Scientists have seen huge, extra-powerful particles shooting out of the sun, in what they have described as a brand new solar phenomenon.
Researchers have for the first time ever spotted what they describe as “large-scale” waves being thrown out of the sun, together with energetic particles that seem to be thrown out by the waves. The scientists have long known that such particle emissions were happening — but couldn’t explain how they were making their way into space.
The sun is continually throwing out huge, violent bursts of emissions into space. Some of those are well-known, such as coronal mass ejections, but the new waves are of a new and are little understood.
“The new phenomenon is like a kind of explosion,” said Radoslav Bucík, who led the research team.
Those waves are likely bringing with them particle flows that are much more rich in a light form of helium, helium-3, than normal.
“We believe that the blast waves accelerate the helium-3”, Davina Innes, from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS), said in a statement.
“Do you want to take down scientific materialism, the scientific anti-philosophical paradigm? Do you want philosophy to use mathematics and physics better than science can, and to make philosophy once more reign supreme in intellectualism and to assert its supremacy over science? Perhaps something more current, more part of the social zeitgeist, will help. Unless you have an event more interesting.”
Anon: “So I came across this reference to Pythagoras:”
As I have stated publicly on many occasions, there is no definitive scientific proof, through real-world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the past 300 years, since the peak of the Little Ice Age. If there were such a proof through testing and replication it would have been written down for all to see.
The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory. It is therefore correct, indeed verging on compulsory in the scientific tradition, to be skeptical of those who express certainty that “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”.
But there is certainty beyond any doubt that CO2 is the building block for all life on Earth and that without its presence in the global atmosphere at a sufficient concentration this would be a dead planet. Yet today our children and our publics are taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will destroy life and bring civilization to its knees. Tonight I hope to turn this dangerous human-caused propaganda on its head. Tonight I will demonstrate that human emissions of CO2 have already saved life on our planet from a very untimely end. That in the absence of our emitting some of the carbon back into the atmosphere from whence it came in the first place, most or perhaps all life on Earth would begin to die less than two million years from today.
Skeptic scientists expose errors in the science of man-made global warming alarmism while governments get set to gather for a political outcome in the crucial December UN climate summit in Paris.
While talking heads and lobbyists demand global reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), mathematical flaws and scientific anomalies in the greenhouse gas theory, the backbone of climate ‘science’, is highlighted by below by experts from other fields of scientific endeavour.
Hans Schreuder, a leading figure behind Principia Scientific International herein sets out key concerns aamong independent researchers:
“The essence of mathematics lies in its freedom.” – Georg Cantor
That “freedom” apparently allows mathematicians to calculate whatever they like in an energy budget, so long as they maintain input = output; hence they see no issue with giving the atmosphere the “power” to radiate more energy into the system than the Sun does, so long as they can “prove” that the earth’s surface is kept warmer by this illusionary “greenhouse effect” in order to balance the books and maintain input = output.
Let’s analyse this view for example: “One instance is attributing the high surface temperature of Venus to a “runaway greenhouse effect” – when that temperature is perfectly well explained by basic adiabatic processes – as the outcome of the pressure exerted by the huge Venusian atmosphere. And just basic logic seems often to be overlooked.”
Let’s look at Venus’ adiabatic process then, as that is the secondary reason for its atmosphere being as hot as it is at the base of the atmospheric column.
Most important question to ask at all times is this: “Where does the heat come from in the first place?”
Pressure alone does not create heat; pump a tyre up all you want, it will have cooled to ambient temperature if left alone.
So, whilst the adiabatic process will help maintain a temperature within an atmosphere, there is still the need to add “new” heat to the system to prevent the gas column from cooling down. If Venus’ surface was not as volcanic as it has been proven to be, the entire atmosphere would by now have cooled down and with it the surface.
If there is no “new” heat added at the bottom of the adiabatic process then the entire gas column has no option but to cool, considering that the gas column radiates heat into space at all times, so heat is lost all the time and without a source of heat at the base of the column, the whole column will have to cool, by definition.
Some dentists use Laughing Gas for its analgesic effects instead of local anaesthetics. It’s supposed to prevent pain when they get close to your nerves. I’ve never had the pleasure of such a treatment and my dentist prefers the modern “slight discomfort” version of the poke and needle variety.
Of course, that’s miles ahead of the procedure I experienced in my early years when the dentist appeared to use a hammer drill to lay bare the live nerves of my teeth—without any analgesic at all.
