Archive for the ‘independant ‘scientist’’ Category

Nic Lewis- who? IPCC expert reviewer no less.

Nic Lewis. A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr. Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change

Nic Lewis’ academic background is mathematics, with a minor in physics, at Cambridge University (UK). His career has been outside academia. Two or three years ago, he returned to his original scientific and mathematical interests and, being interested in the controversy surrounding AGW, started to learn about climate science.   He is co-author of the paper that rebutted Steig et al.  Antarctic temperature reconstruction (Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon, 2011, Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction, Journal of Climate – print version at J.Climate or preprint here).

Quotes are from a Matt Ridley article in the Wall St Journal and his own bio in Judith Curries blog   – So Nic Lewis has a math degree from Cambridge and after a career in finance he retired to take up climate change scepticism. Nic Lewis is not in complete climate change denial- from a comment from Judith Curries blog

  1. I fully accept that, as a result of basic radiative transfer physics, CO2 warms the planet, However, my present view is that the observational evidence for climate sensitivity being 2–4 times its base level, as a result of net feedbacks, is fairly weak. I also think that the politicized and dogmatic nature of the AGW debate has led to bias in the scientific process and to some extent compromised its integrity. I would particularly like to see, as a matter of routine, climate research papers make easily available all data and methods information in the detail required to replicate studies. I also think that the peer review and publication process is biased against papers that challenge mainstream views, and should be reformed.
Nic Lewis’ main contribution to the ‘debate’ is his co-authorship with Ryan O’Donnell [computer science] Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon paper criticising Eric Steig’ study in Nature 2009 his rebuttal is found here .
Nic Lewis main contention is that CO2 physics is correct and will result in 1.5c temperature increase with a doubling in CO2 [so any deniers using the CO2 is not a GHG should best avoid his arguments] but Climate Science evidence that positive feedback will amplify GHG to cause higher temperatures is wrong.
Nic Lewis’ other criticisms include Forrest 2006 paper on Antarctic and the leaked IPCC draft report to be published in 2013
Mr. Lewis tells me [Matt Ridley]that the latest observational estimates of the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles from coal smoke) find that they have much less cooling effect than thought when the last IPCC report was written. The rate at which the ocean is absorbing greenhouse-gas-induced warming is also now known to be fairly modest. In other words, the two excuses used to explain away the slow, mild warming we have actually experienced—culminating in a standstill in which global temperatures are no higher than they were 16 years ago—no longer work.
However because being an expert reviewer forbids citing the draft document publicly Nic Lewis is unable to quote any paper included in the report and why it is wrong.
March 2014 – Nic Lewis co authors a Global Warming Policy Foundation report that takes the most optimistic paper on predicted warming from doubling of CO2 [from pre industrial levels] and without feedback.

Oversensitive: How The IPCC Hid The Good News On Global Warming

A new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that the best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate models are estimating. ……

For over thirty years climate scientists have presented a range for climate sensitivity (ECS) that has hardly changed. It was 1.5-4.5°C in 1979 and this range is still the same today in AR5. The new report suggests that the inclusion of recent evidence, reflected in AR5, justifies a lower observationally-based temperature range of 1.25–3.0°C, with a best estimate of 1.75, for a doubling of CO2. By contrast, the climate models used for projections in AR5 indicate a range of 2-4.5°C, with an average of 3.2°C.

Nic Lewis has taken the lowest range from the research papers used by the IPCC and then taken the lowest range in that- i.e. 1.75°C

The author of the paper selected by Nic Lewis to herald the good news is not optimistic – from the Guardian.

I asked Professor Forster for his views on the GWPF paper. Perhaps Lewis and Crok should have done the same?  A baldly honest Professor Forster told me:

Lewis and Crok use methods developed by Jonathan Gregory and myself to infer a lower climate sensitivity than that quoted in IPCC AR5. Whilst our techniques are powerful they have uncertainties and do not necessarily produce more robust estimates of climate sensitivity than other methods, as they make crude assumptions and suffer from data quality issues. Climate sensitivity remains an uncertain quantity. Nevertheless, even employing the lowest estimates suggested by Lewis and Crok, we expect continued and significant warming out to 2100 of around 3C above preindustrial if we continue to emit CO2 at current levels.

