Articles Tagged "Stephen Wilde"
Sorted by: Date Posted
Thursday, April 26th 2012, 12:39 PM EDT
All the highest concentrations are downwind of warm water.
The Mediterranean gets very warm in summer so you can see the plume across the Middle East.
Australia gets CO2 from the ocean between it and South Africa.
South America gets CO2 from the Pacific upwind.
Western USA from the Pacific, upwind.
Southern Asia gets CO2 from the Indian Ocean, upwind.
Tuesday, March 27th 2012, 5:18 PM EDT
DONT MISS: Opposing Views: BBC TV: Horizon: Global Weirding Tuesday 21:00 (UK)
Including ToryAardvark, who did an excellent Twitter commentary:
hmm #bbc2 global weirding prepare for #agw propaganda
#bbc2 weather was more extreme in 1930s and 1940s
#horizon extreme weather events have declined 90% since 1920s http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/the-amazing-decline-in-deaths-from-extreme-weather-in-an-era-of-global-warming-19002010/
#horizon how many hurricanes a have made US land fall since 2007?
Updated below with MUST READ comments from Stephen Wilde
Many of you took my advice about seeing the
Thursday, March 8th 2012, 7:13 AM EST
Anthropogenic Global Warming theory (AGW) relies on the composition of a planetary atmosphere (rather than the mass) making a significant contribution to the surface temperature of a planet at a given level of solar input.
That is why so called Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) are considered to be major players in setting the equilibrium temperature of a planet. Such gases absorb and emit more energy than other gases so it is proposed that they absorb radiation that is trying to leave the planet, radiate some of it back to the surface and thereby raise the equilibrium temperature of the surface.
In order to explain the surface temperature of Earth, AGW theory uses the Stephan-Boltzmann Law (S-B Law) to calculate what the surface temperature of the Earth should be and finds that it is about 33 celsius warmer than it ‘should’ be.
The reason given is the presence of GHGs radiating energy back down to the surface which makes the surface warmer than it otherwise would be.
Wednesday, February 29th 2012, 11:29 AM EST
Following the recent farrago of Fakegate and the apparent need for Professor Richard S. Lindzen to try to educate some of our MPs at the House of Commons perhaps we should now try to address exactly what the Alarmists have done in order to press their agenda and try to show what they are so desperately attempting to hide so that they feel the need to commit crimes, manipulate the data and seek to discredit and damage the careers of honest and competent scientists who disagree with them.
Here is my take on that aspect of the issue
Part A – The Wrong Way to ascertain Earth’s surface temperature via The Physics of Radiation.
1) The basic physics
The so called S-B Law can be found here:
This is sound and well established science and is relied by upon the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to explain why they believe the Earth is warmed by human emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) to a temperature higher than it would be if we were not releasing emissions. The main concern is emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Tuesday, February 7th 2012, 7:23 AM EST
First published 2008
. Revised 2011 and 2012
This latest revision of my 2008 article for ClimateRealists.com has been inspired by the recent paper from Nikolov and Zeller discussed here:Unified Theory of Climate, Nikolov and Zeller
That paper appears to have taken the long established science involving gravity and the Gas Laws and refined it so as to show that the AGW theory relating to the supposed radiative capabilities of so called greenhouse gases is incorrect and unnecessary as an explanation for Earth’s surface temperature.
It also appears that other experienced and reputable scientists such as Hans Jelbring, Harry Dale Huffman and many others have previously pointed out the errors of the climate consensus in failing to give due weight to the Gas Laws which represent much longer established settled science than the relatively recent speculations about the supposed thermal properties of greenhouse gases.
In this republication I have adapted some of the content to remove extraneous material and to bring my terminology more into line with the work of the above scientists.
I am pleased that the long established settled science relating to planetary atmospheres is now coming to the fore once more after about 20 years during which it was apparently suppressed by ideologues with a non -scientific agenda.
There are many interesting comments from proponents of human caused climate change (AGW or anthropogenic global warming) and from sceptics which show an astonishing range of differing interpretations and understandings of the so called Greenhouse Effect none of which bear much relation to the actuality.
