AGW nonsense, IPCC swindle, CO2 rubbish and Global Climate Change

The graph shows the temperature at the Ice Cap of Greenland as a function of time

On 5 Dec. 2009 I wrote in this blog about my reasons for calling the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)  a load of humbug.
Al Gore, David Cameron, Kofi Anan and most journalists apparently don't understand scientific method at all. They have all jumped the popular band wagon of claiming human responsibility for the change of climate in recent years.
I warned in 2009 against the political implications of accepting a theory based on very thin arguments, while refusing to listen to the many people, who had competent reasons to field serious objections to the idea about AGW.

When it is said that 100s of scientists, if not 1000s, support the theory, the first comment should be: who exactly are they?
Myrmecologists?
Why not people in the field of Physical Geography?

In fact, I found one, who has the courage to speak up and say that “the emperor has no clothes on”, Professor Ole Humlum at Oslo University. The following is based on his observations – unfortunately his book is in Danish, but it deserves a wider readership.

The second comment, I have, is the classical Aristotle statement, repeated by Einstein: Majority never decided the value of a theory; 1 person, who can put a spanner in a theory, is enough to eliminate every other argument. This is entirely in line with Karl Popper’s ideas of Scientific Falsification – to which I subscribe 100%.

The third comment must be to express the shock I got, when I read through the goings on at the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I first heard about IPCC during the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, COP-15, in 2009.
The conference was basically a disaster, as a) only IPCC’s AGW-positive opinion was presented (not exactly a scientific approach) and b) no decisions were taken – or at least only a set of pseudo-decisions that are unlikely to have any bearing on the assumed problem: human action causing warming of the globe.

So why is there such an adherence to IPCC’s beliefs (OBS, NOT proof, as their conclusions are a forgone matter) and often times public ridicule of people who have a different opinion?
Could it be that IPCC has been established under UN, that UN has a level of credibility and that states that follow IPCC’s recommendations and findings therefore seem credible and also add to both IPCC’s and UN’s credibility – repeating the circle?

The graph above, constructed according to isotopic analyses (GISP2) after drilling into the Greenland ice cap, tells an interesting story without using many words: throughout the last 11000 years, from the “Big Freeze” during Younger Dryas, the reasons for which remains enigmatic, and once again in 6000 BC and until today, there have been rather large climatic changes going on – none of which can be allocated with any reason to human activity in the form of excessive man-generated CO2 output. In fact CO2 levels were almost constant in the period 600-1850. (The well known Hockey Stick graph, see below).
As Prof. Humlum points out, periods with warming correlate to positive heavy human cultural activity, while cooling off periods are synchronous with problems, even disasters, such as the black death and the "Little Ice Age."

One of the problems with the CO2 theory is, that we actually know much to little about the origins of the climatic mechanisms, the impact of the oceans, atmospheric distribution and the proportion of Human CO2 to geological CO2 (volcanoes and other).

There are many good reasons to focus on water vapour, ozone, cloud cover, dust, sun activity, tilting variations of the Earth’s axis and – in particular – Henry’s law of CO2 absorption in water. Most of the CO2/water interaction happen in the upper 3m of the oceans’ surface! It is not rocket science to realise, that at various pressures and temperatures there is some dramatic chemical reactions going on.

Here are some really important facts that help understand the speed with which CO2 distribution over the two hemispheres takes place.

Ashes from a volcano eruption well to the north or the south of equator will take a long time to become evenly distributed in the atmosphere – probably several years. In contrast, the ashes from an equatorial volcano are distributed rather quickly. After the nuclear tests in 1950-70, that all took place on the northern hemisphere, CO2 with a C14 signature (i.e. humanly generated) took several years to become evenly distributed.

This contrasts with the observations from Mauna Loa, Hawaii, since 1958, that the variation in atmospheric CO2, i.e. bang in the middle of a highly industrial period, happens synchronously on the northern and southern hemisphere! As most human CO2 is produced north of the 30th latitude, we should have seen a clear difference between the northern and southern hemisphere.
BUT WE DON’T!!!!

This means that the majority of CO2, although increasing at various rates, is NOT humanly generated.
Something, therefore is afoot.

