tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7699374679617547142024-03-29T08:24:29.033+01:00Reality CheckTrying to distinguish reality from propaganda and delusionWAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-73487267911155843182010-10-16T08:57:00.006+02:002010-10-16T14:01:49.803+02:00The German ScepticsI recently went through a little clash with the German climate sceptics scene, which was quite interesting. It may be difficult to follow the details for those who do not speak German, but you may still get a taste of the current "climate" in Germany.<br /><br />The starting point were an <a href="http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Interview_BNN.pdf">article of and interview with</a> <span id="0_templelem_Seite_nurText">Horst-Joachim </span>Luedecke in a regional newspaper in southwestern Germany (<a href="http://www.bnn.de/">Badische Neueste Nachrichten</a>) in August. The tone of these contributions was that anthropogenic climate change is, if at all real, not significant and does not justify any expensive counter measures. Such opinions are not new, but what annoyed us at the <a href="http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/en/">Institute of Environmental Physics</a> in Heidelberg was that the characterisation of Luedecke as a "retired physics professor from Heidelberg" suggested a link to our department. Luedecke is a retired professor and lives in Heidelberg, but has nothing to do with us. Hence we issued a <a href="http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/presse/meldungen/2010/m20100830_klimawandel.html">public statement</a> through the PR-office of the university, stating that the anthropogenic influence on climate was real and offering our expertise to the press and public as a more reliable source of information on climate change.<br /><br />Of course, this statement did not fail to raise angry reactions by other German climate sceptics and I went through some rather fruitless e-mail exchanges. Luedecke issued <a href="http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/klima-anzeige/das-institut-fuer-umweltphysik-der-universitaet-heidelberg-iup-kommentiert-ein-interview-der-badischen-neuesten-nachrichten-bnn-mit-eike-pressesprecher-prof-horst-joachim-luedecke/?tx_ttnews[pointer]=1">a reply</a> on "his" <a href="http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/">EIKE</a>-website (see below), which contains all the original documents. The final result is that I gained a better impression of the German sceptics scene, which I'd like to share here. Luedecke is a speaker of the so called "European Institute for Climate and Energy" (<a href="http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/">EIKE</a>), founded in 2007. Sounds good but it is just an association of German sceptics. As Luedecke explained to me, EIKE is very open-minded in terms of views of its members - as long as they fight the theory of anthropogenic climate change and oppose measures of climate protection.<br /><br />As a result, EIKE publishes a wide spectrum of climate sceptic views on its website. Luedecke himself is quite moderate and argues on a scientific level. He has a little <a href="http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-anzeige/der-treibhauseffekt-wie-funktioniert-er/">paper on the physical basis of the greenhouse effect</a> buried somewhere on the EIKE site, which is quite good except for the last part, where he selects only those few studies (e.g. by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindzen">Richard Lindzen</a>) that suggest a negative rather than a positive feedback on the CO2-effect, thus denying a significant anthropogenic influence on climate. Luedecke has also published a book on "<a href="http://www.amazon.de/CO2-Klimaschutz-Fakten-Irrt%C3%BCmer-Politik/dp/3416031245">CO2 and climate protection</a>". I haven't read that so I can't comment.<br /><br />However, there is also lots of highly dubious material on the EIKE site. If you follow the publications link on the page you find contributions by some interesting German climate sceptics, such as the recently deceased <a href="http://www.esowatch.com/ge/index.php?title=Ernst_Georg_Beck">Ernst-Georg Beck</a>, who essentially disputes that there is an anthropogenic CO2 increase, or <a href="http://gerhard.stehlik-online.de/">Gerhard Stehlik</a>, wo has weird theories on his own on the greenhouse effect. Unfortunately, his paper on this matter which he sent me some years ago is not available on his website anymore (dead link). And you find of course the quite widely known <a href="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf">paper of Gerlich and Tscheuschner</a>, who maintain that the greenhouse theory violates the second law of thermodynamics and who have been <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=G._Gerlich_and_R._D._Tscheuschner">refuted many times</a> (also see <a href="http://globalklima.blogspot.com/2009/03/wenn-die-fachbegutachtung-scheitert.html">Globalklima</a>). And in its advisory board, EIKE has among others <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/10/viscount-moncktons-rebuttal-of-my.html">my old critic</a> Lord <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton_of_Brenchley">Christopher Monckton</a> Viscount of Brenchley. I'm impressed!<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/">EIKE site</a> is a caleidoscope of climate scepticism from the German perspective. If you understand German and are interested in the <span>unplumbed depths of the human mind, enjoy!<br /></span>WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com344tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-54773478169979014992010-05-31T12:09:00.004+02:002010-05-31T12:23:27.139+02:00Top Kill<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr3oQN6wTk4lMl4sfbxkoiWnFoQdpq_f8kdGTfbjd_K9iFZe-PTFBBH1PY_eCsX_Z-i4uoZiWNeoMNUWRbRgF8BCm5OxZdc8tU4hF3pE_nz3McXdxcwLe2S83yPGSy-k6x3zOB7Vzvr8Y/s1600/Top_Kill.JPG"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 210px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr3oQN6wTk4lMl4sfbxkoiWnFoQdpq_f8kdGTfbjd_K9iFZe-PTFBBH1PY_eCsX_Z-i4uoZiWNeoMNUWRbRgF8BCm5OxZdc8tU4hF3pE_nz3McXdxcwLe2S83yPGSy-k6x3zOB7Vzvr8Y/s320/Top_Kill.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5477377750540865458" border="0" /></a><br />I like this cartoon by <a href="http://edsteinink.com/">Ed Stein</a> on the failed efforts to stop the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I got it through the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil">Peak Oil</a> Review mailings of <a href="http://www.peakoil.net/">ASPO</a>. Enjoy, even if the essence of it isn't really funny!WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-57897994122880684372010-05-29T20:10:00.006+02:002010-05-29T21:50:07.444+02:00Monckton debunkedReaders of this blog have heard of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley">Lord Christopher Monckton</a>, who once posted a <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/10/viscount-moncktons-rebuttal-of-my.html">rebuttal of my rebuttal</a> of the theories of <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/khilyuk-and-chilingar.html">Khilyuk and Chilingar</a>. Monckton is a real role-model of a climate change sceptic.