In 1988, climate scientist James Hansen announcedto a select committee in Congress that over the next ten years, temperatures would increase .35 degrees Celsius. The actual increase was .11 degrees.  Hansen (pictured being arrested) overestimated his findings by 300 percent. Now Hansen has a new study coming out this week in the journal Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry warning that humanity could face a “sea level rise of several meters by the end of the century.” That’s a ten-foot-rise of sea levels, over 300 percent higher than what the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted.

In fact, the IPCC conservatively estimates that if temperatures increase 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, we may see a three-foot-rise in sea levels. However, as an April 2015 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports showed, “global warming was not progressing as fast as it would even under the most severe emissions scenarios as outlined by the IPCC.” The study indicated that climate models underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate variability, which leads to an “over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.”

Hansen’s new study, which was previewed by the Daily Beast today, says that the IPCC’scomputer models are underestimating the sensitivity of ice sheets to rising temperatures. Hansen et al combined “ancient paleo-climate data with new satellite readings” and a new and improved computer model of the climate system to demonstrate that “ice sheets can melt in a matter of decades,” and not millenia. Sea level rise has been occurring at roughly the same rate since about 10,000 years ago.

If all this doom and gloom sounds a lot like the climatastrophe flick The Day After Tomorrow, you wouldn’t be too far off the mark. Much of that movie was based on research done by Hansen and incorporated into Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth. “Parts of [our coastal cities] would still be sticking above the water,” Hansen told the Daily Beast, “but you couldn’t live there.” He also believes that averting warming by only 2 degrees Celsius by 2100 would create a “highly dangerous” future.

In the past decades we have been overwhelmed by books on Global Warming and its successor Climate Change. We have also been exposed to a large (though much smaller) number of books that take a skeptical view of these issues. 

Earth has only three significant sources of energy. 

First is geothermal energy from Earth’s molten core and decaying radioactive minerals in Earth’s crust. This energy moves continents, powers volcanoes and its heat migrates towards the crust, warming the lithosphere and the deep oceans. It can be harvested successfully in favourable locations, and radioactive minerals can be extracted to provide large amounts of reliable heat for power generation.

Second is energy stored in combustible hydrocarbon minerals such as coal, oil, gas, tar sands and oil shale. These all store solar and geothermal energy collected eons ago and they are the primary energy sources supporting the modern world and its large and growing populations.

Third are radiation and gravitational energies from the Sun and Moon which are captured by the biosphere as heat, winds, tides, rain, rivers and in biomass such as forests, crops and animals. These are the natural “Green” energies that support all processes of life and still support a peasant existence for some peoples.Green zealots believe that we can and should run modern societies exclusively on “Green” energies, and they have embarked on a war on hydrocarbons.

Scientists make cell activity breakthrough in war on cancer. We each begin our existence as a single cell, which divides into new cells which divide into new cells. Old tissues are replaced, wounds heal, our ears – not especially useful – keep on growing even once they’re quite big enough, thank you*.

Cell division is pretty much the miracle of life – and yet we still don’t understand it especially well. It would be good if we could, as like most terrifically powerful processes, cell division has a darker side. Sometimes it goes wrong; cancer cells divide uncontrollably, with often fatal consequences.

So it’s good news that today the process of cell division is a bit less mysterious, with the publication of new boffinry from scientists in Britain and Canada. Specifically it is the critical cytokinesis part of division – the bit where the two new daughter cells actually separate – that has given up some of its secrets.

“It is well known,” we are told, “that microscopic cable-like structures, called microtubules, are involved in pulling chromosomes to opposite poles of the cell during the division process.”

Any fule kno that, of course. So what’s new?

“At this time, microtubules physically separate the chromosomes via their central kinetochores while other microtubules signal to the cortex of the cell where its equator is, i.e., where division will take place,” says Gilles Hickson of the Université de Montréal, in an explanation which caused us to stroke our beards and try to look as though we knew what a kinetochore is**, here on the Reg biology desk.

Like us, you readers may have been labouring under the delusion that the chromosomes just sit there and let the microtubules get them by the kinetochores. But Hickson and his colleagues have found that this is not the case at all:

In an editorial published in Science magazine on July 3, Marcia McNutt, Editor-in-Chief of the Science Journals, removed all doubt concerning the direction that this once prestigious journal is taking. 

In “The beyond-two-degree inferno”, she wrote: “The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed.”

Then, she strongly supports the contrived effort of the European Union to keep “global warming” below 2°C above the preindustrial level – a number for which we have no rigorous measurement or logic.

