Geoheresy
The distortion of science for ideological purposes has a long history, and the results are generally ugly.Monday, October 30, 2006
Intensive variables
HM's man in Puerto Rico has rattled the geoheresy cage yet again so it seems your lowly scribe has still not explained it as well as he ought have. Well Geoheresy thinks its blindingly obvious but as George Orwell wrote last century"
"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them".
As I have an AIG News to get out nothing will be posted here until I get time and also figure out for once and all how to easily put tabled lists on Blogger.
LH
Update: A colleague telephoned me at work today asking about available drilling rigs, and also mentioned he came across my various web-posts. His conclusion was that probably 99% of the geological profession would agree with my position on AGW.
Probably the main reason why geologists are not involved in the IPCC process - we are too earthy and too cynical to be conned by the bureaucratic BS in the UN process.
HM's man in Puerto Rico has rattled the geoheresy cage yet again so it seems your lowly scribe has still not explained it as well as he ought have. Well Geoheresy thinks its blindingly obvious but as George Orwell wrote last century"
"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them".
As I have an AIG News to get out nothing will be posted here until I get time and also figure out for once and all how to easily put tabled lists on Blogger.
LH
Update: A colleague telephoned me at work today asking about available drilling rigs, and also mentioned he came across my various web-posts. His conclusion was that probably 99% of the geological profession would agree with my position on AGW.
Probably the main reason why geologists are not involved in the IPCC process - we are too earthy and too cynical to be conned by the bureaucratic BS in the UN process.
posted by Louis Hissink # 2:33 AM
Saturday, October 28, 2006
CLIMATE CHANGE OF THE GODS
The ramifications of the recent Danish experimental confirmation that Cosmic Rays affect cloud formation on earth remains poorly reported in the media. Ramifications? Quite because Cosmic Rays are essentially charged particles travelling at or near the speed of light and hit the earth from all directions.
Charged particles? Electricity in other words and indirect confirmation of the theories proposed by the Electric Universe
So what are the ramifications? Quite simple - the earth's climate is dominated by the earth's electrical interaction with its immediate environment. Changes in climate are due to external influences on the earth, whether from fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux or the interaction between the earth and other cosmic bodies as interpreted by Velikovsky from ancient texts from all civilisations.
Steve Milloy writes an excellent summary of the Danish research which is reproduced below:
Blunting the greenhouse panic
A new study provides experimental evidence that cosmic rays may be a major factor in causing the Earth's climate to change. Given the stakes in the current debate over global warming, the research may very well turn out to be one of the most important climate experiments of our time-if only the media would report the story.
Ten years ago, Danish researchers Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen first hypothesized that cosmic rays from space influence the Earth's climate by effecting cloud formation in the lower atmosphere. Their hypothesis was based on a strong correlation between levels of cosmic radiation and cloud cover-that is, the greater the cosmic radiation, the greater the cloud cover. Clouds cool the Earth's climate by reflecting about 20 percent of incoming solar radiation back into space.
The hypothesis was potentially significant because during the 20th century, the influx of cosmic rays was reduced by a doubling of the Sun's magnetic field, which shields the Earth from cosmic rays. According to the hypothesis, then, less cosmic radiation would mean less cloud formation and, ultimately, warmer temperatures-precisely what was observed during the 20th century.
If correct, the Svensmark hypothesis poses a serious challenge to the current global warming alarmism that attributes the 20th century's warmer temperatures to man made emissions of greenhouse gases.
Just last week, Mr. Svensmark and other researchers from the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Centre published a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A-the mathematical, physical sciences and engineering journal of the venerable Royal Society of London-announcing that they had experimentally verified the physical mechanism by which cosmic rays affect cloud cover.
In the experiment, cosmic radiation was passed through a large reaction chamber containing a mixture of lower atmospheric gases at realistic concentrations that was exposed to ultraviolet radiation from lamps that mimic the action of the Sun's rays. Instruments traced the chemical action of the penetrating cosmic rays in the reaction chamber.
The data collected indicate that the electrons released by the cosmic rays acted as catalysts to accelerate the formation of stable clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules-the building blocks for clouds. [For more details about Mr. Svensmark's hypothesis and experiment, including high-quality animation, visit here]
"Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from cosmic rays to clouds as unproven," said Mr. Friis-Christensen who is the director of the Danish National Space Centre. "Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. [This] experiment now shows they do so, and should help to put the cosmic ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research," he added.
But given the potential significance of Mr. Svensmark's experimentally validated hypothesis, it merits more than just a place on the agenda of international climate research-it should be at the very top of that agenda.
Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth's surface and exert a strong cooling effect. Observational data indicate that low-cloud cover can vary as much as 2 percent in five years which, in turn, varies the heating at the Earth's surface by as much as 1.2 watts per square meter during that same period.
"That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watts per square meter estimated by the [United Nations'] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all the increase in carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution," says Mr. Svensmark.
That is, cloud cover changes over a five-year period can have 85 percent of the temperature effect on the Earth that has been claimed to have been caused by nearly 200 years of manmade carbon dioxide emissions. The temperature effects of cloud cover during the 20th century could be as much as 7 times greater than the alleged temperature effect of 200 years worth of additional carbon dioxide and several times greater than that of all additional greenhouse gases combined.