<br />Now, <a href="http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/faculty/jpabraham.htm">John Abraham</a> from the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota has posted a <a href="http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/">presentation online</a>, in which he gives a detailed rebuttal of many of Monckton's allegations. A very instructive piece of work for all those interested in the depths of the climate change debate. Have fun!WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-41488577186712013902010-05-11T23:02:00.007+02:002010-05-11T23:19:16.079+02:00King Anand Again<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjce8H6dSBZzfM4bS1CimZvQ0OkcLN0PKZtYGcoy_f4EoeAZDoiiTUcQ6uL4rvi8PFKE22o7rOe0GZGPxmCKDgiHTjVIc3KaVnj8S29-RytTQFRVz7trCizSLKfhqb5sNn3SJUNyd-VdSs/s1600/Bild056.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjce8H6dSBZzfM4bS1CimZvQ0OkcLN0PKZtYGcoy_f4EoeAZDoiiTUcQ6uL4rvi8PFKE22o7rOe0GZGPxmCKDgiHTjVIc3KaVnj8S29-RytTQFRVz7trCizSLKfhqb5sNn3SJUNyd-VdSs/s320/Bild056.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5470122094555302962" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Visw<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN7k3MUIA0UeVnm14VBpYVXIOtrzCGwx5pJQcrL9cxM4wqjamIV8gSp7rYJRg-tQeY4CAmb7GeSv968TiLaNwenJNLtFOAUUdbKx270sdHYrXV_Qek3nOyeQYclwiCXzCLtqfNV0yi0N4/s1600/Bild062.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN7k3MUIA0UeVnm14VBpYVXIOtrzCGwx5pJQcrL9cxM4wqjamIV8gSp7rYJRg-tQeY4CAmb7GeSv968TiLaNwenJNLtFOAUUdbKx270sdHYrXV_Qek3nOyeQYclwiCXzCLtqfNV0yi0N4/s320/Bild062.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5470122603687163410" border="0" /></a>anathan <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viswanathan_Anand">Anand</a> just <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/10/king-anand.html">defended</a> his title as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship">chess world champion</a> with a great win in the final and decisive game against <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veselin_Topalov">Veselin Topalov</a>. Fantastic performance!<br />See <a href="http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2010/05/world-championship-final-game-live.html">Susan Polgar's</a> or <a href="http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6327">Anish Giri's</a> comments on the game. I add pictures of the two protagonists that I took at an <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2009/08/chess-champions-in-zurich.html">event in Zurich</a> last year.<br /><br />The Champion: Anand<br /><br /><br />The unsuccessful challenger: TopalovWAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-61210425606223632062010-04-28T00:18:00.003+02:002010-04-28T00:29:45.592+02:00They couldn't possibly have knownI like this one. A real reality check for Goldman Sachs and their fellows. And <a href="http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/matson.asp">here</a> is more of this sort of cartoons.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiI2TS0MQdvzma76CuaSXpNKn_OIaYKlIA8w2Kmv1BmCTOe3E17OdGzvqDra-1LY3p7uEB-Eox7S-8RzYpYyt8VCvgqlZ8m-jtCf2gH_FVc4mSlxcF050XQ-Q1KNc-L3Wwe2sx_4atNqOQ/s1600/topelement.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 278px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiI2TS0MQdvzma76CuaSXpNKn_OIaYKlIA8w2Kmv1BmCTOe3E17OdGzvqDra-1LY3p7uEB-Eox7S-8RzYpYyt8VCvgqlZ8m-jtCf2gH_FVc4mSlxcF050XQ-Q1KNc-L3Wwe2sx_4atNqOQ/s400/topelement.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5464947953918905938" border="0" /></a>WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-35747562622853314912010-04-01T15:37:00.006+02:002010-04-01T16:21:18.434+02:00Greenpeace Report on Sponsors of Climate Change Deniers<a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/">Greenpeace</a> has issued a report that seems to provide a thorough reality check on the background of the climate change denial propaganda in the US: "<a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/reports4/koch-industries-secretly-fund">Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine</a>". They also have an <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries">interesting interactive graphic</a> that allows you to check out some details directly.<br />Amazing that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries">Koch Industries</a>, the company that Greenpeace exposes as a major sponsor of the climate sceptics, is little known in the public although, <a href="http://www.kochind.com/">as they claim on their webpage</a>, it is one of the largest private companies of the world. Obviously they know about doing things secretely. The company has issued a <a href="http://www.kochind.com/EHS/default.aspx">statement on the report</a>, however.<br />This reminds of the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html">Exxon Report</a> by the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>, on which <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/checking-links.html">I have blogged before</a>. Apparently, Koch Industries easily out-spent Exxon Mobil in the area of political sponsoring. Interesting indeed.<br />Other blogs such as <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/31/report-koch-industries-outspends-exxon-mobil-on-climate-and-clean-energy-disinformation/">Climate Progress</a> or <a href="http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/koch-brothers-and-climate-change-denial_machine/">ClimateScienceWatch</a> have more details on the story. I wish I had time to study and cover this report in more detail.WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-86036243364107558012009-12-09T19:33:00.004+01:002009-12-09T19:45:22.477+01:00Reality Check's Tax Proposal Haunts Bankers<a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/big-bailout.html">My idea</a> of taxing excessive bonuses for bankers is still alive. After <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2009/03/us-congress-follows-my-recommendation.html">the Americans</a>, now <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6284fdba-e4c3-11de-96a2-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1">the British give it a try</a>. If only they would keep it up!WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-74482722823304341252009-08-27T23:57:00.004+02:002009-08-28T00:09:19.152+02:00Downsizing the financial sectorIt happens rarely, but <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2009/03/us-congress-follows-my-recommendation.html">sometimes it does</a>: Influential people from politics and finance speak up with ideas that are not too far from <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/big-bailout.html">my view</a>. The latest example is Lord Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority in London, who <a href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6811548.ece">says the financial sector in the city has grown too big</a> and needs to be cut to a socially reasonable size, possibly by imposing taxes.<br /><br />Good luck, Mr. Turner!WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-77508547993828058902009-08-22T16:57:00.004+02:002009-08-22T17:10:15.765+02:00Chess Champions in Zurich<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrusX8pD2nhNIr0o9qAyzhm66ccwksKt5wl4Y2r2LstFbU4MigkOZwgTGtNQc0lXzaGzzj1YxQwVtI50b8WSgra56NpnBjQZ5JMa7RAWwbhz07GUcE4Z_QKLOMZuSzni5Pk7w1KKhyphenhyphenUy8/s1600-h/Bild057.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrusX8pD2nhNIr0o9qAyzhm66ccwksKt5wl4Y2r2LstFbU4MigkOZwgTGtNQc0lXzaGzzj1YxQwVtI50b8WSgra56NpnBjQZ5JMa7RAWwbhz07GUcE4Z_QKLOMZuSzni5Pk7w1KKhyphenhyphenUy8/s320/Bild057.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5372805441933348370" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh14PEgG3fg0ICI9XuJHdkSCKAZk-KAIqgN0Vr-Kvl7lHzPYgpauUt0SqDnqR5sJd3akvTwNS8ivtoxrjk9iARLujtj4sG2cl8FjBx63ChSuNF2IJsLQM90Ir9opAOfVaIz8pNGAj8OwJ8/s1600-h/Bild055.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh14PEgG3fg0ICI9XuJHdkSCKAZk-KAIqgN0Vr-Kvl7lHzPYgpauUt0SqDnqR5sJd3akvTwNS8ivtoxrjk9iARLujtj4sG2cl8FjBx63ChSuNF2IJsLQM90Ir9opAOfVaIz8pNGAj8OwJ8/s320/Bild055.