Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for Archibald

Comments matching the search Archibald:

There is no consensus

Is it Really That Hard at 20:04 PM on 11 April, 2018

Also, this article:

http://humanevents.com/2014/03/24/the-carbon-dioxide-level-is-dangerously-low/

David Archibald says "higher level of CO2 is better for all lifeforms on the Earth" - OK, well, can we trap him in a room that only has CO2 in it and see how much he benefits from it? I would love to watch that. For scientific purposes.
CO2 is a waste material for any species that requires cellular respiration - and, uh, there are heaps of species like this out there. Tell me you at least know this. In case you didn't pay attention in Biology classes in high school, the waste products of cellular respiration is H2O and CO2. That's why you have to breathe out and pee. Bottom line: humans, as well as many lifeforms that are not plants, do not benefit from high CO2 level. Who benefits from the waste products?

He says "lucky for us, the relationship between CO2 level and temperature is logarithmic, not arithmetic" - buddy, a logarithmic relationship increases faster than arithmetic. This is where you lost all credibility. You can't even tell the difference between the two and claim to know "science".

Lastly, our good old David is also a CEO of an oil company in Australia. You know why he keeps claiming there's no global warming? It's cos he's losing money if you believe the facts. Wake up.

Ben Santer on Seth Meyer’s Late Show – How Climate Deniers Lie

Tom Curtis at 06:51 AM on 16 March, 2017

Wake @2, following on from Mal Adapted's comment, here is the insolation at 65^o North in a more detailed scale:

The image is from WUWT, from a post in which David Archibald argues we are entering a new ice age. He, however, has prior form which indicates he does not know what he is talking about when it comes to temperature predictions, but the graph is accurate. As can be easily seen on that graph, summer insolation at 65^o North is near a minimum but still declining. Absent some other driver of climate, we would still be cooling. Instead we have soared to temperatures comparable to those at the Holocene Climate Optimum.

CO2 lags temperature

MA Rodger at 10:17 AM on 17 February, 2017

Tom Curtis @538,

The other point of note is how the graphic has slowly lost almost all the warming of recent decades as each denialist has manipulated the image.

In the 2006 Wehry version (this a different PDF version of the same thing) you display @538 (& we can but presume this is a faithful reproduction of the Schoenwiese (1995) graphic), the trace is four or five pixels broad which is about 100 years of horizontal axis and 0.025ºC vertically. But it does show an edge disappearing into the vertical post-2000 temperature rise which scales to 15.9ºC. By the time it appears in the 2007 Archibald paper, the edge has dropped to 15.75ºC. Then it features in the 2009 Denis Avery version by which tme it has dropped more to 15.6ºC and in the most recent version introduced @532, the 2014 NA Florenza version it has dropped again to 15.55ºC.

Strangely, that feature so loved by the Little Ice Age Revivaists maintains its top edge at 15.5ºC throughout this process of hidden decline.

CO2 lags temperature

MA Rodger at 20:47 PM on 16 February, 2017

Tom Curtis @536,

For completeness, the origin of the temperature graph linked by Adri Norse Fire@532 is (as you say) discussed by Schneider et al (2014) who trace the actual graphic back to Goreham, Steve. (2012) 'The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism.' New Lenox Books. Note that an earlier origin of the actual graphic is the denialist web-paper Archibald, David. (2007) 'The Past and Future of Climate.'
And the Schoenwiese (1995) graphic on which it is based can be seen here.

CO2 effect is saturated

Tom Curtis at 11:08 AM on 20 June, 2013

I have been looking more carefully at the PDF which is the detailed explanation of the WUWT story which is the basis of Stealth's comments. The inconsistency and, frankly, the dishonesty of the author, Ed Hoskins, is shown in the fifth chart of the PDF (page 3). It purports to show the expected temperature response to increases in CO2 according to a group of "skeptics" (Plimer, Carter, Ball, and Archibald), and three "IPCC assessments" by three authors. It also shows a "IPCC average", but that is not the average value from any IPCC assessment, but rather the average of the three "IPCC assessments" by the three authors.

The first thing to note about this chart is that it gets the values wrong. Below are selected values from the chart, with the values as calculated using the standard formula for CO2 forcing, and using their 100-200 value as a benchmark for the temperature response:

Concentration Skeptic Lindzen Krondratjew Charnock “IPCC” Mean IPCC
100-200______0.29____0.56____0.89________1.48______0.98_______3
200-300______0.14____0.42____0.44________1.34______0.73
Calc 200-300_0.17____0.33____0.52________0.87______0.57_______1.76
400-1000_____0.15____0.7_____1.19________1.78______1.22
Calc 400-1000_0.38___0.74____1.18________1.96______1.29_______3.97

The "Calc" values are those calculated using the standard formula for radiative forcing, with a climate sensitivity factor determined by the claimed temperure response for a doubling of CO2 from 100-200 ppmv. The '"IPCC" Mean' column is the mean of the three prior columns.

Clearly the values in the table are not consistent with the standard formula, typically overestimating the response from 200-300 ppmv, and underestimating the response from 400-1000 ppmv. That pattern, however, is not entirely consistent, being reversed in the case of Kondratjew. Other than that odd inconsistency, this is just the same misrepresentation of temperature responses shown in my 211 above.

More bizarre is the representation of the IPCC by Lindzen, Kondratjew and Charnock. As can be seen, their values, and the mean of their values significantly underrepresent the best estimate of the IPCC AR4 of 3 C per doubling of CO2. That is a well known result, and the misrepresentation can have no justification. It especially cannot have any justification given that neither Kondratjew nor Charnock are authors (let alone lead authors) of any relevant chapter in the IPCC AR4. Nor are they cited in any relevant chapter of the IPCC AR4. Presenting their work as "IPCC assessments" is, therefore, grossly dishonest.

Moving on, Hoskins shows another chart on page 2, which helps explain at least one cause of his error. It is a reproduction of a chart produced by David Archibald, purportedly showing the temperature response for succesive 20 ppmv increases in CO2 concentration. Looking at Archibald's article, he claims it is a presentation, in bar graph form, of a chart posted by Willis Eschenbach on Climate Audit:

As a side note, the forcing shown is 2.94 log(CO2)+233.6, and hence the modtran settings used do not correspond to the global mean forcing. The method used by Eschenbach, therefore, cannot produce a correct value for the global mean forcing of CO2. As it happens, his values produce a forcing per doubling of CO2 of 2 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2, and hence underestimates the true forcing by 46%. Note, however, that it does rise linearly for each doubling of CO2, so Hoskins has not even mimmicked Eschenbach accurately.

Far more important is that it is a plot of the downward IR flux at ground level with all non-CO2 green house gases (including water vapour) present. The IPCC, however, defines 'radiative forcing' as "... the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values". (My emphasis.)

