Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian‘s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the “Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to “adjust” recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.
In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.
What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the “hockey stick”, he excoriated the way in which this same “tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to “peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.
The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age. Ref.: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
Over 7 years later we’re still trying to end this swindle.
As a factor in Global Warming, increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 have been, and will continue to be, largely irrelevant.
Guest essay submitted by William Van Brunt
The following are the basic principles and assumptions underlying the calculations set out in this paper:
1. The heating provided by CO2 is radiant heating and for purposes of this paper, when calculating the increase in heating that is a result of the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere the only source of any increase in heating in these calculations is CO2 and the Water Vapor Feedback Effect it creates.
2. In order to maintain a given temperature, the power of the radiant heating absorbed by the Earth’s surface must at least equal the power of the thermal radiation emitted by the surface.
3.The total heating power, ΔF, required to drive a given increase in the temperature of the surface of Land can be determined as,
ΔF = [(TLo + ΔTL) / TLo)4 – 1] × RULo / Eff
Where: TLo is the initial average temperature of Land
ΔTL is the change in the average surface temperature of Land,
RULo is the initial Up Radiation at TLo
Eff is the percentage of an increase in Total Heating that heats the Earth’s Land surface.
The increase in heating power, ΔRadCO2, caused solely by an increase in the concentration of CO2 from the initial concentration, C0 to C, in ppmv, is determined by this formula –
ΔRadCO2 = 5.35 × ln (C / C0) (w/m2),
which means that there is but one result for ΔRadCO2 for a given change in concentration.
4. The increase in heating from the Water Vapor Feedback Effect provided by an increase in average temperature, ΔTCO2, resulting solely from the increase in heating from a buildup in CO2 is determined by this formula:
ΔWV = 1.6 ×ΔTCO2 (w/m2)
5. The Maximum increase in heating power received at the surface cannot exceed the sum of the results of the calculations set out in statements 4 & 5.
6. The Maximum average increase in Land temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, ΔTLresulting from of the calculations set out in statements 4 & 5 of ΔRadCO2 and ΔWV is determined by this formula as –
ΔTL = TLo × [(1 + Eff × (ΔWV + ΔF) / NHLo)1/4– 1]
NHLo is the initial Net Heating of the Land surface in watts per square meter.
7. One cannot determine the increase in Average Global Temperature based upon a change in heating because the surface temperature change response of Land and the Oceans to an increase in heating is significantly different. However, it is possible to determine the increase in Average Global Land Temperature based upon a change in heating and then estimate the change in Average Global Temperature.
8. The Maximum increase in average temperature cannot exceed the increase in temperature caused by the result of the calculations set out in statement 6.
The following are the results of the applications of these principles:
A. The change in the Average Global Temperature for Land between 1880 and 2002 was 2.6oF. To effect such an increase requires an increase of 13.8 w/m2 in total Average Heating Power. The Maximum total increase in total Average Heating Power that the buildup of CO2 over this period could have effected is 1.6 w/m2 and the Maximum increase in the Average Global Temperature for Land that the buildup of CO2 over this period could drive cannot exceed 0.3 oF.
B. CO2 is not THE cause nor is it the primary cause of Global Warming
C. The Maximum increase in Average Global Temperature that a doubling of the concentration of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppmv can effect is 0.8oF. The IPCC’s predictions of 3.4oF to 7.9oF are 325% to 900% too high and this would require an increase in heating of 800% to 900% greater than that determined in accordance with the calculation set out in statement 3 above.
D. The IPCC is simply wrong.
I have no direct, or indirect, links or ties to any business or investment that has any interest, whatsoever, in this matter. I have neither sought, been offered or received any funding, benefit or any form of consideration or promises to prepare this work – none. This has all been an independent pursuit of truth.
At the time, of the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to former Vice President Albert Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) which was accepted on behalf of the IPCC by Dr. Pachauri, then Chair of the IPCC, I was honored to accept an invitation from a colleague to attend a gathering to celebrate the granting of this award, in Oslo.
I should also note that my academic training is not in meteorology or climate studies but this is also true, not only for Al Gore, but Dr. Pachauri as well. And, unlike both, for several years I was part of a team of scientists designing vehicles for the vacuum of space and calculating the extreme rates of heating to which they are exposed as they slammed into the atmosphere of Earth or Venus. In the case of the probes into the planet Venus this work took into account radiative heating.
In terms of absorbing and emitting radiative heat, our planet is just another object in space, with sufficient mass to maintain an atmosphere that contains a small percentage of gases that both absorb and reradiate infrared (IR) radiation, the Greenhouse Gases (GHG).
With a basic grasp of physics, radiative heating and thermodynamic principles, a determination of the Maximum increase in the Average Global Temperature (the Upper Bound) that a buildup in the concentration of CO2 can effect is possible. Otherwise, the only option is to rely on the purported “experts” which I did for a couple of decades.
I sat there the night of this celebration listening to the speakers with the belief that Global Warming had occurred and hoping that at this celebration there would be an explanation as to why there was this exclusive focus on an atmospheric increase of ~ one part per million per year or one part per ten thousand over a century, of CO2, the effect of which is merely logarithmically proportional to increases in concentration over 290 ppmv, (at this level, a 10% increase in concentration results in a 1.7% increase in heating power) and on a molecule-for-molecule is less effective as a Greenhouse Gas than the primary Greenhouse Gas, Water Vapor, which, on average, is present in the atmosphere at levels, and varies by factors, that are an order of magnitude greater than that of CO2 and, …..what this had to do with peace?
There was no presentation that demonstrated how an inconsequential change in such a minor component of the atmosphere could be responsible for Global Warming. Instead, what I heard were assumption based conclusions, summaries of the results of unexplained computer models, political speak and predictions of a parade of horribles, which may or may not be realistic, but could be the result of warming, irrespective of the cause.
That night, as the advocates for this belief played on our fears of Global Warming including a totally irrelevant and nonsensical analogy to horrible conditions on planet Venus, something I knew a little about, at the same time they appeared to be seeking to impute an unquestioning sense of guilt for all of Humankind stemming from having so benefitted from the massive consumption of fossil fuels along with a need to make amends by paying whatever it takes to stem the tide of Carbon buildup and minimize the effects of various potential doomsday scenarios, (reminded me of some preachers, “Atone for your sins or suffer hellfire and brimstone for eternity.”). For the first time, I began to wonder, based on the lack of scientific proof offered at a celebration of a Nobel Prize on the work of the role of CO2 in Global Warming, whether, and if so, why, the world was being taken in, misdirected into thinking that CO2 was THE or the primary cause of Global Warming.
Since then, my question – why the exclusive focus on such an inconsequential component of the atmosphere – went unanswered. Having read many justifications from those who make claims that Global Warming was/is caused solely by increases in the concentration of CO2. They basically boil down to:
1. Correlations of temperature increases with increases in the concentration of CO2;
2. Formulations/approximations that do not comply with the basic laws of physics, ignore the actual effects of heating and, at times, either alone or together with a theoretical, inflated and incorrect Water Vapor Feedback Effect formulation, substantially overstate the increases in temperature that the buildup in the concentration of CO2 can effect; and,
3. Determining that CO2 must be THE cause, because, if one does not include subsequent increases in the concentration of CO2 since the 1800s in the climate change computer models, these models do not show global warming, Lindzen (2007), but only do when subsequent increases in the concentration of CO2 are included (and then they overstate the increase in temperature, suggesting they are premised on the above formulations) which, of course, assumes that these models are correct; they are not; See Gray (2012);
concluding, therefore, that Global Warming has been driven by the buildup of CO2 since the advent of industrialization.
These responses are all based upon the assumption that the buildup of CO2, alone was responsible for Global Warming.
When it comes to CO2, I wondered, rather than make assumptions, why not simply calculate the Maximum incremental heating that an increase in the concentration of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide can provide and the resulting MAXIMUM temperature increase? It is not difficult.
The average temperature of the surface cannot exceed the MAXIMUM average temperature that the Net Heating can effect. Therefore, if one knows the additional net-heating that a buildup in CO2 can cause, including the Water Vapor Feedback Effect, one can calculate the theoretical MAXIMUM increase in the Average Global Land temperature that the buildup in the concentration of CO2, alone, can effect.
While I could find many papers that calculated the increase in heating, radiative forcing, that increases in the concentration of CO2 could drive and then draw conclusions about the relationship to net surface temperatures based on the assumption that these temperature changes were caused by increases in the concentration of CO2, I could find very few analyses that went beyond the calculation of incremental heating.
There were only a few that purported to explain how to calculate the increase in the Average Global Temperature resulting from increases in the concentration of CO2. Of these there were only a few that calculated the historical increase and then only at the conclusion of the time period in question. (e.g. “Between 1880 and 2002 the temperature increase caused by the prior buildup of CO2 was equal to X.”) I found no studies for the changes in the temperature of Land caused by CO2, which for the reasons set out below, enables the most straightforward comparison.
