Print
Dec
12

Outdoor Jackets and PFCs

Author: Dr Klaus L.E. Kaiser on 12 Dec 2014

The Greenpeace (GP) Detox Campaign to get rid of a variety of materials in textiles is in its third year. outdoor jacket Let’s dig into just one aspect of it, namely per- and poly-fluorinated compounds (PFCs for short) that are used to make water repelling or waterproof high quality outdoor gear such as rain jackets and hiking boots.

Let’s look at their claim and findings a bit closer. To begin with, what does “fluorinated” actually mean?

What does “Fluorinated” mean?

Fluorinated or polyfluorinated means in this textile context that there are some materials in the product that contain the element fluorine tightly bound in the matrix. The chemical element fluorine (as its anion “fluoride”) is an important component of our bones and teeth. In form of the mineral fluoroapatite, that fluorine is particularly important to our wellbeing as it provides for the hardness and durability of the tooth enamel. On a percentage basis, fluorine makes up approximately 0.2% of the body’s mineral content. Fluorine deficiency can lead to bone and tooth decay, osteoporosis and arthritis.

Also, widely unknown or un-acknowledged, nature also produces organo-fluorine compounds in plants that occur on three or more continents like the pesticidal fluoroacetic acid.

The Greenpeace Claim

Greenpeace (GP) claims that such textile materials can cause a variety of deleterious effects (of course at entirely unrealistic concentrations) like “studies indicate that PFCs can cause adverse impacts both during development and during adulthood,” etc. In fact, the PFCs are neither ubiquitous (as also claimed) at any but ultra-trace levels nor of any particular environmental or health concern. Yes, some PFCs have been found in samples of Arctic air at levels of 10^-12 g/m^3 as well as in polar bear livers at levels in the order of 10^-11 g/kg.

Print
Dec
10

Linking Global Warming to Latest india Floods is Dishonest Insists Indian Environment Scientist

Author: PSI Staff on 10 Dec 2014

Latest Indian floods are being dishonestly linked to supposed ‘human caused’ climate change, says a prominent Indian environment scientist.  KhandekarDr Madhav Khandekar, a former research scientist from Environment Canada asserts that there “no evidence” to link the recent flooding in the Kashmire valley (Sept 2014) to humans. In what is increasingly being seen among independent scientists as alarmist propaganda Dr Khandekar adds that the UN’s Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change “should now be closed down.” 

“These extreme weather events are governed by natural variability and reducing human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would be a complete waste of time,” Khandekar told Principia Scientific International.

“I have presented my latest report on Indian monsoon floods and droughts and am asking unbiased news reporters to make the facts known, added Madhav, who is presently on the editorial board of the Journal of Natural Hazards (Kluwer) and has authored other well-received scientific reports on global warming (e.g. see here and here). Like other independent climate researchers he finds that recurring extreme floods and droughts are linked to large-scale atmosphere-ocean cycles like the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the equatorial Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD).

In recent years, the summer monsoon has become weaker with frequent droughts (e.g., 2002, 2004, 2009 2012 and 2014). “The observational evidence it at odds with most climate model projections that predict the intensification of the monsoon with increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2,” said Dr Khandekar.

Print
Dec
09

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Author: Dr Vincent Gray on 09 Dec 2014

Science is supposed to take place by the use of the “Scientific Method defined in the following way.keep calm

THE FREE DICTIONARY

“The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis”

OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY

"a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. 

For most of us the scientific method is what is described in official scientific publications. Yet PB Medawar in his “Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud? http://www.albany.edu/~scifraud/data/sci_fraud_2927.html  argues that:

“The scientific paper in its orthodox form does embody a totally mistaken conception, even a travesty, of the nature of scientific thought.

The conception underlying this style of scientific writing is that scientific discovery is an inductive process. What induction implies in its cruder form is roughly speaking this: scientific discovery, or the formulation of scientific theory, starts with the unvarnished and unembroidered evidence of the senses. It starts with simple observation - simple, unbiased, unprejudiced, naive, or innocent observation - and out of this sensory evidence, embodied in the form of simple propositions or declaration of fact, generalizations will grow up and take shape, almost as if some process of crystallization or condensation were taking place.