She advocates the political position of the Administration in forcing reductions in carbon dioxide emission (CO2) by stating “The United States has pledged reductions of 26 to 28{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} below 2005 levels by 2025…” Of course, there is no such pledge by the American people and its representatives in Congress. The Administration’s pledge is arbitrary and authoritarian. Ms. McNutt concludes with a description of the nine circles of Hell found in Dante’s Inferno.

Ms. McNutt continues a trend established in the Science journals by Donald Kennedy (2000-2008), who declared while he is editor, Science would no longer accept articles contradicting the pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on global warming, later termed climate change, regardless of the empirical data presented.

The IPCC reports featured glaring deficiencies such as the falsely named distinct human fingerprint, a hot-spot over the tropics, which no one can empirically find; Mr. Mann’s hockey-stick, based on sparse data, from which contradicting data was deleted; and global climate models, which greatly overestimate warming, as current measurements demonstrate. The logic behind this editorial policy can be described as selective ignorance.

Bogus biofuel trading costs us millions – while the absurd biofuel program costs us billions. Two notorious crooks are helping us wrap up another sordid episode in the saga of the United States biofuel mandates, while further highlighting how bungled and long past its expiration date the program is.

Congress concocted the mandates over fears that US gasoline demand would rise forever and keep the United States dependent on foreign oil, as America’s supposedly limited reserves were depleted. The mandates currently require that we blend 15 billion gallons of ethanol with gasoline every year, and produce over a billion gallons of biodiesel. They hammer us consumers every time we fill our tanks.

Turning corn into ethanol requires vast amounts of land, fertilizers, pesticides, tractor and truck fuel, and natural gas for distillation. It enriches some farmers but raises animal feed prices and thus the cost of beef, pork, chicken, eggs, fish and international food aid. Biodiesel from restaurant waste oil makes some sense, but making it from palm oil or soybeans has similar negative ecological impacts.

The ethanol mandate encourages farmers to plow wildlife habitats and fallow fields to grow corn, releasing millions of tons of carbon dioxide. Ethanol gets one-third less mileage per gallon than gasoline, so motorists get fewer miles per tank and per dollar. It produces ozone, attracts water and corrodes car and small engine components, forcing us to spend billions on repairs.

Internationally renowned Chemical Engineer, Pierre R Latour, details why government academics have failed to successfully model the planet’s climate.  Showing precisely where climate scientists have ignored specialists from industry, Latour herein expertly signposts the way to a better understanding of that complex atmospheric thermostat.

Situation. Climatologists, astrophysicists and UN IPCC scientists have taken a piecemeal approach^{1, 2, 3} to forecasting sensitivity of temperatures to CO2, emphasizing data correlations (that cannot prove causality), radiation absent radiant energy transfer laws, ad hoc atmospheric feedbacks, and the simplifying black body radiator assumption, emissivity = 1. So far they estimate global warming, 0.5C < CS < 2.2C, where CS is temperature change for a doubling of CO2 from current 400 to 800 ppmv. The consensus is CS < 0 is impossible, without proof.

Engineering approach. Here is how chemical process control systems engineers model a chemical process to determine the effect of CO2 on Earth’s temperatures. This is needed to design a temperature controller, thermostat, for any system.

Simplify complex three-dimensional system of Navier-Stokes partial differential equations which is known to be difficult to solve⁴, with a uniform, well-mixed (lumped-parameter) system.

Start with instantaneous mass and energy conservation laws for atmosphere and surface; four equations.

Rate of accumulation in system + output rate = input rate

These four coupled ordinary differential equations give the relationship and response of T and [CO2] for atmosphere and surface to any change in specified inputs or forcing functions: solar, volcanoes, combustion, de-forestation, clouds. S(t), V(t), C(t), DF(t). Inputs may be any functions of time, like step, ramp, sine, exponential, impulse or actual.

Eminent scientists publish important new book about the fundamental components of solar physics, terrestrial geophysics and general climate issues.  Phenomena such as planetary influence on solar variability, the Sun’s irradiance and solar wind continue to fascinate members of the scientific community. Increasingly, we are realizing it is those overwhelming forces, not human influence, that dictate our planet’s climate. 

The new book, ‘Planetary Influence on the Sun and the Earth, and a Modern Book-Burning,’ is edited by internationally-renowned scientist, Nils-Axel Mörner (Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden). He and many other independent experts condemn the ‘settled science’ mentality of government climate researchers intolerant of dissent from alarmist UN propaganda about man-made global warming.

What is more astounding is the way in which our planet reacts to those entirely natural occurrences; climate changes, sea levels, tides, ocean circulation and geomagnetism, all caused by the processes mentioned above, but which are too often glibly overlooked by self-serving, government-funded research. This new book analyzes and calculates the relationships between solar causation and terrestrial reaction.