My back of the envelope calculations for the heating power required from increases in the concentration of CO2 to effect the actual temperature increases over time called all of the IPCC’s conclusions about the role played by CO2 in Global Warming, into question. Therefore, I looked into this issue in greater detail, which resulted in this paper, in which, will calculate the MAXIMUM (not the precise) increase in average temperature that the buildup of CO2 can effect.
How to Calculate the Power and Maximum Temperature Increase Caused by an Increase in the Concentration of CO2
The Earth constantly emits thermal infrared radiation (IR) which I will term “Up Radiation”, RU.
The sole source of heating of the Earth’s surface is the net radiant heating absorbed from the Sun and the “Back Radiation” from GHG, the Net Heating.
If the average surface temperature is constant for a period of time, this means that the average power per square meter of the Net Heating, NH, is at least equal to the power per square meter of the average Up Radiation. Therefore,
Net Heating, NH = RU
Comparing Land to Ocean, the temperature of the surface of Land is far more responsive to the same changes in Net Heating. See Figure 1, below.
Figure 1. Average, Ocean and Land Temperature Anomalies (NOAA 2010)
Due to the percentage that goes into subsurface heating as a result of the thermal diffusivity of the Oceans, the surface temperature of the Oceans is not as responsive to the same radiant heating as Land.
Thus, changes in Average Global Land Temperature is a far better gauge of the changes in Net Heating than changes in the Average Global Ocean Surface Temperature or Average Global Temperatures (Land & Ocean, above), which includes the Oceans comprising 70.57% of the Earth’s surface. Therefore, I will use changes in Land temperature as a gauge.
The Up Radiation per square meter of the Land surface, RUL is equal to εσTL4 (Luciuk) where, ε is emissivity, a dimensionless constant between 0 and 1 that determines the efficiency of a body to radiate and absorb energy, which in this paper, for the surface of Land is assumed to be 1; σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 5.40×10-9 w/m2 T-4 and TL is the Global Average Land temperature in degrees Rankine.
RUL = εσTL4
At a constant average surface temperature, Net Heating, NHL = RUL, and, initially, NHLo = RULo
To maintain a given temperature, the Net Heating, NHL must equal the Up Radiation
NHL = RUL = εσTL4
NHLN / NHLo = NHLN / RuLo = εσTLN4 / εσTLo4 = TLN4 / TLo4
TLN = TLo + ΔTL
NHLN = NHLo + ΔNHL
The increase in Net Heating power, ΔNHL, required to support this increase in temperature is,
ΔNHL = RULo × [(TLo + ΔTL) / TLo)4 – 1]
Where ΔTL is the change in the average surface temperature of Land, and
RULo is the initial Up Radiation at TLo
The minimum change in Total Heating power, ΔF, required to drive a given increase in the temperature of the surface of Land can be determined as, ΔNHL / Eff
ΔF = ΔNHL / Eff = [(TLo + ΔTL) / TLo)4 – 1] × RULo / Eff
So for an increase of 2.6o from an initial temperature of 507.9oR and an initial Up Radiation of 360 w/m2, for this change in temperature, the minimum change in Total Heating, ΔF, required to effect this is,
ΔF = [(507.9 + 2.6) / 507.9)4 – 1] × 360 / 0.55 = 9.5 w/m2
If there is a change in Net Heating, ΔNHL
This will result in a change in temperature, ΔT and the new temperature, TLN
TLN = TLo + ΔTL
The new Up Radiation, RULN, is equal to the initial Up Radiation, RULo plus the change in Up Radiation, ΔRuL.
RULN = RULo + ΔRuL
and, as noted above, where NHn is the New Net Heating,
RULN = NHn
NHn is equal to the initial Net Heating, NHo, plus the change in Net Heating, ΔNHL. Therefore,
RULN = NHn = NHo + ΔNHL = RULo + ΔRuL
Since, NHLo= RULo
∴ ΔNHL = ΔRuL
Further, given that
RULN = εσTLN4
Therefore, the ratio RULN / RULo
RULN / RULo = εσTLN4/ εσTLo4 = TLN4/TLo4
Since, RULN = RULo + ΔRuL
This ratio can then be written as,
(RULo + ΔRuL) / RULo = TLN4/TLo4
Given that ΔRuL = ΔNHL, then,
(RULo + ΔNHL) / RULo = TLN4/TLo4
And given that TLN = TLo + ΔTL, then,
(TLo + ΔT)4 /TLo4 = (RULo + ΔNHL) / RULo
Taking the fourth root of each side
(TLo + ΔTL)/TLo = [(RULo + ΔNHL) / RULo]1/4
Then solving for ΔTL
ΔTL = TLo × [(RULo + ΔNHL) / RULo]1/4– TLo
ΔTL = TLo × [(RULo + ΔNHL) / RULo)1/4– 1]
The next step is to determine the increase in Net Heating as a result of an increase in the concentration of CO2.
