Saturday 25 July 2020

Surface Stations Project

This is a reblog of a page from TALLBLOKE'S TALKSHOP It is computer generated. So please go there for the latest version.


Index

This is a computer generated temporary page, subject to change.

Project main page
“Surface Stations Survey”
Surface Station Survey

List follows of Meteorological Station ID and Name.
Followed by list of Miscellaneous stations and information

If an information page exists for the station there is a link to the page.

Use Web Browser search to find a station.


  1. WMO03002-0 BALTASOUND NO.2 60 44 54N 00 51 20W 15 link
  2. WMO03005-0 LERWICK 60 08 21N 01 11 05W 82 link
  3. WMO03008-0 FAIR ISLE 59 31 35N 01 37 39W 68 link
  4. WMO03010-0 SULE SKERRY 59 04 57N 04 24 16W 12 link
  5. WMO03014-0 FOULA NO2 60 06 38N 02 03 53W 22 link
  6. WMO03017-0 KIRKWALL 58 57 13N 02 54 05W 17 link
  7. WMO03023-0 SOUTH UIST RANGE 57 21 27N 07 23 06W 4 link
  8. WMO03026-0 STORNOWAY AIRPORT 58 12 49N 06 19 08W 7 link
  9. WMO03031-0 LOCH GLASCARNOCH 57 43 30N 04 53 44W 269 link
  10. WMO03034-0 AULTBEA NO2 57 51 32N 05 37 58W 11 link
  11. WMO03037-0 SKYE:LUSA 57 15 25N 05 48 19W 18 link
  12. WMO03039-0 BEALACH NA BA NO2 57 25 05N 05 41 19W 773 link
  13. WMO03041-0 AONACH MOR 56 49 20N 04 58 09W 1130 link
  14. WMO03044-0 ALTNAHARRA NO2 58 17 16N 04 26 33W 81 link
  15. WMO03047-0 TULLOCH BRIDGE 56 52 01N 04 42 29W 249 link
  16. WMO03062-0 TAIN RANGE 57 49 08N 03 58 00W 4 link
  17. WMO03063-0 AVIEMORE 57 12 23N 03 49 42W 228 link
  18. WMO03065-0 CAIRNGORM SUMMIT 57 06 58N 03 38 35W 1237 link
  19. WMO03066-0 KINLOSS 57 38 44N 03 33 49W 6 link
  20. WMO03068-0 LOSSIEMOUTH 57 42 41N 03 19 24W 12 link
  21. WMO03072-0 CAIRNWELL 56 52 45N 03 25 15W 928 link
  22. WMO03075-0 WICK AIRPORT 58 27 14N 03 05 24W 38 link
  23. WMO03080-0 ABOYNE NO2 57 04 33N 02 50 28W 140 link
  24. WMO03088-0 INVERBERVIE NO.2 56 51 07N 02 15 57W 134 link
  25. WMO03091-0 DYCE 57 12 18N 02 12 19W 65 link
  26. WMO03092-0 PETERHEAD HARBOUR 57 30 09N 01 46 27W 15 link
  27. WMO03100-0 TIREE 56 30 00N 06 52 58W 11 link
  28. WMO03105-0 ISLAY:PORT ELLEN 55 40 53N 06 14 59W 17 link
  29. WMO03111-0 MACHRIHANISH 55 26 27N 05 41 49W 12 link
  30. WMO03132-0 WEST FREUGH 54 51 33N 04 56 07W 11 link
  31. WMO03134-0 GLASGOW BISHOPTON 55 54 24N 04 31 57W 59 link
  32. WMO03136-0 PRESTWICK, GANNET 55 30 55N 04 35 05W 19 link
  33. WMO03144-0 STRATHALLEN AIRFIELD 56 19 35N 03 43 43W 35 link
  34. WMO03148-0 GLEN OGLE 56 25 24N 04 19 12W 564 link
  35. WMO03153-0 DUNDRENNAN 54 48 12N 04 00 29W 113 link
  36. WMO03155-0 DRUMALBIN 55 37 38N 03 44 10W 245 link
  37. WMO03158-0 CHARTERHALL 55 42 31N 02 23 05W 112 link
  38. WMO03162-0 ESKDALEMUIR 55 18 43N 03 12 25W 236 link
  39. WMO03166-0 EDINBURGH GOGARBANK 55 55 42N 03 20 40W 57 link
  40. WMO03171-0 LEUCHARS 56 22 36N 02 51 46W 11 link
  41. WMO03204-0 RONALDSWAY 54 05 07N 04 37 55W 16 link
  42. WMO03210-0 ST BEES HEAD NO.2 54 31 04N 03 36 53W 124 link
  43. WMO03212-0 KESWICK 54 36 50N 03 09 24W 81 link
  44. WMO03214-0 WALNEY ISLAND 54 07 30N 03 15 29W 15 link
  45. WMO03220-0 CARLISLE 54 56 04N 02 57 49W 28 link