When Mount Pinatubo blew up in 1992, there was only a very minor increase in atmospheric CO2 despite million of tonnes of CO2 being released. As IPCC is of the opinion that the oceans only slowly absorb CO2, something is clearly wrong with their assumptions.

IPCC – and thereby the politicians – have jumped to conclusions they should have been too clever to adapt. It helps nobody to form a final opinion and implement policies based on erroneous models, unless this opinion has a political value for the people in charge. Perhaps this is where “der Hund liegt begraben”?

The result is that professional scientists with diverging opinions find it difficult to join the discussion. It is also a fact that funding and budgets favour those who fall in line!
Another buried dog, perhaps.

When we have excessively warm summers, it is taken as a confirmation of the theory.
When we have rain and chill (like 2011 in the UK, it is "just a seasonal variation" that confirms the theory.
Ehh?
It was the Hockey-stick curve from the GISP2 measurements in Greenland that caused the furore about the correlation between humanly generated CO2 and climate change. It showed an ostensible increase of atmospheric CO2 from a stable 280 ppm in the period 600-1850 to the rapid "industrial increase" of 380 ppm today.

The Hockey Stick graph - deflated

This model has since been discredited to a certain extent, but the important conclusion people forget to draw is, that if the CO2 level previously was stable, why do we then see the rather dramatic climatic changes that made it possible for the Vikings to grow barley on Greenland (ca. 1000-1100) and that later made the Thames freeze over in the winter (the Little ice Age in 15-1700)?

The real conclusion, although not a solution to the issue, is,
a) that the climate has changed considerably in the past, without any relation to the change in CO2 level!! and
b) that the concept "global warming" must be seen in context - we are actually a good deal colder than experienced by the Romans and the Minoans!!
and
c) the graph has been used as an indication that we are on the way to a new ice age.
Well, that one I shall leave uncommented, avoiding predicting the future, as I otherwise would have made the same mistakes as the IPCC.

Our politicians are leading the train down the wrong track with totally misunderstood investments, that prevent us from allocating money to a much more balanced research situation.

Worse: our scarce resources are being spent on solving a problem over which we have no impact whatsoever!

Here's an ominous example:
In the UK all energy companies are increasing their prices way faster than inflation would predict.
The average family now pays £1300/year for gas/electricity.
This is double the amount of 3 years ago.
The prediction is, that in 2018 they will pay £2800/year.
Why?
Because all companies are falling over each other's feet to become "green", i.e. investing in renewable energy supply - despite a) no solid direction of what that means (= ineffective and haphazard investment with little predictable ROI) and b) developing solutions to a non existing problem (= the totally absent correlation between a global warming, that actually is not happening, and the humanly generated CO2 output.)

In England there are 6mill families that have to choose between heating and food during the winter months. This number will more than double by 2018.

If this is not madness, what is??

Global warming, Chaisson, Kistler, the Human Condition

I fell over the name Eric Chaisson, an American professor, by accident during my browsing of the Internet. He is probably best known, if at all, for his book “Seven ages of the Cosmos”, for which he got the Walter P. Kistler prize in recognition of his “increasing the knowledge and understanding of the public regarding subjects that will shape the future of our species”. Mr Chaisson is consequently a man of standing, whose opinions are worth considering.

David Archer and Richard Calvin, both recipients of the Kistler Book prize, are worth Googling as well in respect of Climate Change.

What really hit me was his thermo-physical calculation of the human impact on the Earth’s temperature.

No – nothing to do with the CO2 foot-print in the first place, surprisingly enough (or perhaps not), as the green-house gas slip remains an arguable contributor to global warming.
Chaisson calculates a forecasted rise in the global temperature purely through looking at the way we humans manage our generation and use of energy in the broadest sense. His ideas have apparently been published in several academic articles, but until now no one has wanted or been able to contradict him.

In short, it goes like this:

The Earth receives 120,000 Terra Watts (TW) energy from the sun.
Of these approximately 50,000 TW are reflected by the atmosphere.

In order to preserve a constant temperature overall the Earth therefore has to radiate 70,000 TW. This calculation looks at the Earth as a closed system, something we probably all can agree on, as nothing may appear more lonely and isolated than our rock, as it floats through the Universe. The 70,000 TW are used by this closed system to maintain every single process you can imagine on the Globe.

Apparently we dissipate energy ourselves to the tune of ca. 20 TW, which the Earth of course also has to get rid of in order to maintain the global "temperature".
Compared to 70,000 TW this is obviously negligible.

The 20 TW stem from human activity in all it’s forms: Coal-fired plants, air-conditioning, TV-sets, hand torches, manufacturing, TV transmissions, heating the kettle for tea – you name it, as long as they are generated by energy sources “tied up” in the Earth, e.g. oil, gas, coal.
I understand that there is general agreement about these numbers – wherever they come from!

However, as the Earth’s population presently consists of many more poor than rich people, there is a huge potential for increasing the 20 TW substantially, as technology, wealth and distribution accelerates. The energy presently spent by rock stars, celebrities, politicians, bankers and BBC Project Managers and weather forecasters (at £ 1/2mill salaries) through a consuming lifestyle is clearly set to rise dramatically in the future, as everyone else are able to jump on the gravy train --- in the first place from the BRIC countries.

Right now everyone is diverted into concentrating their attention on CO2 slip and arguing pro et con about the AGW-religion (Anthropogenic Global Warming).
If Chaisson is right, we are looking at the score board instead of looking at the game. No one else is spending time comparing the impact of the human presence on Earth from an energy consumption point of view. Chaisson’s calculations deal with an estimated increase from 20 TW to a potential 5000 TW in the year 2300, based on both an increase in the Earth’s population and a massive rise in general consumption, as we all get rich.


My good friend Peter Hougaard, another thermo-physical rebel, maintains, that the idea of an average temperature is a load of gobbledygook – and he’s right, so let us explain the potential temperature rise as “retention within a closed system of a lot of Kilo Joule that we also need to get rid of” instead.

There’s no doubt, that the effect will be dramatic, as the Earth will have to reset the energy-balance, now radiating 75,000 TW, processing a higher energy balance than before the human presence.

If – and it is a moot point –  green-house gasses can be considered a cause of “Global Warming” (sorry Peter), we could be talking about a completely unpredictable threat to life as we know it in a few geological seconds from now: around the year 2300 AD.
Just 200 years from now.
Nothing compared to our few geological miliseconds of existence on Earth.

Is there no light at the end of the tunnel then – other than another train?

Yes there is, Chaisson says, if (from an energy perspective) we use only what we receive, i.e. the 70,000 TW that we have for free from the sun.
Out with latent resources, such as oil, gas, coal and even nuclear fuel! (there's bad news)
Use only Sun-generated energy sources, including wind and hydro energy, that essentially are Sun-generated too.

If you consider this impossible, you should sell your stamp collection, stop collecting antiques and forget about CO2 and Methane, as something else, and much more threatening, is on the prowl.
Start enjoying life now and prepare for a very different future for your children’s, children’s children etc.
Even without AGW from green house gasses "change it is a'coming!"

We clearly need to think TOTALLY out of the box – before it is too late.

Mind you, Peter - the Ocean-level is rising; you will know if you live on Tuvalu.
The coral reeefs are eroding and dying, because of increased CO2 content in the oceans, i.e. higher level of acidity measured over the last 50 years.
And the polar caps are melting, so something is afoot.
But is it Anthropogenic?

Einstein's Relativity Theory crumbles

Proof of NO foreshortening of distance in Einstein’s Relativity
                                          Theory.


I shall use Einstein’s own preferred imagery - with an example nicked from Frank Atkinson's book "Time - the missing parameter in physics":

Consider a train on an embankment.

Mark the place on the rails where the first wheel touches the rail, call it F, and also the place on the rails where the rear wheel touches the rails, call it R.

Place an observer, Jim AlKhalili, on the train and another, Brian Cox, on the embankment.

Now place a trigger mechanism just in front of R (RF) and another just behind R (RB).
Use these triggers to ignite 10 Tons of Semtex, but ONLY if both have been depressed at the same time.

