Tuesday, 26 January 2010

Mosher Hacks the English Language


Image: University of Texas - click for related story (I hope this gets me out of using their bandwidth)

Someone called Mosher has written a dreadful WhatsUpWithIt article. I never realized you could use hacking in the context of 'hacking a deadline'!

Sorry for the snark but the WhatsUpWithIt blog steals so many of my commenter's that I sometimes get very jealous and critical of it!

Tuesday, 19 January 2010

Climatology 101



Some people say the Internet is a cesspool of jumped up idiots publishing their idiotic ideas for other idiots to read. Not me. I think the Internet supersedes traditional sources of knowledge. For example why learn Climatology from a college when you can learn the most important fact online from Oregon Petition signer and Independent Scientist Gary Novak at nov55.com?

Climatology 101

Here is the most important fact about climatology science: There is a massive amount of randomness in the complexities of climate, and the randomness multiplies for each interacting factor. There is no higher knowlege that turns randomness into a measurement or calculation. For this reason, all but the simplest measurements or calculations in climatology are a fraud. The fakery of pretending to reduce any question to analysis with a number is charlatanism.

Become the tortoise, not the hare by learning this most important fact about climatology science (not to be confused with climate science which has an even worse reputation). There is a massive amount of randomness, not only in climate but even in the very complexities of climate.

That randomness alone has a large mass - I don't know how much, Gary fortunately doesn't bother wasting time quantifying things. I imagine it's possibly the kind of mass that can collapse stars. But it doesn't end there. That mass of randomness multiplies you see - for each interacting factor, until it's so massive that it can probably collapse an entire galaxy of stars.

There is no higher knowledge that can turn randomness into a measurement, or even a calculation. Think of a dice - how could a higher knowledge possibly measure the result of a series of dice throws, let alone calculate anything about the behavior? This is why as Einstein proved, God never plays with dice - he just cannot be bothered wasting his time on such a random activity.

And so in conclusion, that's why climate science is a fraud.

Gary can teach you today about "The infinite complexities of science". Are you aware of the 41% and 30% Fraud? If you keep reading you will be.

The 41% Fraud

"Supposedly, the surface of the earth gives off its energy as 41% radiation and the rest as conduction and evaporation. 41% is about how much radiation an incandescent light bulb gives off at 3,000°C, not what a cold basement gives off at 15°C. A fraudulent Stephan-Boltzmann constant rationalizes the over-emission of radiation."

These are all good points. If anyone asks you how much radiation a 3000C lightbulb gives off, the answer of course is 41%, just before it melts. A cold basement perhaps gives off only 4% or even as little as $2. I am not surprised to discover that the Stephan-Boltzmann constant is fraudulent. I think James Hansen used that constant once in the 1980s to justify more funding.

"Normal temperature matter gives off almost no radiation. Yet NASA claims it gives off 41% as much radiation as strikes the earth from the sun."

Here we see correct use of the three state temperature scale, Cold-Normal-Hot, rather than the elitist "Kelvin" scale or the European Socialist Centigrade scale. It is well known that Normal temperature matter gives off almost no radiation, where "almost no" means "some" or "a bit of" or $0.02

The 30% Fraud

"Ice core measurements supposedly show a 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 150. Ice core measurements of CO2 are junk science to a point of fraud, and they conflict with direct measurements."

Now you know ice core measurements of CO2 are junk science. Completely junk science. The only thing they definitely tell us is that co2 follows temperature, not the other-way around.

There is a lot you can learn about climate science from Gary and the other 32,000 Oregon Petition signers thanks to the Internet. Maybe one day you will even become an Independent Scientist yourself. And if you still believe in manmade global warming after you finish reading the internet? Well as Independent Scientist Gene Ray would say, the problem is "you've been educated stupid"

Friday, 15 January 2010

How We Used To Deny: 1984

What if increases in atmospheric CO2 have an inverse greenhouse effect? I. Energy balance considerations related to surface albedo
International Journal of Climatology, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 399-409, July 1984
Sherwood B. Idso

Abstract
An analysis of northern, low and southern latitude temperature trends of the past century, along with available atmospheric CO2 concentration and industrial carbon production data, suggests that the true climatic effect of increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere may be to cool the Earth and not warm it, contrary to most past analyses of this phenomenon. A physical mechanism is thus proposed to explain how CO2 may act as an inverse greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. However, a negative feedback mechanism related to a lowering of the planet's mean surface albedo, due to the migration of more mesic-adapted vegetation onto arid and semi-arid lands as a result of the increased water use efficiency which most plants experience under high levels of atmospheric CO2, acts to counter this inverse greenhouse effect. Quantitative estimates of the magnitudes of both phenomena are made, and it is shown that they are probably compensatory. This finding suggests that we will not suffer any great climatic catastrophe but will instead reap great agricultural benefits from the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 which we are currently experiencing and which is projected to continue for perhaps another century or two into the future

Back in 1984 we were arguing that rising co2 might cause cooling. Why aren't we still arguing that? I hate the way we seem to have watered down our arguments over the years.

