A mystery has also emerged. The team found that active volcanoes accounted for only about 60 percent of Io’s heat. This component mostly emanates from flat-floored volcanic craters called paterae, a common feature on Io. But where is the “missing” 40 percent? “We are investigating the possibility that there are many smaller volcanoes that are hard, but not impossible, to detect,” said Veeder. “We are now puzzling over the observed pattern of heat flow.”There’s also a problem with the amount of heat the “volcanoes” themselves emit. When the space probe Galileo passed by Io, it found the plumes to be so hot that it overloaded the sensors on the spacecraft. The early estimates of heat from the plumes were so high that NASA had to go back and revise their models to make the results match their “theoretical limits.
STICK an electrode in the ground, pump electrons down it, and they will come: living cells that eat electricity. We have known bacteria to survive on a variety of energy sources, but none as weird as this. Think of Frankenstein's monster, brought to life by galvanic energy, except these "electric bacteria" are very real and are popping up all over the place.
Unlike any other living thing on Earth, electric bacteria use energy in its purest form – naked electricity in the shape of electrons harvested from rocks and metals. We already knew about two types, Shewanella and Geobacter. Now, biologists are showing that they can entice many more out of rocks and marine mud by tempting them with a bit of electrical juice. Experiments growing bacteria on battery electrodes demonstrate that these novel, mind-boggling forms of life are essentially eating and excreting electricity.
That should not come as a complete surprise, says Kenneth Nealson at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. We know that life, when you boil it right down, is a flow of electrons: "You eat sugars that have excess electrons, and you breathe in oxygen that willingly takes them." Our cells break down the sugars, and the electrons flow through them in a complex set of chemical reactions until they are passed on to electron-hungry oxygen.
In the 19th century, scientists were working under the presumption that the universe was stable and, for practical purposes, infinite in all directions. They believed matter moved through a field that gave it form. They called this field an aether.
Then Einstein came along and discovered a way to calculate relativistic mechanics without the need for an aether. Einstein’s theory was subsequently backed up by experiments that seemed to show there was no aether of the type scientists had once presumed existed.
At the time Einstein first proposed his theories of bending space and relativity without an aether, he did not believe in a “Big Bang” expanding universe. The Big Bang was actually the brain child of a Catholic priest. It wasn’t until Hubble came along and showed that the spectra of distant galaxies seemed to shift toward the red end of the light spectrum in proportion to their brightness that Einstein finally conceded that the universe may actually be the product of a “Big Bang.” However, in the decades that followed, a mountain of contradictory evidence has been accumulating that undermines these assumptions.
Today, we are at a point where scientists are claiming over 90% of the universe is made out of matter and energy that we can’t see and can’t detect. They are claiming that infinitely dense objects exist (something Einstein also disagreed with.) They are claiming that stars the size of asteroids can spin around at near light speed and emit a focused beam of energy that is detectable across galactic distances. They are claiming that stable matter exists in the universe that violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry. In fact, I could go on listing absolutely bizarre and unproven claims until I had enough theory to fill an entire book.
All of these bizarre theories are the result of a few fundamental unproven assumptions.
Talking about Monsanto’s latest attempt to obstruct justice, halt transparency, and prevent people from stopping their seed and herbicide businesses from spreading is starting to seem redundant, but the company just keeps acting in increasingly objectionable ways. Now, the company is refusing to release to the public lab tests conducted in St. Louis, Missouri, which gave them authority to use glyphosate in China.
Just months ago, Chinese food safety volunteers tendered a request to China’s Ministry of Agriculture to release the study that justified issuing the safety certificate for the import into China of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide RoundUp. Glyphosate was given a safety certificate in 1988 after studies submitted by Monsanto were conducted at Younger Laboratories in St. Louis Missouri.
The test was meant to be an acute exposure toxicity test in which rats were given RoundUp by mouth for several days, and rabbits were exposed to RoundUp by skin. The company claims that the herbicide had no effect on the eyes or the skin, and that no allergies ensued. However, they are refusing to release the lab report to China’s food safety volunteers, stating that it is an ‘industry secret.’
The media are abuzz with news about another villain—the element nickel, with the chemical symbol “Ni.” For example, as USA Today reports, the maker of a wristband—made of plastic material—with a small tech device made of surgical steel was forced to institute a recall with full refund to wearers of such items after a few people complained about skin irritations.
