Global warming

This thread is for comment and discussion on any aspect of global warming not covered by other threads.

Views: 2742

208 Thoughts on “Global warming

  1. val majkus on 16/10/2010 at 10:32 am said:

    I’d like to introduce you to a website
    which contains extensive material by Malcolm Roberts and John Maclean (their bios are on site) and also reviews of the UN IPCC’s 2007 report by chapter by Dr Vincent Gray (UN IPCC Expert Reviewer,) (PhD chemistry, Cambridge) who has reviewed every UN IPCC Assessment Report and Summary for Policy Makers: 1991, 1995, 2001, 2007.) There is also a link to the 2007 report and its chapters. Dr Gray’s bio is also on site and his reviews are certainly worth a read even without comparing them line by line to the report.
    This is one comment I like from his review of Ch 9 ‘Paragrapg 5.1.1. is confused. First, you should avoid using the term “climate change” altogether, because it
    is defined, legally by the Framework Convention on Climate Change as exclusively concerbed with changes
    in greenhouse gases caused by humans. This is a very restricted definition which makes it impossible for
    scientists to study the climate before they have been able to attribute any possible cxause. It is no use
    claimimg that the IPCC hacve changed this definition. They have not. The FCCC definition is endorsed by an
    international treaty, and you cannot just change it like this.’
    For lay people like me the site is certainly educational

    • Richard C on 16/10/2010 at 11:47 am said:

      “First, you should avoid using the term “climate change” altogether, because it is defined, legally by the Framework Convention on Climate Change as exclusively concerbed with changes in greenhouse gases caused by humans. This is a very restricted definition which makes it impossible for scientists to study the climate before they have been able to attribute any possible cxause. It is no use claimimg that the IPCC hacve changed this definition. They have not. The FCCC definition is endorsed by an international treaty, and you cannot just change it like this.’”

      I have a variation on this

    • val majkus on 16/10/2010 at 1:15 pm said:

      Yes as Dr Gray says ‘There needs to be part of the “Introduction”, or even a separate section, discussing the problems and ambiguities that have been caused by the definition of “Climate Change” in the Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992. The definition is “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over a comparable time period” .This definition has the following unfortunate consequences. It gives the impression that ALL “Changes of Climate” are caused by human emitted greenhouse gases, and encourages the use of climate models that are based on that assumption. In reality there are several other causes of changes of climate, some by humans, such as urban development, energy emissions, and land use change, and some natural, such as the sun, volcanoes, El Niño ocean changes and cosmic rays, not present in the models, which means that they are all of very limited use.’
      (from his General Comments Review)

    • Richard C on 16/10/2010 at 1:49 pm said:

      The 1992 definition has a biased nuance (they don’t entertain the notion that natural cycles forcings just might be the major climate drivers) :

      “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over a comparable time period”

      And Is substantially different to (can’t remember where I got this from):

      “Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.”

      Which does at least acknowledge uncertainty as to the predominate climate drivers (they don’t know – we do)

      Or the AR4 Glossary:

      “Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in
      the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition ofthe global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability
      observed over comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes. See also Climate variability; Detection and Attribution”

      Which is a messy and incommunicable combination.

      So to the world, the communication is:

      “Climate Change is Man Made” and lots of money must change hands to stop it.

      (and wealthy nations de-developed and the wealth transferred to poorer nations of course)

  2. val majkus on 16/10/2010 at 10:40 am said:

    another site worth a look today
    Climate Change Now Questioned At German Universities – Professors Speaking Up
    contains a clip of a seminar here by Professors Dr Klaus Landfried of Heidelberg and Dr Werner Kirstein of the Institute for Geography at the University of Leipzig before an audience at the University of Leipzig. The seminar is titled:

    “Where’s The Climate Change?”

  3. Andy on 16/10/2010 at 11:21 am said:

    I have just listened to a very good interview on BBC Radio Oxford, with Richard North (EURef) at Chris Goodall (Green party candidate and director of 10:10)

    The interview starts about 10 mins in after the musak.

    The interview is a blinder. Ricard North says climate change is all about politics, and Chris Goodall agrees with him

    This is the kind of interview we need on Kim Hill!!!

  4. Richard C on 16/10/2010 at 4:03 pm said:

    Guardian scribe can’t cope with complex scientific arguments unseating his cognitive faculties:

    “How fear of bias dominates the climate change debate”

    Climate sceptics say they want science free of politics, yet their campaigning frames discussion

    This shift is a result of the long-running sceptics’ campaign. A similar change occurred last month at the Royal Society. Two members of Lord Lawson’s sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation lobbied the Royal Society to update its short guide to climate science for the public. Their goal was not to alter the scientific conclusions, as the previous guide was accurate. Their aim was to reframe the advice. The old guide was written as short, clear answers to a series of common arguments made by climate contrarians. The new advice is no longer in such a useful form for the public. The science is the same, but Lawson’s gang have politicised its presentation. Prominent sceptics, like Lawson, say they want science free of politics, yet their campaigning has brought about exactly the opposite.


    What’s to be done? First, acknowledge that many of us, especially researchers and committed science journalists who fear accusations of bias, have internalised the sceptics’ conspiracy-laden worldview. Second, we all need to avoid playing along with their agenda, by carefully explaining scientific results to avoid the inevitable contrarian wilful misinterpretations, without name-checking “the sceptics” as a group. We don’t accept vocal fringe groups such as creationists framing the reporting of evolution, and likewise, we should actively avoid letting fringe ideological convictions frame public discussions of climate change science.

    “we should actively avoid letting fringe ideological convictions frame public discussions of climate change science”

    As a MMCC sceptic – couldn’t agree more

    • Richard C on 16/10/2010 at 5:22 pm said:

      I’ve put this in “News” too. I hadn’t caught up with RT’s extended Open thread index.

  5. THREAD on 16/10/2010 at 8:00 pm said:


    • THREAD on 23/10/2010 at 7:46 pm said:
    • THREAD on 23/10/2010 at 7:48 pm said:
    • THREAD on 23/10/2010 at 7:55 pm said:

      See “UK”

    • THREAD on 23/10/2010 at 7:57 pm said:

      See “USA”

    • THREAD on 23/10/2010 at 7:59 pm said:
    • THREAD on 23/10/2010 at 8:01 pm said:
    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/10/2010 at 9:14 pm said:

      Professor Don Easterbrook on The Looming Threat of Global Cooling

      Thursday, October 28, 2010

      Professor of Geology Dr. Don Easterbrook’s essay, The Looming Threat of Global Cooling, predicts on the basis of natural climate cycles such as the PDO that “global cooling for the next 2 to 3 decades will be far more damaging than global warming would have been.” The paper also finds there were numerous, abrupt, short-lived warming and cooling episodes, much more intense than recent warming/cooling, during the last ice age, none of which could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2:

    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/10/2010 at 7:42 am said:


      Geologic Evidence for Prolonged Cooling Ahead and its Impacts

      Prof. Don J. Easterbrook

      Dept. of geology, Western Washington University


    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/10/2010 at 8:01 am said:


      David C. Archibald

      Archibald (2006) predicted that climate during the forthcoming Solar Cycles 24 and 25 would be significantly cold. As at late 2008, the progression of the current 23/24 solar minimum indicates that a severe cool period is now inevitable, similar to that of the Dalton Minimum. A decline in average annual temperature of 2.2° C is here predicted for the mid-latitude regions over Solar Cycle 24. The result will be an equator-ward shift in continental climatic conditions in the mid-latitudes of the order of 300 km, with consequent severe effects on world agricultural productivity.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/10/2010 at 8:26 am said:

      Quantifying the US Agricultural Productivity Response to Solar Cycle 24

      David Archibald 30th December, 2008

      Assuming that two thirds of the productivity increase in mid-western states from 1990 to 2004 was climatically driven, then the productivity decline in this region due to Solar Cycle 24 is expected to be of the order of 30%. The total US agricultural productivity decrease would be less than that at possibly 20%, equating to the export share of US agricultural production.

      See – “Economics” Global Cooling – Economic Impacts

    • Richard C (NZ) on 08/11/2010 at 10:13 am said:

      More Evidence That Global Warming Is Becoming A Global Cooling Trend, Despite CO2 Growth

      There is plenty of anecdotal and empirical evidence that global warming is on its last legs and fading fast. Often the global warming is presented as a linear temperature growth that seems to be a runaway-train-on-the-tracks headed off the charts. But the linear trend representation is very misleading.

      When the same data is viewed in a non-linear representation, the simple straight line to heaven look is revealed for what it really is – a false representation.

      Below are both global temperature and CO2 data for the last two decades, plus the first six months of 2010. Using a non-linear trend analysis, the actual data reveals the CO2 trend and global temperature trend diverging significantly.

      Clearly, the flattening of warming is evident in the smooth blue trend curve for temperatures. This is happening while the smooth blue trend curve for CO2 continues its upward climb. The CO2-induced, “soon to be,” global warming tipping point is in reality, a fantasy. (click on image to enlarge)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 11/11/2010 at 1:50 pm said:

      A New Treasure Trove Of 1970s “Global Cooling” Articles

      10 11 2010

      Italian newspaper “La Stampa” has just put online its 1867-today archive (yes, it IS in Italian). What better chance (well, for me at least…) to explore the evolution of “global cooling” thinking in the 1970s beyond the usual English-speaking newsmedia? With the added bonus of plenty of names and other key words to use as…keywords for further research.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/11/2010 at 11:12 am said:

      Rearview: Paul Ehrlich; Global Cooling

      November 23rd, 2010

      Source: S&A Digest

      On global warming, we do have a position. It is the uber-bunk of our time, the big lie that’s too popular for politicians to ignore. Ironically, today’s big lie is the exact opposite of the last big lie, which was spawned by Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb, a best-selling book of the early 1970s. Ehrlich, a professor at Stanford University, predicted the world’s population would grow too rapidly to be supported by farming, resulting in a mass famine. Ehrlich wrote that in 10 years England would cease to exist because everyone there would starve to death. Part of the drama was the risk of global cooling.

      As Dennis Gartman reminded me today, a 1975 Newsweek cover story proclaimed:

      The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually… Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists… are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/12/2010 at 5:52 pm said:

      Triple Crown of global cooling could pose serious threat to humanity

      * May 19th, 2010 2:31 pm ET

      * Seminole County Environmental News Examiner. Kirk Myers

      “Global warming” may become one of those quaint cocktail party conversations of the past if three key climate drivers – cooling North Pacific sea surface temperatures, extremely low solar activity and increased volcanic eruptions – converge to form a “perfect storm” of plummeting temperatures that send our planet into a long-term cool-down lasting 20 or 30 years or longer.

      “There are some wild cards that are different from what we saw when we came out of the last warm PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation] and entered its cool phase [1947 to 1976]. Now we have a very weak solar cycle and the possibility of increased volcanic activity. Together, they would create what I call the ‘Triple Crown of Cooling,’” says Accuweather meteorologist Joe Bastardi.

      If all three climate-change ingredients come together, it would be a recipe for dangerously cold temperatures that would shorten the agricultural growing season in northern latitudes, crippling grain production in the wheat belts of the United States and Canada and triggering widespread food shortages and famine.

      Cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation

      The Pacific Decadal Oscillation refers to cyclical variations in sea surface temperatures that occur in the North Pacific Ocean. (The PDO is often described as a long-lived El Niño-like pattern.) PDO events usually persist for 20 to 30 years, alternating between warm and cool phases. During these long periods there are sometimes short-interval phase switches that can last several years.

      From 1977 to 1998, during the height of “global warming,” North America was in the midst of a warm PDO. Since then, we have experienced several short-duration PDO fluctuations between cool and warm.

      But the PDO has once again resumed its negative cool phase, and, as such, represents the first climate driver in the Triple Crown of Cooling. With the switch to a cool PDO, we’ve seen a change in the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which alternates between El Nino (warm phase) and La Nina (cool phase) every few years. The recent strong El Nino that began in July 2009 is now transitioning to a La Nina, a sign of cooler temperatures ahead.

      “We’re definitely headed towards La Nina conditions before summer is over, and we’re looking at a moderate to strong La Nina by fall and winter, which, as these La Ninas tend to persist in the cold PDO for two years, should bring us cooler temperatures over the next few years,” predicts Joe D’Aleo, founder of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP) and the first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel.

      He is not alone in his forecast. Bastardi also sees a La Nina just around the corner.

      “I’ve been saying since February that we’ll transition to La Nina by the middle of the hurricane season. I think we’re already seeing the atmosphere going into a La Nina state in advance of water temperatures. This will have interesting implications down the road. La Nina will dramatically cool off everything later this year and into next year, and it is a signal for strong hurricane activity,” Bastardi predicts.

      The difference in sea surface temperature between positive and negative PDO phases is not more than 1 to 2 degrees Celsius, but the affected area is huge. So the temperature changes can have a big impact on the climate in North America.

      In fact, as Dr. Roy Spencer points out, the warm-phase PDO lasting from 1977 to 1998 might explain most of the warming we experienced in the late 20th century.

      “This is because a change in weather circulation patterns can cause a small change in global-average cloudiness. And since clouds represent the single largest internal control on global temperatures (through their ability to reflect sunlight), a change in cloudiness associated with the PDO might explain most of the climate change we’ve seen in the last 100 years or more,” he writes.

      Declining solar activity

      Another real concern – and the second climate driver in the Triple Crown of Cooling – is the continued stretch of weak solar activity Earth is experiencing. We recently exited the longest solar minimum –12.7 years compared to the 11-year average – in 100 years. It was a historically inactive period in terms of sunspot numbers. During the minimum, which began in 2004, we have experienced 800 spotless days. A normal cycle averages 485 spotless days.

      In 2008, we experienced 265 days without a sunspot, the fourth-highest number of spotless days since continuous daily observations began in 1849. In 2009, the trend continued, with 261 spotless days, ranking it among the top five blank-sun years. Only 1878, 1901 and 1913 (the record-holder with 311 days) recorded more spotless days.

      In 2010, the sun continues to remain in a funk. There were 27 spotless days (according to Layman’s sunspot count) in April and, as of May 19, 12 days without a spot. Both months exhibited periods of inexplicably low solar activity during a time when the sun should be flexing its “solar muscle” and ramping up towards the next solar maximum.

      Why are sunspot numbers important? Very simple: there is a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature. During the Dalton Minimum (1790 – 1830) and Maunder Minimum (1645 -1715), two periods with very low sunspot activity, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere plummeted.

      During the Dalton Minimum, the abnormally cold weather destroyed crops in northern Europe, the northeastern United States and eastern Canada. Historian John D. Post called it “the last great subsistence crisis in the Western world.” The record cold intensified after the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815, the largest volcanic eruption in more than 1,600 years (see details below).

      During the 70-year Maunder Minimum, astronomers at the time counted only a few dozen sunspots per year, thousands fewer than usual. As sunspots vanished, temperatures fell. The River Thames in London froze, sea ice was reported along the coasts of southeast England, and ice floes blocked many harbors. Agricultural production nose-dived as growing seasons became shorter, leading to lower crop yields, food shortages and famine.

      If the low levels of solar activity during the past three years continue through the current solar cycle (Solar Cycle 24), which is expected to peak in 2013, we could be facing a severe temperature decline within the next five to eight years as Earth’s climate begins to respond to the drop-off in solar activity.

      “The sun is behaving very quietly – like it did in the late 1700s during the transition from Solar Cycle 4 to Solar Cycle 5 – which was the start of the Dalton Minimum,” D’Aleo says. If the official sunspot number reaches only 40 or 50 – a low number indicating very weak solar energy levels – during the next solar maximum, we could be facing much lower global temperatures down the road.”

      Even NASA solar physicist David Hathaway has said this is “the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century.”

      “Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high,” Hathaway told NASA Science News. “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We’re just not used to this kind of deep calm.”

      Volcanic eruptions

      Although the eruption of Iceland’s Mount Eyjafjallajokull volcano continues to raise havoc with air travel, it remains a relatively minor event by volcanic standards. Much of its ash cloud has stayed out of the stratosphere, where it would reflect sunlight, bringing cooler temperatures to the northern hemisphere.

      Unfortunately, there is a very real chance Eyjafjallajokull’s much larger neighbor, the Katla volcano, could blow its top, creating the third-climate driver in the Triple Crown of Cooling. If Katla does erupt, it would send global temperatures into a nosedive, with a big assist from the cool PDO and a slumbering sun.

      The Katla caldera measures 42 square miles and has a magma chamber with a volume of around 2.4 cubic miles, enough to produce a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) level-six eruption – an event ten times larger than Mount St. Helens.

      Katla erupts about every 70 years or so, most recently in 1918, often in tandem with neighboring Eyjafjallajokull, which is not a good sign.

      According to Bastardi, “The Katla volcano in Iceland is a game changer. If it erupts and sends plumes of ash and SO2 into the stratosphere, any cooling caused by the oceanic cycles would be strengthened and amplified.”

      Iceland’s President Olafur Grimsson says the eruption of Eyjafjallajoekull volcano is only a “small rehearsal.”

      “The time for Katla to erupt is coming close . . . I don’t say if, but I say when Katla will erupt,” Grimsson predicts. And when Katla finally erupts it will “create for a long period, extraordinary damage to modern advanced society.”

      Not a very encouraging outlook. Yet major eruptions throughout history bear witness to the deadly impact of volcanoes.

      The Tambora eruption in 1815, the largest in 1,600 years, sent the earth’s climate into a deep freeze, triggering “the year without a summer.” Columnist Art Horn, writing in the Energy Tribune, describes the impact:

      “During early June of 1815, a foot of snow fell on Quebec City. In July and August, lake and river ice were observed as far south as Pennsylvania. Frost killed crops across New England with resulting famine. During the brutal winter of 1816/17, the temperature fell to -32 in New York City.”

      And Katla, with its large magma chamber, would register high on the Volcanic Explosivity Index, if it were to erupt. When it unleashed its fury in the 1700s, the volcano sent temperatures into a tailspin in North America.

      As Gary Hufford, a scientist with the Alaska Region of the National Weather Service, observes:

      “The Mississippi River froze just north of New Orleans and the East Coast, especially New England, had an extremely cold winter.

