John Dodds: Planetary-gravitational explanation for cyclic warming on Earth

The original Arrhenius 1896 scientific paper is scientifically incorrect and a fraudulent basis for the California law AB32 which mandated the reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) or CO2 emissions, and for the IPCC report (AR4, WG1, Ch1, p116). Adding more GHGs does NOT result in more warming. It is also noted that mandating the use of 25 or 33% renewable energy at 3 to 5 times the cost of fossil fuels(in Ca) results in doubling the cost of energy to the consumer/voters and in excessive inflation to all users such as transporters and manufacturers.

The Arrhenius justification for “more GHG emissions means more warming” (see Wikipedia for “Arrhenius” & ref 3 for the paper) or Delta_F=a*ln(C/Co), or the rise in temperature is proportional to the concentration of the GHGs, FAILS in the evening when the temperature decreases while the concentration is constant or increasing slightly due to mankind’s CO2 emissions. It FAILS in the morning when the temperature increases dramatically even thought the concentration is constant or increasing slightly. It FAILS when the concentration of Water Vapor, the most potent GHG, increases when the humidity increases when it rains, but the temperature does NOT increase.

Gravity – the science is not settled.

Pioneer spacecraft: Image credit: dailygalaxy.com

Despite earlier conjectures that the Pioneer probes positional anomaly was probably due to a problem with the spacecraft themselves, it turns out that other probes are getting affected by exactly the same magnitude of anomaly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/1384420/Mysterious-force-holds-back-Nasa-probe-in-deep-space.html
Research to be published shortly in The Physical Review, a leading physics journal, will show that the speed of the two probes is being changed by about 6 mph per century – a barely-perceptible effect about 10 billion times weaker than gravity.

Assertions by some scientists that the force is due to a quirk in the Pioneer probes have also been discounted by the discovery that the effect seems to be affecting Galileo and Ulysses, two other space probes still in the solar system. Data from these two probes suggests the force is of the same strength as that found for the Pioneers.

Dr Duncan Steel, a space scientist at Salford University, says even such a weak force could have huge effects on a cosmic scale. “It might alter the number of comets that come towards us over millions of years, which would have consequences for life on Earth. It also raises the question of whether we know enough about the law of gravity.”

Headbutting the rebutters: GERLICH and TSCHEUSCHNER

Those fiesty Teutons don’t mince their words.  🙂

Introduction

It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our “Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse EffectsWithin The Frame Of Physics” would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpernet al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are “trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process” and that we are “systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth’s surface and atmosphere”. Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a “Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind”, (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation.

Gnomish: On human understanding

Yes, it IS black and white. Look closer and you can see the dots

Imagery is not adequate for argumentation- a monkey can be taught to use sign language- a metaphor is defined as the use of imagery- it is therefore semiotic in nature- semiotics can never support the use of logic- observe that “I see” refers explicitly to the perceptual level of consciousness where logic can not be done- observe that “color” is an optical referent- not a conceptual one- we can deduce, if two people disagree – that AT LEAST ONE OF THEM (and possibly both) is WRONG- no further deduction possible on the face- the notion of “somewhere in between” is the fundamental cornerstone of moral relativism…
(besides- gray is by definition “black and white “)
but no concept can be described in terms of the sensory apparatus. That’s why we have words- they are the only tools that can serve for the purpose of critical analysis- as long as they ARE words- i.e. they have definitions- because otherwise, they can be credited with no more meaning than an animal grunt.

Rodin: The Thinker

One can not “explain” without words, or “understand” without logic— example
Take two words: BRASS and GRASS
They LOOK very much alike… both black marks on a piece of paper… same shapes, mostly- but the difference between their meaning is great- furthermore, neither one looks like what it represents….
Monkeys can be taught sign language because the symbols involved have a resemblance to the referents- perceptual in nature – NOT suitable for logic because not to the necessary degree of abstraction to perform falsification.

For a word to be a word it has to have a definition.
Definition comes from the Latin: fine, meaning limit or end-
If it is out of bounds it is not the thing. If within the limits it is the thing

The definition of the word green is NOT a catalog of all possible green things- it is the set of distinguishing characteristics.
What makes it GREEN, no matter to what degree, is a set of characteristics which if it possesses them it is and if it lacks them it isn’t-
Green can be defined by a range of wavelengths- very objectively

Human nature is distinguished by the requirement that the individual learn everything he knows and think to survive.
He starts out tabular rasa and as he acquires knowledge of his world and of himself, he, unique amongh the animals, decides what he is and through rehearsal, by thought, word and deed, becomes what he defines himself to be.
Please observe the self-referential nature of defining oneself- this is the recursion that must be achieved to BE human… this is the fundamental and distinguishing characteristic of HUMAN NATURE
A definition only has to have and must only have the set of DISTINGUISHING characteristics
that is, it must form an identity
An individual’s definition of himself can not contradict any definition which applies to all humans because the individual is a subset of all humans.

Here is a trick I learned/discovered:
Because a person is most familiar with one particular person, he uses that person as the standard for evaluating others- i.e. “human nature” in general
So if you ask someone to define “human nature” he will automatically, through what psychologists term “self-projection” give you a definition of his very own character… and when he does, listen to him- he MEANS it.
In the act of defining human nature, so therefore, he defines himself

Can science explain the scientist?

This post is about the current limits of knowledge concerning ourselves as living beings, and the ways the inventive human mind has attempted to transcend the percieved degree of ignorance we labour under.

