Peace through practical, proved civil defence for credible war deterrence
  • Please see our post on the need to deter not only direct threats from nuclear attacks but also conventional wars and invasions that can escalate into nuclear wars (as proved by the use of nuclear weapons in WWII, for example, after they were developed during the war itself and did not trigger or provoke the war), linked here and here, and the true scaling law equivalence between a few thousand nuclear weapons and the several million tons of small conventional weapons in a non-nuclear world war as proved by our post summarising key points in Herman Kahn's much-abused call for credible deterrence, On Thermonuclear War, linked here.

  • Hiroshima's air raid shelters were unoccupied because Japanese Army officers were having breakfast when B29s were detected far away, says Yoshie Oka, the operator of the Hiroshima air raid sirens on 6 August 1945...

  • In a sample of 1,881 burns cases in Hiroshima, only 17 (or 0.9 percent) were due to ignited clothing and 15 (or 0.7%) were due to the firestorm flames...

  • Dr Harold L. Brode’s new book, Nuclear Weapons in ...

  • 800 war migrants drowned on 22 April by EU policy:...

  • Photographed fireball shielding by cloud cover in ...

  • Nuclear weapons effects "firestorm" and "nuclear w...

  • Proved 97.5% survival in completely demolished houses ...

  • Monday, October 09, 2006

    North Korea Announces First Nuclear Weapon Test

    'Czechoslovakia's former comrades from North Korea claim that they have successfully completed their first underground nuclear test. The U.S. agencies initially couldn't confirm the report but South Korea and Australia have detected tremor so the communist report is probably true. Later, USGS described it as a 4.2 magnitude earthquake, confirming the report, too. ...

    'The success comes exactly at the time when North Korea is completing the construction of the modern socialist economy that will exceed and supersede the imperialist nations. Blah blah blah - I've been hearing these things for the first one half of my life.

    'Of course, the Democratic People's Republic - or, more precisely, the Totalitarian Party Leader's Dictatorship - is far from being the first dangerous country that has opened this Pandora's box so it would be exaggerated to paint the situation as a real crisis. Nevertheless, it is annoying, especially because the socialist nation seems to have untested ballistic missiles able to reach the U.S. territory.' - Harvard University Assistant Professor of physics Lubos Motl's Reference Frame.

    The BBC reports: 'Outcry at N Korea 'nuclear test'. North Korea's claim that it has successfully tested a nuclear weapon has sparked international condemnation.

    'The White House called for a swift response from the UN Security Council, calling Pyongyang's move "provocative".

    'Japan and South Korea also condemned the test and even Pyongyang's closest ally China expressed its "resolute opposition", calling the move "brazen".

    'North Korean state media said the underground test had brought "happiness to our people".
    The test, which South Korean media said took place in Gilju in Hamgyong province at 1036 (0136 GMT), has still to be confirmed.

    'N KOREA NUCLEAR PROGRAMME

    • Believed to have 'handful' of nuclear weapons
    • But not thought to have any small enough to put in a missile
    • Could try dropping from airplane, though world watching closely

    Q&A: Nuclear stand-off

    'But both the US and Japan said they had detected seismic waves. Russia said it was "100% certain" a nuclear test had occurred.

    'The size of the bomb is uncertain. South Korean reports put it as low as 550 tons of destructive power but Russia said it was between five and 15 kilotons. The Hiroshima bomb of 1945 was 12.5-15 kilotons.

    'The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says North Korea's claimed test does not necessarily mean it has a fully-fledged nuclear bomb or warhead that it can deliver to a target.
    The US led calls for a swift UN response. White House spokesman Tony Snow said: "We expect the UN Security Council to take immediate actions to respond to this unprovoked act."

    'Unpardonable'

    'UN atomic agency head Mohamed ElBaradei said the reported test was a grave threat to world security.

    'Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is in Seoul for a meeting with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, called the claimed test "unpardonable" and urged the council to take "undaunted" action.

    'The region was "entering a new, dangerous nuclear age", he said.

    'He said Japan and the US would step up co-operation on the missile defence system they began after a North Korean missile test in 1998.

    'We expect the UN Security Council to take immediate actions to respond to this unprovoked act.' - Tony Snow, White House spokesman

    'President Roh said the claimed test had created a "severe situation" that threatened stability in the region. He said Seoul would react "sternly and calmly".

    'The South Korean military - which has been put on a heightened state of alert - had the capability to cope with any North Korean provocation, he said.

    'Seoul also suspended a scheduled aid shipment of concrete to North Korea, the state news agency reported.

    'The North has relied on international help to feed its 23 million people for more than a decade and there are concerns the latest move could further compromise its ability to feed its most vulnerable people.

    'In an unusually strong statement against its ally, China said the claimed test "defied the universal opposition of international society".

    'The BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Beijing says China's statement is an indication of how strongly it is angered by North Korea's action, although Beijing will still be loath to support tougher sanctions against Pyongyang.

    'Historic event'

    'When it announced the test, the North's KCNA media agency described it as an "historic event that brought happiness to our military and people".

