Articles Tagged "Letters@ClimateRealists.Com"

The infamous Madoff Ponzi scheme cost $50 billion. Now put this into context with what the U.S. government has blown on policies related to climate change - over $79 billion since 1989. Madoff is in jail, Michael Mann isn’t-yet. So let's look at the latest legal hullabaloo.

The Climategate scandal is a Ponzi scheme with far greater global ramifications for us all. But how are we dealing with the willfully corrupt acts of a few key individuals in the most senior posts?

The two lead scientists in this most grotesque scam, Michael Mann of Penn. State University and British Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research (CRU), discussed manipulation of data to 'hide the decline' in global temperatures. Both men and their employers benefited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars for their complicity in this scam.

Jones, rather than be convicted of fraud, stymied Freedom of Information requests then destroyed his data. He avoided criminal prosecution on a mere technicality- the British government conceded the statute of limitations had expired.

Dear Mr King (Online Editor of TheIndependent.com)

As a climate scientist I am writing personally to you as the online editor to strongly object to the blocking of my comments regarding the conversation by your science editor Mr Connor with Professor Dyson. My comments sent last night were phrased in very reasonable and temperature language and highlighted the serious and very misleading mistakes given by Mr Connor.

It is simply wrongfor Mr Connor to say that present carbon dioxide levels are probably at their highest level for 800 000 years. In fact it is total nonsense. The Cambrian era had carbon levels 20 times what they are today and the Ordovician era which was mostly an ice age(yes an ice age!) had carbon dioxide levels 10 times todays level.( see the analysis by Professor C R Scotese Professor of Geology at the University of Texas www.scotese.com).

Does human emission of CO2 cause global warming?

This is a scientific question and can be answered using the scientific method with observed global mean temperature data.

A graph of global mean temperature from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia is shown in the above graph [1].

The first period is from 1910 to 1940 & the second period is 60-years latter from 1970 to 2000. After human emission of CO2 for 60-years, the rate of change of global mean temperature of 0.15 deg C per decade from 1970 to 2000 is nearly identical to that of 0.16 deg C per decade from 1910 to 1940. That is, after a 5-times increase in human emission of CO2, there was no increase in the rate of increase of global mean temperature. This data contradicts the theory that human emission of CO2 causes global warming.

Abstract:

By applying generally accepted algorithms on radiative heat transfer, verified through experimentation by Hottel, Leckner(1) and other contemporary scientists and engineers(2)(3)(4), I demonstrate that carbon dioxide molecules do not possess the thermal properties to be able to cause global warming or climate change here on Earth.

Introduction:

The formula applied by several authors on anthropogenic climate change for calculating the atmospheric temperature anomaly caused by carbon dioxide is as follows:

ΔT = α (ln ([ga] ∞ / [ga]st) / 4 (σ) (T)3

The following article is a follow up from Dan Pangburn to Climate Change Mistake

Conclusions of the Natural Climate Change Verification

This work shows the influence that sunspots have had on 20th century and more recent average global temperatures. Without the influence of sunspots, the trends of anomalies would have been close to the shape of the graph for ESST only.

The precise points to make calculations of the effective influence of the sunspot timeintegral are somewhat uncertain. Temperatures predicted at the end points of the ESST trends result in the following: Sunspots had little effect prior to about 1941. The anomaly predicted for 1941 was 0.1017 and in 1973 was -0.0908 for a decline of 0.1925. Without the sunspot time-integral the decline would have been that of the ESST or 0.45.

Thus the temperature decline from 1941 to 1973 would have been about 0.257 C deeper if not forthe high sunspot-number-time-integral during that period. This is equivalent to saying
that the decline from 1941 to 1973 was (0.45 – 0.1925)/0.45 or 57% less than it would have been without the time-integral of sunspot-number during that period.

Click PDF file to download Corroboration of Natural Climate Change by Dan Pangburn

Thirty Year Climate Forecast

..The geologic record shows clearly that the sun is the main climate driver. The Milankovitch multi-millennial orbital cycles in NH insulation are firmly established in the record as are the Schwab and deVries cycles. Other millennial and decadal variations in solar activity are present in the record. TSI is not the only or even the best indicator of solar activity - variations in EUV radiation and the GCR flux (via cloud formation and earth's albedo) seem to be more important on decadal and centennial scales . Earth's climate is the result of complex resonances between all these solar cycles with the lunar declination cycles and endogenous earth processes.

At this time the sun has entered a quiet phase with a dramatic drop in solar magnetic field strength since 2004. This suggests the probability of a cooling phase on earth and it seems possible that Cycle 23 is more or less equivalent to Cycle 4 so that a Dalton type minimum is likely.

It is now clear that the patterns of the earth's ocean and atmospheric current systems provide the most immediate guide to the current state of the climate when climate is considered as the result of the complex processes discussed above and these systems provide the best clues as to likely developments over the next 20 - 30 years. Beyond that time span predictions are currently of little practical value. The small effect of anthropogenic CO2 cannot be calculated with any useful accuracy until we can better quantify the effect of the natural variations.

The observed yearly Global Mean Temperature from the Climate Research Unit can be modelled by a combination of linear and sinusoidal functions as shown in chart above.

As shown in the chart above, if the global mean temperature cycle behaves the way it behaved for the last 130 years, there will be global cooling until 2030. In contrast, the IPCC projections that started its divergence away from observed temperature about 2005 will continue its imaginary trajectory towards its exaggerated target temperature.

For detailed discussion of the model, please visit the WUWT website: Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections

One of our regular users (with the apt forum name "Climate Realist" who also coined the phrase "Climate Fools Day") has sent in a letter to us about his visit to the "Climate Fools Day" meeting at the Houses of Parliament. John (climaterealist) also had the following to say about the "Opposing View" put forward by Leo Hickman concerning his Guardian article Cabal of climate sceptics to descend on UK parliament

--------------------------

I'd like to say a big thanks to Piers, Gabe and Sammy for putting on this meeting and it was a real pleasure to hear your presentations, meet and chat with you all. I have posted this comment on the Guardian weblog article by way of a kind of review of the meeting as an attendee:-

"Having attended this excellent but all too short Climate Fools Day meeting yesterday, I had to look up the word "Cabal" to see if this description matched up to the reality. :-

It is claimed that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a temperature increase of 1.2°C and the only question is how much increase will be due to forcing effects, mostly by water vapor. Computer models are used to evaluate the forcing.

There is an equation for calculating the 1.2°C temperature increase; and it is such a simple equation that it seems to never be questioned. The problem is, it is too simple. It is a three component equation.

The equation is this: Heat increase = 5.35 ln C/C0. Temperature increase = 0.75 times heat increase. C sub zero is the starting concentration of CO2 and C is the final amount. Since the question is doubling, this ratio is two. The natural log of two is multiplied times the constant 5.35. Then the heat increase is multiplied times 0.75 to get the temperature increase. If only seventh grade general science were so simple.

Determining where this equation came from is no easy task. Steve McIntyre tried to trace down the citations for it in the IPCC documents and failed (1). All of the references led to no real explanation. The citation problem wasn't just glaciergate, Amazongate ad infinitum; it was also in the claimed, unquestionable physics.

Click for bigger image

I've noticed that BOM uses different stations for measuring annual
mean temperature then what stations they use for daily and monthly
readings.

There seems to be a few more used for the annual stations then daily.

The thing that has my curiosity is that, would placing greater stations in areas of greater warming effect the rate of graphed
warming?

I've put it all into one image with each map layered over each other and noticed an imbalance.

Not to mention a station missing in the only place to have a negative trend.

Here's the original links from BOM.