Nic Lewis’ latest paper is something of an achievement – not so much in conclusions which follow on from previous papers- i.e. sensitivity is likely to be low- the real achievement is having Judith Curry as a co-author who has finally slain her uncertainty monster.

Joseph developed a bit of a following for a pal reviewed paper [Joseph E Postma has published NO peer-reviewed paper in any legitimate science journal on climate science] that said a 100 years of scientific consensus on greenhouse gases was entirely wrong. The paper [and you will be wasting your time reading this] another PDF to clutter your download folder, is here.  As it has been heralded as, yet another, final nail in the AGW scam Skeptical Science did another painstaking review to illustrate its many flaws.The quick answer is here.

It is yet another pal reviewed propaganda piece by the vanity online science journal Principia Scientific International set up by Tim Ball [geologist and climate denier] and pals who have real problems with being rejected by mainstream science because the are frankly nuts-an organisation too fringe even for Lord Monckton. There you will find law graduates, weathermen, and some retired scientists producing papers saying climate change isn’t happening and even a paper on a perpetual motion machine. [Even Anthony Watts accepts CO2 is a GHG]

So who is Joseph E. Postma? The Principia Scientific Int site says

Joseph E. Postma (Canada): Astrophysicist Joe Postma  (M.Sc. Astrophysics, Honours B.Sc. Astronomy) works for the Canadian Space Agency and Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). He quickly made his mark on the PSI research team as author of two papers published by PSI: ‘The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect’ and ‘Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect.’ Postma obtained his Masters in 2007. His graduate thesis can be found here (or here) and is titled “The observation and analysis of the Cepheid SZ Tauri”. Postma’s discovery is a new observable phenomenon in the behavior of Cepheid stellar pulsation. As a result, we might be able to use Cepheids to gauge distances in space to better accuracy if this work was continued and developed further. In November 2012 Postma was made a PSI Senior Fellow in recognition of his groundbreaking paper,’ A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect.

The Calgary University web site of personnel says he is ‘support specialist’ which could be anything from a researcher, to lab technician to someone who sweeps up at night. His Linkedin profile says he’s a calibration manager. He works for Calgary Uni who probably do research for the Canadian Space program but it doesn’t mean Jo works for them too.

So why is such a smart person being so dumb? Joseph Postma is not actually an Astrophysicist, he did an astronomy degree and followed it up with a M.Sc. A masters is a one year full time course that covers

The MSc in Astrophysics……… It gives students a detailed overview of the fundamentals of the subject as well as an up-to-date account of recent developments in research. The wide range of topics covered by the course reflects the breadth of research interests pursued by the members of staff ….. Lectures cover such diverse topics as the origin of the universe, dark matter, the life and death of stars, black holes, extrasolar planets and space and solar plasma physics. Students also write a dissertation, which may be a critical review of an astrophysical topic or a project of an observational, theoretical or computational nature.

The MSc can be studied either part-time (two years) or full-time (one year).

Joseph could go on to submitting a novel paper [like the idea that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas] for a Ph.D and if his peers can find no error he could claim to be the new Copernicus and be employed as a professor.

From Skeptical Science


In summary, Joseph Postma published an article criticizing a very simple model that nonetheless produces useful results.  He made several very simple errors along the way, none of which are very technical in nature.  More sophisticated models are obviously designed to handle the uneven distribution of solar heating (which is why we have weather!); nonetheless, the educational tools are useful for their purpose, and in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect.  Without a greenhouse effect, multiple studies have shown that the Earth collapses into a frozen iceball (Pierrehumbert et al., 2007; Voigt and Marotzke 2009, Lacis et al 2010) and indeed, after an ice-albedo feedback, plummets below the modern effective temperature of 255 K.  This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs.  The author should be ashamed.

contributing author to an astronomy peer-reviewed paper here.

For more on Joseph Postma thoughts visit his blog climateofsophistry

The climate alarmists are instead trying to negate the human mind.  Why don’t they realize that even a cursory understanding of their beloved “Gaia” theory would have to indicate that “mother Earth” created human beings on purpose, in order to help replenish the stock of CO2 in the atmosphere which had almost disappeared which would have caused the mass and final extinction?  They don’t want to believe in anything good because their true goal is that they want to murder humans, as we will see below; that is what drives them.

Alberto Miatello


Don’t waste to much time reading it. Alberto Miatello is exclusively publishing with Principia Scientific International [if the website is ever down try the Google cache]  and his  qualification is being a law graduate.

The publisher was set up by climate deniers [these bios from their website]

Chairman & Founder Member: Timothy Ball PhD (Canada): Professor Timothy Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former [retired] Professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball has served on many local and national committees and as Chair of Provincial boards on water management, environmental issues and sustainable development. Dr. Ball has given over 600 public talks over the last decade on science and the environment.

Dr Ball came to the fore after his appearance in the sensational British Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. Tim has an extensive science background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition with additional experience in water resources and areas of sustainable development, pollution prevention, environmental regulations, the impact of government policy on business and economics.

Founder Member: Alan Siddons (United States): Former radio chemist but now leading climate researcher and science writer Alan has been a pioneer exposing a myriad of errors woven into post-normal climate science. Alan uses clear examples and common sense reasoning to illustrate where and why it all went wrong for politicized ‘goal-oriented’ government climate research.

Founder Member:Joseph A. Olson, PE (United States): Retired Texan engineer and impassioned science writer, Joe Olson PE is a respected innovative thinker with over 100 major civil engineering and climate-related articles to his name. Olson is famed as a staunch advocate of the traditional English scientific method and combines a wealth of hard-edged industry experience with an insightful and deft writer’s touch to convey complex scientific concepts in a unique literary style.

Founder Member:Martin Hertzberg PhD (United States): Dr. Martin Hertzberg is a long time climate writer, a former U.S. Navy meteorologist with a PhD in Physical Chemistry from Stanford University and holder of a Fulbright Professorship. Hertzberg is an internationally recognized expert on combustion, flames, explosions, and fire research with over 100 publications in those areas.

Dr Hertzberg established and supervised the explosion testing laboratory at the U. S. Bureau of Mines facility in Pittsburgh (now NIOSH). Test equipment developed in that laboratory has been widely replicated and incorporated into ASTM standards. Published test results from that laboratory are used for the hazard evaluation of industrial dusts and gases. While with the Federal Government he served as a consultant for several Government Agencies (MSHA, DOE, NAS) and professional groups (such as EPRI). He is the author of two US patents: 1) Submicron Particulate Detectors, and 2) Multi-channel Infrared Pyrometers.

And Alberto Miatello is even on the the team

Alberto Miatello (Italy): Alberto Miatello, is an independent researcher in the field of physics of the atmosphere/meteorology. Originally a law graduate, for many years Alberto worked as a business consultant, dealing with plants and machinery and specializing in the fields of technical physics, heat transmission and thermodynamics. This experience informed his spare time research, since 2002, into climate study and the physics of the atmosphere. Alberto’s main concern since then has been to refute errors in the theories of man-made global warming and the so-called greenhouse gas effect. Alberto’s paper, ‘Roy Spencer and the Vacuum Bottle Flask’  (February, 2012) has won praise for identifying that climate scientists wrongly assumed the vacuum of space is cold (it has no temperature).

Stephen Wilde F.R.Met.S. has been a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968. Except he is not a member.  see link. and here where he explains it, also list of ‘paper’.

Contributes to blogs. frequently re-quoted but no biography.  Used by the scientist Richard Duffy.

New Theory posted on WUWT in 2010 is imaginative. see here

Stephen McIntyre – mathematician, mineral prospector, mining engineer and blogger with Climate Audit.

came to prominence in his criticism of Mann’s hockey stick.

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (2005). “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance”. Geophysical Research Letters 32 (3): L03710. Bibcode 2005GeoRL..3203710M. doi:10.1029/2004GL021750. [from wikipedia]