My official Expert Review of the 5th IPCC Climate Report

Follows the text of my expert review, as submitted to the IPCC (Reviewer file: 721; submission date: 2012-11-30; Reviewer ID: 1249).

1. Legal Disclaimer. IPCC and/or any of its representatives/ associates/ affiliates/ divisions/ governing bodies/ subsidiaries will not use my name in the IPCC documents and publications, unless they make the entire text of the dissenting minority opinions expressed in my review available to general public, the text of this Disclaimer included. In no case will they mention me as a person who had endorsed or otherwise approved the presently reviewed Draft, unless fraudulent content is removed in the final version of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
2. This and the following Paragraphs, up to and including Paragraph 8, refer to the entire Chapter 9. Chapter 9 is the key part of the entire Report, as it is supposed to discuss the climate models, which allegedly provide (the only existing) material evidence that the warming observed in the second half of the 20th century is caused by greenhouse gases generated by humanity, which I will henceforth refer to as the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) hypothesis. In fact, apart from models, there is no other way to establish cause-and-effect relation between greenhouse gases (most importantly, carbon dioxide) and climate, as we are unable to perform well-controlled experiments on our climate system. Interpretation of historic climate data does not provide any alternative demonstration of such relation, as any such interpretation is based on the same (wrong, as I shall demonstrate) climate models, and thus amounts to circular reasoning.
3. The Scientific Method had been defined, for example, by Richard Feynman (Feynman, Richard (1965), The Character of Physical Law, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, ISBN 0-262-56003-8.; p. 156) as follows: "In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong." As a consequence of this definition, a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis, whereas no amount of corroborating evidence may prove or confirm a hypothesis - by stating otherwise one would commit a logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent/denying the antecedent" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy). The logical fallacy of this Chapter is in making the (implicit and ever present in the Report) statement that it is the anthropogenically produced carbon dioxide that is causing the global warming, based on the knowledge that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases affect climate to some extent. In other words, they accept the AGW hypothesis as final truth, without even trying to use the Scientific Method and test the hypothesis. By doing that, this key Chapter and the entire Report assume a non-scientific dogmatic approach, as all of the previous Reports uniformly do, which necessarily and inevitably produces non-scientific (and, as I shall demonstrate, fraudulent) conclusions.
4. In effect, Chapter 9 failed to address two key questions, which must be addressed before one tries using the models for understanding present and future climate: (1) Do the models represent the physics of our terrestrial climate system correctly? (with the emphasis on "correctly") (2) Have the predictions made by these same (or slightly modified) models five, ten or fifteen years ago become true? These should be the questions to ask before one tries making any climate predictions and/or policy recommendations based on the models. I shall address these questions in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, and 8, respectively.
5. I will discuss only two of the publications that allow us to reject the AGW hypothesis, although, according to Paragraph 3, a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. The first one is the paper by Lindzen and Choi ("On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data", R. Lindzen, Y.-S. Choi, Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, 2009, pp. L16705. doi:10.1029/2009GL039628.). These authors demonstrate in their Fig. 2 and in the rest of the paper that the IPCC climate models distort the essential physics of the terrestrial climate system. Indeed, all of the climate models produce a reduction in the outgoing infra-red radiation upon an increase in surface temperature on Earth, whereas the experimental results, extracted from satellite data, evidence an increase in the outgoing infra-red radiation, in the same conditions. Therefore, our terrestrial climate system behaves as if it were in a stable state of equilibrium: indeed, its behaviour corresponds to the Le Chatelier's principle (the system always reacts to any change in such a way that the externally imposed change is partially compensated; see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle), whereas the climate models behave like an unstable system, amplifying all and every temperature change. We therefore see that the models that reproduce the conditions and conclusions of the AGW hypothesis do so at the cost of distorting essential physics of the terrestrial climate system. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is wrong, as it has not been reproduced in models describing the climate physics correctly. Moreover, the AGW hypothesis can not be reproduced in models describing climate physics correctly, as it is impossible to attribute the warming of the 20th century to carbon dioxide based on correct models. The important conclusion that necessarily and inevitably follows from this paper is that the AGW hypothesis is wrong, as it is only viable in the virtual reality of the IPCC climate models, fundamentally different from the physical reality of the terrestrial climate system.