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5372804909487043282" border="0" /></a>A chess post for a change: Today, 8 chess world champions came to Zurich to celebrate the <a href="http://www.sgzurich2009.ch/">200th anniversary of SG Zurich</a>, the world's oldes chess club.<br /><br />They are playing simuls against a total of 200 amateurs right now in the hall of Zurich's main station. I've been there and got some snapshots with my mobile's camera. See here two chess greats with name tags in the background!<br /><br />Some games can be <a href="http://www.sgzurich2009-live.ch/live.htm">followed live</a>.WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-57059390222598862632009-07-26T09:39:00.005+02:002009-07-26T10:45:04.747+02:00Oops, they did it againA little add-on to my <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2009/07/chilingars-greenhouse-paper.html">previous post</a> about the <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2009/07/chilingar-is-back.html">newest article of Chilingar et al.</a> In fact, I only now compared it more closely with their <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/khilyuk-and-chilingar.html">2008 twin-papers</a>. I was surprised by the amount of overlap between the new piece and the two old ones. Ok, the new paper is not a one-to-one copy as the other two were, but it really is not much more than a re-arrangement of the old theories and arguments. At least close to a <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/08/recycling-fraud-recycling-fraud-is.html">recycling fraud</a> again.<br /><br />Here are some examples, comparing the new paper "<a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/c47m4x8222886n12/">Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect</a>" with the old one "<a href="http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/vl7536426072q7j7/?p=ee01106fbcef4cc0b72e82f67b04ff26&pi=19">Response to W. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal ...</a>’’, both published in <a href="http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/100512/?p=db2a2837d032495d9bd58978ded61d49&pi=0">Environmental Geology</a> (EG from here on):<br /><br />- The new Fig. 3 is identical to the old Fig. 2 (and the new Fig. 2 is an extension of the old Fig. 1).<br />- Equations 1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4b, and 5 in the new manuscript are identical to equations 11, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 1 in the old paper.<br />- The new eqs. 4a, 6, and 7 are also present in the 2008-paper in slightly modified form (as eq. 8, text on p. 1571, and eq. 13.)<br />- A lot of the discussion around the equations is also identical or very similar.<br /><br />In summary, none of the equations in the "new" manuscript are really original. There are very little if any new arguments compared to the twin-papers. So which honest journal being aware of this situation would publish this remake? Well, EG does.<br /><br /><a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/12/finally-news-on-twin-papers.html">Last time</a>, when finally answering to my inquiry, the editor of EG had the excuse that they allowed Chilingar et al. to "reprint" parts of their EG-paper in "Energy Sources" because EG had a long delay in printing the piece. So then, this time they allowed them to re-use large parts of the previous paper published in their own journal? For me (<a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2009/07/singer-refrains-from-environmental.html">and Fred Singer, it seems</a>) EG has no excuses anymore.<br /><br />Note, by the way, that neither of the twin-papers is cited in the new paper. Quite unusual that you do not quote any of your own two previous papers that contain all the equations of your present work. Plus one figure. In fact, this is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Self-plagiarism">self-plagiarism</a>.WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-40945806341588829832009-07-12T14:47:00.006+02:002009-07-12T17:03:31.338+02:00Chilingar's Greenhouse PaperAlright, let me make some comments on the contents of the <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2009/07/chilingar-is-back.html">recent paper</a> by Chilingar and co-authors in <a href="http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/100512/?p=db2a2837d032495d9bd58978ded61d49&pi=0">Environmental Geology</a>:<a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/c47m4x8222886n12/"> Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect. </a><br /><br />First of all, the title is rather misleading. The paper hardly deals with the greenhouse effect, as we will see shortly. Secondly, the main "theory" presented in the paper, which the authors call the "adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect" is nothing new and has already been discussed by <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-is-too-short-to-occupy-oneself_21.html">Eli Rabett</a>.<br /><br />The essence of the theory is that atmospheric temperature can be related to pressure (i.e., altitude in the atmosphere). The fact that the temperature profile in the Earth's troposphere is dominated by the adiabatic gradient, i.e. the effect that air cools as it ascends and expands, is of course textbook knowledge, although Chilingar et al. do not acknowledge this. If you would like to know how it works, for example, <a href="http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/Atmosphaerenphysik/WS0809/02_Structure.pdf">follow this link to lecture notes</a> of my colleagues in atmospheric physics at our institute. Using this fact and a strange version of a global radiation balance, Chilingar et al. construct their equation (1) to describe temperature as a function of pressure with two empirical factors b ("scaling factor") and alpha ("adiabatic exponent").<br /><br />I do not have a clue why the "precession angle" of the Earth enters the radiation balance term. One might have to follow the Sorokhtin and Chilingar references given at the outset of this discussion, but these aren't easy to find (maybe the one in <a href="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Econtent=t713770930%7Edb=all">Energy Sources</a> would be available, but <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/12/finally-news-on-twin-papers.html">we already know</a> that these authors like to duplicate their papers in that journal and Environ. Geol.). I do know, however, that the angle of 23.44° to which the authors refer is usually called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt">inclination angle or axial tilt</a>, whereas <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession">precession</a> refers to the change in the direction of the tilted rotation axis. Anyway, if you are interested in a more conventional radiation balance, <a href="http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/Atmosphaerenphysik/WS0809/04_Radiation_Part2.pdf">see these lecture notes</a>.<br /><br />Chilingar's equation (1) has a form that fits the temperature profile in the troposphere, they only need to adjust their two empirical parameters. Adjusting b sets the temperature at the surface - this is of course where a proper discussion of the radiation balance and greenhouse effect would be needed. But the authors circumvent this by simply setting b to fit the current mean surface temperature of the Earth. The parameter alpha is indeed a well-known exponent in adiabatic gas theory. For a dry atmosphere it would be given by c_p/c_v - 1 = R/c_p = 0.4. For a humid atmosphere it has to be adjusted for the latent heat in the condensation process. Chilingar et al. introduce two further fit parameters to adjust alpha, C_w and C_r, which they refer to as accounting for the effects of water vapor and - yes, indeed - absorption of heat by greenhouse gases.