present. So why would they?
>> Note that the circles the world over in 2001 started to occur after the FMD
>> restrictions in UK were being lifted. How could there be any connection?
> There is none and I have never postulated that there ever was.
There is a strong correlation, and all you are giving is some sort of
correlation, not backed by very sound psychology.
Why
> would restricted access to UK fields have anything to do with access
> to fields in other countries?
It was very strongly correlated. Therefore it needs to be shown how it is
spurious, the way I did somewhat with the correlation of shuttle flights
to ozone depletion. Just because a mechanism is not immediately obvious
does not mean it does not exist.
>> Weather? Just maybe the lifting of FMD restrictions also related to weather,
>> so the correlation of circles to FMD is spurious.
> We have discussed possible weather connections at least three times -
> you changed your mind and decided that there was no connection between
> weather and the late appearance of circles in the UK.
> If you have changed your mind (again) -
My original statement was about the world-wide stituation. They were
rather late world-wide in 2001. In UK 2001 they were only a few days later
than 2000, nothing really significant, except as part of the world-wide
pattern.
the burden of proof is on you
> to demonstrate that the "bad weather" argument forms a better
> correlation with the first 3 circles in the UK than does the lifting
> of FMD bans in those counties.
Three is not a really sufficient sample. With the weather there is a
rather larger one.
> I gave you a hint a couple of posts ago on how you could do this -
> agriculture deparment sowing/crop maturation/harvesting times and
> yields.
Though there is usually no maturation/harvesting in April/May in northern
hemisphere. The weather could have been getting better by summer, even.
Sowing could be a factor with weather and investigation of circles in
April/May, as could whether any `paranormal' i.e. unexplained, or natural
cause works in bad weather.
>> Animal disease could be
>> related to weather in that it spreads more when animals are more confined or
>> being fed in winter conditions.
> Which was not the case with FMD.
Were they not coming together for winter feed?
Rather than desperate conjecture,
> why don't you come up with a specific argument. Just as I have done.
It is not desperate conjecture, it is soundly trying to think up reasons
for any correlation.
>> Do crop circles appear in bad weather? Do the hoaxers go out in bad weather
>> or does the affect work on damp crops?
> Do the research and you tell me. THis is your conjecture, not mine.
So far you have not given a correlation with a significance figure.
>> Do fungal rings occur in wet weather?
> And who cares? As it has nothin to do with the discussion at hand.
Only if no crop circle has ever been a fungal ring.
Both you and I think it is likely that a lot of these so-called circles
are human creations. But as you have just reinforced you wish to assert
that they are all that.
Eric Hocking
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message news:<10771795...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
> >> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > In the UK in 2001, the appearance of the first crop circles coincided
> >> > with FMD restrictions being lifted by the relevant County Councils on
> >> > access to the fields where the circles were subsequently found.
> >>
> >> That correlation is showing a bit more clearly now.
> > Thank you for acknowledging that finally.
>
> It was not at all clearly stated with the way you gave it before.
My point was not aided by your obfuscatory diversions and speculations
on worldwide circle appearance, fairy rings, weather magic etc.
> > <snip shuttle and ozone argument - that's your baby to prove to
> > someone else>
> What I was trying to prove is about statistics. Sorry I wrote Spearman's
> when I meant Pearson's both times.
You need to understand the data, it's source and the manner in which
it is gathered to adequately understand the statistics you might
derive from that data. Part of this is my day job - that's why I was
able to source the data and compile it into a cohesive argument.
> >> Now that is all preliminary work, needing a lot of checking and thought. But
> >> it indicates how a correlation which at first seems high may need more
> >> investigation.
>
> > Agreed - and it paid off by me being able to demonstrate that none of
> > the first three circles that appeared in the UK appeared in FMD
> > restricted zones, and further ,they appeared very soon after the
> > restrictions were lifted in those counties.
>
> That is the correlation, only.
Do you have a more valid reason than the banning of people from UK
fields in 2001 being a direct cause of the late showing of circles
here?