Wednesday, December 28th 2011, 12:40 PM EST
During the autumn and winter of 2007 I took the opportunity of printing out a selection of maps from this site:
The maps show the temperature of most of the northern hemisphere centred on the North Atlantic and cover the bulk of the northern hemisphere land masses and the northernmost section of the Atlantic Ocean.
The significance is that one can readily observe the extent and intensity of the cold air covering the northern high latitudes as a whole at the time and date of each map.
The volume and intensity of cold polar air is dependent on the level of solar energy received into the Earth system and the rate at which the oceans release absorbed solar energy to the air. There is little variation overall from year to year because solar intensity varies very little and the oceans take many years to alter their rates of energy release as witness the 60 year cycle of the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation.
There is a good deal of variability around the edges of the polar air masses but at any given time those regional variations even out.
In order to ascertain whether there is a global warming or cooling trend it is necessary to wait several years and then compare the volume and intensity of the cold polar air masses as a whole between the dates chosen. In this case I have chosen the years 2007 and 2011.
Friday, November 25th 2011, 1:01 PM EST
Fig 1. The modern satellite temperature record first became available from 1979.
On the face of it there was a decline throughout the period, but look more closely. A decline from 1979 to about 1994 and then flat. The two spikes around 1983 and 1993 were a consequence of volcanic eruptions injecting material into the stratosphere resulting in short term warming of the lower stratosphere. They do not appear to affect the background trend.
That decline has been taken as evidence in support of the proposed effect of human CO2 emissions because more greenhouse gases are supposed to hold energy in the troposphere for longer thus cooling the stratosphere.
However, human CO2 emissions have been increasing faster than ever since 1994 so why would the cooling stratospheric temperature trend have stopped? The observations do not fit the theory that CO2 quantities were the cause of that period of stratospheric cooling.
Obviously some other factor is in play.
Monday, September 19th 2011, 11:19 AM EDT
Over the past 3 years since the initial publication of this article the most recent climate data have been substantially verifying the opinion expressed. .In this updated version a few minor adjustments have been made in the light of more recent events.
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 (even more recently described as climate disruption) so that recent cooling can be included in their scenario, always deny that the sun has anything to do with recent global temperature movements.
The reason given is that Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varied so little over that period that it cannot explain the warming that was observed. I don’t yet accept that TSI tells the whole story because it is ill defined and speculative as regards it’s representation of all the different ways the sun could affect the Earth via the entire available range of physical processes.
Despite the limitations of TSI as an indicator of solar influence I think there are conclusions we can draw from the records we do have. Oddly, I have not seen them discussed properly anywhere else, especially not by AGW enthusiasts.
This chart shows the pattern of TSI from 1611 to 2001
Graph link - JunkScience.com
Monday, September 5th 2011, 6:55 AM EDT
..."If global warming alarmists wish to persuade us and lead us they first have to convince us and furthermore earn their status by openness, clarity and honesty....
....The Earth is just a short term way station receiving solar energy, processing it in various ways and then releasing it to space. There is currently no overarching conceptual picture of the entire process into which can be fitted all the myriad details which the ‘experts’ are arguing about....
...Consequently there are no real climate experts. All we have is a wide variety of specialists in other fields that have a bearing on one aspect or another of climate related issues. The number of individuals who could be genuinely regarded as climate specialists is very limited and they are hampered by not being specialists in all the linked areas of science. Indeed the matter of climate is so all encompassing that it would be impossible anyway...."
This article is gaining increasing relevance in the light of recent climate observations and the contents of it and of my various other articles fit well with the findings of:
Joanna Haigh who has suggested that the sign of the solar effect on the atmosphere might need to be reversed due to unexpected ozone quantity responses to the less active sun.
Saturday, June 4th 2011, 7:02 AM EDT
Click source to download PDF file and read FULL essay by Stephen Wilde: LLB (Hons.), Solicitor, Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society