Ian Bradford: More Arguments Against the Climate Alarmists

Flawed IPCC assessment reports

The first IPCC Assessment Report in 1990 found that the climate record of the past century was “broadly consistent” with changes in the Earth’s surface temperature, as calculated by climate models that incorporated the observed increase in greenhouse gases. So what they were saying is that as the amount of greenhouse gases increased in the atmosphere the temperature of the Earth also increased. But the trouble with that was from about 1940 to 1975 the climate actually cooled. And to make matters worse for this IPCC claim, industrial activity grew rapidly after WW2. So how would one reconcile this cooling with the increase in greenhouse gases, notably of course, carbon dioxide.

But another more serious flaw occurred with the second Assessment report in 1996. The problem was that the document was changed from one that said “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change observed to anthropogenic (Human ) causes.” to one that said: “The balance of evidence suggests there is a discernable human influence on global climate.”

The first statement was made in chapter 8- the key chapter of the report, and was accepted by reviewing scientists. But when the final version was published, this, and similar phrases in fifteen sections of the chapter were either deleted or modified. Nearly all the changes removed hints of scientific doubts regarding the claim that human activities are having a major impact on global warming. In the summary for policy holders, the only part of the report that most reporters and policymakers read, the single phrase outlined above was inserted.

According to the Journal Nature, the changes in the report were made in the midst of high- level pressure from the Clinton/Gore State department to do so. Of course the impact of this change was far reaching, with media across the world including a number of heavyweights declaring this was proof that humans are responsible for global warming.

So a changed statement in a report is proof! The IPCC report provided little evidence to support global anthropogenic theories of global warming.

Dr John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science and director of the Earth Science Centre at the University of Alabama had this to say; “The six page executive summary had the least input from scientists and the greatest input from non scientists.” The executive summary was the most widely read and the most quoted of the three documents published by the IPCC’s Working Group.

In 2000, the IPCC was at it again. The New York Times had this to say: “The consensus on global warming keeps strengthening,” On October 8th 2000, the Times stated: “ The IPCC panel of climate scientists, considered the most authoritative voice on global warming, has now concluded that mankind’s contribution to the problem is greater than originally believed.” These accounts were worded to maximize the fear factor.

Dr Richard Lindzen had this to say; “Almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summary for Policymakers, which are written by representatives from governments, NGO’s, and business. The full reports written by participating scientists are largely ignored. The Policymaker’s Summary was politicized and radically different from an earlier draft. The earlier draft stated;” The work suggests that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a substantial contributor to the observed warming, Especially over the past 30 years. However, the accuracies of these estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forcing. “

The final version looked quite different. “In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” (Meaning greenhouse gas emitted by human actions.)

No mention of what the “new evidence” is.

Dr LIndzen said: “I personally witnessed co-authors forced to assert their ‘green’ credentials in defense of their statements. In short, some parts of the IPCC process resembled a Soviet style trial. Facts were predetermined and ideological purity trumped technical and scientific rigor.”

UK Met. Office Estimating Temperature Data from Stations That Don’t Exist

The UK Met Office tasked with providing accurate weather and climate data, has come under fire for what critics call a “junk temperature measurement scam.” Allegations suggest the Met Office is inflating temperature records to support a Net Zero driven climate alarmist narrative, using poorly sited weather stations and fabricated data from non-existent sites. The fabricated data, reportedly included in climate models influencing global institutions such as the United Nations, has sparked concerns about the reliability of information shaping international climate policies.

Investigator Ray Sanders uncovered the issue after submitting multiple Freedom of Information requests to the Met Office and conducting on-site inspections.

SANDERS ALLEGES THAT 103 OUT OF THE 300 plus STATIONS REPORTEDLY SUPPLYING TEMPERATURE DATA DO NOT EXIST.

In Kent, Sanders claims that four of the eight stations listed by the Met Office: Dungeness, Folkstone, Dover and Gillingham – are fictitious. He notes that Dungeness has lacked a weather station since 1986. In an open letter to Peter Kyle, the minister responsible for the Met Office, Sanders alleges that the agency is “clearly fabricating” data, and failing to uphold scientific integrity. He asserts that the network of weather stations is inadequately maintained and poorly sited, leading to unreliable climate reporting. Despite these serious allegations there has been no response from Kyle, The Met Office or other government officials. The lack of Mainstream media coverage has fueled speculation that the push for Net Zero may be overshadowing concerns about the accuracy of the underlying data.

The Met Office’s temperature measurement network is riddled with issues. Of the 380 plus stations 48.7% are class 4, (errors up to 2 Deg C), and 29.2 are class 5, (errors up to 5 Deg C), meaning 77.9% are junk or near junk for climate reporting under WMO guidelines. These classifications reflect poor siting, stations near heat sources like tarmac, buildings, or notoriously, airport runways. For example, the RAF Coningsby station which recorded the UK’s high of 40.3 Deg C in 2022 is near a runway where typhoon jets operate, their exhaust potentially spiking readings. Similarly, St James Park in London, a class 4 site near a busy tarmac path, recorded 40.2 that day inflated by Urban Heat Island effects.

Yet the Met Office uses these sites to claim precise measurements, such as 2023 being 0.06 Deg C cooler than 2022, a level of accuracy impossible with such error prone sites. Placing gauges at airports where jet fuel exhaust can raise local temperature by several degrees, is particularly egregious. A 2024 study by Arup estimated that London’s Urban Heat Island effect adds 4.5 Deg C on average, yet the Met Office doesn’t adjust for this in its headline grabbing record temperatures.

