The Realists Take on Climate Change

Stephen Wilde has been a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968. The first five articles from Mr Wilde were received with a great deal of interest throughout the Co2 Sceptic community.

In Stephen Wilde’s sixth and exclusive article for ClimateRealists.com (originally co2sceptics.com) he considers that the IPCC have failed to carry out any risk analysis for the potential for global cooling instead of global warming and that a repeat of the Little Ice Age a mere 400 years ago would cause mass starvation worldwide.

The Death Blow to AGW by Stephen Wilde

The influence of the sun has been discounted in the climate models as a contributor to the warming observed between 1975 and 1998. Those who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), now known as anthropogenic climate change so that recent cooling can be included in their scenario, always deny that the sun has anything to do with recent global temperature movements.

Stephen Wilde has been a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968. The first two article's from Mr Wilde were received with a great deal of interest throughout the Co2 Sceptic community.

In Stephen Wilde's third and exclusive article for CO2Sceptics.Com, he explores the mechanics and mechanism involved that are attributed to the Earth's Warming and Cooling, needless to say the presence of CO2 is not part of the process.

(updated below with comments)

Global Warming and Cooling - The Reality.

It’s all very well doing what alarmists do which is to say that Co2 is rising and temperatures are rising so in the absence of any other known cause it must be man made CO2 that is warming the planet. That approach ignores both the differing scale of the possible influencing factors and the clear historical relationship between cooler climates and periods of a less active sun. The presence of the sun must be a much bigger influence on global temperatures than the greenhouse characteristics of CO2 on it’s own.

Dear Climate Realists

It is with regret that due to recent changes in my personal life I will not have the time available to update this site until sometime in the future.

I have made provisions to keep the site running so you can read the 10,000+ articles

I hope the name "Climate Realists" remains a prominent irritation to supporters of AGW and that it is used by you wisely

I bid you all farewell and look forward to the day when the supporters of AGW admit their mistake.

There has been NO warming of the Earth due to "Man Made" co2. The warming can be atributed to 50 years of higher then average solar activity on the Sun that started in the 1950's and ended around 2006.

There WILL be more changes to our climate in the future due to our Sun becoming less active. This change is destined to make the Earth cooler, and NOT warmer. The reason AGW supporters have been misinformed about this issue is from political madness and the abuse of science

In short we have seen extended Summers due to an active Sun and now face extended Winters due to a less active Sun....Pass it on!

I Love you all .....please keep up the fight by calling yourself a "Climate Realist", the term "Climate Skeptic" is not correct, as there is nothing to be skeptical about! It's the Sun stupid;)

Gabriel

Note: Stay tuned to the ClimateRealists Twitter account for major news articles/links:)

Below original link article for Tom Harris

UN and Danish government incompetence contributed to violence on protest marches[

It is not surprising that climate campaigners became increasingly aggressive during 2009, eventually resorting to violent conflicts with police on the streets of Copenhagen at year’s end. While activists had finally succeeded in getting most politicians to sing from the same song sheet – the Earth supposedly stands on the brink of a man-made climate catastrophe, leaders recited one after another at the United Nations climate conference in December – environmental groups have totally failed to convince governments to take actions that are even remotely commensurate with the alleged threat.

Yes, politicians have invested billions of taxpayer dollars ostensibly trying to ‘stop climate change’, an absurd concept on a planet where climate has always changed – after all, the only constant about climate IS change. But, if the climate Armageddon hypothesis was correct, we would need many times the levels of emission reductions currently promised by western governments. Scientists on all sides of the debate know this. Most political leaders do as well. But they seem to think that if they say the right things about the supposed crisis, no one will expect them to really implement the sort of policy that would logically follow if such rhetoric were scientifically justified. No wonder true believers are frustrated. It is akin to world leaders unanimously acknowledging that the planet was about to be hit with a civilization-destroying asteroid but responded by merely pledging tax rebates for citizens to reinforce their roofs.

There have been other serious frustrations for climate activists of late, as well. Global warming stubbornly refuses to resume after stopping about seven years ago while carbon dioxide, Al Gore’s misnamed ‘global warming pollution’, continues to rise unabated. Climategate revealed that several of the most prominent of the IPCC’s scientists have tried to ‘hide the decline’ and block skeptical scientists from being published. Also contrary to UN forecasts, extreme weather events such as hurricanes and tornados are not on the rise and, since the 1970s, sea level has dropped in places such as The Maldives, the UN poster child country for the supposed sea level threat. Finally, polar bears inconveniently continue to reproduce faster than they are dying and the list of other climatic nonevents seems to lengthen monthly. Even more frightening for activists, polls show that the public is progressively coming to believe that they have been taken for a ride on man-made climate change and that it was probably never a serious threat in the first place.

Under such depressing circumstances (for activists, that is – normal people are relieved to hear that their children are unlikely to face a climate crisis), one would think that the UN and Denmark, the host country for ‘Hopenhagen’, December’s UN Climate Change Conference, would pull out all the stops to ensure that at least the fundamental logistics supporting the thousands of non governmental organization (NGO) representatives invited to the conference would work like a well-oiled machine. After all, with the climate scare rapidly falling apart, it would not take much to push these unhappy people off into full blown rioting.

But the exact opposite was the case. While in Copenhagen for the conference, I witnessed first hand how the UN and Danish Foreign Ministry helped create a situation in which even greater upset of NGOs was virtually guaranteed. The authorities did this by authorizing far more NGO representatives admission to the conference than there was ever the remotest chances of accommodating and then waiting until it was too late to organize an alternative meeting. Here is how they accomplished this feat of unbelievable incompetence for the largest meeting even held in Denmark.

The UNFCCC allowed something in the neighborhood of 30,000 NGO participants to be officially registered for the 7 – 19 December 2009 climate conference in the Danish capital. Problem was, Copenhagen’s Bella Center, where the main meetings were held, only has a capacity of 15,000, so perhaps the UN did not expect more than half of registered NGO delegates to actually show up. After all, Copenhagen in December is certainly not Bali or Nigeria where previous UN climate get-togethers were held during early winter in the northern hemisphere - Danes dream of going south then as much as Canadians do. Besides the fact that Copenhagen has only about seven hours of daylight in December (being at the same latitude as Labrador, Canada), temperatures hover around freezing and it is usually cloudy at this time of year. So cloudy, in fact, that on several days during my stay, light sensitive street lights came on early in the afternoon as if it was nighttime – no wonder the Danes are fascinated with light – candles and blazing Christmas lights are found everywhere in this small but fascinatingly ancient country!

Perhaps sensing that the public in many nations are awaking to the fact that they have largely been ‘had’ on climate change, activists came to the big show en mass for a intensive ‘last chance’ full court press on politicians anxious to showcase their green credentials to the world (although still frightened of the related economics). Happily for me, and the International Climate Science Coalition, as an officially sanctioned “Non-governmental Observer” (arranged months earlier through our allies and UNFCCC channels), I only had to wait for two hours in an outdoor queue in the first week to obtain my official bar-coded photo ID pass to get into the conference. For several days thereafter, I was able to enter the conference relatively quickly through checkpoints that made most airport security look lax (besides the concrete barriers and high fences now commonplace at such events, well-armed police with large guard dogs and soldiers outnumbered delegates in places). I was then able to go about my business in the Bella Center with ease, distributing ICSC handout packages to media and engaging in discussion with national representatives from many countries.

But early in the second week, the situation changed dramatically. By now the registration line stretched for at least four hours and, with the arrival of the Nobel Prize winning patron saint of global warming, the “Al Gore Effect” subjected hopeful, but increasingly disgruntled delegates to severe (for Copenhagen) sub-zero temperatures as they shivered in line. With only a handful of the available security check-points open, Bella Center staff were completely unable to cope with the massive influx of official NGO registrants for the crucial second week of the conference and the lines grew still further. Many officially registered NGO representatives, despite having travelled from the far corners of the Earth, eventually gave up attempts to get the essential UNFCCC photo ID card and went to the mostly amateurish extreme left wing ‘civil society’ events in the city, or, for those who could, returned home, having wasted a king’s ransom in expenses.

However, even this inadequate entry system broke down by mid-week and conference organizers announced that only some of those from each NGO delegation who already had their photographic IDs would be allowed to pass through security into the Bella Center. This now meant that, to get into the conference, one needed to be, first, an official UNFCCC NGO registrant, second, have the UNFCCC photo ID pass and, third, be the proud possessor of a second pass that indicated you were among the few chosen from your delegation to actually gain admission.

Finally, for the crucial last two days of the two week mega-event, the very time NGOs had dug deep into their coffers to be able to finance their representatives to attend in the first place, only 300 special third passes were issued to a highly select few. Without this new pass, as well as the previous three documents, 99% of the thousands of officially registered NGO representatives were completely barred from entering the Bella Center. How the UNFCCC chose this privileged group was not announced.

In response to NGO threats to storm the center (some tried and were quickly arrested) and in an effort to salvage what was left of the UNFCCC’s and Danish Foreign Ministry’s credibility, an official off-site venue for those who had successfully endured freezing registration lines and so possessed the UN photo ID badge was finally announced Wednesday evening for Thursday and Friday, the last two days of the conference (see http://en.cop15.dk/about+cop15/going+to+cop15/alternative+conference+venue+for+observer+organizations). Held at Copenhagen’s cavernous Forum, with four 20 foot screens suspended from the ceiling and fed live from the Bella Center, it promised to be a massive event with thousands of concerned activists anxiously awaiting the latest updates from world leaders engaged in saving the planet.

