Single Point Perspective On Page Center Graph Paper: Fill & Download for Free

I can’t agree with Dr Brewer more (e.g., I agree with Dr Brewer) . Knowledge is not in a state of progression, but fulfills the definition of entropy, to the point of Chaotic collapse into total randomness. This is part of a memo I sent not a few months ago inside the various government organizations that do the work or otherwise pay the bills…In Holography, Black Hole physics, String, M-Theory, and so on, the definition for entropy in Information Entropy is: the loss of information regarding the microstates of elements within a system.Richard Van Noorden. Global scientific output doubles every nine years. Nature: 07 May 2014. In this paper, he is deriving data from a study: Lutz Bornmann, Rüdiger Mutz. Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 8 May 2014. arXiv:1402.4578. The total number of papers they found was currently (May 2014) 755,607,107 cited references in total, with approximately 2.5 million published per year in the natural sciences [Arif E. Jinha. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 23:258–263 doi:10.1087/20100308] and doubling every 9 years.There are currently somewhere between 250 million and one billion unique, novel hypotheses. The very nature of the requirements for publications, and obtaining one’s PhD ensures complete entropy of knowledge, as described below. The inability to determine the actual number leads to the second postulate, regarding the definition of Information Entropy. In order to publish, the content must be novel and unique. In order to obtain a PhD, same requirement. Ensured entropy by design.The authors above all agree that the difficulty in determining the actual number of papers makes doing so actually impossible. This is ‘loss of information regarding the microstates of elements within a system.’ We cannot even determine the number of papers, much less the content.Citations and cross-referencing make an artificially larger number, and lack of such makes an artificially smaller number. I think it was Jinha who said, ‘if it wasn’t cited than it probably was useless information anyway…’Jinjha’s statement is essentially the condition of science today, it is a contest to be a Rock Star, like a great Battle of the Bands. Scientists have actually (typically with enthusiastic financial backing from their respective institutions) paying tens of thousands of dollars for press releases announcing their ‘great discovery.’ In fact, since you do not subscribe to nor read the peer-reviewed scientific literature, if you know about it, it is because more money was spent making it a high profile media circus than you paid for your car.By using Chaos Theory, a nearly forgotten art, and applying May’s Fractal, this result clearly shows the number as knowledge undergoing Chaotic Collapse into total, true randomness, as shown below.That is, if the papers were of the same nature, focused and driving in a singular direction, dismissing improvable hypotheses and moving forward with deliberate focus; that would be progress.However, this is not the case. Instead, improvable hypotheses are not only entertained, but also expanded upon, and split of in as many directions as there are authors with imaginations.This is entropy similar in nature to our Cayley Tree (a system that keeps splitting off into n branches), in this case, the Cayley Tree has n-nodes of exponentially increasing value. That is, every 9 years, the number of nodes doubles. Where we are accustomed to Cayley Trees of 2 or 3 nodes, there are currently 2.5 million nodes, in nine years, that Complexity will increase to 5 million nodes, and so on. Furthermore, the authors demonstrate that the current exponent is 9 years, but is decreasing such that in 9 years, it will be doubling in every five years. In a century, it will be doubling every ten seconds.I generated this graph to demonstrate (yes, Chaos Theory is still useful) the fractal approach to Chaos, because of Scale Invariance in fractal mathematics, means that the ‘level of ignorance’ (as Susskind refers to it) of the microstates of the system is equal at the top of the waterfall is it is at the bottom. That is, the elements at the bottom of the graph are totally dependent on the elements at the top. The elements at the top of the graph are by design, going to become the elements at the bottom. This is like our AdS/CFT model of DeSitter Space-time, of Scale Invariance, most of us have gone to Escher to demonstrate:In this diagram, taken from a lecture by Buosso, ‘L’ as seen on the surface is the length between points on the outermost boundary of DeSitter Space, that is where we live.For a complete description of the AdS/CFT model of DeSitter space see my answer at Bill Bray's answer to Quantum physics says that merely observing an object changes it. Does a first observation maintain any effect or control over how later observations affect the object? Do multiple observations of the same object result in an “average” change?In that answer, there are also nested links to my other answers relating to Quantum Gravity, Holographic Theory, Emergent Gravity, Gravity Waves, Quantum Entanglement, the correct definition and use of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and about 200 references in all between them.Note that none of the answers I see on this site are referenced properly, in the rare instance where one provides a single reference, it is from Wikipedia, or otherwise does not even state what the author claims. All of the references I provide are relevant, and in the public domain so that you can access them (sometimes you have to type the term PDF in to find the actual PDF). Without proper references and citations, you can dismiss any other answer, as it is clearly the ‘opinion’ of the author, very few of whom are qualified to write on the subject. There are no ‘part time physicists,’ ‘physicists at large,’ ‘deep knowledge of physics,’ and so on. Either you have a PhD in physics or you do not. There, got that off my chest…In reality, the lizards on the edge, although appear tiny, are the same size as those in the middle. That is DeSitter Space-time (Scale Invariant Conformal Field Theory). The point is, the tiny lizards living on the surface of DeSitter Space-time (that’s where we are) are interdependent with the scale of those in the middle (back in time), and the measure of those in the middle is with our locally quantized meter stick, as a tiny lizard on the surface.That is, a lizard on the surface has a locally quantized meter stick that is the smallest possible value in DeSitter space-time, at the surface, which is the present. According to my smallest locally quatized meter stick in the history of the cosmos, those lizards in the middle are HUGE, requiring a zillion of my little meter sticks just to measure one lizard in the middle. However, they are a fractal. The lizards, from the center out, are all the same size, they are just ‘fracks’ from the center on outward.Oddly, this is the most cited paper in human history, yet, the most unread. EVERY THING WE OBSERVE IN PARTICLE PHYSICS TO THE ‘ACCELERATING EXPANSION OF THE COSMOS IS AN ARTIFACT OF THIS LIZARD IMAGE.Again, our locally quantized meter stick is on the surface, very small. Thus, when we look back in time, we see the larger lizards, requiring many of our tiny meter sticks to equal one big lizard in the middle. As a result, we think velocity is faster at the center, the big lizards, back in time, according to our tiny locally quantized meter stick, make it appear as though things moving across them are moving faster, when in fact, they are not. It is an artifact of - I’ll use the microscope analogy later down the page.Dark Matter, Dark Energy, all of particle physics, 99% of Quantum Field Theory, 99.99999% of the things we explain away with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the entire Standard Model (quarks were never intended to be ‘real things,’ they were a group theory approach to understanding the particle zoo; John Nash was the father of that approach), and so on, I would guess in all, of the billion hypotheses out there, all but about 5 or 6 are the result of this single artifact.I went into explaining how this ‘artifact’ is the phenomenon from which space-time and its geometry emerge, you have to read a couple of them, they are all linked in the above reference.That info, by the way, taken together has about 200 references, all up to date.As an example of Scale Invariance, If I take a hemocytometer, a tiny glass slide marked in microns, put a lactobacilli on it, and look at it under a microscope, I will see it is about 10 microns long. If I project that image of the bacteria on the hemocytometer onto a big screen TV, I take out my ruler, and it, according to my ruler is about a meter long, and proven by the fact that the hemocytometer, now clearly indicates on the big screen that it is indeed a meter long, because that is the scale on the screen of the markings on the hemoctytometer. If I don’t know that the markings are supposed to represent microns, my meter stick tells me they are decimeters, and the bacilli is a meter long. In this scenario, there is no common frame of reference save for my knowledge of how big the markings are supposed to be.Then we see a microbacilli crossing the length of the lactobacilli. The microbacilli is 1/10 the length of the lactobacilli (1 micron). It takes ten seconds for the microbacilli to cross the length of the 10 micron lactobacilli. Therefore, its true velocity is 1 micron per second. However, as projected onto my big screen HDTV, it takes ten seconds to cross 1 meter, so it is moving one meter per second as measured with my locally quantized meter stick.When I measure the velocity of recession, my locally quantized meter stick tells me that I need many meter sticks per second to make 1 lizard per second billions of light years away.So, I try a second frame of reference, light, and find that the light, whose meter stick’s origin is a billion light years away, is ‘red shifted.’ The photons seem longer than my photons.So I try a 3rd frame of reference, brightness (supernova), whose luminosity falls off with the square of the distance, quite predictable? It has to cross a sea of fractal lizards, each growing smaller in size as the photons travel forward in time toward the surface of DeSitter Space-time.The reason I cannot correct for brightness vs redshift is that the redshifted photons also had to change scale as they corkscrewed through space-time to reach the surface of DeSitter space, where I am, but I haven’t figured that out yet, because I’m just an astronomer. I don’t even know what DeSitter space is. In fact, I thought I knew what it was from Wikipedia and TV, and wrote a bunch of papers to pile on the heap of a billion hypotheses…All of Physical Cosmology is a virus of hypotheses that are a result of this single artifact. To give a clear example, in order to make a statement, ‘the expansion of the cosmos is accelerating,’ you need a precision of 0.02%RSD. Why? It is easier to show you why not.This is what we get for the Hubble parameter as measured over the past 15 years:Furthermore, you can see there is no improvement in precision with time and technology. It is a seemingly random splay of data. With this random splay of data, where did the ‘accelerating expansion’ value of 70.9(+/-) 0.02 come from that the authors published? That number cannot even be had if you creatively select certain data points and creatively discard others. I tried it. That number is nowhere in that data, or any combination of data points by creative selection.Did you know, as an aside, that there is the Anthropic Principle, the debate whether we create the universe or we are an artifact of the universe. This is the ultimate response to the conscious observer upsetting the Ontologically challenged. The term, ‘survivor bias,’ is an equivalent Darwinian Natural Selection. Of the estimated minimum of 10E500 False Vacua (universes that didn’t make it) we are the sentient species that exists in the ‘surviving cosmos that was capable of creating the artifact of life.’ There are actually people who ‘believe’ this. Now, back to my irregularly unscheduled program…However, if you organize them by distance surveiled, you get this:These are definite jumps, almost as though they were quantized. However, the thing to know is that the 6 jumps I’ve labeled are by supercluster group. The more distant superclusters have to pass through more overlapping Gravity Waves then the closer ones, hence, the parameter seems slower (the more distant superclusters start from left to right) at greater distance.For a descriptin of the Lin-Shu Density Wave that creates this phenomenon, see Bill Bray's answer to How likely is it that, since dark matter and dark energy are basically unknowns, we might be wrong at the very basics? If we can't observe what most of the universe is made of, could it be that our theories are simply wrong?The steep slope in r value on the Chaotic Fractal Graph clearly indicates Chaotic collapse into true randomness. Like trying to canoe back up a waterfall, clearly that r value is not going back uphill to its origin.Since Bikini Atoll, 1954, when physicists ‘accidentally’ detonated a thermonuclear (fusion) device several times the expected yield, science was made to stop. It did not happen by accident.To make it clear, here is an image of the 9 decommissioned test ships anchored at Pearl Harbor that were intended to be enveloped in the blast, the picture taken just a few weeks before the test:These and only these ships were intended to be directly exposed to the blast.Here is an image with the test ships circled in black:All of the arrows point to the observation ships, with men on the deck, observing the blast.Two seconds into the blast:5 seconds into the blast:10,000 men died that day, not recorded in TV documentaries.That is why we still drive vehicles driven by fire, 95% of the USA and UK public read at a 6th to 8th grade level, PhDs earn their degree by writing improvable hypotheses.Since that time, no new science has been discovered or invented, other than that which has been fudged for funding purposes. The computers, cell phones, HD TVs, and all of the seeming wanders are the transistor, 1947, electricity, 19th century, radio electronics, 19th century, electric motors, 19th century, nuclear fission, 1945, internal combustion engines, 1859, the LASER, 1954 (as a microwave emitter, then again in 1954 for visible light by a grad student). Rockets… WWIINothing in our world today is less than half a century old technology. Most of our useful technology is at least a century old. You do not drive a car that elevates and moves by artificially reshaping space-time, your car is powered by fire. We do not transfer energy via conduits of photonic energy, our fission reactors generate steam, which is used to boil water, make steam to turn early 19th century dynamos…splitting the atom to boil tea. Your cell phone was patented in 1859. Your computer is a composite of technology from prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis.For a description of why ‘predictability’ is not a factor of success of a model, read: Bill Bray's answer to What is the difference between quantum physics and quantum field theory?For a description of abuse of ludicrous hypotheses that went viral until proven otherwise, read: Bill Bray's answer to How likely is it that, since dark matter and dark energy are basically unknowns, we might be wrong at the very basics? If we can't observe what most of the universe is made of, could it be that our theories are simply wrong?I was just answering another question, ‘Who wrote the most papers in science,’ as though that is a barometer, it is a barometer, but this is what I wrote:I don’t know. In fact, I was just writing/wrote a very long response regarding the entropy of science as a result of publication. Look down my content list, I wrote it recently.Publishing in a journal has so many down sides for a ‘real’ scientist:They own your work, you cannot publish any of your own content from it.It is buried amongst what appears to be about 2.5 million papers a year. as a result, it is forever lost.There are currently an estimated 1 billion scientific papers out there, but no one can actually get a number, fulfilling the definition of Information Entropy.In order for anyone to know you published something, you have to issue a ‘press release, which costs thousands of dollars. If you pay thousands of dollars for such a press release, then you have an agenda, not a ‘discovery.’As a result of all of the above, whoever wrote the most papers is the least scientist.Scientists throughout history published books, not papers. That is a barometer of success, as science has not budged in a century. Imhotep, Aristotle, Plato, Pakal, Ptolemy, DeVinci, Copernicus, Newton, Keppler, and so on. All books, not papers.Einstein published over 300 papers, all of which I have and have read, and I do not know anyone who knows (with the exception of a few historians) he wrote over 300 papers. People know of two, but of the scientists teaching the subject, I have not met one who has actually read either. Scientists are aware of papers he co-authored with some other scientists, but of those, even they are not read. They are actually made into entire documentaries, class lectures, and so on, without having read them.I am glad this issue of scientific publication is coming up often.The moral to that story is, if you publish a paper, no one will read it, although they may cite it (referred to as reference mining, to lend false credibility to your new ‘big theory). Your information, your work, ranging from totally useless gibberish to save the universe, is forever lost amongst at least a billion papers, but no one knows the actual number, nor amidst several attempts has anyone been able to determine the actual number (even the NSA cannot determine it).If they cannot even determine how many papers there are, for whatever reason, your information is forever lost. Therefore, a ‘real scientist’ (as apposed to a virtual scientists) will self publish a book, so as to have complete control over the content. Which is exactly what every great scientist throughout history has done. And the Einstein example (300 papers that no one even knows exists from one of the greatest minds in history) is the perfect example of why not to bury your work in journals, which is the death of your work.The publication, primarily due to the publication requirements of unique, novel information (same requirement to get a PhD) in scientific journals is the worst thing that has happened to mankind since the Pleistocene ice age.We are in fact living in what is called The Holocene Extinction, a mass global extinction event, that no one knows about, because no one pays for press releases.Does that answer the question? I’m not sure.The agreement of a dumb theory with reality says nothing. – Lev Landau, Russian Nobel laureateUnzicker, Alexander. The Higgs Fake - How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee (p. 34). Unknown. Kindle Edition.Beware of false knowledge, it is more dangerous than ignorance – George Bernard ShawThe fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. – Bertrand RussellUnzicker, Alexander. The Higgs Fake - How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee (p. 35). Unknown. Kindle Edition.My aim is: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense. – Ludwig WittgensteinImagine you are visiting another civilization where a shaman tells you the above story (all of them). Suppose you were never taught modern physics, would that seem convincing to you? Or rather a fancy piece of mythology? But not only that. It’s not the uneducated are too dumb to appreciate such sophisticated concepts, the greatest minds to which we owe our civilization would be super-skeptical of that story. - Unzicker, Alexander.Did Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger, Dirac all share a near religious predilection for simplicity that – sorry, sorry – turned out to be wrong? No. It was their very experience that their accomplishments consisted of simplification. Once they had understood, the complicated mess went away. - Unzicker, Alexander.It is easier to recognize a prejudice in its naïve primitive form than the sophisticated dogma to which it often transforms.