Set the train in motion and observe what happens. When the train’s front wheels hit RB, nothing happens – and nothing happens when the front wheels hit RF.

No surprise there. So far so good. Both Jim and Brian are safe.

Now repeat the experiment and accelerate the train to a speed being a major proportion of the speed of light and ask Jim AlKhalili what he saw exactly when the front wheels hit F.

“Yes, oh wonder, my old pal Einstein told me, that the embankment would shrink as I wuschj past R and F – and indeed it did! When my rear wheels should pass R, they actually hit RB instead and depressed the RB trigger, as the embankment had shrunk a little. And just as importantly: Einstein would have been happy to know, that I didn't observe any shrinkage of the train at all, just as he said”

Then let’s see what Brian Cox had to say.

“Hang on Jimmy boy – my embankment didn’t shrink – it is definitely you, who have shrunk! This confirms the relativity Albert talked about.  I saw it with my own eyes: as your train became a little shorter, the rear wheel didn’t hit R, when you said it hit RB. In fact it hit RF exactly at the moment your front wheels hit F”.

So clearly the train hit RB and RF at the same time, using Einstein’s favourite example.

Did 10 Tons of Semtex send Brian and Jim into orbit and did the unlikely event of the train being in two places at the same time really happen?
Of course it didn’t.

If at this stage you want to use the Lorenz Transformation to prove the above mathematically, be my guest! It will all be confirmed - but I promised to use no maths in this proof.
Quod erat demonstrandum!!!

Guys, face it: Einstein was wrong and Jim AlKhalili is now on his way to Primark to buy edible boxer shorts, as he promised.

Because: as there is no foreshortening of the distance travelled, when we move close to the speed of light, and as we know that such speeds cause a dilation of time, it now looks as though the speed of light barrier has been broken.

Of course, Jim might save an unappetizing meal by claiming, that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. Pheew –  he is actually right!
Because the observed time depends on the observer. Does that mean that one can travel faster than 300,000 KM/sec when time dilates?
Definitely.

At the end of 2011 scientists were ripping their hair out, because a recent CERN experiment seemed to prove, that Neutrinos could travel faster than light here on Earth.
Yes - but Neutrinos have no mass?
Hmmm - just a tiny little mass, which according to Einstein would have made the whole CERN set-up implode with a big bang?
Ahh - so perhaps there IS a Higgs Boson?
I am afraid not.
It was all down to a mistake in the measuring equipment - a fact that was communicated at a 120 dB lower volume than the original result of the experiment.
Otherwise we would have been  back in almost medieval darkness.
And now the scientists at CERN have  declared, that their search for the elusive Boson might be abandoned.
It isn't there.
Did you hear me? It isn't there!!
Just as elusive or non extant as a cure for the common cold.

And as Dark Matter isn't there either (a bonkers idea in the first place, only invented to explain why our galaxies don't fly off the Universe faster than we can spot them), the only way forward is: Back to the drawing board, all you bright physicists, who are glued to Einstein with Araldite - and let go of 100 year old errors.
Start with an active physics parameter, fo rexample: TIME.
.

Speed of Light revisited

and the limits of Einstein's E=mc2 revealed.

I knew it!
The Hadron Collider group has verified, that a particle can move faster than the speed of light in certain circumstances.
Well, they may have had their measurements in a twist - but even close to the speed of light is fine for the following purpose.

This means that a particle - even with an infinitesimally small mass - at close to the speed of light did NOT increase its mass to infinity, as predicted by Einstein.

I have mentioned earlier in this blog, that old Albert got it wrong.
In fact he knew it, but preferred to modify his equations and explain, that a train speeding along an embankment would increase its mass towards infinity, as the speed approached that of light.
The simple fact is that mass stays constant. Heureka!!!!
It is the speed of light that varies in the E=mc2 equation, due to the scientifically proven time dilation of the superfast train.
Now it is proven and the scientific establishment simply doesn't know what to do with it.
So they shut up.

Infinity is a strange thing, that we can only express mathematically, but not comprehend.
An infinite Universe.
An infinite mass.
Time that always was and always will be.
All rather esoteric for the human brain.
But try 1/0 (one divided by zero), or rather 1/0.0000000000000000000000000001 and you get the point.
Yes - a very big number.

A train with an infinitely great mass is a very heavy matter.
But a quantum sized particle at the speed of light would be an equally heavy matter, according to Einstein, as infinity remains infinity.

Can anything go faster than the speed of light?
Probably not (!!) - this is the limit in the time dimension in which it is measured.
Can anything go faster than 300,000 Km/sec?
Absolutely - if time can dilate or contract it all depends upon who is watching and measuring, as a second is not a second any more.
Time dilates
- close to a great mass (Galaxy),
- at very high speeds and
- at high temperatures
Otherwise it contracts.
This is an accepted, measurable fact today.

As
Speed = d/t,
where d= distance, t=time
even mathematically challenged people can see, that with a constant d and variable t, speed varies.
Einstein tried to circumvent the limit of 300,000 Km/sec by saying, that at speeds close to that of light, d would become shorter.
Rubbish - it is easy to prove this can't be the case, actually using Einstein's own arguments.
I shall return to that later, ramming a big, wooden stick through the Relativity Theory.

Once Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox, Jim Al Khalil and the other celebrity phycisists, who have stayed glued to Einstein, are forced to look scientific facts in the eyes (and they will have to sooner rather than later) a veritable revolution will take place, as we have to start with Newton again and scrap all the rest - - - or something to that effect.

Does E=mc2 work at all?
Yes it does - as a practical approximation as long as we stay within our Earthly time dimension.

Once the Earth was flat and the Sun circumnavigated the Earth.
Copernicus was ridiculed for his heliocentric postulate, which surely didn't make the Earth flatter or helped making the Earth continue to be the centre of the Universe.

The truth in science is never decided by majority votes.

I look forward to the cosmological revolution coming up.

The Big Bang - or just a fizzle?

I have mentioned it before in my blog and I shall surely keep coming back, but after BBC4's feature "Lost Horizons" about the Big Bang, Dark Matter and uncritical (i.e. wrong!!) adherence to Einstein's General and Special Relativity Theories, I have to get this off my chest:

I agree with Fred Hoyle:
There never was a Big Bang - at least not in the form that created the Universe.
Sadly, he died in 2001, so he's not here to say: Well done Jorgen - or more correctly: Frank Atkinson, who woke me up.

Two axioms stood out in the TV feature:
1. The scientists claim, that the redshift of light from distant galaxies implies that everything is moving away from everything. This could only have been caused by the Mother of All Explosions, the Big Bang. Otherwise galaxies wouldn't fly hither dither, leaving more and more space between them. But do they? Some scientists claim that our own galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy will collide in the future - somewhere between 2Bill years and 15Bill years from now. Semantics, I'd say - but it indicates that not all galaxies are moving away from all other galaxies. In fact, there are many examples of colliding galaxies.
2. Scientists still cannot find the Dark Matter - however, they stubbornly maintain that it takes up 70% of matter in our ever expanding Universe.

Come on, guys!!!
We now know that 'time' is a parameter that is as connected to energy as the other side of the medal is to the first. Energy cannot exist without time and vice versa. But as the law of energy conservation says that energy cannot disappear or just increase, so we can conclude (roughly) that time has always been - although perhaps in HUGELY dilated form if we assume the Universe once was a super dense ball in a non-extant soup (a bit far fetched, but why not).
Time can become dilated and consequently the speed of light increased (or decreased if time is contracted) in order to maintain the 300,000 Km/sec. Dilation happens close to a large gravitational field or if a body moves at a speed close to the speed of light.
This we can measure as undisputable.

So how about axiom 1?
Some years ago Science would have us believe, that the redshift of light (stretching in wavelength) was due  to the Doppler effect. As we observe this around the globe, the consequence is that we are at the centre of the Universe and that idea, I believe, was droppped hundreds of years ago, except if you are a creationist.
Next, the scientists forced their theories to conform with the idea that space was able to stretch and contract light - - but there's no scientific evidence that this happens.
The fact is, that we are a little lost!!
What if the Universe is infinite and NOT expanding?
The Hubble telescope keeps surprising us with galaxies in areas that were thought empty, assessed to be 40Bill Light years away.
In a 14.7Bill years old universe?
Time to review the space-time curvature and other obsolete ideas.

We know that light is emitted as photons, travels as electromagnetic waves and is observed as photons at the receiving point.
We also know that large gravitational fields dilate time, meaning that as the light passes through the Universe, it is constantly being pulled or pushed through dilated 'time-fields'.
This is bound to cause considerable redshifting - more so, if the light comes from very, very far away, exactly as will be the case in an infinite Universe.
No expansion, no balloon stretching, no strings - just an enormity we cannot grasp.
And sometimes, most of the time in fact, the redshift is so enormous that it disappears out of sight beyond infra red.
And therefore we cannot see it.
It also loses so much energy that virtually nothing is left over, when it reaches us.
Perhaps that explains the 2.7 degree Kelvin, almost absolute 0, that we observe. Perhaps it helps explain the so called background radiation, which science wants us to believe stems from the Big Bang.

Consequently, there is no reason to invent this explosion.
It quite simply never occurred!!

Now axiom 2.
Dark Matter is an extraordinarily crazy invention, that came about, as we couldn't explain how the clumps originated that were responsible for the creation of galaxies.
It is there to fit the scientists' mathematical equations.
But isn't that exactly what science is NOT about - the wrong way around.
Guys - look it in the eyes: the equations are wrong!

Scientists have even descended into deep mines and caves in order to detect the Dark Matter, well out of interference from any background radiation.
And found nothing.
Yet they tell us that it has mass and takes up 70-80% of matter in the Universe - but emits no radiation (hence "dark").
Newton's law about mass attracting mass, although at a power inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies and directly proportional to the bodies' mass, seems to be universal. This leads to another discussion: is gravity distributed in waves, as claimed by science, or is it instantaneous across the Universe? It is commonly agreed that the Universe is homogeneous ('orderly') on a grand scale. I doubt this would be the case with gravity working 'only' at the speed of light. The conclusion is the extraordinary thought, that gravity 'just is' and also that gravity is a consequence rather than just the so-called "weakest power" at all. This is another topic I shall pick up later - with the help of Frank Atkinson.

The 14.7Bill number is a guess, based on the redshift. But as we haven't explained the origin of the redshift and rather used it as an explanation - unscientifically - this is a wet thumb in the air.
Well, some say the world is only 6000 years old, but compared to infinity 14.7Bill years is as good a guess as 6000 years.
More importantly, if the Dark Matter has been there for a very long time and if there is a lot of it, wouldn't it have collected the odd floating visible, proton and slowly dressed itself up - just like the Invisible Man, who could only be seen when he wore coat, hat and scarf?

Dark Matter therefore appears to be a very un-scientific invention, much like the belief in the existence of an "Ether" - a belief Morley and Michelson defused many years ago.

Are we not getting closer to the realisation that
- there never was a BIG Bang
- there is no Dark Matter
?????

If the above can be agreed and if Einstein's General and Special Relativity theories can be defused (they  can! They self-eliminate - see my blog-entries from Oct 2011) there are at least 3 consequences:

- We have to start all over again, as we still haven't found the unifying theory between the very large (the Universe) and the very small (Particle Theory)
- the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is a waste of money - a lot of money.  Well, almost - we have now paid to know that we don't know; If Higgs Boson and recreated Dark Matter remain elusive we should probably close it down. Unfortunately scientists are unwilling to eat humble pie despite the fact, that they could sit down at their desks and drill a big hole in the Special Relativity Theory using just a bit of brain power, pen and paper!
- perhaps 'time', as a lost or underestimated physics parameter, should be taken out of the moth-bag and checked as a stepping stone to a solution, a very elegant one in fact.

There are more consequences, as if the above were not enough - and some of them have deep impact on our beliefs, both religious and more practical.
It can be tough enough to realise that mass is constant and lightspeed variable, depending on the observer's time dilation.

If there is a God (trust me: there isn't!) she has certainly made it difficult for us to get to the core of the creation process. She's teasing us, lifting just a bit of her dress, but not letting us see the whole leg.
Perhaps that's all we will ever see.
.