NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 320

Guest essay by Dr. Vincent Gray, Wellington New Zealand

The beginnings of the scientific study of the climate can be traced back to ancient India in 3000 BC, and it has been developed by the Greeks. Arabs, Chinese, and every subsequent generation.

Measurement instruments such as rain and wind gauges, barometer thermometer, hygrometer were added over the years.

Networks of weather observations were set up in Italy as early as 1654. Joseph Henry at the Smithsonian Institute in the USA set up a United States network in 1849 .The first official Meteorological Office in the world was set up in London in 1854 under Admiral Robert Fitzroy. He had already sailed around the world with Darwin as captain of the “Beagle: and been the Second Governor of New Zealand, dismissed prematurely because he was too sympathetic to Maoris.

He published the first daily weather forecast in the “Times” in 1860. The following year a system was introduced of hoisting storm warning cones at principal ports when a gale was expected. Fitzroy invented a barometer which still occasionally turns up on the Antiques Roadshow.

Soon most nations had an official weather service. The quantity of observations became so large that it was only with the advent of the computer in the 1950s that methods were developed to organise them and to use them to provide a reliable forecasting service.

This came about with the development of numerical computer models. They would begin with established climate systems like atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns shown here.

image

Then the models were built up by adding a range of variables on a grid on and above the earth.

image

Even with the increasing power of supercomputers, the forecast skill of numerical weather models extends to about only six days.

Factors affecting the accuracy of numerical predictions include the density and quality of observations used as input to the forecasts, along with deficiencies in the numerical models themselves.

Although post-processing techniques such as model output statistics (MOS) have been developed to improve the handling of errors in numerical predictions, a more fundamental problem lies in the chaotic nature of the partial differential equations used to simulate the atmosphere and ocean currents where small errors grow with time (doubling about every five days).

In addition, the partial differential equations used in the model need to be supplemented with parameterizations for solar radiation, moist processes (clouds and precipitation), heat exchange, soil, vegetation, surface water, and the effects of terrain.

In an effort to quantify the large amount of inherent uncertainty remaining in numerical predictions, ensemble forecasts have been used since the 1990s to help gauge the confidence in the forecast, and to obtain useful results farther into the future than otherwise possible. This approach analyzes multiple forecasts.

It should be noticed that nowhere in this effective system is there any mention of carbon dioxide or of “greenhouse gases” They have no place in a scientific study of the climate. Most meteorological organisations do not even bother to measure carbon dioxide over land territories

The climate models favoured by “Climate Change” “scientists” completely ignore the scientific discoveries of genuine climate scientists since time immerorial. They promote completely different computer models based on the following absurd principles

· The earth can be considered flat

· The sun has a constant intensity, both day and night.

· All energy exchanges are by radiation

· Energy entering the earth equals that leaving

· All change is caused by changes in:greenhouse gases

· Natural influences are merely :”variable”

It is unsurprising that such a model has no value for future climate forecasting. The advocates prefer to provide “projections” far into the future. Successful simulation of past climate is proof of the modls, while failure is due to “natural variability”. They emulate the Indian doctor who could forecast the sex of an unborn child with a money back guarantee it he was wrong.

If you want to know about climate science switch on or read about the weather forecast.

.

I Would like to acknowledge the excellent articles on this subject at \Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_weather_prediction

 

Advertisements

39 thoughts on “NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 320

  1. ???
    9 Nov: NBC: Douglas Main, Live Science: Cosmic rays again ruled out as cause of global warming
    A new study published Thursday in the journal Environmental Research Letters looked for evidence to support that theory. It found almost none.
    “We couldn’t find anything to corroborate this theory,” said Terry Sloan, a retired particle physicist at Lancaster University in England who now studies the climate. [The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted]…
    “The conclusions come as no surprise,” said Raymond Bradley, a researcher at the University of Massachusetts who wasn’t involved in the study. “Numerous studies have concluded that solar forcing cannot explain recent warming.”
    http://www.nbcnews.com/science/cosmic-rays-again-ruled-out-cause-global-warming-8C11565156

  2. Thank Wikipedia? You mean there aren’t articles which stoat, aka, Connelly has managed to corrupt in his pursuit of taking science by the throat. Dear me he obviously has some catching up to do.
    Otherwise thankyou.
    Kindest Regards

  3. “9 Nov: NBC: Douglas Main, Live Science: Cosmic rays again ruled out as cause of global warming”
    Where did they get this headline? I don’t think that anyone has claimed that cosmic rays cause global warming.

