The Sun drives climate, not CO2

Neglected-Sun

In a recent blog I referred to Fritz Vahrenholt’s book “The Neglected Sun”.  I’ve been aware of this book for some time, and I’ve met the author a couple of times in Brussels.  It was first published in the original German as “Die Kalte Sonne” (The Cold Sun), but its English title emphasises its key premise: that the IPCC, in attributing climate change primarily to CO2, has ignored the Sun, which Vahrenholt argues has both a larger and a better-proven impact on climate.

Vahrenholt is remarkable, not so much for the book, as for his previous career, and his intellectual journey.  He started out as a socialist politician and passionate environmentalist.  Having studied Chemistry in Münster, he started his professional career at the federal environmental protection agency in Berlin, and the Ministry for Environment of Hesse. From 1984 till 1990 he had a leading role in environmental affairs in Hamburg, and became Senator for the Environment in Hamburg from 1991 to 1997.  A man of impeccable green credentials.

In 1998 he entered the energy industry, and until 2001 was on the Board of Deutsche Shell AG, a Shell subsidiary. In 2001 he moved to post of CEO of the wind turbine company REpower Systems AG and remained there until 2007. From February 2008 he was CEO of electric power company RWE’s renewables subsidiary RWE Innogy, a post he stepped down from in mid-2012.  Professor Doctor Vahrenholt has a doctorate in Chemistry. In 1999 he was made an Honorary Professor of Chemistry at the University of Hamburg.

So far, so successful – but perhaps not astonishing.  The remarkable thing is that during his time with Innogy, running a wind farm business, he became concerned and disillusioned to find that the business performed well below expectations, and started looking for the reasons.  He also started to look more closely at the whole theory of climate change, and became convinced that the IPCC position – that CO2 is the primary driver of climate – was simply mistaken.

His book assembles an overwhelming case that climate correlates rather poorly with atmospheric CO2, whereas it correlates extremely well with solar activity and astronomical cycles.  The IPCC quotes the fact that solar irradiance is fairly constant, and concludes that the sun therefore cannot be a major factor.  But it largely ignores the fact that the solar magnetic field varies significantly and cyclically, and it largely ignores the work of scientists like Svensmark, who have demonstrated the link between solar magnetism and terrestrial climate.

The solar magnetic field tends to shield the earth from the cosmic ray flux arriving from space.  A weaker magnetic field allows more cosmic rays to reach the earth, which leads to more cloud formation, higher albedo and therefore lower temperatures.  It is well established that the extreme cold periods of the little Ice Age, like to Maunder,  Dalton and Sporer minima, were associated with very low levels of sunspots and a low solar magnetic field.

There are also major variations in ocean current activity, notably the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which appear to be associated with solar cycles and with climate patterns.  This too is not fully recognised by the IPCC.

The current climate scare is driven by the relative rapid rise in mean global temperatures between 1977 and 2000.  When I once challenged the European Commission on their climate obsession, arguing that the changes we have seen were normal and cyclical, they insisted that the recent rise in temperature was so rapid that it must be man-made (how’s that for a non-sequitur?).  But of course half a degree in thirty years is trivial compared to say the Younger Dryas 12,000 years ago, when we saw changes of several degrees in an even shorter period – changes which were clearly not man-made.

But we don’t need to go back 12,000 years.  In the last 150 years we have seen a steady cyclical recovery from the Little Ice Age, apparently leading to a new 21st Century Optimum (and the word “optimum” is appropriate – warmer temperatures are generally good news).  Superimposed on that we see a sixty-year cycle of thirty (approx) years warming, thirty years cooling.  Such enhanced warmings took place not just in 1977/200, but in 1910/40, and 1860/80.  The rates of warming in all three periods were very similar.  There is nothing exceptional about 1977/2000.  These cycles closely match changes in the PDO.

And in each case they were followed by thirty years or so of static or declining temperatures – leading, as we know, to the Great Global Cooling scare of 1975.  Here at last we have the explanation for the current temperature stasis, which the IPCC is at a loss to explain.  We can expect this stasis or cooling to continue to 2030 or so.  But there’s another factor: astronomers are warning that solar activity seems to be headed for a very quiet period, comparable to those minima in the Little Ice Age.  It could get very cold indeed.  Add to that the fact that we’re 12,000 years into an Interglacial, and that interglacials typically last around 12,000 years, and maybe we should worry not about Global Warming, but about the next glaciation.  That really will be a climate disaster.

Vahrenholt’s book is packed with hundreds of references to peer-reviewed science (it’s almost comical the way that some green apologists seem to assume that no peer-reviewed science supports the sceptics’ case), so it is not only a well-argued thesis, but a valuable reference source as well.  I’ve been reading The Neglected Sun on my shiny new Kindle that I got for Christmas.  I’d urge you to read it too, but in this case I suspect that the hard copy might be a better deal, as the coloured graphs come out black-and-white on the Kindle Paperwhite.  But before any Warmists out there write to me to tell me that UKIP doesn’t understand the science, please just read Vahrenholt’s book.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

92 Responses to The Sun drives climate, not CO2

  1. Surprisingly Wiki admit there is reason to believe there may be a solar cause for the cooling during the Maunder Minimum. Then spoil it saying the Dalton and Sporer minima have no demonstrable connection to the cooling then. I assume wiki did not have a serious article on the cooling scare of 1975.

    • Martin Lack says:

      There was no cooling scare in 1975. There was just academic discussion that concluded the risk of an approaching ice age had been over-stated by an extreme minority of researchers. See:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
      http://climatecrocks.com/2013/06/07/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        I remember reading press articles on the prospects of an Ice Age from the 1950’s onwards. The prospects of any warming never arose then.

      • Jerry says:

        There definitely was a cold-climate scare in the late 1960s that lasted about 15 years. As one example, in the US magazine, Newsweek, April 28, 1975, the article, “The Cooling World” will seem quite familiar to those following the current scare over global warming, with the exception that article is discussing the coming crisis over global cooling. For example: “Climatologists are pessimistic that the political leaders will take any possible action to compensate for the climate change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more speculative solutions proposed, such as melting the artic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting artic rivers, might create problems far greater than they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food o of introducing the variables of climate uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climate change once the results become grim reality.”

    • Martin Lack says:

      There was no cooling scare in 1975. There was just academic discussion that concluded the risk of an approaching ice age had been over-stated by an extreme minority of researchers. (i.e. 2nd attempt at comment without links)

      • Jerry Lundry says:

        I can’t address press articles in the UK in 1975, but here in the USA, there were many articles on global cooling. I have a page of Newsweek, April 28, 1974 as one such example. With one exception, the text reads much like press articles today. The exception, of course, is that the subject was global cooling, rather than global warning.

        Re the UK, the article states: “In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant over-all (sic) loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.”

        There were weather extremes: “Last April, in the most devastating oubreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars worth of damage in thirteen states.”

        There were pessimistic predictions: “If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.” (Shades of Al Gore exaggeration).

        Finally: “And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3 percent between 1964 and 1972.”

      • Martin Lack says:

        However many there were, they were wrong and they remain wrong. We are not heading for another Ice Age.

        Trying to overt-turn or ignore the modern day consensus that humans are the primary cause of ongoing climate disruption is like trying to over-turn the consensus that the Earth is not flat.

        Scepticism is the basis of modern science; a willingness to allow popular beliefs to be falsified by weight of scientific evidence (as Copernicus and Galileo did). It is not a licence to reject all evidence that conflicts with ideological or theological prejudices (as did the Catholic Church 400 years ago).

      • limogerry says:

        You’re talking out of your asshole about consensus-there is none, you’re talking out of your asshole about melting, the opposite is happening right now, you’re talking out your asshole about the oceans warming, the instrument record is too short, as of now it shows a slight cooling, you’re talking out of your asshole about Ice Ages, which are very regular climatic occurrences and you have some sort of shamanistic knowledge of when the next one occurs and you’re talking out of your asshole comparing yourself to a persecuted Galileo when it is extremely well documented in Climategate and many other instances how non-compliant scientists are being muzzled by the warm-mongers. I can only imagine what must come out of your mouth.

      • Martin Lack says:

        I must admit I have been surprised by how long it has taken the people on this site to become offensive. Congratulations on your self-control.

      • Me_Again says:

        Sorry but I clearly recall the usual press furore stating we were heading for an ice age. That was until the mid 80’s, I think, then it went quiet a bit, then post soviet union we had global warming.
        I recall clearly during my environmental science studies in 1995/6/7 that it was already accepted in academia that there was global warming [AGW] type. Many of our tutors would feed in tid bits to the free debates which hinted at non acceptance of AGW and watch happily as we became voiciferous and animated, angry even, that people could be in such denial of reality. The culprits were always big business. I recall joining in but as a mature student I didn’t swallow the AGW bible because there were too many unexplained things. Besides I was quite happy with saving the world from industrial polluters of which there are many, I was happy with teaching farmers about sustainable non intensive farming, I was quite happy with sorting out proven polluters.
        This AGW lark seemed possible but not something to get worked up about. Looking back the behaviour of the faculty and the younger students reminds me more of rabble rousing than encouraging scientific debate.

        Anyone, anyone who thinks you could get a roomfull of scientists to agree what day of the week it is has fantasy problems……………….and the term consensus is not actually scientific, it refers to herd belief. The scientists I grew up with were explorers, investigators and hypothesisers, not political hacks rummaging for funding grants.

      • Here’s what it is actually all about. Courtesy of the IPCC. I guess somebody slipped a truth drug in his drink..

        Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

        Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer

        For those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.

      • Martin Lack says:

        Facts are facts and should not be confused with what got reported in the press/media at the time.

