CLIMATE CHANGE: SCIENCE and PROPAGANDA

(A SKEPTICS GUIDE FOR SENIOR STUDENT PROJECTS)

Extreme Weather event? or Sea Level Rise due to Climate Change? Discuss

CONTENTS
Page

COVER PHOTOGRAPH: BILGOLA BEACH, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA, 1974 FOUR QUESTIONS THAT DEMAND PUBLIC AND MEDIA SCRUTINY 5 THE NATURE OF CLIMATE AND OF THE SCIENCE 5 UNITED NATIONS POLITICAL MANIPULATION OF SCIENCE 6 U.N. Political Agenda on Climate Agenda 21 Its not about the Science stupid! Its about the money Copenhagen and $US114,000,000,000 Australia and $A57,000,000,000 Climate Science and Scientists compromised Climategate - Manipulation, Intimidation and Fraud THE ALARMISM OF GLOBAL WARMING TEMPERATURE & CO2 9 The Hockey Stick Theory Anthropogenic Global Warming The Alarm Element Global-average CO2 concentrations TWO HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS SCIENTIFIC ISSUES TO EXAMINE 11 CO2 & WATER VAPOUR CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING OR DO THEY 12 GREENHOUSE GASES, WATER VAPOUR, CO2 AND MODELS 13 Ignorance and misunderstanding everywhere Positive feedback that is actually negative Reality provides the ugly fact Australians are now asking NEW PARADIGM: CO2 LAGS TEMPERATURE BY UP TO 1,000 YEARS 16 FIGHTBACK THEORY: CO2 CONTROLS EARTHS TEMPERATURE 18 FIGHTBACK: CO2 DRIVES TEMPERATURE THEORY TORN TO SHREDS 19 Lag Theory confirmed thrice: Temperature drives CO2 INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE 24 Ten Years After The Warming Ten Years After The Wounding The Dragon Slayer Eats The Wounding Alive TEMPERATURES FLAT SINCE 1998; Sorry! Not Long Enough 41 Computer Models mauled again Flat confirmed THE ANTHROPOGENIC INFLUENCE TO FORCE CHANGE 44 PRESTIGIOUS SCIENTISTS SPEAK OUT AGAINST ALARMISM 45 Professor Harold Lewis: pseudo scientific fraud Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate: I cannot live with statement Wall Street Journal: Editorial signed by 16 world leaders Climategate Manipulation, Intimidation and Fraud Forty-nine NASA Scientists & Engineers join skeptics EXTREME HISTORICAL CHANGES TO EARTHS CLIMATE 49 Climate alarmism - a Catastrophe it does not make POWERFUL VOICES OF SCIENTIFIC REASON AND CALM 49 Professor John Christy Professor Richard Lindzen IPCCs Consensus failure models wrong again Dr Myles Allen Mr. Nigel Calder Professor Timothy Ball Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi

 The collusion of the Climate consensus crowd PUBLIC, MEDIA AND POLITICAL REVOLT THE TIDE TURNS 54 Windmills greatest & costliest fantasies of our age World still waiting for 50 million climate refugees by 2010 Post Global Financial Crisis Renewables penny drops SEA-CHANGE IN CLIMATE SCIENTIFIC OPINION Royal Society and Climate Change Chaos Theory: Another major complication SEA LEVEL RISE LITANY OF MANIPULATION AND DECEPTION Arctic Ice Summer Sea Ice gone by 2012 Arctic Ice Even worse - 2010 Arctic Ice All gone by 2012 Arctic Ice 2012? Doesnt seem all that dramatic to me Greenland Oops Must revise projection from 2010 Al Gores Propaganda sea levels up 6m; 100 million refugees!? Sydney Harbour Daily tidal readings: 5mm past 100 years Australian Government Totally over the top like Gore Pacific Islands No evidence of sea level rise Sydneys Northern Beaches No change to sand in past 100 yrs Bilgola Beach From Devastation in 1974 to normality Australia laughing stock Billions wiped off property values Professor Emeritus Nils-Axel Mrner scientists cheated Coral Islands to flood Millions of climate refugees Pacific Islands Satellites show 85% of islands have grown! Where are the missing 50 million refugees predicted for 2010? Coral Reefs and acidification Permanent destruction feared Coral Reefs biopsies back 90yrs. Warm water no effect Coral Reefs Paradigm Shift: Coral readily adapts to acidification Floods IPCC predictions for Bangladesh wrong in fact CLIMATE GLOSSARY useful terms explained Wm2 Clouds Feedback Impact on reflected heat GREENHOUSE EFFECT and FORCING Radiative equilibrium Climate forcing Changes in atmospheric composition Climate forcing by greenhouse gas changes The carbon cycle and climate Volcanic eruptions Natural forcing THE SUN Sunspot numbers Maunder Minimum Climate Sensitivity (Computer) Models pre-determined Our Note NATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSION LEVELS Emissions Table worlds largest emitters CLIMATE SENSITIVITY AND CO2 INFLUENCES OVERSTATED Research Papers A demonstration of Negative Climate Sensitivity MISDIAGNOSIS OF FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE MODELS AGAIN

57

59

76

76

79

81 82

90

FRAUD OF GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM UNCOVERED 91 Hockey Stick Graph Hockey Stick Proof its a Fraud Another Broken Hockey Stick This time in Australia Oh! Oh! Fatal flaws Aussie Retreat Rates of Change in Antarctic Ice Core Temperatures CLIMATEGATE! Back to late 2009 and a total bombshell 102 CRU Emails Shocking revelations Medieval Warm Period More Deception IPCC stuck 2012: PROOF MWP and LIA WERE GLOBAL EVENTS 112 TEMPERATURE RECORDS MANIPULATION AND FRAUD 114 NOAA Temperature Records Adjusted!? WEATHER STATION LOCATIONS - FRAUD NOW GLOBAL 117 DARWIN, AUSTRALIA TEMPERATURES MANIPULATED UP 6C 119 NASAS Solution DISASTERS, DECEPTIONS & LONG TERM CLIMATE CHANGE 124 Medieval Warm Period (MWP) 950-1350 Little Ice Age (LIA) 1350-1850 SCIENTIFIC, GOVERNMENT & POLITICAL EXAGGERATIONS 127 Polar Bears Cyclones Glaciers Ice Melt Flowers and Plants Weather Disasters Green alarmist nonsense from Aust Senator Bob Brown Livestock and Greenhouse Gases Child Adverts unscientific Al Gores scientific errors Insulation and Carbon reductions bogus Rainforests SKEPTICISM AND INTEGRITY A VIRTUE 131 SO WHERE DO WE GO WITH CLIMATE SCIENCE AND THE IPCC? 131 SAD CONCLUSION TO OUR QUESTIONS 134 Good Scientists and true IMPORTANT 136 The smoking gun at Darwin Zero (a MUST read) FOR HEROES 136 ___________________________________________________________________

CLIMATE CHANGE: SCIENCE and PROPAGANDA

(A SKEPTICS GUIDE FOR SENIOR STUDENT PROJECTS) FOUR QUESTIONS THAT DEMAND PUBLIC AND MEDIA SCRUTINY One: Is there extensive credible evidence that climate science, empirical temperature records and their site locations, peer-review and publication procedures, have all been routinely manipulated by scientists, government agencies and politicians - even fraudulently at times - under intense political and financial pressure, to meet United Nations socialist/green inspired political agendas, using vast sums of public money for climate research designed to achieve desired results? Two: Whether the shrill of climate change alarmism necessary to justify the very expensive pursuit of these agendas and to win public approval for their continuation is supported by sound empirically based climate science, or is there proven and justifiable evidence that much of the consensus climate change projections are reliant on failed and pre programmed computer models, and are by comparison, far from certain (settled)? Three: Is there overwhelming evidence that the independence of climate scientists and public officials has been compromised, and consequently the climate science debate has been overpowered by money, hubris and proven techniques of political propaganda? Four: Is there scientific and empirical evidence to demonstrate that the very foundations upon which catastrophic global warming and climate change alarmism is based, have been widely subject to gross manipulation and lack of scientific integrity and rigour? THE NATURE OF CLIMATE and OF THE SCIENCE The nature of the Earths climate is to change over significant timespans, yet often dramatically. The nature of climate science is to study not only that past, but what is likely to happen into the future, and why. The mantra of all scientists is: publish or perish. To both survive and enhance reputations, academics must pursue research in their fields of expertise, submit their findings for publication to editors of reputable scientific journals for peer review and hopefully see it approved. Such projects, often long-term and involving colleagues, usually require sophisticated facilities, highly competent senior and junior research and support staff. The elephant in the room of is always money! Lots of money! The writer was for some seven years employed in a non-academic position at a reputable University, with responsibilities for raising corporate subscriptions to fund two of the Universitys Research Foundations within one of its academic departments. Those duties included publicizing research findings.

(Note: The vast bulk of what follows is taken and acknowledged from a wide variety of scientific and reputable media sources, mostly referenced, and should not be considered entirely as the work of the writer. Emphasis by the writer unless attributed)

UNITED NATIONS POLITICAL MANIPULATION OF SCIENCE Dr Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama, and also a former NASA scientist specializing in Atmospheric Science, whilst giving sworn evidence before a US Senate Committee in 2008, related the following: In the early days of the UNs Interngovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I was visiting the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Director, Dr Robert Watson, (who later became the first Chairman of the IPCC) informed me, and a working associate with me, that since we had now started to regulate Ozone depleting substances under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, the next goal, in his mind, was to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning. This was nearly 20 years ago [1988]. There was no mention of the scientific basis for that goal. So you can see from the beginning of the IPCC process, it has been guided by desired policy outcomes, not science. The United Nations Political Agenda on Climate The initiation of this unscientific approach came via the United Nations Agenda 21; an ongoing document first adopted back in 1992 on Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability. It postulated a brilliant, yet totally naive concept (given their penchant for massive corruption at the highest levels) of transferring wealth from developed nations to poorer undeveloped ones under the alarming guise, first of global warming, then (when the earth wasnt warming) climate change (based on faulty long-term computer modelling when compared with empirical evidence) and now, with both under scientific challenge, sustainable growth or weather extremes!. The Agenda 21 (or Agenda 21st Century) Preamble opened like this: Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our wellbeing. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can, in a global partnership for sustainable development (et seq). The conundrum was to find a raison dtre to give the polemic, unquestionable credibility? The godsend became global warming and anthropogenic CO2 emissions from which came the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Its not about the Science stupid! Its about the money. 6

It took some eighteen years (November 2010) before a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Mr. Ottmar Edenhofer, finally admitted in an interview with a German News outlet NZZ AM Sonntag, that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme towards globalization designed to redistribute, de facto, the worlds wealth: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policy. Obviously the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. We distribute de-facto the worlds wealth by climate change. Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question (whether) these countries can deal responsibly with so much money. We saw this back in November 2009. Just prior to the UN Copenhagen Climate Conference, when the environment ministers from socialist Central Latin American nations gathered in Guatemala where they resolved to demand at the Conference, that industrialised nations agree to contribute $114billion ($US114,000,000,000) for damage caused to their respective environments by global warming. African nations were making similar demands. (Source: Sun-Herald, Melbourne, 22/9/2009). This Agenda 21 demand came despite the fact that the trend in surface global temperatures had been nearly flat since the late 1990. In any event, one might be forgiven for wondering, in the face of rampant corruption, high-level theft, illicit transfers of billions to foreign banks by national leaders, civil war, and ethnic cleansing, what hope there is that this proposed redistribution to African, South American and Asian governments of such vast sums of money from the developed west, will lead to any dramatic improvement in the lifestyles of their impoverished citizens? Wealth redistribution policies designed to crush western economic advantage and growth, and diminish the wealth creation of its citizens who individually and collectively via their governments and world institutions already contribute hugely through foreign aid and recognized charities, seems to make no sense at all, when clearly much of this aid money from western governments, even now, does not find its way to those in desperate need. These are some recent reports: 1.5bn foreign aid wasted on tackling climate change, Feb 19, 2012. (Source: U.K. Department of International Development Report 2011) There are some estimates that we may be wasting 30 percent of the $130 billion in foreign aid each year spent by all donor nations, said Brian J.

Atwood, former administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. (Source: Kansas City Star, May 20, 2012) Australia for one, has already committed itself to contribute under Agenda 21 towards a UN common fund to meet such claims by under-developed nations, which Australias former Prime Minister and former Foreign Minister, Mr. Kevin Rudd has described as our international obligations. Noted Economist, Mr. Terry McCrann, writing in The Australian on August 20, 2011 on the extent of these obligations drew attention to the fact that by 2050, Australia will be obliged to send $A57billion a year overseas [thats $A57,000,000,000 every year] just for the right to keep our lights on" as a direct consequence of the Gillard and Greens Governments support for agreements at UN Climate Conferences and their carbon dioxide tax and subsequent Emissions Trading Scheme. He went on: Let me make it perfectly clear. We won't be getting anything tangible back for that $57bn. McCrann continued: It doesn't buy us windmills or solar panels made in China. It doesn't buy us technology or licensing rights. It's not even a (carbon dioxide) tax that would at least generate revenue for the government. It just sends money to foreigners for UN permission to keep a few of our coal-fired power stations operating. That is to say, it will be an entirely artificial cost, imposed on all Australians by this Gillard government, with not the slightest offsetting benefit. It has the same economic consequences as taking $57bn and just shredding it: Every year! This extraordinary fact McCrann says is in the detailed Australian Treasury Depts modelling of the proposed carbon dioxide tax. Climate Science and Scientists compromised From its beginnings in the 19th century, the complex science of Earths climate grew modestly. It was not until the 1970 and 80s which saw the development of powerful computers and the analysis of volumes of empirical climate data and the rapid progression of theoretical models - once beyond scientists - to postulate, devise and test their extensive theories. What they needed was money. Agenda 21 and formation of the IPCC opened up enormous funding opportunities. This open-ended funding led to enormous pressure at the political level for the scientific parameters to be set towards the international policy objectives of the IPCC. This U.N. body, comprising both scientists and United Nations un-elected politicians, was not remotely interested in funding research into the natural consequences of climate change, but only to identify and quantify the effect of global CO2 emissions caused by anthropogenic (human) activity. Even our cattle and other animals came under investigation. As one scientist remarked: If I had presented a case to research the Effect of climate change on squirrels in Central Park I would have been laughed at. But if my project has said The effect of anthropogenic climate change on the squirrels in Central Park then the sky would have been the limit for funding. And so it was for a scientific community always desperate for research funds. Sadly, the direction of research projects became politicized and a continuation 8

of research funding became dependent upon favourable outcomes that lead to highly questionable scientific practices. We shall prove this later. Climategate Manipulation, Intimidation and Fraud In November 2009 the sensational climategate scandal produced numerous hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, in the UK (CRU) proving that certain climate scientists involved with the IPCC who had latched onto this enormous financial gravy train, had manipulated data and conspired against other climate scientists to deny them access (the widely accepted academic practice) to their supporting data, thus denying their methodology and findings to be reviewed by other scientists and accepted as proven. The extraordinary claim of those in the loop was that the science was already settled (certain) and that those who wished to review it were climate change skeptics or deniers. Requests for supporting data by so-called skeptics were routinely rejected. If ones research was from the consensus group, it was published; if not, it was routinely rejected by peer reviewers or editors selected by or influenced by insiders. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way. We shall go much deeper into climategate later; reproducing many quite revealing emails that go to serious questions of scientific integrity and rigour. THE ALARMISM OF GLOBAL WARMING - TEMPERATURE AND CO2 The foundation of catastrophic climate change science and alarmism is based on two theories. Proven science is one thing, but unproven theoretical assumptions are quite another. They must be rigorously tested by science. The Hockey Stick Theory: Arose from a scientific publication in 1998 that postulated what is now known as the Hockey-Stick which included a 1,000 year global temperature graph demonstrating alarming rises over the latter part of the 20th century. We provide the evidence later, how the science supporting this theory was subject to manipulation at best, and as some claim, fraudulent at worst. The theory was however the catalyst for alarm, which the IPCC and associated scientists both embraced and promoted relentlessly. Anthropogenic Global Warming: The late 20th and early 21st century saw the development of a similar scientific hypothesis, known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It was said to be caused by dramatically increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere by western nations beginning with the industrial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries; a period that brought on unprecedented economic growth, scientific endeavor, and massive social and cultural change to major western economies; development and progress that has continued unabated to this day.

These two theories saw hundred of billions of government and private dollars pouring into climate research and renewable energy programs worldwide. The Alarm element was that in the absence of urgent international action to reduce CO2 emissions especially those derived from cheap fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, both in developed and developing nations, such as the massive increases in China and India, the consequences would be so catastrophic and irreversible as to threaten the very existence of planet Earth! Many factors influence climate. Ocean currents and oscillations, solar cycles, cloud formation, greenhouse gases, to name just a few. The scientific complexity; physics, chemistry and mathematics not to mention the influence of change and chaos, on the work of climate scientists and those of associated disciplines should not be underestimated or diminished, but the essential element in science is intellectual rigour and integrity. What is deliberately downplayed is that water vapour comprises some 95% of greenhouse gases, whilst carbon dioxide a miniscule 0.039%. With massive attention being given to CO2, in Climate Change 2001 the IPCC published a Table showing recent Global sources of natural and anthropogenic (human) C02 emissions to the atmosphere and how much was re-absorbed by nature. Total Carbon Dioxide was given as 793,100 million metric tons annually, of which 770,000 (97.1%) occurred naturally and only 23,100 metric tons (2.9%) of this was claimed to have been due to human activity. It is true that CO2 emissions have risen quite dramatically in the latter part of the 20th century and some scientists claim it has been greatly exacerbated by human and industrial development and population growth: Hence AGW. In September 2010 the Royal Society in its Climate Change A Summary of the Science at page 8 had this to say in discussing changes in atmospheric composition based on IPCC Assessment Reports: Global-average CO2 concentrations have been observed to increase from levels of around 280 parts per million (ppm) in the mid-19th century to around 388 ppm by the end of 2009. CO2 concentrations can be measured in ancient air trapped in bubbles in ice, deep below the surface in Antartica and Greenland; these show that present-day concentrations are higher in any that have been observed in the past 800,000 years, when CO2 varied between about 180 and 300 ppm. Various lines of evidence point strongly to human activity being the main reason for the recent increase, mainly due to burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) with smaller contributions from land use changes and cement manufacture. These observations show that about half of the CO2 emitted by human activity since the industrial revolution has remained in the atmosphere. The remainder has been taken up by the oceans, soils and plants although the exact amount going to each of these individually is less well known.

