|LATER||Re: Quakes||Solar Errors||Pole Flip||Sea Level||New Brain|
|Cold Oceans||'Flu Scams||Hawking?||`Black Holes'||Futile Alarm||Green Poles|
|Solar Storm?||Big Universe||No AGW?||Feynman||Mediocre Sci||EARLIER|
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:46:06 -0000
:Subject: "Worldwide Surge in 'Great' Earthquakes Seen in Past 10 Years
You might recall we've been saying this for nearly ten years now - while USGS removed all its automatic historical research facilities - for no apparent reason other than to prevent people from finding out about the increase.
And, from what I recall, USGS actually denied any increase in quakes.
[here's reasons (and data) for our interest - RD]
Worldwide Surge in 'Great' Earthquakes Seen in Past 10 Years
BY LINDA CARROLL | First published October 25th 2014, 10:01 pm
The annual number of `great' earthquakes nearly tripled over the last decade, providing a reminder to Americans that unruptured faults like those in the northwest United States might be due for a Big One.
Between 2004 and 2014, 18 earthquakes with magnitudes of 8.0 or more rattled subduction zones around the globe. That's an increase of 265 percent over the average rate of the previous century, which saw 71 great quakes, according to a report to the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America this week in Vancouver, British Columbia.
It's clear that recent "great" earthquakes "triggered" related major quakes, says study author Thorne Lay, distinguished professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
"If we look at all earthquake magnitudes, the past 10 years is not unusual in terms of the rate of events; the rate increases are just seen for events with magnitudes larger than 7.5 or so," he said. "This suggests that great events were `catching up' on the plate boundary motions in several regions with fortuitous similar timing."
And by fortuitous, Lay means that he thinks it's just coincidence that all those big earthquakes happened over the last 10 years.
Related quakes strike along same faults
So Lay isn't suggesting that an earthquake in Japan or Sumatra is going to trigger a big one in the Cascadia subduction zone, the line along the coasts of Washington, Oregon and northernmost California where the oceanic plates dive under the continental plate.
But, he says, a big earthquake at one end of a subduction zone might trigger others further down along the same fault. "This happened in Sumatra, where the great 2004 event activated the adjacent 2005 event, and those two activated a slightly more distant 2007 event," he said.
So what does that mean for the Cascadia subduction zone?
"The offshore fault appears to be fully locked up by friction, with strain building up until the next large earthquake rupture releases it," Lay says.
But nobody can predict exactly when that might happen, or what it will be like.
"The last 10 years have been interesting for seismologists because we have learned that great subduction zone earthquakes occur in many different ways and there do not seem to be any simple rules to predict the kind of behavior to expect," says Peter Shearer, a professor of geophysics at the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. "Thus we can't reliably assess at this point whether the Cascadia subduction zone will eventually break mostly in a single giant earthquake or a series of large earthquakes."
He said more study of past Cascadia quakes and those elsewhere, along with analysis of the recent crop of great quakes, might lead to better predictions.
Every 500 years ... or so
One of the researchers scoping out Cascadia's history of ancient earthquakes is Benjamin Horton, a professor in the department of marine and coastal science at Rutgers University.
Horton has trenched and cored in the muds along the the coasts of British Columbia and the northwest United States looking for evidence of earthquakes big enough to trigger massive tsunamis. And he's found evidence of 12 major earthquakes over a 6,000-year period, an average recurrence interval of 500 years. But that's just an average, he says, adding that the time between big quakes could be anywhere from 350 to 1,000 years.
"Cascadia is a really interesting story because there are no written records of a large earthquake there," Horton says. "The last time it ruptured was January 26, 1700 A.D., over 300 years ago. The European colonizers hadn't reached the West Coast yet. We know about it because of the tsunami that resulted from it hit Japan, where historical records of samurai talk about an orphan tsunami, which means a tsunami without a parent earthquake."
"It's not like you can say they occur every 500 years so the next one won't be till 2200 and we don't need to worry."
Those records helped scientists figure out that the 1700 earthquake was a whopper.
"It was somewhere between 8.9 and 9.2 and may have ruptured along a 600-mile span of the western U.S. and Canada", Horton says. "It's very analogous to the Sumatra event of 2004."
And that fits right in with magnitudes seen in subduction zone earthquakes.
"The size of earthquakes is related to the surface area of the fault that slips," Shearer said. "The San Andreas Fault and other transform, or strike-slip, faults are very long but not very wide as they cut vertically through the earth's brittle upper crust. In contrast, subduction zone faults are both long and wide as they cut at a very shallow angle through the crust. Thus the surface area for the fault slip can be much larger for subduction zone earthquakes than for transform faults and the corresponding magnitudes for subduction zone earthquakes can be much greater. The largest transform fault earthquakes are about magnitude 8.5, whereas subduction zone [earthquakes] can be as large as magnitude 9.5."
Horton and his team look for signs of a big tsunami in the layers of shoreline mud and at the bottom of the deep sea. "Within the muds we find sand layers deposited by the tsunamis. And in the submarine canyons you also find evidence. Ground shaking causes movement of sediments from the continental shelf out to the deep sea bottom."
