Did the COBE, WMAP and Planck satellites really measure the temperature of the Universe?

Question (1): When you put a glass of water inside a microwave oven and turn it on does the water in the glass reflect the microwaves or does it absorb them?

Answer: The water absorbs the microwaves. Indeed, foodstuffs too, placed inside the microwave oven, absorb the microwaves. That is how the oven works and why it is called ‘a microwave oven’.

Question (2): Is a powerful absorber of microwaves also a powerful emitter thereof?

Answer: It is very well known that a powerful absorber of microwaves is also a powerful emitter of microwaves.

Thus, by (1) and (2), water is a powerful emitter of microwaves.

CONSEQUENCES FOR THE SO-CALLED COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND (CMB)

Approximately 70{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the Earth’s surface is covered by water (oceans). The Earth’s atmosphere also contains water in solid, liquid and gaseous phases. Oceanic and atmospheric water microwave and far-infrared emission is facilitated by a fundamental physical oscillator, the hydrogen bond (Robitaille 2009). These emissions are scattered by the Earth’s atmosphere to produce an omnidirectional microwave and far-infrared isotropic bath under steady state conditions, that is independent of seasonal changes (Robitaille 2007, 2008), from initial anisotropic sources (reservoirs of water).

The Cosmic Microwave Background Explorer (COBE) satellite was in Earth orbit at an altitude of about 900 to 950 km. The Far Infrared-Red Absolute Spectrophotometer (FIRAS) aboard COBE was fitted with a shield to block extraneous radiation entering the detector and heating it. The COBE Team reported “best blackbody curve ever measured” is actually the difference between the sky and the calibrator aboard FIRAS. Although the FIRAS horn was designed as a broadband horn 30-3,000 GHz, it operated primarily from ~30-600 GHz. It is impossible to construct an effective shield to protect from extraneous signals over the entire range 30-3,000GHz. The FIRAS shield was NOT designed to shield for microwaves and so it was susceptible to microwave diffraction over it and into its detector.

Science is supposed to take place by the use of the “Scientific  Method” defined in the following way.

THE FREE DICTIONARY:
“The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.”

OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY
“a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. 

For most of us the scientific method is what is described in official scientific publications. Yet PB Medawar in his “Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?” argues that:
“The scientific paper in its orthodox form does embody a totally mistaken conception, even a travesty, of the nature of scientific thought. The conception underlying this style of scientific writing is that scientific discovery is an inductive process. What induction implies in its cruder form is roughly speaking this: scientific discovery, or the formulation of scientific theory, starts with the unvarnished and unembroidered evidence of the senses. It starts with simple observation – simple, unbiased, unprejudiced, naive, or innocent observation – and out of this sensory evidence, embodied in the form of simple propositions or declaration of fact, generalizations will grow up and take shape, almost as if some process of crystallization or condensation were taking place
The theory underlying the inductive method cannot be sustained. Let me give three good reasons why not. In the first place, the starting point of induction, naive observation, innocent observation, is a mere philosophic fiction. There is no such thing as unprejudiced observation. Every act of observation we make is biased. What we see or otherwise sense is a function of what we have seen or sensed in the past”.  

The procedure described by logicians as “inductive reasoning” may be shown diagrammatically as follows:

In this procedure “observation” comes first. The hypothesis and then the theory arise from the observations. The validity of the theory depends on the efforts placed in its modification from future observations.

Increasing observational evidence (not climate models!) proves that all gases, not just that trace amount of “dangerous” carbon dioxide (0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}), operate in our atmosphere like a “greenhouse gas”. As more scientists accept such irrefutable truths the very foundation of the “theory” collapses, as explained below by Alan Siddons.

What I wrote in The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory (2010):

[M]eteorologists acknowledge that our atmosphere is principally heated by surface contact and convective circulation. Surrounded by the vacuum of space, moreover, the earth can only dissipate this energy by radiation. On one hand, then, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do not radiate the thermal energy they acquire, they rob the earth of a means of cooling off — which makes them “greenhouse gases” by definition. On the other hand, though, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do radiate infrared, then they are also “greenhouse gases,” which defeats the premise that only radiation from the infrared-absorbers raises the Earth’s temperature. Either way, therefore, the convoluted theory we’ve been going by is wrong.

The publisher of a journal apparently favored by climate change skeptics has shuttered it, saying that the editors changed the aim of the title and committed malpractice by using a peer reviewer selection process based on nepotism.

Here’s the notice:

Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus’ attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics.

Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”. Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).

Copernicus Publications published the work and other special issue papers to provide the spectrum of the related papers to the scientists for their individual judgment. Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards.

In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our  publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.

Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP. Of course, scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community. However, the recent developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to this drastic decision.

Interested scientists can reach the online library at: www.pattern-recogn-phys.net

Martin Rasmussen
January 2014

A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official “raw” temperature record.  Skeptics believe the discovery may trigger the biggest of all “climate con” scandals in Congress and sound the death knell on American climate policy.

Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “homogenized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.

Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.

Goddard’s plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fictitious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.

What an amazing and pleasant surprise, an email from Alan Siddons posted at WUWT by Anthony Watts himself.
NASA revises Earth’s Radiation Budget, diminishing some of Trenberth’s claims in the process, posted on January 17, 2014 by Anthony Watts.
Watts has been very strong in his previous comments/actions/derogatory opinions about the Slayers (founders of Principia Scientific International), yet Siddons is widely acknowledged as the leading Slayer.

This story is obviously too big for Anthony not to post.

I have tried to comment on the thread but the comment simply vanished, no awaiting moderation, it just vanished. So, it appears Slayers work can be posted by Anthony Watts, but Slayers can not comment on the threads (?).

May be things will change at WUWT, because of this thread. One thing is for certain; there are many, many comments expressing similar to, and supportive analysis of, the Slayers thinking/reasoning. I doubt Anthony can ignore that for much longer.

An issue of concern raised among the general public, and recently with scientists at Principia Scientific International, is the threat of poisoning from mercury contamination in the home and the wider environment.

A leading expert in the field is Dr Willie Soon who has spent the past ten years studying the science of mercury (Hg) and the biologically toxic form of mercury, methylmercury (MeHg).

Dr Soon is unimpressed with the level of alarmism generated over the issue by some government officials, with little or no expertize in the science. A case in point, says Willie, is a clear misuse of the phrase “good science” by Florida DEP’s director of the Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration (published in the Florida Times-Union newspaper) that appeared in 2012.

Dr Soon reports:

The director referred to FDEP’s draft report in setting a strict mercury limit in Florida’s river, stream, lake, and coastal waters, which was released May 24 2012. After a careful examination of the draft report, however, I have come to the conclusion that it contains serious flaws such that the strict mercury limit proposed by FDEP is not scientifically defensible.

Back in November, we reported that climate coverage had dropped sharply at the New York Times after the paper closed its environmental desk.

The final numbers for the year are in and NY Times climate coverage — stories in which the words “global warming” or “climate change” appeared — has plummeted more than 40 percent. That is a bigger drop than any of the other newspapers monitored by the University of Colorado, though the Washington Post’s coverage dropped by a third, no doubt driven in part by its mind-boggling decision to take its lead climate reporter, Juliet Eilperin, off the environment beat.

And remember, this drop happened from levels of climate coverage that were already near a historical low and in a year that was HUGE on climate news. We’ve had devastating extreme weather around the planet. In May, CO2 levels in the air passed the 400 parts per million threshold for the first time in millions of years. In June, President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan. And in September, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest alarming review of the scientific literature.

As the chart above shows, when the IPCC released its previous reports (2001, 2007), media coverage spiked at the major newspapers. These days, the media herd is not to be heard from.

Had enough of your treadmill, weightlifting, and similar exercise activities? Then you will happily embrace the latest technology: flexible smart and/or not phones and television screens. To make it easy for you at least the TVs are said to come with “power assist.”

Flexible Glass

“Flexible glass” is the true technology breakthrough required for your new exercise system. It came with Apple’s patent for “sapphire,” a conductive film on a flexible substrate.  That patent claim was filed in 2010 and awarded in December 2013. While the patent is not exactly for a type of ”flexible glass,” the end result is nearly the same, a flexible mobile phone or TV screen.

Apart from Apple, also the South Korean behemoth Samsung was quick to apply the new technology to their products. And now you have it: a new way to watch TV and exercise at the same time. At this time, it’s too early to say which is more important, flexing your TV or your muscles, but rest assured someone will figure it out in due course.

Dr Judy Ryan is proving to be remorseless in her battle on behalf of Aussie climate realists. Once again she’s turning up the heat via official bureaucratic channels over government misrepresentation in official literature over carbon dioxide (CO2).

The cause of her ire are those discredited alarmist professors Steffen, Karoly and Flannery who seem to be the instigators of a blatant misrepresentation; science fraud, if you like. We’ve provided coverage of Dr Ryan’s ongoing saga here, here,  here, and here.

By either deceit or plain ignorance, Australian officialdom has for long been portraying CO2 as a pollutant in taxpayer-funded literature. This is graphically potrayed in misleading campaigns depicting an industrial chimney stack belching black smoke (see right). But the emotive image is utterly false. CO2 emissions are colorless. But, more crucially, this benign atmopsheric trace gas (< 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) is non-toxic, being the very stuff we exhale as we breath and plants require as food.

As a scientist, Dr Ryan, forthrightly put such facts across in her correspondence berating the dunderheaded professors. But the Ombudsman’s apparent continued disregard of her Formal Complaint, originally lodged against the then Department for Climate Change (DCC) on 29th August 2013, won’t deter Dr. Ryan. She reports:

“The DCC had 28 days to respond before we could exercise our right to take it to the Ombudsman. The elections intervened and DCC became the Department of the Environment (DOE). Nobody from DOE contacted us so we took the formal complaint to the Ombudsman on the 10th October 2013.”

Nothing happened for a while, but Judy was assured over the phone that her complaint was waiting to be attended to.

“Time passed, and passed, and passed, until on the afternoon of the 26th November 2013, I left a message on the Ombudsman’s answering machine, stating that If the matter was not dealt with within the next 48 hours we would lodge it again by public email. The following morning 27th of November an officer from the Ombudsman’s office contacted me, deeply apologetic because evidently even  though they had received it, the original formal complaint to DCC had somehow got lost in the change over.” Sounds like “Yes Minister” doesn’t it.

Sometimes it’s the silliest statements that tell you the most interesting things. Take, for instance, this Financial Times report into Britain’s latest floods.

Here are some quotes.

Professor Corinne Le Quere, director for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia [said of the floods], “Even though we can’t blame the current weather in the UK on climate change, we expect heavy rains like this to occur as a result of climate change”.

What exactly is Professor Le Quere trying to tell us here, with her eerie and echoing syntax? My inner psychotherapist translates it as: “Even though I mustn’t directly blame individual weather events on climate change, I am desperate to do exactly that, because it’s what I believe.” It therefore resembles a statement of faith. Right down to the repeated mantra: like a prayer.

As more citizens protest to local planners against unwanted and unneeded wind farms, Hans Schreuder shares with readers his submission to one foolhardy authority.

Dear Planning Department,

Re: Proposed Wind Farm

As a retired analytical scientist, having studied the issues surrounding so-called “man-made global warming” for the past eight years and living within the visual range of the proposed wind turbines, I feel it is my duty to inform you of the following scientific facts, government policy based on government scientists notwithstanding.

Chancellor George Osborn MP made this statement last week – “We’ve got to make more cuts. That’s why 2014 is the year of hard truths – the year when Britain faces a choice” – and one hard truth is that “man-made climate change” does not exist other than in computer programmes and the corridors of power in academia and politics.

These are but a small selection of hard truths:

1. In the absence of any discernible global warming since 1998, despite a continued increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the name of the issue was changed to “man-made climate change”, which then got even further distorted to “man-made climate variation” or any number of variants along those lines. The mass-hypnosis by most of the mainstream media has now got the public so far that the mention of just the word “climate change” insidiously implies “man-made climate change”.

2. Since the first mention of “man-made global warming” and despite billions of dollars and Pounds having been spent on the issue, there is not one single scientifically acceptable item of evidence to link any temperature change or any climate change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. What is scientific fact is that natural changes in earth’s climate, driven mostly by solar events coupled with earth’s position within our solar system, have an effect upon the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, but never ever the other way around! Horse pulls cart; cart does not push horse.

3. The entire so-called “scientific basis” for CO2 driven temperatures and or climate change is 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} false; it’s like looking in a mirror: the truth is the exact opposite of what governmental climate scientists will have you believe. Let anyone prove beyond a shadow of doubt that CO2 in the open atmosphere causes warming! They can’t because it’s impossible! An experiment in a bottle to prove that CO2 is a “warming gas” is a criminal distortion of the truth! Out in the open atmosphere, CO2 acts in exactly the opposite way: a coolant! It has to, based on it very physical properties of radiating.

A letter published by Chris Turney in the journal Nature under the title “This was no Antarctic pleasure cruise” tries to defend the scientific basis of the expedition and its abandonment. He is talking about the “The Spirit of Mawson,” the “Australasian Antarctic Expedition, 2013-2014.”

What happened?

Purpose

Margot O’Neill, reporter with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, interviewed the expedition leader and filed a transcript on Nov. 25. 2013. The headline says “Professor Chris Turney from the University of New South Wales is mounting the largest Australian science expedition to the Antarctic with an 85-person team to try to answer questions about how climate change in the frozen continent might be already shifting weather patterns in Australia.”

Turney himself describes the purpose of the study as “The aim was to study various aspects of this vast, remote region to better understand its role in the Earth system, and communicate these results directly to the public.”

Trying to understand what the weather will be like for the rest of the month is like putting pieces of a puzzle together. Most of the pieces are sitting out there on the table with a few missing, and I’m the one left putting the pieces together. That’s where I’m at right now, and as I fit these pieces together, I will continue to get a clearer picture of what is going to take place over the coming days. Let me share with you what I foresee taking place.

The forecast period from now going into February will be very active and is actually going to get somewhat complicated. It was pretty straightforward to me back 2 or 3 weeks ago that a part of the polar vortex was going to split off and give us the recent bitter cold that we recently experienced across the United States. First off, we have two systems that we are going to have to keep an eye on for next week, but I do not think either of these systems will be huge. Some areas will get snow from this, and at some point, I’ll specify those areas in a later article or on the Facebook page.

Is global warming unfalsifiable? A blogger on Qurora.com recently said so.

Definition of UNFALSIFIABLE: not capable of being proved false.

Since 2000, atmospheric global warming, AGW, promoters and green house gas theory, GHGT, theorists have claimed their theories were undeniable and anyone who denied them was a denier, an intended derogatory term. In January 2014 one went further and claimed AGW was unfalsifiable.

Logic. Unfalsifiable is a legitimate conclusion from mathematics. Once a math theorem is proved, it is automatically unfalsifiable. 3 + 3 = 6, always and everywhere. If Y > X and Z > Y, then Z > X. The area of a circle in a plane of radius r is Pi*r*r. Nobody will ever falsify those truisms. That is what math does for us.

The claim that AGW is unfalsifiable is merely a claim, assertion, postulate, proposal, theory. Its proponents must provide evidence to prove and verify it before rational people can accept it as true. Unsupported claims are to be summarily dismissed.

There is no consensus on a commonly accepted mathematical description and quantification for the GHGT and associated AGW model to determine the effect of increased CO₂ on atmospheric temperatures. This is why the UN IPCC continues to operate and GHGT modelers resort to empirical data fitting correlations that fail to predict. Since the math model does not exist, it has no predictive power. It is impossible to prove it is unfalsifiable and therefore it should not be accepted as scientific theory, let alone a correct one. This proves the assertion on Quora is false.

An unfalsifiable law of nature is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which Sadi Carnot used to falsify the possibility of building a perpetual motion machine that created energy. Engineers routinely use it to avoid attempting to build impossible heat engines because it is always valid, always works and is unfalsifiable.