We used to claim the world hadn't warmed. Then for some reason we started saying it had, but that the troposphere hadn't. Then for some reason we started saying okay it has, but that the tropical troposphere hasn't warmed enough.

I for one will continue using any arguments I can get away with.

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

This Week Of Global Cooling

Image adapted from global weekly anomaly map published by Japanese Meteorological Agency [1]

Using my technical skills I have extracted a cooling signal from the Japanese Meteorological Agency data. Witness the proof of the coming Ice Age.

Also in Blog News this week:
A previously no good IPCC bastard of a scientist turned overnight into a internationally renowned nobel prize winning scientist by denouncing manmade global warming as false, fraudulent and a lying lie of a religion. I paraphrase slightly. Dr Professor Lord Mojib Latif also predicted an ice age would hit us within hours, much to the dismay of warmists! His change of stance appears to be a direct result of ClimateGate. You won't hear any of this in the so-called "reputable" media.

More and More scientists are becoming "deniers" with each passing hour. Within weeks there will only be Gavin and Michael Mann left and they will be wandering about their vacant ivory tower trying to figure out where everyone has gone.

PS still no reply from Roy Spencer regarding my request for UAH source code.. Maybe I should resend.

[1] http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/synop.html

Saturday, 9 January 2010

How We Used To Deny: 1983

I took another look at the the list of 500 Papers Skeptical of Manmade Global Warming. I wanted to see what our proofs against manmade global warming were like in bygone years. Here is one example in the form of a paper published in 1983. Unfortunately I cannot find a PDF, but the actual contents of the paper are not so important. In Blog Science it's preferable to skim the abstract or even just the title and imagine what it's about.

Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature: What the Data Show
Journal of Environmental Quality, Volume 12, Number 2, pp. 159-163, 1983
Sherwood B. Idso

http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/2/159

Abstract
"Analyses of data from a number of sources indicate that (i) there was a gradual increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration from about 1860 to 1945, (ii) there has been a much more rapid rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1945 to the present, (iii) the most recent trend of global surface air temperature during this period of rapid CO2 increase has been downwards, which is in contradiction to the predictions of the most sophisticated general circulational models of the atmosphere in use today, (iv) this downward trend in surface air temperature has been most pronounced in northern latitudes, which is also in contrast to the model predictions, and (v) the downward temperature trend has been greater in summer than in winter, which is again in contradiction to the models. It is thus concluded that the theoretical numerical models of the atmosphere are grossly in error in their predictions of future CO2 effects on world climate, as is also suggested by several recent empirical studies. Consequently, since increasing global population requires more and more food, and since elevated CO2 concentrations have been documented to enhance crop productivity by increasing rates of photosynthesis, and water use efficiency by decreasing rates of transpiration, it is further concluded that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 may actually be beneficial to our future well-being."

Here are two shortened arguments from the paper. Arguments we made against manmade global warming in 1983:

1) Recent temperature trends contradict the model trends.
The temperature data show cooling, but the models predict warming! That means the models must be wrong and manmade global warming is a lie!

2) An increase of co2 will be beneficial. CO2 is life!

Just look at that. So the temperature records showed cooling in 1983 too, contradicting the models that expected warming. Looks like we are still making similar arguments today so we must be doing something right!

Global Dust Spikes, Paleoclimate Indicators, and Collapse of Civilizations All Correlate to Date of Noah's Flood



Reference

I don't see any mention of this in the godless IPCC reports.

Friday, 8 January 2010

The Satellite Temperature Source Code

Problems with the satellite record, as previously reported by DenialDepot

Over at WattsUpWithThat, a blog that poaches all my best commenters, the maps of UAH global temperature for the year 2009 have been posted and discussed without a hint of due skepticism.

DenialDepot has documented multiple instances of serious problems and causes of concern regarding the satellite record data. These problems remain unanswered.

One of the scientists involved in the satellite records posted an explaination of how the records are produced, which raises more questions than answers. The part that interested me the most was the acknowledgement that the satellite data is adjusted by FORTRAN programs:

POST-PROCESSING OF DATA AT UAH
The millions of calibrated brightness temperature measurements are averaged in space and time, for instance monthly averages in 2.5 degree latitude bands. I have FORTRAN programs I have written to do this. I then pass the averages to John Christy, who inter-calibrates the different satellites’ AMSUs during periods when two or more satellites are operating (which is always the case).