The IR frequency band within which atmospheric CO2 can absorb IR radiation is nearly saturated, meaning that, today, the pre-existing concentration of CO2 effectively absorbs almost all of the Up IR Radiation that fall within this narrow band. In addition, this band overlaps with absorption band for Water Vapor. The consequence, there is very little IR radiation remaining that falls within this band that added CO2 can absorb. Therefore, the absorption within this band is not directly proportional to increases in the concentration of CO2.
The effect of this IR band saturation can be accurately modeled on the University of Chicago’s Modtran computer model, climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html, for simulating the absorption and emission of infrared radiation in the atmosphere, including the effect of variations in the concentration of CO2. This computer model was first developed for the U.S. Air Force and has been verified by satellite measurements. It is a very accurate way of determining the effects of band saturation on the ability of changes in the concentration of CO2 to change IR Back Radiation. However, this model is both change in concentration and geographically specific. In order to gauge the heating effect of changes in the concentration of CO2, each change in the concentration requires a separate computer run.
Instead, in this paper, the increase in heating from an increase in the concentration of CO2 in watts per square meter, ΔRadCO2, is calculated, in accordance with the IPCC’s formula as:
where, C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume at the later date, ppmv and, C0 is the concentration at the date from which the change is being measured, in ppmv,
not because it is correct (it overstates the heating power from the increase in concentration) but because it is the only consensus model I have found and will clearly result in the calculation of the MAXIMUM temperature increase a buildup of CO2 can cause.
Knowing that the increase in heating from the buildup of CO2, alone, ΔNHLCO2 is equal to the percentage of ΔRadCO2 that goes into heating the Land, Eff, and substituting Eff × ΔRadCO2 for ΔNHLCO2, the change in temperature caused solely by an increase in heating from the buildup in the concentration of CO2, can be expressed as,
ΔTLCO2 = TLo × [(RULo + Eff × ΔRadCO2) / RULo)1/4– 1]
ΔTLCO2 = TLo × [(1 + Eff × ΔRadCO2 / RULo)1/4– 1]
Set out in Table 1, below, are my estimates of the key components of the Earth’s energy budget in 1880 and 2002 for Land.
Read the rest of the article on WUWT
That’s not all, it actually gets worse ..
“I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 (-46 C.) to 320 K. (+53 C) Not at all.”
No, that is not all either ..
Temperature in the atmosphere is provided by how much energy (heat) is radiated from our only energy source, the sun. Mass/gravity/pressure dictate how slowly the atmosphere cools. Water vapor, convection, cloud cower, albedo etc. are among the strongest forces to influence the temperature. None of these processes are producing more heat, they all actually help speed up the cooling process, or, like clouds and albedo, prevent the surface from being heated in the first place. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is plant food, full stop!
Climate Scientist Murry Salby Returns! – Presents NEW SCIENCE
Author of the seminal book on climate; “Physics of the Atmosphere & Climate” Professor Murry Salby is without doubt one of the best Climate Scientists on the planet.
In a lecture in London on the 17th March, 2015, he reveals new work which shows that;
1) The climate sensitivity is below 0.2c – confirmed by 3 independent methods.
2) Most of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic.
3) CO2 movements and concentrations are largely determined by nature, not man; consequently, any cuts we make to our CO2 emissions will not have the desired effect, and are a costly waste of time.
4) CO2, whether man-made or not, does not ‘drive’ the climate system.
Professor Murry Salby has been vilified by enviro-alarmists and the left for his scientific results. Salby was disenfranchised and exiled from academia in Australia for daring to speak such “sacrilege.”
In a case similar to many others we have seen in Australia, and across the west, he was the subject of University hate and was finally sacked while he was on a lecture tour in Europe; his employer, Macquarie University of NSW, sacking him from his position as Professor of Climate Science. The University board cancelled his return ticket home, stranding him in Paris. All Salby’s work was confiscated and has still not been returned to him.
The pursuit of genuine Science in the field of climate – and free speech are Dead in most Western Universities:
Other cases where top scientists were vilified and sacked or demoted by a University for the results of their science or for their views on the climate include;
Bob Carter, Murry Salby Lennart Bengtsson, David Legates, George Taylor, Caleb Rossiter, Bjorn Lomborg, Henk Tennekes, Askel Winn-Nielsen, Alfonso Sutera, Anonio Speranza and scores of others.