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

Eureka!! (Ice Age theory)

Posted on 27 June 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

I’ve had a partial explanation for why the earth enters and leaves ice-ages for a while. I’ve been tempted to publish for a while, but wasn’t entirely happy with it because the mechanism (which I’ve not seen anyone suggest) didn’t seem sufficiently robust to trigger the ice-ages.
Then this morning, I suddenly realised there was another effect an order of magnitude larger which I had been ignoring. Now I’m sure the combined effects are sufficiently large. They also explain important details and better still the theory predicts some pretty significant changes at key points – things which I’m sure can be checked – so best of all, it’s not just idle conjecture that no one will ever know whether it is right, but it it is a scientifically testable theory.
This all happened this morning, and as I began imagining the climate as it went through the various phases, so many additional ramifications and mechanisms were just flowing through my mind that I just had to write it down, before I forget something important. So I grabbed the first pad of paper and started scribbling furiously.
The pad happened to be stamped on every page “The Royal Society”. Coincidence?
Unfortunately, because the theory involves several entirely new ideas, each of which will need a detailed explanation, I need time to write it up. So, in a sense, this is just my diary entry marking the day it happened.

Posted in Climate, Ice age | 2 Comments

What really annoys climate academics about the public critique of their work.

Posted on 26 June 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

The Guardian have some interesting comments from climate academics (I refuse to call people who don’t practice real skeptic science “scientists”). This really needs a detailed response to each one – something that is impossible on the Guardian, and something I don’t have time to do just now.
Unfortunately, the Guardian censor many comments from skeptics, so I don’t like commenting on the Guardian itself and therefore as many others may feel the same and wish to comment, here are the (more than likely heavily censored) statements.
(Please treat these as personal contributions, therefore no personal attacks or ad hominens “Climate academics are a load of crap” is acceptable “Prof McWorthy is a  crap” is not.

Continue reading →

Posted in Academia, Climate | 13 Comments

The Global Warming Pause – definition

Posted on 25 June 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

Shows IPCC predictions versus reality

Shows IPCC predictions versus reality


Back around 2007 I posted a section in Wikipedia Global Warming talk page titled “The Pause”. In this I pointed to the lack of warming since AR3 and the growing number of articles referring to the lack of warming. (I was told there was no pause)
Since then, the “pause” has become accepted terminology to describe the fifteen years or more years without significant warming in the global surface temperature. But sooner or later we are likely to see a significant up or downward movement. This will lead to disputes as to whether the “pause” has ended. Therefore I foresee that we need a definition of the pause.
AR3
My original basis for asserting that there was “a pause” was that the warming predicted in AR3 had not occurred. AR3 gave a prediction of warming between 1.4 and 5.8C between 1990 and 2100. This is shown in the above graph (last updated at end of 2009 around Climategate) This is equivalent to limits of between 0.127C and 0.527C per decade. AR3 definition gives a prediction starting in 1990 so a strict test of whether the surface temperature is within this range would be the trend starting from 1990 with the average temperature in that year.
However, I personally feel that predictions should not start in the past. Therefore I much prefer a definition starting in the year AR3 was published (2001), this also happens to be the start of the “millennium” and as the above graph shows, there was little change in the following years, so I do not think this favours either cooling or warming.
A Definition of the Pause
The pause, implies a trend close to no trend, but how close? Above 0.13C/decade, the trend would be within the IPCC prediction and so considered “warming”. No trend would certainly be a “Pause”.  Therefore I think the simplest place to change from “warmign” to “pause” would be at the half-way point of 0.064C/decade. (1.4/220) Therefore:

  • A trend higher that 0.065C/decade should be considered warming
  • Less than 0.064C/decade would be a pause
  • But below -0.064C/decade would be cooling

Addendum

Just in case it is relevant, I will recount the reason why I started using the phrase “the pause”.  Having tried to edit Wikipedia global warming article (first as a believer and latterly as a skeptic) I realised that it was extremely difficult to get anything in which even vaguely suggested global warming wasn’t a massive “happening now” problem.
However, I had begun to see people talk about the lack of warming and I thought anyone writing a school essay would be asked to “put both sides” so would need this material.
The reason I chose the word “pause” is because better and more accurate words like “stopped” or anything implying and end, would never ever have been considered by the editors on wkipedia.
I was using the concept of a tape recorder – which is paused before the action continues. This I hoped would remove the implication of “warming being at an end”.  Despite a wealth of evidence that there was a pause and that it was being actively discussed in reputable sources my edit was summarily and quite falsely dismissed. (It wasn’t long after I decided it was pointless trying to edit wikipedia and it was best just to let the editors have their biased articles as I think that way people are more likely to view them as the propaganda they are.)

Posted in Climate, History | 71 Comments

Key Articles

Posted on 25 June 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

The problem with good a blog is that whether an article is good or not, it quickly gets buried and so I have problems finding some of my better and/or key articles. So to help find them I’ve created a new list to the right.
The list Continue reading →

Posted in Climate, Proposals | 1 Comment