I’ve been in a few tweet engagements today and have realised that I could now count as a believer in “man-made warming” – although whilst there is still no evidence that could anywhere confirm CO2 induced warming, the evidence does now strongly (overwhelmingly?) point to the reduction in pollution after the 1970s clean air acts. (EAIW or Environmental Action Induced Warming)
As I show below 92% of the evidence is incompatible with CO2 warming. In contrast, 91% of the evidence is compatible with pollution reduction as a cause of the observed warming.
For more detail of pollution reduction as a cause of warming see:

• Understanding Global temperatures X – 1970s Global cooling and 2000s Pause
• CO2 was not cause of Global Warming between 1979-1993

Table Continue reading →

As a society we use PhDs as a way to provide additional university level training to young people. Young people who have never seen a real job, do not understand the world outside education and are generally fairly wet-behind the ears.
However, because a PhD can be hugely advantageous to a career, it usually occurs before the big financial commitments of house and family, the young people can tolerate the low wages because of the likely benefits.
The problem however, is that we get research being done by people who have gone straight from school to University and then to research and are clueless about the world outside academia. So for obvious reasons, the research focusses on the interests of academia and is done from the viewpoint of academia.
That has clearly been hugely damaging. For example in the area of climate, the “precautionary principle” was advocated without any concern for the huge damage of the suggested action to the economy. Largely because those involved in academic research had very little understanding of the important role of  energy in our economy. Continue reading →

There can be few times in modern history where the political classes and most of the media were so united in a view that was so contrary to the popular will. In many countries that clash between the political “elite” and the people would have triggered revolution.
But in one of the oldest democracies in the world, by some measures we were democratic even before the conquest of the Norman elite, in Britain those losing the argument and not representing the popular will grumble but eventually give way.
Today at 12.30pm, the UK formally announces to the EU that we no longer wishes to be part of its “club”. That means we are inevitably leaving the EU and as such, the public debate moves on from the issue of whether or not Parliament should respect the will of the people and onto the more tricky issue of what is most important in the negotiations.
Two things are not up for negotiation:

1. That we end the gross movement of people which has caused so many problems particularly to the poorest in society but also has put a massive inexcusable cost and strain on public services, housing, roads, schools, etc.
2. That we will not tolerate any form of “penalty” for leaving. We were a net contributor to the EU, and if anything we will not see all the benefits of our massive over payments and so clearly if there is any money owed it is that the EU must refund us in some way.

However, the reality is that the EU empire is a dysfunctional and disharmonious, economically suicidal block led by unaccountable power crazed individuals. They spent seven years agreeing what, given the level of trade, was a very simple trade deal with Canada. Realistically we must expect to leave with no substantial deal … except perhaps on a few specific issues like foreign citizens where we might just achieve a quid pro quo agreement. However, even on such simple and apparently obvious issues … the EU will try to “punish us” for daring not to be part of their empire. And if standing up to the EU and not backing in to the bullies means we cannot come to any deal whatsoever, then that is a price worth paying for freedom.
Because the Modus operandi of the EU is simple: it acts to destroy the economy of those countries on its borders. That’s why the EU empire continues to grow – because small countries trapped on the edges of the EU have little chance to escape.
But we in Britain will not tolerate these bullies. We have always stood up to them, the EU Empire is not the first, and it will not be the last. We do not have the temperament to be bullied, and we are too big for them. And unlike those trapped on the edge of the EU empire, we are linked into international trade routes by air and sea so that we are a key hub in the rest of the world looking in on the EU.
So now the pen has made its mark (or should that be “Le Pen”?) … it is time to forget the arguments about whether or not we leave the EU and to unite to get the best deal from the EU for the people of Britain, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. that may take much longer than two years – but we must get the right deal for us – wait it out and never give in to the Empire’s demands for punitive treatment.
Then perhaps by our example, we will also encourage others who no longer wish to be bossed around by the EU empire to come and join us in liberty. For that is what the empire fears most.

Happy Brexitday

 

I’ve been examining how global planetary temperature can be predicted from various things like pressure and tropospheric height. The reason for this is that planets appear to have their tropopause at a constant 0.1bar pressure. And like a thermometer as the temperature of the atmosphere increases, the “bulb” of the atmosphere should expand. And if the tropopause is at a fixed pressure with increasing temperature, the tropopause should rise in height – but at the same pressure because the weight of atmosphere above it remains the same.
For more detail see previous article

I was trying to find any evidence for this rising tropopause effect when I came across a section in the 2007 IPCC report 9.4.4.2 Changes in Tropopause Height. Unfortunately this was garbage. It stated there had been a change, and then produced a computer model output as “evidence” (which was nothing of the sort).
However eventually found this paper: Behavior of tropopause height and atmospheric temperature in models, reanalyses, and observations: Decadal changes. Most of the paper is the standard revolting non-science of regurgitating the output from failed climate model – which tell us nothing except the failure of those involved to model the real climate.
But hidden away there was a section of a graph which shows actual measurements as shown to the right. (originally the graphic was much bigger – but I removed all the misleading dross).
The key figure is the top value from which we see the tropopause pressure has dropped by about 4mb from 1979–1993.

