1

The Environment / (What's) the optimal temperature for life?

« on: 30/04/2022 11:25:30 »

Optimum = the most favourable situation or level for growth, reproduction, or success.
"the plant grows within a range of 68 and 78°F, the optimum being 74°"

Note: 74°F = 23.3C
Note 2: Mean surface temperature of Earth is about 15°C.

• These scientists found the optimal temperature for photosynthesis was above 20C.
  
• "Mean surface temperature about 5°C higher than on Earth"
  Scientists declare the optimal temperature for life is a planet with an average surface temperature of 20C.
• The UK government recommended home temperature = 21°C
• Cold kills 7 times more people in Pune city, India than heat does. Despite Pune being a risk area for 'heat waves'
• Cold kills far more people than heat does, in England and Wales, Recent ONS Report Finds.
  In summary, the less harsh winters in England and Wales saved about half a million lives over the 20-year period.
• A 2015 multi-country study of temperature-related mortality found that cold kills 17 times more people than heat. Even in tropical countries where there are no severe cold spells: cold still kills more people
  
• I was going to add links to the "The Holocene Climate Optimum" (HCO) and "Early Eocene Climatic Optimum" (EECO). Guess why climatologists call these periods climate optimums?  I'll let the reader find those links.

I conclude that the optimal temperature of earth is at least 20C, a good 5C above our current average surface temperature. Anyone up for a geoengineering project to raise the average surface temperature by the necessary 5C to improve life on earth?

Related post: "Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?"

2

Technology / Double Glazing: Why is argon used between panes?

« on: 18/12/2021 16:40:03 »

The internet tells me that argon is used in double-glazing, between glass panes, because argon is denser than air. This explanation makes no sense.

I noticed that inert gases have the lowest heat capacity of all gases ( = 20.8 Joule/mol/K - that same for all ). Argon is also the most abundant, so cheapest, inert gas.

So, a low heat capacity means argon will conduct less heat between the window panes from inside to outside. This makes far more sense. Is this the real explanation?

3

That CAN'T be true! / Scientists promote fake science

« on: 10/11/2019 12:33:43 »

Last week BBC Science News, Guardian and many others published a news story about 11000 scientists supporting new science warning of an imminent climate emergency.

The journalist who published it was recently awarded €100k journalism prize. Once upon time journos awarded themselves tiny prizes for anti-establishment journalism. Today journos award themselves massive prizes for pro-establishment, fake science journalism.  All of it with a green light from UK science establishment such as: The Royal Society, Naked Scientists, Martin Rees, Alice Roberts, Brian Cox, Richard Dawkins, every science journalist, Science Media Centre, ...

As for the news story:
* Few of the 11258 scientists on the list appear to be actual scientists. For example not one of the 300 Canadians of the list could be legitimately called a scientist.
* Yet the list included Mickey Mouse, Hogwarts headmaster Professor Dumbledore, and at least one scholar and teacher of rebirth and reincarnation.
* The science article these 11k supported is a ViewPoint in science journal BioScience.
* The actual list of the of the 'Alliance Of World Scientists' vanished for a time. It's back but many fictional characters and the reincarnation scholar/teacher see to have been purged.

As for award winning science journalist Matt McGrath, he's back publishing more fake science climate news.

4

That CAN'T be true! / Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 23/10/2019 09:02:23 »

In chemistry the term acid test means a basic test which gives one precise information. A bit like a flame test tells you whether a substance contains calcium, sodium, copper or iron. Hoping you did flame tests at high school, so you know what I'm on about!

I've had much difficulty communicating with the climate faithful (those poor souls who've lost their minds to climate hysteria). Over very basic things. For example, when I talk about basic climate models I mean, for example, the model of Manabe and Wetherald, 1967, or one of Jim Hansen's models. Most of them published in science journals. I don't mean computer code from a General Circulation Model. Because I'm a computer programmer and I know it's senseless to reverse engineer computer code to try to work out the coder's intention.

I going to deal with this ambiguity about what basic climate models mean by proposing the climate model acid test™. It's not really trade marked, you, too, can do it. I will propose to the climate faithful, that we go online, find one of these basic climate models, and we do a textual analysis  looking all basic assumptions and predictions made. Then look for the science behind those basic assumptions. For eample, when they say "more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more opaque to infrared". Let's look for the basic scientific studies showing this. If the climate modeler says: "more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere results in less out-going longwave radiation energy emitted to space", then this too is a clear, simple, assumption which must be verified and quantified by basic experiment. Eventually, by finding all these basic experiments, we can figure out what assumptions, and predictions, made by climate models are rock solid, and which may not be quite right.

The point of the climate model acid test is not to win believers to my side. It is to show naive people how science should be done; how genuine skeptics should think.

5

The Environment / Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?

« on: 29/07/2019 16:18:22 »

BBC Twitter account says we have "12 years to save the planet from climate change? A growing number of scientists say we actually have just 18 months." https://twitter.com/BBC/status/1155795385354510337

From this BBC "fake news" story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736

Please name those scientists.

For example, does Hans Joachim Schellnhuber actually say anywhere "we've just 18 months to save the planet from climate change".  OK, maybe over a glass of wine in a bar; but surely not in any publication he wrote?

6

The Environment / Is the Greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) basic physics?

« on: 21/02/2019 13:43:46 »

"basic physics" <-- I've been told this often. Here are 3 questions and 1 point asking for the science behind this "basic physics".

1. Is the carbon dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) due to CO2 "trapping" heat?
2. Does GHGE warm earth by emitting less outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space?
3. What are the magnitudes of surface warming due to downwelling longwave infrared (LWIR) "forcing". Per material, especially, most especially, for water. Because water covers 71% of earth's surface, and LWIR penetrates mere micrometres into water.

When, where, by whom were observations/experiments done, since 1978, to validate statements made about the GHGE?

My point. Climate scientists measure the temperature of the atmosphere close to the land surface (about 1.5m above the surface).  This is not the same as the actual surface temperature. On a sunny day, the surface is considerably warmer than the air above. At nighttime, the atmosphere above can often be warmer than the surface. Given that the rate of radiative cooling is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, by Stefan-Boltzmann Law, after 30 years of climate alarmism, and upto $100 billion funding for "The Science", why are climate scientists still not measuring the temperature of the surface which they claim to be "warming"?

7

The Environment / Media lies against nuclear power. What can I do to stop it?

« on: 02/10/2018 10:50:07 »

I heard BBC UK national radio allowing an interviewee to tell lies about nuclear power today. If they were interviewing me, and I told a whopper I'd be cut off straight away with no retort nor explanation But this green campaigner was not even challenged on the false statement he made.  He implied that nuclear waste containing plutonium is being dumped off the coast of Wales.  At GMT: 8:54" 20', he said "This mud could have plutonium particles". On UK National Radio (BBC Radio 4 Today). Our premier news & politics radio show.

BBC Radio 4. Presented by Martha Kearney & Michelle Hussain. Listen to last 10 minutes of show here :

At the very least it demands a complaint to the media regulator, BBC regulator, my MP, ...

This is a typical green ploy. They make something up. Tell it to the media. Then they quote the lie reported to their followers as evidence that plutonium is being dumped off the coast of Wales. The interviewing journalists are but stooges; too ignorant to know that it is impossible for that mud to contain any plutonium.

8

Marine Science / How can climate scientists claim 30% acidification of the ocean due to CO2?

« on: 05/05/2018 19:12:33 »

Ocean Acidification
by The Ocean Portal Team; Reviewed by Jennifer Bennett (NOAA)

Even though the ocean is immense, enough carbon dioxide can have a major impact. In the past 200 years alone, ocean water has become 30 percent more acidic

<-- This is a massive blunder by NOAA. It shatters my confidence in "climate scientists".

I think she meant to say that there is 30% more CO2 in the ocean than pre-industrial times.

The statement "30% more acidic" is wrong for 2 reasons:
1) When CO2 (carbon dioxide) dissolves in water only 0.3% of it becomes carbonic acid according to the equation:

CO2(aq)  +  H2O(aq)  <=>  H2CO3(aq)

Most of the CO2 simply dissolves in water without making carbonic acid.

2) Carbonic acid is a weak acid with a Ka = 4.2E-04. Meaning less than 1% of that dissociates according to the formula:

H2CO3(aq) + H2O(aq) <=> H3O+(aq) + HCO3-(aq)

9

Chemistry / Lithium: does it make any gaseous or low boiling point compounds?

« on: 12/11/2016 11:07:15 »

Does lithium form a compound which is reasonably stable, and gaseous at an easy to work with vacuum / temperature?

PS: I almost feel embarrassed to ask this as I know quite a lot of chemistry, and I'm competent with google!

10

Physiology & Medicine / Is it acceptable to lie, to over-egg the issue of antibiotic resistance?