  2. Martin Lack says:

    Apart from a minor aberration between 1996 and 2003, I have been a life-long Conservative voter. Sadly, however, given the way the Party is currently going, I suspect this will not last much longer. Even more unfortunately, I am very reluctant to vote for anyone else – and am inclined to ask people why they think most Euro-sceptics are climate sceptics:
    http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/why-are-euro-sceptics-also-climate-sceptics/

    The last 150 years or so has produced a great deal of ideologically-driven denial of inconvenient science on the basis of theological prejudice (e.g. evolution by creationists) or vested interests (e.g. health risks of smoking by tobacco companies).

    Whether you like it or not, the scientific consensus is that humans are the primary cause post-Industrial warming of the planet. Rejecting the reality, reasonableness and/or reliability of this consensus can only be justified by believing most relevant researchers to have been either: (1) persistently stupid; (2) reaching unjustified conclusions, or (3) deliberately deceitful.

    Since (1) is highly improbable and (2) would be highly irrational, this only leaves (3). However, given the track record that big corporate interests have for disputing inconvenient science (see above), there would appear to be a good case for invoking Occam’s Razor: i.e. accepting the simplest explanation that accords with historical facts and does not require the rejection of the last 150 years in the developmental understanding of atmospheric physics.

    Thus, for all but those who invoke conspiracy theories (i.e. bedtime stories that make the World seem a much nicer place), the scientific consensus regarding the Sun appears perfectly reasonable:
    (a) Whilst the Sun may help to explain gradual cooling since the end of the last Ice Age, it cannot explain mutli-decadal warming since the Industrial Revolution;
    (b) Whilst natural climate forcings (i.e. the Sun, ocean circulation and volcanoes) may help to explain the slow down in warming since 1998, only anthropogenic influence can explain the record-breaking warmth of the last decade; and
    (c) given (a) and (b), there is no rational basis for assuming that warming will not continue (unless humans take collective action to minimise it).

    See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

  3. Brin Jenkins says:

    The deceivers want to keep us all confused, confounded and ignorant, spread the words and let everyone know the truth. Theories are not facts, just a possible explanation, nothing more. Scientific laws do not change. When a law is ignored to support the theory of the carbon footprint, we must question why they do they lie?

    • Martin Lack says:

      Apart from a minor aberration between 1996 and 2003, I have been a life-long Conservative voter. Sadly, however, given the way the Party is currently going, I suspect this will not last much longer.

      The last 150 years or so has produced a great deal of ideologically-driven disputation of inconvenient science on the basis of theological prejudice (e.g. evolution by creationists) or vested interests (e.g. health risks of smoking by tobacco companies).

      Whether you like it or not, the scientific consensus is that humans are the primary cause of post-Industrial warming of the planet. Rejecting the reality, reasonableness and/or reliability of this consensus can only be justified by believing most relevant researchers to have been either: (1) persistently stupid; (2) reaching unjustified conclusions, or (3) deliberately deceitful.

      Since (1) is highly improbable and (2) would be highly irrational, this only leaves (3). However, given the track record that big corporate interests have for disputing inconvenient science (see above), there would appear to be a good case for invoking Occam’s Razor: i.e. accepting the simplest explanation that accords with historical facts and does not require the rejection of the last 150 years in the developmental understanding of atmospheric physics:
      — (a) Whilst the Sun may help to explain gradual cooling since the end of the last Ice Age, it cannot explain mutli-decadal warming since the Industrial Revolution;
      — (b) Whilst natural climate forcings (i.e. the Sun, ocean circulation and volcanoes) may help to explain the slow down in warming since 1998, only anthropogenic influence can explain the record-breaking warmth of the last decade; and
      — (c) Given (a) and (b), there is no rational basis for assuming that warming will not continue (unless humans take collective action to minimise it).

      • Ah yes. The Industrial Revolution. Which coincided with the end of the LIA. And what happens when one emerges from an Ice Age, great or small? It gets warmer. There, that wasn’t too hard.

        Next?

      • Martin Lack says:

        The Industrial Revolution coincided with the beginning of a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 and departure from 1 million years of oscillation between 180ppm (glacial) and 280ppm (interglacial).

        Since the end of the last ice age – over the last 8k years – there has been an overall cooling trend and things like MWP and LIA. All of this is almost certainly due to long-term reductions in TSI and long-term cycles in Sunspot activity.

        However, none of this changes the fact that the totality of post-Industrial warming cannot be fully explained without allowance for the anthropogenic addition of 40% CO2. We are therefore not just coming out of the LIA.

        As has been said, “You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts”.

      • neilfutureboy says:

        ” totality of post-Industrial warming cannot be fully explained without allowance for the anthropogenic addition of 40% CO2″

        Ludicrous – nobody knows enough about climate to “fully explain” changes of a fraction of a degree – the alarmists cannot fully explain the mediaval, roman and other warmings which happened before people started driving SUVs. This is the intellectual equivalent of saying conventional scientists cannot “fully explain” the occasional correlation between star signs and outcome (chance, by definition, not being a full explanation) and thus Astrology Scientists must be right. Actually of the 2 I would greatly prefer Astrology Scientists to “Climate Scientists” since they can make a living without public subsidy and can get the time right twice a day.

      • Me_Again says:

        Bolleux as in gateaux.
        25% of all human manufactured Co2 has been released in the last decade. Where is the warming?
        Have you totally lost your objectivity?

      • Martin Lack says:

        The warming is mainly in the oceans (where they are not being cooled by melting ice).

        Have you noticed that these warming oceans cover most of the surface of the planet and, as predicted by the basic Laws of Physics, have produced increased frequency and severity of extreme weather of all kinds over the last six decades.
        search online for:

        If the Earth had not warmed significantly in recent decades, there would not have been a sixfold increase in the global average rate at which ice is melting. Such exponential increase is not capable of explanation by natural forces alone. Conversely, the natural cooling forces do explain the temporary slow-down in warming (as they did in the 60s and 70s).

        However, as then, so now, there is no Ice Age approaching.

      • Me_Again says:

        What drivel. You throw out these quasi facts without any references.
        Once again you start with an unsourced ‘factoid’ and build on it.

        “The warming is mainly in the oceans (where they are not being cooled by melting ice).”

        Unbelievable. So where is this next piece of drug induced imagination from then?

        “If the Earth had not warmed significantly in recent decades, there would not have been a sixfold increase in the global average rate at which ice is melting. Such exponential increase is not capable of explanation by natural forces alone. Conversely, the natural cooling forces do explain the temporary slow-down in warming (as they did in the 60s and 70s).”

      • Martin Lack says:

        For me to be failing to be objective requires belief in conspiracy theory (i.e. most relevant scientists are mental, mistaken, or mendacious).

        For you to be failing to be objective just requires an acceptance of historical facts (e.g. an exponential acceleration of ice melting over the last 20 years).

      • Me_Again says:

        “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

        Dr Michael Crichton

        The scientists you refer to are thinking about the balance of probability based on a guess. Scientists generally don’t like to guess. With no empirical evidence or way to test the theory since the temperature stubbornly refuses to climb, add to the fact that 25% of all CO2 ever released by man has gone into the atmosphere in the last decade with the result of no warming, I just have to wonder how long you strange creatures can keep up the pretence.

      • Martin Lack says:

        My comments are now free of HTML links because those that contain them never appear.

      • Me_Again says:

        Your initial premise is incorrect.
        “Whether you like it or not, the scientific consensus is that humans are the primary cause of post-Industrial warming of the planet…”

        Scientists engaged in climate research have never been asked this question. I suspect now that they never will. Such a question 5 years ago may have yielded a majority. But I repeat, such august bodies as the IPCC would not dare to ask an outright question like the one you say they answered, anymore.

        Therefore your first statement takes you straight into the realms of fantasy.

      • Martin Lack says:

        You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        All energy in our Solar System originated with our Sun, some small amounts of this energy are found converted and stored on Earth. Most of it is latent heat in Oceans and Land Masses, some is stored longer term as oil, coal, plants, including wood. Man has found these sources useful in furthering his puny technologies. Once man has used this stored energy it’s converted into heat, and eventually re-radiated back into Space. All energy on this planet is transient over the longer term. Heat energy is found whenever any masses temperature is above absolute zero. Ice contains heat, and that is a hard truth for most of us to contemplate.

        The Planet re-radiates most of its daily incoming heat at lower frequencies than the original source the Sun. Clouds (water vapor) insulate us from some of the Sun’s heat, this also conserves heat resulting in some temperate zones. This works more or less equally with both incoming and outgoing energy.

        Eventually every bit of the Suns energy will be exhausted, the Earth will also have given up its energy, radiated back into space. Quite egalitarian in a way, all energy will thus be shared equally throughout the Universe as it finally dies.

        IF this Planet’s climate has been changing one should indeed ask,” What happened”? The answer to all variations must be tied to Sun spot activity and variations in its radiated energy. Chasing false theories that need to be evermore complicated is a fools journey.

        This is how I see the energy system works, I welcome constructive comment and logical correction within the laws of physics, not emotion please.

  4. Thank you Roger. Explained as you have above I now will buy the book and read it all myself. On the subject of Kindles may I support your statement re illustrative graphs and indeed any extra matter such as bibliography, notes, appendices? A Kindle is just not the vehicle for any written material which might necessitate a looking back or forward to illustrations whilst engaged in reading text. It is too frustrating. A book is called for. I now only use my Kindle for novels or unillustrated material. In these cases I love it.

  5. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Instrumentation is out there, similarly here on the planet. So why is it that the IPCC cherry pick as determined by the UN? Its all about the CO2 actor – just that. This planet itself emits CO2 (+more) without the assistance of us and forever will do in variable amounts.

    We swing round the Sun and that would not be on identical paths nor would the precession be identical to other swings – more variables. Not in the IPCC remit though,

    The above is the simple stuff I think, but appears not required/important ?

    Whats Guido on about today Roger?

  6. Eric Worrall says:

    It is not difficult to see a strong correlation between the sun and climate. For example, consider the following graph:-

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:50/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:50/offset:-40/integral/normalise

    The graph above shows the correlation between global temperature and the *integral* of sunspot count, a proxy for solar activity. The idea of using the integral is to model the impact of solar activity on the Earth as being analogous to a gas burner under a pot of water. Turning the burner up does not cause the water to boil immediately, instead it changes the rate at which the water heats.