<snip>
> > No argument from me there, I never set out to analyse the motives of
> > "hoaxers",
>
> Though you did say that they were keeping out when the Govt said to, that
Incorrect. I never said that "hoaxers" were obeying government
notices, merely that circles did not begin to appear in UK fields
until FMD restrictions were lifted from those fields. The correlation
of the lifting of these bans and the (late) appearance of circles
implies that circles are built by earthbound entities with that can
read English and have a social conscience and an obedience to the law
of the country.
The alternative is of course aeronautical entities that can read
English but cannot form circles from a height greater than 500ft.
Whipping out a certain Razor - which option seems the most reasonable?
> they are obedient. Why would they be, because notices, or taping off was
> not with what the Govt was stating?
I have no idea what that sentence means. Care to rephrase it?
> They knew to ignore taping and
> notices, why did they not know to ignore the Govt since it was known there
> was no FMD in the area in Hampshire, you said?
News of the status of FMD was broadcast daily. It was the biggest
thing going in the UK at the time. How do I know? I was (and am
still) there. These directives were not just presented in Parliament.
The orders were conveyed to Councils and the councils and district
parishes posted the directives, orders and recindments practically
daily.
As I said previously, other people's ignorance of the law is their
business, but to use that ignorance of the state of the country as
being the understanding by the rest of the population is misguided at
best to continue in the face of the facts is a deception. Perhaps
only upon themselves, but a deception nevertheless.
> merely to show that the defence put up by crop circle
> > researches is inaccurate.
>
> According to them the Hampshire area was taped off.
According to them, they were not allowed to fly over FMD restricted
areas.
As I said, ignorance of the law is not a defence.
> >> Then you say it is not worth making the `circles'
> >> if the public are not allowed in since they will not be seen.
> > When did I say, or even hint at this? Yet again you attempt to put
> > words in my mouth.
>
> I was stating that as a question. Thank you for saying you do not agree.
Try reading for comprehension. I did not say that I did or did not
agree with your statement, merely that I did not make that statement
and to imply that I had is a misrepresentation.
> These people are prepared to destroy crops, they have no reason to keep
> out when a hoax FMD Govt order is present. So why would they?
Oh, so you now have an insight into the minds and morals of "hoaxers"
do you?
The difference between causing crop damage and causing the continued
spread of the FMD epidemic and poles appart.
Repercussions? Compare the £5,000 fine for breaching the FMD
restrictions (ref past posts) and the £100 fine for crop damage
<http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ncircle.htm>
> >> Note that the circles the world over in 2001 started to occur after the FMD
> >> restrictions in UK were being lifted. How could there be any connection?
>
> > There is none and I have never postulated that there ever was.
>
> There is a strong correlation, and all you are giving is some sort of
> correlation, not backed by very sound psychology.
I have not backed my argument with ANY psychology. Just stuck to the
facts.
> Why
> > would restricted access to UK fields have anything to do with access
> > to fields in other countries?
>
> It was very strongly correlated.
Show me this correlation.
Remember, there were no restrictions to access to fields due to FMD
outbreaks in 2001 anywhere else in the world. There were
export/import restrictions and border precautions, but no
(non-livestock) movement restrictions in any other country other than
the UK.
What "very strong" correlation do you think you can show?
> Therefore it needs to be shown how it is
> spurious,
OK. Go to it - show that the correlation between lifting of FMD
restrictions in the UK in 2001 and the then appearance of the first
circles in that country is spurious.
> the way I did somewhat with the correlation of shuttle flights
> to ozone depletion. Just because a mechanism is not immediately obvious
> does not mean it does not exist.
I thought you said "as any good scientist would know, correlation is
not causation". You changing your mind YET again? Or is it that
correlation is causation only when it supports your pet theory?
<snip>
> My original statement was about the world-wide stituation. They were
> rather late world-wide in 2001. In UK 2001 they were only a few days later
> than 2000, nothing really significant, except as part of the world-wide
> pattern.
If you are yet again attempting to explain it away with the weather
argument - post data not speculation.
> the burden of proof is on you
> > to demonstrate that the "bad weather" argument forms a better
> > correlation with the first 3 circles in the UK than does the lifting
> > of FMD bans in those counties.
> Three is not a really sufficient sample.
No wonder you are having so many problems with your shuttle
statistices. Try following the discussion, Brian. The 3 circles in
question have been raised as proof that FMD had no impact on the
timing of the appearnce of circles in the UK in 2001.
