Meltdown: What Really Happened at Fukushima?


In the interests of promoting the truth, this post from Sott.net adds important information. Important to the world at large, important to TGR as a source of information, important to you!
 
Jake Adelstein and David McNeill, ‘The Atlantic Wire’

“It’s been one of the mysteries of Japan‘s ongoing nuclear disaster: How much of the damage did the March 11 earthquake inflict on Fukushima Daiichi’s reactors in the 40 minutes before the devastating tsunami arrived? The stakes are high: If the quake alone structurally compromised the plant and the safety of its nuclear fuel, then every other similar reactor in Japan is at risk.

Throughout the months of lies and misinformation, one story has stuck: “The earthquake knocked out the plant’s electric power, halting cooling to its reactors,” as the government spokesman Yukio Edano said at a March 15 press conference in Tokyo. The story, which has been repeated again and again, boils down to this: “after the earthquake, the tsunami – a unique, unforeseeable [the Japanese word is soteigai] event – then washed out the plant’s back-up generators, shutting down all cooling and starting the chain of events that would cause the world’s first triple meltdown to occur.”

But what if recirculation pipes and cooling pipes, burst, snapped, leaked, and broke completely after the earthquake — long before the tidal wave reached the facilities, long before the electricity went out? This would surprise few people familiar with the 40-year-old Unit 1, the grandfather of the nuclear reactors still operating in Japan.

© Reuters

The authors have spoken to several workers at the plant who recite the same story: Serious damage to piping and at least one of the reactors before the tsunami hit. All have requested anonymity because they are still working at the plant or are connected with TEPCO. One worker, a 27-year-old maintenance engineer who was at the Fukushima complex on March 11, recalls hissing and leaking pipes. “I personally saw pipes that came apart and I assume that there were many more that had been broken throughout the plant. There’s no doubt that the earthquake did a lot of damage inside the plant,” he said. “There were definitely leaking pipes, but we don’t know which pipes – that has to be investigated. I also saw that part of the wall of the turbine building for Unit 1 had come away. That crack might have affected the reactor.”

The reactor walls of the reactor are quite fragile, he notes. “If the walls are too rigid, they can crack under the slightest pressure from inside so they have to be breakable because if the pressure is kept inside and there is a buildup of pressure, it can damage the equipment inside the walls so it needs to be allowed to escape. It’s designed to give during a crisis, if not it could be worse – that might be shocking to others, but to us it’s common sense.”

A second worker, a technician in his late 30s, who was also on site at the time of the earthquake, narrated what happened. “It felt like the earthquake hit in two waves, the first impact was so intense you could see the building shaking, the pipes buckling, and within minutes, I saw pipes bursting. Some fell off the wall. Others snapped. I was pretty sure that some of the oxygen tanks stored on site had exploded but I didn’t see for myself. Someone yelled that we all needed to evacuate and I was good with that. But I was severely alarmed because as I was leaving I was told and I could see that several pipes had cracked open, including what I believe were cold water supply pipes. That would mean that coolant couldn’t get to the reactor core. If you can’t sufficiently get the coolant to the core, it melts down. You don’t have to have to be a nuclear scientist to figure that out.”

© Reuters

As he was heading to his car, he could see the walls of the reactor one building itself had already started to collapse. “There were holes in them. In the first few minutes, no one was thinking about a tsunami. We were thinking about survival.”

A third worker was coming into work late when the earthquake hit. “I was in a building nearby when the earthquake shook. After the second shockwave hit, I heard a loud explosion that was almost deafening. I looked out the window and I could see white smoke coming from reactor one. I thought to myself, ‘this is the end.'”

When the worker got to the office five to 15 minutes later the supervisor ordered them all to evacuate, explaining, “there’s been an explosion of some gas tanks in reactor one, probably the oxygen tanks. In addition to this there has been some structural damage, pipes have burst, meltdown is possible. Please take shelter immediately.” (It should be noted that there have been several explosions at Daiichi even after the March 11 earthquake, one of which TEPCO stated, “was probably due to a gas tank left behind in the debris”.)

However, while the employees prepared to leave, the tsunami warning came. Many of them fled to the top floor of a building near the site and waited to be rescued.

The reason for official reluctance to admit that the earthquake did direct structural damage to reactor one is obvious. Katsunobu Onda, author of TEPCO: The Dark Empire (東京電力・暗黒の帝国), who sounded the alarm about the firm in his 2007 book explains it this way: “If TEPCO and the government of Japan admit an earthquake can do direct damage to the reactor, this raises suspicions about the safety of every reactor they run. They are using a number of antiquated reactors that have the same systematic problems, the same wear and tear on the piping.”

In a previous story, Kei Sugaoka, a Japanese engineer who worked at the Unit 1 site, says that he wasn’t surprised that a meltdown took place after the earthquake. He sent the Japanese government a letter, dated June 28, 2000, warning them of the problems there. It took the Japanese government more than two years to act on that warning. Mr. Sugaoka has also said he saw yakuza tattoos on many of the cleanup crew staff. When interviewed on May 23 he stated, “The plant had problems galore and the approach taken with them was piecemeal. Most of the critical work: construction work, inspection work, and welding were entrusted to sub-contracted employees with little technical background or knowledge of nuclear radiation. I can’t remember there ever being a disaster drill. The TEPCO employees never got their hands dirty.”

© Reuters

Onda notes, “I’ve spent decades researching TEPCO and its nuclear power plants and what I’ve found, and what government reports confirm is that the nuclear reactors are only as strong as their weakest links, and those links are the pipes.”

During his research, Onda spoke with several engineers who worked at the TEPCO plants. One told him that often piping would not match up the way it should according to the blueprints. In that case, the only solution was to use heavy machinery to pull the pipes close enough together to weld them shut. Inspection of piping was often cursory and the backs of the pipes, which were hard to reach, were often ignored. Since the inspections themselves were generally cursory and done by visual checks, it was easy to ignore them. Repair jobs were rushed; no one wanted to be exposed to nuclear radiation longer than necessary.

Onda adds, “When I first visited the Fukushima power plant it was a web of pipes. Pipes on the wall, on the ceiling, on the ground. You’d have to walk over them, duck under them – sometimes you’d bump your head on them. It was like a maze of pipes inside.”

Onda believes it’s not very difficult to explain what happened at Unit 1 and perhaps the other reactors as well. “The pipes, which regulate the heat of the reactor and carry coolant, are the veins and arteries of a nuclear power plant; the core is the heart. If the pipes burst, vital components don’t reach the heart and thus you have a heart attack, in nuclear terms: meltdown. In simpler terms, you can’t cool a reactor core if the pipes carrying the coolant and regulating the heat rupture – it doesn’t get to the core.”

