Craig James


June 30, 2011 // 0 Comments

A Summary by CRAIG JAMES Over the past couple of months I have written several articles on why I am skeptical over the claim that increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere will bring about catastrophic global warming. Al Gore and others have stated that human-induced global warming “is the most dangerous challenge mankind has ever faced.” Hogwash! That is nothing but a political statement. The correct view of the issue has been summed up nicely by Dr. Richard Lindzen from M.I.T. in his testimony before the House Committee on Science and Technology in November of last year when he stated, “It is not about whether CO2 is increasing; it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming; it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes.” I’ve written about how as CO2 increases in the atmosphere it has a smaller and smaller effect on the temperature—a fact indeed acknowledged even by the alarmists. The catastrophic claims arise from computer models. It has been shown by many in the science community that the models have made false assumptions about what would happen in a warmer world, which leads to forecasts of way too much warming. When we have been able to test those models, we find that the real world temperatures (even if we accept the faulty surface temperature record) are below all of the computer forecasts. The models are wrong. How many more years will be needed of cooler temperatures than forecast before the alarmists acknowledge this fact? Every instance of severe weather seems to send alarmists running to the national media to claim, “It’s even worse than we thought,” or as Time Magazine has headlined, “This is the new normal.” The alarmists seem to have no interest in actually going back through the weather records to find out whether these events have ever happened in the past. They have, and CO2 levels were lower at the time. Several university studies as well as NOAA’s climate science investigators have found no link between any of the recent severe weather events, from […]


June 16, 2011 // 0 Comments

by CRAIG JAMES We had our first Ozone Action Day of the season last week, except they are now called Clean Air Action Days. According to the website of the West Michigan Clean Air Coalition, they are just “thrilled to announce that its Ozone Action program has now become the Clean Air Action program.” I guess they really get excited by this stuff. The change means we will now be getting Clean Air Action Days, not only in the summer due to ozone levels, but year round when fine particulate matter exceeds certain levels. Fine particulate matter is defined as having a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller. A single hair from your head is about 70 micrometers in diameter, which means a hair is 30 times larger than the largest fine particle. These particles are present in haze, smoke and pollution, and are small enough to enter the lungs, causing respiratory problems in some people. Thankfully, West Michigan doesn’t very often have a problem with fine particulate matter and ozone levels only reach unhealthy levels a few days each year. Actions to lower ozone or fine particulate matter are voluntary at the current time. These actions include things I’m sure you’ve heard many times before, such as not mowing the lawn, not filling up your gas tank, or using a grill during the heat of the day, as well as curtailing driving. If air quality standards, which keep being strengthened, are not achieved by voluntary action, then the government will step in and mandate certain actions such as automobile emission inspections, which will be a cost to everyone. We did set a record high temperature in Grand Rapids last week on June 7 at 94 degrees. It is the warmest temperature in June in the past two years but, more notably, it is the first time since 1953 that we have set a record high in June. Bill Steffen went back through the records and found out: “Most all of our summer season record high temperatures are old and not recent. If you take the months of June, July and August… those 92 days… only 14 days have record high temperatures that have been set or tied since 1959. The other 78 days all […]


June 9, 2011 // 0 Comments

Another Wrong Forecast Over the past couple of months I’ve written several articles that explain why I do not believe in the theory that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic warming. Up until now at least, there has been no measurable evidence to support such a theory. The theory has come about due to computer models. But the computer models have been fine-tuned to bad data, have been programmed with false assumptions and as a result have produced incorrect forecasts. In an article two weeks ago I wrote that, “One of the main tenants of global warming theory is that if greenhouses gases are warming the planet, that warming will happen first in the layer of air 20,000-40,000 ft above the tropics. All 20-odd-climate models predict warming there first—it’s the fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming, as opposed to warming by some other cause. The hotspot is not incidental to IPCC climate theory—it lies at its heart…” The evidence shows that this hotspot is missing, indicating that the global warming theory is wrong. There is another way to look at the computer model forecasts as shown by the following graph. This graph may look a little intimidating at first but let me walk you through it. The light grey line represents the actual temperatures as measured by satellite. The data is from Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, California and is very similar to the satellite temperature data from the University of Huntsville, Alabama. You can see the cooling that occurred in 1992 from the eruption of Mt. Pinautbo and the large spike up in temperatures in 1998 from the very strong El Niño. The bold black line represents the computer model forecasts of the temperatures out beyond the year 2020. Two lighter black lines represent the outer limits of the uncertainty in the forecast. In other words, the forecast temperature could fall anywhere within the outer two lines but is most likely near the bold black line. The solid red line is the actual trend in the temperatures and the dashed red lines indicate the limits of the uncertainty in the measured temperatures. The graph has been set to 1996. When the models are run backwards from that time, they do a […]


