Mann: if the model does not fit the data, change the data

In any subject a culture can be created, and that culture may make some things permissible that otherwise would not as well as making taboo that which would normally considered acceptable.

For years, having seen the protestations of self-styled “Climate scientists”, it’s been clear to me they had completely wondered off the scientific path and were indulging in fantasies not science. However, by chance I came across this tweet from Michael Mann in which he makes it very clear that his working methods, and so presumably the culture in climate “science” is to change the data to fit the model. That’s not science.

DSg-A1aXkAAMYSV

Here is the original source, but given Twitter is now censoring content and blocking users it disapproves of, and given this is such a clanger by Mann, it may not remain available

Posted in Climate | 2 Comments

Trumps global warming tweet

I often find this. I hear someone in the public eye say something I think is extremely mild and so hardly give it a passing thought, and then when I finally start reading about it, it turns out to have created a media storm. Clearly the only thing the global warming Libtard media in the US want to talk about is Trump tweet which I think was only “we could do with a bit of global warming”.

Now, even someone who believed in Global warming could find that funny – because even if you believe in catastrophic warming, you must also believe in natural climate change which will from time to time bring much colder weather.

However Libtards don’t have a sense of proportion, they only think weather is climate when it is hot and they have no sense of humour. In short this is a blasphemy and so they are reacting with the normal religious fervour against anyone who dare express the heretical view that global warming is laughable.

 

Posted in Climate | 1 Comment

Insane unreliables: to cost 10,000 Euros per household – Happy Newyear

An interesting tweet across came I

It contained the following graphDSTSx_lWsAAoI5C.jpg large

First we need to recognise that capacity is nowhere near the same as average delivered power. I think the figure for what is currently delivered is closer to 20-30% of capacity, so the actual capacity will be lower. But it gets worse, because it gets even lower the higher the % of unreliables. Because whereas it is now cheap conventional that gets turned off when there is excess power, if you were insane enough to get rid of conventionals then much of the time it is expensive unreliables would be turned off because unreliables were producing too much … and much of the time industry and consumers would be turned off as they produce too little. So the available capacity from unreliables would be much smaller.

However if we assume a 25% delivery for convenience, the above graph suggests the cost per W per person of unreliables is 0.018*1000/0.25 =  74cent/kwh per person. On average a household of 2.5people consumes about 400w. So that yearly cost of unreliables for a household if anyone were mad enough to go for 100% unreliables appears to be around

74 * 0.4 * 24 * 365  = ~2600 Euros per Household

This is however the direct cost. But as raw materials and manufacturing costs are all directly related then the cost will be higher. A while back I wrote about The Enerconic multiplier (expanded later in the  The Enerconic or society energy multiplier). This provides the useful figure that energy is reused in society about 4x. As such, if everyone we sourced goods and services were to adopt the same crazy policy of 100% unreliables, I can work out the cost per household as

2600 x 4 = ~10,000 Euros.

With an average EU salary of 17640, an average wage single earner household will be spending 56% of their salary solely on extra costs incurred by this crazy policy. Of course, not every country is mad enough to go along with this insanity. So, the effect at the moment is that it is cheaper to produce things in countries who have not been infected with the madness. Thus in addition to seeing large cost increases, there is also a steady drain of jobs abroad. That will depress EU economies & hence wages until it has much the same effect  as if we were all being taxed an additional ~ 56%. But there is one small issue here. The average tax rate in the EU is 40%. So between the increase costs for unreliables and massive government taxes (also added to the cost of unreliables) there is frankly very little left.

There is however one ray of hope … as the UK isn’t in the Euro, and with the Italian financial crisis looming, the cost of unrelieables in Euros will be much smaller (… I’m just joking, the green parasites suck us dry whatever the currency).

But can you now see why I call this policy insane? The direct cost is massive, but the indirect cost is totally bonkers and would leave all of us with almost no personal salary – or more likely, we’d end up being able to afford to purchase a fraction of what we do now. We will all be a lot lot poorer. It is total bonkers and if politicians were mad enough to push it through would cause those countries adopting it to descend into an economic decline heading toward third world status. And with that I would like to wish you all …

Happy New Year

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

Global Boring

As a scientist, you’d expect me to make decisions rationally. So why have I stopped being a full time sceptic. The reason is that people just didn’t seem to be interested in the subject any longer. I couldn’t point to any statistic to justify that feeling, I couldn’t show you a graph or do a cost benefit analysis showing I had done what I could to change public opinion and my time was now better spent getting around to the things I had neglected for so many years.

