atmospheric carbon dioxide - human caused

laura ingraham & guest george allen (fmr governor of VA). GA made the claims:

1. only 4% of the atmosphere's CO2 is caused by humans

2. this is so minuscule that it can't possibly be responsible for any global warming.

problems:

#2 first: even if it were only 4% (which it isn't), for an ecosystem to have a 4% increase of some component is actually VERY significant.

#1: GA provides absolutely no basis for his claim. However, the following scientific site claims (& shows the science behind it) that the percentage is 14%. Which do I believe? The claim with no basis for proof, or the transparent claim that lays it all out for all to inspect and prove or disprove?

Here ya go..

from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

Q. What percentage of the CO₂ in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?

A. Anthropogenic CO₂ comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.

In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X10¹⁵ grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO₂, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO₂

Rush windbag

Wed Nov 4, RL was pontificating about 2009 elections:

Exit Polls 'I NEVER pay attention to exit polls' - claims they are bogus, and biased to the left. Question: did he ever give props to exit pols previously (like when the results are to his liking)? Need to research this.

Herritage Foundation - props up the great and important work this organization does - for a long time. Then he sneakily puts in that the org deserves 'your' money to do their crucially important work. Basically, this was a 2 minute unpaid commercial for Herritage Foundation.

Question: does he have a financial stake in HF?

One other issue on Wednesday - 'I' was my mnemonic, gotta remember!

Democracy Now .. Ft. Hood incident

Democracy Now, Nov 06 '09

Repeatedly made the point that Hassan was harassed in the military.

[bb: DN is immediately blaming the army, not the killer - no surprise there]

If this were a Christian we wouldn't be blaming Christianity

[bb: because of precedent: some islamists have indeed killed in the name of islam; it is natural to wonder if there were an islamic element to the Ft Hood shooting. Whereas if a christian did this it would more likely be a personal issue - they shooter went insane, etc.)

Chaplains in the Army are only Christian or Jewish.

[bb - no kidding! Christians and Jews outnumber Muslims in the armed forces by 600-1]

More healthcare BS from the media

Wow is it ever difficult to get the TRUTH about almost any political issue :( The current healthcare debate is no exception. Conservatives have been screaming for months that Canadians, with their free healthcare system, have awful healthcare and that thousands of 'em cross the border every year seeking treatment in the US.

Apparently, from what I can tell, there is some truth to this argument. But the flip side of the argument, that US healthcare is, in every respect, superior to Canadian (or British) healthcare just doesn't hold water. There are some aspects which are indeed superior (many of the best hospitals and doctors in the world are here in the US). But there are other aspects that are about the same.

For example, I'll include the text of a recent blog here. The blog itself is partially correct, but I think wrong in some of its claims about how perfect the US system is. Equally interesting are the many comments added by visitors to this blog. The comment I find most closely representing the truth is the lengthy one by Frank.

Here it is:

from http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2009/08/12500_canadians_come_to_us_for.html

12,500 Canadians come to US for health care

Bob Barr points out that 12,500 Canadians seek health care in the United States each year:

Since Barack Obama was inaugurated President just over seven months ago, some 17,500 Canadian have come to the U.S. to receive health care. Just since the President’s health care legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives in March, about 12,500 Canadians have come here for health care. During that same period, how many Americans have travelled north to obtain health care in Canada because they couldn’t get it here in the States?

The average wait time for a Canadian to obtain treatment from a specialist after seeing a primary care physician? About 4-1/2 months. In the U.S.? Virtually none.

Want to see a primary care doctor in the U.S.? Pick up the phone and call one. In Canada, get in line behind the five percent of the population waiting to get a primary care physician (about 17 million Canadians).

And still there are those in Washington extolling the benefit of a government-controlled, single-payor heath care system . . . like they have in Canada.

The decision is made in many cases due to rationing of health care procedures. You can watch a couple of these horror stories here and here.

Posted by Jason on August 29, 2009 01:08 PM | Permalink

Talk Radio Lies

OMG what lies! Laura Ingraham show, interview w/ Betsy McCoy. McCoy claims Massachusetts' healthcare reform (Mitt Romney's plan) has resulted in causing ppl to pay more for coverage than they would've, that premiums are highest in the nation, and that it is an unpopular and disasterous plan.

As a resident of Massachusetts, I can say after several years of this plan, there just isn't any of this dissatisfaction. In fact, the HR director of my company loves it because it has fostered competition among insurers - keeping rising health care premiums in check, well below what they would've been.

Also, I've not heard a single complaint about the system from my friends, family and coworkers. I know some rather wealthy people, many middle class, lots of young adults struggling to survive - not one of them has ever complained about this system.

Also, in terms of MA having the highest premiums - that is true enough. I've found plenty of online references indicating that MA has been at or near the top of states with the highest premiums. BUT - and this is SIGNIFICANT for McCoy's argument - this situation has existed PRIOR to MA healthcare reform in 2006. I found, for example, a reference indicating the Northeast had the highest rates nationwide in the year 2004. Another shows MA at the top in 2003.

So - it was not, as McCoy's statements implied, the enactment of healthcare reform in MA that put our premiums on top. That problem existed previously.

Furthermore - one could argue that the reform didn't do anything to reduce rates. But the plan wasn't so much about reducing rates as it was to provide coverage for all residents. Its primary goal was not to reduce premiums. However, this was a secondary goal - but the plan has only 2 years in place (2007, 2008) for which statistics exist, and this is perhaps not enough time to see significant results.

