Dear Richard Lindzen Please Meet Lewis Fry Richardson

Written by John O'Sullivan

Top climate experts are admitting the science behind man-made global warming isn’t what has been claimed. We examine the astonishing new evidence getting scientists talking – serious numerical errors in the supposed ‘settled science’ of the greenhouse gas theory.

For this article we put under the microscope two key players from British meteorology, W. H. Dines & Lewis Fry Richardson. These are the men responsible for creating the mathematical algorithms that turned the greenhouse gas theory into the number form fed into modern computer models.

This month – in timely fashion – Professor Richard Lindzen is helping re-focus minds on past errors with his own mea culpa. MIT’s top meteorologist who has published more than 200 scientific papers and books, now admits the greenhouse gas theory was NOT accepted prior to the 1980’s.

Lindzen’s superb recent article (from p.17) concedes that up until the 1970’s and ‘80’s the greenhouse gas theory was not considered as a credible explanation of earth’s climate system.

This stands solidly beside the assessment of another highly-esteemed expert, Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball who noted that,

“The concept of climate sensitivity was first derived, as with so much done on climate, to overcome a perception problem not a scientific one. Who did the actual calculations of climate sensitivity is not documented to my knowledge. The earliest paper I have is the 1984 paper by James Hansen and Takahashi referenced in this paper.”

Dr Ball is collaborating on the new ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ book that sets out the startling fresh evidence discrediting the greenhouse gas theory (GHE).

The reason serious scientific criticism of the CO2 narrative is gaining momentum is largely due to obvious failure of the ‘theory’ to work in the real world. Despite all the climate models programmed to predict that more carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere ‘must’ cause more global warming global temperatures have been flat or falling this century.

The backdrop of all this is that in the last 30 years there has been an approximate 20 percent rise in the levels of atmospheric CO2. This glaring anomaly has prompted experts from the ‘hard’ scientists to take a closer look at what climate scientists have been doing and key aspects of the physics, mathematics and chemistry they rely on.

At Principia Scientific International British researcher, Derek Alker found fascinating historic evidence discrediting the 1920’s calculations of England’s GHE founder protagonists W. H. Dines and Lewis Fry Richardson. The mathematics of these two remains crucial in climate models of the modern computer age.

Derek Alker found that to set out the greenhouse gas theory into a coherent number-only format Richardson had to do a lot of fudging. This explains why government computerized climate models, all fed the Dines-Richardson numbers, have grossly over-estimated the ‘sensitivity’ of the climate to CO2. Derek Alker reports:

“In the first unpublished version of his book Richardson actually explained what he was calculating as the greenhouse effect. However, he completely removed it for the second and published version of his book. It was only referenced (Dines 1917 and 1920 papers), and not mentioned in the text. I doubt few have ever read those papers, especially the 1917 one, there was a war going on at the time…”

In short Alker’s analysis found: “… in the Dines model each layer of the atmosphere is THE energy source, NOT the sun, which is omitted in his table, nor the earth, as the excel model proves.”

We first broke this astonishing revelation in November 2016 with ‘1920s Brit ‘Fatally Infected’ All Government Climate Models.’ In that article we saw that:

“In 1922 Richardson devised an innovative set of differential equations. His ingenious method is still used today in climate models. But unbeknown to Richardson he had inadvertently relied upon unchecked (and fatally flawed) numbers supplied by another well-known British scientist, W. H. Dines.”

Alker, having sifted the historic papers believes Dines collaborated with Richardson to ‘smooth’ the numbers while Richardson was serving in France. Dines helped him rewrite the book after the war.

Napier Shaw, a British meteorologist famous for introducing the millibar metric into weather forecasting, helped finance Richardson’s work and was one of the very few to have read (and understood) the first version of his book. Shaw provided a review of Richardson’s book re-write that is so illuminating.

Shaw states the book is done by reference, and the reader would only understand it if they have hold of the right “jabberwocky”. In the vernacular of the time this indicates Richardson knowingly relied on a false paradigm, i.e. the greenhouse effect.

Alker writes:

“I think Shaw was innocent as such, he was merely indulging this alternative paradigm to see where it went, even if he thought it was wrong. This is perhaps something Richard Lindzen may wish to explore; a copy of the first book should exist at Cambridge University press.”

Professor Lindzen will then be able to identify where the Dines/Richardson errors have led to the compounding of such errors in the work of Von Neuman and Charney, who Lindzen rightly points to in his recent ‘mea culpa’.

Von Newman and Charney both reduced the number of atmospheric layers in their versions of the models when they fed them into the first modern computers. We know both men were unquestioning of the reputations of Richardson and Dines and we see nowhere any dispute of the fudging made by their Brit predecessors.

From this point forwards in climate science it was critical to get scientists to re-frame the water cycle as a positive feedback, contrary to the pre-existing consensus, when it was widely accepted as a negative response. We now see more scientists recognising this ‘error’ since Charney because actual  observations of atmospheric water vapor show a negative feedback on global temperature. Professor Murry Salby and others are now finding this issue critical. Prominent climate scientist Dr Judith Curry‘s reaction to Salby’s findings in the matter was “Wow! This could revolutionize [climate] science. ”

Jumping forward to the 1980’s and the big brouhaha began with NASA’s James Hansen’s presentation to the US Congress Alker adds:

“At that time Hansen did not know what the models calculated, hence he took Miskolczi to NASA to find out for him. He did and the brilliant Miskolczi became the first to systematically unpick the layers of incompetence and fudgery.”

For that Miskolczi was ‘rewarded’ by an unceremonious removal from NASA and thereafter languished in the wilderness pursuing his own climate research.

Alker jokes:

“How do you cure a sick unicorn? Any way you want to, a unicorn is imaginary. The problem is to get the public to believe they have a [climate] unicorn they care about and that it is sick.”

Professor Lindzen can justifiably point to the growing body of peer-reviewed papers proving lower climate ‘sensitivity’ to carbon dioxide to signal a full review among his peers. Then he and other respected climate experts may be emboldened to put the mistakes of Richardson, Dines, Charney, the IPCC, Von Neuman and Hansen et al. under the microscope.

Comments (4)

  • Avatar

    Jeff Greenwell

    |

    The phrase “climate sensitivity to CO2” just kills me. I cannot view any so-called scientist as credible who will utter such a phrase.

  • Avatar

    ricksanchez

    |

    So replication of the Dines / Richardson work is not an option now ?
    How is it that the work of these early 20th researchers is allowed to stand?
    It needs to be blown up!

  • Avatar

    Joseph A Olson

    |

    When the Sun shines thru your window….it is NOT glass warming your floor.

    I attended the January 2010 fake debates of Lindzen MIT and North TAMU at the Houston Petroleum Club and at Rice University. I questioned Lindzen on Thermodynamics, he stated I had not studied enough. I continued study, have had +100 emails which Lindzen cannot refute proper science, except by claiming Magic Decoder Ring powers. My debate review….

    “No Loophole for Your Soul” at CanadaFreePress

    • Avatar

      Jeff Greenwell

      |

      I read your article. Good article. However, I would recommend you spend a little more time proof reading on your next one. Many grammatical errors. I don’t mean to be nitpicky here, it’s just that I am always concerned about optics for people such as yourself, who are willing to write such pieces. You must be balls on accurate with your spelling and grammar, or you risk diminishing your credibility. I know, I know, it’s seems a minor thing, but really, it’s not. Just ask John O’Sullivan here at PSI. Authors here have been slammed many times, particularly by “outsiders” for these things, and it only serves to distract from the important topic at hand. It gives the opposition a tool, something you must not offer them.

      – Just my honestly friendly advice Joseph. .. 🙂

Comments are closed