[7] – Erwin SchrödingerInsanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. – Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopherConsidering science in general and on longer time scales, there is much that particle physicists could learn from history. In particular, the philosopher Thomas Kuhn, in his epoch-making treatise, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pointed out the mechanisms that occur whenever humans do science. Most importantly, increase in knowledge is never linear in time. Periods in which progress seems to be incremental are interrupted by scientific revolutions where a good deal of the previously existing knowledge is destroyed. - Unzicker, Alexander.Scientific knowledge and advancement comes, as history dictates, in waves, and we are NOT currently riding one - wjbREFERENCES RELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION1.Gingerich, Owen (2005). The Book Nobody Read. London: Arrow. p. 306. ISBN 0-09-947644-4.2.Dreyer, John Louis Emil (1953) [1906]. A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler. New York, NY: Dover Publications.3.Georges Saliba "The Astronomical Work of Mu’ayyad al-Din al-’Urdi (died 1266): A Thirteenth Century Reform of Ptolemaic Astronomy", Markaz dirasat al-Wahda al-'Arabiya, Beirut, 1990, 19954.Teresa Borawska, Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550) w życiu wewnętrznym Warmii i Prus Królewskich Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550) in the Internal Life of Warmia and Royal Prussia, Olsztyn, 1984.5.Westman, Robert S. (2011). The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. Los Angeles: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520254817.6.M. Saliba, Univ Michigan, 1979 Volumes 1 and 2 detail the prior work of Mu'ayyad al-Din al-'Urdi in the 13th century.7.http://ghhv.quetroi.net/74LEHAIN...8.Barker and Goldstein. "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy", pp. 112–13.9.Galina Weinstein , Einstein, Schwarzschild, the Perihelion Motion of Mercury and the Rotating Disk Story, Tel Aviv University November 25, 201410.Einstein, Albert (1915a). "Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie." Königlich Preuȕische, Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 778-786.11.Einstein, Albert (1915b). "Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. (Nachtrag)."Königlich Preuȕische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 799-801.12.Einstein, Albert (1915c). "Erklärung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie." Königlich Preuȕische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 831-39.13.Earman, John and Janssen, Michel (1993). "Einstein's Explanation of the Motion of nMercury's Perihelion." In John Earman, Michel Janssen, John D. Norton (ed), The Attraction of Gravitation: New Studies in the History of General Relativity, Einstein Studies, MA: Springer, 129-172; 141.14.The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 4: The Swiss Years: Writings, 1912–1914 (CPAE 4). Klein, Martin J., Kox, A.J., Renn, Jürgen, and Schulmann, Robert(eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995, "The Einstein-Besso Manuscript on the Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury", 349-351.15.Asimov, Isaac (1964). Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. ISBN 978-038517771916.Drake, Stillman (1978). Galileo At Work. Mineola, NY: Dover. ISBN 0-486-49542-6.17.Van Helden, Albert (1977). The Invention of the Telescope. Philadelphia, PA: The American Philosophical Society. ISBN 0-87169-674-6.18.Van Helden, Albert (1985). Measuring the Universe. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-84881-7.19.Finocchiaro, Maurice (2010). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the two Affairs. Springer. ISBN 978-9048132003.20.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1997). Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20548-0.21.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1989). The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-06662-6.22.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (Fall 2007). "Book Review—The Person of the Millennium: The Unique Impact of Galileo on World History". The Historian. 69 (3): 601–602. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2007.00189_68.x.23.Big Bang: the etymology of a name | Astronomy & Geophysics | Oxford Academic24.Alpher R Herman R 1997 in The George Gamow Symposium (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Franscisco) 49.25.Beatty C Fienberg R 1994 Sky and Telescope 87:320.26.Bondi Het al. 1959 Rival Theories of the Universe (Oxford University Press, London).27.Brush S 1993 Perspectives on Science 1 245.28.Cox Eet al. 1949 Journal of Meteorology 6 300.29.Dicke Ret al. 1965 Astrophys. J. 142 414.30.Eddington A 1928 The Nature of the Physical World (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).31.Gamow G 1951 The Creation of the Universe (Viking Press, New York).32.Gamow G 1968 American Institute of Physics33.Hanson N R 1963 in Philosophy of Science 2 (Interscience, New York) 465.34.Hawking S Tayler R 1966 Nature 209 1278.35.Heckmann O 1961 Astronomical J. 66 59936.Horgan J 1995 Sci. Amer. 272:3 46–48.37.Hoyle F 1949 The Listener 41 567–568.38.Hoyle F 1965 Galaxies, Nuclei and Quasars (Harper & Row, New York).39.Lemaitre G 1931 Nature 127 706.40.Lightman A Brawer R 1990 Origins (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.).41.McVittie G 1961 Science 133 1231.42.McVittie G 1974 Quart. J. Royal Ast. Soc. 15 246.43.Peebles J 1966 Astrophys. J. 146 542.44.Weinberg S 1962 Phys. Rev. 128 1457.45.Nussbaumer, H. & Bieri, L. preprint at [1107.2281] Who discovered the expanding universe? (2011).46.Way, M. & Nussbaumer, H. Physics Today, August, p. 8 (2011).47.Nussbaumer, H. & Bieri, L. preprint at [1107.2281] Who discovered the expanding universe? (2011).48.Van den Bergh, S. preprint at [1106.1195] The Curious Case of Lemaitre's Equation No. 24 (2011).49.Block, D. preprint at arxive.org (2011).50.Van den Bergh, S. in The Extragalactic Distance Scale, eds. M. Livio, M. Donahue, & N.Panagia (Cambridge: CUP), p. 1 (1997).51.Eddington, A. S. The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (Cambridge: CUP), p. 162(1923).52.Lemaître, G. Ann. Soc. Sci. Brux. A 47, 49 (1927).53.Strömberg, G. ApJ, 61, 353 (1925).54.Hubble, E. P. ApJ, 64, 321 (1926).55.Hubble, E. P. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 15, 168 (1929)56.Lemaître, G. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 91, 483 (1931).57.Gingerich, Owen (2005). The Book Nobody Read. London: Arrow. p. 306. ISBN 0-09-947644-4.58.Dreyer, John Louis Emil (1953) [1906]. A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler. New York, NY: Dover Publications.59.Georges Saliba "The Astronomical Work of Mu’ayyad al-Din al-’Urdi (died 1266): A Thirteenth Century Reform of Ptolemaic Astronomy", Markaz dirasat al-Wahda al-'Arabiya, Beirut, 1990, 199560.Teresa Borawska, Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550) w życiu wewnętrznym Warmii i Prus Królewskich Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550) in the Internal Life of Warmia and Royal Prussia, Olsztyn, 1984.61.Westman, Robert S. (2011). The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. Los Angeles: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520254817.62.M. Saliba, Univ Michigan, 1979 Volumes 1 and 2 detail the prior work of Mu'ayyad al-Din al-'Urdi in the 13th century.63.http://ghhv.quetroi.net/74LEHAIN...64.Barker and Goldstein. "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy", pp. 112–13.65.Galina Weinstein , Einstein, Schwarzschild, the Perihelion Motion of Mercury and the Rotating Disk Story, Tel Aviv University November 25, 201466.Einstein, Albert (1915a). "Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie." Königlich Preuȕische, Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 778-786.67.Einstein, Albert (1915b). "Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. (Nachtrag)."Königlich Preuȕische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 799-801.68.Einstein, Albert (1915c). "Erklärung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie." Königlich Preuȕische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 831-39.69.Earman, John and Janssen, Michel (1993). "Einstein's Explanation of the Motion of nMercury's Perihelion." In John Earman, Michel Janssen, John D. Norton (ed), The Attraction of Gravitation: New Studies in the History of General Relativity, Einstein Studies, MA: Springer, 129-172; 141.70.The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 4: The Swiss Years: Writings, 1912–1914 (CPAE 4). Klein, Martin J., Kox, A.J., Renn, Jürgen, and Schulmann, Robert(eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995, "The Einstein-Besso Manuscript on the Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury", 349-351.71.Asimov, Isaac (1964). Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. ISBN 978-038517771972.Drake, Stillman (1978). Galileo At Work. Mineola, NY: Dover. ISBN 0-486-49542-6.73.Van Helden, Albert (1977). The Invention of the Telescope. Philadelphia, PA: The American Philosophical Society. ISBN 0-87169-674-6.74.Van Helden, Albert (1985). Measuring the Universe. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-84881-7.75.Finocchiaro, Maurice (2010). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the two Affairs. Springer. ISBN 978-9048132003.76.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1997). Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20548-0.77.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1989). The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-06662-6.78.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (Fall 2007). "Book Review—The Person of the Millennium: The Unique Impact of Galileo on World History". The Historian. 69 (3): 601–602. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2007.00189_68.x.79.Sharon Begley, Chris Wickham; A Nobel prize for being in two places at once, SCIENCE NEWS OCTOBER 9, 201280.J. D. Bekenstein, Lett. Nuov. Cim. 4, 737 (1972); J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973); J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3292 (1974)81.Arntzenius, Frank. (2000) “Are there Really Instantaneous Velocities?”, The Monist 83, pp. 187-208.82.Barnes, J. (1982). The Presocratic Philosophers, Routledge & Kegan Paul:83.Barrow, John D. (2005). The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless, Pantheon Books, New York.84.Benacerraf, Paul (1962). “Tasks, Super-Tasks, and the Modern Eleatics,” The Journal of Philosophy, 59, pp. 765-784.85.Bergson, Henri (1946). Creative Mind, translated by M. L. Andison. Philosophical Library: New York.86.Black, Max (1950-1951). “Achilles and the Tortoise,” Analysis 11, pp. 91-101.87.Cajori, Florian (1920). “The Purpose of Zeno’s Arguments on Motion,” Isis, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 7-20.88.Cantor, Georg (1887). "Über die verschiedenen Ansichten in Bezug auf die actualunendlichen Zahlen." Bihang till Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademien Handlingar , Bd. 11 (1886-7), article 19. P. A. Norstedt & Sôner: Stockholm.89.Chihara, Charles S. (1965). “On the Possibility of Completing an Infinite Process,” Philosophical Review 74, no. 1, p. 74-87.90.Copleston, Frederick, S.J. (1962). “The Dialectic of Zeno,” chapter 7 of A History of Philosophy, Volume I, Greece and Rome, Part I, Image Books: Garden City.91.Dainton, Barry. (2010). Time and Space, Second Edition, McGill-Queens University Press: Ithaca.92.Dauben, J. (1990). Georg Cantor, Princeton University Press: Princeton.93.De Boer, Jesse (1953). “A Critique of Continuity, Infinity, and Allied Concepts in the Natural Philosophy of Bergson and Russell,” in Return to Reason: Essays in Realistic Philosophy, John Wild, ed., Henry Regnery Company: Chicago, pp. 92-124.94.Diels, Hermann and W. Kranz (1951). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, sixth ed., Weidmannsche Buchhandlung: Berlin.95.Dummett, Michael (2000). “Is Time a Continuum of Instants?,” Philosophy, 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 497-515.96.Earman J. and J. D. Norton (1996). “Infinite Pains: The Trouble with Supertasks,” in Paul Benacerraf: the Philosopher and His Critics, A. Morton and S. Stich (eds.), Blackwell: Cambridge, MA, pp. 231-261.97.Feferman, Solomon (1998). In the Light of Logic, Oxford University Press, New York.98.Freeman, Kathleen (1948). Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. Reprinted in paperback in 1983.99.Grünbaum, Adolf (1967). Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes, Wesleyan University Press: Middletown, Connecticut.100.Grünbaum, Adolf (1970). “Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes of Motion,” in (Salmon, 1970), pp. 200-250.101.Hamilton, Edith and Huntington Cairns (1961). The Collected Dialogues of Plato Including the Letters, Princeton University Press: Princeton.102.Harrison, Craig (1996). “The Three Arrows of Zeno: Cantorian and Non-Cantorian Concepts of the Continuum and of Motion,” Synthese, Volume 107, Number 2, pp. 271-292.103.Heath, T. L. (1921). A History of Greek Mathematics, Vol. I, Clarendon Press: Oxford. Reprinted 1981.104.Hintikka, Jaakko, David Gruender and Evandro Agazzi. Theory Change, Ancient Axiomatics, and Galileo’s Methodology, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.105.Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield, eds. (1983). The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.106.Maddy, Penelope (1992) “Indispensability and Practice,” Journal of Philosophy 59, pp. 275-289.107.Matson, Wallace I (2001). “Zeno Moves!” pp. 87-108 in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy VI: Before Plato, ed. by Anthony Preus, State University of New York Press: Albany.108.McCarty, D.C. (2005). “Intuitionism in Mathematics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, edited by Stewart Shapiro, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 356-86.109.McLaughlin, William I. (1994). “Resolving Zeno’s Paradoxes,” Scientific American, vol. 271, no. 5, Nov., pp. 84-90.110.Owen, G.E.L. (1958). “Zeno and the Mathematicians,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, vol. LVIII, pp. 199-222.111.Posy, Carl. (2005). “Intuitionism and Philosophy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, edited by Stewart Shapiro, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 318-54.112.Proclus (1987). Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, translated by Glenn R. Morrow and John M. Dillon, Princeton University Press: Princeton.113.Rescher, Nicholas (2001). Paradoxes: Their Roots, Range, and Resolution, Carus Publishing Company: Chicago.114.Pages 94-102 apply the Standard Solution to all of Zeno's paradoxes. Rescher calls the Paradox of Alike and Unlike the "Paradox of Differentiation."115.Rivelli, Carlo (2017). Reality is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity, Riverhead Books: New York.116.Rivelli's chapter 6 explains how the theory of loop quantum gravity provides a new solution to Zeno's Paradoxes that is more in tune with the intuitions of Democratus because it rejects the assumption that a bit of space can always be subdivided.117.Russell, Bertrand (1914). Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy, Open Court Publishing Co.: Chicago.118.Russell champions the use of contemporary real analysis and physics in resolving Zeno’s paradoxes.119.Salmon, Wesley C., ed. (1970). Zeno’s Paradoxes, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.: Indianapolis and New York. Reprinted in paperback in 2001.120.Szabo, Arpad (1978). The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics, D. Reidel Publishing Co.: Dordrecht.121.Tannery, Paul (1885). “‘Le Concept Scientifique du continu: Zenon d’Elee et Georg Cantor,” pp. 385-410 of Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Etranger, vol. 20, Les Presses Universitaires de France: Paris.122.Tannery, Paul (1887). Pour l’Histoire de la Science Hellène: de Thalès à Empédocle, Alcan: Paris. 2nd ed. 1930.123.Thomson, James (1954-1955). “Tasks and Super-Tasks,” Analysis, XV, pp. 1-13.124.Tiles, Mary (1989). The Philosophy of Set Theory: An Introduction to Cantor’s Paradise, Basil Blackwell: Oxford.125.Vlastos, Gregory (1967). “Zeno of Elea,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards (ed.), The Macmillan Company and The Free Press: New York.126.White, M. J. (1992). The Continuous and the Discrete: Ancient Physical Theories from a Contemporary Perspective, Clarendon Press: Oxford.127.Wisdom, J. O. (1953). “Berkeley’s Criticism of the Infinitesimal,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, No. 13, pp. 22-25.128.Wolf, Robert S. (2005). A Tour Through Mathematical Logic, The Mathematical Association of America: Washington, DC.129.Aristotle (1930) [ancient]. "Physics," from The Works of Aristotle, Vol. 2, (R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye, translators, W.D. Ross, ed.), Oxford, UK:Clarendon, see [1], accessed 14 October 2015.130.Laertius, Diogenes (about 230 CE). "Pyrrho". Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers IX. passage 72. ISBN1-116-71900-2131.Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763.132.T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano: Absorption-free optical control of spin systems: the quantum Zeno effect in optical pumping Phys. Rev. A 65, 013404 (2001).133.Fischer, M.; Gutiérrez-Medina, B.; Raizen, M. (2001). "Observation of the Quantum Zeno and Anti-Zeno Effects in an Unstable System". Physical Review Letters 87 (4): 040402.134.M. C. Fischer, B. Guti´errez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen, Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1081 (February 1, 2008)135.Weyl, H. (1928), Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik, Leipzig: Hirzel136.Searchable Online Accommodation Research; Light Sensitivity.137.SOAR; Employees with Epilepsy.138.SOAR; Employees with Lupus.139.Shadick NA, Phillips CB, Sangha O; et al. (December 1999). "Musculoskeletal and neurologic outcomes in patients with previously treated Lyme disease". Annals of Internal Medicine 131 (12): 919–26. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-131-12-199912210-00003. PMID 10610642140.Canadian Center for Occupation Health and Safety; Lighting Ergonomics, Light Flicker.141.Furuta, Aya (2012), "One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead", Scientific American.142.Ozawa, Masanao (2003), "Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement", Physical Review A, 67 (4): 42105, arXiv:quant-ph/0207121 Freely accessible, Bibcode:2003PhRvA..67d2105O, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.67.042105143.Loudon, Rodney, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford University Press, 2000), ISBN 0-19-850177-3144.D. F. Walls and G.J. Milburn, Quantum Optics, Springer Berlin 1994145.C W Gardiner and Peter Zoller, "Quantum Noise", 3rd ed, Springer Berlin 2004146.D. Walls, Squeezed states of light, Nature 306, 141 (1983)147.R. E. Slusher et al., Observation of squeezed states generated by four wave mixing in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (22), 2409 (1985)148.Breitenbach, G.; Schiller, S.; Mlynek, J. (29 May 1997). "Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light" (PDF). Nature. 387 (6632): 471–475. Bibcode:1997Natur.387..471B. doi:10.1038/387471a0.149.G. Breitenbach, S. Schiller, and J. Mlynek, "Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light", Nature, 387, 471 (1997)150.Entanglement evaluation with Fisher information - http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/06...A.I. Lvovsky, "Squeezed light," [1401.4118] Squeezed light151.L.-A. Wu, M. Xiao, and H. J. Kimble, "Squeezed states of light from an optical parametric oscillator," J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 4, 1465 (1987).152.Heidmann, A.; Horowicz, R.; Reynaud, S.; Giacobino, E.; Fabre, C.; Camy, G. (1987). "Observation of Quantum Noise Reduction on Twin Laser Beams". Physical Review Letters. 59: 2555. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..59.2555H. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.2555.A.Dutt, K. Luke, S. Manipatruni, A. L. Gaeta, P. Nussenzveig, and M. Lipson, "On-Chip Optical Squeezing," Physical Review Applied 3, 044005 (2015). [1309.6371] On-Chip Optical Squeezing153.Ou, Z. Y.; Pereira, S. F.; Kimble, H. J.; Peng, K. C. (1992). "Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox for continuous variables". Phys. Rev. Lett. 68: 3663. Bibcode:1992PhRvL..68.3663O. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.68.3663. PMID 10045765.154.Villar, A. S.; Cruz, L. S.; Cassemiro, K. N.; Martinelli, M.; Nussenzveig, P. (2005). "Generation of Bright Two-Color Continuous Variable Entanglement". Phys. Rev. Lett. 95: 243603. arXiv:quant-ph/0506139 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2005PhRvL..95x3603V. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.243603. PMID 16384378.155.Grote, H.; Danzmann, K.; Dooley, K. L.; Schnabel, R.; Slutsky, J.; Vahlbruch, H. (2013). "First Long-Term Application of Squeezed States of Light in a Gravitational-Wave Observatory". Phys. Rev. Lett. 110: 181101. arXiv:1302.2188 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2013PhRvL.110r1101G. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.181101.156.The LIGO Scientific Collaboration (2011). "A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit". Nature Physics. 7: 962. arXiv:1109.2295 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011NatPh...7..962L. doi:10.1038/nphys2083.157.Wineland, D. J.; Bollinger, J. J.; Heinzen, D. J. (1 July 1994). "Squeezed atomic states and projection noise in spectroscopy". Physical Review A. 50 (2): 67–88. Bibcode:1994PhRvA..50...67W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.50.67.158.Machida, S.; Yamamoto, Y.; Itaya, Y. (9 March 1987). "Observation of amplitude squeezing in a constant-current driven semiconductor laser". Physical Review Letters. 58 (10): 1000–1003. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..58.1000M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1000. PMID 10034306.159.O. V. Misochko, J. Hu, K. G. Nakamura, "Controlling phonon squeezing and correlation via one- and two-phonon interference," [1011.2001] Controlling phonon squeezing and correlation via one- and two-phonon interference160.Ma, Jian; Wang, Xiaoguang; Sun, C.P.; Nori, Franco (December 2011). "Quantum spin squeezing". Physics Reports. 509 (2–3): 89–165. arXiv:1011.2978 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011PhR...509...89M. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.08.003.161.Hosten, Onur; Engelsen, Nils J.; Krishnakumar, Rajiv; Kasevich, Mark A. (11 January 2016). "Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms". Nature. 529: 505–8. Bibcode:2016Natur.529..505H. doi:10.1038/nature16176. PMID 26751056.162.Cox, Kevin C.; Greve, Graham P.; Weiner, Joshua M.; Thompson, James K. (4 March 2016). "Deterministic Squeezed States with Collective Measurements and Feedback". Physical Review Letters. 116 (9): 093602. arXiv:1512.02150 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.116i3602C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.093602. PMID 26991175.163.Bohnet, J. G.; Cox, K. C.; Norcia, M. A.; Weiner, J. M.; Chen, Z.; Thompson, J. K. (13 July 2014). "Reduced spin measurement back-action for a phase sensitivity ten times beyond the standard quantum limit". Nature Photonics. 8 (9): 731–736. arXiv:1310.3177 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014NaPho...8..731B. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2014.151.164.Lücke, Bernd; Peise, Jan; Vitagliano, Giuseppe; Arlt, Jan; Santos, Luis; Tóth, Géza; Klempt, Carsten (17 April 2014). "Detecting Multiparticle Entanglement of Dicke States". Physical Review Letters. 112 (15): 155304. arXiv:1403.4542 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112o5304L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.155304. PMID 24785048.165.Rini, Matteo (September 6, 2016). "Synopsis: A Tight Squeeze". Physics.166.Vahlbruch, Henning; Mehmet, Moritz; Danzmann, Karsten; Schnabel, Roman (2016-09-06). "Detection of 15 dB Squeezed States of Light and their Application for the Absolute Calibration of Photoelectric Quantum Efficiency". Physical Review Letters. 117 (11): 110801. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.117k0801V. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.110801. PMID 27661673.167.Eberle, Tobias; Steinlechner, Sebastian; Bauchrowitz, Jöran; Händchen, Vitus; Vahlbruch, Henning; Mehmet, Moritz; Müller-Ebhardt, Helge; Schnabel, Roman (22 June 2010). "Quantum Enhancement of the Zero-Area Sagnac Interferometer Topology for Gravitational Wave Detection". Physical Review Letters. 104 (25): 251102. arXiv:1007.0574 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104y1102E. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.251102. PMID 20867358.168.Polzik, E. S. (1992-01-01). "Spectroscopy with squeezed light". Physical Review Letters. 68 (20): 3020–3023. Bibcode:1992PhRvL..68.3020P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3020.169.Leroux, Ian D.; Schleier-Smith, Monika H.; Vuletić, Vladan (25 June 2010). "Orientation-Dependent Entanglement Lifetime in a Squeezed Atomic Clock". Physical Review Letters. 104 (25): 250801. arXiv:1004.1725 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104y0801L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.250801. PMID 20867356.170.Louchet-Chauvet, Anne; Appel, Jürgen; Renema, Jelmer J; Oblak, Daniel; Kjaergaard, Niels; Polzik, Eugene S (28 June 2010). "Entanglement-assisted atomic clock beyond the projection noise limit". New Journal of Physics. 12 (6): 065032. arXiv:0912.3895 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010NJPh...12f5032L. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065032.171.Kitagawa, Masahiro; Ueda, Masahito (1 June 1993). "Squeezed spin states". Physical Review A. 47 (6): 5138–5143. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..47.5138K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.47.5138.172.Braunstein, Samuel L.; van Loock, Peter (29 June 2005). "Quantum information with continuous variables". Reviews of Modern Physics. 77 (2): 513–577. arXiv:quant-ph/0410100 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2005RvMP...77..513B. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.77.513.173.Furusawa, A. (23 October 1998). "Unconditional Quantum Teleportation". Science. 282 (5389): 706–709. Bibcode:1998Sci...282..706F. doi:10.1126/science.282.5389.706.174.Menicucci, Nicolas C.; Flammia, Steven T.; Pfister, Olivier (22 September 2008). "One-Way Quantum Computing in the Optical Frequency Comb". Physical Review Letters. 101 (13): 13501. arXiv:0804.4468 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2008PhRvL.101m0501M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.130501. PMID 18851426.175.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.176.Ionicioiu, R.; Terno, D. R. (2011). "Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment". Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (23): 230406. arXiv:1103.0117 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011PhRvL.107w0406I. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.230406. PMID 22182073.177.Jump up ^ Greene, Brian (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Alfred A. Knopf. p. 198. ISBN 0-375-41288-3.178.Octavio Obreg´on, Superstatistics and Gravitation, Entropy 2010, 12, 2067-2076; doi:10.3390/e12092067179.Verlinde, E.P. On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton. arXiv 2010, 1001.0785.180.Beckenstein, Black Holes and Entropy, Phy Rev D 7(8) 15April 1973181.Y Wang, J M Kratochvil, A Linde, and M Shmakova, Current Observational Constraints on Cosmic Doomsday. JCAP 0412 (2004) 006, astro-ph/0409264182.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955183.Heisenberg, W. (1927), "Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 43 (3–4): 172–198, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...43..172H, doi:10.1007/BF01397280.. Annotated pre-publication proof sheet of Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, March 21, 1927.184.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955185.Daniel M. Greenberger, Conceptual Problems Related to Time and Mass in Quantum Theory, Dept. of Physics, CCNY, New York, NY, 10031,USA. Sep 2010186.V. Bargmann, Ann. Math. 59, 1(1954).187.Roberto Colella, Albert W. Overhauser, Samuel A. Werner. “Observation of Gravitationally Induced Quantum Interference”, Physical Review Letters, 34, 1472 (1975). Abstract.188.Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Igor Pikovski, Časlav Brukner. “Quantum interferometric visibility as a witness of general relativistic proper time”, Nature Communications, 2, 505 (2011). Abstract. 2Physics Article.189.Yair Margalit, Zhifan Zhou, Shimon Machluf, Daniel Rohrlich, Yonathan Japha, Ron Folman. “A self-interfering clock as a 'which path' witness”, published online in 'Science Express' (August 6, 2015). Abstract. 2Physics Article.190.Igor Pikovski, Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Časlav Brukner, “Universal decoherence due to gravitational time dilation”, Nature Physics ,11, 668-672 (2015). Abstract.191.Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity," Dover, 1962, pp. 318-320192.Carsten Robens, Wolfgang Alt, Dieter Meschede, Clive Emary, and Andrea Alberti, “Ideal Negative Measurements in Quantum Walks Disprove Theories Based on Classical Trajectories,” Phys. Rev. X 5, 011003 (2015)A.J. Leggett and A. Garg, “Quantum Mechanics Versus Macroscopic Realism: Is the Flux There When Nobody Looks?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857 (1985)B.Emary, N. Lambert, and F. Nori, “Leggett-Garg Inequalities,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 016001 (2014)193.M. E. Goggin, M. P. Almeida, M. Barbieri, B. P. Lanyon, J. L. O’Brien, A. G. White, and G. J. Pryde, “Violation of the Leggett-Garg Inequality with Weak Measurements of Photons,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 1256 (2011)194.G. C. Knee et al., “Violation of a Leggett-Garg Inequality with Ideal Non-Invasive Measurements,” Nature Commun. 3, 606 (2012)195.G. Waldherr, P. Neumann, S. F. Huelga, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, “Violation of a Temporal Bell Inequality for Single Spins in a Diamond Defect Center,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 090401 (2011)A.Palacios-Laloy, F. Mallet, F. Nguyen, P. Bertet, D. Vion, D. Esteve, and A. N. Korotkov, “Experimental Violation of a Bell’s Inequality in Time with Weak Measurement,” Nature Phys. 6, 442 (2010)196.S. Nimmrichter and K. Hornberger, “Macroscopicity of Mechanical Quantum Superposition States,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 160403 (2013)197.K. Hornberger, S. Gerlich, H. Ulbricht, L. Hackermüller, S. Nimmrichter, I. V. Goldt, O. Boltalina, and M. Arndt, “Theory and Experimental Verification of Kapitza–Dirac–Talbot–Lau Interferometry,” New J. Phys. 11, 043032 (2009)198.Pound, R. V.; Rebka Jr. G. A. (November 1, 1959). "Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance". Physical Review Letters. 3 (9): 439–441. Bibcode:1959PhRvL...3..439P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439.199.Cf. Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, §20.4 (‘Gravitation’)200.Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Volume 2, page 1073 - Lawrence S. Lerner - Science – 1997201.McGlinn, William D. (2004), Introduction to relativity, JHU Press, p. 43, ISBN 0-8018-7047-X Extract of page 43202.E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1203.L. B. Okun', The concept of mass (mass, energy, relativity), Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow Usp.Fiz.Nauk 158, 511-530 (July 1989)204.Erik Verlinde, On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton; arXiv:1001.0785v1 [hep-th] 6 Jan 2010205.Rees, Martin (May 3, 2001). Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe. New York, NY: Basic Books; First American edition. p. 4.206.Gribbin. J and Rees. M, Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology p. 7, 269, 1989, ISBN 0-553-34740-3207.Davis, Paul (2007). Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. New York, NY: Orion Publications. p. 2. ISBN 0618592261.208.Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 7, 125.209.Lawrence Joseph Henderson, The fitness of the environment: an inquiry into the biological significance of the properties of matter The Macmillan Company, 1913210.R. H. Dicke (1961). "Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle". Nature. 192 (4801): 440–441. Bibcode:1961Natur.192..440D. doi:10.1038/192440a0.211.Heilbron, J. L. The Oxford guide to the history of physics and astronomy, Volume 10 2005, p. 8212.Profile of Fred Hoyle at OPT Archived 2012-04-06 at the Wayback Machine.. Telescopes, Astronomy Cameras, Telescope Mounts & Accessories. Retrieved on 2013-03-11.213.Paul Davies, 1993. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71214.MacDonald, J.; Mullan, D. J. (2009). "Big bang nucleosynthesis: The strong nuclear force meets the weak anthropic principle". Physical Review D. 80 (4): 043507. arXiv:0904.1807 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..80d3507M. doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.043507.215.Abbott, Larry (1991). "The Mystery of the Cosmological Constant". Scientific American. 3 (1): 78.216.Lemley, Brad. "Why is There Life?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 23 August 2014.217.Adams, Fred C., 2008, “Stars in other universes: stellar structure with different fundamental constants”, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 08: 10. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/010218.Barnes, Luke A., 2012, “The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life”, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29(4): 529–564. doi:10.1071/AS12015219.Carter, B., 1974, “Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology”, in M. S. Longair (ed.), Confrontation of Cosmological Theory with Observational Data, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 291–298.220.Collins, R., 2009, “The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the cosmos”, in W. L. Craig and J.P. Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Oxford: Blackwell221.Colyvan M., J. L. Garfield, and G. Priest, 2005, “Problems with the argument from fine-tuning”, Synthese, 145(39): 325–338. doi:10.1007/s11229-005-6195-0222.Donoghue, John F., 2007, “The fine-tuning problems of particle physics and anthropic mechanisms”, in Carr 2007: 231–246. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107050990.017223.Earman, John and Jesus Mosterín, 1999, “A critical look at inflationary cosmology”, Philosophy of Science, 66(1): 1–49. doi:10.1086/392675224.Grinbaum, Alexei, 2012, “Which fine-tuning arguments are fine?”,, Foundations of Physics, 42(5): 615–631. doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9629-9225.Hogan, Craig J., 2000, “Why the universe is just so”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 72: 1149–1161. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.72.1149226.Landsman, Klaas, 2016, “The fine-tuning argument: exploring the improbability of our own existence”, in K. Landsman and E. van Wolde (eds.), The Challenge of Chance, Heidelberg: Springer227.McCoy, C.D., 2015, “Does inflation solve the hot big bang model’s fine-tuning problems?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 51: 23–36. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2015.06.002228.Roberts, John T., 2012, “Fine-tuning and the infrared bull’s eye”, Philosophical Studies, 160(2): 287–303. doi:10.1007/s11098-011-9719-0229.Tegmark, Max, 2014, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, New York: Knopf.230.Tegmark, Max and Martin J. Rees, 1998, “Why is the cosmic microwave background fluctuation level 10−510−5”, The Astrophysical Journal, 499(2): 526–532. doi:10.1086/305673231.Tegmark, Max, Anthony Aguirre, Martin J. Rees, and Frank Wilczek, 2006, “Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters”, Physical Review D, 73(2): 023505. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.023505232.Wheeler, J. A. (January 1955). "Geons". Physical Review. 