The Skeptic demands: temperature data (draft)

Judith Curry: trying your best is not the same as delivering something fit for purpose

Judith Curry: trying your best is not the same as delivering something fit for purpose


Judith Curry had a post today which just made my blood boil when she tried to excuse the appalling culture within those groups producing a “global temperature figure” by saying “They are doing their best”. In my experience, that comment is usually only said when someone has done an appalling bad job – with poor quality materials, methods and training. So I posted a quick list of what I thought was needed:
1. Fully audited methodology and systems
2. Quality assurance to ISO9000
3. Some come back WHEN we find out they weren’t doing the job to the standard required that doesn’t involve putting them in jail.
4. Accountability to the public – that is to say – they stop saying “we are doing our best” and start saying “what is it you need us to do”.
Before I go much further I would be interested in some feedback. At the heart of my proposal is the need to remove the compilation of a “global temperature” figure from the current academics who just don’t seem to be up to the job. So what would we have instead? Continue reading

Posted in Climate, Sceptics | 17 Comments

Time to Deny the Establishment Broadcasting Company its funding

In my last post I said the BBC are really just “The Establishment Broadcasting Company” – the broadcaster of and for the establishment. Their view was outdated in the era of empire radio in the 1920s when they were founded, but today it is totally at odds with modern society and our internet peer-to-peer communication which has more or less broken down the presumed barriers and authority of the “establishment”. But,

the EBC just cannot get it.

Jimmy Saville Paedophile and protected by the establishment at the EBC

Jimmy Saville Paedophile and protected by the establishment at the EBC


It just get worse and worse see this on Bishop Hill: New BBC policy: right is wrong, wrong is right.
For example they will allow all the following to speak on climate:

  1. Nurse – a geneticist
  2. Walport – medical science
  3. Jones (of the notorious Jones report into BBC impartiality) research into medical areas.
  4. Lord Lawson – not a scientist – just a member of the establishment

In contrast, someone like me, when chairman of the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum (the only group representing skeptics) who (like Andrew or many other skeptics) had a climate relevant degree (physics), who  has worked in renewables and studied climate for years…

was totally ignored despite the BBC knowing full well who I am and my qualifications.

This proves the EBC take only one thing into account:

“are you part of the establishment”? Continue reading

Posted in bbc, Climate, Sceptics | 5 Comments

Time to reform the Biased Broadcasting Company

The BBC, a dinosaur organisation created in the era of empire radio, still sees its mission as being the mouth piece of the establishment. As such it epitomises the patronising establishment preaching to the uncouth, uneducated, non-establishment plebs.
That view was outdated even in 1927 when it started preaching. Today, when 50% get a university education and the public no longer have to take our information from the likes of the BBC, their “we only broadcast establishment views and not the hoy paloi” view makes them unfit as a PUBLIC service broadcaster.
In particular, the way they constantly refuse to publish any views or interview anyone with climate-relavent qualification who is not part of the establishment is a crime. (Their charter is legally biding)

The BBC is not the EBC – the Establishment Broadcasting Company

So this news via the GWPF is great news:

More than half the public think the television licence fee should be scrapped and the BBC forced to find new ways to fund itself, according to a poll published today.

Sajid Javid

Sajid Javid, the Culture Secretary, says he is prepared to be radical in reconsidering BBC funding Photo: Bethany Clarke

The broadcaster should generate income from advertising rather than relying on taxes or higher licence fee funds, the findings suggest.
There is also substantial support for replacing the licence fee with a subscription charge which is paid only by those wanting to view BBC programmes.
The results, from a survey of more than 2,000 people by ComRes, come as ministers and BBC executives prepare for the government’s review of the broadcaster’s charter in 2016.

Read More at GWPF

Posted in bbc, Climate | Comments Off on Time to reform the Biased Broadcasting Company

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

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

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.

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?

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)

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?

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

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