Living close to wind farms may lead to severe hearing damage or even deafness, according to new research which warns of the possible danger posed by low frequency noise.
The physical composition of inner ear was “drastically” altered following exposure to low frequency noise, like that emitted by wind turbines, a study has found.
The research will delight critics of wind farms, who have long complained of their detrimental effects on the health of those who live nearby.
Published today by the Royal Society in their new journal Open Science, the research was carried out by a team of scientists from the University of Munich.
It relies on a study of 21 healthy men and women aged between 18 and 28 years. After being exposed to low frequency sound, scientists detected changes in the type of sound being emitted from the inner ear of 17 out of the 21 participants.
The changes were detected in a part of the ear called the cochlear, a spiral shaped cavity which essential for hearing and balance.
“We explored a very curious phenomenon of the human ear: the faint sounds which a healthy human ear constantly emits,” said Dr Marcus Drexl, one of the authors of the report.
“These are like a very faint constant whistling that comes out of your ear as a by-product of the hearing process. We used these as an indication of how processes in the inner ear change.”
Dr Drexl and his team measured these naturally emitted sounds before and after exposure to 90 seconds of low frequency sound.
“Usually the sound emitted from the ear stays at the same frequency,” he said. “But the interesting thing was that after exposure, these sounds changed very drastically.
“They started to oscillate slowly over a couple of minutes. This can be interpreted as a change of the mechanisms in the inner ear, produced by the low frequency sounds.
"This could be a first indication that damage might be done to the inner ear.
Confident that it can, once again, breach the constitutional separation of powers and bypass Congress, this time, by recasting a complex multilateral environmental treaty as a simple executive agreement not requiring Senate approval, the Obama administration touted its climate change bona fides to the world this past week at the United Nations Climate Summit in New York.
The President crowed about how the U.S. has significantly reduced its carbon emissions since 2006, and alluded to Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) automobile and power plant greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions control regulations triggered by EPA’s controversial 2009 Clean Air Act GHG Endangerment Findings.
Apparently, the president had been misinformed about the legal soundness of those findings and the regulations they have spawned. Indeed, White House officials should have told him that many of the climate assessments cited as scientific support for such findings did not satisfy the strict scientific peer review standards imposed by the U.S. Information Quality Act (“IQA”).
Undoubtedly, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), the U.S. government’s lead climate change agency, like EPA, would prefer to bypass the IQA if possible. The IQA requires all federal agencies to ensure the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of the scientific information that federal agencies rely upon as the basis for regulations.
As the Daily Caller and other media have reported, the nonprofit Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (“ITSSD”) has called upon EPAand NOAA, in new separately filed Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests, to produce records substantiating that the peer reviews performed of NOAA and other agency-developed climate assessments supporting EPA’s GHG Endangerment Findings had satisfied the IQA’s strict peer review standards. Neither agency has responded substantively to these requests, despite the EPA’s assessment of an estimated document search fee of more than USD $27,000.
The Sunday Times has reached a new height of incoherence with its science editor’s, (Jonathan Leake) column on Arctic ice cap in ‘death spiral.’
Nothing could be further from the truth. The ice cover in the Antarctic has recently reached a new all-(recorded)-time extent and the ice cover in the Arctic appears to be on a similar path. No wonder as the frost-free days in the Arctic, above 80 N have been fewer in the last two summers and the last winter in North America was brutally cold and long.
The best records of temperature in the Arctic are those by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) in Copenhagen. That’s not surprising as Greenland belongs to Denmark and they have a vital interest in knowing the facts about temperature and ice there. You can find their daily records, open and free at ocean.dmi.dk.
Of particular interest are their daily records of the temperature at the latitude above 80 N, from 1958 onwards and their sea ice extent with a 30% minimum coverage and excluding coastal zones. Especially the latter clearly shows that the Arctic sea ice extent is anything but dwindling.
All the way from the battery in a pocket to the LED TV on a wall, the colour blue is a problem: blue LEDs are less efficient than the reds or greens that make up the other two primary display colours, and that's a problem for power consumption.
As the university explains here, OLEDs are either fluorescent or phosphorescent – and the latter is far more efficient than the former. PHOLEDs, as the phosphorescent varieties are known, are used for red and green pixels, but not blue.
Engineering professor Stephen Forrest explains that while blue PHOLEDs have been around for a long time, they don't live long enough for use alongside reds and greens in consumer devices. That means fluorescent OLEDs are used for the blues, and that in turn imposes a power consumption penalty.
According to Forrest, the higher energy needed to produce light at the blue end of the spectrum (compared to red or green) is the problem his research team has been working on since 2008. That higher energy can break down the molecules in the OLEDs, when enough is poured in to get light sufficiently intense to use in a display.
In a study lead-authored by Yifan Zhang with work from doctoral student Jae Sang Lee, the researchers worked to spread the light emitting energy across enough molecules to avoid individual molecules getting burned.
Scientist claims she has mathematical proof black holes cannot exist and it is impossible for stars to collapse and form a singularity. Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton said she is still in 'shock' from the find.
Previously, scientists thought stars much larger than the sun collapsed under their own gravity and formed black holes when they died. During this process they release a type of radiation called Hawking radiation. But new research claims the star would lose too much mass and wouldn't be able to form a black hole. If true, the theory that the universe began as a singularity, followed by the Big Bang, could also be wrong. [Editor’s note: finding confirms studies by Stephen J. Crothers]
When a huge star many times the mass of the sun comes to the end of its life it collapses in on itself and forms a singularity - creating a black hole where gravity is so strong that not even light itself can escape.
At least, that’s what we thought.
A scientist has sensationally said that it is impossible for black holes to exist - and she even has mathematical proof to back up her claims. If true, her research could force physicists to scrap their theories of how the universe began.
The research was conducted by Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Scientists.She claims that as a star dies, it releases a type of radiation known as Hawking radiation - predicted by Professor Stephen Hawking.
More than six months have elapsed since climate science data-fraudster Michael Mann’s multi-million dollar legal team bullishly announced the climate science trial of the century would be underway “shortly.” Oh, how the internet makes liars of them. What has transpired since? Answer: Nothing.
In February the world’s only truly independent science association dedicated to exposing government-funded junk research (Principia Scientific International) broke the news that the former golden boy of global warming “science” is down and out in a courtroom battle not seen since the famous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925.
“The Mann lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase, with further examinations for discovery (depositions) of the defendants to be scheduled shortly, following which I will either set the action for trial by jury in the usual manner, or bring a summary trial application.”
We foretold Mann would either face bankruptcy upon Dr. Ball’s stunning victory, or his deep-pocketed backers (including David Suzuki) would be liable for costs in the millions. But weasel words from McConchie proclaimed:
"The review of Tim Ball’s new book by Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan makes preposterous statements..."
Our "preposterous statements" are backed by the shocking revelations in Dr. Ball's astonishing publication, ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’ exposing the science fraud of the century. Literally hundreds of climate science papers are based on Mann's fraudulent work. When Ball wins, all alarmist climate science loses. Game over.
But as we move deeper into the fourth year of this shameful attempt to misuse the courts to stifle public debate - while there has been no further global warming for 17 years despite relentless rises in atmospheric CO2 - the public sees clearly what “climate science” is really all about.
“Greenhouse gases” have a profound effect on the climate as can be seen in every climate system that has a high concentration of water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2)—the two “most potent ‘greenhouse gases’”. Here are some photos:
The climate change that water vapor brings, far from being catastrophic, is quite the opposite. Water vapor brings an otherwise dead biosphere to life and makes it lush and green and, as we will see, even cools it down somewhat. What about carbon dioxide? Take a look:
It is such a scientific certainty that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide promote robust plant growth that commercial gardeners pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses up to levels > 3 times higher than is currently present in the open atmosphere.
“In general, carbon dioxide supplementation of 1,000 ppm during the day when vents are closed is recommended [to bring the total concentration up to 1,300.]”Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
If we were to look at pictures that compare the Arabian Desert to Bangladesh or the Nairobi Desert to the Congo the result would be the same. It is incontrovertible that water vapor and carbon dioxide bring life into a climate system as can be seen in the lush eco-systems of New Zealand, Bangladesh and the Congo compared to the deserts in Nevada, Saudi Arabia and Nairobi and it is no mystery as to why.
Water vapor in high enough concentrations condenses into clouds, which produce rain that drenches the soil. Plants, using the sun’s energy, pull carbon dioxide out of the air and water out of the soil to create carbohydrates and oxygen—the food that animals eat and the air that they breathe.
A Mexican ecologist has blown the whistle on the corruption, lies and incompetence of the wind industry - and on the massive environmental damage it causes in the name of saving the planet.
Patricia Mora, a research professor in coastal ecology and fisheries science at the National Institute of Technology in Mexico, has been studying the impact of wind turbines in the Tehuantepec Isthmus in southern Mexico, an environmentally sensitive region which has the highest concentration of wind farms in Latin America.
The turbines, she says in an interview with Truthout, have had a disastrous effect on local flora and fauna.
When a project is installed, the first step is to "dismantle" the area, a process through which all surrounding vegetation is eliminated. This means the destruction of plants and sessilities - organisms that do not have stems or supporting mechanisms - and the slow displacement over time of reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians, insects, arachnids, fungi, etc. Generally we perceive the macro scale only, that is to say, the large animals, without considering the small and even microscopic organisms...