Because of the wide range in recurrence intervals it's impossible to determine how worried we should be, Horton says. "It's not like you can say they occur every 500 years so the next one won't be till 2200 and we don't need to worry," he adds. "The average interval is every 500 years, but it can be much smaller."
First published October 25th 2014, 10:01 pm
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:54:21 +0100
Subject: NASA/Experts get Solar Max, Size, Timing + Pole-Flip WRONG
Well it looks like NASA and the other international experts have got it as wrong as they could: re Solar Max, Cycle 24 and Solar Magnetic-Flip
From the data pages below you see they were predicting (in 2007) a massive solar max in 2010 or 2011 - It didn't happen! What happened was the weakest up-tick for a hundred years (approx) which doesn't even seem to have got here yet ('cos I can't find definite confirmation of the MAX; which is also when Solar Pole-Flip has to happen - or so they say). So they got EVERYTHING wrong.
BTW - NASA et al seem to count cycles from trough to trough (i.e. a `build mechanism'), but I'm an engineer and see the cycle as a `release mechanism' (from peak to peak).
This page was last modified 17:28, 24 September 2007.
Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one. Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. Right: An erupting solar prominence photographed by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). [More] Their forecast is based on historical records of geomagnetic storms. Hathaway explains: "When a gust of solar wind hits Earth's magnetic field, the impact causes the magnetic field to shake. If it shakes hard enough, we call it a geomagnetic storm." In the extreme, these storms cause power outages and make compass needles swing in the wrong direction. Auroras are a beautiful side-effect.
Hathaway and Wilson looked at records of geomagnetic activity stretching back almost 150 years and noticed something useful:. "The amount of geomagnetic activity now tells us what the solar cycle is going to be like 6 to 8 years in the future," says Hathaway. A picture is worth a thousand words:
In the plot, above, black curves are solar cycles; the amplitude is the sunspot number. Red curves are geomagnetic indices, specifically the Inter-hour Variability Index or IHV. "These indices are derived from magnetometer data recorded at two points on opposite sides of Earth: one in England and another in Australia. IHV data have been taken every day since 1868," says Hathaway. Cross correlating sunspot number vs. IHV, they found that the IHV predicts the amplitude of the solar cycle 6-plus years in advance with a 94% correlation coefficient.
"We don't know why this works," says Hathaway. The underlying physics is a mystery. "But it does work."
According to their analysis, the next Solar Maximum should peak around 2010 with a sunspot number of 160 plus or minus 25. This would make it one of the strongest solar cycles of the past fifty years - which is to say, one of the strongest in recorded history.
Left: Hathaway and Wilson's prediction for the amplitude of Solar Cycle 24. [More]
Astronomers have been counting sunspots since the days of Galileo, watching solar activity rise and fall every 11 years. Curiously, four of the five biggest cycles on record have come in the past 50 years. "Cycle 24 should fit right into that pattern," says Hathaway.
These results are just the latest signs pointing to a big Cycle 24. Most compelling of all, believes Hathaway, is the work of Mausumi Dikpati and colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. "They have combined observations of the sun's 'Great Conveyor Belt' with a sophisticated computer model of the sun's inner dynamo to produce a physics-based prediction of the next solar cycle." In short, it's going to be intense. Details may be found in the Science@NASA story Solar Storm Warning.
Pesnell points to a number of factors that signal Solar Max conditions in 2014: "The sun's magnetic field has flipped; we are starting to see the development of long coronal holes; and, oh yes, sunspot counts are cresting."
Another panelist, Doug Bieseker of the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center, agrees with Pesnell: "Solar Maximum is here - Finally." According to an analysis Bieseker presented at NOAA's Space Weather Workshop in April, the sunspot number for Solar Cycle 24 is near its peak right now.
They agree on another point, too: It is not very impressive.
"This solar cycle continues to rank among the weakest on record," comments Ron Turner of Analytic Services, Inc. who serves as a Senior Science Advisor to NASA's Innovative Advanced Concepts program. To illustrate the point, he plotted the smoothed sunspot number of Cycle 24 vs. the previous 23 cycles since 1755. "In the historical record, there are only a few Solar Maxima weaker than this one."
As a result, many researchers have started calling the ongoing peak a "Mini-Max."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/05aug_fieldflip/ August 5, 2013: Something big is about to happen on the sun. According to measurements from NASA-supported observatories, the sun's vast magnetic field is about to flip.
"It looks like we're no more than 3 to 4 months away from a complete field reversal," says solar physicist Todd Hoeksema of Stanford University. "This change will have ripple effects throughout the solar system."
The sun's magnetic field changes polarity approximately every 11 years. It happens at the peak of each solar cycle as the sun's inner magnetic dynamo re-organizes itself. The coming reversal will mark the midpoint of Solar Cycle 24. Half of 'Solar Max' will be behind us, with half yet to come.
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 19:53:56 +0100
Subject: Earth's magnetic field could flip within a human lifetime
There's more info at that page - but seemingly nothing to say it won't start tomorrow.