The anecdotal evidence, however, is there - for example, my HR director's very enthusiastic support for the plan and direct observation that it has fostered competition and kept rates lower than they would've been w/o the plan.

Rush falsehood on healthcare

In today's show (Aug 27'09) Rush made the following claims:

1) Massachusetts enacted universal healthcare and it is ruining their budget.

2) Massachusetts healthcare is going down the tubes.

3) Nobody wants it.

The truth ..

1)

As a MA resident, I can tell you the healthcare reform enacted here is NOT the reason its budget is out of balance. Instead, just like every other state in the union, our budget is in trouble because tax revenues are down. Tax revenues are down because the country has been in a deep, prolonged recession. Prior to the recession, the MA budget was in fine shape - even though the state's healthcare reform was already in place!

2)

Again, as a MA resident, I can assure you that healthcare in this state is not going down the tubes. End of argument - there is nothing else to say.

3)

"nobody wants it" - not sure if he was referring to MA residents not wanting their existin health reform, or the nation as a whole not wanting the upcoming proposed healthcare reform, he was (purposely?) vague on this point.

If he meant the former, then, again, he simply is wrong. I have not heard anybody complain about the reform that our then REPUBLICAN govenor enacted. Even the local conservative pundits do not complain about it. It simply is a political non-issue in this state.

DemocracyNow on HLGates arrest

In the story below, there is apparently a significant, glaring misstatement, if not outright lie. In particular, the phrase "despite proof of residence" completely contradicts every online reference I can find on the topic. What I can find is that Gates did not provide any proof of residence or ID, but rather said "you don't know who you're dealing with"

This from DemocracyNow's own website:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/21/headlines#6

Police Accused of Bias After Arresting Harvard Scholar Inside His Own Home

One of the nation’s most prominent African American scholars, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., has accused police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, of racial profiling after he was arrested in his own home late last week. Gates is the head of Harvard’s W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and American Studies. Gates arrived at his home in Cambridge last Thursday afternoon to find his front door jammed. As he tried to pry it open, a neighbor called the police department and reported that a robbery was in progress. Gates grew frustrated when an investigating officer did not believe he was the owner of the home despite proof of residence. According to a police report of the incident, Gates called the officer a racist and said, “This is what happens to black men in America.” Eventually Gates was handcuffed and taken to the police station. Gates was charged with disorderly conduct.

This from Boston Herald's website:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1186039&srvc=news&position=1

When Sgt. James Crowley arrived, he said Gates already was inside. But when he was asked to provide identification, Gates allegedly snapped, “No, I will not!”

Mark Steyn on US vs Quebec healthcare

Mark Steyn has been making the following claim on several conservative talk shows (Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt, etc.). I really want to find out the full story on this. I'm not sure he's giving us the complete picture.

(this is from http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=83cdf976-c0a5-4157-949d-e4963728ab29 )

MS: "There’s a story in Le Journal de Montreal yesterday that said incontinent Quebecers, with serious incontinence problems, that’s people who have to get up to go to the bathroom 12 times per night, have to wait three years for treatment. That’s 12 times a night, 365 times a year, for three years for a routine half-hour procedure for which in the entire province of Quebec, only two urologists will perform it, can perform it. Now under the present system, those incontinent Quebecers can drive a couple of hours south and go to Fletcher Allen hospital in Vermont, or Dartmouth-Hitchcock in New Hampshire, and write a check. The minute that America has the wait lists and the wait times, and the restricted access to health care, which is all Obama means when he talks about controlling costs. Why is it that socialized systems control costs? Because they restrict access. And it’s easy to do that. If you’re only servicing a certain number of patients, half the number of patients you would be in a free market, obviously you can control costs. This is really, I think, a bridge that if America crosses it, it will be very hard ever to get back."

NOTE: On the Laura Ingraham show, he claimed the machine to perform this procedure is at EVERY hospital in the US. There's no available transcript, but that is what he said.

NOTE: Found the original le Journal de Montreal article here:

http://www.canoe.com/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2009/06/20090610-092400.html

BTW: Turns out 'le Journal de Montreal' is not exactly a medical journal - it is a sensationalist tabloid along the lines of the National Enquirer.

Found some info from Mayo Clinic, here:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/urinary-incontinence/DS00404/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs

According to the Mayo Clinic page, there are 19 different methods for treating incontinence. The JdM article - to the best of my ability to ascertain - ONLY discusses the availability of ONE of those procedures (sacral nerve stimulation)

Also, this surgical site has some info:

http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/Pa-St/Sacral-Nerve-Stimulation.html

includes the statements:

"This treatment has been used with over 1500 patients"

"It was approved in Europe in 1994" (doesn't say when the FDA approved it)

According to the US Census bureau (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/004491.html) there are over 7,500 hospitals in the US alone. Being generous, let's say there have be twice as many SNS procedures over the years than what SurgeryEncyclopedia reports. That means in the last 15 years, 7,500 hospitals have performed 3,000 SNS procedures.

Mathematically, there are many ways this can happen - none of them are pretty. For example, 3,000 of those hospitals could have invested in the equipment and each one of those hospitals use the equipment exactly once in 15 years, while another 3,500 hospitals invested in the equipment and still have never performed a single SNS procdedure in 15 years. Yikes! Not very efficient use of healthcare dollars! Not to mention the fact that every person who receives an SNS procedure would, in this scenario, be the one and only SNS patient the surgeon ever sees. Personally, I prefer a surgeon who is more familiar with the procedure.