<br /><br />I am not sure if the radiation correction term C_r makes much sense, but in any case this seems to be the parameter by which Chilingar et al. describe the greenhouse effect. To summarise the theory thus far, it has three adjustable fit parameters: b to adjust the surface temperature, C_w and C_r to adjust the adiabatic lapse rate. Values of these parameters are found by fitting equation (1) to the current temperature profile of Earth and Venus for comparison. They are quite different for the two planets, which is not further explained. However, an essential assumption of the paper then appears to be that these parameters are somehow characteristic for the two planets, INDEPENDENT OF THE COMPOSITION OF THEIR ATMOSPHERES. This is a rather strong assumption.<br /><br />The theory and the above assumption are then taken to the extreme by calculating the temperature of Earth for a hypothetical pure carbon-dioxide atmosphere. The authors explicitly state that b is kept fixed and with a bit of calculation one can verify that they also do so for C_w and C_r. Given that C_r is meant to reflect the heat absorption by greenhouse gases, I find it slightly surprising that a pure CO2 atmosphere should have the same value as the current N2/O2 atmosphere. Wouldn't it be here where the authors should discuss the greenhouse effect as they announced so loudly in their title?<br /><br />Well, they don't but rather find that (given their theory and assumption) a world with a pure CO2 atmosphere would in fact be 6.5°C cooler than the present day world. Great result, isn't it? Funny, though, that Venus with its CO2 atmosphere is so much hotter than Earth. This is due to the much higher factor b and a different C_r. But for Earth, these parameters would of course stay constant even if we were to convert all oxygen to CO2. No problem with global warming there. Just a bit tough to breathe, maybe...<br /><br />In the event you are not convinced by Chilingar et al.'s theory, they have a backup argument as well, very typical for the rethoric of climate sceptics. This time, towards the end of the article, they dig up the old argument that the climate and CO2 reconstructions from ice cores have shown that temperature changes lead fluctuations of the greenhouse gases, not vice versa. This is correct, but not "indisputable evidence to the fact that the changes in CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere are the effect of global temperature changes, and not their cause." This is a frequent logical mistake. Yes, temperature increases in the past have caused CO2 to rise. This does, however, not exclude the (quite probable) possibility that rising CO2 in turn contributed to warming, and does so today.<br /><br />There are some other mistakes in the paper as well, of course. One of the more obvious is the list of partial pressures in the Earth's atmosphere (after equation (2), cited literally here): "pN2 = 0.7551; pCO2 = 0.00046 pN2 = 0.7551 and pAr = 0.0128 atm are the partial pressures of the<br />corresponding gases (Voitkevich et al. 1990)".<br />Apart from the typo of repeating the N2 value twice, I wonder about the values and the Voitkevich reference. Compare the above values with the <a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Atmospheric_composition">standard composition of the atmosphere</a> in any textbook...WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-70990376279662255022009-07-05T23:43:00.004+02:002009-07-06T14:45:01.223+02:00Singer Resigns from Environmental Geology BoardWhen <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2009/07/chilingar-is-back.html">I recently reported</a> on the <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/c47m4x8222886n12/">new piece of Chilingar</a> and friends in Environmental Geology, I did not mention that it actually was the well-known climate sceptic <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer">Fred S. Singer</a> who - by asking for my opinion in a mail - evoked my attention to it. I replied to him, saying that I thought the paper was nonsense. Singer's answer may be surprising: He agreed and announced his resignation as an Advisory Editor of Environmental Geology.<br /><br />Well, for now he is still listed on <a href="http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences/geology/journal/254?detailsPage=editorialBoard">their website</a>. But <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/checking-links.html">as I stated before</a> in this context, I take it that Singer really plays in a different league than Chilingar. He does not want to compromise his credibility by endorsing Chilingar's humbug. But someone at Envrion. Geol. must support these writings. I rather suspect another climate sceptic editor of Environ. Geol., <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1395">Lee C. Gerhard</a>, to be involved in pushing the bizarre papers of Chilingar through "peer review". Whoever it is, these articles are a shame for this journal. However, it seems only few people take notice. So much for the impact of scientific publications...WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-48342734927963445772009-07-01T08:33:00.003+02:002009-07-01T09:05:22.826+02:00Chilingar is BackI had not been aware of it (nor has the climate blogging community, apparently), but the infamous climate sceptic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V._Chilingar">G. V. Chilingar</a> and his friends have a new article in <a href="http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/100512/?p=db2a2837d032495d9bd58978ded61d49&pi=0">Environmental Geology</a>:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/c47m4x8222886n12/">Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect</a><br /><br />It is only available online so far, but probably will soon be printed.<br /><br />If I find some time I may go for a little discussion of the paper. For the moment it may suffice to say that it just warms up their old weird "adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect", which <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/">Eli Rabett</a> has already <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-is-too-short-to-occupy-oneself_21.html">debunked</a>. For some background on the authors also follow <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/12/finally-news-on-twin-papers.html">this link</a>.WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-61559998178322401242009-04-02T08:29:00.004+02:002009-04-02T08:45:26.981+02:00Clean Coal and Sparkling WaterThis is the title of a <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7238/full/458583a.html">News & Views article of mine</a> that just appeared in Nature. I had the opportunity to comment on a <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7238/full/nature07852.html">paper by colleagues</a> from the noble gas and isotope community on the long-term fate of CO2 in natural gas fields. This is a hot topic because it relates to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage">carbon capture and storage</a> (CCS), a technology that may become important in fighting climate change.