      “Katla could cause some serious weather changes. It depends on the duration of the eruption, and how high the ash gets blasted into the stratosphere.”

      Global cooling: a life-threatening event

      With the PDO now in its cool phase, solar activity the weakest in more than 100 years, and the prospect of a major climate-cooling volcanic eruption, actions to limit CO2 emissions should be shelved and preparations made for an extended period of global cooling that would pose far more danger to humankind than any real or imagined warming predicted by today’s climate models.

      Says D’Aleo: “Cold is far more threatening than the little extra warmth we experienced from 1977 to 1998 during the recent warm PDO. According to NASA, crop yield decreased 30 percent, and there was a 10 percent decrease in arable land during that period, which helped us feed many millions more of the earth’s population. A cooling down to Dalton Minimum temperatures or worse would lead to shortened growing seasons and large-scale crop failures. Food shortages would make worse the fact that more people die from cold than heat.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/01/2011 at 9:55 am said:

      The Long Winter of 2010-2011

      Alan Caruba, Warning Signs | 28 January 2011

      For New Yorkers and those in my part of New Jersey across the river, snow has fallen eight times since December 14, an average of once every five days, 56.1 inches in Central Park as of Jan 27th, and people are, shall we say, taking notice?


      People’s lives depend on our government’s ability to measure and forecast the weather. A government that continues to tell people that “global warming” is real and then throws billions of money on “research” to prove it, while issuing utterly false claims, must be forced to acknowledge reality. The same applies to the energy policies on which everyone depends for electricity, a reliable supply of heating oil, and other elements of the infrastructure.

      The lies must end. The end of the cooling cycle is nowhere in sight.

  6. THREAD on 16/10/2010 at 9:51 pm said:


  7. THREAD on 17/10/2010 at 7:21 am said:

    Metacommenting MetaHousekeeping and MetaTips

  8. THREAD on 17/10/2010 at 7:22 am said:


  9. val majkus on 18/10/2010 at 1:54 pm said:

    Quadrant Online today has Part 1 of The 5th International Climate Conference, sponsored by the Heartland Institute of Chicago (held in Sydney); Part 1 is written by Barry Brill
    quoting a sample
    Chris de Freitas set the stage: The big questions are – how much of the observed warming is due to humans and how much is natural? And, how high will temperatures rise?

    There is not one research-based journal article anywhere with real-world data showing that human-caused CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming. The evidence simply doesn’t exist. Unverified models are not useful for policy-making and nobody pretends that they can faithfully capture the critical roles of clouds, oceans or aerosols.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/10/2010 at 5:15 am said:

      I like to highlight stuff like this:

      There is not one research-based journal article anywhere with real-world data showing that human-caused CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming. The evidence simply doesn’t exist. Unverified models are not useful for policy-making and nobody pretends that they can faithfully capture the critical roles of clouds, oceans or aerosols.

      Thanks Val.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on 21/10/2010 at 5:12 am said:

    Andy, Val, Richard T:

    I did a bit of pseudo programming using the “Pointer” construct.


    The sequence is:

    Climate Blogs:
    Hot Topic:
    Climate Conversations v Hot Topic:
    Climate Conversations v Hot Topic Alexa Traffic Stats
    Wow, the Alexa Traffic Stats are making News headlines (The link jumps in here)
    News: Climate Conversations v Hot Topic
    Climate Conversations v Hot Topic Alexa Traffic Stats

    Thoughts on keeping people informed?

    Because Open Thread comments are closed, I suggest “Global Warming” is the best forum.

    Andy, I was triggered to do this after our “Key Words” conversation but I can’t find it – where is it?

    [The perils of O/T conversations]

  11. THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 9:51 am said:

    Space tourism to accelerate climate change

    Scientists predict that soot from commercial space flight will change global temperatures.

  12. THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 11:38 am said:

    Multiple studies and scientists link sunspot activity (among many other factors) to climate change. See here.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on 26/10/2010 at 1:35 pm said:

    Breaking News! The earth is warming! No wait, it’s cooling! No wait . . .

  14. Richard C (NZ) on 26/10/2010 at 1:41 pm said:

    Global Warming’s Corrupt Science

    By Patrick J. Michaels, October 20, 2010

  15. THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 2:11 pm said:

    Wednesday, October 20, 2010

    Physicist: Global Warming 1980-2008 caused by Sun, not Man

    Dr. Horst Borchert, the Director of the Department of Physics of the Johannes-Gutenberg Institute, Mainz, Germany, presented a paper, Using Satellite Measurements to study the Influence of Sun Activity on Terrestrial Weather at the Space Weather Workshop held in Boulder, Colorado earlier this year. Dr. Borchert finds from satellite measurements that global warming between about 1980 to 2008 was “not anthropogenic but caused by natural activities of the Sun’s surface.” He relates changes of the solar magnetic field to cosmic rays and cloud formation (the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al) and to effects on the North Atlantic Oscillation, which affects weather phenomena around the globe.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/10/2010 at 2:52 pm said:

      Wrong link – should be:

    • THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 3:19 pm said:

      Thursday, October 7, 2010

      Paper: Sun affects Climate much more than thought

      Adding the the recent spate of papers showing that – surprise – the Sun has much, much more to do with climate change than previously thought, the respected German Physics Journal Annalyn der Physik recently published a paper analyzing solar irradiance data from 1905 to 2008 which finds cosmic rays modulated by solar activity cause a large portion of atmospheric aerosols (clouds) with profound effects on climate [see the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al]. The paper concludes, “The contribution of the active sun, indirectly via cosmic rays, to global warming appears to be much stronger than the presently accepted [IPCC] upper limit of 1/3.”

    • THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 3:44 pm said:

      Paging IPCC: Much of recent global warming actually caused by Sun

      By Lewis Page • The Register Posted in Environment, 7th October 2010

      New data indicates that changes in the Sun’s output of energy were a major factor in the global temperature increases seen in recent years. The research will be unwelcome among hardcore green activists, as it downplays the influence of human-driven carbon emissions.

      As the Sun has shown decreased levels of activity during the past decade, it had been generally thought that it was warming the Earth less, not more. Thus, scientists considered that temperature rises seen in global databases must mean that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions – in particular of CO2 – must be exerting a powerful warming effect.

      Now, however, boffins working at Imperial College in London (and one in Boulder, Colorado) have analysed detailed sunlight readings taken from 2004 to 2007 by NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that although the Sun was putting out less energy overall than usual, in line with observations showing decreased sunspot activity, it actually emitted more in the key visible-light and near-infrared wavelengths.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/12/2010 at 4:34 pm said:

      The causes of global warming and climate change!

      There are two competing theories for the recent global warming trend.

      * The first is based on a theory which followed the warming trend that occurred between 1975 and 1998.

      * The second theory is based on highly correlated data going back thousands of years.

      Most agree that the temperature has increased about 0.6 – 0.7 Centigrade over the last century and that the level of CO2 or Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas has been increased in the atmosphere by 25-30% from pre industrial values.

      * The first theory, which is the generally accepted one, is that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuel and from land use is responsible for the resent temperature increase.

      * The second theory is that the sun’s magnetic field and the solar wind modulate the amount of high energy cosmic radiation that the earth receives. This in turn affects low altitude cloud cover and how much water vapor there is in the atmosphere and thus regulates the climate.

      Cosmic Rays and Climate

      By: Nir J. Shaviv

      In 1959, the late Edward Ney of the U. of Minnesota suggested that any climatic sensitivity to the density of tropospheric ions would immediately link solar activity to climate. This is because the solar wind modulates the flux of high energy particles coming from outside the solar system. These particles, the cosmic rays, are the dominant source of ionization in the troposphere. More specifically, a more active sun accelerates a stronger solar wind, which in turn implies that as cosmic rays diffuse from the outskirts of the solar system to its center, they lose more energy. Consequently, a lower tropospheric ionization rate results. Over the 11-yr solar cycle and the long term variations in solar activity, these variations correspond to typically a 10% change in this ionization rate. It now appears that there is a climatic variable sensitive to the amount of tropospheric ionization — Clouds.

      Clouds have been observed from space since the beginning of the 1980’s. By the mid 1990’s, enough cloud data accumulated to provide empirical evidence for a solar/cloud-cover link. Without the satellite data, it hard or probably impossible to get statistically meaningful results because of the large systematic errors plaguing ground based observations. Using the satellite data, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cloud cover varies in sync with the variable cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth. Over the relevant time scale, the largest variations arise from the 11-yr solar cycle, and indeed, this cloud cover seemed to follow the cycle and a half of cosmic ray flux modulation. Later, Henrik Svensmark and his colleague Nigel Marsh, have shown that the correlation is primarily with low altitude cloud cover. This can be seen in fig. 3.

      The solar-activity – cosmic-ray-flux – cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent. It was in fact sought for by Henrik Svensmrk, based on theoretical considerations. However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two. There is however separate proof that a casual link exists between cosmic rays and climate, and independently that cosmic rays left a fingerprint in the observed cloud cover variations.


  16. val majkus on 24/11/2010 at 4:06 pm said:

    Some of you with far more knowledge than I have may like to become involved in this debate at

  17. Richard C (NZ) on 06/12/2010 at 3:05 pm said:

    What happened to the ‘warmest year on record’: The truth is global warming has halted

    Last updated at 4:17 PM on 5th December 2010

    A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, ‘is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record’ – a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 19611990 average.

    World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an everrising trend: ‘Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far – 1998.’

    Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon emission limits – an ambition that was not to be met.

    Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000delegate UN climate jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico, the Met Office was at it again.

    Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since 1996.

    Globally, it insisted, 2010 was still on course to be the warmest or second warmest year since current records began.

    But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications – not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.

    Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.


  18. THREAD on 07/12/2010 at 9:14 am said:

    Throwing cold water on global warming

    By Bill Schuster
    Posted Dec 04, 2010 @ 09:00 PM

    Orin Domenico, in a guest view last Sunday, called for a discussion on global warming. He stated, “Let’s talk.”

    I have studied the subject since 1988. Back then Dr. James Hansen of NASA presented his alarmist views and influenced Al Gore into taking the alarmist position. Over these 22 years, I have become a “skeptic” of the man-made global warming hypothesis. Alarmists have no use for skeptics. Former Rep. Sherwood Boehlert called us “Neanderthals.”

    Carbon dioxide


    Albert Gore



    Bill Schuster is a retired engineer. He lives in Sauquoit.
    Copyright 2010 The Observer-Dispatch, Utica, New York. Some rights reserved

  19. Andy on 07/12/2010 at 12:37 pm said:

    Claes Johnson banned from teaching Mathematics course at Swedish University:

    Extremist pro-green Swedish university shackles academic freedom and bans all teaching that doesn’t conform to dogma of human-caused global warming

    The math professor reports that this latest gagging is most extreme because it includes required material for his students and may be fatally damaging to their studies.

    The highly-experienced and respected professor has been banned by his bosses from teaching any “part of course material in the course Numerical Methods II.” The material is also found in his ebook, ‘BodyandSoul.’

    Dr. Johnson laments, “the course, has been “stopped” by the President of the Royal Technological Institute KTH, because the book contains a mathematical analysis of some models related to climate simulation.”

    It appears the blanket ban was precipitated after a small clique of pro-green student activists protested to the university that Johnson was daring to address both sides of the global warming debate. The story is also reported by DN.SE, a popular Scandinavian publication who added, “the school took away pages of the book.”

    Claes Johnson’s Blog:

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/12/2010 at 2:37 pm said:

      We are witnessing science by Royal decree in our time

      A Royal level manifestation of what alarmists (and totalitarians) are now forced to do all over the world to protect their position.





















      I clicked through the CFP ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ link to then the same ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory” link again to the next Amazon page and “Active discussions in related forums” near the bottom of the page. I caught a link to this thread just before it disappeared.

      “But, the oceans have been cooling for a decade. Where’s the global warming?”

      It’s very similar to the NZ Herald, JoNova, Hot Topic discussion/arguments but with more and better info from both sides IMO.

      It was back in Sept 2010 and a “Mug Wump” posted this impressive piece
      In reply to an earlier post on Sept. 28, 2010 4:14 PM PDT
      Last edited by the author on Sept. 28, 2010 5:03 PM PDT

      Mug Wump says:
      All of the land based data is corrupted by the urban heat island effect. We do, however, have accurate satellite and radiosonde temperature change data for the top layer of the ocean and lower troposphere (see below). We know the truth.

      The sun was very active throughout the 20th century and this led to global warming. It’s happened before. Now the sun is anomalously quiet and it has been quiet for a while now. It is not surprising to many scientists that the combined satellite and radiosonde temperature data now indicate that there has been a cooling trend for years corresponding with this observed change in solar activity.

      The technology has been explained very well by Dick Thoenes (The stabilising effect of the oceans on climate). “High quality subsurface ocean temperature, salinity and density data are now available from a fleet of 3000 submersible floats that are distributed throughout the world’s oceans.18 The floats are designed to sink to a depth of 1000 or 2000 m, drift at that depth for ten days, then return to the surface, acquiring data during the ascent. At the surface, the data are transmitted via satellite to a series of ground monitoring stations. The floats then repeat the descent/ascent cycle. The floats are not tethered and drift with the ocean currents. The principal features of the solar heating of the ocean at various latitudes through the year may be understood by examining the results from selected Argo floats. Figure 1 summarizes a year of data from 5 Argo floats covering a range of latitudes from the equator to the Antarctic Circle in the southern central Pacific Ocean. The temperatures at 5 depths, 5, 25, 50, 75 and 100 m are shown as a time series for the year. The latitude drift of the floats is also shown. Because of variability in the float actuators, the depths are averages for each float with a standard deviation of approximately 0.2 m. The average latitude, longitude, depths and temperatures for each float are given in Table 1. The average temperatures show the expected decrease in temperature at higher latitudes.”

      What we see is that Observational evidence in the real world simply does not support the data and the adjustments to the data and all of the variables and parameters that are used to capture ‘reality’ in the GCM world.

      “The observed ocean heat content trends were calculated by Josh K. Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Craig Leohle of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Loehle’s calculations have a smaller margin for error than Willis, because Willis only uses annual average data. The heat deficit shows that from 2003-2008 there was no positive radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing, despite increasing levels of CO2. Indeed, the radiative imbalance was negative, meaning the earth was losing slightly more energy than it absorbed.

      “Since the oceans are the primary reservoir of atmospheric heat, there is no need to account for lag time involved with heat transfer. By using ocean heat as a metric, we can quantify nearly all of the energy that drives the climate system at any given moment. So, if there is still heat ‘in the pipeline’, where is it? The deficit of heat after nearly 6 years of cooling is now enormous. Heat can be transferred, but it cannot hide.” (William DiPuccio)

      “Even when alarmist evidence is conclusively discredited (e.g. the hockey stick graph), the climate alarmists continue to use it, and to dismiss all conflicting evidence no matter how sound or voluminous it may be. When their own claims fail, they revise the evidence, not their hypothesis. Recent examples of this have involved the current global cooling trend, the absence of a signature tropical tropospheric hot spot, Antarctic cooling, oceanic cooling, unchanged rates of sea level rise, etc. All these phenomena have been subjected to dubious data manipulation trying to make a silk purse to suit GW out of a sow’s ear of empirical data which refuses to conform to their hopes.” (Walter Starck)

      Argos data is collected aboard the NOAA Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES). “We must face the fact that the earth is now cooling,” as for example: Craig Loehle, “1,500-Year Climate Cycles, Broken Hockey Stocks, and Ocean Cooling,” Energy and Environment Vol. 20, 2009.

      Here’s the problem the Warmanazis have: they cannot tell the truth. A direct example is their refusal to admit that the oceans are in a cooling trend (and the unconscious incompetence of schoolteachers who continue to facilitate the ignorance and lies of these anti-humanist science authoritarians is mind-boggling).

      It’s a simple fact. The fact is based on easily knowable and understandable technology.

      To question the fact is to simply say humans are incapable of knowing anything. The Warmanists cannot say that, of course, as that would completely undermine the supposed certainty with which the Warmanazis pretend the Earth is doomed if they are not given power over the production and distribution of all goods and services used by Western civilization.

      So, that leaves very little room for them to continue beating a dead hoax. All they’ve got left is say something like, e.g., “Claims that the ocean has been cooling are correct. Claims that global warming has stopped are not.”

      Well, they’ve been caught saying just that. And, what they’re saying is more than misleading–more than a misconception–it demonstrates a total lack of understanding of physics, PERIOD.

      “If ocean cooling does occur, it DOES mean global warming as stopped during that time period.” (Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr)

      Why are the oceans cooling?

      1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity (LSA) – i.e., Sporer minimum
      1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity (HSA)
      1610-1700 cold – (LSA) – i.e., Maunder minimum
      1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
      1810-1900 cold – (LSA) i.e., Dalton minimum
      1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
      2010+ Global cooling predicted by some scientists, perhaps over the next 3 to 7 decades due to low solar activity, e.g.,

      Note: “The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030-2040. Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective synchronization of coupled oscillators.” ~Nikola Scafetta

      And, Note: “… a long-term global cooling starting around 2002 is expected to continue for next five to seven decades…” ~Lu, Q.

      “Until we understand the oceans better we simply don’t know anything of the future of the climate. They may model the atmosphere as much as they want, without the oceans it is meaningless and if they include the oceans the models will be so complicated that they will be useless anyhow.” ~Sten Kaijser, 20 March 2010

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/12/2010 at 3:13 pm said:

      Also this comment from the review of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ by Mr. Peter M. Sullivan Aca

      In reply to an earlier post on Nov. 30, 2010 9:19 AM PST

      Joe Postma says:
      Thank you Hans!
      I put together this ( little report to discuss with friends…but other professors at my institution keep ripping it off my office door and shredding it! It’s only 9 pages in large font…would you mind taking a look at it and send me a brief reply? My email is at with the name in the above weblink pre-pended. Cheers mate! [using your country’s vernacular 🙂 ]

      It becomes obvious from reading the pdf why the Professors ripped it off his door.