  46. WMO03224-0 SPADEADAM NO2 55 03 01N 02 33 16W 285 link
  47. WMO03225-0 SHAP 54 30 08N 02 41 06W 252 link
  48. WMO03226-0 WARCOP RANGE 54 34 21N 02 24 47W 227 link
  49. WMO03227-0 GREAT DUN FELL NO2 54 41 03N 02 27 05W 847 link
  50. WMO03230-0 REDESDALE CAMP 55 17 06N 02 16 46W 211 link
  51. WMO03238-0 ALBEMARLE 55 01 11N 01 52 54W 142 link
  52. WMO03240-0 BOULMER 55 25 15N 01 36 05W 22 link
  53. WMO03257-0 LEEMING 54 17 49N 01 31 59W 40 link
  54. WMO03261-0 DISHFORTH AIRFIELD 54 08 05N 01 24 52W 35 link
  55. WMO03265-0 TOPCLIFFE 54 12 17N 01 23 24W 28 link
  56. WMO03266-0 LINTON-ON-OUSE 54 02 43N 01 15 04W 16 link
  57. WMO03275-0 LOFTUS 54 33 46N 00 51 49W 158 link
  58. WMO03281-0 FYLINGDALES 54 21 31N 00 40 18W 262 link
  59. WMO03292-0 BRIDLINGTON MRSC 54 05 38N 00 10 33W 15 link
  60. WMO03301-0 MONA 53 15 36N 04 22 34W 61 link
  61. WMO03302-0 VALLEY 53 15 09N 04 32 11W 11 link
  62. WMO03305-0 CAPEL CURIG NO3 53 05 39N 03 56 29W 216 link
  63. WMO03313-0 RHYL NO2 53 15 33N 03 30 32W 77 link
  64. WMO03316-0 CROSBY 53 29 50N 03 03 28W 9 link
  65. WMO03318-0 BLACKPOOL, SQUIRES GATE 53 46 28N 03 02 22W 10 link
  66. WMO03321-0 HAWARDEN AIRPORT 53 10 29N 02 59 15W 13 link
  67. WMO03330-0 LEEK THORNCLIFFE 53 07 40N 01 58 53W 298 link
  68. WMO03344-0 BINGLEY NO.2 53 48 40N 01 52 00W 262 link
  69. WMO03346-0 EMLEY MOOR NO 2 53 36 42N 01 40 01W 267 link
  70. WMO03348-0 WOODFORD 53 20 21N 02 09 16W 89 link
  71. WMO03354-0 NOTTINGHAM, WATNALL 53 00 20N 01 15 04W 117 link
  72. WMO03355-0 CHURCH FENTON 53 50 09N 01 11 56W 8 link
  73. WMO03373-0 SCAMPTON 53 18 25N 00 32 53W 61 link
  74. WMO03377-0 WADDINGTON 53 10 31N 00 31 24W 70 link
  75. WMO03379-0 CRANWELL 53 01 52N 00 30 13W 66 link
  76. WMO03382-0 LECONFIELD 53 52 29N 00 26 30W 8 link
  77. WMO03385-0 DONNA NOOK NO.2 53 28 29N 00 09 10E 8 link
  78. WMO03391-0 CONINGSBY 53 05 38N 00 10 22W 7 link
  79. WMO03392-0 WAINFLEET NO2 53 05 18N 00 16 15E 3 link
  80. WMO03405-0 ABERDARON 52 47 20N 04 44 29W 95 link
  81. WMO03409-0 BALA 52 54 26N 03 34 59W 163 link
  82. WMO03410-0 LAKE VYRNWY NO2 52 45 26N 03 27 55W 360 link
  83. WMO03414-0 SHAWBURY 52 47 41N 02 39 53W 75 link
  84. WMO03462-0 WITTERING 52 36 41N 00 27 40W 83 link
  85. WMO03469-0 HOLBEACH NO2 52 52 24N 00 08 19E 3 link
  86. WMO03482-0 MARHAM 52 39 05N 00 33 58E 23 link
  87. WMO03488-0 WEYBOURNE 52 56 58N 01 07 21E 21 link
  88. WMO03502-0 ABERPORTH 52 08 22N 04 34 16W 133 link
  89. WMO03503-0 TRAWSGOED 52 20 39N 03 56 53W 63 link
  90. WMO03507-0 SENNYBRIDGE NO2 52 03 48N 03 36 53W 307 link
  91. WMO03520-0 SHOBDON AIRFIELD 52 14 35N 02 53 09W 99 link
  92. WMO03522-0 HEREFORD, CREDENHILL 52 04 48N 02 48 09W 76 link
  93. WMO03529-0 PERSHORE 52 08 54N 02 02 28W 35 link
  94. WMO03535-0 COLESHILL 52 28 48N 01 41 27W 96 link
  95. WMO03544-0 CHURCH LAWFORD 52 21 32N 01 19 53W 107 link
  96. WMO03560-0 BEDFORD 52 13 37N 00 27 55W 85 link
  97. WMO03590-0 WATTISHAM 52 07 26N 00 57 27E 86 link
  98. WMO03604-0 MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BOARD 51 42 32N 05 03 12W 44 link
  99. WMO03605-0 PEMBREY SANDS 51 42 52N 04 22 03W 3 link
  100. WMO03609-0 MUMBLES HEAD 51 33 56N 03 58 54W 43 link
  101. WMO03628-0 FILTON 51 31 19N 02 34 38W 56 link
  102. WMO03647-0 LITTLE RISSINGTON 51 51 38N 01 41 35W 210 link
  103. WMO03649-0 BRIZE NORTON 51 45 30N 01 34 41W 87 link
  104. WMO03658-0 BENSON 51 37 13N 01 05 55W 61 link
  105. WMO03660-0 HIGH WYCOMBE HQAIR 51 40 54N 00 48 25W 204 link
  106. WMO03672-0 NORTHOLT 51 32 55N 00 25 01W 37 link
  107. WMO03684-0 ANDREWSFIELD 51 53 46N 00 27 02E 87 link
  108. WMO03693-0 SHOEBURYNESS, LANDWICK 51 33 17N 00 49 37E 2 link
  109. WMO03696-0 WALTON-ON-THE-NAZE 51 51 16N 01 16 44E 5 link
  110. WMO03707-0 CHIVENOR 51 05 21N 04 08 55W 8 link
  111. WMO03710-0 LISCOMBE 51 05 13N 03 36 32W 348 link
  112. WMO03716-0 ST. ATHAN 51 24 19N 03 26 27W 49 link
  113. WMO03740-0 LYNEHAM 51 30 11N 01 59 32W 156 link
  114. WMO03743-0 LARKHILL 51 12 06N 01 48 21W 132 link
  115. WMO03746-0 BOSCOMBE DOWN 51 09 42N 01 45 17W 124 link
  116. WMO03749-0 MIDDLE WALLOP 51 08 59N 01 34 12W 90 link
  117. WMO03761-0 ODIHAM 51 14 20N 00 56 42W 123 link
  118. WMO03768-0 SOUTH FARNBOROUGH 51 16 48N 00 46 21W 65 link
  119. WMO03769-0 CHARLWOOD 51 08 38N 00 13 46W 67 link
  120. WMO03772-0 HEATHROW 51 28 45N 00 27 02W 24 link
  121. WMO03781-0 KENLEY AIRFIELD 51 18 14N 00 05 29W 170 link
  122. WMO03784-0 GRAVESEND, BROADNESS 51 27 52N 00 18 41E 3 link
  123. WMO03796-0 LANGDON BAY 51 08 01N 01 20 36E 117 link
  124. WMO03797-0 MANSTON 51 20 47N 01 20 08E 54 link
  125. WMO03803-0 SCILLY: ST MARY’S AIRPORT 49 54 52N 06 17 45W 36 link
  126. WMO03808-0 CAMBORNE 50 13 06N 05 19 39W 87 link
  127. WMO03809-0 CULDROSE 50 05 04N 05 15 26W 81 link
  128. WMO03823-0 CARDINHAM, BODMIN 50 30 08N 04 40 01W 200 link
  129. WMO03827-0 PLYMOUTH, MOUNT BATTEN 50 21 18N 04 07 16W 50 link
  130. WMO03839-0 EXETER AIRPORT 50 44 14N 03 24 21W 31 link
  131. WMO03840-0 DUNKESWELL AERODROME 50 51 37N 03 14 25W 255 link
  132. WMO03853-0 YEOVILTON 51 00 23N 02 38 34W 22 link
  133. WMO03857-0 ISLE OF PORTLAND 50 31 19N 02 27 20W 52 link
  134. WMO03862-0 HURN 50 46 46N 01 50 10W 11 link
  135. WMO03866-0 WIGHT: ST. CATHERINES POINT 50 34 32N 01 17 49W 20 link
  136. WMO03872-0 THORNEY ISLAND 50 48 53N 00 55 21W 4 link
  137. WMO03874-0 SOLENT 50 48 29N 01 12 39W 9 link
  138. WMO03876-0 SHOREHAM AIRPORT 50 50 10N 00 17 37W 2 link
  139. WMO03882-0 HERSTMONCEUX, WEST END 50 53 58N 00 19 01E 52 link
  140. WMO03894-0 GUERNSEY AIRPORT 49 25 59N 02 35 53W 102 link
  141. WMO03895-0 JERSEY AIRPORT 49 12 35N 02 11 39W 84 link
  142. WMO03901-0 THOMASTOWN 54 19 46N 07 35 39W 72 link
  143. WMO03903-0 ST ANGELO 54 23 43N 07 38 43W 47 link
  144. WMO03904-0 CASTLEDERG 54 42 25N 07 34 41W 49 link
  145. WMO03907-0 MAGILLIGAN NO 2 55 09 37N 06 56 54W 6 link
  146. WMO03911-0 LOUGH FEA 54 43 15N 06 48 54W 225 link
  147. WMO03915-0 PORTGLENONE 54 51 55N 06 27 30W 64 link
  148. WMO03916-0 BALLYPATRICK FOREST 55 10 50N 06 09 17W 156 link
  149. WMO03917-0 ALDERGROVE 54 39 48N 06 13 33W 81 link
  150. WMO03918-0 CASTOR BAY 54 30 00N 06 20 00W 0 link
  151. WMO03923-0 GLENANNE NO2 54 14 13N 06 30 14W 161 link