Print
Dec
09

Why the Greenhouse Gas Effect is not needed to Explain Earth’s Climate: a Summary

Author: Joseph E Postma & John O'Sullivan on 09 Dec 2014

The consensus science view that man-made global warming is caused by increased emissions of carbon dioxide (the so-called ‘greenhouse gas effect’) is under increased attack. The numbers from both thermometer readings and the very latest revised calculations by scientists show that the ‘theory’ has come unstuck. mathemagician Despite decades of higher CO2 emissions allegedly impacting atmospheric temperatures, the thermometers have been stuck on a 16-year plateau. Climate scientists have been at a loss to explain the “pause.”

According to the ‘experts’ more CO2 is supposed to mean more warming, but it just isn’t happening. So then, what gives? Is the ‘theory’ now busted? Astrophysicist and climate researcher, Joe Postma explains below:

Joe Postma: I, and fellow Principia Scientific International (PSI) researchers, can offer a quick summary of our reasoning why the ‘greenhouse effect’ from atmospheric gases is junk science. Apart from the disproof offered by the thermometers themselves (which show no warming despite ever-rising CO2 levels), judicious examination of the numbers in the physics is needed to explain the flow of energy entering and leaving Earth’s climate system.

The key number for our starting point is the actual energy scientists agree which is measured to be coming from the sun. This is known to be 1370W/m2.

 Now we reduce 1370W/m2 for albedo and adsorption effects, this gives 960W/m2   

Question: Can you explain in more detail where the figure of 960W/m2 come from? 

Joe Postma: The figure of 960 comes from 1370 * 0.7, where 0.7 is the absorptivity (one minus the albedo). As such, 960 equates to 88 degree Celsius of heating directly under the sun, i.e. on the equator plus or minus, say, ~15 degrees.

Question:  Now please explain where the IPCC get their ‘33 degrees colder’ assumption (climate scientists assume Earth is 33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, because of the supposed ‘greenhouse gas effect.’

Joe Postma: 33 degrees colder’ is simply the difference between the near-surface air temperature, and the effective blackbody temperature of the earth.  However the bottom of the atmosphere is always expected to be higher in temperature than the effective blackbody temperature in any case, independent of any greenhouse effect.

Print
Dec
08

Biggest-Ever Telescope Approved for Construction

Author: Mike Wall, Space.com on 08 Dec 2014

The world's largest telescope has gotten its official construction go-ahead, keeping the enormous instrument on track to start observing the heavens in 2024. telescope

The European Extremely Large Telescope (E-ELT), which will feature a light-collecting surface 128 feet (39 meters) wide, has been greenlit for construction atop Cerro Armazones in Chile's Atacama Desert, officials with the European Southern Observatory (ESO) announced Thursday (Dec. 4).

"The decision taken by Council [ESO's chief governing body] means that the telescope can now be built, and that major industrial construction work for the E-ELT is now funded and can proceed according to plan," Tim de Zeeuw, ESO's director general, said in a statement. "There is already a lot of progress in Chile on the summit of Armazones, and the next few years will be very exciting." [Photos: World's Largest Telescope Being Built in Chile]

E-ELT construction was first approved in June 2012, but on the condition that contracts worth more than 2 million euros ($2.48 million at current exchange rates) could be awarded only after 90 percent of the total funding required to build the telescope (1.083 billion euros, or $1.34 billion, at 2012 prices) had been secured. An exception was made for "civil works," including the leveling of the site and a road up Cerro Armazones, ESO officials said.

Print
Dec
07

Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide May Be Most Important Factor in Development of Autism and Other Chronic Disease

Author: mercola.com on 07 Dec 2014

In recent weeks, we’ve learned some very disturbing truths about glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is generously doused on genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready crops. round upGE crops are typically far more contaminated with glyphosate than conventional crops, courtesy of the fact that they’re engineered to withstand extremely high levels of Roundup without perishing along with the weed.A new peer-reviewed report authored by Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant, and a long time contributor to the Mercola.com Vital Votes Forum, and  Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), reveals how glyphosate wrecks human health.In the interview above, Dr. Seneff summarizes the two key problems caused by glyphosate in the diet:

  • Nutritional deficiencies
  • Systemic toxicity

Their findings make the need for labelling all the more urgent, and the advice to buy certified organic all the more valid.

