Wednesday, November 3, 2010

AGW as religion – counter arguments
  • "To capture the public imagination,
    we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
    make simplified dramatic statements
    and little mention of any doubts one might have.
    Each of us has to decide the right balance
    between being effective,
    and being honest."
    • Dr Stephen Schneider
      (interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)
Start here: quote “The problem, of course, is that such dramatic findings are also the most likely to get published in prestigious journals, since the data are both statistically significant and entirely unexpected. Grants get written, follow-up studies are conducted. The end result is a scientific accident that can take years to unravel.

Although many scientific ideas generate conflicting results, they continue to get cited in the textbooks and drive standard practice. Why? Because these ideas seem true. Because they make sense. Because we can’t bear to let them go. Because of  the human fallibility of science, in which data are tweaked and beliefs shape perceptions.  End quote

quote “Though scientists and science journalists are constantly talking up the value of the peer-review process, researchers admit among themselves that biased, erroneous, and even blatantly fraudulent studies easily slip through it. Nature, the grande dame of science journals, stated in a 2006 editorial, “Scientists understand that peer review per se provides only a minimal assurance of quality, and that the public conception of peer review as a stamp of authentication is far from the truth.” end quote

Then follow the trail of invalidation of AGW.
A lot of references for non-AGW – Organized in sequence of discovery, not usefully eg by subject. Links accumulated from May 2009 thru Jan 2011 pretty good recent paper or blog entry Jaworowski 2008 solar influence$file/scafetta-epa-2009.pdf analysis of model failings and solar contribution. Solar contributes 65% of warming since 1900, and surface temp. errors due to land use change and contributing stations contribute near 30% (50% per McKittrick and Michaels). Doesn’t leave much room for CO2 Or how about a comprehensive response to the IPCC 4th assessment report of 2007, with a vast selection of references.  Long Holocene cooling, plus weakness of tree ring proxies. There are numerous other studies that support the long cooling from the Holocene Optimum. Hypsithermal also in southern hemisphere Now there is reason to believe that the Northern Hemisphere megafauna were not killed off by man. Another anthropogenic failure?? Note: Typical RC argumentation. If comets caused this change they must have been the cause of other glacial period abrupt change, even though the galcial abrupt changes were in the inverse direction. and some possible support?? More on cloud negative feedback. Erl Happ is a vintner and amateur  climatologist. He is the only one doing serious data analysis/correlations of SST, ENSO, cloud cover, global warming etc. The “warmer” climatologists don’t want to do this because it would wreck the positive feedback hypothesis that they need for their models to generate catastrophic warming.   Erl Happ basically extends Svensmarks hypothesis by providing a detailed mechanism of how it might really work.
!!! Most of the realistic arguments, with vast data support, and many references. It needs a day or two of study. several critiques of climate model failings
Blog excerpt at :  Allan M R MacRae
Is Doug Hoyt out there? Please comment.
Douglas Hoyt:
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:37 am

