BBC keeps on denying the Sun’s influence on climate

Here is a recent email headed “Black Propaganda continues at the BBC” from JohnA informing Richard Black of the BBC about the degree of bias in BBC reporting on climate issues.

(Can I just add here my humble effort “Exactly where Lockwood and Fröhlich are wrong” ?)

Richard,

I note your latest attempt in your continuing campaign to ignore and demean the considerable and growing evidence of natural influences on climate change, and especially on the cosmic ray/solar cycle hypothesis of Svensmark et al.

Last time you raced out of the blocks with an article entitled “No Sun link’ to climate change” about a paper then yet to be published, and couldn’t be bothered beyond leaving a few voicemail messages to contact Dr Svensmark for a response. The paper of course was by Lockwood and Froelich:

Then of course, you didn’t bother reporting that reply from Svensmark because we don’t want the license payers unnecessarily confused with a solid rebuttal, would we Richard? Especially since that paper by Lockwood that you trumpeted was rife with errors.

Here’s the reply from Svensmark
Here’s another from Ken Gregory and here’s another from Anthony Watts

Obviously you won’t spend any time reporting on them, because life’s too short isn’t it Richard? After all, what with burning up all of those carbon credits to visit glaciers calving perfectly naturally, and polar bear populations stridently not declining but growing strongly, there’s no time for nuanced scientific reporting is there?

Now we have yet another example of your tawdry one-sided reporting with this one: “No Sun link’ to climate change” (by the way, are you minimizing your carbon footprint by recycling the titles to articles?). This time its a letter to a little known and little read environmental science journal – so we’re a long way from any expertise in statistics or solar science, aren’t we?

This time the two scientists are Sloan and Wolfendale, and would you believe it! They come to the same conclusion as the one you want to hear! I’m not a betting man but if I was, I’d bet they contacted you about their forthcoming letter and you got some nice juicy “colour quotes” to pad it out to justify your BBC salary and the rest is history!

Nobody cares, because nobody checks anything!

Except that even Sloan and Wolfendale don’t show that there is “‘No Sun link’ to climate change”, they say that even with their limited analysis of 20 some years, the Svensmark process on its own contributed perhaps 25% of the warming. That’s not insignificant.

That’s not “no link”, that’s “some link” Richard. Even this limited analysis showed some connection between the Svensmark process and global climate.

You could have asked them to run the identical analysis looking at the correlation between carbon dioxide rise and temperature over the same time period, but you don’t want to rock the boat by showing that the carbon dioxide link is even more tenuous than the Svensmark process you’re trying to bury! Carbon dioxide has continued to rise, while global temperatures appear to have stopped rising in 1998 having stabilized below the 1998 level and might even now be starting to fall. Even the Met Office admits this – but you don’t report that of course.

But that doesn’t save the day, because in the same article that you failed to quote or even link to (and I think I know why you didn’t link to it) comes this:

“However, Sloan and Wolfendale are not the only physicists to have recently turned their attention to the cosmic ray hypothesis. Vitaliy Rusov of the National Polytechnic University in Odessa, Ukraine and colleagues do not agree with the IPCC’s view that man is to blame for the recent warming. To prove their point, they looked for a direct connection between cosmic ray flux and temperature.”

“The team constructed a model of the Earth’s climate in which the only significant inputs were variations in the Sun’s power output and changes to the galactic cosmic ray flux (arxiv.org/abs/0803.2765). They found that the model’s predicted evolution of the Earth’s surface temperature over the last 700,000 years agrees well with proxy temperature data taken from Antarctic ice cores (arxiv.org/abs/0803.2766).”

“Rusov agrees that Svensmark’s cosmic ray ionization mechanism cannot fully account for the observed correlation between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover, as Sloan and Wolfendale have demonstrated. But he believes that a small but direct link between cosmic rays and clouds could itself trigger a mechanism which causes further, and greater, changes in cloud cover.”

So here was another model study over 700,000 years and the link between climate change and the solar/cosmic ray variation was crystal clear.