      1- The radiative surface of the earth is not the same thing as the ground surface of the earth. Therefore, comparing the actual ground-air temperature to the theoretical radiative equilibrium blackbody temperature is an invalid concept – there is no reason to do this from the outset. The theoretical radiative equilibrium temperature is measured to be exactly just that, on average, as seen from space.

      2- The simple Ideal Gas Law, and the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, tell us that the atmospheric temperature increases with density in a gravitational field.

      3- Given the dry adiabatic lapse rate is known from thermodynamics and meteorology, and the altitude of the radiative equilibrium temperature is known from measurement, the average ground surface air temperature is calculated to be +220C, via thermodynamics.Therefore the real question and science is found in: How much does outgoing radiative transfer contribute to the height of the radiative equilibrium surface, thus contributing to warming of the ground-air due to thermodynamics? Then, how much is this height affected by CO2? Then, how much by anthropogenic CO2? Satellite-measured data has already answered the last question for us: It’s too little to matter! Thus the need for positive feedbacks (see last).

      Additionally: The idea that the ground-air temperature is due exclusively to the mechanics of outgoing infrared radiative transfer is false. A significant portion of ground-air heating must be due to simple thermodynamics a-priori, because the majority of incoming solar energy is absorbed directly by the atmosphere, raising the radiative equilibrium surface far above the ground.

      There is no such thing as an atmospheric Greenhouse Effect as popularly understood by the lay-public: the analogy was never valid to begin with. A horticulturalists’ greenhouse is warm because the glass prevents convective cooling of sunlight-heated air. It is not because the glass absorbs or traps infrared radiation. IR transparent glass could be used and a greenhouse will still be warm. Air actually conducts & convects heat away from sun-lit ground, acting rather as an air-conditioner. The sun-lit surface of the moon is after-all, with no atmosphere, hundreds of degrees hotter than the Stefan-Boltzmann equation would predict. This is because there is no atmosphere present to share the thermal load, distribute the heat, and convectively cool the lunar regolith. The atmospheric greenhouse analogy is invalid and misleading, and sidesteps true understanding based on well-accepted theory and physical principles. We need a better mnemonic than the one we have.

      “The present approach of dealing with climate as completely specified by a single number, globally averaged surface temperature anomaly, that is forced by another single number, atmospheric CO2, limits real understanding. So does the replacement of physical theory by model simulation”1 and simple-minded misleading mnemonics. Theory is further abused in the error of proposing that the ground-air temperature is determined exclusively by the amount of radiation in it, rather than the amount of radiation being determined by the temperature. Any stellar atmospherics astrophysicist knows that the amount of radiation in an atmosphere is determined by its temperature, not the other way around. If it was, then astrophysicists should concern themselves with the “Greenhouse Effect” in stars…They don’t.

      AGW debunking on campus as per Gerlich and Tscheuschner et al (or Martin Luther) must NOT be tolerated by learned Professors at Universities – it’s just NOT allowed, NO dissent, PERIOD.

  20. Richard C (NZ) on 10/12/2010 at 9:21 am said:

    Global Warming cloud feedback debate heats up at Cancun

    09.12.2010 19:16 Age: 36 min
    Category: Climate change
    By: Leon Clifford

    Cloud feedback erupted as the new front line in the debate over climate change today as a paper to be published tomorrow in US journal Science was immediately challenged by a leading sceptical climate scientist.

    Texas A&M University climate scientist Andy Dessler’s Science paper criticises the idea that cloud feedback will prevent global warming. It follows on from a paper which suggested that clouds may have an overall cooling effect that was published in August and co-authored by climate scientist and acknowledged global warming sceptic Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama.

    “There’s three takeaways from my paper,” Andy Dessler told Reporting Climate Science .Com. “First the observational evidence of global cloud feedbacks is likely positive. Second the magnitude of the feedback measured in the observations is a good match with the computer models. And third some climate sceptics have put cloud feedbacks as a magical process that will save us from climate change and the evidence here is that it won’t save us.”

    Spencer released a statement from the Cancun climate change conference in Mexico. “What is the new evidence of positive cloud feedback that Dessler has published? Well, actually it isn’t new. It’s basically the same evidence we published in the “Journal of Geophysical Research” earlier this year,” Spencer said in his statement. “Yet we came to a very different conclusion, which was that the only clear evidence of feedback we found in the data was of strongly negative cloud feedback.”

    Cloud feedback is one of the key areas of uncertainty identified by climate scientists working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and is a key issue cited by climate change sceptics, so this debate is significant. If cloud feedback is positive then clouds will have an accelerating effect on climate change whereas if cloud feedback is negative then it will have a cooling effect.

    Dessler explained that he had looked at the interaction between clouds and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Pacific Ocean warming and cooling cycle. “In this case the ENSO cycle is a proxy for climate change. We know that clouds do not cause the ENSO so we looked for any changes in the clouds as a response to the ENSO. And we found that the response was positive feedback.”

    Spencer believes that there is a cause and effect issue at work and that clouds actually have a cooling effect that interacts with the ENSO. “Dessler’s paper claims to show that cloud feedback is both positive and generally supportive of the cloud feedback assumptions exhibited by the IPCC’s computerized climate models. This would, in turn, support the IPCC¹s claim that anthropogenic global warming will become an increasingly serious problem in the future. Unfortunately, the central evidence contained in the paper is weak at best, and seriously misleading at worst. It uses flawed logic to ignore recent advancements we have made in identifying cloud feedback.”

    Dessler believes that his work reduces the scope for doubt about clouds. “When you look at what we know about climate change you can see that we know a lot but that clouds were one of the areas of uncertainty. My paper has not settled the issue completely but it has substantially reduced the opportunity for climate sceptics to point at this issue. At some point people are just going to have to accept that if you put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere then we will increase the temperature,” he said.

    “There has been a cordial disagreement,” said a spokesman for Spencer who confirmed that Spencer had been contacted by Science for his view on the paper.

    “A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade” by A. E. Dessle published in SCIENCE VOL 330 10 DECEMBER 2010

    Click here for Science.

    “On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing” by Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell published in JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, D16109, doi:10.1029/2009JD013371, 201

    Click here.

  21. Richard C (NZ) on 15/12/2010 at 6:22 pm said:

    Michigan buried by global warming

    Henry Payne / The Michigan
    Last Updated: December 14. 2010 1:00AM

    From The Detroit News:

    Has there ever been a better illustration of the gulf between America’s political elites and Middle America?

    This weekend, a delegation to the United Nation’s Climate Summit in the resort city of Cancun, Mexico that included Washington negotiators, Michigan faculty, and Ann Arbor students returned to declare that they had come to an agreement to transfer $100 billion — that’s BILLION — to Third World countries to combat catastrophic global warming. The announcement came as a brutal winter snowstorm buried the Midwest in record snowdrifts that collapsed the Minneapolis Metrodome, drove temperatures to record lows in the south, and killed five people in the Metro Detroit area

    How many people has global warming killed?

    Despite last year’s Climategate scandal that have gutted climate science credibility, the United States increased funding three-fold in 2010 to a staggering $1.7 billion-a-year to fight the phantom global warming scare at a time when the country’s federal and state budgets are hobbled by a loss of revenue from the Great Recession.

    Is global warming a greater threat than state bankruptcy?

    While the Cancun delegation studied the diversion of another $100 billion in tax dollars to the help Third World governments build windmills, local Michigan governments like Oakland County cut its snow and salt crews by a third to meet budget — crews that were sorely missing Monday morning as semi-trucks jackknifed on slick roads, clotting roadways and forcing backup for miles.

    Is global warming a greater threat than road safety?

    In Atlanta last week, hundreds of poor residents shivered in line for home-heating assistance as the mercury in southern Georgia plunged into the ’20s. Indeed, Cancun itself greeted its warming saviors with record low temperatures while climate delegates met amidst hotels full of resort vacationers honked off by 50-degree temperatures.

    This is madness.

    The University of Michigan sent 30 professors, students, and alumni to the Cancun Summit. “Rather than only learning in the classroom about the most complex and contentious environmental negotiations that we have ever faced, the students will get a first-hand look at how such an international treaty is worked out,” said Andrew Hoffman, a professor in the School of Natural Resources and the Environment. Freezing, overtaxed Michigan voters may wonder whether if this is the best use of their U-M subsidy dollars.

    “Last year, the masses in Copenhagen were alive with the idealistic belief that a solution to climate change was at hand. This year, the masses in Cancun are alert to the nearest bar with a deal on margaritas,” sniffed one U-M student in Cancun about the vacationers around him. “Now don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against tanned bikini clad bodies or margaritas. At the same time, it does give one pause when the vast majority of people just outside the conference walls are oblivious to the debate which could have a drastic impact not only on their own lives but the lives of future generations.”

    Maybe these students would have learned more helping “the masses” in a Detroit warming center where large numbers of homeless are expected this year in the midst of a down Detroit economy.

    While The Detroit News reports that “extreme temperatures” this winter will see an overflow of families to Detroit warming centers, Gov. Jennifer Granholm is celebrating the forced purchase of wind power — to fight global warming — by DTE in order to meet state alternative energy mandates. The expensive mandates will suck more money from Michigan ratepayers. The governor applauded the deal as Lansing has experienced record snowfall and record low temperatures this decade.

    It is hard to square the rhetoric of Cancun with the reality of Detroit’s streets. U-M might expose its students to climatologist Pat Michaels who explains that even Cancun’s goal of an 80 percent carbon reduction by 2050 would have minimal effect on global temperatures. Or that diverting $100 million from the economic engines like the U.S. to create green utopias will increase poverty.

    Instead, students get green mythology.

    “We hope to participate actively while in Cancun, as well as share our experiences with our community upon return,” said one Mexico-bound U-M student. More likely, she’ll be sharing experiences of slip-sliding across an iced-over campus in 10-degree temperatures.

    Henry Payne is editor of The Michigan

  22. Andy on 15/12/2010 at 9:12 pm said:

    If you haven’t seen this little comedy skit on Global Warming, it is quite funny

    (h/t Dellers and Bishop Hill)

  23. Andy on 20/12/2010 at 1:41 pm said:

    Another Record Breaking Winter, What Happened to Global Warming?

    Patrick Henningsen

    t seems that the only people in denial are the religious followers of the IPCC’s new Jonestown Church of climate change… drunk on a delusion that they are, in their own little way, saving the planet from the evil substance known as CO2. It’s become a sort of tribal division, where two tribes cannot seem to agree if the Sun orbits the Earth, or the Earth orbits the Sun. Throughout history tribes of people needed mythologies in order to give meaning to their lives. Climate Change is simply the latest mythology for this current epoch. In the 21st century, we thought modern man had surely advanced past this handicap, but alas… old habits die hard.

    Alice… are you there Alice?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/12/2010 at 2:10 pm said:

      Powerful writing and graphics.

      The one group of pragmatists guaranteed not to be fooled are market traders that keep an eye on fundamentals. If they’re fooled by group-think, they lose; if they see the trend before the herd, they win – simple (unless the market’s rigged of course – then the scammers win).

  24. Richard C (NZ) on 24/12/2010 at 11:14 pm said:

    Study Shows Half Of Warming Since 1980 Due To Clear Skies

    By P Gosselin on 19. Dezember 2010 has an excellent report today called: ALL-CLEAR IN THE STRATOSPHERE about volcanic aerosols and their impact on the earth’s climate and cooling. Turns out that they have a far greater impact than expected.

    Today the earth’s stratosphere is as clean as it’s been in more than 50 years. What does that mean? It means more solar radiation can reach the earth, and is thus contributing to warming. The stratosphere is too clean – because of the lack of volcanic activity over the last 18 years. According to climate scientist Richard Keen of the University of Colorado:

    “Since 1996, lunar eclipses have been bright, which means the stratosphere is relatively clear of volcanic aerosols. This is the longest period with a clear stratosphere since before 1960.”


  25. Richard C (NZ) on 27/12/2010 at 9:16 am said:

    Gerald Warner: Weathering The True Lies Of Global Warming Newspeak

    Sunday, 26 December 2010 07:57 Gerald Warner, Scotland on Sunday

    WEATHER is not climate. Grasp that crucial distinction and you have the essence of the situation, a gnostic insight that will enable you to, er, weather the current cold snap while clinging faithfully to the revealed truth of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The ex cathedra dogma that weather is not climate has the authoritative resonance of similar Orwellian Newspeak maxims such as “War is peace”.

    Beware, above all, of succumbing to a false consciousness, of imagining that a few snowdrifts somehow discredit the metaphysical reality of global warming. Those gifted with climate gnosis arguably have a duty to proclaim their faith by dressing in Bermuda shorts and bikinis, to dispel the illusion of Arctic conditions. This is another area in which the Scottish Parliament, a tabernacle of AGW piety, might profitably impose a ban on people wrapping up in warm clothing, for is that not implicit climate change denial?

    These are challenging times for climate jihadists. Last week the Met Office was forced to issue a press release stating it “categorically denies forecasting a ‘mild winter’ “. In fact, in October, its long-range probability map predicted an 80 per cent probability of warmer than average temperatures from November to January in Scotland. It claimed Scotland, along with Northern Ireland, the eastern half of England and Cornwall, would experience temperatures above the 3.7°C average, more than 2°C higher than last winter.

    Perversely, those are precisely the regions most ravaged by blizzard conditions; but the Met Office now insists that was not a forecast. Apparently, just as weather is not climate, a Met Office map predicting an 80 per cent likelihood of higher temperatures is not a forecast………….continues

  26. Richard C (NZ) on 27/12/2010 at 9:32 am said:

    HARRIS & LEYLAND: Global warming ideology still on top

    By Tom Harris and Bryan Leyland – The Washington Times

    6:30 p.m., Wednesday, December 8, 2010

    The science has crumbled, but too much money backs the scare

    “Climate change” has suffered significant setbacks in the past year. First there was Climategate. Then the Copenhagen conference ended without binding agreements on either mitigation or adaptation. This was followed quickly by Glaciergate, Amazongate, Kiwigate and serious challenges to the credibility of Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Next, professor Phil Jones of the United Kingdom’s Climatic Research Unit (and lead author of the IPCC chapter on temperatures) admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years. Then “hockey stick” promoters finally acknowledged that there indeed was a Medieval Warm Period.


    Some commentators tell us that this is the beginning of the end of the climate scare. More likely, it is just the end of the beginning………..continues

    Tom Harris is the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). Bryan Leyland is ICSC’s founding secretary and energy issues adviser.

  27. Andy on 29/12/2010 at 10:35 am said:

    Global Cooling Consensus Is Heating Up – Cooling Over The Next 1 To 3 Decades

    By P Gosselin on 28. Dezember 2010

  28. val majkus on 26/01/2011 at 3:52 pm said:

    Dr Marohasy has a post up about the latest Climategate enquiry
    To read and comment
    there are some excellent links in the comments too as well as an update by David Holland

    • Andy on 26/01/2011 at 4:06 pm said:

      The comments from Graham Stringer MP are fairly damning.

      There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. The composition of the two panels has been criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly’s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU’s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most [serious] allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.

    • val majkus on 26/01/2011 at 9:25 pm said:

      Andy totally agree and those are the words which history may remember ‘This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU’s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most [serious] allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.’
      Hope so

    • Andy on 27/01/2011 at 10:29 am said:


      I don’t know if you follow Josh’s cartoons. but this one captures the “Stringer moment”

  29. val majkus on 27/01/2011 at 12:32 pm said:

    very good Andy; I love Josh’s cartoons, WUWT features them too
    my favourite is this one:

  30. Richard C (NZ) on 07/02/2011 at 8:29 am said:

    History of science shows consensus can be mistaken

    * Paul Monk
    * From: The Australian
    * February 07, 2011 12:00AM

    FEW things have more bedevilled the debate about global warming than the question of scientific consensus. About what the scientific consensus on the subject is, and about what degree of deference should be paid to scientific consensus as such. Both debates have been seriously aggravated by two other factors. Global warming seems to have colossal economic implications, which has activated the concerns of many interested parties; and the ecological nature of global warming has stirred up heated ideological passions that go well beyond the science. It’s all very well to feel either passionate or sceptical about these matters, but how are we to think clearly about them?

    David Weintraub’s How Old is the Universe offers five useful clues. The author has nothing to say about climate science and all parties to the climate debate can, therefore, chill out and think dispassionately here.

    His general argument is about how we can know the age of the universe. He asks: “How have 400 years of science brought us to this point at which astronomers, cosmologists and physicists can claim that the universe came into existence at a specific moment 13.7 billion years ago? And how much confidence should you have in this statement?”


  31. Andy on 12/02/2011 at 7:56 am said:

    Bit of light relief from poring over temperature records.

    Changing the Guard at Buckingham palace

    The delightful Fenbeagle makes some pertinent observations on the lack of methane emissions from Kangaroos and the use thereof at The Palace

    Prince Chuckles would approve, I am sure

  32. Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2011 at 8:29 pm said:

    Teleconference will attempt to explain huge snowstorms are due to global warming

    Friday, February 25, 2011

    In an apparent bid to counter skepticism of the specious claim that global warming caused the string of heavy snowfalls in the US and Europe this winter, a media teleconference with “two leading climate and weather experts” has been scheduled for Tuesday, March 1, 2011. Mark “death spiral” Serreze and Jeff Masters will “discuss how a rise in the number of snowfalls of 6 inches or more may be related to an increase in moisture in the atmosphere,” allegedly due to global warming.

    Major problems with this argument include weather balloon and satellite data showing that

    1) tropospheric relative and specific humidity has significantly declined since the ‘safe CO2 levels’ of 1948,

    2) atmospheric water vapor has declined since satellite measurements began in 1983,

    3) there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995, and

    4) the IPCC predicted milder winters and that the “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.”

    See humidity plots……..

  33. Andy on 17/03/2011 at 11:48 am said:

    Earthquakes caused by Global warming.

    MONTREAL – Severe earthquakes in Haiti, Chile and most recently Japan have raised the question of whether the world’s tectonic plates are becoming more active and if so what is the cause.

    Some scientists theorize that the sudden melting of glaciers due to man-made climate change is lightening the load on the Earth, allowing its mantle to rebound upward, causing the plates to become unstuck.