However, by then it was too late and NGOs had either arranged their own side events, renting other facilities in the city, hit the streets to help fuel the protest marches or left the city in disgust for parts unknown. The massive hall stood essentially empty by Thursday evening with only 30 die hard campaigners watching the first word leaders‘ speeches. Friday afternoon, when negotiations inside the Bella Center were most intense, only about 100 of the thousands of NGO reps even bothered to show up at the event arranged by the Danish Foreign Ministry.

Copenhagen has the markings of being the last really big hurrah for massive UN-backed climate change conferences. Let’s hope so. Having totally failed politically and logistically, and thoroughly alienating everyone involved in this exorbitantly expensive process, Copenhagen should stand as a symbol of all that has gone wrong with the climate change movement. Originally well intentioned, though often misguided, climatism, as it is now being labeled, has largely morphed into an ungainly politically motivated machine that is more about money that it is about saving the environment. With its blind adherence to dogmatic beliefs that simply do not match observational evidence, it is time real environmentalists abandoned this horse and got back to the basics – land, air and water pollution, issues we know we can handle properly with sufficient public interest and good will.

"Official data shows the world passed its peak temperatures 10 years ago, but sadly the BBC and 'Global Warming apologists' are now attempting to cover up the facts" said Piers Corbyn, 'climate realist', astrophysicist & long range weather & climate forecaster, 24 April, in response to the BBC's 'Quiet Sun baffling astronomers' report ('Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers).

"In timely backing of the UK Government's £1billion Carbon budget and similar moves in the USA, the BBC and Prof Lockwood of Southampton University distort the facts in an attempt to cover-up the proven centrality of the sun in controlling world temperatures", said Piers.

Please download PDF file to read FULL report.

NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?

As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:

"During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick....in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation..."

Thus, the ‘blackbody approximations' were proven to be as useful as a chocolate space helmet; the guesswork of using the Stefan-Boltzmann equations underpinning the man-made global warming theory was long ago debunked. If NASA had made known that Stefan-Boltzmann's numbers were an irrelevant red-herring then the taxpayers of the world would have been spared the $50 billion wasted on global warming research; because it would have removed the only credible scientific basis to support the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide changed Earth’s climate.

But, until May 24, 2010 these facts remained swept under the carpet. For the Apollo missions NASA had successfully devised new calculations to safely put astronauts on the Moon-based on actual measured temperatures of the lunar surface. But no one appears to have told government climatologists who, to this day, insist their junk science is 'settled' based on their bogus ‘blackbody’ guesswork.

Report calls the scientific integrity of EPA’s decision-making process into question and undermines the credibility of the endangerment finding.

Washington, D.C.—Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, today announced that a new government report from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reveals that the scientific assessment underpinning the Obama EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gasses was inadequate and in violation of the Agency’s own peer review procedures.

The IG report released today, “Procedural Review of EPA’s Greenhouse Gases Endangerment Finding Data Quality Processes,” was requested by Senator Inhofe in an April 7, 2010 letter to the EPA IG. Senator Inhofe asked that the OIG conduct an investigation into whether EPA followed the Data Quality Act and its own peer review procedures—which are designed to ensure that EPA makes decisions according to the best possible science—when it issued its finding that greenhouse gases harm public health and welfare, otherwise known as the endangerment finding. The EPA OIG Report finds that EPA failed in this respect.

“I appreciate the Inspector General conducting a thorough investigation into the Obama-EPA’s handling of the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases," Senator Inhofe said. “This report confirms that the endangerment finding, the very foundation of President Obama’s job-destroying regulatory agenda, was rushed, biased, and flawed. It calls the scientific integrity of EPA’s decision-making process into question and undermines the credibility of the endangerment finding.

“The Inspector General’s investigation uncovered that EPA failed to engage in the required record-keeping process leading up to the endangerment finding decision, and it also did not follow its own peer review procedures to ensure that the science behind the decision was sound. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson readily admitted in 2009 that EPA had outsourced its scientific review to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is an institution whose credibility has already been called into question. Even so, EPA still refused to conduct its own independent review of the science. As the EPA Inspector General found, whatever one thinks of the UN science, the EPA is still required - by its own procedures - to conduct an independent review.

Professor Robert W. Wood - Photo Link & Bio

Greenhouse gas theory of global warming is refuted in momentous Mexican lab experiment. Results mean epic fail for doomsaying cult and climate taxes.

Professor Nahle of Monterrey, Mexico backed by a team of international scientists has faithfully recreated a famous experiment from 1909 to confirm that the greenhouse effect cannot cause global warming.

Astonishingly, the 1909 greenhouse gas experiment first performed by Professor Robert W. Wood at John Hopkins University hadn’t been replicated for a century. This despite over $100 billion spent by the man-made global warming industry trying to prove its case that carbon dioxide is a dangerous atmospheric pollutant.

The analogy had been that greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2) act like the glass in a greenhouse trapping heat in Earth’s atmosphere and if they build up (due to human industrial emissions) the planet would dangerously overheat.

Nahle Nails Shut Climate Scare Coffin

At the Biology Cabinet laboratories Professor Nahle was able to confirm the astounding findings: Wood was right all along. After peer-review the results confirm that the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ is solely due to the blockage of convective heat transfer within the environment in which it is contained i.e. as in this case, a lab flask.

Updated below with comments by Nasif S. Nahle

Stephen Wilde has been a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968. The first six articles from Mr Wilde were received with a great deal of interest throughout the Co2 Sceptic community.

In Stephen Wilde’s seventh and exclusive article for CO2Sceptics.Com he threads together all of the main articles to achieve a credible rival to "The Green House Effect". The following work titled "The Hot Water Bottle Effect" considers that the "Green House Effect" was flawed and that his own theory will help people understand how the Earth's climate works in conjunction with The Sun.

THE HOT WATER BOTTLE EFFECT - by Stephen Wilde

Preface

This article attempts to consider the combined effect of the atmospheric greenhouse effect and oceanic oscillations. As far as I know no one has previously attempted to describe both phenomena as part of a single global temperature control system. It was prompted by an answer I gave to a meteorologist about my article entitled “The Death Blow to AGW”. That meteorologist had difficulty understanding how a period of steady solar irradiance could nevertheless heat up the Earth. My reply was as follows:

"An electric bar fire with a constant level of output in a room will cumulatively raise the room temperature for as long as the heat flowing from the fire exceeds the heat outflow from the room. Thus a net warming effect from the sun, even if it is in the form of a steady flow of energy from the sun over a few decades will cumulatively warm the Earth until the radiation of heat from the Earth rises to match the excess heat being received. As a result of oceanic time lags that could take some time. There is the mechanism.”

That exchange led to this article via my attempt to find a more accurate analogy than that of the greenhouse effect. I soon realised that the oceans were more significant than the atmosphere since they hold solar heat in greater quantity and for much longer than the atmosphere. My conclusion was that we owe our existence not to an atmospheric greenhouse or blanket but instead to an oceanic hot water bottle. It is what I hope will become widely known as The Hot Water Bottle Effect (THWBE) in place of The Greenhouse Effect.

Stephen Wilde has been a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968. The first eight articles from Mr Wilde were received with a great deal of interest throughout the Co2 Sceptic community.

In Stephen Wilde’s ninth and exclusive article for CO2Sceptics.Com called "Greenhouse Confusion Resolved" he answers the questions that have been raised as a result of his previous work "The Hot Water Bottle Effect".

GREENHOUSE CONFUSION RESOLVED - by Stephen Wilde

A short while ago I published an article on this site attempting to explain why the so called atmospheric greenhouse effect was insignificant as a planetary heat store in comparison to the oceans. The Hot Water Bottle Effect

I received interesting comments from AGW proponents and sceptics alike which showed an astonishing range of differing interpretations and understandings of the greenhouse effect none of which bore much relation to the actuality.

Perhaps those who made no comment were free of such confusion but somehow I doubt it.

The fact is that unless one can properly appreciate the nature and scale of the effect that an atmosphere has on planetary surface temperature then the significance of my article and indeed the entire underlying debate is impossible to assess meaningfully.

Stephen Wilde has been a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968. The first four articles from Mr Wilde were received with a great deal of interest throughout the Co2 Sceptic community.

In Stephen Wilde’s fifth and exclusive article for CO2Sceptics.Com he considers how to explain the apparent failure of the 'experts' to see or recognise the obvious and overwhelming climate driving mechanism provided by the sun acting in conjunction with a variety of oceanic processes.

THE REAL LINK BETWEEN SOLAR ENERGY, OCEAN CYCLES AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURE

This article expands and updates my previous articles and should be read with them.

Failure of IPCC to properly consider Solar Influence which is about the failure of the IPCC to properly consider solar influences and The link between solar cycle length and decadal global temperature which explains that according to real world observations the matter of solar cycle length is very significant.

Variations in solar energy as a driver for global climate change have been wholly discounted by the IPCC and climate modellers on the basis that something they call Total Solar Irradiance has not changed enough between 1975 and 1998 to make a significant contribution to the climate warming observed during that period.