Print
Dec
06

Donors back scientists' wireless eye replacement

Author: Richard Chirgwin, theregister.co.uk on 06 Dec 2014

Monash University's work on a direct wireless sensor-to-brain interface to bypass optic nerve damage has had a boost with donations totalling AU$2 million that will help get the technology ready for human trials. Monash vision

The university has announced that Marc Besen and Monash chancellor Alan Finkel have each chipped in AU$1 million, to which the university will add a million of its own, enough to cover “critical development costs” of the project.

The Monash Vision Group's (MVG) project is working to couple external vision sensors – a digital camera in glasses – via wireless to a brain implant. The idea is that the implant will stimulate the brain's receptors directly, rather than via the optic nerve, so the system could help people not only with eye damage, but also with patients suffering nerve degeneration.

Print
Dec
06

How to be a Good BEE: Make Honey or Pollinate Crops?

Author: Dr Klaus L.E. Kaiser on 06 Dec 2014

The honeybees have a problem: they are confused. More specifically, they wonder whether their primary task is to produce honey or to pollinate plants. honeybees

The answer depends on whom you ask!

The Honeybees as Honey Makers

For many centuries now honey was the product expected from the apiarists’ honeybee hives. The apiarists and the bees did their best and the world has had a good amount of honey all the time. In the Middle Ages the “Lebkuchen” (a German term for gingerbread) was invented. It gave the apiarists of Franconia and elsewhere a convenient way to flog their honey in the form of a “value-added” product. Ever since, the Christmas seasons in Europe are incomplete without gingerbread cookies or gingerbread houses, like the one above.

Even the bees liked that arrangement. During the winter season they were well taken care of by their apiarist owner and in the next spring and summer they rewarded him with a new bounty of honey. However, that century-old arrangement has been abrogated and circumvented in recent years. Now, many bee colonies are given another task that does not jive with the former.

That new task for the bees is to pollinate every flower in sight. Of course, the old task of making honey did not become superfluous, just the opposite. The bees are now expected to fulfill both roles as prescribed.

Unfortunately, that does not work; let me explain in more detail.

Print
Dec
03

Physics Proves Radiating Gases Decrease Global Temperature It can quantify how much, about -0.086C/doubling

Author: Dr Pierre R Latour Chemical Engineer on 03 Dec 2014

Prove: If atmospheric non-radiating O2 is exchanged for radiating (absorbing/emitting) CO2, emissivity, e, of planet to space must increase and corresponding global radiating temperature must decrease. radiating gasesMore generally, if any “greenhouse” gas displaces a “non-greenhouse” gas, planet will cool.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of radiation intensity emitted by all matter in the universe is:

I = σ e (T/100)4

If e increases at constant I, T goes down, by algebra. Therefore if CO2 increases e at constant I, T goes down, causes global cooling.

I = intensity of any radiating body, w/m2 of its spherical surface, Earth emits and transfers radiant energy to outer space surroundings at average rate Io = 239. This is measured by satellite spectrophotometers.

T = temperature of radiating body, K

e = emissivity of radiating body, fraction 0 < e < 1. Perfect radiator black body e = 1, radiates a given intensity at lowest possible temperature. Perfect reflector e = 0.

σ = Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law constant, 5.67

NASA uses this relationship with an undisclosed estimate of e to measure (deduce) average global temperature.

Print
Dec
02

New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2

Author: hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au on 02 Dec 2014

A paper published today in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a "strong and stable correlation" between the millennial variations in sunspots and the temperature in Antarctica over the past 11,000 years. In stark contrast, the authors find no strong or stable correlation between temperature and CO2 over that same period. solar rays

The authors correlated reconstructed CO2 levels, sunspots, and temperatures from ice-core data from Vostok Antarctica and find
"We find that the variations of SSN [sunspot number] and T  [temperature] have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable."
Thus, the well known ~1000 year climate cycle responsible for the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 to 4000 years ago, the Egyptian warm period ~4000 years ago, the Minoan warm period ~3000 years ago, the Roman warm period ~2000 years ago, the Medieval warm period ~1000 years ago, and the current warm period at present all roughly fall in this same 1000 year sequence of increased solar activity associated with warm periods.
solar graph 1
The authors find temperature changes lag solar activity changes by ~40 years, which is likely due to the huge heat capacity and inertia of the oceans. Warming proponents attempt to dismiss the Sun's role in climate change by claiming 20th century solar activity peaked at around 1960 and somewhat declined from 1960 levels to the end of the 20th century (and have continued to decline in the 21st century right along with the 18+ year "pause" of global warming).
solar graph 2

