The adapted piece I call an Ode to Natural variation. It uses (without permission) the original “Bob Carter Peal” by Lord Monckton. Please read the eulogy:

A clock tune in honor of a true man of true science

Technical details

The work starts with the original stanza. Then over the next two stanzas I add more  copies of the original with different delays and a few simple other effects.
Except for the last stanza all the sound is just one simple piano playing a single tune**, but if you find the work increasingly difficult to “comprehend” as I overlay first one then up to three additional copies (in the third stanza) – that is what is intended!
Like the tune, natural variation is not distinct from “normal” regular cycles – and so in theory should not be that difficult to understand. But like the music, natural variation is the combination of many many cycles each relatively easy to understand on its own but which come together into one uncomprehendable “symphony”. (Also listen out for the track played in reverse – the noise doesn’t start with a thud as the piano key is hit, but instead builds to a thud and stops short).
The final stanza starts with a flourish – and for a while the “heroic” tune holds its own. But it is increasingly drowned out as the full flourish of natural variation is introduced (now generated pink noise). Then I duplicate this noise, add some reverb,  wow & flutter which causes the sound to evolve into what seems like a heart beat … fading out relatively suddenly leaving the last notes of the “Bob carter peal” ringing out to the final silent pause.
**There are also some chirping sounds which I believe are due to aliasing between the various sample frequencies. I admit I tried hard to remove these unwanted perturbations – but like natural variation – they serve a purpose.

Bob Carter Peal

A clock tune in honor of a true man of true science

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

To: Mr Pete Wishart MP, SNP Business Manager

Copy:
Ms Nicola Sturgeon MSP, Scottish First Minister
Mr Callum McCaig MP, Scottish Energy and Climate Change Spokesman
Mr Angus McNeil MP, Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee
Mr Fergus Ewing MSP, Scottish Energy Minister
Ms Aileen McLeod MSP, Scottish Climate Change Minister
Mr Drew Hendry, MP for Inverness and Nairn
Ms Liz Truss MP, UK Secretary of State for Environment
Dr Euan Mearns, Energy Matters
Mr Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That
Selected other politicians
Selected journalists
Selected campaigners

Dear Mr Wishart,

The Emperor’s New Clothes

I am writing to you in your position of SNP House of Commons Business Manager to challenge a contribution you made during a recent House of Comments debate on flooding which has a bearing on SNP policy. In that debate you claimed that the recent floods were due “in significant part to climate change”, obviously seeking to blame alleged, unproven man-made global warming due to CO2 emissions, and that Scotland “desperately needs” more onshore wind power.

With all due condolences to the flooding victims, I believe that both of your claims are unjustifiable and symptomatic of the fact that most politicians, yourself and Secretary Liz Truss included, seem to be suffering from a collective “Madness of Crowds” delusion on so-called “climate change” which causes those afflicted to become dogmatically obsessive and to block out all the clear evidence which runs counter to and casts doubt on their unquestioning climate change beliefs.

Alternatively they realise that they have  been taken in by the climate change scam perpetrated on us all by the UN IPCC (with the surreptitious original intent of promoting sustainability) but have timorously decided to say nothing and keep up the pretence to avoid having to ruffle international diplomatic feathers.

The problem is that our climate change policies are leading to economic and social disaster yet are certain to fail in their professed national and international decarbonisation aims, but UK government ministers continue to reject such arguments. Please allow me to show how the SNP could step in to take the lead in this situation by a justifiable change of climate and energy policy which could help avert disaster and earn the SNP the gratitude of the UK-wide general public.

To learn more please read my Open letter to Mr Pete Wishart, MP. It also gives comprehensive rebuttal of both your House of Commons claims.

Yours faithfully,

Douglas S Brodie

15 Sutors Gate

Nairn

IV12 5BW

There’s been some really appalling articles prompted by the idiot Mann who makes a frankly fraudulent claim (if it weren’t for the fact he’s so stupid he doesn’t realise how wrong he is) about the probability of getting a record warm temperature naturally.
So, I thought I would try to work it out based on the statistics of systems like the climate with 1/f type noise. However I don’t intend going over it in detail again so if you want details of 1/f type noise and how its stupid to try using Mickey mouse statistics on it here’s a few articles:

• Introduction to 1/f climate noise
• Proof: recent temperature trends are not abnormal
• Statistics of 1/f noise – implications for climate forecast

But fundamentally, the key nature of 1/f noise is that the variance INCREASES with longer periods. Below e.g. is a plot (I produced this using a 1/f type noise generator ).
 

