Sunday, 26 April 2009

Does The Oregon Petition Set The Bar Too High?

The Oregon Petition, also known as The Global Warming Petition Project, is a petition of scientists to prevent the prevention of climate change. But are the rules for signing too strict?

From the Petition Website we learn that various people can sign:

  • A Civil Engineer can sign because they are "trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs."
  • A Doctor can sign because they are "scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth."
  • A Web Designer can sign "Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences [including computer science] are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis."
And yet the Petition Project has only 31000 signers after years of operation. In short the rules are too strict for signing. I realized this when I tried to contribute my own name onto the list:

Reconstruction of the Petition form I sent in. As of April 30th, I am still not on the list...

Well to cut a long story short, I am not on the list. Perhaps because I didn't fill out the part that says 'My acedemic degree is'. In fact you'll notice I crossed it out because "acedemic" degrees are essentially just enforcement of Team Science.

The main flaw with the Petition Project is that it assumes 'acedemic degree' means 'scientist'

By doing so it sets the bar too high. Am I any less qualified on climate than a vetinary surgeon? What does a doctor know about ice caps? Water freezing and ice melting is at least something I am somewhat familiar with in pipe systems.

A Case In Point

While distributing Petition forms to friends and neighbours I discovered that my next door neighbour, who is a web designer, has a BSc in Computer Science and so is eligable to sign it. Bet you wondered why I singled out web designers earlier, now you know.
But my neighbour knows nothing about climate (he drives a Prius...) and as a result he won't sign anyway. So in this situation all the Petition Project rules have accomplished is warmists don't sign and skeptics can't sign. Is that the intended consequence? Is the Petition Project deliberately filtering out skeptics like me from being able to sign it? Could perhaps the Oregon Petition be a plot by warmists to make it look like there are far less skeptical scientists than there actually are? I am simply asking questions.
Perhaps you'll have more success than me at signing. But it appears you will need at least a BSc or equivalent qualification. Don't worry if you haven't studied climate or haven't published anything to so-called "journals", thankfully at least that is not a requirement.

How Not To Measure Temperature Part 2

"As the NOAA-N Prime spacecraft was being repositioned from vertical to horizontal on the "turn over cart" at approximately 7:15 PDT today, it slipped off the fixture, causing severe damage. (See attached photo). The 18' long spacecraft was about 3' off the ground when it fell." More images at link

NOAA N-PRIME Mishap Investigation-Final Report

"On Saturday, September 6, 2003 during an operation at Lockheed Martin Space Systems
Company (LMSSC) Sunnyvale that required repositioning the Television Infrared Observational Satellites (TIROS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) N-Prime satellite from a vertical to a horizontal position, the satellite slipped from the Turn-Over Cart (TOC) and fell to the floor (see Figure 3-1). The satellite sustained heavy damage (see Figure 3-2), although no injuries to personnel occurred. The exact extent of the hardware damage is still being assessed."
Are the self-proclaimed IPCC aware that such a sensitive instrument suffered heavy hardware damage prior to launch? How does this affect said instrument's ability to measure temperature to tenths of a degree accuracy? Could this hardware damage in fact be causing a false warming trend? How is Al Gore related to all of this?
So many unanswered questions tell us that there is plenty of doubt and unsettled science here, which is what we seek as blog scientists.
Come To Your Own Conclusions
Some people may be disapointed that I didn't end the post with a strong conclusion, but never fear. In blog science the conclusion or 'take home message' is usually found in the comment section left by readers who were able to read between the lines and spell out the conclusion I was leading to but didn't want to directly state.
To be more specific, I cannot always state the conclusion directly because to reach and convince a wider audience I must maintain a high sembalance of professionalism. I must refrain from making specific claims which could be held against me if found in error. If a blog scientist is to convince journalists to spread their message they must avoid making easily identifiable errors or be seen to be 'name calling'. This is why in the above post I have simply posted a fact from the news followed by a series of open, but I hope, very leading questions. Feel free to draw my conclusions for me, that is what the comment section is primarily for after all.
Note: I had to permanently delete some comments from the last article because certain commenters were using the word 'conspiracy' directly. One poster (who will go unnamed, but who was perhaps a warmist troll) simply posted 'Its all a big conspiracy!" 30 times. A fair warning: Anyone who uses the word 'conspiracy' directly will have their post removed. That sort of language is not compatible with the reputation of this Blog. Lets be more grown up and subtle please. The phrase 'team science' is an acceptable alternative.

Saturday, 18 April 2009

How Not To Measure Temperature Part 1

A temperature measuring satellite in orbit. There are many unaddressed questions concerning the ability and placement of such satellites to accurately measure temperature.

For the last 30 years the temperature of the atmosphere has been measured by Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) on orbiting satellites. This record purports to show warming since 1979, but as we shall find out much of this warming is suspicious due to adjustments made on the raw data and possible measurement biases.

