Weather & Climate


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 […]


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 […]


May 19, 2011 // 0 Comments

Water, Water (Almost) Everywhere by CRAIG JAMES Can you believe Lake Michigan has nearly three trillion more gallons of water in it than at this time last month? With the wet spring we have had, the lake has risen seven inches since mid April, which translates to 2.73 trillion gallons more water. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Michigan is still about two inches below last year at this time and 16 inches below the long-term average for May. Lake Michigan is an amazing 47 inches below the highest level of record set back in 1986, but it is 13 inches higher than the lowest level of record set in 1996. Lakes Erie and Ontario are above average for this time of year. In fact, Lake Ontario is up 18 inches from last year and is now six inches above its long-term average for May. Lake Michigan is expected to come up another three inches by mid June; Lake Superior may rise another four inches, while the eastern lakes should remain nearly unchanged. The total increase of water in the five Great Lakes in the last month is over 11 TRILLION gallons! Farther south, the Corps of Engineers is releasing water through spillways on the Mississippi River to prevent another flood the magnitude of the 1927 flood, which is the worst flood ever recorded for that river. The water is flowing at the rate of 1.5 million cubic feet per second through the river between Arkansas and Mississippi. Last Sunday, May 15, the Grand River in Grand Rapids was flowing at just 7.6 thousand cubic feet per second. An engineer has calculated that at the rate the Mississippi is flowing, the water could completely fill the Superdome in New Orleans in just 50 seconds. Opening the spillway will release enough water to submerge about 3,000 square miles of land under as much as 25 feet of water. This will take the pressure off the downstream levees protecting New Orleans, Baton Rouge and the numerous oil refineries and chemical plants along the lower reaches of the Mississippi. However, it could mean ruin to many of the farmers who grow crops in the flooded area. The government tells us there is little inflation. However, […]


May 12, 2011 // 0 Comments

Garbage in, garbage out by CRAIG JAMES Okay… back to the subject of why I am skeptical of the idea of dangerous global warming. I have shown you in an article a couple of weeks ago how just the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere will not produce significant warming. The significant warming scenario comes only from computer models. These models are tuned to bad data, make false assumptions and when tested have proven to be wrong. I’ve written several times about why I believe there are problems with the surface-based temperature data and why I believe the satellite observations are better. We don’t have the data available for the month of April yet but for March, the global temperatures were 0.10°C below average based on the satellite observations but 0.57°C above average in the surface observations. Since the computer models are fine-tuned using what I think is erroneous surface temperature information, it is no wonder their forecasts show too much warming in the future. More importantly, the computer models are constructed using false assumptions about the atmosphere. Current manmade global-warming theory asserts that our climate is dominated by positive feedback. The IPCC postulates that a small increase in temperature from CO2 is multiplied two, three, four times or more by positive feedbacks. An example of positive feedback would be the following: If the global temperature warmed and the warming caused clouds to evaporate, this would allow more sunshine, which would allow temperatures to warm even further. Clouds are always treated as a positive feedback in the computer models, but even the National Science Foundation has stated we don’t know for sure whether cloud feedbacks are positive or negative. We don’t currently know if they ultimately warm or cool the earth. Positive feedback from water vapor seems to play an even bigger role than clouds in the computer models producing large amounts of warming. The theory is that in a warmer world, there would be more evaporation, thereby producing more water vapor in the air. Studies show that the increased water vapor in the air would double the warming from what it would be if the water vapor did not increase. Has the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increased? Not according to NOAA’s […]


April 28, 2011 // 0 Comments

The Greenhouse Effect In last week’s article I gave you the basic overview of what I think the science really says about human induced global warming. Let’s start this article by taking a look at the poorly named greenhouse effect. I think there are several things about our atmosphere most people are not aware of. The first is that the energy from the sun, short wave radiation, does not heat up the air. About half of the solar radiation is reflected back into space from clouds, water, ice, etc while the other half is absorbed by the ground. As the ground absorbs the short wave radiation, it heats up and emits what is called long wave radiation back into the atmosphere and this long wave radiation is what heats the air. Some of this long wave radiation passes through the atmosphere back out into space but most is absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules and clouds, then re-emitted in all directions. Much of the re-emitted radiation goes back to earth while other greenhouse gas molecules and clouds absorb some of this energy only to re-emit it again. The effect of all of this is to warm the air. Without our atmosphere, the earth would average about 50 degrees colder than it is now. However, at no time does the atmosphere act like a blanket or a greenhouse and trap heat. When someone says CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere they don’t understand what is actually occurring. Nothing is trapped. The energy courses through the system without being trapped within it and this process, poorly labeled the greenhouse effect, is absolutely necessary for life as we know it. If the amount of energy leaving the top of the atmosphere equals the amount of energy being added to the atmosphere from the sun and the greenhouse gases, the earth’s average temperature will remain unchanged. Many natural processes such as a change in the amount of cloud cover or volcanic eruptions disturb this balance and the earth is always cooling or warming slightly at any time. It seems to be rather intuitive then that if you add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, you will increase the temperature of the atmosphere. The question is, how much? There are currently […]

1 2 3 7