But you couldn’t be bothered reporting it, could you Richard? It didn’t fit the narrative you’ve constructed.

Between copying and pasting Greenpeace publicity and encouraging reckless damage to the world economy and to the world’s poor in the “Green Room”, there simply isn’t time in your day to even report accurately and fairly on environmental issues.

It doesn’t matter that the BBC Trust says that its not the BBC’s responsibility to save the planet, nor is it responsible journalism to refuse to report on the criticisms of well-qualified skeptics to the whole global warming scare, because with you and your colleagues in the hot seat to set the agenda of continuing alarm, the BBC Trust can go hang and the concerns of many BBC License payers are so much white noise to be filtered out by the next “Alarm over…” or the next “The IPCC says…” story concocted in the BBC tearoom from the latest mailshot from Greenpeace or Fiends of the Earth or the WWF – those billion dollar multi-national corporations of public alarm.

Of course when you or Shukman or the others are travelling to the four corners of the globe to report on why everyone else shouldn’t travel to the four corners of the globe, there isn’t time to stop in small faraway places like New York and report on major scientific conferences attended by hundreds of well-qualified scientists who dispute the IPCC reports and the AGW scare? Who knows? You could have interviewed the President of the Czech Republic after he give his keynote speech?

But no. No reporting because its not what you want to hear. So it wasn’t reported by the BBC. Problem solved.

Your journalistic behaviour has at least been consistent: tawdry, one-sided, lazy, propagandist, alarmist and disgraceful. This isn’t BBC journalism that John Reith espoused, its more like extreme left-wing evangelization for the repeal of market economies by way of a faked vision of environmental apocalypse.

I encourage you to get honest: just join Greenpeace’s publicity department officially and have done with it. You’re doing the job already so you might as well get paid for it.

Yours truly

John A.,

cc: The BBC Trust

Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets

This informative paper is by; Ching-Cheh Hung, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio 44135.
Extract from Summary; A solar storm is a storm of ions and electrons from the Sun. Large solar storms are usually preceded by solar flares, phenomena that can be characterized quantitatively from Earth. Twenty-five of the thirtyeight largest known solar flares were observed to start when one or more tide-producing planets
(Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Jupiter) were either nearly above the event positions (<10° longitude) or at the opposing side of the Sun. The probability for this to happen at random is 0.039 percent. Download 1.7MB pdf of paper

Recent Evidence for Reduced Climate Sensitivity

David Archibald has suggested I post the PowerPoint presentation of Dr Spencer’s paper from the final session of “The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change”, Sponsored by The Heartland Institute, March 2 – March 4, 2008 in New York. For an audio of Dr Spencer’s presentation.
Note my earlier posting on this subject, How MINISCULE is the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect ? an html version of a 1998 paper by Sherwood B Idso in Vol 10: 69-82 of Climate Research, “CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate”.

First sunspot for Solar cycle 24, will cycle 24 be strong or weak ?

Kevin at www.solarcycle24.com/ is reporting the onset of solar cycle 24, there is a discussion board there too.

Centuries of sunspot data show that periods of low sunspot numbers correlate with periods of cool climate. Solar minimum between cycles 23 and 24 is expected to be in a few months time.

Starting in December 2006 I have several blog posts drawing attention to contrasting predictions re the strength of cycle 24, these are all linked later in this post.
Continue reading First sunspot for Solar cycle 24, will cycle 24 be strong or weak ?

Mistakes made by Trenberth (and many others) when claiming veracity for climate models

Six months ago I posted, “Sensational statements by Dr Kevin Trenberth, IPCC supporter”, June 23rd, 2007 by Warwick Hughes.

Pat Frank says:
December 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pm

The central point Trenberth makes about GCM predictive reliability is this one, “The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity.”

What he’s saying is that one can reliably project future forced global temperature differences because in subtracting forced GCM runs from control GCM runs all the errors subtract away, leaving a reliable trend in anomalies.

But this is assuming much more than mere “linearity.” It assumes the GCMs procduce global climate projections with completely accurate slopes. Trenberth is claiming that GCM runs are only linearly offset by some standard vertical magnitude from being fully correct — and the same standard vertical magnitude is present in both control runs and forcing runs. Therefore, subtracting the latter from the former produces accurate anomalies.

But this is very different from assuming mere linearity. It supposes that the physical representation of the global climate itself — the physical theory in the GCMs — is complete and accurate. The errors are merely from imperfect measurements and a too-coarse resolution because of computer limitations. This assumption — assertion, really — is entirely unjustifiable.

For example, all GCMs include a hyperviscosity because the Navier-Stokes equations can’t be solved at all the necessary levels of resolution. The hyperviscosity, which is completely unphysical, is the only thing that makes the GCMs integrable — they would catastrophically diverge otherwise. Because there is an unphysical hyperviscosity, the parameterizations in GCMs must also be unphysical in order to compensate. Consequently, GCMs inherently cannot be physically correct. Trenberth’s claim includes an implicit but absolutely central assertion that cannot be true. The physical theory in GCMs is neither correct nor complete. Trenberth is wrong, the reliability of temperature predictions can not be claimed accurate through taking differences, and the whole of AGW so-called science is powered by this sort of tendentious delusionalism.

Warming bias in media releases from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)

“Record hot start to December 2007”, trumpets the BoM Darwin Office on Monday 3 December 2007.

When you check to see daily max and mins for a range of Northern NT stations,
(scroll down past the green rainfall data to the pink and blue max and min temperature data). You find that this heat wave was pretty much a one day wonder in many places, a couple of days in some.
Further down the page I note how the BoM show bias towards reporting warming events by not putting out a media release about the stunning cold record day 20 June 2007 etc as recorded at Tennant Creek and many other places on 19th, 20th and 21st June 2007 across the continent from Halls creek to SW Qld, to NW NSW.
Continue reading Warming bias in media releases from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)

David Archibald solar paper now on YouTube

David Archibald can be seen and heard on YouTube talking about his 4 Part paper “Past & Future Climate change”.

I have several Blog posts drawing attention to David’s important prediction that Solar Cycle 24 would be delayed, shorter than other major climate groups (NASA, NOAA) were saying and could in his opinion lead to a cooling climate.

On December 16 I drew attention to;
Contrasting forecasts for Solar Cycle 24

then a couple of months later I posted
Has anybody seen any recent sunspots ? February 23rd, 2007

Then on March 27 I posted David Archibald’s new paper predicting global cooling ahead;
The Past and Future of Climate

Solar Cycle 23 not ending yet
July 6th, 2007 Download a PowerPoint presentation of David Archibald’s latest edit of his paper, “The Past and Future of Climate” presented at the Lavoisier Conference in Melbourne June 2007.

Still on solar issues. Exactly where Lockwood and Fröhlich are wrong

There never was a rain shortage to justify seawater desalination for Perth’s water supply

Click for 3 page illustrated pdf report 200KB Yes that is a 32 year average of nearly a metre of May to October rain per year.
35 years of Perth catchment rain trends
There has developed in Australia since 2002 muddled thinking at a policy level aided and abetted by a Green media confounding rain and water issues with “Greenhouse climate change” that prevents proper analysis of rainfall and water supply issues.
Click for many other articles re Perth, Western Australia water supply and Govt distortions and propaganda about rainfall issues.

Marked deterioration in Willis Island temperature data quality

The small coral atoll Willis Island (16.3 South, 150 East) is the site of a weather station in the Coral Sea just over 400 kms easterly from Cairns, north Queensland, Australia.
At a time of national green media driven near hysteria over “global warming” and widely accepted claims that the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is threatened by “global warming”, it seems odd in this modern day and age that highly relevant temperature data can not be successfully recorded.
Why has Willis Island temperature data deteriorated to such an extent as to now be useless ?
Below is the monthly mean data from NASA GISS from 1992 the year with the first missing month
Continue reading Marked deterioration in Willis Island temperature data quality

Primarily exposing faulty methodologies behind global temperature trend compilations