About Old 13


According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet — Jay Leno

My position is that anthropogenic global warming is an artifact of dodgy modeling and statistics. All of my publications discrediting extreme claims have been vindicated. (Many more claims of AGW have been discredited, these are just mine.)

2004 Massive Extinctions

Extinction Risk from Climate Change by Chris Thomas et al.. predicted “that 37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be committed to extinction.”

Vindication: Stephen Williams, coauthor of the Thomas paper and Director for the Center for Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change admitted.

Many unknowns remain in projecting extinctions, and the values provided in Thomas et al. (2004) should not be taken as precise predictions.

Read More

2006 Hockey Stick

‘Exceptional’ 20th century warming from tree-ring proxies modeled via the screening process in Australian Institute of Geoscientists News shows a hockey stick shape even when using random numbers (with serial correlation).

Vindication: Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published in February 2009 a comment, cited my AIG article, in a criticism of an article by Michael Mann. The response by Michael Mann acknowledged such screening was common, and used in their reconstructions.

Read More

2007 More Sensitive Climate

Rahmstorf et al. 2007 raised concerns that the climate system, and in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.

Vindication: Rahmstorf admits on RealClimate:

In hindsight, the averaging period of 11 years that we used in the 2007 Science paper was too short to determine a robust climate trend. The 2-sigma error of an 11-year trend is about +/- 0.2 ºC, i.e. as large as the trend itself. Therefore, an 11-year trend is still strongly affected by interannual variability (i.e. weather).

Read More

2008 More Extreme Droughts

The CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship produced a Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report (DECR), suggesting among other things that droughts would double in Australia in the coming decades.

  • Paper in review at International Journal of Forecasting.

Vindication: Former Head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Ian Castles solicited a review by ANU independent Accredited Statisticians, Brewer and Other. They concurred that models in the DECR required validation (along with other interesting points).

Dr Stockwell has argued that the GCMs should be subject to testing of their adequacy using historical or external data. We agree that this should be undertaken as a matter of course by all modelers. It is not clear from the DECR whether or not any such validation analyses have been undertaken by CSIRO/BoM. If they have, we urge CSIRO/BoM make the results available so that readers can make their own judgments as to the accuracy of the forecasts. If they have not, we urge them to undertake some.

Read More

2009 Positive Water Vapor Feedback

Dessler estimates water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations. The propagation of uncertainty through Dessler et als. equation finds the method unreliable.

  • Paper in review at GRL.

Read More

2009 Internal Variability

Easterling & Wehner (2009) claim that describing global temperatures since 1998 as declining is ‘cherry picking’. The Chow test for structural breaks find a major regime shift occurred in 1997, statistically justifying the use of 1997 as a starting point for temperature trends.

Vindication: Swanson and Tsonis update their paper on periodic fluctuations in ocean temperature as a coupled complex system, finding a major regime-shift around 2002, consistent with our finding.

Read More

2009 Sea Level Acceleration

  • Paper in preparation

Read More

  • Jao Cebrun

    Who is your current employer, Stockwell?

  • Jao Cebrun

    Who is your current employer, Stockwell?

  • John F. Pittman

    Perhaps you should add http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%e2%80%9crecent-changes-in-climate-extremes-in-the-caribbean-region-by-peterson-et-al-2002%e2%80%9d-by-rj-stone/ to your list. IMO Dr. Stone presetns a wellwritten case and is refused for not doing someone else’s work. T’is strange.

  • John F. Pittman

    Perhaps you should add http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%e2… to your list. IMO Dr. Stone presetns a wellwritten case and is refused for not doing someone else's work. T'is strange.

  • John F. Pittman

    Perhaps you should add http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%e2… to your list. IMO Dr. Stone presetns a wellwritten case and is refused for not doing someone else's work. T'is strange.

  • Guest

    I think this is garbage. Scientists tell us they are making projections not predictions. You can even look at the probalities of extreme events occurring. It’s not hidden. The climatologists at NASA and climatechange.org etc. will answer emails from the public about the probability of certain events occurring. Your whole book is based on using misleading statistics to try and manipulate public perception about the most likely outcomes. You don’t have an alternate climate model, so you are engaging in the pseudoscience.

  • Doug Cotton

    You may be interested in my new peer-reviewed climate paper linked below.
    Climatologists love to talk about energy being trapped by carbon dioxide and thus not exiting at the top of the atmosphere (TOA.)

    It is nowhere near as simple as that.  All the radiation gets to space sooner or later.  Carbon dioxide just scatters it on its way so you don’t see radiation in those bandwidths at TOA.  The energy still gets out, and you have no proof that it doesn’t, because you don’t have the necessary simultaneous measurements made all over the world.

    In the hemisphere that is cooling at night there is far more getting out, whereas in the hemisphere in the sunlight there is far more coming in.  This is obvious.
    When I placed a wide necked vacuum flask filled with water in the sun yesterday (with the lid off) the temperature of the water rose from 19.5 deg.C at 5:08am to 29.1 deg.C at 1:53pm while the air around it rose from 19.0 to 31.9 deg.C.  

    What did the backradiation do at night?  Well from 9:15pm till 12:05am the water cooled from 24.2 deg.C to 23.4 deg.C while the air cooled from 24.2 deg.C to 22.7 deg.C.

    According to those energy diagrams the backradiation, even at night, is about half the solar radiation during the day.  Well, maybe it is, but it does not have anything like half the effect on the temperature as you can confirm in your own backyard.

    This is because, when radiation from a cooler atmosphere strikes a warmer surface it undergoes “resonant scattering” (sometimes called pseudo-scattering) and this means its energy is not converted to thermal energy.  This is the reason that heat does not transfer from cold to hot.  If it did the universe would go crazy.

    When opposing radiation is scattered, its own energy replaces energy which the warmer body would have radiated from its own thermal energy supply. 
    You can imagine it as if you are just about to pay for fuel at a gas station when a friend travelling with you offers you cash for the right amount.  It’s quicker and easier for you to just pay with the cash, rather than going through the longer process of using a credit card to pay from your own account.  So it is with radiation.  The warmer body cools more slowly as a result because a ready source of energy from incident radiation is quicker to just “reflect” back into the atmosphere, rather than have to convert its own thermal energy to radiated energy.

    The ramifications are this: 

    Not all radiation from the atmosphere is the same.  That from cooler regions has less effect.  Also, that with fewer frequencies under its Planck curve has less effect again. 

    Each carbon dioxide molecule thus has far less effect than each water vapour molecule because the latter can radiate with more frequencies which “oppose” the frequencies being emitted by the surface, especially the oceans.
     
    Furthermore, it is only the radiative cooling process of the surface which is slowed down.  There are other processes like evaporative cooling and diffusion followed by convection which cannot be affected by backradiation, and which will tend to compensate for any slowing of the radiation.

    This is why, at night, the water in the flask cools nearly as fast as the air around it.  The net effect on the rate of cooling is totally negligible. 

    The backradiation does not affect temperatures anywhere near as much as solar radiation, even though its “W/m^2″ is probably about half as much. 
     
    And there are other reasons also why it all balances out and climate follows natural cycles without any anthropogenic effect.  This is explained in detail in my peer-reviewed publication now being further reviewed by dozens of scientists.

    http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf

    .