Fred Singer

CLIMATE modelers seem puzzled that small fluctuations in total solar irradiance (TSI) appear to have large influence on the climate. 

They feel it necessary to take recourse to complicated mechanisms. 

For example, Gerald Meehl of the US-National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and his team have been able to calculate how the extremely small variations in TSI bring about a comparatively significant change in the system “Atmosphere-Ocean”.  [1]

They try to explain how ‘sunspot frequency’ has an unexpectedly strong influence on cloud formation and precipitation. 

One suggested mechanism is a solar-UV enhancement of stratospheric ozone, leading to circulation changes in the troposphere, a possibility explored earlier by British researcher Joanna Haigh.  Another complicated mechanism suggested is increased heating and evaporation from cloud-free regions of the ocean, with the additional moisture transported into the equatorial zone, followed by some kind of positive feedback.

But the answer may really be very simple.  [Read more…] about Sunspots Just Part of The Story: Fred Singer

THE recent report in the journal Nature of an unexpected Antarctic warming trend has created a certain amount of skepticism – even among supporters of AGW. [1]

But in an AP news story, two of its authors (one is ‘hockey-stick’ inventor Michael Mann from the Real Climate blog) argue that this refutes the skeptics and is “consistent with” greenhouse warming.  Of course, as Roger Pielke, Jr, points out, not long ago we learned from Real Climate that a cooling Antarctica was ‘consistent with’ greenhouse warming and thus the skeptics were wrong: “So a warming Antarctica and a cooling Antarctica are both ‘consistent with’ model projections of global warming. Our foray into the tortured logic of ‘consistent with’ in climate science raises the perennial question, what observations of the climate system would be inconsistent with the model predictions?”

The results are based on very few isolated data from weather stations, plus data from research satellites.  And here is the rub: these are not data from microwave sounding units (MSU), such as are regularly published by Christy and Spencer, but data from infrared sensors that are supposed to measure the temperature of the surface (rather than of the overlaying atmosphere, as weather stations do).

[Read more…] about Is Antarctic Warming Real or “Mann”-Made? A Note from Fred Singer

I know it’s a tough job – but let’s just check the International Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) iconic, widely-quoted conclusion* and parse its meaning:

“Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” 

How should one interpret this ex cathedra declaration to the faithful?

IPCC helpfully defines ‘very likely’ as ‘90-99% certain’, but they don’t tell us how they reached such well-defined certainty. 

What remarkable unanimity! 

Just how many and whom did they poll?

IPCC doesn’t define the word ‘most.’  We may assume it means anything between 51 and 99%.  Quite a spread. 

But a footnote  informs us that solar forcing is less than 10% of anthropogenic [0.12/ 1.6 W/m2]; so ‘most’ must be closer to 99% than to 51%.

OK; let’s check out the data since 1958.  But we don’t want to rely on contaminated surface data – which IPCC likely used – although they omitted to say so. 

Atmospheric data were readily available to the IPCC in the CCSP-SAP-1.1 report (Fig 3a, p.54; convening lead author John Lanzante, NOAA), with independent analyses by Hadley Centre and NOAA that agree well.  And further, according to GH models, atmospheric trends should be larger than surface temperature trends.

1958 – 2005:  Total warming of +0.5 C  (But how much of that is anthropogenic?)
1958 – 1976:  Cooling
1976 – 1977:  Sudden jump of +0.5 C  (Cannot be due to GHG.)
1977 – 1997:  No detectable trend
1998 – 1999:  El Nino spike
2000 – 2001:  No detectable trend
2001 – 2003:  Sudden jump of +0.3 C  (Cannot be due to GHG.)
2003 – present: No trend, maybe even slight cooling

In conclusion: The IPCC’s ‘most’ is not sustained by observations; the human contribution is very likely only 10% or even less.

By Fred Singer, who lives in Arlington, Virginia, and holds a B.E.E. in Electrical engineering from Ohio State University and an A.M. and PhD in Physics from Princeton University

***************************

*IPCC Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers, November 2007

Photograph of Fred Singer taken in New York by Jennifer Marohasy in March 2008.

This note is from SEPP Science Editorial #17 (December 27, 08), ‘Keeping the IPCC honest’ http://www.sepp.org/