The Christian Science Monitor

Thursday 24 January 2008

Piles of coal, battling windmills, and political leaders descend on college campuses.
In Springfield, Mo., college students are about to see quite vividly how much energy they consume. Piles of coal will be on display in proportion to what's needed each day to power their dorms, computers, and dining halls.

At Radford University in Virginia, students may stumble upon a mock fight between a windmill and a smokestack (costumes courtesy of the campus Green Team).

At the University of Vermont in Burlington, audience members will be encouraged to bike or walk to a one-woman show in which the fictional first lady calls for a boycott against sex until the nation starts a serious dialogue about climate change.

The creative tactics are designed to draw students into a series of events this coming week known as Focus the Nation: Global Warming Solutions for America. Organizers bill the culminating day, Jan. 31, as the largest teach-in in the nation's history, drawing parallels to the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s and '70s. More than 1,500 institutions, most of them colleges and universities, will host classes, documentaries, performances, energy-saving competitions, and discussions with political leaders.

Eban Goodstein, the man behind the mission, speaks about it urgently: "What our kids have to do is truly heroic," he says. "If they're going to stabilize the climate for their children, they have to rewire the entire planet with clean-energy technology."

Rewire the entire planet foreign policy, yes you could certainly say that.  How about that.

False premise, Dessler. If anyone emphasizes the reality of climate change, it's the "skeptics" you disparage. They merely have the audacity to cast doubt on the simple-minded superstition that man is responsible for recent changes. It is you True Believers who adopt the reactionary position that climate tends to be static and change is to be feared.

Where did Dr Dessler state that climate is static? Could you provide a quote?

like the military industrial complex supporting AGW, that sure convinces me.  Grey, do you always believe everything you read without thinking?

   Most people understand that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.  Good people and bad people.

   There are some lovely people who believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus and trickle down economics (now how did that last one get on the list?).

   Irrationality isn't always about good or bad, it's about the ability to recognize reality, understand science, and see clearly.  Oh, wait, that was rationality.  Hmmmm...

patrick in Beijing

Hey Greyfalcon,

Let me get this straight.

Are you calling John Christy a liar?

Regards,

Max

Hey Greyfalcon,

You quoted John Christy as saying:

"What we've found consistently, is that in a great part of the planet, that the bulk of the atmosphere is not warming as much as we see at the surface region."

You also said: "Which pretty much a straight up lie on his part."

Sorry, Greyfalcon, but it's not Christy that's lying.

Since 1979 when satellite readings started, the record shows:

Hadley surface record shows a linear increase of around 0.17 degrees C per decade. (GISS record is essentially the same)

UAH satellite tropospheric record shows an increase of 0.14 degrees per decade.

Hmmm...  Looks like Christy is right and you got that one wrong.

Regards,

Max

MarkUK,

You asked of Alan Siddons:

"Where did Dr Dessler state that climate is static? Could you provide a quote?"

In context, whether the wise doctor did, or is alleged to have said that, is quite irrelevant.  The fact is that Mann et al produced a lovely graph that cancelled the MWP and the LIA, and made the millennial climate look flat (almost static) until the recent warming.  Thus the IPCC seized this as Manna in the 3AR, to show falsely that the current warming is unprecedented.  Since Andrew and all you faithful regard the IPCC to be the gold standard of scientific truth, Alan's comment is appropriate.  Just take it in context....go-on try hard!

It's amazing how arrogant manacker is. Manacker will make long comments several times a day every day to let us know how much manacker knows about climate science and to let us know how everyone who doesn't share manacker's politics is wrong about climate science.

Manacker then claims arrogantly that he understands the scientific process and fails to mention or understand that his arguments are the antithesis of science.

Thanks for your ad hominem outburst, josullivan58.

You are doing a great job defending the "science" on climate change.

Max

Josullivan,

I notice that you have abandoned any attempt at scientific debate, and are more recently attacking the right of free speech to those that disagree with your imprinted version of science.

You also describe such people in various insulting ways, and seem to get quite emotional when it is indicated to you that you have been wrong on some scientific issues that you have previously been emphatic about. Apparently too, you like teasing the trolls.  I refer to various threads where you have issued forth.

A simple case in point was when you insisted repeatedly that IPCC 2007 had a cut-off for inputs in 2005.  When Manacker showed you that there are a host of papers from 2006 in the said report, no matter, you are right and he is wrong. The cut-off was in 2005, despite the evidence PROVING that to be wrong.

