Judithgate: IPCC consensus was only one physicist

14.12.2010 18:43

Published at: http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/judithgate_ipcc_consensus_was_only_one_solar_physicist

 

(I realised, that my Czech text about Judithgate has caught the attention of the English blogosphere. Luboš Motl, John O'Sullivan, Hockey Schtick and even Climatedepot. However they had to use primitive early 21st century automated-google-translator SW (Except Mr.Motl, who is Czech like me), so I decided to write an English version of this article. To make the reading easier. Here it is)

 

(Pretty geek chick in charge: Judith Lean)

 

The alarmists love to stick their heads into sand. These denialists deny that Mann-made climapocalypse was just a second-rate scientific fraud. "How could anyone seriously believe that millions of scientists would overlook this?... It also asks us to believe that millions of scientists across over a hundred nations and tens of thousands of research institutes are all in a global conspiracy … yeah, right." (Mike Kaulbars: Letter to a Climate "Skeptic". June 2010.)

What? Millions of scientists? Consensus of top experts? Where have you got these numbers from? I could not count more than ONE scientist.

After the pressure from the venerable Stephen McIntyre, IPCC posted on its web the "comments" from the Reviewers of AR4 2007. And the comment from the representatives of the Norwegian government on Chapter II, Working Group I (solar forcing)  are very striking in the context of solar forcing.

(Note 2-26 from the Norwegian government, ref. No. 2018-42  Expert and Government Review Comments on the Second Order Draft)

"I urge IPCC to consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section hangs on one single paper in which Judith Lean is the co-author."

 

 

 

As I wrote elsewhere (Czech article ACRIM vs PMOD), Judith Lean and Claus Fröhlich are responsible for scandalous rewriting of the solar activity graphs. The original satellite data showed, that TSI (measured in Watts) increased from 1986 to 1996 by cca one third... But then Judith and Clause "laundered" the graphs and voila... solar output increase was gone.

The people, who were in charge of the satellites and who created the original graphs (the best world astro-physicists: Doug Hoyt, Richard C.Willson) protested against this manipulation. In vain.

R.C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites): "Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments...  He did it without any detailed knowledge of the  ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance...The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean's TSI proxy model."

Willson about pmod 

 

 

Douglas Hoyt (the famous inventor of GSN - Group Sunspot Number indicator) agrees with Willson. The graph tampering done by Judith and Claus was scientifically unjustified. Hoyt must know that. The questionable changes were done to the data from the Nimbus 7 satellite, where he used to be in charge.

 

Hoyt about pmod

  

Nicola Scafetta. Climate Change and Its Causes - A Discussion About Some Key Issues. (Presented at EPA, Feb 2009) Source 

  

I hope Batman ... I mean the mysterious hacker FOIA, hacks Judith's computer asap. I expect he finds an e-mail like "I have just used the trick... to hide the increase of solar activity."

And guess what? Suddenly this very Judith is appointed as the highest authority and ultimate judge in the question of solar activity non-increase.

Since when is it customary to appoint the main suspect as the chief investigator in her very own case? BTW it is a flagrant violation of the rules of detective stories (R.Knox.  "Rules of Detective Stories Writing", 1929, rule seven).

 

Mendozagate: A sequel to Judithgate

IPCC assessed the solar activity development without asking the solar physics or astronomers. And they plan doing this in the Fifth Report (AR5, 2010-2015) again. In June 2010 they published (here) the names of the staff for the next IPCC report and - if I counted correctly - the solar chapter has only one solar physicist again (Blanca Mendoza, a sample study of hers here). The boss of this chapter is to be Mr.Shindell from GISS, a colleague of the climate madman Jim Hansen, who endorsed Keith Farnish's book promoting eco-terrorism last year. Groovy.

There are almost no solar people, but on the other hand, there are shitloads of guys, whose job is to rake in the absurd climate models. Which is useless, since we do not know all the climate feedbacks yet. So there is nothing to model.

 

The mystery of the vanishing graphs

Since they did not bother to ask the astro physicists, IPCC is kept in dark about the Sun.  IPCC reports have some 3000 pages, but the most important segments - about Sun - are just a few short and vague articles.

While in other places IPCC is rich in graphics, strangely you cannot find there any graph of cosmic radiation, sunspot cycle length or geomagnetism. Which is odd, because these are the key indicators of solar activity. Shouldn't the IPCC reports be an exhausting compendium of the latest scientific knowledge? Well...

