Search This Blog

Sunday, 24 February 2013

"Cyril On Global Warming" Part 2 of 3

Anthropogenic Global Warming

Part 2


The satellite age and advances in measurement technology have in the last 20 years confirmed that the sun is a variable star, what used to be called the solar constant (total solar irradiance or TSI) has been shown to vary by 0.1% over the approximately 11 year solar cycle. It has also been discovered that the suns Extreme UV output varies by 10% or more.
Scientists do not know if these figures vary more over longer time periods.
TSI is the amount of the high energy short wave radiation (‘visible’ light and ultra-violet light) and the low energy long-wave radiation (infrared radiation) Earth receives from the sun.
Scientists who are proponents of AGW theory have claimed that this variation in the TSI output is too small to affect Earths’ climate, so it has not been factored into General Circulation Models.
Recent studies cast doubt on this assumption.

Since Henrik Svensmark’s  work on the Solar Magnetic Shield strength/Solar Wind relationship with Galactic Cosmic Rays and their effect on clouds (Forbush events), scientists have renewed interest in other solar phenomena that may affect our climate, the low sun spot numbers correlating to the Maunder minimum is the subject of intense study, Plasma, the various solar fluxes, coronal holes, mass coronal ejections are all likewise being studied, as is the Earths geomagnetic field.

We are currently 4 years into solar cycle 24, it is the weakest cycle for 50 years and cycle 25 is predicted to be much quieter.

Should there be a greater solar influence on Earth’s climate than proponents of AGW believe, then this influence will become apparent in the next decade. The signs from the last 5 years are pointing that way.


Oceans contain the majority of the heat energy on Earth and ocean oscillations account for more than 40% of the heat transport mechanisms in the system. A very lucid and easy to understand presentation of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) can be found at the following link;

The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the most well-known, its influence on climate is well reported and, as we can see from the link above it is short wave radiation penetrating hundreds of meters into the oceans that fuel these oscillations.
Less well known but equally important oscillations include PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) and NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation).

The following graphs show PDO and AMO trends from the mid to late 1800’s

Look for the periods of warming: 1850-1880/ 1910-1940 and 1975/2000

Compare these graphs with the combined Temperature/CO2 chart from the previous posting;

Does CO2 have as good a correlation with temperature as the PDO/AMO?
No it does not.
There is a lag between ocean oscillations and temperature response which is due to the slower heat transfer of ocean oscillations compared to atmospheric oscillations, none the less the correlation between ocean oscillations and temperature is very good, and as both PDO and AMO are entering their cool phases we should expect temperatures (in the Northern Hemisphere at least) to reflect this shift. Again, as with the suns variations the next 5/10 years will show us if the natural variation inherent in the climate system is over-powered by the effect of ever increasing CO2 levels.


Along with oceans, clouds are the least understood variable in the known climate system.

The above graph is from the IPCC AR4 WG1 report, on the left hand side it lists the Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcings, solar irradiance is the only natural radiative forcing mentioned, other forcings that may not be radiative (see sun above) are not listed. Looking to the right hand column we see the level of scientific understanding (LOSU) for each forcing. Settled  science? I think not.
There is a lot of scientific speculation regarding the positive/negative feedback (warming/cooling) of clouds, it is thought that wispy cirrus clouds could have a positive feedback by letting shortwave radiation enter the lower atmosphere and restricting outgoing longwave radiation. Cumulus clouds because of their albedo are thought to reflect some shortwave radiation implying a negative feedback, overall it is thought that clouds have a net negative feedback effect.
Albedo is the reflectiveness of surfaces due to colour, ice, snow, thick clouds and deserts have a strong Albedo and together they reflect about 30% of the suns shortwave radiation back into space.
Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that Galactic Cosmic Rays play a role in seeding clouds and thus effecting temperatures has been the subject of small scale experiments at CERN, the initial results have convinced scientists at CERN to initiate larger scale cloud chamber experiments; report from Nature Journal;

One of the heat transport properties of clouds not in any of the climate models are storms. Thunderstorms, cyclones and tornadoes happen when surface temperatures and pressure combine with the coriolis force (an artefact of Earths’ rotation) to cause a vortex, warm air is transported upward by convection and cooler air is drawn inward, large amounts of heat are removed from the surface by storms in this way, bypassing the radiative process of heat transport.

Here is a link to NASA/GISS Cloud Climatology page;

Clouds are one of the great uncertainties in;


GCM are mathematical equations climate scientists use to try to model climate behaviour. Generally there are two types of GCM – atmospheric and oceanic. When these two GCM are run together it’s called a coupled run, GCM require the most powerful supercomputers (1.1 petaflops is common) to handle the calculations, typically a one day supercomputer run will yield a 25 year coverage. GCM are complex and the computers used to run them have huge capacity, however they do not even come close to the complexity and data needed to describe Earths’ climate system.

The basis of GCM is that CO2 precedes temperature, this is contrary to all of the observational evidence.
The amount of data points is inadequate and the length of the data record insufficient, below is a video of the worlds’ surface temperature stations from 1880-2007, notice the number of stations taken out of the record from 1988 on where about 4,000 stations were removed from the record, coincidently 75% of the removed stations were cold stations i.e. higher altitudes and latitudes.  

Furthermore GCM are 3D, higher than surface measurements are woefully sparse.

The IPCC itself recognises the impossibility of modelling the climate system

From the third assessment report section;

“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.”

Kevin Trenberth a lead author of IPCC report chapters in 2001 and 2007 said of IPCC GCM in;
“None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.”
In one of the ‘Climategate’ emails Prof. Phil Jones director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia wrote;
 “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”

GCM cannot even describe what little is known of the climate system, they do not handle the interactions of the various elements, add to this the unknown unknowns and we see why the met office get their long range predictions so spectacularly wrong. These boffins and their mates want me to accept they can forecast climate 80 years into the future!  


Many proponents of AGW theory would have us believe that there is an overwhelming consensus amongst scientists that AGW theory is settled science. Since the first IPCC Assessment Report the MSM have reported nonsense like 2500 of the worlds top scientists agree that manmade global warming is real and dangerous.

Here is what Mike Hulme, wiki profile  says about these claims;

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading 
scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.”

The much maligned yet un-refuted Global Warming Petition Project has over 31,000 scientists from the USA alone who disagree that AGW is settled science and will cause catastrophe, the following link provides all of their names and qualifications;

The US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works/Minority Report has details of over 700 international scientists who disagree with the IPCC findings.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”  

 “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.  

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. 

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. 
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. 

The full report can be found here;

Of course, we still hear that all of the worlds’ scientific institutions have come out in favour of AGW theory. Yet few realise that it is the executive boards (administrators) of those institutions that have made these grant seeking statements, not one of those institutions have polled their members (the scientists) to find out what they think.

Contrary to what proponents of AGW say, there is no consensus, no real time or historical evidence that CO2 controls temperature, no empirical evidence for positive feedback loops and absolutely no evidence for tipping points that will cause catastrophic runaway global warming. So why does the majority of MSM and advocacy groups keep peddling discredited Malthusian predictions of doom?

In the final post on this subject we will look at the Ideology, Politics, Propaganda and probity of AGW Theory, and naturally, we shall be following the money.

Cyril Le Squirrel


  1. James H. MetaphorJuly 02, 2013 11:01 pm

    Again, Thank you for the post. I found it very interesting. I often say this about people using models to provide evidence to support their claims: if you made the model, of course it supports your claims. The fact is, if you put wrong information into a model, you will get wrong information out of it. If I made a model about earth's gravity, assuming it to be 0.98N instead of the correct 9.8N, the model would show very different results to those observed in reality, such as being able to fall from great heights unharmed. If I was to use this model to justify jumping off a tall building, because the model shows I would not be harmed, I'd be an idiot. A model isn't proof of anything, it's little better then imagination. You have to temper it with observation and compare it to correct results to ensure accurate predictions, otherwise it's useless.
    Also, I find it fascinating how often people discard data that disagrees with the finding they desire and still insist the data (validly) supports them. If you have to ignore the facts to prove your point, then you are almost definately wrong. It's like me saying that in 3 out of the 10 cases I examined getting shot resulted in fatal wounds, wheras in the other 7, the victim survived, but (because I want to show that guns are harmless, for example) I can ignore those 3 cases, and say that my data shows that getting shot results in minor wounds rather then fatal ones. From that we can conclude that guns are mostly harmless. It's obviously ridiculous in this context, but what these people are doing is essentially identical.

  2. I find your conclusion to be nonsensical. You show graphs of surface temperatures rising and falling with ENSO, etc. as well as a long term trend rising with CO2. Then you simply declare that GW correlates better to the cyclical phenomena!

    When you consider that surface temps represent a tiny amount of the heat in the climate system and that most of the heat is in the oceans, fixating on the surface temps is rather myopic anyway. Planetary heat balance is the proper measure of GW and when that is used, the cyclic exchange of heat between surface and ocean cancels out.