Additional stations not in WMO 2012 synoptic list

Monday 20 July 2020

Climate realist - animated GIFs (Memes)

Do you have any ideas for climate realist memes done as animated GIFs? Then tell us.

An animated gif is a sequence of gif images contained in a single file. Each frame has a duration of time that it appears for and this time can vary from frame to frame. A frame can completely replace the previous frame or it can update only a portion of the total image size.

Animated gifs use many images to run automatically. There are two types: Loop or one time. Loop animations re-run automatically after the end of the animation, again and again; one time only runs one time only.

An animated GIF can vary in effect from slide show to (short) realtime animation or video snippet. They don't have to be GIFs. In fact GIF is a proprietory technology and some sites don't want you posting them. One could do animated PNGs instead.

Ideas so far:

  1. Temperature chart comparisons, as APNG:
    1. Redo Tony Heller NASA's
    2. Binghamton, New York State
  2. Santer 1995 AGW finger print chart. a. As published compared b. with before and after included to reveal cherry-picking. See Tim Ball's article here and his GIFs
  3. Solar: solar dynamo. Moving to reveal solar magnetic cycles
  4. Murry Salby demos of CO2 residence time
  5. Dr Richard Snowdon Dillon's book: "Scientific Facts and Climate Change" makes many short points (each about 1 page of text with a diagram). These 2 books (2019 and earlier edition) are probably a good source for ideas. I've not seen the latest edition yet. The earlier edition was excellent.
  6. John Kehr's book: Inconvenient Skeptic also had good charts & diagrams

Tuesday 14 July 2020

BBC asks Dr Willie Soon to respond to climate conspiracy claims

Repost from WUWT, after request by Willie Soon to "echo" the article.


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The BBC has belatedly decided they need at least a little input from one of the targets of their latest big oil climate conspiracy propaganda piece. Dr. Willie Soon does not hold back in his response.

Note some of the links take you to a “You are leaving the mail.com service” page. This is a harmless artefact caused by copying Dr. Soon’s email, click continue to see the referenced document.


Dear Ms. Keane,

I am wary of responding to your false allegations, since your questions seem somewhat loaded. Disappointingly, they appear to repeat the dishonest and misleading claims of the former Greenpeace USA research director, Kert Davies (now running the so-called “Climate Investigations Center”), whose research we have shown to be disingenuous in Section 2 of our attached 2018 report on Greenpeace (Attachment 1). Unfortunately, the premise of your series seems to be the dangerous conspiracy theories promoted by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in their 2010 book Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change and their 2014 film of the same name. I’ve attached a short 3-page .pdf (Attachment 2) summarizing just a few examples of the poor scholarship and bizarre hypocrisies in Oreskes & Conway’s conspiracy theories.

The BBC has an established history of stifling genuine scientific inquiry and nuanced debate on climate change since its infamous 2006 Climate Change – the Challenge to Broadcasting? seminar, as described in detail in Andrew Montford’s short book The Propaganda Bureau and summarized in various blogs in 2012, e.g., hereherehere and here.  

It is also regrettable that you attempted to contact me in such a roundabout way, i.e., by going through the Heartland Institute, rather than emailing me directly here at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. I am not pleased that you saw fit to circulate your letter, with its numerous libellous comments, to a third party.

The BBC seems to encourage the unethical pseudo-journalistic practice of selectively quoting and cherry-picking out-of-context interviewees who disagree with the narrative of the program, in order to make the interviewees seem foolish or uninformed. Richard North, summarized this unethical practice well in this 2011 essay: https://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-being-stitched-up.htmlThis was a particular concern when I considered whether to reply to your allegations.

I am hoping that you have more journalistic integrity than your BBC colleagues who have carried out unethical “hatchet jobs” in the past. I suspect that you may not be planning to “fairly and accurately reflect any comments” as you promised me. 

Nonetheless, given the number of false allegations you are threatening to broadcast, I feel compelled to respond. I have copied this letter a number of friends and colleagues who might be interested to see the questions you have asked me and my responses.

I have copied and pasted your letter to me below. Your letter is in bold face: and my responses are in Roman face.

Will you change course in your grave misunderstanding on this timely subject and uphold honest debate and discussion on climate science?

Yours faithfully,

Willie Soon

Phoebe Keane

BBC Radio Current Affairs

BBC New Broadcasting House

Portland Place

London

W1A 1AA

Dear Wei Hok ‘Willie’ Soon,

My Chinese name given by my father is Wei-Hock. There is no need to put a quote on Willie as this is my name.

I’m making a BBC Radio series about the way oil companies have over emphasized the uncertainty around climate change. The series will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in the UK and we intend for it to be available as a podcast internationally and may appear as an online article. It is a 10 part series, each episode is 15 minutes long.

The series is currently titled ‘How they made us doubt everything’ and will discuss how the oil industry has carried out a campaign to make us doubt climate change. It explores how it drew on a ‘playbook’ of tactics developed by the tobacco industry and PR company Hill & Knowlton to make us doubt the connection between smoking and cancer. We’ll set out that these tactics weaponised doubt and enabled both the tobacco and oil industries to undermine science, but also has fed into a broader sense of distrust in facts and experts which has spread far beyond climate change. 

I should strongly urge you to reconsider the current premise of your proposed series which seems to be based on the flawed conspiracy theories promoted by Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway in their 2010 book (and 2014 film), “Merchants of Doubt”. I would recommend you read the attached 3-page critique (Attachment 2) of this pseudo-scientific conspiracy theory by Oreskes & Conway.

Instead, if you genuinely want to address the vested interests who are most seriously hindering and undermining scientific inquiry into climate change, I would urge you to read our 2018 analysis of the anti-science, anti-education and ultimately anti-environment behaviour that Greenpeace has engaged in. In particular, I would refer you to Section 2, in which we specifically review the dishonest and insidious misinformation campaigns which Kert Davies spearheaded while he was Greenpeace USA’s Research Director. I’ve attached a .pdf copy (Attachment 1), but you can also download a copy from the Heartland Institute’s website here: https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/analysis-of-greenpeace-business-model

We’d like to offer you the opportunity to respond to the points we intend to broadcast. We therefore draw your attention to the following: 

1)      You received millions of dollars for your research through 2000 up to 2015 from fossil fuel interests including Southern Company, American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil Foundation. Is that the case? Would you like to respond?