6. The second publication I will discuss is the one by Khmelinskii and Stallinga (“Climate Change in the XXIst Century: Mechanisms and Predictions”, I. Khmelinskii and P. Stallinga, in Proceedings of the 6th IASME / WSEAS International Conference on ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT (EE '11), Cambridge, UK, February 20-25, 2011, eds. Z. Bojkovic et al., RECENT RESEARCHES in ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT, WSEAS Press, 2011, ISSN: 1792-8230; ISBN: 978-960-474-274-5, pp. 26-31. Available: http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2011/Cambridge/EE/EE-02.pdf). These authors in their Fig. 1 and in the text of the paper analyze the recent history of the global average Sea Surface Temperature (SST) and compare it to the recent history of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, in an attempt to find the signature of the AGW in the SST data. In fact, they could find no such signature, due to the fact that human carbon dioxide emissions started growing exponentially in the second half of the 20th century, whereas SST had two (virtually identical) growth periods, one of which in the first half of the 20th century, when little or no excess carbon dioxide had been liberated into the atmosphere by humanity. These authors therefore conclude that the AGW hypothesis has to be rejected, based on the recent SST history. Note that SST is a better indicator of the climate evolution than the global average temperature, being unaffected by interfering factors such as the Urban Heat Island effect. The latter distorts climate data gathered on the continents, with additional uncertainty introduced by the corrections made to compensate for it.
7. In Paragraphs 5 and 6 I discussed two papers, each of the two providing sufficient grounds to reject the AGW hypothesis. I shall not discuss any further evidence against the AGW hypothesis, considering it rejected, according to Feynman's definition presented in Paragraph 3. Additionally, I conclude that the IPCC climate models are wrong, as they obviously distort the essential climate physics, and therefore any and all of their results and conclusions should be expressly and unconditionally rejected and disregarded in their entirety.
8. It is well known that there has been no global warming for the last 15 years, contrary to the IPCC predictions produced by IPCC climate models for the same period of time. Moreover, we have reasons to believe (see, for example, H. Abdussamatov, 2008, The Sun defines the Climate, http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf) that instead of the "global warming" we are in for a new Little Ice Age, already in progress, which will be similar to the Maunder minimum of solar activity as regards temperatures and other climate-related consequences. Therefore, the IPCC models have not (because they distort climate physics) and will not (for the same reason, and also because they neglect solar change) predict future climate, and thus should be rejected and disregarded, as I have obtained negative answers for the two key questions of Paragraph 4.
9. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 2. Chapter 2 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Atmosphere and Surface". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
10. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 3. Chapter 3 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Ocean". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
11. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 4. Chapter 4 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Cryosphere". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
12. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 5. Chapter 5 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Paleoclimate Archives". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in our my 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
13. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 6. Chapter 6 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
14. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 7. Chapter 7 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Clouds and Aerosols". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
15. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 8. Chapter 8 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is frequently done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
16. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 10. Chapter 10 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, the data interpretation in the publications is exclusively done based on the same climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitutes a fraud.
17. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 11. Chapter 11 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability". These projections and predictions are based exclusively on the same IPCC climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitute a fraud.
18. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 12. Chapter 12 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility". The projections, predictions and scenarios discussed here are based exclusively on the same IPCC climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitute a fraud.
19. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 13. Chapter 13 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Sea Level Change". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, data interpretation and projections, predictions and scenarios are based exclusively on the same IPCC climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitute a fraud.
