New Light on Man-made Climate Change

Written by Ronald Wayne Pate


Three major foundational assumptions embedded in the programming of General Circulation Models (GCM’s) used to “project” future climates, are identified. The empirical data acquired in three separate research projects are shown to invalidate these assumptions. It is concluded that the computer models are invalid and that CO2-emissions-reduction programs will fail to alter natural climate change.


All claims for human-induced “Climate Change,” formerly known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), are based on the output of computer models (GCM’s), in other words, the claims are not based on empirical data.

The computer programs have three major assumptions embedded:

1. Variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are predominantly caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.

2. The major sources of CO2 are located in the developed world.

3. Atmospheric temperature is driven by the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

This article presents the results of three research projects that have found empirical evidence which invalidates all three of the programmers’ assumptions.


1. Mankind’s use of fossil fuels has a negligible effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

2. The world’s major sources of CO2 emissions are the heavily forested regions in Africa, Asia, and South America with sparse human populations and little industrial development. The heavily populated and industrialized areas of North America and northern Europe are net sinks of CO2.

3. Atmospheric CO2 arises from natural sources in proportion to the integral of atmospheric temperature.

4. CO2-emissions-reduction programs, targeting the economies of the developed nations in an attempt to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations, will fail.

5. CO2-emissions-reduction programs, for the purposes of reducing atmospheric temperatures and preventing climate change, will fail.


This section will provide evidence in support of each of the conclusions.

Mankind’s use of fossil fuels has a negligible effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Common estimates of annual global emissions of CO2 from all sources, natural and man-made, total 211 +/- 15 Gt C (Appendix). Mankind’s contribution is estimated to be 9.5 Gt C (2010) which is 9.5/211 = 4.5 % of total emissions. So, total anthropogenic emissions are less than 1/3 of the 30 Gt C error-band for total emissions. This means that, should anthropogenic emissions be totally eliminated, it would not be possible to verify such a small change in total CO2…it would be lost in the overall uncertainties.

The world’s major net sources of CO2 emissions are the heavily forested, tropical regions…The heavily populated and industrialized areas…are net sinks of CO2.

In August, 2011, Prof. Murry Salby, Climate Chair, MacQuarie University, Australia, startled all sides in the climate debate by announcing his findings based upon 10 years of satellite data. In particular, he identified the regions that were the major CO2 emitters.

“Notice [the emitters] are not found in the industrialized centers…the Ohio River Valley of the US, northern Europe, not even China. Rather, [the emitters] appear over the Amazon basin, tropical Africa, and southeast Asia. Those regions have ittle population, let alone industrialization” (Ref. 1).

In June, 2009, the Japanese space agency, JAXA, launched the IBUKU satellite which, among other objectives, was to “discover how much each region needs to reduce CO2 emissions.”

In announcing their results, they reported that, “… industrialized nations emit far less carbon dioxide than the Third World.” The Japanese satellite map showed that the regions that were net absorbers of CO2 [were]…”predominantly those developed nations of Europe and North America; thus indicating built-up environments absorbed more CO2 than they emitted into the atmosphere.”

In contrast, the bulk of the regions recognized as so-called ‘carbon polluters’ were in the undeveloped, densely forested, equatorial regions of Africa and South America (Ref. 2).

Continue Reading 6 Comments

Light bulb Experiments: Slaying Watts with Watts

Written by Joseph E. Postma

Anthony Watts has performed an experiment in follow-up to Roy Spencer’s challenge to the Slayers/Principia Scientific International to “put up or shut up”, to which we replied that we had already put up, and in which we proved that Dr. Spencer’s understanding of the offered challenge was somewhat lacking. Curt Wilson has also done a follow-up experiment for WUWT.

Unfortunately, our successful answer to the original challenge was ignored and a new line of questioning was instead pursued by Watts et al. Sometimes this is called changing reference frames. The distraction comes from a diagram we used to present a general physical principle of thermodynamics, such that radiant emission from a source cannot act as an additional source, for the source. This means that the source cannot become brighter, which in radiative emission terms of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law means hotter, from its own radiation. If such a thing could happen, then an object’s own radiation could act as a source or cause of temperature increase for the object, which is of course plainly in violation of thermodynamics.

The diagram which has presented the hapless convenience for Watts et al. to reframe the rebuttal to their challenge, is reproduced below:

Siddons Light Bulb and Mirror

Figure 1: (Image courtesy of Alan Siddons.)

This diagram (Figure 1) was included in the context of a previous diagram, as shown here:

Siddons Two Light Bulbs

Figure 2:  (Image courtesy of Alan Siddons.)

The point of the discussion surrounding these diagrams was in terms of an elucidation of the underlying physical principles which govern the fundamental thermodynamic behaviour. Unfortunately, the underlying physical principles of thermodynamics, such that a source of light cannot make itself shine brighter (i.e. become hotter) with its own light, or that two equal sources of light cannot make each other brighter (hotter at the source), can be ignored at the expense of mischaracterizing an experiment to test them. It would have been just as well if Watts et al. would have chosen to create an experiment based on Figure 2, because the brightness results would have been much more obvious. However, Figure 1 and Figure 2 do allow for significant misperception if the underlying principles are not understood, or ignored. This is something we didn’t consider would occur, and it is an important lesson for science communicators.

Regarding the underlying theoretical principles of what such an experiments requires to be understood and in regards to the greenhouse effect, Mr. Watts replied at his site: “And yet, in the diagram proposed in the essay by Postma, such fine details were not mentioned nor required. Demanding them now post facto doesn’t fly.”

Unfortunately, expecting the “fine details” to be appreciated is something we expected a-priori. That was our mistake. Unfortunately, it is the onus of the experimentalist to be competent and responsible for their complete understanding of what it is they’ll be intending to measure, and to quantify it. If all of the details aren’t sorted out, such as what the underlying physical principles are, as opposed to a simple literal interpretation of words without context and misidentifying original causes, then any such discussion by the experimentalist of the empirical results cannot be expected to be meaningful. It has always been a tricky business.

The underlying physical principles we had expected to be understood can be expressed in terms of the general equivalence of concepts between three major areas of physics: force mechanics, electrical mechanics, and thermal mechanics. It is sometimes helpful for a student to consider that a problem in one domain can be qualitatively solved equivalently in another domain, for example: voltage is like temperature is like force; current is like heat flow is like acceleration; and electrical resistance is like thermal mass is like material mass.