    These scientists point to the historical increase in volcanic and earthquake activity that occurred about 12,000 years ago, when the glaciers that covered most of Canada in an ice sheet several kilometres thick suddenly melted.

    The result was that most of Canada’s crust has lifted and is still rising.

  34. Richard C (NZ) on 12/06/2011 at 7:36 pm said:

    Global warming since 1995 ‘now significant’

    Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the “ClimateGate” affair.

    10 June 2011 Last updated at 12:59 GMT

    By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News

    Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant – a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.

    But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are “real”.

    Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

    By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance.

    If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20.

    Last year’s analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.
    Nice try Phil, but just keep adding the data.

  35. Andy on 15/06/2011 at 1:58 pm said:

    This is one of many articles covering this story today. Also appears on WUWT

    Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade

    What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age

  36. Richard C (NZ) on 05/07/2011 at 2:54 pm said:

    An explanation(?) for lack of warming since 1998

    by Judith Curry

    A new paper has been published in PNAS entitled “Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008.”

    Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008

    Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann, and James H. Stock

    The key argument in their paper is that an increase in coal burning (primarily in China) has increased atmospheric sulfate concentration with a resulting global cooling effect.

    JC comments: Their argument is totally unconvincing to me. However, the link between flat/cooling global temperature and increased coal burning in China is certainly an interesting argument from a political perspective. The scientific motivation for this article seems to be that that scientists understand the evolution of global temperature forcing and that the answer is forced variability (not natural internal variability), and this explanation of the recent lack of warming supports a similar argument for the cooling between 1940 and 1970. The political consequence of this article seems to be that the simplest solution to global warming is for the Chinese to burn more coal, which they intend to do anyways.

    And finally, with the civil heretic discussion fresh in my mind, I checked the personal web pages of each of the co-authors: Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann (not Michael E. Mann, of hockeystick fame), and James H. Stock. These authors (individually and collectively) apparently know a heck of a lot less about atmospheric aerosols (i.e. pretty much nothing) than Freeman Dyson knows about climate change. The authors don’t seem to know much about attribution, either.

    This article is listed as a PNAS direct submission, which means that it gets the more rigorous review treatment by the PNAS editors. I would certainly be interested in knowing who reviewed this paper. I suspect that this paper will be criticized from both sides of the AGW debate.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 06/07/2011 at 5:24 pm said:

      Key point’s from JC so far seem to be:-

      # “…translating regional sulfate emission into global forcing isn’t really appropriate, since atmospheric sulfate has too short of an atmospheric lifetime (owing to cloud and rain processes) to influence the global radiation balance”.

      # “The alternative explanation is natural internal variability associated with the ocean oscillations. Since 1999, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has been shifting from the warm phase (warm phase since 1976) to the cool phase, and has been mostly in the cool phase since 2007″.

      # “Sulfate from coal burning is but one source of atmospheric aerosol. AGW Observer provides a recent list of papers on aerosol forcing observations. See especially the Remer et al. paper, Fig 5, which shows no trend in global aerosol optical depth during the period 2000-2006. A plot for East Asia also shows no trend regional aerosol optical depth.

      Other blog commentary:-

      Warmist paper: Sulfur emissions have cooled and not cooled the planet since 1998

      # “One glaring problem with this theory is that figure 1 of the paper shows that there has been no change – zero – in the effect of sulfur emissions on global temperature since 1998“.

      Global Warming Standstill Confirmed – But How Long Will It Last?

      # “The researchers tweak an out-of-date [statistical – not GCM] climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result. They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only”.

      Lot’s of news headlines. Google News search of “Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008”

      Includes Booker, BBC, AFP, Wash Post, Daily Mail, Guardian and the Independent

    • Richard C (NZ) on 06/07/2011 at 6:02 pm said:

      More Blog commentary:-

      # “They blame increased aerosol pollutants from China as being the reason why temperatures are cooling versus warming. Unfortunately, actual air quality measurements reveal the galactic bogosity of that claim. (click on charts to enlarge)

      For example, U.S. air quality since 1990 has improved tremendously with vast reductions in air aerosols and particulates as the chart on left reveals. While aerosols/particulates over the U.S. were dramatically decreasing, the U.S. surface temperatures were falling as shown in the chart on the right.”

    • Andy on 06/07/2011 at 6:24 pm said:

      This argument has to be one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen from the warmist camp.

      It really doesn’t do their cause much good. It would be much more honest to say “we don’t know”.

      Oh, hang on, I am being a bit naive here….

    • Richard C (NZ) on 06/07/2011 at 9:24 pm said:

      Joe Romm doesn’t like the use of the word “hiatus”:-

      Study: Hottest Decade on Record Would Have Been Even Hotter But for Chinese Coal Plant Sulfur Pollution

      “What’s not clever about this study is that it repeats the myth that there was a ‘hiatus’ in the first place.”

      Links to this post for support:-

      Skeptical Science explains how we know global warming is happening: It’s the oceans, stupid!

      Romm cites Murphy et al 2009 and quotes the conclusion:-

      [S]ince 1950, the planet released about 20 percent of the warming influence of heat-trapping greenhouse gases to outer space as infrared energy. Volcanic emissions lingering in the stratosphere offset about 20 percent of the heating by bouncing solar radiation back to space before it reached the surface. Cooling from the lower-atmosphere aerosols produced by humans balanced 50 percent of the heating. Only the remaining 10 percent of greenhouse-gas warming actually went into heating the Earth, and almost all of it went into the ocean.

      Unfortunately, the abstract says this:-

      About 20% of the integrated positive forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation since 1950 has been radiated to space. Only about 10% of the positive forcing (about 1/3 of the net forcing) has gone into heating the Earth, almost all into the oceans.

      Yeeees, the solar SW went into heating the ocean but the GHG DLR didn’t (well not past 100 microns anyway).

      Then cites von Shuckmann et al 2009 and quotes Figure [2]: Time series of global mean heat storage (0-2000 m), but as Bob D puts it:-

      The peer-reviewed literature [Knox & Douglass (2010), Loehle (2009), Pielke (2008), Douglass & Knox (2009)] shows that von Schuckmann is the outlier, and shows that von Schuckmann contradicts both ARGO, NODC, and Hadley SSTs

      Then duplicates 2 SS posts that cite Murphy et al, Trenberth et al and Hansen et al but studiously avoids any papers contrary to the narrative. Those posts drone on about how much heat is going into the oceans but Cook doesn’t realize he’s making a case for continued global warming due to solar radiation – not GHG DLR.

      Confirmation bias and woolly reasoning at its very best.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 12/07/2011 at 9:23 am said:

      So, Climatologists—Whatever Happened To Global Warming?

      James Delingpole

      One of the many great pleasures for those of us on the “Realist” side of the debate over man-made global warming has been watching the contortions of the “Warmists” as they try to explain away a very inconvenient truth: There has been no statistically significant global warming in more than a decade.


      So how do the Warmists plan to scare us now that global warming seems not to be quite the clear and present threat it was a decade ago? Well, one recent imaginative solution comes courtesy of the paper reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008 [PDF] by a team led by Robert Kaufmann at the Department of Geography at Boston University.

      This ingeniously argues that even though global warming hasn’t been happening, it has been happening really. We just can’t see it because of the distorting effect of the pollution being pumped into the atmosphere by the Chinese.

      “Results indicate that net anthropogenic forcing rises slower than previous decades because the cooling effects of sulfur emissions grow in tandem with the warming effects greenhouse gas concentrations. This slow-down, along with declining solar insolation and a change from El Nino to La Nina conditions, enables the model to simulate the lack of warming after 1998,” the paper explains.

      What the paper is claiming, in other words, is that “Man-Made Global Cooling” is cancelling out the effects of man-made global warming.

      Read more:

    • Andy on 12/07/2011 at 10:20 am said:

      It also negated the “leave the coal in the ground” argument too.

      You can’t make this stuff up really. I really appears that a couple of decades of global dumbing and people really believe this stuff.

  37. Richard C (NZ) on 06/07/2011 at 1:19 pm said:

    Dr Martin Manning still pushing “unequivocal” global warming with some dodgy stats. Manawatu Standard reports:-

    He said graphs of world temperatures showed an increase even relative to the 1950s.

    Recorded findings of science all point to a consistent pattern of climate change:

    Surface temperatures increasing [Nope, not for over a decade Martin];

    Lower troposphere temperatures increasing [So what? Tell them about the GHG critical upper trop, -0.40 C/decade for UAH and -0.48 C/decade for RSS since 2003 Martin] ;

    Atmospheric water vapour content increasing [Nope, WV content in the upper troposphere has declined by 13% from 1948 to 2010 at the GHG critical 400 hPa pressure level Martin];

    Ocean heat content increasing and being directly linked to sea level rise [Nope, OHC flat since 2003 Martin. Yes, SSL decelerating since 2002 consistent with flat OHC. Got that right Martin, well done];

    [there’s more but why bother?]

    He said there were many effects and they all were unequivocally pointing to global warming. And IPCC data showed that was directly in line with an increase in carbon dioxide. [Nope, the warming has stopped Martin. The out-of-date IPCC data was for a 20th Century apparent correlation, that correlation’s broken now Martin]

    He said that while science had developed a detailed understanding of many aspects of climate change, the rates of change were increasing, and science was having trouble keeping up [Nope, the rates of change are decelerating or are in negative trend, it’s you who’s having trouble keeping up Martin]

    Martin’s a “climate expert” – apparently.

    • Andy on 06/07/2011 at 1:54 pm said:

      There’s a few of these “experts” doing a roadshow soon (Salinger, Rod Oram, and Caroline Saunders) itinerary here:

      Would be quite good to ask them if they have been advised on the possibility of a solar minimum and how that would affect NZ’s agriculture if it were to cause a prolonged period of cooling.

      It would also be quite good for them to put money on their predictions.

    • Andy on 06/07/2011 at 2:05 pm said:

      Scientists hit back amid fresh death threats

      Top Australian scientists have united in a new campaign to defend their credibility amid fresh death threats aimed at key climate change scientists.

      In an unprecedented move in Canberra today, more than 200 scientists will converge on Parliament House to call on politicians to help stop misinformation in the climate debate.

      Their concern is that the hysteria has now escalated and is spilling over into attacks on their work and threats to their personal safety.

      Maybe they were thinking of this Python Sketch

    • Mike Jowsey on 07/07/2011 at 12:19 am said:

      Yes, the question of cooling should be raised with these alarmists. A growing number of scientists are pointing to a new LIA mid-century:

      At any rate, from a Solar-Terrestrial point of view, we will, by the middle of this century, be in a New Solar Minimum and in a New Little Ice Age. This conclusion is completely opposite to the scenarios presented by IPCC (2001, 2007) as illustrated in Figure 3. With “the Sun in the centre”, no other conclusion can be drawn, however.

    • Andy on 07/07/2011 at 7:46 am said:

      Mike, the alarmists have already “discredited” the solar minimum theory. They have the “rebuttal” from Skeptical Science. They cannot accept that the sun plays a major role in climate because it lessens the role of CO2.

      They are even claiming that coal has caused the stalling in warming over the last 10 years.

      Do we have any witches to burn?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/07/2011 at 9:32 am said:

      Mike, as Andy says, we wont get any traction with a solar argument from anyone with an entrenched global warming alarm mindset – so why bother?

      Instead, I’ve sent an email to MfE CC (Cc’d to PMSAC) with the title “Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict” taken from the Nat Geo article that I’ve referenced and quoted from along with a Wash Times editorial. I then asked these questions:-

      1) Given that a cooler climate regime has already claimed hundred’s of
      lives and disrupted national economies e.g. South America last winter,
      will (or has) MfE CC advise(ed) the NZ government via the PMSAC of
      this development and that the possibility of a sustained period of
      global cooling is on the way and that it should be factored into
      long-term planning and policy formation?

      2) Given that cooling vs warming pits the predictions of
      astrophysicists against climate scientists, will the MfE CC take an
      impartial position and evaluate each case on it’s merits?

      3) Given that Feulner and Rahmstorf’s finding that a new grand minimum
      would produce no more than 0.3 deg C cooling by 2100 in the paper “On
      the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future
      climate on Earth” (2010) is based solely on climate model simulations,
      what criteria will MfE CC use to evaluate the relative merits of the
      predictions for warming based on global climate models and cooling
      based on solar physics models?

      With hindsight, I should have said “based solely on [CO2 forced] climate model simulations” and “factored in to” but too late now. Maybe I’ll get a chance to redress my error.

      Now waiting patiently for a reply and imagining hopefully some discomfort at MfE.

    • Andy on 07/07/2011 at 9:34 am said:

      Excellent stuff Richard.
      You are absolutely right of course. We need to ask questions of our public “servants” (ha!) and challenge them on these issues.

      It’s pointless arguing with the CO2 fetishists.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/07/2011 at 10:57 am said:

      The word “anathema” really sums up the status of solar or naturally caused climate change in the radical MMCC warmist mindset – they can’t tolerate the notion.

      Wikipedia has the evolution of the word from its original meaning and these modern meanings:-

      1. to be formally set apart;
      2. banished, exiled, excommunicated;
      3. denounced, sometimes accursed; or
      4. a literary term.

      Religious roots and an appropriate description of the Gaia religion’s attitude to non man-made climate change.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 09/07/2011 at 10:40 am said:

      Just twigged why the name “Caroline Saunders” rang bells and why I couldn’t think of the reason – it didn’t, it was UK Green MP Caroline Lucas I was thinking of as mentioned in “UN reveals its master plan for destruction of global economy” by James Delingpole:

      Is Caroline Saunders similarly infamous?

    • Andy on 09/07/2011 at 7:38 pm said:

      I don’t think Caroline Saunders is infamous. Lucas is the UK’s only Green MP. Saunders is an economist who is based at Lincoln University

      Rod Oram is a business writer and columnist for thee Sunday Star Times.
      So of the three “experts” in this roadshow, climate science is represented by Jim Salinger.


    • Andy on 06/07/2011 at 2:16 pm said:

      Dr Manning said investors, insurers and politicians were rejecting the view of climate change sceptics and they were now thinking longer term.

      Hmm, thinking about the $$$$$

    • Richard C (NZ) on 06/07/2011 at 4:51 pm said:

      “investors, insurers and politicians” are reliable futurists apparently, no mention of the views of astrophysicists and whether their views will be rejected along with those of “climate change sceptics”.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on 26/07/2011 at 8:06 pm said:
  39. Richard C (NZ) on 27/07/2011 at 10:33 am said:

    New paper, ‘The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect’ By Postma 2011

    New paper, “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011

    I feel another letter to the MftE CC and PMSAC coming on.

  40. Andy on 31/07/2011 at 6:36 pm said:

    Alarmist bollocks of the week award goes to:

    Climate Change and Wine: The Death of Rioja and Aussie Shiraz?

    Jerry Lockspeiser gives an apocalyptic view of how climate change may affect the wine industry over the next few decades.

    Get drunk now, before we run out….

  41. Richard C (NZ) on 08/10/2011 at 2:50 pm said:

    Tom Bennion at Hot Topic is desperately trying to link the water crisis in the Pacific to climate change in his “Water, water everywhere…” post (HT sycophants nod and fret approvingly).

    There appears to be a reasonable probability that there is a causal link between the drought and water scarcity affecting the islands and climate change.

    First, Tuvalu and these other island states have been experiencing drought due to “the most severe La Nina weather patterns of the last 50 years”, according to the NZ Herald. Long range forecasts are currently suggesting a return to La Nina conditions over the NZ spring and summer.

    A number of climate modeling studies over the past decade have suggested that global temperature increases could lead to more intense and longer lasting La Nina events. (See here, here).

    “here, here” is “ENSO Amplitude Change in Observation and Coupled Models”, ZHANG, GUAN, and YANG, 2007 (yet another Zhang et al paper):-

    But Zhang et al show enhanced ENSO amplitude which is El Nino and La Nina oscillation. Nowhere in the paper that I can see is it “suggested that global temperature increases could lead to more intense and longer lasting La Nina events”. Zhang et al say:-

    This study is not necessarily in contradiction with the prediction of a weaker ENSO in a future warmed climate (e.g., Meehl et al., 2006).

    Meehl et al, 2006 is “The WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset”

    That paper says in regard to El Niño:-

    Regarding changes of future climate a question that is frequently asked is, What will El Niño do in the future? Several analyses of the multimodel dataset have been performed to address that question (e.g. Guilyardi 2006; Meehl et al. 2006; Merryfield 2006), and Fig. 5 summarizes results from one such study by van Oldenborgh et al. (2005). This figure attempts to address the question of what future amplitude of El Niño events could be in a future warmer climate depicted in the multimodel dataset. Figure 5 clearly shows a wide range of possible future behaviors across the various models, agreeing with the other studies cited above that there is no clear indication from the models regarding future changes in El Niño amplitude. This model dependence is the result of several factors, not least of which is that no two observed El Niño events are alike, and that different models capture various aspects of the mechanisms thought to produce El Niño events

    Climate science has (until now) been fixated on El Ni̱o Рnot La Nina. That is why Queensland Australia was caught off-guard by the last La Nina because their climate models were predicting an almost permanent El Ni̱o. Now the Pacific is experiencing what seems to be an unprecedented double-dip La Nina but never was that on the climate change radar.