....After the construction is finalized, the indirect impact continues in the sense that ecosystems are altered and fragmented. As a result, there is a larger probability of their disappearance, due to changes in the climate and the use of soil.
Then there is the damage caused by wind turbine noise:
There is abundant information about the harm caused by the sound waves produced by wind turbines. These sound waves are not perceptible to the human ear, which makes them all the more dangerous. They are also low frequency sound waves and act upon the pineal and nervous systems, causing anxiety, depression (there is a study from the United States that found an elevated suicide rate in regions with wind farms), migraines, dizziness and vomiting, among other symptoms.
Recent news stories underscore the tremendous benefits brought by America’s fracking revolution.
* The shale oil production boom could boost US crude production to 9.5 million barrels of oil per day (bopd) next year, reducing America’s crude oil imports to 21% of domestic demand, the lowest level since 1968. Output from fracked wells represents 43% of all US oil production and 67% of natural gas production; “frack oil” could hit 10 million bopd by 2016, the Energy Information Administration says.
* The global economy saves $4.9 billion per day in oil spending because of the shale oil boom. Without it there would be a 3 million barrel per day shortfall and prices would likely be 55% higher: $150/barrel.
* Constantly improving hydraulic fracturing technologies continue to increase production. For example, Cabot Oil & Gasrefracked a 2013 Pennsylvania well, increasing its output to 30.3 million cubic feet of gas per day; that’s four times the output from the best well drilled in 2003. Fracking is even being used in decades-old onshore and offshore wells, to keep them producing for many more years.
* Rust Belt cities and industries – from manufacturing, real estate and law to hotels, restaurants and many others – are rebounding because of drilling, fracking and production in nearby shale areas. In Ohio unemployment fell to 5.7% in July from 10.6% four years ago; oil output increased 26% just from the previous quarter, while gas production rose 31% – generating billions in state and local revenues.
* The US oil and natural gas boom means jobs and business for almost 30,000 companies within the industry’s vast and complex supply chain. Indeed, the petroleum industry accounts for nearly 10 million jobs and almost 8% of all domestic economic activity, including states far from actual drilling activities.
Dear Professor Raupach,
On Thursday 4th September we attended an event hosted by the Fenner School of Environmental Science which was held in conjunction with the ANU Climate Change Institute. The title of the event was “Climate Change- Why facts and Opinion are both important”.
This letter is to inform you of our concern regarding what the MP3 recording http://fennerschool.anu.edu.au/news-events/event-recordings/climate-change-why-facts-and-opinions-are-both-important evidences as an underlying political agenda directed against the Abbott Government. Both the petition and invitation to join a protest march on the 21st September are clearly a political agenda and have no place in a science forum.
As the recording evidences, the presentations by Professor Smithson, Ms Bruer and Dr Will Grant were littered with seemingly unfounded misrepresentations. The recording also evidences what appears to be an attempt to seize the high moral ground and use it to provoke antagonism against the Abbott Government amongst University and High School Students. Let us remind you that the Abbott Government was overwhelmingly voted in and given a mandate to remove the carbon tax and all its dysfunctional hangers on.
Professor Raupach my question to you (1.06.33 on the recording) quote“……when you talk about carbon pollution and carbon emissions you are, actually I think it was Will, referred to it as carbon dioxide, which is what the full word is. It is carbon-dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide has two states: its gaseous state and its solid state, which is dry ice. How can it be either a pollutant or a warming agent?”
To quote your response (1.07.23):-
“It is not a pollutant any more than water is a pollutant…………”
A little known fact about trees is that 90 percent of the water they remove from the ground is released directly into the atmosphere as water vapour. Therefore the depletion of our forests impacts the hydrological cycle which, in turn, influences atmospheric temperature.
FORESTS AIR CONDITION THE ENVIRONMENT
What are researchers discovering?
“Trees can reduce air temperature by blocking sunlight. Further cooling occurs when water evaporates from the leaf surface. The conversion of water to air vapor --- a chemical process --- removes heat energy from the air.
- A tree can be a natural air conditioner. The evaporation from a single tree can produce the cooling effect of 10 room size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.
“New research concludes that evaporated water helps cool the earth as a whole, not just the local area of evaporation, demonstrating that evaporation of water from trees and lakes could have a cooling effect on the entire atmosphere.”http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110914161729.htm
REDUCED CLOUD COVER AND PRECIPITATION EQUALS WARMING
Naturally keeping a forested area means more water vapour and more clouds can form and cool the region by reducing the incoming sunlight.
Therefore if you reverse the process and remove the trees there is less water vapour, fewer clouds, more shortwave radiation from sunlight-warmed Earth.