10

TWO HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS SCIENTIFIC ISSUES TO EXAMINE First, What is the significance of high and rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere; does CO2 drive temperature as claimed by the AGW theorists, or is there recent compelling scientific evidence it does not? Second: Based on empirical evidence that surface global temperatures have been flat since the late 1990s even in the face of high and rising CO2 concentrations; are these levels of CO2 and other GHGs not influencing global temperatures to the degree expected, and have naturally occurring variables, such as water vapour, not been creating the global positive forcing (warming) effects projected by synthetic computer models? The late and highly esteemed Professor Reid Bryson, Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin Madison; atmospheric scientist and first Chairman of the US Department of Meteorology, regarded as the Father of climate science had this to say about the significance of CO2 emissions to global warming in an interview with Dr L Graham Smith in May 2007: Smith: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list? Bryson: Well let me give you one fact first: In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect; how much of that is absorbed by water vapour? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent; okay!? Smith: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapour? Bryson: And how much [do you think] is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent: One one-thousandth as important as water vapour! You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide. The Guardian reported in January 2010 on research published in the journal Science, led by Dr. Susan Soloman, one of the worlds leading climate scientists at the NOAA and an IPCC Panelist. The new study analysed water vapour in the stratosphere, about 10 miles up (over 16kms) where it acts as a potent greenhouse gas and traps heat at the earths surface. Satellite measurements were used to show that water vapour levels in the stratosphere have dropped about 10% since 2000. When scientists fed this change into a climate model, they found that it could have reduced, by about 25% over the last decade, the amount of warming expected to be caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The extraordinary point to make here is that, despite its significance to negative and positive forcing (warming) IPCC associated climate websites fail to designate Water Vapour as a greenhouse gas or forcing agent!? There has been almost no attempt to fund research into likely natural influences over climate, preferring instead to focus entirely on CO2 as a causal effect of anthropogenic global warming and as the basis for implementing Agenda 21.

11

As the AGW theory remains unproven, then what environmental, economic and social benefit is there in taxes that raise billions of dollars and then spend them to reduce humans relatively minor anthropogenic contribution (2.9% x 0.039%.) when natural influences have a far greater causal effect over CO 2 and long-term climate change? The answer increasingly is none! CO2 AND WATER VAPOUR CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING OR DO THEY? AGW theorists would argue strongly against the comments above like this: this is trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise. How does this work? The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapour, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapour is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapour causes the temperature to go up even furthera positive feedback. How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1C change caused by CO2, the water vapour will cause the temperature to go up another 1C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3C. The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect. So skeptics are right in saying that water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapour feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger. GREENHOUSE GASES: WATER VAPOUR, CO2 & COMPUTER MODELS Professor Tim Ball, former climatology professor, Winnipeg University from his website Astronomical,Atmosphere,Data,History,Politics,Temperate, Why is Water Vapour; the Most Important Greenhouse Gas, Ignored? Marston Bates said, Research is the process of going up alleys to see if they are blind. But what happens if a research alley is avoided or ignored? Often the answer is in what is ignored, not what is presented. Its an unacceptable

12

practice in science, and only indicates the political nature of the climate change research and debate. We should change the name of the planet from Earth to Water. It covers much more of the surface than land, makes it unique from the other planets, and without it, life as we know it would not exist. Search for water is a constant theme in space exploration. Despite all this, what we actually need is more knowledge about water and its functions on Earth, especially with regard to weather and climate. All the emphasis is on temperature, but what happens to precipitation is far more important for plants and agriculture. Precipitation is mentioned in claims of increased droughts with global warming, but its a scare tactic and illogical. Warmer temperatures mean more moisture in the air with more precipitation potential, not less. The illogic eludes notice because of lack of understanding of the role of water in atmospheric processes. Ignorance and misunderstanding is everywhere Generally, the public is unaware that water vapour is more than 95% of the greenhouse gases by volume, where as CO2 is less than 4%. Water vapour is virtually ignored. Note here is a web site devoted to greenhouse gases (GHG); but water vapour, by far the most abundant and important one is listed under other!? Consider too a major scientific error in lesson information for Biology 301 at Oregon State University: Water vapour is listed under Other trace gases, while CO2 has its own section!? It then says warming means more evaporation and more water vapour in the Atmosphere; whether this will amplify or dampen warming is unclear, as the effects of water vapour in the atmosphere depend on the droplet sizes and their height in the atmosphere. This is wrong! Water droplets are not water vapour; the first is a liquid, the second a gas. Water droplets as clouds influence the weather, usually causing cooling. The role of clouds, are a major failure of the computer climate models. Why is water vapour ignored? Part of the answer is excessive, deliberate, and political focus on CO2. Part is because water is taken for granted, and few are aware of the unique physical and chemical properties that make it different from most other elements on the planet. Few know water vapour percentage varies more in the atmosphere than any other gas. Its almost zero percent at the poles and 4 percent at the equator. Percentage changes significantly from region to region and in a matter of hours. But these are vague figures the reality is that we have very little information about actual amounts. Global temperature measures are very limited and inadequate as Anthony Watts work shows, but precipitation and atmospheric moisture measures are worse. A Positive Feedback that is actually negative Theres a problem even if you accept the assumption an increase in CO2 will cause a temperature increase. The atmosphere is almost saturated with respect to CO2s capacity to delay heat escape. A good analogy is the objective of blocking light coming through a window. A single coat of paint will block almost all the light, and is like the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Second and third coats block very little more light, just as 13

doubling or tripling CO2 will cause very little temperature increase. This created a dilemma for the theory that a human increase in CO2 would create significant warming. It was supposedly resolved by claiming an increase in CO2 causes a temperature increase that causes increased evaporation putting more water vapour in the atmosphere. Now the most important greenhouse gas they essentially ignored received attention. Temperature increases projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) depend totally on increased water vapour. It is known as a positive feedback and is at the centre of the debate of climate sensitivity. Evidence shows the positive feedback is wrong and climate sensitivity is overestimated. Negative trends in [water vapour] as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapour feedback is negativethat it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2. (Search: Dr. Solomans work mentioned above seems to have confirmed this.) But this is not surprising, because the laboratory experiments in which evaluation of the CO2 forcing is attempted, are of limited value when translated into the real atmosphere. Reality provides the ugly fact. The problem with computer models is the positive feedback mechanism. The reality is that the real world is not cooperating. Richard Lindzen demonstrated this clearly at the Third International Conference on Climate Change (June 2009). He presented this diagram that compared model predictions (see top left graph below) with real world data (other graphs)

As Lindzen noted, What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong. He then identified the real problem:

14

In a normal [scientific] field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own quite removed from science. [We have seen from the research and scientific comments above, that the AGW argument is not supported by the evidence: The arguments of Professors Ball and Lindzen seem to have been confirmed by Dr. Solomon, whos work found that water vapour in the stratosphere has fallen consistently by 10% over a decade, while CO2 levels have been rising over the decade; which contrary to climate modelling, has seen a 25% reduction in warming expected from CO2 and other minor greenhouse gases.] Thomas Huxley said, The great tragedy of science the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. The hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming is slain because they essentially ignored the role of water vapour in the atmosphere, but when used, it was done incorrectly. Of course, none of this speaks to clouds, the other major water problem in the atmosphere for the global warming hypothesis and computer models. Now the world is in a blind alley with energy and economic policies based on predictions from climate models that omit major elements and use false assumptions. (We shall examine climate sensitivity in more detail later.) Meanwhile, Australians are now asking: What are the social, economic, competitive and global environmental benefits of a carbon dioxide tax set at $23 per tonne of CO2 emissions, and rising by 2050 to $239/tonne, which by 2020 is supposed to reduce Australias 1.5% contribution of the 0.039% of global CO2 emissions by a miniscule 5% or even eventually 25% by 2020, when the evidence is overwhelming that carbon dioxide is not the driver of NEW PARADIGM: CO2 LAGS TEMPERATURE BY UP TO 1,000 YEARS The basic theory of AGW is that CO2 drives temperature. A celebrated research paper published in the prestigious Science magazine, September 2000 provided a new hypothesis which emerged with a startling discovery from Ice Core analysis, that showed atmospheric CO2 variations actually followed, rather than caused, temperature variations. As a result of further research this has now been described as a paradigm changing discovery. The published paper was titled:

The 100,000-Year Ice-Age Cycle Identified and Found to Lag Temperature, Carbon Dioxide, and Orbital Eccentricity
http://www.sciencemag.org/search?author1=Nicholas+J.+Shackleton&sortspec=d ate&submit=Submit Conveniently, the graph below taken from this Paper was manipulated by Al Gore in his 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth: Intentionally or otherwise, Gore confused the Vostok Ice core temperature and CO2 line graphs using a shorter time frame. This showed a CO2 spike coming first!

15

However, if this apparently highly correlating graph was to be expanded by spreading out the time-spans, it would reveal that changes in C02 lag behind temperature changes by between 200 to 1000 years! This has now led most independent scientists to conclude that C02 simply cannot be responsible for 20th century global warming, which would demolish entirely the AGW theory. UK Weatherworld set out the more accurate chart and data amongst other items provided by the US National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration Paleoclimatology Program and the UK Climatic Research Institute.