Postma domain table

In terms of an energy analysis, force, voltage, and temperature all represent the potential to induce action if there is a non-zero differential in them. That is, a force differential causes acceleration, modulated by a physical parameter; a voltage differential causes current, modulated by a physical parameter; and a temperature differential causes heat flow, modulated by a physical parameter. In all cases the nature of the action is similar: the acceleration caused by the force does not increase the force; the current caused by the voltage does not increase the voltage; and the heat flow caused by a temperature differential does not increase the temperature. In all cases, if one wishes to modify the action, they must either modify the differential, or modify the relevant physical parameters. We will see ahead the importance of these facts.

In an electrical circuit, dissipation of energy is performed by the resistor. The energy dissipation takes the form of heat in the resistor, and if the physical parameters of the resistor and the circuit are appropriate, the resistor can become hot enough to emit visible light. Typically, light bulb filaments run at 3300K and produce emission close to a blackbody. It is important to comprehend that the source of the thermal emission/heat generation in the resistor is caused by the current running through it, and the current is caused by the voltage applied to the circuit. If the filament emits similar to a blackbody, then its radiant output flux density can be related to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. The radiant emission has as its source, then, the current going through the circuit, which is caused by the voltage applied to the circuit. If you want to increase the temperature of the source of light/heat so that you can produce more light/heat, and the source of those is the filament, then you have to increase the current going through the filament, and this is done by increasing the voltage across the circuit. It cannot be done by giving the filament the light or heat it produces back to itself, as the light is dissipated energy, not source energy for the circuit or filament. The filament’s dissipated energy cannot be used to increase the voltage across the circuit, and hence cannot be used to increase the brightness/temperature of the source.

Both of the WUWT experiments make the mistake of considering that the frosted glass of the bulb is the source of light and heat. PSI acknowledges that such a confusion is possible if you look naively at the diagrams and see what looks like a frosted bulb and simple-mindedly assume that the frosted glass itself is the source of the energy, and assume a bland interpretation of the words describing the scenario.

The frosted glass is a source of light in as much as it scatters the incoming spectrum, and it is a source of heat in as much as its absorbs the incoming spectrum. Obviously, the actual source of light and heat is the filament inside the bulb producing the spectrum at a typical temperature of 3300K, and the source of energy for the filament is the voltage applied to the circuit. The frosted glass is a passive semitransparent screen in front of the actual source. The frosted glass bulb itself, once heated, can be a source of heat for something cooler than it, such as a finger or hand, but it is not the source of energy.

We did not expect that the underlying physical principles would be disregarded, or plainly not understood, nor scientifically quantified. This experiment could be repeated to check for a brightness increase of the frosted glass when another bulb is brought nearby; this might actually occur, but the reason would be that the frosted glass has a high albedo and some additional light would simply be reflected back. Again, this would not actually get down to the underlying physical thermodynamic principle involved nor of what is claimed with the greenhouse effect, because the true source wouldn’t actually increase in temperature. Mr. Watts has insisted that we do not consider such fundamentals of theory and its quantification and instead focus only on the surface appearances of his experiment; doing such a thing obviously presents the opportunity for obfuscation, and we can wonder if this is intended, or simply not comprehended.

Continue Reading 57 Comments

The End of Big Bang, Black Holes and the Science of Stephen Hawking?

Written by

Iconic figure in cosmology, Professor Stephen Hawking, has his Singularity Theorem claims challenged in a remarkable new paper by probably the most able scholar in Einsteinian type general relativity, Stephen Crothers, of Queensland, Australia.

Stephen Hawking

Crothers has produced many definitive refutations of the ‘Big Bang,’ black holes and other fallacies spawned from Einsteinian general relativity that have irked the scientific mainstream. In his latest paper, ‘On the Invalidity of the Hawking-Penrose Singularity ‘Theorems’ and Acceleration of the Universe from Negative Cosmological Constant,’ [1]

Crothers argues, “To disprove the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorem requires only disproof of one of the conditions the Theorem must satisfy. Nonetheless, all of the required conditions are proven invalid herein.”

As with his previous papers (2005, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2012b) Crothers demonstrates that ‘Big Bang’ scientists “have no valid basis in science bearing in mind that their concepts and arguments are based on the General Theory of Relativity which is easily proven to violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum and to not predict the black hole.”

The abstract is below and a link to the full paper is found here.


Hawking and Penrose proposed “A new theorem on spacetime singularities …

which largely incorporates and generalizes the previously known results” which

they claimed “implies that space-time singularities are to be expected if either the

universe is spatially closed or there is an ‘object’ undergoing relativistic

gravitational collapse (existence of a trapped surface)” and that their ‘Theorem’

applies if four certain physical conditions are satisfied. Hartle, Hawking and

Hertog have proposed a quantum state with wave function for the Universe which

they assert “raises the possibility that even fundamental theories with a negative

cosmological constant can be consistent with our low-energy observations of a

classical, accelerating universe.” They also relate this concept to string cosmology.

It is however proven in this paper that the Hawking-Penrose Singularity ‘Theorem’

and accelerated expansion of the Universe with negative # are invalid because they

are based upon demonstrably false foundations relating to Einstein’s field

equations, trapped surfaces, and the cosmological constant.

Crothers concludes that with the ‘Big Bang’ Cosmology, lacking any theoretical basis it tells us that the Cosmic Microwave Background is not the afterglow of the birth of the Universe from a Big Bang “creatio ex nihilo or otherwise.”



[1] Crothers, S., J., ‘On the Invalidity of the Hawking-Penrose Singularity ‘Theorems’ and Acceleration of the Universe from Negative Cosmological Constant,’ (Queensland, Australia), (May 4, 2013)

Continue Reading 22 Comments

Why did Anthony Watts pull a Bait and Switch?

Written by Alan Siddons & John O'Sullivan

Anthony Watts of the science blog Watts Up With That appears to have pulled a bait and switch to dodge Principia Scientific International’s (PSI) direct and forthright answer to his (and Dr. Roy Spencer’s) “put up or shut up” challenge.

On May 10th of this year, Watts and Spencer challenged PSI’s “Slayers” to provide a realistic model of earth’s energy budget, one that did not incorporate additional heating by “greenhouse gases.” We obliged.

Postma Earth Energy Budget

But rather than acknowledge our response and cogently address our thermal model (illustrated above), Watts incongruously posted an “experiment” to attack us once again. An upcoming article will provide details about Watts’ experiment proving the opposite of what he intended. For now, however, the crux of the debate remains: Is radiative forcing – in other words, heating by greenhouse gases – a real phenomenon? Here and here we have clearly indicated no.