But there is an explanation. These indicators say, what the alarmists do not want to hear. They say, that in 1970s-1990s the solar activity was rising and that global warming (whole or most of it) can be attributed to natural climate forcings. No reason to blame humans.

IPCC probably vanished these graphs on purpose. Following the well known rule-of-the-thumb "hide the decline" (in this case more like "hide the rise"). Because it could give the laics a "misleading signal" and "dilute the message" about global warming (yes, this is really the logic of IPCC: read  here about the Arusha meeting).

And having some nosy astronomers around - who would just talk back - would not help at all.

 

aa_idex.jpg

 

Geomagnetic activity

(How the magnetic field of Earth is weakened: this graph is rising, when the solar activity goes up. Due to solar wind.)

aa2.jpg

 

Sunspot cycle length (from minimum to minimum)

We have experienced, that the shorter the cycle, the higher the activity.

Just try and compare it with the geomagnetism graph. See? They match.

Jones2.jpg

 

This is how Phil Jones (CRU) described the development of global temperature in 1986. Quoted from the famous Christensen 1991 study. See here and here (Czech).

You can read about rewriting of the XX century temperatures and here

aa3.jpg

 

The original satellite measurements of solar activity (TSI) in red. The ACRIM composite.

Judith and Claus flattened the graph (blue, PMOD). Alarmists were pleased and rewarded her with a job in IPCC.

aa_cosmic.jpg

Cosmic radiation

(It goes down, when the solar activity goes up. Solar wind protects Earth against cosmic radiation.)

irradiance.jpg

The Climate System. Web  Columbia University. Graf 12.

As you can see, temperatures have always followed the solar activity. Though never precisely. 

 

If IPCC placed these graphs in its solar chapter, every reader would see at the first glance, that the global warming 1975-1998 was  -very likely - natural, not manmade. But in that case, the alarmist movement  -and IPCC itself - would lose its raison d'etre.  

 

The models would need more sun

The IPCC "hoaxes" about Himalayas melting in 2035 or about not-rising-solar-activity (in 1970s-1990s) are spreading like a virus. Through citations. Scientists from all the world quoted this rubbish - without verifying it - in good faith , that it is a reliable peer-reviewed science. It is not. Also the latest publication by Czech climatologists-meteorologists Metelka and Tolasz relies heavily on the IPCC pulp fiction. The book has a self-contradicting title "Climate change - facts without myths"  (Klimatické změny - fakta bez mýtů, 2009). It says solar activity was flat over the last half century. Wow.

Czech climatologists should sue IPCC. Because this damages their professional credit.

agung.jpg

 

Can the temperatures (black) be explained by natural forcing (blue)?

In their latest book the Czech climythologists quoted this junk IPCC graph (page 24). The trouble is, that the AOGCM models do not include the solar activity factor, which was rising in 1970s-1990s. Judith erased this increase.

Human activity is to blame indeed. Hers.

 

 

Manual for those, who intend to work in IPCC:

a) Erase one natural climatic factor. Fudge the graphs

b) Then the equations will not match. Something is missing.

c) You accuse humans as the probable cause of this mismatch. Or ghosts, UFOs or  God. Anyone, who you want to put the blame on.

d) Now you ask the framed people to pay their "climate debt". To your pocket of course.

 

Conclusion:

The far-fetched conclusions of IPCC about the impact of mankind on climate - and the gigantic soviet-style plans to reshape the whole energetics to cut the carbon footprint... hangs on a single question. How big the solar activity was. Yet IPCC devoted minimum attention to this issue (only few articles). And it based everything on a "consensus" of a single astronomer, who agreed with herself.

Ceterum autem censeo IPCC esse delendam.

 

 

Further reading: In Czech,  but at the  bottom you can usually find references to relevant English texts:

Kremlík. Jak vymazat 30 let ochlazování (about Lansner's discovery about rewriting of the 30 years of cooling)

Kremlík. Prdící ovce ohrožují magnetické pole Slunce? (about geomagnetic activity)

Kremlík. ACRIM vs PMOD (what Judith did to the ACRIM composite graph of satellite measurements of the solar constant TSI)

Kremlík. Natahování solárního cyklu na skřipec (about Christensen 1991 and solar cycle length)

Metelka, Tolasz: Klimatické změny - fakta bez mýtů" (2009) (the latest Czech official text spreading the IPCC solar myths)