    'KOREAN NUCLEAR CRISIS

    • Sept 2005: At first hailed as a breakthrough, North Korea agrees to give up nuclear activities
    • Next day, N Korea says it will not scrap its activities unless it gets a civilian nuclear reactor
    • US imposes financial sanctions on N Korea businesses
    • July 2006: N Korea test-fires seven missiles
    • UN Security Council votes to impose sanctions over the tests
    • Oct 2006: N Korea claims to have carried out nuclear test

    'N Korea's mercurial leader
    N Korea nuclear timeline

    'It said the test would maintain "peace and stability" in the region and was "a great leap forward in the building of a great prosperous, powerful socialist nation".

    'The development comes three days after the UN Security Council agreed on a formal statement urging North Korea to cancel any planned nuclear test and return to disarmament talks.

    'Pyongyang pulled out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 and has refused for a year to attend talks aimed at ending its nuclear ambitions.

    'North Korea's official media has long warned that the US was preparing to attack and developing a nuclear capability was the only way to prevent this.

    'The UN Security Council imposed an embargo on the import and export of missile-related materials in July after North Korea test-fired several missiles.

    'If confirmed, the test would make North Korea the ninth country known to have nuclear weapons.'

    Nuclear test videos online

    Baker underwater test 1946 (23 kt bomb detonated 90 ft under ship in 180 ft deep Bikini Lagoon): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-585716941089093304&q=nuclear+explosion in colour: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8075130353722461105&q=nuclear+explosion

    Collapse of Baker test cloud to form radioactive 'base surge': http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3068223556621265654&q=nuclear+explosion

    Umbrella shallow underwater test 1958 (8 kt Eniwetok lagoon bottom burst, 150 ft deep): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3105197211596464745&q=nuclear

    Wahoo underwater test 1958 (9 kt test 500 ft deep in the Ocean, well off the sea bed): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6258387818565336980&q=nuclear+explosion

    Grable nuclear test 1953 (15 kt nuclear shell for tactical warfare): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=252288483406479718&q=nuclear+explosion and http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7278951069225366106&q=nuclear good film of effects of close in heat and blast effects on paint and forests (notice the smoke generated when paint is heated, protecting the underlying surface, and note that although the blast does blow over trees and vehicles, a person lying prone has a smaller drag coefficient and is less likely to be hurt - see previous posts on this blog for declassified reports on scientific analyses of these issues): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8668878764823073655&q=nuclear+explosion and http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3900748598878060737&q=nuclear+explosion

    Trinity, Crossroads, Sandstone, with proper discussion of the implosion Nagasaki type design and the gun type Hiroshima design, Greenhouse nuclear tests including explanation of the transit-time measurement of implosion in nuclear tests (the transit time is the time between electrical initiation of the implosion and the first measured appearance of gamma rays from the bomb using an ion chamber and oscilloscope), 'alpha' measurement (the rate of increase – multiplication rate of fission – determined by measuring nuclear radiation rise using ionisation chamber near bomb wired to remove oscilloscope, although this is subject to EMP disruption), filmed fireball expansion rate to determine total bomb yield and fallout sampling to determine fission efficiency and hence fission yield), fusion in the George nuclear test at Eniwetok Atoll and fusion boosting in the Item nuclear test. Operations Ranger and Buster Jangle at Nevada test site, including the 1 kt Jangle Sugar ("surface") burst test and its crater and the 1 kt underground Uncle shot 17 feet below ground test: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1029925633034771721&q=nuclear+explosion

    Duck and cover 1950 (the first official US government sponsored children's school civil defense film): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-421879925801827694&q=nuclear

    Biggest nuclear test ever, the 50 megatons Russian test on 30 October 1961 with massively exaggerated voice-over for example the ‘110 mile wide’ fireball diameter is exaggerated by a factor of over twenty, since the true air burst fireball diameter for 50 megatons was 5.2 miles not 110 miles! The claimed ‘40 miles’ height of the mushroom cloud is also an exaggeration, by a factor of over 50%, and the vague '30 miles' blast devastation area claimed is totally meaningless (cracked windows occur out to many times the range of high velocity glass fragment injuries and structural damage to buildings, so blast devastation is a subjective - meaningless - thing unless you specify exactly what damage criterion you mean, and to what sort of structure, or the overpressure level, you are referring to). At least it does honestly admit that there was no local fallout because it was 2 mile high air burst): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2046393742348211186&q=nuclear+explosion

    Blast effects video (Teapot Nevada series in 1955): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4435164594668989546&q=nuclear+explosion

    Fireball: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2767983664614543039&q=nuclear+explosion

    Assorted clips (with bad music - turn off the loudspeaker): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-53565441845289277&q=nuclear

    1955 Nevada Apple-2 test effects on buildings etc.: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8139428890271196390&q=nuclear+explosion and http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1745409378458835720&q=nuclear+explosion

