Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader on NASA’s Aqua satellite, believes natural cycles account for most of last century’s warming, with carbon dioxide increases contributing only a modest amount. He also unveiled new research, which has been submitted to Geophysical Research Letters for publication, which appears to show that climate models overstate the positive feedback from more carbon dioxide, and therefore grossly overstate the projected warming during the next century. Spencer says his work suggests the Earth will warm by about 1 degree Fahrenheit or less during the next century, not the 4 to 8 degrees projected by the IPCC process. Careful readers will spot some of the questions suggested by readers.

Q: The IPCC estimates there’s a 5 to 10 percent chance they’re wrong about mankind’s impact on global temperatures—
A:  Any statements of probability are meaningless and misleading. I think the IPCC made a big mistake. They’re pandering to the public not understanding probabilities. When they say 90 percent they make it sound like they’ve come up with some kind of objective, independent, quantitative way of estimating probabilities related to this stuff. It isn’t. All it is is a statement of faith. Sorry for the rant.

Q: That’s OK. But wasn’t it part of their mandate to put probabilities on global warming?
A: I think they do need to have statements that will convey their confidence. But I think using numbers is misleading because it makes it sound more accurate than it is.

Q:  Do you ever try to get your research published in Science and Nature?
A:  Not anymore. Their editorial policy basically won’t permit stuff like this. If they don’t find an excuse to object outright, all it takes is them sending it to a reviewer like Kevin Trenberth who will say “This is garbage,” and come up with some obscure, non-reason why. And then they don’t have to deal with it. So I don’t deal with them any more.

Q: If you and other global warming skeptics are right, and the IPCC is wrong, why do so many scientists feel so strongly about climate change?
A:  Most scientists don’t understand the big picture, and they are willing to defer to the climate modelers. The climate modelers are willing to put all of the different pieces together into the climate model. And then the climate model is supposed to magically give you the answer. I’ll bet a lot of the scientists are skeptical, but they won’t admit it publicly. If you talk to most of the scientists who are ardent about the issue, they have a political or ideological worldview that says mankind needs to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere. It’s a religious belief and it’s widespread in the scientific community.

Q: So how did scientists like James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth and others gain ascendancy in the scientific community and become spokesmen for the issue, when not all scientists support their views?
A: By making bold statements. And what kind of statements get reported on in the media?

Q What’s it like being a skeptic in this field, in the year 2008?
A: Well, as I get older I have less and less energy. So this debate helps keep me awake. This wouldn’t be important if it weren’t for the policy implications. The direction we’re going on policy is going to kill millions of people for no good reason. As it is environmentalists have already killed millions of people for no good reason, with the DDT ban. Read more here.

Note from Marc Morano: While it is nice that Houston Chronicle reporter Eric Berger gave Spencer a forum, he did baselessly editorialize with this snarky comment: “Roy Spencer, one of a relatively small number legitimate climate skeptics…” Oh really Mr. Berger? How are you qualified to make this pronouncement? What is your criteria? Berger ignores the hundreds of scientists who have spoken out in last two years (See Senate report of 500 plus and growing dissenters) including Nobel prize winners and former UN IPCC scientists. (See ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008). Berger’s email is: eric.berger@chron.com

A new study on preindustrial CO2 from stomata proxis confirms my findings on pre-Keeling CO2: variation!  A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing by Thomas B. van Hoof, Friederike Wagner-Cremer, Wolfram M. Kurschner, and Henk Visscher, PNAS September 30, 2008.

Abstract

Complementary to measurements in Antarctic ice cores, stomatal frequency analysis of leaves of land plants preserved in peat and lake deposits can provide a proxy record of preindustrial atmospheric CO2 concentration. CO2 trends based on leaf remains of /Quercus robur/(English oak) from the Netherlands support the presence of significant CO2 variability during the first half of the last millennium. The amplitude of the reconstructed multidecadal fluctuations, up to 34 parts per million by volume, considerably exceeds maximum shifts measured in Antarctic ice. Inferred changes in CO2 radiative forcing are of a magnitude similar to variations ascribed to other mechanisms, particularly solar irradiance and volcanic activity, and may therefore call into question the concept of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which assumes an insignificant role of CO2 as a preindustrial climate-forcing factor. The stomata-based CO2 trends correlate with coeval sea-surface temperature trends in the North Atlantic Ocean, suggesting the possibility of an oceanic source/sink mechanism for the recorded CO2 changes.

See larger image here

See more here. New findings indicate a natural climate cycle occurring approximately every 65 years (50-80 y). Modern state of the oceans is similar to the oceans during the 30s in the 20th century. During the strong arctic warming since 1918 the oceanic currents had brought warmer water to the CO2 absorption areas near Greenland-Iceland-Spitsbergen than at the end of the 19th century. High salinity, pH and other characteristics inclusive a spread of phytoplankton had been measured during this warm period in the northern Atlantic ocean as we see today with its special 13C signature. These ocean currents were responsible for warmer climates in the northern continents at that times and colder climates in their cold phases (around 1900 and 1965).

The strong heating of the CO2 absorption areas, which occurs in a multi-decadal cycle (approx. 1780, 1850, 1935, 2000, evidence for the last two cycles) prevents a stronger CO2 absorption by the arctic oceans and thereby enriches the atmosphere with more CO2 than in the colder phase of the cycle. These cold and warm phases of the ocean current cycle correlates with a cycling of the geomagnetic index (SSC) and solar activities (Gleissberg cycle), a function of the chaotic, non-linear solar dynamo.

See larger image here

See also this detailed report by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski.

Review: Lohmann, G., Haak, H. and Jungclaus, J.H. 2008. Estimating trends of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation from long-term hydrographic data and model simulations. Ocean Dynamics 58: 127-138.

“Since scenarios for future climate change,” in the words of the authors, “indicate a significant reduction of the MOC [Meridional Overturning Circulation] under global warming,” they state that “an assessment of variations and trends of the real MOC is important,” which is what they thus proceed to provide for the Atlantic MOC over the past hundred years.

What was done: Lohmann et al. first “show that temperature trends at mid-latitudes provide [a] useful indirect measure of large-scale changes of deep circulation,” where “a mid-depth warming is related to MOC weakening and a cooling to MOC strengthening,” for which purpose they employ model simulations provided by the ECHAM5/MPI-OM climate model. Then they use actual temperature observations made at ocean weather ship (OWS) stations and along various oceanic sections to determine Atlantic MOC trends over the past century.

What was learned: The three German researchers report that “the temperature indicators suggest no MOC trend for the past 100 years using the existing long-term observations from the OWS.” In addition, they say that “Lohmann et al. (2004) used high-resolution data from [the] Cariaco Basin (64.67W, 10.5N; Black et al., 1999), covering the last 800 years, in order to trace variations in [the] MOC,” and they say that these proxy records also show “no pronounced trend.”

What it means:  Over the period of time (the last century) during which climate alarmists say the earth experienced a warming that was unprecedented over the past one to two millennia, there appears to have been essentially no net change in the magnitude of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. This real-world observation does not bode well for the climate-alarmist claim that such extreme warming should produce a significant downturn in the strength of this phenomenon or for their claim that the warming of the past century or so is truly as unprecedented as they contend. See full review here.

Are you aware that while carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase at a steady rate, global temperatures as measured by both satellites and land/sea stations have remained flat since 1998? That’s over nine years with no measurable increase in temperature. More recent trends are showing a significant cooling is beginning, reports Dennis Avery.

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley UK, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, University of Alabama Huntsville, and Remote Sensing Systems Santa Rosa) have released updated information showing that in 2007, global cooling ranged from 0.65C to 0.75C, a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one years time. From all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down, observes Marc Morano.

Have your heard about this? I doubt it. If the temperature had gone up instead of down, you can bet your last dollar it would have made the evening news and front pages of newspapers. Since global warming is such a ‘hot’ topic (pun intended), the media is not going to let some cooling get in the way.