Abstract

The solar impact on the Earth's climate change is a long topic with intense debates. Based on the reconstructed data of solar sunspot number (SSN), the local temperature in Vostok (T), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration data of Dome Concordia, we investigate the periodicities of solar activity, the atmospheric CO2 and local temperature in the inland Antarctica as well as their correlations during the past 11,000 years before AD 1895. We find that the variations of SSN and T have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable. These results indicate that solar activity might have potential influences on the long-term change of Vostok's local climate during the past 11,000 years before modern industry.
 
Firstly, the assumption that solar activity peaked in 1960 and declined since is false, since it is necessary to determine the accumulated solar energy over multiple solar cycles, which is the accumulated departure from the average number of sunspots over the entire period, which I call the "sunspot integral." The sunspot integral is plotted in blue and shows remarkable correction with global temperatures plotted in red below. Correlating sunspot and temperature data with and without CO2, we find the sunspot integral explains 95% of temperature change over the past 400 years, and that CO2 had no significant influence (also here).
 
Secondly, this paper finds strong evidence of a 30-40 year lag between solar activity and temperature response. So what happened ~40 years after the 1960 peak in sunspot activity? Why that just so happens to be when satellite measurements of global temperature peaked with the 1998 El Nino [which is also driven by solar activity], followed by the "pause" and cooling since.
 
We have thus shown
  • Strong correlation between solar activity and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
  • Strong lack of correlation between CO2 and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
  • Solar activity explains all 6 well-known warming periods that have occurred during the Holocene, including the current warm period
  • The 20th century peak in sunspot activity is associated with a 40 year lag in the peak global temperature
What more proof do you need that it's the Sun!
 
Print
Nov
29

Atmospheric Concentration of Carbon Dioxide

Author: Dr Vincent Gray on 29 Nov 2014

Early chemical measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere have been suppressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Mauna Loa Observatory

Chapter 1 of the IPCC Fourth Report (1), entitled “Historical overview of Climate Change Science” makes no mention of any early measurements. 

Weart (2) in his “History of the Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect” also makes no mention of them. 

Yet Beck (3) has provided an annotated list with links to internet access of almost 200 references to peer reviewed academic scientific journal articles containing some 40,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide by chemical methods between 1800 and 1960. Comprehensive data sets in more than 390 papers were ignored despite contributions from prominent scientists like Robert Bunsen, Konrad Roentgen, and J S Haldane or the Nobel Prize winners August Krogh and Otto Warburg. 

The earliest listed publication in 1800, and others from 1809-1816, are by Theodore de Saussure. He was the son of Horace-Benedict de Saussure, who invented the Hot Box (which resembled a greenhouse) which was the basis of the theory of the climate developed by Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier in 1822 and 1824 which is claimed to have originated the greenhouse effect. Yet the measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide by de Saussure's son are completely ignored. 

Other early references by Letts and Blake 1802 and 1719-15 from The Royal Dublin Society give an additional list of early measurements. 

Beck (4-5) has published several summaries and commentaries on the early measurements and include an argument with Ralph Keeling (6). 

Most of the early measurements were from Northern Europe. Beck considered that the earliest measurements were subject to various errors but the widespread use of more reliable equipment, particularly the Pettenkoffer titrimetric method in 1812 led to high accuracy, with a maximum 3% error reducing to 1% for the data of Henrik Lundegardh (1920–26).

The measurements selected by Beck were from rural areas or the periphery of towns, under comparable conditions of a height of approx. 2 m above ground at a site distant from potential industrial contamination. They showed a variation with time of day, of season, and of wind speed and direction, making it difficult to derive a local average, There were frequent measurements of concentrations higher than those reported as background concentrations by NOAA at present. 
Print
Nov
28

Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers

Author: Lewis Page, The Register on 28 Nov 2014

Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. failureWhatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible (full article here).

Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren't guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or "technology" of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C project, which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal.

RE<C was a failure, and Google closed it down after four years. Now, Koningstein and Fork have explained the conclusions they came to after a lengthy period of applying their considerable technological expertise to renewables, in an article posted at IEEE Spectrum.

The two men write:

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope ...

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.