Archive for the ‘science’ Category

Summary of the Global Warming evidence

Sunday, August 13th, 2017

Surface measurements have various major sources of error, which have to be guestimated away in an ad hoc manner. The only data that is arguably good enough to estimate the rather small changes in climate is Australia, Britain, and the US – which on the whole have not been warming as measured by surface instruments. And even for them, the warming estimated from surface instruments is rather similar to various sources of error, that have to be “corrected”. The main contribution to global warming as measured by surface instruments comes from sources where you can get any result you want by rather arbitrarily deciding some data is good enough to include, and some data is not, by cherry picking particular events – for example warm nights indicate America is warming, but hottest days indicates America is cooling. You can always find one indicator to be alarmist about, but on the whole, where our data is good, surface instruments indicate little or no global warming. Because our surface instrument database is noisy, inaccurate, and incomplete, there is plenty of room to spin it any way one pleases.

The most precise measurement of global warming comes from satellites, which indicate a warming of one degree centigrade per century.

Recent changes in the icecaps indicate slight warming over the last thirty years ago, though the antarctic icecap has increased by almost the same amount as the arctic icecap has decreased, but the icecaps still have substantially more ice than a hundred years ago. The landing sites of early antarctic explorers are now behind a vast barrier of thick, and very old, ice impenetrable to icebreakers. A century ago there was too much open water at the North Pole, even in midwinter, to access it by dog sled, yet today, you can access it by dog sled in winter. Early attempts to reach the North Pole by dog sled had huge problems with open, ice free areas of water. Recent efforts to recreate those trips using identical equipment just took a straight line over solid ice.

The worlds biggest glaciers, the ones in the Himalayas are growing. Greenland glaciers are arguably shrinking, but by a miniscule amount. Glaciers do not tell you today’s weather as compared to yesterday, but today’s weather as compared with a very long time ago. Which fits with the experiences of arctic and antarctic explorers a century or so ago. Different glaciers are giving different indications, which is consistent with the conjecture that some years, some decades, and some centuries are warmer, and others are cooler.

So, lukewarming is true, for the moment, natural variation is true, and catastrophic warming is not true.

Defunding the left

Sunday, February 19th, 2017

Reagan talked about defunding the left, but never actually did anything.

As a result of Trump’s threats against Berkeley, they are starting to think that hiring a bunch of thugs to beat people up and cause over a hundred thousand dollars worth of damage may have been a bit excessive.

Meanwhile Trump and congress are working on stripping two billion from NASA global warming propaganda.

NASA put up a bunch of satellites to measure global warming. To their considerable disappointment, these show no significant warming in the past twenty years. To a good approximation, no significant warming since the satellite data became sufficiently accurate as to deny people excuses for “correcting” it. So they returned to the old faithful, “surface temperature measurements” – otherwise known as weather reports. The trouble with weather reports is that from time to time the location of the thermometer, or the time of day when it is read, changes. Also the location is usually directly adjacent to human habitation, which over time tends to have more humans, more cars, and more parking spaces, all of which tends to warm things up. This requires numerous very large “corrections”, which corrections are pulled out of the rectums of NASA’s climate “scientists” – who sound more like cultists than scientists. One of the commenters asks of one such correction:

Did anyone ever figure out how the trends in the interior of Greenland could exceed the trends actually observed at stations*? Since there are no stations in the interior, the trends there must be computed by interpolating from nearby (coastal) stations

According to NASA’s climate data, GISS, calculated from surface stations, the world is getting hotter primarily in places where there are no surface stations.

Of course cutting a few billion from climate change activism is small change compared to the core of the problem, the universities, and I cannot see Trump taking on the universities unless he makes himself King.

But two billion less for climate change activism is the first cut for the left since the cuts that happened in restoration of Charles the second. It is a start.

Further, it is going to scare the vermin into voiding their bowels, since it was the most blatantly propagandistic warming “science” that got the first cut.