Thus you posted a falsehood intending to provoke a response.  According to one cyber-dictionary, this defines YOU as a TROLL.  Should we tease you? no, you are probably adequately "confused" already.  Black Wallaby

Manacker:
"Thanks for your ad hominem outburst, josullivan58"

Since Manacker appreciates it so much I'll keep them coming. I'm sure that will make her happy.

Black Wallaby:
"Apparently too, you like teasing the trolls.  I refer to various threads where you have issued forth."

I don't recall writing any such statement. Black Wallaby must have me mistaken for someone else.

Hey josullivan58,

"Since Manacker appreciates it (ad hominem outbursts) so much I'll keep them coming. I'm sure that will make her happy."

A correction:  if Manacker were a "her" it would have to be "ad feminem" outbursts.

But keep them coming, in any case, because they do truly make me happy.

Regards,

Max

An Ode to the IPCC and Al Gore

Behind the tipping point prediction
Unswerved by those who question it
Lies the greenhouse warming fiction
Loved by those who earn from it.

Straightforward are the ones who preach it
High and true are their ideals
Inciting panic as they teach it
To one and all their creed appeals.

Josullivan
Sorry jo' there has been so-much insult flying our way that I did not remember your words precisely.  In response to the infinite wisdom of David Roberts, who cautions on things like "don't feed the trolls", you actually wrote something to the same effect:

"Its also fun to taunt them, and its not like the NFL where you can draw a penalty for it!"

I take it that you agree with the rest of my post including that the MS Works dictionary defines YOU as a TROLL?

Just a couple of notes -

 Quoting 'facts and figures' which can't be independently verified since most people don't have geology, meteorology, biology, et al in their curricula, requires a leap of faith which shouldn't be expected by glib protesters to convert adherents. Pictures are still worth a thousand words.

 Sure, CO2 is a normal, natural and necessary part of the atmosphere, allowing plant life to breathe and exhale the Oxygen we use as animals.  H2O is also normal, natural and necessary, but I remind all of you that you can drown in the middle of the vast Pacific Ocean or in an inch of water in your own back yard.  But you'll be just as dead in either case.

Des Emery

Hi Greyfalcon,

Thanks for your fast response.

I see you favor the approach of "regulation to curtail emissions" rather than "incentive to develop new technologies" (i.e. the "stick" rather than the "carrot").

Which approach would be more effective? One is based on "positive" approach of providing incentives to encourage people to do the right thing; the other on the "negative" approach of policing people to discourage them from doing the wrong thing.  

Let's go through your points.

"Even if they could collect the money. Coal Sequestration, BioFuels, Hydrogen, and Nuclear would likely eat up all of it if it was done that way.  (i.e. A big pile of money, without much to show for it)"

I think the types of projects covered could be pre-determined, keeping out the "red herrings" but allowing each country to pick those areas within this pre-determined list, which make most sense for their economies.

Lomborg was talking about R+D for developing new technologies, so simply investing in existing nuclear technology could be excluded. While it does not generate any CO2, current nuclear technology is limited by reserves of uranium, which are estimated to be 35 million tons.  If the world doubles the amount of nuclear generation by 2025, this would mean a 3.5% per year growth.  At that growth rate, the world would use up the reserves shortly after 2100, so this is not the long-term solution.

This means we would need new technologies, such as fast-breeder reactors or totally new fusion technology.  Developing these new technologies could be included.

Wind/solar/waste currently represent just under 1% of total power generation worldwide.  With better R+D funding these could economically represent maybe up to 15% of the total in 25 years.  This could also be included.

Geothermal energy is currently limited by deep drilling technology and other practical problems.  It also represents just under 1% of total power generation today.  This could possibly be increased several-fold if the technical problems could be solved with R+D funding.

Conventional hydroelectric power is limited in growth, but the use of tides to generate power could be an option that could require some prior R+D to develop optimum solutions.

Brazil does a very good job with sugar cane ethanol as a motor fuel.  Currently corn ethanol in the USA is very inefficient (and may never become economically viable).  Biomass could be another story, provided the R+D effort is made to develop this alternate.

I agree with you that hydrogen as a motor fuel is probably not a good prospect, since there are too many real safety problems with hydrogen and the overall efficiency of converting electrical energy to a motor fuel is too low.  Fuel cells sound nice, but they will not solve the safety problem.

Whether or not net reforestation projects get funding could be considered, although this question could be handled in some other way to encourage reforestation and discourage deforestation.

To your point: "Frankly it sounds effectively the same as what all right wing pundits say:
"Technology is the answer, but Regulation is evil!"  

I don't think you can argue with the fact that technology is the answer.  

This has nothing to do with "right wing" or "left wing"; it is just common sense. Whether regulation is "evil" or not is a moot point; it just isn't the answer, since it will not solve any of the problems we face.

When you say: "Very little government involvement except for collecting money, and oversight", you must be kidding.  How many folks are currently working at the US IRS or the German "Finanzamt" "collecting money and providing oversight", but not providing any added value to the economy (and this in countries, where corruption is dealt with fairly harshly)?  This is the most inefficient way to channel money into real technical solutions for the problems we face.  And if the "oversight" is provided by the UN, it will become even more inefficient, as we have seen from past experience when UN bureaucrats and politicians are involved in shuffling large sums of money and a portion ends up in personal offshore bank accounts.  A bad solution.

"Scientists figure out the emissions reduction targets."  This is a real loose cannon. Which "scientists" and on what basis?  This puts scientists in the position of dictating policy - a very poor place for scientists.  Would you agree with John Christy or Richard Lindzen being the "scientists" that make this call?  Would I agree that it is James Hansen or Michael Mann?  Forget that one, Greyfalcon.  Scientists are not elected by the public and, as such, have no accountability to the public.  Keep them in their laboratories, where they belong, not dictating policy.  A really bad solution.

"The market figures out all the pricing involved and how to get there."  What market?  Last May the International Herald Tribune reported that the global market for greenhouse-gas emission permits more than doubled to $30 billion in 2006, as hedge funds and other new entrants tripled the European trading volumes (still in their infancy).  These hedge funds as well as the companies such as the one set up by Al Gore are going to make big bucks on this whole money-shuffling exercise, without reducing one gram of CO2 emission.  This would end up being pure "friction loss".

You have not been able to demonstrate to me that the "regulatory stick" (as espoused by IPCC and Al Gore) will provide the world a better long-term solution to this problem than the "technological carrot" (as proposed by Lomborg).

But I welcome your thoughts on my comments.

Regards,

Max

black wallaby
"In response to the infinite wisdom of David Roberts, who cautions on things like 'don't feed the trolls', you actually wrote something to the same effect:
'Its also fun to taunt them, and its not like the NFL where you can draw a penalty for it!"

Black wallaby misunderstands. I have never characterized black wallaby as a troll, and I can't recall ever using that term on Gristmill. In addition, just because I wrote its fun doesn't mean I personally have fun taunting. Black wallaby is jumping to conclusions.

manacker:
"A correction: if Manacker were a "her" it would have to be "ad feminem" outbursts."

No, ad hominem refers to both men and women. Ad feminem is not a real term. If it is then "manacker" should be "womanacker". Manacker is not content to make up things about science, politics, economics and the comments on gristmill. Now manacker is making up her own vocabulary!

manacker:
"A poem for MarkUK and josullivan58"
Wow, manacker is composing poetry for me! What is that about? The next thing manacker will do is send me flowers.

Hey josullivan58 and MarkUK,

You guys have to keep a sense of humor in this whole AGW debate.  Don't take these things too seriously.  Some of the true AGW believers are such dour pessimists that they have completely forgotten how to laugh.

These poor, unhappy souls are giving us the same, dismal "THE END IS NEAR!" message like the old pessimistic fundamentalist religious doomsday crackpots that you sometimes see on street corners or in places like New York's Central Park or London's Hyde Park.

These are the honest, but relatively harmless, individuals.

Some of them truly believe we are headed for imminent disaster due to AGW because we have sinned, and that we must repent now and this is no laughing matter.

Then there are others who are using this whole hysteria and guilt trip to their own personal advantage, i.e. to keep the public in fear and guilt so they will support a desired political course of action, which will bring them personal benefit.

And then there are those who can keep their sense of humor through this whole circus.

And you can both relax, it will all blow over in a couple of years and we will have a new "THE END IS NEAR!" hysteria for the media and politicians to feed on.

It's actually quite funny, but you've got to keep your sense of humor.

Just a bit of friendly advice.

