Print
Jan
28

Kepler telescope identifies ancient solar system

Author: bbc.co.uk on 28 Jan 2015

An ancient solar system similar to our own has been discovered by scientists. Scientists at the University of Birmingham described the solar system as a "miniature version" of our own. new solar system

Studying data from the Kepler telescope, the team, led by the University of Birmingham, found a star orbited by five planets similar in size to Earth.

The system, 117 light years away, is the oldest known of its kind, formed 11.2 billion years ago.

Dr Tiago Campante said it could provide a clue to "the existence of ancient life in the galaxy".

"By the time the Earth formed, the planets in this system were already older than our planet is today," he said.

"This discovery may now help to pinpoint the beginning of what we might call the era of planet formation."

Researchers said the star, named Kepler-444, and its planets were two and a half times older than earth and dated back to the "dawn of the galaxy".

Print
Jan
26

Peer-reviewed study shatters claims that wind turbines are “safe”

Author: Mark Duchamp, The World Council for Nature on 26 Jan 2015

Link found between infrasound emitted by wind turbines and complaints of “unbearable sensations” by residents. aussie windfarm In a groundbreaking study at Pacific Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater windfarm in the state of Victoria, Australia’s leading acoustical engineer Steven Cooper found that a unique infrasound pattern, which he had labelled “Wind Turbine Signature” in previous studies, correlates (through a “trend line”) with the occurrence and severity of symptoms of residents who had complained of often-unbearable “sensations”.

These include sleep disturbance, headaches, heart racing, pressure in the head, ears or chest, etc. as described by the residents (symptoms generally known as Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS), or the euphemism “noise annoyance” – ed). (1)

The acoustician also identified “discrete low frequency amplitude modulated signals” emitted by wind turbines, and found the windfarm victims were also reacting to those.

The Wind Turbine Signature cannot be detected using traditional measuring indexes such as dB(A) or dB(C) and 1/3 Octave bands, concludes his study. Narrowband analysis must be used instead, with results expressed in dB(WTS).

He suggests medical studies be conducted using infrasound measurements in dB(WTS) in order to determine the threshold of what is unacceptable in terms of sound pressure level.

The findings are consistent with the official Kelley studies published in the US more than 30 years ago, which showed that infrasound emitted by early, downwind turbines caused sleep disturbance and other WTS symptoms (2). These studies were shelved, upwind turbines were designed, and the regulatory authorities simply trusted the wind industry’s assertion that the new models did not emit dangerous infrasound. The Cooper study now proves they were wrong.

Print
Jan
25

Wandering of the Geomagnetic poles

Author: www.ngdc.noaa.gov on 25 Jan 2015

Magnetic poles are defined in different ways. They are commonly understood as positions on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field is vertical (i.e., perpendicular) to the ellipsoid.

(Figure right) Trace of the magnetic dip poles during 1590 - 2010 as derived from geomagnetic models. geomagnetic poles

The magnetic field from 1590 - 1980 (green line) is given by the GUFM model, while the field from 1980 - 2010 (red line) is given by the 10th generation of the IGRF. The locations of the poles (1590-2015) are available for download here: North Pole South Pole.

These north and south positions, called dip poles, do not need to be (and are not currently) antipodal. In principle the dip poles can be found by conducting a magnetic survey to determine where the field is vertical. Other definitions of geomagnetic poles depend on the way the poles are computed from a geomagnetic model. In practice the geomagnetic field is vertical on oval-shaped loci traced on a daily basis, with considerable variation from one day to the next.

Print
Jan
23

Another ‘Little Ice Age’ is on the way, says space scientist

Author: Robert, iceagenow.info on 23 Jan 2015

Space scientist Shrinivas Aundhkar, director of India’s Mahatma Gandhi Mission at the Centre for Astronomy and Space Technology, says declining sunspot numbers in the last two solar cycles could mean a “mini ice age-like situation” is around the corner, says this article in theDaily Caller. (Also in the Times of India.) Aundhkar

“The sunspots that can be seen on the sun have comparatively less temperature compared to other surfaces on it,” Aundhkar announced at a lecture entitled “Get Ready for Little Ice Age.” The recently concluded solar cycle “was the longest and quietest minimum phase in the past 100 years.”

