Monash University’s work on a direct wireless sensor-to-brain interface to bypass optic nerve damage has had a boost with donations totalling AU$2 million that will help get the technology ready for human trials. 

The university has announced that Marc Besen and Monash chancellor Alan Finkel have each chipped in AU$1 million, to which the university will add a million of its own, enough to cover “critical development costs” of the project.

The Monash Vision Group’s (MVG) project is working to couple external vision sensors – a digital camera in glasses – via wireless to a brain implant. The idea is that the implant will stimulate the brain’s receptors directly, rather than via the optic nerve, so the system could help people not only with eye damage, but also with patients suffering nerve degeneration.

Prove: If atmospheric non-radiating O₂ is exchanged for radiating (absorbing/emitting) CO₂, emissivity, e, of planet to space must increase and corresponding global radiating temperature must decrease. More generally, if any “greenhouse” gas displaces a “non-greenhouse” gas, planet will cool.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of radiation intensity emitted by all matter in the universe is:

I = σ e (T/100)⁴

If e increases at constant I, T goes down, by algebra. Therefore if CO₂ increases e at constant I, T goes down, causes global cooling.

I = intensity of any radiating body, w/m² of its spherical surface, Earth emits and transfers radiant energy to outer space surroundings at average rate I_o = 239. This is measured by satellite spectrophotometers.

T = temperature of radiating body, K

e = emissivity of radiating body, fraction 0 < e < 1. Perfect radiator black body e = 1, radiates a given intensity at lowest possible temperature. Perfect reflector e = 0.

σ = Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law constant, 5.67

NASA uses this relationship with an undisclosed estimate of e to measure (deduce) average global temperature.

The Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) announces today (November 20, 2014) an important set of climate change predictions dealing with the coming cold climate epoch that will dominate global temperatures for the next thirty years. 

According to analysis of the most reliable solar activity trends and climate models based on the Relational Cycle Theory (RC Theory), the SSRC concludes the following:

1.      The Earth is about to begin a steep drop in global temperatures off its present global temperature plateau. This plateau has been caused by the absence of growth in global temperatures for 18 years, the start of global cooling in the atmosphere and the oceans, and the end of a short period of moderate solar heating from an unusually active secondary peak in solar cycle #24.

2.      Average global atmospheric and oceanic temperatures will drop significantly beginning between 2015 and 2016 and will continue with only temporary reversals until they stabilize during a long cold temperature base lasting most of the 2030’s and 2040’s. The bottom of the next global cold climate caused by a “solar hibernation” (a pronounced reduction in warming energy coming from the Sun) is expected to be reached by the year 2031.

3.      The predicted temperature decline will continue for the next fifteen years and will likely be the steepest ever recorded in human history, discounting past short-duration volcanic events.

4.      Global average temperatures during the 2030’s will reach a level of at least 1.5° C lower than the peak temperature year of the past 100 years established in 1998. The temperatures during the 2030’s will correspond roughly to that observed from 1793 to 1830, shortly after the founding of the United States of America. This average lower global temperature of 1.5° C on average, translates to declines in temperatures that will be devastating for crop growing regions in the mid latitudes of the planet.

Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? 

What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? Some skeptics seem to believe it is just poor quality scientists, who don’t understand physics, but that doesn’t explain the amount, and obviously deliberate nature, of what has been presented to the public. What motive would you give, when asked?

The first step in understanding, is knowledge about how easily large-scale deceptions are achieved. Here is an explanation from one of the best proponents in history.

“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.”

NASA has released computer simulations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the world’s air. The National Geographic magazine website allows you to look at it in all its glory; see “Stunning NASA Visualization Reveals Secret Swirlings of Carbon Dioxide.” CNET, calling it a “hypnotic video” and other media outlets have picked it up and re-distributed it too. If you want to see it action and listen to it, just click on the video below.

{youtube}x1SgmFa0r04{/youtube}

The message has been loud and clear for many years—a community of scientists insisting that human activity is warming our planet, taking humanity to the edge of a precipice.  But now, as science begins to understand earth’s place in the electric solar system, the meaning of the present warming plateau becomes clearer. 

The Earth-Sun connection, together with the Sun’s galactic environment, can help to explain climate extremes of every kind. Today, new voices and new perspectives are bridging the theoretical gaps, and independent investigations have reached some startling conclusions. No one can know the future, but some of the electrical changes in our solar system could point to catastrophic change on the horizon.

