Why Should Observations Be Outshone By Incomplete, and Clearly Inadequate Models, or Blatantly Wrong Links Between Cause and Effect in Climate Scenarios?


Many of the past few year's greatest science debates have been based on what are now known as the preset 'image' analytical results of the 1998 Mann, Bradley and Hughs analyses of various long-term paleoclimate data sets - principally based on a few recent records from northern hemisphere pine species, often located in regions where moisture, not temperature determines growth rates, thus tree ring widths.

Similarly, due to the IPCC's over-exposure of the Mann et al Hockey Stick, the crisis-bound media and Anthropogenic Global Warming salesfolk have cashed in, and essentially put much of hard core paleoscience and basic solar science on hold.

Recent reanalysis efforts published in Geophysical Research Letters by Steve McIntyre & Ross McKitrick, (and now followed up by several others) applied to the Mann et al data sets show a very poor job was done of chosing the right statistical tools for the very complex and incomplete data sets invoked, and that there were several very available, recognized, but all too conflicting paleoclimate time series, along with cultural records, that were ignored, or simply rejected by the authors of the MB&H 1998 paper. M&M also made thoughtful comments on the issue of public availability of publically-funded research data sets. "It is simply scandalous that scientists refuse to make their research methods and data available for inspection; and all the more so when the science concerned underwrites a multi-billion dollar set of public policy initiatives."

Much of the indefensible silliness offered up by various 'climate science vendors' was previously addressed by Essex and McKitrick in their book "Taken by Storm" (Key Porter Books ISBN1-55263-212-1).

As Geof Stapleton puts it:

"The notion of an analogy to a greenhouse is of course incorrect as Essex & McKitrick point out in their book, a greenhouse works by trapping convection after absorbing sunshine, a situation quite different from the atmosphere, where convection assumes a dominant role"

(as many climatologists and ocean science folks such as myself and William Kininmonth have previously Commented On, and Diagrammed...)

Then, there is the ever-growing list of possible climate factors, that may be of special interest to readers - of course, on many other time scales. One Global Phenomenon, as pointed out as a possible force that may have helped cause the Baltic Sea freeze-overs that pushed herring out and into the western North Sea and North Atlantic, back in the Little Ice Age and later, are Lunar Tidal Cycles as posed by Otto Pettersson (1914), and more recently by Dave Keeling and Timothy Whorf:

Charles D. Keeling and Timothy P. Whorf
Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides
PNAS 1997; 94: 8321-8328.
(Colloquium paper presented in 1995)
Abstract (with links to full article) at

Charles D. Keeling and Timothy P. Whorf
The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change
PNAS 2000 97: 3814-3819; published online before print as 10.1073/pnas.070047197
Abstract (with links to full article) at

Of course, once one passes away from the IPCC CO2-centric thinking, and analyses, the real points being made recently that debunk so much of the media hype and general alarmism you can discover all sorts of plausible explanations that need consideration in Global Climate Models:

"2 x CO2 is almost unperceivable within natural climatic variations."

Ref:  Hoyt, Douglas V., 2004. Critical Examination of Climate Change, (Online)



Or the More Recent Research Report showing that


Solar and Heliospheric Influences on the Earth's Weather and Climate:The influence of the 11 yr solar cycle on the interannual-centennial climate variability

Hengyi Weng, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 67(8-9), May-June 2005, 793-805 (Link to Article)

or, Contrary to IPCC Emphasis:

"Surface warming is not caused by CO2"

Ref: de Laat, A. T. J., and A. N. Maurellis, 2004. Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends, Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 31, L05204, doi:10.1029/2003GL019024, March 11, 2004, (Online


McKitrick, Ross and Patrick J. Michaels, 2004. A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data. Climate Research Vol. 26, No 2, pp. 159-173, May 25, 2004.