Computer models of climate are now predicting that there will be no change in global temperature over the next ten years. In some cases, these predictions say no significant warming until 2030. Take your pick. If these models are so great, how did they miss this ‘time-out from global warming period’? This from models that predicted a 25 foot increase in sea level in 1980, then changed the prediction to 3 feet in 1985 and then to 1 foot by 1995. A predicted drop change from 25 to 3 to 1 foot in 15 years!

Science writer James Trefil notes. “A comparison of nearly all of the most sophisticated climate models with actual measurements of current climate conditions found the models in error by about 100 percent in cloud cover, 50 percent in precipitation, and 30 percent in temperature change. Even the best models give temperature change results differing from each other by a factor of two or more.” So, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised about a glitch or two along the way.

One last glitch - It’s recently been reported by NASA that 70% of the global warming of the last century (and cooling in the last decade) is due to the Pacific Ocean Oscillations, not carbon dioxide. Could this mean that no matter how much we change our carbon dioxide footprint, we cannot save the planet from its natural cycles? Lots of glitches, or as some folks might say, myth busters. Read more here.

The debate continues over what the effect of known changes in the Sun’s activity have on the Earth. As the primary source of heat and light and energy, it sustains life on the planet, and variations in its output can be expected to influence climate in significant ways. A common example of this is the 11- and 22-year cycles of sunspot activity, during which the number of dark visible spots on the Sun’s surface varies between maximum and minimum values (which are different for each cycle). Higher numbers of sunspots are evidence of a more active Sun.
Economists have recognised for many years (from at least Adam Smith’s time) that there is a link between sunspot activity and crop yields, having seen that wheat prices rose at times of low activity (the quiet Sun). And when there are a number of years of low activity, the effect on weather patterns can be very significant significant. The best known example of this is the so-called Maunder minimum. From 1645 to about 1715, very few sunspots appeared (only about 0.1% of the normally expected number). This lack of solar activity coincided with the Little Ice Age, when there are well-documented accounts of cool summers and bitterly cold winters afflicting the northern hemisphere.

For some time, it has been clear that the Sun has moved from being highly active in the later part of last century to a current quiet period. The current sunspot cycle (24, marked by a reversal of the magnetic field) has started much later than usual and, by some reckoning may not even have started at all. Certainly, there have been only occasional small spots for an extended period. This coincides with a report from scientists responsible for the Ulysses satellite that the solar wind - the stream of charged particles which extends for billions of kilometres to form the heliosphere - is weaker than it has been for 50 years. Confirmation of this comes from the Voyager probes, launched in the 1970s, and now moving beyond the heliosphere into interstellar space earlier than was originally expected.

Whether this cyclical change in the Sun’s behaviour is behind the current climate pattern - an apparent halt to any global warming trend after the peak average temperatures of 1998 - is a moot question, but certainly cannot be ruled out. The jetstream has stayed further south than normal, leading to two miserable summers in northern Europe, and such alterations in wind patterns seem also to be at least a contributory factor (and perhaps even the primary driver) of the changing patterns of summer ice loss in the Arctic, including irregular opening of the North-West passage.

But perhaps the most intriguing prospect is to be able to observe the effect a quiet Sun has on cloud formation. Svensmark and others have hypothesised that a weakening of the solar wind allows more high-energy cosmic rays to enter the Earth’s atmosphere and that these create a greater number of nuclei around which clouds can form. Put simply, if the Sun is quiet, cloud cover will on average be greater and average temperatures will be lower. The credibility of this is due to be tested at CERN in the CLOUD experiment, but real-life observations may already have provided much of the evidence by the time the results are in. Many mainstream scientists dismiss the Sun as the major driver of climate, whether directly via radiance changes or indirectly by a mechanism such as that proposed by Svensmark. But all professional scientists, whatever their current views, should look forward eagerly to the collection of climate data as the Sun continues through its quiet period, however long that may be. The scientific method relies on careful and systematic gathering of evidence to try to falsify hypotheses. No true scientist should ignore the observations of solar activity and weather patterns over the next few years. Read more here.

An extraordinary series of postings at www.climateaudit.org, the deservedly well trafficked website of the courageous and tenacious Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cynicism that is rife among the alarmist climate scientists favored by the UN’s discredited climate panel, the IPCC. In laymen’s language, the present paper respectfully summarizes Dr. McIntyre’s account of the systematically dishonest manner in which the “hockey-stick” graph falsely showing that today’s temperatures are warmer than those that prevailed during the medieval climate optimum was fabricated in 1998/9, adopted as the poster-child of climate panic by the IPCC in its 2001 climate assessment, and then retained in its 2007 assessment report despite having been demolished in the scientific literature.

It is a long tale, but well worth following. No one who reads it will ever again trust the IPCC or the “scientists” and environmental extremists who author its climate assessments. The continuing affair of the “hockey-stick” graph is a microcosm of the profound collapse of the rigor, objectivity, and honesty that were once hallmarks of the scientific community. The need to look to the State for very nearly all science funding has inflicted upon the scientific ommunity a dull, dishonest uniformity, so that the deliberate falsification of results to support the current official orthodoxy has become commonplace, particularly where the climate question is concerned. It was bad enough that one of those behind the “hockey stick” affair should have told a fellow researcher, “We need to get rid of the medieval warm period.”

It was worse that the authors of the bogus graph attempted to do just that, by ignoring, undervaluing or even suppressing proxies for northern-hemisphere temperature that did not suit the result they wanted; by falsely stating that they had used data they had in fact replaced with “estimates” of their own that gave them a less inconvenient answer; by overvaluing by many orders of magnitude the contribution of datasets that suited the result they wanted. It was worse still that the IPCC, several leading journals and numerous former co-authors of the three fabricators of the hockey stick should have continued to cling to it as though it were Gospel even though it has been justifiably and utterly discredited in the scientific literature, and should have gone through an elaborate pantomime of rewriting and publishing previously-rejected papers with the connivance of a dishonest journal editor, so that an entirely fictitious scientific support for the false graph could be falsely claimed by the IPCC in its current Fourth Assessment Report.No serious scientist, therefore, can any longer take any of the IPCC’s conclusions seriously for a single moment longer.

Are today’s global temperatures exceptional? No. Have the past ten thousand years been generally warmer than the present? Yes: much warmer. Is there, therefore, the slightest reason for the childish panic that the environmental extremist movement and its servant the IPCC have attempted to whip up?
No. Should any government devote a single further penny to the climate scare? No. Even if humankind is contributing significantly to warmer weather (which is highly unlikely), adaptation to warmer weather as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper than the measures to reduce carbon
emissions that the world’s extremist politicians are now so eagerly but purposelessly advocating.

The real cost of the flagrant abuses of the scientific method surrounding the question of climate that are so well illustrated by the affair of the “hockey stick” is a terrible, unseen cost in human lives. The biofuel scam that arose directly out of the climate scare has taken one-third of US agricultural land out of food production in just two years. Similar economic disasters have occurred worldwide, not because of “global warming” but because of the catastrophically bad policy-making that the “global warming” scare has engendered among politicians too ignorant of science and too lazy to do other than swim with the rising tide of pseudo-scientific nonsense. Read this very detailed and excellent summary by Lord Monckton of Steve McIntyre’s findings here.

The IPCC encourages us to believe that about 2500 climate scientists supported the claim of a significant human influence on climate. It fails to clarify that the claim was made in chapter nine of the working group one contribution and that the contributions of working groups two and three were based on the assumption that the claim was correct.

The first eight chapters of the WG1 contribution were mainly concerned with climatic observations and the authors expressed no opinion about the claim made in chapter nine, and chapters 10 and 11 assumed the claim to be correct. The entire IPCC thesis therefore stands or falls on the claims of just one chapter.

