Reconciling skydragons and mainstream skeptics?

Posted on 3 July 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

Greenhouse gases, are not so much “trapping” heat, as acting by “tapping” heat. They are acting as a vector (tap) enabling the flow of energy between the adiabatic controlled atmosphere and the IR radiation that eventually leaves the atmosphere. And it is because the adiabatic cooling reduces the temperature, that the apparent temperature of earth from space is cooled. This may reconcile the “Dragon slayers” with mainstream skeptic views.

Introduction: why colder means warmer

The warmer windows are warmer because to lose more heat.

The warmer windows are warmer because to lose more heat.


Talking through my post yesterday with a physicist (The CO2 Greenhouse effect is real (sometimes), it was clear I needed to spend a bit more time explaining what may appear counter intuitive. That is why when the apparent temperature of the earth from space decreases, that this must mean the planet is warmer.
This is easiest to explain using the analogy of a house. To the right is a thermal image of a house, clearly showing the windows and doors are much warmer than the better insulated walls and roof. Why are they warmer? Because the internal heat can more easily penetrate the thin insulation of windows and doors. So, for a constant level of heating (at night**), if all the house were covered in the glass windows with the red (hot) appearance, then more heat would be lost from inside. Conversely, if there were no windows or doors all the outside would be the cold blue and less heat would be lost. Continue reading →

Posted in Advanced Greenhouse Theory, Climate, My Best Articles, Proposals | Tagged , , | 47 Comments

The CO2 Greenhouse effect is real (sometimes)

Posted on 2 July 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

Note: I’m not going to say anything more than this obviously does not refer to a real glass greenhouse and how it works.
I’ve a couple of times heard statements to the effect that the greenhouse effect is not scientific or even that there is no greenhouse effect.
Whilst the CO2 effect is “proven science” in a general sense that rising CO2 should increase global temperature, I have to sympathise with the view that it’s not science as the greenhouse effect is not a universal “law” but instead the way a real atmosphere tends to work in practice. So, I will try to explain how I understand it.

The Blanket Analogy: a Wet Blanket

To those think CO2 warming is “obvious”. You clearly don’t understand it. The atmosphere is far more complex than the simple idea of a “blanket”. And to those who think in simple terms such as “blanket = warming” because when a blanket is put around a hot person it warms them, answer me this:

If you put a blanket on an outdoor concrete surface will it get hotter or colder? Continue reading →

Posted in Climate, Fails | 20 Comments

Help needed! What's difficult about fractal noise?

Posted on 30 June 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

Lost and Confused SignpostI need help. I’ve many times tried to get a discussion going on 1/f noise so that I can understand how to put over this subject so that it is understandable.
And let me be blunt, if only I could get people to understand this, they would never again concern themselves with “manmade global warming”.

Yet, no one ever seems to comment.

I don’t get any idea where anyone is having problems. But again when I saw a chance to bring up this subject using the similarity of the Antarctic Ice and Central England Record, to show that they are both 1/f type noise, no one commented – I thought this time someone might get it and I would have some kind of response.
So, what’s wrong with this article:

Global Warming disproved: Bad posts, CET, Antarctic Ice and Fractal Noise

I mean it. Global Warming disproved. – at least “Global warming” in the sense used by the warmest as something “manmade” or a change that is recent. If only people could understand it and the implications, then it’s all over and we can all go home.
But never have I had anyone comment on what I’ve said.
And, it’s not like I didn’t put it prominently in my submission to parliament after Climategate:

I’ve no idea what it is that people are missing.
I can understand why the issue arises. I used to design very sensitive analogue circuits where this type of noise was very important. So I was dealing with these types of things all the time, and it just seems second nature to me. So what might be obvious to me might be intractable gobble-de-hook to someone else. And likely if I simplify it in the wrong way it just gets worse.
But unless I get some comments, I have no idea where I need to improve. What is wrong with the way I’m presenting this. I’m completely stumped and really do not know how to approach this subject so that people understand.

