At http://calderup.wordpress.com we have a post on Einstein and attempts to prove him wrong – but his theory stubbornly remains resistant to detectable error. Next, ‘Do clouds disappear when cosmic rays get weaker?’ is based on the Henrik Svensmark hypothesis that cosmic rays seed the formation of low clouds. Repeated attempts to prove his theory baseless after research at different times have failed to find the expected decreases in low cloud cover – and are therefore said to debunk Svensmark. I’ve read this myself on www.realclimate.com and pro-AGW web sites and commenters treat Svensmark with derision. Nigel Calder was co-author of The Chilling Stars – but essentially he is a journalist rather than an active scientist. However, it is interesting to note that in 2008, dear old auntie BBC, the wooden leg, or perch, or AGW propaganda, claimed British physicists had destroyed Svenmark’s hypothesis. The report was published before Svensmark or Calder could react, or make a comment – after that it became a matter of damage limitation. The public were deceived, he says, because the critics did not understand how cosmic rays affect clouds – and critics still do not understand the process. When Svensmark, in 2009, published a report that showed very clear effects the BBC and almost everyone else ignored him. The Svensmark theory is the most pronounced alternative model to AGW theory – and even in 2010 it is continuing to be bashed (reporting erroneous evidence that was published in Scientific American). It is necessary to keep squashing down the Svensmark hypothesis as the theory keeps bouncing out of the box. Either they do not understand the Svensmark hypothesis, a distinct possibility, but more pertinently they are deliberately criticising it as they see it as a threat to the AGW consensus. In other words, they don’t want to know if it is feasible. The post is too long to give a thorough evaluation so it is necessary for readers to go online and read it themselves. The clouds do actually reduce – but over a longer period than critics have allowed (very convenient). One can even sympathise with the BBC limp journalism as their pensions are firmly tied into AGW politics and investments. Are they going to be disappointed?
The final post of the day is about extracting energy from the oceans by making use of the temperature differential between deeper waters and surface waters. The potential power available is enough to supply a large city with all its energy requirements – a city in the ocean. In addition, deeper water is rich in plant nutrients such as phosphates and nitrates. It might be possible to use these to grow photo synthetic matter, marine plants, and permit fish and shellfish to feed on them – supplying the city with protein.