Denier land: Climate justice for all

My next SkS inspired video parody of AGW. This was out in time for Australia Christmas eve; this post still in time for North America Christmas eve. Please enjoy your Christmas eve entertainment:

 

 

So far I have 27 views on it.  Not long before it reaches the 17,000 views of my first video...

 

It's also interesting to note that until recently my comments were automatically approved on WUWT, now they're back to pre-moderation only. (Perhaps it's the thread. Moderated only on "Tips and Tricks"?)

(Update 15 Feb 2014. No, my WUWT comments are still auto-approved. Seems you need approval always for comments on the static pages, such as "Tips and Tricks")

More fun with bizarre warmist rant

Is it a product of education? I'm 39 years old and I'm guessing almost every warmist is younger than me...sounds like it anyway. I voted Green when I was young too.

 

I guess today's generation had the hyper-left wing indoctrination in school, particularly about climate change.
 

I imagine these comments are copyright NBC, but by linking to the article it should get me out of trouble. Here's the article:

 

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/16/21911592-climate-change-experts-fraud-was-crime-of-massive-proportion-say-feds?threadId=3893793&commentId=81053462#c81053462

 

Here's the comment from StrengthInNumbers (a suitably Hitler Youth style of name); I couldn't think of a comment that was more wrong, and out of touch with reality. (Click image to enlarge and scroll through images.)

Wishful thinking distorts trendline on Greg Laden article?

 

Update: see below.

Update 2: Damn, Tamino critiques my post and wins, forces humiliating retraction from me (you can clearly see I've put a question mark at the end of the title now).  I now admit I don't know if the trendline by "ThingsBreak" was a case of wishful thinking or not. I suspected it was, but after reading Tamino's post I'm not so sure.  More below.

Update 3: Turns out this Tamino guy has authored a book on statistics. He proved I was out of my depth on the trendline issue, and suitably damaged my claim of a bogus one. Well done Tamino.

I tried to make an honest recontruction of that trend line; unfortunatley my only tool was Excel 2007 and the functions in it are limited.

I've read several of Tamino's posts over the years and been generally disappointed with them; also had my comments not approved by moderation. This particular post was quite good, though, and educational for me.

==========

This is curious. A new Greg Laden article on ScienceBlogs.com:

 

How to not look like an idiot

 

..where Laden argues cold doesn't mean lack of global warming, has an odd graph in it.  Look at the red trendline:

 

A warmist links to insurance claims to prove AGW

 

I still like to argue with warmists on the internet, even though it's becoming more apparent that we're speaking two different languages.

 

Warmists like to claim the scientific high ground, saying things like: there's a 97% consensus, or "climate change is real and happening now!". But it's apparent that the science doesn't really matter to warmists.

 

A good example of this is in this latest Huffington post article:

 

Sorry Climate Change Skeptics: Arctic Melting Trend Continues Despite Milder Year

 

 

 

When any and all climate data can be interpreted as AGW, as in the above article, then it's not science that's being done, but a confidence trick.

 

One thing I've seen from warmists is confusing CO with CO2. Both come out of a car exhaust, but only one kills you. This is from "Demetris G", in the comments section of the above article. I like the first rebuttal from "Robert W".

More warmist stupidity -- CO2 is "pollution"

Again CO2 is confused with real pollution in a comment by a warmist.

 

Now, according to the convoluted AGW theory, CO2 is pollution because it causes dangerous warming. But there's no direct harm of CO2 on humans or animals -- even the IPCC would admit to that. But as usual a warmist lives in his own fantasy and is quite happy making up any old claptrap, no matter how unscientific. He claims CO2:
 

"..harms the health of citizens.."

Wow. The whole quote from Phillip Givens is below, from this Forbes article. It's the last comment of the article at the moment on page 40 of the comments. (Screen shot).

My video that went viral!

I address the criticism.

Wow! Well that was unexpected! My little 2 minute video parody of Skeptical Science's "step-wise graph" went viral.

I only advertised it once with a single tweet:

 

 (I called it bad as in lousy, but people loved it!)

Jon Faine's foolish unproductive Bjorn Lomborg interview

Jon Faine is a master at creating the conversational environment he wants. Bjorn Lomborg has enough to say on the topic -- he easily could have been the sole guest for the whole hour, probably two. Instead a couple of clueless greenies were allowed to dominate and drown out Lomborg for most of the hour.

Bjorn's earlier radio interview with Newcastle ABC was better.  It was only about 10 minutes long but so much more productive than the later Faine interview. He actually had a chance to make his point in a clear and concise way. I couldn't find a link to the audio, the print intro is here.

More warmists lack of grasp of science

Nine months ago warmist "aria" made a comment on a page about polar bears that claims:

"..polar bears are much smaller then they used to be since they have less food because of the global warming,"

Nine months ago is recent enough to be well aware that polar bear numbers have increased in recent years. The slight decrease in floating Arctic ice, that's often portrayed as a sign of Armageddon by warmists, actually enhances polar bear's main prey, seals (more below).
 

I should admit at first I thought she made that up herself, but it's just another wacky claim from warmist scientists to add to the long list of things global warming does.

Hah, comments for IPCC YouTube video pulled after just four days

It was only up for about four days and the comments have already been pulled on this latest IPCC scare video. There were about 60 comments last time I looked, and most were sceptical.

 

 

Several comments, mine included, pointed out the fraud at 2:05 of the video:

 

 

Critique of comments on recent USA Today article by Bjorn Lomborg

This is a critique of comments on the recent USA Today article by Bjorn Lomborg, mostly from warmists critical of him:

Typhoon Haiyan not about climate change: Column

I'm not on FaceBook so I couldn't comment there so I thought I'd critique them here. The comments of others are in red my writing is in black. Bold highlights in comments are mine.

The first two comments come from Lynn Goldfarb.

Data massage of the highest order

This is a rebuttal to:

No Global Warming 'Pause,' Planet Warming Much Faster Than Previously Thought: Report

I thought Al Gore knew a thing or two about massage, but these guys are good. This is how to make a 15 year warming hiatus disappear: massage the data.

Using satellite data to fill in those gaps, the study found that global surface temperatures have been warming 2 1/2 times faster over the past 16 years than previously believed, calling into dispute the widely-reported global warming "pause,"

And this is data massage of the highest order. Kevin Cowtan and Robert G. Way have explained that the missing warming is in places we can't measure it, specifically at the earth's poles where there are no thermometers!

Accelerating global norming

The evidence is in and it's worse than we thought: The world's weather is getting more normal at an accelerated rate.

Hurricanes are getting more normal with time:

New navigation bar at top of page

 

I finally got around to putting a convenient navigation bar at the top of the blog to make it easier to navigate around. While the code I found for the MBW Navgation bar at  mybloggersworld.com was a good start, I'm not totally happy with it. I need to get a bar with multiple heirarchies for the menus, like what's at the top of the Jo Nova webpage. This code only allows me one level of options rather than two or three nested levels, if that makes sense.

 

I've noticed a glitch in the menus at certain levels of magnification in Internet Explorer. You can't scroll down the list titled "Apollo moon hoax" without some of the bottom options disappearing before you get a chance to select it.

 

Wild bush fire-climate links

The current frenzy of linking bush fires in Australia to climate change epitomises climate change hysteria. 
 

Australian Green MP Adam Bandt was quick to hype the link and even accused Abbott of putting on a fire uniform for a stunt, despite Abbott's longstanding service to the volunteer fire brigade.
 

Sky News Australia has also given air time to Tim Flannery's axed Climate Council (which annoys me).  Sky News tends to favour AGW despite conspiracy theories that any media outlet Rupert Murdoch owns is biased against it. (I believe Murdoch owns half of Foxtel, maker of Sky News Australia.)

Trenberth's missing heat still missing

In its latest report the IPCC has said that the oceans have been warming rather than the sky, in an effort to explain away the problem of the lack of atmospheric warming for 15+ years.  This does solve the problem of what Trenberth called the "missing heat" -- the lack of global warming for (now on) 15 years.

While the missing heat problem is potentially solved by claims of ocean warming, the explanation introduces another problem. If something gets warmer, in this case the ocean, it is less likely to absorb heat, not more; therefore making it less likely that heat from a warm atmosphere would be drawn into the ocean, to be hidden in its deep recesses.

The energy is supposed to come from the atmosphere, specifically its greenhouse layer. If the ocean is getting warmer, the heat should be going outward not inward from it; so, it should be heating the atmosphere, not cooling it!

The IPCC ocean heat model is sensibly based on the idea that heat must move from hot to cold, e.g. that there should be no spontaneous take-up of heat by the oceans.

Trajectory to the moon

1950s era comic depicting the general expectation for space travel -- a space age which never came to pass because of deadly space radiation and other problems that have not yet been overcome

In getting from the ground to space the boosting rocket must provide the energy for lifting the mass, overcoming gravity and air resistance and getting up to orbital speed.  It's a big job that takes a big rocket. Apollo's rocket was one of the biggest, the Saturn V:

It's a biggy: the Saturn V

Space reentry vehicles, part 7

Part 7: Pressure

(index)

At subsonic speed, below Mach 0.3, the pressure of the air coming into the hull of an aircraft is roughly 1/2ρv² where ρ is the density of the fluid medium; for air at sea level = 1.225 kg/m³.  The equation for compressible flow given for above Mach 1 speeds goes as the power of 3.5 rather than 2 and rises much more quickly.

Space reentry vehicles, part 6

Part 6: Control

(index)

After atmospheric reentry the heat shields on the bottom of space reentry capsules have a characteristic burn pattern that starts at a point off centre and emanates to the edge. 

Gemini heat shield after reentry

The central point of the burn pattern is the stagnation point where the air isn't moving parallel with respect to the surface but hits it at right angles.  The temperature and pressure is at a maximum at the stagnation point such as the following diagram depicts:

Space reentry vehicles, part 5

Part 5: More on the detached shock wave

(index)

The term detached shock wave originally referred to an undesirable aerodynamic effect that was found in supersonic projectiles such as bullets.  This type of shock wave was of interest because it had a lot more drag and aerodynamic instability than an attached one.

The first aircraft designed to be supersonic, the Bell X-1, was modelled after the shape of a 0.5 calibre Browning machine gun bullet, which was known to be stable in supersonic flight.

Space reentry vehicles, part 4

Part 4: More on ablation

(index) 

In 1907 American chemist Leo Baekeland invented Bakelite, the world's first plastic.  50 years later it would be chosen as the main ingredient in NASA's reentry capsule heat shields. 

Radio made of Bakelite 

Bakelite was a good choice for spacecraft heat shields because it's a good insulator of heat; it has high strength;  it has an abundance of carbon (a material with a high latent heat); and it has an ability to char rather than melt at high temperature.

Space reentry vehicles, part 3

Part 3: ICBMs and the cold war

(index)

Other than vehicles with a detached shock wave, all aircraft heat up more the faster they move.  From the NASA book Facing the Heat Barrier: A History of Hypersonics [1]: 

At Mach 3 and higher, there was the Lockheed SR-71 that cruised at 85,000 feet. The atmosphere at such altitudes, three times higher than Mount Everest, has a pressure only one-fiftieth of that at sea level. Even so, this airplane experienced aerodynamic heating that brought temperatures above [260C] over most of its surface.

The SR-71 Blackbird gets to 260C over most of its surface.  Aluminium anneals (softens) at 177C (alloys can be higher) making it unsuitable as a material for use on the outside of the Blackbird.  The Blackbird used titanium instead.

Recent ISS spacewalk water leak

Recently, a spacesuit sprung a water leak and the suit started filling with water, such that the astronaut's life was in danger and the "spacewalk" had to be aborted.

As I mentioned in my space reentry vehicle posts (index), if every reentry vehicle of the capsule type (possible exception of the Space Shuttle) is fake, and the only way astronauts can get back to earth is via such capsules, then the International Space Station is fake too*.

One can look through spacewalk footage to find bubbles coming up.  You can also see scuba gear.  Here's another example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LumFvgrZQXk

Space reentry vehicles, part 1

Part 1: ablation and the detached shock wave

part 2   (index)
 

(Update 3/9/2013: Please note I've updated my view of the detached shock wave since first writing this post.  I now accept that there is a detached shock wave in the sense of a bow shock, but it is not detached in the thermal sense, as claimed by NASA. More in part 5.)

===============================

Most meteoroids burn up almost immediately on entering earth's atmosphere.  The few larger ones that make it to the ground lose 95 - 99% of their mass.  The air around them gets so hot it disassociates to become plasma.  95% of the glowing streak of a meteor is hot air, not hot rock.  According to NASA the temperature of the leading face of ICBMs returning from space is "hotter than the surface of the sun", (5500C+).

Space reentry vehicles, part 2

Part 2: aerodynamics

part 1   (index)

Early on in the design of manned reentry vehicles it was realised that the huge heat and strain of reentry would destroy any protuberances such as wings, rudders etc.  This lead to the minimal design of spheres and cones:

Is space cold? Part 1

part 2

During Apollo 13 an explosion on the way to the moon damaged the service module, causing astronauts James Lovell, Jack Swigert, and Fred Haise to abort what would have been the third landing on the moon.  They came back to earth with the CM LEM and damaged SM.  The SM and LEM were jettisoned shortly before re-entering earth's atmosphere in the CM*.

Is space cold? Part 2

part 1

In part one it was suggested that an object in the sun at distances of earth orbit, or less, will be hot.  What about the case for the shade in space, is it cold? 

Some say that when the Apollo astronauts moved from light to shadow on the surface of the moon, they went from a hot 107C or so to a cold -170C in a matter of seconds.

Neil Armstrong on the surface of the moon during Apollo 11

The porous plate sublimator

Surviving the harsh lunar environment is apparently one of mankind's greatest engineering achievements. 

The space suit worn by the Apollo astronauts on the surface of the moon had to protect them from UV, X, and gamma-rays, heat, and solar flare radiation from the sun; cosmic rays; micro meteors; regulate humidity, carbon dioxide and oxygen; and maintain a pressurised layer of air.

Amazing life-saving suit technology: the state of the art in 1969.  The Apollo 11 suit.

Anthony Watts experiment to prove the greenhouse effect

Anthony Watts recently performed an experiment in an attempt to show that one can get free energy by putting a hot object in front a mirror.  

This was in an attempt to defend the theory of the greenhouse effect.  It was a noble and valient attempt I must say, and I'm glad he shared it with us.  But it was an attempt that was ultimately doomed to failure.

Bill Nye the unscience guy

The recent Oklahoma tornado is a top-ranked F5 one, although not as big as a 1999 one (see WUWT post here).

It's a shame to see this happening in the mainstream media, but CNN immediately seized upon the event to talk up the climate change angle.  Within hours of the latest Oklahoma tornado Piers Morgan and Bill Nye were linking it to climate change.

The terms now used are climate change and climate disruption.  The term global warming is apparently completely out of favour.

NASA Apollo moon landing faked 3

6)  Stage lights
7)  Objects reflected in visor  
8)  Flag waves in the wind


===================

6)   Stage lights

This is the original photo AS15 89 12015:

NASA's later version has the top portion snipped off:

NASA Apollo moon landing faked 2

Continuing on from part 1, here are three more points against the official story of the moon landing:

   

3)   Laminated photo on the surface of the moon

4)   Being picked up by suspending wire

5)   One astronaut has shadow twice as long as other


==================================


3)    Laminated photo on the surface of the moon

In my opinion this is one of the stronger points -- a real doozy for the Apollo faithful to explain away.

Apollo 16 photos AS16-117-18839, AS16-117-18840 and AS16-117-18841.

NASA Apollo moon landing faked 1

Each year that passes after the Apollo moon landings took place and we do not repeat this feat by returning man to the moon, shows that these missions were an anomaly rather than the new standard they were supposed to be.  

For example, why don't we just use the 1960's technology to go back to the moon and beyond, that seemed so easy from 1969 - 1972?  Why didn't the frontier of space really dawn for humanity as was promised during the 1950s and 60s?

Preview of posts to come on this blog

My blog posting has been lessened to a trickle due to my lapse of unemployment (that was about two years ago when I got a job), oh how I long for such unemployment again where I could post at will, (about two weeks per post) oh well.  I am not retired, so I have to work...

1) A cosmology of my own (built on others') where I claim that the outside of the sun is the hottest part; and that there is no thermonuclear core.  Sunspots are proof of the latter claim.

The Fallacy of the Greenhouse Effect 4

(Index)

In this part I rebut English/Irish physicist John Tyndall's claim to an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

In 1861 Tyndall presented a quantification of the EMR absorption of various gases in a lecture to the Royal Society of London [1].  Depicted in Fig 1 is a rig he worked on for several weeks.

Figure 1: Tyndall's Experiment