  4. Not that much of a surprise. NBC noted that cosmic rays are not the cause of global warming. They are not. They are the cause of global cooling but why would a journalist understand that or understand that the only recent global warming lasted 10 years and has not been seen for 17 years. Another reason I am in the Bahamas.

  5. “They promote completely different computer models based on the following absurd principles
    · The earth can be considered flat
    · The sun has a constant intensity, both day and night.
    · All energy exchanges are by radiation
    · Energy entering the earth equals that leaving
    · All change is caused by changes in:greenhouse gases
    · Natural influences are merely :’variable'”

    This is just completely untrue and no evidence is given:
    “completely different computer models”
    They are not. GCMs are adaptions of numerical weather forecasting models which do take into account longer term forcings such as GHGs (which make insignificant change on a 10 day period). Some, like GFDL, can be and are used for numerical weather forecasting too.
    · The earth can be considered flat
    Certainly not. They use a spherical grid with topographic coordinates. Here is GFDL doing SST. Flat Earth?
    “The sun has a constant intensity, both day and night.”
    No. Diurnal and seasonal solar are calculated for each location
    “All energy exchanges are by radiation”
    No, heat is convected, with turbulent transfer and of course, latent heat is computed.
    “Energy entering the earth equals that leaving”
    Well, it does, to a very good approximation. Only recently has a discrepancy been measurable, and I’m sure that will be included.
    “All change is caused by changes in:greenhouse gases”
    Where on earth do you get that from? They are solving time varying PDEs.
    Natural influences are merely :”variable”
    I don’t even know what that means.

  6. Nick Stokes says:
    November 8, 2013 at 7:00 pm
    —————————————
    Nick fluffing about their current complexity cannot change the fact that GCMs are as Dr. Vincent Gray correctly pointed out, based on absurd principles.
    It would be mendacious to claim that current GCMs have anywhere near the vertical or horizontal resolution to model strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation. You cannot get the right result with vertical movement parametrised for grid squares. You would need to model multiple energy fluxes into and out of discrete moving air masses along with change in buoyancy for air masses 1 Km3 or less in size for the full depth of the troposphere. Are you seriously suggesting GCMs have the power to do this?
    The problem of parametrising vertical circulation for grid squares is that the errors Dr. Gray mentions in the foundation physics are transferred into the GCMs.
    The most critical error is of course that radiative gases act to increase the buoyancy of air masses in the lower atmosphere and act to reduce buoyancy of air masses in the upper atmosphere. Adding radiative gases will increase the speed of tropospheric convective circulation, and thereby the increase the speed of mechanical transport of energy acquired by surface conduction and release of latent heat away from the surface.
    Essentially any model that shows adding radiative gases to the atmosphere reducing the atmospheres radiative cooling ability must be junk science, or as Dr. gray points out, “absurd”.

  7. “It should be noticed that nowhere in this effective system is there any mention of carbon dioxide or of “greenhouse gases” They have no place in a scientific study of the climate. Most meteorological organisations do not even bother to measure carbon dioxide over land territories”
    every modern weather forecasting system takes into account the radiative gases in the atmosphere. They have to otherwise the predictions are wildly off.
    For example, In his paper on surface stations Anthony and his co authors used NCEP re analysis data. This is data created by a weather forecasting model. Like all weather forecasting models it has a radiative core.
    http://www.wrf-model.org/index.php
    Here is a short presentation, pages 22 or so covers the radiation codes
    http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/at7500/Bianco_PresentationWRF.pdf
    Major users of the model are the air force and navy
    What do they know about C02 physics? lots, we had to to design weapon systems.
    So yes, C02 warms the planet it does not cool the planet. The defense of our country depends upon this physics being correct.and it is correct.
    To get a weather model to operate at its best you must use C02 physics.
    So when we look at hurricane prediction models for example we see that they also use radiative codes. These are the codes that tell us doubling c02 will add 3.7 Watts.
    The top 5 models for predicting hurricanes are
    ECMWF: GFS: GFDL: UKMET: HWRF:
    each and every one of these models has a radiative core. That core ( for example RRTM) consists of equations that tell us how radiation propagates through the atmosphere. The science of this is well known. We use it in engineering. Those radiation codes are also used in satellites to derive images from sensors. Those codes tell us that doubling C02 will add 3.7Watts to the energy budget. In short, c02 warms the planet it does not cool the planet.
    The engineering codes and physics codes used to predict hurricanes,used to predict how radar transmissions will propagate, used to predict how aircraft will appear to IR sensors, those codes all say that doubling C02 adds 3.7Watts. Those codes work. They are tested. We all rely on them.