97 (2): 511. Bibcode:1955PhRv...97..511W. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.97.511.233.J S Briggs 2008 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 99 012002, A derivation of the time-energy uncertainty234.Jan Hilgevoord, The uncertainty principle for energy and time, Department of History and Foundations of Mathematics and Science, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.000, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands, (Received 29 January 1996; accepted 10 June 1996)235.L. MANDELSTAM * and lg. TAMM, THE UNCERTAINTY RELATION BETWEEN ENERGY AND TIME IN NON-RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM MECHANICS, Academy of Scioences of the USSR, 1945.236.J. A. Wheeler and R. P., Feynman, “Interaction with the absorber as a mechanism of radiation”, Rev.237.Mod. Phys. 17 157 (1945).238.J. E. Hogarth, “ Considerations of the Absorber Theory of Radiation”, Proc. Roy. Soc. A267,239.pp365-383 (1962).240.Cramer, John G. (July 1986). "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". Reviews of Modern Physics. 58 (3): 647–688. Bibcode:1986RvMP...58..647C. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.58.647.241.Cramer, John G. (February 1988). "An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation" (PDF). International Journal of Theoretical Physics. 27 (2): 227–236. Bibcode:1988IJTP...27..227C. doi:10.1007/BF00670751.242.Cramer, John G. (3 April 2010). "Quantum Entanglement, Nonlocality, Back-in-Time Messages" (PPT). John G. Cramer's Home Page. University of Washington.243.Cramer, John G. (2016). The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions. Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-3319246406.244.Richard Feynman: A life in science, p.273 et seq., John Gribbin, Mary Gribbin, Dutton, Penguin Books, 1997245.M. C. Fischer, B. Guti´errez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen, Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1081 (February 1, 2008)246.Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763.247.T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano: Absorption-free optical control of spin systems: the quantum Zeno effect in optical pumping Phys. Rev. A 65, 013404 (2001).248.P. Facchi, D. A. Lidar, & S. Pascazio Unification of dynamical decoupling and the quantum Zeno effect Physical Review A 69, 032314 (2004)249.UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT , Perspectives on Death and Dying 5th Edition, An Online Textbook edited by Dr. Philip A. Pecorino.250.Dr. Leon Kass, in "A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death: An Appraisal and a Proposal," 121 Pa. L. Rev. 87. 1975251.§1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustain ­either (1) irreversible cessation of circulator and respiratory­functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functionsof the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with ­accepted medical standards.252.§2. [Uniformity of Construction and Application.] This Act shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this Act among states enacting it.253.§3. [Short Title.] This Act may be cited as the Uniform Determination of Death Act.254.Capron, A. M. and Kass, L. R. "A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death" University of Pennsylvania Law Review 121:87-118, 1972.255.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.256.Scully, Marlan O.; Kai Drühl (1982). "Quantum eraser: A proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and "delayed choice" in quantum mechanics". Physical Review A. 25 (4): 2208–2213. Bibcode:1982PhRvA..25.2208S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2208.257.Ma, Zeilinger, et al., "Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice". See: Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice "Our results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the system photon behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely."258.Peruzzo, et al., "A quantum delayed choice experiment", arXiv:1205.4926v2 [quant-ph] 28 Jun 2012. This experiment uses Bell inequalities to replace the delayed choice devices, but it achieves the same experimental purpose in an elegant and convincing way.259.Zajonc, A. G.; Wang, L. J.; Zou, X. Y.; Mandel, L. (1991). "Quantum eraser". Nature. 353 (6344): 507–508. Bibcode:1991Natur.353..507Z. doi:10.1038/353507b0.260.Herzog, T. J.; Kwiat, P. G.; Weinfurter, H.; Zeilinger, A. (1995). "Complementarity and the quantum eraser" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 75 (17): 3034–3037. Bibcode:1995PhRvL..75.3034H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3034. PMID 10059478. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 December 2013. Retrieved 13 February 2014.261.Walborn, S. P.; et al. (2002). "Double-Slit Quantum Eraser". Phys. Rev. A. 65 (3): 033818. arXiv:quant-ph/0106078 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2002PhRvA..65c3818W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.65.033818.262.Jacques, Vincent; Wu, E; Grosshans, Frédéric; Treussart, François; Grangier, Philippe; Aspect, Alain; Rochl, Jean-François (2007). "Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment". Science. 315 (5814): 966–968. arXiv:quant-ph/0610241 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2007Sci...315..966J. doi:10.1126/science.1136303. PMID 17303748.263.Chiao, R. Y.; P. G. Kwiat; Steinberg, A. M. (1995). "Quantum non-locality in two-photon experiments at Berkeley". Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B. 7 (3): 259–278. arXiv:quant-ph/9501016 Freely accessible. Bibcode:1995QuSOp...7..259C. doi:10.1088/1355-5111/7/3/006. Retrieved 13 February 2014.264.Jordan, T. F. (1993). "Disppearance and reappearance of macroscopic quantum interference". Physical Review A. 48 (3): 2449–2450. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..48.2449J. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.48.2449.265.Peruzzo, Alberto; Shadbolt, Peter J.; Brunner, Nicolas; Popescu, Sandu; O'Brien, Jeremy L. (2012). "A quantum delayed choice experiment". Science. 338 (6107): 634–637. arXiv:1205.4926 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2012Sci...338..634P. doi:10.1126/science.1226719. PMID 23118183.266.Eberhard, Phillippe H.; Ronald R. Ross (1989). "Quantum field theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication". Foundations of Physics Letters. 2 (2): 127–149. Bibcode:1989FoPhL...2..127E. doi:10.1007/BF00696109.267.Benoit B. Mandelbrot, Fractals, Encyclopedia of Statiscal Sciences, DOI: 10.1002/0471667196.ess0816 1977268.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955269.Misner, Thorne, Zurek; John Wheeler, relativity, and quantum information, http://its.caltech.edu/kip/pubsc...270.Bondi, H, Relativity and Common Sense 1980 ISBN-13: 978-0486240213271.Kennard, E. H. (1927), "Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewegungstypen", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 44 (4–5): 326–352, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...44..326K, doi:10.1007/BF01391200.272.M. Tegmark; N. Bostrom (2005). "Is a doomsday catastrophe likely?" (PDF). Nature. 438 (5875): 754. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..754T. doi:10.1038/438754a. PMID 16341005273.M. Stone (1976). "Lifetime and decay of excited vacuum states". Phys. Rev. D. 14 (12): 3568–3573. Bibcode:1976PhRvD..14.3568S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568274.P.H. Frampton (1976). "Vacuum Instability and Higgs Scalar Mass". Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (21): 1378–1380. Bibcode:1976PhRvL..37.1378F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1378275.M. Stone (1977). "Semiclassical methods for unstable states". Phys. Lett. B. 67 (2): 186–188. Bibcode:1977PhLB...67..186S. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90099-5.276.P.H. Frampton (1977). "Consequences of Vacuum Instability in Quantum Field Theory". Phys. Rev. D15 (10): 2922–28. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2922F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2922.277.S. Coleman (1977). "Fate of the false vacuum: Semiclassical theory". Phys. Rev. D15: 2929–36. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2929C. doi:10.1103/physrevd.15.2929.278.C. Callan; S. Coleman (1977). "Fate of the false vacuum. II. First quantum corrections". Phys. Rev. D16: 1762–68. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..16.1762C. doi:10.1103/physrevd.16.1762279.Alekhin, Djouadi and Moch (2012-08-13). "The top quark and Higgs boson masses and the stability of the electroweak vacuum". Physics Letters B. 716: 214–219. arXiv:1207.0980 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2012PhLB..716..214A. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.024280.P.H. Frampton (1976). "Vacuum Instability and Higgs Scalar Mass". Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (21): 1378–1380. Bibcode:1976PhRvL..37.1378F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1378281.Sharon Begley, Chris Wickham; A Nobel prize for being in two places at once, SCIENCE NEWS OCTOBER 9, 2012

There is a Liberal bias in American Universities, and in some places, including many of the most prominent universities in the country, an extreme Left Wing bias. If you find this hard to believe, the first thing you need to accept is that college isn’t what it used to be 5 years ago.In a few cases, there is a fair explanation for why this could naturally happen. One is the nature of the conservative motivations for education from those on the left. For most conservatives, college is a time to gain skills necessary for employment. While most professors will admit that their conservative students perform just as well as their liberal counterparts and often better, many of the fields they enter into do not require more than a four year degree. Consider Business or Law Enforcement. With many liberals, the fields they are seeking are academic and require much more study. This, I have found, to be a perfectly logical and acceptable explanation for why more students of a liberal persuasion would pursue a life in academia and thereby shift the balance.My friend Ian McCullough, a liberal, also provides a few very good reasons in his answer for why such a liberal lean could naturally and with absolutely no malice or nefarious schemes to bias the system. There are others as well, but with credit to my friends on the left who acknowledge the liberal bias, this doesn’t go far enough to explain the real numbers being reported in the system, nor do they really acknowledge the gravity of the situation current college students are experiencing because of the extreme bias in the system.Samuel Abrams, a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College, did a study in 2014 measuring back over the last 25 years to measure the dispersion of left leaning professors to those of the right. What he found was staggering. In colleges, liberals have always been more embraced, at least since Abrams began his study. Beginning in the mid 90’s, however, conservatives and especially moderates have been replaced by more extreme liberal biases.Figure 1. Ideological Positions of Faculty in American Colleges and Universities: 1989 – 2014. Data courtesy of the Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, plotted by Sam Abrams.For certain parts of the country, this was far more pronounced. Abrams broke down the disparity geographically and saw that while liberals outnumbered their conservative counterparts throughout the nation in representation in institutions of higher learning, in places like the New England states, the disparity was as high as 28 to 1.28 to 1… Come on. There is simply no rational explanation for a 28 to 1 disparity that is innocent or lacking some major degree of intolerance to opposing points of view. Given that we are talking about the some of the world’s leading intellectual institutions, the level of intolerance that could have created a 28 to 1 disparity. Furthermore, given the outsized influence that these particular universities have over the educational system, it should bother people that they are so repressive towards differing points of view in their hiring practices.Another study Published in Econ Journal Watch, reviewed over 7,000 where they found that Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly 12 to 1. Compare this to a 1968 study that put the Democrat-to-Republican contrast in history departments at 2.7 to 1. Furthermore, it broke it down by department, where economics was the most friendly to conservatives, at a ratio of only 4.5 liberal professors to every conservative. Another study resulted in only 7% to 11% of faculty members in social sciences and humanities are Republicans, according to surveys. At the extreme, the Econ Journal Watch found that History departments, where the leanings of your old High School teachers were long gone, had liberals outnumber conservatives by a 33 1/2-to-1 ratio. It was even shown within these departments that it was easier to find a Marxist than a Republican. Perhaps now it makes sense that mention of the Gulag Archipelago, Christian genocide in the Soviet Union, artificial famines in China under Mao, or why Communism killed over 100,000,000 people in the 20th century never seemed to make the syllabus, but man… those Americans with their economic imperialism and long history of oppression. Wow. Thank goodness for higher learning.This brings to mind the quote from one of the fathers of Conservative theory, something no one learns about in college, Edmund Burke.Honestly, how many people had no clue who originally said that, and honestly, how many people calling themselves educated have no clue who this man is? Chances are, you didn’t learn about him in college and if you know, you found it out on your own. That should be the first indicator that there is something wrong with this imbalance due to that bias.Some of the excuses being levied for this is that the college experience simply makes conservatives or moderates liberals, as if the institutional process civilizes them from their barbaric or neanderthal ways. Wow, is that arrogant. That certainly doesn’t explain the Burke thing, though. Others, that the filtering process for universities (their costly expense) filters out the poor and the uneducated, which is presumably where most conservatives hail from. Given how radically contradictory this is to the notion that conservatives are all rich and greedy, only interested in maintaining the status quo, I wonder how apologists can possibly rationalize the two competing views. A better (while still incorrect) explanation offered by the New York Times was that Conservatism has simply changed and that no one could bear it any longer, or at least, that it became intolerable to the academic environment.Again, this excuse fails a logical test. If such an evolution took place, then we would have seen some measurable change in the broader culture, but at the same time that the universities became stark and suddenly more left wing, the nation stayed exactly the same, as shown by this graph depicting the ideological positions of America.What the evidence shows is that while the United States has remained remarkably ideologically consistent, the universities have become extremely left/leaning, radically and disturbingly so in the New England states and particularly in the social sciences. So there really isn’t a good reason for 28 to 1. For that sort of dispearity to exist, much more powerful and far more far more complex reasons must exist for than the often levied and extraordinary condescending “because smart people are liberal,” and many of them, aren’t innocent or even accidental.Frankly, there was a few rational reasons for a left leaning influence in the universities, but that has compounded itself many times with those left leaning voices pulling more like themselves in and pushing out all the others on an institutional level. Specifically, the problem with the left wing, let’s call it what it is, radicalization of the universities is that draws from selection biases in the way professors are brought in to teach the “liberal” arts, humanities, and social sciences. Not all, but a fair enough proportion of the professors did not gain their credibility from their early academic fields, but through activism. Look, say whatever you like about activists and the need for them, but they don’t produce unbiased people willing to accept critical analysis that may invalidate the cause they’ve championed for years. Often, after whatever gains are made, they have few employment options beyond pursuing fields in politics or becoming professors of social sciences.A problem with people going into science fields who have an agenda? They don’t produce quality science. A scientist works toward discovery, with no real goal in mind other than to discover what is unknown. They aren’t there to prove a point. These activists turned professors, however, build careers around continuing their advocacy, whether intentionally or not. Rather than a simple quest for discovery and education, they are institutionally encouraged to be fixated on researching topics related to their personal connections to the issues. This has been called by one professor of Psychology, John Ruscio “me-search”. The problem here is that, rather than simply teaching what is needed to understand a fundamental course, or in discovering new relevant truths, courses become grounds for activists turned professors to continue their original work, often at the cost of the actual science in those fields.An example? Women’s studies. When you’ve built your work around decades of theory predicated on the narrative that women are institutionally repressed by society and source as proof for this evidence such as the “Wage Gap”, you really don’t want to deal with arguments that invalidate that data point central to your theory. However, when evidence turns up showing that simply taking the difference between the averages of all women and all men may not be a quality metric with which judge the entirety of American culture to be systemically sexist, we aren’t presented with that argument in the curriculum. Furthermore, saying that factors such as the number of women who choose to leave work to start families as compared to men across the society, the amount of time taken off by women, the fewer average hours worked by women, or the relative unwillingness of women to take on dangerous (and more often higher paying) jobs, or even simply the argument that men are more likely to ask for more money, aren’t taught either. Continuing on, when evidence such that the freer a society gets for women, as defined by the feminists themselves, such as we see in the nordic and other parts of Europe, we see more gender based delineation in the types of work that women choose to take on than those societies which are