For years now, more and more scientists have been warning that fewer observed sunspots could mean the Earth is heading for a cooling period.

At the end of 2013, for example, German scientists* predicted a century of global cooling based on declining solar activity and ocean oscillation cycles.

Earlier that year, Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University told BBC News that declining solar activity has set the stage for global cooling.

Solar activity falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years

“By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, [Lockwood] has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years,”the BBC reported. “Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.”

Aundhkar’s explanation for harsh winters runs counter to the explanation given by White House science czar John Holdren, who said that global warming was driving freezing and snowy winters.

Current scenario almost the same

But Aundhkar disagrees. He argues that Earth is heading for another mini-ice age period similar to the 17th century, when sunspots on the Sun were absent. This led to a drop in northern hemisphere temperature by 2-3 degrees. “The current scenario is almost same. Such climatic conditions might affect the agricultural pattern and health and trigger disasters in the worst scenario,” he added.

Print
Jan
21

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that 2014 was record HOTTEST year? NO

Author: www.theregister.co.uk on 21 Jan 2015

So the results are in. No significant warming, since at least 2005. The main US global-temperature scorekeepers - NASA and the NOAA - say that last year was definitely the hottest year on record. ice advance But they've been contradicted by a highly authoritative scientific team, one actually set up to try an establish objective facts in this area.

On the face of it, there's no dispute. The NASA and NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) statement says:

The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.

Open and shut, right?

But in fact, detecting a global average temperature rise - of less than a degree since the 1880s, as all sides agree - among thousands upon thousands of thermometer readings from all over the world and spanning more than a century is no simple matter. The temperature at any given location is surging up and down by many degrees each day and even more wildly across a year. It can be done, across a timescale of decades, but trying to say that one year is hotter or colder than the next is to push the limits of statistics and the available data. This sort of thing is why the battle over global temperatures tends to be so hotly debated.

Print
Jan
19

Kiehl and Trenberth Debunk Climate Alarm

Author: Joseph E Postma on 19 Jan 2015

Most everyone knowledgeable on this subject has heard of the “K&T Energy Budget” (diagram right). So how did Kiehl and Trenberth help debunk climate alarm? KT Earth Energy Budget Fig3

We have energy incoming from the Sun…thats the 342 W/m^2.  Well sure, the Sun is a source of energy, it is powered by nuclear reactions which liberate energy.

And then we have energy incoming from “greenhouse gas backradiation”.  There’s 168 + 67 = 235 absorbed energy coming from the Sun…and then there’s 324 coming from the atmosphere, 38% more energy than from the Sun.

It just magically appears over there, on the right hand side of their diagram.

Now the sun has a nuclear power source of energy.

The atmosphere has no source of energy, no source of power, has no chemical or nuclear reactions going on to liberate energy.

It is thus impossible for the atmosphere to be a source of energy, let alone to provide 38% more energy than comes from the Sun.

This debunks climate alarm science, without any additional consideration required, since this is the “reasoning” it subscribes to in general.  Climate alarm is based on the impossible, and the nonsensical.  It’s from these types of energy budgets that alarm is created.  Well yes, these diagrams are indeed alarming, for their amazing mind-boggling obvious errors.

And why do Kiehl and Trenberth, and climate alarm, get into such a mess?  Of course, it’s because they don’t get the incoming energy from the Sun correct in the first place.  Their “168 absorbed by surface” means that Sunlight could only ever make a surface it strikes to heat up to -40 degrees Celsius.

Wow, that’s pretty cold.  Can’t sunlight melt ice?  Isn’t much, much warmer sunshine actually responsible for driving the climate?  Yes and yes, but this is contradicted and denied by Kiehl and Trenberth’s pseudoscience.

So who’s wrong?  Is the Sun wrong, or is Kiehl and Trenberth wrong?

It’s pretty easy to see who.

Read more, and leave comment, at climateofsophistry.com

Print
Jan
19

The Merchants of Smear

Author: Paul Driessen on 19 Jan 2015

Manmade climate disaster proponents know the Saul Alinksy community agitator playbook by heart. In a fight, almost anything goes. Never admit error; just change your terminology and attack again. Expand your base, by giving potential allies financial and political reasons to join your cause. Pick “enemy” targets, freeze them, personalize them, polarize them and vilify them. smear merchants

The “crisis” was global cooling, until Earth stopped cooling around 1976. It was global warming, until our planet stopped warming around 1995. The alarmist mantra then became “climate change” or “climate disruption” or “extreme weather.” Always manmade. Since Earth’s climate often fluctuates, and there are always weather extremes, such claims can never be disproven, certainly not to the alarmists’ satisfaction.

Alarmists say modern civilization’s “greenhouse gas” emissions are causing profound climate change – by replacing the powerful, interconnected solar and other natural forces that have driven climate and weather patterns and events since Earth and human history began. They insist that these alleged human-induced changes are already happening and are already disastrous. Pope Francis says we are already witnessing a “great cataclysm” for our planet, people and environment.

However, there is no cataclysm – now or imminent – even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have gone well past the alleged 350 parts-per-million “tipping point,” and now hover near 400 ppm (0.04%). There has been no warming since 1995, and recent winters have been among the coldest in centuries in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, despite steadily rising levels of plant-fertilizing CO2.

Print
Jan
18

Climate Alarmists turn back the Clock

Author: Viv Forbes, www.carbon-sense.com on 18 Jan 2015

Three centuries ago, the world ran on green power. Wood was used for heating and cooking, charcoal for smelting and smithing, wind or water-power for pumps mills and ships, and whale oil or tallow for lamps. old wind powerPeople and soldiers walked or rode horses, and millions of horses and oxen pulled ploughs, wagons, coaches and artillery.

But smoke from open fires choked cities, forests were stripped of trees, most of the crops went to feed draft animals, and streets were littered with horse manure. For many people, life was “nasty, brutish and short”.Then the steam engine was developed, and later the internal combustion engine, electricity and refrigeration came along.

Green power was replaced by coal and oil. Carbon energy powered factories, mills, pumps, ships, trains, and smelters; and cars, trucks and tractors replaced the work-horses. The result was a green revolution – forests began to regrow and vast areas of crop-land used for horse feed were released to produce food for humans. Poverty declined and population soared.

But new environmental problems emerged. Smoke pollution from burning cheap dirty coal in millions of open fires, old boilers and smelters produced massive smog problems in cities like London and Pittsburgh.The solution was improved technology, sensible pollution-control laws and the supply of coal gas and coal-powered electricity to the cities.

Print
Jan
17

Where is the evidence of man-made climate change?

Author: Hans Schreuder on 17 Jan 2015

After more than eight years analysing all aspects of climate alarm, from the initial scare that man's emissions of carbon dioxide caused global warming to a name-change to man-made climate change - when the globe stopped warming despite ever increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide - to a further name-change to climate disruption - then it was realised that climate changes all the time - it is time to face the music and ask: "Where is the evidence regarding man-made climate change?" evidence

Let me to point you in the direction of some recent reports and studies that use the scientific method to analyse and appraise the current situation of blaming carbon dioxide emissions, especially those coming from human activity.

1. There has never ever, as yet, been presented any empirical evidence that can be interpreted as proof that the totality of atmospheric carbon dioxide has any influence upon the climate; quite the reverse: climate influences the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The man-made proportion of the total amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide is in any case only around 3%, that's three percent and is the figure detailed in several UN IPCC reports.

2. For an extensive report on many popular climate alarm scenarios, please refer to Marc Morano's summary.

3. Here is proof, one of many, that there is no magical greenhouse effect, making or keeping earth warmer that it should be and being enhanced by the increase in carbon dioxide.

