Letter to the AMS

Source:  SPPI

by James Macdonald

Re: Article in the August issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, “The Psychology of Global Warming. By Ben Newell and Andrew Pittman

The whole premise of your article is built on the credibility of the IPCC reports and consensus of the global warming community. There is no mention of the hundreds of respected scientists who totally disagree with their findings. “Climategate” shows just how incestuous the process can be by trying to exclude the work of those who don’t agree. In an attempt to stifle dissent, the phrase “the science is settled” did great harm to the science of discovering the causes of the great temperature variations throughout geologic history.

The basic raw temperature data used by the scientific community has been “adjusted” or in some cases lost. As a sample of this, in a paper by Edward R. Long, Ph.D. “ New England’s Temperature History and Trends (1911-2009)”, he shows that “The protocol developed by the NCDC for massaging raw temperature observations into adjusted values is responsible for a significant portion of the United States temperature increase of +0.6C reported over the past century. NCDC erred in adjusting temperature data for 1980-2000 so as to show temperatures higher than those previously reported.” Temperatures at rural observing stations, which showed little or no upward trend were changed to match temperatures at urban stations, which increased as population increased. Much the same procedure was used on the GISS data. To further exasperate the situation, in the 1980’s about half the rural stations, especially in Russia were disbanded, resulting in a further warming bias.

The climate models upon which most of the dire predictions of global warming rest, also contain erroneous assumptions and ignore many of the natural variables that govern our climate. They were artificially tuned to match the warm trend from 1978-1998, using water vapor to amplify the perceived warming by CO2. This was a false strategy, because the assumed positive feedback was offset by clouds and precipitation. Prof. Richard Lindzen, MIT and Roy Spencer, Ph.D. showed that the feedback should be close to zero or even negative. The models can’t possibly make accurate predictions, unless solar wind variations and ocean oscillations can be accurately predicted and included. The same is true of volcanic eruptions, aerosol concentrations, and other unknowns. Cloud variations of just 1-2% could account for all the temperature changes in the 20th century.

As for your suggestion about using simple mathematical formats, how about the fact that out of 100,000 molecules of air, only one molecule of CO2 out of 39 is due to man.

Since we have now been in an interglacial warm period for 11,500 years, (the normal length between ice ages), we should be more worried about getting colder then warmer in the future.

While you try to attribute group think to others it is precisely of what you seem to be afflicted.

James Macdonald, meteorologist (retired) MS MIT

25 Norton Lane

South Windsor, CT 06074