WS: This is definitely not the case. I have definitely not “received millions of dollars for your research through 2000 up to 2015”. My employer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, is simply not that generous. Frankly, if making money was my main priority, I would not have gone into science. Indeed, if I did not care about science or the environment, maybe I would have found it more lucrative to work for an advocacy group like Greenpeace, which as we discuss in the attached report has an annual turnover of about $400 million.

My salary has come from the Center since I started as a staff position in 1997. Until about 2008, I had no involvement in where the Center received its funding. After my immediate supervisor retired in 2009, one of my additional duties was to write grant proposals on behalf of the Center, which has received funding from many sources including government, industry, charities, foundations and many others. This includes the three groups you mentioned, amongst many others. 

However, most employees (including me) receive their salary through the Center. This has the advantage that our research is uninfluenced by the Center’s funding sources. In any case, I am a scientist. I believe it is important to follow the science wherever it leads. I appreciate that there probably are some “scientists” out there who might alter their research results to facilitate vested interests, but the idea is abhorrent to me.

2)      Kert Davies of the Climate Investigations Centre says your research was used to slow down progress on climate change. Would you like to respond?

On the contrary, in my opinion, the dishonest and unethical misinformation spearheaded by Kert Davies of the Climate Investigations Center (and previously Greenpeace USA) has been used to slow down progress on genuine climate change research. See for example, Section 2 of our Greenpeace attached report, where we describe what he did through his “ExxonSecrets” campaigns.

3)      Our guests outline that this played into a  broader campaign to misrepresent the data on climate change, leading to many people doubting legitimate climate change science. Would you like to respond to this?

Again, on the contrary, in my opinion, it is the misinformation promoted by Kert Davies and others like him that is “leading to many people doubting legitimate climate change science”. Often the original sources of this misinformation seem to have arisen from people associated with campaigning groups who have a vested interest in downplaying the extensive ongoing scientific debate within the scientific community on many aspects of climate change: for instance, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the David Suzuki Foundation (in particular, see the DeSmogBlog website co-founded by the Chair of this foundation, James Hoggan), the Union of Concerned Scientists, etc. 

If you visit the websites of any of these groups, you will quickly find that many of their campaigns explicitly rely on the assumption that “97% of scientists agree” and “the science is settled”. In fact, as Legates et al. (2015), of which I was a co-author, demonstrated that the widely-quoted Cook et al. (2013) paper that purported to find 97.1% of 11,944 peer-reviewed climate papers published in the 21 years 1991-2011 all agreed that climate change is mostly human caused, was based on flawed analysis and bad science. Upon a close inspection of their data, they had only found 64 papers or 0.5% of their sample had explicitly argued that climate change was mostly human caused. A subsequent examination showed that only 41 of these, or 0.3% of the original sample, had made that statement. On the other hand, 27 papers concluded the exact opposite that i.e., climate change is mostly natural. Vast majority of the papers did not make any statements one way or the other. For more details on the 97% consensus myth, please read here.

As we discussed in our Greenpeace report, these campaigns can be very lucrative for the campaigning groups. As a result, an honest reporting of the messy and contentious scientific debates that continue to this day within the scientific community would directly harm their claims of “scientific consensus” and “settled science”. 

Our case study of Greenpeace showed that it has an annual turnover of about $0.4 billion, and that from 1994-2017 they spent $521 million (i.e., more than $0.5 billion) on their “Climate/Climate & energy” campaigns. In comparison, Greenpeace’s “ExxonSecrets” campaign (led by Kert Davies) claimed that ExxonMobil allegedly spent $1.8 million/year over the period 1998-2014 on “funding climate denial” and that this supposedly substantially altered the public discourse on climate change. I encourage you to read our complete analysis in the report. Meanwhile, consider that if Kert Davies were correct that the alleged $1.8 million/year from ExxonMobil on “funding climate denial” has substantially altered the public discourse on climate change, what was the impact of Greenpeace’s $31 million/year expenditure on “Climate/Climate & energy” campaigning, 17 times greater than Exxon’s alleged expenditure?

4)      You have been characterised as downplaying the impact of human activities on climate change. Is that a fair portrayal of your work?

No, definitely not. My climate change research considers all of the plausible mechanisms for climate change that are discussed in the scientific literature. I’m not sure of what definition you have in mind, but to me “downplaying” means making something appear less important than it really is. If that’s the same definition you are using, then that is the exact opposite of my research. My research involves trying to find out exactly how important each of the many proposed climate change mechanisms are in current, past and future climate change. 

It is true that many scientists (in particular, several of the main computer modelling groups) have “downplayed” (to use your word) the role of solar variability and other forms in recent and historic climate change. So, by not downplaying these important factors, my work often leads to more nuanced, and in my opinion, more accurate and reliable, conclusions.

Indeed, several of my recent publications have argued that the current global and regional temperature datasets have substantially underestimated the role of a specific local form of human-caused climate change, i.e., the urban heat island phenomenon. The Urban Heat Island is a well-recognized form of local climate change that has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions, but is definitely a result of human activities. This is an underappreciated problem because even though urban areas only comprise 1-2% of the planet, many of the weather stations used in current global temperature datasets and most of the ones with the longest records are urbanized. This appears to have led to a sampling bias: the trends of the sampled data are unrepresentative of the global trends.

