The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 13/600) Toddster JUL 19, 11:35 AM quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Thanks for the offer, but I have a life. Who's? If you're going to stir the pot at least add some meat to the stew. fierobear JUL 19, 01:33 PM Clean version fierobear JUL 19, 03:05 PM Latest NOAA Press Release in Total Disagreement with NASA Satellite By Joseph S. D’Aleo, CCM, Fellow of the AMS It was the eighth warmest June on record for the globe, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Wednesday in the 129 years since records began in 1880. And the first six months of the year were the ninth warmest since record keeping began in 1880, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center reported. The planets average temperature for June was 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit, 0.9 degrees warmer than average for the month. DON’T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT. Just a few days ago, the University of Alabama, Huntsville came out with their global assessment and they reported the 22nd warmest in the 30 years of records in their data base (in other words the 9th coldest). In fact, their global mean was actually below the average (base period 1979-1998) with a value of -0.11C (-0.19F). This is a full 1.1F degrees colder than the NOAA guesstimate. The other NASA satellite source, RSS had June as the 13th coldest out of the last 30 years. The global data bases suffer from major station dropout after 1990 (number dropped from 6000 to less than 2000) and a ten fold increase in the number of missing months in the stations that report. There are serious problems with their algorithms for assessing whether a station is urban or rural and adjusting for local land use changes. There are major siting issues, many of which Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre and Roger Pielke Sr. have shown have not been properly adjusted for. An old version of a document describing these issues can be found here. Please note the NERON networks plans of NOAA morphed into the Climate Reference Network, a relatively small number (110 if fully implemented) properly sited instrument locations that should provide a better tracking of at least US climate in the future but will not resolve the historical US and current global discrepancies. Time has come for a major independent investigation of the data sets, compilation methodology and adjustment practices (and records) for the global data sets of NOAA, NASA and Hadley. Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts are doing their best finding problems but Steve has run into many roadblocks suggesting folks may have something to hide. Meanwhile we will trust only the UAH and RSS. Try this to see for yourself how bad the global station data is. Go to this site (GISS - virtually the same as NOAAs GHCN though the adjustments made differ), scroll down to the map and click on any region. You will see stations listed - notice the highly variable reporting periods. Start clicking on stations. You will get plots. But before you move to other stations go to the bottom and click on “Download monthly data as text”. You will see for many/most stations numerous “999.9"s meaning missing data. How do you come up with an annual averages when one to multiple months are missing? That is like making beef stew but without the beef. I was told that in many cases the data is available (Environment Canada tells us they have their data we show as missing) but that NOAA and NASA is making no efforts to go out and get it. Our cry should be after every NOAA press release “Where is the beef?” 2.5 JUL 21, 01:57 PM Remember those future movies where theres a small group of public citizens hiding and using broadcast radio or TV for tellin the truth? As the sheep believe what they have to because the communist welfare check won't come otherwise? Well, they are taking away antenna TV, we seem to be seeing some lies being pushed on the public, when will we be at that point? fierobear JUL 22, 02:29 PM On this edition of your "Daily Debunk"... No smoking hot spot David Evans | July 18, 2008 I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet. But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts: 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again. When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot. Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything. 2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming. 3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling. 4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance. The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion. Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming. So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now? The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise. The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy. Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005. 2.5 JUL 22, 04:28 PM OK and that guy worked for them. fierobear JUL 25, 05:58 PM I guess we better not expect any help from India in fighting global warming. WHY is it again we are willing to gut our economy for this? India challenges global warming fears Published: 25 Jul 08 - 0:00 India has issued a report challenging global warming fears. This is dramatic. The Indian Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change said that India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth in order to cut gases. Referring to claimed changes in climate attributed to human activity, the report declares: "No firm link between the documented charges described below and warming due to an anthropogenic climate change has yet been established." The report goes on to state: "It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people . . . India is determined that its per capita greenhouse-gas emissions will at no point exceed those of developed countries." The Australian Herald noted that this declaration "means India won't stop its per capita emissions (now at 1,02 t) from growing until they match those of countries such as the US (now at 20 t)." This Indian report was music to my ears. I have constantly said that developing countries cannot afford to let their school children do homework at night by candle light rather than by electric light, in an effort to save on electricity production, on the basis of the flimsy evidence presented in favour of man-induced climate change. So we must ask ourselves: what is the main source of these claims that the Indian report referred to? The answer is that the claims mainly originate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, commonly referred to as the IPCC. Note the term 'governmental' – this is important. In July 1986, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) established the IPCC as an organ of the UN. The IPCC's key personnel, and lead authors, were appointed by governments. In addition, the IPCC regulations state that its most important documents, its Summaries for Policymakers (SPM) documents, have to be approved by UN member governments. So when the SPMs are released to the public and the media, they are ‘government approved'. From the start, the IPCC was more of a political entity rather than a scientific one. Frequently, the public is told of the thousands of scientists whose work forms part of the IPCC output. This is true. By far the majority of the scientists are good, competent folks. I know a few of them personally. But it is not their work that the public sees – the pubic is given the filtered version, which is published in the SPMs, and these SPMs are voted on, line by line, by representatives of the UN member governments. The IPCC's second assessment report, of 1996, stated: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." In fact, the scientists never said this; they said that it was too early to tell. The third assessment report of the IPCC, in 2001, used the now infamous Hockey Stick graph, which purported to show that there had been a steep rise in global temperature during the twentieth century. This graph was later shown to be wrong, and the IPCC's fourth report, of 2007, no longer uses it. This should make people think a bit about government representatives voting on what version of the science they want the public to see. Many scientists, like me, have been irritated by all this, particularly when a result can be the retardation of the economic growth of the world's poor people. A number of the scientists involved in the IPCC work have quit very publicly, over the years, stating that what they actually determined scientifically and what was subsequently fed to the media differed greatly. In parallel to all this, there has been a substantial, but rather silent, undercurrent of scientists who have been upset by this distortion of the truth. A recent result of the existence of this agitated scientific bloc has been the establishment of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. This group was activated in early 2007, and was formalised at a climate workshop in Vienna in April 2007. It is interesting to note that the president of the Czech Republic, Dr Vaclav Klaus, stated at the UN climate conference on September 24, 2007, that it would help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness of the scientific debate over climate change by the IPCC were eliminated. The NIPCC is a collection of eminent independent scientists directed by Dr S Fred Singer, the first director of the US Weather Satellite Service. He subsequently retired as chief scientist of the US Department of Transport. The founding core of scientists of the NIPCC came from a dozen countries, and all are totally independent. They state that their primary concern is the dissemination of scientific truth. In accurately formulated scientific documents, the NIPCC rejects many of the claims of the IPCC, particularly the notion that man-induced climate change is upon us, and is causing great harm. Keep your eyes open for good sense from the NIPCC. fierobear JUL 25, 06:20 PM UN asked to admit climate change errors by maggie A group of four scientists has sent a letter to the UN’s IPCC asking them to “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.” This is reprint of the letter sent to the IPCC on Monday, April 14 14 April 2008 Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change. If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it. We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise. More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically. The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below. These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling. A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2] IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5]. Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention? We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy. Yours sincerely, Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, mMensa, hans@tech-know.eu Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist UK, Dir. WeatherAction.com, piers@weatheraction.com Dr Don Parkes, Prof. Em. Human Ecology, Australia, dnp@networksmm.com.au Svend Hendriksen, Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland, hendriksen@greennet.gl Cc: IPCC’s yu.izrael@g23.relcom.ru christy@nsstc.uah.edu spencer@nsstc.uah.edu dy.pitman@gmail.com Tim Yeo MP (Chairman Environmental Audit Committee) Lord Martin Rees (President Royal Society) Gordon Brown MP David Cameron MP Nick Glegg MP Footnote 1: Two heavily publicised quotations which emerged from your organisation, respectively in February and December last year, are: Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).{2.4} [6] and The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. (Summary statement, Bali Conference.) [7]. Footnote 2: “Data over the past two decades indicates that temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed “well settled science.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, March 2008. References: 1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa...te/research/msu.html 2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature 3. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ 4. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consultant Meteorologist, Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Executive Director Icecap.us 5. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0801.htm 6. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/asse.../syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf 7. http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/bali/ fierobear JUL 25, 06:24 PM The above article is about a letter from scientists to the IPCC, but let's not let that graph get lost in the noise - if CO2 were driving temperature, and we were at/near/beyond this "tipping poing" or "past the point of no return" as some have said, why such a noticeable disconnect between CO2 and temperature? fierobear JUL 27, 02:21 PM This is a political issue, not a scientific one, but such is the way the world is headed when politicians mess around with science... Governor vetoes climate change curriculum By John Boudreau Mercury News Article Launched: 07/27/2008 01:36:13 AM PDT California public students will stick to reading, writing and arithmetic, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger decided as he vetoed a bill late Friday that would have required climate change be added to schools' curriculum. The measure, sponsored by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, also would have required future science textbooks to include climate change as a subject. In January, the state Senate approved the bill, SB 908, by a 26-13 vote. Only two Republicans supported the proposal. In his veto statement, Schwarzenegger said he supported education that spotlights the dangers of climate change. However, the Republican governor said he was opposed to educational mandates from Sacramento. "I continue to believe that the state should refrain from being overly prescriptive in specific school curriculum, beyond establishing rigorous academic standards," he said. Schwarzenegger added that the state's Integrated Waste Management Board's Office of Education and Environment, along with California's Environmental Protection Agency, are creating an environmental curriculum for K-12 students that includes climate change issues. Simitian had said his bill wouldn't dictate what to teach; rather, it would require the state Board of Education and state Department of Education to decide how the topic would be covered and which grades would study it. While global warming is included in high school classes as it pertains to weather, the subject is not required to be covered in all textbooks, according to the California Science Teachers Association. ================================ Does anyone think they won't try again? Does anyone think they haven't already started the indoctrination - not to mention frightening kids with horrible disaster scenarios - already? They have. My teenage niece tells me of how teachers are trying to scare the bejeesus out of them, with talk of how global warming will kill all human life and other such absolute NONSENSE. And this is being *pushed*, hard, in public schools.