climategate.tv
arrest the crimatologists
Miskolczi’s Death Knell on the Greenhouse Theory
Jul 18th
via TheHockeySchtick
July 18, 2010
Former NASA physicist Ferenc Miskolczi’s new peer-reviewed paper places a well-deserved death knell on the crumbling greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming, stating:
The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.
Miskolczi’s analysis of 61 years of data shows that there has been no change in the infrared “heat-trapping” ability of IR-active “greenhouse gases” over the period, in stark contrast to claims of the “greenhouse effect” that “heat-trapping” should increase in direct relation to the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere. Since the concentration of CO2 has steadily risen over the 61 year period, while the imaginary “heat-trapping” has not, the theory of anthropogenic global warming is empirically falsified.
From the paper’s CONCLUSIONS:
The greenhouse effect is here monitored without the superfluous complications of AOGCM climate models. The present method shows directly whether the global average infrared absorption properties of the atmosphere are changing or not. In general, if there has been global warming due to any cause, its possible correlation with infrared absorption properties of the atmosphere will be directly apparent from accurate observations assessed by calculations of the absorption properties. The present results show an apparent warming associated with no apparent change in the absorption properties. Change in absorption properties cannot have been the cause of the warming.
“Is Climate Really Predictable on 10-50 Year Time Scales?” by William R. Cotton
Jul 18th
via PielkeClimateSci
Roger Pielke Sr.
July 14, 2010
Bill Cotton , a Professor at the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (and a colleague of mine) has given a lecture
Cotton, W.R., 2010: Is Climate Really Predictable on 10-50 Year Time Scales? International Symposium on Prediction, San Diego, CA, July 2010.
The entire set of slides is worth viewing. Selected conclusions that he reports are
i) It is often claimed that climate is predictable because it is a boundary value problem(that is, only changes in external forcing is needed).
ii) But, we noted that deep ocean variability occurs on time scales of 100’s of years
iii) Thus initialization of deep ocean circulations is needed for forecasts on decadal time scales.
iv) This means that decadal climate prediction is both an initial value problem and boundary value problem
and
Considering the stochastic external forcing parameters(eg. volcanoes), uncertainties of solar variability forcing, and the tendency for strong model biases on time scales of 2-5 years let alone 10 to 50 years, I see no evidence that climate is predictable on these time-scales nor will it be for decades to come (a forecast!).
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano on July 12 ABC News ‘Twittercast’
Jul 14th
EyeBlast.tv
July 12, 2010
Debate between Marc Morano,, Executive Editor, Climate Depot and Daniel Weiss, Director for Climate Strategy, Center for American Progress:
Reopen Climategate hearings, says UK parliamentarian
Jul 13th
Lawrence Solomon
National Post
July 10, 2010
The UK Parliament was misled by East Anglia University when it conducted hearings into Climategate earlier this year, charges Graham Stringer, a scientist and prominent Labour Member of Parliament, inan article published yesterday in The Register, a UK science and technology journal.
Dr. Stringer, a member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, was reacting to the release this week of the Russell Report on Climategate, which he considers a betrayal of an understanding that the Select Committee had with East Anglia University, home of the Climategate scandal.
As the Official Hansards of the Select Committee show, MPs believed that they needn’t examine the science in great detail following [external link] assurances from East Anglia that its own independent inquiries would serve that purpose. “I am hoping, later this week, to announce the chair of a panel to reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong,” the Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Edward Acton, told the committee.
The first of the East Anglia inquiries, by Lord Oxburgh, did not do so and never intended to. As Oxburgh told Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit in an email, “The science was not the subject of our study.” Now that the Russell report is in, and it too underlines it never had any intention of examining the science, the snookering of the UK Select Committee is complete.
Dr. Stringer’s sense of betrayal is shared by the former chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, who in an [external link] interview with BBC on the Oxburgh report stated “Quite frankly, I couldn’t believe it. …There has been a slight of hand in that the actual terms of reference were not what we had been led to believe.” Other MPs feel as he does,
The call to reopen the Select Committee hearing arises because the Russell report failed to answer fundamental questions. Among these, Stringer told The Register: “Why did they delete emails? The key question was what reason they had for doing this, but this was never addressed; not getting to the central motivation was a major failing both of our report and Muir Russell.”
Although the Select Committee had stressed to East Anglia the importance of having open and independent inquiries, the hearings failed to oblige. The Russell inquiry, the last straw for Stringer, was held behind closed doors and heard only one side of the story. It failed to interview any scientist critical of the Climategate scientists; it failed to call witnesses who were the subjects of the emails, it failed to publish all the depositions, and its panellists could hardly be viewed as independent. One panellist, Geoffrey Boulton, was a climate change advisor to the UK and the EU; another, Richard Horton, had deemed global warming “the biggest threat to our future health.”
Monckton Rebuts Abraham’s Attack
Jul 13th
via WattsUpWithThat
July 12, 2010
I don’t have a dog in this fight, as this is between two people with opposing viewpoints, but I’m happy to pass on this rebuttal from Christopher Monckton, who writes:
Professor Abraham, who had widely circulated a serially mendacious 83-minute personal attack on me on the internet, has had a month to reply to my questions.
I now attach a) a press statement; b) a copy of the long letter in which I ask the Professor almost 500 questions about his unprovoked attack on me; and c) the full subsequent correspondence. I’d be most grateful if you would circulate all this material as widely as you can. The other side has had much fun at my expense: without you, I can’t get my side heard, so I’d be most grateful if you would publicize this material.
Links to both Abraham’s and Monckton’s presentations follow.
I’ll let readers be the judge.
Abraham: http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
(NOTE: He uses Adobe presenter – may not work on all browsers)
Monckton: monckton-warm-abra-qq2 (PDF)
Most recent comments