Monday, 1 August 2011



By Dr Vincent Gray.



I have devoted several recent newsletters to pointing out the absurdities of the assumptions behind the climate models favoured by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have recently realised that these absurdities are already explained as part of the scientific discipline called meteorology. It is therefore possible to propose the necessary requirements for a rational and scientifically based climate model by listing the necessary requirements and speculating how they might be used as the basis for a comprehensive climate model.

I have been particularly impressed by the graphical description of the basic properties of the climate by the online notes published by Lyndon State College Atmospheric Sciences | 1001 College Road | Lyndonville, Vermont 05851 at
I give examples from Chapter 3 at

Let us start with the Sun.


There needs to be three separate sets of models, each of which can have a rational average. They are
  •  6am to noon, where sun increases in a regular fashion and radiation tries to increase
  • Noon to 6pm where sun declines in a regular fashion and radiation tries to decline
  • 6pm to 6am where there is no sun and all radiation declines.

There would have to be a range of models to handle latitude and seasonal changes.

Earth Temperature lags behind the Sun, but can be handled by only two basic models,

  • 6am to 3-5 pm with an increase;
  • 3-5pm to 6 am with a fall.

However, The second graph plots energy. which is proportional to the fourth power of absolute temperature so the two averages will correspond to  higher temperatures than the averages in the first curve.

Then the temperature of the atmosphere is determined by convection, with a difference between day and night

All of these models need sets of modifications for latitude and seasons.
The pervasive influence of water vapour, clouds, rain and snow, and aerosols are additional complications.

A rational climate model should be based on the above considerations, but at present we lack the data or the computation power  to provide an effective forecasting system which can goes further than that which exists at present. However, the gross oversimplification of the current climate models means that they can never be successful.

The college also gives notes on the greenhouse theory, which fail to address its defects.

I might just mention that although I am not a meteorologist I once ran a weather station on the roof of my secondary school from 1937-1939. We were all terribly keen and took it in turns to read the instruments every day, even during weekends and school holidays. Each day there was a weather forecast on the bulletin board. 

The temperature fell during school holidays because the boilers were shut down.

Carbon tax a mistake, admits Della Bosca

John Della Bosca
They may have different reasons than we do, but Labor people are coming out against the tax that Julia said we woudn't have. I suppose that Julia would be the first Labor person against the tax and Wayne "hysterical" Swan was the second. Then there was Morris Iemma:

Former NSW premier Morris Iemma has questioned the environmental benefits and economic cost of the scheme, saying the Government had adopted a policy that was part of the Greens' agenda of "anti-growth and anti-investment".
It would cause lower growth and investment and lead to lower incomes and fewer jobs, while only slightly reducing the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions, Mr Iemma told The Australian newspaper.
Now, John Della Bosca has spoken out:
THE former NSW minister John Della Bosca has called the federal government's carbon tax a mistake and the ''craziest thing'' the Prime Minister could have done.

Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery

For more than a decade the Danish Physicist Henrik Svensmark has worked on a new theory about the climate.   This will alter our understanding of climate change.

"The Climate is a result of changes in the clouds"

See also THIS : Cosmic rays cause formation of clouds.

Thanks Lubos Motl