So although it has been taken for granted by global warming alarmists that human activity has caused the climate to warm, Mr. Svensmark's study strongly challenges this assumption.
Given that the cosmic ray effect described by Mr. Svensmark would be more than sufficient to account for the net estimated temperature change since the Industrial Revolution, the key question becomes: Has human activity actually warmed, cooled or had no net impact on the planet?
Between manmade greenhouse gas emissions, land use patterns and air pollution, humans may have had a net impact on global temperature. But if so, no one yet knows the net sign (that is, plus or minus) of that impact.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Svensmark's potentially myth-shattering study has so far been largely ignored by the media. Though published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A, it's only been reported-and briefly at that-in The New Scientist (Oct. 7), Space Daily (Oct. 6) and the Daily Express (U.K., Oct. 6).
The media's lack of interest hardly reflects upon the importance of Mr. Svensmark's experiment so much as it reflects upon the media's and global warming lobby's excessive investment in greenhouse gas hysteria.
Now it is fast becoming clear that climate science is scientifically incomplete - climate science does not include the noble profession of geology yet the earth is our principal area of study - most importantly past climates which affect how rocks are eroded and the subsequent development of sedimentary rocks.
Climate science seems to have isolated itself in its inclusive world of computer modelling and dominated by, if the three mean spirited letters to The Age below are any indication, technicians rather than scientists.
But climate science is not the only scientific discipline that suffers from peer-reviewed mediocrity - astronomy is another discipline divorced from physical reality as demonstrated here. Black holes, neutron stars, magnetic fields without corresponding electric current and an obsession with computer modelling similar to that of climate science.
We geologists are also extensively involved in computer modelling but with one crucial difference - we actually test our models by drilling and mining, so we know all the pitfalls and errors that can occur in computer modelling geology and geophysics and avoid them. We therefore recognise that the much vaunted climate models are nothing but superbly programmed instances of BS. Climate it a non-linear chaotic system and any scientist who asserts such systems can be simulated (or modelled) is in thrall of his own specious reasoning.
The worst error climate science has made to date is the computation of the earth's thermal state by the grid cell method used by Jones et al. In effect the addition of "intensive" variables when patently such a mathematical operation is impermissible. Adding temperature is no different to adding percentages (both are intensive variables) and getting the nonsensical result of 120% of some physical property. In terms of temperature its reduces to asserting that adding water at 4 degrees Celsius to another body of water at 10 degrees Celsius will result in a combined result of water at 14 degrees Celsius. Total nonsense physically but quite possible mathematically. It's called innumeracy in polite circles though others might suggest a stronger term.
One fact has also emerged from reading the three letters below - a visceral hatred of geologists and a presumption we are paid mercenaries of the fossil fuel industry. Clearly The Age, a proven left-wing newspaper, has once again shown its lack of balance in not presenting both sides of the climate debate. It implies by the total negative reaction my letter that no other scientists support the climate sceptic position.
Quite wrong. And also quite wrong are the conclusions climate science makes of their primary assumption that producing CO2 into the atmosphere will produce a run-away Greenhouse effect.
NEW MINES ?
One other interesting fact is also emerging - the mining industry's inability to find new "world class mines" whether iron ore, diamond, copper or whatever. What mineral deposits we have found can be shown to be, with some minor exceptions, restricted to the easily accessible outcropping parts of the earth.
Some of us are starting to wonder whether our basic geological theories are wrong and it seems this is so but will be a topic for another time.
The ramifications of the recent Danish experimental confirmation that Cosmic Rays affect cloud formation on earth remains poorly reported in the media. Ramifications? Quite because Cosmic Rays are essentially charged particles travelling at or near the speed of light and hit the earth from all directions.
Charged particles? Electricity in other words and indirect confirmation of the theories proposed by the Electric Universe
So what are the ramifications? Quite simple - the earth's climate is dominated by the earth's electrical interaction with its immediate environment. Changes in climate are due to external influences on the earth, whether from fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux or the interaction between the earth and other cosmic bodies as interpreted by Velikovsky from ancient texts from all civilisations.
Steve Milloy writes an excellent summary of the Danish research which is reproduced below:
Blunting the greenhouse panic
A new study provides experimental evidence that cosmic rays may be a major factor in causing the Earth's climate to change. Given the stakes in the current debate over global warming, the research may very well turn out to be one of the most important climate experiments of our time-if only the media would report the story.
Ten years ago, Danish researchers Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen first hypothesized that cosmic rays from space influence the Earth's climate by effecting cloud formation in the lower atmosphere. Their hypothesis was based on a strong correlation between levels of cosmic radiation and cloud cover-that is, the greater the cosmic radiation, the greater the cloud cover. Clouds cool the Earth's climate by reflecting about 20 percent of incoming solar radiation back into space.
The hypothesis was potentially significant because during the 20th century, the influx of cosmic rays was reduced by a doubling of the Sun's magnetic field, which shields the Earth from cosmic rays. According to the hypothesis, then, less cosmic radiation would mean less cloud formation and, ultimately, warmer temperatures-precisely what was observed during the 20th century.
If correct, the Svensmark hypothesis poses a serious challenge to the current global warming alarmism that attributes the 20th century's warmer temperatures to man made emissions of greenhouse gases.