    Mike test 1 November 1952 (10.4 megatons surface burst, the 'first full-scale test of a hydrogen device'), introduced in live format by Western actor Reed Hadley from the deck of the test control ship U.S.S. Estes (contains grossly speeded-up film of the cloud rise and expansion): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3597507450536748258&q=nuclear+explosion and http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2650864597992018039&q=nuclear+explosion

    Previous posts of interest to this sad North Korean news:

    White House civil defense manual:http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/04/white-house-issues-new-civil-defence.html

    Fallout prediction and common sense:http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/04/fallout-prediction-and-common-sense-in.html

    Suppressed, safe neutron bombs inventor Sam Cohen given Peace Award by the Pope:http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/05/revised-edition-of-sam-cohens-shame-is.html

    A good (although non-technical) new site discussing declassified nuclear test films is at www.atomicforum.org, see http://www.atomicforum.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=21&sid=d3d7ca5807cbd2aefffa405131dd3a9b

    There is also the latest declassified data in this blog on measured EMP from high altitude 1962 tests (relevant since North Korea has missiles which can be used to detonate high air bursts), firestorm mechanism at Hiroshima, long term effects, etc.:

    EMP devastation from a high altitude missile-carried nuclear detonation: http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/emp-radiation-from-nuclear-space.html

    Fire storm analysis using hard facts from Hiroshima and nuclear test research: http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/04/ignition-of-fires-by-thermal-radiation.html

    Long term effects at Hiroshima and Nagasaki: http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/05/assistant-professor-lubo-motl-and-big.html

    This blog is named after Samuel Glasstone, founder editor of the U.S. Department of Defense book The Effects of Nuclear Weapons: http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/samuel-glasstone-and-philip-j-dolan.html

    Communism versus capitalism: This is not a political blog. I've had some false suggestions sent to me that some of the underlying ideas or motivations are right-wing. This is false. See for example the cover of the 3rd edition of neutron bomb inventor Sam Cohen's book here. That is not worshipping George W. Bush's nuclear politics very much!

    What does annoy me are fake scientific arguments for political purposes. If you want total nuclear disarmament or even perhaps communism, that is fine, but I don't like the idea of exaggerating scientific information to try to bring about a destablising of democracy in a sneaky way. It is dangerous to put people off civil defence because you don't know what conditions nuclear weapons will be used under, or in what quantities, so you cannot claim to know for certain that everyone will be killed. That is actually an impossible outcome under the stockpiles available today.

    A nuclear free world would be difficult to accomplish for practical reasons such as the widespread distribution of uranium and thorium deposits, and nuclear physics knowledge. Moreover, such a state would be destabilizing - even it was accompanied by a DEVALUATION of nuclear effects hype - because any country breaking the ban by making nuclear weapons would be able to hold the world to ransom under the threat of devastating cities.

    (World communism is another solution suggested which simply is not very practical. Communism fails because people are not satisfied with it. Democracy of course does not exist, because in the free world money can be used to buy publicity and propaganda, so power falls into the hands of the corrupt and wealthy who can out-shout, out-spend, and out-bully rivals. But it is a better situation in some ways to communism which is a dictatorship system with even less safeguards against genocide than democracies have. Democracies generally have to fake evidence of weapons of mass destruction, before they can go to war on false premises, or declare a state of emergency, hold people without charge and accidentally shoot and kill innocent, wrongly-identified 'suspects'. Dictators simply do the same things without insulting the public with propaganda that is transparent. Far better to live in a democracy, where public is free to vote for whichever tyrant has the most lying propaganda and spin, than in a dictatorship where fewer efforts are made to cover up the farce. After all, Sputnik in 1957 did not carry a star spangled banner, not did Gargarin, the first person in space in 1961. Live in a democracy and you'll be spared all the money wasting of new innovations that dictatorships spend, because the brave politicians will spend it on clever schemes to make themselves rich when they leave office.)

    Update 13 Oct 06 regarding comments above on capitalism: I saw a TV programme here in the UK on 12 October 2006 advising people to invest their spare cash in property in Romania, since it is due to join the EU in a few years. Watching that programme is a bit surreal. The people in Romania have on average very little technology, most of the roads are dirt tracks, it looks like the UK did in the 18th century. But here is a TV programme advising us to buy up all the cheap houses there so that we can make a fortune out of the poor people there by renting them houses at huge profits once the economic boom begins in Romania when it enters the EU. If any communists want propaganda, get a copy of that TV programme! I'm pro-capitalism probably by inherited prejudices more than by reason, but there is something sickeningly diabolical about the 'Matthew effect' in capitalism: the rich always get richer, the poor ... unless there is an economic crash, that is. (Maybe the economic crash will be caused by the 'peak oil crisis'; perhaps a peak oil expert like Lubos Motl's great friend Quantoken will drop by and make a comment?)