This work begins with a foreword from Walter Cunningham, the famous Apollo 7 astronaut who in 1968 took part in the first manned space flight.

Section A is devoted to the concept of planetary-solar-terrestrial interaction and driving forces that represent a break-through in science. The book begins with a high-lightening of records indicating a planetary influence on solar activity and continues with multiple discussions of terrestrial variables. It concludes with an account of the physics behind the changes in the Sun and in the Earth.

Section B presents the remarkable decision to terminate the journal of pattern recognition in physics because the authors concluded that we are now on our way into a new grand solar minimum. This inspires doubt in an accelerating global warming. In the name of science and ethics, five papers respond to this “modern book-burning”.

Australian National University astronomer Professor Brian Schmidt (picture) is a Nobel Laureate for physics.  On Monday the 15th of September 2014 he appeared on the ABC national Australian television programme Q&A. 

His response to a question put to him by an eleven year old boy in the audience is a typical example of why it is very unwise to passively accept the word of an Authority. Presented here are a number of the nonsensical claims made by a Nobel Laureate on matters of cosmology and mathematics; symptomatic of just how intellectually decrepit astronomy and astrophysics have become.

1. Expanding Infinity

The question put to Professor Schmidt by eleven year old Lachlan Irvin, via his father Peter, was, “how can something as infinitely large as the universe actually get bigger?”[1]

Such a reasonable question requires a reasonable answer. Alas, it did not come. Schmidt began his reply withthe following:

“Ah, yes, this is always a problem: infinity getting bigger. So, if you think of the universe and when we measure the universe it, as near as we can tell, is very close to being infinite in size, that is we can only see 13.8 billion light years of it because that’s how old the universe is, but we’re pretty sure there’s a lot more universe beyond the part we can see, which light just simply can’t get to us. And our measurements are such that we actually think that very nearly that may go out, well, well, thousands of times beyond what we can see and perhaps an infinite distance.” [1]

A number of malicious Black Hole and Big Bang creationism zealots, adducing no arguments of their own devise, have resorted to merely citing the following equally feckless quintet, either in full or in part, on a number of blogs and other websites, in irrational and  feverish attempts to refute my proofs that Black Hole universes and Big Bang universes are nonsense:

1. Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate (physics)

2. William Clinger

3. Jason J. Sharples

4. Christian Corda

5. G. W. Bruhn

I have dealt thoroughly with ‘t Hooft, Sharples and Bruhn elsewhere, and so will not again address them specifically.

A common mathematical issue of the ‘quintet’ is the alleged ‘extension’ of Droste’s solution to Hilbert’s solution. It is from the latter that the black hole was first conjured. Cosmologists always and incorrectly call Hilbert’s solution “Schwarzschild’s solution”. However, it is an irrefutable fact that Hilbert’s solution is not Schwarzschild’s solution, which can be easily verified by reading Schwarzschild’s original paper and comparing it toHilbert’s scribblings. Droste’s solution is equivalent to Schwarzschild’s solution but Hilbert’s ‘solution’ is not.

The equivalence of the Schwarzschild and Droste solutions is easily established. Here they are (in both cases the speed of light in vacuum, c, is set to unity):

The constant α is positive but otherwise indeterminable. Note that Droste’s r = α corresponds to Schwarzschild’s r = 0. In both cases ds² is then undefined (i.e. ‘singular’) because the coefficient in the second term on the right side produces -1/0. Contrary to the practice of cosmologists (who claim that 1/0 = ∞), division by zero is undefined. Compare now to Hilbert’s ‘solution’ (here c = 1 and G = 1 in the ‘Schwarzschild radius’ r_s = 2Gm/c²):

Note that Hilbert’s r = r_s = 2m corresponds to Droste’s r = α and Schwarzschild’s r = 0, but that neither Schwarzschild’s nor Droste’s solution possess values corresponding to Hilbert’s 0 ≤ r < 2m. Consequently Hilbert’s solution is not equivalent to Schwarzschild’s and Droste’s. Also note that according to Hilbert, Einstein, and the cosmologists, the constant m in Hilbert’s solution denotes the mass that is the source of a gravitational field allegedly produced by it.

NASA announced on Wednesday that by using NOAA‘s recently altered temperature data, June 2015 was tied as the warmest June on record.  As previously reported here, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reworked its climate data in order to eliminate the 18-year-and-counting pause in global warming. In early June, NOAA released a study saying that long-existing instrument biases have been masking rising sea surface temperatures. Once they “readjusted” the data, the current warming hiatus disappeared. Put simply, by cooling the past, NOAA made the the last two decades look warmer.