It does so for two reasons. First, the theory of radiative forcing is essentially a theory about the energy balance of the planet. Therefore it is not the downward radiation at the surface that is at issue, but the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere.

Second, the temperature at the tropopause and at the surface are bound together by the lapse rate. Therefore any temperature increase at the tropopause will be matched by a temperature increase at the surface. Given reduced outward radiation at the tropopause, the energy imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing IR radiation will result in warming at the surface and intermediate levels of the atmosphere. Adjustments in the rate of convection driven by temperature differences will reestablish the lapse rate, maintaining the same linear relationship between tropopause and surface temperature (ignoring the lapse rate feedback). The net effect is that the same effective temperature increase will occure at all levels, resulting in a larger downard radiation at the surface than the initial change at either the tropopause or the surface.

So, Eschenbach (and Hoskins) derive their values incorrectly because they simply do not understand the theory they are criticizing, and which is accepted without dispute by knowledgeable "skeptics" such as Lindzen and Spencer. They are in the same boat of denying simple physics as are the "skydragon slayers" who Watts excoriates. Watts, however, publishes pseudo-scientific claptrap on the same level as the "skydragon slayers" on a daily basis, however, because he also is completely ignorant of the theory he so vehemently rejects.

Distinguishing Between Short-Term Variability and Long-Term Trends

John Chapman at 06:20 AM on 8 May, 2013

Dana, now that I hunt it down I see the year is more like 2015 rather than 2013, though there would have to be a transition towards 2015. The source is www.skepticalscience.com/david-archibald-exaggerates-solar-influence-on-future-climate-c see figure 3.

Distinguishing Between Short-Term Variability and Long-Term Trends

Djon at 02:32 AM on 8 May, 2013

Dana - I suspect John had http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/13/when-will-it-start-cooling/ in mind, though it's nowhere near as dramatic a drop as McLean was foolish enough to predict and it looks to me as though Archibald left himself a fair bit of wiggle room to claim, at least for a few more years, that the failure of cooling to start when he said it was likely to doesn't invalidate his longer term prediction of major cooling over the course of the next few solar cycles.

Distinguishing Between Short-Term Variability and Long-Term Trends

dana1981 at 09:21 AM on 7 May, 2013

John Chapman @5 - do you have a link to that Archibald prediction?

Distinguishing Between Short-Term Variability and Long-Term Trends

John Chapman at 06:39 AM on 7 May, 2013

David Archibald makes a similar prediction (catastrophic temp drop) for 2013 based on solar activity. We can visit that next year!

Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated

Bernard J. at 16:02 PM on 30 October, 2012

Indeed Uncle Pete.

And not to forget the real estate industry's liaisons with the likes of David Archibald, Ian Plimer, and Bob Carter.

David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change

dana1981 at 02:04 AM on 14 August, 2012

At least Archibald is admitting that the data aren't following his prediction. That's a small step in the right direction, unlike say Don Easterbrook, who just distorts the data to make his prediction look less bad.

David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change

Alexandre at 22:18 PM on 13 August, 2012

Archibald is still clinging to his story, albeit in a slightly modified way: now he says cycle 24 is likely to be a long one, ending in 2026. Until then we should see a global cooling of 0.9º over the entire cycle. Article here:

When will it start cooling?

Suggestive title. I also ask that question...

Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1B)

kingofaces at 01:55 AM on 15 April, 2012

Timely article considering I've been dealing with using regression for model evaluation of observed and predicted variables in a paper I'm working on publishing. Albeit regression doesn't provide a singular statistic to indicate performance while validating a model (check out concordance correlation coefficient instead) it's funny just how often people mix up the axes, but actually end up being correct in their "mistake". It all depends on what you're working with though. It's a topic most people just skim over.

Anyone with journal access might want to give this paper a read if this topic is interesting them:

Piñeiro et al. 2008. How to evaluate models: Observed vs. predicted or predicted vs. observed? Ecological Modelling: Volume 216, Issues 3–4, 10 September 2008, Pages 316–322.

The issue of "predicted vs. observed" doesn't pertain to what Archibald was doing from what I can see, but the article demonstrates how a lot of the topics work that are being hit on here.

Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1B)

Tom Curtis at 12:56 PM on 14 April, 2012

Alex C @12, yes, the compensation (10 times multiplier on groups) and K are the fifth and sixth potential sources of error.

I finally manage to find an error stated on the sunspot number, +/-5% (see page 2 of the bulletin)

I assume that if the error on the independent variable is small compared to that on the dependent variable, OLS will still provide a good estimate.

On the assumption that that is not true, does Total Least Squares Regression assume approximately equal percentage error for both variables, or is it independent of the error? Further, how would using TLSR effect your analysis above? And finally, what form of regression did Archibald actually use?

Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1B)

Stephen Baines at 08:42 AM on 14 April, 2012

Alex C...A is the Y on X slope, so it should be lower that 1/(X on Y slope), no? No matter...I think we're just getting our A's and B's and our Y's and X's mixed up. In any case, the two are related via R2.

And the mistake is clearly Archibald's...sorry about the confusion.

And the typos!

Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1B)

Stephen Baines at 08:20 AM on 14 April, 2012

@_rand_

It's true that the difference between the (slope of Y on X)and (1/(slope of X on Y)) is correlated to the error in the slope. Just to be clear, though, that does not mean that either formulation is equally correct given. Archibald just gets it wrong. He first regresses Y on X and then uses that equation to predict Y from X. As long as there is significant error in the relationship OLS will never give you the right answer if you do that.

shoyemore

It would make sense to calculate the bivariate normal slope (its really only one slope that can be inverted depending on which variable is on the X and Y axis) if 1)you really though of this relationship as a correlation, where one variable really does not control the other and 2) you wanted to characterize an underlying central tendency between two related but otherwise independent variables.

However, you would not then use that slope to predict Y from X. That is the specific purpose OLS was designed for - making the most precise predictions of Y given a value for X. It does so by finding a line that minimizes residuals for Y. As long as you don't predict outside the range of the original data, OLS will do fine. The bivariate normal slope, on the other hand, does not minimize the residuals for Y, and so is not the best predictor line. That's not really it's purpose though.

In any case, what Archibald did was even worse. He ran the OLS regression of X on Y and then use to predict Y as if he has run it Y on X. That will always fail to produce an accurate prediction. You are predicting Y from a relationship that minimize errors in predicting X. It makes no sense.

Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1B)

Alex C at 07:17 AM on 14 April, 2012

Sorry, have been away from my computer for a while:

@Stephen Baines #5:

Perhaps you mean A/R^2 = 1/B (AB = R^2)? It is that equation that seems to work, when I multiply the CoD by A I don't get 1/B (e.g. 0.12501*10.575 ≠ 1/.0118). As to it being an error, were you referring to an error I made, or Archibald's error? Thanks for the FYI either way though, I assumed they were relatable but didn't know the simplified form to do so.

@shoyemore:

It's not clear that there's any uncertainty in sunspot counts, certainly not normally distributed uncertainty. As I said in the post, we can see sunspots and count them in realtime.

Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1B)

keithpickering at 01:19 AM on 14 April, 2012

My guess: Archibald did it both ways, and chose the method that showed the larger "relationship" between sunspots and sea level. Then he got cagey about his language in the hope that nobody would notice.

Nice job noticing.

Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)

Bernard J. at 12:50 PM on 5 April, 2012

Bill and jmsully.

Yes, amusing all 'round...

It was revealing to see how Archibald dropped the ball once someone other than the cheer-squad started to ask some questions. I had plenty more to put to him, but the closing of the WWWT thread put paid to that, and Alex's post here (and, I anticipate, his next one in the series) has more than taken much of the wind from my sails.

I am still curious though to have answers to my queries over there, so if anyone ever happens to come across Archibald, please ask him to address the specifics of the (at least) 20 questions. He appears to have made many methodological blunders quite separate from his mangling of physics, and if he intends to stand by that WWWT post as a 'credible' effort he must clarify the points that were raised.

Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)

bill at 10:22 AM on 5 April, 2012

Bernard J @11

That's a great exchange! I must say I think there's a very strong degree of causation here indeed; between your asking very detailed and uncomfortable questions, David Archibald's suddenly discovering he left the gas on, and dear old Anthony equally suddenly closing the thread.

I think it's fair to say that the pristine beauty of certain ideas is best preserved from searing exposure to harsh realities...

Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)

dana1981 at 13:43 PM on 4 April, 2012

To be blunt for a moment, David Archibald is kind of a joke. I mean, the man tries to argue for solar warming by using temperature data from Hanover, New Hampshire. He's a notorious cherry picker. He's the author of possibly the worst climate paper ever. The only reason we have to continually debunk his nonsense is that the so-called "skeptics" take him seriously.

I think Archibald is the posterboy for what's wrong with the global warming "skeptic" movement.

Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)

Bernard J. at 13:38 PM on 4 April, 2012

Curiously, the second Archibald thread on WWWT was closed soon after mention of this thread was made on Digest 12's 'Coming soon' list.

As far as I can fathom, the WWWT threads aren't usually closed so soon, so it appears that they were pre-empting some postings that might spoil the premise of the thread.

Either that, or they thought that I might try to tweak Archibald's nose again as I already did at the bottom of the thread. If so, they were right - I was going to have another bash at his refusal to explain himself when I discovered that the door had been shut.

Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)

pauls at 02:11 AM on 4 April, 2012

I recently watched a talk by Jasper Kirkby of CLOUD fame (from 2009 apparently, available on Youtube). He also showed a comparison between Holgate 2007 and the solar cycle. Unlike Archibald, Kirkby didn't draw any strong conclusions but stated he was surprised that Holgate 2007 was published without having to explain or mention this apparent correlation.

What Archibald and Kirkby both miss (and isn't mentioned in this article - perhaps Part2?) is that tide gauges provide a measure of coastal mean sea level (CMSL) and not global mean sea level (GMSL). Even if it had perfect coastal coverage, the variability seen in Holgate 2007 relates to coastal sea level trends, which is not necessarily indicative of the total global picture (by which I mean the decadal variability, not the multidecadal trend). Prandi 2009 provides a useful comparison between the two metrics.

Really we should expect some influence on sea level change from the solar cycle but it doesn't appear to be very significant compared to other factors. I just tried a quick calculation using the annual altimeter data available for Church & White 2011. The trends from 1996-2002 (min to max) and 2002-2009 (max to min) are pretty much indistinguishable at ~3mm/yr.

Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)

Westerwick at 02:07 AM on 4 April, 2012

Very nice analysis, Alex, but my initial thoughts on seeing the problem posed is "You've got to be kidding me!" The two underlying problems with Archibald's are that he is ignoring sea level and showing a very tenuous relationship between sea level change and sunspots, and that the entire argument lacks causality.

I didn't go back to retrieve the GMSL data to run through a linear regression, but just a quick engineer's eyeball curve looks like the mean sea level rise during this period is about 1.5 to 2 mm/yr. Extrapolate this for 120 years and we are looking at about 0.25 metres using his data. No need to mention that it will be significantly higher using more recent measurements.

The second major problem is causality. When I was fifth grader in California, our science teacher presented us with a graph showing the relationship between people drowning and ice cream sales at Coney Island, which showed two curves that were scaled to look very similar. He then asked us if we could eliminate drowning deaths by stopping sales of ice cream. It didn't take a group of 10 and 11 year olds too long to figure out that ice cream sales didn't cause drowning, and that the common cause was that people both swam and ate ice cream when it was warm out. I find it incredible to hear that a group of adults would just blithely accept some magical relationship between sunspots and the rate of sea level change without looking for a common cause. I would hope that the good citizens of NSW would demand more of their elected representatives than I saw with my grade school classmates.

Hiding the Incline in Sea Level

Bernard J. at 20:41 PM on 5 February, 2012

David Archibald has joined the party to hide the sea level incline.

I lost count of the errors in the post, but I know that would have filled a denialist-tactic bingo card in about 60 seconds...

David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change

Sascha Tavere at 01:33 AM on 31 January, 2012

DrTsk #1

"This worse that Newt's Videos...."

No it ain't ... Archibald is interchangeable with other Easterbrooks and they will not control research budgets or congressional hearings.

(I am assuming you are not talking ethics ánd Newt ánd David in one breath ... naturally)

David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change

owl905 at 15:20 PM on 30 January, 2012

It's fairly easy to shoot at the barrel-fish in Archibald's paper, but SKS missed the magic-moment Joke-of-the-year: his prediction about global CO2 levels:

(from page 8):

7. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Level: Relatively flat 2010 - 2030

"He very funny man."

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change

owl905 at 15:02 PM on 30 January, 2012

This site gets my daily visits; has for years. It ain't too shabby at all (as opposed to Archibald's work):

http://www.solarham.com/

David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change

funglestrumpet at 08:07 AM on 30 January, 2012

Is there any way that this Mr Archibald could be described as having made a genuine mistake? It looks like a cynical attempt to sway public opinion away from taking the action the real science is screaming for. If so, I just hope that he is called to answer for his actions when the public wake up to reality.

David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change

Riccardo at 07:28 AM on 30 January, 2012

In his paper Archibald says:

"Here, Figure 5 shows another similar correlation for the Central England Temperature record, this time of 0.6° C cooling per year of extra cycle length."