4. The scientific truth about atmospheric carbon dioxide is that is causes atmospheric cooling and no global warming at all is even possible; quite the opposite of what you have been told thus far!

Print
Jan
15

America’s Best Climate Prediction Expert Finally Gets Noticed

Author: Dr. Rich Swier on 15 Jan 2015

In Orlando, Florida is a lone climate researcher who, for almost eight years, has been putting the U.S. government’s best scientists and science agencies to shame, when it comes to accurately making major climate predictions. dark winterThis is especially true when compared to Al Gore-style global warming politicians, government funded university Ph.D. climate scientists and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN-IPCC).

The UN-IPCC is the UN’s climate research arm that historians may someday remember best for unreliable climate models and associated wildly exaggerated, and erroneous temperature and sea level rise predictions. The “climategate’ scandal at the UN will likewise be prominent for the disclosure that its supposed ‘best climate scientists” falsified or manipulated climate data to fit the politically motivated manmade global warming storyline.

In March 2013, while I was the Florida Editor for the online conservative journal Watchdogwire.com, I had the chance to review the track record of this maverick in the field of climatology. When I was done I put my name on a column naming him “America’s best climate prediction expert.” I added to it in April 2014 updating his list of predictions he had made. He is Mr. John L. Casey, a former White House and NASA space program consultant, Space Shuttle engineer, and high tech start-up company executive.

Print
Jan
15

'Stack Theory' Mathematics Paper Discredits Greenhouse Gas Climate Alarm

Author: Hans Schreuder on 15 Jan 2015

In a detailed new mathematical study the actual atmospheric effect of infrared-active gases are examined for climatic impact. Principia Scientific International (PSI) researcher, Jef Reynen explores the so-called 'stack model' of earth's climate and finds that it is possible to more accurately model climate without factoring in any 'greenhouse gas effect.'  possible

His new paper, Lessons from a chicken wire stack on the Moon, re-examines a concept first addressed at PSI three years ago. Back then Reynen considered a finite difference one-stream-heat-flow formulation. More recently, he has employed the more transparent finite element method (FEM).

Due to the recurrent failures of computer simulations to model climate, Reynen's more pragmatic approach employs the concept of a stack of chicken wire in a vacuum environment (that is, where convection is not possible) e.g. on the Moon. In a vacuum, the stack has a temperature and heat flux completely defined by the process of radiation, without convection. Conventional computer climate modeling disavows itself of the dominance of convection (e.g. wind impacts) and applies a far more radiation-obsessed approach; whereas in the reality of planet Earth, it is nearly the other way around. This, says Reynen, has been climate science's great error.

Print
Jan
15

My Observations at COP-20, Lima, Dec. 2014

Author: Dr. Albrecht Glatzle (translation: Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser) on 15 Jan 2015

It’s unfortunate that Pope Francis now also joined the church of climatology [1]. However, many of his followers in the Catholic realm will doubt that this is a command by St. Peter. COP20

A few weeks ago I returned home from attending the 2014 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP-20, at Lima, Peru. This mega-event gave me the impression of a clerical synod by a world-encompassing religious community. There were many nice people from all corners of the world whom I had cordial conversations with. They all meant the best for planet Earth.

However, the main problem of this event was that 99.9% of the attendees viewed the most important nutrient for all life on earth (carbon dioxide, CO2) as a hazardous substance. That view was shared even by the attending farmers who should profit from better harvests [2] due to improved CO2 fertilization.

I asked approximately 50 people from 25 countries several questions and talked to many more. Only 5 people (10% of those I asked) knew even the order of magnitude of CO2 in the atmosphere (0.04%). The others answered “I really should know that but cannot answer the question.” None knew that the mean global temperature has remained constant over the last 10 years and has not been increasing for 18 years (in contrast to predictions from models by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC). Among those I asked, some claimed that the temperature had risen anywhere between 0.1 and 10.0 (!!) degrees – that’s not a lie. None knew that the global sea-ice extent recently reached the same values as have been observed at the beginning of the 1980s (the extent has increased in the Antarctic and slightly decreased in the Arctic).