To clarify matters for anyone less familiar with the present debate, the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) has for 30 years been the centerpiece of claims about man-made global warming. The basic contention is that sunlight doesn’t provide enough heat to account for the Earth’s temperature, but additional radiation from about 1% of the atmosphere’s gases does account for it. These gases respond to the heat radiated by the Earth’s surface and send that energy back, which makes the surface warmer. Thus in effect the Earth is heated by its own radiation, much like a battery charging itself with the electricity it produces.

Spencer’s so-called “time-dependent” Earth model, then, presupposes the existence of such a heating mechanism and from this assumption he derives what he calls “reasonable surface temperatures.” Convinced his model proves that the GHE is real, he dared us to present an alternative. In promptly doing so we also demonstrated that Spencer’s version (below) is not only far from being “time dependent,” it’s not even capable of generating enough heat for clouds to form — let alone enough heat to melt ice. Reasonable surface temperatures indeed.


Yet after calling for an alternative to a heat source that augments the Sun, Watts instantly ignored or perhaps forgot that his call had been answered. He wandered instead into another playground, distracted by a picture which he found amusing. So it’s natural to ask: Is Watts seeking to confuse readers by pretending that what occurred did not occur? Or is the confusion inadvertent?

Anyway, Anthony Watts has now produced a video, New WUWT-TV segment: Slaying the ‘slayers’ with Watts, featuring a homespun experiment with a mirror, an infrared camera and a 65 watt incandescent lamp. Judging by comments to his post, Watts has certainly succeeded in drawing attention away from the original issue. We will address some of Watts’ most recent remarks nevertheless.

“[Slayers] tend to ignore real world measurements”

Astounding. Please open your eyes, Mr. Watts. PSI members have both performed experiments and used respected third party empirical data to validate our views. Look here, here, here and here. For example, in his PSI paper Observations on ‘backradiation’ during Nighttime and Daytime, professor Nasif Nahle carefully compiled a series of real time measurements of thermal radiation from the atmosphere and surface materials both night and day. Nahle demonstrated that radiant heat transfer from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface simply does not occur. A cooler system radiating toward a warmer system is physically untenable as a heating mechanism.

“Most of what that group does is to spin sciencey sounding theories and pal reviewed papers by a mysterious members-only peer review system.”

On the contrary, Mr. Watts, offering pseudo-scientific garbage like Willis Eschenbach’s heat-magnifying shell and Ira Glickstein’s photon-slicer is your specialty. Our group deals with standard scientific principles. And we don’t mince the 2nd Law of thermodynamics into incomprehensible confusion like crafty lawyers would. Actual scientists understand the matter clearly. This is from the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, for example:

Heat always moves from a warmer place to a cooler place.

Heat transfers in three ways:

  • Conduction
  • Convection
  • Radiation

It’s as simple as that: heat always moves to a cooler place, which includes heat transfer by radiation. By the same token, this excludes radiant heat transfer to a warmer place, a point that Mr. Watts and his fans emphatically contest. Which places them on the outskirts of standard science, not us.

As for “a mysterious members-only peer review system,” no. In fact, PSI has pioneered a new kind of open peer review system: PROM (peer review in open media) which allows anyone to post feedback on all the papers submitted to us. Every such paper must pass PROM review and remain up for public scrutiny for a period of no less than one month. During that time authors must respond to any criticisms submitted to PSI on their work. PSI weighs the merits of feedback from members and non-members alike and compels authors to modify or withdraw the paper when objections are deemed valid. Thanks to the thoroughness of our open PROM system, every paper eventually published by PSI has been found in need of some amendment beforehand.

Now for some of Watts’ more serious misconceptions, however.

“a greenhouse atmosphere has higher temperatures near the surface, but lower temperatures at high altitudes”

Yet this trait is common to every planet’s atmosphere, irrespective of that atmosphere’s composition. Has Watts ever bothered to look?

Relative planetary temp and pressure

As you’ll notice in every case, atmospheric temperature increases with depth and decreases with height. Above 0.1 bar of pressure, all planetary atmospheres do this. The presence of radiating trace gases aren’t responsible for this but the interaction of gravity with a gas’s ability to hold onto heat. Indeed, as this NASA page shows, the rate of atmospheric cooling (or heating) for a given unit of altitude can be predicted by accounting for the planet’s gravitational acceleration (<g>) and its atmosphere’s heat capacity (Cp) alone. For more information about this phenomenon see A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect, PSI publication.

Incidentally, it is also the case with every planet’s atmosphere that its lower-altitude temperature exceeds a blackbody-based prediction. In other words, the same method for predicting a minus 18 degree Earth also fails everywhere else. Each planet’s atmosphere is warmer than predicted, even when it is principally composed of hydrogen and helium.

But will this prompt greenhouse theoreticians to reconsider their tenets? Don’t hold your breath.

“To be honest, I laughed when I saw this”

Now we are veering toward the biggest misconception yet. Watts here is referring to a picture that shows a bright light bulb facing a mirror. The caption explains that the mirror’s reflection doesn’t heat the light bulb or make it shine any brighter. This is only common sense, however, because anyone can readily verify such a thing for himself. Even a concave (light-collecting) mirror will demonstrate that an object cannot be brightened by its own radiance. The light it shines can only illuminate something that is shining less.

Believing that an object actually can be brightened by its brightness is rather queer, in fact, like standing inside a bucket and giving an honest effort to lift it off the ground. Yet Watts sincerely believes that by means of its own radiant power an object can increase its radiant power, and he finds it funny that others consider that a joke.

But this ties in to another of his odd beliefs, for Watts also objects to us mentioning that other greenhouse theorists propose that radiant energy is doubled when it is doubled back to the radiator.

“I’ve never made a doubling claim like that, nor am I aware that any of the others named have claimed a doubling”

This is a veritable WHOPPER. Because two of Watts’s greenhouse stars, Eschenbach and Glickstein have clearly explained on Watts’ own pages that radiant energy is doubled if certain conditions prevail.

Willis Eschenbach, for instance, has it that a steel shell suspended around a cold steel sphere will radiate back the sphere’s thermal light and increase its radiance from 235 watts per square meter to 470 watts per square meter. Check our math, but isn’t 470 equal to 235 times 2?

Likewise, Ira Glickstein has it that a greenhouse atmosphere is somehow able to split a single outgoing photon into an incoming photon and an outgoing photon, such that an incoming photon scale that would read “1” in the absence of greenhouse gases will read “2” when they’re around. Pardon us again, but doesn’t 1 + 1 = 2?

The Glickstein Photon Slicer

Here’s the real question, though: How can Anthony Watts be utterly unaware of what his own greenhouse explainers have been explaining? One might also ask whether Watts is aware that Eschenbach and Glickstein are merely regurgitating the basic concept of greenhouse theory as taught in universities. Outgoing surface heat rays turn into incoming atmospheric heat rays, which double the surface’s heat rays.

Richard Lindzen believes this too. His is one of the names we mentioned.

In Greenhouse Effect, A Scientific Analysis, professor Lindzen explains,

The basic idea of the greenhouse effect is illustrated by Figure 1. Suppose that the atmosphere and clouds can be represented by a single layer of gas and clouds at some temperature Tα , and that this layer of gas and clouds can be treated as a perfect emitter. The layer therefore emits radiant energy both upward and downward at the rate σTα 4 , while the surface emits upward at the rate σTs4 , where Ts is the surface temperature. At the top of the atmosphere, the total outgoing radiative flux, given by σTa4 , must balance the net incoming solar flux of 240 Wm-2, giving Ta = 255 kelvins. But the surface receives energy from both the sun and the atmosphere, and the thermal equilibrium of the surface requires that

σTs4 = 240 Wm-2 + σTa4 = 480 Wm-2.


And there it is again. Eschenbach transforms 235 watts per square meter into 470, Glickstein conjures 2 out of 1, and Lindzen turns 240 W/m2 into 480. Since on Watts’ own website Spencer wrote approvingly of yet another paper where Lindzen explains how surface heating by a back-radiating atmosphere works, and since another Watts favorite, Christopher Monckton, endorses both Lindzen and Spencer, we just naturally assumed that Watts himself was in on this doubling business. But no —

“I’ve never made a doubling claim like that, nor am I aware that any of the others named have claimed a doubling”

it would appear that Watts objects to it. So we await his refutation of Lindzen et al.  

Lindzen GHE model with Double Radiation



Continue Reading 44 Comments

Carbon Dioxide Makes Alkaline Water – Experiment

Written by Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

Anyone can do this experiment and prove that carbon dioxide (CO2) increases the pH of natural water systems.

If you read the statements of carbon dioxide “war mongers”, including those from EPA, you are led to believe that CO2 causes acidification of water. That is true under aseptic conditions such as in a laboratory with distilled water, but not in nature. In nature, there are two crucial differences: the presence of nutrients and sun light. Together, they make a big difference as you will see for yourself by undertaking this simple experiment.

Lab testing

The Idea

The idea of this experiment is to prove that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere INCREASES the pH of water.

Supplies & Ingredients

You need:

  1. A transparent glass or plastic container (flask, container) with a tight-closing lid. [I am using one of those 1-quart plastic containers used in supermarkets for bulk food items, etc.].

  2. A small amount of common plant fertilizer. [I am using a 20-20-20 type all-purpose plant fertilizer].

  3. Distilled or de-ionized water, available in any drug store and most supermarkets.

  4. A way to measure pH of the water [I am using pH sticks; see also bottom note].

  5. A sunny place near your home (inside or outdoors).

  6. A few weeks of time.

What to Do

There is very little to do; the sun does most of the work. Also, please note all of the quantities and concentrations mentioned do not need to be exact; they are just general guidelines.

  1. Fill your container about two-thirds with the water. Keep the lid off and let it stand a comfortable temperature for a few days.

  2. Then measure the pH of the water. It should stabilize near pH 4.5 (weakly acidic).

  3. Add fertilizer at the appropriate rate for the amount of water in your container as per instructions by the manufacturer (commonly a teaspoon for 4 liters or a gallon) and stir until it is dissolved.

  4. Check the pH again; it should not have changed.

  5. Add a smidgen (barely visible amount) of soil, or pond algae as an inoculum.

  6. Tightly close the lid and place the container at a sunny spot.

  7. Wait a few weeks (say 3 to 6 weeks, depending on area, temperature and sunshine).

  8. Once you see obvious signs of algae growing in the container (discoloration of the dye coming with the fertilizer) and turbidity (slime or particles in the system), check the pH again. It will have increased to approximately pH 8.

  9. You have finished the experiment.


You will have demonstrated the conversion of carbon dioxide (from the air) together with the nutrients (the fertilizer you added) and sun light (radiation energy) to plant matter. Of course, nature does this all over without you doing anything at all. Minerals in rocks and soils slowly dissolve and the sun does the rest.

Initially, the distilled water contained no minerals and its pH was determined solely by the dissolution of carbon dioxide from air into the water. The resulting solution of carbonic acid has a pH of approximately 4.5.

Once you added the nutrients (plant fertilizer), added a smidgen of inoculum and waited a few weeks, things had changed dramatically.

Continue Reading 5 Comments

UN Global Warming Fraud Exposed by Detailed New Study

Written by

Professor Vincent Gray, in his latest New Zealand Climate Truth Newsletter, showcases an important new study by Canadian professor, Ross McKitrick that details why the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be abolished.


Detailing compelling facts exposing how government climatologists engaged in data manipulation, subjective bias, suppression of inconvenient evidence disproving their alarmist claims about man-made global warming, McKitrick’s study is shown by Professor Gray to be perhaps the most compelling condemnation of junk science yet seen. Gray’s full report is detailed below.
MAY 21st 2013
Ross McKitrick has a recent report entitled “What is Wrong with the IPCC ? Proposals for a Radical Reform.”
The Report has a foreword by John Howard, former Australian Prime Minister.
It is published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, whose Chairman is Lord Lawson, former British Foreign Secretary and whose Directors and Trustees include four other members of the British House of Lords.
McKitrick   does   an  excellent   job   in   explaining   the   origins   and   structure   of   the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also provides a damning indictment of its failings. He makes the following recommendations for its reform:
Recommendation 1: An objective and transparent Lead Author selection procedure.
Recommendation 2: A transparent Contributing Author recruitment process.
Recommendation 3: Appointment  of  an  Editorial  Advisory  Board  and  identification  of potentially controversial sections.
Recommendation 4: Explicit assignment of both section authorship and reviewer positions.
Recommendation 5: Adoption of an iterative process to achieve a final text under the joint supervision of authors, reviewers and editors.
Recommendation 6: Adoption of a procedure for seeking technical input when necessary from outside the list of authors and reviewers during the assessment process.
Recommendation 7: Due diligence regarding key supporting papers and full disclosure of all data and methods used to produce original IPCC Figures and Tables.
Recommendation 8: Immediate online publication of the full report upon finalization, prior to production of summary.
Recommendation 9: Production of Summary by Ad Hoc group appointed by the Panel based on recommendations from the Editorial Advisory Board.
Recommendation  10:  Release  of  all  drafts,  review  comments,  responses  and  author correspondence records within 3 months of online publication of the full report.
Recommendation 11: That the nations involved in the IPCC Panel begin these reforms at once, and if such a process cannot be initiated then those national governments that seek objective and sound advice on climate change issues should withdraw from the IPCC and begin the process of creating a new assessment body free of the deficiencies identified herein.

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Exposed: Academic Fraud in new Climate Science Consensus Claim

Written by

Authors of a new climate science consensus study trumpeted by mainstream media hacks for “proving” that most scientists blame humans for global warming are today being accused of fakery. Uproar ensued just days after publication of a controversial paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.

John Cook University of Queensland

(John Cook, University of Queensland)

Experts whose work was cited in the paper by lead author, John Cook (pictured) are aghast that their work has been used to justify far-fetched claims that there exists a  “97% consensus” among scientists regarding human-caused global warming.  Among those upset scientists cited in the new paper is Dr. Craig Idso. Idso reacted: “That is not an accurate representation of my paper.”

Nonetheless,  key authors, John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli, are unashamedly taking the plaudits from pro-green news outlets that are citing their paper as justification for draconian carbon taxation policies. California’s KPBS proclaims the study a “survey of the work of almost 30,000 scientists” which has “found 97% of published papers agree human activity is the cause of climate change.

Mr. Cook, who owns and runs the controversial and confusingly named alarmist blog, Skeptical Science, is Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, Australia. His paper, appearing in the journal “Environmental Research Letters”  has added real irony for its claim that there really is “a striking discrepancy between public perception and reality.”

But as more independent analysts look into Cook’s claims the less reliable they seem. Another scientist quick to report being misrepresented by the new study is Dr. Nicola Scafetta who spoke of the “ utter dishonesty” at work. While Dr. Nir J. Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, when asked whether Cook’s study reliably reported his paper, replied “Nope… it is not an accurate representation.”

Now Cook’s “97% consensus” study is being met by a backlash from the very heart of European green policy. Once solidly pro-green Germany sees its flagship news magazine, Spiegel Online, quick to throw cold water over Cook’s claims.

Speigel Online

Speigel reports:

“There’s an obvious discrepancy between the public perception and reality. The authors speak about ‘consensus on man-made climate change’ – and thus this threatens to further increase confusion within the public. The survey confirms only a banality: Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that man is responsible for at least a part of the climate warming. The important question of how big is man’s part in climate change remains hotly disputed.”

Nonetheless, in the United States it’s climate alarmist business as usual in the Whitehouse. President Barack Obama this week was again turning the heat up. The President’s new “Call Out the Climate Change Deniers” website is hard at work trying to sell the myth that opposition to climate alarmism among scientists is “vanishingly small.”  Such assertions fly in the face of the fact tens of thousands of  American scientists are actively on record as condemnatory of such junk climate. As many correctly point out,  you will see that  by comparison there is only a miniscule number of climate scientists who have actually put names on record to assert humans are dangerously warming the climate.

Indeed, a U.S. Senate minority report demonstrates that if you contrast and compare the actual number of names of alarmist scientists on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) versus those named scientists opposing the scam then the skeptics are “12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.”

And the skeptic naysayers are scientists of real pedigree. Among them are some of the world’s best. Among them is a past winner of a Nobel Science Prize (unlike that Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the IPCC and Al Gore).

While in another instance, in late 2012, no less than 135 prominent scientists signed the Open Letter to UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon denouncing the climate fraud. Among the signatories are half a dozen linked to Principia Scientific International (PSI). PSI is a rising force in independent climate study and proclaims that carbon dioxide can only have a cooling effect on climate. Joining in opposition to the climate fraud are no less than 49 former NASA astronauts and engineers as well as the 30,000+ American scientists who signed the Oregon Petition.

What all those opposed to junk climate science condemn is the deceit and duplicty of establishment bodies ranging from once respected science journals and national academies to mainstream media outlets that never seem to call to account those government scientists exposed for such fraudulent conduct. It appears that the sentinels for truth and the restoration of robust scientific standards are those emergent bodies finding their voice on the World Wide Web and coming together in common cause thanks to emergent organizations such as Principia Scientific International.


Continue Reading

Self-Contradictory Greenhouse Warming Theory

Written by

A rational look at an irrational theory

By Bob Webster (Editor, Publisher, WEBCommentary)

Despite the contrary evidence of more than a decade of no global warming trend, warmists continue to claim Earth’s surface temperature will rise in response to minuscule increases in a minor atmospheric gas (carbon dioxide, CO2) that has the ability to absorb and re-radiate certain frequencies of outgoing infrared radiation (IR).

This claim gets major traction with the “green” movement who constantly hear assertions that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric “pollutant” with the capacity to destroy the planet. Ironically, the reality is just the opposite with carbon-based fuels being the most “green” of any energy source known to man! Why? Because the by-product of using carbon-based fuels is carbon dioxide, an essential ingredient for plant growth!

Yet even warmists admit that carbon dioxide alone is insufficient to create the catastrophic climate change they claim. Instead, they claim that slight atmospheric warming from additional atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase atmospheric water vapor which, in turn, will lead to catastrophic warming.

Conveniently, these beliefs ignore an important law of physics that prohibits a cooler body (the atmosphere) from increasing the temperature of a warmer body (Earth’s surface).

Essentially, the warmist theory is:

Warming climate results from a base climate to which is added an increase in warmth due to the impact of additional atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The problem with this theory is it cannot be sustained in the real world. This can be seen more easily if we translate this statement into symbols from which a formulation can be expressed.


A1 = warming climate,

A0 = base climate, and,

A0 = warming increase from impact of additional CO2.

Which can be expressed by the formulation:

A1 = A0 + ∆A0 > A0; since ∆A0 > 0

Since this is an ongoing process, in general at any instant in time:

Ai+1 = Ai + ∆Ai > Ai

This describes a process that produces a constantly increasing temperature.

Note that the incremental increase in warming (∆Ai) must also increase (i.e., ∆Ai+1 > ∆Ai) because, according to warmist theory, warming is dependent on (1) Earth’s surface temperature (that determines outgoing IR) and (2) the amount of atmospheric CO2, both of which are claimed to be increasing.

This formulation describes the impact of claimed “back radiation” from the atmosphere that results in an increase in Earth’s surface temperature (warming climate). 

But since this is an ongoing process, what happens over time?

Since each of the components in the expression is increasing, the incremental increase in temperature must increase:

Ai is increasing,

Ai+1 is increasing, and,

Ai is increasing.

Consequently, over time:

Ai+1  = ∑ (Ai + ∆Ai) => ∞; as i  => 

and this process must lead to “runaway” warming (a continuous increase in surface temperature).

So why hasn’t the process run away?

It hasn’t on Venus, with a near-surface atmosphere that is 97% CO2.

While warmists might claim that climate warming has “run away” on Venus such claims ignore the fact that Venus’ atmospheric temperature is not increasing. Why? What stopped the warming if, indeed, the process is a “runaway” process?

Neither has there been any runaway warming on Mars, despite a near-surface atmosphere of 95% CO2! In fact, it’s quite chilly on Mars.

Warmists might claim that Mars receives less warming from the Sun. But the warmist greenhouse effect is not dependent on the rate of solar warming, it is only dependent on the ability of an atmosphere containing “greenhouse gases” to “trap heat”, thereby magnifying it’s impact by a magical “back radiation” that, defying physical law, over time will establish the perpetual warming process described above.

Closer to home, despite continuously rising atmospheric CO2, Earth’s global temperature hasn’t experienced any uptrend for well more than a decade!

According to warmist theory, Earth’s temperature should have risen significantly over the past two decades. It has not.

In fact, there is no meaningful correlation between atmospheric CO2and Earth’s temperature over the past 600 million years:

So which should be viewed with skepticism? Shaky warmist claims that defy physical law, or known climate history?

Graph of CO2 and temps

Continue Reading 17 Comments

Do Solar Cycle Phases affect Earthquake Rates?

Written by

The issue of whether we can predict when solar activity may trigger earthquakes on our planet is generating increasing interest among scientists. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in its ‘Science Features:Top Story‘ says it is unlikely (May 3, 2012) Citing a study in Geophysical Research Letters USGS writes:

Can We Predict Earthquakes?  So far, the answer is no. Despite frequent claims to the contrary, no reliable short-term earthquake prediction method has ever been developed. Nor do scientists expect to develop a method in the foreseeable future.”

But PSI’s Joe Postma takes a more upbeat view. Referring to the firsts 10 minutes of this new video, (see below) we are presented with data suggesting that there are more earthquakes in the descending phase of the solar cycle, especially stronger ones. If so that gives us a measure of some forewarning.

Postma says this suggests “that massive and massively energetic geological events are affected by the solar magnetic field, cosmic ray rates, etc. Obviously this could have major implications for climate.”

Certainly, with huge implications involved for disaster management, it seems prudent to take the view that this area of science merits much further research. From the first 10 minutes of this video we are presented with data suggesting that there are certainly more earthquakes in the descending phase of the solar cycle, especially stronger ones.

Postma agrees that this evidence does suggest “that massive and massively energetic geological events are affected by the solar magnetic field, cosmic ray rates, etc. Obviously this could have major implications for climate.”

Menawhile, in London maverick British weather forecaster and astrophysicist, Piers Corbyn claims to have made strides in forecasting earthquakes based on analysis of solar activity. Corbyn is sure they can be triggered by solar activity, and hence that he can to some extent predict them.

Corbyn says:

“We now think that it is not just general solar proton event levels which point towards more earthquakes but that individual solar proton events exacerbate immediate earthquake (and associated volcanism) risk either directly or due to consequent storm activity and related surface pressure changes.”

But such claims have met with strong criticism. In an article in Wired popular technology magazine entitled “The Fraudulent Business of Earthquake and Eruption Prediction”, Erik Klemetti, an assistant professor of Geosciences at Denison University, accused Corbyn of “cherry picking” and said people who claimed to be able to forecast earthquakes were “faith healers of the geologic community and should be seen as such”.

Nonetheless Corbyn is unbowed a insist our moon must also be another factor at play:

“There are also additional lunar effects on storm development and earthquakes and volcanism and for solar drivers it appears that the odd-even minima, particularly the later part ie the rising phase of even solar cycles are the most dangerous.”

No scientists working in the field deny that the Sun is proven to have dramatic impacts and does have  “weather” of sorts. USGS admits “The Sun’s behavior changes over time and this can cause the space environment surrounding Earth to change as well.”

We do know that solar magnetic storms cause periods when Earth’s magnetic field is unusually active. This is due to the Sun emitting a wind of electrically charged particles. If it changes abruptly, it causes a magnetic storm.

Space weather has seen large magnetic storms cause widespread loss of radio communications. It has also, at times, reduced the accuracy of GPS systems. Also, damage has been caused within satellite electronics and satellite opera­tions impacted. But the triggering of volcanic activity requires far greater surges of energy and it is these claims that are most in need of further scrutiny to ascertain not only if it is likely but also whether there is any way we might be better able to predict it.

<iframe style=”border: none” src=”×360″ width=”640″ height=”360″></iframe>


Continue Reading 4 Comments

Experiment: Why our Oceans Moderate Planetary Temperature Extremes

Written by

Popular Canadian climate scientists Dr. Tim Ball is skeptical over alarmist claims about man-made global warming. Like an increasing number of non-government scientists he’s been weighing up the data and is convinced the trace gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), plays no measurable role in climate.

Instead, like an increasing number of skeptics Dr. Ball is pointing to empirical evidence showing that it is the oceans that cover 70 percent of our planet’s surface that is nature’s key climate thermostat.

To reinforce his point Dr. Ball urges scientists and non-scientists alike to keep in mind the simple yet powerful message contained in the video experiment below.

In ‘When a Balloon Won’t Pop’ ( we see how any responsible parent and child can demonstrate the enormous heat absorbin power of water. When we put a balloon too close to a flame we will hear a loud bang as it quickly pops. “But what happens if you add some cold water to the equation?” is the big question.

As the video shows, by adding water to the balloon the liquid now absorbs the heat from the flame before the balloon can pop. This cool experiment also fundamentally relates to climate and how the Earth’s oceans lock up heat and move it around.

Indeed, perplexed global warming alarmists such as climatologist, Kevin Trenberth, who now admit they don’t know what’s happened to all that dangerous “missing heat” they predicted should take heed.

Climate researchers at Principia Scientific International are prominent among those saying that water and not CO2 has always been the key to the climate controversy. But Trenberth and most government climatologist aren’t giving up easily on their discredited hypothesis of a greenhouse gas effect (GHE). Their “theory” says CO2 has a forcing factor more critical than the cooling properties of water itself. But PSI evidence shows that to be nonsense. They say government climatologists are just too reluctant to let go of their CO2-driven GHE hypothesis because their government employers, in turn, don’t want to let go of CO2 emissions as a factor in their taxation policies.

But more and more new studies keep piling up the pressure on those CO2 alarmists. One such study appears in the peer-reviewed “International Journal of Modern Physics B” and supports the assertion of PSI researchers that CO2 “is innocent.” [1]

The new paper (May 13, 2013) from University of Waterloo s cience professor , Qing-Bin Lu is causing quite a stir. It casts further doubt on whether carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming. Professor Lu summarizes, “…we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that  conventional understanding is wrong.

Increasingly, scientists are seeing that our mostly watery planet has nature’s best in-built climate thermostat. So much so that a bouyant Dr. Ball proclaims, “I will continue my campaign to change the name of the planet from Earth to Water.”


[1] Q.-B. LU  , ‘Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change,’ (doi: 10.1142/S0217979213500732) 

Continue Reading 8 Comments

Math is True but Words can Lie

Written by Joseph E. Postma

While mathematics is a Formal language, English and any other verbal language are Natural spoken languages.  And with human languages, the inevitable result is that you can lie with them.  Because mathematics can be complicated and it is readily apparent that even people with PhD’s in science have a hard time understanding it, it is therefore possible to present a totally valid mathematical equation and at the same time totally misrepresent what the equation means.  This is, of course, the purview of sophistry and those who produce it.
equation tattoo
What I will do here is give you some simple math, and the correct words and correct descriptions to understand it, and then contrast that to some mental garbage that has instead been presented in order to lie about what the math actually means from some examples that I’ve been personally witness to.
Case Point #1
Let us look at the equation for radiant heat flow between a hot object and a cold object.  In the equation below, the scenario could be for two walls facing each other which have unit emissivities and absorptivities, so that these factors, and the areas, can all be cancelled out of the equation.  The equation is thus:
Q =  σ[ (Thot)4 – (Tcold)4 ]                                                                                                         Eq.{1}
and it couldn’t be any more simple.  It simply says that “Q”, which is the rate of heat transfer between a hot object and cold object, in Joules per second per square meter, is equal to a constant “σ” (sigma) times the difference of the fourth powers of the temperatures of the two objects.  This makes sense: the greater the difference in temperature, the more heating power the hotter object will have on the cooler object because it will be that much warmer than the cooler object.
In Equation 1, Thot and Tcold are called independent parameters, meaning that they’re determined independently of the equation itself, by measurement, say.  On the other hand, Q, the heat transfer rate, is a dependent parameter because it obviously depends on the values on the right hand side of the equation.  For example, if you increase Tcold (or decrease Thot), then you decrease Q because you made the difference between the hot temperature and cold temperature smaller.  Conversely, if you increase Thot (or decrease Tcold), then you increase Q because you made the difference between the hot temperature and cold temperature larger.  The equation is for telling you what the value of Q is given two temperatures, and so Q is not a fixed independent parameter but is rather dependent upon the two temperatures.
Greenhouse effect believers who apparently do not understand physics, although they can do some simple math, have stated that if you fix Q in that equation, and then increase Tcold, then Thot has to increase “in order to keep Q constant”, and “therefore cold heats up hot”.  This claim is made because they have this faith belief system that cold things make hotter things hotter still, rather than um, you know, hot things making cold things hotter still….(lol).  The person (a sophist) even went out of their way to rearrange the equation so that Q was no longer a dependent parameter on the left hand side of the equation, in order to make it look like this:
Thot = 4√[Q/σ + (Tcold)4]                                                                                                          Eq.{2}
All this is, is a simple algebraic rearrangement of Equation 1; doing such a thing does not change what the actual original physical equation represents in the first place.  The only way this simple algebraic rearrangement makes sense is if you were giving a problem to a student, in which you knew the temperature of the cold object and you also knew the current rate of heat transfer between the hot object and cold object, and were thus asked to determine the temperature of the hot object.  Problems like this are done simply for the training of mathematical competency and relating it to theoretical physical problems; the Q parameter in Equation 2 still depends on the difference between Thot and Tcold and can not in any way be independently fixed.
If you understood Equation 1, then it is clear that is impossible to “hold Q constant” if you increase Tcold.  To say that you want to hold Q constant in Equation 2, actually makes Q an independent source of input energy and heat that no longer has any relation whatsoever to the difference between Thot and Tcold and the heat transfer equation, and so that is a completely different problem and set of physical principles you’re dealing with.  Pretending that you can hold Q constant in that equation, in order to further pretend that cold heats hot and thus there is a greenhouse effect, is pure sophistry – albeit advanced sophistry.  It is outright lying with (or should I say, about) mathematics, in no uncertain terms.
How to actually do it
If you want a physical equation that denotes temperature as function dependent on external independent parameters, such as an independent fixed heat source “Q”, then you have to go through the development for such a thing as I showed in last year’s paper where we proved that there is no GHE in operation in the atmosphere.  I’ll quickly show this here.
Tobj = q / (m*Cp)                                                                                                                      Eq. {3}
where “q” (different from big Q; but see ahead) is just the internally held total thermal energy content of an object of mass m, with thermal capacity “Cp“, at temperature “Tobj“.
To know how the temperature changes as a function of a change in the internal energy, we take the differential with respect to time:
dTobj/dt = 1/τ * dq/dt                                                                                                            Eq. {4}
where τ = m*Cp for convenience.  Now, in terms of energy input and output and the first law of thermodynamics, the temperature will change when the time-derivative of q, dq/dt, which is the total rate at which energy is entering or leaving the system, is non-zero.  To follow the unit convention above from Equations 1 & 2, where big “Q” is a rate of heat transfer, then dq/dt = Q.  Q now represents the sum of independent and dependent energy inputs and outputs, and so can actually be composed of multiple terms – two terms if there is an input and output.
In terms of radiation, the energy output from the surface of the object is σ(Tobj)4, and so that is the output term of Q which is dependent on the object’s current temperature.  That leaves an input term for Q which can be an independent parameter which doesn’t depend on any other terms in the equation.  Changing the notation a little bit, Q can now just represent the independent input, while σ(Tobj)4 represents the dependent output.  So this gives us
dTobj/dt = 1/τ * (Qin – σ(Tobj)4)                                                                                            Eq. {5}
which is a non-linear differential equation.  The input term is positive because it will serve to increase the temperature, while the output term is negative because output provides cooling.  This is the only way in which you can speak of fixing an independent variable labelled “Q”; it works here because Q is a true independent variable which does not actually depend on the other terms in the equation.
To make this loook similar to our initial setup, if Tobj refers to a passive cold wall (Tcold), then Qin can refer to a hot wall with constant temperature, and then Qin = σ(Thot)4 leaving
dTcold/dt = σ/τ * ((Thot)4 – (Tcold)4)                                                                                      Eq. {6}
When the temperature of the cold wall increases, then all that happens is that the rate of increase of temperature of the cold wall decreases, because the difference in temperature between the hot wall and cold wall becomes smaller.  It is basically in this way that the condition of thermal equilibrium is achieved in nature.  And note that an increasing temperature of the cold wall does not affect the temperature of the independent hot wall!  Cold does not heat hot in real physics.
Now that we have a new equation, I should point out that it is obviously still possible for people to lie about what it means, misinterpret its use, and create greenhouse effect sophistry and obfuscation with it.  Of course, I know exactly how that would be done and what would be said, but I’ll save having to write about it for another article, when a sophist inevitably tries to do it.