Measurements of aerosols did not begin in the 1970s. There were measurements before then, but not so well organized. However, there were a number of pyrheliometric measurements made and it is possible to extract aerosol information from them by the method described in:
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. The apparent atmospheric transmission using the pyrheliometric ratioing techniques. Appl. Optics, 18, 2530-2531.
The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.
Here are three papers using the technique:
Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.
Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.
In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly. There are other studies from Belgium, Ireland, and Hawaii that reach the same conclusions. It is significant that Davos shows no trend whereas the IPCC models show it in the area where the greatest changes in aerosols were occurring.
There are earlier aerosol studies by Hand and in other in Monthly Weather Review going back to the 1880s and these studies also show no trends.
So when MacRae (#321) says: “I suspect that both the climate computer models and the input assumptions are not only inadequate, but in some cases key data is completely fabricated – for example, the alleged aerosol data that forces models to show cooling from ~1940 to ~1975. Isn’t it true that there was little or no quality aerosol data collected during 1940-1975, and the modelers simply invented data to force their models to history-match; then they claimed that their models actually reproduced past climate change quite well; and then they claimed they could therefore understand climate systems well enough to confidently predict future catastrophic warming?”, he close to the truth.
Douglas Hoyt:
July 22nd, 2006 at 10:37 am
Re #328
“Are you the same D.V. Hoyt who wrote the three referenced papers?” Yes.
“Can you please briefly describe the pyrheliometric technique, and how the historic data samples are obtained?”
The technique uses pyrheliometers to look at the sun on clear days. Measurements are made at air mass 5, 4, 3, and 2. The ratios 4/5, 3/4, and 2/3 are found and averaged. The number gives a relative measure of atmospheric transmission and is insensitive to water vapor amount, ozone, solar extraterrestrial irradiance changes, etc. It is also insensitive to any changes in the calibration of the instruments. The ratioing minimizes the spurious responses leaving only the responses to aerosols.
I have data for about 30 locations worldwide going back to the turn of the century.
Preliminary analysis shows no trend anywhere, except maybe Japan.
There is no funding to do complete checks.
End of excerpt. So much for aerosols for model tuning. No SST in coastal USA waters since ca 1935,file=11877 or  Latest Svensmark paper confirming link between GCR intensity and low cloud cover. Note major decrease in liquid water in low clouds which would leave more water vapor in the air, thus causing warming through both solar irradiation at the surface, and positive feedback from WV. If FDs can have such a large (if brief) impact, imagine what prolonged changes in solar wind and magnetic field strength do.
Lubos Motl notes that roughly 3 billion tons of water droplets disappear from the atmosphere, about 1 week after an FD, but this water remains a s WV. Some non-Climatologist correlations of sound scientific data, done by an open minded scientist. More IGC correlations by the same scientist, introducing the concept of the “bow wave”. Note ion both urls the supporting references of published peer reviewed scientific papers. and here is a mechanism. Note the GCRs have another role. See also: A Fresh Approach to Magnetism (Watson, 2006), and
“Why we are experiencing Global Warming” (Watson, 2007), Very interesting!! Especially for an electronics engineer, like me. Now, how does planetary motion influence the solar plasma electrically since the opponents of the planetary connection “know” that gravity and/or angular momentum are too weak. Arctic AGW. See the comments, especially  Aber and Leone.. the only AGW observed in the Arctic is UHI. The late 1930’s were warmer. Clear admission of cherry-picking data. Another contributor to the complex issue of global warming/cooling?  Note the author’s last comment. a good summary of some of the problems with AGW. So much for CO2 acidification of seawater.  AGW and tornadoes, plus some other extreme weather event conclusions.  Lindtzen on AGW, refutation by data
*** More on the thermometer drop out. Any warming since 2006 is clearly man made by mix change. Erl Happ has perhaps the most holistic theory of climate change, and it specifically excludes CO2 as a significant factor.,1 ,Don’t Panic!                                                    Excellent well balanced presentation. rEFERENCES ON SOLAR/earth’s magnetic field AS THE CLIMATE CHANGE DRIVER Excellent peace on AGW as religion Outing Pachauri More outing Pachauri Monckton rebuts Dec. ’09 Scientific American
Over the last 1.8-million years, cyclical Pleistocene ice ages have averaged some 102,000 years interspersed with median 12,250-year interglacial epochs. Since the Pleistocene Era is barely one-seventh through its statistically-alotted span, this well-defined pattern should recur for another 12 – 14 million years.