I have shown that this is not the case.
> With the weather there is a
> rather larger one.
Go at it. Show the data and the effect that weather has had on crop
maturation over the same period (1997 to 2003) and how it relates to
this discussio.
It is *your* contention not mine, therefore the burden of proof is
*yours*, not mine.
> > I gave you a hint a couple of posts ago on how you could do this -
> > agriculture deparment sowing/crop maturation/harvesting times and
> > yields.
> Though there is usually no maturation/harvesting in April/May in northern
> hemisphere.
Incorrect. Show data that supports your speculation on this matter.
Be warned - I've done my homework.
> The weather could have been getting better by summer, even.
Deep insight there. Yep, even in Britain, the weather can improve in
summer.
> Sowing could be a factor with weather and investigation of circles in
> April/May,
You are merely repeating my hint above. SHOW how sowing/crop
maturation and harvesting times and yields may been affected by
weather during the period in question. You only got onto the weather
subject because *I* mentioned it in about my 3rd post. Don't just
parrot what I've said, show the data and a correlation that
contradicts the FMD explanation.
> as could whether any `paranormal' i.e. unexplained, or natural
> cause works in bad weather.
RIiiiggghhhhtttttt. Weather affects magic now. I thought you said
magic could be used to affect weather? What *is* "weather magic"
anyway?
> >> Animal disease could be
> >> related to weather in that it spreads more when animals are more confined or
> >> being fed in winter conditions.
> > Which was not the case with FMD.
>
> Were they not coming together for winter feed?
You put forward the argument that animal disease (specifically FMD) is
related to weather - you show it. BY the way, what has this to do
with crop circles?
> Rather than desperate conjecture,
> > why don't you come up with a specific argument. Just as I have done.
>
> It is not desperate conjecture, it is soundly trying to think up reasons
> for any correlation.
But showing no data to back your reasoning. Grasping at straws is a
much closer description.
I will willingly retract that last statement if you can give any
scientific references for any of your conjectures - weather, animal
disease, fairy rings.
> >> Do crop circles appear in bad weather? Do the hoaxers go out in bad weather
> >> or does the affect work on damp crops?
>
> > Do the research and you tell me. THis is your conjecture, not mine.
>
> So far you have not given a correlation with a significance figure.
Uh Brian? Try reading that again "THis is your conjecture, not mine."
YOU need to show the correlation between weather and crop circle
appearance, not me.
> >> Do fungal rings occur in wet weather?
> > And who cares? As it has nothin to do with the discussion at hand.
>
> Only if no crop circle has ever been a fungal ring.
This would be one of your soundly reasoned arguments would it?
Show even an indication of a correlation between crop circles, wet
weather and fungal rings and I may take notice. But until you produce
some data - this has the appearance of a drowning man clutching.
> Both you and I think it is likely that a lot of these so-called circles
> are human creations. But as you have just reinforced you wish to assert
> that they are all that.
So therefore we have nothing further to discuss, since we both seem to
be in accord...
--
Eric Hocking
Brian Sandle
> Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message news:<10772222...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
>> > <snip shuttle and ozone argument - that's your baby to prove to
>> > someone else>
>> What I was trying to prove is about statistics. Sorry I wrote Spearman's
>> when I meant Pearson's both times.
> You need to understand the data, it's source and the manner in which
> it is gathered to adequately understand the statistics you might
> derive from that data. Part of this is my day job - that's why I was
> able to source the data and compile it into a cohesive argument.
This thread continues without sci.geo.meteorology, exploring river flows as
indicating summed weather conditions, surface ground saturation.
And I have started a thread on sci.stat.math which has brought up the terms
`exploratory' vs `confirmational' statistics.
Eric Hocking
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:<10772222...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
<snip>
> > it is gathered to adequately understand the statistics you might
> > derive from that data. Part of this is my day job - that's why I was
> > able to source the data and compile it into a cohesive argument.
>
> This thread continues without sci.geo.meteorology, exploring river flows
as
> indicating summed weather conditions, surface ground saturation.
That should be interesting.
> And I have started a thread on sci.stat.math which has brought up the
terms
> `exploratory' vs `confirmational' statistics.
Why? What has it got to do with the discussion and how can it help you
understand what you are trying to do?