Regards,

Max

Josullivan wrote:
"Black wallaby misunderstands. I have never characterized black wallaby as a troll, and I can't recall ever using that term on Gristmill. In addition, just because I wrote its fun doesn't mean I personally have fun taunting. Black wallaby is jumping to conclusions."

Sorry Jo', I don't know what came over me when I said that

She also wrote:
"No, ad hominem refers to both men and women. Ad feminem is not a real term. If it is then "manacker" should be "womanacker"."

Oh please, surely, should it not be Personacker?

She also wrote:
"A poem for MarkUK and josullivan58"
Wow, manacker is composing poetry for me! What is that about? The next thing manacker will do is send me flowers.

How about dinner, where do you live?
Oh BTW, did you notice that the first letter of each line if emphasized and read downwards provide an additional message?

I notice that you pop-up on many blogs around us, and I admire your persistence.
However, you don't seem to get many responses, I guess for several reasons.

One is that it tends to be off topic
Another is, that although many sympathise with your message, I think it is bewilderingly too difficult for the audience you are addressing.
Another is that I don't recall you suggesting what might be doable and useful.

What is your audience supposed to do here with your latest shout below?

OVERPOPULATION ISSUE OVERLOOKED BY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

I think you might do better at a broader Greenie website, where climate change is a lesser subject of debate.  For example, try GREEN OPTIONS and their associated sites

Several of us have mentioned the need for action to relieve the suffering of many millions in Africa as a much more important issue than the hysteria on AGW, and one such lengthy post directed to you was ignored by you in that part.  Incidentally, such improvements would likely eventually reduce the birth-rate

So what is your recommendation for Africa?
Let AIDS really take over and reduce the population?
Send the CIA in and assassinate the Pope, then make a profit selling condoms?

But as I say this is not the best venue to discuss these things

Max,

The ONLY reason I engage with people like you is because I have a sense of humor. There is no point in the debate with people like yourself. I figured that out a long time ago. It's just fun.

Deniers have no useful role to play anymore other than provide material for teaching people about inconsistent thinking and bad science.

Anyway, I'm sure you're a great guy and all. keep it up etc etc etc

Hey nucbuddy,

I got your point. Thanks for filling me in.

You wrote: "Technologies are easier to develop, the greater the power-consumption of society."

No argument on that observation; it has been confirmed by the historical record.  Many have argued that there would have been no atomic bomb (and end of WWII) by 1945 if there had not been a TVA with all its surplus electrical power.

You wrote: "If fission-energy is continuously ramped-up at a rate of 10-trillion-fold-per-millennium (3.04% per year), fusion should be fairly easy to develop 4 or 5 centuries from now. There would be no need for fusion until then, and it probably would not be competitive until then. Any present directing-of-resources to fusion research is therefore irresponsible."

This makes sense and I assume you are also including solutions to the problem of safe disposal of nuclear waste.

Are you saying the same for development of reactors that can use thorium or fast breeder reactors, or do these technologies already exist on a commercially viable basis?

And if I understand you correctly, the R+D projects that are now underway are primarily for increasing fuel efficiency and reducing costs, not for developing basically new technology.

So, from what you have written, it looks like the current nuclear power generation technology can take over all future growth of electrical power generation in the developed world for the foreseeable future and gradually start to phase out older, less efficient fossil fuel plants.  

With over 70% of its total power from nuclear plants, France has shown us that this can be done safely, cost effectively and efficiently.  No "China syndrome" or "Chernobyl" here.

This is good news.

With all this being true, I cannot understand why all the environmental activist and lobbying organizations that are trying to curb CO2 emissions have not jumped on this bandwagon.  It seems like a natural to me.  Do you have an explanation for this?

Do they really want to solve the problems of dependency on dwindling fossil fuel resources and CO2 emissions, or is there some other hidden agenda?

Some of these same "green" groups fought against nuclear generation in the past with their "China syndrome" scare campaign.  Are they now having a hard time changing stories to fit the new AGW campaign?

Why does IPCC not come out with a firm recommendation in support of nuclear generation for the bulk of all future power generation (at least in the developed world)?  

This all does not make sense to me.

Got any answers?

Regards,

Max

Hi Greyfalcon,

Went through the critique of Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" on the site which you cited.

Only took the first twenty "critiques" of Chapter 1: "Things are getting better".