Add to this reduced water vapour causing reduced precipitation, rainfall is well known to cool the climate, and you have deforestation as a significant factor in global warming. Large scale deforestation has been reported to cause between 30 to 80 percent reduction in precipitation to the local area. The definition of a DROUGHT is ”A prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall” so it is accurate to state that deforestation is a cause of drought.
“Deforestation results increase temperatures due to the reduction in the cooling effects of evapotranspiration caused by loss of vegetation (Snyder, 2010). This also contributes towards reduced cloud formation (Castillo & Gurney, 2012)”.
“Models by Snyder (2010) indicate that deforestation in all three major tropical forest centres would cause increased air temperatures within the forest regions of 2- 3°C. For example,
the Amazon region is predicted to warm by 1.88°C between September and November.”
- NASA put it like this:
Climate Impacts: Rainfall and Temperature
Up to thirty percent of the rain that falls in tropical forests is water that the rainforest has recycled into the atmosphere. Water evaporates from the soil and vegetation, condenses into clouds, and falls again as rain in a perpetual self-watering cycle. In addition to maintaining tropical rainfall, the evaporation cools the Earth’s surface. In many computer models of future climate, replacing tropical forests with a landscape of pasture and crops creates a drier, hotter climate in the tropics.
THE IPCC overlook the cooling effect of forests completely and put it like this:
IPCC AR5 findings with respect to tropical deforestation and land use change:
Net carbon emissions from land-use change during the past decade (mainly from deforestation) are estimated at 3.3 billion tonnes of CO2e annually - around 10% of all human emissions. Carbon emissions derived from land use change continue to be a major contributor to global warming only superseded by the burning of fossil fuels.
It goes on to say “Tropical forests are some of world’s richest and most valuable forms of natural capital and are being degraded on an unprecedented scale due to an increasing population and changing patterns of consumption. They pump water around the planet, remove CO2 from the atmosphere, support the wellbeing of hundreds of millions of people and underpin the economies of entire regions."
THE BIOTIC PUMP
Here highlighted is a reference in their own report that the cooling system described is a type of “pump”. It is in fact known as the “BIOTIC PUMP” and disturbance of this pump has been shown to cause significant warming and climate change. The introduction to a paper detailing some of these changes states.
Abstract: Intense condensation associated with high evaporation from natural forest cover maintains regions of low atmospheric pressure on land. This causes moist air to flow from ocean to land, which compensates the river runoff. Deforestation induces large-scale desiccation by disrupting this flow. Here we overview this theory and quantify the horizontal pressure gradients that govern the continental moisture supply. High evaporation and large extent of natural forests guarantee both a stable and high throughput hydrological cycle. Forests protect a continent against devastating floods, droughts, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Sustaining natural forests is a sound strategy for water security and climate stabilisation.
STATISTICS ON WORLDWIDE DEFORESTATION
“Deforestation Statistics Worldwide
The statistics of deforestation reveal that seven countries of the world amount to around 60 percent of the total deforestation on the planet. These seven countries include Brazil in Latin America, Canada and the United States in North America, Indonesia and China in Asia, Russia in Europe and the Democratic Republic of Congo in Africa.
The data compiled by the World Resources Institute reveals that the planet has already lost 80 percent of its forest cover to deforestation…” Source: World Preservation Foundation.
This figure of 80 percent includes all time loss due to the growth of civilisation. The estimate is of 1.9 billion hectares lost since the industrial revolution. For a contemporary statistic we can look at deforestation annually.
Taking the top 10 countries with highest deforestation and adding the tropical deforestation zones together totals 6,118,607 hectares lost annually. The boreal deforestation zones make up 747,400 hectares of this.
It is argued that the boreal deforestation has a net cooling effect due to snow being able to settle where the tree once was and increase albedo. But also the removal of the trees reduces water vapour which reduces clouds and rainfall which causes warming. Plus there is a recorded decrease in CCN (Cloud condensation Nuclei) related to deforesting the Boreal regions. So un-decided.
But if you subtract the boreal forest with its possible cooling from the tropical letting some cooling cancel out warming this results in a net warming from 5,371,207 hectares of deforestation per year that has been falsely attributed purely to CO2.
CLOUD RELATED CLIMATE CHANGE
This is an extra 5.37 million hectares annually which will then have reduced cooling from evaporation, reduced cloud cover and reduced precipitation with its related warming.
A variation of 4-5 percent of cloud cover worldwide results in a 1 C change in temperature so any variations must be taken into account.
It appears the IPCC is overlooking a significant driver of global warming and falsely attributing warming in deforested zones just to the unproven CO2 theory. Disturbance of the “Biotic Pump” appears to be the major player in the deforestation, warming, climate change equation not CO2.