Nobody seems to have looked at the wrist-band, everyone just assumes it must be the nickel content of the actual device.
Let me say it straight out: This is total nonsense!
Elemental nickel is a silvery shiny metal similar to chromium in its appearance and prior to the use chromium for the coating of car bumpers (for us oldy types) many implements were coated with nickel metal instead. For example, we still use a lead-glass (oh my gosh!) salt shaker with a screw-top lid coated with a layer of shiny nickel.
Though this salt shaker has been in regular use for about 80 years, as far as I know, neither I nor my parents suffered from any nickel poisoning or allergic reaction because of it. It also remains as shiny as it ever was. The trick for that is simply to keep it dry.
A revolutionary new study reveals that the core tenet of classical genetics is patently false, and by implication: what we do in this life -- our diet, our mindset, our chemical exposures -- can directly impact the DNA and health of future generations.
A paradigm shifting new study titled, "Soma-to-Germline Transmission of RNA in Mice Xenografted with Human Tumour Cells: Possible Transport by Exosomes," promises to overturn several core tenets of classical genetics, including collapsing the timescale necessary for the transfer of genetic information through the germline of a species (e.g. sperm) from hundreds of thousands of years to what amounts to 'real time' changes in biological systems.
In classical genetics, Mendelian laws specify that the inheritance of traits passed from one generation to the next can only occur through sexual reproduction as information is passed down through the chromosomes of a species' germline cells (egg and sperm), and never through somatic (bodily) cells. Genetic change, according to this deeply entrenched view, can take hundreds, thousands and even millions of generations to manifest.
The new study, however, has uncovered a novel mechanism through which somatic-to-germline transmission of genetic information is made possible. Mice grafted with human melanoma tumor cells genetically manipulated to express genes for a fluorescent tracer enzyme (EGFP-encoding plasmid) were found to release information-containing molecules containing the EGFP tracer into the animals' blood; since EGFP is a non-human and non-murine expressed tracer, there was little doubt that the observed phenomenon was real.
Every now and then a scholarly journal retracts an article because of errors or outright fraud. In academic circles, and sometimes beyond, each retraction is a big deal.
Now comes word of a journal retracting 60 articles at once.
The reason for the mass retraction is mind-blowing: A “peer review and citation ring” was apparently rigging the review process to get articles published.
You’ve heard of prostitution rings, gambling rings and extortion rings. Now there’s a “peer review ring.”
The publication is the Journal of Vibration and Control (JVC). It publishes papers with names like “Hydraulic engine mounts: a survey” and “Reduction of wheel force variations with magnetorheological devices.”
The field of acoustics covered by the journal is highly technical:
Analytical, computational and experimental studies of vibration phenomena and their control. The scope encompasses all linear and nonlinear vibration phenomena and covers topics such as: vibration and control of structures and machinery, signal analysis, aeroelasticity, neural networks, structural control and acoustics, noise and noise control, waves in solids and fluids and shock waves.
JVC is part of the SAGE group of academic publications.
Here’s how it describes its peer review process:
[The journal] operates under a conventional single-blind reviewing policy in which the reviewer’s name is always concealed from the submitting author.
All manuscripts are reviewed initially by one of the Editors and only those papers that meet the scientific and editorial standards of the journal, and fit within the aims and scope of the journal, will be sent for peer review. Generally, reviews from two independent referees are required.
An announcement from SAGE published July 8 explained what happened, albeit somewhat opaquely.
In 2013, the editor of JVC, Ali H. Nayfeh, became aware of people using “fabricated identities” to manipulate an online system called SAGE Track by which scholars review the work of other scholars prior to publication.
German scientists show that constant alarmist messages about dramatic and dangerously rising sea levels cannot be confirmed by raw tidal measurements. According to expert Klaus-Eckart Puls “measurements are actually showing the opposite.” Only "mysterious" government computer models show rises in sea levels, says the report.
Making the announcement on behalf of the European Institute for Climate and Energy Klaus-Eckart Puls says:
“Worldwide, neither tidal gauge data (200 years) nor satellite data (20 years) show any acceleration of sea level rise. That is in stark contrast to all past and current statements by the IPCC and several climate (research) institutes and climate-models. Moreover, there are indications that the satellite data (showing a higher [double] rate of increase) are significantly “over-corrected.”” [See ref 28 in the report]
‘Mysterious Case’ or Data Rigging?