    Add to this evidence that the sun was more active in the 20th century than at any time since the dawn of civilisation – an 8000 year solar grand maximum http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html – and that now temperatures and solar activity are dropping, and it is not difficult to see that an imminent and drastic fall in temperature is likely to occur.

    So drastic I packed my family off to the lovely Fraser Coast – 25 degrees South of the equator, with the option of, if all else fails, walking to within 17 degrees of the equator.

  7. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Anybody like to comment on tonights BBC4 Horizon – Solar Storms

    Seems we (they) don’t know about the Sun too much other than its going to fry our carrier electrics and sink the monitoring satellite instrumentation systems. EMC beyond imagination …well I never,

    Climate impact was not mentioned, major interference with Oxygen and Nitrogen was….what about our old minor friend?

  8. Brin Jenkins says:

    I watched The Horizon TV program at a pals house, it is the heating of the upper atmosphere that intrigues me using radio transmissions. This changes the density of the gas were our satellites might be affected by solar flares, fascinating but, this is what the Harp project is doing? What is the real purpose of Harp? It is very much larger than the Danish system.

  9. limogerry says:

    They won’t. Much like Catholic church officials who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope because it was the devil’s instrument they will refuse to look at anything that contradicts their world view. They’re very settled in their science.

  10. Thomas Fox says:

    Now that Co2 is not to blame for climate change all we need is cheaper coal for generation plus gas for heat with additional shale where possible . Problem solved without EU interference .

  11. Martin Lack says:

    Are all my comments going to get stuck in the moderation queue (or just those with HTML links)…?

    • Martin Lack says:

      OK, Roger, this is a start. I trust I can look forward to both of ymy comments posted yestarday (with HTML links) now appearing. Yours hopefully, Martin.

      • Me_Again says:

        Try this one Marty.

        “Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

        14.2.2.2 Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles

        In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ………………..”

        OK future climate states not predictable……..

        Newsreaders happily regurgitating nonsense like “climate change is responsible says the met office” in one breath and then “this is the worst for 250 years”

        These two statements are plainly contradictory.

      • Martin Lack says:

        So what? Science is complicated (unless you think it is a conspiracy). Stick to Table SPM1, it deals with historical facts (even infants can understand).

      • Me_Again says:

        Staggering stupidity. Summary For Policymakers.
        Well recognised by the scientific community to have been written not by scientists but by those with an agenda.
        Scientists disagree with what is written there.
        Mathematically if you don’t know and haven’t any data you can’t make up a probability.
        No wonder you are ‘the converted’ jees, don’t you know anything?

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Some of the perpetual motion machines are also complicated. Any physicist will say without examining the device or it drawings, that it will never work. It breaks the laws of physics just as the Global Warming theory did.

        What desperation that it has been morphed into climate change, and now into climate chaos.

        It’s all down to the sun!

      • Martin Lack says:

        All opinions are not equally valid; and yours appear to necessitate believing that the conclusions of 150 years of peer-reviewed atmospheric physics can be dismissed as guesswork. That is what I call staggering stupidity.

      • Me_Again says:

        150 years of peer reviewed….. peer review is just someone else’s opinion. Jees that’s as bad as consensus! As Albert Einstein said, I don’t care that they all disagree, let one of them prove it. Anyway AGW was preceded by the same consensus for the next ice age.

        Only politicians look for consensus not scientists!

        In this case there isn’t the empirical data. Wherever you turn there is no evidence, just bloody computer models 36 out of 38 of which have been proved utterly wrong, so if the models don’t get it right it means flawed theory! The warming of the 70’s to 90’s is easily explained using sun cycles. As was the cooling before it and after it.

        CO2 has an effect but it is limited…..if it was important then they’d be doing something about it like threatening to nuke Brazil or Indonesia for chopping down rain forests. They’d be wandering the oceans with bulk carriers full of iron filings…….but they’re not because it isn’t the CO2 that’s the problem.

        Look if there were an alternative available to burning coal/oil/gas then I’d be all for it. The problem is that the green lobby screwed the nuclear industry -in this country at least.

        Fossil fuels are precious because of the wealth of hydrocarbons they contain. We shouldn’t be burning them if can avoid it.

        The idiots that purport human inspired climate change don’t try to mitigate it they just tax people and scaremonger. Chucking windmills at the problem is not ans answer it’s stupidity!

