by Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

The planet Mars is Earth’s next of kin; just a little further out from the Sun. President Obama thinks we should go there with a manned mission. I wonder why? Is there a reason to visit Mars, other than to mark your bucket list with “been there, done that?”

The Idea

The idea that mankind should “conquer” Mars has been around for a while, i.e. one hundred years plus. The idea that it is worth exploring Mars, similar to Earth’s Moon was proposed by President Obama in 2010, to be achieved in the 2030’s. Russia and possibly other countries have similar thoughts.

 

No doubt, sending astronauts to Mars and having them return safely to Earth would be a major technological achievement. One may ask though to what purpose and is the effort really worth it?

Some of you may remember President Kennedy back in the 1960’s announcing his plan to send astronauts to the Moon by 1970. That goal was achieved well within time. The glory was great and a few small samples of moon rocks were retrieved which can now be seen in museums here and there, mostly collecting dust.

 

The main benefit of the Apollo (moon) program was to demonstrate US superiority in the race to develop advanced materials and technology. However, whether or not a similar excursion to Mars would produce similar results in innovation is rather questionable.

 

Characteristics

Mars and Earth share similar characteristics. The data in Table 1 illustrate my point. Their diameter, distance from the Sun, tilt of the orbit, length of day and number of moons are quite comparable. In terms of mass, Mars has only 11{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of that of Earth but, in planetary scales that is still quite comparable.

 

Table 1. Size, distance and other characteristics of the Earth and Mars, all data in “Earth units:”

Planet	Distance from Sun	Diameter	Tilt, relative to orbit [angle, deg.]	Length of year	Length of day	Mass	Number of moons
Earth	1.00	1.00	23	1.00	1.00	1.00	1
Mars	1.52	0.53	25	1.88	1.03	0.11	2

 

With similar basic parameters, how do some other comparative data stack up? Let’s look at table 2, which shows the composition of the atmosphere on each planet. That’s where some major differences come to the fore.

 

 

Atmospheres

Table 2. Atmospheric compositions of Earth and Mars, units as stated.

Planet	Atmospheric CO2 [ppm]	Atmospheric Oxygen [{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}]	Surface Temperature (day side, C)	Surface Temperature (night side, C)	Air pressure [Earth units]
Earth	400	20	+30	+10	1.0
Mars	950,000	~nil	+30	-145	0.6

 

As is apparent from Table 2, when it comes to the composition of the atmospheres and the surface temperatures (at least on the night side), Earth and Mars are vastly different from each other. To begin with, the atmosphere of Mars lacks any meaningful level of molecular oxygen, which is the stuff we need to breathe to live. The Earth’s atmosphere contains approximately 400 ppm (parts per million) or 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of carbon dioxide (CO2). We live by breathing in air with 400 ppm CO2, consuming a large portion of the oxygen and then exhaling air with approximately 50,000 ppm (or 5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) CO2.

 

Compare that with Mars. Its atmosphere consists almost entirely of CO2, namely 950,000 ppm (or 95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) being CO2 to begin with. Any creature from Earth would quickly suffocate in the atmosphere on Mars, due to both the high level of CO2 and lack of free oxygen. Of course, the lower air pressure would also cause a problem for us.

 

As an aside: despite the high CO2 level, the Martian surface temperature on its sunny side is quite similar to that of Earth. If you were to believe the computer models showing the (Earth’s) atmospheric temperature to be strongly influenced by the CO2 content, Mars ought to be “just cookin;” which, clearly is not the case.

 

Water and Biota

The most important difference is the distribution of water, hence biota, as shown in table 3. Life as we know it is predicated upon the presence of water and the photo-synthesis process. For all intents and purposes neither exists on Mars.

 

Table 3. Critical differences between Earth and Mars.