Just last week, Mr. Svensmark and other researchers from the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Centre published a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A-the mathematical, physical sciences and engineering journal of the venerable Royal Society of London-announcing that they had experimentally verified the physical mechanism by which cosmic rays affect cloud cover.
In the experiment, cosmic radiation was passed through a large reaction chamber containing a mixture of lower atmospheric gases at realistic concentrations that was exposed to ultraviolet radiation from lamps that mimic the action of the Sun's rays. Instruments traced the chemical action of the penetrating cosmic rays in the reaction chamber.
The data collected indicate that the electrons released by the cosmic rays acted as catalysts to accelerate the formation of stable clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules-the building blocks for clouds. [For more details about Mr. Svensmark's hypothesis and experiment, including high-quality animation, visit here]
"Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from cosmic rays to clouds as unproven," said Mr. Friis-Christensen who is the director of the Danish National Space Centre. "Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. [This] experiment now shows they do so, and should help to put the cosmic ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research," he added.
But given the potential significance of Mr. Svensmark's experimentally validated hypothesis, it merits more than just a place on the agenda of international climate research-it should be at the very top of that agenda.
Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth's surface and exert a strong cooling effect. Observational data indicate that low-cloud cover can vary as much as 2 percent in five years which, in turn, varies the heating at the Earth's surface by as much as 1.2 watts per square meter during that same period.
"That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watts per square meter estimated by the [United Nations'] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all the increase in carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution," says Mr. Svensmark.
That is, cloud cover changes over a five-year period can have 85 percent of the temperature effect on the Earth that has been claimed to have been caused by nearly 200 years of manmade carbon dioxide emissions. The temperature effects of cloud cover during the 20th century could be as much as 7 times greater than the alleged temperature effect of 200 years worth of additional carbon dioxide and several times greater than that of all additional greenhouse gases combined.
So although it has been taken for granted by global warming alarmists that human activity has caused the climate to warm, Mr. Svensmark's study strongly challenges this assumption.
Given that the cosmic ray effect described by Mr. Svensmark would be more than sufficient to account for the net estimated temperature change since the Industrial Revolution, the key question becomes: Has human activity actually warmed, cooled or had no net impact on the planet?
Between manmade greenhouse gas emissions, land use patterns and air pollution, humans may have had a net impact on global temperature. But if so, no one yet knows the net sign (that is, plus or minus) of that impact.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Svensmark's potentially myth-shattering study has so far been largely ignored by the media. Though published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A, it's only been reported-and briefly at that-in The New Scientist (Oct. 7), Space Daily (Oct. 6) and the Daily Express (U.K., Oct. 6).
The media's lack of interest hardly reflects upon the importance of Mr. Svensmark's experiment so much as it reflects upon the media's and global warming lobby's excessive investment in greenhouse gas hysteria.
Now it is fast becoming clear that climate science is scientifically incomplete - climate science does not include the noble profession of geology yet the earth is our principal area of study - most importantly past climates which affect how rocks are eroded and the subsequent development of sedimentary rocks.
Climate science seems to have isolated itself in its inclusive world of computer modelling and dominated by, if the three mean spirited letters to The Age below are any indication, technicians rather than scientists.
But climate science is not the only scientific discipline that suffers from peer-reviewed mediocrity - astronomy is another discipline divorced from physical reality as demonstrated here. Black holes, neutron stars, magnetic fields without corresponding electric current and an obsession with computer modelling similar to that of climate science.
We geologists are also extensively involved in computer modelling but with one crucial difference - we actually test our models by drilling and mining, so we know all the pitfalls and errors that can occur in computer modelling geology and geophysics and avoid them. We therefore recognise that the much vaunted climate models are nothing but superbly programmed instances of BS. Climate it a non-linear chaotic system and any scientist who asserts such systems can be simulated (or modelled) is in thrall of his own specious reasoning.
The worst error climate science has made to date is the computation of the earth's thermal state by the grid cell method used by Jones et al. In effect the addition of "intensive" variables when patently such a mathematical operation is impermissible. Adding temperature is no different to adding percentages (both are intensive variables) and getting the nonsensical result of 120% of some physical property. In terms of temperature its reduces to asserting that adding water at 4 degrees Celsius to another body of water at 10 degrees Celsius will result in a combined result of water at 14 degrees Celsius. Total nonsense physically but quite possible mathematically. It's called innumeracy in polite circles though others might suggest a stronger term.
One fact has also emerged from reading the three letters below - a visceral hatred of geologists and a presumption we are paid mercenaries of the fossil fuel industry. Clearly The Age, a proven left-wing newspaper, has once again shown its lack of balance in not presenting both sides of the climate debate. It implies by the total negative reaction my letter that no other scientists support the climate sceptic position.
Quite wrong. And also quite wrong are the conclusions climate science makes of their primary assumption that producing CO2 into the atmosphere will produce a run-away Greenhouse effect.
NEW MINES ?
One other interesting fact is also emerging - the mining industry's inability to find new "world class mines" whether iron ore, diamond, copper or whatever. What mineral deposits we have found can be shown to be, with some minor exceptions, restricted to the easily accessible outcropping parts of the earth.
Some of us are starting to wonder whether our basic geological theories are wrong and it seems this is so but will be a topic for another time.
posted by Louis Hissink # 1:38 AM
Friday, October 27, 2006
AGW RELIGION
Chatting with Warwick Hughes last night on divers matters (mainly on what is going to happen to the U238 Spot Price next week after a Canadian mine flooding) left us both with the sad conclusion that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum climate wise.
It is clear that the mainstream media (predominantly left-wing) have closed the issue for the debate and judging by the political weather-vanes, mass-belief in AGW (anthropogenic global warming) seems to have taken hold.
Humanity seems to experience episodic panic sessions of impending global catastrophe but few have made the effort to understand the basis of this pervasive fear. The psychoanalyst Immanuel Velikovksy was one who did manage to understand it and his successors continue the work here.
The present obsession with impending doom can be traced back to about 1500 BC when the earth underwent a global climate catastrophe when it interacted with two other planets - Venus and Mars. Much of the Middle East's populations were destroyed and remembered in the stories of the Old Testament. It was in all senses a global climate catastrophe that terminated the Bronze Age.
What Velikovsky recognised was a tendency by humanity to suppress the feelings and experiences of those times by developing a collective amnesia but replayed and acted out in wars and doomsday cults. It culminated in the total rejection of anything of a geological catastrophic nature and an over-emphasis of uniformitarian concepts in which catastrophes were expunged from the scientific paradigm.
Those past catastrophic events are remembered as fantastic myths but which actually have a basis in historical fact. Modern science totally denies this but then turns about face and has no problem believing in future global catastrophes.
It was Velikovsky's contention that it was the denial of past catastrophes that fuels the modern day belief in future catastrophes - a species level collective memory that we still have not come to grips with. It explains the periodic surges of religious fervour, of ending times when humanity is to be punished for its sins. AGW and Islam are but the latest of these self destructive urges humanity inflicts on itself.
But once the mob are in control there is little anyone can do but to step out of the way and let the movement run out of steam. So many now believe in AGW that a critical mass has been achieved and nothing will stop it until it runs out of its self generated impetus.
Hence there remains little point in contradicting a mass belief. After all so many believe in the Resurrection that contradicting it with fact changes nothing. So also AGW it seems.
So the debate is closed as madness has taken over humanity once again.
Chatting with Warwick Hughes last night on divers matters (mainly on what is going to happen to the U238 Spot Price next week after a Canadian mine flooding) left us both with the sad conclusion that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum climate wise.
It is clear that the mainstream media (predominantly left-wing) have closed the issue for the debate and judging by the political weather-vanes, mass-belief in AGW (anthropogenic global warming) seems to have taken hold.
Humanity seems to experience episodic panic sessions of impending global catastrophe but few have made the effort to understand the basis of this pervasive fear. The psychoanalyst Immanuel Velikovksy was one who did manage to understand it and his successors continue the work here.
The present obsession with impending doom can be traced back to about 1500 BC when the earth underwent a global climate catastrophe when it interacted with two other planets - Venus and Mars. Much of the Middle East's populations were destroyed and remembered in the stories of the Old Testament. It was in all senses a global climate catastrophe that terminated the Bronze Age.
What Velikovsky recognised was a tendency by humanity to suppress the feelings and experiences of those times by developing a collective amnesia but replayed and acted out in wars and doomsday cults. It culminated in the total rejection of anything of a geological catastrophic nature and an over-emphasis of uniformitarian concepts in which catastrophes were expunged from the scientific paradigm.
Those past catastrophic events are remembered as fantastic myths but which actually have a basis in historical fact. Modern science totally denies this but then turns about face and has no problem believing in future global catastrophes.
It was Velikovsky's contention that it was the denial of past catastrophes that fuels the modern day belief in future catastrophes - a species level collective memory that we still have not come to grips with. It explains the periodic surges of religious fervour, of ending times when humanity is to be punished for its sins. AGW and Islam are but the latest of these self destructive urges humanity inflicts on itself.
But once the mob are in control there is little anyone can do but to step out of the way and let the movement run out of steam. So many now believe in AGW that a critical mass has been achieved and nothing will stop it until it runs out of its self generated impetus.
Hence there remains little point in contradicting a mass belief. After all so many believe in the Resurrection that contradicting it with fact changes nothing. So also AGW it seems.
So the debate is closed as madness has taken over humanity once again.
posted by Louis Hissink # 4:46 PM
THE AGE letters page online I extracted when I did a Google on my name. Good Grief. I reproduce them here unabridged.
Climate science is reliable
Louis Hissink (Letters, 9/1) asserts there are flaws in the Nature paper on species extinctions due to global warming. He claims climate is poorly understood and almost impossible to model.
This outdated statement could not be further from the truth. After decades of research, most climate processes now are well understood and modelled. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment of climate change science and scenarios for the 21st century remain valid, and in many cases have been strengthened by recent research.
Note: In this particular case this comment is quite in error as the recent discovery that cloud formation is dominated by cosmic rays (aka electrical currents).
It is beyond doubt that, since the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, greenhouse gas concentrations have been steadily rising due to human activities.
Hissink claims we have had far warmer periods in the recent past, specifically around 1000AD. This is based on scientific papers that have since been discounted as flawed.
