Anthony Watts has performed an experiment in follow-up to Roy Spencer’s challenge to the Slayers/Principia Scientific International to “put up or shut up”, to which we replied that we had already put up, and in which we proved that Dr. Spencer’s understanding of the offered challenge was somewhat lacking. Curt Wilson has also done a follow-up experiment for WUWT.

Unfortunately, our successful answer to the original challenge was ignored and a new line of questioning was instead pursued by Watts et al. Sometimes this is called changing reference frames. The distraction comes from a diagram we used to present a general physical principle of thermodynamics, such that radiant emission from a source cannot act as an additional source, for the source. This means that the source cannot become brighter, which in radiative emission terms of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law means hotter, from its own radiation. If such a thing could happen, then an object’s own radiation could act as a source or cause of temperature increase for the object, which is of course plainly in violation of thermodynamics.

The diagram which has presented the hapless convenience for Watts et al. to reframe the rebuttal to their challenge, is reproduced below:

Figure 1: (Image courtesy of Alan Siddons.)

This diagram (Figure 1) was included in the context of a previous diagram, as shown here:

Figure 2:  (Image courtesy of Alan Siddons.)

The point of the discussion surrounding these diagrams was in terms of an elucidation of the underlying physical principles which govern the fundamental thermodynamic behaviour. Unfortunately, the underlying physical principles of thermodynamics, such that a source of light cannot make itself shine brighter (i.e. become hotter) with its own light, or that two equal sources of light cannot make each other brighter (hotter at the source), can be ignored at the expense of mischaracterizing an experiment to test them. It would have been just as well if Watts et al. would have chosen to create an experiment based on Figure 2, because the brightness results would have been much more obvious. However, Figure 1 and Figure 2 do allow for significant misperception if the underlying principles are not understood, or ignored. This is something we didn’t consider would occur, and it is an important lesson for science communicators.

Regarding the underlying theoretical principles of what such an experiments requires to be understood and in regards to the greenhouse effect, Mr. Watts replied at his site: “And yet, in the diagram proposed in the essay by Postma, such fine details were not mentioned nor required. Demanding them now post facto doesn’t fly.”

Unfortunately, expecting the “fine details” to be appreciated is something we expected a-priori. That was our mistake. Unfortunately, it is the onus of the experimentalist to be competent and responsible for their complete understanding of what it is they’ll be intending to measure, and to quantify it. If all of the details aren’t sorted out, such as what the underlying physical principles are, as opposed to a simple literal interpretation of words without context and misidentifying original causes, then any such discussion by the experimentalist of the empirical results cannot be expected to be meaningful. It has always been a tricky business.

The underlying physical principles we had expected to be understood can be expressed in terms of the general equivalence of concepts between three major areas of physics: force mechanics, electrical mechanics, and thermal mechanics. It is sometimes helpful for a student to consider that a problem in one domain can be qualitatively solved equivalently in another domain, for example: voltage is like temperature is like force; current is like heat flow is like acceleration; and electrical resistance is like thermal mass is like material mass.

In terms of an energy analysis, force, voltage, and temperature all represent the potential to induce action if there is a non-zero differential in them. That is, a force differential causes acceleration, modulated by a physical parameter; a voltage differential causes current, modulated by a physical parameter; and a temperature differential causes heat flow, modulated by a physical parameter. In all cases the nature of the action is similar: the acceleration caused by the force does not increase the force; the current caused by the voltage does not increase the voltage; and the heat flow caused by a temperature differential does not increase the temperature. In all cases, if one wishes to modify the action, they must either modify the differential, or modify the relevant physical parameters. We will see ahead the importance of these facts.

In an electrical circuit, dissipation of energy is performed by the resistor. The energy dissipation takes the form of heat in the resistor, and if the physical parameters of the resistor and the circuit are appropriate, the resistor can become hot enough to emit visible light. Typically, light bulb filaments run at 3300K and produce emission close to a blackbody. It is important to comprehend that the source of the thermal emission/heat generation in the resistor is caused by the current running through it, and the current is caused by the voltage applied to the circuit. If the filament emits similar to a blackbody, then its radiant output flux density can be related to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. The radiant emission has as its source, then, the current going through the circuit, which is caused by the voltage applied to the circuit. If you want to increase the temperature of the source of light/heat so that you can produce more light/heat, and the source of those is the filament, then you have to increase the current going through the filament, and this is done by increasing the voltage across the circuit. It cannot be done by giving the filament the light or heat it produces back to itself, as the light is dissipated energy, not source energy for the circuit or filament. The filament’s dissipated energy cannot be used to increase the voltage across the circuit, and hence cannot be used to increase the brightness/temperature of the source.

Both of the WUWT experiments make the mistake of considering that the frosted glass of the bulb is the source of light and heat. PSI acknowledges that such a confusion is possible if you look naively at the diagrams and see what looks like a frosted bulb and simple-mindedly assume that the frosted glass itself is the source of the energy, and assume a bland interpretation of the words describing the scenario.

