Mathematical requirement for fractals? Implications for 1/f noise and climate.

Posted on 5 July 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

Fractal systems all have feedbacks. They all have infinite self-similar states at different scale. As such it seems the fractal nature is caused by the feedback. Therefore I suggest that if P is the probability function of a system describing all these self-similarities. For a fractal system, the feedback must be such that the in general the probability function itself is in some sense fractal with the result that the feedback causes the number of self-similar states to increase whilst the probability of each self-similarity state. The result is that the feedback, tends to increase the information content (proportional to -ln(p)) so that it tends to infinity.
Applying this to 1/f type noise as is often seen in the climate ( see Global Warming disproved: Bad posts, CET, Antarctic Ice and Fractal Noise), As 1/f noise appears in general to be fractal, then it appears only necessary to show that the complexity of the system and self-similarity increases due to feedbacks to show that they are fractal noise.
Or conversely, it may be that 1/f type noise (which no one seems to know how it originates) is a system where the feedback increases the number of self-similar states or put another way, each feedback increases the complexity and information of the system.
This is in contrast to white noise which is seen to be due to physical processes such as the discrete nature of electrons or nuclear decay. So 1/f type noise, may not be the result of physical properties as such, but the result of certain types of feedback mechanisms which create chaos of this form.

Posted in 1/f, Climate | 2 Comments

Advanced Green House Theory

Posted on 5 July 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

I want to explore how the adiabatic cooling as we move up the atmosphere works with radiant cooling. I hope this post will clarify the concept. However first, the other relevant discussions:
In this first post The CO2 Green-house effect is real (sometimes), I introduced the Advanced Green-House Gas Theory in its simplest form which is a semi-transparent layer in an otherwise transparent atmosphere.
In the second post Reconciling skydragons and mainstream skeptics? , I clarified some points and showed how the Advanced Green-House Theory is compatible with both the Basic Green-House Theory (which is very problematic) and the Skydragon ideas of adiabatic cooling.
Finally there is an excellent discussion at Tallbloke

Definition: Green-House Warming

Before I start, I want to stop arguments of the form “greenhouse warming doesn’t exist because its not what we mean by it”. So instead of the wooly conceptual definition which no one really seems to know what it means, I want to define “green-house warming” in a way that isn’t linked to a particular theory but is a general concept. So, I am defining the Green-House Effect in this quantifiable form:

“The amount the real world is warmer than a theoretical world with no atmosphere.

Continue reading →

Posted in Advanced Greenhouse Theory, Climate, Ice age, Proposals | 13 Comments

Skydragons: good physics – appalling PR.

Posted on 4 July 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

Skydragons were right on the physics, but appallingly wrong on the PR. What they are describing is the greenhouse effect by another name. But by denying the (Noddy) “greenhouse effect”, on climate alarmist sites,  they have done untold damage to themselves and caused all skeptics to be labelled as “deniers”.
For details of “Advanced Greenhouse Theory” see: Reconciling skydragons and mainstream skeptics?
Note: I suspect “skydragon” may be derogatory. Unfortunately, I don’t know another term and I need to refer to this group by some name so apologies to all “skydragons”.
I first encountered a skydragon, when doing the “sceptic view“. Their view was a big headache for me when trying to pull together a “consensus” view, because it was only one or two people within the group nebulously called “skeptics” that were presenting what appeared to be a very different view rejecting “greenhouse warming”.
I had to find out why they were presenting this view and whether there was any validity in what they were saying. I read what I could find and eventually came to a very good paper by an East European who seemed to have a good argument showing that all the supposed “greenhouse warming” could be explained by adiabatic (and similar) cooling through the atmosphere.
This was a paradox. I could not fault the physics, nor was the basic idea of greenhouse warming wrong (even if I felt there were problems). Eventually all I could do was to say “and there is also a group of skeptics who have other views on greenhouse warming”. Continue reading →

Posted in Advanced Greenhouse Theory, Climate, Proposals | 21 Comments

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