the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion


Posted by Jeff Id on December 1, 2010

Sent to me by email, the Bishop of Liverpool speaks out on consumption and the environment…….?

3 Responses to “??”


    [I am not a climatologist. That is not an impediment to understanding the disgrace to science of data manipulation in the Climategate scandal*.]

    Skeptics have fallen into useless arguments about relatively unimportant climate drivers identified by government scientists working for Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC. The debate has become like children arguing about the fate of a twig in a rapidly flowing stream of water.

    Trying to predict weather or long-term climate change is like trying to predict the eventual position of such a twig in a rapidly moving stream.

    Imagine a group of government scientists and world leaders saying that they can accurately predict the eventual position of a twig in a fast flowing stream without regard to the rate of water output from the spring upstream or the direction of water flow!

    Sound absurd? Yes, indeed.

    That is like the government scientist who claimed to have complicated computer models that can predict the eventual position of the twig by the influence of each eddy current, whirlpool and surge acting on the twig.

    The zig-zag path of the twig is irregular, changing directions with each surge or eddy current encountered as it twirls downstream. But the eventual fate of the twig depends far more on the direction of the stream’s flow than on detailed information about each whirlpool, eddy current and surge – even if those could be estimated by computer models.

    Climate skeptics found errors in “consensus” government estimates of each force, but the more important error is the failure of government-funded “consensus” climatologists to consider the overall direction of stream flow!

    It has long been known that the heat source “upstream” that drives the climate of planet Earth – the Sun – is a variable star. However, Nobel Laureate William A. Fowler identified two serious problems [1] in our understanding of the Sun in 1988 that had to be solved [2, 3] before we could finally see which variations in Earth’s climate might be caused by our variable Sun [4-12].

    The two problems that Professor Fowler identified in 1988:

    “Indeed there are details to be attended to, but they are overshadowed by serious difficulties in the most basic concepts of nuclear astrophysics. On square one, the solar neutrino puzzle is still with us (chapt. 10), indicating that we do not even understand how our own star really works. On square two we still cannot show in the laboratory and in theoretical calculations why the ratio of oxygen to carbon in the sun and similar stars is close to two-to-one (see chapt. 7). We humans are mostly (90%) oxygen and carbon. We understand in a general way the chemistry and biology involved, but we certainly do not understand the nuclear astrophysics which produced the oxygen and carbon in our bodies.”

    The two puzzles were solved with nuclear rest mass data that show neutron repulsion generates most of the Sun’s energy [2] and with neutron-capture cross sections that show O/C ~10 inside the Sun, as expected from laboratory and theoretical calculations, and O/C ~ 2 at the top of the Sun ‘s atmosphere as expected from solar mass fractionation [3].

    After the dense, highly compact nuclear core had been identified inside the layered Sun, then it was possible to understand why cyclic changes in solar inertial motion (SIM) are the primary driver of climate change [4-12].

    Orbital motion of planets cause the Sun to be jerked, like a yo–yo on a string, about the constantly changing centre-of-mass (barycentre) of the solar system [12].

    Thus, differing planetary masses and distances from the center-of-mass of the solar system (the barycenter) cause the barycenter to change position relative to the compact center of the Sun; just as differences in the masses and positions of wet laundry from the center of a spinning washing machine, cause it to be ‘out-of-balance’ by differing amounts [4-12].

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo


    1. W. A. Fowler, “We do not even understand how our own star really works”, in Cauldrons in the Cosmos: Nuclear Astrophysics by Claus E. Rolf and William S. Rodney (David N. Schramm, series editor, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA, 1988) pp. xi-xii.

    2. O. Manuel, E. Miller, and A. Katragada, “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197-201.

    3. O. Manuel, W. A. Myers, Y. Singh and M. Pleess, “The oxygen to carbon ratio in the solar interior”, Journal of Fusion Energy 23 (2005) 55-62.

    4. J. D. Jose, “Sun’s motion and sunspots”, Astron. J. 70 (1965) 193-200.

    5. R. W. Fairbridge and J. H. Shirley, “Prolonged minima and the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion,” Solar Physics 110 (1987) 191-220.

    6. O .K. Manuel, B. W. Ninham, and S. E. Friberg, “Superfluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate,” Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) 193-198.

    7. Theodor Landscheidt, ”New Little Ice Age instead of Global Warming”, Energy & Environment 114 (2003) 327-350.

    8. S. Yousef, “80-120 yr long-term solar induced effects on the Earth: Past and predictions,” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 31 (2006) 113-122.

    9. J. Shirley, “Axial rotation, orbital revolution and solar spin-orbit coupling,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 368 (2006) 280-282.

    10. W. J. R. Alexander, F. Bailey, D. B. Bredenkamp, A. vander Merwe, and N. Willemse, “Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development,” J. South African Institut. Civil Eng. 49 (2007) 32-44.

    11. Richard Mackey, “Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate,” Journal of Coastal Research SI 50 (2007, Proceedings of the Ninth International Coastal Symposium, Gold Coast, Australia) 955-968.

    12. O. K. Manuel, “Earth’s heat source – the Sun”, Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144:

    *With a PhD in nuclear chemistry, postdoctoral studies in space physics, and well over 100 peer-reviewed articles published in highly regarded research journals and conference proceedings, Oliver’s research involved measurements of variations in the abundances of stable isotopes in meteorites, the Moon, the Sun, the Earth and other planets with the equipment shown here:

  2. John F. Pittman said

    An assumption of the position is that more people means more CO2 in atmosphere. Several points that invaldate this.

    1. An inherrent assumption that more consumption now, will not limit consumption in the future while he makes a point that earth is not an infinite larder. They contradict each other as stated.

    If he means more people increases the rate that is agreeable.

    2. It has been historically true and measurable that as one’s economy improves, energy efficiency improves as human capital and energy costs go up. One could argue, and it has been, that the quicker the poor countries join the energy efficient, the longer our resrves will last or the less carbon we put into the atmosphere.

    3. Until the production of green energies are more economic than fossil fuel, or nuclear, sooner or later we will consume them because it is more economical. His thoughts contradict this. Though we have been labeled as consumers, this, in a very real way, has been true of much of human history. He alludes to this in admitting that we as humans always effect the environment. He fails to include that this means in a very real way, we have always effected the environment.

    The repositioning of the environmental battle as a battle of justice fails to consider just what are we fighting for. If the fight is about the 0.2 CO2 of the starving, versus the 10 tens CO2 of a modern civilization, then is not the option we are mandating without technology the position of causing the world’s billions to starve likewise? This is old environmental knowledge from the Odum brothers in the 1950’s. Energy is life. More energy use results in more life, a better life. We have not the knowledge or technology to break this rule. Nothing in the Chinese proposal or any other nation’s proposals can change this fundamental relationship. The predictive power of the Odum brothers’ work was to show it is physics, not morals of energy use that was what promoted life.

    That was just in the first 5 minutes.

  3. Brian H said

    What a sanctimonious lard bucket. I’d love to take him aside for a few hours and rip the nonsense he spouts to shreds.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: