Category Archives: Global Warming

Weather and Global Warming – Heavy Clouds but, No Rain

global_warming-758157We all want to be proven right. We want to argue with someone and put the evidence in their face. To paraphrase an argument I had on Facebook the other day, over Global Warming.

AGW: “It is December and Warm! Clearly Global warming!”

Science: “It has been this warm in December many times.”

AGW: “But more heat in a system means more bad weather!”

Science: “Cool Magic system you’ve created there. Non-science.”

Of course, this is ironic. Heavy rain does not mean they get their proof of global warming. Unseasonal heavy rain is just that, unseasonal heavy rain. Unseasonal things happen all the time, seasons are, to mis-quote a famous movie pirate: Weather is more of a guideline, really, than a rule.

Ok, so what if the basic premise is correct. We agree that the temperature is 0.3 to 0.4 degrees C higher than in the 70’s or early 80’s. Is the weather worse?

Well, lets look at hurricane statistics. We’ll look at the late 70’s and Early 80’s:

1974 Sep LA, 3 3 952 —– Carmen
1975 Sep FL, NW3; I-AL1 3 955 —– Eloise
1976 Aug NY, 1 1 980 —– Belle
1977 Sep LA, 1 1 995 —– Babe
1978 None
1979 Jul LA, 1 1 986 —– Bob
1979 Sep FL, SE2, NE2; GA, 2; SC, 2 2 970 —– David
1979 Sep AL, 3; MS, 3 3 946 —– Frederic
1980 Aug TX, S3 3 945 100 Allen
1981 None
1982 None
1983 Aug TX, N3 3 962 100 Alicia
1984 Sep * NC, 2 2 949 95 Diana

10 Hurricane in 10 years. Compare to current values:

2004 Aug * NC, 1 1 972 70 Alex
2004 Aug FL, SW4, SE1, NE1; SC, 1; NC, 1 4 941 130 Charley
2004 Aug SC, 1 1 985 65 Gaston
2004 Sep FL, SE2, SW1 2 960 90 Frances
2004 Sep AL, 3; FL, NW3 3 946 105 Ivan
2004 Sep FL, SE3, SW1, NW1 3 950 105 Jeanne
2005 Jul LA, 1 1 991 65 Cindy
2005 Jul FL, NW3; I-AL 1 3 946 105 Dennis
2005 Aug FL, SE1, SW1; LA, 3; MS, 3; AL, 1 3 920 110 Katrina
2005 Sep * NC, 1 1 982 65 Ophelia
2005 Sep FL, SW1; LA, 3; TX, N2 3 937 100 Rita
2005 Oct FL, SW3; FL, SE2 3 950 105 Wilma
2006 None
2007 Sep TX, N1; LA, 1 1 985 80 Humberto
2008 Jul TX, S1 1 967 75 Dolly
2008 Sep LA, 2 2 954 90 Gustav
2008 Sep TX, N2; LA, 1 2 950 95 Ike
2009 None
2010 None
2011 Aug NC, 1 1 952 75 Irene
2012 Aug LA, 1 1 966 70 Isaac
2012 Oct * NY, 1 1 942 65 Sandy
2013 None
2014 Jul NC, 2 2 973 85 Arthur

Wow, 2005 and 2004 were huge. 11 hurricane in 2 years – 20 in 10 years. Hugely more. Of course, had I conveniently started at 2006, there would have been 8 hurricane in 9 years. Slightly less. We had a couple bad years, then things returned to normal.

Weird, so if you change your starting dates to useful numbers, you can completely change your answer? Again, the excitement isn’t that the world has warmed. The argument is that the warming is unusual. We Deniers, believe that the warming is natural, not man-made. Will the warming affect climate? That is an interesting subject, but not a politically useful one.



Global Warming – Rebuttal of Arnold

Arnold Schwarzenegger has come out for “fighting global warming.” It is pretty apparent that he doesn’t believe the Anthropomorphic side either, which is why he makes his case with “20,000 people die of pollution each year, we should be using electric engines.”

