The real temperature graph

So called scientists named Mann and Briffa created hockey stick graphs that supposedly prove global warming. When Steven McIntyre requested the raw data he was refused which is unprecedented. After taking legal action he obtained the data and quickly found why the men wouldn't release it. It was so badly flawed that it was meaningless! The accompanying graph shows the real temperature change of the last 2000 years using raw data from Mann's and Briffa's studies and other sources. It is clear we are no where close to as warm as it was 1000 years ago.

The graph and above information is found here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/jo-nova-finds-the-medieval-warm-period/

Richard's main page

If you're seeing this blog in a frame click here to see it without the frame

A real temperature graph!

This is a really good predictive model of global temperature. This was done by a quality control engineer, Mike Flynn. Click on the graph for an explanation. Or click on the link above



Richard's main page

If you're seeing this blog in a frame click here to see it without the frame

Handheld fusion reactor on the way?

This is interesting! Since this is short I put the whole article up. The original is here: http://dvice.com/archives/2009/07/handheld-fusion.php

Handheld fusion reactor on the way?

If Pentagon whiz kid researchers at DARPA have anything to do with it, handheld fusion reactors could be more than just the stuff of science fiction. Controlling a fusion reaction, the same energy source that powers the sun, is a longtime dream of ambitious scientists. Fusion holds the key to nearly limitless energy.

Someone at DARPA must think a handheld fusion device is possible, because DARPA indicates that its Chip-Scale High Energy Atomic Beams could lead to "handheld power sources." Only problem is, the project doesn't appear in the 2010 budget, but that doesn't necessarily mean the researchers have given up on the idea.

There's little info about this mind-blowing project, but it certainly changes our assumptions about nuclear fusion. We were thinking you'd need a gigantic facility, lots of high-powered lasers, and zillions of dollars to control a fusion reaction. To hold this sort of thing in your hand? The fact that scientists are even talking about this possibility, and pursuing it with multimillion-dollar budgets, is astonishing.

More evidence that if you let science go it can create miracles!

Richard's main page

If you're seeing this blog in a frame click here to see it without the frame

Clean, Safe, Affordable Power

Who would have thunk it? I've long been a promoter of research into nuclear batteries. It looks like we're going to have them within five years. They will generate enough power for about 20,000 homes all in a package that can be delivered on a truck!
The following is from the Hyperion website:

Clean, Safe, Affordable Power
Where you need it, When you need it.

Who would have thought that the benefits of generating electricity from huge nuclear power plants...
	Clean no greenhouse gases to contribute to climate change Safe the most controlled and regulated type of power on the planet Affordable the cheapest in terms of dollars & environmental impact Reliable available 24 /7 rain or shine, windy or calm
…could ever be provided in a small, compact, energy module that can be transported by truck, rail or ship to remote locations wherever reliable electricity and heat for communities and industry is needed?

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

The following:...

Hyperion Fast Facts

Small -1.5 meters across, approx size of a residential “hot tub”

Produces 70 MWt or 25 MWe, enough to power 20,000 average American homes or the equivalent

Buried underground out of sight and harm’s way

Transportable by train, ship, truck

Sealed module, never opened on site

Enough power for 5+ years

After 5 years, removed & refueled at original factory

Uniquely safe, self-moderating using a natural chemical reaction discovered 50 years ago

No mechanical parts in the core to malfunction

Water not used as coolant; cannot go “supercritical” or get too hot

No greenhouse gases or global warming emissions

Think: Large Battery!

...can be found here: http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about.html

I would think our local power district, which currently buys power from Nevada Power (or whatever they call themselves now) and Hoover Dam, could buy one of these units and be completely self sufficient!

Richard's main page

If you're seeing this blog in a frame click here to see it without the frame

All right! Ben Bova is on the right side of this one! The Washington Post printed this article:

DEAR MR. (FUTURE) PRESIDENT

AN ENERGY FIX WRITTEN IN THE STARS

Gadflies address the next occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

By Ben Bova

Sunday, October 12, 2008; Page B02

You're heading into some rough times as you move into the White House, Mr. Future President, what with the economy in recession, financial markets in turmoil, global warming, terrorism, war and soaring energy prices. But I can offer you a tip for dealing with that last issue, at least: Look to the stars.

That's right. You can use the powerful technology we've forged over a half-century of space exploration to solve one major down-to-Earth problem -- and become the most popular president since John F. Kennedy in the process.

Right now, the United States is shelling out about $700 billion a year for foreign oil. With world demand for energy increasing, gas prices will head toward $10 per gallon during your administration -- unless you make some meaningful changes. That's where space technology can help -- and create new jobs, even whole new industries, at the same time.

You'll have to make some hard choices on energy. Nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gases, but it has radioactive wastes. Hydrogen fuels burn cleanly, but hydrogen is expensive to produce and hard to distribute by pipeline. Wind power works in special locations, but most people don't want huge, noisy wind turbines in their backyards.

Solar energy is a favorite of environmentalists, but it works only when the sun is shining. But that's the trick. There is a place where the sun never sets, and a way to use solar energy for power generation 24 hours a day, 365 days a year: Put the solar cells in space, in high orbits where they'd be in sunshine all the time.

You do it with the solar power satellite (SPS), a concept invented by Peter Glaser in 1968. The idea is simple: You build large assemblages of solar cells in space, where they convert sunlight into electricity and beam it to receiving stations on the ground.

Click here to see the rest at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101002450.html

Solar power is a nice idea, but to put a system big enough to actually do you some good would cost $40,000-50,000! And just about the time you pay for it, it's time to replace it! It's more cost effective to buy your power from the grid. But the sun shines 24 hours a day in space. If you collect the power there and beam it down to the power grid it becomes cost effective.

If you fear the microwave beams there is no need. The power is spread out over a wide area and you can make the beam self collimating (which simply means it shuts down automatically if it drifts off target since it uses feedback from the target itself to aim). With space based solar, nuclear, and coal, plus "drill here drill now!" we can reach energy independence in not ten years, but perhaps 20!

We can do it. "Let's Roll!"

Richard's main page

If you're seeing this blog in a frame click here to see it without the frame

The religion of environmentalism

I've been thinking about modern day environmentalism and have come to some conclusions.

Environmentalism is anti-human, anti-freedom, and anti-Christian. It is a religion that must be taken on faith, because if you look at environmental principles rationally and using the scientific method, the whole environmental movement falls apart.

Scientists that buy into the global warming argument are either a) outside their area of expertise or b) funded by sources that will not allow them to show their evidence that it does not exist or is not a serious problem. Those scientists that do argue that global warming is a fraud are vilified and accused of altering their test results to mollify the source of their funding. Ironic, since it's the pro-warming crowd that either falsifies its data or modifies its computer models to give the proper results.

In the '70s the alarmists screamed that we were causing the globe to cool and disaster would surely follow. Twenty years later the same people were yelling the same thing about global warming. Now that the earth is cooling again, they've decided to hedge their bets by calling it "climate change." What utter nonsense. They tell us that the current cooling trend is only temporary and the earth will warm again. Well, yes! And then it will cool again and then it will warm again and, well that's the point isn't it? Climate always changes. There have been far greater fluctuations in the past and we're still here.

The true purpose of environmentalism is to scare us into socialism. I always say follow the money. I can amend that to follow the power. Socialism is not a system that works well for the people that have to live under it. It is a system that can be manipulated to give a few enormous power and wealth and that is why so many people support it. They think they will be the ones that get the power and wealth, but for most they will be disappointed. Few of Lenin's fellow revolutionaries survived. As successful revolutionaries, they were just too dangerous for Lenin to allow them to survive. The same will be true for the vast majority of those who are using the environmental religion to advance their socialistic cause.

People, who value their religion, must stop the godless socialists. People who value freedom must stop the environmentalist who would steal it. All people must stop the anti-human zealots that would "save" the planet for less deserving plants and animals.

Some of the political aspects of the environmental movement are explored in Vaclav Klaus' book Blue Planet in Green Shackles. Klaus is a former president of the Czech Republic.

In Iain Murphy's book The Really Inconvenient Truths, Murray points out (quoting from the CEI website):

• How ethanol, the liberals' favorite fuel, is destroying the world's rainforests--and could cause global food shortages
• How Al Gore's hero Rachel Carson cost the lives of millions of Africans through her efforts to ban DDT
• How the environmentalists have covered up the polluting effects of contraceptive and chemical abortion drugs
• How the Endangered Species Act actually endangers species
• How Gore's vision of greater state control over the economy has already produced some of the greatest environmental disasters in history

Its interesting to not that even the World Health Organization is now in favor of legalizing DDT to combat the epidemic of malaria in Africa. It also should be pointed out that the mosquito that carries malaria is found in the U.S.! Malaria could easily be transferred from Africa or South America to the United States if it is not controlled soon.

Richard's main page

If you're seeing this blog in a frame click here to see it without the frame

The biotic (fossil) versus abiotic oil rages. On the one side the peak oil crowd argue that since we find microscopic bits of animals and plant in the oil then oil is biotic and thus a limited resource. They argue that if it seems capped wells are refilling it is just residual seepage from the surrounding rock. They further argue that if there is abiotic oil (thus giving support to the abiotic theory!) it’s way too deep for us to get at! They even admit that Russia is pulling oil out of the ground that has no sign of biological organisms at all. You can see the true agenda of some of these groups when you discover that they are alarmed at the abiotic theory because if the oil doesn’t run out soon, the earth will die faster! Here’s the quote:

If it's true that there's plenty more oil, it just changes the character of the coming crash -- it will be through toxicity or ecological catastrophe instead of lack of energy, it will take longer, and the earth is a lot more likely to die. Here's an excerpt from William Kötke's summary of the 1972 "Limits to Growth" study:

http://ranprieur.com/crash/abiotic.html

You notice the reference to the “Limits to Growth study” that has been wrong in almost all its predictions of disaster so far.
More of these arguments can be found here: http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm

The abiotic theorists point out that never has a fossil been found below 18,000 feet but we regularly find oil below 30,000 and that we’ve already used more oil than could have come from plant remnants deposited in some ancient ocean.

This abiotic theory just received an enormous amount of support with the find of hydrocarbons on Titan: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/titans-organic.html and http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675

A good overview of the abiotic theory can be found here: http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html and a good list of links and articles can be found here: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/

An interesting commentary that I’m taking with a large grain of salt can be found here: http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Peak_Oil___Russia/peak_oil___russia.html The grain of salt is because of his claim that oil companies and Dick Cheney conspire to hide the abiotic oil origins. Yeah, sure they do…

Richard's main page

Mutiny at the American Physical Society (APS)! Although the society (in this case physical refers to physics) has accepted the notion that man-made gases are affecting our climate, some of their member aren't buying it. The following article excerpted from the APS Physics site uses extensive analysis to show that the models used to prove global warming are flawed and in fact exaggerate the affect of CO2 as much as 500 to 1000%, there has been no warming since 1998 and in fact a cooling trend is indicated for the last six years

Here's an excerpt:

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

1. Radiative forcing ΔF;
2. The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
3. The feedback multiplier ƒ.

Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

See the entire article here: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Warning! There's a lot of math, this is not light reading!

Richard's main page

Sign the "Drill here, drill now, pay less" petition to ask congress to allow drilling our own oil reserves. Click here: http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659

Richard's main page

Here's yet another article supporting global cooling!

Climate facts to warm to

Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. ...

Read the rest at the Australian News: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html.

I recently read the Popular Science editorial where the editor said "The threat of human-influenced global warming is no longer in serious debate," (April 2008) and I wrote him an email refuting that statement. Of course he did not reply. Hey Mark Jannot! You edit a magazine called Popular Science. You know, science. Not politically correct non-science.

I once subscribed to Science Digest. One article told about a volcano in the Antarctic that has been erupting for hundreds of years. A letter to the editor pointed out, (this was when the ozone hole was big news) that chemicals from the volcano must be contributing to the formation of the hole more than man-made freon. The editor replied that of course there was no mechanism to move the chemicals from the lower to the upper atmosphere. I was outraged! If there was no mechanism to move chemicals from a volcano spewing them high into the air, what was the mechanism to move freon from ground level to the upper atmosphere? It was such a stupid, politically correct response from the Science Digest editor that I canceled my subscription. I told them I thought I had subscribed to a science magazine! Oh, my mistake!

Unfortunately scientists and science writers can be just as self-righteous and opinionated as anyone. This has always been the case, sad but true.

Richard's main page

It is now official: there is not only no global warming, but we're actually entering a cooling phase. All the major climate centers (the legitimate ones that are not corrupted by political correctness) agree that there has been no warming for the last few years and that the cool temperatures have more than erased the warming we've had before that. The arctic ice has more than recovered this winter and the nation has suffered under a particularly cruel winter.

Thomas Sowell sums it up well with his article that I read in the Las Vegas Review Journal, but I'm linking to Jewish World Review's version, since the LVRJ's is on a subscription site.

Jewish World Review Feb. 28, 2008 / 22 Adar I 5768 Cold Water on ‘Global Warming’ By Thomas Sowell http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | It has almost become something of a joke when some "global warming" conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather. But stampedes and hysteria are no joke — and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming "crisis." They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all "scientists" and then claim that "all" the experts agree on a global warming crisis. Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.

The rest if the article can be found here: http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell022808.php3 check it out.

Richard's main page

The abiotic theory of oil formation says that oil is not a fossil fuel, but is continually being produced in the earth. this of course upsets the enviro-loonies who insist we're running out of oil.
The following article has more evidence that the theory is correct:

BLACK-GOLD BLUES
Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'
New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply

---

Posted: February 1, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a "fossil fuel" derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.

The lead scientist on the study – Giora Proskurowski of the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle – says the hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in the Lost City Hydrothermal Field were produced by the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in the mantle of the earth.

The abiotic theory of the origin of oil directly challenges the conventional scientific theory that hydrocarbons are organic in nature, created by the deterioration of biological material deposited millions of years ago in sedimentary rock and converted to hydrocarbons under intense heat and pressure.

While organic theorists have posited that the material required to produce hydrocarbons in sedimentary rock came from dinosaurs and ancient forests, more recent argument have suggested living organisms as small as plankton may have been the origin.

Continued at World Net Daily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991

Richard's main page

There is a great new Ross Mackenzie piece I read in the Las Vegas Review Journal. I couldn't find it on their website so I have to link to the Sacramento Bee which did have it.

Here is just a piece of his article:

Global warming and global terror

We know the truth about global terror and malign jihad -- emphatically, flat-out, now. About global warming we "know" a multiplicity of things not necessarily so. In the success of the war against global terror lies the salvation of liberty and mankind. In the war to make the world safe from climate change we invite outcomes unknowable and known -- among the latter the destruction of free economies and free societies in order to save them.

Relentlessly prosecuting the war on terror to a more beneficial result seems clearly the prudent choice -- even if it turns out to take the better part of this century.

Click here for the rest. I highly recommend it.

Actually, I just found out if you click one of the above links it takes you to a sign in page. If you cut and paste this address: http://www.sacbee.com/debate/story/210492.html in your web browser it takes you directly to the article.

Richard's main page