Critics argue that the Met Office has been captured by activists to push a Net Zero agenda. Its purple weather maps and frequent warnings of “extreme” weather amplify fear, despite natural variations like warmer summers, or milder winters being consistent with historical cycles.

The accusation of a “scam” stems from the perception that the Met Office prioritises political goals over scientific rigor. By reporting temperatures to hundredths of a degree from a network with errors up to 5 Deg C, it fuels claims of a “climate crisis” requiring drastic Net Zero policies. The Met Office’s silence, coupled with mainstream media’ s reluctance to cover the issue, suggests a broader agenda to suppress scepticism.

This what a report on the Internet states: The UN relies on temperature readings from the UK Met Office. The UK Met Office is a key member of the World Meteorological Organisation, WMO, which is the UN’s authoritative voice on weather and climate. The Met Office PROVIDES HIGH QAULITY OBSERVATIONS AND DATA, which are essential for global weather and climate services including those used by the UN.

This is what the WMO says about the UK Met Office: The WMO this year marks its 75th anniversary as the UN authoritative voice on weather, climate and water. Throughout that time the UK’s Met Office has been one of our most committed and active members and has been a champion of free exchange of high-quality observations and data for the global good.

The science journalist Matt Ridley recently laid his finger on what has gone wrong at the Met Office. It has been embarrassingly duped by activists. It believes most of the recent warming has been caused by humans, even though the evidence for this statement arises mainly from simplistic climate models.

Net Zero has died in the US and sceptical voices are increasingly being heard. Decades of politicised settled science are being replaced with a broader wish to understand how the atmosphere works. The role of natural variation is being discussed and the greening benefits of higher temperatures and carbon dioxide are being considered.

The idea of a settled anthropogenic climate opinion is starting to look rather dated. The scare/scam was useful for promoting the hard left Net Zero fantasy, but that fantasy is rapidly falling apart as hydrocarbon reality sets in.

Finally: the UN provides this unreliable information to governments around the world. Most accept it without question.

Urban Heat Islands Bias Surface Temperature

A hundred or more years ago, temperature reading devices were placed in small towns with roads yet to be covered in tarmac. Buildings were small, and usually wooden. There was little traffic and no planes, nor large industries. All that has changed now. Towns are now cities with high concrete buildings, industries and many vehicles. Airports are sometimes close by. Few trees are evident and many cities do not have a river or other waterways through them. Consequently, a lot more heat is generated in cities than in the surrounding countryside. This is called the Urban Heat Island effect. Temperature devices in cities need to be corrected for this effect. But often they are not.

A typical temperature profile. City temperature in this diagram is 3.4 Deg C higher than the rural temperature.

Reported surface temperatures have a significant warming bias. This is demonstrated when temperature comparisons are made between the surface measurements, temperatures measured by weather balloons, and those measured by global satellites. Various weather recording and reporting agencies around the world have manipulated, adjusted, and “homogenised” surface temperature measurements. These homogenisation efforts seemingly go in only one direction, with past temperatures adjusted downward and present temperatures adjusted upward. That makes the record show a steep warming trend, a steeper trend than has actually been recorded, and which plays right into claims that humans are causing a dangerous global warming.

Award winning meteorologist Anthony Watts showed surface stations across the United States are woefully compromised by the Urban Heat Island effect. Urban areas experience higher temperatures, especially at night, than surrounding rural areas, due to the replacement of natural surfaces with heat absorbing materials such as concrete and asphalt, and being located near sources of heat such as furnaces, air conditioning units, outdoor grills, and areas of high mobile or air traffic.

In his First Report, Watts reported 89% of the stations surveyed - nearly nine out of ten, failed to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements, for producing unbiased reliable data. The situation actually got worse and by 2022, Watts and his team of site auditors found and photographically confirmed approximately 96% of The US temperature stations used to measure temperatures failed to meet NOAA’s and NWS’s (National Weather Service) standards for acceptable and uncorrupted placement. UHI biased stations skew the reported average temperature and temperature trends upwards.

Here is an example of a badly sited temperature device. A tennis court was built next door with lots of tarmac in the 1980’s. The graph shows the sudden increase in temperature readings when the court was built. Note also the drum for burning rubbish. This site should have been moved.

As in the UK, it was found that thousands of stations in the US were “ghost” stations, locations where no station currently exists. The reported temperatures were simply made up by the agencies, extrapolated from temperatures recorded at nearby stations. Made-up measurements aren’t measurements at all, and they certainly don’t qualify as quality controlled data. Scientists Roy Spencer PhD, John Christy PhD, and William Braswell PhD, used a novel method to quantify the average UHI warming across the US from 1895 to 2023. The overall result was the UHI accounts for at least 22% of the raw temperature increase across the Global Historical Climatology Network.

In spite of climate model predictions, a large swath of Eurasia (all of Europe and Asia) is cooling. Research published in the journal, Environmental Research Letters, shows some surprising findings. Central Eurasia cooled significantly from 2004 through to 2020. The cooling seems to be a result of increased snowfall in the region in the autumn. Interestingly, a number of scientists, media outlets, and alarmist climate pundits, had forecast over the past two decades the snow would disappear, with children no longer knowing what snow was. The study revealed that the autumn snow cover percentage over central Eurasia has increased by 5.38% per decade over the past two decades. The average temperature in the central Eurasia region fell by 2 deg C, a rate of 1.425 Deg C per decade. This is all in the context of global warming.

Don’t trust the models, trust the actual data.

Footnote

The term “climate denier” is expressed frequently. No one is a climate denier. Increasing numbers of people are anthropogenic climate deniers. They believe climate is changing by natural means not by human activity.

Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.