Now for some stats. Given the above, if there’s a 95% probability of having a temperature of T₀ in period P₀, then as variance increases by P^0.5
Then the temperature that occurs at the 95% probability limit (T) in a period P is given by

T = T₀ * (P/P₀)^0.5

In other words (and ones Mann might understand) we expect both higher and lower temperatures over longer periods.
So, lets see how that pans out with real data. Above is the best proxy for global temperature over the last 350 years. If we divide this into two, we see that the range in the first half went from around 8 to 10 = 2C (from 1690-1730).
Based on the rule above, we expect that minimum-maximum range to be 2 x 2^0.5
Or to increase from +/- 1C in the first period to be +/-1.4 over the entire period. Which tells us that on average the maximum we would expect is about 1.4 above the mid point of the first half  (~9C) which means we EXPECT a high of 10.4C
Looking at the Met Office data I find: “Average for 2015: 10.31C”. Which given the variance was higher than 2C means we are actually below expectation for the highest this century.
In other words, 2015 was exactly (or slightly less than) the maximum we would expect for 1/f type noise based on long term trends.
In other words the likelihood of the current temperature within the last 350/2 years is around 50% (half the time it would be higher half lower). In other words even this simple analysis shows that there’s a very high probability of having temperatures this “high”. Or to turn it around we’d be surprised if we did not see a temperature this high and it would not be that unusual to get significantly higher.
If however you add these facts:

• All the warming from 1940s is attributable to the massive adjustments to the data Mann uses
• IN ADDITION urban heating adds to that with an ADDITIONAL warming trend
• IN ADDITION poor siting of stations has caused addition warming
• IN ADDITION there is undoubtedly fraudulent changes to individual station data
• IN ADDITION there are intentional changes to the method of calculating the figure and selecting sites in order to manufacture further warming.

We are getting to the point where it is almost certain that 2015 would be the highest temperature on record – because (in my opinion) if the fraudulent people using this bogus & knowingly poor quality surface in preference to the much superior and global satellite data data wanted it to be – they could also make it the coldest year of record.
So what does the idiot Mann say:

the likelihood that 13 of the hottest 15 years would be in the past 15 years is 1 in 10,000. The likelihood that 9 of the 10 hottest years occur in the past decade is 1 in 770.

In case it isn’t blindingly obvious how this trick works let me show you:

Here is my own new improved version of the global temperature where I’ve now “compensated” for all the introduced warming by adding a completely arbitrary cooling (which just happens to make this year coldest):

Now, like Mann, I can confidently assert using the same buddy reviewed work that there’s only a 1 in 770 chance that the temperature would be this low. And like Mann as a Nobel prize winner I now expect to receive millions in grant funding based on my “science” (the EU were awarded the Nobel – so as a very reluctant part of the EU – I can make the same FALSE claim to have a Nobel). LOL
Addendum
Also – because natural variation is a 1/f noise it tends to stay high once it is high or stay low when low. So if one year this decade is high – it’s a pretty safe bet that they all will be on the high side. So, it’s a pretty meaningless statistic looking at individual years.
The best way to approach the question is that I presented in this article: Proof: recent temperature trends are not abnormal. (in terms of statistics – this again confirms around 50% probability of getting this very normal temperature/trend – using a range of time periods for comparison)

Just loved this in WUWT today

When you have a theory which covers anything from 1.5c to 4.5c (or more!) temperature rise per doubling of CO2, and when you can claim with a straight face, that the utter failure of your theory, on terms which you yourself defined, doesn’t invalidate it, when you have to massively adjust the data to get the result you want, your faith in the climate religion is not going to be troubled by the odd flurry of snow.

All I would say is that the reality looks closer to 0.5C warming and the global warming theory encompasses up to 6C warming.

In response to a comment by a Donald L. Klipstein on WUWT:

The earth’s climate has not been stable in the past 500 million years. What has happened shows signs that the climate has non-constant stability….

I felt I had to counter the assumption that just because the climate shows variability, that this somehow infers that the climate itself is unstable. There are two potential causes of long term variability that could explain such large changes as seen below:

Biological Evolution

The single biggest driver of long-term climate change is probably changes to plant biology as demonstrated by the carboniferous when the evolution of plants with lignin (shown above as “1st CO2 desert). The effect of this small change was that the hydrocarbons in plant cells could not be broken down by the then fungi. The result was that they tended to accumulate rather than decompose and as a result carbon was locked up in the geology creating the first “CO desert” – which might have ended in the ultimate destruction of earth – except for the evolution of fungi that could digest lignin.
The second “collapse” appear to coincide with the emergence of flowering plants and grasses, however it is difficult to see what biological process might be “sucking” the atmosphere “dry” of CO2. However, one possibility is that the large areas of moss are somehow locking up CO2 in peat. However as the primary cause of these peat areas is moss – a plant species that has been around for a very long time, it is difficult to understand why this would be “the change” that caused the second CO2 desert.

Geological feedbacks

However, the main thing I wanted to counter is that apparent feedback in the “climatic temperature” shows any form of feedback mechanism in the climate. Because temperature may just be an indicator of feedback mechanisms and instability in the geology of the earth.
The simplest one is the “Caterpillar effect” which I have described so many times:

 
 

“Magma-weather”

And indeed, just as the climate shows weather patterns, and we now discern long term “weather” cycles in the oceanic activity, so we should also expect long term “weather” type variations in the ever moving magma within our planet, which undoubtedly is subject to the same basic laws as the atmosphere and oceans – of ever moving vortices of flux.

When alarmists like Trenberth start the year admitting that not even all the adjustments made to the surface data will be able to mask the cooling this year – then it really must look like cooling in the data!
But I’ve already predicted cooling! Usually it’s a mug’s game predicting climate because we sceptics know that most of what affects climate is unknown and so the small part of climate which may be predictable is very easily swamped by unknown affects.
However despite it usually being something we sceptics leave to idiot alarmists to do, for a while I’ve been telling anyone who wants to listen that this year is more than likely to see global cooling because three separate (possible) trends are adding together:

• Reduction in sun spots (likely but unclear relationship to temperature)
• 60 year cycle is in cooling phase (cause unknown – but it appears in many records)
• End of El Nino (supposed to be cause of massive rise in 1998 – but similar scale El Nino peaking around now has caused only minor upswing in satellites – which is only reliable indicator of global trends).

Because all three are trending toward cooling this year, it suggests that despite being a minority of the effects driving the climate and whilst rising CO2 may add to temperature (but ever so marginally), the safest bet is certainly for cooling this year. My guess is that the odds are perhaps 60% for cooling 40% for warming.
However, now I hear through Climate Depot that even some alarmists like Kevin Trenberth have realised that there is cooling in the air:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/20/un-scientist-dr-kevin-trenberth-my-guess-is-that-2016-may-not-be-warmer-than-2015/
This suggests to me, that even this early, the data is starting to indicate significant cooling. In particular – because climate in the US tied to Democratic politics – I suspect, they suspect, that the data will show unmistakeable cooling before the US presidential elections this summer.

Implications

To be frank, the polling evidence is that most people don’t care about global warming any longer and don’t trust these “official” (Democrat) predictions so this apparent “change of heart” predicting cooling will be largely ignored as most voters already know the Democrats have been idiots on the subject.
But, to the idiots themselves whether politician or research – it will be seen as a disaster!!!
However, much more importantly, if 2016 shows significant warming – particularly if the credible satellite temperature drops below the “base” before the El Nino – then it would suggest the recent El Nino was masking a cooling trend and that would add credibility to the apparent 60 year cycle in temperatures.
If so, this makes cooling in 2017-2030 more likely. Indeed, the trend may be even so “extreme” that it is really noticeable by some ordinary people (i.e. real tangible effects – as opposed to imagined effects: leaping on any change that occurs and then falsely attributing it to climate).
 
 

From the express:

Out of those who voted by today, 31 per cent (2,457) said God would be responsible for finishing off mankind.
But those thinking it would be severe storms and floods caused by climate change came in at an incredible ZERO per cent.
Source

This is as good a time as any to comment on one climate extremist who claimed “they had won the argument” or another who said “the public were on their side”. The response goes like this:

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha  ….

On a more serious note – NOT ONE PERSON out of 2457 supported the catastrophic doomsday cult? Even out of 70 academics they found three who didn’t agree it had warmed last century (or at least couldn’t fill in the right box). So assuming that 3% is a typical error rate, one would expect some 74 people to have “ticked the wrong box”. Even if there were 20 possible responses there should have been around 4 people who agreed – just by pure dumb chance of misreading the question or answer.

However, it does raise the question of what will destroy humanity. I would suggest:

• We will evolve into something else
• Something else will evolve which will then kill us off
• Or as usually happens a long series and combination of events: Global cooling will make most of the north uninhabitable from cold, much of the south will turn to desert (as was seen before). This will massively reduce world population and concentrate it into a few habitable areas – then, already under massive pressure – with much of the economy in ruins and very few e.g. firearms, something like a new bug and perhaps some newly evolved predator will in combination send the human population into a spiral of long-term decline and eventual extinction.

I found this news on one of those insulting web climate extremist blogs which I read so that other people don’t have to.

Advances in thermometry

Michael R. Moldover, Weston L. Tew & Howard W. Yoon

The past 25 years have seen tremendous progress in thermometry across the moderate temperature range of 1 K to 1,235 K. Various primary thermometers, based on a wide range of different physics, have uncovered errors in the International Temperature Scale of 1990, and set the stage for the planned redefinition of the kelvin.

Nature Physics 12, 7–11 (2016) doi:10.1038/nphys3618 07 January 2016

Rather than fixing the scale at the triple point of water,
The International Committee for Weights & Measures
recommends using the energy equivalent as given by Boltzmann’s equation .

Current definition:
The kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, is the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water.

Proposed redefinition:
The magnitude of the kelvin as the unit of thermodynamic temperature is to be set by fixing the numerical value of the Boltzmann constant to be equal to exactly 1.38065X×10−23 when it is expressed in the unit s−2·m2·kg·K−1, which is equal to J·K−1.

I’m surprised at the supposed “current definition” because last time I looked at this for the purposes of creating precision temperature calibration devices the standard was a hotch potch of methods. In some ranges it was based on PT100 thermometers, in others on gas bulb thermometers – in other words, temperature was neither defined by any fundamental physical relationship nor was it consistently defined through its range.
So, in principle I would support a unit based on fundamental physics but after decades watching the farcical non-science that has come from pursuing “theoretical” approaches to science which ignore the practical realities of what is actually needed, I am very sceptical whether this is being done because it is better – or because someone just feels it ought to be done despite the lack of any rhyme reason or improvement.