Rush

Today Rush asked a caller if his life is better now than when Obama took office (about 70 days ago). Caller said Obama's been meeting with people who are doing better off, so probably things are better (not a good answer - but that doesn't matter here)

Rush goes on to admonish the caller for listening to the drive by media, which is nothing more than Obama's own stenographer.

His next claim was what drove me nuts today .. that 600,000 people are out of a job each month, and that American auto manufacturers are going out of business. While these facts may be more or less true .. what he went on to say was that this is all Obama's fault, that it is all evidence that Obama's policies have failed.

These later points simply cannot be made only 70 days into the Obama administration. The global economy - which really is what is trying to be corrected - doesn't change in 70 days. It is going to take time. To issue any kind of assessment after only 70 days is way, way, way too premature. The macro economy moves not like a nimble, sure footed sports car, but more like a giant ocean tanker. It takes a long, long time to make even the slightest adjustment in direction.

Yet the damage is done .. now all Rush's blinded followers believe that Obama's policies have _already_ failed. They are programmed to believe the economy is headed straight into a trash can.

In fact, given that Rush has 20 million listeners, if he can convince enough of them that Obama is sending the economy into the skids, then these people could actually help this occur - because a consumer based economy is so dependent on people SPENDING their money - when enough of them become afraid that the economy is about to worsen, and suddenly curtail or even STOP spending, then it becomes a self fulfuilling prophecy.

Furthermore, Rush has publicly stated that he WANTS Obama's policies to fail. So, since he has the power to sway millions of people, and his stated desire is for Obama's policies to fail, then it stands to reason he would try to influence his listeners into not going along with any optimism that might loosen their purse strings and in any way assist in economic recovery.

Funny thing is, Wall St. doesn't seem to agree with Rush as to where the economy is headed. Today it closed at 8029. The market is very nearly back to where it was when Obama took office.

Oh, that brings up another funny thing .. you don't hear Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, et. al. talking about the market anymore. My how times change quickly .. just 3 weeks ago they couldn't talk enough about how Wall St. was taking a nose dive because of Obama. Now that the market has recovered .. an eerie silence on the topic exists on the conservative talk airwaves.

Limbaugh, Apr '09 - finally addresses stock market

OK he's finally begun the spin on why the market is up "265 points" (it was in fact, up 265 at mid-day, on the day he made this statement)

He 'blames' the rise in the market - again, only mentioning the 265 point rise, not the 1200+ point it has risen from March 9 to March 31 - on the easing of 'mark to market' accounting practices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark-to-market)

While this may be bullish for the market today, the market rise started March 9. The FASB did not vote until Arpil 2 on a proposal "allowing companies to use more leeway in valuing their assets under "mark-to-market" accounting, a move that could ease balance-sheet pressures many companies say they are feeling during the economic crisis".

So, RL continues to ignore that the market has risen over 1200 points (almost 20%) in 4 weeks. He only addresses a one day, 265 point bump that might be attributed to a vote to relax accounting regulation.

Yet on his show he made the argument that the only reason the market is up is because of this 'artificial' regulatory.

Oh OK, he is changing his story even as I listen .. He now also claims that the market loves it when Obama is out of the country. " The market is going crazy .. the only difference is that Obama is out of the country today". "If Obama would announce that he'd stay out of the country for an entire month, the market would skyrocket".

Again .. he completely ignores the fact that the market rose +1200 pts in March, and I'm quite sure Obama was in the US most, if not all, of March '09

RL is so full of BS

Limbaugh, Apr '09

In March, when the stock market was at incredible lows, the talk shows were lambasting Obama for driving the economy into the ground - using the stock market as proof.

Since its low in early March, the market has recovered significantly. I have heard nary a whisper of the phrase 'stock market' since that low. These talk show hosts are ever sooooo selective of the information they highlight.

Instead, now that the market is doing well, what sort of things are they talking and railing about?

Today, Rush L has:

1. Spent an entire commercial-to-commercial segment on a wild turtle walking into a turtle hospital.

2. Produced and aired a spoof press conference of Kim Jong Il - no information, no reality; just a commedy sketch.

3. Made fun of the White House sending a DVD to England's PM using the wrong format

4. Skewered Obama for bringing 12 teleprompters to the G20 meeting (hmm .. how many did Bush bring?)

After 2 hrs of this nonsense, he finally made a criticism of Obama that is, at least, of a serious nature. He criticized Obama for accepting some blame for the current global economic disaster. Rush said Europeans blame the US for everything - now our own president is agreeing with them.

Hmm .. this implies quite clearly that RL disagrees that the lack of financial regulation in the US contributed to the current global economic mess. Well, it has - and it can be documented that it has - contributed at least partially (significantly, according to many) to the current global economic mess. So, RL is simply WRONG on this point.

Phil Gramm - a real bad guy

While I tend to believe there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides of the political spectrum, there is one name that keeps popping up time and time again when one looks deeply into the reasons for the very frightening global financial crisis ..

that name is ..

Phil Gramm

Here is one person's take on his impact ..

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/whos-whining-now/

Here are two bills passed in 1999 and 2000 that really opened the floodgates to gambling with the world's financial security ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

This is interesting stuff

abc

Bush, Cheney legacy

G W Bush is now officially out of office. Heard an interesting take on the Bush years - I think this was on NPR. Essentially, the claim was that Cheney was pushing policy during the first 1/2 of the 8 years Bush was in office. [Cheney, btw, in my opinion, was nuts. In a position such as VP of the US, this is a dangerous thing.] Bush deferred to Cheney time and time again during those years.

Bush finally started distancing himself from Cheney when Cheney was pushing for some highly suspect program that was, in the mind of a dozen or so top Justice dept officials, clearly illegal. The program almost went through, but when these officials threatened a mass resignation in protest, then finally at this 11th hour Bush saw the light and pulled the plug on the program (actually - he insisted that its authors go back to reformulate it in a more legal manner - whether they succeeded is an entirely different matter)

I will attempt to find some info on this ... OK, found it. Written by Barton Gellman in the Washington Post, Sept 14, 2008:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091401974_pf.html

Near the end of the article appears this quote:

"In the aftermath, the White House senior staff asked questions. Was the president getting timely information and advice? Had he relinquished too much control to Cheney?

"Bush, aides said, learned something he would not forget. Cheney was the nearest thing to an anti-politician in elected office. Bush could not afford to be like that. In his second term, his second chance, the president would take greater care to consult his own instincts."

Black holes from the LHC could survive for minutes

Interesting read. Some of the comments are worth reading as well.

From : http://arxivblog.com/?p=1136

Black holes from the LHC could survive for minutes

January 23rd, 2009 | by KFC |

There is absolutely, positively, definitely no chance of the LHC destroying the planet when it eventually switches on some time later this year. Right?

Err, yep. And yet a few niggling doubts are persuading some scientists to run through their figures again. And the new calculations are throwing up some surprises.

One potential method of destruction is that the LHC will create tiny black holes that could swallow everything in their path including the planet. In 2002, Roberto Casadio at the Universita di Bologna in Italy and a few pals reassured the world that this was not possible because the black holes would decay before they got the chance to do any damage.

Now they’re not so sure. The question is not simply how quickly a mini-black hole decays but whether this decay always outpaces any growth.

Casadio have reworked the figures and now say that: ” the growth of black holes to catastrophic size does not seem possible.”

Does not seem possible? That’s not the unequivocal reassurance that particle physicists have been giving us up till now.

What’s more, the new calculations throw up a tricky new prediction. In the past, it had always been assumed that black holes would decay in the blink of an eye.

Not any more. Casadio and co say: “the expected decay times are much longer (and possibly ≫ 1 sec) than is typically predicted by other models”

Whoa, let’s have that again: these mini black holes will be hanging around for seconds, possibly minutes?

That doesn’t sound good. Anybody at CERN care to clarify?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0901.2948: On the Possibility of Catastrophic Black Hole Growth in the Warped Brane-World Scenario at the LHC

2. By Howard Morton on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

   Oops! Shouldn’t we consider a return to the drawing board?

3. By Dave on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

   Wouldn’t it depend on the event frequency? The analysis doesn’t seem to address individual black holes combining (which over a lifetime of 100 seconds, seems like a reasonable thing to look at). If the LHC can’t make more than one every 100 seconds, we’re presumably safe.

4. By Jacques on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

   My real concern is, could it gobble up what remains of my 401(k)?

5. By Geoffrey A. Landis on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

   Jeez– read the abstract. It’s a calculation based on a theoretical model using some very speculative physics for which there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Really. Ignore it.
   The main thing to keep in mind is, cosmic rays have energies vastly higher than the LHC. If the LHC could produce black holes, then there would be black holes floating around everywhere.

6. By Gp on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

   Further to Geoffrey’s point. Wouldn’t the sun have become a black hole already if it were that easy to create one? Although, I am not a philosoph… err not a scientist.

7. By Dave Mishem on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

   Almost every single new technology has had unexpected side effects. Look at what happened to the early X-ray pioneers. The smart way to do high energy physics research is on the moon, preferably the dark side. We still don’t understand how physics works - how can you possibly say that doing X, Y, and Z won’t lead to the creation of a new elementary particle A with properties never seen before?

8. By Jonathan on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

   Did anyone see that movie ‘event horizon’? The black hole took the guy into a dimension of pure evil. That kind of thing happens in real life. I am scared!

9. By Peter Yachnin on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

   Maybe this would be a good time to ponder this

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

10. By Tim Boynton on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    I wonder how many black holes we can observe were created by civilizations that did not believe it would end their existance ? If it all goes wrong someone, somewhere will see the sudden start another one. I feel the existance of the many seems to out weigh the science of the few.

11. By Barry Kumnick on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    Don’t create black holes. The current theory of what powers them is incorrect.

    The true source of a black holes gravitational energy isn’t the mass that gets sucked into it. That mass gets destroyed in the singularity. So does the energy it is composed of. It gets destroyed when the gravitational force that sucks it in makes it exceed the speed of light because exceeding the speed of light in space destroys the representation of the Dirac Sea; i.e., it destroys light, energy, matter, and spacetime. The singularity inside a black hole is the only thing that violates the conservation of energy. There is a universal law more powerful than the conservation of energy. That is the conservation of nonexistence. Nonexistence cannot be destroyed because it is nonexistent. It is the lack of existence. The conservation of nonexistence is the first cause of symmetry. It is the cause of dark energy and the cause of the Dirac Sea.

    Inside the event horizon of a black hole lies nonexistence. No Dirac Sea. No energy. No space. No time. No dimensions. Black holes are powered by the dark energy difference between the nonexistence inside the black hole and normal space outside it. If you don’t know this, there is a finite chance you could destroy the earth. The energy of the Dirac Sea outside the black hole is inexhaustable. It is the most powerful energy source in the universe. We don’t know how to contain it.

    As far as cosmic rays, the creation of a black hole involves more than energy. The thing that actually triggers the creation of a black hole is energy being forced to exceed the speed of light in free space. Cosmic rays don’t do that, unless they get sucked into a black hole.

    This is based on research still to be published. Ignore at your peril.

12. By Doubt on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    This is starting to get me nervous.

    This is orders of magnitude from what initially stated, and we certainly do not know enough in order to know that the equations will hold or that other factors may affect the process.

    Furthermore it would seem simple to facilitate initial accretion, particularly in the case of those long lived black holes…

13. By Johan Louwers on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    Well, one good thing… if they are wrong nobody will blame them… if the calculations turn out to be wrong we will all be gone and they will not have to apologize for the incorrect calculations.

    regards,
    Johan Louwers.

14. By jake on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    There’s an old theory that states that civilizations advance to the point where they discover nuclear weapons, then they proceed to destroy themselves.

    I would like to amend this to civilizations advance to the point where they can build a Large Hadron Collider…

15. By Doubt on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    I’m getting the feeling that there’s a anti-anti-science knee jerk reaction going around. People embrace a set of conclusions while waving away an opposing set just because it’s mostly speculative. Just like the former conclusions. And why is the context being outright ignored? As far as I can tell the solar system is not a LHC.

    “11pm Galactic News: If you put your credits on black holes call your bookies now and you will be in for a treat! The budding civilization at Sol III has managed to wipe itself out with the good old energy collider. Last transmissions captured seem to be of someone complaining of not even going to have sticks left.”

16. By Carl Antone on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    Show me a gravitron first. Then maybe I’ll believe you.

17. By Ralf-Peter on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    Wow that would be great. We could create small black holes, feed them with a particle beam, and achieve 100% matter->energy conversion.
    If they are created, they clearly can’t be hazardous, since they must be created in the upper atmosphere as well.

18. By Stephen D Covey on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    No need to worry - the existence of neutron stars proves that cosmic rays (some of which have much higher energy than the LHC), even when striking a surface with extremely high density, cannot create black holes that could threaten the Earth.

    If it was even remotely possible, those neutron stars would have turned into black holes long ago, and we would not see any.

    I am still, however, in favor of that large accelerator on the far side of the moon!

19. By GreenAvenger on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    Isn’t the LHC in Europe? As long as it doesn’t suck up the USA, I’m fine with it.

20. By Ken Cox on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    Nature hurls cosmic rays toward the Earth with far more energy than the LHC could ever produce. We most likely have mini-black holes produced by Nature at far greater frequency than one every 100 seconds. Cosmic rays have collided with Earth’s matter for quite a long time, yet we are still here! The wonderful opportunity we now have is the ability to study them in a laboratory environment.

21. By David Hill on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    Well, it is certainly a more high tech approach to the EOW than a flood and a boatload of animals and people that survive

22. By banned digger on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    in my experience, black holes have always been a lot more pleasurable than white holes.

    …just an observation

23. By Barry Kumnick on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    The true cause of black holes is an attempted violation of the conservation of nonexistence that nature can’t correct in any other way; e.g., through the release of other forms of energy. Nonexistence cannot be destroyed, because there is nothing to destroy. The conservation of nonexistence is absolute. It is the first cause of symmetry. It is the reason symmetry exists. The universal function that creates the future from the past and drives the evolution of the universe is based on the conservation of nonexistence.

    In addition to creating a black hole via a gravitational field forcing energy to exceed the speed of light in free space, one can be created by creating so much assymetry in a high energy particle collision for so short a duration that nonexistence can only be conserved by forcing the energy in the collision past the speed of light. Doing so destroys the energy, thereby conserving nonexistence. However, in destroying the energy, it creates a hole in the Dirac Sea, i.e., it destroys spacetime and everything it contains in the localized region that exceeded the speed of light. A black holes energy is powered by the dark energy differential between nonexistence inside the event horizon and normal space outside it. The dark energy in the Dirac Sea outside the black hole is finite, but extremely large. In other words, the power that drives a black hole is not solely based on the energy that went into the collision that creates it. That is only the trigger. I know, there will be objections that this would violate the conservation of energy. How do you know the conservation of energy isn’t violated inside the singularity in a black hole?

    As the amount of assymetry in a collision increases and the amount of time available to discharge the assymetry decreases toward the Planck time, the frequency of the energy released and its power will increase explosively. If we are lucky, the explosive increase in energy will result in a high intensity gamma ray burst that will destroy the LHC before it can create a black hole.

24. By Toad on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    DO YOU SEE!? DOOOO YOOOOUUUU SEEEEEE!!!????

25. By phunk on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    The thing is, even if they lasted for days or years, black holes that size have such miniscule gravity that they only eat when they directly impact another subatomic particle. That will happen so rarely that they simply won’t grow unless they can survive for millions of years.

26. By peezawaki on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    Okay okay, then if cosmic rays collide with Earth and for sure they produce mini-black holes, why not to put the detectors in the space? At least they have the particles accelerated for free by the Sun!
    Anyway if anyday we’re spaghettified I hope that thing get sucked me so fast I don’t take care of it.
    Btw in answer to GreenAvenger, yeah, is here in Europe, but if we’re sucked it will have enough mass to suck USA too

27. By Barry Kumnick on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    It is not purely a matter of energy. Its a matter of too much assymetry being created in too short a time to discharge it as energy without exceeding the speed of light. Cosmic rays are not equivalent to the LHC. LHC does not equal cosmic ray. Cosmic ray density is not high enough to create enough assymetry to trigger the creation of a black hole. I’m not so sure about the LHC.

28. By Ed Pell on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    The difference is that black holes produced by cosmic rays are moving at about the speed of light with respect to the Earth, but black holes produced by the LHC can be standing still or slowly moving through the Earth.

29. By Dave on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    @people who raised the cosmic-ray objection:

    Did that analysis take into account the interactions of concurrent events? That is to say, the idea is in the long long history of the planet, enough cosmic rays have hit the atmosphere that some meaningful number of them must have been at or above LHC energy - and since we’re still here, such collisions must not produce planet-killing black holes. But what about a bunch of similar-energy collisions all in the same place in quick succession - what are the chances of two or more non-PK black holes merging and crossing that line? Have enough CR events happened to establish that scenario as “safe enough” also?

    Understand me - my default assumption here is that this has been covered by someone…I just want to know the details.

30. By James L. Carroll on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    On the one hand: I agree that when we don’t know what will happen, and if there is even the smallest chance of catastrophic consequences, then we shouldn’t do it, just to be safe. Clearly the changes in estimates indicate that we really have no clue what will happen.

    However, on the other hand: in this case, we are replicating a natural phenomenon (the smashing together of cosmic rays at high energy) in order to study it. Naturally, we don’t know what will happen, or we wouldn’t need to do the experiment. What we do know is that whatever happens, it won’t destroy the world, because the world would already have been destroyed, since this happens in nature all the time.

    In the end, the precautionary principle does not apply to duplicating natural phenomenon.

31. By Nick on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    Ah, a good ol fashioned American response.

32. By Matthew Strebe on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    So Barry, how does non-existence have the gravity required to sustain the black hole? If black holes are truly nothing, then they obviously don’t have mass and therefore cannot have gravity. Incogito ergo no sum.

33. By Cunamara on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    “This is based on research still to be published. Ignore at your peril.” Jeez, Barry, if the research doesn’t pass peer-reviewed muster then it’s likely to be crackpot stuff. The only peril in ignoring crackpots is when they become homicidal in their frustration.

34. By Captain Piccard on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    …but Scotty… what about the space-time continuum?

35. By Zephir on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    By my opinion the risk of BH swallowing the planet is rather low due the high activation energy required - but the risk of strangelet formation is quite high - simply because we observed it already!

    The muons formation during recent Tevatron experiments in Fermilab well outside of collider pipe may be related to recent pentaquark and tetraneutron evidence and it can demonstrate the stabilization of large matter clusters via supersymmetry and the danger of strangelet formation.

    We can understand the dark matter, WIMPS and supersymmetric bosons as a surface tension effects of gravitational field. At the case of large distances / energy densities the energy density of space-time curvature near large particle or galactic clusters can become a dominant force, because it manifests itself as a additional mass density of vacuum with antigravity effects.

    In particular, the formation of tiny dense particle clusters can stabilize the exotic forms of matter due the hydrostatic pressure inside of tiny particle droplets like the neutrons inside of neutron stars or atom nuclei by such way, these droplets can escape from collider pipe and they can start the avalanche conversion of normal matter to another strangelets under development of giant explosion, which could vaporize a substantial portion of Earth.

    Therefore the latests Fermilab results should serve as a very last warning of people before high energy LHC experiments planned. The confirmation of supersymmetry could become a supersymmetric event for science as well: the best triumph of mainstream science and it’s very last mistake at the same moment.

36. By Matson on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    Looking at the numbers, we would expect to find many more intelligent civilizations creating radio sinnals.

    It is entirely possible that the obvious steps in scientific discovery may cause intelligent societies to destroy themselves.

    It would provide a clear resolution to the Fermi paradox:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature_of_intelligent_life_to_destroy_itself

37. By Eman on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    If the LHC did create small black holes. Couldn’t you accelerate the black holes’ evaporation by feeding it a stream of antimatter particles? Isn’t that how Hawking radiation evaporates black holes?

    I’m pro science and research, but I’m also pro caution when necessary. Maybe some laymen explanations are in order here. How do I get a good laymen explanation and avoid confusing quackery? Quality explanations are always appreciated…

38. By Kyle Lahnakoski on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    “we certainly do not know enough in order to know that the equations will hold or that other factors may affect the process”

    I suggest using the LHC, and perform some experiments.

39. By George N on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    We know for a *fact* that the earth will not be destroyed because John Titor came back from the year 2036 and reported that the LHC *did* produce black holes, but that we were able to trap and control them. That’s how GE built the time machine he used.

    Look it up.

40. By Jayesh on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    > I wonder how many black holes we can observe were created by civilizations that did not believe it would end their existance ?

    Maybe that’s why we see >0 number of blackholes, but 0 alien spaceships

41. By iain on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    “…The smart way to do high energy physics research is on the moon, preferably the dark side….”

    Great idea. I can just see it now:

    “Oh, Honey, there’s a Full Black Hole out tonight!!! it’s SOO romant-” -GIANT SUCKING SOUND-

42. By tomstatham on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    I don’t believe this would destroy the earth. The first thing destroyed would be the LHC itself. As soon as it becomes damaged, it will cease to funtion and stop generating these black holes.

    –TomS

43. By j713.9534 on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    just read the paper. basically then length that these black holes last depends on the length scale at which newton’s gravity fails and gives over to higher-dimensional gravity theories. based the current experiments the paper states in the conclusion the BH is unlikely to grow. Only if we assume systemic errors and one sided errors is it possible for BH to grow at all.

    the relevant paragraph quoted below:

    “As shown in the previous Section, in particular in Tables
    I–III, the maximum black hole mass never reaches
    catastrophic size before leaving the Earth. The black hole
    mass remains at microscopic values for a wide range of acceptable
    initial conditions and for a wide range of critical
    masses, Mc. Indeed, in order for the black holes created
    at the LHC to grow at all, the critical mass should be
    Mc & 105 kg. This value is rather close to the maximum
    compatible with experimental test of Newton’s law, that
    is Mc ≃ 106 kg (which we further relaxed to Mc = 108 kg
    in our analysis). For smaller values of Mc, the black holes
    cannot accrete fast enough to overcome the decay rate.
    Furthermore, the larger Mc is taken to be, the longer a
    black hole takes to reach its maximum value and the less
    time it remains near its maximum value before exiting
    the Earth.”

44. By Barry Kumnick on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    <>

    Nonexistence means literally that. No Dirac Sea. No spacetime. No energy. No light. No matter inside the event horizon. The energy is in the spectral energy density of the Dirac sea in the normal space OUTSIDE the black hole. The energy differential between the zero energy density inside the black hole and the spectral energy of the Dirac sea outside means the spectral energy density of the spacetime outside the black hole will be drawn into the black hole like water down a drain. The black hole will draw spacetime, energy and matter into it due to the difference between the nonexistent spectral energy density inside and the spectral energy density of the Dirac Sea of the space outside. Spacetime itself will curve around the event horizon of the black hole as it gets drawn into the black hole. We interpret this spatial curvature as the gravity caused by the black hole.

45. By marcello on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    Nonsense. to the particles colliding it makes not a dang bit of difference whether one is sitting still or they are moving towards each other. basic physics 001.

    This is getting well beyond ridiculous. This author does NOT represent all physicists, his theories and all those predicting micro-black holes are waaay beyond speculative, and cosmic rays of much much higher energies have been bombarding earth with PRECISELY the same reaction as the LHC for billions of years.

    nothing to see here, please move on. There are MUCH more pressing things to worry about. like your money, and your job.

46. By Barry Kumnick on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    The only problem in ignoring crackpots is if they turn out to be right.

47. By Bad Brad on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    Comic rays are not protons. Its said that cosmic rays have more energy, but protons have a LOT more mass, and if they are travelling at 99.999% the SOL, its hard to imagine that cosmic rays are weaker and, two, what if they create a black hole and then pump a bunch more protons into to … and it grows .. and grows.

    My question is this: has anyone explained gama-ray bursts yet? The most powerfull explosions known yet no two are alike? Is that because they are created by black holes eating planets and solor systems?

    Great .. I’m applying for an extension …

48. By devicerandom on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    The only problem in ignoring crackpots is if they turn out to be right.

    Publish your papers in “Physical Review Letters” and we’ll think about that possibility.

49. By K on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    That’s what I asked and CERN never replied. My question was: “Is it possible that some of these black might coalesce and form larger black holes? larger black holes would be more powerful than their predecessors and possibly aquire more mass and grow still larger.”

    However cosmic rays have more energy and there hasn’t been any incidents with them has there?

50. By donny on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    “Nonsense. to the particles colliding it makes not a dang bit of difference whether one is sitting still or they are moving towards each other. basic physics 001.”

    Better take a refresher… it’s all about
    conservation of momentum which is why there
    are counter rotating rings.

    Also…

    “Its said that cosmic rays have more energy, but protons have a LOT more mass”

    Cosmic rays, the really powerful and
    damaging ones (though much more rare) are
    relativistic Fe56 … 56X the mass of protons.
    (core of stars, thrown off after super nova)
    However they are not involved with head
    on collisions with each other… they
    typically follow the earth magnetic field
    lines which is why they are more abundant
    over the poles (higher dose of radiation
    when you have a high inclination polar
    flight)

51. By Barry Kumnick on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    There is no difference between a cosmic ray colliding with a particle in the atmosphere, and the collision of two particles in a collider - except that in the collider, many particles collide in a small volume of space in a short time. There is a lot more assymetry in multiple concurrent or near concurrent collisions in a small spatial volume than there are in a 2 particle collision scenario like that involving cosmic rays.

    Anyway, physicists will ramp up the energy in the collider gradually.

    If black holes are formed, which itself is speculative, prior to black hole production there should be some warning in the form of an unexpectedly rapid increase in the energy density released from the collision. That should provide sufficient warning of impending black hole formation to alert physicists to a problem.

52. By Barry Kumnick on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    Okay.

53. By SW VandeCarr on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    With atom bomb in 1945, they only worried that the atmosphere might catch fire. Look at how much we’ve progressed!

54. By R.. Mirman on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    The Warped Brane-World is nonsense. See proof that a universe is possible only with dimension 3+1 (which actually agrees with reality!) in book
    Our Almost Impossible Universe:
    Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely

55. By relaxed on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    thankfully, none of you sound like legitimate scientists. let’s leave it to the experts please and avoid this senseless speculation.

56. By John Smith on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    I think that we should let scientists at LHC, whose whole livelihood depends on continuing this project, make all analyses and determinations as to whether we go ahead with the project.

57. By John Smith on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    This is the first reassuring thing in regard to this I’ve heard yet.

58. By arant on Jan 23, 2009 | Reply

    It only takes one…

59. By luis sancho on Jan 24, 2009 | Reply

    kids on the block, a black hole that has eaten the moon will produce exa ct background radiation at 2.7k totally indistinguisahble from the radiation of the so-called big bang, thus it is self evident that being the moon the most common planetoid, and the background radiation the most common radiation and the black hole moon MACHO the only one that can produce it, many moons bombarded by cosmic rays are becoming black holes. Further on, cosmic rays have nothing to do with what CERN will do, deconfine large hadrons, extracting its quarks and massing them together through stockastic cooling in big lumps. According to chen from the institute of physics of china, 10,000 deconfined quarks will form ice-9, the seed of a quark star. CERN will produce one million a second. CHances are thus very big that we become a black hole or a quark star. So who is going to stop this madness? They have inmunity in court. We lost our suit against them for lack of jurisdiction. We need political help if not military. if not as they say in spanglish, good luck y buena muerte

60. By Georgio Cypriano on Jan 24, 2009 | Reply

    The black hole will eat the CERN scientist first……OMG. Being in love with the monster is not all that brilliant…and scientific!.

61. By Hassan Bin Sober on Jan 24, 2009 | Reply

    If events at the LHC swallow Switzerland, what are we going to do without wrist watches and chocolate?

62. By Lucas on Jan 24, 2009 | Reply

    Actually I think it would be amazing that black holes could exist for some appreciable length, because then we could study them in a controlled environment, and how could would that be?
    As for whether it is hazardous, I don’t think that it could be as bad as testing nuclear bombs out in the open and letting the wind carry away the waste.

63. By Lucas on Jan 24, 2009 | Reply

    might you explain what a quark star is, in all my astronomy and cosmology courses I’ve never heard about one, though I have wondered if there might be a degeneracy level below neutron, but the difference between something like that and a point source black hole has no difference.
    So my questions are, what are you saying? and where did you come up with this nonsense?

64. By equinox on Jan 24, 2009 | Reply

    I havn’t bothered to read many replies, but would just like to say… When are these “scientists” going to accept that we exist in an electric universe ?

    Black holes have never been proven to exist and they cannot be created quite simply because black holes DON’T EXIST !

65. By Dear Barry Kumnick, on Jan 24, 2009 | Reply

    >”This is based on research still to be published.”

    Research done on the inside of your own closed eyelids during an acid trip doesn’t count, dude.

66. By Malacay on Jan 24, 2009 | Reply

    We still dont know how many Dimensions really exist. Bumbleebees can fly although they shouldn’t be able to acording to current physical laws.

    Experiments always hold a certain danger to the scientist, the environment or maybe not today but someday tomorrow in an even larger scale.

    Information is key to surviving experiments and make them a grand success.
    The fewer information we have what could happen the more dangerous it could get.

67. By biscuit on Jan 24, 2009 | Reply

    Pick this moral here:

    A highly thought of scientist, thought of as reliable, once hypothesized the human body would explode if it travelled at 30mph (or some speed).

    This scientist, a cultist scientific expert authority figure, was also backed by the then current conditioned cultist thinking of that particular time.

    His followers, then went on to condition his nervous system that he was right, his authority and belief conditioned his followers to perceive he was right and they were right, there authority stamped.

    Society believed everything these cult of experts said. They temporarily stopped breeding carriage horses for speed.

    Eventually the hypothesis was tested and this scientist was proven wrong, but fortunately the worlds existence was not at stake.

    And because the world went on, he got his book deal and drove a fast car with a leggy blonde on his arm.

    Moral: Perceptions look like they are speaking the truth but they may not be. It is only in time we can see if they were right. We will not see if they are right if we don’t exist.

68. By Larry on Jan 24, 2009 | Reply

    Ignore the precautionary principle. It’s an evolutionary dead end and an excuse for doing nothing.

69. By KevinC on Jan 24, 2009 | Reply

    er, I am NOT an expert on this, just as I assume none of you are but I fail to see how particles traveling at, almost, the speed of light (not the speed of, not faster than) collide and somehow form a singularity/black hole. Even if we could force two particles into the same space at the same time, which I don’t believe the lhc would do, what about mass/gravity. Two particles does not a black hole make, nor three, nor a billion. I believe that in order for a black hole to form, it requires > 5 solar masses. Now obviously acceleration is playing part of gravity in the lhc but I still don’ buy there being anywhere NEAR enough mass contributed to the collisions to form a black hole. That’s just my opinion though.
    Also, Larry-Right you are!
    -KevinC

70. By A Mackem on Jan 24, 2009 | Reply

    Don’t worry … it’s all relative….

71. By Zephir on Jan 25, 2009 | Reply

    /*…we should let scientists at LHC … make all analysis and determinations as to whether we go ahead with the project…*/

    The questions is, whether these scientists are competent at all, if they haven’t made such analysis a WELL BEFORE the LHC project ever started.

    For example, did they considered a formation of neutron fluid? Where we can see such analysis? Nowhere? Sorry - we have to stop the project immediately, until analysis will not be published and reviewed. This is a normal approach, by the way…

    It’s somewhat silly, we aren’t building a single bridge without security analysis and the seven billion project like LHC has no official security analysis done at all. Who is responsible for this? Why he isn’t arrested already?

72. By A Dale Miller on Jan 25, 2009 | Reply

    A layman writes: A mini BH should exert great pressure below itself so as to free-fall to center of Earth. Simple contemplation of electricity theoretically centers an electron-free core of unknown size into just about the same place. Thus, infrequent BH reinforcement would have BH so full of positrons as to repell any more + stuff from contact until reinforced by new BHs.

    That rescue from BH expires if frequent BH generation gobbles positive core faster than it can replenish. So, the so far so good platitude is no good.
    MillerAD1