Naturally we need these FORTRAN programs to audit it. Even if it should have been written in Visual Basic or Javascript to begin with.

This is what I don't get. Other blogs have found errors in the satellite records and then have attempted to investigate the errors by comparing adjusted data. Ridiculous. All blog scientists should know the best way to find errors is to get hold of the source code! Why aren't these other blogs demanding the UAH satellite source code be released? If necessary use FOI requests!

So I am left to pick up the slack. I shot off a quick email to Roy Spencer:

To: roy@xxxxxxxxxxx.com
From: xxxxxxxxxxx@googlemail.com

Dear Roy,

I was very interested to read your latest article about how the satellite records are adjusted.

I am a blog scientist. Me and my commenters are interested in determining why the satellite records show too much warming over the last 30 years. You mention you adjust the raw data using some FORTRAN programs. Is this source code available online so we might replicate this process?

Thanks,
Inferno


And by replicate I of course meant audit

Monday, 4 January 2010

A New Theory Of Climate


I have invented a new theory of climate that challenges science to it's core. This is probably the biggest thing since Ernst Beck decided to explore some chemical methods.

My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century. These following findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on finding a means to avert the coming ice age, rather than explaining global warming.

I have often framed the problem of the coming ice age in terms of a flu affecting the planet. A flu that requires a cure. Naturally I put myself in the position of the doctor. And so it was inevitable that I should stumble across a little known medical law called the Law of Similars.

Breaking into my books (not literally, I merely opened them), I studied this law in more detail. What I found took my breath away. According to the Law of Similars, substances that cause a characteristic symptom of a disease, without causing the disease itself, can be used in small concentrations to cure that disease. This seemingly counterintuitive idea agreed somewhat with my contrarian nature, so I researched it some more.

If we consider cooling a characteristic symptom of descent into an ice age, it therefore stands to reason that we may prevent an ice age through the application of a small quantity of a substance that causes cooling. Initially I envisaged the use of fleets of airships to hoist tons of ice crystals into the sky, but further research uncovered a remarkable fact of medicine that spares such effort. It turns out that the smaller the concentration of ice crystals released into the atmosphere, the greater the potency of the payload. Another counterintuitive result, also one which so-called "experts" ignore, so I must be on the right track.

Running the math through in detail, I discovered the necessary amount of ice was less than one billion billionth of a single ice crystal. Therein lied a problem. How could I measure out such a small quantity of crystalized ice? I did some more reading and found that the medical profession has an ingenious solution. A series of successive dilutions can produce a substance with the necessary low concentration of crystalized ice. The procedure is as follows:

1. Take a container and drop into it one part ice crystals and 99 parts water. Seal the container and shake like mad so that the ice crystal is dilluted into the water. Really shake it, this is very important. One part of the substance will now contain 0.01 parts ice crystal. The substance now has 1c potency where c stands for centesimal.

2. Take another container. Drop one part of the 1c substance into the container and add 99 parts water. Seal the container and shake again. This will result in a substance with 2c potency. Each part is of the substance now contains 0.0001 parts ice crystal.

3. Continue the above process until 30c potency is achieved. From that container take a single drop of the substance. This single drop will contain 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 drops of ice crystal*. This one drop must be delivered into the atmosphere. Preferably from on top of a high mountain so the release will be closer to the sky. As long as the science holds, and I see no reason why I would ever be wrong, this act should be enough to reverse an ice age.

Eureka



I figured out the final step of my climate theory on a busy train during my rush hour commute into work, thanks to a sudden bout of Thinking Inside the Box. "Hang on!" I exclaimed in sudden realization, "this mixing process..isn't this something that nature might already be doing up there inside the sky?!". My fellow passengers having adapted to the silence of the carriage and being unaquainted with blog science were startled by my sudden outburst. I imagine much like how ancient greeks must have been startled by aristotle running past them naked through the streets.

With no time to spare I snatched a newspaper and started scrawling eratic sketches, sketches of big swirly hurricanes, snow flakes and lightning storms with arrows flying hither and whither. All the while exclaiming my disjointed thoughts out loud for the benefit of my fellow passengers so they may be privy to a moment of scientific history.

The excitement was thick in the air, one man tried to make me stop - saying I was sure to scare his daughter if I continued. I barked something at him, I can't remember what, I think it was something about hitler youth - although I now think someone else said that. In anycase it must have put his mind at ease for he didn't bother me again, instead he quickly withdrew with his daughter to the adjacent carriage and courteously locked the door so I would not be further interupted.

At this point I ran out of paper, I had even used up all the empty boxes in the crossword. I turned instead to the windows, drawing cryptic symbols and equations on what little morning condensation remained. As I ran out of space I would leap over the seats to the next window, much to the suprise and screams of seated passengers. When I ran out of condensation on the windows of the carriage I started to huff great bellows of my own breath on them to produce more, all the while running up and down the carriage to inspect my prior notes. I was muttering scientic phrases very loudly at this point, "newton", "sunspots", "orgone", etc.


The passengers were most kind in making room for me, for the most part abandoning their seats and huddling together at the opposite end of the carriage. Just as I was admiring how impressed they were with my intellect, a police officer stepped forward and ruined everything by demanding I cease. "Cease?!" I exclaimed in exasperation, "are you actually and literally mad?!". He insisted I cease or I should be arrested. I tried to explain I was having a breakthrough, but he was having none of it. Realizing I had little time to spare, I instinctively started reciting passages from The Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics at him, at speed, in a bid to slow him down. But this wasn't the internet and so the effort failed. I was arrested for "disturbing public order" or some nonsense.

In retrospect I do not know how a police officer would find his way onto a moving train, I can only conclude that I was being followed the whole time. Perhaps he was under the employ of the United Nations. And so this is why I cannot prove my theory today as I lost most of my notes through evaporation. All I can remember is that it has something to do with the succussing power of hurricanes. All I can do is reconstruct a diagram based on what is left of my tattered notes.



My thoughts are that we must do something quickly as blog science is showing we are rapidly entering an ice age of no return. The main solution I can think of right now is to release the previously mentioned ice crystal solution into the atmosphere. Oh and also drastically reduce taxes.

* Use of exponentials is scientifically improper

Sunday, 3 January 2010

Another Dodgy Diagram

In the last post, commenter Gail pointed out another dodgy IPCC diagram.

"Scroll down and take a look at the alarmist ozone pollution chart. I just wish I could paste it here so everybody could see how phony even the USDA is. Look at the size of the sun and compare it to the factory! Ridiculous!"

Here is the diagram.



Gail is correct. It looks like scientists at the USDA have been caught using a "trick" to "hide the size" of the Sun. I have checked and can confirm there is no factory on Earth which is larger than the Sun, so they have no excuse.

In addition the real Sun is much brighter than the one depicted in the diagram. I can stare at the Sun in the diagram for over a minute without being blinded. Al Gore's fingerprints are all over these diagrams.

Friday, 1 January 2010

The case of the IPCC Horror Fish

A warmist thought they were being clever and "educational" by showing me this diagram. They failed to realize I would Audit it.



http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2556

The diagram supposedly depicts a location in Antarctica. I don't believe a word of it. Ice "shelves" and ice "sheets"? Everyone knows shelves are made of wood and sheets are made of linen. And where is the arrow to depict co2 freezing out of the atmosphere?

These problems are not however my main concern with the diagram. Notice the craftily drawn single fish in the ocean? Odd isn't it. It isn't labelled. Why is it there? What is the purpose of this fish? What is the agenda of the artist? This therefore becomes the single most important part of the diagram as far as Blog Science is concerned. And so I begin an Audit.

The Audit

Climate Science being a typically sloppy field of science had failed to reference the fish depicted in the diagram. In other fields of science this would be considered a scientific act of Grand Treason. But not in climate "Science".

So I spent many hours working through resources on fish; fish encyclopedias, fishing blogs, even cookbooks on fish cuisine in a bid to discover the species of fish depicted. I even bought a frozen haddock for inspiration. Yet despite an inadvertent tasty lunch, my endevor produced no result.

It was then I struck upon a suspicion - what if the fish itself does not even exist? What if the IPCC have fabricated a new species fish to further their agenda?

Through detailed scientific investigation I determined the plane in the diagram is a Douglas DC-8. With this information I was able to calculate the size of the IPCC fish. I found the result very disturbing. So-called "scientists" have a lot of questions to answer. Behold the size of the horror fish which the IPCC propose swims deep in the depths of the southern polar ocean:



A 41 foot long leviathon! 23 feet high! See the horror fish compared to a human being.



Thankfully fish this large simply do not exist, if they did commercial shipping would be impossible. But that doesn't stop the IPCC from using such fear stories to scare kids.

Someone should audit the DC-8 radar data to see if such a fish was really there at the time. Although I imagine the data used to produce the diagram has all been hidden from the public or deleted. Notice the fish is carefully hidden beneath the so-called ice "shelf" so they have a convenient excuse for why it might not show up in the DC-8 raw data anyway.

The next obvious move was to look at the CRU emails for references to fish.

While I didn't find anything concrete I did find an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann which contained the sentence:

"When the coring was done in the 1980s and early 1990s the fieldwork teams ate a lot of fish!"

What could this mean? I do not know for sure, but merely raising a question I cannot answer is evidence of wrongdoing. The plot thickens.