    There’s a causal link between Pacific drought and La Nina – fine, but saying by tenuous extension “There appears to be a reasonable probability that there is a causal link between the drought and water scarcity affecting the islands and climate change” is a stretch too far IMO (especially given the citation doesn’t support the statement).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 09/10/2011 at 1:24 pm said:

      Al Gore is doing a disservice to science by overplaying the link between climate change and weather

      To claim that we are causing meteorological events that would not have occurred without human influence is just plain wrong

      Myles Allen,

      When Al Gore said last week that scientists now have “clear proof that climate change is directly responsible for the extreme and devastating floods, storms and droughts that displaced millions of people this year,” my heart sank. Having suggested the idea of “event attribution” back in 2003, and co-authored a study published earlier this year on the origins of the UK floods in autumn 2000, I suspect I may be one of the scientists being talked about.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 09/10/2011 at 1:45 pm said:

      Al Gore’s inconvenient untruths of the day

      Gore’s rant today on his unreality blog suggests some companies are helping to ‘solve the climate [hoax] crisis’ by preparing for alleged cotton shortages from global warming and lack of snow for the skiing industry. The inconvenient truth is that despite Gore’s manufactured “climate crisis,” world cotton production and yields are at record highs and winter North American snow extent has been on a rising trend over the past 50 years:

      [See plots]

      Companies Working to Solve the Climate Crisis By Al Gore October 7, 2011

      The Climate Reality blog points to companies that have discovered solving the climate crisis makes good business sense:

      “Over the past several years, electric utilities, automobile manufacturers, investors and other businesses have started to recognize that climate change is real and that humans are contributing to it. These companies also realize that they can be part of the solution — and that it makes business sense to do so.”

      “To this end, a number of forward-thinking companies formed “Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy” or BICEP nearly three years ago. Members include Nike, Starbucks, Levi Strauss & Co., Timberland, Target, Best Buy and other major brands.”

      “These companies know that climate change threatens their supply chains, and therefore increases risk and uncertainty. For example, 95% of Levi products are made from cotton, which is sensitive to extreme heat and both too much and too little water. Aspen Skiing Co. will feel the impacts of climate change directly; a lack of snow affects the entire $66 billion-per-year industry that depends on skiers and other winter sports enthusiasts for financial survival.”
      NIWA have also discovered that it “makes good business sense” to supply services to entities spooked by climate change alarmism (helped along by themselves of course).

      The link below documents NIWA’s involvement with Ski Areas Association of New Zealand worried about “the impacts of climate change”, in their case “a [potential] lack of snow:-

  42. Richard C (NZ) on 15/10/2011 at 12:21 pm said:

    Global warming is the least of Tuvalu’s worries

    For nearly a decade now, the tiny Pacific island-group nation of Tuvalu has made news for its government’s claim that the archipelago is being swallowed up by rising sea levels caused by global warming. The island government has even considered suing the world’s largest industrial powers for emitting the carbon dioxide that many scientists believe is trapping solar radiation in the atmosphere and leading to allegedly higher global temperatures. When the highly vaunted UN climate summit in Copenhagen in Dec. 2009 failed to produce a successor agreement to the 1997 Kyoto accords, the Tuvalu delegation was not shy about expressing its disgust and outrage, claiming that world leaders had consigned them to a slow extermination. (So slow — over 100 years — that almost no current Tuvaluns will live long enough to be killed by the encroaching oceans and their descendents will have plenty of time to row to safety. But let’s not pick nits.)

    Now comes word that a drought afflicting the four-island, five-atoll state has dried up nearly all the fresh water there. The United States, Australia and New Zealand have airlifted in potable supplies and desalination plants, but even so, Tuvalu has only about half the daily water supply its inhabitants need.

    This, too, is being blamed on manmade climate change, although, it is known that the immediate cause of the low rainfall is a powerful La Nina, which (not to nitpick again), is a cooling of the Pacific’s surface over a broad area near the equator.


    All the dire talk has convinced New Zealand to create an immigration fast-track for islanders and caused guilt-ridden governments in the developed world to send Tuvalu tens of millions of development dollars. So it’s not hard to figure out why Tuvalu has such a high stake in all the climate change hysteria.


    • Andy on 15/10/2011 at 3:17 pm said:

      Tuvalu did pretty well out of selling its .TV domain a few years back. A few million changed hands I think.

      I guess they are pretty resourceful at extracting money out of the latest fad.Can’t say I blame them really, if the western handwringers are so stupid and gullible.

  43. Richard C (NZ) on 18/10/2011 at 7:05 am said:

    Revealed at last: the true cause of global warming

    Horst-Joachim Lüdecke: The Sun, not Man, warms the Earth

    A German climate researcher has discovered that the surge in solar radiation that began in 1700, peaked in 1960 and is still at historically high levels was far stronger and more significant than had previously been realized.

    According to Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, who spent months comparing the varying widths of annual tree-rings and stalagmite deposits with recent temperature and sunspot records, this remarkable increase in solar activity was the real reason why the weather got warmer from 1950-2000. There has been no warming since 2000.


    Dr. Lüdecke said: “The Sun is still recovering from the Maunder Minimum, the 70-year period from 1645-1715 when there were hardly any sunspots. It was less active then than during any similar period over the past 11,400 years.


    Table 1. A “hockey-stick” graph (above) of annual mean sunspot numbers (SSN) from 0-2000 AD, revealing clearly for the first time the startling growth in solar activity from 1700 until the peak of solar activity in the last 1000 years, which occurred in 1960 (Lüdecke, 2011).

    For comparison, the notorious “hockey-stick” graph of reconstructed and instrumental northern-hemisphere surface temperatures


  44. Richard C (NZ) on 19/10/2011 at 8:00 am said:

    Coldest Early October for the Sea Surface Temperatures


    Sometime in the near future the 400 ppm level of CO2 is going to be reached and you can bet that there will be a field day in the warmist community as the doom of the planet Earth is trumpeted about. The problem they will face is that the Earth at 400 ppm is likely to appear markedly cooler than it did at 365 ppm. The early indicator of this is the sea surface temperatures. That region of the Earth that is supposed to be warming as a direct result of the CO2 level and it is not behaving as the theory of global warming predicts.

    Since the difference between the average and the measured is how the anomaly is determined, it is straightforward to show the daily temperature anomaly for the year so far. It shows that 2011 is well below the average temperature of the past decade for almost every day so far this year.

    [See plots]


  45. Andy on 20/10/2011 at 6:17 pm said:

    GAO Confirms: Anthony Watts Is Right, UN Temperature Data Rigged To Show Warming

    The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has just confirmed the pioneering research conducted by Anthony Watts, the author of the prominent Web site “Watts Up With That?. Watts showed in a 2009 report (right) that the U.S. Historical Climate Network (USHCN) surface temperature record is unreliable. The GAO now concurs.

    Note: The USHCN, considered the best source of surface temperature data in the world, is used to assess climate change within the contiguous US. On this basis, the government estimates a rise in so-called “average surface temperature” across the US by 1.4oF since 1895.

    USHCN data is combined with temperature records from around the world to determine global temperature trends. This trend is then used as the basis of the assessment reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on which governments base climate and energy policy costing hundreds of billions of dollars.

    But the GAO has found that “42 percent of the active stations [in the USHCN] in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards.” Siting standards violated include temperature sensors located too close to buildings, roads and other heat sources that artificially increase measurements and so, ultimately, the supposed global warming trend.

    GAO writes that they “did not assess the effect of stations not meeting siting standards on the reliability of NOAA’s analysis of temperature trends.” Until this is done and similar assessments carried out on the rest of the data used to determine global trends, it is clear that the global record is not reliable.

  46. Andy on 20/10/2011 at 6:43 pm said:

    Attenborough’s global warming fears

    Sir David Attenborough has warned that life will get tougher for future generations as they battle the effects of global warming – and revealed how the “natural world” had helped him cope with grief.

    The natural history presenter, 85, who is back on-screen presenting a BBC1 seven-part series Frozen Planet, said that he had “no doubt” that global warming “is man-made”.

    Don’t suppose we’ll be seeing David Bellamy on the BBC anytime soon

  47. Richard C (NZ) on 27/10/2011 at 10:17 am said:

    ‘Rogue’ sharks attacking people, chasing whales

    Experts cite global warming as a potential reason for more interaction with sharks as it may have changed migration habits of both whales and sharks.


  48. Richard C (NZ) on 28/10/2011 at 10:53 am said:

    The Death Of Global Warming Skepticism, Or The Birth Of Straw Men?

    The mainstream media has been spiking the football in the proverbial end zone ever since a paper released last Friday claimed two-thirds of global temperature stations show some warming occurred during the past century. The media have been claiming the new paper delivers a death blow to skepticism, but the paper itself brings almost nothing new to the global warming debate and instead shows how far global warming advocates are from presenting credible evidence of a crisis. Rather than delivering a death blow to skepticism, the media has merely invented and shredded an insignificant straw man.

    University of California, Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller analyzed land-based temperature readings from temperature stations around the world and found two-thirds indicate warming temperatures and one-third indicate cooling temperatures. As a result, “Global warming is real,” summarized Muller in an editorial he wrote in the October 21 Wall Street Journal .


  49. Richard C (NZ) on 29/10/2011 at 12:54 pm said:

    Climate scientists and their excuses

    By Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.

    There is a news release by Paul Voosen on Greenwire titled

    Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming (Tuesday, October 25, 2011)

    There are some interesting quotes from climate scientists in this article that highlight a large degree of uncertainty with respect to the climate system, and the human role in it, even among scientists closely involved with the IPCC reports. The long article focuses on the question

    ‘Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?”

    Interesting quotes and text {rearranged to order the persons’ quoted; I highly recommend reading the entire article include [quotes removed]:

    John Barnes
    Jean-Paul Vernier
    Kevin Trenberth
    Susan Solomon
    Jim Hansen

    John Daniel
    Ben Santer
    Judith Lean

    Graeme Stephens
    Robert Kaufmann
    Martin Wild
    Daniel Jacobs

    The end of the article highlights the developing debate among even these scientists.

    These extracts from the Greenwire article illustrate why the climate system is not yet well understood. The science is NOT solved.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/10/2011 at 4:05 pm said:

      Why Hasn’t The Earth Warmed In Nearly 15 Years?

      Patrick Michaels

      There is no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 in monthly surface temperature records compiled at the University of East Anglia. Do we now understand why there’s been no change in fourteen and a half years?

      If you read the news stories surrounding a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Boston University’s Robert Kaufmann and three colleagues, you’d say yes, indeed. It’s China’s fault.


      So, if it is indeed sulfates cooling the warming, given that there is no net change in global temperature, then the northern hemisphere should be cooling since 1998 (the first year in Kaufmann’s paper) while the southern warms. Here are the sad facts:

      [See plot page 2]

      The opposite is occurring. Why this test was not performed eludes me. Perhaps that is because it provides yet another piece of evidence supporting the hypothesis that we have simply overstated the sensitivity of surface temperature to changes in carbon dioxide.


  50. Richard C (NZ) on 31/10/2011 at 12:42 pm said:

    Quote of the Week:

    Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. Winston Churchill

    From WUWT

  51. Richard C (NZ) on 31/10/2011 at 2:33 pm said:

    2009 Scientific Consensus : El Nino To Become Permanent

    Posted on October 30, 2011 by Steven Goddard

    4. El Niño Becomes Permanent

    If El Niño–a periodic disruption of the ocean and atmosphere in the tropical Pacific–becomes the average state of the region’s climate as global warming progresses, widespread shifts in precipitation patterns (above, homes slide into the sea during El Niño storms in Pacifica, California) will ensue, said a majority of scientists who responded to a climate survey released on March 16, 2009.

    Such changes could bring increased drought to Southeast Asia and the Amazon Basin, experts say.

    Likewise, the South American coast would likely be heavily slammed with increased floods and changes in the marine food web, which could hurt many fisheries, the study said.

    ENSO has been negative continuously since May, 2010 – and has been negative for 38 out of the last 52 months.

  52. Richard C (NZ) on 04/11/2011 at 8:43 am said:

    The Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, and tropics have all cooled substantially, consistent with the onset of another La Nina, with the tropics now back below the 1981-2010 average.

    …taking a line from our IPCC brethren… While any single month’s drop in global temperatures cannot be blamed on climate change, it is still the kind of behavior we expect to see more often in a cooling world [Smiley face]

  53. Andy on 10/11/2011 at 12:33 pm said:

    Richard Betts, head of climate impacts at the UK Met Office, writing at Bishop Hill

    Most climate scientists* do not subscribe to the 2 degrees “Dangerous Climate Change” meme (I know I don’t). “Dangerous” is a value judgement, and the relationship between any particular level of global mean temperature rise and impacts on society are fraught with uncertainties, including the nature of regional climate responses and the vulnerability/resilience of society…..

    read more:

    • Andy on 10/11/2011 at 12:39 pm said:

      Quite a good comment from RIchard Tol in that thread:

      The worrying thing is of course that when the 2K warming comes to pass (e.g., when you move from Dublin to Brighton) and nothing terribly bad happens, people lose confidence

  54. Richard C (NZ) on 05/12/2011 at 8:11 am said:

    Comprehensive article in Forbes by Peter Ferrara:-

    Salvaging The Mythology Of Man-Caused Global Warming

    If you read this column completely and carefully today, you will learn about the true state of the scientific debate over global warming. You will not get the truth about that from the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the rest of the self-regarded “establishment” media. They are devoted to the fun and games of play acting as if there is no legitimate scientific debate over whether mankind’s use of low cost, reliable energy from oil, coal and natural gas portends catastrophic global warming that threatens life on the planet as we know it.


  55. Richard C (NZ) on 01/02/2012 at 8:21 am said:

    Global warming nonsense gets a true cold shoulder

    * by: Andrew Bolt
    * From: The Daily Telegraph
    * February 01, 2012 12:00AM

    LET’S take stock of the great global warming scare and see how it’s panning out.

    First, the planet hasn’t actually warmed for a decade – or even 15 years – according to new temperature data released by Britain’s Met Office.

    Hmm. That’s not what global warming scientists predicted.

    Look out of your window. The rain that Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery said in 2007 “isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems” any more has just flooded NSW and Queensland yet again.

    The Bureau of Meteorology – which three years ago warned “we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again” – now admits last year was our third wettest on record.

    The snowfalls that the University of East Anglia in 2000 said would soon become “a very rare and exciting event” are falling as hard as ever.

    The monster hurricanes we were told to expect by Nobel Prize winner Al Gore are coming no more often.

    The massive coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef that warmist Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg predicted would occur every second year from 2010 has not been seen in years.

    Wherever you look it’s the same wake-up-to-yourself story. Sea levels have recently dipped, the oceans have lately cooled, Arctic ice has not retreated since 2007, polar bears are increasing in numbers, global crop yields keep rising and now some solar scientists warn not of global warming, but cooling — a far deadlier threat.

    So what was that warming scare all about?

    And how do the warming activists respond to this increasing evidence contradicting their theory that our carbon dioxide is heating the world dangerously?

    Simple – they close their eyes in denial.


    One can only surmise that the warmists must be feeling a tad embattled at the moment, what with everything turning against them: the climate; the atmosphere; the ocean; the sun; the astrophysicists; the media; the politicians; the public; the growing body of scientists now willing to speak out and refute CAGW.

    Normally in these situations I try to make an effort to resist the temptation to succumb to schadenfreude but in the case of CAGW adherents I think I will make an exception.

  56. Richard C (NZ) on 17/02/2012 at 8:43 am said:

    Natural Climate Change

    The Debate on Global Warming

    Throughout the last decade, the debate has moved beyond the question of the existence of global warming to understanding the nature, extent, and predictability of these dynamic global climate changes that we are now experiencing first hand. Although considerable attention and resources have been dedicated to advocates of the greenhouse gasses theory, particularly those adherents who tend to emphasize man’s contribution to increased atmospheric CO2, many fundamental questions about global warming remain unanswered. For example:

    * To what extent is the earth warming?
    * In addition to man’s possible contribution, have we accounted for all of the possible drivers behind climate change? (i.e., natural variability caused by earth generated greenhouse gasses, hydrothermal heating, volcanic eruptions, seismic activity, and other natural geophysical/solar events)
    * What will be the long-term impact of global warming for life on Earth?
    * Do our climate prediction models represent real temperature trends? If not, why?

    NCC has identified two main camps within the global warming debate:

    1. Those who believe the current global warming we are experiencing is natural:
    The Debate on Global Warming-Natural Variability [Linked]
    2. Those who believe it is caused by human activities:
    The Debate on Global Warming-Human Causation [Linked]

    These are links to articles of interest within each side of the debate. The purpose is to present scientifically grounded arguments in support of each camp in order to help you determine the relative merits and future direction of this ongoing debate. The opinions reflected in these articles of interest are not necessarily representative of NCC’s views.


    Are Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases or Natural Geophysical Forcings the Cause of Climate Change? – The Real Story Behind Global Warming:


    Precedent Geo-Magnetic Jerks, Earthquakes, Episodic Hydrothermal Venting/Ocean Warming:




    Described as “an incredibly detailed analysis” by AJStrata – I’m inclined to agree.

    Update To The Geothermal Basis For ENSO

    Published by AJStrata

  57. Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 7:59 am said:

    University of Auckland has had its head in the clouds

    Published: 6:15AM Wednesday February 22, 2012 Source: ONE News

    The University of Auckland has had its head in the clouds, and its conclusion is they are getting lower.

    The university looked at ten years of data from Nasa’s terra telescope to discover the average cloud height decresed by 1% over the past decade.

    The telescope showed fewer clouds were occuring at higher altitudes.

    Researchers believe a significant reduction in cloud height would lead to reducing the surface temperature of the planet and slowing global warming.

  58. Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2012 at 9:40 am said:

    Repentance required for climate change ‘shrug culture’ say UK church leaders

    Posted on February 22, 2012 by Steve Milloy

    “The threat of runaway climate change is the most significant moral question facing us today.”

    Ekklesia reports:

    Church leaders from some of the UK’s biggest churches have made a call for ‘repentance’ over a prevailing ‘shrug-culture’ towards climate change.

    Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, Rt Rev Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, Most Rev Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh and leaders of the Methodist, Baptist and URC churches are among those signing Operation Noah’s Ash Wednesday Declaration.

    Runaway global warming would “diminish food security, accelerate the extinction of huge numbers of species and make human life itself impossible in some parts of the world” the statement says…

    What’s the second-most significant moral question facing us today?

  59. Richard C (NZ) on 09/03/2012 at 7:59 am said:

    David Suzuki – “Lets’ suppose the world’s legitimate scientific institutions and academies, climate scientists, and most of the world’s governments are wrong.”

    OK by me David

    • Andy on 09/03/2012 at 12:09 pm said:

      Suzuki’s still stuck with that Big Oil conspiracy.
      They just won’t let it go.