Your response would be appreciated in writing to the above by 7th July 2020 so we can fairly and accurately reflect any comments you wish to make, where appropriate. Please respond to: [redacted]

For your information we also intend to report:

1)      That a 1995 draft primer to the Global Climate Coalition dismisses solar variability, which we describe as your main thesis. The primer says it’s ‘accounted for 0.1 degrees C temperature increase in the last 120 years, it is an interesting finding, but it does not allay concerns about future warming which could result from greenhouse gas emissions.’ [SOURCE: Primer sent from L S Bernstein, Exxon Mobil, Environmental health and safety department, to members of GCC, 21ST December 1995. Made publicly available as part of the court case ‘Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie’ 2005.]

Are you implying that the Global Climate Coalition had already in their 1995 document reached “the definitive answers” on the complex and challenging problem of the attribution of recent and future climate change, a year before IPCC’s Second Assessment Report and nearly 20 years before its fifth? Are you suggesting that all scientific research into climate change since 1995 is redundant? 

I’m not sure how you think science works, but that is utter nonsense. Climate change is a complex multi-causal phenomenon, and scientists have been debating the relative importance of different factors since the 19th century, particularly following the discovery of the ice ages.

The role of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is in many ways the easiest to assess, because according to the Antarctic ice core estimates, atmospheric CO2 has increased near-exponentially from pre-industrial concentrations of nearly 0.03% to a little above 0.04% today. In contrast, the role of the Sun is a much more challenging subject: there is much ongoing debate over which estimates of past “Total Solar Irradiance” (TSI), i.e., solar output, are most reliable. There are also ongoing debates over the various mechanisms by which solar variability influences the Earth’s climate.

If you are interested in learning more about the ongoing debates in the scientific literature over this, I would recommend reading our comprehensive 2015 review paper: Soon et al. (2015), Earth-Science Reviews, Vol. 150, p 409-452. You can download a copy from my CfA website here. If you don’t have time to read the full 44-page article, which is technical in places, there is a simpler overview here: 

https://ceres-science.com/content/Evaluating_human-caused_and_natural_contributions_recent_global_warming.html

However, one of the problems inherent in the research of those groups who “downplay” (to use your word again) the role of solar variability in recent and historic climate change and instead focus on CO2 as the “primary climate driver” (as the current computer models do), is that they find it very difficult to explain climate changes before about 1950, as CO2 seems to have still been only 0.031% then.

A consequence of this is that in order to try and fit the historic global temperature trends in terms of CO2 as the primary climate driver, researchers have had to:

a.       Increase the modelled “climate sensitivity” of global temperatures to CO2 concentrations; and

b.       Revise the estimates of past climate changes to downplay the climate variability before about 1950.

A bizarre result of these attempts to “shoehorn” CO2 as the primary climate driver is that even the IPCC’s latest (Fifth) Assessment Report still suggests that the “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity” (ECS) to CO2 could be anything from 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C. This year (Meehl et al, 2020Zelinka et al. 2020) it is reported that the sixth-generation models of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project find the spread to be 1.8-5.6 °C. ECS is the expected global warming that would occur from a doubling of CO2

In a recent scientific paper that we published in March, we showed that the value of this metric has major implications for international climate change policies. If ECS is at the higher end of the IPCC’s “likely” range, then the 2015 Paris Agreement would be broken in a few decades if we continue “business-as-usual”. However, if ECS is less than 2 °C, then if we continued “business-as-usual” for the rest of the century, the Paris Agreement wouldn’t be broken until at least the 22nd century. That seems to me a pretty important point that the BBC should be discussing.

In case you’re interested, you can download our 2020 “Business-as-usual” paper here: Connolly et al. (2020), Energies, Vol. 13, 1365. Again, it is a rather long paper. However, I hope you appreciate by now that these are complex problems, and that there is a lot of ongoing scientific debate within the scientific community on these issues.

2)      That you published a paper in 2006 relating to Polar Bears which concluded that there was no reason for alarm for their continued safety. Please let me know if that’s incorrect. 

WS: Incorrect. 

I’m not sure what “2006” paper you are referring to. I did co-author three scientific papers which looked at polar bear populations around that time, but none in 2006. It is possible that you’re referring to Dyck et al. (2007) as that was accepted for publication subject to minor revisions in October 2006 (after a lengthy peer review process), but it was not officially published until April 2007. 

In any case, that was not the conclusion of the paper. 

I also co-authored a follow-on paper, Dyck et al. (2008), in response to some comments on the 2007 paper, and I was a co-author on a separate paper, Armstrong et al. (2008) which also looked at forecasting of polar bear populations.

The three papers are:

·         Dyck et al. (2007), Ecological Complexity, Vol. 4., p 73-84. Pdf available here

·         Dyck et al. (2008), Ecological Complexity, Vol. 5, p 289-302. Pdf available here

This was a response to comments in Stirling et al. (2008), Ecological Complexity, Vol. 5, p 193-201. Pdf available here.

·         Armstrong et al. (2008), Interfaces, Vol. 38, p 382-405. Pdf available here.