Planet	Free water	Photo-synthesis	Life	Polar caps
Earth	prevalent	prevalent	prevalent	water
Mars	absent	absent	absent	carbon dioxide

 

Table 3 shows the most important and critical differences between Earth and Mars. To begin with, Mars has no free water, actually no water at all except for some trace amounts bound in minerals and rocks. The polar “ice caps” on Mars consist not of frozen water, but of pure solid carbon dioxide, also known as “dry ice.” In contrast, more than three quarters of the Earth is covered with water in the oceans, freshwater lakes and rivers all of which harbor abundant life. No such things on either the Moon or Mars as they are barren places with sand and rock not unlike the most extreme deserts on Earth. So let me close with a note to the missionaries-to-be.

 

Note to Sons

It’s a long way to Tipperary. When you finally get to Mars, don’t forget to mark your diary with “been there, done that;” and please send home a postcard!

by Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been predicting a rising temperature doom and gloom scenario for the last 20 years or so. Al Gore received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for propagating that scenario.

Forward to December 2012

The new IPCC 5^th assessment report (AR5), to be released later in 2013, but recently leaked, contains some graphs which all but negate their previous reports’ scenarios. Much of the new report’s language still revels in exaggerated pending-climate-disaster verbiage, but some of the graphs comparing actually measured values with those predicted by the former assessment reports (FAR: 1990, SAR: 1995, TAR: 1999, and AR4: 2007) are telling the true story.

For example, look at this graph showing the predicted temperature scenarios with their ranges in grey colour, the release dates of the four prior reports, and the actual temperatures measured. As you can see for yourself, the runaway temperature scenarios are not being experienced.

 In fact, the actual temperature development has been “slipping” into the extreme lower parts of the predictions range. Then, couple that with NASA’s claim of low sunspot numbers for several decades to come, and you’ll know what to expect in the future.

Stop griping about a pending climate disaster – and stay warm!

by Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

A leaked draft of the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) forthcoming 5^th assessment report has some explosive new revelations:

There is substantial influence on our climate by the radiation received from the Sun.

There is a breaking of the ranks. The previously touted consensus about the forces driving our climate appears to be falling apart.

 

The News

Specifically, the draft report says “The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.”

 In layman’s terms: The radiation received by the earth has a larger effect on the climate than previously thought.

 Agenda21

Past claims by the IPCC as to the cause of any climate change were almost exclusively laid on the shoulders of mankind’s use of fossil fuels, with its resulting increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the Earth’s atmosphere. This claim has been taken as sufficient justification to promulgate a new world order, as prescribed in detail by the UN’s overarching program named Agenda21. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in an interview with Yale Environment 360, explains:

“…what we are doing here is we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to [consensus] science. So it’s a very, very different transformation and one that is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different”, [emphasis added].

Consequences

The consequences of the new findings must not be underestimated. They pull the rug out from under the entire CO2-climate hypothesis and, therefore, the claimed scientific consensus which, until now, has underpinned Agenda21. Consider it as an early Christmas gift!

—————–

Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts convenientmyths.com

Dr. Kaiser can be reached at: [email protected]

 

By Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

Some media are abuzz with the latest invention, Switchable Water, and other “switchable” things. If you believe the stories, these switchables will solve all kinds of problems, reduce energy requirements for a variety of technologies and so forth. It sounds like a real panacea; some even claim that it will force a rewrite of chemistry textbooks.

Laws of Nature

Chemistry and physics are specific fields of the natural sciences which are governed by inextricable laws of nature. One of those laws says that you cannot create energy out of nothing. Therefore, if you want to elevate the energy content of a mixture of substances, for example by separating it into pure components of the mixture, you require energy. The exact form of energy you add is not important; it could be mechanical energy, or electrical energy, or thermal energy (heat). In some cases any one of these will do the trick. The important part of it is, though, that you need the same amount of energy to make it happen, regardless of the form you use.

Perpetuum mobile

So, when someone comes along with an idea which claims that it reduces the energy requirement for any process be very careful. More likely than not, it is a modern version of the Perpetuum mobile, i.e. the perpetual motion machine which is outlawed by Mother Nature.

Ideas involving one or another method to create a sort of Perpetuum mobile have been around for millennia. Just look at the drawing by Villard de Honnecourt (13^th century).

As far as I am concerned, these new “switchables” may well exist, but the claims as to their reduction of energy requirements for chemical or physical processes which involve very distinct changes in energy are bunk. Perhaps the term “Witchable” would be more appropriate to describe the claimed energy savings.

by Dr. Klaus L. E. Kaiser

You’ll probably have come across the term “like lemmings” before. Lemmings are small hamster-like rodents found across the Arctic land area and the term refers to their change in abundance and behavior when their number reaches a critical point. At such a point lemmings are said to follow one another to die by drowning in the sea, although there are some open questions about the veracity of such claims [1].

 

Background

Lemmings are hand-sized rodents, similar to the hamsters your son or daughter (age-dependent) may find cute and would like you to raise as their pet in your place (at least until your offspring loses interest).

Anyway, lemmings and hamsters come and go. Given the right circumstances, every so often they multiply enormously. However, nature has its own way of cutting them down to size again; usually by starvation. In times with plenty of food, any species will procreate as much as possible; lemmings are no different. When the inevitable poor harvest occurs, their fortunes change dramatically. This is known from many cyclic species with cyclic population exuberance and crashes. When a crash occurs, it can reduce the previous abundance by many orders of magnitude.

“Lemmingnistics”

OK, that’s a new word. What I mean by it is the pretense of knowing all, still doing the same thing, and expecting a different result than before. Albert Einstein is said to have defined insanity as “doing the same things over and over again, expecting a different result.” Of course, Einstein had his own problems. Someone with the first name Adolf did not particularly like his theories. Adolf managed to enlist a good number of learned people who all concurred that Einstein was wrong. It helped to shape the opinions in the media and the populace. There remained just one little problem: scientific proof was not available at that time, neither for nor against Einstein’s science. As it turned out later, Einstein was right. In response to the hundred-plus scientists who had claimed that he had been wrong, Einstein simply said “one [scientist] would have been enough – if I had been wrong.”

To me that is an important lesson in science. Science does not work by consensus, rather by fact. Any theory, as outlandish as it may sound to another scientist or a layman alike, will eventually be proven to be false or true. But that proof does not depend on how many people believe that the theory is correct or false, at any time. There is no substitute for scientific proof – certainly not of the kind much of the media like to hype. To give you a modern example, let’s look at the Mann Affair.

The Mann Affair

To refresh your memory, Dr. Michael Mann was a major factor, i.e. contributor and lead author to several reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). His work on tree (growth) rings helped to propel his “hockey stick” graph to worldwide attention. That graph supposedly showed a causative link between carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air and the climate on earth. That graph was used by Al Gore and others to “sell” the ideas of “global warming”, the “Kyoto Protocol” and other international agreements such as the UN’s Agenda 21 with its prescriptions for all kinds of government control of your life.

Dr. Mann and some of his associates were so convinced of his work that his employer, the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) had no qualms about publishing his biography with its claim that “He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.” In fact, Mann was so enthused about his scientific prowess that he started court proceedings against others who questioned his claims and wanted to see the raw data behind them [2].

Fast forward to November 2012: The court case brought by Dr. Mann against his most outspoken critic, Dr. Timothy Ball, appears to have collapsed. Mann simply failed to provide the data on which his whole hockey stick graph is supposed to rest. As a result, Mann, and potentially others like him, may be facing counter-suits and potentially substantial damage awards, possibly even punitive actions as well. PSU may not be pleased. They could be on the hook for millions. Stay tuned.

Take Home Message

The take-home message here is simple.

Don’t fall for media hype, awards, or scientific concepts or models with claims like “the majority of scientists believe” as their justification. “Consensus” does not exist in science – but facts do. Computer models can provide great inside knowledge – or can be utterly wrong, the latter for sure if the data behind it are “cooked.”

————————–

[1] Wikipedia entry ‘Lemmings’  wikipedia.org (accessed online: November 28, 2012)

[2] L. Bell, ‘ ClimateGate Star Michael Mann Courts Legal Disaster,’  www.forbes.com (accessed online: November 28, 2012)