Fibroblast connective tissue cell

History:
We humans evolved/acquired speech and the ability to handle abstract concepts.
We developed ritual and spi-ritual procedures to extend consciousness ‘beyond the body’.
We developed metaphysics to explain the unexplained.
We developed logical constructs to order and categorize experience.
We developed empirical investigation to inform and confirm theory.
We developed instrumentation to measure and investigate micro and macroscopic phenomena.

A schism developed between direct cognition of self through introspection (spiritual awareness) and the empirical examination of the material body leading to the mind-brain identity theory (materialist philosophy).

Breaking: Magnitude 7.4 earthquake rocks Christchurch

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/09/03/magnitude-7-4-quake-hits-new-zealand/

As I said in a post over a month ago, it looks like Earth’s crust is in for a creaky time about now.

Here’s hoping there are few casualties. The quake hit at 4.20am local time. All the best to those on South Island.

The BBC has this:

A 7.2-magnitude earthquake has struck off New Zealand’s South Island, the US Geological Survey has said.

The epicentre was 30km (20 miles) north-west of Christchurch, at a depth of 16.1 km (10 miles), it added.

A local newspaper reported widespread damage and power cuts. Christchurch is New Zealand’s third largest city with a population of about 340,000.

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre said there was a risk of a tsunami along coasts within 100km of the epicentre.

Energy problems, and solutions

The world is going to need a lot more energy production as developing nations urbanise and mechanise their economies. 3/4 of energy produced worldwide comes from fossil fuel sources which are not infinite. Wind and solar combined make less than 2% currently and can never be continuously reliable. Wave power is expensive and maintainance intensive.

Now that we know extra co2 is pretty harmless, it’s time to revisit a technology which I witnessed in operation 20 years ago. Two very bright engineers I met called Stuart and John invented a system which produced a megawatt from 40 scrap car tyres an hour, using a carefully controlled pyrolysis process which first reduced the combustible material in an oxygen free 700C oven, then combusted the gas driven off in a secondary chamber at a very high efficiency. Some of the heat went back to heat the oven, the rest was fed to a steam turbine coupled to a big alternator. The whole thing was the size of two wagon back containers. The emissions were within E.U. limits for So2 and other particulates at the time, but the project was killed by tightening standards as the Co2 scare took hold. Another plant using the technology was built in Scotland, it burns barley straw. Stuart told me the system could also burn household waste, medical waste and a host of other rubbish too.

Speaking personally, I’d sooner put up with a bit of smoke from a local scale generator selling reasonably priced electricity to me than have my landscape blighted and my local avian wildlife killed by windmills which run 25% of the time I need power. Shredding and disposing of scrap tyres is an energy intensive business too. Stuart and John’s tyre disposal system made power instead of consuming it and as by products, produced 93% pure carbon and high grade steel wire for re-use.

As a stop-gap measure until fusion comes onstream it looks good to me. We need to preserve fossil fuels long enough to get us off this rock and mining Mars once we have the tech sorted. 🙂

As the energy crises loom, some creative thinking and some compromise on emissions regs is in order.

Roy Spencer – radiative forcing paper published – finally

Congratulations to Dr’s Roy Spencer and William Braswell, who have finally managed to get their paper on radiative forcing and uncertainty in diagnosing climate sensitivity published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell (2010), On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D16109, doi:10.1029/2009JD013371.

You can get your free copy from Dr Roy’s site here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf

I recommend a visit to Dr Roy’s website, where his posts are becoming increasingly frank, and highly entertaining. 🙂

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/one-the-debunking-spencers-feedback-ideas-an-appeal-to-physical-scientists-everywhere/

Then, once you think you understand the main points we make in the new JGR paper, read any other critiques or criticisms that catch your fancy.

As a teaser, one of the clear conclusions the new paper supports is this: The only times that there is clear evidence of feedback in global satellite data, that feedback is strongly negative.

All I ask is that you evaluate whether anyone can come up with a better explanation than what we have given for the structures we see in the satellite observations of natural climate variations. Do not settle for others’ vague arm-waving dismissals based upon preconceived notions or what others have told them.

You engineers and scientists from other fields are capable of understanding this, and I am appealing to you to bring fresh eyes to a field where the research establishment has become hopelessly inbred and too beholden to special interests to see that which is staring them in the face.

This is the main reason why I wrote The Great Global Warming Blunder…the evidence is simple enough for the science-savvy public to understand. But the experts do not see the evidence because they refuse to open their eyes…

Solar wind – Global electrical circuit interaction

While serving as Program Director for Aeronomy at the National Science Foundation, Dr Brian Tinsley had the opportunity to discuss long-standing problems in atmospheric science with program directors in areas of meteorology. This led him to begin research on the centuries old question of the effects of changes in the sun on day-to-day weather, year-to year climate changes, and global warming on the century time scale. During the past 20 years he has published more than twenty papers on his developing theory of a mechanism for such effects.

Brian Tinsley - The Global Electrical Circuit

Fig. 2. Schematic of a section through the global atmospheric electric circuit in the dawn–dusk magnetic meridian. The tropospheric and stratospheric column resistances at a given location are represented by T and S, with subscripts referring to equatorial, low, middle, high, and polar latitudes. The geometry is essentially plane-parallel, with only small changes in T due to changes in cosmic ray fluxes at low latitudes, but large changes in T and S due to cosmic ray and other energetic space particle fluxes at high latitudes. The variable solar wind generators affect Vi at high latitudes, and the variable electrified cloud generators affect Vi globally, and volcanic aerosols as well as the energetic particles affect T and S; with all acting together to modulate the ionosphere-earth current density Jz.