Tooru Hasuike, a TEPCO employee from 1977 until 2009 andformer general safety manager of the Fukushima plant, also notes: “The emergency plans for a nuclear disaster at the Fukushima plant had no mention of using sea-water to cool the core. To pump seawater into the core is to destroy the reactor. The only reason you’d do that is no other water or coolant was available.”

Problems with the fractured, deteriorating, poorly repaired pipes and the cooling system had been pointed out for years. In 2002, whistle-blower allegations that TEPCO had deliberately falsified safety records came to light and the company was forced to shut down all of its reactors and inspect them, including the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant. Kei Sugaoka, a GE on-site inspector first notified Japan’s nuclear watch dog, Nuclear Industrial Safey Agency (NISA) in June of 2000. Not only did the government of Japan take more than two years to address the problem and collude on covering it up, they gave the name of the whistleblower to TEPCO.

© Reuters

In September of 2002, TEPCO admitted to covering up data concerning cracks in critical circulation pipes in addition to previously revealed falsifications. In their analysis of the cover-up, The Citizen’s Nuclear Information Center writes: “The records that were covered up had to do with cracks in parts of the reactor known as recirculation pipes. These pipes are there to siphon off heat from the reactor. If these pipes were to fracture, it would result in a serious accident in which coolant leaks out. From the perspective of safety, these are highly important pieces of equipment. Cracks were found in the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant, reactor one, reactor two, reactor three, reactor four, reactor five.” The cracks in the pipes were not due to earthquake damage; they came from the simple wear and tear of long-term usage.

On March 2, nine days before the meltdown, the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) gave TEPCO a warning on its failure to inspect critical pieces of equipment at the plant, which included the recirculation pumps. TEPCO was ordered to make the inspections, perform repairs if needed and give a report to the NISA on June 2. The report is not confirmed to have been filed as of this time.

The problems were not only with the piping. Gas tanks at the site also exploded after the earthquake. The outside of the reactor building suffered structural damage. There was some chaos. There was no one really qualified to assess the radioactive leakage because, as the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency admits, after the accident all the on-site inspectors fled the site. And the quake and tsunami broke most of the monitoring equipment so there was little information available on radiation afterwards.

Before the dawn on March 12, the water levels at the reactor began to plummet and the radiation began rising. Meltdown was taking place. The TEPCO Press release issued on March 12 just past 4am stated, “the pressure within the containment vessel is high but stable.” There was a note buried in the release that many people missed. “The emergency water circulation system was cooling the steam within the core; it has ceased to function.”

According to The Chunichi Shinbun and other sources, a few hours after the earthquake extremely high levels of radiation were being measured within the reactor one building. The levels were so high that if you spent a full day exposed to them it would be fatal. The water levels of the reactor were already sinking.After the Japanese government forced TEPCO to release hundreds of pages of documents relating to the accident in May, Bloomberg reported on May 19 that a radiation alarm went off 1.5 kilometers from the number one reactor on March 11 at 3:29 p.m., minutes before the tsunami reached the plant. TEPCO would not deny the possibility that there was significant radiation leakage before the power went out. They did assert that the alarm might have simply malfunctioned.

On March 11, at 9:51 p.m., under the CEO’s orders, the inside of the reactor building was declared a no-entry zone. Around 11 p.m., radiation levels for the inside of the turbine building, which was next door to the reactor, reached hourly levels of 0.5 to 1.2 mSv. The meltdown was already underway.

Oddly enough, while TEPCO later insisted that the cause of the meltdown was the tsunami knocking out emergency power systems, at the 7:47 p.m. TEPCO press conference the same day, the spokesman in response to questions from the press about the cooling systems stated that the emergency water circulation equipment and reactor core isolation time cooling systems would work even without electricity.

Sometime between 4 and 6 a.m. on March 12, Masao Yoshida, the plant manager decided it was time to pump seawater into the reactor core and notified TEPCO. Seawater was not pumped in until hours after a hydrogen explosion occurred, roughly 8:00 p.m. that day. By then, it was probably already too late.

On May 15, TEPCO went some way toward admitting at least some of these claims in a report called “Reactor Core Status of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit One.” The report said there might have been pre-tsunami damage to key facilities including pipes. “This means that assurances from the industry in Japan and overseas that the reactors were robust is now blown apart,” said Shaun Burnie, an independent nuclear waste consultant. “It raises fundamental questions on all reactors in high seismic risk areas.”

As Burnie points out, TEPCO also admitted massive fuel melt –16 hours after loss of coolant, and 7-8 hours before the explosion in unit 1. “Since they must have known all this – their decision to flood with massive water volumes would guarantee massive additional contamination – including leaks to the ocean.”

No one knows exactly how much damage was done to the plant by the quake, or if this damage alone would account for the meltdown. However, eyewitness testimony and TEPCO’S own data indicates that the damage was significant. All of this despite the fact that shaking experienced at the plant during the quake was within it’s approved design specifications. Says Hasuike: “What really happened at the Fukushima Daiicihi Nuclear Power Plant to cause a meltdown? TEPCO and the government of Japan have provided many explanations. They don’t make sense. The one thing they haven’t provided is the truth. It’s time that they did.”

Original ‘Atlantic Wire’ post here.

Jake Adelstein is an investigative journalist, consultant, and the author of Tokyo Vice: An American Reporter On The Police Beat In Japanxz. He is also a board member of the Washington, D.C.-based Polaris Project Japan, which combats human trafficking and the exploitation of women and children in the sex trade. David McNeill writes for The Irish Times, The Independent and other publications. He has taught courses on journalism at Sophia University and is a coordinator of Japan Focus. Stephanie Nakajima contributed to this article.”

Posted in ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, Human Behaviour, nuclear | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake


September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City: V...

Image via Wikipedia

I am also absolutely certain as a strategic analyst that 9/11 itself, from which all else flows, was a classic Mossadorchestrated operation. But Mossad did not do it alone. They needed local help within America (and perhaps elsewhere) and they had it, principally from some alumni of PNAC (the misnamed Project for a New American Century) and their affiliates within and outside of the US Government (USG), who in the 9/11 attacks got the “catalytic event” they needed and craved to take the US to war on Israel’s behalf, only eight months after coming into office.

So writes Alan Sabrosky of ‘Veterans Today’.  (Alerted by TIP Ref:  http://tipggita32.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/demystifying-911-israel-and-the-tactics-of-mistake/)

Original post : http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/28/demystifying-911-israel-and-the-tactics-of-mistake/

Being a motivated believer in the 9/11 conspiracy, (note I didn’t say ‘theory’), I am including this in my blog as part of the 9/11 theme.

Click here for the original article. It is bit laborious but makes its point.

Posted in 'WAR on(of) TERROR', 9/11 tragedy, Conspiracies, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

A look at some UN influences, not looking good.


Model (sketch) of the planned “United Nations ...