  60. Andy on 13/03/2012 at 5:53 pm said:

    New theory: CO2 makes you fat

    March 11, 2012 – 02:02
    Danish researchers have announced a rather wild hypothesis: Perhaps we are getting fatter and fatter because of the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/03/2012 at 8:43 pm said:

      “We breathe more CO2, which makes our blood more acidic; this affects our brain, so we want to eat more”

      Yikes! Blood acidification.

      What happens when the tipping point is reached – crowd crush at McDonalds?

      I’ve heard (second hand) that smoking marijuana has a similar effect.

  61. Ron on 20/07/2012 at 3:51 pm said:

    It is good to see that the ODT is finally publishing sceptical voices.

    • Andy on 20/07/2012 at 4:39 pm said:

      There was a rather curious comment from Mike Palin on that article stating that the BEST project confirmed the hockey stick graph.

  62. Richard C (NZ) on 02/08/2012 at 12:47 pm said:

    David Evens’ opinion article has made it to the Stuff website:-

    Global warming science tackled

    Excellent concise synopsis and comments are open.

    Also in SMH titled:-

    Climate change science is a load of hot air and warmists are wrong

    Read more:

    60 comments there but now closed.

  63. Andy on 10/09/2012 at 4:06 pm said:

    A Cool-Headed Climate Conversation With Aerospace Legend Burt Rutan:

    Worth a read

  64. Andy on 10/09/2012 at 9:47 pm said:

    Richard Courtney has a potted history of the Global Warming Scare at Tallblokes

  65. Richard C (NZ) on 18/09/2012 at 12:19 pm said:

    SkS shoots themselves in the foot here I think:-

    New research from last week 37/2012

    Local growing season length has increased globally almost a day per decade since 1901

    Multidecadal variability in local growing season during 1901–2009 – Xia et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]

    Abstract: “Global warming exerts a lengthening effect on the growing season, with observational evidences emerging from different regions over the world…”

    Goodness! Global warming has benefits – who knew?

  66. Andy on 03/10/2012 at 1:18 pm said:

    NZCSC member and avid letter writer Joe Fone has just published a book, available soon from Amazon

  67. Richard C (NZ) on 12/01/2013 at 9:37 am said:

    Record low temperatures in Bangladesh

    DHAKA, Bangladesh, Jan. 9 (UPI) — Bangladesh has recorded its lowest temperatures in nearly 60 years, an unexpected result of global warming, scientists said.

    In the capital of Dhaka and elsewhere in the country the temperature dropped to 37.7 degrees F Wednesday, the lowest temperature in the last 57 years,


    Experts are blaming the cold temperatures on more intense cold fronts resulting from global warming melting polar ice.

    “Extreme events are on the rise throughout the world and they will continue to increase further due to global warming,” said Aninun Nishat, an environment specialist.

    “We’re part of the world. So, we’re also feeling here the pinch of the global warming.”

    Read more:

  68. Richard C (NZ) on 14/01/2013 at 9:51 am said:

    Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming… so who are the ‘deniers’ now?

    By David Rose–deniers-now.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    “We all get things wrong, and by definition futurology is a risky business. But behind all this lies something much more pernicious than a revised decadal forecast. The problem is not the difficulty of predicting something as chaotic as the Earth’s climate, but the almost Stalinist way the Green Establishment tries to stifle dissent.

    There is, for example, the odious term ‘denier’. This is applied to anyone who questions the new orthodoxy about global warming. It doesn’t matter if one states that yes, CO2 does warm the planet, but the critical issues we need to address are how fast and how much: if one doesn’t anticipate catastrophe, one must be vilified, and equated with those who deny the Holocaust.

    Yet the real deniers are those who don’t just claim that the pause is insignificant, but that it doesn’t exist at all. Such deniers also still insist that the ‘science is settled’. The truth is that the unexpected pause has triggered a new spate of research, in which many supposed ‘consensus’ conclusions are being questioned.”

  69. David Bellamy: ‘I was shunned. They didn’t want to hear’

    The botanist, 80 this week, says the end of his TV career was caused by his views on climate change. Paul Cahalan meets David Bellamy

  70. Richard C (NZ) on 16/01/2013 at 8:19 am said:

    Global Temperature Update Through 2012
    15 January 2013
    J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy

    Concedes “Global Warming Standstill.” (pg 4)

    Discounts solar forcing but doesn’t consider oceanic thermal inertia (pg 4). But offers “the great thermal inertia of the ocean” as a reason for planetary energy imbalance (pg 5).

    Along with UKMO, discovers different ENSO conditions predominate from time to time but “We conclude that background global warming is continuing” (pg 6). “Background global warming” is the warming you have to imagine BTW (just to be clear).

    The largest forcing is GHGs apparently, but makes things very confusing with what must be a typo (pg 5):-

    “The annual increment in the greenhouse gas forcing (Fig. 5) has declined from about 0.05 W/m2 in the 1980s to about 0.35 W/m2 in recent years8”

    There were 3 of them to self-check this document but none of them could see that.

    And that synopsis is just from a quick skim folks.

    • On aerosols:

      The second largest human-made forcing is probably atmospheric aerosols, although the aerosol forcing is extremely uncertain3,4. […]This aerosol forcing can be described as an educated guess

      and then

      The one major wild card in projections of future climate change is the unmeasured climate forcing due to aerosol changes and their effects on clouds. Anecdotal information indicates that particulate air pollution has increased in regions with increasing coal burning, but assessment of the climate forcing requires global measurement of detailed physical properties of the aerosols. The one satellite mission that was capable of making measurements with the required detail and accuracy was lost via a launch failure, and as yet there are no plans for a repllacement (sic) mission with the needed capabilities

      So aerosols are the second most important human “forcing”, it is an educated guess, we had one satellite mission to measure it but it was lost in a launch failure and the are no plans for a replacement

      I am just speechless

    • Other than the typos it does seem a fairly honest piece of writing in that they acknowledge the uncertainties and makes better reading than some of the activist material on the “hiatus” in warming.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/01/2013 at 11:53 am said:

      I agree, although I’ve yet to read word-for-word. There’s not so much of the “settled science” stuff and they offer an insight into some very unsettled thinking and uncertain processes.

      It’s the fall-back to “background global warming” that gets me (otherwise known as “the true global warming signal”). This is the notion pushed by Foster and Rahmstorf, SkS, et al, that “exogenous” factors can be “taken out” but I call bogus (and got sent to The Twilight Zone for doing so at Hot Topic). That all started here at SkS I think:-

      Hansen, Ruedy and Sato don’t actually present their rationale for “background” warming in terms of an F&R-style “measure”, they just “conclude” hand waving-style in the report.

      The problem with the F&R methodology is that when the “exogenous” energy is left in as climate models of course do, the upwards F&R trajectory from 2010 is not maintained and as the UKMO revision demonstrates, a flat trajectory is projected instead:-

      Effectively as I see the situation, the UKMO (HadGEM3) and Russian Academy of Sciences (INM-CM4) are now completely at odds with Hansen, Ruedy and Sato at NASA GISS and Foster, Rahmstorf and Cazenave at SKS (not that they’re an institution) in the context of the vaunted “background” trend/signal meme.

      The F&R approach will come back to bite them because they will also have to “remove” any future El Nino to be consistent. Given that all warmists – notably Hansen and Renowden here locally – are eagerly anticipating the next big El Nino to get warming back on track, they”ll tie themselves in knots trying to self-validate keeping El Nino in on one hand and taking it out on the other.

      The “background” warming trend/signal meme only has a year or two to survive I think so we’ll have to suffer it a while yet but given all the natural cycles and new improved projections I’m sure it will be buried by the end of this 5 yr prediction period.

    • Conversely, compare Hansen’s handwaving and uncertainty with this piece from Slate

      The difficulties in debunking blatant antireality are legion. You can make up any old nonsense and state it in a few seconds, but it takes much longer to show why it’s wrong and how things really are.

      This is coupled with how sticky bunk can be. Once uttered, it’s out there, bootstrapping its own reality, getting repeated by the usual suspects.

      Case in point: The claim that there’s been no global warming for the past 16 years. This is blatantly untrue, a ridiculous and obviously false statement. But I see it over and again online, in Op Eds, and in comments to climate change posts.

      and concluding

      So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in science journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/01/2013 at 1:18 pm said:

      That first “sticky bunk” snippet could equally be applied as a “case in point” to the “true background signal” touting (and recourse to SkS for it in that article too of course).

      As could the conclusion “when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science”.

      Phil Plait overdoes the angst a tad, he’ll blow a fuse if he keeps that up.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/01/2013 at 3:58 pm said:

      Re aerosols:-

      ‘A bit of a bombshell from the AGU IGBR: Black carbon is a larger cause of climate change than previously assessed’

      “The landmark study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres today says the direct influence of black carbon, or soot, on warming the climate could be about twice previous estimates. Accounting for all of the ways it can affect climate, black carbon is believed to have a warming effect of about 1.1 Watts per square meter (W/m2), approximately two thirds of the effect of the largest man made contributor to global warming, carbon dioxide.”

      “In addition, the report finds black carbon is a significant cause of the rapid warming in the Northern Hemisphere at mid to high latitudes, including the northern United States, Canada, northern Europe and northern Asia. Its impacts can also be felt farther south, inducing changes in rainfall patterns from the Asian Monsoon. This demonstrates that curbing black carbon emissions could have significant impact on reducing regional climate change while having a positive impact on human health.”

      # # #

      Think Beijing air pollution. This (BC) along with LULUC is the about the only aspect of climate change that I think is worthwhile examining and following up on because it is about air/water/land quality and stewardship but more importantly human health.

      I got the impression that Christchurch’s regulations in respect to air quality were a bit heavy-handed (e.g. modern wood/coal burners) but I don’t really know the issues there well enough to make an assessment. In any event, those are far more sensible and realistic mitigation measures even if heavy-handed than the undoubted excessively heavy-handed long-term guess-based Kapiti Coast sea level regulations in my view.

    • Christchurch smog used to be really bad (I used to smell like a bonfire after a 10km bike ride to work, when i would regularly have to wear a face mask)

      I think it is a bit better now, but the regulations on no wood burners for new houses is crazy in my view as wood burners are quite clean these days.

      I’d really like to hear about the black carbon emissions from places like Drax in the UK now that they are proposing to move to biomass. I suspect that most of the worst is from places like China.

      I remember that WUWT article about carbon in Greenland, and I saw that Jason Box was trying to raise money for a project to investigate this over at HT

      So not only does there appear to be no funding for this kind of research, there is no satellite to measure airborne aerosols. All the money is in CO2

      I wonder why…?

  71. Richard C (NZ) on 21/01/2013 at 2:08 pm said:

    Researchers Puzzled About Global Warming Standstill

    by Axel Bojanowski,

    How dramatically is global warming really? NASA researchers have shown that the temperature rise has taken a break for 15 years. There are plenty of plausible explanations for why global warming has stalled. However, the number of guesses also shows how little the climate is understood.


    Lot’s of speculation and tenuous explanation including the same line spun by Hansen, Sato and Ruedy:-

    “Meteorologists interpret that 2011 and 2012 were the warmest La Niña years since records began as a sign of progressive warming.”

    Yeah right. There was only one La Niña event overlapping both 2011 and 2012 but 2012 also had a complete El Niño event. The previous 3 La Niña’s don’t show a rising trend either.

  72. Richard C (NZ) on 25/01/2013 at 9:16 am said:

    Whatever happened to global warming?

    Margaret Wente

    The Globe and Mail [Canada]

    “In other words, climate change is very, very complicated. Greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels are just one of many factors that affect the climate. Other factors – ocean temperatures, soot, clouds, solar radiation etc. – turn out to be a lot more important than we thought and aren’t so easily captured by computer models.”

  73. Richard C (NZ) on 31/01/2013 at 3:05 pm said:

    Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not?


    Professor Robert (Bob) Carter

    Geologist & environmental scientist

    Katharine Hayhoe, PhD, who wrote the December AITSE piece “Climate Change: Anthropogenic or Not?”, is an atmospheric scientist and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. She is senior author of the book “A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions”.

    I am a senior research geologist who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on palaeo-environmental and palaeo-climatic topics and also author of the book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus”.

    Quite clearly, Dr. Hayhoe and I are both credible professional scientists. Given our training and research specializations, we are therefore competent to assess the evidence regarding the dangerous global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) alleges is being caused by industrial carbon dioxide emissions.

    Yet at the end of her article Dr. Hayhoe recommends for further reading the websites and, whereas here at the outset of writing my own article I recommend the websites and (Global Warming Policy Foundation). To knowledgeable readers, this immediately signals that Dr. Hayhoe and I have diametrically opposing views on the global warming issue.

    The general public finds it very hard to understand how such strong disagreement can exist between two equally qualified persons on a scientific topic, a disagreement that is manifest also on the wider scene by the existence of equivalent groups of scientists who either support or oppose the views of the IPCC about dangerous anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (DAGW).

    In this article I shall try to summarize what the essential disagreement is between these two groups of scientists, and show how it has come to be misrepresented in the public domain.


    “The reality is, then, that no scientist on the planet can tell you with credible probability whether the climate in 2030 will be cooler or warmer than today. In such circumstances the only rational conclusion to draw is that we need to be prepared to react to either warming or cooling over the next several decades, depending upon what Nature chooses to serve up to us.”

  74. Mike Jowsey on 06/03/2013 at 10:09 am said:

    This article, from WUWT, is one of the best “aha” moments I have had for a couple of years. It discusses the idea of black-and-white thinking in the CAGW debate. Well worth the read imho.

    When you sceptics try to talk about amounts of warming and model error and solar influence, it simply shows that you “don’t get it” in a categorical sense, that the climate is no longer “natural” and it is our fault. It is irrelevant how much we have changed it, we have changed the state, like spitting into the swimming pool makes everyone get out. The climate is now broken.

    • Mike Jowsey on 06/03/2013 at 10:42 am said:

      And this rather long comment about the article is well worth the time to read also:

    • Richard C (NZ) on 06/03/2013 at 11:57 am said:

      >”I think that linguistics has a very real part to play in the Climate change debate”

      As soon as you go from detail to abstract the debate changes fundamentally – if it can even be continued point-for-point. See the ‘Skeptical Science’ thread (link below) where I resurrected a comment (deleted by Mods) from Tom Curtis at SkS who “taught” me AGW using a reservoir and tap analogy full of assumptions.

      I’m not sure if he was intentionally condescending or genuinely trying to clarify a concept but why didn’t he just go with all the conventional terminology without recourse to an analogy? I’m inclined to think he used the simple abstract concept because he assumed I would understand AGW as he did by his reduction because in his view it is all so simple. I find these types have difficulty putting together a detailed argument using conventional terms.

      Observations render his analogy moot of course. And the SkS Mods removed his carefully compiled comment from view, poor guy. See:-

  75. Richard C (NZ) on 16/03/2013 at 8:46 am said:


    Dr David Whitehouse

  76. Richard C (NZ) on 16/03/2013 at 9:05 am said:

    The new Mini Ice Age is upon us!

    Piers Corban

    “MIA fingerprint now overwhelming”

    ● World cooling is now ‘locked-in’

    “The CO2 story is over. It has been pointing the world in the wrong direction for too long. The
    serious implications of the developing MIA to agriculture and the world economy through the
    next 25 to 35 years must be addressed.”

  77. Andy on 28/03/2013 at 10:08 pm said:

    Unless I misread Dave Frames comment, his view is that agricultural emissions of methane is a non problem.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/03/2013 at 10:31 am said:

      James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha and Makiko Sato have stirred up a hornets nest (if you read past the anti-coal spin):-

      Food for thought for Dave Frame re methane Andy?

    • The methane issue keeps coming back ( as it should because NZ is very exposed to this via a potential ETS on methane)

      Neil Henderson’s comments in the HT thread are pretty much my views too. I don’t know if he got the numbers wrong as DF claims, but the fact is that if methane emissions from cattle will cause 0.2 degrees of warming globally, according to IPCC scenarios, then the contribution for NZ will be absolutely miniscule, and we will be the only ones doing it.

      Many farmers around my way are living a subsidence lifestyle. A tax on methane will bury them

  78. Richard C (NZ) on 29/03/2013 at 1:05 pm said:

    Ian Wishart: Global warming – did we get it wrong?

    “The essence of the “ice age” warning stems from some Russian research suggesting we are going to get colder. Tie that in with a massive drop in sunspots and solar magnetic activity in what NASA scientists are comparing to the cold spell of the Dalton Minimum, and confirmation by the UN IPCC climate change convenor Rajendra Pachauri (reported in The Briefing) that there has been no significant global warming since the 1990s, and you can see why some are seeing a frigid future.”

    “In themselves, the graphs show that the rise of modern temperatures may have far more to do with Earth coming back into balance from the Little Ice Age than CO2 emissions, but the question now is why have the temperature increases stopped? Is it the drop in solar activity? What happens if the cold feeds on itself as it has in the past in just a short space of time and if so, are we about to be plunged back into a new, cold, dark age?”

    + + +

    Thing is in those cold periods, it’s not cold ALL of the time. Just that when it’s cold it’s really cold and prolonged, crops fail, people and animals die. There’s a glimpse of this right now in Europe and wider Northern Hemisphere vs heat in the Southern Hemisphere but the current situation is only a harbinger and not conditions directly comparable to a solar minimum (we’re currently just past a maximum).

    The real conditions that will develop for the coming solar minimum – whether similar to Sporer, Dalton, Maunder etc – will be very different to the current climate regime and the only way to know what to expect from the respective scenarios is to study what was historically documented for each of them and relate that to current cold weather events in order to get a handle on what each scenario would produce in the decades to come. The link between sunspot numbers and wheat prices has been known since William Hershel in 1802 for example.

    I just don’t see these risk scenarios factored in to policy planning anywhere. Every risk is a continued warming scenario of some degree, In terms of risk and preparedness this is highly negligent on the part of planners because the repercussions of prevailing cold in the spectrum of solar minimum scenarios ranges from agricultural producer and production price difficulties, similar energy supply, domestic product and basic living condition difficulties, to horrendous international food commodity market upheaval and producer/production failure, inability to survive energy supply breakdown, famine, and widespread death of people and animals.