deemed less free for women, meaning that the freer women are to make their own choices, the more the supposed wage gap increases due to the jobs they choose. All this considered, it becomes clear that whatever wage gap that exists is due far more to the choices and freedoms these women have, than some systemic repression of a tyrannical patriarchy. In fact, when factoring for these choices, the wage gap narrows to almost nothing, and in fact, reverses in many liberal cities for young women without children. This argument really sucks if you’ve built a career proving the Patriarchy, so it’s little wonder that it isn’t thoroughly explored more by students of these professors.And it’s very difficult for professors to adapt to new information when they were not brought into the education via the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, but as activists who continue to believe they fighting for a cause. That’s why these arguments don’t appear in campuses open discussion. Instead, they are labeled “sexist” or that they are “creating a hostile environment for students” where they don’t feel “safe”, and any professor who does allows such discussion might find themselves in a punitive meeting with their school’s ethics and diversity officer.That isn’t hyperbolic, as a similar case to this example took place in Canada last month. At Wilfrid Laurier University, a teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd was branded as “transphobic” and scolded by her supervising professor, Nathan Rambukkana, during a meeting with the Ethics and Diversity Officer of Wilfrid Laurier following the supposed complaint from a student. Her crime? Showing a video of a debate taken from Canadian public television featuring one Canadian professor of Psychology, Dr. Jordan Peterson. Her true crime, however, wasn’t in showing the video, but failing to do so “critically”, making it known that she and the university don’t support his views. That is to say, her job was specifically to not be neutral, which was what she thought her job was supposed to be. During the reprimand, which her supervising professor communicated to her as a simple meeting, the university officials informed her that the video was “problematic” because Dr. Jordan Peterson was a “key member of the Alt-Right” and that he uses the website Patreon “made by the Alt-Right to fund hate speech”, and that by showing a video representing him neutrally she was “fostering an atmosphere of transphobia on the campus.” The reprimand even compared what she did to “neutrally playing a speech by Hitler.”I can say this. I’ve followed Dr. Peterson very closely over the last year, and watched a lot of his videos. I’ve also written extensively on the Alt-Right, specifically in creating a book aimed at educating readers on understanding and dismantling their movement. That he would be compared to the Alt-Right is patently absurd. Then to say that representing one of his videos is the same as “neutrally playing a speech by Hitler,” is the sort of accusation which should see heads roll during more rational times. As an additional note, I’ve also used patreon for four years and can say that they have intentionally banned violators such as this campus tribunal has indicated, with most of their creators being creators of music videos and comics. Hardly the pipeline to hate speech described by the “campus diversity officer”. What Peterson is rather famous for is his fight against Canada’s recent Bill C-16, which mandates compelled speech for professors according to the guidelines of extreme left wing narrative board of inquiry over Canada’s education system.What seems clear is that, like at many other campuses, (see Duke LaCrosse Team) judgement was cast down based on the complaint of a single individual who was offended and when that offense met with a far left Progressive narrative of the campus,was acted upon without any investigation other than what the professor had heard through a very biased grapevine, and used to create a repressive, even fearful atmosphere for people who did nothing wrong.What seems equally questionable is the creep of the Humanities into the hard Sciences. By this, I’m referring to Feminist Biology, which isn’t the biology of women, but a program at the University of Wisconsin where the field is viewed through the lens of feminism and the female perspective. To quote one professor, it exists because “in order to do science well, we can’t ignore the ideas and research of people who just so happen to not be male,” though there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that men need to be censored from the field, given that women have far surpassed men at earning Biology degrees and saying that they aren’t respected in the field ignores how many of them are being given Nobel Prizes for their contributions. Historically, men dominate the sciences, but if any quality Biology program is teaching current Biology, then I don’t see how they would be guilty of teaching about only men. Given also that such a program would specifically filter out the “ideas and research of people who happen to be male”, are not these feminist biology student being denied the foundational work of the first scientists in the field that the world of later male or female scientists are built on? The logic of the class is what it is, but what is perhaps most troubling is that this program wasn’t governed by the Biology Department of Wisconsin University, but under the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies. To say nothing else, I should think that hard scientists would find that concerning.This creep can be felt in other ways to students, where more and more of their bloated transcripts are being filled with courses outside their chosen fields to “gain a deeper appreciation in the Humanities”, which is itself becoming more radicalized. Perhaps a little emphasis in economics could have explained the consequences of their rising student loan debt due to these additional classes and given them an appreciation for how hard paying it off will be if you only ever paid attention in humanities courses.Moving on, conservatives also note the problems inherent in the system by way of how professors and graduate students are promoted and advance in their careers, by means of peer-review publications. The process of peer review is fraught with controversy from scientists questioning if the system is valid for the progress of scientific discovery and acceptability, from bias to outright censorship. It can range from committees made of department heads giving the ten ton hammer to articles and manuscripts they find objectionable on any number of issues to the simple process of a journal editor sending an article to a few friends to see if they like it, where two thumbs up mean it gets published and a rejection sends the piece to the Void of Lost and Forgotten Knowledge.There are many unhappy with the system of peer review, so does this process result in censorship for or a lack of advancement for conservatives specifically? According to numerous professors, yes it does.The following was submitted by a conservative professor, Matthew Woessner, whose main work argues against the notion of that conservative views are repressed in the colleges, but here, he must contend the peer-review process, coupled with the extreme diversity problem among educators, makes it difficult for conservatives to find opportunities for advancement.The more pernicious problem occurs when right-leaning scholars submit their work for blind review with prestigious publishers or in peer-reviewed journals. Even if we presume that most journal referees are sincerely trying to judge a work based on its scholarly merits rather than its social or political implications, a jury pool dominated by left-leaning scholars will almost certainly subject right-leaning papers to greater scrutiny, highlighting their methodological shortcomings and challenging their overall conclusions. If the academic universe were evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, the unconscious tendency to challenge dissenting viewpoints would hamper the publication of conservative and liberal work at roughly the same rate. However, with a vast majority of academics falling on the left side of the political spectrum, this is an issue that, in all probability, tends to hamper the publication of conservative-leaning ideas. Thus, professors whose political instincts are right of center must either focus on non-ideological scholarly questions or endure a special degree of scrutiny as they seek to secure publication of their ideas.Richard Vatz, professor of rhetoric and communication at Towson University was less forgiving.For many decades, there has been a stunning — and manifestly appalling — general prejudice against conservatives in higher education, evidenced by curtailments on their academic freedom and freedom of speech.It is difficult for conservatives to get hired, and once hired, it is difficult for them to get promotion and tenure — particularly in the humanities and social sciences, wherein liberal orthodoxy rules.This has resulted in fewer conservatives finding their way into academe as a profession, which liberals disingenuously claim is the result of universities having limited economic attraction for those on the right, not as a result of unfair practices.He continued in a follow-up to his original piece published in The Chronicle of Higher Education - Anti-Conservative Bias in Academe is Real.Furthermore, over the past five years, outright repression of conservative views has increased to the point of direct hostility against professors and students who harbor them. A book Passing on the Right documented the growing tension and fear many conservatives have in academia. It notes that belief in campus discrimination against conservatives is widespread: 81% of conservative professors say they feel it, and even 30% of liberal professors agree that conservatives face a hostile ideological workplace. The book also lists numerous accounts brought forward to show that this radicalizing process is getting worse and having expressed impacts on the careers of conservative professors and the orthodoxy being pushed to students. Among the examples given were a professor accused of training his students to be Nazis after defending the post-9/11 War on Terror where his door was covered with swastikas, a Jewish historian calling for political diversity on a panel on reparations being called a racist and a Nazi by his colleagues, the ostracism of one professor who accepted a job in the Bush administration by colleagues, and even pro-life sentiment at a Catholic college being viewed as “shocking” and “venomous.”Continuing on, the book details requests for academics seeking to do research on topics controversial or challenging to left -wing narratives, such as reverse discrimination against whites and/or men facing rejection for explicitly political reasons with reaction such as: “The findings could set Affirmative Action back 20 years if it came out that women were asked to interview more often for managerial positions than men with a stronger vitae.” If all this weren’t enough, the book also notes one study finding sociologists were willing to give preferential treatment in offering a job to a communist over a Republican.Altogether, this process seems to have the impact of further increasing the disparity between right and left on college campuses. Most importantly, in recent year, this disparity has manifest as outright intolerance of conservative views and students by extremists allowed to rise through the academic system unchallenged. Noteworthy examples include those gathered by Sankar Srinivasan whereby A professor called students ‘future dead cops.’, another writing reports that Having 'white nuclear family' promotes white supremacy, or when Drexel was forced to suspend a professor after hateful tweets following the Las Vegas shooting. His exact words were “All I want for Christmas is a White Genocide” and “It’s the white supremacist patriarchy, stupid.” An important note, Drexel didn’t suspend him as a form of disciplinary action but because “he was receiving threats,” and that “his and the student’s safety was their top priority.”I’ll make an opinion statement here, Drexel would make a clearer statement that their student’s safety mattered if they fired the professor calling for a majority of them to be murdered. Again, that’s just my opinion.Then, of course, we have the professor who let her class protest Trump instead of taking the final exam and the one who offered extra credit to students who protest against President Trump. No bias here, folks. More recently, there was the masked professor in California who attacked pro-Trump protests with a bike lock (Former professor suspected in Berkeley bike-lock attack enters plea in Oakland court). Wonder what his classes were like. And just this last month, a student newspaper which published the article 'Your [white] DNA is an abomination'.“When I think of all the white people I have ever encountered - whether they’ve been professors, peers, lovers, friend, police officers, et cetera - there is perhaps only a dozen I would consider ‘decent,’” student author Rudy Martinez writes in the University Star.Without much biological explanation, Martinez informs white readers, “You were not born white. You became white… You don’t give a damn.” Later in his rant, he calls the police “fascist foot soldiers” and says a “white supremacist inhabits the White House.”How a student at a major American university, in Texas no less, could come to such conclusions as rational and acceptable to print is the real heart of the matter.Liberals in higher education are so over represented, and conservative voices so marginalized in both hiring and promotion practices, that the theories, ideas, and norms of an ever more left-leaning academia are completely and totally unchecked by dissenting arguments. It is, in fact, reaching a tipping point to the where the very idea of criticism toward these theories and ideas is itself being outlawed on campuses. With the propagation of campus speech codes, to censur both student and professor curriculum, the encouragement of campus courts falsely accusing students of all manner of criminal and non-criminal acts that destroy their future prospects of a career, the acceptance of safe-space mentalities to free students from critical thought and ideas that challenge their orthodoxy, the dogmatic enforcement of political correctness in lectures by campus “ethics and diversity” officers, the banning of conservative lecturers paid for by student donation from entering the campus, and finally the outright tolerance of hate speech such as saying that all Republicans are Nazis and that white DNA is an abomination, liberal schools have lost the right to call themselves institutions of higher learning.They have for too long accepted processes which encourage an ever present left-word shift, to the point that there was no one left to be critical of their ever more apparent radicalization.In the best case scenario, the environment of college campuses is producing a generation of students who are completely unaware of views which contradict mainline Progressive ideology, making them weaker thinkers incapable of dealing with conflicting views, having never experienced their own views challenged in the institution specifically created to do so. This hurts liberal students far more, as the conservative students must grapple with being challenged with every lecture, and those who remain steadfast are empowered with the rationale for their beliefs honest critical analysis offers them, but which is denied to their liberal students. In the worst case, the colleges are evolving into toxic grounds for free thought and becoming a bedrock of poorly vetting theory which borders now on orthodoxy, one which is taken as fact without criticism, and is being used to prop up hateful movements under the guise of their own victimhood.All that to say, well done young lady.Thank you for reading. If you liked this answer, please upvote and follow The War Elephant. If you want to help me make more content like this, please visit my Patreon Support Page to learn how. All donations greatly appreciated!