Reactions to Review of MBH98 by 'Believers ­

Once M&M's results were made available to the public, various particpants in the USA's AGW advocacy network decided to mount a new, carefully 'managed', i.e., 'filtered information only' BLOG titled where particularly carefully handled 'arguments' are provided in defense of the earlier MB&H98 approach, despite the shuffling and hiding of both data sets and analytical methods and computer code were the issue, not the solution. c.f. Dummies guide to the latest "Hockey Stick"controversy:


More recent controversy over the IPCC and it's Leadership's Media Hype

The rejection of IPCC standard practices by previous leaders in their Report writing came to a head recently with the public submission of his resignation as an IPCC contributor. Dr. Chris Landsea of the Colorado State University's Climate Research Group simply got tired of the Phishing for unrelated Doom-and-Gloom scenarios employed by the IPCC media - and in response to their recent attempts to attach enhanced hurricane activity to AGW - all this was in response to Dr. Trenberth request that he draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conferenceorganized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today.

Landsea's immediate reaction: "The problem? It's simply not true, nor are the scientists making these pronouncements even qualified to comment on this area of research: Landsea resigned - and he posted his resignation at the Science Policy website at CSU.

A few weeks later Kevin Trenbreth of UCAR published his monolog/diatribe in Science, creating an even more silly appearing commentary as he posed AGW as a likley cause, then broke into another line about "uncertainty' of climate models... all described in the following article:



Scripps Howard News Service, 16 June 2005



A new scientific report about the potential effect of global climate change on Atlantic hurricanes appears likely to fuel debate over whether nastier storms are looming.

A perspective article published Thursday by Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colo., argues that a warmer, moister climate over the Atlantic is almost certain to make future hurricanes more intense and perhaps more frequent.

Writing in the journal Science, Trenberth continues an argument that garnered considerable media attention - and drew attacks from many experts - during last fall's intense battering of Florida and the Gulf Coast.

Most hurricane experts insist that there's no clear link between an increase in tropical storms since 1995 and any long-term change in global temperatures, which scientists think have been rising gradually for the past century.

"There is no reasonable scientific way any such interpretation of this recent upward shift in Atlantic hurricane activity can be made," said Colorado State University tropical-storm researcher William Gray, who predicted the recent surge in storms and expects them to continue.

Gray's culprit isn't greenhouse gases and global warming, but a long-term change in the salinity and deep-ocean currents of the North Atlantic that results in warmer surface temperatures and makes hurricanes more likely to form.

Trenberth contends in his paper that statistical models used in most hurricane forecasting simply don't capture the impacts of global warming.

"Trends in human-induced environmental changes are now evident in hurricane regions," Trenberth wrote. "These changes are expected to affect hurricane intensity and rainfall, but the effect on hurricane numbers remains unclear. The key scientific question is how hurricanes are changing."

Trenberth points to several computer simulations done for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in recent years that show hurricanes gaining intensity with an 80-year buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

He notes that sea-surface temperatures in the North Atlantic over the last decade have been the warmest on record, and water vapor over oceans worldwide has risen by about 2 percent since 1988. Both conditions supply more potential energy for the showers and thunderstorms that fuel hurricanes, he said.

However, Trenberth concedes that no one knows for sure whether global warming will enhance or impair wind-circulation patterns in the tropics that can either support or discourage hurricane formation. For instance, cold-water "La Nina" events in the Pacific set up trade-wind patterns that make for fewer hurricanes.

Nor, he writes, is there any solid evidence that a warmer world will include more weather patterns that steer hurricanes landward. It was a high-pressure system that parked off the East Coast last fall and kept pushing storms into the Caribbean and Florida.

In a letter to key lawmakers last fall attacking the global warming/hurricane link, a group of climatologists led by James O'Brien of Florida State University made a case for fewer severe tropical storms in a warmer world.

Most climate-change experts agree that more pronounced warming will occur in polar regions. And it is the difference in temperatures between tropics and poles that sets up circulation patterns to guide storms.

"Warmer polar regions would reduce this gradient and thus lessen the overall intensity or frequency or both of storms - not just tropical storms, but mid-latitude winter storms as well," the climate scientists wrote. Studies of long-term climate change seem to bear this out.

"In the past, warmer periods have seen a decline in the number and severity of storms," they said.