However as always  Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot has hit the nail on the head with his explanation of the series of global warming film flops this year:

“Hollywood is finding out that the climate scare continues to be nothing more than a big yawn for the public,” Mr. Morano said. “Lecturing the public on climate change is boring, and ticket receipts prove this.” (Link)

 

Posted in Climate | 5 Comments

Protected: Dick Lindzen described this bit as groteque – and he agrees!

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Posted in Climate | Enter your password to view comments.

Greenhouse theories compared

There are now several different models trying to explain or calculate the Greenhouse effect. None of them are perfect. The best models are too complex and not even understood by some top scientists who have failed to spot the importance of pressure. Others like the “standard” model are so dumbed down as to be laughable. And clearly my own model (hereafter called Haseler’s lapse rate model) is no better because although physically much much more realistic than most models, it is clearly too difficult for many to understand.

So without going into detail, I thought I would try to describe the differences and the pros and cons of each model.

Layer-by-layer Numerical Model

The best model of the atmosphere is a detailed layer by layer model of the atmosphere whereby for each layer, for every frequency, for all molecules types, the net incomings and outgoing IR energy and heat flow from convection, etc. Continue reading

Posted in Climate | 13 Comments

The necessary requirements for a “Greenhouse effect”

First, as so many have so many times said, the so called “Greenhouse effect” is completely different in physics to a real greenhouse. Instead as I outlined in my last post, the effect stems from the lapse rate: that the earth AS SEEN FROM SPACE must emit radiation equivalent to a black body at 255C (the temperature at which incoming and outgoing radiation balances at our distance from the sun).

The reason for the higher temperature at the surface, is because there is a drop in temperature with height due to the lapse rate, and this means the planet’s surface will be warmer. Yes, there is radiation trapping, yes greenhouse gases have a marginal effect on the average height (and therefore temperature) of the earth as seen from space (or to reverse, the temperature of the surface must change to bring the temperature as seen from space back to the stable blackbody temperature). However, the radiation trapping is important, only in that it drives the lapse rate. However, I jump the gun. So what are the key requirements for the Greenhouse effect:

An Atmosphere with Pressure

The first requirement is that the planet must have an atmosphere. The reason for this, is that there is no temperature profile through the atmosphere without an atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases OR IR emitters like Clouds

The next requirement is that the atmosphere, which will have a thermal gradient due to the lapse rate, must emit radiation from within the atmosphere from either IR interactive molecules like water vapour, CO2, etc. or from liquid droplets in clouds.

That there must be heating to drive convection

Whilst the lapse rate explain the thermal gradient, it is not possible for heat to be emitted from the atmosphere without simply cooling the atmosphere, unless  unless there is a heat flow from lower down in the atmosphere. In other words, there must be an excess of heat in the lower atmosphere, that drives convective currents to take that heat to higher up where it will be emitted.

This is where the “Mickey mouse” explanation that we hear so often about global warming is partly right. The scale of the greenhouse effect is almost entirely due to the lapse rate. In that regard, the “heat trapping” concept is completely unhelpful. However, unless there were heat trapping: radiant energy is absorbed at the surface and cannot escape via IR, then there would be no energy source to drive the convective currents which stabilise the temperature gradient in the atmosphere DESPITE massive cooling as IR is emitted from out of the top of the atmosphere.