My answer view -The greatest consequence is we would leave the current Quaternary Ice Age and enjoy a tropical climate throughout the world as in the past.By definition when both polar ice caps are under ice all year WE ARE IN AN ICE AGE.What is it like to be in an ice age? Terrible and devastating much more so than a non-ice age like the majority of our past history when tropical climes prevailed. Also the recent Little Ice Age showed how millions die from flooding and starvation as agriculture fails.How do we get out of an ice age? Climate change from cooling to warming.Has the current warming taken us out of the Quaternary ice age? No. Temperatures have not risen more than 1* C in the past 150 years and over the past 7000 years there is a consistent decline in temperatures. Also of course our polar ice caps have not melted and are now expanding.Why did governments attack recent warming with a plan in the Paris Accord to make the climate colder? They said the warming was happening too fast?Is this true? No. How can too little warming to matter support the claim that the warming is too fast to be natural? It cannot.Is it possible for the climate to get too hot during an Ice Age? No.Why? Glaciation is the reason when the interglacial ends next is devastating glaciation as we experienced in Canada and North America 12000 years ago.When you raise this issue of wanting global warming so we can leave the Quaternary Ice the first response is “Oh dear if the glaciers melt and we leave our ice age behind this will cause terrible sea rise that will destroy all the coastal cities. Wrong on two counts as the evidence of sea rise is not well correlated with temperatures and glaciation is proven while Al Gore’s wild sea rise exaggerations are not.MY REFERENCES in supportGetting rid of polar ice including Antarctica is great for humans.How Global Warming Made Civilization PossibleWhen Antarctica was a tropical paradiseGeological drilling under Antarctica suggests the polar region has seen global warming beforeRobin McKie Sat 16 Jul 2011 19.04 EDTAn impression of a tropical Antarctica as it may have appeared 100 million years ago. Image: Robert Nicholls/paleocreations.comAntarctica is the coldest, most desolate place on Earth, a land of barren mountains buried beneath a two-mile thick ice cap. Freezing winds batter its shores while week-long blizzards frequently sweep its glaciers.Yet this icy vision turns out to be exceptional. For most of the past 100 million years, the south pole was a tropical paradise, it transpires."It was a green beautiful place," said Prof Jane Francis, of Leeds University's School of Earth and Environment. "Lots of furry mammals including possums and beavers lived there. The weather was tropical. It is only in the recent geological past that it got so cold."Prof Francis was speaking last week at the International Symposium on Antarctic Earth Sciences in Edinburgh. More than 500 polar researchers gathered to discuss the latest details of their studies, research that has disturbing implications for the planet's future. Drilling projects and satellite surveys show the whole world, not just Antarctica, was affected by temperature rises and that these were linked, closely, to fluctuations in levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.WE ARE A TROPICAL SPECIETropical nations are expected to hold 50% of the world’s population by 2050, up from 40% now.©IEMBICKI/MARKZPHOTO.COMTropical nations are expected to hold 50% of the world’s population by 2050, up from 40% now.©IEMBICKI/MARKZPHOTO.COMExpanding tropics will play greater global role, report predictsBy Allie WilkinsonJun. 29, 2014 , 8:30 AMBy 2050, half of the world’s population will reside in the tropics—the relatively warm belt that girdles the globe—according to State of the Tropics, a hefty report released today. Rapid population growth, coupled with economic growth, means that the region’s influence will grow in coming decades, the authors of the 500-page tome predict. At the same time, tropical conditions are expanding poleward as a result of climate change, but at a slower rate than previously believed.“The tropical population is expected to exceed that of the rest of the world in the late 2030s, confirming just how crucial the Tropics are to the world’s future,” said Sandra Harding, project convener and vice chancellor of Australia’s James Cook University, in a statement. “We must rethink the world’s priorities on aid, development, research and education.”The result of a 3-year collaboration between 12 prominent tropical research institutions, State of the Tropics grew out of an effort to acknowledge the region as an environmental and geopolitical entity in its own right. Geographers define the tropics as the belt that is centered on Earth’s equator, between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn (each 23.5° of latitude off the equator). Although tropical regions vary considerably, they are “typically warm and experience little seasonal change in daily temperatures.” These geographic and environmental commonalities play a key part of shaping human societies in the region, which is currently home to about 40% of the world’s population, the authors add.Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures[Charles Tips QUORA writer and former Science Editor organized these facts.]“Fact 1: We are in an ice age, the Quaternary to name it, and have been for 2.58 million years. Given that the previous four ice ages lasted for right at 30 my, we likely have more than 27 my to go (the two ice ages that kicked things off were of snowball-Earth proportions and lasted much longer. Ice ages occur every 155 my, and we don’t know why. That’s a much longer cycle than Milankovitch cycles can account for. Those tell us things like why North Africa has been a desert for 5 ky when before that it was a populated savanna.“Fact 2: We are in an interglacial, the Holocene epoch to give it its name, a respite from glaciation. During an ice age, interglacials occur at 90 to 125 ky intervals and last approximately 7 to 14 ky. The Holocene is 11.7 ky old, but there is new evidence that the Allerød oscillation 13.9 ky ago was the actual start with a meteor strike 1 ky in producing the Younger Dryas cooling.* If we are actually, 13.9 ky into our interglacial, then natural cycles tell us we will be rapidly descending back into glaciation in 5… 4… 3…“The combination of glacials and interglacials looks like this:Holocene climatic optimum - WikipediaThis graph is taken from Wikipedia. It shows eight different reconstructions of Holocene temperature. The thick black line is the average of these. Time progresses from left to right.On this graph the Stone Age is shown only about one degree warmer than present day, but most sources mention that Scandinavian Stone Age was about 2-3 degrees warmer than the present; this need not to be mutually excluding statements, because the curve reconstructs the entire Earth's temperature, and on higher latitudes the temperature variations were greater than about equator.Some reconstructions show a vertical dramatic increase in temperature around the year 2000, but it seems not reasonable to the author, since that kind of graphs cannot possibly show temperature in specific years, it must necessarily be smoothed by a kind of mathematical rolling average, perhaps with periods of hundred years, and then a high temperature in a single year, for example, 2004 will be much less visible.The trend seems to be that Holocene's highest temperature was reached in the Hunter Stone Age about 8,000 years before present, thereafter the temperature has generally been steadily falling, however, superimposed by many cold and warm periods, including the modern warm period.However, generally speaking, the Holocene represents an amazing stable climate, where the cooling through the period has been limited to a few degrees.History of Earth's ClimateNO CLIMATE CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE.For climate science the data most followed is temperature and yet it is surely the most unreliable at the global level. Also temperature has shown no evidence over the past 140 years of anything but natural variability.Temperature increases over the past 140 years at 0.8*C are too small and within the range of natural variability to constitute human made global warming.NASA Goddard Institute finds warming of 0.8* Celsius (1.4* Fahrenheit) since 1880. This means an average of only 0.0175 degree Celsius temperature increase annually. This minute amount is within the statistical error of data.Weather by itself cannot be evidence of global warming/ climate unless there is statistical record stretching far enough back to account for thousands of years or at least for centuries.SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV) — Increased run-off from several western states is raising the levels at Lake Powell dramatically.On July 18, we showed you photos that showed a 51-foot increase in water levels at Alstrom Point, but new photos are showing the rising lake levels from another area; The Castle Rock Cut.This reference shows a proxy for cooling temperatures that make increased snowfall causing increased rainfall and runoff and flooding across the US.Epic And Massive Flooding In Europe During The Little Ice AgePublished on June 24, 2016Written by http://iceagenow.orgKilled more than 500,000 people.1607 Flood In Bristol Channel A Uk Tsunami 1607Andrew McKillop has a new article posted at The Market Oracle. Here are some excerpts.This is the global cooling fearIntense flooding in the low countries of Europe became “darkly repetitive” during the Little Ice Age, writes McKillop. The cooling period lasted 450 years,For the Dutch, the Grote Mandrenke is nothing to do with Linux software, but means “The Great Drowning” and is named for the epic and massive flooding that occurred, more and more frequently in the Low Countries of Europe’s North Sea region as Europe’s Little Ice Age intensified.Grote Mandrenke flood killed at least 100 000Normal or predictable spring and autumn flooding was increasingly replaced by large-area and intense flooding, sometimes outside spring and autumn from about 1300, in recurring crises which lasted into the 18th century. In the Low Countries and across Europe, but also elsewhere, the cooling trend starting in the late 13th century became more intense. It brought long cold winters, heavy storms and floods, loss of coastal farmlands, and huge summer sandstorms in coastal areas further damaging agriculture. Climate historians estimate that major flooding on an unpredictable but increasingly frequent basis started as early as 1250. Extreme events like the Grote Mandrenke flood of 1362 which killed at least 100 000 people became darkly repetitive.Other giant floods probably killed 400 000Other giant floods in the region through the next 200 years probably killed a total of 400 000 persons in the coastlands of what is now Belgium, Germany and Holland. At the time, Europe’s population was at most a quarter of today’s, meaning that corrected for population size these were really catastrophic disasters. During this time, the Zuider Zee region of northern Holland was inundated and its former farmlands disappeared under water – for several centuries.Crop failures and faminesThe basic reasons was that the weather was getting colder, as well as more unpredictable. As the climate cooled, it also became wetter. Combined with the cold, this caused more crop failures and famines spread as the northern limit of farming retreated south. The start of the cooling – called Europe’s Little Ice Age by glaciologist Francois Matthes in 1939 – in the 13th century was in fact the start of a long, sometimes steep dip in temperatures that held sway on an unpredictable, on-and-off basis until at least the first decade of the 19th century. Overall, the cooling lasted about 450 years.Preceded by more than two centuries of much warmer more predictable weatherMaking things worse, the cooling had been preceded by more than two centuries of much warmer and better, more predictable weather. Farming moved northwards, seasons were predictable, food supplies had expanded. Europe’s population also grew, in some regions tripling in 200 years. The colonization of Greenland, which failed when the cooling intensified, was a well-known historical spinoff from the previous warming, but by the 16th century there was no trace of Europeans in Greenland. Only ruins of their farms and homes could be found, but with few or no tombstones dated beyond the early 15th century, leading to the theory that these early “Climate Refugees” packed their longboats and sailed south, to what is now the New England coast. Where they became easy prey for American Indian tribes along those coasts.And as more evidence shows that the Medieval Warm Period was no isolated event in Europe but was a global phenomenon, McKillop’s analysis takes on more immediate relevance:The climate historian Hubert H. Lamb in his 2002 book ‘Climate History and the Modern World’ dates the cooling to two main phases. The first leg of this change he places at about 1200-1400, but his second phase of about 1500-1825 which for some climate historians is Europe’s Little Ice Age, was marked by much steeper drops in average temperatures. Indicators used by Lamb and other climate historians like Emmanuel Leroy Ladrie and Wolfgang Behringer include food price peaks as cold summers followed cold and wet springs, with increasing examples of “climate wars”, such as Louis X’s Flanders campaign where the climate chilling was a sure factor in play.I fear that we’re headed into such a period of great cooling and repetitive catastrophic flooding right now.This while our leaders prattle on about global warming, leaving us almost totally unprepared.Andrew McKillop is former chief policy analyst, Division A Policy, DG XVII Energy, European Commission, and co-author of ‘The Doomsday Machine’, Palgrave Macmillan USA, 2012McKillop has more than 30 years experience in the energy, economic and finance domains. Trained at London UK’s University College, he has had specially long experience of energy policy, project administration and the development and financing of alternate energy. This included his role of in-house Expert on Policy and Programming at the DG XVII-Energy of the European Commission, Director of Information of the OAPEC technology transfer subsidiary, AREC and researcher for UN agencies including the ILO.Epic and massive flooding in Europe during the Little Ice Age | PSI IntlFlooding of Europe continuesFlooding spread further through east Germany today, leaving emergency crews scrounging for sandbags to shore up crumbling dikes as the country faced its biggest relief effort since World War II.In Hungary, the Danube River peaked at a historic high in Budapest without causing major flooding after relief workers spent a frantic night bolstering dikes. The capital's high flood walls, built at the turn of the last century, held off the floodwater in the city center, though one barrier gave way in a northern suburb.The Czech Republic, facing a staggering cleanup bill after nearly two weeks of devastating flooding, said it is reconsidering plans to buy 24 new air force fighter jets. Heavy flood damage "has changed priorities for everyone," Defence Ministry spokesman Milan Repka said in Prague.Europe is wrestling with the aftermath of violent storms that swept the continent two weeks ago. German authorities reported three more deaths, bringing the Europewide toll to at least 109.Floodwaters have ebbed in Austria and the Czech Republic and also were falling in Dresden, the biggest German city hit so far, allowing the start of a massive cleanup and rebuilding operation expected to cost some 20 billion euros Europewide.Weather forecasts for Germany and central Europe called for generally dry weather in the next few days, though rain was forecast for western Hungary.Under sunny summer skies today, thousands of emergency workers, soldiers and volunteers still worked nonstop to pile tons of sandbags onto sodden dikes along Germany's Elbe and Mulde rivers to protect towns along the way.A government relief agency, the Technical Aid Service, said that sand bags were "in short supply" and that Denmark had shipped 650,000 to Germany to help. Italy, France, the Netherlands and other countries have also offered to help, the agency said.Sweeping north toward the North Sea from the hills on the Czech border after record rainfall, high water flooded part of Dessau, a city best known for its Bauhaus modern architecture school.The two rivers converge there, and military helicopters dumped sand on the dikes to strengthen them.Upriver, the Elbe forced workers to retreat after bursting its banks in seven places Sunday near Wittenberg, the town where Martin Luther launched the Reformation in 1517. But officials said the old town was not under immediate threat.Rescuers used boats on ropes to pull people trapped in their homes to safety and scoured outlying villages in the darkness to evacuate stragglers.More than 80,000 people have been evacuated across the region.In Dresden, where expensively restored monuments such as the Semper Opera and Zwinger Palace museum were partly flooded, officials said some residents may be allowed to return home.Further north, the city of Magdeburg began to move people out as the Elbe's crest surged toward the North Sea. The river is expected to threaten there in the next few days.In Budapest, 10-metre high flood ramparts in the center of town kept the Danube at bay. The river peaked at a level of 8.49 metres early today, a touch over the previous record set in 1965, then began falling, said Tibor Dobson, a spokesman for Hungary's national disaster relief office."Our main concern now is to ensure that waste from the city's sewers does not cause any problems or enter the water supply," Dobson said.Most evacuated towns in Hungary lie north of Budapest. A few areas in the southern part of the capital also were evacuated - areas where the flood walls don't rise as high as in the city center.The government postponed an annual fireworks ceremony scheduled for Aug. 20, or St. Stephen's Day, which commemorates the king who founded Hungary 1,000 years ago."It would be unbecoming to celebrate with fireworks in a situation where tens of thousands are working on the dams," Prime Minister Peter Medgyessy said after the meeting.Szodliget, a village 30 kilometres north of Budapest, road posts barely stuck out above the muddy floodwater. But resident Janos Koros, 43, was counting his blessings."On the whole, I think we have gotten off pretty lightly," he said. "Compared with what I've seen of Prague and Dresden on television, this is just a tiny rain drop."Flooding of Europe continuesMay 22, 2019Flooding, thunderstorms to threaten millions across central and eastern Europe into midweekBy Eric Leister, AccuWeather senior meteorologistNEXT UPHail, hail as far as the eye can seeA slow-moving storm system brought deadly flooding to Germany and more dangerous weather is possible across central and eastern Europe through Wednesday.Torrential downpours brought widespread rainfall of 50-100 mm (2-4 inches) to southern Germany from Monday into early Tuesday.The heavy rainfall triggered flooding and dangerous driving conditions which claimed the life of a motorist that skidded off a roadway in Bavaria.Several roadways were closed due to flooding throughout southern Germany from Monday into Tuesday.As the storm spins over Poland, the heaviest rainfall will shift from Germany into western Poland into Wednesday. Rainfall will taper off during the day across southern and eastern Germany."Some roadways may be closed due to flooding," said AccuWeather Meteorologist Tyler Roys. "When you see a flooded roadway, always turn around."Farther east, thunderstorms will be a threat from eastern Poland and the Baltic states to the Balkan Peninsula and Ukraine on Wednesday.https://www.accuweather.com/en/w...Cars make their way through a flooded road near Marquartstein, Germany, Tuesday, May 21, 2019. (AP Photo/Matthias Schrader)A few locations from Ukraine to the Baltic states will endure severe thunderstorms Wednesday afternoon and evening.These storms will be capable of producing blinding downpours, localized flash flooding and damaging winds."There will also be a risk for thunderstorms capable of producing damaging hail in Poland on Wednesday," added Roys.UK Floods, Worst Flooding Since 2007, Extreme Weather Global Weirding?Politics / Environmental IssuesNov 25, 2012 - 05:58 AM GMTBy: Nadeem_WalayatThe UK looks set to experience its worst series of floods since at least the great floods of 2007 when areas that had never flooded in living memory experienced what would turn out to be their worst floods in over 150 years.The latest of a series of heavy rain fall induced flooding is being experienced by the south and south west areas of England and Wales, with over 500 flood warnings in place nation wide, as one of the wettest summers on record had left the ground saturated, unable to soak up additional heavy rain fall that is resulting in the failure of drainage systems.When temperatures are rising sharply as in the dirty thirties the result is devastating droughts not flooding.John Steinbeck—who would have been 113 today—wrote more than thirty books, and The Grapes of Wrath, which you were most likely assigned to read in high school, is widely considered to be his best work. The novel was published in 1939 to great acclaim, both critically and commercially; it “was a phenomenon on the scale of a national event. It was publicly banned and burned by citizens, it was debated on national talk radio; but above all, it was read.” It was also the New York Times’ bestselling book of 1939, and won both a Pulitzer Prize and a National Book Award.How ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ Got Its NamePOLAR BEAR POPULATIONS EXPANDING AND THRIVINGThe ice melt mythBy Dr. Jay Lehr |April 30th, 2019|Climate|130 CommentsAccording to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (nsidc.org), ice currently covers 6 million square miles, or one tenth the Land area on Earth, about the area of South America. Floating ice, or Sea Ice, alternately called Pack Ice at the North and South Poles covers 6% of the ocean’s surface (nsidc.org), an area similar to North America. The most important measure of ice is its thickness. The United States Geologic Survey estimates the total ice on Earth weighs 28 million Gigatons(a billion tons). Antarctica and Greenland combined represent 99% of all ice on Earth. The remaining one per cent is in glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice. Antarctica can exceed 3 miles in thickness and Greenland one mile. If they were to melt sea level would indeed rise over 200 feet, but not even the most radical alarmists suggest that possibility arising due to the use of fossil fuels. However the ice that flows off of the Antarctic and Greenland called shelf ice represents only half a percent of all the Earth’s ice and which if melted would raise sea level only 14 inches, (nsidc.com).Although Sea Ice covers 6% of the entire oceans at an average thickness of 6 feet, were it all to melt sea level would rise only 4 inches. If we melted all 200,000 of the Earth’s temperate zone glaciers sea level would rise another two feet. So total catastrophe can only occur if we can melt the Antarctic and Greenland. But the Antarctic is the coldest place on Earth. At www.coolantarctica.com calculations show the temperature would have to rise 54 degrees Fahrenheit to start the warming of that Ice Cap.The geologic record provides a perspective on how climate impacts the quantity of ice on Earth. They have encompassed every extreme. 