Eyeballing the figure is looks unlikely but nevertheless I digitized the data. I found that the slope of his best fit line is not -0.6 °C/yr but -0.2 °C/yr. It's not even the true best fit line to the data shown in the figure, which has a slope of -0.1 °C/yr. Six times lower than what he claims.

David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change

wingding at 01:21 AM on 30 January, 2012

I don't see any mention of the failure of David Archibald's last ridiculous global cooling prediction:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=197

It's the sun

jpenhall46 at 12:44 PM on 6 November, 2011

The mention of solar irradiance points to another major failing of climate models: that they totally ignore the sun, which is the source of all the energy in the world, except for minor contributions from the molten core of the planet and the decay of radioactive elements. The Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varies in an 11 year sunspot cycle, during which the sun builds up from a small to a large number of sunspots, which then again decline in number. The importance of the Solar cycle for climate on earth is convincingly demonstrated by the Maunder Minimum, which saw the lowest temperatures of the Little Ice Age. During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000-50,000 spots in modern times. The IPCC discounted the significance of the sun for increasing temperatures, because there has been only a 0.1% increase in TSI since the seventeenth century. But, as Carter (2010: 48-50) pointed out, this is to forget the other ways in which the sun can influence climate:
• Variations in the intensity of the sun’s magnetic field with cycles including the Schwabe (eleven year), Hale (22 years) and Gleissberg (70-90 years).
• Effect of the sun’s plasma and electromagnetic fields on rates of the earth’s rotation, and hence the length of the day.
• Effect of the sun’s gravitational field through the 18.6 year Lunar Nodal Cycle, causing variation in atmospheric pressure, temperature, rainfall, sea-level and ocean temperatures, especially at high latitudes.
• Known links between solar activity and monsoonal activity, or the phases of climate oscillations such as the Atlantic Multidimensional Oscillation, a 60-year long cycle during which sea surface temperatures vary about 0.2°C above and below the long-term average, with effects on northern hemisphere air temperature, rainfall and drought.
• Magnetic fields associated with solar flares, which modulate galactic cosmic ray input into the Earth’s atmosphere. This in turn may cause variations in the formation of low-level clouds. This causes cooling: a one per cent variation in low cloud cover producing a similar change in forcing to the estimated increase caused by human green-house gases.
• The 1500 year-long Bond Cycle, as a result of which the three most recent warm peaks of this cycle had a major effect on the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods
As Robert Carpenter (2010) has stated: “That many of the mechanisms and possible mechanisms by which the sun influences Earth’s climate are poorly understood is no justification for ignoring them.” Of immediate relevance is the fact that solar cycles longer than the eleven year average are followed by later cycles of lesser intensity, and with it a cooler climate. According to Archibald (2010), Cycle 24 may produce cooling of up to 2.2°C for the mid-latitude grain-growing areas of the northern hemisphere. This may have already started.
Dr. Vincent Courtillot, who is a professor of geophysics at the University Paris-Diderot and Chair of paleomagnetism and geodynamics of the Institut Universitaire de France, has pointed (2011) to the failure of climate models in relation to the sun. He notes that while the total solar irradiance (TSI) only varies by about 0.1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% and that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary up to 30% over solar cycles. The IPCC computer models dismiss the role of the sun by only considering the small variations of the TSI and ignore the large changes in the most energetic and influential part of the solar spectrum – the ultraviolet.
John Penhallurick

Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1

Gringo at 09:46 AM on 3 November, 2011

Regarding Energy & Environment's review process (or rather lack thereof), David C. Archibald's "Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response" (PDF) is a good example.

At the top of its page 31 there are two paragraphs which are almost identical and where the author clearly forgot to delete either of them.

If the paper was reviewed at all, let alone by qualified reviewers, surely that double paragraph would have been spotted by someone? Or am I too naive to believe a 'scientific journal' which claims to "act as a forum for constructive and professional debate" should spot and correct such basic errors?

Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps

Albatross at 14:10 PM on 30 September, 2011

Stevo @29,

Thanks. You made me look closer at the Galileo Movement, and what I read is very interesting/disturbing. Look who the advisors are for the Galileo Movement in Australia:

Professor Tim Ball
Warwick Hughes
Professor Fred Singer
Professor Dick Lindzen
Bill Kininmonth
Professor Bob Carter
Professor Ian Plimer
David Archibald
Professor Peter Ridd
Professor Garth Paltridge
Dr Vincent Gray
Dr Jennifer Marohasy
Jo Nova
Des Moore
John Nicol
David Flint
Andrew Bolt
John McLean
David Evans
Pat Michaels
Joe D'Aleo
Viscount Monckton

[Source]

Their purported guiding principles ironically include:
"Honesty: rely on factual data, ensure decisions are based on facts;
Fact based science: protect and use science, a key to human progress, objective and fair decisions and freedom"

and under "Purpose and Aims" ironically include:
"Protect science and restore scientific integrity"

Sounds great does it not? But, there is a very big problem with those proclamations, because unfortunately those lofty ethics and goals do not seem to be endorsed or even practised by several of their advisers, as has been demonstrated multiple times here at SkepticalScience and elsewhere. Some of the names on that list shocked me. What are Drs. Lindzen and Gray thinking?

ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change

tblakeslee at 02:00 AM on 13 September, 2011

Your arguments confuse Kirkby's beliefs with what he was forced to put in the paper during the more than a year of negotiations with reviewers to get it published. The paper does confirm Svensmarks earlier experiment which was condemned by people in the IPCC who are in denial that they could have made a mistake by betting on CO2.
We will soon see whether Svensmark is right that cosmic ray and therefore clouds are a significant driver of climate. Though the solar wind has an 11 year cycle, that cycle has significant variation in period that correlate very well with La Nina/El Nino cycles.
Theodor Landscheidt wrote a paper ten years ago showing an amazing connection.
ttp://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
Here is a later paper pointing out that the predictions were remarkably accurate.
Archibald has done another prediction to 2050 based on a model that backtests amazingly well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/13/archibald-climate-forecast-to-2050/
The recent La Nina, which caused all of this year's terrible weather was part of that prediction. The future prediction is for a return to La Nina and another two decade spell of cooling.
The real test of a theory is its ability to accurately predict. So far Svensmark's theory looks like a winner. We will see who is right in the near future. it won't be hard to do better than the dismal failure of the dire predictions based on the CO2 warming theory.

Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites

Tom Curtis at 01:53 AM on 19 July, 2011

Rob Honeycutt @22, you obviously like your humor black.