Though Earth’s latest ice age lasted from about 116,400 – 14,400 years-before-present (YBP), continental ice sheets did not fully recede prior to c. BC 8800 (10,800 YBP). Our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch, however, was set back 1,500 years to BC 7300 by a so-called Younger Dryas “cold shock” induced by cometary/meteorite debris impacting Earth from Sol’s enveloping Oort Cloud (qv). Though Earth’s Long Summer should have ended about AD 500, coincident with the Fall of Rome, odds now are that the Holocene was due to end about AD 2000 + (12,250 – 12,300) = AD 1950. As warmth rebounds from the 500-year Little Ice Age that ended c. 1850 – ‘90, Earth enters on a 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum  snipped from WUWT from John Blake IPCC fraud starts in SAR courtesy of Ben Santer Jan 3 2010. Evidence that China warming is overstated by near 100% due to UHI, and coming from an AGW warmer. Species extinction – NOT Another scientific hypothesis that the AGW crowd has to falsify to make their position credible Arctic trends, good idea to check all of Polyakov’s papers,  Long term temperature records  Northern hemisphere, warming is almost entirely in the  years after 1978, and much of it is clearly related to city growth, - ie UHI Another dent in the consensus Greenland was warmer in 1930 !!
*** Joe D’Aleo with a good summary of warming bias More on AGW non-science 500 AGW skeptic papers the best summary yet on the manipulation of surface instrument data. and so much for scary sea level rise another excellent source of non AGW, mon-consensus material If this analysis is typical of Northern Hemisphere warming, (and it is consistent with high Arctic behavior), then the apparent increase in NH average temperature occurs because the summers do not get warmer, but the winters get less cold. Further evidence of warming bias in surface measurements, and confirmation of the above paper that warming is “less cold”. sea level rise, not a problem. more on sea level rise
Douglas Hoyt Says:March 8th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Below is a little essay I just wrote up discussing temperature trends. I think it shows that the surface thermometer network has problems.
For 1979-1995/97, we have the following observations:
RCS tree rings: cooling for 1979-1995
STD tree rings: cooling for 1979-1995
NCEP analysis (pressure transducers) for the 1000-925 mb layer: cooling of 0.04 C/decade for 1979-1997
Balloon thermistors: cooling of 0.04 C/decade for 1979-1997
MSU 2r analysis: cooling of 0.04 C/decade for 1979-1997
Surface thermometers: warming of 0.16 C/decade for 1979-1997
The tree rings are validated by the balloons and satellites.
The MSU 2r analysis and MSU 5.2 analysis are virtually identical for the period 1979-1995. Only for 1996 and later will they differ as 5.2 is warmer than 2r starting then.
So what we have is 5 independent techniques showing a cooling for 1979 and 1995 and one technique (surface thermometers) showing a warming. In normal science, the single outlier is rejected because it differs from the other techniques by more than two standard deviations.
The surface thermometers are wildly different from all the other results. This indicates that something happened to the surface network between 1979-1995 and it is not a reliable measure of temperature. The surface network is overestimating the temperature and has a spurious increase of 0.38 C by 1997. It is because of this large spurious increase that claims can be made that it is warmer now than any time in the last century, or perhaps last 1000 years.
The reason for the spurious temperature readings in the surface network could be many. For example, many rural stations were shut down in 1980 and in 1990, as well as the other years. The average population near the remaining sites will increase and introduce a spurious trend in the readings. It is time to audit the surface network and it would require a team of physicists and statisticians.
For 1979-2005, the surface is claimed to have warmed by 0.18 C/decade. If 0.38 C is spurious as pointed out above, then the real increase in surface temperatures should be 0.10 C/decade less, or equal to 0.08 C/decade. 0.08 C/decade is less than the tropospheric trend which equals 0.10, 0.12, or 0.14 C/decade depending upon the analysis group. Since climate models predict less warming at the surface than in the mid-troposphere, they should be happy with the 0.08 C/decade number.
Chase, T. N., Pielke Sr., R. A., Knaff, J. A., Kittel, T. G. F. and Eastman J. L., 2000. A comparison of regional trends in 1979–1997 depth-averaged tropospheric temperatures. Int. J. Climatology, 20, 503-518. The Chase paper can be found at (pdf format).
D’Arrigo on tree rings. See
Satellite and surface trends for 1979-2005. See The best single depiction of the significance of recent warming that I have seen. excellent new skeptic website Clicking on individual sites it is hard to find recent warming that is either unusual or is not closely related to urban growth. See Geneva. Warming steadily since about 1850, which is when the latest Swiss glacial retreat started. CO2? Not likely. Need to read all of Tisdale. He accounts for all of 20th century by natural forcing. Need to link to Erl Happ also. Miskolczi presents a new greenhouse theory that eliminates discontinuities in the math of the existing theory, and results in a self balancing atmospheric optical depth (increased CO2 balanced by reduced water vapor) which makes CO2 induced temperature increase impossible. Very interesting – now needs some intense scientific scrutiny. See also for a summary of conclusions.

· Invalidity of the first peer reviewed attempt to wave off the last 12 years of no warming/
· arctic warming 1970 to 2008 less than 1910 to 1945. total Arctic warming in 20th century is nearly negligible.
· Reduction in possible share of warming due to CO2. Note – the author applies corrections sequentially, rather than applying each to the baseline, so his estimate is very conservative. Also note – no correction for migration and die-off of thermometers.
· Water vapor is negative feedback
· Greenland was just as warm in the 1930s.
· empirical data confirmation test of IPCC CO2 temperature sensitivity. The IPCC hypothesis fails the test,
· evidence of arctic warming exceeding present warming probably >2000 years ago – Roman optimum? Note excavated in 1939/40 – accessible now??
· NSIDC admits Antarctic ice increasing since about 1980. Not consistent with “global warming”
· , , , three very good expositions on atmospheric CO2 concentration, that allow room for anyone to draw his/her own conclusions depending on what you believe a priori. For me Callendar was strongly motivated to choose low examples in the 19th century, so probably underestimates historic levels. Engelbeen refutes Beck based on too few examples, and misses the reason for the high readings in the early ‘40s, and the corresponding flat in the Law Dome ice core. However, Beck is too accepting of too many samples that probably suffer from the problems presented by Engelbeen. My conclusion:- preindustrial variation was more than suggested by ice cores, and the late 18th century concentration was probably closer to 310 ppm than to 280 ppm. Pre Younger Dryas stomata readings of near 350 ppm are probably locally representative at that time. Doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration would mean getting to >600 ppm and there isn’t enough fossil fuel to do that. IPCC conclusions/projections are gross exaggerations. Also see this - especially the conclusion.
***From Gene Zeien Where has all the warming gone?  Start ca 1880 and end ca 2000 and we have warming. Start ca 1975 and end 2006 and we have warming. Start and end fairly mid range (LT average), - no warming. Start ca 1936 and end 2009 – clear cooling. Note 1990s peak lower than 1930s peak.
·,_Its_Wrong The problem we have is that few to no climate scientists are competent in statistics, but all of their conclusions are based on models and/or statistical treatment of limited data. When highly capable statisticians analyze climate science findings, as observed in the blogs, they almost invariably invalidate the Climatologist’s conclusions.
· the Chiefio does a whole lot of raw temperature analysis vs instrument change. See also NA, SA, Caribean and some other countries. Looks like all the warming is related to instrument change. No global warming since 1825??
· A contrarian and probably beter informed look at ocean acidification.
· Arctic sea ice extent change not due to AGW?
*** Australian weather stations may be worse than the USA, rendering the Australian warming trend meaningless.
· good temp curves 1997 to now, with only giss showing warming. See Chiefio for analysis of why GISS results are meaningless. Also see 4000 years of Holocene cooling at
