Solar Signature Versus Carbon Fingerprint in Climate Modelling

 The Royal Meteorological Society is a bit more controversial when it comes to dealing with the impacts of climate change than its sister, the Met Office Hadley Centre of the U.K. They recently accepted a research paper entitled: ‘A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predicitons’, although the abstract was signed by known skeptics of AGW: David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson and ole icon Dr. Fred Singer!

The abstract  is anything but diplomatic. This is how it reads:

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

Singer even stated in a press release by ‘Science & Environmental Policy’ of December 10, 2007:

Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence.

This is nothing new to the community of skeptics who partly believe that temperature as measured by surface stations has mostly soared from 1978 to 1998 when a lot of urbanization occured and when solar output was high. Balloon an satelite measurements generally show a diminished warming further up in the air contrary to what the models predict. Did the 10′000 participants of this years climate conference notice? No, because the science was settled for those who took the trouble to travel to Bali.

Wait a minute, there was a small group of notorious skeptics that took the time and energy to travel to Bali. Some of them formed under the name of International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). One of them, Dr. David Evans, managed to make scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN’s climate claims according to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

 Another denied issue during the conference was the fact that the scientific understanding is still low according to the AP4 report of the Intercontinental Panel on Climate Change IPCC 2007, when it comes to solar irradiance as driving force for climate change. The sun - the neglected factor in climate science? Before you regard it as scam, you should read this new scientific paper entitled ‘phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600’ by N. Scafetta and B. J. West. This research paper was made available to the public by www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/ and can be downloaded here.

The same blog has published another paper on socio-economic impacts on the regional climate regarded as ‘contamination’ in populated areas around surface stations. These latest peer-reviewed papers were partly presented during the conference in Bali.

This was too much to bear for NGO liaison officer Barbara Black. Bryan Leyland of ICSC describes here how the whole team was bumped out by her and other U.N. officials in Bali.

Whenever claims like “CO2 could be overestimated as driving force” or “carbon trading is not effective” are made during such an event, people would plug their ears. But maybe they should listen. Many of the skeptics are not paid for their work, not by the petroleum industry for sure. But they are so strong in their conviction that the U.N. process on climate change should be substantially altered, reduced or even stopped.