Not only is he (as you put it) an all round bad seed, he is also intimately connected with all the major deniers in Australia. These are the "independent advisers" of the ironically named "Galileo Movement":

Professor Tim Ball
Warwick Hughes
Professor Fred Singer
Professor Dick Lindzen
Bill Kininmonth
Professor Bob Carter
Professor Ian Plimer
David Archibald
Professor Peter Ridd
Professor Garth Paltridge
Dr Vincent Gray
Dr Jennifer Marohasy
Jo Nova
Des Moore
John Nicol
David Flint
Andrew Bolt
John McLean
David Evans
Pat Michaels
Joe D'Aleo
Viscount Monckton

Jo Nova in particular, has been sharing the podium with Monckton on his speaking tour. While she has been saying,

"We sceptics are not calling for anyone to be silenced."

he has been getting up and saying:

"So to the bogus scientists who have produced the bogus science that invented this bogus scare I say, we are coming after you, we are going to prosecute you and we are going to lock you up!"

Apparently they do not see the disconnect. What is transparently lacking is responsible media who put to those involved why they are willing to associate with a man like Monckton (no more accurate description can be given with in comment policy).

Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism

KR at 13:11 PM on 15 June, 2011

jonicol - Given your knowledge of the connections, common PO box, phone number, and shared staff (Executive Director <> secretary, incidentally) with the AEF, your statement "The Australian Climate Science Coalition, though, is not in any way connected to the AEF or to the IPA." is, in fact, wholly untrue.

Your denial of this connection is, quite frankly, a falsehood.

The AEF is a lobbying front group for the IPA, and the Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC) appears to be a website and science group created for the purpose of presenting the views of the IPA/AEF to the world in a less visibly connected fashion - the purpose being to raise doubt about climate change and slow government actions thereof. The inclusion of Plimer, Carter, Evans, Archibald, and Kininmonth in the Scientific Advisory Panel only reinforce this - they are all well noted for promoting skeptical fallacies such as discussed on this website.

The ACSC is an advocacy group, as I stated before - while I will not outright dismiss the data and opinions presented by such advocacy groups, I will take them with the appropriate grain of salt, much as I took anything presented by the "Tobacco Institute" or take those representing "Clean Coal".

In regards to the science of CO2 physics, IR interactions, etc., I am (and I believe others are) more than willing to discuss those with you on a material and factual basis. At the very least such a discussion will be educational for all readers. To remain topical, I might suggest the CO2 effect is weak, CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration, CO2 only causes 35% of global warming threads, or others as appropriate (see the Search link at the top of the page).

The Day After McLean

Stu at 11:10 AM on 30 March, 2011

Well, I was unaware of Archibald's incorrect prediction on the previous page, which was pretty comical, but McLean's is going to tank in a whole 'nother way. I wonder if Josh will make a cartoon about it?

By the way, I'd like to pick up more on the fact that he's using satellite temperatures to make a comparison to a year in which temperatures were not measured by satellite... oopsie! Not that it gives him any wiggle room anyway, 2011 will not be the coldest in the satellite record either, barring a massive volcanic eruption.

The Day After McLean

wingding at 06:56 AM on 30 March, 2011

Even better another later Archibald paper that appeared in E&E introduces with:

"detailed work on the 20th century temperature record
in relation to solar cycle length was undertaken by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991). This original paper was subsequently amended, and their observation of a correlation between solar cycle length and temperature remains valid"

Subsequently amended? He must be referring to C&L 1999 right? If so this is the abstract, I don't see Archibald even mention the key point:

"It has previously been demonstrated that the mean land air temperature of the Northern hemisphere could adequately be associated with a long-term variation of solar activity as given by the length of the approximately 11- year solar cycle. Adding new temperature data for the 1990’s and expected values for the next sunspot extrema we test whether the solar cycle length model is still adequate. We find that the residuals are now inconsistent with the pure solar model. We conclude that since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature."

Archibald 2009 also makes another prediction:

"The monthly neutron count is now higher than it has
been at any time for the last fifty years. If the month of solar minimum proves to be July 2009, peak neutron count may not be until mid-2010. On this basis, and according
to Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s hypothesis, peak cloudiness, and therefore peak rate of cooling, will be reached in mid-2010."

None of this happened.

The Day After McLean

wingding at 06:39 AM on 30 March, 2011

massive error! I meant to say:

Perhaps McLean is using a similar "trick" as Archibald

NOT

Perhaps McLean is using a similar "trick" as Friss-Christensen

The Day After McLean

wingding at 06:37 AM on 30 March, 2011

I found a good overview of the problems in Archibald 2006 (Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response) here:
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html

It turns out Archibald doesn't use global temperature records, but uses a handful of stations with no obvious reason why they were picked.

Eg from the paper:
"To provide a baseline for projecting temperature to the projected maximum of solar cycle 25 in 2024, data from five, rural, continental US stations with data from 1905 to
2003 was averaged and smoothed"

Huh? how did this pass peer review of any kind?

And it's not like he's actually trying to predict regional temperatures in the US because he goes on to compare those 5 stations in the continental US with the global satellite record:

"The flat profile of the last 20 year period is corroborated by the satellite data over that period, which
shows only a very weak rise in the temperature of the lower troposphere."

This was published in Energy and Environment by the way. Next time some skeptic tries to sweet talk you into thinking E&E isn't just full of fluff, this paper is a great example otherwise.

The paper also cites Friis-Christensen and Lassen 1991, but makes absolutely no citation of Friis-Chistensen and Lassen 1999 which pretty much demolishes the earlier paper.

Perhaps McLean is using a similar "trick" as Friss-Christensen and is not using a global temperature record when he states "it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier". Is he referring to the US record perhaps?

The Day After McLean

NewYorkJ at 04:10 AM on 30 March, 2011

"David Archibald is a Perth, Australia-based scientist operating in the fields of cancer research, oil exploration and climate science. After graduating in science at Queensland University in 1979, Mr Archibald worked in oil exploration in Sydney and then joined the financial industry as a stock analyst. Mr Archibald has been CEO of multiple oil and mineral exploration companies operating in Australia. He has published a number of papers on the solar influence on climate, and is a director of the Lavoisier Society (Lavoisier Group), a group of Australians promoting rational science in public policy."

Australian Climate Science Coalition

Google Scholar reveals those "papers" are mainly E&E and non-peer-reviewed stuff. Here's one:

Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response

"Based on solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5°C is predicted to 2020, equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum."

Have fun with that one. Would be fun to see this plot on Dana's graph (the vertical axis would need to be nearly doubled for it to fit), perhaps in a different post that examines Archibald's past predictive powers.

I'm trying to figure out where Archibald gets his Dalton Minimum info from. On Wikipedia, the DM page has a similar statement that references "Archibald says" with no link. Pretty sloppy page overall.

Dalton Minimum

The Day After McLean

Albatross at 03:00 AM on 30 March, 2011

Wingding @41,

Excellent find! From the links that you sent, Archibald states that:

"The combination of a 0.3° response to the current La Nina and the usual 0.3° decline from January to May will result in a 0.6° decline to May 2009 to a result of -0.4° (0.4° below the long term average)."

Now in complete contrast with his "prediction", the UAH global lower-troposphere temperature for May 2009 was +0.06 (with respect to the 1980-2010 mean). RSS gave a global anomaly of +0.05 C for May 2009. And 2009 ended up being the second warmest year on record in the GISS data at the time. Archibald was horribly wrong.

Just how long are the "skeptics" going to keep trying to perpetuate this myth that we are headed for long-term global cooling?

The Day After McLean

wingding at 01:06 AM on 30 March, 2011

Re 39:

icecap.us (PDF)

David Archibald predicts the May 2009 UAH MSU Global Temperature Result

The Day After McLean

John Brookes at 00:03 AM on 30 March, 2011

wingding, do you have a link to where David Archibald predicted that?

The Day After McLean

wingding at 21:18 PM on 29 March, 2011

Anyone remember David Archibald's prediction for May 2009?

Similarly absurd.

Meet The Denominator

RickG at 02:29 AM on 23 February, 2011

602 Potpech:

RickG: "I didn't ask you whether or not there are any published comments on it. I asked if "you" thought the article was credible science."

Poptech: I have seen nothing published to suggest otherwise.

By that response I gather that you consider the Archibald (2006) article as scholarly science. Is that correct?

Meet The Denominator

RickG at 01:45 AM on 23 February, 2011

653 Poptech,

Surely you are not suggesting that the Archibald (2006) paper has any credibility.

The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption

bgood2creation at 19:18 PM on 24 December, 2010

I have seen this Modtrans graph on WUWT a few times, and I was hoping someone could explain its relevance.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

Obviously this David Archibald guy is too big for his britches (I don't need help dissecting his rubbish). However, is this Modtrans graph showing actual forcing effect CO2 has on our planet (besides feed backs), or is there something missing? To me it looks like it is showing the 3.7 watts per square metre that the IPCC suggests in AR4 section 2.3.1. Thanks in advance.

Archibald’s take on world temperatures

Bern at 11:16 AM on 6 July, 2010

Humanity Rules @ #8: You're absolutely right, there is something significant about the 1970s:

Governments have made efforts since the 1970s to reduce the production of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere

(from Wikipedia)

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that sulfur dioxide is an aerosol, with relatively short residence time in the atmosphere, which reduces solar input to the surface, and has a cooling effect?

Archibald’s take on world temperatures

Riduna at 10:32 AM on 6 July, 2010

Esop – 7

As you point out, the highest global temperatures have been recorded during a low period in the solar cycle. What should concern everyone is the effects that more pronounced solar activity will have on global temps. Presumably Archibald thinks that the measurements provided by satellites such as GRACE are wrong?

Archibald’s claims of a cooling world really are at odds with empirical data and do little more than repeat assertions made by such luminaries as Lord Monckton and Ian Plimer. One wonders why they make claims which are so easily shown to be wrong?

Archibald’s take on world temperatures

Roy Latham at 04:35 AM on 6 July, 2010

Archibald seems to be in error on two accounts: North America does not equate to the world and snow pack is a consequence of precipitation amounts as well as the temperature. For example, there is a global warming trend, but there has not been an observed warming trend in the United States in recent decades. Of course, there has not been a global warming trend for the past 15 years.

The surface ice in the Arctic melts roughly every 70 years, with the last melt in the 30s, and the one before that around 1880. National Georgraphic Magazine about a year ago had an article that described the oscillation. When sea ice decreases in the Arctic it increases in Antarctic, and that has happened this time as well. Sea ice depends upon the relative warmth ocean currents. As to the ice caps, the last IPCC report claimed that the total land ice is very close to stable. If temperatures are well below zero, warming does not cause melting.

In the climate debate, the burden of proof is for advocates to prove that there is a climate crisis. The crisis theory is based entirely upon math models that predict the earth will warm considerably more than the straight physics of carbon dioxide predicts. The test of math models is whether they work reliably. Observed data is below the model error bounds, so the models are wrong. The present task therefore ought to be to find models that work.

Archibald’s take on world temperatures

Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:13 AM on 6 July, 2010

Archibald, of course, is wrong - we have global warming.

It fits perfectly into the process (cycle) of natural changes. Cited work here: Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity? Lockwood et al., 2010.:
“The results presented in section allow rejection of the null hypothesis, and hence colder UK winters (relative to the longer-term trend) can therefore be associated with lower open solar flux (and hence with lower solar irradiance and higher cosmic ray flux). A NUMBER OF MECHANISMS ARE POSSIBLE [?! ...].
“Our subsequent studies (not reported here) on solar modulation of various blocking indices have confirmed previous studies, and we stress that this phenomenon is largely restricted to Europe and NOT GLOBAL in extent.”

These are really just local mechanisms?
No, it was not local, and will not be, warm and cold anomalies

Temperature proxy records covering the last two millennia: a tabular and visual overview
Ljungqvist, 2009:

“The records show an amplitude between maximum and minimum temperatures during the past two millennia on centennial timescales ranging from c. 0.5 to 4°C and averaging c. 1.5–2°C for both high and low latitudes, although these variations are NOT ALWAYS OCCURRING SYNCHRONOUS. Both the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the 20th century warming [...] are CLEARLY VISIBLE in most records ...”

High-resolution isotope records of early Holocene rapid climate change from two coeval stalagmites of Katerloch Cave, Austria, Boch et al., 2009:

“Our record also shows a distinct climate anomaly around 9.1 kyr, which lasted 70-110 yr and showed a maximum amplitude of 1.0‰, i.e. it had a similar duration and amplitude as the (central) 8.2 kyr event. Compared to the 8.2 kyr event, the 9.1 kyr anomaly shows a more symmetrical structure, but onset and demise still occurred within a few decades only. The different progression of the 8.2 (asymmetrical) and 9.1 kyr anomaly (symmetrical) suggests a fundamental difference in the trigger and/or the response of the climate system. Moreover, both stalagmites show evidence of a climate anomaly around 10.0 kyr, which was of comparable magnitude to the two subsequent events.
Using a well constrained modern calibration between air temperature and δ18O of precipitation for the study area and cave monitoring data (confirming speleothem deposition in Katerloch reflecting cave air temperature), a maximum cooling by ca 3°C can be inferred at 8.2 and 9.1 kyr, which is similar to other estimates, e.g., from Lake Ammersee north of the Alps.”