Out of these I found 6 listed under the category "FLAW".  On closer examination, 4 of these 6 were not refuted in the critique, but there was some objection to the wording used by L (examples: referring to equal "rights" for animals, rather than equal "consideration", use of word "categorically" where the critics found this was unjustified).  One FLAW was refuted with references (fertilizer use). Another FLAW was incorrectly refuted (no increase in hurricanes); L has been validated on this claim by reports, which the critics ignored.

So far the score is 5:1 for Lomborg.

Then there was one "ERROR" listed, where L wrote 1% of Indonesia forests had been destroyed and the critics referred to a report that states that this should have been 4 to 5%.
Assuming the critic's report is correct, L was refuted.

So the score is now 5:2 for Lomborg

Then there were 7 listed under "COMMENT".  Of these, 3 were simply "comments" (not refuting errors); 2 were statements by L that were questioned (without any facts to refute them),  1 was an objection to L's use of word "entirely" (without providing any specific references to refute this word).  One COMMENT quoted a WWF report that confirmed 1997 as record forest fire year.  Assuming this report is correct, L was refuted.

So the score is now 11:3 for Lomborg.

There were 4 listed under "GROUNDLESS DEROGATION".  In none of these was L refuted, but he was chided for his wording and criticized in one case for not providing detailed backup.

So the score is now 15:3 for Lomborg.

There was one listed as "UNDUE PRECISION".  Again, L was not refuted with any facts or counterclaims but was questioned for the precision of his sources.

So the score is now 16:3 for Lomborg.

A final critique was listed as "INCONSISTENCY".  L was not refuted but was critiqued for discussing "local" food shortages, when he should have discussed "global" shortages.

So the score ended up 17:3 for Lomborg.

I do not plan to go through the hundreds of other items in this critique, as I suspect the ratio will be about the same throughout.

This is a very weak critique of Lomborg's book that really does not say much.

Will get back to you on your other points.

Regards,

Max

Hi Greyfalcon,

Back to part 2 of my response to your blog on Lomborg.

You wrote: "He assumes Funding climate science/tech/policy is mutually exclusive to funding other humanitarian efforts."

I cannot chide Lomborg for his assumption that there is a finite amount of money available for doing things.  To put it in one pocket you have to take it out of another pocket somewhere.  An undue emphasis (by the media, by the governments, etc.) on a perceived climate crisis means that other crises are getting less emphasis and funding.

A good example of this is the budget of the USA.  The high level of emphasis and spending on the war in Iraq took away from spending on other (mostly domestic) programs and has taken away from future generations by running up record deficits; the counterargument that taxes could have been raised to cover the costs of the war just means that it would then have come out of taxpayers' pockets today rather than in the future.

You also wrote: "Lomborg loves to focus his analysis only on the short term.  And if you do that, of course it's impossible for any long term issue to compare to a short term issue, IN the short term."

I read both of his books and many of his published articles.  I do not see this purely short-term focus.  What I do see is an emphasis on solving problems that have real immediate consequences that can be well defined and which can be resolved by acting now rather than on those that may have long term consequences that are only vaguely defined and which can probably not be changed very much by actions taken today.

In other words, if you truly believe (a) that AGW is the most important problem of our planet today and (b) that we will face certain disaster in the near to intermediate future due to this problem if we do not take specific action today and (c) that we have defined the specific action required and (d) that if we do take this specific action today we can avert the disastrous consequences which will otherwise occur, then the time to act is certainly now, and all other programs become relatively inimportant.  

This would be true crisis management (a.k.a. "blood, sweat and tears"), such as the governments of the UK and USA were forced to do during WWII.

If you do not believe (a) through (d) above, which Lomborg plus many others in this world do not, then AGW no longer represents a greater challenge than many others out there today.

I would specifically exclude the related challenges of increasing energy efficiency, reducing waste, eliminating pollution, reducing dependency on a dwindling fossil fuel supply coming from politically unstable areas, etc.  Responding to these challenges may have an effect on AGW but they have justifications of their own, which have little to do with AGW per se.

Coming back to my earlier post, I also think it is difficult to argue that the AGW crisis which may be responsible for 20,000 deaths per year worldwide today (with a highly speculative cause and effect relationship) is more important than the crisis of no supply of clean drinking water and electrical power for hundreds of millions of people, which directly leads to the death of 3.8 million people annually.

It is all a matter of perspective and I think the AGW proponents have lost this perspective in trying to promote their favorite cause to the "greatest potential future disaster facing our planet".

Regards,

Max

Hi Greyfalcon,

Looks like you have lost interest in our discussion on the relevance of climate change, Lomborg, etc.