The frosted glass is a source of light in as much as it scatters the incoming spectrum, and it is a source of heat in as much as its absorbs the incoming spectrum. Obviously, the actual source of light and heat is the filament inside the bulb producing the spectrum at a typical temperature of 3300K, and the source of energy for the filament is the voltage applied to the circuit. The frosted glass is a passive semitransparent screen in front of the actual source. The frosted glass bulb itself, once heated, can be a source of heat for something cooler than it, such as a finger or hand, but it is not the source of energy.

We did not expect that the underlying physical principles would be disregarded, or plainly not understood, nor scientifically quantified. This experiment could be repeated to check for a brightness increase of the frosted glass when another bulb is brought nearby; this might actually occur, but the reason would be that the frosted glass has a high albedo and some additional light would simply be reflected back. Again, this would not actually get down to the underlying physical thermodynamic principle involved nor of what is claimed with the greenhouse effect, because the true source wouldn’t actually increase in temperature. Mr. Watts has insisted that we do not consider such fundamentals of theory and its quantification and instead focus only on the surface appearances of his experiment; doing such a thing obviously presents the opportunity for obfuscation, and we can wonder if this is intended, or simply not comprehended.

Iconic figure in cosmology, Professor Stephen Hawking, has his Singularity Theorem claims challenged in a remarkable new paper by probably the most able scholar in Einsteinian type general relativity, Stephen Crothers, of Queensland, Australia.

Crothers has produced many definitive refutations of the ‘Big Bang,’ black holes and other fallacies spawned from Einsteinian general relativity that have irked the scientific mainstream. In his latest paper, ‘On the Invalidity of the Hawking-Penrose Singularity ‘Theorems’ and Acceleration of the Universe from Negative Cosmological Constant,’ [1]

Crothers argues, “To disprove the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorem requires only disproof of one of the conditions the Theorem must satisfy. Nonetheless, all of the required conditions are proven invalid herein.”

As with his previous papers (2005, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2012b) Crothers demonstrates that ‘Big Bang’ scientists “have no valid basis in science bearing in mind that their concepts and arguments are based on the General Theory of Relativity which is easily proven to violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum and to not predict the black hole.”

The abstract is below and a link to the full paper is found here.

ABSTRACT

Hawking and Penrose proposed “A new theorem on spacetime singularities …

which largely incorporates and generalizes the previously known results” which

they claimed “implies that space-time singularities are to be expected if either the

universe is spatially closed or there is an ‘object’ undergoing relativistic

gravitational collapse (existence of a trapped surface)” and that their ‘Theorem’

applies if four certain physical conditions are satisfied. Hartle, Hawking and

Hertog have proposed a quantum state with wave function for the Universe which

they assert “raises the possibility that even fundamental theories with a negative

cosmological constant can be consistent with our low-energy observations of a

classical, accelerating universe.” They also relate this concept to string cosmology.

It is however proven in this paper that the Hawking-Penrose Singularity ‘Theorem’

and accelerated expansion of the Universe with negative # are invalid because they

are based upon demonstrably false foundations relating to Einstein’s field

equations, trapped surfaces, and the cosmological constant.

Crothers concludes that with the ‘Big Bang’ Cosmology, lacking any theoretical basis it tells us that the Cosmic Microwave Background is not the afterglow of the birth of the Universe from a Big Bang “creatio ex nihilo or otherwise.”

*******

[1] Crothers, S., J., ‘On the Invalidity of the Hawking-Penrose Singularity ‘Theorems’ and Acceleration of the Universe from Negative Cosmological Constant,’ (Queensland, Australia), http://vixra.org (May 4, 2013)

Anthony Watts of the science blog Watts Up With That appears to have pulled a bait and switch to dodge Principia Scientific International’s (PSI) direct and forthright answer to his (and Dr. Roy Spencer’s) “put up or shut up” challenge.

On May 10^th of this year, Watts and Spencer challenged PSI’s “Slayers” to provide a realistic model of earth’s energy budget, one that did not incorporate additional heating by “greenhouse gases.” We obliged.

But rather than acknowledge our response and cogently address our thermal model (illustrated above), Watts incongruously posted an “experiment” to attack us once again. An upcoming article will provide details about Watts’ experiment proving the opposite of what he intended. For now, however, the crux of the debate remains: Is radiative forcing – in other words, heating by greenhouse gases – a real phenomenon? Here and here we have clearly indicated no.

To clarify matters for anyone less familiar with the present debate, the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) has for 30 years been the centerpiece of claims about man-made global warming. The basic contention is that sunlight doesn’t provide enough heat to account for the Earth’s temperature, but additional radiation from about 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the atmosphere’s gases does account for it. These gases respond to the heat radiated by the Earth’s surface and send that energy back, which makes the surface warmer. Thus in effect the Earth is heated by its own radiation, much like a battery charging itself with the electricity it produces.