I would recommend reading the papers to find out the exact details of what we found in those papers, in particular, the Dyck et al. (2007) which I suspect is probably the “2006” paper you were referring to. However, in brief, two researchers (Ian Stirling and Andrew Derocher) and colleagues had published a series of papers in which they concluded that the primary factor in the local polar bear populations in the western Hudson Bay region was global warming from increasing CO2. Specifically, they argued that the long-term spring-time warming since the 1970s in the region was: (a) due to increasing CO2, (b) was reducing local sea ice cover and (c) leading to reductions in local polar bear population.

We looked at the basis for their claims and realized that their analysis was scientifically flawed for multiple reasons. For instance, they apparently hadn’t realized that while the Arctic has warmed since the 1970s, it followed a period of Arctic cooling from the 1940s-1970s, and there was a similar warm period to present during the early 20th century. If their theory was correct, then the polar bear populations should have responded accordingly during those pre-1970s periods. They didn’t. Instead, we found that the local polar bear populations appear to be more influenced by other factors, such as the numbers of bears that are allowed to be hunted.

More recently, I have co-authored a study in which we reconstructed Arctic sea ice cover back to 1900, and found that the variability in Arctic sea ice cover is a lot greater than the IPCC had assumed in their latest reports: Connolly et al. (2017), Hydrological Sciences Journal, vol. 62, p1317-1340. I also co-authored a study in 2019 in which we compared the observed snow cover trends for the entire Northern Hemisphere since 1967 to the trends which the IPCC computer models say should have occurred – according to their assumption that CO2 is the primary climate driver. The results were shocking. The current computer models are unable to explain the observed trends in snow cover for either winter, spring, summer or fall. None of the 196 computer model simulations that the IPCC used for their most recent report succeeded in replicating the observed 1967-2018 trends for any of the seasons. The paper is: Connolly et al. (2019), Geosciences, vol. 9, 135.

As a result, these two recent papers reveal that the computer models which Stirling and Derocher as well as the IPCC had been relying on for their analysis of the Arctic seriously “downplayed” the natural variability in Arctic sea ice and seriously “up-played” the role of CO2in recent trends.

Yours faithfully, 

Phoebe Keane

BBC Radio Current Affairs; [redacted]

A final thought: I think it important that you should understand that science is not a matter of mere politics: it is an earnest, continuing and rigorous search for the objective truth. In this reply I have given you some indication of the fact that your underlying premise – that there is only one scientific viewpoint on the climate question and that all other scientific opinions are bought and paid for by vested interests running counter to the vested interest of the BBC – is in all respects wholly false. 

Are you a campaigner for a cause that is rooted in such bad science, or are you a proper journalist willing to ask real questions? The moment you begin to look at the climate question not through the eyes of blind faith, not through the lens of political zeal, but through the searing prism of logic and scientific method, you will realize that there are two sides to the climate question based on the data currently available.

Attachment 1 – Analysis of Greenpeace’s business model

Attachment 2 – Paradoxes of the Merchants of Doubt conspiracy theory

Why luke-warmism implicitly supports climate alarmism

In a recent article Richard Lindzen wrote:

"An oversimplified picture of the climate behaviour based on a single process can lead to distorted conclusions"

The single process Lindzen refers to must be the so-called greenhouse gas effect, GHGE. In particular: the model of the GHGE proposed by Manabe and Wetherald 1967, M&W1967, amended by Held and Soden 2000, H&S2000.

This is the only simple model of GHGE alarmists ever considered. 'Belief in' and obsequious homage to this GHGE model defines the climate alarmist position. They consider the M&W1967/H&S2000 model to be "settled science" and "simple physics".

  1. Alarmists. M&W1967/H&S2000 model is not an "oversimplified process". It cannot be improved by complicating it or nit-picking some gross flaws (as Monckton does). It is a mistaken process. It is not even physics. It's very description misrepresents the physical world. A top of the troposphere, ToT, warming cannot be transmitted back to the surface, by assuming the lapse rate is a plane, or line drawn in the sky which stays constant (as Andrew Dessler, Ken Rice, and others do). Because the ToT is over 75C cooler than the surface with an atmospheric density about one quarter. This model assumes a mass of air, one quarter density and 75C colder can warm another mass (at the surface) which is 75C warmer and 4 times as dense. This basic model literally describes an impossible process. An insane process.
  2. Lukewarmers, do not have an alternative model they signed up to 'believe in'. They basically have nothing. Yet by saying they believe in a GHGE they give credence to the anti-science nonsense of M&W1967/H&S2000 alarmist crowd. Lukewarmers need to up their game if they want the slayers to take them seriously.
  3. Slayers. The responsible position in the GHGE debate is to assume a null hypothesis.

Citations

  • Lindzen, R.S. An oversimplified picture of the climate behavior based on a single process can lead to distorted conclusions. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 462 (2020).
  • M&W1967 Manabe and Wetherald 1967
  • H&S2000 Held and Soden 2000.
  • My comment at WUWT

Sunday 12 July 2020

Settled! Global Warming and the pause, caused by changes in cloud cover, not CO2

Repost from Joanne Nova

This paper is in Russian. Summarized in the Joanne Nova article


That’s it: It was 4% cloudier in 1985, then roughly the same after 2000 — that’s the Pause and the Cause

A new paper in Russian, by OM Pokrovsky, shows that global cloud cover decreased markedly from 1986 to 2000. This is a very large decline in terms of the planetary atmosphere. Pokrovsky uses ISCCP satellite data (the “International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project” — a US program). It’s the best cloud data there is. The effects of clouds are so strong that most of the differences between IPCC-favoured-models comes from the assumptions the models make about clouds. Cloud feedbacks are the “largest source of uncertainty”. [IPCC, 2007]

Clouds cover two-thirds of the Earths surface, reflecting around 30% of the total energy from the Sun back to space. A small change in cloud cover can easily warm or cool the planet, like a giant pop-up shade-sail.

This, on its own, explains all the warming that occurred from 1986 – 2000. It explains the pause. We don’t know why clouds decreased, but we know it wasn’t due to CO2, which kept rising relentlessly year after year, and even faster after the turn of the century.

Something else is driving cloud formation, or density or longevity, and the global climate modelers don’t know what that is.

 ”Thus, cloud cover changes over three decades during the period of global warming can explain not only the linear trend of global temperature, but also a certain interannual variability.”

Cloud Cover, Global, graph, 2019.

Cloud cover explains the warming, and the pause.

What drives the clouds?

Cloud cover changes could be caused by changes in the solar magnetic field, which may drive cloud seeding via its effect on the cosmic rays that bombard Earth (see Henrik Svensmark). But clouds could also be affected by the solar wind or by solar spectral changes, neither of which are included in GCMs. Clouds could also be driven by changes in aerosols due to volcanoes, bacteria, and plankton. Clouds could also form differently with changes in jetstreams or ocean currents. Meandering jet streams put huge “fingers” of cold air into warm air zones — surely a recipe for more cloud formation. (see Stephen Wilde’s work).

Global Climate Models have no chance of predicting cloud cover. They assume cloud changes are a feedback, not a forcing. So, right from the start, the models don’t even recognise that some outside force might be independently changing cloud cover. In 2012, Miller et al. reported that models got cloud feedbacks wrong by 70W/m2 — an error that’s nearly 20 times larger than the total effect of CO2. What a farce.

Calculating the warming effect

The effect of clouds is complicated. High clouds cause warming. Low clouds cause cooling. Clouds over the dark oceans change the albedo of Earth more than clouds over a bright desert. Clouds in the tropics will reflect more incoming light than clouds over the poles. But at its most brutally simple, the more clouds there are, the more the world cools.

Figure 9 below, describes the relationship between global temperatures and cloud cover. It appears Pokrovsky used it to calculate the effect of the reduction in clouds. A 0.07C warming effect for each 1% decrease in cloud cover, means a fall of 4% in cloud cover would lead to 0.3C of warming. This is just from 1986 – 2000AD and is roughly the same amount of warming as was seen in Hadley. In this situation, no matter how much the trend of Hadley temperatures is “adjusted up,” as long as an analyst uses Hadley temperatures to estimate the linear trend, the increase due to clouds will fit. (Expect Hadley 5.0 to start adjusting key turning points next to mess with this clear signal.)

 

Global temperature, Cloud cover. Graph

Fig. 9. The results of the regression analysis of the series of global clouds (ISCCP) and surface air temperature (CRUTEM3).

The conclusions in the paper:

Figure 9 presents the corresponding regression analysis results. As global temperatures, we used the data of CRUTEM 3 (University of East Anglia, Great Britain, http://www.uea.ac.uk). The number of points for statistical analysis was 318. The regression equation has the form Y = – 0.0659 X + 19.637. The determination coefficient characterizing the accuracy of the regression is 0.277. The latter means this model accounts for about 28% of the observed dispersion of surface air temperature. High global cloud cover is associated with low global temperatures, demonstrating the cooling effect of clouds. The regression linear approximation model suggests that a 1% increase in global cloud cover corresponds to a global decrease in temperature of about 0.07oC and vice versa.

In the case of global cloudiness of the lower tier, the regression equation changes slightly: Y = – 0.062 X + 16.962. The determination coefficient characterizing the accuracy of the regression increases and in this case is 0.316. From a statistical point of view, this model accounts for about 31% of the observed dispersion of surface air temperature. High low clouds are associated with low global temperatures, demonstrating the cooling effect of low clouds. A simple linear regression model suggests that a 1% increase in global low cloud cover corresponds to a global temperature drop of around 0.06oC and vice versa.

Thus, cloud cover changes over three decades during the period of global warming can explain not only the linear trend of global temperature, but also a certain interannual variability. But the inclusion of a block describing the temporal evolution of cloud cover in climate models remains a problem due to the stochastic nature of cloud variability. However, climate models are deterministic and cannot be directly combined with stochastic cloud blocks. Nevertheless, the factor of cloud cover on climate change cannot be ignored due to the significant contribution of this climate-forming parameter and should be studied more carefully to improve climate forecasts.

REFERENCES

IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Page 636  8.6.3.2 “Clouds” The original link is now broken: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf. The link at the front here is my copy of their PDF in 2009. The current IPCC AR4 Chapter 8 version.

Pokrovsky OM (2019)  Cloud Changes in the Period of Global Warming: the Results of the International Satellite Project      Russian Academy of Sciences, DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S0205-9614201913-13
https://journals.eco-vector.com/0205-9614/article/view/11444


Also see NoTricksZone. Scientists: The Entirety Of The 1979-2017 Global Temperature Change Can Be Explained By Natural Forcing

There's no Greenhouse Effect

Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, calculate the change in heat physics properties of air with 0.03% CO2, and 0.06% CO2 resprectively...