The European Union Times |
- Errors and frauds of global warming science
- Michael Savage: Feds arming for ‘war on white people’
- Memories can be overwritten, scientists find
- Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker
- Australia imposes new round of sanctions against Russia
|
Posted: 01 Sep 2014 06:51 AM PDT
 Modern global warming science began in 1979 with the publication of Charney et al in response to a request from a U.S. governmental office to create a study group for answering questions about global warming. Charney et al modeled atmospheric effects and drew the conclusion that the average earth temperature would increase by about 3°C upon doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Charney et al did not have a known mechanism for global warming to base their modeling on. Their publication was total fakery stating deliberate absurdities, such as modeling “horizontal diffusive heat exchange,” which doesn’t exist. In 1984 and 1988, Hansen et al did similar modeling but added a concept for heat produced by carbon dioxide, which they derived from assumed history. Over the previous century, a temperature increase of 0.6°C was assumed to have been caused by an increase in CO2 of 100 parts per million in the atmosphere. Their modeling then had the purpose of determining secondary effects, primarily caused by an assumed increase in water vapor. In other words, a primary effect was based upon the historical record, while secondary effects were modeled. This is the approach taken to this day, while refinements are developed. There were major problems in using history for the primary effect. Firstly, the historical effect included secondary effects which could not be separated out, and no attempt was made to do so. This means the assumed primary effect included secondary effects. Secondly, there was no place for other effects in attributing the entire history to CO2. Therefore, an attempt to determine the primary effect was made by Myhre et al in 1998 (4) by using radiative transfer equations. Those equations only show the rate of depletion of radiation as the concentration of a gas increases. They say nothing about heat. An impossibly complex analysis would be required to evaluate the resulting heat, but no such analysis was mentioned in the publication by Myhre et al. Even worse, Myhre et al added more atmospheric modeling in determining the primary effect including the effects of clouds. These publications cannot be viewed as honest. They lack a consistent logic and fabricate conclusions with no scientific method at arriving at such conclusions. Furthermore, these publications are not science as the acquisition of evidence, since modeling is the projection of assumptions with no method of acquiring evidence. Modeling may be a tool for sociologists and politicians but has no place in science. Science attempts to verify through reproducible evidence, while modeling is nothing but an expression of opinions with no new evidence being acquired. Even after Myhre et al supposedly determined the primary effect (said to be 5.35 times the natural log of final carbon dioxide concentration divided by prior concentration-a three component fudge factor) there was no known mechanism for carbon dioxide (or any greenhouse gas) creating global warming. In 2001, three years after Myhre et al’s publication, the IPCC described the mechanism this way: “Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm [sic] band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band’s wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation…” Saturation means all available radiation gets used up. Heinz Hug stated in his publication that saturation occurs in 10 meters at the center of the absorption curve for the 15µm band (http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh. Scientists said that 5% of the CO2 molecules were effective on the shoulders for creating global warming. This roughly means that radiation would travel 20 times farther before being absorbed. But 20 times 10 meters is only 200 meters. Air mixes in such a short distance, which means there is no temperature change. Absorbing radiation in 200 meters is no different than absorbing it in 10 meters. In other words, the 5% claim was nothing but a fake statement for rationalizing. The shamelessness and gall of making up this subject on whim and then claiming it is science is unprecedented. Real scientists are not that way. Since this mechanism would not stand up to criticism, scientists changed their mind about the mechanism a few years ago and said the real mechanism occurs about 9 kilometers up in the atmosphere. (The normal atmosphere, troposphere, goes up about 17 km average.) Trivial rationalizations were used, mainly that the absorption bands get narrower at lower air pressure, so they don’t overlap with water vapor. There are two major problems with the analysis for 9 km up. One, there is not much space left for adding heat. And two, the temperature increase required for radiating the heat back down to the surface is at least 24°C up there for each 1°C increase near the surface-not accounting for oceans (http://nov79.com/gbwm/satn. Notice that the fakes didn’t have a mechanism and didn’t know where it was occurring 30 years after the first models were constructed in 1979 (said to be only off by 15%) and 10 years after the fudge factor was contrived for pinning down the primary effect, which the mechanism is supposed to represent. How could they get the primary effect (fudge factor) without knowing whether it was occurring at ground level or 9 km up? Why do nonscientists assume it is self-evident that greenhouse gases create global warming, when scientists cannot describe a mechanism? Extreme over-simplification appears to be the reason. They assume that absorbing radiation is producing heat. Guess what. A jar of pickles absorbs radiation but it doesn’t heat the kitchen. Total heat effects are complex, and they equilibrate. What really happens is that the planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them. Cooling results in an equilibrium temperature which is independent of how heat gets into the atmosphere. It means greenhouse gases have no influence upon the temperature of the planet. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is so low that all biology is on the verge of becoming extinct due to a shortage of CO2 which is needed for photosynthesis. There was twenty times as much CO2 in the atmosphere when modern photosynthesis evolved. Oceans continuously absorb CO2 and convert it into calcium carbonate and limestone. The calcium never runs out, and the pH of the oceans never drops below 8.1 for this reason. It’s the pH which calcium carbonate buffers at. If not, why hasn’t four billion years been long enough to get there? Source           |
|
Posted: 01 Sep 2014 06:32 AM PDT
 Looking back on the nightly violence on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, Dr. Savage made a trenchant observation. For years now, he reminded his listeners, the Department of Homeland Security has “been militarizing police forces, getting ready for an insurrection within America. Civil disobedience occurred in Missouri this week, but it was black civil disobedience, so there was no DHS presence. “It’s very important to understand this. This entire federal government is geared up to fight a war against white people,” Savage proclaimed (Free audio). Can America survive another Civil War? According to Michael Savage, the nation is in real trouble and the seeds of a second conflagration have been sown. In his forthcoming book, “Stop the Coming Civil War”, Savage issues a citizen’s call to action – not in the streets but in the voting booth. He urges voters to prevent another civil war by using the power of the ballot box to return America to its founding principles. “Stop the Coming Civil War” can be pre-ordered now, at a savings of 23 percent off the cover price. Rush Limbaugh Not surprisingly, Rush Limbaugh has a unique take on the “Ice Bucket Challenge” that’s swept the nation. After being challenged to take part in this viral video fundraiser for ALS, Limbaugh pointed out, “There’s something about this that doesn’t make sense. I think everybody’s doing this wrong. The ice bucket challenge consists of two things: You either donate to ALS or dump a bucket of ice on your head, right? So how are they raising money if everybody’s just dumping ice on their heads? It seems to me the idea is to send ALS some money. They don’t show video of ‘em doing both” (Free audio). Limbaugh pointed out the White House sent more official delegates to the funeral of slain “gentle giant” Michael Brown than they have to the funerals of more distinguished individuals: “The White House sent more people to the funeral of the ‘gentle giant’ than they sent to the Arlington National Cemetery funeral of a two-star general killed in Afghanistan recently named Gen. Harold J. Greene. They didn’t send anybody. Not one representative from the regime traveled across town in Washington to attend his funeral at Arlington. The regime sent more people to the funeral of the ‘gentle giant’ than they sent to the funeral of Margaret Thatcher” (Free audio). Mark Levin Levin says Obama is to blame for the growth of ISIS, calling this development, “one of the worst military national security screw-ups in modern American history.” “And he’s still screwing up,” Levin continued. “Has he rallied the American people? Has he spoken to Congress? Has he asked for a declaration of war or at least a joint resolution to fund an aggressive offensive attack against these cockroaches? No, he hasn’t. We’re dealing with a very peculiar, petulant man who operates with a few advisers around him” (Free audio). Levin also criticized Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., for touting amnesty for illegal aliens: “Absolute evisceration of our immigration laws, the rule of law, period, our sovereignty, our border, because race means everything to Luis Gutierrez. He doesn’t even talk about these people as people. ‘We’ll get 5 million if we can!’ This is what they do to individuals. Put them in groups. … And I read to you the other day, Latinos in this country do not support illegal immigration, by a large number” (Free audio). Laura Ingraham Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal joined Ingraham to talk about his lawsuit against the federal government, as he tries to wrest back control over education from the federal government to the states. “Common Core should not be a way for the federal government to tell our local classrooms what they should be teaching,” he said (Free audio). Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, told Ingraham he favored major military intervention to try to destroy ISIS forces. “We’re underestimating the ability of what the use of force – even from the air, even with some people on the ground to help out – how much that could do,” he insisted, adding, “What’s the harm of bombing [ISIS] at least for a few weeks and seeing what happens? I don’t think there’s much in the way of unanticipated side effects that could be bad there. We could [eliminate] a lot of very bad guys” (Free audio). Glenn Beck Is Glenn Beck a hero to conservatives, or a traitor? That depends on which conservative media outlet you ask. Over at PJMedia, Ed Driscoll cheered Beck’s possible takeover of HLN, the network where he was once treated shabbily, despite bringing in good ratings and revenue: “Unlike other cable TV hosts who stayed in that medium long after their sell-through date had expired, Beck left Fox News to start his Blaze Internet TV channel and website. The risk paid off in spades – in 2011, Forbes described Beck as a ‘$100 million man.’ So I’m sure Beck acquiring a stake in Headline News, both to compete with Fox, and for a little payback for crapping on him during his salad days.” At rival site Breitbart.com, however, reporter Tony Lee accused Beck of “ripping” on fellow conservatives while trying, and failing, to make that deal with CNN. Lee quoted CNN’s Brian Stelter, who said the talks “fizzled,” but that while they were going on, Beck attempted to moderate his image as a firebrand by giving interviews in which he insisted he’d “mellowed.” Source      |
|
Posted: 01 Sep 2014 06:04 AM PDT
 Scientists have been capable of switching mice’s good memories with bad ones and vice versa. The discovery was the result of work done by a team, formed from a collaboration between Japan’s RIKEN institute and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US. The scientists injected two groups of male mice with light-sensitive algae protein, which enabled them to identify the formation of a new memory as it was happening and then use pulses of light to reactivate it when they wanted to. One group of rodents were allowed to play with female mice, creating a positive memory. The other group were given a small but unpleasant electric shock through the floor. Researchers then artificially reactivated the memory using the light pulses. While the mice were “remembering” their event, they were given the opposite experience the mice with the nice memory got a shock, while those with the painful memory were introduced to females. Research leader Susumu Tonegawa said his team had discovered that the emotion of the new experience overpowered the original emotion, rewriting how the mice felt about it. “These findings validate the success of current psychotherapy, by revealing its underlying mechanism,” he said. “It depends on how strongly the (good or bad aspect) dominates… there is competition between the two circuits’ connection strengths,” Tonegawa said. Source      |
|
Posted: 01 Sep 2014 05:47 AM PDT
 The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’ Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change. But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012. To put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, America’s biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice. The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres. This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent. Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres. The satellite images published here are taken from a further authoritative source, the University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project. They show that as well as becoming more extensive, the ice has grown more concentrated, with the purple areas – denoting regions where the ice pack is most dense – increasing markedly. Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: ‘It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year. ‘It seems that an unusually cool summer in 2013 allowed more ice to survive through to last winter. This means that the Arctic sea ice pack is thicker and stronger than usual, and this should be taken into account when making predictions of its future extent.’ Yet for years, many have been claiming that the Arctic is in an ‘irrevocable death spiral’, with imminent ice-free summers bound to trigger further disasters. These include gigantic releases of methane into the atmosphere from frozen Arctic deposits, and accelerated global warming caused by the fact that heat from the sun will no longer be reflected back by the ice into space. Judith Curry, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said last night: ‘The Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed.’ Those who just a few years ago were warning of ice-free summers by 2014 included US Secretary of State John Kerry, who made the same bogus prediction in 2009, while Mr Gore has repeated it numerous times – notably in a speech to world leaders at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, in an effort to persuade them to agree a new emissions treaty. Mr Gore – whose office yesterday failed to respond to a request for comment – insisted then: ‘There is a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.’ Misleading as such forecasts are, some people continue to make them. Only last month, while giving evidence to a House of Lords Select Committee inquiry on the Arctic, Cambridge University’s Professor Peter Wadhams claimed that although the Arctic is not ice-free this year, it will be by September 2015. Asked about this yesterday, he said: ‘I still think that it is very likely that by mid-September 2015, the ice area will be less than one million square kilometres – the official designation of ice-free, implying only a fringe of floes around the coastlines. That is where the trend is taking us.’ For that prediction to come true it would require by far the fastest loss of ice in history. It would also fly in the face of a report last year by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which stated with ‘medium confidence’ that ice levels would ‘likely’ fall below one million square kilometres by 2050. Politicians such as Al Gore have often insisted that climate science is ‘settled’ and have accused those who question their forecasts of being climate change ‘deniers’. However, while few scientists doubt that carbon-dioxide emissions cause global warming, and that this has caused Arctic ice to decline, there remains much uncertainty about the speed of melting and how much of it is due to human activity. But outside the scientific community, the more pessimistic views have attracted most attention. For example, Prof Wadhams’s forecasts have been cited widely by newspapers and the BBC. But many reject them. Yesterday Dr Ed Hawkins, who leads an Arctic ice research team at Reading University, said: ‘Peter Wadhams’s views are quite extreme compared to the views of many other climate scientists, and also compared to what the IPCC report says.’ Dr Hawkins warned against reading too much into ice increase over the past two years on the grounds that 2012 was an ‘extreme low’, triggered by freak weather. ‘I’m uncomfortable with the idea of people saying the ice has bounced back,’ he said. However, Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’. Dr Hawkins said: ‘There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates.’ Like many scientists, Dr Hawkins said these natural processes may be cyclical. If and when they go into reverse, they will cool, not warm, the Arctic, in which case, he said, ‘a decade with no declining trend’ in ice cover would be ‘entirely plausible’. Peer-reviewed research suggests that at least until 2005, natural variability was responsible for half the ice decline. But exactly how big its influence is remains an open question – and as both Dr Hawkins and Prof Curry agreed, establishing this is critical to making predictions about the Arctic’s future. Prof Curry said: ‘I suspect that the portion of the decline in the sea ice attributable to natural variability could be even larger than half. ‘I think the natural variability component of Arctic sea ice extent is in the process of bottoming out, with a reversal to start within the next decade. And when it does, the reversal period could last for several decades.’ This led her to believe that the IPCC forecast, like Al Gore’s, was too pessimistic. ‘Ice-free in 2050 is a possible scenario, but I don’t think it is a likely scenario,’ she concluded. Good News for Polar Bears The apparent recovery in Arctic ice looks like good news for polar bears. If there is more ice at the end of the summer, they can hunt seals more easily. Yet even when the ice reached a low point in 2012, there was no scientific evidence that bear numbers were declining, with their estimated total of 20,000 to 25,000 thought to be higher than in the 1970s, when hunting was first banned. In many Arctic regions, say scientists, they are in robust health and breeding successfully. Computer model predictions of decline caused by ice melt have also failed to come true. In 2004, researchers claimed Hudson Bay bear numbers would fall from 900 to fewer than 700 by 2011. In fact, they have risen to over 1,000. However, the main international bear science body, the Polar Bear Specialist Group, admits it has no reliable data from almost half of the Arctic, so cannot say whether numbers are falling or rising. Source      |
|
Posted: 01 Sep 2014 05:40 AM PDT
 The Australian government on Monday unveiled further sanctions against Russian oil and gas, financial and defense sectors, bringing Canberra in line with the European Union. Under the new sanctions there will be no new arms exports and no new exports for the oil and gas industry, Prime Minister Tony Abbott told the Australian parliament. In addition, Russian state-run banks are not allowed new access to Australian capital markets and there will be no new trade and investment in Crimea. “I want to make it absolutely clear that the bullying of smaller nations by big ones, and the assertion that might is right should have no place in our world,” Abbott said. The fresh sanctions will affect a further 63 Russian and Ukrainian individuals and 21 organizations and businesses, bringing the total to 113 individuals and 32 entities that have now been targeted directly by Australian measures. In August Russia retaliated, imposing a one-year food embargo on the countries that have sanctioned Russia, including Australia. The bilateral trade between both countries was estimated at around $1.8 billion in 2013, the Guardian cited the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Source     |