Continue Reading 4 Comments

Bad planning – no sea level rise

Written by Nils-Axel Mörner

behind “ drowning” of St. Louis, Senegal

Comments by Nils-Axel Mörner

It was recently claimed (Times LIVE, May 26) that the City of St. Louis in the delta area of Senegal River in West Africa is on its way of drowning due to climate change. 

In the text, we learn that “the city is plagued by flooding during the rainy season when the river overflows”. This implies that the flooding has nothing to do with a rising sea level.

Further in the text, we read: “In 2003, heavy rain in the drainage basin of the Senegal River alarmed the authorities who feared the water would rise above critical levels and so dug a new outlet for the river water across the spit. The channel was about 100 metres (328 feet) in length and 4 metres wide but grew rapidly in the first days as the sea flooded into the river mouth and continued to widen to more than 2 kilometres across today”.

So it was the digging of a new channel that altered the conditions and initiated the erosion and flooding into the river. This is bad planning and has nothing to do with “climate change”.

It is a convenient way, however, of transferring the blame on the builder to the blame of climate change – and so they think, they are free of guilt.

Convenient maybe, but neither honest nor ethical. This is a side of the “climate change” issue that unfortunately has become increasingly common.
CO2 confusion


Continue Reading

Treat Yourself to this Excellent Book and help Support PSI

Written by

Author, Ken Coffman, is generously donating to Principia Scientific International all gross sales of his novel ‘Endangered Species’ for the week ending Friday, May 31st 2013.

Endangered Species by Ken Coffman

This highly-rated book is a fast-paced literary adventure; a story of how three groups converge in the Pacific Northwest to discover the secret of the Sasquatch. Enjoying an Amazon ‘five star’ review status Endangered Species‘ is described by one satisfied reader:

There’s hardly a topic that isn’t touched on here: economics, engineering, societal constructions, population control, climate change, eco-terrorism, survival, cannibalism, politics, Earth-worship-cults, and sex. There’s a jaded, lethal rich bastard looking for both a business partner and the ultimate thrill. And a spoiled rich kid who finds the thrill isn’t so thrilling. And an Everyman who’s accidentally on a voyage of self-discovery.And there’s a love story. Several, in fact. Willie and Maria–a mismatched pair (in more ways than one) who work beautifully together–are at the core of this delightful piece of insanity. And Graham, who finds himself and the love of his life. And Robert and Raven. Sex is had. Love is made. Sometimes things don’t end well.

Endangered Species‘ is currently on limited offer for only $11.01 via Amazon and there is FREE shipping on orders over $25. Buy your copy today, have a great read and feel you’ve also helped sponsor the world’s only independent science association dedicated to campaigning against corruption within science.


Continue Reading

Dyes & Color

Written by Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

Dyes and pigments are everywhere. They make us see things in many colors. The blue of your jeans is just one dye of many.

Some History

In ancient times (say Neanderthals’ time), the available dyes were mostly minerals, such as “ocher,” rust, carbon (black) and similar pigments. Pictographs made with them some tens of thousands of years ago have survived quite well to this date.

Later on, just a few thousand years ago, some organisms-derived organic dyes became widely known. They include Indigo (the blue dye in “blue jeans”) from the plant Indigofera tinctoria, Tyrian Purple (a purple dye, the Roman imperial purple) from the snail Murex sp., Cochineal (a red dye) from the aphid-like insect Sternorrhyncha sp. among many others.

The evolution of chemistry changed it all. Beginning with the elucidation of the chemical structures of some of the natural dyes above, chemists found ways to duplicate those en masse in laboratories and create derivatives and novel dye structures on the basis of then-recognized simple principles. Fig. 1, showing the chemical structure of indigo helps to understand that principle. All the “aromatic bonds” (indicated by a pair of parallel lines spaced by a single line) create a large molecule with a “conjugated-bond” structure. Such conjugated-double bond arrangements have optical absorption bands in the visible spectrum of light and hence are dyes.

indigo blue chemical structure

Fig. 1. The chemical structure of the indigo (blue) dye from the Indigo plant.

Just a (small) change of the chemical structure causes a shift in the material’s spectrum to make it a purple dye. This compound has two additional bromine atoms, as indicated by “Br” in Fig. 2.

Tyrian purple chemical strucure

Fig. 2. The chemical structure of the Tyrian Purple (purple-red) dye from the Murex snail.

Today, such synthetic dyes number now in many tens of thousands. Your (color) photocopier or printer, your newspaper and every glossy magazine you look at makes liberal use of such inventions. Without the glitzy color, the new car ads just wouldn’t have the same sex appeal!

The World of Color

Just twenty years ago, most newspapers were strictly black and white without any color pictures whatsoever. These days, in the same papers you’ll find full page color-ads and pictures throughout.

While we humans enjoy a world of color, others on Earth are only able to perceive dark and light. For example, deer and moose do not have color vision. Instead, their dark and light perception far exceeds ours. That allows them to move through dense forests in the middle of the night without much difficulty.

Yet other species perceive entirely different “colors,” namely parts of the electromagnetic wave spectrum we cannot see at all; the infrared spectrum belongs to that. Many insects, certain snakes and other critters have organs which can “see” infrared radiation as it is emanating from warm bodies. We only feel that radiation as warmth hitting our skin when sitting near a camp fire or similar heat source, but we cannot see it with our eyes.

Without our ability to perceive color, the world would appear more bleak, just in shades of light and dark.

Aren’t you glad that chemistry invented some fabulous additions to the world of color?


Continue Reading