Posted in Climate | 9 Comments

The connection between Global Warming and the earth’s core temperature

There are few times that I can have been so genuinely surprised at what is such a stunning connection as this. It all started with a tweet by @SteveSGoddard (Tony Heller)

The problem is that you can. So, let’s first recap how global warming really works again. The temperature of a black body the size of the earth is about 255k. It therefore follows that for thermal stability, the average temperature, or more accurately the average of T4, the average heat energy escaping, must be the same as a black body with temperature of 255k.  Thus if we imagine a view of the atmosphere were we could pick out individual molecules as shown below, the average T4 of this planet at the position of the earth must be 255k.

fgmcmknaofafiokgThat is, the average temperature of the highest molecules emitting IR to space must be 255k. From this we can easily work out the temperature of the ground. Because most of the density of the atmosphere is below ~5km and the lapse rate from this to the ground is 6.5C/km, so the temperature of the ground will be:

255 + 6.5 x 5 = ~288k

Of course, the 5km level I use here is not a hard and fast layer, but is a range of levels, except where the IR is being emitted from cloud tops. So, the 5km figure is an average that reflects the density of the atmosphere and a small variation in height for an increase/decrease in “greenhouse gases”. But for out purposes here, the greenhouse effect can be seen has being an emission from a nominal “top of atmosphere” level which averages at around 5km, which has an average temperature of 255, and that the lapse rate causes the thermal gradient that causes the earth’s surface to be about 32C warmer at 288C.

For a more detailed explanation see: The Greenhouse effect

Heating in the earth Core.

And this is where Tony Heller‘s comment comes in. Because whilst I’ve only ever thought about the heating that occurs when a gas is compressed, or to put it another way, the reduction in temperature as gas expands when it rises, which is what causes the lapse rate of air, there is the same effect also in liquids.

This is the point where my knowledge ends, so I’m going to have to quote a few articles. The first one I found “Determining the Thermal Expansion Coefficient of Liquids by Observing the Onset of Convection“, confirmed that the concept of an adiabatic lapse rate that I understand as the key to atmospheric greenhouse effect is also present in liquids but the calculations are much more complex than g/cp (gravitational acceleration over specific heat capacity of air at constant pressure)   :

The adiabatic gradient (≡Tυβ/Cp), also called the adiabatic lapse rate, is the temperature increase caused by adiabatically compressing a fluid, e.g., if a bit of water sinks in the ocean quickly enough so it cannot lose heat to surrounding water, it will become warmer—the adiabatic gradient is its rate of change of temperature with respect to depth.

The Brunt‐Väisälä frequency, N[N2≡−g(g/c2−βT′)], is the frequency of buoyant oscillation of the bit of fluid mentioned in Ref. 2 if N is real. If N2 is negative the fluid is unstable. Here T′ is the vertical gradient of temperature in the ocean, c the velocity of sound.

The next article Convection in the Earth’s mantle is well worth reading and gives a lapse rate for the mantle of 0.4 and interior of about 0.3C/km. Thus if the earth is 6371km to the centre, the temperature at the centre should be about:

255 + 6.5 x 5 + 6371 x 0.3 = ~2000k

That is nowhere near the actual predicted temperature, but since the earth has many layers, it will be far more complex that this simple calculation. But the principle is sound: at least part of the temperature rise to the core is due to the same cause as the atmospheric greenhouse effect, the lapse rate.

Addendum

As Oldbrew quite rightly pointed out I got Centigrade and Kelvin mixed up. What a daft Pillock I was!

Posted in Climate | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Climate fraudsters

We all knew that the climate fraudsters were tampering with the data from individual stations. That has been well documented, and it was clear that what we could see was just the tip of the ice-berg.

However, despite the eco-nutters tampering with individual stations and those at NASA “retiring” any that inconveniently weren’t warming as they wanted, they still could not turn the cooling into warming and so they couldn’t help confirming what has been euphemistically called the “pause” in global warming (a term I started using on Wikipedia as the least likely to be immediately deleted – by what turned out to be almost certainly the same eco-zealots fabricating the data in the first place).

The problem was that there just wasn’t enough warming stations left as they systematically removed any that had cooled. So, eventually they hit on the scam of taking the sea buoy temperatures – not as actual temperatures, but as a fractional change in temperature so small as to be noise, which they then massively scaled up and then adding into the actual global temperature to produce the biggest load of codswallop.

Put simple, the “global temperatures” from the likes of NASA no longer tell us anything about global temperature. So, for the last few years, the bench mark for global temperatures as been the temperature from the satellites. Not only because it is so obvious when someone tampers with it, but mostly because it is technically superior.