  8. Konrad says: November 8, 2013 at 8:00 pm
    “Are you seriously suggesting GCMs have the power to do this?”

    No, I’m asserting that the posts’ claims about GCM’s are specific and totally wrong. Do you have any comment on that?
    As to strong vertical convection, yes, they don’t have the grid resolution for that. So they add a direct model for it. Here is a typical version.

  9. Come on AW, you can do better than just *claim* that. Please *demonstrate how* the conclusion (no.3) does not follow logically from the major premise (no.1) and the minor premise(no.2)? Next, if you disagree that either premise (No.1 or 2) are NOT true, then *explain* why you think so.

  10. Thank you, Vincent. After a torrent of guest posts ranting about UN world domination and similar conspiracy theories, it is a beautiful thing to come across your words. Interesting stuff.

  11. I notice that Nick Stokes and Steve Mosher are defending the climate models, they seem to be in thrall of radiative gases. I would ask, why are the models so wrong, could a sign be wrong, even maybe the sun may control our climate, moderated by many other external influences. Perhaps they can tell me where the global warming has gone, I live in southern Australia and it is not warm. I have been waiting for the warming, please tell me when I can expect it so that I can stop gathering fire wood.

  12. I wouldn’t say they’re defending these models, just pointing out that what the OP put about them is complete bollocks!
    Yes, they are crap, but they do treat the Earth as a sphere, do have “day & night” etc.
    What’s written here is worse than “Mannian Hokeyness”
    If the other 319 newsletters are this bad, I won’t spend any time searching them out.

  13. While Nick Stokes and Mosher are in thrall of greenhouse gases (and Mosher likes to point out, the US military does not use the CO2 spectrum to target missiles because that would be silly).
    But what is even a stronger greenhouse gas is cloud and water vapor. In fact, cloud intercepts both short-wave solar radiation and long-wave infrared radiation. In fact, clouds intercept shortwave and long wave at almost all wavelengths, not just a few small bands like CO2 and Methane.
    When there is low level clouds, the back radiation acts like a perfect black body intercepting at least partially, ALL long wave bands.
    The Earth is 65% cloud covered. The W/m2 of impact from clouds is many orders of magnitude larger than the other greenhouse gases.
    So why don’t the climate models use clouds as the driver of the climate in the long-run rather than CO2. Well, they can’t model clouds at all. They are just dropped in as an assumption, including the global warming assumption that low clouds will decline as CO2 warms the climate.
    Clouds let radar through, however. Which is why the US military primarily uses radar to target its missiles. Because they know clouds get in the way of most every other spectrum.
    When the climate models start basing their assumptions on the real Earth, they will become more useful. Otherwise, we are wasting billions of dollars and human brain power on the unbending and non-self-correcting theory about CO2. They just will not adjust their theory to new observations. They are not stubborn, they are believers.
    Does CO2 play any part at all in the now quite accurate meteorological weather models?

  14. CO2 radiative forcing is a central core to weather forecasting? Does that consider local or regional GHG concentrations or do we just assume that the earth’s atmosphere is homogeneous and the Mauna Loa numbers are a global constant? If that is the case, then it can’t be much more than a fudge factor that could come from any source. When I lived in the Michigan, the weather service forecasts were notoriously poor. Was it because of radiative forcing wasn’t used or the Great Lakes make predictions really difficult?
    Missile targeting using GHG radiative forcing? Does that assume homogeneous atmospheric CO2 based on a measurement potentially on the other side of the world? As an old Field Artilleryman I’m a bit skeptical. I know about making meteorological corrections for a projectile over a short distance. That required knowledge of wind speed, direction, air temperature, air density, etc., in relatively narrow intervals in the firing/target area that were relatively recent. Calculation of such factors by a computer model would be a waste of otherwise useful electrons. Much the same can be said, I believe, for much longer range missiles. Do the models really use local values for factors affecting trajectory and ballistics over the path of the missile? I doubt it. Radar, gps and other guidance systems are likely to have much more use and accuracy.
    Radiative forcing is used to predict hurricanes? After the predictions versus reality over the past few years, especially this year, I’m not sure I’d consider that a positive use.
    I don’t doubt that someone has been paid to stick such stuff into short term models. It would be of interest to test the model with and without the radiative forcing element.

  15. As usual Bill Illis comment is right on the mark. With that in mind I’ve often wondered how models handle the impact of clouds on the GHE. The claimed 3.7 w/m2 is moot when clouds are present. All the radiation will be absorbed no matter what the concentration of CO2. So Nick/Steve, if the models don’t handle clouds how do they assess the reduction of CO2 GHE when clouds are actually present?
    Next, how much addition is there made to convection and latent heat production due to the increased GHE? If the Earth’s surface retains more heat it will lead to more evaporation and stronger convection. How is this handled in the models? Naturally this also lead to more absorption of solar radiation by the added water vapor. Is the reduction in solar energy reaching the surface modeled?

  16. Thank you Vincent – as usual, an excellent article.
    However, global warming alarmism has never been about the science. Science has been corrupted to fit a political agenda.
    The following treatise explains the rationale supporting global warming alarmism – and it’s not about the environment either.
    TODAY is the 24th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Wall was opened on November 9, 1989.
    Five months earlier, in July 1989 I had travelled through the Wall via Checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin
    I was with colleagues on a business trip. It was not a fun trip , but it was highly educational. East Berlin and East Germany were everything Ronald Reagan said they were – repressive, backward, and evil – families were spying on each other and ratting to the Stasi, the dreaded East German Secret Police. We left a day earlier than planned – none of us could stand the place any longer.
    The reason I raise this point is that Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, made particular mention of the fall of the Berlin Wall in this essay written in 1994 – see paragraph 2 below.
    Keep in mind that I am not saying this, rather I am quoting Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace – but I tend to accept his analysis.
    For more evidence, read http://www.green-agenda.com/
    Regards, Allan
    [excerpt]
    The Rise of Eco-Extremism
    Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
    Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
    These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
    • It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth.
    The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.
    • It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tragedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.
    • It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are criticized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?
    • It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is absurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.
    • It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are successful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.
    • It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.
    • It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.
    **************

  17. Steven Mosher says:
    November 8, 2013 at 8:11
    Steve read over your second link. The section on equations started off with a variation of the ideal gas law? The rest were nice but no radiative heat transfer equations. I admit I did not read every paper listed by the author.

  18. Dr. Vincent Gray says:
    “They promote completely different computer models based on the following absurd principles
    – Energy entering the earth equals that leaving”

    I don’t think questioning the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy is going to buy any credibility points.
    While I certainly don’t agree with Nick and Steven on everything they claim, they’re certainly correct to recommend putting this in the crank category.

  19. apparently mosher hasn’t figured out about the 3.7 w/m^2 increase presumed to occur with a co2 doubling. I guess you could say he’s not even half right. The 3.7 w/m^2 only occurs in clear sky conditions. Since we have around 62% cloud cover in Earth’s atmosphere, that makes him less than half right. I don’t recall him qualifying the value, or just off hand, anyone qualifying that condition recently.

  20. Bill Illis says: November 9, 2013 at 4:00 am
    “While Nick Stokes and Mosher are in thrall of greenhouse gases…
    But what is even a stronger greenhouse gas is cloud and water vapor….
    So why don’t the climate models use clouds as the driver of the climate in the long-run rather than CO2.”

    No-one is saying that CO2 is the only thing that can affect climate, or even the most powerful factor. Of course if you blocked off the sun, or created huge artificial clouds, that would have a drastic effect.
    But it isn’t happening. There’s no evidence that clouds are being modified directly by human activity. What we are doing is pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. That’s why it is seen as a driver. It’s being driven.

  21. Nick Stokes says:
    No-one is saying that CO2 is the only thing that can affect climate, or even the most powerful factor.
    We are in agreement. CO2 can possibly affect climate [by which I suppose Nick means global temperature].
    However, any putative effect from CO2 is too small to measure, due to the logarithmic effect of CO2. Thus, Nick’s conjecture is based on something whose effect is simply too small to measure.
    Nick ends with a non-sequitur: What we are doing is pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
    So what? Nick’s emotional “huge amounts” should be seen in perspective: CO2 has risen by only parts per million. That is a “huge amount” in the frightened minds of the alarmist crowd. But to skeptics, it is a tiny drop in the bucket, which has produced no measurable effect at all.
    Thus, the only thing that is being “driven” is the “carbon” scare.

  22. Nick Stokes says:
    “There’s no evidence that clouds are being modified directly by human activity”.
    That’s the point:
    If relatively long term changes in cloud cover have resulted in the temperature trend then there’s little reason to believe humanity has much to do with it.
    If one already believes humanity is changing the climate then they must conclude clouds aren’t important.

  23. Nick Stokes says: November 8, 2013 at 8:32 pm
    “No, I’m asserting that the posts’ claims about GCM’s are specific and totally wrong. Do you have any comment on that?”
    Without arguing about the merits of the post’s claims, I would simply point out that the GCMs’ calculations (ahem, predictions/projections) of what the climate actually does “are specific and totally wrong.” To paraphrase Richard Feynman about the scientific method, if your calculated outcomes (read computer models) based upon your guess (read theory) do not match real world observations (read Data), then you are wrong. It doesn’t matter who you are, what government you represent, what cause you so fervently support, you are wrong. Period!
    CO2 continues to go up. Temperatures go up, down, sideways, around in circles. CAGW is based on a false premise, sorry, it’s not your fault that it is wrong.
    “Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states “Since Y event followed X event, Y event must have been caused by X event.” It is often shortened to simply post hoc. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which two things or events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown, also referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation.”-Wiki
    Ad hoc non propter hoc- Also not because of.
    The climate changes. It is naturally variable. This is good. Cheer up and enjoy your life. It is truly wondrous.

  24. Steven Mosher: “So yes, C02 warms the planet it does not cool the planet.”
    Steven, No CO2 does not “warm the planet” any more than insulation warms your house. Think clearly and you will speak clearly. The Sun warms the planet. CO2 changes equilibration.

  25. Nonsensical Warmist Quote of the Day
    “What we are doing is pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. That’s why it is seen as a driver. It’s being driven.” (Nick Stokes today at 11:06am)
    What we are doing is pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
    So?
    That’s why it is seen as a driver.
    By whom?
    It’s being driven.
    Being driven does not make a thing a driver.
    **********************************
    Bottom line, Steven Mosher and Nick Stokes:
    CO2 UP — WARMING STOPPED.
    Explain that.

  26. Nick Stokes own model only shows the amount of adjustments made to HadCRUT temp data.
    Garbage in equals garbage out no matter who creates the model.

  27. lol, Scott — Well done. Good for you to check Stokes’ bogus evidence (“… they don’t have the grid resolution for that. So they add a direct model for it. Here… ” – Stokes on 11/8/13 at 11:32pm)
    The “model” is the temperature “adjustments.” LAUGH-OUT-LOUD.

  28. Scott says: November 9, 2013 at 2:14 pm
    “Nick Stokes own model only shows the amount of adjustments made to HadCRUT temp data.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by my “own model”. But if it is TempLS, then that uses only unadjusted GHCN data. And yet, it gives very similar results to HADCRUT and GISS.

  29. In admitting that GCMs cannot run computational fluid dynamics for tropospheric convective circulation, Nick Stokes has proved Dr. Gray correct. The foundation physics of the AGW hypothesis contains the very faults Dr. Gray points out, and in parametrising vertical circulation for grid squares, these critical errors are transferred into GCMs.
    This means that GCMs are little more than a two layer horizontal circulation model with energy and fluid transfer between the layers parametrised by the failed “basic physics” of the “settled science”.
    GCMs show atmospheric warming form increasing CO2 because they are programmed to show warming.
    This means that GCMs are essentially a climate propaganda tool.