The European Institute for Climate and Energy expressed their concerns about the reliability of certain official computer models adding, “Instead of adjusting the satellite data to those actually measured on the ground and correcting them downward, the discrepancy between gauge and satellite measurements continue to this date. Somehow, that does not appear to bother anyone. A mysterious case.”
Wilhelmshaven coast scientist, Karl-Ernst Behre from the Lower Saxony Institute for Historical Coastal Research (NIHK ) explains that the best evidence shows sea levels have only been rising naturally “since the end of the last ice age we have good knowledge of the sea level changes on the German North Sea coast.”
The latest German research shows that sea level has risen naturally due to global warming by more than 50 meters in the past 10,000 years, says Behre. It has been nothing to do with humans.
The Galapagos Islands’ Charles Darwin Foundation runs on an annual operating budget of about $3.5 million. With this money, the center conducts conservation research, enacts species-saving interventions, and provides educational resources about the fragile island ecosystems. As a science-based enterprise whose work would benefit greatly from the latest research findings on ecological management, evolution, and invasive species, there’s one glaring hole in the Foundation’s budget: the $800,000 it would cost per year for subscriptions to leading academic journals.
According to Richard Price, founder and CEO of Academia.edu, this episode is symptomatic of a larger problem. “A lot of research centers” – NGOs, academic institutions in the developing world – “are just out in the cold as far as access to top journals is concerned,” says Price. “Research is being commoditized, and it’s just another aspect of the digital divide between the haves and have-nots.”
Academia.edu is a key player in the movement toward open access scientific publishing, with over 11 million participants who have uploaded nearly 3 million scientific papers to the site. It’s easy to understand Price’s frustration with the current model, in which academics donate their time to review articles, pay for the right to publish articles, and pay for access to articles.
Fresh scientific analysis of the heating and cooling rate of the moon has produced startling evidence to show that the greenhouse gas theory of global warming on earth is false. Italian researcher, Alberto Miatello presents a simplified version of his peer-reviewed and verified study to show that mainstream climate science has misunderstood a key function of earth's climate system: its inherent cooling abilities. Principia Scientific International presents Miatello's summary below:
I have been asked to explain the main concepts of my article of 2012: “Lunar Cooling Refutes the Greenhouse Effect Theory”, without using too much mathematical symbolism and I am pleased to do that.
I know that many readers find calculations and math of many technical articles quite unpleasant (even when they are necessary to prove some ideas/assumptions) and it is also true that before writing down math and calculations, all the physicists think about the main concepts they want to prove.
Therefore, I am pleased to explain the main concepts of that article here. Also, because I have been persuaded that the study of our moon's heating and cooling rate is probably one of the most powerful experimental tools to prove that the Greenhouse Effect Theory (GHE) is a bogus, pseudo-scientific theory. It is most unfortunate that for too many years now the "theory" has been upheld unquestioningly by the political class and media propaganda (with a silent indifference among the scientific establishment), but with no actual physical law supporting it.
Why the Moon?
Firstly, the Moon receives exactly the same quantity of solar irradiance (1367 W/m²) as Earth.
Secondly, the Moon has no atmosphere, whereas Earth is surrounded by nearly 10 km of Troposphere, that lower part of our atmosphere in which the main climatic phenomena and weather reactions are taking place.
Thus, the Moon offers the most splendid natural physical location in the Universe to make a comparison with Earth and to challenge the most important points that GHE advocates are promoting:
a) Does our atmosphere really keep our Earth’s surface “warmer” by nearly 33°C?
b) What would happen if we “removed” our atmosphere? Would we really be “frozen” by the “cold” outer space, in the same way as the flowers inside a greenhouse would be, in a cold winter, after removal of the transparent plastic layers/tents of the greenhouse?
The main point that GHE supporters seem keen to try and hide is that here on Earth’s surface the highest temperature ever recorded (in the Death Valley, California, USA) was just 56°- 57°C, a meager highpoint when compared to the Moon’s equator where the temperature normally reaches 117°C (390K) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon. That is more than double the value, although – as we know – the quantity of solar irradiance is the same: 1367 W/m² in both places.
So, far from being totally “frozen” by the lack of atmosphere, our moon is “over-heated” by the same solar irradiance which is impinging Earth. The reason? Firstly, because Earth’s albedo (due to clouds + atmosphere + Earth’s surface) is 0.3, whereas the Moon’s albedo (due to regolith of surface) is just 0.12. This means Earth reflects away nearly 30% of the solar radiation, whereas our Moon reflects just 12%. Therefore, the Moon absorbs much more heat enabling it to reach a higher temperature.
However, in an attempt to disguise this “inconvenient truth”, GHE supporters are trying to put confusion in the minds of their readers. For instance, “Skepticalscience” tells its readers that on the Moon the temperature “drops almost immediately … in several hours” from 117°C to minus 110°C. They say it is “due to the absence of atmosphere (such as here on Earth) which (in their opinion) should “protect” our surface from the “cold” of outer space.
But this statement, as we have seen, is clearly wrong.
Far from its temperature “dropping almost immediately … in several hours”, we have observed that on the Moon it takes 14.75 terrestrial days = 354 hours (!), at the lunar equator, to “cool off” from the highest temperature (117°C = 390K) to reach the lowest i.e. -173°C = 100K
So, the cooling rate of the Moon is very much slower than that of Earth: the Moon’s surface is cooling at a rate of 290/354 = 0.8°C/hour, whereas here on Earth, on a warm summer’s night, at over 20°C in the ambient outside environment, we have calculated that a cubic meter of boiling water (100°C) would lose 64°C in nearly 12.7 hours, which is 5°C/hour, i.e. a cooling rate more than 6 times faster!
There is growing evidence that birds flying in the vicinity of a solar thermal power project in California’s Mojave Desert are being injured and even killed either by the solar heat that’s focused with mirrors on its three energy-collecting towers, or by colliding with the mirrors themselves.
Yet a task force set up to investigate the problem at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) has brushed aside several recommendations by the forensics laboratory of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), according to the minutes of a meeting on the subject obtained by the Los Angeles public television station KCET.
The FWS had said wildlife mortality and injury at ISEGS may have been underrepresented because of inadequate searches for injured and dead animals, and it suggested ways to make those searches more thorough.
The panel – the Avian & Bat Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) – met in Nipton, Calif., on May 20, where it dismissed several FWS recommendations.
ISEGS is a solar thermal power generator that uses arrays of mirrors, called heliostats, that reflect and narrowly focus solar heat to “power towers” filled with water. The focused solar heat reaches a temperature of 800 degrees Fahrenheit, boiling the towers’ water to generate electricity.
Dead and injured birds have been found at the plant site, having been burned, evidently by the reflected solar heat, or with other injuries because they evidently failed to recognize the mirrored heliostats as solid surfaces, much the same way that birds crash into windows.
Lord Christopher Monckton's article on WUWT claims “100 percent” of skeptics at latest Heartland’s Climate Conference believe in greenhouse gas warming. But many WUWT readers condemn lordship's spin.
Upperclass Brit Monckton became a comical figure in Las Vegas on July 7, 2014 when his plum tones repeated the mantra of carbon dioxide climate forcing, a key element of the supposed human-enhanced greenhouse gas effect.
Like others in the “lukewarmist” club his lordship feels the need to circle the wagons insisting CO2 “must” cause some warming - how much? He didn't say.
But Monckton's mission was to rally the troops and he wasn't leaving that Vegas stage till he got his "proof" his audience backed him. But then this was always going to be little more than a drum-banging exercise. In fact. no scientists at the conference even paid lip service to the glaring elephant in the room: why rising human emissions of carbon dioxide are not warming our planet - not even in the slightest. In fact, global cooling has been happening this century.
The harsh black and white backdrop to this is the extraordinary absence of any additional global warming for more than 17 years, despite Monckton’s supposed scientific consensus saying that levels of atmospheric CO2 are up about 40 percent. Thus, more CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't lead to more heat. As such, the “laboratory” of earth’s atmosphere is telling us the theory looks busted.
Instead of facing facts our faux aristocrat emulated the discredited and now infamous alarmist paper by John Cooke et al. (it “proved” the 97 percent scientific consensus on humans dangerously warming the planet) submitting his own dubious six-question survey for conference attendees to complete. Polling duly completed his article claims all 600 of the assembled skeptics were on message. But plenty of savvy readers on WUWT weren’t buying any of it and nor was Andre Lofthus who last week in American Thinker wrote:
“Real scientists would demand to know the physics of how increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming. Is there any real physics behind this unsupported bold assertion?” But then most people aren’t aware that Monckton was never a government science adviser nor a scientist either.