Note: This is a barefaced lie - it is a total denial of the Medieval Warming Period for which there is overwhelming historical evidence. Perhaps it's because history is not longer taught in Australian Universities that such erroneus views are held by climate scientists.
In the face of uncertainties acknowledged and discussed by scientists, responding to climate change requires a precautionary and risk-management approach. Being over-cautious might be unnecessarily costly, while ignoring the potential for serious risks could expose many regions to major problems.
Note: After stating "it is beyond doubt" we now about turn and become overly cautious. Good grief.
To minimise risks and optimise benefits we should explore options for both adapting to climate change and for reducing emissions.
Kevin Hennessy,
CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Aspendale
Getter warmer, that's for sure
As a climate scientist, one becomes used to the constant stream of anti-greenhouse rhetoric emanating from the geologists' fossil-fuelled corner, but Louis Hissink's letter must surely take the cake.
Note: His opening sentence merely displays his ignorance. There are no fossil fuels, and are comments are not dominated by fossil fuels. Perhaps the good Dr could cite one scientific experiment in which hydrocarbons (other than methane) have been produced at the pressures and temperatures assumed for the base of sedimentary basins.
The peer-reviewed literature has repeatedly verified the enhanced greenhouse effect (as predicted by models), and all available global temperature records together with associated paleo-climatic data show rapid global warming in the past century.
Note: Really ? Peer reviewed literature is nothing more than group think. Contrary data are ignored.
The great majority of climate research and observations leaves little doubt that global warming is real and is with us now. On current trends we will see temperatures by 2100 about two degrees warmer than at present.
Note: Global Warming as distinct from Anthrpogenic global warming - the two are not synonymous.
These temperatures are likely to be the warmest in the past 4 million years. Any increase in our use of fossil fuels in coming decades will very likely send temperatures even higher, indeed by some scientific estimates by up to six degrees by 2100.
Note: Fossil fuels? Petroleum is not a fossil fuel nor is coal. My correspondent obviously is happy violating the second law of Thermodynamics.
Contrary to ill-informed opinions, climate models are in fact objective mathematical simulations of the atmosphere. These models have reached a level of sophistication that can accurately simulate the large-scale climate variability and change both in the present and in the past.
Note: This is where the BS starts - climate is a non -linear chaotic system and cannot be mathematically modelled despite the specious reasoning in this letter.
While Hissink may be blissfully comfortable with the great unnecessary greenhouse climate change experiment we are currently undertaking, one would hope the great majority of humanity is not.
Dr David Jones,
Ferny Creek
Climate change now too rapid
Louis Hissink's letter debunking global warming and the threatened extinction of one million species reeks of propaganda from the fossil fuel industry. So it is no coincidence that he is a consulting geologist.
He says the earth's climate naturally swings from cool to warm, then asks why we would expect millions of species to die out in the next warming cycle.
The answer is simple. The warming cycle acts over geological time - measured in thousands of years. The current warming cycle fuelled in the main by oil, coal and gas burning, is happening over decades. The environment will change far too fast for many species to adapt.
Increasing concentration of CO2, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels, record maximum and average temperatures, excessive droughts, floods and cyclones forecast a grim future for the world.
If we keep listening to the vitriol of the oil industry and its supporters, there will be no hope for the future.
Note: Of course the facts are that I am not part of the oil industry nor am I supported by it.
Andrew Arthur,
Malak, NT
posted by Louis Hissink # 4:46 AM
Drought in NSW & Oz?
Warwick Hughes (with whom I often visit and telephone to learn the latest in Oz mining stocks) has an interesting graph of the rainfall at the Cararact Dam in NSW.There is a fair bit of hubbub over drought in Australia recently, especially in the national press, so it's useful to look at a few basic facts.
One of the most pertinent is the use of cloud seeding to alter the local climate in NSW from WWII (1950 to ?? 1980's). Cloud seeding worked of course, and would be the immediate conclusion to explain the sharp increase in rainfall recorded in 1952 at the Cataract Dam.
A close study of the graph above would also show that since the cessation of cloud seeding in NSW 25 years ago, or so, (and no, one cannot easily find any data on this), rainfall has returned to previous levels.
So yes, we can significantly alter the climate it seems but whether that change is good or bad totally depends on one's political position. This is not science.
posted by Louis Hissink # 4:01 AM
ICESHEET AGE IN ANTARCTIC
There is a general belief that the ice sheet at Antarctica is very old but apparently some of the ice sheets melted some 2000 years ago according to this reference - Pudsey, C.J., and J. Evans. 2001. First survey of Antarctic sub-ice shelf sediments reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat. Geology 29(September):787.
The abstract reads: The retreat of five small Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves in the late 20th century has been related to regional (possibly anthropogenic) climate warming. We use the record of ice- rafted debris (IRD) in cores to show that the Prince Gustav Channel ice shelf also retreated in mid-Holocene time. Early and late Holocene-age sediments contain IRD derived entirely from local ice drainage basins, which fed the section of ice shelf covering each site. Core- top and mid-Holocene (5–2 ka) sediments include a wider variety of rock types, recording the drift of far-traveled icebergs, which implies seasonally open water at the sites. The period when the Prince Gustav ice shelf was absent corresponds to regional climate warming deduced from other paleoenvironmental records. We infer that the recent decay cannot be viewed as an unequivocal indicator of anthropogenic climate perturbation.
Ahem. A massive melting episode 2000 years ago?
There is a general belief that the ice sheet at Antarctica is very old but apparently some of the ice sheets melted some 2000 years ago according to this reference - Pudsey, C.J., and J. Evans. 2001. First survey of Antarctic sub-ice shelf sediments reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat. Geology 29(September):787.
The abstract reads: The retreat of five small Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves in the late 20th century has been related to regional (possibly anthropogenic) climate warming. We use the record of ice- rafted debris (IRD) in cores to show that the Prince Gustav Channel ice shelf also retreated in mid-Holocene time. Early and late Holocene-age sediments contain IRD derived entirely from local ice drainage basins, which fed the section of ice shelf covering each site. Core- top and mid-Holocene (5–2 ka) sediments include a wider variety of rock types, recording the drift of far-traveled icebergs, which implies seasonally open water at the sites. The period when the Prince Gustav ice shelf was absent corresponds to regional climate warming deduced from other paleoenvironmental records. We infer that the recent decay cannot be viewed as an unequivocal indicator of anthropogenic climate perturbation.
Ahem. A massive melting episode 2000 years ago?
posted by Louis Hissink # 12:54 AM
EARTH HEAT - Radioactive Decay or from Electrical Currents?
It is generally assumed that the source of the earth's internal heat is from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium. Along with heat the decay of these two elements also produces the noble gas Helium but there is a small problem - well actually a big problem - most of the helium is missing according to a paper "A Scarcity of Gas," Science, 292:2219, 2001.
Intelligent Designers would interpret this fact as proof of a youthful earth but alas that's not necessarily the case at all.
So what is the source of the earth's heat since the lack of Helium suggests its not from radioactive decay.
The earth does have a magnetic field and all magnetic fields are created by electric currents, so obviously there is a large electric current operating inside the earth. And if we realise that electric currents in resistive loads such as rocks generate heat, then it is more than likely that the earth's internal heat is being produced by electrical currents rather than from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium.
And what maintains the earth's electric currents? If we recognise that the earth is an electrically charged sphere spinning in a solar plasma, then the earth is part of a complex electrical circuit with the sun and the rest of the planets in the solar system.
So any fluctuations in the earth's thermal state, (or temperature) would thus be related to possible changes in the solar electrical circuit.
This source of energy, and thus heat, is not factored in any GCM, so there is no surprise here that these GCM's have problems predicting the existing climate let alone future ones.
It is generally assumed that the source of the earth's internal heat is from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium. Along with heat the decay of these two elements also produces the noble gas Helium but there is a small problem - well actually a big problem - most of the helium is missing according to a paper "A Scarcity of Gas," Science, 292:2219, 2001.
Intelligent Designers would interpret this fact as proof of a youthful earth but alas that's not necessarily the case at all.
So what is the source of the earth's heat since the lack of Helium suggests its not from radioactive decay.
The earth does have a magnetic field and all magnetic fields are created by electric currents, so obviously there is a large electric current operating inside the earth. And if we realise that electric currents in resistive loads such as rocks generate heat, then it is more than likely that the earth's internal heat is being produced by electrical currents rather than from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium.
And what maintains the earth's electric currents? If we recognise that the earth is an electrically charged sphere spinning in a solar plasma, then the earth is part of a complex electrical circuit with the sun and the rest of the planets in the solar system.
So any fluctuations in the earth's thermal state, (or temperature) would thus be related to possible changes in the solar electrical circuit.
This source of energy, and thus heat, is not factored in any GCM, so there is no surprise here that these GCM's have problems predicting the existing climate let alone future ones.
posted by Louis Hissink # 12:30 AM
Saturday, October 21, 2006
AGW THEORY REMAINS UNTESTED
"the CO2 warming theory remains untested and unverified. Beyond wiggle-matching, no experimental evidence has been produced to show that an increase in CO2 can accelerate the water cycle and increase greenhouse warming with water vapour. In fact, ice core evidence from the past shows that it doesn't". (C.f. Dr. Ian Clark, Professor - Geosciences, University of Ottowa, source
One would have thought that the most crucial test of AGW would be to have tested the primary hypothesis detailed above.
That neither Climate Sceptic nor AGW proponent has ever pointed to any experimental data either confirming or refuting that hypothesis forces one to one conclusion - the hypothesis remains untested.
Just as the Biotic Oil theory - no-one has experimentally created petroleum from organic matter at the temperatures and pressures assumed to exist at the bottom of sedimentary accumulations.
So what is going on?
Why are we relying on the art of persuasion and consensus to prove scientific fact instead of experiment?
Professor Phillip Stott has pointed to a change in the "paradigm" here but as any scientific paradigm relies on a consensus, it cannot, from first principles, be called scientific.
A scientific fact is self-evident and need only be disproven by one scientist by experiment. So when a group of scientists decide by consensus that something is "ABC" one can be quite sure that it is not science but self re-enforcing group think.
Anthrpogenic Global Warming is an example of technical group-think.