Earth's magnetic field could flip within a human lifetime
ROBERT MYLES | 15 October 2014 | 8 HOURS AGO IN SCIENCE
Berkeley - Could the world turn upside down - magnetically speaking that is? The answer is yes according to a new joint study by researchers from Europe and America - and a flip of Earth's magnetic field could occur within our lifetimes.
VIDEO embed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igGsuDYxhEA
Such a change would send every magnetic compass on Earth awry, with needles pointing south instead of north.
Historically, it would by no means be the first time Earth's magnetic field has flipped. Such geomagnetic reversals have happened many times in our planet's history, though not overnight. ...
Magnetic flip threatens electrical grids, cancer rates
Such a reversal has the potential to play havoc with electricity grids, generating currents that could well cause grid outages. Not only that but since Earth's magnetic field plays a crucial role in protecting life from high energy particles from the Sun and cosmic rays, any weakening, or worse, temporary loss of the magnetic field could result in such phenomena penetrating to Earth's surface, resulting in genetic mutations and a rise in cancer rates. If a flipping of the field were preceded by long periods of unstable magnetic behavior, the danger to life would be even greater.
"What's incredible is that you go from reverse polarity to a field that is normal with essentially nothing in between, which means it had to have happened very quickly, probably in less than 100 years," commented Paul Renne.
"We don't know whether the next reversal will occur as suddenly as this one did, but we also don't know that it won't."
Unstable magnetic field preceded 180-degree flip
Rapid changes in field orientations may have occurred within the first low strength interval. The full magnetic polarity reversal, the final and very rapid flip that gave us North in the north as we know it, took place towards the end of the most recent interval of low field strength.
(more at page ...)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:25:52 +0100
Subject: FWD - Sea levels were 13 to 17 feet higher in earlier times.
FWD - Sea levels were 13 to 17 feet higher in earlier times.
Yup, temperatures were warmer than now, without human industry. [see graph(s)]
And corals and other sea life have been with us since the Jurassic, despite much hotter (and more acidic) oceans.
"We know from the last interglacial period that when temperatures were several degrees warmer than today there was a lot more water in the oceans, with levels around 4 to 5m higher than today. The question is how fast that change occurs when you increase temperatures." ---
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 16:54:08 +0100
Subject: "Danger: Voice Technologies Distract Drivers
Ha! They still haven't realized (or the industry refuses to realize) that driving is only safe because we use the cerebellum which is capable of fast reactions (but learner drivers are slow because their cerebellum isn't yet trained). That's why, after a commute, when you slam the car door you've already forgotten details of the journey - because you were never really `conscious' of them.
But attempting to drive _and_ engage the cerebrum (gray matter or new brain: the consciousness site) can be lethal because its response time is up to ten times longer. [see conscious.html#warn]
By Jennifer LeClaire / Sci-Tech Today
Danger: Voice Technologies Distract Drivers
Hands-free technology is supposed to make driving safer - three out of four drivers believe hands-free technology is safe to use -- but Apple's Siri and various in-car systems could ultimately drive you toward a fender bender. That's according to a new research from the AAA Foundation for Safety Traffic that shows how distracting these technologies really are.
This research isn't opinion-based. University of Utah psychology professor David Strayer and researchers from the University of Utah used instrumented test vehicles, heart-rate monitors and other equipment designed to measure reaction times of drivers using hands-free technologies. Researchers ranked common voice-activated interactions based on the level of cognitive distraction they caused.
"Even though your car may be configured to support social media, texting and phone calls, it doesn't mean it is safe to do so," said Strayer. "The primary task should be driving. Things that take your attention away make you a poor driver and make the roads less safe."
Is Driving With Siri Dangerous?
How distracting are Siri and in-car technologies that help us stay connected on the run without using our hands? As it turns out, voice recognition software's accuracy "significantly influences" the distraction rate. What's more, composing text messages and e-mails using in-vehicle technologies was more distracting than using these systems to listen to messages, and listening to a natural or synthetic voice is equally as distracting to drivers.
"We already know that drivers can miss stop signs, pedestrians and other cars while using voice technologies because their minds are not fully focused on the road ahead," said Bob Darbelnet, CEO of AAA. "We now understand that current shortcomings in these products, intended as safety features, may unintentionally cause greater levels of cognitive distraction."
The study spent a lot of time with Apple's Siri on iOS 7. Researchers measured a range of tasks, such as using social media, sending texts and updating calendars. The results: hands- and eyes-free use of Apple's Siri generated a relatively high level of mental distraction.
"Some of the most advanced technology, such as Siri, can lead to high levels of distraction when you're trying to drive," said Strayer. "When these systems become more complex, like sending text messages or posting to Facebook, it pushes the workloads to pretty high levels and may be dangerous while driving."
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 10:04:36 +0100
Subject: "Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed
Ha! If the sea-level _is_ rising (which is slightly in doubt just now) it's likely only part of the long-term rebound after the `Little Ice Age' (Earth hasn't fully returned to its average temperature of the last 10,000 years - so there are many `raised beaches' around the world showing what the long-term sea-level is/was).
Notice nobody has apologised for all those "definitive" statements (lies) saying the present "pause" was due to the deep oceans absorbing heat at dangerous levels. Not so - like almost everything the alarmists manufacture.
Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed
Oct. 6, 2014: The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.
Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.
"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."
In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.
Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the "missing" heat. One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim.
This latest study is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean. Scientists have been taking the temperature of the top half of the ocean directly since 2005, using a network of 3,000 floating temperature probes called the Argo array.
"The deep parts of the ocean are harder to measure," said JPL's William Llovel, lead author of the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. "The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is - not much."
The study took advantage of the fact that water expands as it gets warmer. The sea level is rising because of this expansion and the water added by glacier and ice sheet melt.
While the upper part of the world's oceans continue to absorb heat from global warming, ocean depths have not warmed measurably in the last decade. This image shows heat radiating from the Pacific Ocean as imaged by the NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System instrument on the Terra satellite. (Blue regions indicate thick cloud cover.) Image credit: NASA
To arrive at their conclusion, the JPL scientists did a straightforward subtraction calculation, using data for 2005-2013 from the Argo buoys, NASA's Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites, and the agency's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites. From the total amount of sea level rise, they subtracted the amount of rise from the expansion in the upper ocean, and the amount of rise that came from added meltwater. The remainder represented the amount of sea level rise caused by warming in the deep ocean.
The remainder was essentially zero. Deep ocean warming contributed virtually nothing to sea level rise during this period.
Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.
Landerer also is a coauthor of another paper in the same journal issue on 1970-2005 ocean warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Before Argo floats were deployed, temperature measurements in the Southern Ocean were spotty, at best. Using satellite measurements and climate simulations of sea level changes around the world, the new study found the global ocean absorbed far more heat in those 35 years than previously thought -- a whopping 24 to 58 percent more than early estimates.
Both papers result from the work of the newly formed NASA Sea Level Change Team, an interdisciplinary group tasked with using NASA satellite data to improve the accuracy and scale of current and future estimates of sea level change. The Southern Hemisphere paper was led by three scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California.
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 06:47:42 +0100 Subject: [fantasticreality] FWD - "Millions of patients given flu drugs with little or no benefit, study finds
Yup, we've already seen that `expert witnesses' in court cases are consistently biased (i.e. lying) towards the side paying them.
And now here's confirmation that scientists (probably all scientists) are biased (lying) in the interests of whoever pays them (big pharma corporates).
I suspect that's the reason for all the `mistakes' (usually corruptly expensive ones) in massive gov't medical programs (like vaccines). And maybe what's behind the `consensus' of bean-counters and political scientists still willing to lie about `global warming'. [see above]
theguardian.com, Tuesday 7 October 2014 05.31 BST
Millions of patients given flu drugs with little or no benefit, study finds
Researchers say benefits of antiviral drugs may have been inflated by studies paid for by pharmaceutical companies
Millions of patients may have taken influenza drugs that have little or no benefit to them, according to an Australian-led study.
The study found that researchers paid by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to recommend antiviral drugs for flu and produced different recommendations to independent researchers conducting the reviews.
The study analysed 26 systematic reviews, a type of study considered to be the gold standard of evidence because they assess all existing studies on a topic using stringent guidelines.
Adam Dunn, lead author of the study and a health informatics expert at the University of NSW, said: "Systematic reviews summarise available evidence following strict protocols, so we expect findings from them to be consistent."
"But we found reviewers with ties to pharma introduced bias, as we found a disconnect between what their results showed and what they went on to recommend."
The study, published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, concluded that benefits of the class of drugs, known as neuraminidase inhibitors, may eventually be found to have been inflated, which could prove highly costly to governments.
"Global stockpiling of antivirals was recommended by a panel from the World Health Organisation in 2002 and in 2009, governments around the world spent $6.9bn building stockpiles of oseltamivir [Tamiflu], an investment that remains poorly supported by available clinical evidence," the study said.
Ray Moynihan, a senior research fellow at Bond University who has authored books on the pharmaceutical industry and overdiagnosis, described the work of Dunn and his colleagues as "highly valuable, critical work".
"It's incredibly encouraging to see this issue being examined in Australia, and that our researchers are at the cutting edge of some of the big, international debates occurring in medical and scientific evidence," Moynihan said.
"We know from very reliable evidence that clinical trials that are sponsored by pharma tend to favour the sponsor's drug, but what this paper is showing is that this bias has crept into what is considered the most reliable form of medical evidence, the systematic review."
It was a worrying finding for patients, he said.
There needed to be a stronger push for independent research to be conducted without drug industry funding, he said, adding that public funding available through bodies like the National Health and Medical Research Council should be used instead.
"It is clear we have likely been misled about the benefits and harms of these drugs because so much of the evidence is tainted by a pro-industry or pro-drug bias," Moynihan said.
"This is a cause for alarm as billions of dollars of public money has been invested into these drugs."
Addressing concerns that harmful movements, like the anti-vaccination campaign, may use papers like Dunn's as evidence not to trust doctors and medical advice, Moynihan said the study reinforced the importance of scientific evidence.
"Far from making people sceptical about science, this should reinforce its value in medicine," Moynihan said.
