By Dr. Vincent Gray
1. Roy Spencer and Murry Salby
The greatest difficulty facing the promoters of the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause dangerous global warming is the inconvenient truth that it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface by any known technology. Without this information it is not possible to claim global warming.
In order to make this claim the “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record” (MGSTAR) was fabricated from temperature measurements made at meteorological weather stations.
It did not matter that
· There is no standardized method for making these observations,
· They are unrepresentative of the earth’s surface, and worse the further back you go.
· Their locations are mainly close to cities,
· Only maximum and minimum temperatures are measured,,
· The number and location of stations changes daily
Despite these disabilities, which would have killed the idea in the days when genuine scientists controlled the scientific journals, the public have been persuaded that this dubious procedure is a genuine guide to global temperature change. They even seem to accept that a change in it over a century of a few decimals of a degree is cause for alarm
John Christy and Roy Spencer in 1979 at the University of Huntsville, Alabama established an alternative procedure for plotting global temperature anomalies in the lower troposphere by using the changes in the microwave spectrum of oxygen recorded by satellites on Microwave Sounder Units (MSUs). This overcame several of the disadvantages of the MGSTAR method.
It is almost truly global , not confined to cities. Although it misses the Arctic, this is also true of the MGSTAR. There have been some problems of calibration and reliability but they are far less than the problems of the MSGTAR record. They are therefore more reliable.
From the beginning the two records have disagreed with one another. This created such panic that the supporters of the IPCC set up an alternative facility to monitor the results at Remote Sensing Systems under the aegis of NASA and in the capable hands of Frank Wentz, an IPCC supporter. It was confidently believed that the “errors” of Christy and Spencer would soon be removed. To their profound disappointment this has not happened, The RSS version of the Lower Troposphere global temperature anomaly record is essentially the same as that still provided by the University of Huntsville. It is also almost the same as the measurements made by radiosonde balloons over the same period
The MSU record has now been going for 34 years. Spencer has recently published a comparison between temperature predictions made by a large number of IPCC climate models and their projected future and the temperature record as shown by the MSUs and the balloons.
at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
It is surely obvious that all the models are wrong and that their projections are nonsensical.
I might also add that the central line is also meaningless.
2. MURRY SALBY
Murry Salby is Professor of Climate Science at McQuarrie Univerity where he has an impressive research programme to be seen at
http://envsci.mq.edu.au/staff/ms/research.html
He has published a book “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate”.
He has recently expounded his views on the climate in two Youtube presentations. I have found that it was necessary to see both of them several times before I got a clear idea of what he is claiming. The first one, at
was a presentation at the Sydney Institute on 2nd August 2011.
He begins by showing the paleo record based on ice cores and shows that there is a close correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature, with temperature coming first. The same applies to methane.
He then attaches it to the more recent CO2 record and plots the Carbon13 figures, which declined over the whole period. Since plant material prefers C12 this means that the additional CO2 comes from plant material. The IPCC claims that the additional plant material must come from combustion of fossil fuels, so this is their “Smoking Gun” that the increase in CO2 is caused by human-derived emissions.
But the extra plant-derived CO2 could be natural. Salby sets out to show that this is true. He shows a satellite map of natural sources of CO2 which come more from the tropics than from temperate regions (but only 6% more)
He then provides data and graphs which show that the additional CO2 results from what happens during a temperature fluctuation, using the satellite (MSU) temperature record since 1978. He shows that the CO2 which is released by a temperature increase is always greater than the CO2 absorbed when the temperature falls, providing a net increase in the atmosphere
The CO2 increase is from natural sources. It is not related to temperature, but to the behaviour of temperature fluctuations.
The second Youtube presentation at
took place at Hamburg 18th April 2013.
It starts with an attempt to clear up the discrepancy of the first presentation, where , carbon dioxide was related to temperature for the ice core proxies and where carbon dioxide was related to a difference between emissions and absorption during a temperature fluctuation for the recent measurements.
He does this by questioning the reliability of the ice core measurements, something that my late friend Zbigniew Jaborowski questioned in 1997.