But let's go back to Andrew's lead story:

"Climate change is real"

This has been true for our planet for billions of years, including major ice ages, periods much warmer than today, etc.

For a good snapshot of climate changes during historical times, read the chapter "Warming and Cooling in Human History" in the Singer/Avery book, "Unstoppable Global Warming".

For a good explanation why Earth does not resemble either Venus or Mars, read the chapter "Habitable Zones of the Universe" in the Ward/Brownlee book, "Rare Earth".

Good background info.

Regards,

Max

Hello; Hello; Hello!
The Falcon twixt white and black....wherefore art thou?
We await your wisdom akin to that of the power of lightning!
The suspense is electrifying!
I'm almost hyper-ventilating in anticipation!

Great list by thatguyoverthere.  Really glad that Swiss Re and the World Council of Churches are on the list.  Gives me great confidence.

Has he tried to put together a list of groups that are not supportive of the climate hysteria?

Kinda doubt it.

Max

Zerox make laser printers right?

Did you see that report that they emit lots of ultra-micro-fine particles which are a health hazard that becomes concentrated in most office air re-circulation environments?

Is it possible that corporate interests are mainly interested in the bottom line and that academic institutions do not want to offend their peer institutions etc ad nauseam carborundum?

Oh thou simplistic soul TGOT!

I mentioned Zerox above

Back to the A's

Allianz is qualified to understand the SCIENCE by virtue of what internal expertise?

please clarify

I looked at a Z
I looked at an A
Comments please on A and Z
Should I also pick a B?
Or a C?

It isn't necessarily the warming of the troposphere that we should be watching. A much better indicator would be the amount of water in same. If we see a steady increase in tropospheric humidity over a significant period of time this would give a more accurate picture of the lower atmospheric warming potential of the gas mix in the troposphere.

Unfortunately much of the water in the troposphere is in the form of ice crystals and this makes it difficult to accurately measure the humidity there according to papers I have read on the subject. Another difficulty is that accurate data on tropospheric humidity is almost nonexistent for any substantial time period.

I think that the main contributor to watch in this case is jet exhaust. The CO2 and water vapor produced by jet engines is produced and injected directly into the upper troposphere which bypasses all of the natural mechanisms for getting these gases up there. So jet exhaust establishes an unnatural level of these gases and then keeps replenishing and/or increasing that level of gases.

At the same time burning fossil fuels at ground level creates enough water vapor to change the concentration of water vapor at that level and this might make it significantly less likely for excess tropospheric water to drop into lower regions of the atmosphere. Once air is saturated with water it cannot hold any more so no water from higher levels could move down until the lower water drops as rain.

http://www.myspace.com/enki09

Hi Enki09,

Now that was an interesting contribution, but what you are scratching the surface of is very complicated.
Do you have any information that reaches an understanding of the total system starting at the surface(s) through to the limits of Cirrus clouds?
Even if not, I hope you keep in touch with developments in that science and keep us up to date.

Incidentally, is this topic not very close to Dr Dessler's speciality?

Do you also watch that "Dumbing-Down" FOX NEWS on TV?
BTW, Richard Murdoch is NOT AUSTRALIAN, he changed his citizenship to that of the USA, apparently for commercial reasons
IMHO, he is an evil man, and I'm relieved that he is NOT AUSTRALIAN

This is known as spamming, and you are reffered to as a troll.  That's internet lingo for.."get lost".  Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Perhaps you are unaware that SPAM has a fairly bizarre "Monty Python" origin that I cannot be bothered to explain.
The normative transitive verb 'troll' has several extensions including several diverse nouns.  In the blogosphere it's accepted vi meaning is to:  Lure an on-line response with a deliberately false statement.  This is derived from: to go fishing by trailing an artificial lure.

What pray were you attempting to define?

Wow Enki,
give me time to go through all that!  It looks very interesting but I'm not very familiar with it, so I need more time to respond, unless someone else can step-in.

My intuitive feeling is that the effect of aircraft vapour trails up there must be rather tiny in the scale of that huge huge sky up there, but I have absolutely no data to confirm my intuition.

Another thing that I'm aware of but also without any sense of scale is the break-down of methane to also add H2O up there.

There is also talk of dimers and trimers of H20, but again, I'm not top gun on this.

Max, if you are around, can you help with the chemistry; ions and all that S**t?