"the CO2 warming theory remains untested and unverified. Beyond wiggle-matching, no experimental evidence has been produced to show that an increase in CO2 can accelerate the water cycle and increase greenhouse warming with water vapour. In fact, ice core evidence from the past shows that it doesn't". (C.f. Dr. Ian Clark, Professor - Geosciences, University of Ottowa, source
One would have thought that the most crucial test of AGW would be to have tested the primary hypothesis detailed above.
That neither Climate Sceptic nor AGW proponent has ever pointed to any experimental data either confirming or refuting that hypothesis forces one to one conclusion - the hypothesis remains untested.
Just as the Biotic Oil theory - no-one has experimentally created petroleum from organic matter at the temperatures and pressures assumed to exist at the bottom of sedimentary accumulations.
So what is going on?
Why are we relying on the art of persuasion and consensus to prove scientific fact instead of experiment?
Professor Phillip Stott has pointed to a change in the "paradigm" here but as any scientific paradigm relies on a consensus, it cannot, from first principles, be called scientific.
A scientific fact is self-evident and need only be disproven by one scientist by experiment. So when a group of scientists decide by consensus that something is "ABC" one can be quite sure that it is not science but self re-enforcing group think.
Anthrpogenic Global Warming is an example of technical group-think.
posted by Louis Hissink # 3:51 AM
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Climate - it's the earth stupid.
(Climate is what happens at the interface between the earth and solar plasma it is in - and really has nothing much to do with human effects such as creating plant food, AKA CO2.) Of course if one knows next to nothing about geology and geophysics, one might be tempted to blame humanity for the imagined future climate catastrophe that is thought to occur from the computer modelling of rather incomplete GCM's - ones which have no inputs from geophysical and geological forces. Almost as if the earth were, from a climate science point of view, irrelevant.
Oh and Cosmic rays are nothing more than ions from space hitting the earth. Ions? Charged particles? Electricity might be another word one could use?
The following abstract and summary has been lifted from the latest NCGT newletter which will be available on the internet in two issues time. To read it now you need to subscribe to the newsletter.
TECTONIC FORCING FUNCTION OF CLIMATE - REVISITED:
FOUR ELEMENTS OF COUPLED CLIMATE EVIDENCE OF AN
ELECTROMAGNETIC DRIVER FOR GLOBAL WARMING
[Follow up article to “A Tectonic Forcing Function for Climate Modeling”
in Proceedings of 1996 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting, Brisbane, Australia, EOS Trans. AGU, Paper # A42A-10. 77 (22):W8]
Bruce LEYBOURNE –Geophysics (Geostream Consulting LLC, Bay St. Louis, MS, USA)
E-mail: leybourneb@hotmail.com
Bill ORR – Climate (Earth Climate Research Institute (ECRI), Parker, CO, USA)
Andy HAAS -Computational science (Dataura Systems DBA, Sierra Vista, AZ, USA)
Giovanni P. GREGORI - Geomagnetics (Istituto di Acustica O. M. Corbino, Roma, Italy)
Chris SMOOT –Seafloor tectonics (Geostream Consulting Advisor, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Ismail BHAT - Himalayan geology (Geostream Consulting Advisor, Srinagar, India) ABSTRACT
Aristotle’s four elements earth, water, air, and fire define the climate systems earth-ocean-atmosphere and solar-wind coupled forces. This elemental interplay revives ancient knowledge for building a new Earth climate model based on observational evidence considering earthquakes’ electrical nature, solar coupling and links to ocean/atmospheric dynamics.
Clustered earthquake swarms at 10-33km depths, which burst pulse over short several day to week periods appear correlated to subsequent Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies and are suggested by the authors to be a driver of global warming phenomena. These shallow (base of the crust) clustered earthquakes found in National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) data sets are compared to National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) SST satellite anomaly data. SST anomaly patterns lag earthquake clusters consistent with studies (Blot, 1976; Blot, et al., 2003) on thermal energy migration rates. Thermal transfer rates above 33km depths were determined at 0.15km/day. Thus heat transfers from 10 km depths in the Adriatic and Mediterranean regions take about 67 days or 2 months which is consistent with approximate timing of subsequent SST anomaly patterns. These SST anomaly patterns overlying earthquake events are hypothesized to be the result of increased heat emission from seafloor volcanic extrusions and/or associated hydrothermal venting. The volcanism is triggered by electrical bursts from the core-mantle-boundary induced by solar coupling to the internal geodynamo. The resulting clustered seismic activity is hypothesized to be electrical in nature and is associated with joule heating at density boundaries near the base of the lithosphere (Gregori, 2000 & 2002). Bottom ocean currents tend to redistribute heat in unpredictable patterns causing a general regional warming or in some cases, such as the Pacific El Nino temperature signatures, thermal plumes appear evident. Adriatic, Aegean, and North African (Algerian) earthquake events appear to be associated with the anomalous heat wave in the 2003 European summer. Thermal energy from the Adriatic earthquake event may have triggered the two week reversal of ocean circulation patterns in the Adriatic. The circulation changed from counter clockwise to clockwise, which could be consistent with an anomalous burst of geothermal flow.