  30. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-projectons-versus-reality/#comment-1448553
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/08/the-taxonomy-of-climate-opinion/#comment-1441009
    Steven Mosher says:
    “Model answers fall within the range established by observations.”
    Steve, did you really say that?
    I suggest, with due respect, that the climate models cited by the IPCC are crap (pls see Engineering Handbook for technical definition of “crap”).
    Regards, Allan
    Here is the evidence:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/28/models-fail-land-versus-sea-surface-warming-rates/#comment-1432696
    Reposted below regarding evidence of aerosol fudging of climate models, from DV Hoyt, for Pamela:
    Best personal regards, Allan
    Please also see
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/reactions-to-ipcc-ar5-summary-for-policy-makers/#comment-1431798
    and
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/uh-oh-its-models-all-the-way-down/#comment-1421394
    [excerpt]
    …– the (climate) models have probably “put the cart before the horse” – we know that the only clear signal in the data is that CO2 LAGS temperature (in time) at all measured time scales, from a lag of about 9 months in the modern database to about 800 years in the ice core records – so the concept of “climate sensitivity to CO2” (ECS) may be incorrect, and the reality may be “CO2 sensitivity to temperature”
    I think you would agree that the use of “CO2 sensitivity to temperature” instead of “climate sensitivity to CO2” (ECS) would require a major re-write of the models.
    If you wanted to stick with the ECS concept, then you would have to (as a minimum) delete the phony aerosol data, drop ECS to ~~1/10 of its current values, add some natural variation to account for the global cooling circa 1940-1975, and run the models. The results would probably project modest global warming that is no threat to humanity or the environment, and we know that just would not do. Based on past performance, the IPCC’s role is to cause fear due to alleged catastrophic global warming, even if this threat is entirely false, which is increasingly probable.
    Meanwhile, back at the aerosols:
    You may ask why the IPCC does NOT use the aerosol historic data in their models, but rather uses assumed values (different for each model and much different from the historic data) to fudge their models (Oops! I guess I gave away the answer – I should not have used the word “fudge”, I should have said “hindcast”).
    .
    [excerpt from]
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/15/one-step-forward-two-steps-back/#comment-1417805
    Parties interested in the fabrication of aerosol data to force-hindcast climate models (in order for the models to force-fit the cooling from ~1940 to ~1975, in order to compensate for the models’ highly excessive estimates of ECS (sensitivity)) may find this 2006 conversation with D.V. Hoyt of interest:
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=755
    Douglas Hoyt, responding to Allan MacRae:
    “July 22nd, 2006 at 5:37 am
    Measurements of aerosols did not begin in the 1970s. There were measurements before then, but not so well organized. However, there were a number of pyrheliometric measurements made and it is possible to extract aerosol information from them by the method described in:
    Hoyt, D. V., 1979. The apparent atmospheric transmission using the pyrheliometric ratioing techniques. Appl. Optics, 18, 2530-2531.
    The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.
    Here are three papers using the technique:
    Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.
    Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.
    Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.
    In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly. There are other studies from Belgium, Ireland, and Hawaii that reach the same conclusions. It is significant that Davos shows no trend whereas the IPCC models show it in the area where the greatest changes in aerosols were occurring.
    There are earlier aerosol studies by Hand and in other in Monthly Weather Review going back to the 1880s and these studies also show no trends.
    So when MacRae (#321) says: “I suspect that both the climate computer models and the input assumptions are not only inadequate, but in some cases key data is completely fabricated – for example, the alleged aerosol data that forces models to show cooling from ~1940 to ~1975. Isn’t it true that there was little or no quality aerosol data collected during 1940-1975, and the modelers simply invented data to force their models to history-match; then they claimed that their models actually reproduced past climate change quite well; and then they claimed they could therefore understand climate systems well enough to confidently predict future catastrophic warming?”, he close to the truth.”
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Douglas Hoyt:
    July 22nd, 2006 at 10:37 am
    MacRae:
    Re #328 “Are you the same D.V. Hoyt who wrote the three referenced papers?”
    Hoyt: Yes
    .
    MacRae: “Can you please briefly describe the pyrheliometric technique, and how the historic data samples are obtained?”
    Hoyt:
    “The technique uses pyrheliometers to look at the sun on clear days. Measurements are made at air mass 5, 4, 3, and 2. The ratios 4/5, 3/4, and 2/3 are found and averaged. The number gives a relative measure of atmospheric transmission and is insensitive to water vapor amount, ozone, solar extraterrestrial irradiance changes, etc. It is also insensitive to any changes in the calibration of the instruments. The ratioing minimizes the spurious responses leaving only the responses to aerosols.
    I have data for about 30 locations worldwide going back to the turn of the century.
    Preliminary analysis shows no trend anywhere, except maybe Japan.
    There is no funding to do complete checks.”