Spencer’s so-called “time-dependent” Earth model, then, presupposes the existence of such a heating mechanism and from this assumption he derives what he calls “reasonable surface temperatures.” Convinced his model proves that the GHE is real, he dared us to present an alternative. In promptly doing so we also demonstrated that Spencer’s version (below) is not only far from being “time dependent,” it’s not even capable of generating enough heat for clouds to form — let alone enough heat to melt ice. Reasonable surface temperatures indeed.

Yet after calling for an alternative to a heat source that augments the Sun, Watts instantly ignored or perhaps forgot that his call had been answered. He wandered instead into another playground, distracted by a picture which he found amusing. So it’s natural to ask: Is Watts seeking to confuse readers by pretending that what occurred did not occur? Or is the confusion inadvertent?

Anyway, Anthony Watts has now produced a video, New WUWT-TV segment: Slaying the ‘slayers’ with Watts, featuring a homespun experiment with a mirror, an infrared camera and a 65 watt incandescent lamp. Judging by comments to his post, Watts has certainly succeeded in drawing attention away from the original issue. We will address some of Watts’ most recent remarks nevertheless.

“[Slayers] tend to ignore real world measurements”

Astounding. Please open your eyes, Mr. Watts. PSI members have both performed experiments and used respected third party empirical data to validate our views. Look here, here, here and here. For example, in his PSI paper Observations on ‘backradiation’ during Nighttime and Daytime, professor Nasif Nahle carefully compiled a series of real time measurements of thermal radiation from the atmosphere and surface materials both night and day. Nahle demonstrated that radiant heat transfer from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface simply does not occur. A cooler system radiating toward a warmer system is physically untenable as a heating mechanism.

“Most of what that group does is to spin sciencey sounding theories and pal reviewed papers by a mysterious members-only peer review system.”

On the contrary, Mr. Watts, offering pseudo-scientific garbage like Willis Eschenbach’s heat-magnifying shell and Ira Glickstein’s photon-slicer is your specialty. Our group deals with standard scientific principles. And we don’t mince the 2nd Law of thermodynamics into incomprehensible confusion like crafty lawyers would. Actual scientists understand the matter clearly. This is from the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, for example:

Heat always moves from a warmer place to a cooler place.

Heat transfers in three ways:

• Conduction
• Convection
• Radiation

It’s as simple as that: heat always moves to a cooler place, which includes heat transfer by radiation. By the same token, this excludes radiant heat transfer to a warmer place, a point that Mr. Watts and his fans emphatically contest. Which places them on the outskirts of standard science, not us.

As for “a mysterious members-only peer review system,” no. In fact, PSI has pioneered a new kind of open peer review system: PROM (peer review in open media) which allows anyone to post feedback on all the papers submitted to us. Every such paper must pass PROM review and remain up for public scrutiny for a period of no less than one month. During that time authors must respond to any criticisms submitted to PSI on their work. PSI weighs the merits of feedback from members and non-members alike and compels authors to modify or withdraw the paper when objections are deemed valid. Thanks to the thoroughness of our open PROM system, every paper eventually published by PSI has been found in need of some amendment beforehand.

Now for some of Watts’ more serious misconceptions, however.

“a greenhouse atmosphere has higher temperatures near the surface, but lower temperatures at high altitudes”

Yet this trait is common to every planet’s atmosphere, irrespective of that atmosphere’s composition. Has Watts ever bothered to look?

As you’ll notice in every case, atmospheric temperature increases with depth and decreases with height. Above 0.1 bar of pressure, all planetary atmospheres do this. The presence of radiating trace gases aren’t responsible for this but the interaction of gravity with a gas’s ability to hold onto heat. Indeed, as this NASA page shows, the rate of atmospheric cooling (or heating) for a given unit of altitude can be predicted by accounting for the planet’s gravitational acceleration (<g>) and its atmosphere’s heat capacity (C_p) alone. For more information about this phenomenon see A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect, a PSI publication.

Incidentally, it is also the case with every planet’s atmosphere that its lower-altitude temperature exceeds a blackbody-based prediction. In other words, the same method for predicting a minus 18 degree Earth also fails everywhere else. Each planet’s atmosphere is warmer than predicted, even when it is principally composed of hydrogen and helium.

But will this prompt greenhouse theoreticians to reconsider their tenets? Don’t hold your breath.

“To be honest, I laughed when I saw this”

Now we are veering toward the biggest misconception yet. Watts here is referring to a picture that shows a bright light bulb facing a mirror. The caption explains that the mirror’s reflection doesn’t heat the light bulb or make it shine any brighter. This is only common sense, however, because anyone can readily verify such a thing for himself. Even a concave (light-collecting) mirror will demonstrate that an object cannot be brightened by its own radiance. The light it shines can only illuminate something that is shining less.