<br /><br />Actually I don't think that the paper will or should have any great consequences with regard to CCS applications, but the media seem interested. I got several calls yesterday and for example the German magazine <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/">SPIEGEL</a> has an <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,616874,00.html">article in its online issue</a> today.WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-346104222134328782009-03-20T10:12:00.003+01:002009-03-20T10:28:02.401+01:00US Congress Follows My RecommendationIncredible: It seems that some US lawmakers have <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/big-bailout.html">read my blog</a>! Or did they develop the idea of using tax law to re-claim undeserved bonuses all on their own? Anyway, they House of Representatives <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20bailout.html?ref=business">passed a bill that imposes a 90 % tax on bonuses</a> paid by government backed companies such as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/business/18bailout.html">AIG</a>. Revolutionary indeed.<br /><br />This move is in line with the ideas I have proposed before in this blog (<a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/big-bailout.html">here</a> and <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2009/02/money-money-money.html">here</a>). However, in my opinion it should be expanded dramatically to inlcude all kinds of excessive salaries all over the world. This would be a real step forward, but I doubt it will ever be achieved...WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-65153113541312284632009-02-22T10:11:00.005+01:002009-02-22T12:22:56.859+01:00Money, Money, Money15 years ago, when I was a postdoc in the US, I read an article in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/index.html">New York Times Magazine</a> about the earnings of chief executives. As I remember it was entitled "What they earn and why they deserve it". I found it outrageous that they could seriously say that earnings of many millions a year would be "deserved", because of good performance of the company at the stock markets and so on.<br /><br />Now, the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/">New York Times</a> has an article about <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/business/22pay.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp">reclaiming some of the money</a> that executives of failed banks have received over the past years. Apparently they have come to the conclusion that these guys really did not "deserve" all that money. This is a step forward, but I still wait for someone to argue that excessive pay should not be allowed even if companies make good profits. The point is that such salaries favor a wrong mentality. Take this citation from the above mentioned article:<br />“This is really in our view a giant fraudulent conveyance, where money was paid out to executives at firms that were fatally undercapitalized,” said Daniel Pedrotty, director of the <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/american_federation_of_laborcongress_of_industrial_organizations/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)">A.F.L.-C.I.O.</a> office of investment. “We are arguing for a recovery of money that was used by people who treated these companies as a giant A.T.M. machine.”<br /><br />So what can we do to change the thinking of executives that they can use their companies as giant A.T.M. machines? <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/big-bailout.html">I have been arguing</a> that a political approach could be to charge excessive taxes on excessive earnings. Would be quite simple if there were no "tax oases", i.e. countries that invite rich people to hide their money from taxes.<br /><br />Unfortunately, one of the countries that happily accept the money that should be paid to other states is my homecountry Switzerland. The Swiss idea (and law) that "tax evasion" is not a crime, only "tax fraud", coupled with the bank secret, opens the door for such behaviour. And my <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2009/01/bankers-havent-hit-reality-yet.html">favorite Swiss bank</a> <a href="http://www.ubs.com/1/e/index.html">UBS</a> has championed in it. The US has now turned up the heat on UBS and they <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/business/worldbusiness/19ubs.html?scp=2&sq=ubs&st=cse">agreed to hand over "secret" data</a> on some clients whom they helped to evade US taxes. Furthermore, "the bank admitted conspiring to defraud the <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/internal_revenue_service/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about the Internal Revenue Service.">Internal Revenue Service</a> and agreed to pay $780 million to settle a sweeping federal investigation into its activities."<br /><br />Obviously, this breach of the Swiss' sacred bank secret instilled a heated debate in Switzerland. Most blame the US, although <a href="http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wirtschaft/unternehmen-und-konjunktur/UBSSpitze-wusste-genau-was-sie-tat/story/16877275">it now transpires</a> that the top executives of UBS knew very well that they engaged in a risky and illegal business. What motivated them to do this? Did they just aim to increase the shareholder value of their bank, or could it be that they calculated how much their own personal share would be diminished if they stopped the raid on the US?<br /><br />So, what's the bottom line? The leaders of UBS not only invested heavily in "toxic" US loans, which <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/business/worldbusiness/02ubs.html">cost them many tens of billions</a>, they also engaged in criminal activities to cheat the US government. The fine of $780 million is peanuts, much less than <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2009/01/bankers-havent-hit-reality-yet.html">what they still pay out as bonuses</a> to their employees. And the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/business/worldbusiness/17swiss.html">losses are covered by the Swiss government</a>, to avoid a crash of this crucial company. Will they get away with that?<br /><br />The irony is that these bankers happily accept to be helped with taxmoney, while they help rich people (like themselves) to avoid paying taxes wherever possible. Not only do they think they deserve the millions they earn, they also blame the state for claiming something back via taxes. Even as they themselves are saved by taxmoney, they don't appreciate the value of taxes.<br /><br />Here is what I would do if I were in charge in Switzerland:<br />- nationalize UBS<br />- fire all top executives (they should be happy not to go to jail)<br />- claim back bonuses of the past 5 years (at least)<br />- abolish the bank secret and abusive tax laws<br />- introduce a 99% tax on all income above say 0.5 million Francs<br />- start the Swiss financial sector all over from scratchWAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-33083822774040853382009-01-29T23:28:00.006+01:002009-01-30T08:42:29.791+01:00The Bankers haven't hit Reality yetWhile my homecountry Switzerland is in turmoil over more than 2 billion Francs of bonuses being paid by the government-backed bank <a href="http://www.ubs.com/1/e/index.html">UBS</a> (formerly a national pride, now essentially bankrupt), with <a href="http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Die-Boni-sind-dreifach-falsch/story/19896955">heated discussions</a> even at the <a href="http://www.weforum.org/en/index.htm">world economic forum</a> in Davos, things are even worse in the center of the entire mess, my former second home New York.<br /><br />The New York Times had <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/business/29bonus.html">an interesting article</a> about Wall Street paying the sixth highest amount of bonuses ever after a year that hardly can be said to have been one of the best. Yes, I know, they HAVE to do this, otherwise they might lose their best people (e.g., <a href="http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Also-doch-UBSBoni-auch-fuer-Investmentbanker/story/30753536">those who just wrecked the world economy</a>). But, where will these people go if most banks are down? The argument was bad even before the crash, now it is just outrageous.<br /><br />The best comes at the end of the article: "A poll of 900 financial industry employees [...] found that while nearly eight out of 10 got bonuses, 46 percent thought they deserved more." They haven't hit reality yet. They still live in their dream world where money comes from nothing. It either has to get much worse or someone has to tell them that it's over.<br /><br />Or are we really going to accept that this kind of unrestrained capitalism continues?<br /><br />P.S. I am glad to learn that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/business/30obama.html?hp">Obama seems to share my opinion</a> and tells the bankers what's up. It may be populist, but at least he's not alone.WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-29752577914214984892008-12-13T11:02:00.001+01:002008-12-13T12:41:45.113+01:00Deep fusion, deep oil, deep nonsenseThe <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/12/natural-nuclear-fusion-in-earths.html">incredible paper about evidence for nuclear fusion in the deep Earth</a> coming from some of my old papers spurred my curiosity about its background. The theory of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georeactor#Planetary_fusion_reactions">geo-fusion</a> seems to go back to a certain <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones">Steven Jones</a>. He even published a <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v338/n6218/pdf/338737a0.pdf">Nature paper</a> about it in 1989, in the heydays of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion">cold-fusion</a> mania. But it has not been confirmed, as the search for magmatic tritium was not successful. The new paper by Jiang et al. seems to change that, but it does not convince even a tiny little bit.<br /><br />It rather seems to me that this geo-fusion theory is of about the same quality as the theory of deep, abiogenic oil, of which I have <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/junk-science-2.html">already written</a>. Alas, no deep oil or deep fusion will save us from what appears to be <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/11/world-oil-crunch-looming.html">a serious energy crisis</a>. Would be nice, but these theories are nonsense.<br /><br />Interestingly, Steven Jones seems to like nonsensical theories. As his <a href="http://www.blogger.com/the%20World%20Trade%20Center%20was%20destroyed%20by%20controlled%20demolition%20during%20the%20September%2011%20attacks.">Wikipedia entry</a> reveals, he is a strong proponent of the theory that the the World Trade Center was destroyed by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center" title="Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center">controlled demolition</a> during the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks" title="September 11 attacks">September 11 attacks</a>, rather than by the airplanes crashing into it. I don't have a high opinion of such conspiracy theories, <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/politicize-climate-science.html">as I mentioned before</a>. It seems that Prof. Jones, as great a physicist as he may be, is due for a reality check.<br /><br />Physicists (I am one!) tend to think that they are very intelligent. Sometimes, this leads them to venture into areas of which they do not know very much. I also do this, but I try to be careful. Others are sometimes overly self-confident. Such as the <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=G._Gerlich_and_R._D._Tscheuschner">German physicists</a> who tried to <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161">reject the greenhouse warming theory as contradicting basic physics</a>. Somewhere along the way <a href="http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/10/falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects/">they lost track</a> and started to produce <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=465#comment-48764">deep nonsense</a>. Too bad.WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-42191099653638182682008-12-07T10:49:00.009+01:002008-12-07T18:01:17.528+01:00Natural Nuclear Fusion in the Earth’s Interior?Here comes the promised funny story about real <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/junk-science-1.html">junk science</a>. Recently, the following article was published in the <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/0164-0313">Journal of Fusion Energy</a>:<br />Jiang et al., 2008. Tritium Released from Mantle Source: Implications for Natural Nuclear Fusion in the Earth’s Interior. <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/6v2l4738328q038w/?p=72e1994ec01142a885f2d9bd1d752e10&pi=17">J. Fusion Energ. 27:346–354.</a> DOI 10.1007/s10894-008-9149-y.<br />As usual, the entire article is not freely available, but you can get at least a free preview of the first page <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/6v2l4738328q038w/fulltext.pdf?page=1">here</a>.<br /><br />What's so funny about this article? Well, first of all, the hypothesis that nuclear fusion takes place in the deep Earth (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georeactor#Planetary_fusion_reactions">geo-fusion</a>) is quite unusual, but more on that later. The point that raised my interest (after being tipped-off by a colleague, thanks Rainer!) is that this article cites no less than 5 papers which I have (co-)authored. Ok, on three occasions my name is misspelled in the citation, but still they must mean those papers. Up to now, I did not know I was into fusion research. How come I get cited in the Journal of Fusion Energy?<br /><br />I have been involved in some research on tritium and He isotopes in volcanic lakes, together with my <a href="http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/wut/schwerpunkte/umweltisotope/index_EN">former Swiss colleagues from Eawag</a>. The authors of the current article heavily rely on <a href="http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/forschung/groups/aquasys/WAH/publications.html">our papers</a> dealing with Lake Nemrut (Turkey) and Laacher See (Germany). There we found clear evidence for the presence of gases (He) from the Earth's mantle, which is not too surprising in volcanic areas. The lake water also contains some tritium (3H, radioactive hydrogen). Tritium is a product of fusion reactions, but other sources are prominent in the environment. The proponents of geo-fusion now look for evidence of tritium fluxes from the deep Earth to support their idea. And Jiang and co-authors think they found it in our old papers! Gee, if these guys win the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_price">Nobel Prize</a> with this discovery, they owe me something!<br /><br />Have we been stupid not to see the signs of geo-fusion in our data? I don't think so. I rather think that the claims made by Jiang et al. are pure fantasy. They interpret small increases of tritium concentrations with depth in these lakes as evidence for a flux of tritium from the lake bottom. But there are much simpler explanations, most importantly that the surface water is being diluted by the recent input of low-tritium water. The data are from the 1990s, when tritium in precipitation was clearly decreasing with time, so many lakes would show such "reversed" tritium profiles. And the one volcanic crater lake where there is an isolated deep water that shows the signature of the subsurface input, Lac Pavin in France, actually shows very low tritium in that deep water. Jiang et al. even cite one of our papers on Lac Pavin, but they do not mention the low tritium there, as it does not fit their theory.<br /><br />I do not want to write a review of the Jiang paper here. It would be devastating. I wonder, however, how such a controversial paper can be published apparently without proper review. The entire argument is based on data of our papers. It would be natural to invite one of us as a reviewer. I am quite sure this did not happen, as none of us would have accepted this manuscript. Obviously the authors have no expertise on lake physics and tritium in the environment. Otherwise, it would be clear that the presented evidence is extremely spurious, at best.<br /><br />So, once again, my confidence in the quality of the scientific literature is shattered. This case is probably less severe (and certainly of lesser political importance) than that of the <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/khilyuk-and-chilingar.html">papers by Chilingar and colleagues</a>, but is shows the same failure of the review system. So, yes, there is enough <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/junk-science-1.html">junk science</a> out there to be debunked. But unfortunately, the one <a href="http://www.junkscience.com/">website that claims to do this</a> in reality attacks serious science and only produces more junk.<br /><br />I do my best to uncover some of the junk that falls along my way. But its a gigantic Sisyphus task. If this is the <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74">state of confusion</a> humanity is into, then good night...WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-45423519675796419702008-12-06T10:09:00.003+01:002008-12-06T10:30:10.565+01:00Finally: News on Twin PapersI started this blog after <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/">Eli Rabett</a> had pointed out to me that the reply to my rebuttal of a climate-sceptic paper had been <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/khilyuk-and-chilingar.html">published in duplicate in two journals</a>. This highly unusual and suspicious event triggered me to blog about strange things going on at the fringe of science.<br /><br />As a more direct response, I asked the editors of the involved journals (<a href="http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/100512/?p=db2a2837d032495d9bd58978ded61d49&pi=0">Environmental Geology</a> and <a href="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Econtent=t713770930%7Edb=all">Energy Sources</a>) if they were aware of the twin papers and what they intended to do about it. After a <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/10/no-news-on-twin-papers.html">long wait</a>, I finally got an answer.<br /><br />The editorial office of Environmental Geology explained that their Editor in Chief had been informed about the second publication and had approved it. So there is no plagiarism, everything was officially sanctioned. The core of the explanation in detail:<br /><br />"Due to the backlog of manuscripts, printing of the paper copy of Chilingar's comments was delayed for several months. In the interim, Dr. Chilingar contacted Dr. LaMoreaux and asked permission to "reprint" parts of his comments in the journal Energy Sources, where he serves on the editorial board. Dr. LaMoreaux gave Dr. Chilinger permission to quote from his comments to your rebuttal originally published in Environmental Geology."<br /><br />Great. I am relieved. I will not stop this blog, though, as there are still enough questionable things going on within and around the scientific literature. A really funny example will follow soon...WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-76140457175477970102008-12-03T08:37:00.000+01:002008-12-03T08:41:48.419+01:00Living in the AnthropoceneI recently gave a <a href="http://www.zww.uni-augsburg.de/events/weiterbildung_am_donnerstag/klimawandel_beginn_eines_neuen_zeitalters.html">presentation at the University of Augsburg</a> in Germany about climate change, in which I argued that we are living in a new geological epoch, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene">Anthropocene</a>. Of course, the term is not new, it was coined in 2000 by Nobel Prize winner <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Crutzen">Paul Crutzen</a>. I think it is a nice concept and useful to present modern environmental and climatic changes in the context of geological history.<br /><br />Those among my readers who can read German may want to download my presentation <a href="http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/forschung/groups/aquasys/WAH/talks.html">here</a> (others may still enjoy the graphics...). I included a final section about dubious climate sceptic literature and organisations, citing the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html">Exxon Report</a> of the <a href="http://ucsusa.org/">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>. I figured that few people here in Germany would now about the background of the propaganda machinery that is active in the US.WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-63848258071636840812008-11-29T15:28:00.008+01:002008-11-29T17:02:34.643+01:00World Oil Crunch Looming?This is the title of a recent <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/322/5905/1178">news article</a> in "<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/">Science</a>", which comments on the <a href="http://www.iea.org/">IEA</a> <a href="http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/WEO2008SUM.pdf">World Energy Outlook 2008</a>. So in <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/11/iea-calls-for-energy-revolution.html">writing about this report</a>, I am in good company. The tenor of the article by Science's news writer Richard Kerr is clear: Slowly the reality of limitations to the world's oil supply is sinking in. As far as I can tell, most scientists are still largely unaware that there is a huge problem approaching fast, so maybe this news piece will have some alarming effect. Of course, the experts have been playing the issue down for a long time, but recently the tone seems to be changing. Some excerpts from the article:<br /><br />“It’s getting harder and harder to find an optimist” on the outlook for the world oil supply, says Beijing-based petroleum analyst Michael Rodgers of <a href="http://www.pfcenergy.com/">PFC Energy</a>, a consulting company. Indeed, the IEA report as well as <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/conf_pdfs/Monday/Sweetnam_eia.pdf">one coming</a> from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (<a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/">EIA</a>, confusingly enough) see hints that the world’s oil production could plateau sometime about 2030 if the demand for oil continues to rise. Unless oil-consuming countries enact crash programs to slash demand, analysts say, 2030 could bring on a permanent global oil crunch that will make the recent squeeze look like a picnic. [...]<br />“Non-OPEC conventional production is definitely at a peak or plateau,” says Rodgers. “That’s starting to make people nervous. It’s not what even pessimistic people anticipated.” Three years ago, analysts in and out of the industry predicted that projects under way or planned would dramatically boost world production during the second half of the decade, sending prices back down (<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5751/1106">Science, 18 November 2005, p. 1106</a>). Only in the 2010s would non-OPEC producers—who had boosted their output 35% in 25 years—falter and level off their production, analysts thought. That predicted plateau may be here already. “Despite all the work,” says Rodgers, “we can’t grow non-OPEC.”<br /><br />So the view of the issue has changed over the past three years, and the pessimists proved to be right. The IEA's new perspective is less optimistic than before, but what if the <a href="http://www.peakoil.net/">true pessimists</a> are still right? Then, in fact, <a href="http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Reports.24+M5d637b1e38d.0.html">things may be a lot worse</a>. The old, 2005, Science article ended with the following words: "The downside of the optimists being wrong is dire". It seems this is exactly where we are heading...<br /><br />The final sentence of the recent article is also interesting, where an American energy analyst is cited saying "I just hope the Obama Administration doesn’t look at the [current] price of oil and shove the problem to the back burner." Very appropriate, as I find it hard to see any sign of the crash programs to slash demand that seem to be so urgently needed (unless crashing the economy was meant to be such a program).<br /><br />Oh, by the way, crash programs are also needed to curb CO2 emissions. If properly planned, one may be able to tackle two big problems at the same time (incidentally, <a href="http://climateprogress.org/">Climate Progress</a> just has a <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/29/building-a-new-green-economy-part-1-calling-dr-obama%e2%80%a6/">nice outline</a> of how to do that). If not, the looming oil crisis will force us into using more coal, which is a sure recipe for climate disaster.WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-83785904139644429072008-11-15T11:32:00.002+01:002008-11-15T11:43:07.618+01:00IEA Calls for Energy RevolutionI have unfortunately no time to comment in any depth, but I think the newly released World Energy Outlook 2008 by the <a href="http://www.iea.org/">International Energy Agency (IEA)</a> is a very significant and important document. It is unfortunate that the media hardly notice the substantial recent changes in viewpoint of these official "energy watchdogs" of the world. Because what they have to say is of enourmous importance for our future. Just a few citations from the <a href="http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/WEO2008SUM.pdf">executive summary</a>:<br /><br />"The world’s energy system is at a crossroads. Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable — environmentally, economically, socially."<br /><br />"It is not an exaggeration to claim that the future of human prosperity depends on how successfully we tackle the two central energy challenges facing us today: securing the supply of reliable and affordable energy; and effecting a rapid transformation to a low-carbon, efficient and environmentally benign system of energy supply. What is needed is nothing short of an energy revolution."<br /><br />"Oil is the world’s vital source of energy and will remain so for many years to come [...]. But the sources of oil to meet rising demand, the cost of producing it and the prices that consumers will need to pay for it are extremely uncertain, perhaps more than ever."<br /><br />"Preventing catastrophic and irreversible damage to the global climate ultimately requires a major decarbonisation of the world energy sources."<br /><br />"The consequences for the global climate of policy inaction are shocking."WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-34435126133932149932008-11-08T10:48:00.001+01:002008-11-08T11:02:14.653+01:00No Peak of Abiogenic OilI <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/amazing-predictive-skill.html">have already written</a> a bit about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil">peak oil</a> issue in the context of <a href="http://www.kunstler.com/">James Kunstler</a>'s prediction of the financial crisis. And I said I will return to it.<br /><br />Right now, when oil prices have plunged from record highs, peak oil may not seem to be a big issue. But the price swings may be deceptive. The present downturn is obviously not due to increased production but rather to the expectation of a global recession and hence reduced demand. If <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/06/iea-oil-price-to-rebound-to-100-when-economy-recovers-then-soar-to-200-by-2030/">advance stories</a> on the <a href="http://www.iea.org/w/bookshop/add.aspx?id=353">World Energy Outlook 2008</a>, due to be released by the <a href="http://www.iea.org/">International Energy Agency</a> next week, are correct, even the previously optimistic IEA warns of a return of high oil prices and supply problems. Ironically, the current crisis leading to low oil prices may <a href="http://www.iea.org/journalists/arch_pop.asp?MED_ARCH_ID=478">worsen the problem in the future</a>. A <a href="http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4724">UK industry taskforce</a> also seems to be concerned.<br /><br />However, there is still <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/23728987">debate whether peak oil is a real threat</a>. Somehow this reminds me of the debate about the reality of the climate change threat. I have written about some <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/junk-science-1.html">bogus arguments against climate change</a>. Today I'd like to look at such an argument against the possibility of a peak in oil production.<br /><br />The argument, which links to <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/junk-science-2.html">a previous post</a>, is that oil in fact is not of biogenic origin and therefore severely limited, but rather of abiogenic, deep origin, and therefore present in vast quantities that we only need to tap. Does this argument stand up to a reality check?<br /><br />Hardly. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin#History_of_abiogenic_hypothesis">foremost western proponent of the abiogenic oil theory</a> is Jack Kenney, who indeed posts several anti-peak-oil articles on his <a href="http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm">website</a>. I have already written about my <a href="http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/old-story.html">weird experience with Kenney</a>, based on which I certainly don't trust him. But his theory is also <a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml">thoroughly refuted</a> by many experts in the field.<br /><br />Interestingly, the <a href="http://www.gasresources.net/toc_PetEcon.htm">economic papers</a> published on Kenney's website, which all refute the notion of limited oil supplies, mostly do not seem to refer to the abiogenic petroleum theory. They are authored by M. C. Lynch and P. Odell, which appear to be quite well-informed experts in the oil business. I wonder if these authors are aware of the fact that their articles are promoted on a rather dubious webpage. It certainly does not increase their credibility...WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769937467961754714.post-65812164683517728362008-11-05T08:20:00.002+01:002008-11-05T08:22:40.202+01:00Good Morning Americaand good luck to Barack Obama, who faces a daunting task...WAHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11861933566169482042noreply@blogger.com1