More from Dr. William Gray

Here (Word format).

Excerpts:

...The much trumped ‘scientific consensus’ on global warming is bogus. There are thousand of scientists who disagree with Gore’s greenhouse gas scenario. But their voices have been largely ignored and/or their motives often denigrated. Many warming skeptics receiving federal grant support have been reluctant to express their views due to worries over the continuation of their research grants and criticisms from their warming colleagues who seek uniformity of view. Their friends may criticize them as being anti-environmental. Many younger warming skeptics concerned about their future careers refuse to confront the issue...
...
These GCM models should not be relied upon to give global temperature information 50 to 100 years in the future where model verification in the lifetime of the model builders is not possible. These GCM modelers do not dare make public short-period global temperature forecasts for next season, next year, or a few years hence. This is because they know they do not have short range forecast skill. They would lose credibility if they issued forecasts that could actually be verified. These climate modelers live largely in a ‘virtual world’ of their own making where reality and model skill is determined largely by the modelers themselves. The climate models are so complicated that it takes teams of specialists to construct all of the various model components. No one person well understands any model’s complete numerical package. No independent outside person would ever know enough to realistically evaluate the model’s outputs. They are just giant black boxes telling us that humans are warming the globe at a dangerous rate. The fact that nearly all the GCMs give similar results (global warming of 2-5oC for a doubling of CO2 near the end of the 21st century) should not increase our confidence in these models. They all have similar flaws. For many modelers it appears that grant support and media coverage are more important than model reality.

It is impossible to make skillful initial value numerical predictions beyond a few weeks. Although numerical weather prediction has shown steady and impressive improvements since its inception in 1955, these forecast improvements have been primarily made through the advancements in the measurement (i.e. satellite) of the wind and pressure fields and the advection/extrapolation of these fields forward in time 10-15 days. But for skillful numerical prediction beyond 10-15 day periods it is necessary to be able to forecast changes in the globe’s complicated energy and moisture fields. This entails forecasting processes such as future amounts of condensation heating, evaporation cooling, cloud-cloud-free radiation, air-sea moisture-temperature flux, etc, etc. It is impossible to write computer code for all these complicated energy-moisture processes, and then integrate all of these coded processes forward in time hundreds of thousands of time steps and obtaining anything close to meaningful results. Realistic climate modeling by numerical processes is not possible now and likely never will be. Yet this is the area to which hundreds-of-millions of research dollars is currently being expended. Most of this numerical model funding could be more profitably spent in unique observational programs that would teach us more about the atmosphere. Many promising observational programs do not go forward for lack of funding.
...
Although initially generated by honest questions of how human-induced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has long ago taken on a life of its own that has been extended and grossly exaggerated by a large cadre of supporters wishing to profit from the exploitation of the public’s lack of knowledge on this subject. This includes our federal and foreign governments, the media, environmentalists and scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research on this topic.
...
We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no better example than Al Gore’s alarmists and inaccurate movie which is being shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or no meteorological-climate background. How much will this affect our children’s trust in science in the coming decades when these warming scares are proven false?
...
It is not easy to be a climate skeptic. Global warming contrarians have trouble obtaining federal grants, some have been isolated and denigrated by their colleagues, and some have been smeared as tools of the fossil-fuel industry, as if those global warming advocates receiving large federal grant support were not tools of the federal government. I have, nevertheless, been a bit surprised and disappointed that more of my meteorological colleagues have not publicly spoken out against the exaggerated global warming scenarios.

I believe that in the next few years the globe is going to enter a modest cooling period similar to what was experienced in the 30-years between the mid-1940s and the mid-1970s. I am convinced that in 15-20 years we will look back on this period of global warming hysteria as we now look back on other popular and trendy scientific ideas that have not stood the test of time.
______________________________________________________________________
The author is a Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University where he has worked since 1961. He holds a Ph.D. degree from the University of Chicago in Geophysical Science. He has issued Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts since 1984.