June 2, 2011 // 0 Comments

The Not So Merry Month of May by CRAIG JAMES The month of May can be one of the most pleasant months of the year, but I don’t think this past month qualified as pleasant. It was quite wet and gloomy. At least a trace of rain fell on 21 of the 31 days and there was only one day with 100% of possible sunshine. It was also another windy month. Every day of the month but two had wind gusts of 20 mph or more and three days had wind gusts over 40 mph. I have heard many comments that this has been one of the windiest spring seasons in memory and I have to agree. On the plus side, it was certainly a great month for growing grass and the ornamental trees have looked beautiful. We are also now up to over 15 hours of daylight. The sun on the last day of the month climbed to 69 degrees above the horizon at solar noon. The highest it gets is 70 degrees from June 11 through July 1. The sun is up for 15 hours and 23 minutes June 20 through 24. By the way, solar noon, or the time when the sun is highest in the sky, occurs in Grand Rapids on June 21, the first day of summer, at 1:45 in the afternoon. That’s almost two hours later than noon local time because we are at the western end of the time zone and also because we are on Daylight Saving Time. You may notice that our high temperatures for the day usually occur as late as 6 p.m. at this time of year. Even though the wind made it feel cool much of the time, this past May was actually a little warmer than average thanks especially to the warm Memorial Day. The highest temperature of record for a Memorial Day in Grand Rapids was 92 degrees set way back in 1919. We just missed that reading by three degrees this year. The western states have had a very cool spring. In Aspen, Colorado, there was almost twice as much snow on the ground on Memorial Day as there was on New Year’s Day and the ski hills are still […]


May 26, 2011 // 0 Comments

The Missing Hot Spot by CRAIG JAMES This headline is not meant to be a description of Rockford’s nightlife. It is a description of one of the problems with the computer models in regards to global warming. I’ve written many times before, the supposed catastrophic effects of human-induced global warming from increasing CO2 have only been seen in computer model forecasts. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article showing how the computer models were making false assumptions about the atmosphere and coming up with incorrect forecasts about warming. Let’s take a look at one of those forecasts and see how the models are performing. One of the main tenants of global-warming theory is that if greenhouses gases are warming the planet, that warming will happen first in the layer of air 20,000-40,000 feet above the tropics. All 20-odd-climate models predict warming there first—it’s the fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming, as opposed to warming by some other cause. The hotspot is not incidental to IPCC climate theory—it lies at its heart, because the same water vapor feedback I wrote about earlier produces the hotspot and doubles or triples the temperature increases predicted by the IPCC climate models. So what does this hot spot look like in the computer models? The first graphic shows the hot spot as forecast by four of the global models. You can clearly see the warm colors indicating where the hot spot should be, which is between 100 and 300 millibars or approximately 20,000 to 40,000 feet above the ground. The second graphic shows balloon, or radiosonde, data at those levels going all the way back to 1958. The balloon data shows that the area in question has not warmed but has actually cooled, especially since the 1970s. This data shocked the alarmists who expected a hotspot to confirm their theory. Alarmists now dispute the data, saying it is so poor that it cannot show any pattern. But radiosondes can reliably detect temperature differences of 0.1°C, and the hotspot would be at least 0.6°C warmer. There are currently nearly 800 sites worldwide that release radiosondes twice each day—they cannot all have missed the hot spot. We have been reliably using this data to make weather forecasts since the 1950s and […]

1 2 3 13