by Dr. Ed Berry
They call it the fourth blood Moon. When 4 total eclipses occur at 6-month intervals, it is a tetrad. It’s supposed to have an ominous meaning.
It will happen tomorrow, September 27 or 28 depending upon where you live. It will be the fourth full eclipse of the Moon in the last 18 months. [Read more…]
by Kyoji Kimoto
The AGW theory of the IPCC was established by Dr. S. Manabe (NOAA GFDL in Princeton University) and Dr. J. Hansen (NASA GISS, Columbia University). It is theoretically failed due to the three Errors as shown below. Manabe and Hansen will be in a difficult situation when global cooling will occur with low solar activity and minus PDO index near future.
The central claim of the AGW theory can be expressed as follows, in which Planck response = 1.2K is the most basic assumption. In this essay, Planck response means no-feedback climate sensitivity obtained with the fixed absolute humidity.
Manabe & Wetherald (1967) with 1DRCM:
Climate Sensitivity=Planck response x Feedback effect (wv)
=1.3K x 1.8=2.4K
Soden & Held (2006) with fourteen 3DGCMs for AR4 of the IPCC:
Climate Sensitivity=Planck response x Feedback effects (wv, a, cl, lp)
=1.2K x 2.5=3K
- wv: water vapor,
- a: albedo,
- cl: cloud,
- lp: lapse rate
Japanese government used the AGW theory to promote nuclear power in this small country where huge earthquakes and tsunamis have occurred repeatedly. In 1998, it decided to promote 20 nuclear reactors increasing the share of nuclear power over 50 % of the energy for electricity to meet the 6% CO2 cut by Kyoto protocol in 1997. The Fukushima nuclear disaster occurred in 2011 under Government policy to avoid AGW with nuclear power.
The following is the history of the AGW theory and its use in Japan for the promotion of nuclear power. Errors in red character are explained afterwards. [Read more…]
by Dr. Ed Berry
Here’s the untold story behind my first scientific publication where you may find the story more interesting than the publication itself. It’s a story about how what we may think is so, is not so. It’s a story that attracted a lot of attention because it showed a logic error in simple physics made by Scientific American and by some authors of books on meteorology.
All high-school physics students can understand the physics involved but you may be surprised at the answer.
Here’s the problem.
Tie a small weight, say a fishing sinker, to a 3 ft length of kite string. Hold the end of the string in your hand and whirl the weight around in a circle. Then stick your finger in the path of the string, hold your hand steady, and let the string wind up around your finger.
Question: Does the speed of the weight increase as it winds closer to your finger?
According to Scientific American’s “The Amateur Scientist” of April 1960, the weight speeds up. Here’s what C. L. Stong wrote (pp 183-184):
The effect can be demonstrated by a primitive experiment that all of us have made at one time or another. Swing a small weight in a circular orbit at the end of a string, and let the string wind up on your finger as depicted in the accompanying illustration.
Several physicists have asked me for a pdf copy of my 1963 publication.
“Nonconversation of Angular Momentum of a Weight on a String“
In addition to the pdf copy, below is a a more readable version because the print on in the pdf is hard to read.
In a separate post, I tell you the heretofore untold story about the origin, discussion, and testing of this publication.
Nonconservation of Angular Momentum of a Weight on a String
American Journal of Physics, Vol 31, No. 4, 304-305, April, 1963.
by Edwin X Berry, University of Nevada
An oversight in simple mechanics has occasionally occurred in the analysis of the problem of having a weight on the end of a string which is winding up on a steady finger. Several authors of meteorological publications have used this example to illustrate the conservation of angular momentum, concluding that the speed of the weight increases as the string winds up.
This error appeared in the April 1960 issue of Scientific American  and was later corrected . It is included in a recent book by Battan  and was not mentioned in the reviews [4, 5]. It remains in the third edition of a text by Byers .
A second look at the problem shows the angular momentum of the mass-string system is not conserved at all. Angular momentum is defined about a fixed point of reference and the conservation of angular momentum has meaning only with respect to that point. [Read more…]
by Dr. Ed Berry
In January 2014, some parents of home-schooled students asked if I would teach their high school students math, physics, and climate physics. Since the families attended a local protestant church whose pastor preached the Earth was 6000 years old, I was concerned about discussing proxy climate data spanning six million years.
So I asked the parents. I explained I would not force students to “believe” the Earth was older than 6000 years but it is necessary to talk about scientific data that predates 6000 years. They returned with the response from their pastor,
“I will not have anyone in my church hearing about the Earth being older than 6000 years.”
End of story. The only way these home schooled students would ever hear anything about an Earth or universe older than 6000 years would be to first quit their pastor’s church, which I recommend.
This home-school event reminded me of what I saw in South Africa in the late 1960’s.
African parents bound their infant children’s legs to make them unable to walk when they grow up. These parents believed their children would survive better on charity if they were deformed.
In America in 2014, some uneducated pastors and willing parents bind their children’s minds to make them unable to understand science when they grow up.
Let me be clear.
I have no problem with religious groups teaching their version of science so long as they teach it as a science. I do have a problem with religious groups forbidding students to learn the accepted world view of science. Such a restriction is like not teaching students to read. It leaves a learning gap that impairs them for life. [Read more…]
by Dr. Ed Berry
My fellow Americans, my speech writers wrote
“2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record.”
Rather than parrot what they write, it’s time I give you a lesson on the scientific method.
That’s right, I’m going to come clean about the climate hoax.
The fact is your government has used invalid data, cherry-picked data, and bypassed the scientific method.
NASA said 2014 was the warmest year on record.
In a later paragraph, that no one seems to have read but me, NASA revealed there is only a 38 percent chance 2014 was the warmest year on record.
That means there is a 62 percent chance 2014 is NOT the warmest year on record. Duh.
Nice try NASA but no cigar. [Read more…]