      • Jerry Lundry says:
        I suggest Mr. Luck dredge up a copy of the United States Senate Report, “‘Consenus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy.” While it is currently rare for the US Senate to agree on anything, this report was issued a few years ago. There are 107 references, so there is some depth behind this document — obviously not prepared by the senators themselves. In the appendices are a number of emails between the UK’s Phil Jones and the US’s Professor Michael Mann. I would lke to attach the PDF file for Mr. Luck but do not see a way to do so on this blog. So, I shall paste in the Conclusions from one section of this document: START OF PASTE Conclusions The scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, may have violated federal laws. The next phase of the Minority’s investigation will explore whether any such violations occurred. An independent inquiry conducted by the UK’s Information Commissioner has already concluded that the scientists employed by the University of East Anglia, and who were at the center of the controversy, violated the UK’s Freedom of Information Act.100 Another independent inquiry, headed by Sir Muir Russell, is investigating allegations that the scientists in the CRU scandal manipulated climate change data.101 In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes. Because the EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases rests in large part on the IPCC’s science, the endangerment finding should be thrown out. EPA should issue notice and comment on what the mistakes mean and how they affect EPA’s conclusion that GHGs endanger public health and welfare. END OF PASTE Further, there might be interest in some of the email exchanges provided in one of the appendices: START OF PASTE APPENDIX A A Sampling of Emails and Documents Minority Staff has identified a preliminary sampling of CRU emails and documents which seriously compromise the IPCC-backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes, and which represent unethical and possibly illegal conduct by top IPCC scientists, among others. In the interest of brevity, many of the emails are not reproduced in their entirety. Therefore, the reader is encouraged to seek outside sources for broader review and context of the exposed emails and documents. Email and document text is shown in blue italics. The emails are reproduced in chronological order from oldest to newest under each sub-heading. Concealing Data From: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] To: Tim Osborn [CRU] July 31, 2003 Subject: Re: reconstruction errors Tim, Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to: AD 1000 AD 1400 AD 1600 I can’t find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you’ll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case–its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can’t seem to dig them up. . . . p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things… From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] January 16, 2004 Subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice – YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!! Mike, This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading – please ! I’m trying to redress the balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the kettle black – Christian doesn’t make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian message so you don’t get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get more advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal. PLEASE DELETE – just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm 39 From: Phil Jones To: Tas van Ommen [University of Tasmania, Australia] Cc: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] February 9, 2004 Subject: Re: FW: Law Dome O18 Dear Tas, Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn’t contacted me directly about Law Dome (yet), nor about any of the series used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 GRL one with Mike. I suspect (hope) that he won’t. I had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature data we use here in CRU. I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from individuals and not directly from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through GCOS. I’ve cc’d Mike on this, just for info. Emails have also been sent to some other paleo people asking for datasets used in 1998 or 2003. Keith Briffa here got one, for example. Here, they have also been in contact with some of Keith’s Russian contacts. All seem to relate to trying to get series we’ve used. From: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] To: Phil Jones [CRU]; Gabi Hergerl [Duke University] August ??, 2004 [Subject: Mann and Jones (2003)] Dear Phil and Gabi, I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people. . . . From: Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research] To: Phil Jones [CRU] January 21, 2005 Phil, Thanks for the quick reply. The leaflet appeared so general, but it was prepared by UEA so they may have simplified things. From their wording, computer code would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah is/was still employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only written one tenth of the code and release every tenth line. Sorry I won’t see you, but I will not come up to Norwich until Monday. From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research] Cc: Ben Santer [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory] January 21st, 2005 Subject: Re: FOIA Tom, 40 . . . As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA [University of East Anglia] and she will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University. I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR [intellectual property rights] to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them. From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] February 2, 2005 [Subject: For your eyes only] Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc ! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp [file transfer protocol] sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR [intellectual property rights] should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it ! From: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] To: Phil Jones [CRU] February 2, 2005 Thanks Phil, Yes, we’ve learned out lesson about FTP. We’re going to be very careful in the future what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory so that Tim could access the data. Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights issues, so it isn’t clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S. I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor comments). It looks very good at present–will be interesting to see how they deal w/ the contrarian criticisms–there will be many. I’m hoping they’ll stand firm (I believe they will–I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)… From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] Cc: Raymond Bradley [University of Massachusetts, Amherst]; Malcolm Hughes [University of Arizona] February 21, 2005 Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA 41 Mike, Ray and Malcolm, The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated ! Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series ! Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH [Mann Bradley Hughes]. The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act ! From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Eugene R. Wahl [Alfred University]; Caspar Ammann [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research] September 12, 2007 Subject: Wahl/Ammann Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn’t appear to be in CC’s online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn’t changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with. From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Michael E. Mann [Penn State University] May 29, 2008 Subject: IPCC & FOI Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4 [IPCC Fourth Assessment Report]? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA [Climate Audit website] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! Cheers Phil From: Michael E. Mann [Penn State University] To: Phil Jones [CRU] May 29, 2008 Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI Hi Phil, 42 laughable that CA [Climate Audit] would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true. I’ll contact Gene about this [deleting emails] ASAP. His new email is: . . . talk to you later, mike From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Gavin Schmidt [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies] Cc: Michael E. Mann [Penn State University] August 20, 2008 Gavin, . . . Thinking about the final bit for the Appendix. Keith should be in later, so I’ll check with him – and look at that vineyard book. I did rephrase the bit about the ‘evidence’ as Lamb refers to it. I wanted to use his phrasing – he used this word several times in these various papers. What he means is his mind and its inherent bias(es). Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible. Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC [Meteorological Office Hadley Center] and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond – advice they got from the Information Commissioner. . . . The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI – the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on. Undermining Peer Review From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Unknown list March 10, 2003 [Subject: Soon & Baliunas] Dear all, Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don’t let it spoil your day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice ! Cheers Phil From: Phil Jones To: Raymond Bradley [University of Massachusetts, Amherst]; Malcolm Hughes [University of Arizona]; Scott Rutherford [University of Rhode Island]; Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia]; Tom Crowley [Duke University] Cc: Keith Briffa [CRU]; Jonathan Overpeck [University of Arizona]; Edward Cook [Columbia University]; Keith Alverson [IGBP-PAGES] 43 March 11, 2003 Subject: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas Dear All, Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of emails this morning in response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) and picked up Tom’s old address. Tom is busy though with another offspring ! I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling – worst word I can think of today without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I’ll have time to read more at the weekend as I’m coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. Added Ed, Peck and Keith A. onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the bait, but I have so much else on at the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we should consider what to do there. The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they get. They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998 wasn’t the warmest year globally, because it wasn’t the warmest everywhere. With their LIA [Little Ice Age] being 1300-1900 and their MWP [Medieval Warm Period] 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and late 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid boxes. Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something – even if this is just to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo[climatology] back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch. Cheers Phil From: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] To: Phil Jones [CRU]; Raymond Bradley [University of Massachusetts, Amherst]; Malcolm Hughes [University of Arizona]; Scott Rutherford [University of Rhode Island]; Tom Crowley [Duke University] Cc: Keith Briffa [CRU]; Jonathan Overpeck [University of Arizona]; Edward Cook [Columbia University]; Keith Alverson [IGBP-PAGES]; Mike MacCracken [Climate Institute] March 11, 2003 Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas Thanks Phil, (Tom: Congrats again!) The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a ‘legitimate’ peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility–that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department… The skeptics appear to have staged a ‘coup’ at “Climate Research” (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite ‘purpose’). Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors: [1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed this a bit. I’ve cc’d Mike in on this as well, and I’ve included Peck too. I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this 44 paper. They’ve already achieved what they wanted–the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole… It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, …). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he’s an odd individual, and I’m not sure he isn’t himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision. There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn’t get published in a reputable journal. This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board… What do others think? mike From: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] To: Malcolm Hughes [University of Arizona] March 11, 2003 HI Malcolm, Thanks for the feedback–I largely concur. I do, though, think there is a particular problem with “Climate Research”. This is where my colleague Pat Michaels now publishes exclusively, and his two closest colleagues are on the editorial board and review editor board. So I promise you, we’ll see more of this there, and I personally think there *is* a bigger problem with the “messenger” in this case… . . . From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Unknown List March 12, 2003 Dear All, I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored article would be a good idea, but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we not address the misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA and MWP and redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and more on the paper, it should carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for what should be being done over the next few years. . . . From: Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research] To: Phil Jones [CRU]; Keith Briffa [CRU]; James Hansen [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies]; Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia]; Ben Santer [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory]; Thomas R Karl [NOAA]; Mark Eakin [NOAA]; et al. April 23, 2003 Subject: My turn 45 . . . This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on). The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult. The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that does get through. Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this. If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself. In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ PhD is at the same level). Best wishes to all, Tom. From: Mark Eakin [NOAA] To: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia]; et al. April 24th, 2003 [Subject: My turn] . . . A letter to OSTP [White House Office of Science and Technology Policy] is probably in order here. Since the White House has shown interest in this paper, OSTP really does need to receive a measured, critical discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas’ methods. I agree with Tom that a noted group from the detection and attribution effort such as Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes should spearhead such a letter. Many others of us could sign on in support. This would provide Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide the White House with the needed documentation that hopefully will dismiss this paper for the slipshod work that it is. Such a letter could be developed in parallel with a rebuttal article. . . . From: Timothy Carter [Finnish Environment Institute] To: Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research] April ??, 2003 [Subject: Java climate model] . . . P.S. On the CR [Climate Research] issue, I agree that a rebuttal seems to be the only method of addressing the problem (I communicated this to Mike yesterday morning), and I wonder if a review of the refereeing policy is in order. The only way I can think of would be for all papers to go through two Editors rather than one, the former to have overall responsibility, the latter to provide a second opinion on a paper and reviewers’ comments prior to publication. A General Editor would be needed to adjudicate in the event of disagreement. Of course, this could then slow down the review process enormously. However, without an editorial board to vote someone off, how can suspect Editors be removed except by the Publisher (in this case, Inter-Research). From: Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research] 46 To: Timothy Carter [Finnish Environment Institute] Cc: Mike Hulme [CRU]; Phil Jones [CRU] April 24, 2003 Subject: Re: Java climate model . . . PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame — he encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts. I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter — 50+ people. Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too. From: Edward Cook [Columbia University] To: Keith Briffa [CRU] June 4, 2003 [Subject: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT] Hi Keith, Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. . . . I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims. If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies . . . I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting – to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. From: Andrew Comrie [University of Arizona] To: Phil Jones [CRU] May, 2004 [Subject: IJOC040512 review] Dear Prof. Jones, IJOC040512 “A Socioeconomic Fingerprint on the Spatial Distribution of Surface Air Temperature Trends” Authors: RR McKitrick & PJ Michaels Target review date: July 5, 2004 I know you are very busy, but do you have the time to review the above manuscript [from skeptics McKitrick and Michaels] for the International Journal of Climatology? If yes, can you 47 complete the review within about five to six weeks, say by the target review date listed above? I will send the manuscript electronically. If no, can you recommend someone who you think might be a good choice to review this paper? . . . [Note: In the peer review process, reviewer’s names are kept anonymous.] From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Andrew Comrie [University of Arizona] May 24, 2004 Subject: RE: IJOC040512 review Andrew, I can do this. I am in France this week but back in the UK all June. So send and it will be waiting my return. Phil From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] August 13, 2004 Subject: Fwd: RE: IJOC040512 review Mike, The paper ! Now to find my review. I did suggest to Andrew to find 3 reviewers. Phil From: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] To: Phil Jones [CRU] August 13, 2004 [Subject: IJOC040512 review] Thanks a bunch Phil, Along lines as my other email, would it be (?) for me to forward this to the chair of our commitee confidentially, and for his internal purposes only, to help bolster the case against MM [skeptics McKitrick and Michaels]?? let me know… thanks, mike From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] August 13, 2004 Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: IJOC040512 review Mike, I’d rather you didn’t. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew Conrie’s email that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR. Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke. Cheers Phil 48 From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] July 8, 2004 Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Mike, Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last 2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future ! I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the pdf. The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR [Journal of Geophysical Research] or J. Climate [Journal of Climate]. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice. . . . The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! Cheers Phil Mike, For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn’t that strongly worded as the first author is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report. It isn’t peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong because the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn’t happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn’t) and doing this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40’s trends in the lower atmosphere are all physically consistent where NCEP’s are not – over eastern US. I can send if you want, but it won’t be out as a report for a couple of months. Cheers Phil From: Stephen Mackwell [Universities Space Research Association] To: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] Cc: Chris Reason [University of Cape Town]; James Saiers [Yale University] January 20, 2005 Subject: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre Dear Prof. Mann In your recent email to Chris Reason, you laid out your concerns that I presume were the reason for your phone call to me last week. I have reviewed the manuscript by McIntyre, as well as the reviews. The editor in this case was Prof. James Saiers. He did note initially that the manuscript did challenge published work, and so felt the need for an extensive and thorough review. For that reason, he requested reviews from 3 knowledgable scientists. All three reviews 49 recommended publication. While I do agree that this manuscript does challenge (somewhat aggresively) some of your past work, I do not feel that it takes a particularly harsh tone. On the other hand, I can understand your reaction. As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but rather as a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to look it over. And I am satisfied by the credentials of the reviewers. Thus, I do not feel that we have sufficient reason to interfere in the timely publication of this work. However, you are perfectly in your rights to write a Comment, in which you challenge the authors’ arguments and assertions. Should you elect to do this, your Comment would be provided to them and they would be offered the chance to write a Reply. Both Comment and Reply would then be reviewed and published together (if they survived the review process). Comments are limited to the equivalent of 2 journal pages. Regards Steve Mackwell Editor in Chief, GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] From: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] The following individuals may have been recipients: Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research]; Raymond Bradley [University of Massachusetts, Amherst]; Tom Osborn [CRU]; Phil Jones [CRU]; Keith Briffa [CRU]; Gavin Schmidt [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies]; Malcolm Hughes [University of Arizona]; [Subject: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre] January 20, 2005 Dear All, Just a heads up. Apparently, the contrarians now have an “in” with GRL [Geophysical Research Letters]. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences that causes me some unease. I think we now know how the various Douglass et al papers w/ Michaels and Singer, the Soon et al paper, and now this one have gotten published in GRL, Mike From: Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research] To: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] The following individuals may also have been recipients: Raymond Bradley [University of Massachusetts, Amherst]; Tom Osborn [CRU]; Phil Jones [CRU]; Keith Briffa [CRU]; Gavin Schmidt [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies]; Malcolm Hughes [University of Arizona]; January 20, 2005 [Subject: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre] Mike, This is truly awful. GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] has gone downhill rapidly in recent years. I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers — it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published. Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of 50 this, we could go through official AGU [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted. From: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] To: Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research] The following individuals may also have been recipients: Raymond Bradley [University of Massachusetts, Amherst]; Tom Osborn [CRU]; Phil Jones [CRU]; Keith Briffa [CRU]; Gavin Schmidt [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies]; Malcolm Hughes [University of Arizona]; January 20, 2005 [Subject: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre] Thanks Tom, Yeah, basically this is just a heads up to people that something might be up here. What a shame that would be. It’s one thing to lose “Climate Research”. We can’t afford to lose GRL [Geophysical Research Letters]. I think it would be useful if people begin to record their experiences w/ both Saiers and potentially Mackwell (I don’t know him–he would seem to be complicit w/ what is going on here). If there is a clear body of evidence that something is amiss, it could be taken through the proper channels. I don’t that the entire AGU [American Geophysical Union] hierarchy has yet been compromised! The GRL article simply parrots the rejected Nature comment–little substantial difference that I can see at all. Will keep you all posted of any relevant developments, Mike From: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] To: Malcolm Hughes [University of Arizona] The following individuals may also have been recipients: Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research]; Raymond Bradley [University of Massachusetts, Amherst]; Tom Osborn [CRU]; Phil Jones [CRU]; Keith Briffa [CRU]; Gavin Schmidt [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies]; Malcolm Hughes [University of Arizona]; January 20 or 21, 2005 [Subject: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre] Hi Malcolm, This assumes that the editor/s in question would act in good faith. I’m not convinced of this. I don’t believe a response in GRL is warranted in any case. The MM claims in question are debunked in other papers that are in press and in review elsewhere. I’m not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest broker in these debates anymore, and it is probably best to do an end run around GRL now where possible. They have published far too many deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so. There is no possible excuse for them publishing all 3 Douglass papers and the Soon et al paper. These were all pure crap. There appears to be a more fundamental problem w/ GRL now, unfortunately… Mike From: Ben Santer [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory] To: Phil Jones [CRU] March 19, 2009 51 [Subject: See the link below] . . . If the RMS [Royal Meteorological Society] is going to require authors to make ALL data available – raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations – I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals. Cheers, Ben From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Ben Santer [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory] March 19, 2009 Subject: Re: See the link below . . . I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS. From: Kevin Trenberth [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research] To: Michael E. Mann [Penn State University] Cc: Grant Foster; Phil Jones [CRU]; Gavin Schmidt [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies]; et al. July 29, 2009 Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming – paper in JGR Hi all Wow this is a nice analysis by Grant et al. What we should do is turn this into a learning experience for everyone: there is often misuse of filtering. Obviously the editor and reviewers need to to also be taken to task here. I agree with Mike Mann that a couple of other key points deserve to be made wrt this paper. . . . Manipulating Data From: Keith Briffa [CRU] To: Chris Folland [UK Met Office]; Phil Jones [CRU]; Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] Cc: Tom Karl [National Climatic Data Center – NOAA] September 22, 1999 Subject: RE: IPCC revisions . . . I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. . . . From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Ray Bradley [University of Massachusetts, Amherst]; Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia]; Malcolm Hughes [University of Arizona] Cc: Keith Briffa [CRU]; Tom Osborn [CRU] 52 November 16, 1999 Subject: Diagram for WMO [World Meteorological Organization] Statement Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH [Northern Hemisphere] land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray. Cheers Phil From: Giorgi Filippo [International Centre for Theoretical Physics] To: Chapter 10 LAs September 11, 2000 Subject: On “what to do?” Given this, I would like to add my own opinion developed through the weekend. First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). I realize that chapter 9 is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results. The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this. Anyways, this is only my opinion for what it is worth. From: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] To: Phil Jones [CRU]; et al. June 4, 2003 Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece? . . . Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have one in review–not sure it is kosher to show that yet though–I’ve put in an inquiry to Judy Jacobs at AGU about this]. . . . From: David Rind [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies] To: Jonathan Overpeck [University of Arizona] 53 January 4, 2005 [Subject: IPCC last 2000 years data] . . . In addition, some of the comments are probably wrong – the warm-season bias (p.12) should if anything produce less variability, since warm seasons (at least in GCMs) feature smaller climate changes than cold seasons. The discussion of uncertainties in tree ring reconstructions should be direct, not referred to other references – it’s important for this document. How the long-term growth is factored in/out should be mentioned as a prime problem. The lack of tropical data – a few corals prior to 1700 – has got to be discussed. The primary criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick, which has gotten a lot of play on the Internet, is that Mann et al. transformed each tree ring prior to calculating PCs by subtracting the 1902-1980 mean, rather than using the length of the full time series (e.g., 1400-1980), as is generally done. M&M claim that when they used that procedure with a red noise spectrum, it always resulted in a ‘hockey stick’. Is this true? If so, it constitutes a devastating criticism of the approach; if not, it should be refuted. While IPCC cannot be expected to respond to every criticism a priori, this one has gotten such publicity it would be foolhardy to avoid it. . . . From: Jonathan Overpeck [University of Arizona] To: Keith Briffa [CRU]; Eystein Jansen [Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research]; Tom Crowley [Duke University] July ??, 2005 ANOTHER THING THAT IS A REAL ISSUE IS SHOWING SOME OF THE TREE-RING DATA FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 1950. BASED ON THE LITERATURE, WE KNOW THESE ARE BIASED – RIGHT? SO SHOULD WE SAY THAT’S THE REASON THEY ARE NOT SHOWN? OF COURSE, IF WE ONLY PLOT THE FIG FROM CA 800 TO 1400 AD, IT WOULD DO WHAT WE WANT, FOCUS ON THE MWP ONLY – THE TOPIC OF THE BOX – AND SHOW THAT THERE WERE NOT ANY PERIODS WHEN ALL THE RECORDS ALL SHOWED WARMTH – I.E., OF THE KIND WE’RE EXPERIENCING NOW. TWO CENTS WORTH From: Michael E. Mann [Penn State University] To: Tim Osborn [CRU]; Keith Briffa [CRU] Cc: Gavin Schmidt [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies] February 9, 2006 guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC [Real Climate website] post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed). Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include. You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone… 54 From: Keith Briffa [CRU] To: Martin Juckes [???]; et al. November 16, 2006 Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones . . . I still believe that it would be wise to involve Malcolm Hughes in this discussion – though I recognise the point of view that says we might like to appear (and be) independent of the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes team to avoid the appearance of collusion. In my opinion (as someone how has worked with the Bristlecone data hardly at all!) there are undoubtedly problems in their use that go beyond the strip bark problem (that I will come back to later). . . . Another serious issue to be considered relates to the fact that the PC1 time series in the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in the last 150 years (on the assumption – following an earlier paper by Lamarche et al. – that this incressing growth was evidence of carbon dioxide fertilization) , by differencing the data from another record produced by other workers in northern Alaska and Canada (which incidentally was standardised in a totally different way). This last adjustment obviously will have a large influence on the quantification of the link between these Western US trees and N.Hemisphere temperatures. At this point, it is fair to say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable. From: Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research] To: Phil Jones [CRU] Cc: Ben Santer [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory] September 27, 2009 Subject: 1940s Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs [Sea Surface Temperatures] to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. . . . From: Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research] To: Phil Jones [CRU] October 5, 2009 [Subject: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds] Phil, It is distressing to read that American Stinker item [Oct. 5th article from the American Thinker which highlights Stephen McIntyre’s discovery that Keith Briffa apparently cherry picked data regarding tree-rings from Yamal]. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to what M&M say) 55 Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which surely is the only way to go — complex and wordy responses will be counter productive). But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And how does he explain the apparent “selection” of the less well-replicated chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology? Of course, I don’t know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less often that M&M say — but where did they get their information? I presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely — but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of. And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons – but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden. I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this. I’d be willing to check over anything he puts together. Tom. From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: John Mitchell [Director of Climate Science – UK Met Office] October 28, 2009 Subject: Yamal response from Keith John, . . . This went up last night about 5pm. There is a lot to read at various levels. If you get time just the top level is necessary. There is also a bit from Tim Osborn showing that Yamal was used in 3 of the 12 millennial reconstructions used in Ch 6 [of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report]. Also McIntyre had the Yamal data in Feb 2004 – although he seems to have forgotten this. Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site. Cheers Phil From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Keith Briffa [CRU] October 28, 2009 Subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology Keith, There is a lot more there on CA [Climate Audit website] now. I would be very wary about responding to this person now having seen what McIntyre has put up. You and Tim talked about Yamal. Why have the bristlecones come in now. . . . This is what happens – they just keep moving the goalposts. Maybe get Tim to redo OB2006 without a few more series. Cheers Phil . . . Dear Professor Briffa, I am pleased to hear that you appear to have recovered from your recent illness sufficiently to post a response to the controversy surrounding the use of the Yamal chronology; and the chronology itself; Unfortunately I find your explanations lacking in 56 scientific rigour and I am more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre[.] Can I have a straightforward answer to the following questions 1) Are the reconstructions sensitive to the removal of either the Yamal data and Strip pine bristlecones, either when present singly or in combination? 2) Why these series, when incorporated with white noise as a background, can still produce a Hockey-Stick shaped graph if they have, as you suggest, a low individual weighting? And once you have done this, please do me the courtesy of answering my initial email. Dr. D.R. Keiller Questioning the Consensus? From: Keith Briffa [CRU] To: Chris Folland [UK Met Office]; Phil Jones [CRU]; Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] Cc: Tom Karl [National Climatic Data Center – NOAA] September 22, 1999 Subject: RE: IPCC revisions . . . I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. . . . From: Edward Cook [Columbia University] To: Keith Briffa [CRU] April 29, 2003 [Subject: Review- confidential] Hi Keith, I will start out by sending you the chronologies that I sent Bradley, i.e. all but Mongolia. If you can talk Gordon out of the latter, you’ll be the first from outside this lab. The chronologies are in tabbed column format and Tucson index format. The latter have sample size included. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or even Bradley after I warned him about small sample size problems) to realize that some of the chronologies are down to only 1 series in their earliest parts. Perhaps I should have truncated them before using them, but I just took what Jan gave me and worked with the chronologies as best I could. My suspicion is that most of the pre-1200 divergence is due to low replication and a reduced number of available chronologies. I should also say that the column data have had their means normalized to approximately 1.0, which is not the case for the chronologies straight out of ARSTAN. That is because the site-level RCS-detrended data were simply averaged to produce these chronologies, without concern for their long-term means. Hence the “RAW” tag at the end of each line of indices. Bradley still regards the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] as “mysterious” and “very incoherent” (his latest pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members of the MBH [Mann Bradley Hughes] camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is not only “half-empty”; it is demonstrably “broken”. I come more from the “cup half-full” camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say 57 what it is. Being a natural skeptic, I guess you might lean more towards the MBH camp, which is fine as long as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts about the MBH camp). We can always politely(?) disagree given the same admittedly equivocal evidence. I should say that Jan should at least be made aware of this reanalysis of his data. Admittedly, all of the Schweingruber data are in the public domain I believe, so that should not be an issue with those data. I just don’t want to get into an open critique of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways. We should also work on this stuff on our own, but I do not think that we have an agenda per se, other than trying to objectively understand what is going on. Cheers, Ed From: Keith Briffa [CRU] To: Edward Cook [Columbia University] April 29, 2003 Subject: Re: Review- confidential Thanks Ed Can I just say that I am not in the MBH [Mann Bradley Hughes] camp – if that be characterized by an unshakable “belief” one way or the other , regarding the absolute magnitude of the global MWP [Medieval Warm Period]. I certainly believe the ” medieval” period was warmer than the 18th century – the equivalence of the warmth in the post 1900 period, and the post 1980s ,compared to the circa Medieval times is very much still an area for much better resolution. I think that the geographic / seasonal biases and dating/response time issues still cloud the picture of when and how warm the Medieval period was . On present evidence , even with such uncertainties I would still come out favouring the “likely unprecedented recent warmth” opinion – but our motivation is to further explore the degree of certainty in this belief – based on the realistic interpretation of available data. Point re Jan well taken and I will inform him From: Keith Briffa [CRU] To: Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia]; Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research]; Phil Jones [CRU]; Raymond Bradley [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] Cc: Jerry Meehl [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research]; Caspar Ammann [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research] May 20, 2003 Subject: Re: Soon et al. paper Mike and Tom and others . . . As Tom W. states , there are uncertainties and “difficulties” with our current knowledge of Hemispheric temperature histories and valid criticisms or shortcomings in much of our work. This is the nature of the beast – and I have been loathe to become embroiled in polarised debates that force too simplistic a presentation of the state of the art or “consensus view”. . . . The one additional point I would make that seems to have been overlooked in the discussions up to now , is the invalidity of assuming that the existence of a global Medieval Warm period , even 58 if shown to be as warm as the current climate , somehow negates the possibility of enhanced greenhouse warming. . . . The various papers apparently in production, regardless of their individual emphasis or approaches, will find their way in to the literature and the next IPCC can sift and present their message(s) as it wishes., but in the meantime , why not a simple statement of the shortcomings of the BS paper as they have been listed in these messages and why not in Climate Research? Keith From: Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research] To: Phil Jones [CRU] Note: Ben Santer [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory] may have been Cc’d. October 21, 2004 [Subject: MBH] Phil, I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH [Mann Bradley Hughes]. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work — an opinion I have held for some time. Presumably what you have done with Keith is better? — or is it? I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is too deep into this to be helpful. Tom. From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research] Cc: Ben Santer [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory] October 22, 2004 Subject: Re: MBH Tom, . . . A lot of people criticise MBH [Mann Bradley Hughes] and other papers Mike has been involved in, but how many people read them fully – or just read bits like the attached. The attached is a complete distortion of the facts. M&M are completely wrong in virtually everything they say or do. . . . Mike’s may have slightly less variability on decadal scales than the others (especially cf Esper et al), but he is using a lot more data than the others. I reckon they are all biased a little to the summer and none are truly annual – I say all this in the Reviews of Geophysics paper ! Bottom line – their is no way the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA [Little Ice Age] period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility. Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1. Cheers Phil From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Kevin Trenberth [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research]; et al. December 20, 2004 Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: “Model Mean Climate” for AR4 [IPCC Fourth Assessment Report] ]] 59 . . . I would like to stick with 1961-90. I don’t want to change this until 1981-2010 is complete, for 3 reasons : 1) We need 30 years and 81-10 will get all the MSU in nicely, and 2) I will be near retirement !! 3) is one of perception. As climatologists we are often changing base periods and have done for years. I remember getting a number of comments when I changed from 1951-80 to 1961-90. If we go to a more recent one the anomalies will seem less warm – I know this makes no sense scientifically, but it gives the skeptics something to go on about ! If we do the simple way, they will say we aren’t doing it properly. . . . From: Keith Briffa [CRU] To: Jonathan Overpeck [University of Arizona] February ??, 2006 [Subject: bullet debate #3] Third I suggest this should be[:] Taken together , the sparse evidence of Southern Hemisphere temperatures prior to the period of instrumental records indicates that overall warming has occurred during the last 350 years, but the even fewer longer regional records indicate earlier periods that are as warm, or warmer than, 20th century means. . . . Peck, you have to consider that since the TAR [IPCC Third Assessment Report] , there has been a lot of argument re “hockey stick” and the real independence of the inputs to most subsequent analyses is minimal. True, there have been many different techniques used to aggregate and scale data – but the efficacy of these is still far from established. We should be careful not to push the conclusions beyond what we can securely justify – and this is not much other than a confirmation of the general conclusions of the TAR . We must resist being pushed to present the results such that we will be accused of bias – hence no need to attack Moberg . Just need to show the “most likely”course of temperatures over the last 1300 years – which we do well I think. Strong confirmation of TAR is a good result, given that we discuss uncertainty and base it on more data. Let us not try to over egg the pudding. For what it worth , the above comments are my (honestly long considered) views – and I would not be happy to go further . Of course this discussion now needs to go to the wider Chapter authorship, but do not let Susan [Solomon of NOAA] (or Mike [Michael Mann]) push you (us) beyond where we know is right. From: Jonathan Overpeck [University of Arizona] To: Keith Briffa [CRU] September 13, 2006 . . . I think the second sentence could be more controversial – I don’t think our team feels it is valid to say, as they did in TAR [IPCC Third Assessment Report], that “It is also likely that, in the Northern Hemisphere,… 1998 was the warmest year” in the last 1000 years. But, it you think about it for a while, Keith has come up with a clever 2nd sentence (when you insert “Northern Hemisphere” language as I suggest below). At first, my reaction was leave it out, but it grows on you, especially if you acknowledge that many readers will want more explicit prose on the 1998 (2005) issue. . . . From: David Rind [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies] To: Jonathan Overpeck [University of Arizona] 60 Cc: Keith Briffa [CRU]; et al. September 13, 2006 Now getting back to the resolution issue: given what we know about the ability to reconstruct global or NH temperatures in the past – could we really in good conscience say we have the precision from tree rings and the very sparse other data to make any definitive statement of this nature (let alone accuracy)? While I appreciate the cleverness of the second sentence, the problem is everybody will recognize that we are ‘being clever’ – at what point does one come out looking aggressively defensive? I agree that leaving the first sentence as the only sentence suggests that one is somehow doubting the significance of the recent warm years, which is probably not something we want to do. A Cooling World From: Jonathan Overpeck [University of Arizona] To: Keith Briffa [CRU] Cc: Eystein Jansen [Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research] January 5, 2005 Subject: Fwd: Re: the Arctic paper and IPCC . . . I’m still not convinced about the AO recon [Arctic Oscillation reconstruction], and am worried about the late 20th century “coolness” in the proxy recon that’s not in the instrumental, but it’s a nice piece of work in any case. . . . From: David Parker [UK Met Office] To: Neil Plummer [Bureau of Meteorology, Australia] January 5, 2005 Neil There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 [IPCC Fourth Assessment Report] to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. . . . From: David Rind [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies] To: Keith Briffa [CRU] January 10, 2005 . . . Well, yes and no. If the mismatch between suggested forcing, model sensitivity, and suggested response for the LIA suggests the forcing is overestimated (in particular the solar forcing), then it makes an earlier warm period less likely, with little implication for future warming. If it suggests climate sensitivity is really much lower, then it says nothing about the earlier warm period (could still have been driven by solar forcing), but suggests future warming is overestimated. If however it implies the reconstructions are underestimating past climate changes, then it suggests the earlier warm period may well have been warmer than indicated (driven by variability, if nothing else) while suggesting future climate changes will be large. This is the essence of the problem. David 61 From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: John Christy [University of Alabama, Huntsville] July 5, 2005 Subject: This and that John, There has been some email traffic in the last few days to a week – quite a bit really, only a small part about MSU. The main part has been one of your House subcommittees wanting Mike Mann and others and IPCC to respond on how they produced their reconstructions and how IPCC produced their report. In case you want to look at this see later in the email ! Also this load of rubbish ! This is from an Australian at BMRC [Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre] (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant. . . . The Hadley Centre are working on the day/night issue with sondes, but there are a lot of problems as there
      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Thanks Gerry, this shows the mindset of the Prof Jones and his fellow conspirators. Hiding behind the Data Protection act to cover their deception.

      • Martin Lack says:

        The only people with ‘an agenda’ are the government-appointed reviewers who have spent most of the last 25 years trying (and generally succeeding) to water-down the policy impact of IPCC reports.

        The IPCC is a government-sanctioned (and interfered with) data gathering exercise that is wholly reliant upon the unpaid work of thousands of members of the scientific community to write, read, and review the reports it produces.

        As such, your remarks are entirely counter-factual: The only members of the scientific community that dispute the reality, reliability and/or reasonableness of the consensus are a few dozen that are paid to do so by those with a vested interest in policy paralysis.

        Industry has a clear track record of disputing inconvenient science. As such, it is very ironic that US President George W Bush should have said, “Fool my once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!”

      • Me_Again says:

        You seem incapable of understanding a basic truth. Consensus is not a scientific thing, it is a political thing. Whenever I hear the old shout of ‘the scientific consensus’ I know I am not talking to or about scientists, just politicians.

        Your bizarre reference to business leading the sceptical side of the argument is laughable given the zillions invested in renewables, just risible.

  12. Flyinthesky says:

    Any chance we could have a whip round and get HRH a copy.

  13. tallbloke says:

    Not only do the warmists refuse to look at the solar evidence, they are busy tryng to stop anyone else looking at it too. The research group I’m a member of put together a special edition of a journal called Pattern Recognition in Physics at the end of last year which looks at the causes of solar variation and the Sun-Earth climate connection. I contributed two of the papers. There are 19 signatures on the general conclusions paper, nearly all of them from well regarded and prominently published experts.

    Because our general conclusions paper stated that due to the imminent solar slowdown, the was doubt about the IPCC’s projection of accelerated warming, pressure was put on the journal’s publisher by IPCC author James Annan and others. In an act of anti-scientific cowardice, Copernicus, the publisher, axed the entire journal. In the email they sent the Chief editors (Who have around 600 peer reviewed papers between them), Martin Rasmussen said they were “alarmed” by our conclusion and that was the reason for shutting PRP down. He later added spurious nonsense about the special issue being beyond the aims and scope of the journal, and also made an entirely unsupported allegation about our peer review process being “nepotistic”.

    The chief editor is in the process of re-opening the journal elsewhere. In the meantime all our papers are still available at the original Copernicus PRP website, although it is not possible to conduct the normal scientific process of comment and rebuttal there. http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html

    As the UKIP spokesman for Yorks & N. Lincs, I’m really pleased to see Roger Helmer giving prominence to Frtz Vahrenholts book. The Sun is the neglected climate parameter. As a scientist, I’m proud to have published alongside some great names in the astrophysics and geoscience fields. Our research shows that future solar activity levels are predictable with some level of confidence. The IPCC doesn’t want a reliable solar prediction on the table, as it will change the whole dynamic of the climate debate. That, I believe, is the real reason our work has been suppressed.

    • Martin Lack says:

      Hi Roger, since you could not falsify my logical arguments on Twitter, perhaps you would care to try here? Please see my response to Brin jenkins above (which has appeared because I re-posted it without links or possibly ‘blacklisted’ words).

      Use of the term “warmists” would imply irrational belief. Unfortunately for you, this is an inversion of reality (as before, see above).

      • Me_Again says:

        I agree that using the term warmists is as inflammatory as using the words climate deniers or sceptics.
        These words are specifically engineered to wind people of opposing views up and should be avoided in serious debate.

        As to your comments above they have no facts to dispute, merely assertions in a bulleted statement.

      • neilfutureboy says:

        “Warmist” merely means somebody who believes manmade warming to a serious extent is taking place – in what way is that pejorative? “Alarmist” while I believe it factually correct, could give offence. “Sceptic” should actually be positive to anybody who has an understanding of scientific principles, though I am sure some warmists don’t feel that way. “Denier” is deliberately offensive – while everybody denies something (some warmists deny the cooling scare ever happened) the term is used to falsely imply a link with Holocaust deniers and is thus a breach of Godwin’s Law & intended to prevent debate.

      • Me_Again says:

        Disagree. You are being simplistic if you don’t think that calling someone who believes in AGW a ‘warmist’ is not inflammatory. Your logic implodes in the face of reality.

        Same way to call someone a ‘denialist’ is inflammatory in the real world. I don’t agree with Martin Lack at all but I do understand English well enough to know when a word is used like a spear thrust to prod a response, so dismount from whatever horse you’re on and face reality, afterall that’s what you want the AGW brigade to do.

      • neilfutureboy says:

        Me_Again I note you disagree that calling somebody who promotes the idea of warming as a warmist but have omitted to say why which makes consideration of your objection difficult.

        I must therefore remain of the opinion that it is simply a factual, non pejorative, description to which no reasonable objection, or more descriptive alternative can be raised. However if you have an alternative which is more directly descriptive, and not value loaded, I await hearing it.

      • Me_Again says:

        I already said, using terms like that for either side of the argument is inflammatory and not constructive.
        Applying labels to people who support one or the other side of a dispute/argument/hypothesis is always combative.
        Part of the problem is and has been that both sides of this debate took about 2.9 microseconds to become as intractable and entrenched as Labour vs Tories, and with the same amount of flexibility and willingness to consider things objectively.

        Ergo nothing happens except more trench warfare which as we all know achieves nothing but casualties.

        So starting out with the label Warmist, Denier, or Sceptic is counter productive in the long run, the short run and the middle game.

        Can I make it any clearer?

      • neilfutureboy says:

        If it is decided it is inpermissable to say what sides people are taking I think “making it any clearer” is beyond possibility – that is simply a formula for obfuscation, which we have had more than enough of. You would obviously not expect me to agree that any significant number of people on the sceptic side are “intractable and entrenched”, indeed that is as offensive as any epithet but “denier”. On the other hand, not being entrenched yourself, you would recognise that a number of alarmists, including the Met Office, who, when asked, have said that no sort of evidence of a lack of warming could convince them that CAGW was not taking place, whci is pretty much a definition of “intractable and entrenched”. Thus your alternative to a definition is, itself, more offensive & less accurate than my definition.

        In the real world we use language to define things – there is no alternative. We should try yo keep the definitions accurate and not loaded.

      • Me_Again says:

        Neil, go and take another tablet….maybe two or three.

  14. tallbloke says:

    I should have said I am ‘UKIP energy and climate change spokesman for Yorks and N. Lincs’. Apologies

  15. tallbloke says:

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    UKIP MEP Roger Helmer has been reading De Kalte Sonne and takes warmist ignorance to task…

    • limogerry says:

      Showing off your language skills, tallbloke!😉

      • Brian H says:

        Not so much.
        It’s Die Kalte Sonne, not De Kalte Sonne. Really.

      • tallbloke says:

        Ooops, my bad.

        Hey Roger H! How about approving Nicola Scafetta’s comment? He was a contributor to Die Kalte Sonne after all.😉

        Here’s a copy you can remove after you get a round tuit.
        “I need to agree with Roger that “Not only do the warmists refuse to look at the solar evidence, they are busy trying to stop anyone else looking at it too.”

        Copernicus shutting down of the entire journal “Pattern Recognition in Physics” because published some papers arguing that the warming projected by the IPCC is exaggerated (a fact already argued in numerous papers present in the scientific literature) has been quite shameful. It will be remembered in the future because motivated by purely ideological and political convenience, which have nothing to do with science.

        James Annan and others were likely responsible for the action, as Annan states in his blog here:
        http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/recognising-pattern.html

        The strategy adopted by the warmists for manipulating the scientific debate can be clearly deduced from this climate-gate email: http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0332.txt

        To know more about the sun-climate interaction you can look at my web-site where numerous papers can be downloaded.

        For a simple general introduction to the theory I am proposing read my PRP paper:

        Scafetta, N.: The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system, Pattern Recogn. Phys., 2, 1-19, doi:10.5194/prp-2-1-2014, 2014.

        http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/1/2014/prp-2-1-2014.pdf

        Here it is argued that the solar system is highly synchronized because characterized by a specific set of gravitational and electromagnetic harmonics that are then found in both solar and climate records. These harmonics regulate the natural variability of the climate that the current IPCC climate model do not capture. So, these harmonics can be used to produce more accurate projections for the 21st century, which imply half of the warming currently projected by the IPCC. This result was published in numerous paper of mine and is the main conclusion of Vahrenholt’s excellent book.”

  16. DirkH says:

    For those who don’t know, the English translation of Die Kalte Sonne was done by Pierre Gosselin, an American living in Germany; he has his blog at http://www.notrickszone.com .
    He frequently translates German blog posts by Vahrenholt and Lüning as they appear.

  17. Bob Weber says:

    Easy to agree with the sun being the responsible party wrt warming & cooling & extreme weather events. Personally found lots of evidence for all of the above, and putting it together in video form, from an engineering standpoint. Notice Al Gore lives in “oppositeville”: he says “sunspots, bs” – it is sunspots; he says AGW causes extreme weather events – solar activity causes extreme weather events. It’s photons, protons, and electrons from solar activity that do the work, not CO2.

    For a basic primer on the solar question, interested individuals may consider a 1977 BBC gem called “The Sunspot Mystery”, found at my channel here: http://youtu.be/v3frXY_rG8c

    Tallbloke & Co’s work is very important and I’m pleased to see it will continue.

  18. It’s an excellent book, highly accessible to a lay person such as myself, and I would recommend it to anyone wanting to more know about real climate science. Whilst I’m here, I’d also highly recommend Rupert Darwall’s “The Age of Global Warming: A History” which relates how we got into this sorry mess.

  19. About Vahrenholt’s book, it is a very good book and I gave a contribution to it.

    I need to agree with Roger that “Not only do the warmists refuse to look at the solar evidence, they are busy trying to stop anyone else looking at it too.” Copernicus shutting down of the entire journal “Pattern Recognition in Physics” because published some papers arguing that the warming projected by the IPCC is exaggerated (a fact already argued in numerous papers present in the scientific literature) has been quite shameful. It will be remembered in the future because motivated by purely ideological and political convenience, which have nothing to do with science.

    James Annan and other were likely responsible for the action, as Annan states in his blog here:
    http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/recognising-pattern.html

    The strategy adopted by the warmists for manipulating the scientific debate can be clearly deduced from this climate-gate email: http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0332.txt

    To know more about the sun-climate interaction you can look at my web-site where numerous papers can be downloaded.

    For a simple general introduction to the theory I am proposing read my PRP paper:

    Scafetta, N.: The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system, Pattern Recogn. Phys., 2, 1-19, doi:10.5194/prp-2-1-2014, 2014.

    http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/1/2014/prp-2-1-2014.pdf

    Here it is argued that the solar system is highly synchronized because characterized by a specific set of gravitational and electromagnetic harmonics that are then found in both solar and climate records. These harmonics regulate the natural variability of the climate that the current IPCC climate model do not capture. So, these harmonics can be used to produce more accurate projections for the 21st century, which imply half of the warming currently projected by the IPCC. This result was published in numerous paper of mine and is the main conclusion of Vahrenholt’s excellent book.

    • limogerry says:

      Followed the link to James Annan’s site. Surveying his posts on the PRP thread leads me to conclude that he is an abusive misanthrope with serious psychological problems. I’d love to see his emails. He’s grotesque in public, I can easily see him going all 10:10 (John Gotti-esque) in private.

  20. Jerry Lundry says:

    Without the sun, I believe the earth’s tempertaure would be at absolute zero, or -459.6 deg F. With gross solar influence of this magnitude, it seems irrational that anyone attempting to predict earth temperature would ignore varability in solar parameters affecting temperature. I wonder if any of the computer models include such effects?

    Given the potential significance of the results, it seems to me the computer predictions must be validated by their authors AND the results openly displayed. I suspect these models are integrating partial-differential equaions numerically with small time steps into the future. If this is the case, then each modeler should change the algebraic sign of his/her time step, and then generate, and make generally available, predictions of historical temperatures going backwards through at least the 20th century. Have any of them done this sort of validation? And made it available?

  21. Visiting Physicist says:

    If you would like to know exactly why the Sun drives climate and how and why it is gravity trapping thermal energy throughout the universe I will give you a brief summary of what is in my new book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” available soon on Amazon.

    The original Clausius (hot to cold) statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to radiative heat transfers and also to non-radiative heat transfers in a horizontal plane where there is no change in gravitational potential energy. Physicists have realised that the Clausius statement is limited and the more general form of the law pertains to entropy. The law actually describes an evolving process whereby entropy will increase until it reaches a maximum determined by the constraints of the isolated system being considered. That state is thermodynamic equilibrium which is not necessarily an isothermal state. Rather it is a state of homogeneous total energy wherein there are thus no unbalanced energy potentials. In the absence of chemical reactions and any phase change, we need only consider the (gravitational) potential energy (PE) and the kinetic energy (KE) the mean of the latter enabling a temperature measurement. So at thermodynamic equilibrium (the state which the Second Law says will evolve spontaneously) there will be homogeneous (PE+KE) and this implies a temperature gradient equal to -g/Cp where g is the acceleration due to gravity and Cp the weighted mean specific heat. This temperature gradient (aka “lapse rate”) would be observed in a pure non-radiating gas, but inter-molecular radiation between so called greenhouse gas molecules has a temperature levelling effect (opposing the gravity gradient) and so the wet gradient is less steep, as is well known.

    By the way, the attempts to disprove the above-mentioned Loschmidt gravity gradient are all flawed because they overlook the fact that the temperature gradient occurs in solids, liquids and gases, so a wire also has a gradient and no perpetual energy circulation happens.

    Now all the above implies that an autonomous temperature gradient will be maintained in a planet’s atmosphere. But how, on Uranus for example, does the solar energy which is nearly all absorbed by the methane layer near its TOA move down into warmer regions? This “heat creep” process, as I call it in the book, is a direct corollary of the Second Law process whereby thermodynamic equilibrium evolves. When newly absorbed energy disturbs that equilibrium, that new energy will spread out in all accessible directions (like new rainwater in the middle of a lake) because that is how thermodynamic equilibrium will be restored. This process explains the temperature gradients observed in all planetary atmospheres, crusts and deeper sub-surface regions. That, in fact, is what keeps Earth’s core hot, and that of our Moon.

    The temperature plot in the atmosphere thus has a pre-determined gradient, whilst its overall level is set by the need for radiative balance. Where the plot intersects Earth’s surface determines the “supporting” temperature which, as is observed, slows surface cooling in the early pre-dawn hours. This means all climate change is caused, not by back radiation, but by natural variations in the overall level of the temperature plot. Local variations, such as those due to variable water vapour levels, are shown in a study in the Appendix to lead to cooler mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures in the more moist regions. Water vapour and all GH gases cause cooler surface temperatures because the temperature plot rotates in order to maintain radiative balance. However the total cooling effect of carbon dioxide is less than a tenth of a degree.

  22. Me_Again says:

    The kindle that you got is great for reading on a beach or in bed -novels or monochrome- but the kindle HD is the one for colour charts and illustrations. I just got one for my birthday and for a councillor its great. I take it to meetings, use it as a diary a reference source, note taker, open ‘office’ docs. The work apps are amazing and cheap. I also get to read technical docs and see piccys in colour. It’s portable and powerful and I believe is the replacement to the ‘filofax’ -can you remember them? Everything you need for an office in a folder?

    When is your birthday?

  23. Visiting Physicist says:

    Consideration as to the validity of the gravitationally induced temperature gradient is of vital importance to understanding what is happening in Earth’s troposphere, and why it is the Sun that controls temperatures.

    Anyone is entitled to disagree with the brilliant 19th century physicist, Loschmidt if you so choose, but you can’t prove him wrong, whereas I have proved him correct. And no, the WUWT article which ran a wire up the outside of a cylinder did not rebut it because the wire also develops a temperature gradient which prevents perpetual energy circulation.

    The temperature gradient results from a diffusion process and does not require any upward convection. More often than not the new energy absorbed in higher, cooler regions actually can move downwards towards warmer regions if it is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium. I call this “heat creep” because it is a slow process that can be dominated by high levels of absorption, such as in Earth’s stratosphere and ocean thermoclines.

    So I’m not talking about convection or pressure or solid surfaces absorbing solar radiation. I am asking anyone to explain why the base of the Uranus troposphere (altitude -300Km) is 320K according to Wikipedia (Uranus / Troposphere) as there is no surface there, no incident solar radiation, no internal energy generation and no reason for any net upward convection.

    ” Uranus’s heat flux is only 0.042 ± 0.047 W/m2″
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus

    Furthermore, there is very close to perfect energy balance at TOA according to measurements from Voyager 2, so any internally generated thermal energy, which some seem to think is responsible for maintaining the 5,000K temperature in the small solid core (thousands of Km below the troposphere) would be far less than 0.042W/m^2. That’s a tall ask for so little energy. And it’s got to keep all that atmosphere hot too, or so they seem to think.

    Now consider Venus. Its surface cools by about 5 degrees during its 4-month-long night. So its internal energy is not succeeding in keeping its surface at around 730K. But for the Sun’s energy, it could easily have cooled right down in a few centuries. (So too could Uranus.) But the Sun’s energy raises the temperature of the Venus surface by 5 degrees spread over the course of the next 4-month-long Venus day. But it cannot do that by direct radiation which is less than 20W/m^2.

    For the back radiation enthusiasts, such back radiation coming from that initial new solar energy would also be less than 20W/m^2. But you would need over 16,000W/m^2 of direct radiation to actually raise the temperature. That’s about five times the Solar energy that even reaches TOA, so obviously the energy cannot be amplified within the Venus atmosphere.

    The required energy does not come from radiation at all. Nor does pressure create energy and we have no reason to believe the pressure changes much at the surface anyway. For any increase there would be a cancelling decrease, and thus no net change in temperature due to pressure changes.

    So can anyone else explain Venus and Uranus temperatures?

  24. catalanbrian says:

    Limogerry. I am with Martin Lack on this. No amount of offensive language from you will make you right.

  25. After evaluating all the evidence, they could make a
    higher offer or refer the issue to remediation. Through online you
    can easily compare more than 2 policies benefits,
    features, premium cost and coverage. You probably know that having car insurance is a law and that there are
    lots of types of car insurance to get, but do you know how to get those cheap car insurance rates online and still get the coverage you need.

  26. Pingback: How To Lose Weight With My Bmrc | Secret Weight Loss Blog

  27. dannyeasterling says:

    evenAnother peer-reviewed article that proves AGW is nothing more than a scare.

    It seems many posters here are fascinated by the use of consensus as if it has anything to do with science. Consensus is irrelevant to science as long as there is even one good experiment based on good empirical evidence that invalidates the theory, it is invalidated no question.

    What this article I’m going to post did we use the empirical evidence to compared to the IPCC projections based on the computer models with faked data in them.

    The models also overstate feedbacks and actually turn them into positive feedbacks rather than negative feedbacks in terms of forcing radiation trapping by carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide only traps a very narrow band and satellite telemetry now shows that there is just about inexact balance of energy leaving the earth’s energy hitting the earth, which means there’s no warming from carbon dioxide forcing.

    Even nine IPCC so-called scientist tried to tank the article but could not since the science and the empirical data the article is based upon is in questionable.

    http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html

    • dannyeasterling says:

      SEveral English errors in my post, please delete and use this one.

      Another peer-reviewed article that proves AGW is nothing more than a scare.

      It seems many posters here are fascinated by the use of consensus as if it has anything to do with science. Consensus is irrelevant to science as long as there is even one good experiment based on good empirical evidence that invalidates the theory, it is invalidated no question.

      What this article I’m going to post did was use the empirical evidence (temp data) to compare to the IPCC projections based on the computer models with faked data in them.

      The models also overstate feedbacks and actually turn them into positive feedbacks rather than negative feedbacks in terms of forcing radiation trapping by carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide only traps a very narrow band and satellite telemetry now shows that there is just about an exact balance of energy leaving the with earth’s energy hitting the earth, which means there’s no warming from carbon dioxide forcing.

      Even one IPCC so-called scientist tried to tank the article but could not since the science and the empirical data the article is based upon is in unquestionable.

      http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html

  28. boot cuffs says:

    These agencies will evaluate your financial situation and all of your current obligations so you can begin chipping away at that debt in the most efficient manner.
    Here’s the basic structure to follow: introduce yourself,
    then summarize the prospective client’s needs, describe
    your services and costs, and finally, provide information about your organization, your credentials, and your capabilities.
    In fact, even a short video which may for example depict a
    customer that seems satisfied will give a clearer picture than any content based message.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s