    The world is supposedly going to suffer panic share selling and economic collapse when oil production passes its peak and begins to subside, anyday now: "The oil coming out of Saudis biggest oil fields now contains more than 50% water, and they are injecting 3 barrels of sea water to get one barrel of this mixed liquid out. That's a fact, not fiction. How much longer do you think the oil can continue to flow from the ground?" - Quantoken, comment on: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/meeting-quantoken.html

    More on the alleged looming "peak oil" price flip / economic crisis: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/futureHist.html#durationcheapoil and http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ also see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BOR410A.html and http://www.thepropheticyears.com/reasons/World%20debt.HTM

    Tony Smith plots the graph of the oil reserve and draws an analogy between oil and cat's milk:

    'Almost Half of Earth's Easy-Flowing Oil is near the Persian Gulf ... By 2012 A.D. shortages will be severe.'

    Unless Tony Smith's suggestions for alternative energy sources there are taken seriously, the side-effect of such an oil-shortage induced world economic crisis could well be the seed of war. Wars are especially hard to stop when there are limited supplies and resources, that have to be fought over.

    Update, 16 December 2006:

    2006 will probably be Britain's hottest year since records began in 1659, see the graph http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42353000/gif/_42353457_cent_eng_temp_203gr.gif from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6177663.stm:

    "The Central England Temperature Record (CET) is the oldest continuous dataset for temperature anywhere in the world.

    "Its principal finding this year is that the average temperature for 2006 was almost certainly the highest ever seen in 347 years of CET measurements.

    "Researchers cannot be absolutely certain until the year has ended. The average temperature for the year up to 13 December stands at 10.84C. In the 1950s, the CET showed an average of about 9.4C. 'This year sees the highest average temperature recorded since the CET series began in 1659, and the rise above the average is significantly higher than that for the two hottest years we have experienced,' said Professor Phil Jones of [University of East Anglia's] Climatic Research Unit. "

    More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/14/nhot14.xml and http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1971637,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

    19 July 2006 was the hottest July day in England ever, and I needed air conditioning the whole month (which is not usually needed at all in England). See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5193970.stm

    California has also been unusually hot: "In the United States, the first six months of 2006 were the hottest recorded in ... In Northern California, it was hotter for longer than ever on record, ..." - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/30/MNGEUK86BK1.DTL&type=science

    What I don't like is the idea of spending money on this which just isn't effective, as oil and coal will probably escalate in price as they become more depleted, reducing CO2 pollution naturally.
    Far better to make the best of the warming as your rational instinct tells you! Northern wastelands previously unhabitable will become new wildlife retreats. There is nothing unnatural about what is occurring, the idea climate change is a disaster because it causes change is a logical fallacy. Things are always changing. It may be tough on polar bears on the disintegrating ice sheets, until things settle down, but that's life. Ice ages have naturally occurred and then melted many times, sometimes very rapidly, causing problems for wildlife.

    9 Comments:

    At 10:23 am, Blogger nige said...

    Thanks to QUANTOKEN for his new comment on Lubos Motl's blog about President Bush (who Quantoken confusedly calls shrub):

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/10/rube-goldberg-machine-video.html


    Lubos:

    Out of topic. But I guess no one here noticed what shrub has done lately:

    http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID={EBA55617-2676-4091-ABBC-20650EB6FEE1}&language=EN

    Can you believe it? I know shrub is rich and could buy anything as he wants. But buying land not in America, but in Paraguay? And 100 thousand acres of land? That's unusualy! I guess this country is probably F*CKed up and the shrub is the first one to know that and he is looking for a safe haven for himself.

    We are getting closer to WW III.
    USS Eisenhower is on the way.
    Quantoken | Homepage | 10.15.06 - 11:24 pm | #



    The link Quantoken gives says:

    http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID={EBA55617-2676-4091-ABBC-20650EB6FEE1}&language=EN

    Bush Buys Land in Northern Paraguay

    Buenos Aires, Oct 13 (Prensa Latina) An Argentine official regarded the intention of the George W. Bush family to settle on the Acuifero Guarani (Paraguay) as surprising, besides being a bad signal for the governments of the region.


    Luis D Elia, undersecretary for the Social Habitat in the Argentine Federal Planning Ministry, issued a memo partially reproduced by digital INFOBAE.com, in which he spoke of the purchase by Bush of a 98,842-acre farm in northern Paraguay, between Brazil and Bolivia.



    The news circulated Thursday in non-official sources in Asuncion, Paraguay.



    D Elia considered this Bush step counterproductive for the regional power expressed by Presidents Nestor Kirchner, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.



    He said that "it is a bad signal that the Bush family is doing business with natural resources linked to the future of MERCOSUR."



    The official pointed out that this situation could cause a hypothetical conflict of all the armies in the region, and called attention to the Bush family habit of associating business and politics.



    ef ccs tac rmh



    PL-38

     
    At 1:26 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/futureHist.html#durationcheapoil

     
    At 12:20 pm, Blogger nige said...

    Comment on http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/2006/11/direct-route.html


    nigel said...

    Maybe it will happen if North Korea or China expands its missile/rocket research and decides to conquer the Moon and plant a communist flag, like the USSR was planning when Kennedy gave that speech.