20. This paragraph refers to the entire Chapter 14. Chapter 14 reviews some of the published information on the topic "Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change". However, the motivation for the reviewed research effort and the logic behind it is more often fraudulent than not, as the respective research frequently follows the pseudo-scientific reasoning that "more corroborating evidence produces a stronger case for the AGW hypothesis". In fact, nothing can be further from the truth, as shown in my Paragraph 3. Indeed, no amount of corroborating evidence can prove a hypothesis, while a single piece of contradictory evidence is sufficient to reject a hypothesis. In effect, the only (dubiously) useful result of this research effort is the "general progress of science", resulting from wasteful usage of public money on climate studies, where no real problem requiring study may be found. Even the PhD degrees earned as a result of such research are of dubious (in the very least) value, as we are producing more pseudo-scientists certified as scientists, in addition to the already existing pseudo-scientists. Research based on the AGW hypothesis, known to be wrong, may provide no valid scientific results, as its conclusions are already known before the research even began - these conclusions being "AGW is happening, and we are to blame for it". Additionally, data interpretation and projections, predictions and scenarios are based exclusively on the same IPCC climate models, which are demonstrably wrong (as shown in my Paragraphs 2 to 8), and therefore constitute a fraud.
21. This paragraph refers to the entire "Summary for the policy makers". As detailed above, the Report is built from fraudulent pseudo-scientific constructs based on the AGW dogma, containing no science. Therefore, any conclusions and recommendations presented in this chapter have no scientific backing, and should be expressly ignored. The corrected Summary for policy makers should thus read "There is nothing wrong with our climate. We have no climate problem, and need no solutions for this climate problem. All of the currently implemented solutions to the alleged climate problem should be revoked, effective immediately. We are sorry for defrauding the general public in the previous Reports we have produced so far."
22. This paragraph refers to the entire Report. As amply demonstrated above, the current draft Report is a fraudulent pseudo-scientific construct based on the AGW dogma, adopted uncritically and never questioned. Its climate projections and predictions have no scientific backing and can't be used as a justification for any type of public policies. Similarly, all of the public policies implemented as the result of previous Reports have no scientific backing and should be immediately and entirely revoked and discontinued.
23. This paragraph refers to the entire Report. The body of the research that the Report pseudo-scientifically presents as "proof" of the AGW hypothesis is constituted by the primary and direct fraud of the IPCC climate models and general research approach, and by the secondary and indirect fraud of the most of the remaining research that uses these models in the interpretation of climate data, for climate predictions, and in discussing development scenarios for the humanity and for the natural systems. The only research that may be valid as regards to facts (but never as regards their interpretation, because the interpretation is based on fundamentally wrong models) is the research studying current consequences of the climate change. However, this research is non-scientific in its motivation, aiming to provide "proof" for the AGW hypothesis by presenting corroborating evidence (which is a logically impossible task - see Paragraph 3), and largely irrelevant. That because no action humanity might feasibly take could revert the natural phenomena that we are not the cause of in the first place. The Report and the body of research it reviews are therefore a waste of public funds and a scientific fraud.
24. This paragraph refers to the entire report, containing final notes for the reader who is not well-versed in the philosophy of science, and should be read in conjunction with all of the previous paragraphs of my Review. Note that I did not need to read the entire draft Report, nor enter into details of each Chapter, in order to understand whether or not the Report is scientifically valid. This is because I am able to produce the judgement of the fraudulent character of this and other previous Climate Reports based on their failure to implement the Scientific Method and question the AGW hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis is commonly implemented in the form of one or more climate models that are being used to interpret current and past experimental results and make predictions about future climate. In order to attribute the recent global warming to greenhouse gas emissions, and thus to human activities, these models have been specifically tuned, by introducing positive climate feedbacks. The draft Report discusses climate models in its Chapter 9, therefore Chapter 9 would be the logical place to implement the Scientific Method and question the validity of the climate models and thus the validity of the AGW hypothesis. Reading through Chapter 9 and its list of references, I find that no such questioning had been done, and no papers that question the validity of climate models have been discussed. By failing to implement the Scientific Method, the authors of Chapter 9 have confirmed their status of pseudo-scientists, having transformed their Chapter into an exercise in dogmatic propaganda. Its fraudulent character is evident from the ease with which these authors could have rejected the AGW hypothesis, same as I had in the present Review. Thus, based on the fraudulent science of Chapter 9, the entire Climate Report looses any connection to the objective reality, becoming a pseudo-scientific construct based on the AGW dogma. Indeed, there may be no Science if one chooses to ignore the Scientific Method, as the Report authors do. Without the Scientific Method, they are limited to the pseudo-scientific and logically faulty search of evidence that "confirms" their AGW hypothesis, stalling the scientific progress and insulting the general public in their expectations of obtaining scientifically valid climate predictions, instead of the climate fraud that over the years of its existence has been, and now once more is being, produced by the IPCC.