Image via Wikipedia

The U.N.’s climate of desperation

“As the United Nations wrapped up its recent climate conference in Bonn, talks organizer Christiana Figueres proclaimed that climate change is the “the most important negotiation the world has ever faced.” Faced with real problems – financial meltdowns, unemployment, war and genuine human suffering – the world no longer agrees.” (By David Rothbard and Craig Rucker – The Washington Times )

This is quite a Tangled Web, of interest to those who are either believing in the UN as a world support organization, or those who are suspicious of its motivations and activities.

Click here to read the “JustMeInT” post.

Posted in ENVIRONMENT, Justice, New World Order, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

CO2 science. A version including H2O effects.


Increasing water vapor in the stratosphere at ...

Increasing water vapor in the stratosphere at Boulder, Colorado. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This following paper details the science supporting the non-AGW believers. It is part of my “Carbon Attack” page but needs up-front exposure in view of the Australian government’s huge efforts and expenditure promoting their unwelcome and worse-than-useless Carbon Tax.

This blog intends to display the IPCC version in the near future. Hopefully, in the meantime, warmists will have something to think about, and others something to feel they have some backing for their debate.

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System:

This page by: Monte Hieb
Last revised: March 2, 2007,  Ref:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?

 It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not. Something wrong here, need to follow up!

 This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn’t factored into an analysis of Earth’s greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC’s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small– perhaps undetectable– effect on global climate.

 For those interested in more details a series of data sets and charts have been assembled below in a 5-step statistical synopsis.

 Note that the first two steps ignore water vapor.

 1.Greenhouse gas concentrations

2.Convertingconcentrationsto contribution

3.Factoring in water vapor

4.Distinguishing natural vs man-made greenhouse gases

5.Putting it all together

  Note: Calculations are expressed to 3 significant digits to reduce rounding errors, not necessarily to indicate statistical precision of the data. All charts were plotted using Lotus 1-2-3.

 Caveat: This analysis is intended to provide a simplified comparison of the various man-made and natural greenhouse gases on an equal basis with each other. It does not take into account all of the complicated interactions between atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial systems, a feat which can only be accomplished by better computer models than are currently in use.


 Greenhouse Gas Concentrations:
Natural vs man-made (anthropogenic)

 1. The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases, and supplemented with information from other sources (2-7). Because some of the concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion. DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!

 TABLE 1.

 The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)

(all concentrations expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent of Total
 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)  288,000 68,520 11,880 (2) 368,400 99.438%
 Methane (CH4)  848 577 320 1,745 0.471% 
 Nitrous Oxide (N2O)  285 12 15 312 0.084%
 Misc. gases ( CFC’s, etc.)  25 0 2 27 0.007%
 Total  289,158 69,109 12,217 370,484 100.00%

The chart at left summarizes the % of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere from Table 1. This is not a very meaningful view though because 1) the data has not been corrected for the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each gas, and 2) water vapor is ignored.

But these are the numbers one would use if the goal is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions:

Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations (368,400 / 370,484 )–(ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 1 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

The various greenhouse gases are not equal in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant % concentrations must be changed to % contributionrelative to CO2. This is done in Table 2, below, through the use of GWP multipliers for each gas, derived by various researchers.


Converting greenhouse gas concentrations
to greenhouse effect contribution
(using global warming potential )

2. Using appropriate corrections for the Global Warming Potential of the respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse gases, based on the conversion:

( concentration )X ( the appropriate GWP multiplier (3) (4) of each gas relative to CO2 ) = greenhouse contribution.:

 TABLE 2.  (Apologies for inability to re-size this to fit)

 Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2

This table adjusts values in Table 1 to compare greenhouse gases equally with respect to CO2. ( #’s are unit-less) Multiplier (GWP) Pre-industrial baseline(new) Natural additions (new) Man-made additions (new) Tot. Relative Contribution Percent of Total (new)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)  1  288,000 68,520 11,880 368,400 72.369%
Methane (CH4)  21 (3)  17,808 12,117 6,720 36,645 7.199%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)  310 (3) 88,350 3,599 4,771 96,720 19.000%
 CFC’s (and other misc. gases) see data (4) 2,500 0 4,791 7,291 1.432%
 Total 396,658 84,236 28,162 509,056 100.000%

NOTE: GWP (Global Warming Potential) is used to contrast different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.

Compared to the concentration statistics in Table 1, the GWP comparison in Table 2 illustrates, among other things:

Total carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions are reduced to 72.37% of all greenhouse gases (368,400 / 509,056)– (ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 2 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions,(ignoring water vapor).

Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC’s and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases.

To properly represent the total relative impacts of Earth’s greenhouse gases Table 3 (below) factors in the effect of water vapor on the system.


Water vapor overwhelms
all other natural and man-made
greenhouse contributions.

3. Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.

 TABLE 3.

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the “Greenhouse Effect”

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics Percent of Total  Percent of Total –adjusted for water vapor
 Water vapor  —–  95.000%
 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369%  3.618%
 Methane (CH4) 7.100%  0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000%  0.950%
 CFC’s (and other misc. gases) 1.432%  0.072%
 Total 100.000%  100.000%

As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!

Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) — both man-made and natural– is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect– a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (5). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Conceding that it might be “a little misleading” to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is “customary” to do so!


Comparing natural vs man-made concentrations
of greenhouse gases

4. Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible).

Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis– total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.


Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.

5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

TABLE 4a.

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the “Greenhouse Effect,” expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics  % of Greenhouse Effect % Natural % Man-made
 Water vapor 95.000%

 94.999%

0.001%
 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618%

 3.502%

0.117%
 Methane (CH4) 0.360%

 0.294%

0.066% 
 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950%

 0.903%

0.047%
 Misc. gases ( CFC’s, etc.) 0.072%

 0.025%

0.047%
 Total 100.00%

 99.72

0.28%

When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.

From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28%(factoring in water vapor).

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth’s climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.


” There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures — one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. “
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

Research to Watch

Scientists are increasingly recognizing the importance of water vapor in the climate system. Some, like Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, suggest that it is such an important factor that much of the global warming in the last 10,000 years may be due to the increasing water vapor concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere.

His research indicates that air reaching glaciers during the last Ice Age had less than half the water vapor content of today. Such increases in atmospheric moisture during our current interglacial period would have played a far greater role in global warming than carbon dioxide or other minor gases.


I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth’s most powerful greenhouse gas– water vapor. “

Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union’s
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.


Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth’s rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun’s energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth’s greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.

The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren’t high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn’t!


 || Global Warming || Table of Contents ||

 References:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to “members”)
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

2) “Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:on the construction of the ‘Greenhouse Effect Global Warming’ dogma;” Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo

3) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

4) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC’s and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

d. Personal Communication– Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT

e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology– Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:

5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom

6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide – Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine

Useful conversions:

1 Gt = 1 billion tons = 1 cu. km. H20

1 Gt Carbon(C) = ~3.67 Gt Carbon Dioxide(CO2)

2.12 Gt C = ~7.8 Gt CO2 = 1ppmv CO2

Posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, New World Order | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

CLIMATE CHANGE and COMMONSENSE, are they COMPATIBLE?


Animated global map of monthly long term mean ...

Image via Wikipedia

Much effort and emotional energy is being invested in the debate about carbon taxing in Australia and similar constraints and profiteering in other places.

A series of papers, commissioned by the Government, called “Conversations: Climate Change is Happening” is introduced and presented at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2761976.html.

Taking a break from individual commentaries ( “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 6.), and summarising , my understanding and opinions so far are:

The ABC Drum topic name “Climate Change is happening“, is absurd because it is unscientific and meaningless. Because ‘global warming‘ is not a scientifically justifiable term, ‘climate change’ is offered instead. Now all and any adverse climate changes become erroneously associated with so-called ‘carbon pollution’.  More unscientific claims and jargon.

The series title “Clearing up the Climate Debate”, is inappropriate because a one-sided series of papers adds to the debate. Without ‘opposition’ views and an impartial mediator the debate cannot be cleared up!

Issues of  CO2 science, greenhouse effects, pollution, peer reviews, computer models, global temperature measurements and trends, natural climate cycles and influences, and agenda bias, all remain in dispute.

Actions – proposed, planned, and in progress, to minimise claimed-to-be damaging increases in global temperature are still based on strongly disputed sciences.

Scientific ‘truths’ are being judged by peer review, usually by selected on-side peers. Un-peer-reviewed opinions are summarily dismissed as having no validity.

Aside from all the other variables, the issue, because the AGW promoters have selected CO2 as the ‘villain’ to be controlled, can be honed down to establishing, with some degree of scientific certainty that there really is a direct, meaningful relationship between CO2 levels and ‘global temperature’.

But it is still not so simple because, there is much doubt whether the measured/assessed/computed/adjusted and then processed-to-a ‘global average’, published temperatures are genuine or influenced by vested interests.

However, the planetary-heating influence from atmospheric (greenhouse) properties and the difference CO2 levels have on this influence is certainly THE issue.

The multitude of other variables may well be of greater influence, of course one of the ‘denier’ arguments, but carbon taxing/pricing/trading, rail-roading activities are the real danger we are facing at the moment.

If the incremental CO2 heating influence cannot be adequately scientifically-proven beyond reasonable doubt, the public should not be asked/?forced to pay. Neither should industries be crippled unless this is resolved, not on paper, not by the public, but by a genuine scientific CONSENSUS of eligible persons from either ‘side’. Then, if involved persons do have a non-scientific motivation or individual technical strengths and weaknesses, a balance of pro and anti “believers” will prevent these factors from biasing the results.

Then, if the evidence is not strong and obvious enough to reach a consensus, the world should not be subjected to unjustified costs and controls .

Admittedly, having no associated relevant qualifications, whatever I say will be disregarded by the believers. However, perhaps it would be fairer if judgement is made on the content of the statement, rather than its source. My sources, referenced below, generally have good technical credentials and seem to be logical and independent of vested interests. The statements can be questioned, the norm for good science procedures.  Where I have included differing viewpoints, the reader’s assessment will be interesting. The following is my understanding.

Basic greenhouse theory: (TGR page ‘Carbon Attack’/’An Educational Primer’/ ‘Primer 3: CO2 Aspects’)

In very simple terms, planet surface heating is initiated by UV ( short wavelength electromagnetic) radiation from the Sun. The sun‘s energy output as “seen” by earth is variable on a cyclical basis plus significant variations from solar spots.  Portion of the radiation has been blocked by the atmosphere, especially by the ozone layer, but enough heating is available (cloud influence ignored and simple flat receiving area) to measure nominally a little over 1300 Watts/m>2.  Its effective heating is determined  by polar/tropical and of course, day/night effects, also seasonal and earth/sun distance variations, the average may be something like 240 W/m>2.  A reasonable start as a discussion point.

As the earth absorbs some of this radiation, the earth warms. Some radiation, (depending on the surface characteristics – water, snow, ice, man-made surfaces /buildings), is reflected back at the same wavelengths.  The areas that warm re-radiate at infra-red frequencies (long wavelength), back into the atmosphere. The amount of reflected energy after stabilization, theoretically would be close to the incoming energy when the stabilised global average temperature was something approximating 30 degC less than the current calculated temperature. Some planet heating must occur from transference from the internal molten core, but the bulk of the temperature difference is assumed to be from re-radiation from the “greenhouse” effect. All manner of variables are involved, but the principle is sound.

The atmosphere comprises a number of gasses, concentrations varying with altitude and each gas having its own reflection and absorption characteristics.

At lower atmospheric levels, water vapour (H2O) in the form of clouds, block UV from above and reflect or absorb IR in both directions. These become a huge variable in the equation.

So the heat radiation from the earth’s surface and the lower level air is radiated back up to the upper atmosphere where it is blocked/absorbed by CO2, water vapour and other GHG’s. There it causes heating of air and water vapour molecules, and results in re-radiation back towards the earth’s surface. Let see what the experts say about the real-life results.

One claimed scenario is that CO2 at a density of 0.04% of the atmosphere and an absorption spectrum of about 5 to 8% of the infra-red range would only absorb and re-radiate a maximum of 8% of the radiation even if  the atmosphere was 100% CO2.  At 0.04% density and 8% absorption capability, its effectiveness is indeed looking miniscule. (Ref. http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html)

Another  claim is that CO2 after initial warming effects, has ever decreasing effect: http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1598

Yet another theory, from a practicing climate scientist:

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas. [emphasis mine]

But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd.

Here is the link to the complete article:

So far, looking at the IPCC supporting scientist’s theory, which is that CO2 initiates the heating which is supplemented by the heat-created water vapour which itself  becomes the predominant greenhouse gas. This would be a dangerous positive feedback situation except for the water vapour increasingly blocking incoming solar radiation and regulating the feedback. The whole cycle becomes extremely complex as the water vapour circulates/cycles due to precipitation. Warmer atmosphere creating higher rainfall is a negative feedback factor.

Precipitation and cloud shielding will both reverse the surface heating trend and the balance, variable in time and location, will arguably be more or less independent of the CO2 level. Then the other GHG’s measurably with even less forcing power individually, but with cumulative effect, reduce the CO2’s individual relative contribution.