    However, I'm with Quantoken in accepting that the "peak oil" induced economic crisis will permanently terminate any American Moon-reaching pipe-dreams within five years:

    The world is supposedly going to suffer panic share selling and economic collapse when oil production passes its peak and begins to subside, anyday now: "The oil coming out of Saudis biggest oil fields now contains more than 50% water, and they are injecting 3 barrels of sea water to get one barrel of this mixed liquid out. That's a fact, not fiction. How much longer do you think the oil can continue to flow from the ground?" - Quantoken, comment on: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/meeting-quantoken.html

    More on the alleged looming "peak oil" price flip / economic crisis: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/futureHist.html#durationcheapoil and http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ also see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BOR410A.html and http://www.thepropheticyears.com/reasons/World%20debt.HTM

    Tony Smith plots the graph of the oil reserve and draws an analogy between oil and cat's milk:

    'Almost Half of Earth's Easy-Flowing Oil is near the Persian Gulf ... By 2012 A.D. shortages will be severe.'

    The most probable future is that America will run out of gasoline and go bankrupt, North Korea and/or China will take over the world, and they'll reach the Moon.

    2:15 AM

     
    At 11:55 am, Blogger nige said...

    Comment to

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/11/prof-summers-in-financial-times.html

    Frederick Forsyth (author of “The Day of the Jackle” etc.) has today published a good article on global warming:

    “We’re all doomed ... to listen to hot air”, Daily Express, 10 November 2006, p 13:

    “Climate mania ... has graduated from a concern to an obsession and now into the realm of mass hysteria. ...

    “We are in the hands of three communities, all with a huge vested interest. ...

    “First, we have the politicians. They want to charge you many billions in extra taxes. If they called them stealth taxes, you would complain. If they call them saving-the-planet taxes, they reckon you will pay up without a murmur. ...

    “Then we have the scientists. Banish the idea that scientists are absent-minded boffins. No chance. Modern eggheads lust after huge research budgets and climate change will keep them going for decades because, with several million variables, world climate is so complex that even Cray supercomputers cannot work it out.

    “(These are the same genii who told us in the Seventies that we would all soon die of hypothermia as the planet moved remorselessly into a new Ice Age [due to pollution haze blocking out sunlight]. Whatever happened to that? Never mind, madam, it generated lots of research funds.)

    “And we have the media, or some of them. In the ‘Britain is always wrong’ constituency, few stories go down such a treat as news of doom and imminent wipe-out, especially when it is all our fault. (And of course it always is.) ...

    “It seems to me that climate change is happening all right but ... 1,500 years ago the Romans guarding Hadrian’s Wall in the far north of Cumbria used to drink wine from their own locally-grown grapes. Vineyards in Cumbria? Yep. You see, it was warmer then.”

    What he didn't include is the fact that although some global warming is fact, SO IS THE FACT WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF POLLUTANTS!

    The mathematical models the lying global warming "predictions" use assume we are NOT running out of fossil fuels.

    If they put the expected decline (see http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/futureHist.html#durationcheapoil for graph) into the model, you'd see that the coming end of fossil fuels terminates the global warming issue.

    The affordable reserves of oil and other fuels which produce vast quantities of CO2 when used are not sufficient to allow global warming to continue at present levels.

    Consensus holds that:

    (1) we're running out of CO2 generating fossil fuels from the point of view of resources diminishing, and

    (2) we're NOT running out of CO2 generating fossil fuels from the point of view of climatic predictions, which assume CO2 output either REMAINING STABLE, or in most cases INCREASING.

    So consensus is self-contradictory (due to political expediency, the need to acknowledge that humans are so mighty and God-like that they have the power to destroy the planet, somehow).

    nigel cook | Homepage | 11.10.06 - 6:50 am | #

     
    At 12:58 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    What can democracy do? So-called UK and US democracy is an election with basically a choice of two candidates, once every four years. Real democracy, invented in ancient Greece, was a meeting of citizens each evening when people could have a say and vote on proposals, not voting for a person to be dictator for four years.

    To call what passes for modern government a ‘democracy’ is a travesty of the term. I have to write this, because any criticism of modern government is usually dismissed as an attack on democracy itself (which is good). A choice between merely two rich candidates who are professional politicians is no democracy, but is just a factor of two different from having a dictatorship.

    The USSR held regular elections for Communist Party candidates. In the USSR that wasn’t democracy because you needed to be a Communist Party official to stand (while in the West it is even worse because you need to be rich to enter politics). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy#In_the_Soviet_Union

     
    At 12:03 pm, Blogger nige said...

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/11/has_climate_science_converged.php


    Has climate science converged (enough)?
    Category: climate communication
    Posted on: November 15, 2006 12:33 PM, by William M. Connolley
    Nude Scientist (thanks Eli) has a feature on wot bits of AR4 will be controversial. …


    The editor of Nude Scientist, Jeremy Webb, has no qualms over pro-doomsday bias. See http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000002D081.htm

    "Eco-evangelism

    by Helene Guldberg
    "... The headline read 'New Scientist presents: Judgement Day - the Global Environment Roadshow'. It went on: 'Find out how wholly unexpected forces, such as global warming, pollution, ozone-layer destruction, water shortages and soil degradation could combine in new and terrifying ways to produce global nightmares nobody predicted.'