Believing that an object actually can be brightened by its brightness is rather queer, in fact, like standing inside a bucket and giving an honest effort to lift it off the ground. Yet Watts sincerely believes that by means of its own radiant power an object can increase its radiant power, and he finds it funny that others consider that a joke.

But this ties in to another of his odd beliefs, for Watts also objects to us mentioning that other greenhouse theorists propose that radiant energy is doubled when it is doubled back to the radiator.

“I’ve never made a doubling claim like that, nor am I aware that any of the others named have claimed a doubling”

This is a veritable WHOPPER. Because two of Watts’s greenhouse stars, Eschenbach and Glickstein have clearly explained on Watts’ own pages that radiant energy is doubled if certain conditions prevail.

Willis Eschenbach, for instance, has it that a steel shell suspended around a cold steel sphere will radiate back the sphere’s thermal light and increase its radiance from 235 watts per square meter to 470 watts per square meter. Check our math, but isn’t 470 equal to 235 times 2?

Likewise, Ira Glickstein has it that a greenhouse atmosphere is somehow able to split a single outgoing photon into an incoming photon and an outgoing photon, such that an incoming photon scale that would read “1” in the absence of greenhouse gases will read “2” when they’re around. Pardon us again, but doesn’t 1 + 1 = 2?

Here’s the real question, though: How can Anthony Watts be utterly unaware of what his own greenhouse explainers have been explaining? One might also ask whether Watts is aware that Eschenbach and Glickstein are merely regurgitating the basic concept of greenhouse theory as taught in universities. Outgoing surface heat rays turn into incoming atmospheric heat rays, which double the surface’s heat rays.

Richard Lindzen believes this too. His is one of the names we mentioned.

In Greenhouse Effect, A Scientific Analysis, professor Lindzen explains,

The basic idea of the greenhouse effect is illustrated by Figure 1. Suppose that the atmosphere and clouds can be represented by a single layer of gas and clouds at some temperature T_α , and that this layer of gas and clouds can be treated as a perfect emitter. The layer therefore emits radiant energy both upward and downward at the rate σT_α ⁴ , while the surface emits upward at the rate σT_s⁴ , where T_s is the surface temperature. At the top of the atmosphere, the total outgoing radiative flux, given by σT_a⁴ , must balance the net incoming solar flux of 240 Wm^-2, giving T_a = 255 kelvins. But the surface receives energy from both the sun and the atmosphere, and the thermal equilibrium of the surface requires that

σT_s⁴ = 240 Wm^-2 + σT_a⁴ = 480 Wm^-2.

And there it is again. Eschenbach transforms 235 watts per square meter into 470, Glickstein conjures 2 out of 1, and Lindzen turns 240 W/m² into 480. Since on Watts’ own website Spencer wrote approvingly of yet another paper where Lindzen explains how surface heating by a back-radiating atmosphere works, and since another Watts favorite, Christopher Monckton, endorses both Lindzen and Spencer, we just naturally assumed that Watts himself was in on this doubling business. But no —

“I’ve never made a doubling claim like that, nor am I aware that any of the others named have claimed a doubling”

— it would appear that Watts objects to it. So we await his refutation of Lindzen et al.  

Anyone can do this experiment and prove that carbon dioxide (CO2) increases the pH of natural water systems.

If you read the statements of carbon dioxide “war mongers”, including those from EPA, you are led to believe that CO2 causes acidification of water. That is true under aseptic conditions such as in a laboratory with distilled water, but not in nature. In nature, there are two crucial differences: the presence of nutrients and sun light. Together, they make a big difference as you will see for yourself by undertaking this simple experiment.

The Idea

The idea of this experiment is to prove that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere INCREASES the pH of water.

Supplies & Ingredients

You need:

1. A transparent glass or plastic container (flask, container) with a tight-closing lid. [I am using one of those 1-quart plastic containers used in supermarkets for bulk food items, etc.].

2. A small amount of common plant fertilizer. [I am using a 20-20-20 type all-purpose plant fertilizer].

3. Distilled or de-ionized water, available in any drug store and most supermarkets.

4. A way to measure pH of the water [I am using pH sticks; see also bottom note].

5. A sunny place near your home (inside or outdoors).

6. A few weeks of time.

What to Do

There is very little to do; the sun does most of the work. Also, please note all of the quantities and concentrations mentioned do not need to be exact; they are just general guidelines.

1. Fill your container about two-thirds with the water. Keep the lid off and let it stand a comfortable temperature for a few days.

2. Then measure the pH of the water. It should stabilize near pH 4.5 (weakly acidic).

3. Add fertilizer at the appropriate rate for the amount of water in your container as per instructions by the manufacturer (commonly a teaspoon for 4 liters or a gallon) and stir until it is dissolved.

4. Check the pH again; it should not have changed.

5. Add a smidgen (barely visible amount) of soil, or pond algae as an inoculum.

6. Tightly close the lid and place the container at a sunny spot.

7. Wait a few weeks (say 3 to 6 weeks, depending on area, temperature and sunshine).

8. Once you see obvious signs of algae growing in the container (discoloration of the dye coming with the fertilizer) and turbidity (slime or particles in the system), check the pH again. It will have increased to approximately pH 8.

9. You have finished the experiment.

Observations

You will have demonstrated the conversion of carbon dioxide (from the air) together with the nutrients (the fertilizer you added) and sun light (radiation energy) to plant matter. Of course, nature does this all over without you doing anything at all. Minerals in rocks and soils slowly dissolve and the sun does the rest.

Initially, the distilled water contained no minerals and its pH was determined solely by the dissolution of carbon dioxide from air into the water. The resulting solution of carbonic acid has a pH of approximately 4.5.

Once you added the nutrients (plant fertilizer), added a smidgen of inoculum and waited a few weeks, things had changed dramatically.

Professor Vincent Gray, in his latest New Zealand Climate Truth Newsletter, showcases an important new study by Canadian professor, Ross McKitrick that details why the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be abolished.

Authors of a new climate science consensus study trumpeted by mainstream media hacks for “proving” that most scientists blame humans for global warming are today being accused of fakery. Uproar ensued just days after publication of a controversial paper, ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.‘

(John Cook, University of Queensland)

Experts whose work was cited in the paper by lead author, John Cook (pictured) are aghast that their work has been used to justify far-fetched claims that there exists a  “97{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} consensus” among scientists regarding human-caused global warming.  Among those upset scientists cited in the new paper is Dr. Craig Idso. Idso reacted: “That is not an accurate representation of my paper.”

Nonetheless,  key authors, John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli, are unashamedly taking the plaudits from pro-green news outlets that are citing their paper as justification for draconian carbon taxation policies. California’s KPBS proclaims the study a “survey of the work of almost 30,000 scientists” which has “found 97{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of published papers agree human activity is the cause of climate change. “

Mr. Cook, who owns and runs the controversial and confusingly named alarmist blog, Skeptical Science, is Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, Australia. His paper, appearing in the journal “Environmental Research Letters”  has added real irony for its claim that there really is “a striking discrepancy between public perception and reality.”

But as more independent analysts look into Cook’s claims the less reliable they seem. Another scientist quick to report being misrepresented by the new study is Dr. Nicola Scafetta who spoke of the “ utter dishonesty” at work. While Dr. Nir J. Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, when asked whether Cook’s study reliably reported his paper, replied “Nope… it is not an accurate representation.”

Now Cook’s “97{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} consensus” study is being met by a backlash from the very heart of European green policy. Once solidly pro-green Germany sees its flagship news magazine, Spiegel Online, quick to throw cold water over Cook’s claims.

Speigel reports:

“There’s an obvious discrepancy between the public perception and reality. The authors speak about ‘consensus on man-made climate change’ – and thus this threatens to further increase confusion within the public. The survey confirms only a banality: Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that man is responsible for at least a part of the climate warming. The important question of how big is man’s part in climate change remains hotly disputed.”

Nonetheless, in the United States it’s climate alarmist business as usual in the Whitehouse. President Barack Obama this week was again turning the heat up. The President’s new “Call Out the Climate Change Deniers” website is hard at work trying to sell the myth that opposition to climate alarmism among scientists is “vanishingly small.”  Such assertions fly in the face of the fact tens of thousands of  American scientists are actively on record as condemnatory of such junk climate. As many correctly point out,  you will see that  by comparison there is only a miniscule number of climate scientists who have actually put names on record to assert humans are dangerously warming the climate.

Indeed, a U.S. Senate minority report demonstrates that if you contrast and compare the actual number of names of alarmist scientists on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) versus those named scientists opposing the scam then the skeptics are “12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.”

And the skeptic naysayers are scientists of real pedigree. Among them are some of the world’s best. Among them is a past winner of a Nobel Science Prize (unlike that Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the IPCC and Al Gore).

Lord Monckton’s latest open letter in our debate about the validity of the greenhouse gas “theory” is peppered with vituperation, untruths, errors and self-contradictions. Monckton’s reply follows that of his first open letter. These are in rebuttal against John O’Sullivan’s first and second open letter challenges to Monckton about the so-called greenhouse gas ‘theory.’ Below we show how unreliable his lordship is as a supposed authority. Sorry it’s so long but it’s not easy to debunk the sophist arguments in a few words.

Let us examine his lordship’s latest diatribe where Monckton takes great umbrage to O’Sullivan’s assertion that his lordship has cultivated an image of himself as the former “science adviser” to Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. They say a picture speaks a thousand words. In that light, please take a look at this Youtube video where Monckton smiles contentedly as a news interviewer refers to him in those very same terms – no words of correction whatsoever from his lordship.

But while Monckton throws insults at me for daring to describe him that way he seems to have no qualms when such attributions are made by his supporters, including Marc Morano at Climate Depot. Morano explicitly states, “Former Thatcher Science Advisor & UN IPCC Reviewer Lord Christopher Monckton,” and again here, to which Monckton, replied, “The story circulated by the indefatigable Marc Morano is – as one would expect – accurate in every particular.” 

The appellation seemingly thus implicitly approved by Monckton going back at least to 2009 as per UKIP Leader Malcolm Pearson when Pearson announced:

“I am delighted that Lord Monckton has accepted my invitation to join UKIP as our chief spokesman on Climate Change. He was Margaret Thatcher’s Special Adviser in Downing Street on a number of areas, including science.”

Thatcher Minister Mocks Monckton’s Mendacious Claims

Current UKIP leader, Nigel Farage will see that the self styled “Special Adviser” on science to Margaret Thatcher was nothing more than a glorified press officer and odd job. Yes, he has an arts degree but no science qualifications we can find. By contrast, Margaret Thatcher was an Oxford University Chemistry graduate. “It was I [Monckton] who—on the prime minister’s behalf—kept a weather eye on the official science advisers to the government, from the chief scientific adviser downward.” Well, Thatcher’s autobiography makes not one mention of Monckton and attributes all such climate science advice to George Guise and Sir Crispin Tickell.

So, your lordship, since you’ve called me a liar, in my defense I challenge you

If all you claim is true then why do you appear to have done nothing to counter Thatcher’s climate alarmism? You claim you had at that time hard evidence to prove such alarmism wrong. But newspaper reports and your own piece in the Daily Telegraph (Nov 6, 2006) stand at odds with quotes attributed to you elsewhere (The Guardian:June 22, 2010) suggesting you disregarded all those “calculations” you say you performed using the “first computer in Downing St;” calculations you say proved that, at most, CO2 could only cause “some warming.” So why, by your omission to speak out, do you appear complicit in Thatcher’s original greenhouse gas-based global warming alarmism?

Monckton’s other Gaffes and Scientific Self Contradictions

Monckton has contradicted himself in his pronouncements about the science. In his first reply in our exchange he said:

The issue of whether we can predict when solar activity may trigger earthquakes on our planet is generating increasing interest among scientists. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in its ‘Science Features:Top Story‘ says it is unlikely (May 3, 2012) Citing a study in Geophysical Research Letters USGS writes:

“Can We Predict Earthquakes?  So far, the answer is no. Despite frequent claims to the contrary, no reliable short-term earthquake prediction method has ever been developed. Nor do scientists expect to develop a method in the foreseeable future.”

But PSI’s Joe Postma takes a more upbeat view. Referring to the firsts 10 minutes of this new video, (see below) we are presented with data suggesting that there are more earthquakes in the descending phase of the solar cycle, especially stronger ones. If so that gives us a measure of some forewarning.

Postma says this suggests “that massive and massively energetic geological events are affected by the solar magnetic field, cosmic ray rates, etc. Obviously this could have major implications for climate.”

Certainly, with huge implications involved for disaster management, it seems prudent to take the view that this area of science merits much further research. From the first 10 minutes of this video we are presented with data suggesting that there are certainly more earthquakes in the descending phase of the solar cycle, especially stronger ones.

Postma agrees that this evidence does suggest “that massive and massively energetic geological events are affected by the solar magnetic field, cosmic ray rates, etc. Obviously this could have major implications for climate.”

Menawhile, in London maverick British weather forecaster and astrophysicist, Piers Corbyn claims to have made strides in forecasting earthquakes based on analysis of solar activity. Corbyn is sure they can be triggered by solar activity, and hence that he can to some extent predict them.

Corbyn says:

“We now think that it is not just general solar proton event levels which point towards more earthquakes but that individual solar proton events exacerbate immediate earthquake (and associated volcanism) risk either directly or due to consequent storm activity and related surface pressure changes.”

But such claims have met with strong criticism. In an article in Wired popular technology magazine entitled “The Fraudulent Business of Earthquake and Eruption Prediction”, Erik Klemetti, an assistant professor of Geosciences at Denison University, accused Corbyn of “cherry picking” and said people who claimed to be able to forecast earthquakes were “faith healers of the geologic community and should be seen as such”.

Nonetheless Corbyn is unbowed a insist our moon must also be another factor at play:

“There are also additional lunar effects on storm development and earthquakes and volcanism and for solar drivers it appears that the odd-even minima, particularly the later part ie the rising phase of even solar cycles are the most dangerous.”

No scientists working in the field deny that the Sun is proven to have dramatic impacts and does have  “weather” of sorts. USGS admits “The Sun’s behavior changes over time and this can cause the space environment surrounding Earth to change as well.”

We do know that solar magnetic storms cause periods when Earth’s magnetic field is unusually active. This is due to the Sun emitting a wind of electrically charged particles. If it changes abruptly, it causes a magnetic storm.

Space weather has seen large magnetic storms cause widespread loss of radio communications. It has also, at times, reduced the accuracy of GPS systems. Also, damage has been caused within satellite electronics and satellite opera­tions impacted. But the triggering of volcanic activity requires far greater surges of energy and it is these claims that are most in need of further scrutiny to ascertain not only if it is likely but also whether there is any way we might be better able to predict it.

{source}
<iframe style=”border: none” src=”http://larouchepac.com/jvideo/26768?size=640×360″ width=”640″ height=”360″></iframe>
{/source}

Popular Canadian climate scientists Dr. Tim Ball is skeptical over alarmist claims about man-made global warming. Like an increasing number of non-government scientists he’s been weighing up the data and is convinced the trace gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), plays no measurable role in climate.

Instead, like an increasing number of skeptics Dr. Ball is pointing to empirical evidence showing that it is the oceans that cover 70 percent of our planet’s surface that is nature’s key climate thermostat.

To reinforce his point Dr. Ball urges scientists and non-scientists alike to keep in mind the simple yet powerful message contained in the video experiment below.

In ‘When a Balloon Won’t Pop’ ( Sciencekids.co.nz) we see how any responsible parent and child can demonstrate the enormous heat absorbin power of water. When we put a balloon too close to a flame we will hear a loud bang as it quickly pops. “But what happens if you add some cold water to the equation?” is the big question.

As the video shows, by adding water to the balloon the liquid now absorbs the heat from the flame before the balloon can pop. This cool experiment also fundamentally relates to climate and how the Earth’s oceans lock up heat and move it around.

Indeed, perplexed global warming alarmists such as climatologist, Kevin Trenberth, who now admit they don’t know what’s happened to all that dangerous “missing heat” they predicted should take heed.

Climate researchers at Principia Scientific International are prominent among those saying that water and not CO2 has always been the key to the climate controversy. But Trenberth and most government climatologist aren’t giving up easily on their discredited hypothesis of a greenhouse gas effect (GHE). Their “theory” says CO2 has a forcing factor more critical than the cooling properties of water itself. But PSI evidence shows that to be nonsense. They say government climatologists are just too reluctant to let go of their CO2-driven GHE hypothesis because their government employers, in turn, don’t want to let go of CO2 emissions as a factor in their taxation policies.

But more and more new studies keep piling up the pressure on those CO2 alarmists. One such study appears in the peer-reviewed “International Journal of Modern Physics B” and supports the assertion of PSI researchers that CO2 “is innocent.” [1]

The new paper (May 13, 2013) from University of Waterloo s cience professor , Qing-Bin Lu is causing quite a stir. It casts further doubt on whether carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming. Professor Lu summarizes, “…we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that  conventional understanding is wrong. ”

Increasingly, scientists are seeing that our mostly watery planet has nature’s best in-built climate thermostat. So much so that a bouyant Dr. Ball proclaims, “I will continue my campaign to change the name of the planet from Earth to Water.”

***********

[1] Q.-B. LU  , ‘Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change,’ (doi: 10.1142/S0217979213500732) 

Author, Ken Coffman, is generously donating to Principia Scientific International all gross sales of his novel ‘Endangered Species’ for the week ending Friday, May 31^st 2013.

This highly-rated book is a fast-paced literary adventure; a story of how three groups converge in the Pacific Northwest to discover the secret of the Sasquatch. Enjoying an Amazon ‘five star’ review status ‘Endangered Species‘ is described by one satisfied reader:

“There’s hardly a topic that isn’t touched on here: economics, engineering, societal constructions, population control, climate change, eco-terrorism, survival, cannibalism, politics, Earth-worship-cults, and sex. There’s a jaded, lethal rich bastard looking for both a business partner and the ultimate thrill. And a spoiled rich kid who finds the thrill isn’t so thrilling. And an Everyman who’s accidentally on a voyage of self-discovery.And there’s a love story. Several, in fact. Willie and Maria–a mismatched pair (in more ways than one) who work beautifully together–are at the core of this delightful piece of insanity. And Graham, who finds himself and the love of his life. And Robert and Raven. Sex is had. Love is made. Sometimes things don’t end well. “

‘Endangered Species‘ is currently on limited offer for only $11.01 via Amazon and there is FREE shipping on orders over $25. Buy your copy today, have a great read and feel you’ve also helped sponsor the world’s only independent science association dedicated to campaigning against corruption within science.

Dyes and pigments are everywhere. They make us see things in many colors. The blue of your jeans is just one dye of many.

Some History

In ancient times (say Neanderthals’ time), the available dyes were mostly minerals, such as “ocher,” rust, carbon (black) and similar pigments. Pictographs made with them some tens of thousands of years ago have survived quite well to this date.