There are 276 MILLION chronically undernourished people in the world. Millions die every year. 3.2 million children. Millions. Not thousands. Millions die of bad water, which could be purified if they only had electric power. But, since they live on less than two dollars a day, they can’t afford electric power. Same with food. Bad water, high cost water, poor soil, low density crops. All things solved with cheap power.


Tens of thousands died, because we turned corn into ethanol. Arnold, which way did you vote on that? Oh, your state is the worst offender on gas requirements. You are part of the problem. Did this help Global Warming? Understand, PEOPLE DIED for this 10% Ethanol Requirement.

Instead of sending money, engineers without borders have been building, mostly solar or natural filter, water purification systems. It isn’t fighting Global Warming, so they don’t get much money. When you send money to dictators, you get a prize and a cool party. Most UN money is wasted this way. Solar can help, wind can help, coal is the biggest help. Coal has lifted millions in China and India out of poverty.


But, lets be honest. You don’t care. You’d rather the excess population died off to leave more of the planet’s resources for your wealthy children. You’d burn trillions of dollars in stupid solar cell companies and wind companies, but deny nuclear power provides reliable base load. You’d let a million children die for your tech project, and call it “Good” if we got a slightly more affordable solar cell. You pretend to care about the environment, because that has been called “Good.”

You don’t care. You think you have “moral authority” and you like to prove it with “Moral signaling” on Facebook. I just want you to know, that on every one of those pictures, I see a hidden, dying, child. You pay for your morality with dead children. Congratulations.

Utopian Dreams and Climate Change

I would like to be the first to agree to Utopia. There the climate is perfect and predictable. The weather is nice too. The human influence on it is always to moderate the outcomes, so that every creature lives in harmony. This is some kind of Star Trek universe, where food comes out of a matter converter. Or Camalot

Utopia doesn’t exist in this world. The climate is not influenced significantly by mankind. I strongly suspect, that if we could travel to an alternate universe, one not populated by man, we’d find no difference in the weather, much less the climate.

However, the environment is. Poor people shoot animals for food, and in competition for their food. Rich people also shoot animals, often for sport, but in much lower percentages. Poor people cut down trees and burn them. In Africa, most of the continent is “Off the grid.” The cities have relatively expensive power, but the farmlands deal with portable generators for lights and fire to cook on. (Heck, I was watching Anthony Bourdain the other night, in Ethiopia, they were cooking on a fire pit, with wood.


The North American Continent was deforested in the past, by native Indians. They wanted farmland, in the absence of metal axes, they used fire. The current state of the US is More Natural than at times during the past millennia. Rich countries can afford to protect the environment. (California, for example, is constantly spending its wealth to protect fish. On dry years, it complains that it spent its money poorly, but those are political choices.)

So, Paris Accords. I don’t believe in the honesty of anyone attending that monstrosity. In My HUMBLE Opinion, its purpose is to set up a perpetual graft and support fund for every ones favorite NGOs. This will come as part of large political payments between Democracies and dictators. The UN may have had some valuable moments, but it is a den of corruption. (Congress isn’t far behind.) The only thing worse is the Presidents “CZARS” who trade favors and power behind closed doors. You know they are setting up jobs for themselves for after the Dems lose the presidency. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were amazing small fortunes from “side” work. It is a sad feature of dictatorships, which this presidency seems to allow.

Frankly, the UN is founded on that graft. Top to bottom. Kofi Annan made at the minimum tens of millions and likely brought home more than a billion dollars. This Climate Money Pot has been estimated to be 2.5 trillion dollars. I expect that most of the “disagreements” have nothing to do with environment and everything to do with Graft.

You want to help the poor? Good. I donate thousands every year, you should too. You want to help a poor country? Make power so cheap that fire is relatively expensive. When you pay only pennies per kilowatt-hour poor people stop cutting wood. Don’t give their Dictator a new billion dollar hotel, buy his people’s products. This has lifted China out of poverty, India as well. (mostly) It will do the same in Africa.

Global Warming – Modeling and Measurement

Initial Note: The temperature is measured at present at 0.5 degrees above baseline. The temperature increase from baseline may be caused by many factors, including CO2. Experimental data is needed to verify the models.

We can thank Dr. Hansen for his work disproving the effects of CO2 on global temperature. His work appears to disprove the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory. I understand, that as he has made millions of dollars promoting global warming, he probably doesn’t see this result as publishable.

hansen warming predictions

Figure 1. Hansen’s models of global warming following a steady increase in our production of CO2 (1.5%), a continued production of CO2 at the current (year 1989) rate, and an abrupt halt of producing CO2.

On Figure 1, you can see that Dr. Hansen predicts a large increase in temperature driven directly by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Temperatures by 2015 are 1.5 degrees above baseline. While the US and Europe have reduced production of CO2 significantly, world production of CO2 remains significantly above year 2000 levels, leading to the top line prediction being the predicted outcome.

hansen warming results

Figure 2. A combination of Figure 1 and current temperature data.

On Figure 2, you can see the current temperature data plotted along with the predictions made in Hansen’s model. It is clear from observation that, with the exception of 1998, the data falls along the lowest line of prediction. 1998 has been explained as a specific Pacific Ocean event, resulting in the hottest year on record.

Conclusions: The model which contained no CO2 forcing more correctly predicted the future than either model which contained CO2 forcing. CO2 forcing does not appear to correctly predict future temperatures.

Further Study: CO2 is known to absorb specific bands of IR light at 2349 cm−1 and at 667 cm−1. Addition of CO2 does increase absorption of heat in the atmosphere at those two wavelengths, however, those wavelengths may be sufficiently filled such that no further addition of CO2 causes added absorption. However, that is just a theory and needs further modeling and experimental data to prove. Alternatively, the current heating may have nothing to do with CO2. The CO2 heating may become significant at some future partial pressure. Again, modeling and testing is needed to quantify this assertion.

Global Warming – In expectations of Arguments at Dragon Con

UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2015_v6I have many good friends who are ACGW (Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warming) believers. I’m not. I was easily persuaded back in the 1990’s that it was real, then I met Lee and was introduced to Roy Spencer and John Christie. They produce this product above. Technically done by the University of Alabama, Huntsville. It is a NASA product. The National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) is a collaboration center for NASA and UAH, this is their work.

So right off, when they say “This is the warmest year ever!” They are lying in two ways. 1) We know 1998 was warmer, 2) The error bars are +/- 0.2 degrees, so heck, almost any year could be the warmest.


The Goddard product is a little more mushy, but it uses land-based measurements and a huge averaging program that seems designed to cut out cooling areas and replace them with “average warm” areas. But Frankly, even with their thumb on the scales, this is it. This is the scary warming.

Do Humans influence global warming? Probably not, or only at the margins. (A 0.1 degree increase may have occurred due to human influence- the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, however, the margin of error is still in the +/- 0.2 degrees C region, so we can’t really know.)

Is it a Catastrophe? Nope. Mild effects, entirely beneficial.

Are temperatures going up, up, up? Satellite records say no, some land records say yes, but slowly. We are still below the Medieval Warm Period’s warming. The Roman warming was higher than the Medieval and the Minoan was twice the medieval. The Earth appears to warm and cool by some natural cycle. We would like to attribute it to the sun, but it appears to be more complicated than that.

The problem comes out to: You are going to spend trillions of dollars to fix something that doesn’t need fixing. Some scientists prefer the fixes, because they believe it is good to move to solar and wind power. This ignores the environment destruction that this market imbalance is causing. People die without power. Cheap electricity creates food, clean water, and housing around the world. A Trillion dollars have been wasted on this in the US alone, do you think we got our money’s worth?



Gleissberg Solar Minimum – Global Warming (cooling)


I was looking at Watts Up With That and saw the article. Let me clarify something – We know very little about the sun. Also, we know very little about how the sun affects the Earth.

Yes, I’m aware of sunlight, magnetic fields, etc. I’m an expert, so unless you’ve got some years in the field, don’t interrupt.

The general opinion of a few years ago was that 99.99% of the solar effects on the Earth was from sunlight. Then they allowed that maybe 1% was particles, but since there was little direct correlation between 12-year solar cycles and temperature change, it probaly wasn’t important.

Ok, so now they are coming to recognize what most people “in the field” know. The sun is complicated. Correlation between sun spots and solar activity isn’t 1 = 1. Sure, low numbers of sun spots might indicate low solar storms, but a high density and high velocity solar wind might actually mean the Earth got MORE heating during a minimum. The sun spots are only indicative of 1 type of solar weather.

So pop on over to and get a deeper view of the weather on the sun.

1) how spotty is the surface?

    not very. a few spots. The magnetogram might give a better answer, but really it is hard to tell the difference between big magnetic events and small ones. Comparing to the sunspot chart gives the same answer.

 2) How much pressure is in the solar wind?

 The solar wind runs around 2 – 5 nPa at velocities around 400 – 1000 km/s. Since you square velocity for total energy, velocity can be pretty important. Currently velocity is under 400 and density is under 1. Ok, so the wind is pretty weak right now.

3) magnetic field is usually North or South. I’ll get it backwards again, but the more North it is, the more it sticks to our magnetic field. If the wind is strong and sticky, it’ll have a bigger effect on the Earth.

4) time history is hard to judge, but if you look at the Earth’s Kp, you kind of have a time integral of what has happened the last few days. High Kp, it has been rough winds. Kp less than 4… quiet.

So, we’ve had long periods of very quiet sun, leading to a minimum that is very weak by any modern measurement. Is this an historic minimum. Heck if I know. Hard to judge what no one has measured before. But yeah, I see some resemblance to the Gleissberg cycle here. (among others.) We really won’t know till we have data, the rest is just fortune telling with expensive crystal balls.


Global Warming – Status Update

Just to avoid the usual Straw Man, I believe that the world is warmer today than it was in the late 1800’s. Heck, it may be warmer today than in the 1200’s, though that is unproven. I do believe that CO2 has environmental effects, however, I see no link between increasing CO2 content and increased temperature. Further, given that the global and local temperatures have changed several times in the past, I see no link between human activity and increasing temperature. (AGW) Finally, there is zero evidence of a “tipping point,” after which the rate of global warming will jump and the feedback will lead to a 5 – 9 degree C increase in temperature. (ACGW)


But hey, it really isn’t just about a bad theory, it is about a bad theory that dug itself into the political might of the UN, USA, and Europe. The political elite can buy themselves votes by spending other people’s money on their friends projects. Millions flow into other people’s pockets and everyone feels morally superior.

As a friend of mine said, “Green projects are ones they should be doing anyway, so what is the harm in calling it global warming?”

1) It hurts science. The review boards of scientific journals are filled with political hacks who know very little about the field they are supposed to be reviewing. They approve crap into the knowledge base which will take decades to scrub out, they deny good papers which advance science because it doesn’t fit their limited world view.

2) It hurts people. Many people have trouble paying their power bills, many people are hurt by the increased costs on fuel. It increases costs on food and goods. Look, the economy isn’t going up and the costs are increasing. Every year it squeezes us tighter and tighter. The Money Isn’t Free

3) It funds the wrong projects. Good scientists compete for funding. Their work shows solid, repeatable, results. They make predictions and provide evidence. The limited funds should go to real science and real improvements. 

    Political Funding often goes to “showpiece” projects that waste a few millions of dollars and are usually embarrassments – corrected after some boondoggle trips and goofy “demonstration of concept” shows. The politicians behind them are shamed and lose votes, often their office in the wake. People get fired, learning occurs.
    When these Green projects are revealed to be hundred million dollar mistakes, the morality police say something like “They meant well, it needed to be done anyway, no real harm was done.” 
    Harm was done and those who did it should be shamed out of the house. Since they are blessed by the morality police, they continue with their bad choices and continue wasting our money, our science.

4) Green morality needs to be exposed as a fraud. It lets small countries feel morally superior to the bigger countries while taking their money. It lets small men feel superior to their betters while demeaning their science for political reasons they call Truth. It protects those men when they perform immoral and occasionally criminal acts. It isn’t scientific, it is a B grade religion with delusions of Greater Good. The delusional followers are responsible for the harm done in its name. So far, no one has forced them to see the lives ruined by their horrible little god.

Physics is Hard – or you don’t know what you think you know.

I got pinged on three interesting Physics Today articles this week.

1)   Focus: Electrons Not the Cause of Charged Grains
2)   Synopsis: Unexpected Impact from Medium-Sized Solar Flare
3)   Synopsis: Asymmetric Reconnections

There are actually interesting connections between these three papers, which only shows how weird my brain works.

1) We don’t actually know why rubbing a balloon on your head makes it charge up. SERIOUSLY. I’d assumed, as most people did, that it was something to do with electrons being pushed around… somehow. Ok, I gave it some serious thought some years ago when I was working lightning and found the theory lacking, but never had a good reason to push back. Raindrops do gather electricity, there are some good experiments to generate a charge.

The Kelvin Water dropper will generate a spark gap  – Wikipedia
 Drawing of a typical setup for the Kelvin Water Dropper

But water itself responds to positive and negative charge.

Seriously, the real effect in a thunderstorm isn’t a bunch of electrons jumping from raindrop to raindrop, but large electric fields generated by alignment of water molecules. So, in general, when talking about climate and 100 year models – people didn’t even have a good model for lightning.

2) Since we’re on the subject of Global Warming. The Human-Caused folks haven’t really dealt with how much influence the sun’s cycles have on the atmosphere. Major increases in ionization from even a relatively small event. I was expecting – around the auroral oval – that we’d see higher levels of heating and ionizing, but this paper seems to indicate strong charging as far south as England (I’d like better numbers here) as well as a significant influence in cloud formation. (At 20 km?) Well, I’ll take their word for it until I see their data.

Source – – gallery of images

3) What it the connection between the two papers? Electron Dynamics

The real problem with electrons is that they interact with everything, so they’re a buggar to study. One long-standing problem is assuming that they are tiny. Electrons are as large as their interaction width, which (according the the scientist at TRIUMF) he’s gotten to a mile wide in a superconductor.

This lets them do all kind of “spooky action at a distance” things, when we assume they can’t be in two places at once. They also generate magnetic fields, which influences group actions. Looking at electrons in space, we can start to see how they interact with magnetic fields, how groups of them interact with each other, etc. Seems easy enough, but it turns out we had it wrong all the time.

SO: In conclusion, Physics is hard. We learn a lot each year, but the hardest part is un-learning what we’re sure we knew last year.

The Future and the Past

We can’t really predict the future. People like to pretend to know the future of 200 – 1000 years, but we can’t predict the rain.

The calving front of Thwaites Ice Shelf looking at the ice below the water's surface as seen from the NASA DC-8 on Oct. 16, 2012. Note how the water acts as a blue filter.

Sometimes we act by the preventative principle – IF IT IS NEW IT IS SCARY!  By this principle, Europe bans GMO products. But frankly, banning stuff that is a small relative cost is easy. How about banning hard stuff, like cars or Killer Robots.

Killer robots

Ok, should be easy to kill this off – I mean, who hasn’t watched Terminator? But lets look at them more reasonably.
Do we want people to go kill people?
1) first off, we have to designate people 1 as good people and people 2 as bad people. If we consider all those people with guns as bad people, then it is no loss to have them kill each other, but honestly, we don’t.

2) good people have to kill. This isn’t easy for the good people and often leaves them with a lifetime of problems.

3) good people might get killed. The bad people don’t lie down and die, they fight back. The people who are willing to shoulder this burden for their communities are some of the best people in society.

4) SO, we should save our good people, design some controllable “Bad” robots, and send them to kill bad people.

Despite the fear-mongers, these are no easier to build than nuclear bombs. But, maybe we are just marking time till the inevitable Cylon war. We don’t know much about this year, we can hardly predict next year, and 100 years is just plain crazy talk.

We can’t predict the future and we don’t know much about the past. As an example, we always KNEW that stonehenge was about 2000 years old and build by immigrants to England from Europe. The earliest inhabitants that were well considered dated from only 2500 bc. The problem I always had was that the structure was too primitive for the civilization that they believed to have built it. By 2000 bc., there was interaction between the immigrant population of England/Ireland and the Grecian Isles. So I don’t see a long term neolithic civilization surviving and prospering. Since it clearly did, there must have been a separate – well founded – civilization which controlled the central parts of England.

A new study drops the date of English habitation to before 8000 bc. A long-term society had a meeting place at Stonehenge for thousands of years. The evidence suggests that they built a wooden structure first, then the outer stones, then the inner stones. There may have been a structure before they planted the posts, but they didn’t dig it into the ground before 3000 bc. The society there lasted nearly 2000 years. You can’t say they didn’t leave any trace, but it sure is hard to read it.

What do you think, in 4,000 years our great^100th grandchildren will say the same about us. “Sure, there are lots of artifacts, like this rusted piece of iron with chairs in it. But what could they possible have used it for? If only they had left proper memory crystals we’d know something about what they thought!” Remember, whatever stenohaline was before they planted posts – that structure predated writing. For all I know, Writing is a flash in the pan, 3000 bc – 3000 ad. Used for 6,000 years out of 60,000 years of language and we’ll never use it again.

Green Religion

This is a German TV show, so you have to read the subtitles…but listen anyway, omg funny. SNL was funny like this once, when it was free to make fun of the government.

This is comedy, of course, but I think they’ve hit the nail on the head with this one. The truth is hilarious, where it isn’t a terrible shame. The important point is that it is only money. What is a few billion here, a trillion there. Who really cares? Well, if you actually, seriously, cared about the environment, then you would be upset.

What you really hate is that the cheapest forms of energy are used by most people in the world. The cheaper the power, the more toxins it puts into the atmosphere. The answer isn’t building more and more expensive forms of energy, but instead, make better and cheaper energy. Coal is cheaper than firewood – if properly distributed and burned in modern plants. We could distribute coal power to Africa and solve a great deal of their health issues in less than a decade. It would also move to solving their farming issues. With actual redistribution of real wealth (food, shelter, health, energy) many of their government problems would go away.  Not all, but that is a different subject.

China’s problem is mostly charcoal, but also cheap oil and bad coal. They need to move to more expensive power, but 50% of their population is still deep in poverty with better food, health care, and shelter, but real energy issues. They use wood/charcoal in their apartments and the coal/oil they burn is 1950’s technology. Moving up from coal will require cheap alternatives that won’t bancrupt the country. Solar won’t do it. (though they’ve tried.) Nuclear is good, but hard to build cheap without safety risks. Natural Gas is a good interim, but they don’t seem to have the reserves. 

Not that it matters what I say (or anyone says) about China. Five guys in black suits will continue making all the decisions about that country – which has the largest population in the world – despite what anyone else wants or thinks. Instead worry about making innexpensive and efficient power supplies available to the world, and hope that all countries use them. Instead, the US is competing with Germany in the Race to the Top. Lets build the most expensive windmill in the world! That will make us the holy church of the Green Religion. what a laugh