But I’m getting sidetracked. This post is about the newest menace to the globe: Laughing Gas. Believe me this is not a laughing matter. Some activists think that this gas is another villain causing “climate change,” “global warming,” polar ice melting, rising ocean levels, droughts and floods, and all other calamities.
Obviously, the claims of carbon dioxide (CO2) causing every conceivable misfortune is running into some difficulties; it must be high time to find another culprit.
Laughing Gas
Laughing Gas (LG) is a simple chemical, composed of two nitrogen (N) atoms and one oxygen (O) atom, hence the chemical notation of N2O and name nitrous oxide. Of course you know that molecular nitrogen gas (N2) and molecular oxygen (O2) make up 99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the atmosphere on earth (disregarding water vapor). That new villain, LG, is present in the atmosphere at approximately 330 parts per billion, or 0.00003{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} in the atmosphere. What a menace!
Not only is LG a natural trace constituent of air, mainly arising from soil bacteria and lightning, it is also commercially produced and used for a variety of purposes, some of which – I frankly admit – are beyond my comprehension. For example, Wikipedia mentions uses that include rocket fuel or additive, internal combustion engine fuel additive, propellant for such food items as whipped cream dispensers, recreational and medicinal uses.
According to a study by the Institute of Catalysis and Environment in Lyon (IRCELYON, CNRS / University Lyon 1) and the Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS), the oceans are producing unexpectedly large quantities of isoprene – a volatile organic compound (VOC) – which is known to have a cooling effect on climate.
Isoprene is a gas that is formed by both the vegetation and the oceans. It is very important for the climate because this gas can form particles that can become clouds and then later affect temperature and precipitation. Previously it was assumed that isoprene is primarily caused by biological processes from plankton in the sea water. The atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, could now show that isoprene could also be formed without biological sources in surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.
The oceans not only take up heat and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, they are also sources of various gaseous compounds, thereby affecting the global climate. A key role is played by the so-called surface microlayer (SML), especially at low wind speed. In these few micrometers thin layer different organic substances such as dissolved organic matter, fat and amino acids, proteins, lipids are accumulating as well as trace metals, dust and microorganisms.
The not-quite-planet-but-jolly-big-for-an-asteroid Ceres continues to give up its secrets under the unwinking gaze of NASA’s Dawn probecraft, now in orbit about the planetoid.
New developments include the naming of various features on Ceres and the detection of a mysterious particle blast from the enigmatic dwarfworld.
“Ceres continues to amaze, yet puzzle us, as we examine our multitude of images, spectra and now energetic particle bursts,” said Chris Russell, Dawn’s principal investigator.
One new map of Ceres includes more than a dozen officially approved names for features.
The names, all eponymous for “agricultural spirits, deities and festivals from cultures around the world” include a mountain near Ceres’ north pole, with a diameter of 12 miles (20km) which has been dubbed Ysolo Mons, “for an Albanian festival that marks the first day of the eggplant harvest.”
A full list of features’ names is available here, and includes a crater dubbed Vinotonus, after the Celtic Briton god of vines, and another named Jaja, after the Abkhazian harvest goddess.
Michael Shermer is a self-proclaimed sceptic and an Adjunct Professor of Economics. His scepticism is however somewhat selective since he is evidently sceptical only of those who are sceptical of the Authorities of whom he is not himself sceptical.
It seems that he is only sceptical of sceptics. The question arises as to whether or not a self-proclaimed sceptic is actually a sceptic when he is only sceptical of sceptics of Authorities that he is not sceptical of. Perhaps that is one for linguists to answer, or maybe a sceptic of a persuasion different to that of Shermer.
In any event, Shermer’s scepticism is short on facts and long on unsubstantiated allegations, as his recent article in the October 2015 issue of Scientific American attests. Shermer reports there on his attendance at the Electric Universe Conference in Phoenix, Arizona, in June 2015, and in his fashion is sceptical of people he heard speak there. Shermer presented an invited talk at that conference, in the morning session on Monday 29th June.
I too presented an invited talk on the same day as Shermer, in the afternoon session. In his article in Scientific American Shermer singles me out for particular mention. He also ‘sceptically’ reported on conversations he said he had with Wallace Thornhill and David Talbot, two other speakers at the conference. However, in my case, he reports without evidence.
