It’s all bollocks

My paper on the statistics of “global warming” has been accepted by Energy and Environment.

The good bits are as follows:

Introduction
In recent decades energy policy, both nationally and internationally, has been primarily concerned with the reduction in carbon emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. This has arisen from a proliferation of theories of climate, encapsulated in complex numerical models, which purport to relate global surface air temperature to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. All this activity is based on a single empirical observation, viz.: that there has been a significant increase in global average temperature over the last century and a half. Here we show that this observation is false and is based on an overly-simplistic interpretation of the data.

(Nine pages of technical stuff)

Conclusion
The process which gives rise to a red spectrum flattened below a cut-off frequency is widely found in engineering and in nature. In electronics it occurs when electronic noise is fed through an RC integrator as with the bass control of an audio amplifier. In the natural world it occurs when energy is randomly stored. It is a particular sort of Markov process termed a “centrally biased random walk” and known colloquially as “red noise”. Using the techniques described above other “oscillations” such as the Pacific Decade Oscillation can also be shown to be centrally biased random walks specified by a small number of ARMA parameters. This is not surprising since the PDO is derived from a large subset of the global average temperature data used here.

The small increase in global average temperature observed over the last 166 years is the random variation of a centrally biased random walk. It is a red noise fluctuation. It is not significant, it is not a trend and it is not likely to continue.

The full paper can be downloaded from http://blackjay.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/MS1.pdf

John Reid
Editor

5 thoughts on “It’s all bollocks”

  1. Congratulations on having your paper published.
    Whilst I have some reservations about Donald Trump,his election will certainly allow the world to take a few deep breathes & reconslder some of the PC excesses that have consumed the western world ,especially so during the Obama presidency.
    Foremost among these are the global warming/climate change fervour that has become as intense and irrational as a fundamentalist religious movement.
    Hopefully his more rational approach will encourage other countries,especially Australia, to follow suit.
    I sent your email to an old uni buddy who is a meteorologist. He thought your paper excellent & said that there is now starting to be a significant pushback since the US election & a lot more professionals are prepared to speak their mind without the same fear of reprisals as there has been. Thanks to the efforts of people such as yourself the first cracks are starting to appear in the dam wall.

  2. It’s interesting but as a very simple helicopter pilot my assessment from the 1990s (without any high order maths and only basic meteorology and geology) was that the AGW theorists, either Alarming (AAGW) or Catastrophic (CAGW), were pushing something that was illogical. The earth, since the original oxygenation, has been to 3,000ppm at least once and 1,000ppm CO2 several times in the past from forcings such as asteroid strikes and volcanic activity yet each time the earth had come back to a lower CO2 content. The earth system was therefore a damped phugoid and any man-made forcing, especially given we are unlikely to go beyond 1,000-1,200 PPM even if we used virtually all fossil fuels would cause anything beyond temperatures already seen in the Mycenaean period., Therefore their theory was wrong. But I could never get anyone to engage me in my assessment. Can you enlighten me?

    1. I just checked out “phugoid” on the Web. As a passenger I would have preferred not to have known about this particular aspect of flying.

      What you are talking about is negative feedback. There are various feedbacks, both positive and negative, in the climate system operating on different time scales. Positive feedbacks cause very rapid variations from one extreme state to another, e.g. ice-age terminations.

      At short time scales the most important feedback is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law – temperature loss by radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature. The fourth power means it is pretty strong negative feedback but the issue is confused by the fact that the atmosphere is partially opaque in the infra-red. However, sea surface temperatures in the tropics rarely rise above 28 deg C because at higher temperatures tropical storm convection kicks in and carries the latent heat to the top of the atmosphere (where it is radiated into space according to the SB Law) – another negative feedback.

      In the context of my paper these negative feedbacks could be the reason why the spectrum is flat at low frequencies. This prevents the time series from being a true random walk rather than only a centrally biased random walk; the earth cannot go on getting hotter and hotter forever.

  3. The point that I want to get over is the idea of red noise, i.e. quantities that vary randomly but which look like cycles and trends on short time scales. It is easy to explain to people who have a background in electronics but lay people think noise means white noise. I have started creating some .wav (sound) files in order to get the message over. Might make a good YouTube if I can get some fancy graphics to go with it.

    Not only is global average temperature red noise but so are all of these “oscillations” that the climate people carry on about: the PDO, the AMO the Indian Ocean Dipole are too. Then there are things like rainfall, ice cover, Great Barrier Reef issues. This misunderstanding of the underlying statistical properties of natural phenomena underpins the whole Green philosophy. Without realizing it the Greens depend heavily on pre-Planck 19th Century science whereby Nature is seen as a clockwork mechanism. It isn’t. Paley was wrong.

Comments are closed.