WHAT IT MEANS

Continue reading →

In my last article Proof” disproved and then further proof re Global temperature
I mentioned that the ISO standard pressure model for atmosphere had not changed. This is because according to a simple readjustment of the relationship of pressure with height we get:

T_surface  = L.h_trop/{1- (P_trop/p₀)^(R₀.L/g.M)}

And as everything here appears to be a constant except h_trop then if we see no change in h_trop then there can be no change in global temperature.
Unfortunately I looked again and found that there are reports of changes in the tropopause height they do not give any scale of this change but they do show this – although it appears to be how much the models deviate from reality:

Worse, it appears to be that ubiquitous change since the 1980s. But let’s see if I can plug this into the above equation … now here’s a problem. According to a paper I was reading, the tropopause occurs at very much the same 0.1bar pressure in all planets we know with atmospheres. That’s put a spanner in the works Continue reading →

In previous articles I explained how the 1970-2000 warming was very likely caused by pollution reduction measures:

• Understanding Global Temperature VIII – It was the greens wot warmed us!!
• Understanding Global Temperature ix the role ofCO2

Today prompted by some comments on WUWT about the steady reducing value of “climate sensitivity” I wanted to point out how changing pollution levels explain this and the 1970s cooling.
First to recap the main evidence. This map shows that the warming spots have been about 3-8days downwind of areas that were polluting heavily in the 1970s (Particularly Europe and US)
The 3-8days fits well with the time it takes for pollution to be washed out of the atmosphere by rain. Strongly implicating cloud formation in the process. In other words, pollution acted as a nuclei around which cloud droplets formed which then blocked sunlight.

1970s Cooling

Continue reading →

The Guardian had a headline:

Trump begins tearing up Obama’s years of progress on tackling climate change

I was intrigued to know just how bad the snowflakes are taking Trumps dismantling of Obama’s absurd and unconstitutional changes.
As normal, rather than read the biased crap they print, I went straight to look for the comments. But there are none. This says all you need to know about how out on a limb the Guardian now is on the science. Because they dare not let people comment because they know the comments will be dominated by sceptics and that despite banning everyone they can … there are more and more and they win the argument.
But what I did see is these:

Clearly the £100million losses they have been losing are starting to bite. From a purely financial point of view, you’ve got to question whether using the Guardian as a free propaganda sheet for Greenspin makes financial sense. Surely it would be better just to give the greenblob the £1 billion they got from Autotrader? (note the irony of living off the spoils of fossil fuel).

Afterthought

Usually when a group of “morally superior” activists get their hands on a blob of money this large, they not only attract extremists – who then attract even more extreme extremists, but they also end up lining their own pockets. I bet the Guardian has some of the highest pay rates and the most lucrative pensions of any journalists.

And final thoughts

I’ve just closed them down after only reading the headline … which is about all I care to read.

Yesterday I proved that global temperature is controlled by the equation:

T₀  = L.h_trop/{1- (P_trop/p₀)^(R₀.L/g.M)}

Where
p = pressure at height h (pa) .. or …
P_trop = pressure at troposphere (assumed to be 0.1bar)
p₀ = pressure at surface (pa)
L = Lapse rate (=g/C_p) (J/(kg.K)
h = height (m)
T₀ = Temperature at surface (k)
g = gravity (m/S²)
M = Molar mass of dry air (0.0289644 kg/mol)
R₀. = Universal gas constant (8.31447 J/(mol.k)

This apparently shows that the temperature at the surface is purely a function of pressure and gas constants and is not related to solar radiation. This goes a long way to explain the apparent relationship found by Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller.
Now, however, I will try to demolish that “proof”. Let’s start by finding those that are determined by fixed attributes of the planet, its gases, gravity etc. Continue reading →

We are constantly being told that the Greenhouse effect is due to a radiative process. I want to show simply that it is not. Instead as per Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller I want to show that from first principles it can be shown to be pressure related.
To do this I simply take the pressure curve for an atmosphere:

p = p₀ (1 – L.h/T₀) ^ (g.M/R₀.L)

Where
p = pressure at height h (pa)
p₀ = pressure at surface (pa)
L = Lapse rate (=g/C_p) (J/(kg.K)
h = height (m)
T₀ = Temperature at surface (k)
g = gravity (m/S²)
M = Molar mass of dry air (0.0289644 kg/mol)
R₀. = Universal gas constant (8.31447 J/(mol.k)

Then all we do is to turn this around and express it in terms of the pressure and height of the tropopause (0.1bar or 10,000pa as per Robinson & Catling: “Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency”)

T₀  = L.h_trop/{1- (P_trop/p₀)^(R₀.L/g.M)} Continue reading →

After trying & failing to reproduce the results in the paper “New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model” by Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller in which they argue that global temperature is purely a function of solar intensity and atmospheric pressure, I worked out some simplifications that would allow me to apply the standard greenhouse effect.
The key was the paper by Robinson & Catling: “Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency” in which they point out that most planets seem to have their tropopause at a pressure of 0.1bar.
Continue reading →