Outspoken Australian academic publishes telling new book exposing the Vatican for promoting junk science claims about man-global warming. The Encylical Letter of Pope Francis Laudato Si “care for our common home” was influenced by atheists, communists and green activists, claims Professor Ian Plimer, a world-renowned climate critic.
In Heaven and Hell Professor Plimer, a successful geologist and long-time critic of climate alarmists, takes Pope Francis to task, looking purely at the science rather than the theology. Plimer shows the failure of the current Pope in his understanding of the real issues causing poverty, especially in Third World countries.
Plimer’s is a trusted voice in the heated climate debate and, as in his previous books, his new publication again shows that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a ‘first-world luxury’ with no basis in scientific fact.
“The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology,” says Plimer, and while his thesis is not new, you’re unlikely to have heard it expressed with quite such vigour, certitude or wide-ranging scientific authority.
Professor Plimer tells Principia Scientific International that he “hops into Naomi Klein in this book.” (Klein is a trumpeter for the alarmist movement and recently admitted that man-made climate change is not about the science). The book is on general release from October 23, 2015.
Joseph Fourier’s discovery of the greenhouse effect is discussed and is compared to the modern conception of the greenhouse effect. It is confirmed that what Fourier discovered is analogous to the modern concept of the greenhouse effect.
However, the modern concept of the greenhouse effect is found to be based on a paradoxical analogy to Fourier’s greenhouse work and so either Fourier’s greenhouse work, the modern conception of the greenhouse effect, or the modern definition of heat is incorrect. The solution to this problem is not feigned to be given here.
The new paper by Joseph E Postma is published on arXiv and the link page can be found here. PDF here:
“In any collection of data, the figure most obviously correct, beyond all need of checking, is the mistake.”
-Finagle’s 3rd Law
Theories have foundations, starting points, or pillars upon which everything else is dependent. These are called “axioms”. From Wiki:
“An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning.”
The paradigm of Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarm (ACCA) depends specifically, and singularly, on a mechanism called the “radiative greenhouse effect”.
“As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.”
This is the attitude and approach taken by climate alarmists and the entire field of climate science to its postulate of a radiative greenhouse effect.
Interview The life of physicist Freeman Dyson spans advising bomber command in World War II, working at Princeton University in the States as a contemporary of Einstein, and providing advice to the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.
He is a rare public intellectual who writes prolifically for a wide audience. He has also campaigned against nuclear weapons proliferation.
At America’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Dyson was looking at the climate system before it became a hot political issue, over 25 years ago. He provides a robust foreword to a report written by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cofounder Indur Goklany on CO2 – a report published[PDF] today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
An Obama supporter who describes himself as “100 per cent Democrat,” Dyson says he is disappointed that the President “chose the wrong side.” Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, but it is not an insurmountable crisis. Climate change, he tells us, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”
When NOAA announced today that a global bleaching event is occurring, scientists took notice. When they wrote that it was the third-worst global coral bleaching event, headlines started blaring “devastating” and “dramatic.” But the facts about coral bleaching are usually set aside in the rush to make headlines, and when it comes to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), you really do have to pay attention to what they are declaring. Especially under this current administration.
As we first reported here, NOAA announced in early July that coral reefs are dying off at an unprecedented rate, even though a recently published paper showed that these statements are more alarmist than accurate. Coral reefs can turn white when the algae that surrounds them dies off from too warm (or too cold) water, and the satellites detect that thermal stress. But the paper published in Marine Biology showed that while even though some corals appear bleached, it doesn’t mean they are dead or even dying. Why?
Conventional tracking methods (like NOAA’s 5-km Coral Reef Watch Satellite Monitoring) can’t distinguish between white and bleached (dead) colonies. The paper, by Cruz et al, showed that “although bleaching leaves the coral skeleton visible under its transparent tissue, not all white coral colonies display this feature,” which “raises the question as to whether all ‘white’-shaded colonies are indeed bleached.” To determine whether bleached coral is actually dead, Cruz et al actually sampled coral off the east coast of Brazil, and found that white corals exhibited the same lifelike features as their multi-colored cousins.
Written by Ian Sample Science editor, theguardian.com
Campbell and Ōmura win for their work on a therapy against roundworm, sharing the prize with Tu for her work on a therapy against malaria.
Three scientists from Ireland, Japan and China have won the Nobel prize in medicine for discoveries that helped doctors fight malaria and infections caused by roundworm parasites.
Tu Youyou discovered one of the most effective treatments for malaria while working on a secret military project during China’s Cultural Revolution.
The 84-year-old pharmacologist was awarded half of the prestigious 8m Swedish kronor (£631,000) prize for her discovery of artemisinin, a drug that proved to be an improvement on chloroquine, which had become far less effective as the malaria parasites developed resistance.
Two other researchers, 80-year-old Satoshi Ōmura, an expert in soil microbes at Kitasato University, and William Campbell, an Irish-born parasitologist at Drew University in New Jersey, share the other half of the prize, for the discovery of avermectin, a treatment for roundworm parasites.
Explaining his shocking resignation from the American Physical Society, Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara wrote:
“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
“Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.”
Dr. Lewis, who was also a former department chairman at the University of California, had been a member of the American Physical Society for 67 years.
The full resignation letter is as follows:
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society 6 October 2010
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence – it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time.
Arctic sea ice extent has increased over the last decade. Satellite data confirms opposite of what global warming alarmists claim.
Listening to the latest “climate doom” you’d think that the Arctic must just about be squeaky clean, not a drink-sized ice cube in sight anymore. Well, I’ve some news that must be disconcerting to the warmists: The sea-ice extent is actually quite stable, perhaps even growing and the polar bears are just fine as well.
Sea-Ice in the Arctic
The sea-ice in the Arctic waxes and wanes in a regular fashion, sort of like the phases of the Moon.
At the height of the seasonal minimum (around mid-September) the Arctic sea-ice extent is in the order of 4-5 million square kilometers (SKM). That’s quite different from the maximum extent in the Arctic winter that is typically in the 14-15 million SKM range; in other words, its common seasonal range is approximately threefold or more.
Sea-Ice in the Arctic
The sea-ice in the Arctic waxes and wanes in a regular fashion, sort of like the phases of the Moon.
At the height of the seasonal minimum (around mid-September) the Arctic sea-ice extent is in the order of 4-5 million square kilometers (SKM). That’s quite different from the maximum extent in the Arctic winter that is typically in the 14-15 million SKM range; in other words, its common seasonal range is approximately threefold or more.
For example, the number of days with air temperature above freezing (0 C) at latitude 80 N and higher have been recorded for 55 years now. These data are readily available from theDanish Meteorological Institute (DMI). On the basis of such observations, they have also calculated a 50-year mean of temperatures above freezing. It has not changed in that time and you can follow it daily as well as all daily records over the past, year by year. What’s important in these data is the number of days above freezing each year. Except for 2013, where that number was one half of the long-term mean of 90 days, it hardly changed from year to year.
These data not only show a very stable climate up north, they also indicate that the claims of a “thinning” ice-cover must be false. You cannot possibly have the ice thinning and the air warming and the ice-cover being unaffected decade after decade. If the ice were getting thinner, it would melt earlier, the number of days above freezing would increase and the re-freezing would happen later in the season; none of which is happening. Now let’s look at the ice cover itself.
Minimum Sea-Ice Extent
What everyone is watching with beady eyes is the seasonal MINIMUM sea-ice extent. That occurs around mid-September and, obviously, varies more strongly as it’s influenced by a variety of natural and man-made effects than at the time of maximum extent when there isn’t much activity. For example, the brief Arctic summer is the time when submarines tend to surface near the Pole, when research vessels try to explore the Arctic, when commercial vessels may attempt to cross the Northwest or Northeast Passages, when companies are exploring for natural resources, whenbuccaneers try to reach the North Pole by foot, when cruise ships go on Arctic voyages, when you can go hot-air-ballooning there, and more.
Much of that brief seasonal activity still requires the accompaniment (and, frequently, rescue) by ice-breakers from the Arctic riparian countries. For example, Russia alone has about 50 of such vessels, including nuclear-powered Class-4 or higher ice-breakers. The U.S. Coast Guard IcebreakerHealy made it to the North Pole just earlier this month (see photo from Sep. 7, 2015).
Although that photo shows the North Pole covered with solid ice, there have been other times when open water was seen right there. For example, the USS Skate surfaced there in 1958 and had repeatedly observed open water in the high Arctic.