97% of scientists support the scientific consensus on climate change

Friday, January 20th, 2017

And one of them is the Senior Fellow at the Alliance for Climate Education, who has just been charged with murdering a woman in what is obviously a race hate crime, though of course when white women get murdered, it does not count and nobody cares very much. And as marginal electorates in flyover country that have had large numbers of Syrian refugees dumped on them are discovering, when white women get raped it does not count and nobody cares very much.

Police are, of course, “mystified by the motive for this senseless killing”, even though his Twitter feed loudly proclaims his motive and intent over and over again. “The United States is a violent white supremacist settler empire whose only fate is annihilation”

Note that proclaiming hatred of white people and urging their extermination does not get you banned from Twitter, but complaining about other people proclaiming hatred and urging genocide will get you banned from Twitter.

Kind of young for being a senior fellow,

His qualifications for being extremely expert at climate change are latinx studies – the study of the politics of Hispanic transexuality.  An intersectional study.

We must bow before such eminent expertise.

Which I suspect is rather better than Michael Mann’s qualifications, since Michael Mann got one of those consolation prize degrees you get if you go to an high status university, take a hard science course, and cannot handle the hard science. Then they give you an “interdisciplinary degree”, sarcastically referred to as a “no discipline degree”.

Oops, I think transexuality is now a hate term. Sorry about that. It was not a hate term the day before yesterday. This Senior Fellow at the Alliance for Climate Education studies the politics of gender inclusive latins embedded in a gender binary. Or something like that. Whatever. It will change again tomorrow to catch more people for the hate crime of using the wrong term.

The Senior Fellow at the Alliance for Climate Education attacked and robbed three young white women in rapid succession, killing one of them. Each attack was a few blocks and a few hours from the previous attack. He was slightly known to the woman he murdered, which enabled him to get into her home, but not enough connection to provide any motive for murder, other than whiteness, heterosexuality, and vulnerability.

This is the young woman he murdered.

Emilie before she was murdered

She did not know that sexual deviants, like blacks, are dangerous.

We don’t know all the facts yet but it looks as if he just attacked any white heterosexual person that was smaller and weaker than he was and that he could get alone.

While your typical climate scientist, your typical 97 percenter, does not murder white women and white children, he uses language that justifies and rationalizes the murder of white people, and as we saw in 10:10 no pressure,

he would love to murder white people, especially white children, for climate science is merely ignorant hatred of the technological civilization white people built, just as tranny studies gender inclusive studies is merely ignorant hatred of heterosexuals. So the Senior Fellow at the Alliance for Climate Education is clearly well qualified, for he hates better than most. And in Academia today, hatred is all you need. Though you are of course supposed to call hatred love.

Hence Bernie Sanders rather revealing statement “We should make higher education free so that everyone can receive the benefits of higher education.” (Emphasis added). Maybe if everyone is qualified to receive higher education, it is not in fact all that beneficial any more.

The Senior Fellow at the Alliance for Climate Education is archetypical and completely representative of climate science and climate scientists, not in that the typical climate scientist will run around murdering women, but in that the motivation, reasoning, and intellectual capability of the typical climate scientist is more visible in the The Senior Fellow at the Alliance for Climate Education than in the rest of them.  The Senior Fellow at the Alliance for Climate Education is not typical, but archetypical.   His instance is closest to the platonic form of Climate Science.  An interdisciplinary degree is typical.  Intersectional studies is archetypical.   Hating white people is typical, indeed required.  Hating white people and wanting to murder white children is typical of climate science. Actually murdering white women is archetypical of climate science.

The perils of government intervention in health care.

Monday, January 16th, 2017

It is mighty embarrassing if a sick person is turned away from hospital to die in the street because he has no money. So the kindly government insists that sick poor people be treated for free.

But if the hospital is going to treat poor people for free, then the hospital is going to besieged by people with carefully memorized symptoms for vague and difficult to treat diseases who show up looking for a bed, some food, and some human contact.

So, the next thing the government should do is empower to the hospital to turn away unwanted patients with a jab from a stun gun. But they don’t, because that looks kind of bad. But they do kind of sort of give the hospital some kind of monopoly power, and some power to hurry up patients who are taking too damned long to die. And then to the government’s surprise they find the hospital is mistreating and murdering affluent middle class patients. The government also finds that it still running up gigantic medical bills on bums, who are supposedly getting all sorts of extremely expensive medical treatment, though in fact they are getting this super expensive treatment only in the most superficial manner or not at all.

The hospital is rushing middle class patients out the door or into the morgue, while every corridor is piled high with incredibly expensive (and profitable) bums piled three to a urine soaked bed. (Yes, Canada, I am looking at you.)

When the government empowered the hospital to be quietly and furtively brutal and murderous, the intent was that the hospital only be brutal and murderous to the horde of bums besieging it – but they could not actually say that out loud, and if they had said it out loud would still find it difficult to get compliance.

So now the hospital is massively over treating bums, massively undertreating people who are genuinely ill with genuine diseases, and murdering any of its customers who are too sick and weak to protest. And medical costs are soaring.

So what should the government do?

Firstly, needs to hit who everyone lays down his head on a hospital bed with a high enough deductible that anyone who is not all that sick and who has to pay the deductible will not go near the hospital bed. It does not have to be all that high, does not need to be nearly as high as the Obamacare deductibles. Five hundred should do it. First thing that should happen on intake is a wallet inspection.

But suppose the patient does not have five hundred in his pocket, nor an acceptable credit card, and seems unlikely to pay. Then the nice friendly hospital for nice respectable middle class people sends him to the hospital for poor bums staffed by big ugly lesbian nurses with thick mustaches, where the first thing he meets is the death penal, with a big male guard holding stun gun, a baton, a taser, and a twelve gauge shotgun standing uncomfortably close beside him, and the death panel decides whether his treatment is likely to be cost effective.

Now at the nice friendly middle class hospital for nice middle class people we try to organize things so that the doctor and the hospital has to please the customer, if they are going to make some money, and the patient bears enough of the cost to scream bloody murder if overbilled or billed for nonexistent or barely provided services. Deductibles need to be high enough to hurt a bit, but not so high that they are, like Obamacare deductibles, frequently unpayable.

And at the hospital for poor bums, we provide all the wonders of socialist medicine so beloved by Bernie Sanders, modeled on the wonderful success of Cuban healthcare. </sarcasm>

If the hospital is in the business of handing out free beds and food, it is going to need to be able to whack undeserving customers with a baton, jab them with a stungun, and throw them into the street hard enough to bounce several times. On the other hand, you would probably prefer to send your elderly grandma to hospital that does not do that sort of thing. So we need to keep a good separation between the hospital that hands out freebies, and the hospital that does not hand out freebies.

Or, equivalently you need to have very different rules in place for treating the people who are getting free food and free beds, from treating the people who want to get out of hospital as soon as they can. You have to treat one lot pretty much the opposite of the other lot.

Vaccination safety

Friday, January 13th, 2017

Some of my commenters have been arguing that vaccinations are dangerous. So I have been looking into it.

I am not going to present the evidence, just my interpretation of the evidence.

Autism presents at about the same age as kids get a bunch of shots, so by shear coincidence it will frequently happen that a kid gets a bunch of shots, a week or so later has some health crisis, is taken to hospital, and gets diagnosed with autism. So if you search for such coincidences, you will find a pile of them. Some people have gone looking for such coincidences, and the health industry has responded with demonization and persecution rather than investigation – a violently unscientific response to an extremely unscientific search.

Looking for coincidences between autism diagnosis and vaccinations is anti scientific, because you are bound to find what you are looking for – but it is also anti scientific to go forth and apply the power of the state to punish people who look for such coincidences, and pressure and punish the families that they found. The search muddies the waters, but the coercive reaction to the search muddied the waters even more.

Those searching found a bunch of coincidences. The reaction of the state and official science was to “prove” that these coincidences were all fraudulent, that they did not really happen, and proceed to coercively punish the “fraud”. But by shear chance, there were bound to be plenty of real coincidences, so it was the charge of fraud itself that was fraudulent.

Official science is that the mercury preservative used in vaccines is completely different to mercury found in fish. This is just a lie. The differences are not significant. If mercury in fish is dangerous, mercury in vaccines is dangerous. If vaccines are safe, fish are safe.

What happens is that when they research mercury in fish, they design the experiments to get the desired result, that mercury in fish is dangerous, and no matter what results they get, they torture the data to prove the desired conclusion, that mercury in fish is dangerous. And similarly, when they research mercury in almost the same form in vaccines, they design the experiments to get the desired result, that mercury in vaccines is safe, and no matter what results they get, they torture the data to prove the desired conclusion, that mercury in vaccines is safe.

I believe the results that mercury preservative in vaccines in safe, and disbelieve the result that mercury in fish is dangerous. But if you believe the one conclusion of official science, you have to disbelieve in the other conclusion. There is a disturbing lack of interest in reconciling the supposed science on mercury in fish with the supposed science on mercury in vaccines. If one is real science, the other is pseudo science. I rather think that the data on fish is pseudo science.

But in any case, mercury has been removed from vaccines since 2000, so this issue is now irrelevant. The scandalous inconsistency between fish mercury science and preservative mercury science casts grave doubt on scientific conduct, but no longer casts doubt on the safety of vaccines.

So what about aluminum salts in vaccines?

Aluminum salts in vaccines are very tiny compared to oral intake of aluminum salts – but oral intake is mostly not absorbed, while injections are absorbed. The FDA has calculated that injected alumina is still insignificant compared to what is absorbed from oral intake. But given the long history of gross data torture on mercury, I would be a lot happier if this was measured, rather than merely calculated.

Why not measure aluminum salts in the urine before and after a course of vaccinations? Better still, isotopically label the injected salts, so you can distinguish where the aluminum salts in urine are coming from. It does not seem very hard to do, and if they have not done it, it is likely because they fear the results. Official research on vaccine safety is not research, but circling the wagons.

America’s nuclear arsenal

Thursday, December 22nd, 2016

Trump: “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability”

“Why”, you ask “Cold war is over. Surely we have more nukes than we know what to do with.”

America’s nuclear weapons are, for the most part, thermonuclear, and need a little bit of tritium to get them to ignite.

Tritium has a half life of twelve years, and due to technological decline, we have not been able to make tritium for quite a while.

So the number of nuclear weapons that we can ignite has been halving every twelve years.

To greatly expand our weapon supply, need to resume production of tritium, which the Obama regime has been attempting to do – so far unsuccessfully We should also resume testing to try to create thermonuclear weapons that do not need tritium detonators, but if the US was unable to do that back when it could put a man on the moon, its no longer great descendants might find that difficult.

Expect universal outrage and ridicule at Trump’s statement, but when under Obama we tried and failed to resume production of tritium, greatly expanding our nuclear capabilities was what we were trying and failing to do.

The last man on the moon is now eighty two years old, the tallest building in the US was built in 1973, and when we tried to replace the two towers, we were unable to do so. Dysgenic decline, promoting women and coloreds to posts beyond their capability, “disparate impact” prohibits employers from choosing the best, and superior expertise is deemed to be mansplaining. Google has been purging its best engineers, an ailment I attribute to the problem that smart males get up the noses of dumb blue haired social justice warriors. Recall that Obama could not get its Obamacare website up until they threw in the towel and accepted an all white and east asian, all male, team to get it up.

If we are going to greatly expand our nuclear capabilities, need to send women back to the kitchen and keep them barefoot and pregnant. That is the lesson of Team Obama’s efforts to get a website up.

A warming world?

Monday, December 12th, 2016

Early explorations of the Antarctic report an ice free shore in areas now long covered by a growing icecap. Twenty first century science just simply lies in your face about this, with blatant barefaced fraud, but sometimes the discrepancy becomes glaringly and embarassingly obvious.

What about the North Pole? Early twentieth century attempts to reach the North Pole were frustrated by the fact that ice coverage was fragile, incomplete, and had gaps full of open water even in the middle of winter, so that travel by dog sled was dangerous and impractical. There was too much ice for it to be safe to sail to the pole in summer, but not enough for it to be safe to dog sled to the pole in winter. Today, the North Pole in the middle of winter is solidly ice bound, and it is quite easy to reach the North Pole by dog sled. So today’s north pole has a lot more ice than it did at the start of the twentieth century. The Northwest passage was difficult and unsafe for wooden ships then, and difficult and unsafe for wooden ships now.

But do we have any proxies for temperature that cover the present day, and also centuries past?

Yes we do, we have Law Dome, a pile of ice and snow in the Antarctic. Drill in Law Dome, and the isotope ratio agrees very well with recently measured present day temperatures of the weather station near Law Dome, unlike most proxies favored by global warmers.

And the Law Dome shows that in 500AD-1000AD, the temperature at Law Dome was a whole lot warmer than the present, or any recent temperatures. On the whole, temperatures have gone up and gone down, plenty of climate change, but mostly in the direction of colder, as we would expect from the growth in the icecaps.

What about surface instrument readings which supposedly show the world has warmed 0.6 degrees in recent decades?

I myself attempted to reconstruct recent global temperatures from surface instrument readings, and the data is unsuited to the task. It contains various sources of systematic error that have to be corrected by ad hoc guessing, and one can make one reasonable set of guesses and use one reasonable procedure, and get one past temperature, or a different reasonable set of guesses and a different reasonable procedure and easily get a result 1.2 degrees different without intentionally torturing the data.

We now have satellites that do provide accurate world wide readings of temperature, and have had them since 1998 (actually a good deal earlier than 1998, but the early satellites had problems that arguably make their readings non comeasurable. Debates about how earlier satellite measurements should be interpreted are difficult to resolve.)

And surprise surprise, since we have had accurate satellite readings of global temperatures, they have been fairly stable, with no obvious trend in any particular direction. There has been plenty of quite dramatic climate change in the past, and there will likely be plenty of quite dramatic climate change in the future, but it is not apparent that we have been having much climate change from nineteen ninety eight to the present.

The only data suitable for detecting small world wide variations of temperature is the satellite data, and the less one is free to torture the satellite data, the less it it indicates that anthropogenic warming is detectable.

Nuclear Technological decline

Sunday, October 9th, 2016

The US no longer produces weapons grade plutonium. Supposedly this is a choice.

It has asked other countries to not produce weapons grade plutonium, and to get rid of the weapons grade plutonium they do have.

The economical way to destroy weapons grade plutonium is to burn it in nuclear reactors, to use it for power, which destroys some of it and irreversibly contaminates the rest with plutonium 240, making it unusable for weapons, though still usable for power.

Unfortunately, the US, in attempting to do so, ran into “massive cost overruns”, which is to say, technological decline. Putting it in breach of its agreements with Russia and Japan.

Under the US-Russian PMDA, originally signed in 2000, both parties agreed to dispose of at least 34 metric tons of weapons grade plutonium, enough to produce 17,000 nuclear bombs.

The US, however, has not disposed of any plutonium, despite spending a lot of money attempting to do so. If you cannot use it, probably cannot make it.

Warmists capitulate

Friday, March 25th, 2016

For the last eighteen years there has been little or no global warming.

Major warmists have been steadfastly denying the undeniable.  Then a paper appeared, signed by most of the big names in Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism, acknowledging “The Big Hiatus”

The Big Hiatus

The black line is what the the warmists predicted, the grey area was their error bars.

The colored lines are what has been observed.

The graph is divided into several sections. The hiatus/pause/slowdown is what has been observed since the accuracy of our tools for measuring climate change were improved.

This capitulation is largely due to the work of Climate Audit.

Climate models retrodicted the past with near perfect accuracy, despite the fact that our ability to measure or estimate past global climate was nowhere near that accurate. Conspicuously failed to predict future climate change.

I repeat my prediction of future climates: In times to come the climate will for long periods be substantially warmer than it is now. It will also for long periods be substantially cooler than it is now. There is now far more ice around Antarctica than was historically normal, and Antarctica has been abnormally frozen up for the past thirty years or so. In the past from time to time the North Pole has melted in summer. In the past the Northwest passage sometimes opened in summer and sometimes did not, and in the future the Northwest passage will sometimes open in summer and sometimes will not. In the future the North Pole will sometimes melt during summer, sometimes for several summers in a row, but mostly it will stay solidly frozen. Polar bears will get by either way. Having survived the North Pole melting in the past, they will survive the North Pole melting in the future.

Technological decay

Sunday, December 6th, 2015

I have long argued, and commenters on this blog have long been disputed, that science died shortly after World War II, replaced by official state religion wearing lab coats as priestly robes, and using test tubes as aspersoria for holy water.

The age of science began with the Restoration and the Royal Society.  The Royal Society’s motto was “Take no one’s word for it”.   Feynman, in his address “What is Science?”, rephrased this as “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Now, however science consists of taking the word of secret anonymous committees meeting behind closed doors, committees that refuse to show their evidence, data, calculations, and method of calculation even while demanding trillion dollar programs, gigantic human sacrifice, and challenged by freedom of information requests.

I have long argued, and commenters on this blog have long been disputed, that since 1972, the west has been in technological stagnation or outright decline in most everyday fields, in an ever increasing number of fields. Yes, DNA reading and computer disk drives keep improving, but clothes washing machines have gone to $#!&, and there is a reason why people are nostalgic for the old muscle cars.

Observe our ability to build and operate tall buildings has been diminishing since 1972.

The highest level of technology is found in war. Soldiers are to take control of or destroy men and assets. Tanks, artillery, mortars and Armored Personnel carriers are to destroy soldiers. Ground attack planes and helicopters are to destroy tanks and armored personnel carriers, and air to air fighters are to destroy ground attack planes, and other air to air fighters.

So the highest level of technology, and the greatest expense, is found in the air to air fighter. A people’s capability to build and operate air to air fighters is the most sensitive barometer of its technological level, and a vital factor in that people’s capacity to win wars. You get air superiority, so the other side cannot use tanks against your soldiers, and you can use tanks against their soldiers, and artillery against their population centers and assets. You flatten their population centers and destroy their assets so that they cannot feed and equip their soldiers, and then your soldiers take charge.

And as you know, American air to air fighters have been getting slower and slower, more and more expensive, less and less maneuverable, flying less and less high, and carrying less and less ordinance. But now they are stealthed, right?  And Russian fighters are not stealthed.

Stealth can be beaten by sufficiently advanced electronics – you need two radars in substantially different locations whose radar is coordinated – one paints the target with a radar beam, and the other views the scatter from a substantially different angle. In response to the Turkish attack Russia now has part of the technology to beat stealth deployed in Syria: AEASA radars that can spray beams out in several thousand completely different directions per second. Does it have all of the technology deployed? Does it have the capability to coordinate two AEASA radars so as to see through stealth? Maybe. Probably. Though we will not really know until we see a major air battle between Russia and another advanced power.

Further Russian air to air fighters can fly faster, fly higher, are more maneuverable, and carry more ordinance than American air to air fighters. The recent display of Russian capability in Syria seems to be giving the Pentagon a nervous breakdown.  The Su-34 is every way superior, except for the very important defect that it lacks stealth.

When Dubai wants to build a tall building, it hires western experts. But those western experts are expatriates, semi permanent exiles from the west. They have foreign wives, girlfriends, and concubines. They don’t build tall buildings in the West because a horde of bureaucrats would shake them down for bribes (politely laundered through “consultants”, aka bagmen) and because they could not get any decent pussy in the west.

Our increasingly diverse ruling elite loses cohesion, in part through diversity, in part through selecting for cowards and liars. Because of this loss of cohesion, if you want to build a tall building in the west, you have to bribe a thousand priestly bureaucrats (whose self justifications are increasingly priestly – mostly they are protecting Gaia) and each of these thousand bureaucrats wants his pet consultant to collect ten percent of the surplus value that would be created by the building, adding up to a demand for one hundred times the value, while the King of Dubai is likely to content himself with a mere fifty percent of the value.