Later on, just a few thousand years ago, some organisms-derived organic dyes became widely known. They include Indigo (the blue dye in “blue jeans”) from the plant Indigofera tinctoria, Tyrian Purple (a purple dye, the Roman imperial purple) from the snail Murex sp., Cochineal (a red dye) from the aphid-like insect Sternorrhyncha sp. among many others.

The evolution of chemistry changed it all. Beginning with the elucidation of the chemical structures of some of the natural dyes above, chemists found ways to duplicate those en masse in laboratories and create derivatives and novel dye structures on the basis of then-recognized simple principles. Fig. 1, showing the chemical structure of indigo helps to understand that principle. All the “aromatic bonds” (indicated by a pair of parallel lines spaced by a single line) create a large molecule with a “conjugated-bond” structure. Such conjugated-double bond arrangements have optical absorption bands in the visible spectrum of light and hence are dyes.

Fig. 1. The chemical structure of the indigo (blue) dye from the Indigo plant.

Just a (small) change of the chemical structure causes a shift in the material’s spectrum to make it a purple dye. This compound has two additional bromine atoms, as indicated by “Br” in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. The chemical structure of the Tyrian Purple (purple-red) dye from the Murex snail.

Today, such synthetic dyes number now in many tens of thousands. Your (color) photocopier or printer, your newspaper and every glossy magazine you look at makes liberal use of such inventions. Without the glitzy color, the new car ads just wouldn’t have the same sex appeal!

The World of Color

Just twenty years ago, most newspapers were strictly black and white without any color pictures whatsoever. These days, in the same papers you’ll find full page color-ads and pictures throughout.

While we humans enjoy a world of color, others on Earth are only able to perceive dark and light. For example, deer and moose do not have color vision. Instead, their dark and light perception far exceeds ours. That allows them to move through dense forests in the middle of the night without much difficulty.

Yet other species perceive entirely different “colors,” namely parts of the electromagnetic wave spectrum we cannot see at all; the infrared spectrum belongs to that. Many insects, certain snakes and other critters have organs which can “see” infrared radiation as it is emanating from warm bodies. We only feel that radiation as warmth hitting our skin when sitting near a camp fire or similar heat source, but we cannot see it with our eyes.

Without our ability to perceive color, the world would appear more bleak, just in shades of light and dark.

Aren’t you glad that chemistry invented some fabulous additions to the world of color?

Twenty interesting facts about CO2 that have been kept ‘top secret’ by the man–made global warming community

By Dr Darko Butina

1. We know everything about physico-chemical properties of CO2 there is to know since its discovery 200 years ago, and categorical statement can be made that the physico-chemical properties of CO2 in its pure state, including IR properties, have nothing to do with its properties as part of the mixture called air.

Once again, Laker Erie is on the verge of choking on too much nutrient. In 2011, its western basin had massive blooms of Microcystis and Cladophora sp. algae. It happened before, in the 1960’s, leading to it being declared “dead.” A new paper by AM Michalak and 28 coauthors describes the event in detail; the figure below shows a satellite image of the observed bloom.

Fig. 1. Observed algal blooms, 2011, in western Lake Erie; source: Michalak et al. (2013).

Algal Blooms

Algae begin to thrive when the concentrations of phosphorous- and nitrogen-type nutrients become overabundant. The algae produce fibers which commonly wash up on the shores. There, the rotting mass produces slimy surfaces and pungent smells. What’s worse though, the stuff not washing up on the shores dies in the water column and sinks to the bottom of the lake. There, its decomposition consumes the water’s oxygen to become uninhabitable by bottom-dwelling organisms which require that oxygen. Furthermore, Microcystis-type algae also produce natural toxins that are highly toxic to a variety of species, man included.

Lake Erie

Lake Erie is the fourth largest of the Laurentian Great Lakes (LGLs) with ~26,000 km^2 (~10,000 square miles) of surface area. Lake most other LGLs, it is shared between Canada and the US.

When Lake Erie experienced severe algal blooms several decades, then predominantly of Cladophora sp. ago (in the western basin of Lake Erie, the toxic Microcystis algae were first observed in the mid 1990s), governments on both sides of the border sprang into action. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQ) of 1972 was based on research findings, much of it undertaken by the then new Canada Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington, Ontario. The GLWQ recognized the need for limitation of excessive nutrient loadings to the lakes in order to prevent such algal blooms. Primarily, the agreement called for the construction of sewage treatment facilities which would remove excessive phosphate loadings from municipal sources.

Lake Erie responded extremely well to the new effluent controls, some people even called it “miraculous.” Within a few years, fishermen’s catches of perch and walleye increased to levels not seen for decades, the shores were no longer covered with smelly decaying algae, and all was fine, again.

Beginning with the early 2000s, blooms of algae, now predominantly of the Microcystis species, started to re-appear in Lake Erie, generally getting more severe over the decade. This trend went into overdrive in 2011.