800 million years ago the planet was almost entirely encased in ice (Rafferty, J.P. Cryogenics Period). Since then there have been many extended periods when there has been no ice present. As recently as 3 million years ago sea levels are believed to have been 165 feet higher than today. While ice covered a third of the entire planet during the last ice age, when sea levels were 400 feet lower, allowing ancient peoples to cross the Siberian Land Bridge to populate North America.Al Gore predicted in 2007 that by 2013 the Arctic Ocean would be completely ice free. In the summer of 2012 ice levels did reach all time lows in the Arctic. Emboldened by this report Australian Professor Chris Turney launched an expedition in December of 2013 to prove that the Antarctic Sea Ice was also undergoing catastrophic melting only to have his ship trapped in sea ice such that it could not even be rescued by modern ice-breakers.The Professor should have known that a more accurate estimate of sea ice can be had from satellite images taken every day at the Poles since 1981. These images show that between summer and winter, regardless of the degree of summer melting, the sea ice completely recovers to its original size the winter before for almost every year since the pictures were taken. The sea ice has been stubbornly resistant to Al Gore’s predictions. In fact the average annual coverage of sea ice has been essentially the same since satellite observations began in 1981. However that has not stopped global warming advocates and even government agencies from cherry picking the data to mislead the public.Africa’s Mt. Kilimanjaro has been the poster child for land based melting supposed to be caused by Global Warming. It did loose half of its ice cover between 1880 and 1936 before the major use of fossil fuels and only 30% more in the past 80 years. However the temperature at its peak has not risen at any time during these years above freezing (32 degrees Fahrenheit). The melting has been due to deforestation and the dry air rising to the mountain top causing the ice to turn directly into water vapor a process called sublimation.Melting glaciers are another topic of the warming alarmists. Indeed they can choose to point to some that are actually melting, ignoring those that are growing or remaining stable. Why the differences? They are largely dependent on whether over periods of time more snow falls than ice melts or the reverse. They are a great place to cherry pick data.The solution to public fear about ice melting and sea level rising is simply using common sense.The good news is that over the past decade increasing scientific research has shown that we don't need to choose between conquering poverty and saving the planet from disastrous warming. The actual warming effect of doubled carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be much smaller than the 2.7–8.1˚F the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has claimed. It is certainly less than half, probably less than a third.Indeed, as climatologist John R. Christy, meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, and climate statistician James Wallace put it, observational evidence indicates that "once just the Natural Factor [solar, volcanic, and ocean current cycle variability] impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no ... Natural Factor Adjusted Warming at all" left to blame on carbon dioxide. I.e., carbon dioxide's warming effect is likely so small as to be undetectable.THE MIDDLE EAST IS UNDER RECORD RAINFALL AND FLOODINGMonday, 01 October 2018NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun ActivityWritten by James MurphyThe climate alarmists just can’t catch a break. NASA is reporting that the sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age; and Earth’s atmosphere is responding in kind.So, start pumping out that CO2, everyone. We’re going to need all the greenhouse gases we can get.“We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”The new data is coming from NASA’s Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry or SABER instrument, which is onboard the space agency’s Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite. SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a vital role in the energy output of our thermosphere, the very top level of our atmosphere.“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” said Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.Who knew that that big yellow ball of light in the sky had such a big influence on our climate?There’s a bit of good news in all of this. When the thermosphere cools, it literally shrinks, therefore reducing aerodynamic drag on satellites in low Earth orbit. In effect, the shrinking thermosphere increases a satellite’s lifetime.But that appears to be where the good news ends, unless you prefer cold weather and increased space junk. “The bad news,” according to Dr. Tony Phillips, editor of SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids, is: “It also delays the natural decay of space junk, resulting in a more cluttered environment around Earth.”Mlynczak and his colleagues have created the Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI), which measures how much NO is dumped from the Thermosphere into outer space. During Solar Maximum the TCI number is very high. At times of Solar Minimum, TCI is low.“Right now, (TCI) is very low indeed,” said Mlynczak. “SABER is currently measuring 33 billion Watts of infrared power from NO. That’s ten times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle."SABER has been in orbit for only 17 years, but Mlynczak and the scientists at NASA’s Langley Research Center have been able to recreate TCI measurements back to the 1940s. “SABER taught us how to do this by revealing how TCI depends on other variables such as geomagnetic activity and the sun’s UV output — things that have been measured for decades,” said Mlynczak.In fact, TCI numbers now, in the closing months of 2018, are very close to setting record lows since measurements began. “We’re not quite there yet,” Mlynczak reports. “but it could happen in a matter of months.”The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today.If all of this seems as if NASA is contradicting itself, you’re right — sort of. After all, NASA also reported last week that Arctic sea ice was at its sixth lowest level since measuring began. Isn’t that a sure sign of global warming?All any of this “proves” is that we have, at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system. So when mainstream media and carbon-credit salesman Al Gore breathlessly warn you that we must do something about climate change, it’s all right to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that we don’t have the knowledge, skill or resources to have much effect on the Earth’s climate. God — and that big yellow ball of light in the sky — have much more impact on our climate than we ever could.James Matkin • 6 months agoThe earth is actually cooling and NASA grudgingly begins to admit reality over the fiction of failed computer modelling by the iPCC. So much waste and damage from the futile attempt to reduce our Co2 emissions for a colder climate. The climate alarmists have ignored solar natural variability not because of the science but because of their left wing economic agenda. They have ignored leading science papers like the 400 page study THE NEGLECTED SUN Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe, by Professor Fritz Vahreholt and Dr. Sebastian Luning. This study demonstrates that "the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity." As NASA admits the sun is in a cooling phase and the solar cycles make impossible "the catastrophic prospects put forward by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the alarmist agenda dominant in contemporary Western politics."https://www.thenewamerican.com/t...Climate change doesn't threaten to "destroy civilization." Misguided responses to it—including those promoted by Pope Francis—do.In reality, the postulate that CO2 is significantly trapping heat is still subject to debate (verifying the theory by measuring trapped heat can’t be done) and there are so many other factors involved in planet-wide warming and cooling that it’s impossible to say with any degree of certainty. For example, atmospheric water vapor (clouds) has a much more profound effect on temperature than CO2. The global circulation models—upon which rests the “proof” that CO2 is causing recent warming is based—don’t account for water vapor. This is one of many reasons the climate models were so inaccurate 6 years ago and why they’re even further off(p.5 graph) as time passes.Climate scientists haven’t been able to explain previous natural warming and cooling periods like the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age, which had global temperature fluctuations that rivaled the current 1° C since the end of the Little Ice Age. In other words, despite the massive collective study of global climate by climate scientists over the past few decades, and the assurance by many vocal climate scientists who are concerned about catastrophic warming, the current temperature rise appears to be mostly—if not completely—within the range of natural variability.Advanced and accurate measurements of density of the growth rings in Northern Scandinavian pine trees have formed the basis for a highly accurate modern reconstruction of temperatures over the past 2,000 years. It shows that today's warm period is colder than the medieval warming, which again was colder than the Roman era. In modern times, there have been some particularly warm years, such as 2004, but they will be much less visible after a mathematical smoothing. Probably there have always been few years with exceptional heat or cold. It also follows from the historical accounts above about particular severe winters.Sea surface temperature in the East China Sea (between Japan, Taiwan and China). It is seen that changes in temperature did not happen simultaneously over the whole Earth. The Roman Warm Period took place also in China, the cold spell of the Peoples migration period was significant, but not very long lasting, instead, it was replaced by the Sui-Tang heating period. The Medieval warm period was not particularly significant in East Asia and nor was the Little Ice Age. But the steadily falling temperature trend has been the same in China as around the Atlantic.Jan Esper and his co-authors to "Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian - -" conclude that their results "provide evidence of considerable warming during the Roman and Medieval warm period in larger scale and of longer duration than the twentieth century heating period." More specifically they identify the Medieval Warm Period to has taken place around 700 to 1300 AD and identify the warmest 30-year intervals during this period, which occurred from 918 to 947 AD in which period the June, July and August temperatures were about 0.3 degrees hotter than the hottest 30-year interval in the current warm period. Their findings differ from other researchers, who think that the Medieval Heating period began around 950 AD.If for example we have declining temperatures from the past 7000 years then the onus to rebut this cooling and declare a new weather pattern of warming that amounts to ‘climate change’ is high and has not happened since our industrialization.The US has the most accurate weather stations although not enough and they show declining trend in temperature seesawing from hot to cold. Raw data shows a more accurate picture of the temperature decline.The rate of warming is not unusual. It’s often suggested that the current rate of warming is unprecedented, thereby implying that the current warming must be caused by humans. But the IPCC may want to explain why the global mean surface temperature increased at virtually the same rate from 1860-1880, as it did between 1910-1940, and from 1975-1998 and 1975-2009 (see here). Human CO2-emissions increased by around 3500% from 1860-1880 to 1975-1998 and yet the rate of warming stayed essentially the same.The warming between the years 1860-1880 must have been natural because the IPCC’s own logarithmic equation for calculating radiative forcing (RF) increases from CO2 increases only gives 0.028 W/m2 of RF (or a total temperature increase of about 0.02°C — with the hypothesized positive feedbacks included). The data for anthropogenic CO2-emissions are from CDIAC and it can be seen here (note that units are million metric tonnes; to convert to CO2 multiply by 3.67 and then to convert to gigatonnes divide by 1,000). The time-periods and warming trends below are from the 2010 BBC interview with climatologist Phil Jones.RICHARD EVANS QUORA POST IN APRILTHE sun continues to be very quiet and it has been without sunspots this year 62% of the time as we approach what is likely to be one of the deepest solar minimums in a long, long time.New research shows fear of global warming is bad science.Marine species evolved, thrived, and diversified in 35 to 40°C ocean temperatures and CO2 concentrations “5-10x higher than present-day values” (Voosen, 2019 and Henkes et al., 2018).(Voosen, 2019 and Henkes et al., 2018).FROM SHORT MINI ICE AGE TO LONG ICE AGE GLACIATION Global warming peaked in 1988 and slowly ending the Interglacial Warm Holidays to begin the short Mini Ice Age affecting all spectrum.After a return to short warming period, we expect a U-turn to long sleep of Ice Age Glaciation. It happened many times in the past, each time resetting Human evolution.During this shortcoming Ice Age, there won't be enough space to grow food and for comfort living, except between the two 33° latitudes north and south of the equator which is not enough lands, and there won't be enough cheap and fresh drinking water neither for mass survivals.Our SEAWAPA project is to harvest fresh drinking water from the 7 month monsoons and rains, the melting ice from Tibet and from the most abundant tropical cyclones region in the world on top of Lao mountain range, transfer it below via gravity by producing electricity, food, and goods, at the same time, distribute them to far-flung floating agricultural modules, to newly built megacities, and to industrial complex across the equator, between the tropical cyclones zone, connecting them to other continents, avoiding post ice age big melt danger. Once done, we can tap into the Primary Water Cycle for larger scale space programs, build Hyperloop transport system for universal distribution of drinking water, food, goods, electricity and heat, all year round. The heat and coldness redistribution across the world will minimize risks caused by Ice Age and post-Ice Age. Asteroids mining and universal commodity dispersion will allow humanity to progress beyond "Sustainability", and to solve other risks. http://SEAWAPA.orgcarmen rouppit has all happened before and it will happen again -flooding, freezing, warming thawing ,flooding, and on and on . it is nothing new.THIS GRAPH SHOWS CURRENT WARMING IS NATURAL AND NOT UNPRECEDENTEDTHE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR YET DENIED BY ALARMIST THAT IN THE SIXTIES TEMPERATURES FELL FAR CAUSING FEAR OF A NEW LTTLE ICE AGE.SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER – But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change – View Article – NYTimes.comRUSSIA BREAKS MORE ALL-TIME LOW TEMPERATURE RECORDS, INCLUDING ONE FROM 1893JULY 19, 2019 CAP ALLONOn the back of Russia’s horde of new record low temperatures set on July 12, a bucket-load more were set over the following few days, busting records that had previously stood for well over 100 years.The mercury across the majority of Europe has remained well-below averageduring the month of July as a string of Arctic blasts continue to delay the start of the continent’s summer. Large regions are seeing temperature departures of up to 20C below average, sending all-time cold records tumbling.So far this month, we’ve reported on the new all-time low temperature recordsset in Germany, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Poland, the Netherlands, as well as the Nordic Nations.And now Russia has 7 more daily records to add to the ever-expanding list (data courtesy of www.hmn.ru):·Sortavala recorded 3.8C (38.8F) — busting the previous record of 4.2C (39.6F) set in 1971.·Vytegra’s 0C (32F) beat the previous record of 1.5C (34.7F) from way back in 1893.·Vyborg observed 6.7C (44F) surpassing the 7C (44.6F) set in 1978 (solar minimum of cycle 20).·Roslavl’s 7C (44.6F) beat out the 7.9C (46.2F) from 1935 (solar minimum of cycle 15).·Cherepovets‘ 4.1C (39.4F) busted the 4.8C (40.6F) set in 1995 (solar minimum of cycle 22)·Rybinsk registered 7.2C (45F) smashing the previous record low of 9.9C (49.8F) from 1977 (solar minimum of cycle 20).