A despendiosa Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia

A Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) distribui anualmente (veja p. 50 do documento referenciado) cerca de 500 milhões de euros de financiamento. Entretanto,  emprega cerca de 300 trabalhadores e estagiários. Contas feitas, são 1,7 milhões de euros por trabalhador.

Entretanto, o projecto INTAS, que foi gerido por apenas 6 pessoas, tinha distribuído, na média, 20 milhões de euros anualmente, entre 1993 e 2003. Assim, geriu 3,3 milhões de euros por trabalhador.

Desta forma, a FCT tem que despedir metade de pessoal empregado, para entrar nos padrões de boas práticas internacionais.

Anteriormente, vimos que a TAP emprega o dobro da média europeia, por cada avião que voa.

Conclusão do fundo: o aparelho central do Estado Português pode ser reduzido a 50% do existente, sem minimamente comprometer o seu funcionamento.

Ocean acidification - is it a problem?

Let us look at hard facts.

One hard fact is that in the past Earth had much higher CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere, which had not reduced biodiversity - on the contrary, biodiversity had increased - namely, hard corals came into existence in one of such periods, and soft corals in another.

Another hard fact is that for significant "acidification" to take place in nature, the dissolved acidic CO₂ in the oceans should increase, without being compensated by the basicity of the dissolved calcium (and magnesium) ions. In practice, this can never happen for a very simple reason - the CO₂ concentrations are not growing quickly enough for that.

Indeed, assuming that we continue burning as much fossil fuels as we want, then we expect the atmospheric CO₂ concentrations to double by 2100, with a characteristic time of about 150 years. On the other hand, the characteristic mixing time of the upper ocean is about 20 years, while the characteristic pH equilibration time of the shallow-water biologically productive zones inhabited by calcifying biota is about 10 years. The latter time was estimated based on the annual volume of the river runoff and the amount of seawater existing in the coastal shallow-water zones. These numbers tell us that calcium (+magnesium) will be perfectly capable of accompanying the increasing concentrations of carbonate ions, maintaining the pH of the seawater fairly constant. In fact, it will never change by much more than it has already changed during the last century (0.1 pH), as the entire process has already achieved steady rates in some 70 years since it had started (70 years is much more than 20 years, mathematically speaking, therefore the non-steady initial kinetic phase has already finished).

There is an additional factor that helps to equilibrate carbonate with calcium (+magnesium), namely the chemical equilibrium. We know that the solubility of acidic carbon dioxide in pure water is lower than its solubility in water containing basic calcium (and magnesium) ions, therefore additional CO₂ will actually dissolve in seawater after it acquires additional amounts of basicity, brought in by the river runoff from the continents, and not before. This factor further reduces the possible pH changes of the seawater.

As regards calcifying biota, it will certainly benefit from the increased dissolved carbonate and dissolved calcium (+magnesium), in the same way as plants benefit from increased atmospheric CO₂. More CO₂ implies higher agricultural yields and higher seafood yields, all in benefit of humanity.

In two words: ocean acidification is a scam, same as the anthropogenic global warming. This hoax, however, is providing for thousands of careers of pseudo-scientists who make their living of studying nonexistent problems, using our tax money to defraud us and earn grants and distinctions. 

Ocean acidification is a moral and a criminal problem, rather than an environmental problem. Environmentally, it is not a problem, and will never become a problem.

Methanol generated from aspartame - is it dangerous?

International official documents recommend that concentration of methanol in food should not exceed 8 ppm (parts per million). Given the average annual food consumption of some 700 kg per person, this amounts to 15 mg of methanol deemed safe to ingest daily. On the other hand, safe daily intake of aspartame had been defined at about 50 mg/kg, or 3500 mg per 70 kg adult.

Now we go to the formula of aspartame, in order to deduce the amount of methanol that will be generated in our body by 3500 mg of aspartame. A simple stoichiometric calculation tells us that 3500 mg of aspartame, upon hydrolysis in our stomach and guts, will produce 380 mg of methanol. This value exceeds by 2500% the safe levels for methanol ingestion.