Closing remarks

Climate extremes of every kind and having surveyed just about every argument in this climate change arena I am left to put my money on those climate extremes, back and forth, faster and faster and to greater extremes first and foremost. But to put me on the spot, force me choose between one of the extremes as the more likely future that we are going to see here on earth in the near term the evidence suggests it is going to be the cold.

Whether it’s a late frost that destroys states worth of crops or whether they’re forced to wait months to plant something.

If we go into that grand [solar] minimum and that pattern begins, it is unlikely to change for decades. Perhaps our current temperature focus requires calibration; perhaps something is amiss in science and that notion that something is amiss in science is like second nature to a far larger portion of your professors and publishers than you might imagine. 

The Basics

It seems that a major source of confusion stems around this equation for radiative transfer of heat energy:

Q = σT24 – σT14

The term ‘Q’ is not the incoming solar energy nor does it represent a source of energy at all. From that incorrect interpretation of the equation arises all sorts of further misinterpretations and bad physics.  It’s where the whole incorrect idea of backradiation heating arises and all of the various arguments about cold helping to make something warmer hotter still.  I address that misinterpretation of the equation many times on this blog, but here I do it up front:

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/08/revisiting-the-steel-greenhouse/

‘Q’ is the heat flow between the Sun and Earth and so is not the solar energy.  The solar energy flux would be a term on the right hand side, σT24 say, but factored for distance. How this is done is demonstrated in the link above.  ‘Q’ is actually zero if we consider the Earth to be in energy equilibrium with the solar input, which it should be within a small margin.

It is also discussed here:

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/27/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-12-how-to-lie-with-math/

So to repeat, ‘Q’ can not be the solar heat input, when T1 and T2 are supposed to be the temperatures of the atmosphere and surface. That’s not what that equation is about at all.

The honeybees have a problem: they are confused. More specifically, they wonder whether their primary task is to produce honey or to pollinate plants. 

A paper published today in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a “strong and stable correlation” between the millennial variations in sunspots and the temperature in Antarctica over the past 11,000 years. In stark contrast, the authors find no strong or stable correlation between temperature and CO2 over that same period. 

“We find that the variations of SSN [sunspot number] and T  [temperature] have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable.”

The authors find temperature changes lag solar activity changes by ~40 years, which is likely due to the huge heat capacity and inertia of the oceans. Warming proponents attempt to dismiss the Sun’s role in climate change by claiming 20th century solar activity peaked at around 1960 and somewhat declined from 1960 levels to the end of the 20th century (and have continued to decline in the 21st century right along with the 18+ year “pause” of global warming).

Abstract

The solar impact on the Earth’s climate change is a long topic with intense debates. Based on the reconstructed data of solar sunspot number (SSN), the local temperature in Vostok (T), and the atmospheric CO₂ concentration data of Dome Concordia, we investigate the periodicities of solar activity, the atmospheric CO₂ and local temperature in the inland Antarctica as well as their correlations during the past 11,000 years before AD 1895. We find that the variations of SSN and T have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO₂ and T are neither strong nor stable. These results indicate that solar activity might have potential influences on the long-term change of Vostok’s local climate during the past 11,000 years before modern industry.

 

Firstly, the assumption that solar activity peaked in 1960 and declined since is false, since it is necessary to determine the accumulated solar energy over multiple solar cycles, which is the accumulated departure from the average number of sunspots over the entire period, which I call the “sunspot integral.” The sunspot integral is plotted in blue and shows remarkable correction with global temperatures plotted in red below. Correlating sunspot and temperature data with and without CO2, we find the sunspot integral explains 95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of temperature change over the past 400 years, and that CO2 had no significant influence (also here).

 

Secondly, this paper finds strong evidence of a 30-40 year lag between solar activity and temperature response. So what happened ~40 years after the 1960 peak in sunspot activity? Why that just so happens to be when satellite measurements of global temperature peaked with the 1998 El Nino [which is also driven by solar activity], followed by the “pause” and cooling since.

 

We have thus shown

• Strong correlation between solar activity and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
• Strong lack of correlation between CO2 and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
• Solar activity explains all 6 well-known warming periods that have occurred during the Holocene, including the current warm period
• The 20th century peak in sunspot activity is associated with a 40 year lag in the peak global temperature

What more proof do you need that it’s the Sun!

 

 Read more at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/new-paper-finds-strong-evidence-sun-has.html

Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible (full article here).

Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren’t guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or “technology” of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C project, which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal.