"What we have in medicine is unfortunately a lot of marketing disguised as science, and this paper helps us realise that bring the best of the scientific methods forward to debate medical evidence can improve our knowledge."
Much greater transparency in medical and scientific research and by drug companies was also needed, he said.
Dr Florence Bourgeois, a co-author of the paper and emergency medicine specialist at Boston Children's Hospital in the US, said it was important that doctors talk to their patients about the safety and efficacy of the drugs.
But she acknowledged that could be difficult given the contradictions and uncertainties around them.
"The best thing is for patients to have a conversation with their healthcare provider about whether these drugs are the right choice for them," she said.
"Clinicians, in turn, should decide on a case-by-case basis which patients are good candidates for the drugs, weighing the benefits and harms."
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 08:31:54 +0100
Subject: FWD - "Hawking: There's No God - Beware Alien Visitors
Hmm. Don't have much time for Hawking [after reading `Brief History of Time' I asked him a simple question - about his cavalier and contradictory use of "infinite" w.r.t to masses and densities of stars - he (or his secretary) refused to answer, claiming ill-health].
Far as I'm concerned he's been wrong about everything in his career, and initially didn't have the nous (from basic physics) to realize that accreting masses _must_ spin at accelerating rates (whereupon conservation of angular momentum takes over).
BTW - Hawking, along with mainstream physicists, doesn't have the balls to face the huge number of `problems' which - for me and most pragmatic folk, inc. many good scientists - disprove Big Bang / Dark Matter / Dark Energy (and black holes). Maybe see creation.html#now1
By Erik Derr Posted: Sep 26, 2014 06:00 PM EDT
Hawking Tells El Mundo: There's No God - Beware Alien Visitors
The same week a Southern physics professor proclaimed there are no black holes, renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, whose work involves black holes, confirmed one of his longtime beliefs, there is no God.
Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, said in a study announced Sept. 23 that she's proven, mathematically, that black holes could never happen in the first place, because after dying stars explode, they lose the mass and density they would need to become singularities, otherwise known as black holes.
Likewise, in an interview with Spanish newspaper El Mundo, Hawking elaborated on his theories on the origin of the universe, and emphasized his theories do not support the world being created by a deity.
"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist," said Hawking, who gave the interview while attending the astronomy-focused Starmus International Festival in the Canary Islands.
Hawking told ANC News in a 2010 interview that humans created the idea of God to make sense of the universe before they knew the science behind the phenomena of the world.
He added in that prior interview that because science is rooted in observation and reason rather than authority, science will eventually "win."
In his session with El Mundo, Hawking contended that "religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science." Meanwhile, said the English-born professor with earnestness, "In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind."
Hawking suggested exploring the universe may well keep the human race alive, as "It could prevent the disappearance of humanity by colonizing other planets."
Hawking said he may not expect any divine intervention, but there could be intervention by beings from alien worlds, which he does believe in, if us humans aren't careful.
He cautioned a visit from galactic neighbors could develop in a similar fashion to when Christopher Columbus showed up in the New World. That, Hawking noted, "didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans."
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 00:25:39 +0100
Subject:FWD - "Researcher shows that black holes do not exist
Ha! Won't say `told you so', as this news has been foreshadowed by several thinkers in astro-physics in last decade.
BTW - don't think the math specifies `shrinkage then explosion'. Conservation of angular momentum demands an almost infinitely accelerating spin of neutron stars and suchlike accreting massive bodies - so `jets' will disperse core matter way before any possibility of make-believe "singularity" / "event horizon". [So there's no `black hole' singularity and indeed no Big Bang singularity]
Researcher shows that black holes do not exist
Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown - the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape. And as if they weren't bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don't exist.
By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space - imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut - called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.
The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.
In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe's black holes.
But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.
Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.
The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed, offers exact numerical solutions to this problem and was done in collaboration with Harald Peiffer, an expert on numerical relativity at the University of Toronto. An earlier paper, by Mersini-Houghton, originally submitted to ArXiv in June, was published in the journal Physics Letters B, and offers approximate solutions to the problem.
Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe. But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive.
Many physicists and astronomers believe that our universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang. However, if singularities do not exist, then physicists have to rethink their ideas of the Big Bang and whether it ever happened.
"Physicists have been trying to merge these two theories - Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum mechanics - for decades, but this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony," said Mersini-Houghton. "And that's a big deal."
More information: Mersini-Houghton's ArXiv papers:
- Approximate solutions:arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.1525
- Exact solutions:arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:06:49 +0100
Subject: "On the Futility of Long-Range Numerical Climate Prediction
You might notice that the only scientists speaking out against the politically-driven `global warming' hoax are those who've retired or gotten cast-iron tenure - the (lying) alarmists are those dependent on Gov't funding.