    "... Webb asked - after the presentations - whether there was anybody who still was not worried about the future. In a room full of several hundred people, only three of us put our hands up. We were all asked to justify ourselves (which is fair enough). But one woman, who believed that even if some of the scenarios are likely, we should be able to find solutions to cope with them, was asked by Webb whether she was related to George Bush!

    "When I pointed out that none of the speakers had presented any of the scientific evidence that challenged their doomsday scenarios, Webb just threw back at me, 'But why take the risk?' What did he mean: 'Why take the risk of living?' You could equally say 'Why take the risk of not experimenting? Why take the risk of not allowing optimum economic development?' But had I been able to ask these questions, I suppose I would have been accused of being in bed with Dubya."

    Posted by: nc | November 17, 2006 06:01 AM


    ADDITIONAL COMMENT BY ME TO THAT BLOG (IN MODERATION BY STOAT):

    Stoat, the author of that slightly slanted article is Fred "doomsday" Pearce, a long-term Nude Scientist author who writes endless pro-Greenpeace copy (always skewed), he is author of numerous books about climatic disasters, human-made horrors of dam building (a nicely titled book: "The Dammed"), and so on.

    Other Nude Scientist writers with similar slants (always portraying straw-man arguments as the enemies of the propaganda) include Rob "anti-nuclear" Edwards and ex-editor Dr Alun "icecap meltdown" M. Anderson. I've written many times to correct factual errors, but have always been censored. Jeremy Webb, Nude Scientist's current editor, finally emailed me a long email on 30 August 2004, defending speculation to sell the magazine. See http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15886166&postID=114026442749854376

    See also the Daily Telegraph article by Roger Highfield http://www.science-writer.co.uk/news_and_pr/announcements/2005a_announcements.html which states:

    "Prof Heinz Wolff complained that cosmology is "religion, not science." Jeremy Webb of New Scientist responded that it is not religion but magic. ... "If I want to sell more copies of New Scientist, I put cosmology on the cover," said Jeremy."

    So it's just about what makes the most cash, that's all! Notice http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html claims:

    "Since 1982 A-level physics entries have halved. Only just over 3.8 per cent of 16-year-olds took A-level physics in 2004 compared with about 6 per cent in 1990.

    "More than a quarter (from 57 to 42) of universities with significant numbers of physics undergraduates have stopped teaching the subject since 1994, while the number of home students on first-degree physics courses has decreased by more than 28 per cent. Even in the 26 elite universities with the highest ratings for research the trend in student numbers has been downwards."


    [NOTE: Fred Pearce is listed by http://www.fni.no/YBICED/summaries.html as New Scientist’s “environment consultant”:

    “Greenpeace: Storm-Tossed on the High Seas, by Fred Pearce (New Scientist, UK)
    New Scientist's environment consultant, Fred Pearce, provides an account of the fluctuating position Greenpeace has held over the last twenty years in international environmental relations. Pearce examines how Greenpeace manages to profile itself as the only green organization capable of mounting campaigns before a global audience, such as the Brent Spar campaign and their actions in the Mururoa atoll, in spite of the considerable amount of internal tension.
    > Download full article (PDF)”

    The full article download is http://www.fni.no/YBICED/96_07_pearce.pdf which is an article written by Fred Pearce for the GREEN GLOBE YEARBOOK 1996, pages 73-79, which states:

    “Greenpeace: Storm-Tossed on the High Seas

    “Fred Pearce [GREEN GLOBE YEARBOOK 1996, pages 73-79]

    “In mid-1994, Greenpeace International was in crisis. With membership and income falling, its leaders had fired one executive director, Paul Gilding, and were attempting to sack staff.1 Angry messages across its sophisticated internal communications system accused its leaders of conducting a
    ‘reign of terror’. An anonymous press release from its headquarters in Amsterdam told journalists that ‘Greenpeace is now spending more time and money on its own internal wars than on fighting for the environment. If Greenpeace’s own supporters knew what was going on internally they would soon stop sending in subscriptions, the life-blood of the organization.’2 Greenpeace, in its twenty-fifth year appeared to be suffering a major mid-life crisis. …

    “But for the public at large, the organization’s success over Brent Spar (notwithstanding its own goal over the lab analysis of samples), and its heroic failures in the South Pacific raised the organization’s profile once again as the only green organization capable of mounting such campaigns before a global audience.”

    ANOTHER POST BY “STOAT” ( DR WILLIAM M. CONNOLLEY ):


    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/11/monckton_and_monbiot_in_the_gr.php

    Monckton and Monbiot in the Grauniad
    Category: septic tripe
    Posted on: November 15, 2006 5:31 AM, by William M. Connolley

    Todays grauniad has a piece by Monckton, "This wasn't gibberish. I got my facts right on global warming". Its in the "response" column, where people get a chance to reply. Sadly its all more gibberish. …

    Stoat, if I may destroy this thread by launching into a rudely off-topic discourse on my pet theory of why global warming predictions are a load of {hot CO2 or methane}, we're running out of oil which is the main source of CO2 so this global warming won't last forever anyhow, see censored string theorist Tony Smith's graph here: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/futureHist.html#durationcheapoil
    [There is plenty of coal. No one really thinks we will run out of fossil fuels to pump out CO2 with -W]
    Posted by: nc | November 15, 2006 05:46 PM

    nc, have you ever heard of coal? Coal contributes, on a global scale, as much CO2 as oil and will increase its share in the future.
    Ian Forrester
    Posted by: Ian Forrester | November 15, 2006 09:49 PM

    http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/futureHist.html#durationcheapoil includes coal! Both oil and coal will be eliminated as polluters long before the last drop / lump is burned, because of price rises making them unaffordable expensive, so demand will drop long before then disappear.
    About 50% of global oil production is near the gulf:

    "The oil coming out of Saudis biggest oil fields now contains more than 50% water, and they are injecting 3 barrels of sea water to get one barrel of this mixed liquid out. That's a fact, not fiction. How much longer do you think the oil can continue to flow from the ground?" - Quantoken, comment on: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/meeting-quantoken.html

    More on the alleged looming "peak oil" price flip / economic crisis: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/futureHist.html#durationcheapoil and http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ also see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BOR410A.html and http://www.thepropheticyears.com/reasons/World%20debt.HTM
    Posted by: nc | November 17, 2006 05:52 AM

    Whoops - wrong graph! There's another which plots coal reserves, which won't last forever either, believe it [or] not.
    Posted by: nc | November 17, 2006 05:53 AM

    MORE ON NEW SCIENTIST’S EDITOR, JEREMY WEBB:

    Jeremy Webb
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search

    /wiki/Image:JeremyWebb.JPG/wiki/Image:JeremyWebb.JPG

    New Scientist publicity photo of editor Jeremy Webb.

    Jeremy Webb, editor of New Scientist, graduated in electronics from Exeter University before working for the BBC as a sound engineer.

    An article in The Hindu newspaper explains his editorial approach [1]. New Scientist has come under some criticism as a result of his editorial decisions (see for example [2] and [3]).
    A Daily Telegraph article [4] reports:

    Prof Heinz Wolff complained that cosmology is "religion, not science." Jeremy Webb of New Scientist responded that it is not religion but magic. ... "If I want to sell more copies of New Scientist, I put cosmology on the cover," said Jeremy.

    Physics in the UK is allegedly in a "terminal decline" [5], and the efforts of Jeremy Webb and the rest of New Scientist (Britain's main science weekly) to "sell more copies" [6] have not boosted student interest in the subject, according to recent statistics:

    Since 1982 A-level physics entries have halved. Only just over 3.8 per cent of 16-year-olds took A-level physics in 2004 compared with about 6 per cent in 1990.

    More than a quarter (from 57 to 42) of universities with significant numbers of physics undergraduates have stopped teaching the subject since 1994, while the number of home students on first-degree physics courses has decreased by more than 28 per cent. Even in the 26 elite universities with the highest ratings for research the trend in student numbers has been downwards. [7].

    One writer for Electronics & Wireless World magazine was emailed by Jeremy Webb on 30 August 2004:

    Hawking and Penrose are well regarded among their peers. I am eager to question their ideas but I cannot afford to ignore them. Any physicist working today would be daft to do so. Nevertheless, neither makes regular appearances in the magazine. Paul Davies writes for us between zero and three times a year, writing as much about biology these days as he does about physics. He is invited to write. [8], [9]

    Helene Guldberg in an article for Spiked Science on 26 April 2001 [10] reported that Jeremy Webb's behaviour had been sarcastic and rude towards her and others who disagreed with the New Scientist during "the horrendous event that was the New Scientist's UK Global Environment Roadshow":

    Webb asked - after the presentations - whether there was anybody who still was not worried about the future. In a room full of several hundred people, only three of us put our hands up. We were all asked to justify ourselves (which is fair enough). But one woman, who believed that even if some of the scenarios are likely, we should be able to find solutions to cope with them, was asked by Webb whether she was related to George Bush!

    When I pointed out that none of the speakers had presented any of the scientific evidence that challenged their doomsday scenarios, Webb just threw back at me, 'But why take the risk?' What did he mean: 'Why take the risk of living?' You could equally say 'Why take the risk of not experimenting? Why take the risk of not allowing optimum economic development?' But had I been able to ask these questions, I suppose I would have been accused of being in bed with Dubya. [11]

    However, New Scientist had an online link with a podcast of Jeremy Webb very politely interviewing British Prime Minister Tony Blair [12], where Jeremy Webb explains New Scientist's standpoint:

    In certain areas, we seem to be moving further away from rational thought, whether it’s the rise of fundamentalist religious beliefs or the use of unproven alternative therapies.

     
    At 2:11 pm, Blogger nige said...

    Copy of a comment of mine about environmentalist short-sighted fascism and ignorance:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/11/record-cold-in-australia.html

    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lumidek/116364934987771867/#646447

    There 10^10 stars per galaxy and 10^10 galaxies in the universe, hence 10^20 stars. Even if only as James Jeans and Carl Sagan both believed, only 1 in 10^5 stars have planets like earth, this means that there are 10^15 planet earth's.

    The concern with global warming on one planet where oil is running out anyday anyhow - see http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/futureHist.html#durationcheapoil - is crackpot.

    Are these environmentalists going to campaign about the other 10^15 earth's out there, where temperature is also varying?

    Despite climate change, there is no evidence that the world will be literally destroyed by climate change. Glaciers have been forming and retreating intermittently throughout the temperature changes in the last ice age (which has several periods of rapidly changing temperature). Even during the holocene to the present, the temperature rise has been non-uniform. Things are always in a state of change on this planet. If the planet was in a completely stable equilibrium, it would be dead.

    nigel cook | Homepage | 11.16.06 - 6:01 am | #

     
    At 12:58 pm, Blogger nige said...

    More on global climate change. Copy of a comment:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/hydropower-may-be-1-greenhouse-gas.html

    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lumidek/116570669085595728/?a=15428#674885


    Guy Smiley,

    Do you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    "Milankovitch cycles also known as Wobble, are the collective effect of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian civil engineer and mathematician Milutin Milanković. The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000 year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years. The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time, the elliptical orbit rotates, more slowly, leading to a 22,000 year cycle in the equinoxes. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit changes from 21.5 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000 year cycle. Presently, this angle is 23.44 degrees.

    "The Milankovitch theory of climate change is not perfectly worked out; in particular, the largest response is at the 100,000 year timescale, but the forcing is apparently small at this scale, in regards to the ice ages, Various feedbacks (from carbon dioxide, or from ice sheet dynamics) are invoked to explain this discrepancy.

    "Milankovitch-like theories were advanced by Joseph Adhemar, James Croll, Milutin Milanković and others, but verification was difficult due to the absence of reliably dated evidence and doubts as to exactly which periods were important. Not until the advent of deep-ocean cores and the seminal paper by Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton "Variations in the earths orbit: pacemaker of the ice ages" in Science, 1976, did the theory attain its present state. ...

    "Currently the difference between closest approach to the Sun (perihelion) and furthest distance (aphelion) is only 3.4% (5.1 million km). This difference amounts to about a 6.8% increase in incoming solar radiation. Perihelion presently occurs around January 3, while aphelion is around July 4. When the orbit is at its most highly elliptical, the amount of solar radiation at perihelion is about 23% greater than at aphelion. This difference is roughly 4 times the value of the eccentricity. ... Today, summer on the northern hemisphere is 4.66 days longer than winter and spring is 2.9 days longer than fall. ...

    "Cooler summers are suspected of encouraging the start of an ice age by melting less of the previous winter's ice and snow. So it can be argued that lower obliquity favors ice ages both because of the mean insolation reduction in high latitudes as well as the additional reduction in summer insolation.

    "Presently the Earth is tilted at 23.44 degrees from its orbital plane, roughly half way between its extreme values."

    My feeling is that global warming is not a problem. There are vast deserted areas of Siberia for people to move to if they feel too hot. ;-)

    nc | Homepage | 12.10.06 - 7:51 am | #

     
    At 1:15 pm, Blogger nige said...

    Another comment:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/hydropower-may-be-1-greenhouse-gas.html

    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lumidek/116570669085595728/?a=19680#674889

    Another Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing

    "Today, summer is 4.66 days longer than winter and spring is 2.9 days longer than fall ( http://members.aol.com/gregbenson/iceage.htm ). As axial precession changes the place in the Earth's orbit where the solstices and equinoxes occur, winters will get longer and summers will get shorter, eventually creating conditions believed to be favorable for triggering the next ice age."

    The source page cited http://members.aol.com/gregbenson/iceage.htm states

    Global Warming, Ice Ages, and Sea Level Changes:

    Something new or an astronomical phenomenon occurring in present day?

    Gregory Benson


    "... People wonder if the number or severity of tropical storms is increasing. The plot ( http://members.aol.com/gregbenson/AtlanticHurricaneNumberByYear.jpg ) below shows NOAA's compilation of named tropical storms and hurricanes since 1850. There has been a gradual increase in the total number of named storms, but the number of hurricanes (red and green together) during the last decade are very similar to peak periods in the late 1880s and early 1950s. There is a 60-year cyclic pattern in the number of hurricanes, and that pattern predicts that the Earth's climate should be in the part of the cycle with more than average numbers of tropical storms."

    Interesting, as is Benson's observation that water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas but hot air holds less water vapour (as a % by mass) than cool air. Hence water vapour tends to combat the effect of other greenhouse gases...

    nc | Homepage | 12.10.06 - 8:17 am | #

     

    Post a Comment

    << Home