He points out that the snow that traps air from the atmosphere and then solidifies irons out the fluctuations in temperature which are the real source of CO2 increase, and that some diffusion of the gases must happen when they are buried. By a rather elaborate set of mathematical calculations he restores the fluctuation effect from the ice cores and shows that it is compatible with his other calculations from recent measurements
He then extends his calculations of CO2 from temperature fluctuations by using the instrumental record. When he allows for its low reliability as you go back in the record (only 8% of the earth in 1860) he derives an impressive agreement between carbon dioxide increases and the calculated natural additions derived from temperature fluctuations over his entire range.
He shows that for the MSU record, carbon dioxide is completely unrelated to temperature,
We already know from the first part of this newsletter that climate models based on the assumption that carbon dioxide increases influence global temperature are fundamentally wrong so it does not matter much whether it comes from human-related emissions or from natural sources.
I vociferously object to science by Youtube. In the old days any new theory from a recognised academic would be welcomed by the journals, but nowadays any disagreement with the IPCC orthodoxy would have difficulty finding a place in a scientific journal.
All the same, this material from Salby needs to be properly documented before it could be considered seriously
Cheers
Vincent Gray
Wellington, New Zealand
THIS IS WHAT THE CRACKPOTS IN AUSTRALIA ARE SAYING ABOUT THE WORLDS WEATHER http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-like-atom-bomb-20130622-2op3i.html
Ceetee says:
Augie Auer, a voice of sanity, may he rest in peace.
I would like to second that.
Somebody who knew his trade, a true professional unlike Jim Salinger.
Sorely missed here in NZ.
From post: “Despite these disabilities, which would have killed the idea in the days when genuine scientists controlled the scientific journals, the public have been persuaded that this dubious procedure is a genuine guide to global temperature change. They even seem to accept that a change in it over a century of a few decimals of a degree is cause for alarm.”
This statement is one I agree with and one that makes me wonder how it got this way. Is this a small group of faux scientists that have taken over the journals and the associations or is it that the vast majority of working “scientists” have become slaves to the grant money? I guess I am asking if there are many real scientists left working today.
@marstoval
There obviously are, otherwise there would be no debate. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those brave men and women who have stood up for truth.
The Salby’s comment that changes in atmospheric CO2 is not the main driver of planetary temperature is supported by current observations and recent analysis.
The fact that observed temperature change (no warming for 16 years) does not agree with the general circulation models indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the general circulation models (GCM). (See Roy Spencer’s summary of the data and comparison of the GCM model predictions.)
The reason for the difference is the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes by increasing or decreasing cloud cover in the tropics to reflect more or less radiation in to space. (See Lindzen and Choi’s recent paper and the Idso’s 1998 classic paper on the planet’s response to forcing changes which both provide data and analysis to support that assertion.) If the planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (positive feedback) forcing changes the warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C. Based on Idso and Gray’s analysis the estimated equilibrium warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is around 0.3C.
The general circulation models that have been used by the IPCC to make alarmist predictions assume the planet amplifies rather resist forcing changes. As the GCM have been proven to be incorrect, the IPCC alarmist predictions are also incorrect. William M. Gray’s monogram provides a good explanation of the technical issues.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications by Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. … …We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …. … However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (William: for the zero feedback case, warming will be less than 1C if the feedback response is negative) (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. …
http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
The Physical Flaws of the Global Warming Theory and Deep Ocean Circulation Changes as the Primary Climate Driver
Increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases will not be able to bring about significant climate disruption in the next 75-100 years. The main problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is the false treatment of the global hydrologic cycle which is not adequately understood by any of the AGW advocates. The water vapor, cloud, and condensation-evaporation assumptions within the conventional AGW theory and the (GCM) simulations are incorrectly designed to block too much infrared (IR) radiation to space. They also do not reflect-scatter enough short wave (albedo) energy to space. These two misrepresentations result in a large artificial warming that is not realistic. A realistic treatment of the hydrologic cycle would show that the influence of a doubling of CO2 should lead to a global surface warming of only about 0.3°C – not the 3°C warming as indicated by the climate simulations.