PS - maybe check the facts - and the opinion of another real climate scientist, at foot of try-logic.txt
Guest essay by Dr. William M. Gray
On the Futility of Long-Range Numerical Climate Prediction
My 60-year experience in meteorology has led me to develop a profound disrespect for the philosophy and science behind numerical climate modeling. The simulations that have been directed at determining the influence of a doubling of CO2 on Earth's temperature have been made with flawed and oversimplified internal physical assumptions. These modeling scenarios have shown a near uniformity in CO2 doubling causing a warming of 2-5°C (4-9°F). There is no physical way, however, that an atmospheric doubling of the very small amount of background CO2 gas would ever be able to bring about such large global temperature increases.
It is no surprise that the global temperature in recent decades has not been rising as the climate models have predicted. Reliable long-range climate modeling is not possible and may never be possible. It is in our nation's best interest that this mode of prophecy be exposed for its inherent futility. Belief in these climate model predictions has had a profound deleterious influence on our country's (and foreign) governmental policies on the environment and energy.
The still-strong - but false - belief that skillful long-range climate prediction is possible is thus a dangerous idea. The results of the climate models have helped foster the current political clamor for greatly reducing fossil fuel use even though electricity generation costs from wind and solar are typically three to five times higher than generation from fossil fuels. The excuse for this clamor for renewable energy is to a large extent the strongly expressed views of the five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, which are based on the large (and unrealistic) catastrophic global warming projections from climate models.
The pervasive influence of these IPCC reports (from 1990 to 2013) derives from the near-universal lack of climate knowledge among the general population. Overly biased and sensational media reports have been able to brainwash a high percentage of the public. A very similar lack of sophisticated climate knowledge exists among our top government officials, environmentalists, and most of the world's prestigious scientists. Holding a high government position or having excelled in a non-climate scientific specialty does not automatically confer a superior understanding of climate.
Lack of climate understanding, however, has not prevented our government leaders and others from using the public's fear of detrimental climate change as a political or social tool to further some of their other desired goals. Climate modeling output lends an air of authority that is not warranted by the unrealistic model input physics and the overly simplified and inadequate numerical techniques. (Model grids cannot resolve cumulus convective elements, for example.) It is impossible for climate models to predict the globe's future climate for at least three basic reasons.
One, decadal and century-scale deep-ocean circulation changes (likely related to long time-scale ocean salinity variations), such as the global Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) and Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC), are very difficult to measure and are not yet well-enough understood to be included realistically in the climate models. The last century-and-a-half global warming of ~0.6°C appears to be a result of the general slowdown of the oceans' MOC over this period. The number of multidecadal up-and-down global mean temperature changes appears also to have been driven by the multidecadal MOC. Models do not yet incorporate this fundamental physical component.
Two, the very large climate modeling overestimates of global warming are primarily a result of the assumed positive water-vapor feedback processes (about 2°C extra global warming with a CO2 doubling in most models). Models assume any upper tropospheric warming also brings about upper tropospheric water-vapor increase as well, because they assume atmospheric relative humidity (RH) remains quasi-constant. But measurements and theoretical considerations of deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convective clouds indicate any increase of CO2 and its associated increase in global rainfall would lead to a reduction of upper tropospheric RH and a consequent enhancement (not curtailment) of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) to space.
The water-vapor feedback loop, in reality, is weakly negative, not strongly positive as nearly all the model CO2 doubling simulations indicate. The climate models are not able to resolve or correctly parameterize the fundamentally important climate forcing influences of the deep penetrating cumulonimbus (Cb) convection elements. This is a fundamental deficiency.
Three, the CO2 global warming question has so far been treated from a "radiation only" perspective. Disregarding water-vapor feedback changes, it has been assumed a doubling of CO2 will cause a blockage of Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) of 3.7 Wm-2. To compensate for this blockage without feedback, it has been assumed an enhanced global warming of about 1°C would be required for counterbalance. But global energy budget considerations indicate only about half (0.5°C, not 1°C) of the 3.7 Wm-2 OLR blockage of CO2 should be expected to be expended for temperature compensation. The other half of the compensation for the 3.7 Wm-2 OLR blockage will come from the extra energy that must be utilized for surface evaporation (~1.85 Wm-2) to sustain the needed increase of the global hydrologic cycle by about 2 percent.
Earth experiences a unique climate because of its 70 percent water surface and its continuously functioning hydrologic cycle. The stronger the globe's hydrologic cycle, the greater the globe's cooling potential. All the global energy used for surface evaporation and tropospheric condensation warming is lost to space through OLR flux.
Thus, with zero water-vapor feedback we should expect a doubling of CO2 to cause no more than about 0.5°C (not 1°C) of global warming and the rest of the compensation to come from enhanced surface evaporation, atmospheric condensation warming, and enhanced OLR to space. If there is a small negative water-vapor feedback of only -0.1 to -0.3°C (as I believe to be the case), then a doubling of CO2 should be expected to cause a global warming of no more than about 0.2-0.4°C. Such a small temperature change should be of little societal concern during the remainder of this century.
It is the height of foolishness for the United States or any foreign government to base any energy or environmental policy decisions on the results of long-range numerical climate model predictions, or of the recommendations emanating from the biased, politically driven reports of the IPCC.
William M. Gray, Ph.D. (firstname.lastname@example.org) is professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences.
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 01:28:24 +0100
Subject: "Antarctica - a Green Wonderland
Ha! Looking at the historical and pre-historic records now available via paleo-archeological research, we can now see that the Antarctic, along with the rest of the Earth, was much warmer in the past.
Maybe see this Huff-Post article:
Prehistoric Climate Change Transformed Antarctica Into Green Wonderland
But be warned - it makes a classical error (driven by political pressure maybe?).
I.e. - it states that CO2 drove up temperatures back in the Miocene (23m-5m yrs ago), which is obviously not true.
If you check the record, at http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_712x534.jpg you can see that rises in CO2 level _follow_ earlier temperature rises, and the lag could be millions of years.
And that's sensible if you think about it: higher temperatures means more vigorous plant growth and more photosynthesis, on land and sea (strangely there's more plant life in the surface waters of our oceans than on land).
So, as plants colonize and grow more strongly, we get an increase in their oxygen output (fresher air) and, eventually after generations of plant life remains come to the surface and rejoins the atmospheric cycle, you see a rise in CO2 (Carbon - the basis of all Earth life, is taken in to make plant bodies, so when their remains eventually break down in air we get CO2).
It would be nice to meet a journalist who could think.
BTW - the complete dataset is here
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 20:42:04 +0100
Subject: Re: Re: Re: FWD - "Solar storm heading straight for Earth
Hello Roy - No, this isn't directly electrical, although the consequences include very large changes in the charge on the ionosphere. It's a matter of solar system angular momentum, 99% of which is in the planets, with only about 1% in the Sun. That means, although the Sun's gravity holds the planets in their orbits, it's the planets' angular momentum which drags the Sun's surface mass around.
A few years ago I had been theorizing along those lines (alignments of mass causing both earthquake triggers _and_ solar effects) when I got to hear of the work of J H Nelson back in the forties - he'd linked planetary alignments with sunspots (and therefore with HF radio interference). Nelson was ignored because he was an engineer and not an ordained priestly `scientist'. But he was right - see http://www.enterprisemission.com/jnelson1.html
By then I'd long published my own conclusions and was in heated disputes with skeptics, and then, after a few years, a correspondent told me about a recent NASA paper (which was _very_ hard to find). Found it and it also agrees with Nelson's work (and mine). The only problem they have is trying to match the effect to `tidal' equations - that doesn't work, because the primary effect isn't gravitational. When you ignore the `tidal' limitations and insert an instantaneous alignments-of-momentum effect (plus about a week for the Sun to fully react) - it works.
There should be a copy at each of these locations:
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:45:33 +0100
Subject: Re: Re: FWD - "Solar storm heading straight for Earth
Hello Roy. Well, wasn't really expecting very much because the eruption was caused by an alignment of Mercury and Saturn about a week earlier [5th], which seems to be the time-lag for these things.
Now just two planets, and one a very small one, aren't going to affect the Sun much. Reason for saying that is the 1859 event was caused - one week earlier - by a near perfect line-up of Saturn, Mars and Venus on one side of the Sun, and Mercury and Earth on this side. [If the attached pic doesn't come through check any on-line Orrery for 27 August 1859]
So I think that 1859 event was much bigger than our records show - because the largest ejection would've been way off to the `left' of Earth, and even so telegraph cables got fried and some shacks caught fire.
From: RoyMac**** Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2014 10:33 AM
It appears that most of the possible disruption has now passed - there has been a little disruption but curiously nothing on the scale we had expected. Aurora displays have been outstanding and we have had occasional disruption of BBC interviews from abroad but not on the scale expected. I don't know why this is so. Do you have any ideas on the matter ?
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:32:05 +0100
Subject: "Solar storm heading straight for Earth
Might be like the 1859 event - which also happened in September.
Problem is we've got much more stuff which is sensitive to such `overloads'
"A massive explosion on the Sun has sent a solar storm heading straight for Earth, experts have said, which may disrupt communications equipment and power grids when it strikes."
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:22:54 +0100
Subject: FWD - "Milky Way is on the outskirts of 'immeasurable heaven' supercluster
Ha! This item sharply reminded that recent results (see below article) show the two great "pillars of physics" (cosmology + particle physics) are false - they don't tally with observation.
That is, the standard model of cosmology (resting on Big Bang, Black Holes, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy), also rests on the assumed "homogeneity" of the universe - that on large enough scales everything smooths out and looks the same everywhere. But it doesn't! So maybe no Big-Bang, nor any of the other made-up pretences.
And the same problem, of explaining the structures (and masses) existing at vastly different scales (down to the Planck scale), is unexplainable by the `standard model' of particle physics.
So all of modern physics is a pretence - at best it can only say "they are because they are". That's circular reasoning or `begging the question'.
The Guardian, Wednesday 3 September 2014 18.07 BST
Milky Way is on the outskirts of 'immeasurable heaven' supercluster
or, redirect to:
PS - have a look at:
origin of fakery - scared scientists - continuing error - summary of errors - evidence of infinity - no-big-bang evid (roughly in chronological order of research reports)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:41:21 +0100
Subject: "Weather Channel Founder Explains the History of the Global Warming Hoax
Weather Channel Founder Explains the History of the Global Warming Hoax
March 17, 2014 By Matthew Burke
Weather Channel Founder John Coleman explains the history of the Global Warming hoax.