    I think it is high time everyone stopped fixating only on the warming scenario argument (will it just be a little warmer or much hotter?) and started presenting the full spectrum of future climate possibilities with the respective attendant mitigation and adaption strategies. The solar downturn commenced in 2013 so there is now no escaping a change of climate regime to one of the past minimums as a result, The minimum is predicted for 2042 and thereabouts so there is less than 30 yrs to prepare. Question is: how long will it take for the people that matter to acknowledge the risk?

    The precautionary principle – if is to be invoked for this application – works both ways,

  79. Barry on 29/03/2013 at 1:28 pm said:


    I’ve just read that the BEST temperature records show that 30% of the earth’s land surface experienced an overall cooling trend during the 20th century (despite aggregate warming of 0.8°C), and that Britain was one of the countries in that cooling group.

    With your energy and talent for researching tasty web morsels, I wondered whether you could discover whether New Zealand or Australia were also amongst BEST’s cooling areas?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/03/2013 at 2:51 pm said:

      Hello Barry, your question:-

      >”I wondered whether you could discover whether New Zealand or Australia were also amongst BEST’s cooling areas?”

      Neither appear to be. See ‘List of Countries’ index:-

      Regional Climate Change: New Zealand

      Regional Climate Change: Australia

      >”Britain was one of the countries in that cooling group”

      Not from this BEST UK series:-

      Regional Climate Change: United Kingdom

      HadCET has taken a dive in the 21st century, now below 1659 levels:-

      I think that’s where items about UK cooling come from along with some of the recent UK winter comparisons.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/03/2013 at 3:08 pm said:

      Mike Jowsey posted this re UK:-

      An interesting comment on long term temperature trends in the UK

      “Statistics from the Met Office Central England Temperature Record from the year 2000 onwards show: 2000 – 2012 annual trend figures: -0.7°C. This is equivalent to almost all the agreed global warming since 1850.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/03/2013 at 6:45 pm said:

      Barry, the cooling trends are station-specific, not region-specific i.e. the cooling stations are interspersed among warming stations. See:-

      ‘Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average Using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications’

      Charlotte Wickham1, Judith Curry2, Don Groom3, Robert Jacobsen3,4, Richard Muller3,4, Saul Perlmutter3,4, Robert Rohde5, Arthur Rosenfeld3, Jonathan Wurtele3,4

      Page 7,

      “67% of the slopes are positive, i.e. there are about twice as many warming stations as cooling stations. The dispersion is larger in the records of short duration, but even in the stations with records longer than 30 years, 23% have negative trends.”

      Page 8,

      Figure 3 Temperature trends. A histogram of the trends

      Page 10,

      Figure 4. Map of stations in and near the United States with at least 70 years of measurements; red stations are those with positive trends and blue stations are those with negative trends.

    • Barry on 01/04/2013 at 2:48 am said:

      Thanks, Richard.

      The BEST graph bears no resemblance at all to the Salinger graph, with a burst of heating in 1910-18 and mild changes around 1950. Do they get these wildly divergent slopes by throwing darts?

      It’s also interesting that BEST thinks NZ warmed more slowly than either the global or the SH averages – until 1990 –when we took off, leaving the rest of the SH in the dust.

      I’ve no idea what significance should be given to their various figures and graphs.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/04/2013 at 10:57 am said:

      Barry I decided after looking at BEST’s NZ series from 1840 -1860 that it was garbage unrelated to actual NZ conditions.

      But re the 21st century end, did you notice the discrepancy between the typical 21st century absolute values of mean temperature implied by the BEST series and recent values by NIWA e.g.

      11.5 C BEST (moving average)

      12.5 C NIWA (for 2012 and little ENSO activity – 2010 El Nino yr was 13.1)

      Now plot 12.5 C on BEST’s NZ series:-

      I’m sure you will see what I’m getting at.

  80. Barry on 01/04/2013 at 11:46 am said:

    Right. But I’m afraid that tends to confirm your assessment that the BEST record is garbage. NZ has never had an average absolute temp as low as 11.5°C.

    The 1868 composite recorded at Turnbull library shows 13.2°C as the earliest available national average. That was the highest of the several published series, but even the lowest was above 12°C.

  81. Richard C (NZ) on 03/04/2013 at 2:22 pm said:

    Ocean Cooling Contributed to Mid-20th Century Global Warming Hiatus

    Sep. 23, 2010 — The hiatus of global warming in the Northern Hemisphere during the mid-20th century may have been due to an abrupt cooling event centered over the North Atlantic around 1970, rather than the cooling effects of tropospheric pollution, according to a new paper appearing Sept. 22 in Nature.

    David W. J. Thompson, an atmospheric science professor at Colorado State University, is the lead author on the paper. Other authors are John M. Wallace at the University of Washington, and John J. Kennedy at the Met Office and Phil D. Jones of the University of East Anglia, both in the United Kingdom.

    The international team of scientists discovered an unexpectedly abrupt cooling event that occurred between roughly 1968 and 1972 in Northern Hemisphere ocean temperatures. The research indicates that the cooling played a key role in the different rates of warming seen in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in the middle 20th century.

    “We knew that the Northern Hemisphere oceans cooled during the mid-20th century, but the sudden nature of that cooling surprised us,” Thompson said.

    While the temperature drop was evident in data from all Northern Hemisphere oceans, it was most pronounced in the northern North Atlantic, a region of the world ocean thought to be climatically dynamic.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 03/04/2013 at 3:33 pm said:

      Global Cooling – Methods and Testable Decadal Predictions
      Posted on April 2, 2013 by Guest Blogger

      Guest post by Dr. Norman Page

      1. Methods and Premises


      4.The present analysis which looks ahead to 2042 and 2106 is based on a few simple ideas and empirical observations..
      a) There has been no net warming since 1997 with CO2 up 8+% .Global Temperatures have been declining since 2003-4 The period from 2003- 2005 represents a peak in both the 60 year PDO cycle and in a millennial solar cycle.
      b) Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans and the more extreme regional high frequency variability of the land data the Global SST data are the most useful representation of the overall global climate trend.


      3. Summary

      1. Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
      2. Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
      3. Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
      4. Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
      5. Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
      6. General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
      7. By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
      8. The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
      9. Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.

  82. Richard C (NZ) on 07/04/2013 at 1:52 pm said:

    Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom?

    Climate change scientists acknowledge that the decline in rapid temperature increases is a positive sign

    By Geoffrey Lean, 05 Apr 2013, 451 Comments

    “Besides, a broader problem remains: on present policies, atmospheric CO2 levels will not stop rising when they reach the doubling point, but go on soaring past it – meaning that the world will still reach the danger point, even if more slowly.”

    Unless of course the rising CO2 levels are primarily a natural lagged effect of solar-driven rising temperature rather than being due to fossil fuel emissions (the lessor factor by far) in which case CO2 will not “go on soaring” when temperatures fall as they inevitably will now solar input is falling.

  83. Andy on 20/05/2013 at 9:33 am said:

    New paper in Nature on climate sensitivity with some well known names in this area of research.

    From Nic Lewis

    Headline best estimates of 2.0°C for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and 1.3°C for the – arguably more policy-relevant – transient climate response (TCR) are obtained, based on changes to the decade 2000–09, which provide the best constrained, and probably most reliable, estimates. The 5–95% uncertainty ranges are 1.2–3.9°C for ECS and 0.9–2.0°C for TCR. I should declare an interest in this study: you will find my name included in the extensive list of authors: Alexander Otto, Friederike E. L. Otto, Olivier Boucher, John Church, Gabi Hegerl, Piers M. Forster, Nathan P. Gillett, Jonathan Gregory, Gregory C. Johnson, Reto Knutti, Nicholas Lewis, Ulrike Lohmann, Jochem Marotzke, Gunnar Myhre, Drew Shindell, Bjorn Stevens, and Myles R. Allen

    and then

    The take-home message from this study, like several other recent ones, is that the ‘very likely’ 5–95% ranges for ECS and TCR in Chapter 12 of the leaked IPCC AR5 second draft scientific report, of 1.5–6/7°C for ECS and 1–3°C for TCR, and the most likely values of near 3°C for ECS and near 1.8°C for TCR, are out of line with instrumental-period observational evidence.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/05/2013 at 11:27 am said:

      Main-stream news Andy:-

      ‘Warming to take longer in reaching forecast levels’

      Read more:

      However I see this:-

      University of NSW scientist Steven Sherwood – a lead author on the next IPCC report – said the Nature Geoscience study had found oceans were capturing heat more rapidly than expected over the past decade. [that’s highly contentious and the latest data doesn’t support it]

      ”By assuming that this behaviour will continue, they calculate that the climate will warm about 20 per cent more slowly than previously expected, although over the long term it may be just as bad, since eventually the ocean will stop taking up heat,” Professor Sherwood said.

      But other research had pointed out the recent ocean heat storage may be part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, he said.

      ”So while their conclusions are interesting, they need to be taken with a large grain of salt until we see what happens to the oceans over the coming years,” he said.

      # # #

      I never, in my wildest dreams that sensibility would prevail eventually, thought I’d see that from Steven Sherwood.

      The Otto et al assumption that the atmosphere will in the future contain the heat at present (assumed to be) going to the ocean (impossible anyway on respective specific heat capacity) and the assumption OHC will rise in the future without additional energy input when it is currently at peak is simply bizarre.

  84. Richard C (NZ) on 21/06/2013 at 8:23 pm said:

    ‘Perihelion precession, polar ice and global warming’

    Duncan Steel

    The changing insolation theory (CIT) mooted herein is capable of explaining various
    observed phenomena which the AGW hypothesis has not yet been able to accommodate.
    Specifically, what has been observed and is pertinent here are the following:

    1. A gradual rise in mean global temperature over the past two centuries;
    2. Accelerating spring and summer melting of Arctic sea ice reaching an extent not
    previously witnessed;
    3. No substantial loss of Antarctic sea ice, and actually a small growth in its extent
    (Shepherd et al. 2010; Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012);
    4. The greatest rises in regional temperatures (and temperature variability) being at
    high northern latitudes (Liu et al. 2007; Wu et al. 2011). […]

    Note: this is a perihelion precession theory – NOT a TSI theory, TSI is kept constant in this paper.

  85. Richard C (NZ) on 09/07/2013 at 6:56 pm said:

    ‘The Age of Global Warming is Over’

    Paul Collits

    The age of global warming is over. I refer, not to any warming of the planet that may or may not be occurring, but to the world’s apparently serious and broadly shared belief in dangerous, man-made global warming and of equally serious attempts to implement policies of enforced decarbonisation to deal with it.

    Of course, the denouement will take time. There are too many vested interests involved for it all to simply die overnight. The architecture built by the warmists is quite grand, literally in the case of the ghastly and divisive wind farms. The architecture is both global and local. Think of all those grant recipients whose careers have been built on global warming, all those folks who work in Centres of Sustainability and the like. They won’t give up without a fight. But, in my view, their party is over


    In my view too. The WMO 2001 – 2010 decade report retrospectively chronicled, encapsulated, and signed off, the last chance to apply AGW alarmism to the actual climate I think.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 09/07/2013 at 7:40 pm said:

      Referenced in the Quadrant article:

      Book Review: ‘The Age of Global Warming, A History’, Rupert Darwall

      by SkeptEco on May 25, 2013

      “Darwall has made an important contribution to climate change literature, putting together in one place the history of global warming from ideological roots to the failure of the most recent attempts to forge a global agreement on CO2 under the supervision of a powerful supra-national organisation.”

      [Extensive review] >>>>>

      Other books too, including ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster’ by Christopher Booker. So now we have the history of an age that ended in 2010.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 09/07/2013 at 8:02 pm said:

      Collits on Darwall’s book:

      Darwall is very good on the science, and on the distinction between “science” and “predictive opinion”. But the abandonment by climate scientists of the need to verify their claims is at the heart of Darwall’s belief that the science is the critically weak point of the “idea” of climate change. Darwall is firmly on the side of those who regard science as being the empirical testing of verifiable and falsifiable hypotheses.


      Sixty-six pages of end notes attest to the book’s scholarship. This is no polemic. As Darwall says, “Global warming is a highly contentious subject and a history must be faithful both to evidence and to context.”

      + + + + +

      Ironic if the history of global warming is more faithful to evidence than the science of it.

  86. Richard C (NZ) on 12/07/2013 at 10:51 am said:

    ‘I tawt I taw a wattler: Global warming to cause snakes to eat more baby birds’ – Steve Milloy

  87. Mike Jowsey on 29/08/2013 at 1:43 pm said:

    Climate Deception: How The “Hottest” Temperature Game Is Played To Offset Prediction Failures

    The IPCC rewrote history by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) that was warmer than today. Weather agencies, increased the slope of temperature by lowering the old record – New Zealand is a good example (Figure 6). – See more at:

  88. Richard C (NZ) on 10/12/2013 at 7:01 pm said:

    Unprecedented (?) anthropogenic (?) global warming – again (?).

    Global October Temperatures: 1886-1949 vs. 1950-2013:

  89. Richard C (NZ) on 21/12/2013 at 6:55 pm said:

    ‘Tropics Go Wintery!’

    Written by P Gosselin

    A flurry of Middle Eastern and Asian news websites are reporting on “unusual” cold sweeping across vast areas of Asia and the Middle East.


    Snow – in Vietnam!

    The Asian Correspondent here writes that residents in North Vietnam “were treated to a rare sight Monday: snow“, writing that “the white stuff” is a “rare sight in this part of the world“.

    Not only Southeast Asia is being hard hit by unusually bitter cold, but also vast areas of Central Asia, Middle East, and North Africa. Some of these regions are typically famous for agreeably warm temperatures. The charts on this page are the forecast temperature anomalies for the coming 7 days.


    Animals “literally freezing where they stand”

    Also the entire Middle East and parts of Northern Africa are suffering from bitter, wintery conditions. Cairo last week saw its first snowfall in 112 years. Jerusalem saw its worst snowstorm in almost 70 years.

    Turkey also has been gripped by severe cold – for weeks. The reports: “Turkish cold snap literally freezes animals where they stand.”

    Syrian rebel commander freezes to death

    In Syria refugee camps are struggling to stay warm. The bitter cold and rare snow have even cost the life of a rebel commander. According to Australian ABC here, “A Syrian rebel commander has frozen to death in the bitter cold brought on by a snowstorm that has swept the country this week. … the body was ‘frozen’.”

    Tropical South America stays cool

    Even the tropical zone of South America is struggling to stay warm. Cooler than normal temperatures are forecast there for the next 7 days as well.


    Snow a “rare sight” – Viner was right after all.

  90. Richard C (NZ) on 27/12/2013 at 9:06 am said:

    ’16-Year Global Warming Pause, Scramble For An Explanation Among Spiegel’s Top 10 Science Stories of 2013!’

    By P Gosselin on 26. Dezember 2013

    Spiegel here presents the top 10 science stories of 2013 [hotlink].

    Among them is the stop in global warming, which Spiegel describes as “the mysterious temperature development of the past years“. In the sub-heading Spiegel writes:

    “An unexpected development has been occupying the attention of climate scientists: The air appears not to have warmed up in the last 16 years. Obviously natural phenomena are covering the increasing impact of greenhouse gases.”

    Here Spiegel appears to be very confused by the science, admitting that natural factors are running the show but at the same time illogically claiming that the impact of greenhouse gases is increasing! Spiegel then writes that skeptics should not be so sure that the warming has stopped, claiming that there’s “a variety of plausible explanations for the unexpected development“.

    Spiegel then cites ocean cycles, weak solar activity, and both natural and manmade aerosols, which is amazing because except for aerosols, these are precisely the factors that skeptics have been claiming and alarmists dismissing from the get-go.


  91. Richard C (NZ) on 30/07/2014 at 1:28 pm said:

    Updated list of 29 excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming

    For future reference.

  92. Richard C (NZ) on 27/08/2014 at 1:18 pm said:

    Interesting thermodynamic concept from the Met Office reported by Newsweek — a reduced energy input into a system (planetary climate) results in more heat in the system than at higher energy input levels:

    ‘Why We’re Definitely Not Headed for Another Ice Age’
    By Howard Swains / August 15, 2014

    “The Met Office estimates that even in the most severe case of solar inactivity, mean global temperatures would only be affected by “a few tenths of a degree”. Estimates of the effects of global warming, on the other hand, put the temperature hike at up to four degrees.”

    These “scientists” are no more than charlatans and snake oil salesmen,

    • Richard C (NZ) on 28/08/2014 at 5:07 pm said:

      >”The Met Office estimates that even in the most severe case of solar inactivity, mean global temperatures would only be affected by “a few tenths of a degree”…..[AGW puts]…. the temperature hike at up to four degrees

      For the record. Mike Lockwood (IPCC AR5 Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution co-author, and co-author of the paper which is the basis for the above statement and cited by AR5 Chapter 8: Radiative Forcing – see below) states “I would be happy” with the following sentence:

      “… Mike Lockwood, of Reading University, found 24 occasions in the past 10,000 years when the sun was declining as it is now, but could find none where the decline was as fast. He says a return of the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830) is ‘more likely than not’ ”

      Note the term “Dalton Minimum” is in respect to solar activity, not climate. So according to the Lockwood/UKMO rationale (and therefore IPCC – see below), although the sun is “more likely than not” returning to Dalton Minimum conditions, the climate is not because increasing magic gas, CO2, will augment planetary energy supply when the sun goes into recession offsetting any temperature decline. Not only that but the magic gas will increase planetary heat far beyond what the sun achieved at the highest activity levels in the last 11,000 years, see ‘A History of Solar Activity over Millennia’, Usoskin et al, (2012) page 48:

      Figure 17: Sunspot activity (over decades, smoothed with a 12221 filter) throughout the Holocene,
      reconstructed from 14C by Usoskin et al. (2007) using geomagnetic data by Yang et al. (2000). Blue and red areas denote grand minima and maxima, respectively.

