Award-Winning Former UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson Dissents: ‘We cannot yet separate well enough the greenhouse effect from other climate influences’ – Declares climate models ‘more a matter of faith than a fact’
Full Interview here: http://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsson-the-science-and-politics-of-climate-change/
Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all Award-Winning – Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic…The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.’
Top Swedish Climate Scientist Lennart Bengtsson (former IPCC) Also Confirms No Sea Level Acceleration…Desperate UN IPCC’s Pachauri Insisting No Acceleration ‘Is An Acceleration’! – – Lennart Bengtsson: ‘We now have satellite measurements for 20 years which indicate a steady rise of about 3 mm per year, and during that time no acceleration, See: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/… 20 years is certainly enough. On Monday I was involved in a public panel discussion with Pachauri who insisted that this is an acceleration. I found that I think I know more about this than Mr. Pachauri. The reference above appears to me quite compelling.’
Skeptical Swedish climatology: Dr. Lennart Bengtsson: Global warming only visible under a microscope – Dr. Bengtsson: ‘The Earth appears to have cooling properties that exceeds the previous thought ones, and that computer models are inadequate to try to foretell a chaotic object like the climate, where actual observations is the only way to go’
Top Swedish Climate Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson: CO2”s ‘heating effect is logarithmic: the higher the concentration is, the smaller the effect of a further increase’ – Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘The sea level has risen fairly evenly for a hundred years by 2-3 millimeters per year. The pitch is not accelerated’
‘Climate change has become extremely politicized. The issue is so complex that one can not ask the people to be convinced that the whole economic system must be changed just because you have done some computer simulations’
More High Profile Scientists who recently dissented:
Dr. Woodcock declared there was ‘professional misconduct by Government advisors around the world’ when it comes to man-made climate change
Satellite data shows CO2 does not control Earth’s radiative balance or climate
Dr. Roy Spencer has an interesting post today analyzing several satellite datasets, which suggest “some portion of recent warming was simply due to a natural decrease in cloud cover.”Dr. Spencer also finds an independent method of determining Earth’s radiative fluxes [fig 6 below], since “radiative fluxes are so important (e.g. being the basis for global warming theory) that any independent means of estimating them are worth looking into.” “Be careful in interpreting the estimated radiative fluxes in Fig. 6 because they could have an offset. Since the anomalies I compute (by definition) sum to zero over the entire time series, that means the total time-integrated radiative energy flux also sums to zero. So, while the graph in Fig. 6 suggests energy loss by the global oceans over the last 5 years, it could be the whole curve needs to be shifted upward. There is no way to know.”I have overlaid the CO2 forcing from increased CO2 levels since 1987 as the red line in Dr. Spencer’s Fig. 6 below, based upon the IPCC/Myhre formula for CO2 forcing due to the change in CO2 levels of 349.16 ppm in 1987 to 400 ppm today,
which clearly illustrates a disconnect between CO2 levels and net radiative flux, and demonstrates CO2 radiative forcing is not the so-called climate “control knob.”
However, all IPCC models are based upon the IPCC/Myhre formula for CO2 radiative forcing, and despite the complexity of the models, the global warming predictions essentially follow this simple formula 1:1:
You don’t even need a climate model to show what climate models predict – projections are based upon a single independent variable – CO2
Thus explaining why the models have been falsified at confidence levels exceeding 98%.
SSM/I Global Ocean Product Update: Increasing clouds with a chance of cooling
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
My research field of satellite passive microwave remote sensing took off like a rocket (pun intended) when the first Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I, built by Hughes Aircraft) was launched in mid-1987 on the DoD series of weather satellites (DMSP).
We SO anticipated that first instrument…good calibration, and high frequency channels to estimate precipitation over land. The previous NASA instruments (ESMR-5, -6, and SMMR) were a good start, but had limited channel selection and less than optimal calibration strategies.
The SSM/I instrument series …