Idso Skeptics View of Global Warming
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf
I look forward to Professor Salby’s work being published so that it can be studied in detail.
If correct, his work is a game-changer for the “CO2 controls everything/humans control atmospheric CO2” belief.
I have not spotted any fallacies in what he says and so far I have had no difficulty reproducing the graphical results he presents by doing my own processing of downloaded CO2 and temperature data.
–
Tango,
After I read that Mr Cook said 97 per cent of scientists have been in agreement human activity is causing warmer temperatures I knew his opinion was garbage.
It amazes me that the alarmists still aren’t embarrassed by that thoroughly discredited claim that, “97 per cent of scientists” claim rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb. How do they still get away with it? How?
“Antonia says:
June 22, 2013 at 4:15 am”
Australia was the lucky country, and then the smart country. Now its not so smart nor lucky with a “proice ohn cahbon” of AU23$/tonne CO2, soon to rise from 1st July. ganGreen rot is rife here!
tango, John Cook has become a national disgrace as well as a national embarrassment!
” the public have been persuaded that this dubious procedure is a genuine guide to global temperature change”
Sure, there will be error bars, but over longer periods the trends will be evident and useful. No need to hyperventilate over it. The real difference of interest is the differences in trends between the models and our measures of reality. That is a clear FAIL.
BTW , John Cooks only qualifications are :University of Queensland, Bachelor of Science Honours, 1989
As to the meaninglessness of an “average global temperature”, here is a great post on the subject by E.M.Smith:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/28/uah-prelim-january-temp-may-be-below-normal-globally/#comment-585521
I hope that he will not mind my posting this link.
Thank you, Dr Gray.
I had run the Salby video several times, taken notes, copied and cleaned up the charts (available), and was still unclear as to the bottom line. Your post helps, especially about the carbon13 record.
What I gathered about the ice core record is that non-conservative processes are at work on the CO2 fraction, which I didn’t quite get, but that in any event, fluctuations in CO2 are greatly damped out. Which leads to the question, if ice bubbles from today’s era are measured a couple thousand years in the future, will the present uptick still show?
The current popular CO2 graph shows a hockey stick, with the flat ice core record glued to the rising Mauna Loa curve. The ice core is not the only record of CO2, however. Direct chemical measurements (as opposed to Keeling optical ones) have been taken since 1812, and they don’t come close to the ice record except between 1870 and 1930. After an understandable big rise during WW2, the chemical record drops back down close to the tacked on Mauna Loa curve. The ice core record homogenizes and under-reports all this bouncing around, much as Dr Salby asserts.
Tango – I’ve followed up your link to the report on Australia’s Climate Action Summit, currently being held in Sydney.
The opening featured the following speakers.
1. Professor Lesley Hughes
An ecologist in the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University and an expert on the impacts of climate change on species and ecosystems. She is the co-convenor of the Terrestrial Biodiversity Adaptation Research Network, Chair of the Tasmanian Climate Action Council and a member of Climate Scientists Australia and the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. Lead author, IPCC working group II that assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change.
(I could not find any reference to her qualifications)
2. Assoc/Prof Erica Bell
Associate professor – Deputy Director
University of Tasmania.
University Department of Rural Health
Ph.D, M.A (Qual), B.A. (Psych)
3. John Cook
University of Queensland, Bachelor of Science Honours, 1989
Research Areas
Psychology And Cognitive Sciences
4. BUTLER, PROF COLIN
ARC Future Fellow, Public Health
Faculty of Health
BMedSci(Hons) (Newcastle, 1984)
BMed (Newcastle, 1987)
DTM&H (Royal College of Physicians, 1990)
speaks for itself really!!
The precautionary principle is often invoked to imply we should reduce carbon emissions rather than do nothing ‘just in case’. Surely some combination of predicted temperature increase, errors associated with modelling, errors in temperature analysis and costs of CO2 reduction should result in the precautionary principle being – ‘do nothing until we have more data’.
I’ll never understand how so many people were convinced to panic….
…over a fraction of a degree
Thanks, Dr. Gray. Good article, bringing back weather/climate sanity.
So it all boils down to pretty much what I’ve been saying all along:
1. Global Average Temperature is a mythical number, improperly measured and of dubious quality. Even the satellite measurements, which are significantly better than thermometers on the ground, aren’t really a completely valid measure of atmospheric energy content.
2. Even so, the temperature record, inaccurate and faulty as it may be, in fact shows the opposite of what we’re told. It does NOT show a wild, out of control warming, or cooling, or anything… in fact, it would be more accurate to say that the record shows an astoundingly stable average temperature.
3. Temperature rises and CO2 are not correlated. They don’t match. There may have been a stretch there where it looked like they did, but that was a coincidence.
4. Even though atmospheric CO2 appears to be increasing, and this is the one that even a lot of people on WUWT disagree with me on, it would be incorrect to attribute that rise to human activity, specifically the use of so-called fossil fuels. This one is important. Human activity just isn’t all that important compared to the gigantic natural CO2 flux of this planet.
5. Ice core CO2 records are not nearly as accurate or even representative as we are led to believe.
Seems to me that together these points pretty much demonstrate that the entire “AGW” theory has to fall flat on its face, because NOT ONE of the main foundations of that theory even match real-world data.
So go ahead, watch the Mauna Loa CO2 levels, and follow the monthly temperature anomalies, whether from ground or satellite measurements, and examine the ice cores. In fact, even follow the Arctic sea ice extent, and place bets on it.These are all interesting, no question. But what do they mean? Not really as much as we want them to, if anything at all.
Sadly, the majority of the people on this planet believe the narrative, not the reality.
Think it’s called Macquarie University, not McQuarrie Univerity.
Latitude says:
June 22, 2013 at 5:24 am
Because the claim of dangerous global warming was repeated over and over, by so many public figures in the major media, for so many years.
The same could be said for why did so many Americans believe Iraq had a link to 9/11: because the claim was repeated so many times in the months leading up to the invasion.
Not everyone has an inherent skeptical nature, so if so many ‘important’ people make a claim then it must have some merit. The major media tends to be non-confrontational so just about anything from a public figure gets published with little question, because their advertisers just want more sales, not a riled audience.
Dear Dr. Gray,
Thank you for posting those two videos by Dr. Salby. I have never seen a more incontrovertible and concise disconfirmation of the theory of anthropocentric climate change than those videos. I would encourage you – and everyone else here – to do all in your power to spread them as widely as possible – the second video especially.
While I agree with your distaste for “youtube science,” given the known corruption of the funding and peer review processes in the climate world I feel it is necessary to publicize findings such as these by any means available.
Best regards,
Jason
dave……..systemic brainwashing
this looks scary, right?
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo61.png
does it still look scary?
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
“Latitude says:
June 22, 2013 at 5:24 am”
It’s for the children. (Like its so much harder for kids these days as apposed to those at the start of the industrial revolution?).
@ur momisugly Latitude; June 22, 2013 at 5:24 am
“I’ll never understand how so many people were convinced to panic….”
Panic rules when facts don’t. This “science” project was about control – an opportunity to force ones social philosophy and life style on everyone else. Didn’t work. Bunch of (Snip) (Snip).
Can’t wait to see what Joel D. Shore and that new kid Jai something or other has to say.
Ron Richey
The Indonesian Bulge, where the Trade Winds drive Pacific Ocean warm waters into a heap, is one of the Ocean hot spots. Why not just throw a couple of thermometers at different depths, measure every second, for several years to create an Ocean temperature proxy? Why do we need to measure the entire Ocean or Atmosphere if we are just looking for relative temperature change?
Let us create a accurate, simple measurement model instead of being overwhelmed by so much data that we need massive supercomputers.
Dr. Spencer’s does that for the atmosphere. Why not do the same for the Oceans?
We all know that the Gulf Stream warms Europe. Why isn’t there extensive monitoring for both speed and temperature just off the coast of Florida? This simple “pinch point” should be a great proxy for Ocean temperature and heat movement!
By monitoring the extreme points in both heat and cold, one will be easily able to see the differences of both heating and cooling. Note: Attempting to monitor the entire Arctic while leaving out the entire Antarctic is NOT what I am proposing.