This simple calculation shows that the "safe" levels of aspartame consumption had been grossly overestimated, and should be reduced by at least a factor of 100. Note that we need no clinical tests to come to this conclusion, our knowledge of chemistry has been more than sufficient.

Baseline: if you care about your health, stay away from artificial sweeteners, "diet" drinks and such like. Otherwise, you are subjecting yourself to inadmissible levels of methanol.

Défice Tarifário e Energias Renováveis

A complementar o meu post antigo:

Hoje foi anunciada na comunicação social a existência de um "défice tarifário", no valor de 2700 milhões de euros, dos consumidores de electricidade, aos produtores de electricidade. Um consumidor doméstico, na média, fica a dever um montante à volta de 500 euros, já que são os consumidores domésticos que pagam a factura das renováveis. Por outras palavras, as extravagâncias das energias renováveis estão a ser pagas, durante anos, pelos empréstimos bancários, em vez das tarifas de electricidade. Ou seja, o consumidor vai acabar por pagar tudo o que deve, com aumentos das tarifas de electricidade, e ainda os juros devidos aos bancos ...

Ora, as políticas governativas continuam a ser motivados pelo moral dum aldrabão: " ... esperemos que o povo não note que está a ser roubado ..." 

Preparem-se: as tarifas de electricidade, para cumprirmos as metas verdes, terão que subir 200%. Na Alemanha, os preços da electricidade vão subir 50% já em 2013, graças aos moinhos de vento.

Science: Food prices are pushed up by Biofuels

To complement my earlier post, here is the plot derived from a model that deduces world food prices from the behaviour of speculators and, most importantly, from the amount of corn ethanol produced in the US, the major corn exporter and biofuel producer.

The two papers presenting the original research results may be consulted here (the model), and here (additional verification of the model) - you can download the respective PDF files free of charge. The plot was taken from the second paper.

The plot shows model results (two different versions of the model; in green and red), compared to the actual evolution of the food price index, in blue. Note an excellent agreement between the real-world data and the model predictions. The dashed blue line shows the food price evolution if we remove the contribution of the speculators/investors to the price evolution - the equilibrium model. The action of speculators produces food price peaks. Such peaks have appeared in 2008 and 2011, with a new peak predicted for 2013-2014. 

Therefore, now we have conclusive evidence that green fuel production is in fact driving the food prices up, causing additional deaths from starvation in poor nations, or the green genocide. Note that the number of deaths by starvation is directly proportional to the food price index. Green fuels are immoral and criminal.

Positive feedback between Food and Energy prices

The plot below compares the evolution of the monthly Food Price Index to that of the monthly Energy Price Index. The data were taken from the site Index Mundi. Descriptions:

• Commodity Food Price Index, 2005 = 100, includes Cereal, Vegetable Oils, Meat, Seafood, Sugar, Bananas, and Oranges Price Indices
• Commodity Fuel (energy) Index, 2005 = 100, includes Crude oil (petroleum), Natural Gas, and Coal Price Indices

Food price index compared to Energy price index

It is well known that agricultural production consumes large amounts of energy, therefore energy price constitutes a large fraction of food prices. Note excellent correlations between variations of the two indices.

We also note that since around the year 2000, when the drive for renewable energies and green fuels started on a large scale, both energy and food prices are following an exponentially growing trend. The growth in energy prices is caused by various political measures aimed at introducing renewable energies, which are much more expensive (200% to 900% difference) and have to be heavily subsidized. This growth automatically drives the food prices up. The production of green fuels, which in some cases uses up to 25% of the currently produced foods, is another factor that is driving up the food prices, by increasing demand. The positive feedback mechanism between food and energy prices acts via green fuels: more expensive foods result in more expensive green fuels, which in turn make foods even more expensive. This positive feedback acts since the year 2000.

Complementing our reasoning presented in an earlier post, it is not only green fuels that kill people by starvation, but also the renewable energies. What we need is cheaper energy and cheaper food, and not the other way round. Therefore, recalling our posts on climate issues that demonstrate the lack of ecological justification for renewable energies and green fuels, the sooner we drop these useless projects, the lower will be the number of people dead from starvation in African and other poor nations.