·While Kostroma’s 5.7C (42.3F) beat 1948’s record of 6.9C (44.4F).In addition, hmn.ru points out that “in the Vologda region, during the whole of July, the temperature never even approached the norm, and its negative anomaly on some days was 6-7C.”GFS TEMP ANOMALIES for JULY 16The Mainstream Media remains silent.Their bias clearer than ever.Regardless though, the cold times are returning, in line with historically low solar output:The time to prepare is now.Grand Solar Minimum + Pole ShiftRUSSIA BREAKS MORE ALL-TIME LOW TEMPERATURE RECORDS, INCLUDING ONE FROM 1893CLIMATE-DEBATEA NEW TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION FROM CENTRAL ASIA SHOWS 432 YEARS OF NO WARMING, RECENT COOLING BY KENNETH RICHARD ON 2. MAY 20194 MAI 2019 ALAIN PRÉATTree-ring evidence reveals recent cooling and glacier thickening in Central Asia as well as flat temperatures throughout the last 432 years.Tree rings were the proxy used by Dr. Michael Mann to invent the original hockey stick graph.Twenty years later, yet another reconstruction (1580 to 2012 AD) indicates modern warmth in Central Asia is not unusual in the context of the last 432 years.In fact, there was a recent cooling period, in line with natural variability, that was accompanied by regional glacier mass gains.THE GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY IS FALSE AND WILL NOT TAKE US OUT OF THE CURRENT ICE AGEClimate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures07/12/2019 / By Mike AdamsThe climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.As this chart reveals, more cloud cover is inversely related to temperature. In other words, clouds shield the surface of the Earth from the sun, providing shade cover cooling, while a lack of clouds results in more warming:Cloud cover accounts for the real changes in global temperaturesThis is further supported by researchers at Kobe University in Japan who published a nearly simultaneous paper that reveals how changes in our planet’s magnetic field govern the intensity of solar radiation that reaches the lower atmosphere, causing cloud formation that alters global temperatures.That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.” It states:Records of suborbital-scale climate variation during the last glacial and Holocene periods can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of rapid climate changes… At least one event was associated with a decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, climate records from the MIS 19 interglacial can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of a variety of climate changes, including testing the effect of changes in geomagnetic dipole field strength on climate through galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-induced cloud formation…In effect, cosmic rays which are normally deflected via the magnetosphere are, in times of weak or changing magnetic fields emanating from Earth itself, able to penetrate further into Earth’s atmosphere, causing the formation of low-level clouds which cover the land in a kind of “umbrella effect” that shades the land from the sun, allowing cooling to take place. But a lack of clouds makes the surface hotter, as would be expected. This natural phenomenon is now documented to be the primary driver of global temperatures and climate, not human activity.Without clouds the sun becomes too hot. With clouds more rain and tree growth.Evidence Points To Declining Cloud Coverage As Real Culprit For 80's and 90's Global WarmingThe IPCC's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is on verge of collapse as non-existent warming facts force unpleasant admissions of truth - and, the empirical evidence implicates increasing clouds as being the culprit for the halt of warming(click on image to enlarge - data sources)This chart is a plot of global "warming" as represented by the red curve (a 5th order fitted trend) and the grey curve for CO2 levels (a 5th order fit). As the red curve indicates, global temperatures started sliding lower during the early 2000's.The highly variable thin blue line is a plot of global cloud coverage from this source with the following change: the blue curve has been inverted. The result being that when the blue curve goes up, that indicates a smaller cloud coverage; when the blue curve goes down, that means the cloud coverage is increasing.As this chart clearly depicts, when cloud coverage decreases, allowing more solar energy to reach the surface, the global temperatures climb (note the 1980-1990's period). In addition, the warming stopped and started to slide lower when the cloud coverage increased after the 1990s - apparently, small changes in cloud coverage are quite powerful in terms of subsequent temperature trends.Obviously, there is a significant relationship between clouds and temperatures. Just as obviously, the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures (and clouds) is from weak to lame, at best - confirming evidence here.The physics is not difficult to understand by skeptics, nor objective scientists: less clouds allow more sunshine to strike the Earth's surface (1980-1990s); more clouds decrease sunshine at surface (2000s).Although the cloud coverage data are only available through 2009 for the above chart, a recent 2012 study verifies that cloud coverage is a major determinant of global warming (climate change):“The global average cloud cover declined about 1.56% over 39 years (1979 to 2009) or ~0.4%/decade, primarily in middle latitudes at middle and high levels (Eastman & Warren, 2012). Declining clouds appear to be a major contributor to the observed global warming. A 1 percentage point decrease in albedo (30% to 29%) would increase the black-body radiative equilibrium temperature about 1°C, about equal to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. e.g. by a 1.5% reduction in clouds since they form up to 2/3rds of global albedo (IPCC report AR4 1.5.2 p.114). [Ryan Eastman, Stephen G. Warren, A 39-Year Survey of Cloud Changes from Land Stations Worldwide 1971-2009: Journal of Climate]Conclusions:#1: Evidence indicates a strong relationship between clouds and global temperatures.#2. Evidence indicates a weak relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures.....major, catastrophic global warming from CO2 is highly unlikely#3. Evidence indicates a weak relationship between CO2 levels and global cloud coverage.#4. Clouds are so important to global temperatures, crazed alarmist billionaires are investing huge amounts to manufacture anti-warming, floating cloud machines.#5. The IPCC climate models are programmed to predict the opposite of what objective scientists believe due to the above actual evidence, and what crazy billionaires know (and will invest) due to common sense.Additional peer reviewed postings and modern temperature charts.Evidence Points To Declining Cloud Coverage As Real Cuprit For 80's and 90's Global WarmingNB GREENHOUSE GASES ARE NOT MAKING THE CLIMATE HOTTER AS THE THEORY IS FALSE. MANY STUDIES DEMOLISH THE RADICAL GGH HYPOTHESIS.The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful AlternativeThomas Allmendinger*Glattbrugg/Zürich, Switzerland*Corresponding author: Thomas Allmendinger, CH-8152 Glattbrugg/Zürich, Switzerland, Tel: +41 44 810 17 33; E mail: [email protected] March 14, 2017; Accepted April 12, 2017; Published April 18, 2017 Citation: Thomas Allmendinger (2017) The Refutation of the Climate GreenhouseTheory and a Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative. Environment Pollution Climate Change 1: 123.‘Environment Pollution and Climate Change’ is an international, open access research journal that convers several problems, associated risks, remediation methods and techniques pertaining to air, water, soil, noise, thermal, radioactive and light pollutions and climate change. This peer reviewed journal reports original and novel research observations in regard to environmental pollution and climate change thereby contributing to the new knowledge addition in the field.AbstractIn view of the global acceptance and the political relevance of the climate greenhouse theory–or rather philosophy- it appeared necessary to deliver a synoptic presentation enabling a detailed exemplary refutation. It focuses the foundations of the theory assuming that a theory cannot be correct when its foundations are not correct. Thus, above all, a critical historical review is made. As a spin-off of this study, the Lambert-Beer law is questioned suggesting an alternative approach. Moreover, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is relativized revealing the different characters of the two temperature terms. But in particular, the author’s recently published own work is quoted revealing novel measurement methods and yielding several crucial arguments, while finally an empiric proof is presented.The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole.In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions for mitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts. But their discovery may contribute to a better understanding of the atmospheric processes.Summary and ConclusionIn fact, it would be feasible to refute the climate greenhouse theory already by some simple arguments: The fact, that the atmospheric carbon-dioxide has increased while the average global temperature has increased, too, does not at all reveal a causal relationship but solely an analogous one. Moreover, a greenhouse needs a solid transparent roof which is absent in the case of the atmosphere. And finally, it seems unlikely that the extremely low carbon-dioxide concentration of 0.04 percent is able to co-warm the entire atmosphere to a perceptible extent.(Heat power 37.1 W, initial temperature 23.5°, pressure ca. 1032 hPa, humidity 45-55%)Figure 35: Limiting temperatures for different gases at different positions, average values of two measurements.However, these arguments are not taken seriously. This theory appears to be well-founded and untouchable. It is accepted by thousands of scientists, and numerous professional publications exist which guarantee the correctness of this theory. It cannot be that it is false.But the present treatise reveals yes, it can!It is hard to believe: But at least twenty objections could be alleged to question and refute the climate greenhouse theory, which may be characterized as a huge accumulation of theoretic constructs being opposed to a poor empiric foundation. Its main deficiency consists in the never verified assumption that within a gas the absorbed thermal radiation would entirely be transformed into heat. Further common misconceptions arise from the concept that the whole atmosphere is responsible for the Earth temperature, instead of its lowest layer being relevant for our perception of climate, and from the negligence of the boundary processes between Earth’s surface and atmosphere, in particular regarding the colour-dependent temperature of the surface material. Finally, the assumption is abstruse that the atmosphere behaves as a black body. Besides, and as a spin-off of this study, the Lambert-Beer law was questioned suggesting an alternative approach. Furthermore, and in particular, the Stefan-Boltzmann relation was relativized revealing the different characters of the two temperature terms.But this treatise is not confined to a mere critique. It rather presents a variety of recently published results which are based on novel thermal measuring methods using simple but adequate materials, and being consistent with basic physical laws. In any case, limiting temperatures were reached. Firstly, the solar reflective characterization of solid opaque materials is considered, delivering a direct measuring method for the solar reflection coefficient. Moreover, the cooling-down behaviour of solid bodies is studied. Secondly, the discovery of the near-infrared absorption by gases is reported which is relevant for the incident solar radiation. Surprisingly, and contrary to any former knowledge, any gas is warmed up, while the difference between air and pure carbon- dioxide is minor-that which delivers the first empirical evidence that «greenhouse gases» do not exist. The second and definite evidence is delivered by the here first mentioned warming-up experiments of air and of pure carbon-dioxide in the presence of thermal radiation, which even revealed a temperature reduction by carbon-dioxide, apart from the fact that the carbon-dioxide content of the air is so low that it can be neglected.As a consequence, it is absolutely certain that the atmospheric temperature is not at all influenced by trace gases such as carbon- dioxide. On the contrary, the Earth surface represents the governing factor affecting the climate considerably, in particular due to its colouring. Hence this entails the only option to influence the climate by taking human measures while the radiative behaviour of the atmosphere cannot be influenced. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, so far any really effective measures have been impeded. This passivity is favoured by ever subordinating such measures to the greenhouse proclamation. A typical example for this is given in [47], while its abatement by alleging a global model computation using the greenhouse assumption, as delivered in [48], is even more destructive.Thus, it is high time to realize that each day on which the climate greenhouse theory is maintained, in spite of its here alleged refutation, and hindering any appropriate and effective measures at the Earth surface–particularly in cities, is a lost day.Perhaps it will be one lost day too many...https://www.omicsonline.org/open...GERMAN CLIMATE RESEARCH PAPERFalsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of PhysicsFalsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of PhysicsGerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, [Emphasis added] in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed, and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (http://physics.ao-ph)Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984XCite as: arXiv:0707.1161 [http://physics.ao-ph](or arXiv:0707.1161v4 [http://physics.ao-ph] for this version)PEER REVIEWIzvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics is a peer reviewed journal. We use a double blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes 75 reviewers, both internal and external (90%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 30 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 30 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 20%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editorial Board.SEA LEVEL RISE??? Fear not!It is becoming more and more apparent that sea levels rise and fall without any obvious connection to CO2 concentrations.Florida coastal sea levels are stable with no change contrary to fake media stories.Relative Sea Level Trend8723170 Miami Beach, FloridaThe relative sea level trend is 2.39 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years.MIT Climate Scientist: ‘Ordinary People Realize That This Is A Phony Issue’Published on September 12, 2018Written by Climate DepotDr. Richard Lindzen: The time history of such matters as droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and temperature extremes is well recorded by official bodies like NOAA, and display no systematic increase. Indeed, some, like hurricanes, appear to be decreasing. These trends have been documented by R. Pielke, Jr., and even the IPCC has acknowledged the absence of significant associations with warming.The attempt to associate present weather extremes and other matters ranging from obesity to the Syrian Civil War, with climate change is frequently hilarious.Sea levels: “Carefully analyzed tide gauge data shows sea-level increasing about 20 cm per century for at least 2 centuries – with no sign of acceleration to the present. The claim that this increase is accelerating is very peculiar. Tide gauges don’t actually measure sea-level. Rather, they measure the difference between land level and sea level. At many stations, the former is much more important. In order to estimate sea level, one has to restrict oneself to tectonically stable sites. Since 1979 we have been able to measure sea level itself with satellites. However, the accuracy of such measurements depends critically on such factors as the precise shape of the earth. While the satellites show slightly greater rates of sea level rise, the inaccuracy of the measurement renders the difference uncertain. What the proponents of alarm have done is to accept the tide gauge data until 1979, but assume that the satellite data is correct after that date and that the difference in rates constitutes ‘acceleration.’ They then assume acceleration will continue leading to large sea level rises by the end of this century. It is hard to imagine that such illogical arguments would be tolerated in other fields.”“According to the IPCC, models find that there is nothing competitive with man-made climate change, but observations contradict this. The warming from 1919-1939 was almost identical to the warming from 1978-1998. Moreover, there was an almost total slowdown of warming since 1998. Both imply that there is something at least as strong as man-made warming going on.”https://principia-scientific.org...Tony HellerPublished on 1 Jan 2018In this video I show how the "Union of Concerned Scientists" uses sea level junk science in an effort to obtain donations.NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years Amidst Media Blackout“Sea level has been rising for the last ten thousand years, since the last Ice Age…the question is whether sea level rise is accelerating owing to human caused emissions. It doesn’t look like there is any great acceleration, so far, of sea level rise associated with human warming. These predictions of alarming sea level rise depend on massive melting of the big continental glaciers — Greenland and Antarctica. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing. Greenland shows large multi-decadal variability. …. There is no evidence so far that humans are increasing sea level rise in any kind of a worrying way.” — Dr. Judith Curry, video interview published 9 August 2017Gravity has enormous influence on the oceans by controlling the tides around the world. It is the force of gravity from the moon and sun control the amazing tides. Dr. Khan’s new paper also finds gravity in a different way not climate change is responsible for sea level rise and fall just like the tides coming in and out.CONCLUSIONSADLY NO THANKS TO PSEUDO SCIENCE OF THE PARIS ACCORD THE PUBLIC ARE FOOLED TO BELIEVE WARMING IS BAD ESPECIALLY WHEN IT HAPPENS TOO FAST - NEITHER OF THESE FEARS ARE TRUE. WE ARE HEADED FOR THE NEXT QUATERNARY GLACIATION WITH EXPANDED POLAR ICE CAPS AND THE END OF CANADA AS A COUNTRY UNDER ICE MORE THAN 1 MILE THICK AS HAPPENED JUST 12000 YEARS AGO.