It still remains, however, that the CO2, initially at say 0.02% of total atmospheric gasses, with 5-8% blocking effect on IR radiation escaping from the surface, would seem to be a very impotent force in the equation. To say that CO2’s effect is amplified by the water vapour is a circular argument. There may have been sufficient water vapour, not initially perhaps, but certainly after, for it already to have more effect than the smaller density of CO2. The CO2 effect can become negligible unless the water vapour has decreased significantly.

We are told that the greenhouse heating raises the lower atmosphere temperature by an amount up to 30degC above what it would otherwise be, if not for CO2 setting off  the heat re-radiation back to the surface. Given the personal experience of being outside in the summer, even at 38 deg S, it is possible to imagine sufficient energy to raise the oceans and lakes and anything containing moisture to evaporative temperature levels required for water vapour production and cloud formation. Then natural release of CO2 from land carbon sources would assist further rises in global temperature.

And there again, in the past, the earth has been able to warm up from very much lower temperatures without the assistance of CO2 levels above 200 ppm. Not only that, but much higher levels of CO2 in the past have not created warming much above what we currently experience.

It is my humble opinion, that this issue should be placed openly on the debating table, until the evidence that CO2 is what IPCC claim, and is clear and convincing.  There are simply too many variables, too many inadequately answered questions, so many that even computer modelling has to be based on a lot of assumptions and cannot include all variables. A convenient tool but not sufficiently convincing to justify conclusions of such importance as this.

A brave look at the Hansen science: Ref: http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16109.full

the climate system is presently out of energy balance by 0.5-1 W/m2, i.e., solar energy absorbed by the Earth exceeds outgoing thermal radiation by that amount.

indicate that climate sensitivity is ≈0.75 ± 0.25°C per W/m2

These forcings are similar to those of IPCC (3), although our sensitivity for CO2 is ≈10% larger (4.1 vs. 3.7 W/m2 for doubled CO2).

Assuming a linear relationship, 4 W/m>2 per 380ppm,  in more realistic terms, is 0.4W/m>2 for a 10% increase of 38ppm CO2   causes  approx. 0.1 degC  global increase.

What is the total GHG forcing figure? No mention of H2O except that it isn’t included. Hmmm!  If there is already sufficient CO2 to get the water vapour cycle started, there is no reason why even a lot more CO2 will make anything other than a minor difference.  Does the CO2 molecule have some special characteristic of storing hundreds of times more heat than a H2O molecule?

Mind you, all these forcing and incremental figures are so small compared to the existing range of temperature variations due to equator/polar, day/night, summer/winter, solar radiation output and geographical altitude that it could be suggested that it is a brave scientific exercise to not only predict meaningful future effects with confidence but to also to commit the population to serious life changes on the predicted outcome.

(Minor revisions 28 June 2011)

References:

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16109.full

 http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf (Discussion purpose only)

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1598

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/24/run-away-the-anthropocene-is-coming/

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/corruption/climate-corruption.pdf

http://notrickszone.com/2011/06/25/crash-european-carbon-market-plummets/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/

Posted in climate change, Conspiracies, ENVIRONMENT, Justice, Politics | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

“Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 6.


This post is directed at the ABC News (Aus), ‘Drum Opinion’ post of the same name! Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2761976.html

The foregoing comments in Part 1 regarding funding and other influences apply to all papers.   It is also appropriate to iterate that addressing one side of an issue is not “clearing up the debate “, which is why this blog is attempting to address the “other side”.

(‘The Conversation’ website: Part 6: Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review)

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Professor Stephan Lewandowsky holds “sceptics” accountable for their subversion of the peer review process.

I am having great difficulty in commenting on this paper.  The first thought, not to do with peer review or this paper particularly, but a very general thing, is the repeated use of the term ‘climate change’.

 There may be an implied meaning which could be said to be ‘changes in climate detrimental to mankind and caused by human activities’. The actual term itself is absolutely technically meaningless when used in this context because it simply refers to the planet’s climate as a variable parameter, or set of parameters. Also implied, as far as the AGW supporters are concerned, is a warming trend, once called ‘global warming’ but dropped because it could not be shown that there was continuing warming occurring. Also implied, again by the AGW fraternity, is the “settled science” of additional greenhouse gasses resulting from human polluting activities being the cause of undesirable global heating.  Furthermore, the “settled science” of CO2 being the necessary target, via carbon emission controls, for lessening the warming rate. Whew!

 So a term, once meaning a natural phenomena relating to weather and climate patterns, becomes a term analogous to criminal behaviour, therefore requiring social control or constraint. A term, now equalling an undesirable condition, one which must be controlled in a world-wide manner set down by a small number of groups, one of which comprises scientists who were originally tasked to develop a basis for this climate control system. The use of this term in this way is a ‘con’, if ever there was one!

Because we have some other scientists, not yet convinced of the “settled science” claims, clamouring to be heard by whatever means possible, finding difficulty in publishing anywhere other than the internet, we consequently have here a paper harassing them for not following the “rules” of engagement.

We have the issue of peer-reviewing, already covered in Part 5. This, in it’s own way, is a contentious issue. Much has been stated about the flexibility and incestuousness of this process in the AGW ‘industry’, so there may be some stone-throwing from glass-houses occurring. Whatever the case, there is no ‘level playing field’ in sight.

The most important factor, however, is that proving a scientific claim to be true or at least acceptable, unfortunately seems to rely on the peer-review system. One would like to think that scientific theories were self-evident but they certainly aren’t in this case.  As so often happens in this debate, such as it is, the truth or validity of a theory seems to be overshadowed by this argument of peer review and ever-increasing claims of lack of credibility of the scientist or author.

Truth and validity should not be determined by anything other than the facts. If the facts or hypotheses are disputed, some method is required to prove them, scientifically, beyond dispute. If not resolvable, the hypotheses remain that and cannot reasonably be called facts. If not proven to be facts, by a better method of assessment than peer-review, the hypotheses should not be considered to be an acceptable foundation for world-wide implementation of financial and industrial controls as proposed by the ‘powers-that-be’, whoever they may be.

In cases where there is insufficient incontrovertible scientific evidence to convince all ‘players’, and peer-review is needed to back-up findings that are of some real importance, then there needs to be impartiality regarding the peers and a degree of consensus on the selection of them.

As usual, I can’t resist sticking my neck out a bit, climbing out on the proverbial limb. I think the degree of mud-slinging in Prof Lewandowsky’s paper  was a bit excessive, after all it is a scientific paper. I wonder if certain people might appreciate a right of reply?

On the technical side, I cannot help wondering about the reference to the “hockeystick” paper by Professor Michael Mann and colleagues.

The hockeystick is the iconic graph that shows the sky-rocketing temperatures of the last few decades in comparison to the relatively constant temperatures during the preceding centuries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences affirmed the basic conclusions of Professor Mann, as have numerous other papers published during the last decade.

It is my opinion that that statement is open to question by many.

[This post is obviously not a complete, scientific treatise on the subject. It is however, a guide to the reader to indicate that the ‘warmist’ papers are not to be taken at face value. They need to be analysed and proven to be above question before acceptance, because they are agenda-driven and might cost you your lifestyle and maybe even your freedom.]

The other series articles will be addressed, in turn.

Comments on “open letter” are Part 1: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 1.

Comments on “greenhouse effect” are Part 2: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 2.

Comments on “alarmist AGW views justified” are Part 3:   “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 3.

Comments on ” the staggering ways we influence the shape of the globe” are Part 4: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 4.

Comments on  “peer-review and related matters” are Part 5:  “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 5.

Posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Justice, Media, Nature, New World Order, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 5.


This post is directed at the ABC News (Aus), ‘Drum Opinion’ post of the same name! Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2761976.html

The foregoing comments in previous parts apply to funding and other influences.   It is also appropriate to iterate that addressing one side of an issue is not “clearing up the debate “, which is why this blog is attempting to address the “other side”.

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Director of the Global Change Institute, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg submits some climate “sceptics” to peer-review and finds them wanting.

Looking at the fundamental aspect of ‘peer review’, where, as Ove points in his paper:

Peer review is the basis of modern scientific endeavour. It underpins research and validates findings, theories and data.

Submitting scientists’ claims to peer review is a straightforward way to assess their credibility.

It stands to reason that the peer reviewing, in order for it to be meaningful, would be done by other qualified scientists, preferably in the same science field, who would thoroughly understand the work, and who would critically examine it, consider it’s accuracy, agree that the methods, experiments and conclusions were scientifically sound, and who would ask questions and get feedback from the author where appropriate.

Selecting a peer reviewer who is associated with the project, or the author, or has some other connection or vested interest, or known pre-disposition to agree with the work would lessen the credibility of the review, or even negate it.

The Climate Commission was established by the Australian government to help build consensus around climate change.

 Comment; admitted agenda to build consensus “around ? “climate change””.  No study, no debate, no consensus, no science, no impartiality, funded by the government!

Peer-reviewed by internationally respected scientists, the report summarises key evidence and conclusions regarding climate change for Australia and the world.

May have been peer-reviewed, but no acknowledgement of same, either the reviewers or any reviewing notes.

Rising temperatures, changing rainfall, threats to human health and agriculture, and deteriorating ecosystems are carefully documented from the scientific literature. The report makes compelling reading and a solid case for rapid action on greenhouse gases such as CO2.

This is Olave’s comment, an assessment that I venture to query in respect of his agreement with “rapid action on greenhouse gases such as CO2”. From a technical point of view, the implied justification for a carbon tax which relates to CO2 but not to other, perhaps more important, GHG’s, is not supported. 

Now we come to a rejection of critical  comments by some experts, who are criticised for not having peer-reviewed papers.

But is there really so much scientific dispute over the facts of climate change?

One way to resolve this is to ask a simple question. If Carter and company hold different views to those expressed in the majority of the peer-reviewed, scientific literature, then have they submitted their ideas to independent and objective peer-review?

This is a critical process that sorts opinion and rhetoric from scientific knowledge and consensus.

If the answer is “yes”, there are legitimate grounds for concern over the report’s conclusion.

If the answer is “no”, the arguments against the Climate Commission’s report fall away as unsubstantiated opinion.

Three comments:  Carter and company have a great deal of expertise and published material but not in journal format. Without researching this, I believe attempts to do so have been met with prejudicial denial, at least in some cases.

Such acceptance is normally taken as a sorting of “rhetoric from scientific knowledge and consensus” but it is not necessarily the case. In fact the lack of such ‘sorting’ is a claim against many AGW published papers, including the IPCC reports where peer-reviewing is, in the outside world, termed ‘pal-reviewed’.

Thirdly, the credentials of the person making criticisms are not as relevant as are the statements, which may actually be true. True peer-reviewed statements may have a better chance of being correct, one’s with agenda bias less likely so. The persons critical of AGW alarmism are not being given a chance to openly debate their case, not that an impartial arbiter could be easily found. Climate science is far from cut and dried.

Monumental, world-changing decisions are being based on this and other such documents. Governments relying on agenda-driven documents and proposals are responsible to their public and they are letting us down by being a party to unsure and possibly false science.

Carbon trading has yet to be proved necessary and the motivation has yet to be made clear to the public.

[This post is obviously not a complete, scientific treatise on the subject. It is however, a guide to the reader to indicate that the ‘warmist’ papers are not to be taken at face value. They need to be analysed and proven to be above question before acceptance, because they are agenda-driven and might cost you your lifestyle and maybe even your freedom.]

The other series articles will be addressed, in turn.

Comments on “open letter” are Part 1: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 1.

Comments on “greenhouse effect” are Part 2: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 2.

Comments on “alarmist AGW views justified” are Part 3:   “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 3.

Comments on ” the staggering ways we influence the shape of the globe” are Part 4: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 4.

Posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Justice, Media, Nature, New World Order, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

9/11 and the Orwellian Redefinition of “Conspiracy Theory”


Paul Craig Roberts

Image via Wikipedia

I publish this because, besides giving an interesting look at the ever-increasing existence and claims for “conspiracy theories”, Paul includes a great summary of the 9/11 story. The official story, so full of ‘holes’, lies, distortions, cover-ups and claimed conspiracies, of an incident with world-wide repercussions involving thousands of deaths and unlimited injuries, mental and physical. In addition, the incident has turned the US into a country no longer of freedom, but of fear and persecution. Not the incident actually, but the government’s response to it!  It also highlights the misuse of the term ‘conspiracy theory’.

So many people have so much to account for!

Paul Craig Roberts, Global Research, posted this on ‘Sott.net.’:
 
“While we were not watching, conspiracy theory has undergone Orwellian redefinition.A “conspiracy theory” no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government’s explanation and that of its media pimps.

For example, online news broadcasts of RT have been equated with conspiracy theories by the New York Times simply because RT reports news and opinions that the New York Times does not report and the US government does not endorse.

In other words, as truth becomes uncomfortable for government and its Ministry of Propaganda, truth is redefined as conspiracy theory, by which is meant an absurd and laughable explanation that we should ignore.

When piles of carefully researched books, released government documents, and testimony of eye witnesses made it clear that Oswald was not President John F. Kennedy‘s assassin, the voluminous research, government documents, and verified testimony was dismissed as “conspiracy theory.”

In other words, the truth of the event was unacceptable to the authorities and to the Ministry of Propaganda that represents the interests of authorities.

The purest example of how Americans are shielded from truth is the media’s (including many Internet sites’) response to the large number of professionals who find the official explanation of September 11, 2001, inconsistent with everything they, as experts, know about physics, chemistry, structural engineering, architecture, fires, structural damage, the piloting of airplanes, the security procedures of the United States, NORAD’s capabilities, air traffic control, airport security, and other matters. These experts, numbering in the thousands, have been shouted down by know-nothings in the media who brand the experts as “conspiracy theorists.”

This despite the fact that the official explanation endorsed by the official media is the most extravagant conspiracy theory in human history.

Let’s take a minute to re-acquaint ourselves with the official explanation, which is not regarded as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that it comprises an amazing conspiracy. The official truth is that a handful of young Muslim Arabs who could not fly airplanes, mainly Saudi Arabians who came neither from Iraq nor from Afghanistan, outwitted not only the CIA and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies and all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israel’s Mossad, which is believed to have penetrated every terrorist organization and which carries out assassinations of those whom Mossad marks as terrorists.

In addition to outwitting every intelligence agency of the United States and its allies, the handful of young Saudi Arabians outwitted the National Security Council, the State Department, NORAD, airport security four times in the same hour on the same morning, air traffic control, caused the US Air Force to be unable to launch interceptor aircraft, and caused three well-built steel-structured buildings, including one not hit by an airplane, to fail suddenly in a few seconds as a result of limited structural damage and small, short-lived, low-temperature fires that burned on a few floors.

The Saudi terrorists were even able to confound the laws of physics and cause WTC building seven to collapse at free fall speed for several seconds, a physical impossibility in the absence of explosives used in controlled demolition.

The story that the government and the media have told us amounts to a gigantic conspiracy, really a script for a James Bond film. Yet, anyone who doubts this improbable conspiracy theory is defined into irrelevance by the obedient media.

Anyone who believes an architect, structural engineer, or demolition expert who says that the videos show that the buildings are blowing up, not falling down, anyone who believes a Ph.D. physicist who says that the official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, anyone who believes expert pilots who testify that non-pilots or poorly-qualified pilots cannot fly airplanes in such maneuvers, anyone who believes the 100 or more first responders who testify that they not only heard explosions in the towers but personally experienced explosions, anyone who believes University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Niels Harrit who reports finding unreacted nano-thermite in dust samples from the WTC towers, anyone who is convinced by experts instead of by propaganda is dismissed as a kook.

In America today, and increasingly throughout the Western world, actual facts and true explanations have been relegated to the realm of kookiness. Only people who believe lies are socially approved and accepted as patriotic citizens.

Indeed, a writer or newscaster is not even permitted to report the findings of 9/11 skeptics. In other words, simply to report Professor Harrit’s findings now means that you endorse them or agree with them. Everyone in the US print and TV media knows that he/she will be instantly fired if they report Harrit’s findings, even with a laugh. Thus, although Harrit has reported his findings on European television and has lectured widely on his findings in Canadian universities, the fact that he and the international scientific research team that he led found unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust and have offered samples to other scientists to examine has to my knowledge never been reported in the American media.

Even Internet sites on which I am among the readers’ favorites will not allow me to report on Harrit’s findings.

As I reported earlier, I myself had experience with a Huffington Post reporter who was keen to interview a Reagan presidential appointee who was in disagreement with the Republican wars in the Middle East. After he published the interview that I provided at his request, he was terrified to learn that I had reported findings of 9/11 investigators. To protect his career, he quickly inserted on the online interview that my views on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions could be dismissed as I had reported unacceptable findings about 9/11.

The unwillingness or inability to entertain any view of 9/11 different from the official view dooms to impotence many Internet sites that are opposed to the wars and to the rise of the domestic US police state. These sites, for whatever the reasons, accept the government’s explanation of 9/11; yet, they try to oppose the “war on terror” and the police state which are the consequences of accepting the government’s explanation. Trying to oppose the consequences of an event whose explanation you accept is an impossible task.

If you believe that America was attacked by Muslim terrorists and is susceptible to future attacks, then a “war on terror” and a domestic police state to root out terrorists become necessary to make Americans safe. The idea that a domestic police state and open-ended war might be more dangerous threats to Americans than terrorists is an impermissible thought.

A country whose population has been trained to accept the government’s word and to shun those who question it is a country without liberty in its future. ”

Source:
Posted in 'WAR on(of) TERROR', 9/11 tragedy, Civil Liberties, Conspiracies, united states | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

“Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 4.


This post is directed at the ABC News (Aus), ‘Drum Opinion’ post of the same name! Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2761976.html

The foregoing comments in previous parts apply to funding and other influences.   It is also appropriate to iterate that addressing one side of an issue is not “clearing up the debate “, which is why this blog is attempting to address the “other side”.

“CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Director of the Melbourne Energy Institute and Professor of Geology Mike Sandiford explores the staggering ways we influence the shape of the globe.”

Mike presents a comprehensive article relating heating energy warming of our planet to CO2 forcing – e.g.,

The radiative forcing of a doubling of CO₂ is about 1300 trillion watts – or 28 times the energy released by plate tectonics.

And we are well on the way to doubling CO₂. In the past hundred years we have added almost 40%, and warming that can only plausibly be attributed to a greenhouse effect is not only heating the atmosphere, but is also pumping heat into the oceans and the crust at a phenomenal rate.

And here am I faithfully espousing other theories about CO2 being the quantity of a trace element (0.04%) and a minor green house gas component. If I can’t come up with a  reasonable backing for the “deniers” I am in deep trouble. Of course, I can only rely on other’s expertise and knowledge.

Other sources:

 CO2 Science, presents another scenario, Firstly this video:

http://youtu.be/z685n4RMx6Y

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf

Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future,  Persuing the Prudent Path. by Craig D. Idso and Sherwood B. Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Reference p6:  Graph available on the website above.

The claim:

With respect to air temperature, the climate-alarmist contention is multifaceted. It is claimed that over the past several decades: (a) earth’s temperature has risen to a level that is unprecedented over the past millennium or more, (b) the world has been warming at a rate that is equally unprecedented, and (c) both of these dubious achievements have been made possible by the similarly unprecedented magnitude of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, due to humanity’s ever-increasing burning of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil.

With respect to the level of warmth the earth has recently attained, it is important to see how it compares with prior temperatures experienced by the planet, in order to determine the degree of “unprecedentedness” of its current warmth.

Taking a rather lengthy view of the subject, Petit et al. (1999) found that peak temperatures experienced during the current interglacial, or Holocene, have been the coldest of the last five interglacials, with the four interglacials that preceded the Holocene being, on average, more than 2°C warmer (see figure at right). And in a more recent analysis of the subject, Sime et al. (2009) suggested that the “maximum interglacial temperatures over the past 340,000 years were between 6.0°C and 10.0°C above present-day values.” If anything, therefore, these findings suggest that temperatures of the Holocene, or current interglacial, were indeed unusual, but not unusually warm. Quite to the contrary, they have been unusually cool..

But could the higher temperatures of the past four interglacials have been caused by higher CO2 concentrations due to some non-human influence? Absolutely not, for atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately 290 ppm; whereas the air’s COconcentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm.

Combining these two observations, we have a situation where, compared with the mean conditions of the preceding four interglacials, there is currently 100 ppm more CO2 in the air than there was then, and it is currently more than 2°C colder than it was then, which adds up to one huge discrepancy for the world’s climate alarmists and their claim that high atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to high temperatures. The situation is unprecedented, all right, but not in the way the public is being led to believe.

This website presents volumes of relevant information, completely contradicting the Mike Sandiford article.

Looking for more:

Another seemingly valid point of view is presented here:

 http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx/MenuItemID/73/MenuGroup/Home.htm

Including an impressive list of qualified persons (over 31,000) signing a petition to support CO2 being a minor factor.

So there is plenty of conflicting information providing good support for both sides. Could Mike possibly be wrong?

The following information from ‘Climate4You’ provides a scenario which might explain why Mike hasn’t got it quite right.

Diagram showing the GISS monthly global surface air temperature estimate (blue) and the monthly atmospheric CO2 content (red) according to the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. The Mauna Loa data series begins in March 1958, and 1958 has therefore been chosen as starting year for the diagram. Reconstructions of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations (before 1958) are not incorporated in this diagram, as such past CO2 values are derived by other means (ice cores, stomata, or older measurements using different methodology), and therefore are not directly comparable with modern atmospheric measurements. The dotted grey line indicates the approximate linear temperature trend, and the boxes in the lower part of the diagram indicate the relation between atmospheric CO2 and global surface air temperature, negative or positive. Last month shown: May 2011 (CO2) and May 2011 (GISS). Last diagram update: 19 June 2011.

  Most climate models assume the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide CO2 to influence significantly upon global temperature. It is therefore relevant to compare different temperature records with measurements of atmospheric CO2, as shown in the diagrams above. Any comparison, however, should not be made on a monthly or annual basis, but for a longer time period, as other effects (oceanographic, etc.) may well override the potential influence of CO2 on short time scales such as just a few years. It is of cause equally inappropriate to present new meteorological record values, whether daily, monthly or annual, as support for the hypothesis ascribing high importance of atmospheric CO2 for global temperatures. Any such short-period meteorological record value may well be the result of other phenomena.

What exactly defines the critical length of a relevant time period to consider for evaluating the alleged importance of CO2 remains elusive, and is still a topic for debate. The critical period length must, however, be inversely proportional to the temperature sensitivity of CO2, including feedback effects, such as assumed by most standard climate models. 

After about 10 years of global temperature increase, IPCC was established in 1988. Presumably, several scientists interested in climate then felt intuitively that their empirical and theoretical understanding of climate dynamics was sufficient to conclude about the importance of CO2 for global temperature. However, for obtaining public and political support for the CO2-hyphotesis the 10 year warming period leading up to 1988 in all likelihood was important. Had the global temperature instead been decreasing, public support for the hypothesis would have been difficult to obtain. Adopting this approach as to critical time length, the varying relation (positive or negative) between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 has been indicated in the lower panels of the diagrams above.

Click here to read a few reflections on the relation between global temperature and the amount of atmospheric CO2. 

So the next question is – is Mike’s assessment of the forcing ‘factor’ an agreed figure?

Then, there is a need to verify the original ‘historic’ CO2/ global temperature relationship as current and valid.  Arthur Woodward as a reference is slightly in question, firstly science then was a far cry from current knowledge, secondly (below the belt),  “Woodward’s reputation suffered from his involvement in the Piltdown Man hoax”.

For the sake of this exercise, there is enough doubt regarding the CO2 forcing for it not to be taken for granted.

Post publish revision – an important addition:

“The science:

But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas. [emphasis mine]

But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd.”

(The whole article is covered in my post  Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science

[Iterating: By all means control pollution if it provides cleaner air for man, animals and all biological welfare. But forget about CO2 being a pollutant.  It is likely that BP’s Mexican Gulf pollution, the current increased volcanic emissions, together with Japan’s TEPCO’s ionising radiation are, by orders of magnitude, a greater concern than CO2. 

Carbon trading has yet to be proved necessary and the motivation has yet to be made clear to the public.

This post is obviously not a complete, scientific treatise on the subject. It is however, a guide to the reader to indicate that the ‘warmist’ papers are not to be taken at face value. They need to be analysed and proven to be above question before acceptance, because they are agenda-driven and might cost you your lifestyle and maybe even your freedom.]

The other series articles will be addressed, in turn.

Comments on “open letter” are Part 1: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 1.

Comments on “greenhouse effect” are Part 2: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 2.

Comments on “alarmist AGW views justified” are Part 3:   “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 3.

Posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Justice, Media, Nature, New World Order, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Fukushima: Radioactive Strontium dangers


The Fukushima 1 NPP

Image via Wikipedia

Natural News posts the following dire situation report:

(NaturalNews) Representing the first time the substance has been detected at the crippled plant, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) reported on Sunday that seawater and groundwater samples taken near the ravaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility in Japan have tested positive for radioactive strontium. And according to a recent report in The Japan Times, levels of strontium detected were up to 240 times over the legal limit, indicating a serious environmental and health threat.

Radioactive strontium, which is known to accumulate in bones and eventually lead to diseases like cancer and leukemia, is one of at least three “hot particles” being continually released by the damaged plant, according to experts. The others include radioactive cesium and plutonium, both of which are implicated in causing birth defects, cancer, and death.

“We are discovering hot particles everywhere in Japan, even in Tokyo,” said Arnold Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president with 39 years of nuclear engineering experience, to Al Jazeera. “Scientists are finding these everywhere. Over the last 90 days these hot particles have continued to fall and are being deposited in high concentrations. A lot of people are picking these up in car engine air filters.”

TEPCO has allegedly installed a new water decontamination system that it claims will eventually help filter dangerous radioactive isotopes from polluted water, and thus limit environmental and human exposure to the poisons. But that system has already run into several problems as flow rates have been lower than intended.

“Fukushima has three nuclear reactors exposed and four fuel cores exposed,” added Gundersen. “You probably have the equivalent of 20 nuclear reactor cores because of the fuel cores, and they are all in desperate need of being cooled, and there is no means to cool them effectively.”

Al Jazeera also reports that a nuclear waste advisor to the Japanese government recently explained that roughly 966 square kilometers (km), or 600 square miles, around Fukushima are now uninhabitable due to the unfolding disaster. This massive dead zone area is the equivalent size of 17 Manhattans placed next to each other.

Sources for this story include:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-…

http://english.aljazeera.net/indept…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032751_Fukushima_strontium.html#ixzz1Prs2LC3X

Posted in ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, nuclear | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments