TH!NK post

This article is archived. Comments are closed.

Judithgate: IPCC “consensus” was only one solar physicist

Published 25th June 2010 - 15 comments - 5244 views -

(I realised, that my Czech text about Judithgate has caught the attention of the English blogosphere. Luboš Motl, John O'Sullivan, Hockey Schtick and even Climatedepot. However they had to use primitive early 21st century automated-google-translator SW (Except Mr.Motl, who is Czech like me), so I decided to write an English version of this article. To make the reading easier. Here it is)


(Pretty geek chick in charge: Judith Lean)


The alarmists love to stick their heads into sand. These denialists deny that Mann-made climapocalypse was just a second-rate scientific fraud. "How could anyone seriously believe that millions of scientists would overlook this?... It also asks us to believe that millions of scientists across over a hundred nations and tens of thousands of research institutes are all in a global conspiracy … yeah, right." (Mike Kaulbars: Letter to a Climate "Skeptic". June 2010.)

What? Millions of scientists? Consensus of top experts? Where have you got these numbers from? I could not count more than ONE scientist.

After the pressure from the venerable Stephen McIntyre, IPCC posted on its web the "comments" from the Reviewers of AR4 2007. And the comment from the representatives of the Norwegian government on Chapter II, Working Group I (solar forcing)  are very striking in the context of solar forcing.

(Note 2-26 from the Norwegian government, ref. No. 2018-42  Expert and Government Review Comments on the Second Order Draft)

"I urge IPCC to consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section hangs on one single paper in which Judith Lean is the co-author."




As I wrote elsewhere (Czech article ACRIM vs PMOD), Judith Lean and Claus Fröhlich are responsible for scandalous rewriting of the solar activity graphs. The original satellite data showed, that TSI (measured in Watts) increased from 1986 to 1996 by cca one third... But then Judith and Clause "laundered" the graphs and voila... solar output increase was gone.

The people, who were in charge of the satellites and who created the original graphs (the best world astro-physicists: Doug Hoyt, Richard C.Willson) protested against this manipulation. In vain.

R.C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites): "Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments...  He did it without any detailed knowledge of the  ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance...The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean's TSI proxy model."

Willson about pmod 



Douglas Hoyt (the famous inventor of GSN - Group Sunspot Number indicator) agrees with Willson. The graph tampering done by Judith and Claus was scientifically unjustified. Hoyt must know that. The questionable changes were done to the data from the Nimbus 7 satellite, where he used to be in charge.


Hoyt about pmod


Nicola Scafetta. Climate Change and Its Causes - A Discussion About Some Key Issues. (Presented at EPA, Feb 2009) Source 


I hope Batman ... I mean the mysterious hacker FOIA, hacks Judith's computer asap. I expect he finds an e-mail like "I have just used the trick... to hide the increase of solar activity."

And guess what? Suddenly this very Judith is appointed as the highest authority and ultimate judge in the question of solar activity non-increase.

Since when is it customary to appoint the main suspect as the chief investigator in her very own case? BTW it is a flagrant violation of the rules of detective stories (R.Knox.  "Rules of Detective Stories Writing", 1929, rule seven).


Mendozagate: A sequel to Judithgate

IPCC assessed the solar activity development without asking the solar physics or astronomers. And they plan doing this in the Fifth Report (AR5, 2010-2015) again. In June 2010 they published (here) the names of the staff for the next IPCC report and - if I counted correctly - the solar chapter has only one solar physicist again (Blanca Mendoza, a sample study of hers here). The boss of this chapter is to be Mr.Shindell from GISS, a colleague of the climate madman Jim Hansen, who endorsed Keith Farnish's book promoting eco-terrorism last year. Groovy.

There are almost no solar people, but on the other hand, there are shitloads of guys, whose job is to rake in the absurd climate models. Which is useless, since we do not know all the climate feedbacks yet. So there is nothing to model.


The mystery of the vanishing graphs

Since they did not bother to ask the astro physicists, IPCC is kept in dark about the Sun.  IPCC reports have some 3000 pages, but the most important segments - about Sun - are just a few short and vague articles.

While in other places IPCC is rich in graphics, strangely you cannot find there any graph of cosmic radiation, sunspot cycle length or geomagnetism. Which is odd, because these are the key indicators of solar activity. Shouldn't the IPCC reports be an exhausting compendium of the latest scientific knowledge? Well...

But there is an explanation. These indicators say, what the alarmists do not want to hear. They say, that in 1970s-1990s the solar activity was rising and that global warming (whole or most of it) can be attributed to natural climate forcings. No reason to blame humans.

IPCC probably vanished these graphs on purpose. Following the well known rule-of-the-thumb "hide the decline" (in this case more like "hide the rise"). Because it could give the laics a "misleading signal" and "dilute the message" about global warming (yes, this is really the logic of IPCC: read  here about the Arusha meeting).

And having some nosy astronomers around - who would just talk back - would not help at all.




Geomagnetic activity

(How the magnetic field of Earth is weakened: this graph is rising, when the solar activity goes up. Due to solar wind.)



Sunspot cycle length (from minimum to minimum)

We have experienced, that the shorter the cycle, the higher the activity.

Just try and compare it with the geomagnetism graph. See? They match.



This is how Phil Jones (CRU) described the development of global temperature in 1986. Quoted from the famous Christensen 1991 study. See here and here (Czech).

You can read about rewriting of the XX century temperatures and here



The original satellite measurements of solar activity (TSI) in red. The ACRIM composite.

Judith and Claus flattened the graph (blue, PMOD). Alarmists were pleased and rewarded her with a job in IPCC.


Cosmic radiation

(It goes down, when the solar activity goes up. Solar wind protects Earth against cosmic radiation.)


The Climate System. Web  Columbia University. Graf 12.

As you can see, temperatures have always followed the solar activity. Though never precisely. 


If IPCC placed these graphs in its solar chapter, every reader would see at the first glance, that the global warming 1975-1998 was  -very likely - natural, not manmade. But in that case, the alarmist movement  -and IPCC itself - would lose its raison d'etre.  


The models would need more sun

The IPCC "wild ducks" about Himalayas melting in 2035 or about not-rising-solar-activity (in 1970s-1990s) are spreading like a virus. Through citations. Scientists from all the world quoted this rubbish - without verifying it - in good faith , that it is a reliable peer-reviewed science. It is not. Also the latest publication by Czech climatologists-meteorologists Metelka and Tolasz relies heavily on the IPCC pulp fiction. The book has a self-contradicting title "Climate change - facts without myths"  (Klimatické změny - fakta bez mýtů, 2009). It says solar activity was flat over the last half century. Wow.

Czech climatologists should sue IPCC. Because this damages their professional credit.



Can the temperatures (black) be explained by natural forcing (blue)?

In their latest book the Czech climythologists quoted this junk IPCC graph (page 24). The trouble is, that the AOGCM models do not include the solar activity factor, which was rising in 1970s-1990s. Judith erased this increase.

Human activity is to blame indeed. Hers.



Manual for those, who intend to work in IPCC:

a) Erase one natural climatic factor. Fudge the graphs

b) Then the equations will not match. Something is missing.

c) You accuse humans as the probable cause of this mismatch. Or ghosts, UFOs or  God. Anyone, who you want to put the blame on.

d) Now you ask the framed people to pay their "climate debt". To your pocket of course.



The far-fetched conclusions of IPCC about the impact of mankind on climate - and the gigantic soviet-style plans to reshape the whole energetics to cut the carbon footprint... hangs on a single question. How big the solar activity was. Yet IPCC devoted minimum attention to this issue (only few articles). And it based everything on a "consensus" of a single astronomer, who agreed with herself.

Ceterum autem censeo IPCC esse delendam.



Further reading: In Czech,  but at the  bottom you can usually find references to relevant English texts:

Kremlík. Jak vymazat 30 let ochlazování (about Lansner's discovery about rewriting of the 30 years of cooling)

Kremlík. Prdící ovce ohrožují magnetické pole Slunce? (about geomagnetic activity)

Kremlík. ACRIM vs PMOD (what Judith did to the ACRIM composite graph of satellite measurements of the solar constant TSI)

Kremlík. Natahování solárního cyklu na skřipec (about Christensen 1991 and solar cycle length)

Metelka, Tolasz: Klimatické změny - fakta bez mýtů" (2009) (the latest Czech official text spreading the IPCC solar myths)


Category: Climate Science, | Tags:


Luboš Motl on 26th June 2010:

Good job, Vítězslav! I hope you will drink the well-deserved champagne with Míra (or at least with measure). grin

I didn’t kickstart the interest in your Judithgate research. It had to be someone who decided to browse your website in detail - although it’s likely that he got somewhere into from my links (I started to put Google Translate links to Czech websites only, it’s more useful for the visitors).

I added a new article about Judithgate on TRF.

The Captcha question is hard. Apples grow on what with question mark added? I hope that I will pass the test. Others may have failed which is why you don’t have any comments here haha. Too hard.

Bruce M. Albert on 26th June 2010:

Vaclav Bucha has also worked on geo-magnetics with respect to NAO variation.  There are linkages between increased solar insolation AND increased zonal distibution of that heat in the atmosphere.  Recent American work suggests this is through modulation of jet stream activity, which forces a drag on troposphere.

Pete H on 27th June 2010:

Vítězslav, you may be responsible for driving the final nail into the coffin of the IPCC. This story has already gone global and I await the UK newspapers reporting. You may want to think about your bandwidth wink

You are to be congratulated and have my admiration.

cthulhu on 28th June 2010:

you lose all credibility with your solar correlation graphs. anyone with an iota of understanding of this issue knows that solar cycle length / temperature link diverges since the 70s. the graph you show is wrong and stops in 1996?? hello its 2010. why dont u stick the last cycle 23 length on the end and then admit you are wrong?

you misinformation spreading dick

Kremlik on 28th June 2010:

Sorry, Cthulhu. You contradict yourself. The “link” may have broken around 2000 - i.e. AFTER global warming (it is too soon to judge). But it certainly did not break in 1970s. This is what this article is about. Did you even read it, mate?

Bruce on 28th June 2010:

The key thing about the geo-magnetics will be the (zonal) distribution of Global atmospheric heat.  Since the atmosphere is in effect a very inefficient engine in this respect, the distribution is more important than the concept of average Global temps. (assuming one can trust the database for the last 3 decades, there is a major review underway presently in UK Met office, and eventually, others like [liquid paper-besmirched] USA-NASA I hope will do the same in the future).  Feedback into oceanic systems might produce longer cycles than those indicated within the above time-frame (e.g., the April 2009 Science paper with Esper on persistence of positive NAO modes in MWP).  Linkages between geo-magnetism, jet stream and ‘zonal’ vs. ‘meridonial’ (synoptic) atmospheric patterns are also made by Max Planck Institute publication by Perlwitz in 1995 (can check the references, this is just to say the problems mentioned by the blogger of this site do not refelct an isolated focus, the Institute of Atmospheric Physics [AVCR] has also done much work on this topic).  I think the geo-magnetic problem is important because this is a case where two distinct factors influencing global temp. distribution coincide temporally with respect to forcing (in this case, obviously solar wind).  Regardless of your POV on AGW, everyone should agree that the IPCC needs more input than one solar physicist if they wish to maintain objectivity.

cthulhu on 28th June 2010:

solar cycle 23 was about 12 yrs in length. implying temperatures should have fallen to 1900 levels. not even close.

of course this is hidden by the author of this blog who posts a graph that omits data for the last few cycles. hiding the decline. how convenient. what a bunch of hypocrits you all are giving that crap free pass. if the ipcc chopped off contadicting data like that youd all go ape.

and wheres the acknowegement that sunspots have diverged from temps since the 70s?

last graph ends in 1993??? hello its 2010.

Kremlik on 28th June 2010:

I know. I have already answered your question. Please read it.

The “link” may have broken around 2000 - i.e. AFTER global warming (it is too soon to judge). But it certainly did not break in 1970s. This is what this article is about.

Global warming can be explained by the sun. And the post 1998 global cooling? Who knows. Sunspot cycle length does not quite match. Geomagnetic activity however matches perfectly. We need to wait to have more data.

Cthulhu on 28th June 2010:

No the link broke before 2000.

The ACRIM/PMOD argument is irrelevant. It’s an argument over either minimal cooling or minimal warming. In neither case does TSI change upwards enough to explain recent warming - even the positive climate feedback reported by GCMs aren’t high enough to explain how the extra energy from the ACRIM TSI increase could explain the recent warming. Of course “skeptics” argue for far lower climate sensitivity so they should be the first ones to remark on the poor correlation with global warming. But then I just put skeptics in double quotes for a reason.

Sunspot trend vs temperature show serious divergence in the past 30 years:

Solar cycle length correlation also collapsed decades ago:
[Lassen 1999]

Plus solar cycle length/ temperature correlation is as good as dead now that the length of cycle 23 turned out to be 12 years. We should be back to 1900 temperatures apparently. If anything “warmists” should be citing solar cycle length as evidence that recent warming has risen above natural variation previously dominated by solar. But they won’t because the solar cycle length theory never had a decent mechanism going for it anyway.

Cthulhu on 28th June 2010:

Further investigation reveals the author of this blog post has cut off a particularly relevant part of the response to the review comment:

“attempts were specifically made by the chapter author team after receiving this comment to solicit, in a short period of time, suggestions from six solar experts (four responded), so as to improve upon the text”

Additionally elsewhere:

“Criticism that the differences are incompletely understood is acknowledged, but there are works that do indicate this may be more an instrumental rather than of solar origin. These include works other than the authors’. Note that the chapter has been available for a review by anyone - twice. See also response to 2-26. In a solicitation effort undertaken by the chapter in the wake of this comment, Dr Willson, who did not do reviews of the FOD or SOD, was contacted and requested to assist us in enhancing the text, but a response was not received.”

This is rapidly turning into Kremlikgate

Zaki on 29th June 2010:

Vítězslav, you work is worth reading by the wider audience (or readers). We’re often informed about lie, and this the key problem of our world. People must know the truth and those, who prevent it, do not deserve any kind of respect

kremlik on 29th June 2010:

Hi, Cthulhu. Isn’ Cthulhu a monster from Lovecraft novels? You are pretty naive monter,by the way. It does not matter if they say they conacted oposing scientists for input. Alarmists seldom tellthe truth. Even if they contacted some non-alarmnists, Judith had the last word. She decided, which input is to be taken into consideration and which not. Do you not understand it? She had the last word!

And your statements, that sunspot cycle length correlation collapsed before 2000 is nonsense. You just repeat the dated Laut junk.

In my article above I put my own graph (made by myself) - without any smoothing - about this. The Laut-Christensen debate was about the correct/incorrect smoothing method. I used not smoothing, so there is NOTHING you could object against my graph.

Give my regards to Lovecraft

Cthulhu on 29th June 2010:

“It does not matter if they say they conacted oposing scientists for input. Alarmists seldom tell the truth.”

It probably does matter because why else did you choose to omit that information in your smear story?

Besides it was a public review document. If other solar experts had a serious problem with any part of the text of the report why didn’t they submit a comment during the review phase?

On that subject what exactly in the IPCC text do you disagree with? You haven’t quoted anything in the IPCC text just blanket claimed there is some single “consensus” in it which you claim is wrong.

You are aware that the PMOD/ACRIM difference doesn’t make a jot of difference? ACRIM doesn’t increase enough to explain the recent warming even with climate sensitivities higher than any of the climate models show.

There is plenty of object about your graphs. For example you say “This is how Phil Jones (CRU) described the development of global temperature in 1986.” but Jones 1986 and the image you show is Northern Hemisphere temperatures, not global.

Then you make some toss remark implying that Phil Jones has “rewritten” the temperature record since then. But if you bothered to actually overlay the 86 Jones *Northern Hemisphere* graph with the current HadCRUT3 Northern hemisphere graph you’d find they fit well.

It’s about the stuff you repeatedly leave out.

Like how your solar cycle length graph doesn’t contain the inconvenient data point for cycle 24.

Then after making this howlers, deliberate or not, you have the gall to claim that the IPCC should have shown your substandard graphs in the chapter. No seriously if your work was in the IPCC report people would have something genuine to complain about.

kremlik on 30th June 2010:

You are being ridiculous, Cthulhu. The difference between PMOD and ACRIM is one third of the difference between solar minima and maxima. I think one third is quite a lot to explain the warming.

And go read the Lansner survey, before you speak further. It is well known, that climythologist rewrite temperatures as they please. For instance the 1934/1998 stuff.

Bruce on 30th June 2010:

The US Federal data (now under FOI scrutiny), like those of the the UK Met Office (now under OFFICIAL institutional) review and NIWA-NZ (who refuse to disclose “correction” factors for some dubious 20th Cent. warming, the +2.0C used by IPCC) have certainly been put into question recently, thus muddying the waters for scientific work.

As for 1934, this is the probable warmer year, but in any event, does not the mere fact that 1934 and 1998 are so “close” itself raise significant questions?  Just another example of another lack of rigor and rael scientific curiosity on the part of AGW ideology enthusiasts?  Geographic phenomena of the time, like the US Midwest Dustbowl and low Arctic Ice extent (perhaps less than 2007 extent according to detailed Soviet-era reports) would seem to support the notion.  Weather records from Japan, less impacted by US and Australian types of ‘urban sprawl’ (lower Urban Heat Island effect) support a warmer mid-1930’s vs. ‘90’s.

This article is archived. Comments are closed.