With the release of global temperature data for June, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has essentially changed how it analyses measurements by using the same sea surface dataset that was readjusted by NOAA. In using NOAA’s highly controversial dataset, NASA can now say that global average temperatures last month tied June 2015 with June 1998 as the warmest on record. The global surface temperature anomaly for June was +0.78 degrees Celsius, which they say was driven by temperature inconsistencies in the Northern Hemisphere.

The June 2015 data released by NASA uses the same readjustments of global sea surface temperature records created by NOAA, which increases the rate of overall global warming (both land and sea) in the last 15 years. NOAA’s dataset, known as the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 4 (ERSST v4), reflects these readjustments and have now been arrogated by NASA.

More troubling is the fact that NASA and NOAA have joined forces to hide the global warming pause, even though there are more robust, accurate datasets available that clearly show it.

New study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles. Says that between 2030 and 2040 solar cycles will cancel each other out. Could lead to ‘Maunder minimum’ effect that saw River Thames freeze over. 

The new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat.

It draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone.

Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645, according to the results presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

The model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022.

During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

Anti wind turbine campaigner Susan Crosthwaite is calling for an immediate and full independent investigation into the pollution of surface and groundwater of ALL Scottish windfarm developments sited on River Basin Districts.   The construction of giant wind turbines has led to the industrialisation of water catchment areas damaging water quality and public health. She demands that relevant legislation be adhered to vigorously to ensure complete protection of Scotland’s reservoirs, lochs and private water supplies can be restored.

Commenting from her home in South Ayrshire Susan Crosthwaite said:

“Windfarm development in Scotland is clearly breaching The Environmental Liabilities Directive and the Water Frameworks Directive. Developers and government bodies have allowed these developments to proceed in the full knowledge that there are risks to surface and groundwater. Authorities such as SEPA, Scottish Water, Councils and the Scottish Government have failed in their legal duty to protect the water environment. Public authorities should ensure the proper implementation and enforcement of the scheme provided for by this Directive.

“People wonder how windfarms can possibly contaminate our water. Firstly, most are constructed on areas of unspoilt moss, heather and deep peat, often with associated forestry. Construction vehicles churn up the ground to make access roads and clear the forests (approximately 3 million trees were cleared at Whitelee). Trees are pulled up, and the churned up peat is washed into the river systems by heavy rain, releasing excessive carbon which the water treatment works are not able to deal with.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy took a drumming yesterday when she refused to release the ‘secret science’ her agency used when drafting new regulations.
Testifying before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith (R) began the Q&A by asking McCarthy why she wouldn’t release the studies and data in which her regulations are based. Rep. Smith told McCarthy that his ‘secret science’ reform act would make the data public without interfering in the EPA’s primary job and maintain the confidentiality of third parties.

NOAA sounded the alarm yesterday that coral reefs are dying off at an unprecedented rate, even though a recent paper shows that these statements may be more alarmist than accurate. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said multi-yearwarm ocean temperatures are creating conditions that are causing corals to die off and turn white (bleached), and they believe that global warming is the culprit. But a new paper, published in Marine Biology in April 2015, shows that even though some corals appear bleached, it doesn’t mean they are dead, as conventional tracking methods can’t distinguish between white and bleached (dead) colonies.

The paper, by Cruz et al, says 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 answer that question of whether bleached coral is actually dead, Cruz et al studied different colored specimens of the coral M. cavernosa sampled off the east coast of Brazil, and found thatwhite corals exhibited the same lifelike features as their multi-colored cousins.

Simply put, white corals were physiologically healthy when compared to dark and light-brown colonies, which would lead to the “potential overestimation of coral bleaching” by nearly twice as much. One reason for this overestimation is that traditional coral monitoring is unable to detect between white and bleached (dead) colonies. Video transects from reef monitoring surveys off the coast of Brazil showed that the “proportion of bleached and white colonies is similar, thus suggesting that current coral reef surveys may be overestimating the bleaching of M. cavernosa by nearly twofold.”

There is an annual conference of Nobel Prize Laureates (NPL), commonly held on the picturesque island of Mainau in Lake Constance, Germany, (pictured). The 65th of such meetings, under the name Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings just concluded. 

Purpose of the Meetings

The purpose of their meetings is found on their website:

Once every year, some dozens of Nobel Laureates convene at Lindau to meet the next generation of leading scientists: undergraduates, PhD students, and post-doc researchers from all over the world. The Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings foster the exchange among scientists of different generations, cultures, and disciplines.

Undoubtedly, it’s a laudable intention and, who knows, there may well be future Nobel Laureates among the listeners. The assembled laureates also have become known for signing “declarations” of sorts that are supposed to warn the world of potential problems and consequences. This year was no exception. A total of 36 out of 65 Nobel Laureates signed the “Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change;” available in six languages.  You may have noticed that’s just barely over one half of the attendees.