Summary: How can earthquakes induce changes in the global climate? It is hypothesized that shallow clustered earthquake events may induce deep ocean thermal convection by the aforementioned joule heating mechanism, creating magma extrusion and hydrothermal venting. This in affect may overturn ocean circulation patterns on an episodic basis. Magnitudes vary based on electrical energy inputs being generated by inner core jerks or CMBE’s. Episodic changes in ocean temperature and height patterns, along with atmospheric pressure are teleconnected globally to internal geoid, gravity, and magnetic field changes associated with CMBE earthquake generation. This may affect weather patterns, hurricane formation, tornadoes, and ocean/atmospheric circulation.
In the examples illustrated, timing of earthquakes to local warming events and SST anomalies may be much more than coincidence, and are suggested by the authors to drive global warming and ocean circulation reversals. Increases in seismic activity are known to cause increases in venting rates and temperatures along the East Pacific Rise (EPR, Walker, 1988 & 1995) and Juan de Fuca Ridges (Johnson, et al., 2000 & 2001). Increases in seismicity have also been documented to signal an approaching El Nino phase up to six months or more beforehand on the EPR (Walker, 1999). These time lags are consistent with shallow lithosphere thermal transmigration times observed, and these patterns are repeated several times in data sets since 1964 and are unexplained by current geophysical models. Impacts of this discovery and associated research should enhance the understanding of forcing mechanisms within the climate system. A “unified” research approach toward predicting severe weather and global climate change based on tectonic links to the climate system could improve modelling and predictive abilities within the earth sciences. Understanding components of tectonic modulation in earth-ocean-atmosphere-space-coupled Aristotle models should enhance predictive abilities in GCMs. This research may open a new body of science, creating a paradigm shift in the understanding of our planet’s climate, enhancing a multi-disciplinary approach to climate research.
Weblinks:
(1) http://neic.usgs.gov/
(2) http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
(3) http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/ofr-98-0767/
(4) http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html
Summary: How can earthquakes induce changes in the global climate? It is hypothesized that shallow clustered earthquake events may induce deep ocean thermal convection by the aforementioned joule heating mechanism, creating magma extrusion and hydrothermal venting. This in affect may overturn ocean circulation patterns on an episodic basis. Magnitudes vary based on electrical energy inputs being generated by inner core jerks or CMBE’s. Episodic changes in ocean temperature and height patterns, along with atmospheric pressure are teleconnected globally to internal geoid, gravity, and magnetic field changes associated with CMBE earthquake generation. This may affect weather patterns, hurricane formation, tornadoes, and ocean/atmospheric circulation.
In the examples illustrated, timing of earthquakes to local warming events and SST anomalies may be much more than coincidence, and are suggested by the authors to drive global warming and ocean circulation reversals. Increases in seismic activity are known to cause increases in venting rates and temperatures along the East Pacific Rise (EPR, Walker, 1988 & 1995) and Juan de Fuca Ridges (Johnson, et al., 2000 & 2001). Increases in seismicity have also been documented to signal an approaching El Nino phase up to six months or more beforehand on the EPR (Walker, 1999). These time lags are consistent with shallow lithosphere thermal transmigration times observed, and these patterns are repeated several times in data sets since 1964 and are unexplained by current geophysical models. Impacts of this discovery and associated research should enhance the understanding of forcing mechanisms within the climate system. A “unified” research approach toward predicting severe weather and global climate change based on tectonic links to the climate system could improve modelling and predictive abilities within the earth sciences. Understanding components of tectonic modulation in earth-ocean-atmosphere-space-coupled Aristotle models should enhance predictive abilities in GCMs. This research may open a new body of science, creating a paradigm shift in the understanding of our planet’s climate, enhancing a multi-disciplinary approach to climate research.
Weblinks:
(1) http://neic.usgs.gov/
(2) http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
(3) http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/ofr-98-0767/
(4) http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html
Labels: Climate
posted by Louis Hissink # 6:02 AM
Sunday, October 01, 2006
WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?
Lubos Motl has picked up on Spencer and Christie's latest lower troposphere data which shows an absence of global warming.
CO2 emissions will rapidly be distributed over the planet so clearly this northern hemispheric warming has nothing at all to do with the earth's atmospheric chemistry. Rather it points to a proliferation of human life in the northern hemisphere - and any proliferation of life has to be a good thing.
One other point I have noticed recently is the ploy by AGW proponents to invoke the moral oblication to reduce emissions. Moral obligation?
Quite clearly AGW is not self-evident - for if it were this blog would not exist, and as a result of not being self evident, AGW proponents need to persuade us with argument that global warming is real. If it were real, no argument would be necessary!
Lubos Motl has picked up on Spencer and Christie's latest lower troposphere data which shows an absence of global warming.
CO2 emissions will rapidly be distributed over the planet so clearly this northern hemispheric warming has nothing at all to do with the earth's atmospheric chemistry. Rather it points to a proliferation of human life in the northern hemisphere - and any proliferation of life has to be a good thing.
One other point I have noticed recently is the ploy by AGW proponents to invoke the moral oblication to reduce emissions. Moral obligation?
Quite clearly AGW is not self-evident - for if it were this blog would not exist, and as a result of not being self evident, AGW proponents need to persuade us with argument that global warming is real. If it were real, no argument would be necessary!
posted by Louis Hissink # 2:16 AM
Archives
May 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006