Posted in 1/f, Climate | 32 Comments

Herald: Scotland has modest shale gas and oil resources, survey suggests

Posted on 30 June 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

This looks an important article for energy supplies in Scotland.
Monday 30 June 2014
Scotland has modest shale gas and oil resources, an assessment by the British Geological Survey suggests.
The estimates for the Midland Valley suggest shale gas resources of 80 trillion cubic feet – considerably lower than the 1,300 trillion cubic feet thought to be in the Bowland shale in northern England.
There is an estimated 6 billion barrels of shale oil in the area, which stretches across Scotland and includes Glasgow and Edinburgh, slightly more than the central estimate of 4.4 billion barrels in the Weald Basin in southern England.
But the amount of gas and oil that can be extracted from the shale is likely to be far lower than the total resource. In the US shale oil exploration has only been able to access up to 10% of the total oil. Continue reading →

Posted in Climate, Energy, Wind | 3 Comments

Global Warming disproved: Bad posts, CET, Antarctic Ice and Fractal Noise

Posted on 30 June 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

I was caught out this morning seeing a graph of Antarctic Ice (unlabelled) which I took to be a plot of the Central England Temperature series.

The fact I was confused is proof that that global warming is non-science.

So, I will now explain how this kind of mistake arises.

In my case, I was misled because I wrongly took the Antarctic ice level graph to be that of Central England Temperature series.
So I though it would be worth comparing the two.

Antarctic Ice levels

Central England Temperature

And yes! as I had thought, the two look remarkably similar particualarly in the right hand side which I highlight (Antarctic Ice 2005-1014, CET 1920-2010). Note there is no way they can be related as not only are they different physical entities, but very different time periods.
Indeed, I can see now how similar they look.

Fractal Noise Continue reading →

Posted in 1/f, Climate, Fails | 8 Comments

Climate Insanity: "Deniers should be executed?"

Posted on 30 June 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

OK – I ADMIT IT – I’ve been caught out by a spoof post. Tom Moriarty is actually a skeptic.

========My Original Post (funny in retrospect!)========

I went to look at uClimate an I was unprepared for this filth:

Based on this data it is obvious that it is high time that the deniers are rounded up and punished (executed?) for their greed inspired destruction of the planet.

My immediate thought was that such statements are hate-speech and depending on what else is said could construe an incitement to violence. As such I would have to report the individual to the police (if UK based).
So I went to check what else was in the article it read:

The Climate deniers are taking it on the chin again today as another independent source confirms the climate hockey stick that was first revealed by Michael Mann.  It is getting harder and harder for those corporate sponsored capitalist luddites to hide the truth about runaway effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.
What could be clearer than the rapidly rising temperature seen in the blade of the hockey stick on the right side of the graph? Based on this data, it is high time that the deniers are rounded up and punished (executed?) for their greed inspired destruction of the planet. (link)

And what it is that is causing them to commit criminal acts of hatred?

graph-140629_2

Climate Insanity’s Hockey Stick
Mann's hockey stick

Mann’s hockey stick

And yes, they do look vaguely similar. And yes both are hockey sticls. However, there is small problem with this comparison. Mann’s is from 1000AD whilst Climate Insanity’s is from 1979. Mann’s reconstruction stops around 2000, Climate Insanity’s stops in 2014. So what happens when we compare the years that they have in common?

Mann's Hockey Stick from 1975-2000

Mann’s Hockey Stick from 1975-2000
Mann's hockey stick from 1975-2000

Mann’s hockey stick from 1975-2000

Climate Insanity’s hockey stick disappears, leaving a graph that if anything “disproves” Mann’s hockeystick**.

Indeed, all the “uptick” is post Climategate so clearly post Mann’s hockeystick.

This just shows the mindset, attitude and critical faculty we skeptics are up against.

  • Zealots who jump on any evidence which they imagine supports their case
  • Zealots who cannot understand something as simple as the need to compare data from the same period
  • Zealots who as soon as they imagine in their deluded minds that they have “proven” us wrong, call for us to be executed.

They need psychiatric help.

Addendum

Checking the “about” section I find this statement (which hardly seems credible):

Tom Moriarty is a Senior Scientist at the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  He has extensive experience in testing photovoltaic devices of all varieties, from basic silicon to the highest efficiency multi-junction devices and newly emerging organic technologies.
He has a masters degree in Physics and previous experience in two other national laboratories, Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.  Additionally, he worked for several years in the Gates Rubber Company Advanced Materials Analysis Lab in Denver, Colorado.

**I’m not claiming this graph proves anything except that this zealot is a rather nasty person who is unable to understand even a very simple graph.