RE<C was a failure, and Google closed it down after four years. Now, Koningstein and Fork have explained the conclusions they came to after a lengthy period of applying their considerable technological expertise to renewables, in an article posted at IEEE Spectrum.

The two men write:

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

In California’s sunny south is the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility (ISPF). It’s a massive structure in the Mojave Desert that was supposed to deliver an energy output of approximately 1.7 million MWh (megawatt-hours) of electric energy annually.  The ISPF uses 173,500 heliostats (adjustable mirrors to follow the sun) that reflect the sunshine onto boilers located on centralized power towers. 

I already debunked the steel greenhouse idea, but here I will simplify it all to one crystal clear concept.  Won’t bother with quotes from these people etc. since that has all been covered previously.  Let us just look at their pictures:

A majority of the United States is enveloped in bitterly cold temperatures that is expected to last the remainder of the week and could shatter record low temperatures, reports Weather.com.  “Over 100 daily record lows and record cool highs may be threatened Tuesday and Wednesday, combined, from the Plains and Midwest to the Deep South, Florida, and East,” predicts meteorologist Jon Erdman.

In fact, the past 7 days has seen 1,360 cold weather records broken in states and regions around the country. 

There is no doubt it is cold, but just how cold depends on which part of the country in which you live and which statistics you employ to measure how “cold” it is, argues meteorologist David Epstein of Boston.com. Epstein acknowledges the last week has seen “a lot of cold records being set,” which means certain towns and cities had cold high temperatures which were records. But, that does not necessarily mean those are record temperatures.”Simply put, those cities and towns saw their coldest daily highs ever recorded. These records are for a particular date, not all-time,” he writes.

On the morning of March 2, 2005, a 14-year-old Japanese girl woke up scared. At first she thought someone was outside the house watching her, but then she decided the stranger must be inside. She wandered restlessly and, despite the cold weather, threw open all the windows. Later, over a meal, she declared, “The salad is poisoned.” Two days later, she said she wanted to kill herself.

This teenager with no history of mental illness was diagnosed with delirium. The night before the hallucinations started, she began taking an anti-influenza drug called Tamiflu (generic name: oseltamivir), which governments around the world have spent billions stockpiling for the next major flu outbreak.

But evidence released earlier this year by  Cochrane Collaboration, a London-based nonprofit, shows that a significant amount of negative data from the drug’s clinical trials were hidden from the public. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knew about it, but the medical community did not; the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which doesn’t have the same access to unpublished data as regulators, had recommended the drug without being able to see the full picture. When results from those unpublished trials finally did emerge, they cast doubt over whether Tamiflu is as effective as the manufacturer says.

The revelation of hidden data bolstered a growing movement against what’s referred to within the research community as “publication bias,” in which scientists squirrel away mostly negative or inconclusive findings and broadcast only their positive ones.

Cold, hard empirical evidence accumulating in recent years proves that there are serious flaws in the climate change scenario predicated by alarmists. The theory of greenhouse gas warming tells us that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes more warming. But, if anything, satellites and ground-based thermometers show the reverse. So what do we do with the ‘theory?’

On 22 September, the winter maximum ice sheet extent across the Antarctic reached its greatest area since satellite measurement of the ice extent began in 1979. [1]

This is consistent with satellite lower tropospheric temperature data for the South Polar Region at Dr Roy Spencer’s Web site [2] which reveals a slight but not statistically significant rate of cooling for the region for the 36 years of satellite measurement. Coinciding with this, measurements of the atmospheric CO2 have been collected by NOAA at the South Pole and the data is available on the World Meteorological Organisation Web site [3] . It shows that the CO2 concentration has increased by 17.7{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} in the same period. Confirmation of this disparity is available on the WMO Web site where measurements by CSIRO are provided for the CO2 concentration at the Antarctic stations of Casey [4] and Mawson [5].

Comparison of the CO2 concentration with the station’s Average temperature data, available at the Bureau of Meteorology Web site [6], showed that both stations have experienced slight, -0.78 deg C per century at Casey and -1.43 deg C per century at Mawson, but not statistically significant cooling over the terms of the measurement. However the CO2 concentration has increased at Casey by 9{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} in 16.5 years and at Mawson 11.4{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} in 23 years.

These results are clear evidence that the IPCC proposition that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration causes warming of the Earth’s surface is invalid. As the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 has been much the same across the whole of the globe, the above puts paid to the CO2 – global warming fraud.