Crise de Dívida Pública e o Ministério Público

    

Surpreendentemente, ninguém até agora perguntou, por que razão os Ministros de Economia e os governos tenham proposto, e a Assembleia da Republica aceite, durante 15 anos, os orçamentos deficitários? Ora uma dona de casa consegue perceber, que não se pode pedir dinheiro emprestado para financiar os gastos correntes, mas os srs. políticos, altamente qualificados, não conseguem perceber o mesmo?! Incompetentes ou mal intencionados? Devem ser julgados pelo crime de gestão danosa, já que o dolo é bem evidente - não podiam não saber o que estavam a fazer.
Onde é que está o Ministério Público?

Scientific Method against the Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam

A simple way to talk about complex issues.

We start with the definition of the Scientific Method. This particular version belongs to Richard Feynman (1918-1988): "In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong." An important consequence of this definition is that a single piece of contradicting evidence is sufficient for a hypothesis to be rejected, on the other hand, no amount of non-contradicting evidence may confirm or prove a hypothesis. Indeed, there always may be alternative hypotheses, some of them completely unknown to us, due to limitations of both our current knowledge and our thinking.

Let us now assume, as a hypothesis, calling it Hypothesis A, that the IPCC climate models, which attribute the recent warming of climate to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, correctly describe the properties of our terrestrial climate system. To reject this hypothesis, we need at least one piece of contradicting experimental evidence. Such evidence had been provided in the paper by R. Lindzen and Y.-S. Choi, "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data", Geophys. Res. Lett. vol. 36, pp. L16705, 2009.

The above Figure from their paper (their Fig. 2) compares the experimental response of the climate system (the amount of infra-red and visible radiation escaping from Earth to outer space) to the increase in surface temperature, as measured by the ERBE satellite, the upper left plot (marked ERBE), to the responses of the eleven different IPCC climate models (the remaining plots, marked by abbreviations of the respective models). As we see, all of the models respond in the wrong way, opposite to the real climate system. We have to conclude that our Hypothesis A is incorrect; in other words, the IPCC climate models do not describe the climate system in an appropriate way. One piece of evidence we have shown is sufficient for the conclusion we made, the conclusion being necessary and inevitable consequence of this piece of evidence.

Let us now assume a Hypothesis B, namely, that the IPCC models are able to predict future climate. As we already saw, the models that attribute the recent warming to the effect of greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide, do not appropriately describe the properties of the real terrestrial climate system. Therefore, we can't expect any reasonable predictions from such models, and our Hypothesis B has to be rejected, for the same reason that we rejected Hypothesis A. This time, contradictory evidence is provided by the fact that the models don't even describe the currently existing climate, therefore, without a built-in understanding of how the climate works, the models can't be expected to predict how it will evolve in future.

Our Hypothesis C, which we shall also test, is that IPCC during the 25 years of its existence has been doing something useful. The rejection of the above Hypotheses A and B demonstrates that Hypothesis C is wrong as well. Indeed, the IPCC Climate Predictions and Scenarios are based on their models, which are basically worthless. The IPCC Reports, at least in their part that describes future climate, should therefore be classified as pseudoscience, and expressly neglected in any serious discussion of future climate.

q.e.d.

As a side note, IPCC is obviously far too expensive for the scientific results it is producing, to say the very least.

Vamos olhar a Islândia

A história da revolução em curso na Islândia, é um excelente exemplo de como alguns dos nossos meios de comunicação nos informam sobre o mundo. Em 2008, no início da crise financeira, a Islândia literalmente faliu. As razões foram mencionados apenas de passagem, e logo este pouco conhecido membro da União Europeia, como dizem, desapareceu do radar. Como um país Europeu após outro estão ameaçados de falência, o que ameaça a existência do euro, o que, na sua vez, terá múltiplas consequências para o mundo, a última coisa que as autoridades Europeus gostariam, é que a Islândia tornar-se-ia um exemplo para os outros.

Ora em 2003, a dívida da Islândia igualou 200 por cento do seu PIB, e em 2007
já foi de 900 por cento. A crise financeira global de 2008 foi um golpe fatal. Os três principais bancos da Islândia - Landbanki, Kapthing e Glitnir, flutuando de barriga para cima, foram nacionalizados e a coroa perdeu 85 por cento de seu valor contra o euro. No final do ano, a Islândia declarou a falência.

Ao contrário do que seria de esperar, no processo de direito democrático, a crise levou a Islândia a restauração dos seus direitos soberanos, o que eventualmente levou a uma nova constituição. Protestos e demonstrações eventualmente forçaram a queda do governo. As eleições foram antecipadas para Abril de 2009, e veio ao poder um governo de esquerda, que renunciou o sistema económico neoliberal, mas logo se rendeu às exigências à Islândia para devolver um total de três bilhões e meio de euros. Isso obrigava a cada cidadão da Islândia pagar mensalmente 100 €, durante 15 anos para pagar dívidas, contraídas por pessoas físicas, em relação a outras pessoas físicas. Foi a gota da água que partiu as costas do camelo.

O que aconteceu depois foi extraordinário. A opinião de que os cidadãos devem pagar pelos erros de um monopólio financeiro, e que a todo o país devem ser imposto um tributo para pagar as dívidas privadas, mudou as relações entre os cidadãos e as suas instituições políticas e, eventualmente, fez com que os líderes políticos da Islândia tomaram o lado de seus eleitores.

Chefe de Estado Olafur Ragnar Grímsson se recusou a ratificar a lei, a qual tornaria os cidadãos da Islândia responsáveis pelas dívidas dos banqueiros Islandeses, e decidiu convocar um referendo. Claro, a comunidade internacional só aumentou a pressão sobre Islândia. Grã-Bretanha e os Países Baixos, ameaçaram aplicar duras medidas repressivas, que levariam ao isolamento do país. Quando os islandeses se reuniram para votar, o FMI ameaçou privar o país de qualquer assistência. O governo britânico ameaçou congelar a poupança e contas correntes dos islandeses. Disse o Grimmson: "Fomos informados de que, se não aceitaríamos as condições de comunidade internacional, tornaríamos numa a Cuba do norte. Mas, se tivéssemos concordado, transformaríamos no Haiti do norte.

No referendo em Março de 2010, 93 por cento votaram contra o pagamento de dívidas. O FMI congelou os empréstimos imediatamente. Mas a revolução (a qual não foi mencionada pelos meios da comunicação social) não se intimidou. Os cidadãos irados apoiaram o governo na decisão de abrir processos civis e investigação criminal contra os responsáveis pela crise financeira. A Interpol emitiu um mandado de prisão internacional contra o Sigurdur Einarsson, ex-presidente do Kaupthing Bank, enquanto outros banqueiros, também envolvidos no escândalo, fugiram do país.

Mas os islandeses não pararam por aí: eles decidiram adoptar uma nova Constituição, que iria libertar o país de autoridades internacionais financeiras e do dinheiro virtual. Para escrever uma nova constituição, o povo da Islândia elegeu 25 pessoas de entre de 522 adultos que não pertencem a nenhum partido político, recomendados cada um por pelo menos 30 pessoas. Este documento não foi o trabalho de um punhado de políticos, mas sim foi escrito na Internet. A assembleia constituinte realizou as suas reuniões online, e as pessoas podiam escrever seus comentários e fazer sugestões, com seus próprios olhos observando a sua constituição gradualmente a tomar forma. A Constituição, que em última instância nasceu desta participação popular, será apresentada ao Parlamento para aprovação após as próximas eleições.

Hoje, as mesmas soluções estão oferecidas a outras nações. Dizem ao povo da Grécia que a privatização do sector público é a única solução. Sob a mesma ameaça estão os italianos, espanhóis e portugueses. Vamos dar uma olhada na Islândia. Na sua recusa em obedecer aos interesses estrangeiros, este país pequeno disse, em voz alta e claramente, que o seu povo é soberano. É por isso que a Islândia não está nas notícias.

Tradução de Inglês, deste artigo.