To put it very simply: it measures the temperature over a region of the earth, and that is a direct averaging, which is independent of height (so very little problem if the height changes – contrary to the non-science we keep getting from the climate cretins).

But, I knew it would be just a matter of time before they found a way to tamper with the satellite temperature, and today that confirmation came. Compare the RSS (one of the satellite metrics) on the following two graphs:

Image706_shadow

2017_12_28_03_50_53

The End of the World?

Fortunately not. We still have UAH which remains a credible source, but they will now be under incredible pressure to start showing warming. And it will be increasingly difficult to explain to those who have not been following the climate frauds why out of all the made up data, there is one and only one metric which remains credible (which just happens to show no warming).

So, you might think I’d be down in the dumps about this latest “success” for the forces of anti-science. But I’m not.

Because, just as I’m sick to the back teeth of climate data which no longer in any sense reflects what is happening to actual global temperatures, so all other decent researches will have the same loathing for the politically meddling and dishonesty which now infests almost all temperature metrics.

And that is what will eventually bring this scam crashing down: the fact that it is impossible to compare the temperature data in a paper a few years ago with the same temperature data now.  By now it will be a running joke in the subject that the data can’t be trusted. Of course many will try to spin it positively “yet another one over on the sceptics”. But there are always some people trying to do serious science even in a mickey mouse subject like this. And can you imagine trying to use data where you can’t compare work even a few years old because the basic key temperature data IN THE PAST keeps changing.

Imagine writing a paper: “in 2005 we showed a correlation of X1, but when we published in 2007 but THE SAME CORRELATION had to be changed to X2,  however, in the later research in 2013, the SAME CORRELATION is X3, and today when comparing SAME “data” a figure of X4 must be used. Of course, they can’t write the truth and will try to hide it. But they will treat it as a joke, in turn their colleagues will treat it as a joke, and all the academics will be treating the subject as a joke.

And when you get this kind of culture developing in a subject – soon people start making up data that doesn’t need to be made up. They assert things that cannot be asserted because they just cannot be bothered to do the work to process the data (which keeps changing anyway). And when they discoverer that no one cares whether the data is made up … they will just keep doing it. That kind of culture is ruinous to a subject, it saps moral, it puts off decent people from joining and any decent people will want out.

And that is when a subject is destroyed … not when external people think it is worthless … but when those in the subject know it is a joke.

Posted in Climate | 1 Comment

Climate Swings & Roundabouts

Everyone who is anyone in Climate knows that NASA gave up with producing a global temperature figure when the pause had gone on long enough to be a total embarrassment to these huff and puff merchants.

Instead they started producing a metric which you can’t call “global temperature”, as that can only be achieved by a simple average of comparable temperatures. Instead they did something akin to converting everything to an energy figure, then adding in a whole lot of codswallop, fish foe, and other very smelly entrails, and then reconverted that vile concoction back to a “temperature”.

The approach they chose was simple: if the metric you have isn’t doing what you want, find some other metric that is and add it in. In this case the convenient bullshit came from ocean buoys measurements which happened to be warming. And sure – you can always find something in the climate going your way for a few years to boost the warming figures, but the problem is that almost all of them are part of some form of cycle, such that sooner or later what you gain as they warm, you more than lose as they go into the cooling phase.

And then … if you take a change so small that it cannot be measured and scale it up massively to get warming … it hardly takes any cooling at all to more than reverse the process. And as the laws of chance tell us … sooner or later shit happens.

Of course, we’re not going to see the shit hitting the fan. Because as soon as they get any cooling – they will retire the worst offending buoys as they did the land based stations so that they only have warming buoys. And unlike land based stations where retiring stations was pretty easy to spot, an ocean buoy is pretty easy to let “go missing”. So all this fraudulent meddling is easily hidden.

So we will never see any of the gnashing of teeth as those in NASA and NOAA desperately try to conjure warming out of cold sea water. However, we will all know it is there. And with the record colds that are starting to show in the US as we head towards a La Nina year, NASA & their loathsome ilk are almost certainly having a:

Terrible Christmas and a Rotten New Year

 

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment