Articles Tagged "David Archibald"

Sorted by: Date Posted | Views
“Warming or cooling?”, Oil & Gas Journal, v.106 by David Archibald
Monday, June 14th 2010, 3:14 AM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
The first thing to be aware of is that the warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongly logarithmic. Of the 3° C. that carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect, the first 20 ppm has a greater effect than the following 400 ppm. By the time we get to the current level of 384 ppm, each 100 ppm increment will produce only about 0.1° of warming. With atmospheric carbon dioxide rising at about 2 ppm per annum, temperature will rise at 0.1° every 50 years.

If that is true, you will ask, how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) get its icecap-melting figure of 5° for doubling of the preindustrial level to 560ppm? An equation called the Stefan-Boltzman equation tells us that in the absence of feedbacks, doubling would produce a rise of 1°. The IPCC climate modeling assumes that the feedback from this rise will be positive; that is, that the extra heat will cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which in turn will cause more heat to be trapped, and the system compounds away until 1° gets turned into 5°. As described, the Earth’s climate would be tremendously unstable, prone to thermal runaway at the slightest disturbance.

The real world evidence says the opposite. In late 2007, a Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a paper analyzing data from the Aqua satellite. Based on the response of tropical clouds, Dr. Spencer demonstrated that the feedback is negative. He calculates a 0.5° warming for a doubling of the preindustrial carbon dioxide level. Global warming is real, but it is also minuscule. Atmospheric temperature rose 0.7° in the 20th century; it has also fallen by the same amount in the last 18 months. Global warming, as caused by carbon dioxide, will be lost in the noise of the system.
Source Link: scienceandpublicpolicy.org
THIS ARTICLE CONTINUES
Book: The Past and Future of Climate - Why scientists get it wrong by David Archibald: Updated with Four YouTube's
Wednesday, June 2nd 2010, 7:47 PM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
Image AttachmentEdited extract: "Why did so many scientists get it wrong?" from David Archibald's book - The Past and Future of Climate:

If the data and forecasts in this book are correct, then the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, the Royal Society in the United Kingdom, the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO in Australia are all wrong.

How can this be? Firstly, there aren’t that many scientists involved in the IPCC deliberations. The inner core is possibly twenty souls. Secondly, they were untroubled by the necessity to concoct fraudulent data to get their desired results. The only unknown question regarding the IPCC scientists is “Did they actually believe in the global warming that they were promoting?”

It turns out that they did, and possibly still do. That is shown by the Climategate emails released on 20th November, 2009. The Climategate emails are a selection of emails amongst members of the inner core plus minor characters. The fact that the IPCC scientists believed in the global warming they were promoting means that their morality at that level was better than expected, but it also means that they are a lot more stupid than expected. Nevertheless, their behaviour in promoting the notion of global warming using fraudulent statistics is reprehensible and hopefully they will be duly punished in this world or the next.

The history of the global warming fraud has been detailed in a number of books published recently, including a number on the climategate emails alone. A good analysis of the emails can be found in a book entitled The Climategate Emails by John Costella, which can be downloaded from the Lavoisier Group website.

Updated below with Four YouTube's
Source Link: quadrant.org.au
THIS ARTICLE CONTINUES
Hey dude, where’s my solar ramp up? by David Archibald, guest post at WUWT
Sunday, May 16th 2010, 3:22 PM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
article image
The prognostications based on spotless days are now a distant memory. From here, given that the green corona brightness indicates that solar maximum will in 2015, the big unknown is what the maximum amplitude will be. We are now eighteen months into a six year rise to solar maximum. What is interesting is that in the last few days, the F10.7 flux has fallen to values last seen in late 2009:

The red line is a possible uptrend based on the data to date. That uptrend would result in a maximum F10.7 amplitude in 2015 of about 105. Using the relationship between F10.7 flux and sunspot number, that in turn means a maximum amplitude in terms of sunspot number of 50 – a Dalton Minimum-like result. Dr Svalgaard has kindly provided a graphic of the relationship between sunspot number and F10.7 flux
Source Link: wattsupwiththat.com
THIS ARTICLE CONTINUES
Giv2.me - The Charity Donations Site
Press Release: Perth climate scientist to meet with Czech President
Monday, April 12th 2010, 8:49 AM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
Internationally acclaimed Perth-based environmental scientist, David Archibald, will visit the Czech Republic this week to meet with the country’s leader, Vaclav Klaus. The pair will discuss climate and energy issues.

Mr Archibald is recognised as one of the world’s leading climate change sceptics. His theory that change in the Earth’s climate is caused by the solar (or sunspot) cycle, rather than by human activity, is gaining widespread attention.

The Czech President has been vocal in stating that the implementation of legislation based on global warming theory is a dangerous infringement of personal liberty.

Mr Archibald’s arguments are based on his detailed studies of the solar cycle.

The current cycle, Solar Cycle 24, commenced in December 2008 and has been unusually weak. Mr Archibald believes that this will cause the planet’s climate to continue to cool for at least the next twenty years.
THIS ARTICLE CONTINUES
The Warning in the Stars by David Archibald
Saturday, February 27th 2010, 5:57 AM EST
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
article image
If climate is not a random walk, then we can predict climate if we understand what drives it. The energy that stops the Earth from looking like Pluto comes from the Sun, and the level and type of that energy does change. So the Sun is a good place to start if we want to be able to predict climate. To put that into context, let’s look at what the Sun has done recently. This is a figure from “Century to millenial-scale temperature variations for the last two thousand years indicated from glacial geologic records of Southern Alaska” G.C.Wiles, D.J.Barclay, P.E.Calkin and T.V.Lowell 2007:

The red line is the C14 production rate, inverted. C14 production is inversely related to solar activity, so we see more C14 production during solar minima. The black line is the percentage of ice-rafted debris in seabed cores of the North Atlantic, also plotted inversely. The higher the black line, the warmer the North Atlantic was. The grey vertical stripes are solar minima. As the authors say,” Previous analyses of the glacial record showed a 200- year rhythm to glacial activity in Alaska and its possible link to the de Vries 208-year solar (Wiles et al., 2004). Similarly, high-resolution analyses of lake sediments in southwestern Alaska suggests that century-scale shifts in Holocene climate were modulated by solar activity (Hu et al., 2003). It seems that the only period in the last two thousand years that missed a de Vries cycle cooling was the Medieval Warm Period.

Click source to download PDF from icecap.us
Source Link: icecap.us
MUST SEE VIDEO: Dalton Minimum Repeat goes mainstream
Monday, February 15th 2010, 2:44 PM EST
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
article image
The AGU Fall meeting has a session entitled “Aspects and consequences of an unusually deep and long solar minimum”. Two hours of video of this session can be accessed here.

Two of the papers presented had interesting observations with implications for climate. First of all Solanki came to the conclusion that the Sun is leaving its fifty to sixty year long grand maximum of the second half of the 20th century. He had said previously that the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than in the previous 8,000 years.

CLICK TO SEE VIDEO LINK

H/T IceCap.us
Source Link: icecap.us
Solar Cycle 24 Update by David Archibald, guest post at WUWT
Wednesday, February 3rd 2010, 12:45 PM EST
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
article image
Solar Cycle 24 is now over a year old, so it is appropriate to see how it is ramping up.

Solar Cycle 24 was a late starter, about three and a half years later than the average of the strong cycles in the late 20th century and almost three year later than the weak cycles of the late 19th century. It was almost as late as Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum. The last few months have seen it ramp up relatively rapidly.

Click WUWT link to read FULL report from David Archibald
Source Link: wattsupwiththat.com
Another parallel with the Maunder Minimum by David Archibald
Friday, November 13th 2009, 11:37 AM EST
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
article image
That graphic is reproduced with my annotation:

In a presentation dated 22nd September, 2009, Dr Svalgaard produced a graphic which can be interpreted to predict the timing of the Solar Cycle 24 maximum.

That presentation is available here: http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.ppt

Click source to read FULL article from WUWT
Source Link: wattsupwiththat.com
Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States by David Archibald
Saturday, September 5th 2009, 1:03 PM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
David Archibald, International Conference on Climate Change

Do we live in a special time in which the laws of physics and nature are suspended? No, we do not. Can we expect relationships between the Sun’s activity and climate, that we can see in data going back several hundred years, to continue for at least another 20 years? With absolute certainty.

In this presentation, I will demonstrate that the Sun drives climate, and use that demonstrated relationship to predict the Earth’s climate to 2030. It is a prediction that differs from most in the public domain. It is a prediction of imminent cooling.
To put the solar – climate relationship in context, we will begin by looking at the recent temperature record, and then go further back in time.

Then we will examine the role of the Sun in changing climate, and following that the contribution of anthropogenic warming from carbon dioxide. I will show that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is not even a little bit bad. It is wholly beneficial. The more carbon dioxide we can put into the atmosphere, the better the planet will be – for humans, and all other living things.

Please click source link to download PDF file
Source Link: warwickhughes.com
It’s the Sun, silly by David Archibald
Wednesday, August 12th 2009, 5:44 AM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
Carbon dioxide is not the major influence on climate

The government’s intention to introduce an emissions trading system in Australia rests upon their belief that human carbon-dioxide emissions are a cause of dangerous global warming. That belief is incorrect. Though carbon dioxide is indeed a minor greenhouse gas, the major control on earth’s climate has always been, and remains, the Sun.

The correlation between solar activity and climate was first noticed in ancient Greece in 400 BC (Hoyt and Schatten, 1997). The Sun’s solar cycles are normally 11 years long, and can vary from nine years to 16 years. There is a correlation between solar cycle length and amplitude, with the shorter the cycle the higher the amplitude. High amplitude cycles produce a stronger solar wind, changing the level of galactic cosmic rays impinging on the Earth’s atmosphere. This is measured as neutron counts at several stations around the planet. That in turn alters the Earth’s albedo by changing cloud formation, as increased galactic cosmic rays enhance cloud formation.

Variation in the Earth’s albedo due to changing cloud cover is sufficient to have caused the warming of the 20th century (Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997). This is borne out by the relationship between Be10 levels in the Dye 3 ice core from Greenland and major climatic periods. Be10 is formed by cosmic ray spallation of oxygen and nitrogen. Spikes in Be10 levels in the Dye 3 core are associated with all the major cold periods of the Little Ice Age, including the un-named cold period at the end of the 19th century.
Source Link: quadrant.org.au
THIS ARTICLE CONTINUES
27 articles found
showing page 2 of 3
« previous    1 2 3    next »
Articles by Climate Realists and Topics

» Recently used highlighted

ALL #-E F-J K-O P-T U-Z
Useful links
Disclaimer
  • » News articles may contain quotes, these are copyright to the respective publication which will be stated, along with a link to the source article where available.
  • » If you feel your copyright has been violated please contact us and the article will be removed or amended at your request.
Site Details
  • » Launched 15 May 2009
  • » Website Design by Mr Zippy
Climate Depot Feed
  • » Feed Error