The Satellite Temperature Record

Source: UAH monthly temperature record (dec 1978-may 2008). Graph truncated at May 2008 for analytical reasons which are beyond the scope of this post.

As well grounded climate skeptic bloggers we immediately become suspicious of this record because it shows a warming trend. We know that the surface record shows only Urban Heat Island bias and AC Unit Warming bias in this period. Yet neither of these effects will be picked up by satellites, so why do the satellites still show warming? Something is wrong.

The #1 tool of the avid skeptic is imagination. So lets put our imagination to use and gather together some seeds of doubt. With luck some of these seeds will survive to grow into full blown talking points.

Data is adjusted before release

Adjusting data is not scientific. In engineering if an instrument has failings then you shouldn't just patch over that using a series of so-called "adjustments", you should address the root problems and make a better instrument. Could it be that the warming in the satellite records is just an artifact of adjustments? Could be! Great we have discovered an in-road to a major source of doubt.

Questions that are unanswered: What are these so-called adjustments? How are they made? Why are they made? Why haven't I seen these adjustments? Why doesn't the IPCC mention them? Why haven't I read about them in the media? Is it possible that the satellite data has just become a complicated mess that makes no real sense?

How do ground radio and microwave transmissions affect the readings?

Could the increase in ground radio and microwave transmissions in the post-war boom make the atmosphere look like it's warmer even if it is not? Nothing is mentioned of this on any of the satellite sites suggesting that a potentially significant cause of the recent warming is being ignored, dismissed out of hand or the "experts" simply haven't thought of it.
As a side note, it's an interesting thought that if the satellite scientists were to admit that satellites cannot measure temperature accurately they would lose their funding. Note I am not making any accusations here. Feel free to speculate on this in the comments though.

How do nearby satellites and orbitting debris affect the satellite measurements?

In recent years the satellite traffic in orbit has become increasingly busy. Only this February two satellites collided over Siberia:,4670,SatelliteCollision,00.html

Satellites reflect solar energy and emit radio transmissions. Also there will be other effects that science does not yet understand because science understands little. All of this could have the effect of biasing sensitive satellite instruments such as the MSUs. It stands to reason that the number of satellites have increased since the 1970s and so this potential warming effect has increased. Again there is no mention of this on any of the satellite temperature sites or in the mainstream media.

Empirical evidence of Satellite warming bias - Satellites measured too much warming during the 1998 El Nino

Source: UAH satellite temperature vs GISS surface temperature, adjusted to the same baseline.

There is real warming (briefly) during a pacific El Nino event. But the satellite records show about 0.4C more warming than the surface records. This suggests they are exagerating any temperature rise, including the long term trend.

Now once we have discovered a problem like this, the correct course of action is to adjust the satellite temperature record to correctly take this into account. If we do this (dropping the trend down by 0.4C) then virtually all of the warming of the past 30 years in the satellite records is wiped out. We are obviously getting closer to the truth here.


Here I have cast a lot of doubt on the satellite record simply by using my imagination. It is quite plausible that the actual temperature of the atmosphere has not increased since 1979. In fact taking all possible factors into account the real temperature of the atmosphere may have fallen drastically since 1979.
This is by no means a completed task. I will come back to this topic in later posts (this is just Part 1) and show how we can cast more doubt. In particular I believe photos of satellites, both on the ground before launch and in orbit, can be pored over and fuel further speculation.

CO2 levels may have been over 2000ppm in 1200AD

Another inconvenient truth for warmists. New research suggests that the co2 level of the atmosphere was a lot higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today.

First lets look at a paper that shaped the modern view of past co2 levels.

180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods, published in the prestigous Journal "Energy and Environment" by Dr Ernst-Georg Beck.

The paper is also covered in the media:

Below I have reproduced some of the data from this study for the purpose of scientific analysis. This data shows that co2 levels were much higher than today in 1940 and 1827:

There is no question over the accuracy of the earlier measurements.

CO2 levels are caused by temperature changes

This is to be expected because ice core measurements show that co2 levels rise happens 800 years after temperature levels rise. So temperature rise causes co2 rise, not the otherway round.

This is because the oceans release more co2 when they get warmer, and less when they get cooler.

Lets look at the individual periods to demonstrate this:

The 19th century decline in CO2

The drop in co2 in the early 19th century to the start of the 20th century was most likely caused by cooling from the little ice age.

The rise and peak of co2 around 1940

This correlates with the warmest year on record being in 1934:

Rise in co2 since 1960

While the earlier measurements are beyond questioning, the measurements since 1960 are deeply uncertain. This modern measurement period began warmists started measuring co2 at Mauna Loa in Hawaii. This Mauna Loa sensor reports the gradual co2 rise you see in the graph.

There is just one problem with that:

Mauna Loa is on a Volcano!