Maximum Sea-Ice Extent
To begin with, hardly a soul ever mentions the MAXIMUM seasonal sea-ice extent in the Arctic. In truth, it hasn’t changed much for many decades. The reasons are easy to understand. With most of the year (see Air Temperatures, above) being well below freezing, the annual ice build-up is affected more by wind and currents than anything else. Therefore, it reaches a maximum at around mid-March that barely varies between years. In that context, it should also be noted that, by most accounts, the “Arctic” sea-ice count extends south to latitude 45 N, or even further towards the equator. Still, the maximum ice extent barely changes, so, no need to mention it further.
Also, there are few visitors to the high Arctic in winter. Not only is it dark for many days then, the temperatures aren’t exactly suited for frolicking either. At MINUS 40 C, even the (male) polar bears that are not hibernating are beginning to shiver. In my humble opinion, it’s a pity that the many famous climate modellers from PIK and other institutions don’t want to visit then. The local government may even provide free accommodation then (with a minimum stay of four-weeks) in tents or igloos, visitors’ choice. What could be more relaxing than a few weeks in an igloo when a blizzard rages on the outside? If need be, they can bring along a portable windmill to charge their i-thing or laptop.
As you can imagine, any daily measurement of that is only possible with sophisticated instrumentation and associated software from a long distance away. Satellite recognisance is what is deployed for that purpose.
There are the widely used daily satellite surveys of Arctic sea-ice published by the Nansen Environmental & Remote Sensing Center at Bergen, Norway. These satellite observations have changed repeatedly in terms of instrumentation and computer algorithms used. Therefore earlier measurement series (i.e. before 2000 or so) are not fully compatible with later ones.
Another widely used series of measurements is that of sea-ice in the northern hemisphere by theNational Snow & Ice Data Center at Boulder, CO. In addition, the DMI also provides daily graphs on the Arctic sea-ice extent.
As the graphs produced by each institute have their own spatial resolution and/or definition of what constitutes “sea-ice” versus water, they give different absolute numbers; by and large though the graphs show similar trends.
There is one ice measurement that has yet to see widespread use, namely the annual sea-ice average as computed from all daily data (from one source). Such an analysis is available from theScience Matters website. It has just published that for the last ten years. That graph actually shows a slightly increasing trend of the Arctic ice extent in that period (see graph).
Arctic sea-ice extent as annual average from daily observations, 2006-2015 (provisional for 2015). Credit: Science Matters. In short, no matter what measurement you use to look at ice in the North, it shows no sign of going the way of the dodo bird, rather the opposite. The doomsayers’ claims about the ice disappearing are false—and you’ll still need your winter woollies!
In an open letter to G20 governments at upcoming summit critics of the multi-trillion dollar ‘green’ energy boondoggle urge energy ministers to heed calls of “astronomical” waste made by philanthropist and entrepreneur, Bill Gates, among others.
Mark Duchamp (World Council for Nature) and other campaign groups have released the following open letter plea:
Prime Minister of Turkey,
Energy Ministers of the G20 countries, Ladies and Gentlemen of the G20 Meeting,
You are preparing the Istanbul meeting of October 2nd, the objective being to coordinate the energy policies of G20 countries. This is an opportunity to relay to you some serious concerns held by the ordinary people of this planet regarding the “energy transition”.
Wind farm and photovoltaic output depend on the weather. Thirty years have passed since the introduction of this intermittent, erratic electricity. Without means for its storage on a massive scale, it remains of little use. Using fossil fuel power plants to regulate this energy is prohibitive in cost and cancels out savings realized on C02 emissions.
Entrepreneur and philanthropist Bill Gates said that the cost of decarbonization using today’s technology is“beyond astronomical”. Having invested one billion dollars in finding new ways to harness the energy from the sun, he suggests governments likewise redirect wasteful green subsidies to research & development(1) . He also donated $28 billion to charity, nearly half his fortune (2).
Subsidies to ineffective wind “farms” have created a “1.8 trillion dollar global industry” (3), whose cost isstifling the economy everywhere while CO2 emissions fail to regress. Collateral damage, on the other hand, isconsiderable, no matter how many “experts” for hire dismiss the evidence, such as adverse health impacts revealed by conscientious professionals (4).
Perhaps something more current, more part of the social zeitgeist, will help. Unless you have an event more interesting.”
If there were such a proof through testing and replication it would have been written down for all to see.
The Encylical Letter of Pope Francis Laudato Si “care for our common home” was influenced by atheists, communists and green activists, claims Professor Ian Plimer, a world-renowned climate critic.
When they wrote that it was the third-worst global 