Trenberth argues there's uncertainty on that point, too. "There is no sound theoretical basis for drawing any conclusion about how (human-induced) climate change affects hurricane numbers or tracks, and thus how many hit land," he wrote.

On the Net: <> or < >

FULL Trenberth paper at <>

Copyright 2005, Scripps Howard News Service

Speculative Certainty Vs Virtual Uncertainty ???

or the Two-Headed "Snake swallows it's tail" Tale...


For a bit of a different perspective on the global warming and hurricane issue, see the following paper (Link to .pdf):

Pielke, Jr., R. A., C. Landsea, K. Emanuel, M. Mayfield, J. Laver
and R. Pasch, 2005: Hurricanes and global warming. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, in press.


Then, there is the Historical Perspective:

Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the CarbonCycle

Ján Veizer, 2005. GEOSCIENCE CANADA,32(1)

The standard explanation for vagaries ofour climate, championed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), is that greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, are its principal driver. Recently, an alternative model that the sun is the principal driver was revived by a host of empirical observations. Neither atmospheric carbon dioxide nor solar variability can alone explain the magnitude of the observed temperature increase over the last century of about 0.6°C. Therefore, an amplifier is required. In the general climate models (GCM), the bulk of the calculated temperature increase is attributed to "positive water vapour feedback". In the sun-driven alternative, it may be the cosmic ray flux (CRF), energetic particles that is, hit the atmosphere, potentially generating cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Clouds then cool, act as a mirror and reflect the solar energy back into space. The intensity of CRF reaching the earth depends on the intensity of the solar (and terrestrial) magnetic field that acts as a shield against cosmic rays, and it is this shield that is, in turn, modulated by solar activity.

Cosmic rays, in addition to CCN, also generate the so-called cosmogenic nuclides, such as beryllium-10, carbon-14 and chlorine-36. These can serve as indirect proxies for solar activity and can be measured e.g., in ancient sediments, trees, and shells. Other proxies, such as oxygen and hydrogen isotopes can reflect past temperatures, carbon iso-topes levels of carbon dioxide, boron isotopes the acidity of ancient oceans, etc. Comparison of temperature records from geological and instrumental archives with the trends for these proxies may enable us to decide which one of the two alternatives was, and potentially is, primarily responsible for climate variability. This, in turn, should enable us to devise appropriate countermeasures for amelioration of human impact on air quality and climate.


"... empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers. If solar activity accounts sta-tistically for 80% of the centennial global temperature trend, while at the same time the measured variability in solar energy flux is insufficient to explain its magnitude, an amplifier that is causally related to solar energy flux should exist. The earlier discussed cloud/CRF link and/or UV related atmospheric dynamics could be such an amplifier(s).

The review of empirical evidence strongly suggests that it may be the celestial phenomena, sun and cosmic rays, that are the principal climate driver. While the individual lines of evidence may have some weak points (but so do all alternative explanations), overall the celestial proposition yields a very consistent scenario for all time scales. The intrinsic CRF flux may have been responsible for the pronounced climatic trends on multimillion year time scales, while the extrinsic modulation by solar activity and earth dynamo could have been the major driver for the superiMposed subdued climate oscillations on the millennial to annual time scales. This input drives the water cycle, with water vapour likely acting as a positive feed-back and cloud formation as a negative one... [as well as] the flux of cosmogenic nuclides, such as 10Be, 14C and 36Cl. The hydrologic cycle, in turn, provides us with our climate, including its temperature component. On land, sunlight, temperature, and con-comitant availability of water are the dominant controls of biological activity and thus of the rate of photosynthesis and respiration. In the oceans, the rise in temperature results in release of CO2 into air. These two processes together increase the flux of CO2 into the atmosphere. If only short time scales are considered, such a sequence of events would be essentially opposite to that of the IPCC scenario, which drives the models from the bottom up, by assuming that CO2 is the principal climate driver and that variations in celestial input are of subordinate or negligible impact. This is not to dismiss CO2 as a greenhouse gas with no warming effect at all, but only to point out that CO2 plays mostly a supporting role in the orchestra of nature that has a celestial conductor and the water cycle as its first fiddle. Consider an example that is familiar to every geologist, the weathering of rocks. This process is believed to have been the controlling sink for atmospheric CO2 on geological time
scales (Berner, 2003), and indeed it was. Yet, in reality, it is the water that is the agent of physical and chemical weathering. Weathering would proceed without CO2 , albeit with some chemical reactions modified, but not without water, whatever the CO2 levels. For almost any process, and time scale, the water and carbon cycles are coupled, but water is orders of magnitude more abundant. The global water cycle is therefore not "just there" to react on impulses from the carbon cycle, but is actively shaping it. The tiny carbon cycle is piggybacking on the huge water cycle (clouds included), not driving it. In such a perspective, CO2 can amplify or modulate natural climatic trends, but it is not likely to be their principal "driver". If so, how are the global water and carbon cycles coupled?"