·         The IPCC and peer review. – Oops!! TAR see Fourth assessment report - see (Especially See “Kate 11:55:38”) Like all of the IPCC work, we again have exaggeration and misleading or downright false claims. See for details. IPCC rules allow non-peer-reviewed sources, but they choose only those that support their position, and their contributors regularly reject contrary data/analysis/conclusions that is not peer reviewed. And then of course there is Pachauri’s claim - “IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.”…..Rajendra Pachauri
·         From Climateaudit 4/15/10 “GISS station values are even more spectacular, the warmest March on record is set in every Finnish station GISS is following. For instance, according to GISS, the mean March temperature in Sodankylä (61402836000) was a remarkable +1.5 °C beating the old record (-2.2 °C) from 1920 by 3.7 °C!
·         Well, according to the Finnish Meteorological Institute, March 2010 was colder than usual all over Finland, especially in the northern part. For instance, the mean temperature in Sodankylä was -10.3 °C, which is almost three degrees below the base period 1971-2000 average (-7.5 °C). So the GISS March value for Sodankylä is off by amazing 11.8 °C!
·         Some quality control, please!     That’s how GISS gets the warmest decade, just invent the data.
*** Now missing minus designation on high latitude sub-zero temperatures inflate reported global warming.
· A legal expert cross-examines the case for catastrophic AGW and finds it wanting.
· another dent in the “consensus”
·         flag fo future article,1,Fossil Fuels, Climate, and Climategate   David Rutledge Caltech  Confirmation of my “back of the envelope work of 2001 and 2004.
· watch the Rutledge presentation – 45 minutes
· wOW All you ever need to know about ocean acidification, and it is not a problem.
· Another pillar of IPCC modelling bites the dust.
· a credible look at the latest melting Antarctica scare.
· a nuanced look at long term climate history
· Dilley on lunar influences on climate cycles
· Zero world high temperature records in the last 3 decades
· Antarctic peninsula warmer than now 3 times in the Holocene, including MWP.
· Eemian lakes in Jordan/Saudi Arabia
·         Eemian warmth in Antarctica and the Arctic
· One small but telling example of temperature data manipulation, ie global warming by computer
· So much for Arctic warming. Confirms work I did 3 or 4 years ago.
· Many charts and sources showing past warmer periods. And a peer reviewed paper showing Arctic sea ice extent near historic highs
· Must read on various ideas re heat vs temp, heat gain/loss mechanisms, and the folly of the surface instrument record
· Another classic example of the thoroughly broken surface instrument temperature data collection and analysis system.
· More analysis of planetary orbital motion and solar activity, and a much earlier paper on the same subject
· older paper on why CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, and a rebuttal of a paper questioning it
· and Absolutely the best analysis of climate change that I have ever come across.
· another paper showing that doubling CO2 will have little further warming effect
!!! Believer to skeptic - the ultimate refutation of AGW
Jimbo says: I love Greenland stories.—“The temperature and renewal of these waters indicate that they currently cause enhanced submarine melting at the glacier terminus.”
Straneo et. al.

“Waters from warmer latitudes — or subtropical waters — are reaching Greenland’s glaciers, driving melting…”

“…the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.”
Petr Chylek et. al.

“The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”  Jason E. Box et. al.
“We found that northern hemisphere temperature and Greenland temperature changed synchronously at periods of ~20 years and 40–100 years. This quasi-periodic multi-decadal temperature fluctuation persisted throughout the last millennium, and is likely to continue into the future.”

Takuro Kobashi et. al.

**“The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades.” B. M. Vinther et. al.

“…glaciologists reported at the American Geophysical Union meeting that Greenland ice’s Armageddon has come to an end.” [January 2009]
American Geophysical Union
“The influence of the lunar nodal cycle on Arctic climate”
“Particulars are given regarding the big rise of winter temperatures in Greenland and its more oceanic climate during the last fifteen years.”
100 years of Japanese tidal guage measurements that beautifully tracks 20th century temperature, with the mid century warming greater than end century manipulated instrument results. So much for tipping points. Or even for 2 degrees C Note admission of siting/UHI issues. If brought up to 2010 even the red curve would be way high. CO2 vs Temp in Maine 1895-2010 No trend. CO2 might be stabilizing temp. Adjusting history to fake the case for warming
     CO2 and temp proxies over the last 1.5 million years. Near 1.5M years resolution will be no better than few thousand years, but we see CO2 with error bar above 340 ppm smoothed over the resolution period. The actual short period peak would have been sensible higher – at least 380 ppm being not unlikely. Another detailed IPCC refutation and the warmers claim the skeptics are being paid! Excellent graphs on prior warmings, and the long downslope we are on. The natural thermostat hypothesis – much more logical than AGW. a better model of temp. change that correlates well with measurements, even with zero CO2 contribution. a host of good links for natural warming.
1.      …..and the provision global temperature trend for this decade (2001-2010) is:  GISS/NASA + 0.15°C
NCDC NOAA + 0.01°C
RSS MSU + 0.03°C
HadCRUT – 0.06°C
** Jones estimated the UHI impact as .05 degrees C, assuming an urban reading would average out over 10 to 20 sites per grid box, ie urban warming of .25 to .5 degrees C. Now we are finding that UHIs are more than 10 degrees C warmer than the surrounding rural areas. World urban population increased by a factor of 15 from 1900 to 2010, with most of that after 1960, say factor 5. Lets say that 60% of the UHI developed after 1960, or at least 6 degrees C, greater than 10x Jones’ estimate. Than the impact on average temp would be 0.5 degrees C out of a total observed warming of 0.7degrees C. Cosmic rays linked to cloud cover change, and therefore climate change. Looks pretty definitive. So AGW scare is based on models, and the models are really meaningless. Who would have imagined that? See conclusion, - heliospheric B back to level of 1902 at Sc 13/14 minimum. Should out us back to =< 2010 temps in =< 8 years, ie a drop of near 0.8 degrees C  Some very telling material on problems with climate science, especially ice cores. The Greenhouse Effect Excellent reinterpretation of the CO2 effect in the atmosphere Swiss glacier retreat greatest in 5000 years. Warming, or reduced cloudiness and increased insolation due to meltwater reuse?,1518,357366,00.html More retreat during the Roman warm period? 10 retreats in 7,000 years? Implies some very rapid changes. another interesting analysis that ice core CO2 baseline is simply wrong.
!!! strong implication that we are on the edge of the plateau, about to plunge into the next ice age. Comparing the last 3,000 years to the Eemian seems to confirm this idea. Our present optimum (1930 to 2130) may be the last of 4 (Minoan, Roman, Medieval, current) like the last 4 for the Eemian. Oops! Interesting, a projection based on a 60 year cycle around a long term trend, just like mine but done 2 years earlier. Warming to ca 2000 is probably overestimated by at least 0.5 degrees C and cooling to 2035 probably underestimated due to no consideration of DGM.
*** Rutan update. Pretty complete refutation of CAGW. I could improve a couple of points. Amazing temp series repository Some more speculation on multiplying effects of small solar changes Just rediscovered - Heinz Hug’s refutation of IPCC CO2 forcing. See also another piece of AGW theory falsified? Looks like it. An example of RealClimate pseudo-science. I too have been censored on RC when they could not provide a valid defense or rebuttal. GISS reconstructs history excellent analysis of real surface temp variation and the meaninglessness of “forcings”.
*** A compelling paper that says USA warming since 1900 is overstated by nearly a factor of 6x, (4x if weighted for land area) almost entirely due to adjustments of historical rural temp. data to make it track urban data. A very damning analysis.
***  p_history_trends.pdf  Further Analysis by Dr. Long showing that for New England the recent peak temp. is lower than the 1934-44 peak, and that all of the apparent warming is either UHI or adjustments, with rural data adjusted to look like urban. ±0.46 C lower limit of uncertainty shows that between 1880 and 2000, the trend in averaged global surface air temperature anomalies is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C at the 1σ level. One cannot, therefore, avoid the conclusion that it is presently impossible to quantify the warming trend in global climate since 1880.” Also see and  AGW climatologists will always use the high end of the range for recent warming, so subtract 0.5degrees C from any AGW warming alarmism.

No comments:

Post a Comment