Once again, Lockwood (and underestimated here: mechanisms):
“This grand solar maximum has persisted for longer than most previous examples in the cosmogenic isotope record and is expected to end soon.” “... ~ 8% chance that the Sun could return to Maunder minimum CONDITIONS within the next 50 years. The connections reported here indicate that, despite hemispheric warming, Europe could well experience more frequent cold winters than during recent decades.”

8% - too small?

Archibald’s take on world temperatures

Tony O at 23:34 PM on 5 July, 2010

I sort of discounted David Archibald when he came up with the "we need 1,000 ppm" CO2 figure.

Archibald’s take on world temperatures

skywatcher at 22:02 PM on 5 July, 2010

HR @ #6: The point wasn't that the 24.6m sq km was particularly unusual - it wasn't, and was reported as only the 13th lowest [unusual, maybe but not near record-setting]. The point was that this data is utterly in contradiction to what Archibald was pretending it might mean. We've actually got low snowcover, but by some clever cherry-picking, Archibald can pretend it's high. Winter snowcover is on the whole not temperature-driven, while the summer snowmelt is, as mspelto points out above, so concentrating on winter snowcover tells you more about the precipitation events that dumped the snow. Result - they were unusually high. Reason - increased water vapour due to greenhouse warming?

Archibald’s take on world temperatures

HumanityRules at 20:47 PM on 5 July, 2010

Thanks, a link to the report you quote might be useful.

It strikes me 24.6msqkm is >98% of the average (if the anomly that year was 0.4). That doesn't seem like a great disaster and it seems fair to suggest it could well be little more than natural noise. It would be hard to believe that 2% variation is much outside the error margins of the methodology. In my field of work I wouldn't get too excited by a 2% drop in anything and I don't have to work with anything as chaotic as the planets climate.

Dappledwater at 19:18 PM on 5 July, 2010
"What does Archibald think is causing the worlds ice sheets and glaciers to melt?."

AMO maybe.

Archibald’s take on world temperatures

Rob Painting at 19:18 PM on 5 July, 2010

What does Archibald think is causing the worlds ice sheets and glaciers to melt?.

Archibald’s take on world temperatures

tobyjoyce at 17:49 PM on 5 July, 2010

Philosophically, if you make a positive claim (e.g. "the earth is warming"), then you must produce empricial evidence for the claim. To rebutt such a claim (e.g. "the earth is not warming"), you must induce reasonable doubt by using the original evidence and/ or new evidence previously not considered.

So I think a better response to Archibald is to say "The evidence for global warming has not been rebutted by his data"

Massimo Piglucci has a good post on the "burden of prook" here:

Burden of Proof

An account of the Watts event in Perth

John Chapman at 15:51 PM on 2 July, 2010

One of the speakers was David Archibald. At a previous event he was promoting the benefits of CO2, and finished with the conclusion that he felt 1000 ppm of the gas was the optimum level! At least he didn't conclude with that statement this time, probably because Watts said they (- the skeptic team) were all "as green as the next bloke".
Nova indeed lectured on how the AWG is just a gag for scientists to attract funding and for governments to reap taxes while the big financial institutions take their cut in the middle.

Ocean acidification

VoxRat at 01:35 AM on 1 July, 2010

JC #70

"At a talk last night David Archibald finished by showing a picture of some coral and CO2 bubbling past. "

CO2 bubbling past!? That would indicate that the water is saturated with CO2.

"What do you make of his claim that coral is resililent to acidification? "

It looks to me it's worth the paper it's printed on. Assuming it's not printed.

Ocean acidification

John Chapman at 18:02 PM on 30 June, 2010

At a talk last night David Archibald finished by showing a picture of some coral and CO2 bubbling past. Well they were bubbles, but he said it was CO2 and the coral looked dead to me and he said there were fish swimming around though I couldn't see any in the photo. What do you make of his claim that coral is resililent to acidification?

Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?

John Bruno at 12:41 PM on 20 June, 2010

Wonderful post Megan and I think a great description of the event. Something that really struck me in Bob Carters summation was his argument that "we don't know" what is going on with temperature or glaciers. He said (to paraphrase) some are shrinking, some are growing, we don't measure enough to know what the mean trend is. Archibald made the old argument that there has been no warming over the past 10 years, then showed a graph that seemed to disprove his point, even though it only went through mid-2009. But wait, Archibald also argued that there is warming but it is caused by the sun. And in a recent paper, Bob argued there is warming, but it is caused by El Nino. Yet at the event he said there is no warming then a few minutes later said we don't know if there is any warming. Which contradicted Archibald's strong argument that the earth has been cooling for thousands of years and continues to so. Confused? Me too. But the contradictory nature of their arguments is a common trait of the skeptic case against AGW. All fodder for future posts. - JB

How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot

Glenn Tamblyn at 18:30 PM on 19 June, 2010

Having spent some time over at Jo Nova's site trying to rebut at least some of the more outlandish claims, I can tell you it is a very frustrating experience. But here afficionado's lap it up.

For example, SHB 1 doesn't 'get' the hotspot, doesn't get how wind shear could actually be a valid method. Why can't you just rely on the thermometers. Then in SHB 2, she rolls out A Watts and the SurfaceStations.org stuff. We can't trust the thermometers because of site specific influences. But we should trust the thermometers on the radiosondes. No site specific influences there.. Then the real howler. Right there on the graphs of the missing or not hotspot is another signature of AGW - Stratospheric Cooling. No comment on that one.

Also we have the deep historical record of CO2 vs Temps, 500 MYrs worth and NO CORRELATION. Apart from the lack of mention of long term solar output changes. David Archibalds Bar Chart of Temp vs CO2 per 20 ppm and there 'isn't much effect left'. Without connecting the dots... Solar Increase with time explains the deep historical record when CO2 was MUCH higher...Therefore, more CO2 obviously does have an affect for many doublings to come.

Jo argues that the debate is about the magnitude of feedbacks and climate sensitivity, which it is. But her 'handbooks' drag in a lot of old tired denialist rubbish arguments as well. Sceptics Handbooks they ain't. Denialist recruiting manuals? well...

Be careful John. Take on Jo and some of her followers will probably come calling. Or she will probably call you all sorts of bad names. Just ask Andrew Glickson or Stephan Lewandowsky.

On another note, relating to finding the hotspot, and also an analysis of the satellite data, particularly UAH, this paper is interesting.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf

By Fu et al, written a year or so after the major discrepancy between the satellite and surface data was resolved in the early naughties. They argue that the T2 temperature record from the satellite data, the troposphere, is prone to 'contamination' from part of the temperature reported being due in part to the lower stratosphere. With startospheric cooling, this may be biasing temp records for the troposphere down. They are critical of the T2LT series from UAH which is often used by sceptics. This was produced to try and compensate for the 'bleed' from the stratospheric data and they feel the methods used are not reliable.

They present an alternate strategy, using Radiosonde data to try and get a temperature profile vertically and use this to produce a weighted combination of T2 (troposphere) data less some of the T4 (lower stratosphere) data to factor out the stratospheric cooling effect. They then apply this to both UAH & RSS series, producing an adjusted set of trends.

The interesting item to note is Fig 3. Their adjusted trend for the RSS data shows a clear difference between the Surface and the Troposphere for both Tropics & Southern Hemisphere. There is the 'hotspot'.

Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming

SLRTX at 07:33 AM on 27 February, 2010

RSVP -

Follow up on my post #28.

I see a lot of blog posts and radio appearances by Archibald, but no peer-reviewed work by this Geologist.

I did find a critique of his methods at realclimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/

So forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical (aren't we all?) of the point of page 46 (post #5), if it hangs on claims that can't be supported in peer-reviewed literature.

Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming

SLRTX at 07:05 AM on 27 February, 2010

RSVP (#5)

I read some of the paper your link points to. It's a bit long for me to read it all in one sitting.

But on the surface, I did notice several edited charts that left some details out. Some charts run from 2000 to present, I guess to hide how much warming has occurred before that time. A chart on solar irradiance is clipped off at 2000. What happened since then? It's been on a decline. I guess that bit of information was inconvenient for the document's authors.

Here's the link to the document referenced on your page 46:
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/files/solar_arch_ny_mar2_08.pdf

The author, David Archibald, proposes the sun is driving our current warming trend, but then also seems to claim the recent minimum in sunspots should herald a cooling trend. Am I missing something?

He also claims that as CO2 increases in the atm, the ability to retain heat goes down. That may be true (I'll leave that to the technical types here to verify), but he seems to miss that as ANY warming occurs, we do pump more moisture in the atm. THAT enhances the warming effects of CO2.

Then he says increased CO2 is good (ah, now we see where he's going with this) for us. Plants love it, so it must be ok. And hey, CO2 levels were higher in the past, so it's just natural, right?

Problem is, the RATE of climate change is outpacing the ability for the rest of the ecosystem to keep up. This is already being observed. So, even if CO2 levels were higher in the past, the RATE of increase/decrease was much, much slower than it is now.

The rate of CO2 increase, with observable negative changes to the ecosystem, is tied to our use of fossil fuels.

Can't change the evidence, only deny or accept it.

It's the sun

Gord at 19:32 PM on 17 May, 2009

Dan Pangburn -

The Vostok Ice core data also show that the relationship between the Earth's temp and CO2 levels is probably linear relationship.

I once plotted the the Vostok graphs on a computer using AutoCad and measured the change in temp vs the change in CO2 levels.

Although this was just a crude approximation because I did not use actual data (just the graphs and only at a few points), the results showed that the change in CO2 divided by the change in temp was a constant (or very close).

Because the change in CO2 divided by the change in temp is a derivative and produced a constant, this indicates that the equation describing the the relationship between temp and CO2 is probably linear.

--------------------
The following is a re-post of what I posted on another forum a few years ago:
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
The IPCC uses this formula for an approximate calculation of CO2's relationship to changes in W/m^2 forcing EXCLUDING AMPLIFICATION(I will call it delta F).

delta F = 5.35 LN( C/Co) where LN is the natural logarithm, Co is the CO2 in ppm for a starting point, C is the CO2 in ppm for analysis and F is the forcing in W/m^2.

The IPCC also uses a figure of 0.297 deg C change per each W/m^2. If we multiply both sides of the formula by 0.297 we obtain the relationship:

delta T = 1.59 LN ( C/Co) where delta T is the change in temperature (in deg C).
------------------
A way to determine the "approximate" amplification factor that the IPCC uses for CO2.

If the CO2 has gone from 1ppm to 290ppm (guesstimate for pre-industrial time) then delta T = 1.59 LN (290/1)= 9.02 deg C.

The AGW'ers say the Earth has warmed by about 33 deg C due to the Greenhouse effect, so 33/9.02 = 3.66 must be the Maximum amplification factor possible.
------------------------
The Past and Future of Climate
by David Archibald
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/pastandfuture2.pdf

Atmospheric CO2 vs Earth Temperature During the Ice Ages
The Ice Ages (Figure 7) shows the biggest variances (interpolating) for Temp is 13 deg C (+3 to -10) and CO2 is 120ppm (180 to 300).
This is about 330 thousand years ago.
Using the above formula delta T = 1.59 LN (300/180)= 0.812 deg C
The ratio for Actual CO2 change to Actual Temp change is 120ppm/13 deg C = 9.23
The "amplification factor" for CO2 would have to be 13/0.812 = 16.0!!

Now look at a portion of the graph where the changes are less (eg. 215 thousand years ago)
The variances are..Temp variance is about 3.2 deg C (-1.8 to -5) and the CO2 variance is about 30ppm (230 to 260)
Using the above formula delta T = 1.59 LN (260/230)= 0.195 deg C
The ratio for Actual CO2 change to Actual Temp change is 30ppm/3.2 deg C = 9.38
And, the "amplification factor" for CO2 would have to be 3.2/0.195 = 16.4 !

Clearly, the "amplification factor" varies so much, it is pure fiction....3.66 for the "Greenhouse Effect" vs about 16 for the Ice Ages!

But, the MOST IMPORTANT thing this analysis shows is that, the CHANGE IN CO2 divided by CHANGE IN TEMP is really a CONSTANT (9.23 vs 9.38).
The CHANGE IN TEMP divided by CHANGE IN CO2 is a DERIVATIVE that produced a CONSTANT.

This means that the mathematical equation relating CO2 and TEMP HAS TO BE A LINEAR FUNCTION or close to it.

Further, evidence of the LINEAR relationship is very apparent in the cyclical nature of CO2 vs TEMP in the Ice Ages graph.

First, TEMP leads CO2 by about 800 years....CO2 follows TEMP LINEARLY!
We know that the SUN's activity is cyclical in nature and CO2 absorbtion and release by the Oceans is governed by temperature.
Temperature DRIVES CO2 production.....simple CAUSE and EFFECT.
---------------------
If CO2 were assumed to "somehow" cause the the temperature changes (as the AGW'ers want us to believe) then:

1. It would HAVE to LEAD temperature not FOLLOW it.

2. The CO2 production (volcanos, bio-mass decay etc) would HAVE to occur in a "cycle" that produced the same sequence of events to produce the CO2 with the same regularity over about 400 THOUSAND YEARS!!!

I would suggest that the probability of this happening is about ZERO.
--------------------------
--------------------------
End of the re-post.

Dan have you looked into this as well?

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results