The author goes on to point out that: "The terrestrial biosphere thus appears to have been the dominant interactive reservoir, at least on the annual to decadal time scales, with oceans likely taking over on centennial to millennial time scales." and that "CO2 levels mimic the Net Primary Productivity (NPP) trends of land plants, and the simulated NPP, in turn, correlates with the amount of precipitation (Nemani et al., 2002, 2003; Huxman
et al., 2004). The question therefore arises: is the terrestrial water cycle and NPP driven by atmospheric might be the limiting variable? Except locally, CO2 cannot be this limiting factor because its concentration is globally almost uniform, while NPP varies by orders of magnitude. Temperature, because of its quasi anticorrelation with the NPP, is not a viable alternative either. In contrast, the positive correlation between NPP and precipitation is clear-cut and water availability is therefore the first order limiting factor of ecosystem productivity (Huxman et al., 2004)."

He then goes on to point out that: "For the global ecosystem, an increase in sunlight, humidity and temperature is a precondition for, not a consequence of, CO2 or nitrogen "fertilization". And luckily so, otherwise our tree planting effort to sequester CO2 would only lead to a continuous massive pumping of water vapour, a potent greenhouse gas, from the soils to the atmosphere."

and then: "Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge. Should the celestial alternative prevail, the chain of reasoning for potential human impact may deviate from that of the standard IPCC model, because the strongest impact may be indirect, via the formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)."

And then, after a discussion of known particulates, sulfurous compounds, and other air quality pollutants, he finishes with the following statement:

"Indeed, we do not even know if it is at all globally significant, equal to any potential warming generated by CO2 , or much larger. In any case, the strategy that emphasizes reduction of human emissions is sound for both the celestial and the CO2 alte-native. Nevertheless, this strategy can be pursued in two ways. It can be based on global reduction of CO2 , because this would result also in collateral reduction of particulates, sulphur and nitrogen compounds. These are not only potential climate drivers, but also pollutants and their reduction will improve our air quality, regardless of the climate impact of otherwise environmentally benign CO2 . At current atmospheric levels, CO2 is in fact an essential commodity for propagation of life on this planet. Any remedial measures based on the global CO2 scenario are also costly. For the celestial alternative, the remedial measures may focus directly on the "collateral" pollutants, which could potentially result in a substantial reduction of the economic cost to mankind. However, the decision as to the best strategy is not a simple prerogative of science, but must also take into account political, economic and social considerations."

Sound, Rational Science, Based on Observations, NOT just wishful thinking and media bytes... We can only hope for more such thoroughly thoughtful descriptions of what is known, what we need to know, and what to do with the knowledge when decision-making time comes.

Piers Corbyn Sums Up Conflicting Factoids w/r The Media, &

"The media consistently misrepresent the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. The BBC recently stated that "1/3 of C02 - 'the main green house gas' - was emitted by power stations" The truth is that Water vapour is the most important green house gas, CO2 contributes 1/4 of the total greenhouse effect and Mans contribution to the total of all CO2 is only 4%. Power stations contribute 1/3 of this i.e. 1.3% of CO2 or 0.3% of the total Greenhouse effect. The BBC exaggerated this almost 100-fold."