  31. “TODAY is the 24th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. ” (Allan MacRae at 6:11am today)
    ON topic — for it is demonstrable evidence that the wall of AGW, too, will one day fall.
    Truth wins.
    (yes, it is in German — but, we do not to understand their language to read the joy on their faces ….
    just look at them on the train as they hear that they are now arriving in West Berlin…)

    Thank you for reminding us, Mr. MacRae.
    “… a time for JOY” — it will happen.

  32. Thank you Janice,
    Your video brought me joy as I recalled those wonderful days when the Berlin Wall was opened. I stayed up for several nights watching CNN broadcast from Berlin. It was such a great development for humankind!
    When one visits countries like East Germany, and I have visited a few, one meets good people who are living in cesspools. When one leaves, one actually feels a sense of guilt for abandoning these good people to their lives under horrible repressive governments and dreadful living conditions.
    To have experienced the harsh reality of East Germany just four months before, and to understand what a terrible place it really was, made the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent liberation of East Germany a truly joyful event. I revisited former East Germany several times in subsequent years, and despite the usual growing pains, it just kept getting better and better.
    One further relevant insight was that shortly before my first trip to East Berlin, one of the fearless leaders of the Canadian socialist New Democratic Party was toured through East Germany and returned to Canada extolling the wonders of the “Workers’ Paradise” and recommending East Germany as THE best possible model for the Canadian economy. Quelle surprise!
    As explained in a 1994 essay written by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, excerpted above at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/08/nzclimate-truth-newsletter-no-320/#comment-1470144
    “Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.”
    This is why global warming mania has become the New Religion – it appeared just in time to replace the discredited Old Religion of Global Socialism, and adherents of the Old Religion actually expropriated the Environmental Movement, now rudely but accurately referred to as the Watermelon Movement.
    For more than a decade, honorable climate scientists have been arguing that the “the science is NOT settled” and have patiently pointed out the fatal flaws in global warming alarmism. They were largely swept aside, ignored and vilified. Several honorable academics (four that I know of) have lost their academic posts. Several have received death threats. Some were actual victims of violence.
    We have experienced these brown-shirt tactics in the past and they work, since they effectively intimidate the less honorable and enlist the less intelligent.
    We knew decades ago that global warming alarmism was wrong. We confidently stated in 2002:
    [PEGG, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals , the Globe and Mail and la Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae]
    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
    On global warming:
    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
    On green energy:
    “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
    I suggest that our two above statements are now demonstrably true, within reasonable probabilities.
    I also wrote in an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002, based on a phone conversation with Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson:
    On global cooling:
    “If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
    I expect that global cooling will be a reality by 2020, and may have already started. The Watermelons have already begun their retreat from global warming hysteria, and have moved on to “climate change” alarmism and “sustainability”, their new mantras to achieve greater political power.
    In fact, these disreputable people have discredited true environmentalism with their false alarm. There remain real environmental issues that need to be addressed. Catastrophic humanmade global warming is NOT one of them.
    Repeating from 2002:
    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
    Regards to all, Allan

  33. Thanks for taking the time to tell me, Allan. I checked back many times last night and was really disappointed that NO one enjoyed that video. So glad that you did! My pleasure.
    Thanks for all the great information. You’ve done excellent research and writing (except, I’m convinced that the Sun maintains our planet’s homeostasis with minor fluctuations, but the main drivers of significant climate shifts are the oceans and other forces (and NOT CO2, lol)).
    “Berlin is again Berlin!”
    And, one day, (yes, it WILL happen) the Envirostalinists so aptly called “watermelons” WILL fall
    …………… and we will smile and say: “Science is again Science!”
    Truth will win.
    Janice

  34. · The earth can be considered flat
    · The sun has a constant intensity, both day and night.
    · All energy exchanges are by radiation
    · Energy entering the earth equals that leaving
    · All change is caused by changes in:greenhouse gases
    · Natural influences are merely :”variable”

    No doubt climate models have flaws. But it does no good whatsoever to give a list of imaginary flaws possessed by imaginary models. No GCM’s have the above features, except for the 4th point, which is true to a good approximation. This sort of nonsense makes sceptic arguments look silly. However, as someone remarked up thread, at least there are no conspiracy theories this time.

Comments are closed.