We are also led to believe that chapter nine was widely supported by hundreds of reviewers, but just 62 IPCC reviewers commented on its penultimate draft. Only five of those reviewers endorsed it but four of the five appear to have vested interests and the other made just one comment for the entire 11-chapter WG1 contribution. As is the normal IPCC practice, chapter nine has co-ordinating lead authors, who are responsible for the chapter as a whole; lead authors, who are responsible for sections of the chapter; and contributing authors, who provide their thoughts to the lead authors but take no active part in the writing.

The IPCC procedures state that the authors at each level should reflect a wide range of views, but this is not true of chapter nine. The expansion of the full list of authors of each paper cited by this chapter reveals that 37 of 53 chapter authors form a network of people who have previously co-authored scientific papers with each other: or make that 38 if we include a review editor. The two co-ordinating lead authors are members of this network. So are five of the seven lead authors. Thirty of 44 contributing authors are in the network and two other pairs of contributing authors have likewise co-authored scientific papers.

In other words, the supposedly 53 independent voices are in fact one dominant voice with 37 people behind it, two voices each with two people behind them, and perhaps 12 single voices. A closer check reveals that many of those 12 were academic or work colleagues of members of that larger network. One lead author was from the University of Michigan, as were three contributing authors, two of whom were not members of the network. Another lead author was associated with Britain’s Hadley Centre, along with eight contributing authors, one of whom was not included in that network of co-authors.

All up, the 53 authors of this chapter came from just 31 establishments and there are worrying indications that certain lead authors were the superiors of contributing authors from the same organisation. The very few viewpoints in this chapter might be alleviated if it drew on a wide range of references, but among the co-authors of 40 per cent of the cited material are at least one chapter author. Scientists associated with the development and use of climate models dominate the clique of chapter nine authors and by extension the views expressed in that chapter.

The IPCC has misled us into believing the primary claims were widely endorsed by authors and reviewers but in fact they received little support and came from a narrow self-interested coterie of climate modellers. Read more here.

The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that Penny Wong’s Green Paper on the Carbon Reduction Scheme had been overtaken by scientific and political developments and was now almost legless. The Chairman of “Carbon Sense” Mr Viv Forbes said that of the three pillars of the government’s climate change policy, only one was sensible - “Adapting to Climate change that we cannot avoid”.

Politicians living in the Canberra hot house seem to think that controlling the climate is as simple as adjusting the thermostat in their air-conditioned offices. Man cannot control the weather and the only feasible climate policy is to make sure we have the brains, the freedom, the flexibility, the funds and the machinery to cope with whatever surprises the climate has in store for us. “Adapt or die” has been the guiding rule for every species since life began on this ever-changing earth.

The first pillar of the policy, “reducing greenhouse gas emissions” is based on flawed science and promoted by scare stories with no evidence to support them. The science shows clearly that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cannot be a significant driver of global warming. Moreover, records going back 10,000 years confirm that CO2 does not drive temperature. Thus any attempts to reduce carbon emissions will be “pain for no gain”.

The third pillar of government climate change policy aims to “shape a global solution”. This policy is also flawed and should be abandoned. India, China and Russia do not believe that CO2 drives global temperatures and will only join a global agreement if it costs them nothing or, even better, they get paid “carbon sin dispensation money” by silly western nations. Russia has already banked huge carbon credit receipts and other nations are hoping to jump on this gravy train.

Moreover, anyone with a sensitive political antenna can see that in places like Britain, Germany, Canada and the US, the rising costs of food and energy, and the Green destruction of jobs, are worrying electors far more than a mythical global warming bogey-man that never arrives. For more comment see: “The One Legged Stool” a response to the Green Paper on the federal government carbon reduction scheme: This talks about the science, temperature trends and history, IPCC guesses and forecasts, the future of corals, species extinctions, sea level changes, drought forecasts, tipping points, the benefits of warming, the benefits of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, loaves and fishes tricks, and our future in sackcloth and sandals.