« on: 23/10/2016 06:22:48 »

Antibiotics - lie or tell the truth?

This morning, on BBC World Service, I was listening to a radio review programme which ran a short story on antibiotics.

The radio announcer asked why there were no new antibiotics and rhetorically answered her own question. She said there were 3 reasons:
1. No new class of antibiotics has been discovered.
2. Drug companies are not interested in developing new antibiotics. No money there for them.
3. Clinical trials take too long. 3 decades ago there were 30 companies developing antibiotics. Today there are none.

Reading the history of penicillin, it seems the original 'clinical trials' took months and consisted of individual medical cases!  It takes years today and every trial proceeds a laborious route.

As we all know, bacteria evolve resistance to the antibiotics we currently have. Several non-scientifically inclined friends of mine regard disease with terror. Especially after the last Ebola outbreak. It was put to me, by a well educated finance journalist, editor, and analyst (PhD) that up to half the population of the planet could be wiped out by a new disease. I'm personally more worried about harm caused by paranoia in the population. In my view, pessimism like this more often leads to a despair and cynicism about the human condition. Panic is not conducive to rational action.

I know there are several small groups working on new antibiotics who are prepared to by-pass drug companies to get them developed. I put the current antibiotic situation entirely down to the length and expense of clinical trials. The one size fits all approach.

The question I have : is it acceptable to lie, to over-egg the issue of antibiotic resistance?, perhaps to raise awareness  [ As this radio announcer did when she said "No new class of antibiotics has been discovered" ]

I know for a fact that new classes of antibiotics have been discovered. They have not gone through clinical trials. Many of them discovered in the last 2 years.

11

The Environment / Will Germany meet its emission reduction obligations?

« on: 08/01/2016 11:46:34 »

Blogger Oscar Archer wistfully said: "Surely we'll see some [German] emissions reductions"[1]

Not in 2015. Energy market research group AB Energiebilanzen report German energy-related CO2 emissions up 0.9% in 2015[2]. The mainstream green movement such as Guardian, Greenpeace, The Ecologist, Climate Progress continue to boost Germany's Energiewende as a model for Europe to copy. They celebrate the closure of zero-CO2 emitting nuclear power such as Grafenrheinfeld in Bavaria last June[4]. They ignore the opening of another CO2-emitting coal plant in Mooburg, Hamburg this November[3]. We already know that Germany will not meet its 2020 emission reduction targets and that there's been no fall in emissions from 2009 through to 2014.[5]

Links:
1. Oscar Archer's blog: http://actinideage.com/2015/12/31/the-lightbulb-moment/
2. German energy-related CO2 emissions up 0.9% in 2015 http://carbon-pulse.com/13587/
3. New 1600 MWe coal-fired plant opens at Mooburg, Hamburg: http://www.dw.com/en/german-co2-emissions-targets-at-risk/a-18862708
4. Grafenrheinfeld NPP closes and Germany loses 1345 MWe of zero-emission electricity: http://energytransition.de/2015/06/germanys-next-nuclear-plant-closes-for-good/
5. Germany’s 2020 greenhouse gas target is no longer feasible https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/germanys-2020-greenhouse-gas-target-is-no-longer-feasible/

12

General Science / Forum bug?

« on: 01/09/2014 07:34:48 »

I can't find the sub-forum for this. When I post my message I get an error and I'm not allowed to post.

The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:
Error - you have used a blacklisted term

The issue is not shown in the preview. The specific 'blacklisted term' is not indicated. Nothing is my post is anything other than polite English or a technical, scientific, term.

Would it be a better idea to

• indicate the error in preview?
• tell a poster which precise term offends the new scientists?

PS: After editing my post I discovered that the source of my blacklisted term was the {at} symbol.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / In response to the nuclear fusion interview today

« on: 31/08/2014 19:03:16 »

decades away! I think she really meant centuries away, if never.

• Fusion may not work because the assumptions behind it are wrong! Plasma atoms may quickly become uncharged hence no longer contained.[1]
• Nuclear fission is also carbon free energy. Transatomic power calculate the cost of energy from their WAMSR design at 6¢/kWh[2]
• The kinds of 'waste' one gets in nuclear fission are not nearly as dangerous as scientists tell us. Low dose radiation is 3 to 4 orders of magnitude less harmful than Linear No-threshold (LNT) models predict. The LNT model regulatory agencies use is a fraud, which has been accepted for 58 years.[3,4]
• Renewables are a joke. EROI studies indicate that a minimal EROI factor of 12 is required[5] to sustain industrial civilization[6]. Renewables can't get near that value when energy storage is factored in[7] and without energy storage renewables are carbon intensive (needing gas- or coal- fired generation to make them work without blackouts]

Thanks for answering my tweet. I'm unconvinced by the answer. This is why:

• Why do BBC science shows give so much publicity and time to nuclear fusion and no time to Gen IV fission?
• Has there been a single TV/radio show explaining why Gen IV breeder reactors are so much more likely to provide for our energy needs than pie-in-the-sky fusion?
• Why does the EU fund fusion to the tune of €1 billion / year yet give practically nothing to Gen IV fission research?

I think fusion is politics not science.

Refs:

• Bogdan Maglich : wrong assumptions may explain the failure of sustained fusion.
• NEI Small Reactor Forum, slide 11
• Atomic Show #218 – Ed Calabrese – Researching Dose Response
• 1½ hour podcast from above, ignore initial, annoying, 30 second jingle
• Energy, EROI and quality of life
• My definition of sustainable includes economic growth and increasing wealth because the alternative will be barbaric
• The Catch-22 of Energy Storage

PS: I'm not against fusion.

14

The Environment / How much damage is a nuclear war likely to cause?

« on: 08/08/2014 23:56:04 »

How much upper atmospheric pollution is likely from a 15 kt atomic bomb?

1. In particular how much black carbon will be released into the upper atmosphere and under what circumstances will it be released?

2. The worst case scenarios all describe a nuclear winter consequent on the after effects of firestorms. Which particular nuclear powers are targeting mass incineration of cities?

3. If a nuclear war was fought but cities were not incinerated, could the same nuclear winter still happen? If so, how?

I must admit to being skeptical over claims that 5 Tg of black carbon will be released into the atmosphere from the detonation of 50 15kt bombs. That's 100,0000 tones of black carbon per 15 kt A-bomb detonation.

Where's the evidence that our governments are planning genocidal wars against civilians in our cities, and that each 15kt bomb will cause a massive fire-storm?

15

Science Experiments / Actual Kitchen Science - Plant Micropropagation

« on: 31/10/2013 22:49:20 »

Plant Tissue Culture: Micropropagation (youtube)

Plants from Test Tubes, 4e (3rd ed is good too)

You don't need a laminar flow hood. You can use a DIY glove compartment :- a big box (ply-wood or even cardboard, with a perspex front).

The most important thing you need is sterility, steady hands and patience. Clean your kitchen spotless, with a bleach spray. A UV-light is good too.

It should be easy to order the plant nutrients from a chemical supplier (even in this age of home drug and terrorist lab paranoia!).

Essentials: Pressure cooker (home 5L size is OK), DIY glove compartment, alcohol or gas lamp, jars. Scalpel with replaceable blades and forceps (use proper blades and forceps from your supplier as these are very cheap).

16

The Environment / Global energy resources (ZetaJoules) / AGW

« on: 30/10/2013 07:52:32 »

Consider this slide, Global energy resources (ZetaJoules), prepared by Carlo Rubbi (1984 Nobel laureate).

It's scary just how much oil and gas is still left. We'll surely fry the planet before we've gone half way through it.

17

Just Chat! / Fake, fluff : is this the consequence of "publish or perish"?

« on: 19/10/2013 20:04:08 »

This leading article in a leading magazine has 300+ comments.

The Economist: How science goes wrong

18

General Science / Forensic experts 'biased towards side which pays them'

« on: 04/09/2013 07:35:36 »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10276672/Forensic-experts-biased-towards-side-which-pays-them.html

I'm not in the least bit surprised by this but how could we explain it using scientific reasoning?

19

General Science / Why is there no Human Sciences forum?

« on: 29/08/2013 19:13:19 »

Are human sciences not science?  They are certainly not "General Science"

20

Physiology & Medicine / 98% of all variation in our educational attainment is non-genetic?

« on: 05/08/2013 23:36:58 »

Is it true that "98% of all variation in our educational attainment is non-genetic?"

I refer you to this commentary making the claim:
http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/science-and-social-control-political-paralysis-and-the-genetics-agenda/

based on this recently published article:
GWAS of 126,559 Individuals Identifies Genetic Variants Associated with Educational Attainment
ScienceExpress / http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/recent / 30 May 2013 / Page 11 / 10.1126/science.1235488
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/laibson/files/gwas_science_053013.pdf

If it's the case why have the media ignored this news?