That's right, they could have picked anywhere in the world but warmists chose to put the co2 sensor on top of one of the biggest volcanoes in the world! No wonder it shows a rise in co2!

The Medieval Warm Period

Now lets look at a period not covered by the graph, but a period we know was a lot warmer than today. The medieval warm period occured some time in the past around medieval times. Ie 1200AD.

The scientific consensus is that in 1200AD the climate was excruciatingly hot. Plagues and disease swamped the world and people were dying of heat exhaustion. The situation got so bad that the Vikings moved to a large snow covered island north of Iceland to escape the heat. The ice on this island subsequently melted and so the Vikings called it Greenland. Greenland soon became the wine and farming capital of the world.

Didn't last though. Eventually the climate shifted back again and the Vikings were wiped out by ice.

Putting It All Together

Given we know warming causes co2 levels to rise and we know it was very much warmer during the medieval warm period than today, it would be no suprise to find that co2 levels were far higher during the medieval warm period. We can estimate how much higher they were by projecting the co2 fall from the 19th to early 20th century back in time:

The answer is that based on the best science available, co2 levels may have been over 2000ppm in 1200AD! Is it coincidence that 1200AD was 800 years ago? Recall the fact mentioned earlier: "ice core measurements show that co2 levels rise happens 800 years after temperature levels rise". Everything is fitting into place and this last piece seems to complete the puzzle.


It has been shown that co2 levels could have been over 5 times higher just 800 years ago. If this is the case a doubling of co2 is proven to not cause any significant warming and any ideas for more taxes should be immediately abandoned.

Wednesday, 15 April 2009

Analysis: Warming From Sun Is MASSIVELY Greater Than CO2

Hat tip to Neil Stevens for this calculation he sent me:

Mass of the Sun: 2000000000000000000000000000000 kilograms*
Mass of CO2 atom: 0.00000000000000000000000002 kilograms

This makes the Sun 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Times more massive than a co2 atom.

Or to put it another way, a co2 atom is just:
compared to the Sun.

The Sun is over 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000!

Now you see how ridiculous the claims of warmists are. They tell us co2 will kill us all by heating us when it is so insignificant compared with the sun.

For further reading on the dominiation of the sun take a look at this recent point article:

*Note the figures were given to me in kilograms. A kilogram is 2.2 pounds.

The Side Bar: A quick lesson on Exponentials

The side bar is a feature I will use regularly to teach my readers "dos" and "donts" of science that I have picked up over the years. Today I will talk about a relevant "don't" that is potentially muddying the mind of the warmists.

We could have also described the above numbers using a concept called exponentials. An exponential looks like this:

2 × 1030 kilograms

The 30 following the 10 is called the exponential. It indicates how many zeros follow the number. In this case it says there should be 30 zeros after 20 (2 x 10).

When the exponential is negative this means number of zeros after the decimal point before the first number. Eg:

2 × 10-26 kilograms = 0.000000000000000000000000002

Exponentials are often used as shorthand by people who don't want to bother writing all the zeros out. That's fine if you are just keeping score in a very long game of football! But if you are an engineer designing a saftey system, or a scientist conducting an experiment, you should really take the care to accurately write out whole numbers.

Writing out the zeros gives you a better appreciation of the size of numbers and you might spot potential errors. Perhaps an overuse of exponentials is why a minority of climate "scientists" don't comprehend how ludicrious co2 warming really is. If they just compare 5 digits with 5 digits for Sun vs CO2 they might not contemplate how massive the sun is compared to an atom of co2.

Any guesses for how numbers are represented in climate computer models? No prizes for that answer...

Tuesday, 14 April 2009

If Global Warming is true, why are there still snowstorms?

Dear readers,

As I am sure you are already aware, certain locations have recently seen snow. Here's a photo of some snow to set the scene. This is similar to what some people have encountered:

The sheep who follow the manmade global warming fraud will not realize the obvious problem this photo presents. But us skeptics sure do. The obvious question,

If Global Warming is true, why are there still snowstorms?

Not a peep from so-called climate "scientists" about this by the way. How odd you might say...

Well not to us seasoned Skeptics. If Blog Science teaches you one thing (which you won't find in any "course" or "textbook" by the way) it's to use your common sense above everything else. In science quite often you can guess the answer to most of questions just by applying common sense based on real world knowledge.

Lets try it now. Why are the so-called experts silent about all the snow that is everywhere?

Well it's most likely because they are all shut indoors all day with their climate models. That's right, they are so busy playing Climate Tron that they haven't the foggiest idea what is going on outside anymore. They don't see the REAL world that REAL people like you and me see (I cut a tree down this afternoon with an was cold then too)

So next time some liberal at work or at the grocery store yells that we will all die from Global Warming. Ask them:

If Global Warming is true, why are there still snowstorms?

And wait for the crickets. Perhaps show them some photos of snow too to put the point home.

Filed under: Global Cooling, Holes in Global Warming