Posted in Climate, Humour | 11 Comments

You must explain the warming

Posted on 28 June 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

**Note since posting Richard has commented to say the quote (which I couldn’t find myself) referred to something else. So apologies Richard and thanks, because it was about time I wrote an article on this. So even if it doesn’t apply in your case, the general drift is stil valid. Richard:

My quote was specifically (and only) in reference to the claim that the historical temperature records are unreliable.

I’ve frequently heard an argument from academics who believe in global warming (Like Rob Wilson of St. Andrews) which runs like this:

Skeptic: “the models don’t work”
Academic: “well how do you explain the warming if it’s not CO2?”
Skeptic: “I can’t explain the warming except by natural variation”
Academic: “well as you don’t have any explanation, why don’t you just agree with us that it must be CO2”

And today I again read a very similar sentiment from Richard Mallett**:

”If we just say ‘we don’t know what happened / is happening’ then we just give up”

I’ve constantly tried to explain why this is just wrong as a way to view the problem, but I’m not sure I’ve ever probably explained my reasoning in detail. So here it is.
Continue reading →

Posted in Academia, Climate, Fails | 5 Comments

Academics reject scientific method

Posted on 27 June 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

The physicist who runs a blog he should call “AndThenIGaveUpScience” has a blog post on:

consensus, the appeal to authority, and how we counter manufactured doubt,

And the video (at end) is a real laugh.
In the talk we hear appeals to ignorance: “we can’t check all scientific claims our self”. That’s rubbish. It’s the same elitist claim that “only someone trained in media studies can tell whether a program is worth watching”. Checking and critiquing something is far easier than doing it our self. Most people are not able to create a TV program, therefore (so goes the appeal from the BBC) only those who make TV programs are able to decide what is “good” TV. Rubbish!
We all know, it is extremely easy to tell what is “good” TV even though we haven’t any skill in making TV programs our self. Anyone can tell a good program: simply look at the viewing figures! People are more than capable of deciding what they think is “good” even if they have no ability to produce something themselves. The same is true for clothes, food, books, computer games, dictionaries, doctors, plumbers, politicians. We don’t need some expert to tell us when an operation goes wrong or when a plumber causes more leaks than they fix.
When we see people reluctant to have their work assessed, trying to avoid going into detail, making up excuses (the ocean ate my heat), and trying to argue that the cracks rapidly appearing in their work are just “normal” – when we know they aren’t. We don’t need a PhD in psychology to know what’s going on.
In all other areas of life, we don’t need experts to judge whether someone has done a good job.
So, why should “science” be unique? Why on earth would the only people who are allowed to judge science be those with an self-interest – the academics? Continue reading →

Posted in Academia, Climate, science | 8 Comments

Met Office "One of the warmest Junes" – how unremarkable is that?

Posted on 27 June 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

The met office are now saying that “Early statistics from the Met Office National Climate Information Centre show that this has been one of the warmest Junes in records dating back to 1910. Based on figures up until 25 June the mean temperature for the UK for the month is 14.4 °C, making it joint 6th at the moment”. (link)
So, in 104 years, this is the sixth. There are six chances in 104 of being sixth or better. So the chances are around  5.7%.
There are however 12 months in a year. Plus four seasons that are potential records, plus the year itself. That makes 17 potential records each year. So the chances of one of these being a record is … 98%
In other words we expect one such record each year.
If however, we include “coldest”, “wettest”, “windiest”, “driest”, there are a half dozen or so such records each year.
If we then start adding records such as “the coldest 1st may” … then there are 365 x 5 … or over a thousand such records each year.
So not remarkable at all.

Posted in Climate, Fails | 4 Comments

Global warming is not a scientific issue.

Posted on 27 June 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

Earthrise (NASA)

Earthrise (NASA)


Thanks to Stefanthedenier for prompting this.
Whilst many assume global warming is a scientific issue, my long held view is that it is not.
Global warming is a social issue.
It is really a question of the way we decide as a society what is true and what is not. It was not science, that led to “global warming”, instead it was because of a specific set of social conditions in the late 20th century which led to a group of academics being given an almost god-like kudos and a low threshold of evidence for asserting their theories to be “true”. These social conditions were: Continue reading →

Posted in Climate, History, science | 16 Comments