      Figure 17 here:

      Lockwood was co-author of the UKMO paper – Jones, Lockwood, and Stott (2012), cited in IPCC AR5 here (Line 49 SOD):

      41 Attempts to Estimate Future Centennial Trends of TSI
      43 Cosmogenic isotope and sunspot data (Rigozo et al., 2001; Usoskin et al., 2003) reveal that currently the Sun
      44 is in a grand activity maximum that began ~1920. However, SC 23 showed a previously unseen activity
      45 decline (McComas et al., 2008; Russell et al., 2010; Smith and Balogh, 2008). Most current estimations
      46 suggest that the forthcoming solar cycles will have lower TSI than the previous ones (Abreu et al., 2008;
      47 Lockwood et al., 2009; Rigozo et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2010; Velasco-Herrera et al., 2012). Recent
      48 estimates of the RF between the modern minimum in 2008 and this 21st century minimum indicate a
      49 negative RF of about 0.04–0.07 W m–2 (Jones et al., 2012; Velasco-Herrera et al., 2012). However, much
      50 more evidence is needed and at present we have a very low confidence concerning future solar forcing
      51 estimates.
      53 Nevertheless, if there is such a diminished solar activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations
      54 will be much smaller than the projected increased forcing due to GHG (see Section 12.3.1).

      Note the “very low confidence” followed by “Nevertheless” and “high confidence”.

      Except Jones et al (2012) is a CO2-forced model exercise (simple energy balance climate model that is tuned to the Hadley AOGCM in terms of sensitivity and ocean heat diffusivity) using least-case solar scenarios, see:

      ’21st century solar cooling’

      by Judith Curry, March 10, 2012

      And we all know by now that the UKMO’s Hadley model has not modeled 21st century climate to date so their circular reasoning is immediately at fault. But the question remains: how exactly can increasing magic gas, CO2, impute substantially more energy to the planetary system than can the sun at its highest output?

      I’m sure that if this novel thermodynamic concept was valid there would be queues of entrepreneurial energy operators wanting to to commercialize it. But I don’t see the queues.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 28/08/2014 at 5:13 pm said:

      Usoskin et al, (2012) should be Usoskin et al, (2010)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 28/08/2014 at 5:55 pm said:

      The other AR5 citation in Line 49 above, apart from Jones et al, is Velasco-Herrera et al., (2012). That paper is here (click “View”):

      ‘Reconstruction and prediction of the total solar irradiance: From the Medieval Warm Period to the 21st century’

      There are other solar prediction scenarios of course but the IPCC likes this one for reasons known only to the Chapter 8 authors. Not that the CMIP5/AR5 simulations were forced with Velasco-Herrera et al TSI though. No, TSI was held constant from early 2000.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 28/08/2014 at 9:46 pm said:

      >”There are other solar prediction scenarios of course but the IPCC likes this one [Velasco-Herrera et al] for reasons known only to the Chapter 8 authors”

      Perhaps a little unfair because Velasco-Herrera et al., (2012) serves as an extensive, but not complete, solar review and intercomparison paper.

      See the ‘Solar’ Open Thread (c. August 29, 2014) for Abstract and document link as above.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 28/08/2014 at 11:46 pm said:

      Velasco-Herrera et al., (2012) as cited by AR5. Probably an advance to make the AR5 deadline because New Astronomy journal has a rather different history.

      Article history: Received 2 July 2013 Received in revised form 4 July 2014 Accepted 11 July 2014 Available online 23 July 2014 Communicated by W. Soon

      The WGI Chapter 8 guys must have blanched when they saw the Willie Soon connection. Or perhaps they missed that.

  93. Richard C (NZ) on 28/08/2014 at 12:10 pm said:

    Climate scientists tying themselves in knots (and denial) about the “pause” in global warming:

    ‘A Closer Look at Turbulent Oceans and Greenhouse Heating’

    By ANDREW C. REVKIN, August 26, 2014


    Joshua K. Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory said this:

    “In regards to your question, if you mean how robust is the “slowdown” in global surface warming, the answer is it just probably just barely statistically significant. If you are wondering whether is it meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change, I would say the answer is no.”

    [Translated – “I wish it would go away”]

    Here’s Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University:

    “There are a few interesting things to note here.

    First, the hiatus is example of how science works. When it was first observed a few years ago, there were lots of theories — including things like stratospheric water vapor, solar cycles, stratospheric aerosol forcing. After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress and shows how legitimate uncertainty is handled by the scientific community.”

    [“Impressive progress”? Duh! Sceptics have been pointing to the ocean driver for years]

    “Second, I think it’s important to put the hiatus in context. This is not an existential threat to the mainstream theory of climate. We are not going to find out that, lo and behold, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and is not causing warming. Rather, I expect that the hiatus will help us understand how ocean variability interacts with the long-term warming that humans are causing. In a few years, as we get to understand this more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.”

    [Translated – “I wish it would go away”]

    # # #

    ‘Excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ of global warming take a quantum leap up to #52′

    The Hockey Schtick, August 27, 2014

    Thanks to a quote-rich Andrew Revkin/New York Times article today, the updated list of excuses for the 18 year “pause” or “hiatus” of global warming has taken a quantum leap up to #52:

    ‘Before the deluge’

    Bishop Hill, Aug 23, 2014

    Last night climatologist Gareth Jones tweeted that there had been two dozen papers on the pause this year. In response, I wondered how many would have been published if David Whitehouse hadn’t have written his groundbreaking report [hotlinked] on the subject. This prompted Doug McNeall to comment “About two dozen”, a sentiment that was endorsed by Gavin Schmidt.

    It’s always nice to be challenged, so I thought I’d look into this a bit. Take a look at Google Trends:

    • Richard C (NZ) on 28/08/2014 at 7:48 pm said:

      Wishing away the hiatus continues unabated:

      ‘Temperature hiatus periods to become a ‘thing of the past’ [like snow?] as emissions soar’

      Peter Hannam, Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald. August 28, 2014

      The momentum of global warming caused by the build-up of greenhouse gases is likely to overwhelm natural cooling processes within decades, according to research [wild guesses based on unvalidated models – see below] by the University of NSW.

      Global temperatures have largely plateaued during the past 15 years as natural variability – including oceans absorbing more heat [or just oceanic solar energy accumulation reaching zenith] and volcanic activity – have acted to stall warming at the planet’s surface. [i.e. no anthropogenic global warming, just solar change+ocean oscillations]

      However, such “hiatuses” are increasingly unlikely if carbon emissions continue on their present trajectory, and will be “a thing of the past” by the century’s end, according to a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters. [hotlink – see below]

      “From about 2030, it’s highly unlikely that we will get one of these cooling decades,” [nearly two decades now] said Nicola Maher , a UNSW PhD-candidate and lead author of the paper. “When it does cool, it will not be enough to overcome [it is right now] the warming.” [what warming?]

      The researchers used about 30 models to simulate different events, including volcanic eruptions of the size of Krakatau, the Indonesian island that erupted in 1883 with an explosion so loud it was heard almost 5000 kilometres away.

      By 2100, assuming greenhouse emissions continue to build at the present rate, “even a big volcano like Krakatau is very unlikely to cause a hiatus”, Ms Maher said.

      While the oceans have [supposedly] absorbed [how?] much of the [hypothesized] extra heat trapped [trapped where? isn’t that the atmosphere?] over the past decade, the process [what process? could be ocean oscillation+solar change] can also go in reverse [well yes, solar change again], quickening warming [less solar = cooling, not quickening warming].

      El Nino events, for instance, see the Pacific going from a [solar] heat sink to giving up warmth [natural process]. The Bureau of Meteorology on Tuesday said the chance of an El Nino in 2014 remains above 50 per cent. [ever wishful]

      Read more:

      ‘Drivers of decadal hiatus periods in the 20th and 21st centuries’ [paywall]

      Nicola Maher, Alexander Sen Gupta, and Matthew H. England (2014)

      The latest generation of climate model simulations are used to investigate the occurrence of hiatus periods in global surface air temperature in the past and under two future warming scenarios. Hiatus periods are identified in three categories: (i) those due to volcanic eruptions, (ii) those associated with negative phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), and (iii) those affected by anthropogenically released aerosols in the mid-twentieth century. The likelihood of future hiatus periods is found to be sensitive to the rate of change of anthropogenic forcing. Under high rates of greenhouse gas emissions there is little chance of a hiatus decade occurring beyond 2030, even in the event of a large volcanic eruption. We further demonstrate that most nonvolcanic hiatuses across Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) models are associated with enhanced cooling in the equatorial Pacific linked to the transition to a negative IPO phase.

      Might have been convincing if they had demonstrated modeling of the current hiatus first.

  94. Richard C (NZ) on 12/09/2014 at 10:58 am said:

    See ‘News’ for Science Codex article (and others) reporting Macias, Stips, and Garcia-Gorriz (2014):

    ‘Last decade’s slow-down in global warming enhanced by an unusual climate anomaly’

  95. Magoo on 27/11/2014 at 11:50 am said:

    I saw this film and noticed some of the digs at AGW – the evil Dr. Mann and the denial of the moon landings, etc. Good film too:

  96. Climate Researcher on 22/12/2014 at 9:24 pm said:

    A review of the new book “CLIMATE CHANGE THE FACTS 2014” by about 24 authors – available here.

    The best and most relevant chapter in this new book is that by William Soon, namely Chapter 4 “Sun Shunned” in which he discusses things such as the eccentricity of the Sun’s orbit that I have also pointed out as the principal regulator of glacial periods.

    The rest of the chapters on the “science” do not discuss the valid physics which is really what does determine Earth’s surface temperatures. Instead the “lukes” all reiterate the false claim that carbon dioxide causes significant warming of the surface by radiative forcing. Nowhere is the assumed process of forcing actually discussed. We just get the usual false paradigm that carbon dioxide traps outward radiation and thus supposedly makes the surface warmer.

    Carbon dioxide does not trap thermal energy. It disposes of what it absorbs either by subsequent radiation or by sensible heat transfer (via molecular collisions) to other air molecules which outnumber it by 2,500 to 1. It also helps nitrogen and oxygen cool through such collisions, and may subsequently radiate the energy thus acquired out of the atmosphere.

    All radiation between regions at different temperatures can only transfer thermal energy from the warmer region (or surface) to a cooler region. This means all heat transfer in the troposphere is generally upwards to cooler regions, with a proportion always getting through to space. There is no thermal energy transferred to a warmer surface. The energy transfer is the other way. The Sun’s radiation is not helped by radiation from the atmosphere which is only sending back some of its own energy now with much lower energy photons. Radiating gases reduce the insulating effect by helping energy to escape faster, and that is why moist air in double glazed windows also reduces the insulating effect, just as does water vapor in the troposphere.

    Nowhere in the book do we see the surface temperature explained correctly using Stefan Boltzmann calculations. No one ever does this, because it is an absolute stumbling block for climatologists. The mean solar flux entering the surface is only about 163W/m^2 after 52% of the solar radiation has been either absorbed or reflected by the surface, clouds or atmosphere. But such a low level of radiation would only produce a very cold -41°C. That’s even colder than what the IPCC claims would be the case, namely -18°C without greenhouse gases. They deduce that by assuming that the whole troposphere would be isothermal due to convective heat transfer, including sensible heat transfers by molecular collision.

    Hence all the “luke” authors fall for the trap of not actually explaining the existing surface temperature, let alone what carbon dioxide might or might not do. How could you work out the latter if you don’t know your starting point? The truth is that you cannot calculate the surface temperature of any planet that has a significant atmosphere by using radiation calculations. Hence all the considerations pertaining to radiation and absorption by carbon dioxide are totally within a wrong paradigm.

    That assumption by the IPCC (and thus by the “lukes” who have written this book) that the troposphere would be isothermal was rubbished in the 19th century by some physicists who understood the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is still being rubbished to this day, and even more so, now that physicists realise that the Second Law is all about entropy increasing to the point where there are no unbalanced energy potentials. In a gravitational field this state of thermodynamic equilibrium is attained when all the energy potentials involving gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy and radiative energy balance out. That is when the environmental temperature gradient is attained, and the very fact that it exists enables us to explain all planetary surface temperatures (and the required energy flows) without the slightest reference to back radiation, let alone trace gases like carbon dioxide. Only water vapor has a significant effect in lowering that gradient because of its radiating properties. It thus cools the surface, and that puts a big spanner in the works for the IPCC et al.

  97. Magoo on 31/12/2015 at 12:52 pm said:

    I was just consulting the great oracles at skepticalscience.conjob’s temperature trend calculator and I notice they now include the Karl 2015 datasets. As Karl 2015 was supposed to be the big breakthrough that disproved the ‘hiatus’ I though I’d just a have a quick check:

    According to Karl 2015 there has been no statistically significant warming since 2000 for both their land/ocean and global datasets – a 15 year ‘hiatus’.

    Oops! Looks like the Chung 2015 & Sherwood 2014 papers that claim to have found the hotspot by using data when it hasn’t been warming is now officially kaput.

  98. Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2016 at 9:32 am said:

    ‘Northern Winter Nights’

    Willis Eschenbach / February 23, 2016

    I got to thinking about the distribution of the so-called “global” warming. I’d heard that a good chunk of it was due to increasing nighttime minimum temperatures. So I grabbed the Berkeley Earth land-only temperature dataset. It has its problems, and I suspect the overall warming trend is exaggerated, but at least it is internally complete and consistent. I wanted to know both where and when the warming is strongest, and where and when it is weakest.


    Figure 1. Maximum daytime temperatures (orange/red) and minimum nighttime temperatures (dark/light blue) by hemisphere. Data goes from 1900 through 2014.

    This shows that as a hemispheric average, the nighttime minimum temperatures are rising faster than the daytime maximums, and that the northern hemisphere nights are warming the fastest of the four groups.


    Figure 2. Berkeley Earth month-by-month average minimum nighttime temperature trends, in degrees C per decade.

    This is what I was looking for, the details of the location and timing of the warming. The Northern Hemisphere nighttime temperatures are increasing the most during the winter in Siberia and Canada. And similarly, in the Southern Hemisphere the nighttime warming is greatest in the winter, although it is more evenly distributed spatially. Meanwhile, there is little trend change month-over-month in the tropics.

    Now, call me crazy, but I don’t recall anyone ever saying “Boy, I sure wish that the February nights in the Yukon were colder”


    Figure 3. Berkeley Earth month-by-month average maximum daytime temperature trends, in degrees C per decade.

    Curiously, or perhaps not curiously, this daytime view shows the same pattern as the nighttime temperatures. The warming is concentrated in the extratropics in the winter.

    Conclusions? Well, the most obvious conclusion is that the “global” warming is not global at all. Instead, it is strongest at night in the winter in Siberia and Canada. I’m pretty sure the poor people in Murmansk are not complaining about that …

    In addition, there are large regions of the earth where for one or more months of the year, over more than a century the temperatures have actually cooled … the entire southeastern US, for example, is now colder in January than it was a century ago, both during the day and at night. If nothing else, this highlights the complex nature of the climate.

  99. Richard C (NZ) on 24/03/2016 at 10:04 am said:

    ‘What global warming? Staggering study says temperatures rose more BEFORE 1997’

    A PANEL of esteemed scientists [incl Mann], some of who have campaigned for more action to tackle climate change, has concluded a controversial 17-year “pause” of global warming DID happen, and the world is heating up more SLOWLY now than before the Millennium.

    By Jon Austin Mar 22, 2016


    Climate change sceptics are celebrating the paper’s conclusions

    US political commentator James Delingpole wrote on “The findings represent a tremendous blow to the climate alarmist ‘consensus’, which has long sought to deny the ‘pause’s’ existence.

    “The study was published in Nature Climate Change a fervently alarmist journal which rarely if ever runs papers that cast doubt on the man-made-global-warming scare narrative.

    “What’s novel about this new study in Nature Climate Change, though, is that it’s not skeptics and Republicans doing the mocking and the debunking – it’s the kind of people who in the past were very much in the alarmist camp, including – bizarrely – none other than Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann, who co-authored the paper.

    “In the meantime let us all draw comfort from the fact that a) the alarmists are finally being forced to concede that their skeptic adversaries are right and b) that they are starting to turn on one another.

    “What we have here, in other words, is signs of a major rift within the climate alarmist camp with different factions adopting different tactics to cope with the failure of their collapsing narrative.”

    He said Mr Mann and his colleagues had produced a paper in which “finally they concede what skeptics have been saying for many years: that there has been no ‘global warming’ since 1998”.


  100. Richard C (NZ) on 01/06/2016 at 12:07 pm said:

    Nature – finally “finds” cause of Antarctic pause, will last centuries, tosses “global warming” out


    Nature ties itself in knots here, and reveals a lot more than they probably meant too, but mostly about themselves rather than about Antarctica. If it’s correct, the implications from this study are pretty big, not that the study will tell you that. The term “Global warming” is tossed under a bus, along with almost all the Antarctic man-made scares of the last two decades. The political nature of Nature is on full display.


    # # #

    Basically, they’ve “discovered” textbook thermohaline circulation (wow).

    And they are pushing HARD the (unproven) idea that GHGs are warming the ocean. After 25 years and 5 assessment reports the IPCC has still got nothing. Never will either given the impossible physics.

  101. Jim Brook on 16/01/2020 at 2:05 pm said:

    I am a retired teacher trying to understand both sides of the climate change debate. I recently discovered the gwpf site and asked why the graph on their masthead seemed so different to the graphs frequently published in support of a climate change crisis, particularly as their information in that graph was obtained from the UK Met Office.

    In reply I was told that the graph was based on data published here:

    I subsequently graphed that information myself and confirmed that the gwpf graph, which commenced at 2001 and finished at 2018, was correct. However, I also noted that the graph taken as a whole from 1850 to 2019 seemed very confirmatory of the hypothesis that substantial global warming is taking place. I further noted that if the gwpf were to include the years 2000 and 2019 in their masthead graph the apparent upward trend would appear stronger and, that if it had included data from 1976, even stronger.

    It seems that I am not able to add graphic or post a file to this post otherwise I would have included my spreadsheet. However the data graphed in the following link seems to be based on the same data.

    To me it this graph suggests that global warming is occurring with a particularly strong trend line from 1976 to the present.

    However I would welcome any additional perspectives you can provide.

    Thank you.


    Jim B.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *