Month: June 2018

Calabrese: Was Muller’s 1946 Nobel Prize research for radiation-induced gene mutations peer reviewed?














Calabrese: Was Muller’s 1946 Nobel Prize research for radiation-induced gene mutations peer reviewed?


A new paper from the great Ed Calabrese. Hermann Muller’s scientific misconduct continues to plague us today via regulatory actions and rules based on the linear no-threshold model of carcinogenesis.

American communist Hermann Joseph Muller won a Nobel Prize in 1946, committing scientific misconduct during his Nobel lecture by lying about the evidence concerning the LNT.

Click here for the entire paper.








via JunkScience.com

https://ift.tt/2xSkox9

June 7, 2018 at 12:26PM

New fuel cell off-grid power solution to challenge diesel

Gencell A5 unit [image credit: Gencell]

Diesel generators are big business in many rural areas with limited electrical power supplies and other players are looking for a slice of the action, claiming various advantages including immunity from fuel theft, as PEI reports.

A new fuel cell solution for primary power applications, launched this week, could compete on price for the first time with diesel gensets, its maker GenCell Energy says.

The Israeli firm said its hydrogen-fuelled A5 unit is designed to provide 24/7 power for off-grid and poor-grid sites and will initially be aimed at the telecom tower market.

It claims a typical telecom provider could save up to $250m across 1000 towers over ten years compared to the cost of diesel generators.

The cost barrier involved with building-out hydrogen fuel infrastructure has long relegated fuel cells to backup power applications. But GenCell says it has reduced system costs to $0.50/kWh by using ammonia to generate hydrogen, which required a redesign of the conventional fuel cell.

“Ammonia is the second most produced inorganic chemical you can find all over world,” said Rami Reshef, GenCell’s CEO. “We’ve developed a process that allows us to extract hydrogen from ammonia with ten times the efficiency of other solutions.

“There are different technologies that can extract hydrogen from ammonia, however they consume much more power from the grid than the potential energy you will deliver. Our process allows extraction without any connectivity to the grid.”

And unlike diesel generators, which require monthly fuelling and maintenance at each telecom tower, the company claims that one 12-tonne tank of ammonia provides its system with enough fuel for a year of 24/7 operation.

This week’s product launch “is big news, not just for us,” said Reshef, “but for any business that needs primary power beyond the grid.”

Full report here.

See also: Nanoptek: Backup Power & Telecom

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/2kWmV0c

June 7, 2018 at 12:24PM

Even in sunniest Queensland, solar can’t run without big subsidies — so big they have to be kept secret

Solar is so competitive that the Queensland government has to pour in money to keep solar developers from running away.

How much money? Who knows. Whatever it is, it’s so big, the government has to keep it a secret.

Queensland taxpayers kept in dark as they prop up solar firms

MARK SCHLIEBS, The Australian

The Queensland government is concealing its financial support for large-scale renewable energy projects, guaranteeing subsidies to solar companies that do not ­appear on balance sheets.

With an expert panel previously finding the government would need to spend between $500 million and $900m in subsidies to meet its 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, there are now calls for spending to be made public.

The government has struck four deals with major solar-farm developers, under “contracts for difference”, with floor prices nominated for the sale of their ­energy in order to attract finance. When the market price falls below that threshold, the government has to make up the difference.

Luckily for Queensland taxpayers — who don’t know how to spot a good investment or the energy source of the future — the Government can spend their money for […]

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/2JyMoux

June 7, 2018 at 12:19PM

New Met Office study suggests natural factors, including the sun, are the biggest reason behind “the pause”

More excuses for “the pause”.

A team of researchers from the U.K. Met Office, Sweden and Australia has found that three periods of global warming slowdown since 1891 were likely due to natural causes rather than disruptions to the factors causing global warming. In their paper published on the open access site Science Advances, the group describes their study of global mean surface temperatures (GMST) since the late 19th century and what they found.

In this new paper, the researchers looked at GMST as registered by multiple sources around the globe over the past 127 years, noting the slow march of temperature increases. More specifically, they noted the three previously identified slowdowns in GMST increases—the time periods from 1896 to 1910, from 1941 to 1975, and then from 1998 to 2013. They then looked at factors that could have contributed to these slowdowns and found natural causes for each.

The team first reports that their study showed results similar to others regarding GMST increases—they have been slowly increasing overall for more than a century. They then offer possible explanations for the three main observed slowdowns in GMST increase. For the first slowdown, they found evidence of El Niño and La Niña weather patterns that likely reduced heating by producing more cloud cover.

For the second slowdown, they found evidence of increased volcanism—smoke and ashes from volcanoes can block sunlight.

The team asserts that the third slowdown, aka “the pause” which is also the one on which many global warming skeptics like us here at WUWT follow, was likely caused by a combination of La Niña events and volcanism.

They also claim that the third slowdown period wasn’t a stopping point, and they say temperatures continued to rise, they just did so at a slower pace.

They also looked at data from studies of the sun and found that there was a slowdown in energy output from 2001 to 2010, which was also a likely contributor to the third slowdown. In other words, the sun’s TSI does have an effect, and that works both ways. It seems nature is still in control.

They write:

Our main conclusion is that the most robust influence on the 1998–2013 slowdown resulted from the cooling effects of reduced TSI forcing between 2003 and 2011 (Fig. 6B, i) followed by a trend toward increasing La Niña conditions and a negative IPO in its second half. The negative IPO is in turn likely to have been enhanced by regional anthropogenic aerosol forcing (43). Cooling throughout the slowdown was slightly but significantly enhanced by persistent but small increases in volcanic forcing.

 

Fig. 6
Reconstructions for slowdown period 3, 1997–2015 and its three main sub-periods, where the observed time series include the lead-in period 1995–1996. (A) Average reconstruction of GST for slowdown period 3: 1997–2015. The linear trends are for 1998–2013 (thin lines) and 2001–2010 (thick lines). Otherwise as for Fig. 2A. (B) Reconstruction of WMO GST for slowdown period 3: 1997–2015. Otherwise as for Fig. 2B. (C) Linear components of total temperature change over slowdown period 3. (a) 1998–2013; (b) 2001–2010; (c) 2001–2013. Stars denote significance at the 1% level or better. Otherwise as for Fig. 2C. (D) Summary of the contributions of significant forcing (at <1% level) factors to GST trends (°C per decade) during (a) warming periods and (b) slowdown periods. The period 2001–2013 is used to represent slowdown period 3 where the appreciable but not significant ENSO-induced trend is shown.

 

The paper: (open access) http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaao5297.full

Causes of irregularities in trends of global mean surface temperature since the late 19th centuryScience Advances (2018). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aao5297 Chris K. Folland et al.

Abstract
The time series of monthly global mean surface temperature (GST) since 1891 is successfully reconstructed from known natural and anthropogenic forcing factors, including internal climate variability, using a multiple regression technique. Comparisons are made with the performance of 40 CMIP5 models in predicting GST. The relative contributions of the various forcing factors to GST changes vary in time, but most of the warming since 1891 is found to be attributable to the net influence of increasing greenhouse gases and anthropogenic aerosols. Separate statistically independent analyses are also carried out for three periods of GST slowdown (1896–1910, 1941–1975, and 1998–2013 and subperiods); two periods of strong warming (1911–1940 and 1976–1997) are also analyzed. A reduction in total incident solar radiation forcing played a significant cooling role over 2001–2010. The only serious disagreements between the reconstructions and observations occur during the Second World War, especially in the period 1944–1945, when observed near-worldwide sea surface temperatures (SSTs) may be significantly warm-biased. In contrast, reconstructions of near-worldwide SSTs were rather warmer than those observed between about 1907 and 1910. However, the generally high reconstruction accuracy shows that known external and internal forcing factors explain all the main variations in GST between 1891 and 2015, allowing for our current understanding of their uncertainties. Accordingly, no important additional factors are needed to explain the two main warming and three main slowdown periods during this epoch.

 

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/2kTvfh6

June 7, 2018 at 11:54AM