"The most drastic cuts in mankind's production of CO2 envisaged would ruin the world economy but could not lower world temperatures by more than 0.2 deg C. That is just equivalent to people moving 30 miles North, like moving London to Northampton..."

"World temperature's and climate are controlled by particles from the Sun and changes in the Earth's magnetic field. Particle activity of the Sun and the motion of the Earth's magnetic pole will keep the world's warmth a few more years and then major cooling is likely to take place and be important by 2040".

"Temperature changes relate much more closely to particle effects from the Sun than they do to CO2. This means the Sun must be the driving force of what we see. Man's CO2 could not be driving what the sun does!."

"Claims that the effects of the sun have been 'proved' to be not important are false because these judgments are made essentially considering sunlight rather than the sun's particle and magnetic effects - which show great variations and which we have shown are the key to Sun-Earth climate links. "The so-called 'fingerprint' of man-made CO2 in rises in sea temperatures which supposedly proves they are caused by man is not justifiable. The truth is probably the opposite". "There was no actual evidence of a causal link The fact is there is more CO2 around now than the Global warmers can explain by Man's activity. The reality is probably that this extra CO2 is a result, not a cause, of the extra warmth which in turn is caused by - and so a 'fingerprint' of - increased solar particle activity over
the last 80 years."

Consider also Klyashtorin and Nikolaev figure below:


"Other Greenhouse gases more Important. Water vapor, Ozone, methane etc - are much more important than CO2 and man's contribution to the flow of CO2 in and out of sea & land is only 4% of total flow. The Kyoto carbon controls concern changes in the 4% of
CO2 which itself is only about 25% of total Greenhouse effect. Even the most drastic 60% reductions of man's CO2 (which would ruin the world economy) would reduce world temperatures only by 0.2degC."

"Extinctions Threat Invalid. The idea that polar bears and other species could be wiped out by the Global Warmers temperature claims is invalid. The Arctic was much warmer a thousand years ago than now - which is why Greenland was so named because
it was warmer when discovered by the Vikings. Yet polar bears, walruses and all species they say are now threatened, survived then and for the six thousand years before then which were also notably warmer than now."


Then there are the KEY POINTS (Below) from the International Seminar on Climate Change at Russian Academy of Sciences 7-8 July 2004:

(The Kyoto Protocols originate from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1990) the objective of which is to prevent "dangerous human-induced climate change".)

1. World Temperatures do not follow CO2 levels and indeed the warmest periods in the last 2,000 years were the Roman period & the Medieval period which were both warmer than present & had lower CO2 levels. On time scales of centuries CO2 follows temps (ice
core data). {Various speakers William Kininmonth Australian Clim Res, Piers Corbyn Weather Action London &c}.

2. Solar particles decisively affect World temperatures. There is a much better correlation between world temperatures and particles than between World temperatures and CO2 levels {Piers Corbyn, Weather Action London}.

3. There is no significant Sea level rise - in particular the Maldives are in no danger of submergence - sea level having gone down there in the last 75 years {Prof Nils-Axel Morner, Stockholm University}.

4. There is no climate induced increased danger of tropical diseases, eg malaria, since it is not a tropical disease - having being prevalent in Russia (the coldest country in the world) and Britain at various times and is in fact encouraged by sunlit pools not climatic
warmth {Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute Paris}.

5. There is no discernible link between Global warming & (dangerous) Extreme weather. Indeed the British Government delegation specifically said they did not claim any increase in storms due to man-made CO2. {Madhav L Khandekar, consulting meteorologist, Ontario Canada (and also William Kinninmonth).

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, all hands were searching for any reasons to believe that making exaggerated statements about Global Warming, and either it's cause(s) or ill-defined consequences, could be justification for Publication in any journal or news paper, particularly those that would ignore critical reviews or commentaries either before or after the articles or statements were published...


So Who do You Believe?

I'll Stick with those who have the facts, not just model output.