Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
The anthropogenic global warming deception was about deliberately misleading the public with false, misleading, and selective science, from the start. It was also about plausible deniability to avoid accountability for deliberately deceiving the world. Elaine Dewar reported in her book Cloak of Green that she asked Maurice Strong what was wrong with the planet. He speculated that the problem for the planet was the industrialized nations. Dewar asked if he intended to run for politics to seek resolution. He said no, you cannot do anything as a politician. Dewar wrote that he was going to the UN because,
“He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.”
In short, there was no accountability. This has continued for all involved with the deception.
The deceptions about the false claim that human-caused global warming (AGW) continue. Recently we witnessed a campaign to deceive from both government and non-government sources. For example, on June 28, a non-government DC-based group Public Citizen, working through two members of the Public Citizen’s Climate and Energy Program, issued a heads-up “NOTE TO REPORTERS AND EDITORIAL BOARDS” with the headline:
“As Extreme Heat Warnings Sound in New York This Weekend, Remember to Connect the Dots Between Extreme Heat and Climate Change.”
The sub-headline was even more definite:
“Extreme Heat and Record-Breaking Heat Are Linked to Climate Change.”
Then we have Benjamin Santer talking about the Earth’s seasonal ‘heartbeat’? Maybe it is the pulse of Al Gore’s three bears who were the analogy to his claim that the Earth was not too hot or too cold, but just right. In the original Santer article, the anthropomorphism extends to them seeing the ‘fingerprint’ of human activity. It is not surprising they can see so much at once because there are 14 authors. It is reminiscent of the selection simply for the inclusion of authorship disclosed in the Climategate leaked emails of which Santer was a central figure. The more, the merrier and supposedly the greater the credibility. Not to mention the longer the individual Curriculum Vitae (CV).
Santer et al., work with self-serving, self-perpetuating, deep state government agencies to back their claims about changes.
Climate change is much more than rising temperatures and melting ice. In a new study, scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and five other organizations show that human action significantly affects the seasonal temperature cycle in the troposphere, or lowest layer of earth’s atmosphere — the layer that we live in where weather occurs.
This media quote shows why the 14 authors are valuable because it allows them to claim a consensus argument that Santer at Lawrence Livermore is supported by “five other organizations.” Both groups, government and non-government, are exploiting a perfectly normal pattern of weather and getting away with it because neither they nor the public understand climatology and climate change. Santer et al., try to hide their ignorance with colorful language and histrionics. The Public Citizens group is purely political, and so they don’t care about the truth. There is a difference in culpability.
In his WUWT guest essay, Eric Worrall wrote,
“Ben Santer is one of the more colourful climategate characters. He rose to fame after his email threat to beat the cr*p out of Pat Michaels was uncovered in the Climategate archive.”
I will dissent slightly with Eric’s comment about Santer rising to fame over his Pat Michaels comment. I suppose that gave him notoriety in the sense of it being such an unprofessional comment among scientists and academics. The prime point of notoriety for Santer and the reason he wanted to punch Michaels was because of the infamous Chapter 8 debacle. This occurred almost ten years before Santer achieved his pugilistic fame as part of the notorious Climate Research Unit (CRU) group. The important thing to remember is that so many of the CRU people were also members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The first action that exposed how the IPCC Reports were manipulated occurred with the 1995 second assessment Report. Santer was a CRU graduate. Tom Wigley replaced Hubert Lamb at the CRU and, as Lamb explained in his autobiography, diverted its purpose to computer models and political exploitation. Wigley was the power behind the entire CRU and thereby the IPCC. When you read the leaked Emails, it becomes obvious that when there were disputes, either scientific or political, they turn to Wigley for arbitration. Wigley supervised Santer’s Ph.D., titled, “Regional Validation of General Circulation Models.” He used three top computer models to recreate North Atlantic conditions where data was best. They created massive pressure systems that don’t exist in reality – so he knew the failure of the models under the best conditions from the start.
Phil Jones, Ben Santer, and Tom Wigley in the early days.
Santer was appointed lead-author of Chapter 8 “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes” of the 1995 IPCC Report. In that position, he determined to prove humans were a factor despite no evidence. His fellow chapter authors agreed to a final draft at a meeting in Madrid. Here are the four agreed to comments
1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
Here are the entries that appeared after Santer rewrote them.
1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”
2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
It didn’t take long for disclosure of Santer’s actions. It required a quick cover up to provide a peer-reviewed paper to support Santer’s claim. It appeared in Nature on July 4, 1996, under the title, “A Search for Human Influences On the Thermal Structure of the Atmosphere” with a self-serving long list of authors – Santer, Wigley, Jones, Mitchell, Oort, and Stouffer. It claimed to provide observational evidence that proved the models were accurate and Santer’s claims were justified.
It was at this point that Patrick Michaels earned the enmity of Santer and his justification for a bloody nose. He and others identified the errors, but Nature delayed publication for 5 months until December 12, 1996. One of the errors was the cherry picking of the graph shown in Figure 1 of the full record produced by John Daly.
The cherry-picked graph used is shown in Figure 2. The other rebuttal provided a normal explanation for the pattern.
The delay was sufficient to launch a PR cover-up. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) sent a letter of defense to Santer on July 25, 1996. It said there were two questions, the science, and what society must do about scientific findings and the debate they engendered. In a constant theme of the people at CRU, they said science should only be debated in
“peer-reviewed scientific publications – not the media.”
This was because they believed as the Emails exhibit that they controlled the peer-review process and the media.
“What is important scientific information and how it is interpreted in the policy debates is an important part of our jobs.” “That is, after all, the very reasons for the mix of science and policy in the IPCC.”
No, it isn’t. Daly referred to this thinking as ‘scientism.’ It is difficult to measure the impact of Santer’s actions. In 2006 Dennis Avery and Fred Singer noted that,
“Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.”
Santer did not admit the changes at the time and got his “discernible human influence” message on the world stage. According to one source, he later admitted that
“…he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.”
Santer’s action and message were not as critical to pushing the false AGW story as James Hansen’s 1988 appearance before the senate hearing, However, it added enormous momentum in the early stages. However, it was critical because it occurred at a time when the IPCC was losing credibility over failed forecasts in the 1990 Report. They completely redesigned the 1995 Report with its switch to scenarios and projections was a carefully orchestrated reinvigoration of the AGW message. They also tackled the troubling 7c graph from the 1990 report that showed a warmer world in the Mediaeval Warm period. It was a prologue to Mann’s rewrite of climate history known as the hockey stick.
Now we have the ‘heartbeat’ nonsense as the public turn away from a failing message. The people at Public Citizens are political agents pushing an agenda, and I would not expect them to understand. They should, but they won’t and only pretend to know. Santer et al., are a different matter because they present themselves as experts. The fact that their assessment and comments demonstrate lack of understanding of basic climate patterns and mechanisms is another matter altogether.
Figure 3 shows the climate conditions on July 1- 2, 2018, in North America. It is a classic example of a Meridional pattern of flow that results in specific contrasting weather conditions on each side of the continent. Public Citizens drew media attention to the warm temperatures of the northeast. They failed to report the record cold temperatures set in the northwest on July 3, 2018, Eugene, Oregon, recorded their coldest temperature for that day of 38°F in 107 years of record. The State recorded below freezing temperatures at 21 of their Remote Automated Weather stations (RAWS).
Similarly, patterns of very warm and very cold readings are occurring around the world, especially in the middle latitudes. If Santer had shown any interest in what Professor Lamb was doing at the CRU, he would know that Lamb was reconstructing and determining these patterns in the middle latitudes through most of his career. Unfortunately, and I witnessed it, Lamb was ostracized in the unit even though he came and worked diligently every day. His work of reconstructing past weather patterns to understanding causative mechanisms was ignored by all those working on failed computer models. If he studied the literature, Santer would know that Marcel Leroux, author of Global Warming – Myth or Reality was also studying these predominant mid-latitude patterns and mechanisms.
We witnessed the lack of understanding of basic underlying mechanisms and patterns and their exploitation for advancing the AGW agenda when John Holdren, Obama’s Science Advisor, created the name “Polar Vortex.” He did this to explain the cold weather that was upsetting the claims of global warming, but also to imply that this was a new phenomenon that resulted from AGW. What he did was pick a single wave in what is properly called the Circumpolar Vortex. This refers to the zone associated with the boundary between the warm subtropical air and the cold polar air commonly called the Polar Front. Figure 4 shows a very simple schematic of conditions in the Northern hemisphere.
The diagram also shows the relationship of the Jetstream to this boundary. Above the surface in the upper atmosphere away from the frictional surface effect, the temperature difference across the Polar Front translates into a strong geostrophic wind. Since it is a river of air flowing through the air, it develops sinuosity that is sine waves of varying amplitudes. This pattern of sinuosity is found throughout nature when a flow of liquid or gas occurs through a uniform medium.
The waves that develop in this circumpolar flow are called Rossby waves after Carl Rossby (1898 – 1957). A biographer wrote,
The Bureau was headed by unimaginative administrators who had no interest in Rossby’s scientific brilliance but rather found the young Swede, with his schemes for revitalizing meteorology in the United States, a great nuisance.
In this uninspiring atmosphere Rossby turned his attention to a careful study of atmospheric turbulence, preparing three manuscripts which were published in the Monthly Weather Review in 1926 and 1927. These papers summarized the subject and showed a remarkably clear insight into the great problems besetting studies of flow in the friction layer near the surface of the earth.
Sadly, today, the unimaginative administrators are replaced by political administrators who hire people like Santer and many of the authors of this article to carry forward their political agenda.
Fortunately, Rossby lived long enough to know about the discovery of the high-level winds of the Circumpolar Vortex detected by pressurized military aircraft able to fly at high altitudes on bombing missions in the Pacific War. His biographer notes,
The jet stream ideas were published under the authorship of “Staff Members” in 1947 in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and Rossby’s theories appeared in the same volume under his own name.
The high honor awarded Rossby was that they named the planetary waves that form in the Circumpolar Vortex after him. Rossby would appreciate this especially because of his views.
His accomplishments, which were mostly in the field of theoretical meteorology, were in part made possible by what he liked to call the heuristic approach, that approach which is concerned with finding a useful answer without the impediments of all of the small-scale effects. As practice has shown, especially in such efforts as machine forecasting, the neglect of certain factors has led to greater accuracy than is attainable when these factors are taken into consideration.
Two general patterns of Rossby Waves develop. The first is Zonal Flow (Figure 5) typified by low amplitude Waves that create a general northwest/southwest wind flow, with low amplitude variations in temperature and precipitation.
Figure 5: Zonal Flow
Figure 6 shows the second pattern known as Meridional Flow.
Figure 6: Meridional Flow
It is not hard to see that conditions in the middle latitudes from 30 to 65° of latitude and sometimes beyond are markedly different. Meridional Flow sees high amplitude Waves that create predominantly north/south winds, greater extremes of temperature as polar air pushes well south and subtropical air well north, and greater extremes of precipitation. The interesting phenomenon not fully understood is what meteorologists call ‘blocking.’ For some reason, under extreme Meridional conditions, the Rossby Waves that normally migrate from west to east stall. This leads to prolonged periods of whatever condition a region is experiencing and people become uneasy.
The historical record shows the length of time a predominantly Zonal or Meridional Flow persists, varies considerably. For example, weather patterns in the 14th century were predominantly Meridional for most of the century. It got so summers and winters, as reported by diaries throughout Europe, were almost indistinguishable. Crops failed, people were malnourished, but insects and diseases survived the winter causing extensive outbreaks of plagues in vulnerable people. We saw similar conditions in the 17th century as harvest failures and plagues struck again. Indeed, one winter was so mild that diarist Samuel Pepys reported that King Charles ordered a day of prayer for colder conditions. It didn’t help because the plague hit London in 1665.
Notice that both these periods are transitional with the onset of colder world temperatures. That is what is happening today because if Santer and the media were reporting everything, they would note the cooling that began at the end of the 1990s, and the record cold temperatures set worldwide including a new satellite low for Antarctica. In June, 2018, a new low was recorded of approximately -144°F and reported in the academic journal Geophysical Research Letters by team leader Ted Scambos. The trouble is, as long as Santer et al., keep reporting selective ‘heartbeats’ and the political activists push their political agenda and the media amplify their grossly distorted ill-informed stories, the deceptions about climate and the lack of accountability for those who spread the false climate stories will continue. Fortunately, it appears that in Santer’s case at least, the old French saying, “Plus l’arbre monte, plus on voit de son âne” is in play here.