John Coleman, an award-winning meteorologist and weatherman with sixty years of experience and founder of the Weather Channel, produced a video explaining the history of the man-made global warming hoax (see video below).
How the Global Warming Scare Began (36 mins 08 secs)
maybe also see
Climate Scientists Laugh at Global Warming Hysteria (11 mins)
[BTW - all above seems to agree with the basic logic outlined at try-logic.txt
"Folk getting pissed-off about all this might welcome these three bits of basic logic:
1 - "Climate Change" is normal, always ongoing and DOES NOT equal "global warming";
2 - "Global Warming" is intermittently normal (on+off every few hundred years or so), quasi-cyclical and DOES NOT equal "AGW" - "anthropogenic (human caused) global warming";
3 - "AGW" is a hypothesis, which so far DOES NOT correlate with the scientific data. E.g. If it [AGW] were anywhere near true, the whole Earth would've been warming, at an accelerating rate, for the last ten thousand years - i.e the period in which humans have been increasingly deforesting and burning - BUT IT ISN'T.
I.e. after a partial rebound from the Little Ice Age (centered on 1600-1800 approx), the Earth is maybe cooling just now, and is still colder than for most of the last ten millenia.; see http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html and maybe the illustration at http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/student/simmons1/tempgraph.jpg
Also http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm for peer-reviewed confirmation and maybe have a look at http://www.petitionproject.org/ for details of real scientists offended by current `political alarmism'.
Associated (real, historical and geographical) data are available at glacials.html#n-age - without political deception or hype."
More detail and links in that same small text file: try-logic.txt
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:28:37 +0100
Subject: FWD - The Feynman Lectures on Physics, plus his bio-pic
Have got the lectures in paperback - these online pages could be handier, especially for searches
The Feynman Lectures on Physics
Caltech and The Feynman Lectures Website are pleased to present this online edition of The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Now, anyone with internet access and a web browser can enjoy reading a high quality up-to-date copy of Feynman's legendary lectures.
However, we want to be clear that this edition is only free to read online, and this posting does not transfer any right to download all or any portion of The Feynman Lectures on Physics for any purpose.
This edition has been designed for ease of reading on devices of any size or shape; text, figures and equations can all be zoomed without degradation.1
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volumes I, II, III
mainly mechanics, radiation and heat
mainly electromagnetism and matter
Free Physics Textbooks
`The Character of Physical Law': Richard Feynman's Legendary Course Presented at Cornell, 1964
The Richard Feynman Trilogy: The Physicist Captured in Three Films
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:07:24 +0100
Subject: Re: FWD - Words of Wisdom (from Feynman)
Hi "Q", - from reading the record.
In fact science is riven by disputes, in almost all disciplines, often about the most basic `realities' of present theories. And this has always been the case. However the average `scientist', being relatively uninformed about cutting-edge research results, usually prefers to believe in a `consensus' of safe, accepted (fashionable) views. A consensus which, because it is composed of the views of mediocre uninformed `scientists', is worthless.
But `science', like `medicine', prefers to present a united front to the world through the MSM, who are only too (ignorantly) happy to present that (false) consensus to us as `scientific fact'. So the public is for the most part unaware.
[ Don't get me started on the political `climate consensus' scandal. ]
"What one finds, in my view, is that modern cosmology has at best very flimsy observational support. ... Acceptance of the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress in cosmology for generations to come."
"it should be made clear that majority opinion, no matter how important it may be for democratic government, should in no way be used as the criterion for scientific acceptability."
Roger Penrose - `The Road to Reality' - p. 13
"Mature scientific progress is not just a succession of revolutions which tear up old theories to make room for new ones. If that were true then the only thing about our current theories that we could be sure about is their incorrectness. Eventually, they will all be shown to be wrong."
John D Barrow - `The Constants of Nature' ISBN 0-224-06135-6 p. 58
"The empirical basis of objective science has thus nothing 'absolute' about it. Science does not rest upon solid bedrock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or 'given' base; and if we stop driving the piles deeper, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that the piles are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being."
Karl Popper - `The Logic of Scientific Discovery' pp. 94-95
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 4:57 AM
> Why do you think that [most `scientists' are neither frank nor knowledgeable]?
From: "Ray Dickenson"
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 5:18 PM
Subject: FWD - Words of Wisdom (from Feynman)
Admire Feynman quite a bit - seemed to be just about the frankest knowledgeable scientist on record - IMHO - [most `scientists' are neither frank nor knowledgeable].
BTW - he was the guy who demonstrated the simple cause of the Challenger disaster on TV (in front of the investigating committee).
"If a theory is complicated, it's wrong."
"Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion"
"The next great awakening of human intellect may well produce a method of understanding the qualitative content of equations. Today we cannot. Today we cannot see that the waterflow equations contain such things as the barber pole structure of turbulence that one sees between rotating cylinders. Today we cannot see whether Schrödinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality - or whether it does not."
- in `The Feynman Lectures on Physics' Vol. II
- Richard P. Feynman