Articles Tagged "Letters@ClimateRealists.Com"

I'm not sure if this is a spoof email, but I thought it was good enough to post as a blog and I hope a few of you can report back to me on where this will go.....

Climate Realists Contact: UC-Irvine climate change presentation

Hello, this is Kurt Solander. I am a PhD student in the Department of Earth System Science at UC-Irvine. I am working on the development of a class in Science Communication this spring where students in science will be exposed to viewpoints on climate change that are likely different from their own.

The goal of this class is for students to interact with those who possess these alternative opinions so that both parties can move towards a higher understanding of each other.

A climate hysteric posted this link on a danish site recently to show that cold winters can be followed by record breaking warm summers Here

Basically the article says “get your bathing suits out”, because while its raining in southern Norway, theres tropical warm here in Skrova in northern Norway (100 kms north of the polar circle). Last night the minimum night temperature was recorded at 22,7 degrees celcius.

“Tropical warm in Skrova is defined as when the night temperature is higher than 20 degrees Celsius.

What got me and the other sceptics laughing was this list of “maximum” minimum temperatures going back to 1957.

Tropical night in Northern Norway i June (back to 1957)

1. 22.7°C - SKROVA LIGHTHOUSE, 30.06.1958
2. 21.5°C - SKROVA LIGHTHOUSE, 10.06.2011
3. 21.4°C - BRØNNØYSUND, 30.06.1958
4. 21.1°C - SKÅLVÆR, 30.06.1958
5. 20.9°C - GLOMFJORD, 30.06.1958
6. 20.5 °C - KIRKENES AIRPORT, 14.06.1992
7. 20.3 °C - GRØTØY, 19.06.1974
8. 20.0 °C - KLEIVA I SORTLAND, 29.06.1978
9. 20.0 °C - BANAK, 26.06.1970

Let’s examine, at a high and salient level, the positive-feedback Anthropogenic Global Warming, Green-House-Gas (AGW GHG) Heating Effect with its supposed pivotal role for CO2. The thinking is that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will trigger a large increase in atmospheric water vapor. And then the combination of these two enhanced atmospheric constituents will lead to runaway (or at least appreciable and unprecedented) global warming. This theory supposes a powerful positive-feedback and overriding (pivotal) role for CO2.

But this theory is unproven. Nonetheless, it is hard-wired into all General Circulation Models of the climate. Models that attempt to predict the far future behavior of a “coupled, non-linear chaotic system”. One is compelled to consider that this modeling effort may, in fact, be impossible. Yet these Models constitute substantially the entire evidentiary basis for Anthropogenic Global Warming, as opposed to a great deal of evidence that points simply to Global Warming. Models, unsupported by observational evidence, are no evidence at all.

First, let me make the profound point that this Earth has gone through 60-70 known major climate transitions over many hundreds of millions of years. It did so while maintaining an exceptionally narrow thermal range (~+/- 6-10 OC) throughout all this history. This incredibly tightly controlled behavior can only be understood in the context of a system overwhelmingly dominated by negative-feedbacks. However, these negative-feedbacks are not represented in our current Modeling efforts and their investigation is underfunded to the point of being ignored.

Click source to download PDF file and read FULL essay by Ronald D. Voisin

Atmospheric CO2 Does Not Drive Major Climate Change

Let’s examine, at a high and salient level, the positive-feedback Anthropogenic Global Warming, Green-House-Gas (AGW GHG) Heating Effect with its supposed pivotal role for CO2. The thinking is that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will trigger a large increase in atmospheric water vapor. And then the combination of these two enhanced atmospheric constituents will lead to runaway (or at least appreciable and unprecedented) global warming. This theory supposes a powerful positive-feedback and overriding (pivotal) role for CO2. But this theory is unproven. Nonetheless, it is hard-wired into all General Circulation Models of the climate. Models that attempt to predict the far future behavior of a “coupled, non-linear chaotic system”. One is compelled to consider that this modeling effort may, in fact, be impossible.

First, let me make the profound point that this Earth has gone through 60-70 known major climate transitions over many hundreds of millions of years. It did so while maintaining an exceptionally narrow thermal range (~+/- 6-10 OC) throughout all this history. This incredibly tightly controlled behavior can only be understood in the context of a system overwhelmingly dominated by negative-feedbacks. However, these negative-feedbacks are not represented in our current Modeling efforts and their investigation is underfunded to the point of being ignored.

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).

CLICK to download PDF file and read "Some Questions About Man Made Climate Change, where is the DUE DILIGENCE?" by Ed Hoskins, MA (Cantab) RIBA BDS (London)

The following letter was sent to ClimateRealists.com a few week ago by Bob Godfrey. He has had a hard time from the Met Office and The Guardian concerning his use of scale for demonstrating the "lag" of CO2 and the Earth's climate, all he wanted to show was that the "Al Gore" use of scale and CO2 was wrong....I can't mention the person by name at the Met Office but we can call him Andrew.

Dear Andrew,

First of all, thank you for the response.

I have now found a little time to respond to your letter of the 16th March regarding “Global Warming”. Before I continue I would like to point out that I made a comment on line on the “Guardian” website and got into a conversation with a guy called “Epeeist” and I was asking similar questions to the one we are discussing.

After one question I put which I thought was a good one, the moderator for the “Guardian” removed my comment and all my future comments, while allowing many childish expletives go by from pro Global Warmers. Other sceptics complained of this, and I believe the “Guardian” like many scientists, does not want a public debate on this issue, which naturally prompted me to look a bit deeper into this. I have a distrust of politicians, the media, and beginning to distrust some scientists now. Having got that off my chest, I would like to respond to your letter as follows:-

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. :-

Dear CR,

As some of you may know, we are fighting for the very essence of the natural beauty of the Isle of Wight.

We have seen off the application for the proposed wind farm at Wellow, but that was a few years ago and operators now have support from the last Labour Secretary of State, Ed Miliband and even worse, the new coalition Secretary of State Chris Huhne, who wants 2,500 new turbines built across the UK next year.

We have recently fought off the aspirations of Cornwall Light and Power to build 3 wind turbines at Cheverton Down and on December 3 2009, the IOW Planning Committee refused CLP permission in line with Officer Recommendation by 6 votes to 3.

Unfortunately, an IOW planning officer granted CLP permission under delegated powers for 3 smaller turbines at the same site a few years ago, even though it is within an AONB. He no longer works for IOW Council.

After the Planning Hearing a CLP spokesman said that they had two alternatives:

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.