Click for larger image Fig 1. http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm

Figure 1 shows the temperature record from the Vostok ice core (dark blue), together with CO2 (red) from the Vostok ice core, the Law Dome ice core, and from the Mauna Loa monitoring station in Hawaii. The near vertical line on the right represents the change in CO2 associated with the industrial revolution. 16

The settled science fraternity were now faced with a serious challenge to their AGW theory: If variations in global temperature precede atmospheric variations in CO2 by a lag of 200-1000 years, what is the evidence that todays high atmospheric levels of global-average CO2 concentrations and anthropogenic emissions are the cause of catastrophic global warming, as opposed to more natural causes? There appeared a frenetic series of papers to show that despite the CO 2 lag, it is important to keep in mind sources of error that can complicate the analysis thus calling into question the validity of the lag finding. Examples: 1. The resolution of the data is quite low, with each data point representing an average of some 1000 years. As Monnin et al (2001) Science point out: "CO2 records from Vostok and Taylor Dome are thought to be the most accurate. However, the time resolution of these two records is too low to provide a history of CO2 changes that shows the detailed evolution of atmospheric CO2 over the last glacial termination." 2. The data are not error free. Not only are there potential experimental errors, but there are difficulties in matching gas age (i.e., CO2) and ice age (i.e., temperature). Then too there are potential errors in the models that create the signal from the raw data, which may not be perfect. In fact, in the figure shown above, there is an error in the way that the temperature data were calibrated. This has since been corrected. Although this figure does not 3. show the corrected data, the effect can be seen in Cuffey & Vimeux, 2003. The result is a closer match between CO2 and temperature, especially at the period of the beginning of the last ice age. 4. The CO2 and temperature signals are not directly comparable. This is because the temperature signal is local, whereas the CO2 signal is global. As Fischer et al, 1999 point out: "Note that the CO2 concentrations represent essentially a global signal. In contrast, the geographical representativeness of isotope temperature records may vary from a synoptical to hemispherical scale and accordingly within different cores with increasing variability for shorter time scales." 5. There are other factors that affect temperature besides CO 2, such as methane, aerosols and glaciation. To reduce this problem, it is best to look at multiple ice cores, and to use a variety of analytical techniques (where possible). The ice core record from Dome Concordia, although shorter than that from Vostok, has a higher resolution. Monnin et al (2001) examined the Dome C record, and found a very close correlation between CO 2 and temperature over the last glacial maximum, with CO2 lagging by, on average, 400 years (however, the initiation of the rise in CO2 lagged the initiation of the rise in temperature by around 800 years). Fischer et al, 1999 looked at the Byrd, Taylor Dome, and Vostok cores, and reached a similar conclusion: "Atmospheric CO2 concentrations show a similar increase for all three terminations, connected to a climate-driven net transfer of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere. The time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."

17

Finally however, Caillon et al 2003 sought to reduce the potential for error by using argon isotopes to measure temperature, rather than water ice (which gets around the problem of reconciling gas age and ice age). They found a good correlation between CO2 and temperature over Termination II, again with CO2 lagging temperature by around 800 years. THE FIGHTBACK THEORY: CO2 CONTROLS EARTHS TEMPERATURE The AGW-CO2-hypothesis finally came to fruition in 2010 when NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, was able to tell a totally different story that fully supported the AGW theory:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature read the headline: Water vapour and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modelling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide! The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at Goddard, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapour and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science. A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapour and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earths greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earths greenhouse effect. The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earths greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapour quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapour, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

18

"Our climate modelling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earths greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said. FIGHTBACK: CO2 DRIVES TEMPERATURE THEORY TORN TO SHREDS Watts Up With That afforded Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology, and expert reviewer, a guest Post to put forward his analysis of the above paper and its findings . (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/ ): Lansner on Lacis Carbon Dioxide Controls Temperature: The explanation for the unfortunate CO2 [drives temperature] data [above] is as follows: First a solar or orbital change induces some minor warming/cooling and then CO2 raises/drops. After this, its the CO2 that drives the temperature up/down. Hansen has argued that: The big differences in temperature between ice ages and warm periods, is not possible to explain without a CO2 driver.

CO2, Temperatures and ice ages...

It is general accepted that CO2 is lagging temperature in Antarctic graphs. To dig further into this subject therefore might seem a waste of time. But the reality is that these graphs are still widely used as an argument for the global warming hypothesis. But can the CO2-hypothesis be supported in any way using the data of Antarctic ice cores? Fig 1 below (Click to enlarge):

Fig 2. This graph of actual data from all major temperature peaks of the Antarctic Vostok data confirms the pattern we saw in fig 1, and now we have a very clear signal as random noise is reduced. The well-known TemperatureCO2 relation with temperature as a driver of CO2 is easily shown:

19

Fig 3. Is a graph where I aim to illustrate CO2 as the driver of temperature:

Fig 4. (below): Except for the well-known fact that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, the supposed CO2-driven raise of temperatures works ok before temperature reaches max peak. However, the real problems for the CO2-rescue hypothesis appears when temperature drops again. During almost the entire temperature fall, CO2 only drops slightly. In fact, CO2 stays

20

in the area of maximum CO2 warming effect. So we have temperatures falling all the way down even though CO2 at these concentrations were supposed to be a very strong upwards driver of temperature. I write the area of maximum CO2 warming effectThe whole point of CO2 as the important main temperature driver was, that already at small levels of CO2 rise, this should efficiently force temperatures up; see for example around -6,000 years before present. Already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 should cause the warming. If there is no such CO2 effect at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 cannot be considered the cause of these temperature rises. So when CO2 concentration is in the area of 250-280 ppm, this should certainly be considered the area of maximum CO2 warming effect. The problems can also be illustrated [below] by comparing situations of equal CO2 concentrations:

Fig 5. (below): So, for the exact same levels of CO2, it seems we have very different level and trend of temperatures:

Fig 6. (below): How is it that a CO2 level of 253ppm in the B-situation does not lead to rise in temperatures? Even from very low levels? When 253ppm in the A situation manages to raise temperatures very fast even from a much higher level? One thing is for sure:

21

Other factors than CO2 easily overrules any forcing from CO2. Only this way can the B-situations with high CO2 lead to falling temperatures. This is essential, because, the whole idea of placing CO2 in a central role for driving temperatures was: We cannot explain the big changes in temperature with anything else other than CO2. But simple fact is: No matter what rules temperature, CO2 is easily overruled by other effects, and this CO2-argument [as a driver] falls. So we are left with graphs showing that CO2 follows temperatures, and no arguments that CO2, even so, could be the main driver of temperatures. Another thing: When examining the graph fig 1, not one single situation has been found where a significant raise of CO2 is accompanied by significant temperature rise - WHEN NOT PRECEDED BY TEMPERATURE RISE. If the CO2 had any effect, it should certainly also work without a preceding temperature rise? (To check out the graph on fig 1. it is very helpful to magnify it). Does this prove that CO2 does not have any temperature effect at all? No! For some reason the temperature falls are not as fast as the temperature rises. So although CO2 certainly does not dominate temperature trends then: Could it be that the higher CO2 concentrations actually is lowering the pace of the temperature falls? This is of course rather hypothetical, as many factors have not been considered.

Fig 7. (Not shown)

Climate Sanity produced further scientific proof against CO2 as a driver

of temperature with the following:

22

Hubertus Fischer (1999 - Scripps Institution of Oceanography) wrote about Ice core records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations, in the Journal Science and concluded High resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased 600 400 years after the warming That is, as the last three ice ages ended and temperatures started rising, the CO2 lagged behind the temperature rise, indicating that CO2 was not the primary driver of temperature rise. The timing between CO2 and temperature rise for climate transitions was also studied by Manfred Mudelsee of the Institute of Meteorology at the University of Leipzig. He reported his findings in the Quaternary Science Reviews in 2001. He used a lagged, generalized least-squares regression technique to conclude that the Vostok ice records show CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3 1.0 ka. More recently Lowell Stott (2007) from the department of Earth Sciences at the University of Southern California wrote about the end of the last ice age in the Journal Science. He points out that temperature led the rise of in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years. This chicken or egg controversy as to whether, as the IPCC claims, that CO 2 drives global temperature or strong evidence to the opposite, is alluded to on a contradictory level by Australian Professor Tim Flannery recently appointed by the Australian Labor Government as Climate Change Commissioner to promote its proposed carbon tax policy. In a Melbourne, Australia, radio interview in March 2011 Prof. Flannery stated that If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps even 1000 years!!? Conclusion: Based on studies of Antarctic Ice Core data, the overwhelming evidence, now universally accepted by independent climate scientists, shows that CO2 lags temperature from 200 to 1000 years, with most opting for 800, Lansner highly complex work, in reviewing the data and scientific claims to the contrary, has effectively demolished the consensus mantra that CO2 emissions drive global temperatures. If CO2 is not the dominant factor, then what is? INDEPENDANT PEER REVIEWS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE Peer Review is an evaluation by highly regarded experts in the field. It has now been proven by events, that peer reviews of politically correct or insider or consensus research has been undertaken by scientists of like mind. Papers produced by what they describe as skeptics have routinely been rejected on peer review. This is not an unfounded allegation. We repeat again: A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. This is scientific intimidation at its worst and competent scientist, have had to contend with it. 23

To understand how badly this has affected both the veracity and scientific integrity of climate science, It is essential for readers to persist in following through the scientific papers below. Note, first, the highlighted conclusions and consistent nature of insiders publications and their later the collaborative rebuttals necessary to defend their settled mindset of AGW theory; and secondly, when the work is subjected to expert scientific analysis by independent reviewers, how clearly it has been shown to be either wrong based on synthetically pre-programmed computer models - or directions that are influenced by predetermined theories. The following are classic examples: We begin with an apparently well argued paper by Dr. Roy Spencer, questioning the IPCC consensus view as to the relationships between CO2, temperature and warming.

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. taken from his th own Blog Global Warming, 26 February, 2012
The version of global warming theory being pushed by the IPCC is that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are causing a radiative energy imbalance of the climate system, leading to warming. The radiative forcing history being used in the latest IPCC climate models looks something like the following, with red areas representing times when the climate systems stove is turned up, that is, with heat accumulating in the system. (click to enlarge graphs)

Ten Years After the Warming

(Actually, the correct analogy would be that the stove setting remains the same, but the lid partially covering the pot is covering it a little more over timebut thats too hard to explain.) As can be seen, in the last 10 years the estimated forcing has been the strongest. Yet, most if not all temperature datasets show little or no globalaverage warming recently, either in the atmosphere, at the surface, or in the upper 700 meters of the ocean. For example, here are the tropospheric temperatures up though a few days ago:

24

So what is happening? You cannot simply say a lack of warming in 10 years is not that unusual, and that there have been previous 10-year periods without warming! No, we are supposedly in uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system. One cannot compare, on an equal basis, the last 10 years with any previous decades without warming. There are 5 possibilities for the recent cessation of warming which are most discussed: 1) cooling from anthropogenic aerosols has been cancelling out warming from more greenhouse gases 2) natural cooling from internal climate fluctuations or the sun is cancelling out the green house gas (GHG) warming 3) increased ocean mixing is causing the extra energy to be distributed into the deep ocean 4) the temperature sensitivity of the climate system is not as large as the IPCC assumes. 5) there is something fundamentally wrong with the GHG warming theory itself Of course, some combination of the above 5 explanations is also possible. The 1st possibility (aerosol cooling is cancelling out GHG forcing) is one of the more popular explanations with the climate modellers, and especially with NASAs James Hansen. The uncertain strength (and even sign) of aerosol forcing allows the climate modellers to use aerosols as a tuning knob (aka fudge factor) in making their models produce warming more-or-less consistent with past observations. Using an assumed large aerosol cooling to cancel out the GHG warming allows the modelers to retain high climate sensitivity, and thus the fear of strong future warming if those aerosols ever dissipate. The 2nd possibility (natural cooling) is a much less desirable explanation for the IPCC crowd because it opens the door to mother-nature having as much or more influence on the climate system than do humans. We cant have that, you know! Then you would have to consider the possibility that most of the warming in the last 50 years was natural, too. Goodbye, AGW funding!

25

The 3rd possibility (increased ocean mixing) is one of the more legitimate possibilities, at least theoretically. Its popular with NCARs Kevin Trenberth. But one would need more observational evidence that this is happening before embracing the idea. Unfortunately, how vertical mixing in the ocean naturally varies over time is poorly understood; the different IPCC models have widely varying strengths of mixing, and so ocean mixing is a huge wild card in the global warming debate, as is aerosol cooling. I believe much of past climate change on time scales of decades to many centuries might be due to such variations in ocean mixing, along with their likely influence on global cloud cover changing the amount of solar input into the climate system. The 4th possibility (the climate system is relatively insensitive to forcing) is the top contender in the opinion of myself, Professor Dick Lindzen, and a few other climate researchers who work in this field. The 5th possibility (increasing GHGs dont really cause warming) is total anathema to the IPCC. Without GHG warming, the whole AGW movement collapses. This kind of scientific finding would normally be Nobel Prize territoryexcept that the Nobel Prize has become more of a socio-political award in recent years, with only politically correct recipients. The selfflagellating elites dont like the idea that humans might not be destroying the Earth. The longer we go without significant warming, the more obvious it will become that there is something seriously wrong with current AGW theory. I dont think there is a certain number of years 5, 10, 20, etc. which will disprove the science of AGW. unless the climate system cools for the next 10 years. But I personally doubt that will happen. As long as strong warming does not resume, the heat-hiding-in-the-deepocean explanation will provide refuge for many years to come, and will be difficult to convincingly rule out as an explanation since it takes so long for the deep ocean to warm by even a tiny amount. Instead, there probably will be a tipping point (sooner than later) in popular perception when the public and Congress decide that the jig is up, and they are no longer interested in hearing how we might be headed for Armageddon. The public already know how awful scientists are at forecasting the future especially a future of doom, which curiously seems to be the only future scientists know how to predict. (NASA explains that Climate forcings are the initial drivers of a climate shift. Solar irradiance is one example of a forcing: If the sun generates more light, the Earth will warm. Climate feedbacks are processes that change as a result of a change in forcing, and cause additional climate change. An example of this is the "ice26

albedo feedback.": As the atmosphere warms, sea ice will melt. Ice is highly reflective, while the underlying ocean surface is far less reflective. The darker ocean will absorb more heat, getting warmer and making the Earth warmer overall. A feedback that increases an initial warming is called a "positive feedback." A feedback that reduces an initial warming is a "negative feedback." The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback that has been included in climate models since the 1970s.) THE WOUNDING: This is what Roy Spencer got for his Ten Years After: Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah Posted by: Barry Bickmore, Feb 2012. - Roy Spencers Junk Science Roy Spencer recently posted an article on his blog called Ten Years After the Warming, in which he argues that theres no excuse for a decade without much warming, because the radiative forcing is supposedly higher than its ever been. Steve Milloy has also reposted the article on his aptly titled blog, JunkScience.com. (In case you dont remember, Steve Milloy is a Fox News commentator who goes about labelling as junk science any environmental issues that might precipitate some government regulation.) Spencers main point is this: You cannot simply say a lack of warming in 10 years is not that unusual, and that there have been previous 10-year periods without warming, too. No, we are supposedly in uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system. One cannot compare on an equal basis the last 10 years with any previous decades without warming. This is the same Roy Spencer who is constantly claiming that he can explain most of the warming trend over the last 100 years by appealing to various modes of natural variation in the climate, e.g., the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nio Southern Oscillation. These climate oscillations depend on complicated stuff like deep ocean currents that are hard to predict, given that we dont have that many observations of what the state of the system is like at any given time. (In other words, its expensive and hard to measure deep ocean temperatures and currents, so we dont have that many observations.) Since these kinds of things are hard to predict exactly with a model, climatologists usually talk about long-term trends caused by external forcing (by things like CO2 emissions and variations in solar output), overprinted by random natural variation. The main difference between Roy Spencer and the rest of the climatologists is that he thinks that natural variation is important over much longer time periods, whereas the others generally think its mainly important over about a decade or less. For example, he complained in his book The Great Global Warming Blunder, The IPCC has taken for granted that there are no natural variations in global average temperatures once one gets beyond a time scale of ten years or so. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does acknowledge that there is natural climate variability on a year-to-year basis, and maybe even decade-to-decade. After all, we have clear evidence that events like El Nio and La Nia cause some years to be warmer than others. Yet the IPCC refuses to accept that the global warming (or cooling) on time

27

scales of thirty years or more can also be caused by Mother Nature. That, apparently, is humanitys job. In this latest article, however, Roy seems to be saying that the temperature should have kept going up pretty steeply because the external forcing from greenhouse gases has continued to rise. The problem is that this is true ONLY if you ignore natural variation that might temporarily offset the external forcing. Spencers newfound suspicion of decadal-scale natural variations is unfounded. Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), for example, statistically removed the effects of El Nio/La Nia cycles, volcanoes, and solar variation, to produce the temperature evolution that WOULD HAVE occurred if these random, natural variations hadnt happened. Note that Milloy supports his criticism from the research of Foster and Rahmstorf. Below is an independent expert review of their work: It systematically destroys the finding, even calling it worthless! Its a must read. THE DRAGON SLAYER EATS WOUNDER: The real temperature trend Frank Lansner: by Anthony Watts (This is a re-post from Lansners website, since
Tamino aka Grant Foster wont allow it to be discussed )

( wattsupwiththat.com/.../frank-lansner-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011/ )

Fig1. (above): Foster and Rahmstorf (F&R) recently released a writing on The real global warming signal at http://tamino.wordpress.com/ 2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/ The point from F&R is, I believe, debating to counter the skeptic argument that temperatures have stagnated during the last decade or more. Since this is an essential issue in the climate debate, I decided to investigate if F&R did a sensible calculation using relevant parameters. (However) HadCRUT global temperatures have a rather flat trend these days: Fig 2 (below):

28

Fig2. It is possible to go back to 1 May 1997 and still see flat trend for HadCRUTs (Hadley Centre, Climate Research Centre, East Anglia, UK.) temperature data, so this data set will be the subject of this writing: Can F&Rs arguments and calculations actually induce a significant warm trend even to Hadcrut 1998-2011? F&R use three parameters for their corrections, ENSO (Pacific El Nio and La Nia); AOD (volcanic atmospheric dimming) and TSI (Total Solar Irradiation). Objection: TSI is hardly the essential parameter when it comes to Solar influence in Earth climate. It would be more appropriate to use the level Solar Activity, Sunspot number, Cloud cover Magnetism or Cosmic rays. TSI is less relevant and should not be used as a label.

Fig3. (above): F&R have chosen MEI to represent EL Nino and La Nina impacts on global temperatures. MEI is the raw Nina 3,4 SST that directly represents the EL Nino and La Nina, but in the MEI index; also SOI is implemented. To chose the most suited parameter I have compared NOAAs ONI which is only the Nina 3.4 index and MEI to temperature graphs to evaluate which to prefer. Both Hadcrut and RSS has a slightly better match with the pure Nina 3,4 ONI index which will therefore be used in the following. (Both sets were moved 3 months to achieve best with temperature variations).

29

Fig4. (above): After correcting for Nina 3,4 index (El Nino + La Nina) there is still hardly any trend in Hadcrut data 1998-2011. (If MEI is chosen, this results in a slight warming trend of approx 0,07 K/decade for the corrected Hadcrut data 1998-2011).

Fig5. I then scaled to best fit for SATO volcano data set. For the years after 1998, there is not really any impact from volcanoes, and thus we can say: There is no heat trend in Hadcrut data after 1998 even when corrected for El Nino/La Nina and volcanoes. However, this changes when inducing Solar activity, I chose Sun Spot Number, SSN, to represent the Solar activity:

30

Fig6. (above): To best estimate the scaling of SSN, I detrended the Nino 3,4 and volcano corrected Hadcrut data and scaled SSN to best fit. Unlike F&R, I get the variation of SSN to equal 0,2K, not 0,1K as F&R shows. Now see what happens:

Fig7. F&R describe the Solar activity (TSI as they ascribe) to be of smallest importance in their calculations. However, it is only the Solar activity SSN, that ends up making even the Hadcrut years after 1998 show a warm trend when corrected. On Fig7 I have plotted the yearly results by F&R for Hadcrut and they are nearly identical to my results. So, a smaller warming from my using Nino 3,4 combined with the larger impact of Solar activity I find cancels out each other. ISSUES For now we have evaluated what F&R have done, now lets consider issues: 1) F&R assume that temperature change from, for example, an El Nino or a period of raised Solar activity etc. will completely disappear immediately after such an event ends. F&R assumes that heat does not accumulate from one temperature event to the next. 2) Missing corrections for PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscilliation) 3) Missing corrections for human aerosols (supposed to be important) 4) Missing corrections for AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscilliation) 5) F&R could have mentioned the effect of their adjustments before 1979. Issue 1: F&R assume that all effect from a shorter warming or cooling period is totally gone after the effect is gone.

31

Fundamentally, the F&R approach demands that all effects of the three parameters they use for corrections only have here-and-now effect.

Fig 8. In the above approaches, the Nino 3,4 peaks are removed by assuming that all effects from, for example, a short intense heat effect can be removed by removing heat only when the heating effect occurs, but not removing any heat after the effect it self has ended. Now, to examine this approach we compare 2 datasets. A) Hadcrut temperatures, corrected for Nina 3,4, volcanoes and SSN effects as shown in the above detrended. B) The Nino 3,4 index indicating El Ninos/La Ninas and thus the timing of adjustments. (We remember, that the Nino 3,4 was moved 3 months to fit temperature data before adjusting):

Fig9. (above): After for example removing heat caused by El Ninas during the specific El Nino periods, you see heat peaks 1 2 years later in the Nino 3,4 corrected detrended temperature data.That is: After red peaks you see black peaks. This means that the approach of systematically only removing heat when heat effect is occurring, is fundamentally wrong.

32

Wrong to what extent? Typically, the heat not removed by correcting for Nina 3,4 shows 1-2 years later than the heat effect. Could this [also] have impact on decadal temperature trends? Maybe so: In most cases of El Nino peaks, first we have the Nino 3,4 red peak, then 1-2 years after the remaining black peak in temperature data that then dives. But notice that normally the dives in remaining heat (black) normally occurs when dives in the red Nino 3,4 index starts. This suggests, that the remaining heat from an El Nino peak is not fast disappearing by itself, but rather, is removed when colder Nino 3,4 conditions induces a cold effect. In general, we are working with noisy volcano and SSN corrected data, so to any conclusion there will be some situations where the normal observations is not seen strongly. Now, what happens as we focus on periods where the Nino 3,4 index for longer periods than 2 years is more neutral no major peaks?

Fig10. (above): Now, the detrended Hadcrut temperature corrected for Nina 3,4, Volcanoes and SSN - black graph has been 2 years averaged: The impact of El Ninos and La Ninas is still clearly visible in data supposed to be corrected for these impacts. Since this correction by F&R is their most important correction, and it fails, then we can conclude that F&R 2011 is fundamentally flawed and useless. Reality is complex and F&R has mostly seen the tip of the iceberg, no more. 33

Now also: Notice the periods 1976-1981 and 2002-2007. In both cases, we have a period of a few years with Nino 3,4 index rather neutral. In these cases, the temperature level does not change radically. In the 1976-81 period, the La Ninas up to 1977 leaves temperatures cold, and they stay cold for years while Nino 3,4 remains rather neutral. After the 2002-3 El Nino, Nino 3,4 index remains rather neutral, and temperatures simply stay warm. Issue 2: Missing corrections for PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscilliation) Quite related to the above issue of ignoring long-term effects of temperature peaks, we see no mention of the PDO.

Fig 11. Don Easterbrook suggests that a general warming occurs when a PDO is warm, and a general cooling occurs when PDO is cold. That is, even though the PDO index remains constant but warm, the heat should accumulate over the years rather than be only short term dependent strictly related to the PDO index of a given year. This is in full compliance with the long-term effects of temperature peaks shown under Issue 1. Don Easterbrook suggests 0,5K of heating 1979-2000 due the PDO long-term heat effect. I think the principle is correct, I cant know if the 0,5K is correct it is obviously debated but certainly, you need to consider the PDO long-term effect on temperatures in connection with ANY attempt to correct temperature data. F&R fails to do so, although potentially, PDO heat is suggested to explain all heat trend after 1979. I would like to analyse temperature data for PDO effect if possible.

34

Fig12. PDO data taken from http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest To analyse PDO-effect we have to realise that PDO and Nino 3,4 (not surprisingly) have a lot in common. This means, that I cant analyse PDO effects in a dataset corrected for Nino 3,4 as it would to some degree also be corrected for PDO Moreover, this strong resemblance between Nino 3,4 and PDO has this consequence: When Don Easterbrook says that PDO has a long-term effect, hes also saying that Nino 3,4 has long-term effects just as concluded in Issue 1.

Fig13. Thus, I am working with PDO signal compared to Hadcrut temperatures corrected for volcanoes and SSN only. The general idea that heat can be accumulated from one period to the next (long term effects) is clearly supported in this comparison. If PDO heat (like any heat!) can be expected to be accumulated, then we can see for each larger PDO-heat-peak temperatures on Earth rises to a steady higher level.

35

Fig14. Note: in the early 1960s, the correction of volcano Agung is highly questionable because different sources of data concerning its effect are not at all in agreement. Most likely I have over-adjusted for its cooling effect. On the above graph from Mauna Loa it appears that hardly any adjustment should be doneScientists often claim that we HAVE to induce CO2 in models to explain the heat trend. Here we have heat trends corrected for volcanoes and SSN, now watch how much math it takes to explain temperature rise after 1980 using the PDO:

Fig15. Math to explain temperature trend using PDO. Due to the uncertainty on data around 1960 (Agung + mismatch with RUTI world index/unadjusted GHCN) I have made a curve beginning before and after 1960. For each month I add a fraction of the PDO signal to the temperature of last month, that is, I assume that heat created last month wont go away by itself, but is regulated by impacts of present month. This approach is likely not perfect either but it shows how easy temperature trends can be explained if you accept PDO influence globally. (In addition I created some other scenarios where temperatures would seek zero to some degree, and also where I used square root on PDO input which may work slightly better, square root to boost smaller changes near zero PDO). Now, how can PDO all by itself impact a long steady heat on Earth?? 36

Does heat come from deep ocean or??

Fig16. It goes without saying that SSN and PDO (and thus Nina 3,4 as shown) are related. Is it likely that PDO affects Sun Spot Numbers? No; So we can conclude that Solar activity drives PDO temperatures which again can explain temperature changes on Earth. Suddenly this analysis has become more interesting than F&Rs evaluation; but this graph also shows that F&R were wrong on yet another point: Notice on the graph that we work the temperatures CORRECTED for Solar activity But AFTER each peak of SSN we see accumulation of heat on earth still there after that correcting for solar activity. Thus, again, it is fundamentally wrong to assume that there are no long term affects of temperature changes. This time, temperature effect can be seen in many years after the corrected Solar activity occurred. Conclusion: PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation] appears Solar driven and can easily explain the temperature developments analysed. Thus perhaps the most important factors to be corrected for if you want to know about potential CO2 effects was not corrected for by F&R 2011. Issue 3: Missing corrections for human aerosols that are supposed to be important It is repeatedly claimed by the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) side in the climate debate that human sulphates/aerosols should explain significant changes in temperatures on earth. When you read F&R, I couldnt stop asking myself: Why dont they make some comment about Human aerosols now?

37

http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/greenhouse_gas.html Fig17. In basically all sources of sulphur emissions it appears that around 1980-90 these started to decline. If truly these aerosols explains significant cooling, well, then a reduced cooling agent after 1980 should be accounted for when adjusting temperature data to find the real temperature signal. F&R fails to do so. Issue 4: Missing corrections for AMO [Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation] AMO appears to affect temperatures in the Arctic and also on large land areas of the NH. [Northern Hemisphere]

Fig18. In fact, the temperatures of the AMO-affected Arctic are supposed to be an important parameter for global temperature trends, and thus correcting for AMO may be relevant. The AMO appears to boost temperatures for years 2000-2010, so any correction of temperatures using AMO would reduce temperature trend after 1980. F&R do not mention AMO. Issue 5: F&R could have mentioned the effect of their adjustments before 1979. F&R only shows impacts after 1979, possibly due to the limitations of satellite data.

38

Fig19. (above): Correcting Hadcrut data for Nino 3,4+volcanoes turns out that the heat trend from 1950 is reduced around 0,16K or around 25%. Why not show this? I chose 1950 as staring point because both Nina 3,4 and SATO volcano index begins in 1950. Conclusion: F&R appear to assume that temperature impacts on Earth only has that impact while occurring, not after. If you heat up a glass of water, the heat wont go away instantly after removing the heat source, so to assume this for the Earth would need some documentation. Only correcting for the instant fraction of a temperature impact and not impacts after ended impact gives a rather complex dataset with significant random appearing errors and thus, the resulting F&R adjusted data for temperatures appears useless. At least until the long term effect of temperature changes has been established in a robust manner. Further, it seems that the PDO, Nina 3,4 and Solar activities are related, and just by using the simplest mathematics (done to PDO) these can explain recent development in temperatures on Earth. The argument that CO2 is needed to explain recent temperature trends appears to be flat wrong. Thus correcting for PDO/Nina 3,4 long term effect might remove heat trend of temperature data all together. Solar activity is shown to be an important driver PDO/Nino 3,4 and thus climate. Finally, can we then use temperature data without the above adjustment types? Given the complexities involved with such adjustments, it is definitely better to accept the actual data than a datasets that appears to be fundamentally flawed. Should one adjust just for Nino 3,4? This lacks longtime effects of Nina 3,4 and moreover, it does not remove the flat trend from the recent decade of Hadcrut temperature data.

TEMPERATURES FLAT SINCE 1998; SORRY! NOT LONG ENOUGH

39

Now we find yet another contretemps arising from the fact that records show the trend in global surface temperatures has been flat since the late 1990. The following paper was published by government funded consensus scientists to downplay the short-term significance of the trend: It argued that a minimum of 17-years of records was the minimum period needed to be regarded as a significant trend! (An analysis of that argument follows at the end of this published paper).
For immediate release: 11/16/2011 | NR-11-11-03

Separating signal and noise in climate warming.Anne M Stark, LLNL

A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellite. Image: courtesy of NASA .

LIVERMORE, Calif. -- In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists. To address criticism of the reliability of thermometer records of surface warming, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Scientists, analyzed satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere (the region of the atmosphere from the surface to roughly five miles above) and saw a clear signal of human-induced warming of the planet. Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature are made with microwave radiometers, and are completely independent of surface thermometer measurements. The satellite data indicate that the lower troposphere has warmed by roughly 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit since the beginning of satellite temperature records in 1979. This increase is entirely consistent with the warming of Earth's surface estimated from thermometer records. Recently, a number of global warming critics have focused attention on the behavior of Earth's temperature since 1998. They have argued that there has been little or no warming over the last 10 to 12 years, and that computer models of the climate system are not capable of simulating

40

such short "hiatus periods" when models are run with human-caused changes in greenhouse gases. "Looking at a single, noisy 10-year period is cherry picking, and does not provide reliable information about the presence or absence of human effects on climate," said Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist and lead author on an article in the Nov. 17 online edition of the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres). Many scientific studies have identified a human "fingerprint" in observations of surface and lower tropospheric temperature changes. These detection and attribution studies look at long, multi-decade observational temperature records. Shorter periods generally have small signal to noise ratios, making it difficult to identify an anthropogenic signal with high statistical confidence, Santer said. "In fingerprinting, we analyze longer, multi-decadal temperature records, and we beat down the large year-to-year temperature variability caused by purely natural phenomena (like El Ninos and La Ninas). This makes it easier to identify a slowly-emerging signal arising from gradual, human-caused changes in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases," Santer said. The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10 to 12-year "hiatus periods" with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere. "One individual short-term trend doesn't tell you much about long-term climate change," Santer said. "A single decade of observational temperature data is inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving human-caused warming signal. In both the satellite observations and in computer models, short, 10-year tropospheric temperature trends are strongly influenced by the large noise of year-to-year climate variability." The research team is made up of Santer and Livermore colleagues Charles Doutriaux, Peter Caldwell, Peter Gleckler, Detelina Ivanova, and Karl Taylor, and includes collaborators from Remote Sensing Systems, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the University of Colorado, the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.K. Meteorology Office Hadley Centre, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Computer Models mauled again: Flat 14-years confirmed Watts Up With That science correspondent, Mr Bob Disdale, taking up

41

Mr Santers comments, ran the numbers from IPCC AR4 models, and produced the following comment and graphs, comparing 204-month (17 year) and 360-month (30 year) stats titled: Trends in Sea Temperature Anomalies; Differences Between Observed and IPCC AR4 Climate [computer] Models. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/14/tisdale-on-foster-and-rahmstorftake-2/ ) Weve illustrated and discussed in a number of recent posts how poorly are the hindcasts and projections of the coupled climate models used in the IPCCs 4th Assessment Report (AR4), compared to instrument-based (actual) observations. Disdales graphs plot 17-year and 30 year trends in global (and hemispheric) Sea Surface Temperature anomalies from January 1900 to August 2011 and compares them to the (computer) model mean of the hindcasts and projections of the coupled climate models used in the IPCC AR4. Contrary to the view that there would be little variation, Disdale points to strong evidence that the recent flattening of global temperature anomalies and the resulting divergence of them from model projections is a result of multidecadal variations in Sea Surface Temperatures. [The following graphs clearly overcome the short-term deficiency claim of a flat decade and more of global temperatures in the original criticism. On the face of it, actual observed temperatures will need to start rising dramatically to catch up to the IPCC AR4 computerised projections, given that some scientists are postulating that the earth may be in a decades cooling phase.]

42

[We see that over both 17yr & 30 yr time frames, the models are well above actual trends.] THE ANTHROPOGENIC INFLUENCE TO FORCE CHANGE The other green political objective that has fallen out of the anthropogenic global warming theory and the need to reduce CO2 emissions, is the enormous pressure on developed western nations to change their energy directions: To move away from their available sources of cheap energy like coal, into much more expensive renewable energy sources. Hundreds of billions have been invested worldwide, either directly or with subsidies by governments and private enterprise, into high-cost renewables; principally: Solar (up to $473/megawatt hour); Wind ($214/mgwh) and Gas fired power stations ($97 per kw/h), at the expense of Coal ($79/mgwh), as determined by the Australian Productivity Commission. The cost of these heavily taxpayer-subsidised investment programs has been passed back to the cost base of coal energy producers via carbon (dioxide) taxes or emission trading schemes and the purchase of carbon credits both domestically and internationally. These massive costs are now being reflected in the energy costs of every western economy, business and household. The financial effect of these massively uneconomic renewable energy projects and subsidies on western government budgets is now adding to the massive debt structures of many countries including in Europe, the United Kingdom, the United States and now Australia. Renewable is becoming a dirty word in household energy bills with no significant environmental benefit. PRESTIGIOUS SCIENTISTS SPEAK OUT AGAINST ALARMISM 43

Whilst there are many highly respected climate scientist around the world who have diligently undertaken their research with integrity, and who have found sympathy for the AGW theory and associated findings, there is no question that their honest endeavours deserve respect. But the work of any scientist is not above objective analysis and review. Equally, there are many of the worlds most prestigious scientists who have also given their lives to climate science, and who strongly disagree with the intimidatory manner in which the consensus view has been driven. It is obvious that they, until recently, have preferred silence to ridicule. This is now changing. There seems to be something seriously wrong with the claim that the climate theory of AGW is settled when scientific pioneers resign from the prestigious American Physical Society (founded in 1899) claiming that the Societys support for catastrophic global warming is based on the clamour for research funding and scientific fraud. We show that this claim to be well founded. For example, in November of 2010, Professor Harold Lewis, the elderly but highly distinguished Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, resigned in disgust from the APS, claiming that the climate-gate scandal had exposed the greatest and most successful pseudo-scientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

This editorial appeared in the Wall Street Journal on January 27, 2012
and included the names of 16 of the worlds leading climate scientists: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717153183 8421366.html) In September 2011, Nobel Laureate, Ivar Giaever, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [following APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now. In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves; but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?! In spite of a multi-decade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific heretics is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

44

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapour and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2. The lack of warming for more than a decadeindeed, the smaller-thanpredicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projectionssuggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.** The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promotedor worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peerreviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it beforefor example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death. Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, Follow the money.

45

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them. Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to decarbonize the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically. (Included were the names of sixteen of the worlds leading climate scientists)

[**This is a recent example: The folly of blaming the Eastern U.S. heat
wave on global warming. (Posted on July 7, 2012 by Anthony Watts) A picture is worth a thousand words: Image from Dr. Ryan N. Maue of WeatherBELL h/t to Joe Bastardi

It isnt global; its the weather, not climate. It is caused by a persistent blocking high pressure pattern: In a day or two, that red splotch over the eastern USA will be gone. UPDATE: Dr. Roy Spencer puts it in perspective
June 2012 U.S. Temperatures: Not That Remarkable (July 6th, 2012)].

Now, many NASA scientists have also had enough: In March 28, 2012, no less than 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden admonishing the agency for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of 46

climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question. We will scientifically show later that their claim is entirely correct. The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator NASA Headquarters Washington, D.C. 20546-0001 Dear Charlie, We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled. The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASAs history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASAs advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASAs current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself. For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, (Included were signatures of the forty nine)

EXTREME HISTORICAL CHANGES TO EARTHS CLIMATE

The volcanic dust veil around the middle of the first modern millennium (500AD), caused catastrophic climate change across the entire globe, cooling the planet for years and causing massive starvation, migration and political turmoil. A medieval warming period occurred between the 10th-14th centuries. This MWP had the opposite environmental effect to the dust veil particularly across the northern hemisphere. A succession of good 47

harvests had made the UK and Europe rich and the good weather freed people from the burden of the normally accepted harsh elements, to the extent that crops could be grown and livestock raised in Greenland. It created the wealth and labour force that built towns, cities and cathedrals across Europe. It was also a golden period for architecture and art. A little ice age between the 16th and 19th centuries (1350-1865) saw another massive climate change. Temperatures around the globe plummeted, with a return to climate upheavals linked to severe climate variability. During its depth, rivers across northern Europe froze-over in winter and Ice Fairs along the River Thames were occurred annually for two centuries. Since then, global temperatures have been rising and falling naturally. The fact is, the anomaly (trend) has been flat since the late 1990s some 14 years now - despite rising CO2 emissions, and much to the consternation of the IPCC and those scientists who have advised it. Climate alarmism - a Catastrophe it does not make! NY Times: February 1895 Prospects of another Glacial Period; 1957 A warmer Earth evident at the Poles; 1990 A Frozen Earth. Time Magazine 1974 Another Ice Age. Newsweek 1974 Global cooling evidence has begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with it. LA Times 1978 International team of specialists find no end in sight to 30-year cooling trend in Northern Hemisphere. POWERFUL VOICES OF SCIENTIFIC REASON AND CALM Let us consider the varying opinions of more of the worlds most eminent climate scientists and contributors to IPCC Reports, in their verbatim replies to questions in 2011 whilst outlining the significance of recent climate research: Professor John Christy, Earths Systems Science Centre, University of Alabama, an earlier lead atmospheric scientist on the IPCC Panel, and one of the worlds most eminent atmospheric scientists was interviewed on Radio 2GB, Sydney Australia early in 2011. This was his answer as to whether humans are causing a catastrophic change in the system of climate: By looking at the evidence we have from satellites and so on, we do not see any dramatic or catastrophic changes at all. Referring to his Centres research, pointing to the unreliability of temperature records at the earths surface, he went on: We look at the temperature of the bulk of the atmosphere. Its not confused by what might happen in cities and the countryside at the surface. By looking at the bulk of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is supposed to be large and its most significant effect, we do not see much happening at all. On the IPCC so called scientific consensus that evidence of global warming was unequivocal Professor Christy stated The IPCC was talking about a very specific case: Has the temperature of the planet warmed in the past 100 years? Thats true, it has; it has warmed a little bit. But remember the climate or the average temperature of the earth is never ever 48

set: Its either going up or down. The fact is that the rate at which the earths temperature is rising right now, which could account for various things, is less than 1 per century. Per century! [His emphasis]. On the issue of human induced carbon dioxide (CO2) and whether this is causing the planet to warm to alarming levels, Christy replied: Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas; it will cause the planet to warm. What we have found is that the rate of warming due to carbon dioxide must be pretty small because the earth is not warming very rapidly. He concluded Trying to change the climate, where the temperature of the planet that is only warming at the rate of less than 1 per century is almost impossible! Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT questioned early in 2011 on Radio 2GB, on the effect of increasing CO2 emissions on global warming: "(even) If we doubled CO2you should get about 1 warming not very significant. Is what we have seen so far suggesting that you have more than that? The answer is no! The (computer) models say you should have seen more that 2 to 5 times more. (Scientifically) you should then accept that if you believe from the [computer] models that you actually should have gotten far more warming than you have seen, then some mysterious process has cancelled part of it. (or, ipso facto, the modelling has been wrong). This chart from C3 Headlines demonstrates his point: (click on chart to enlarge)

C3 Headlines: Among scientists, it has become common knowledge that

the IPCC's climate computer models continue to be divorced from reality. The models demonstrated in the chart above are the foundation of AGW "consensus" science that climate alarmism scientists, the IPCC, world governments and mainstream media continue to rely on in an attempt to stifle objective debate and support renewable energy policies. As the following updated IPCC chart shows, the recent years of nonwarming, despite a massive increase in human CO2 emissions, is empirical evidence of a scientifically lame AGW hypothesis promulgated by the IPCC. An analysis of HadCRUT global temperatures reveals that human CO2 has had little long-term impact (click to enlarge).

49

It is now irrefutable that modern global warming has disappeared this past 14 years. This has been fully recognized by all climate alarmist scientists as they very publicly debate the reasons as to why their AGW computer models and predictions have failed.

Professor Lindzen was also highly critical of the political pressures

on climate scientists to conform to climate alarmism that he has described as grotesquely dishonest. Lindzen: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided and themselves labelled as industry stooges. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green

movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are

trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

Professor Timothy Ball, former climatology professor, University of

Winnipeg said this in February 2011 on whether CO2 caused temperatures to rise or the other way around: CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing global warming or climate change. I cant say it more boldly, but it doesnt seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most dont understand. The fact they hold definitive positions 50

without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesnt require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias. The 2007 IPCC Report claimed with over 90% certainty that human produced CO2 is almost the sole cause of global warming. But the evidence shows this cant be true; temperature changes before CO2 in every record of any duration for any time period; CO2 variability does not correlate with temperature at any point in the last 600 million years; atmospheric CO2 levels are currently at the lowest level in that period; in the 20th century most warming occurred before 1940 when human production of CO2 was very small; human production of CO2 increased the most after 1940 but global temperatures declined to 1985; from 2000 global temperatures declined while CO2 levels increased; and any reduction in CO2 threatens plant life, oxygen production, and therefore all life on the planet.

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi provided the most recent scientific argument

against CO2 as the cause of temperature change. Here is an explanation [of the work] by Dr. Miklos Zagoni: It illustrates why the scientific arguments that CO2 is not the problem are not making much headway theyre very complicated. Basically, Miskolczi is saying that the Greenhouse Effect is present but essentially constant over time; therefore, temperature variations are due to some other cause. He is extending the idea of saturation, already known about CO2, to all greenhouse gases. I refer to this as the black paint condition. If you want to block light coming through a window, a single coat of black paint will stop almost all of it. Second and third coats reduce the light, but by decreasing fractions. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is like the first coat of paint doubling and tripling the amount reduces heat going to space by decreasing fractions. The IPCC got around this problem by incorrectly claiming a positive feedback. This says increased CO2 raises global temperature that increases evaporation of water vapour to the atmosphere. This supposedly enhances the warming due to increased CO2, but the idea is now discredited. Miskolczis argument means any variations in global temperature are almost all due to changes in solar and geothermal energy. Inclusion of geothermal is unusual. This energy from within the earth, especially into the oceans is essentially (and as I have long argued) incorrectly ignored.

The Collusion of the Climate crowd (Posted on July 7, 2012 by Anthony Watts)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/07/the-folly-of-blaming-the-eastern-u-sheat-wave-on-global-warming/ By Christopher C. Horner First published in the Washington Examiner, reposted here with permission Not long ago, the American Tradition Institute initiated a transparency campaign using federal and state freedom of information laws to learn more about how taxpayer-funded academics use their positions to advance a

51

particular agenda. On its face, this should have been welcomed by the Left, which often lays claim to the transparency mantle. It is instead causing great angst. Our project would compile the context to the Climategate scandal, which, as activist academics central to its revelations assured us, was really an out-ofcontext misrepresentation. Curiously, the same people think this project a very bad idea. So do the media and environmentalist establishments. Of the latter, the Union of Concerned Scientists became particularly exercised, mobilizing left-wing groups to urge universities not to satisfy our requests for public documents. None of these groups, incidentally, was troubled by a series of similar requests by Greenpeace, whose effort we replicated. They only became opposed when we sought the emails of the sort of activists with whom they work. Some of these, recently obtained from Texas A&M University, provide one explanation for this reversal. For example, they reveal a sophisticated UCS [University of Southern California] operation to assist activist academics and other government employees as authorities for promoting UCSs agenda. This includes mootcourting congressional hearings with a team of UCS staff, all the way down to providing dossiers on key committee members, addressing in particular their faith, stance on gay marriage and stimulus spending. Of course! This also includes directing the taxpayers servants to outside PR consultants apparently pro bono or else on UCSs dime. Keep this last point in mind. They also expose the New York Times reporter who covers the environment, science and specifically the global warming issue, Justin Gillis, as being no disinterested party. Gillis wrote a piece in May labouring to undermine one of the most highly credentialed and respected climate skeptics, the Massachusetts Institute of Technologys Dr. Richard Lindzen. This front-page article prompted my request for information reflecting how the A&M professor and activist whom Gillis quoted, was using his taxpayer-funded position. The specific correspondence [uncovered] began when Gillis wrote that interviewing Lindzen for a piece on his area of expertise was unavoidable, and [s]o I need a really good bibliography of all the published science countering Lindzens position on cloud feedback that is, anything that stands as evidence against Lindzens claim that the feedback has to be strongly negative. Remember, this was a reporter for the New York Times writing this. In the released emails, Gillis comes off as an activist posing as a journalist, sneering at Lindzen.

PUBLIC, MEDIA AND POLITICAL REVOLT THE TIDE TURNS

Germany: (Source: BBC News & Die Welt, Wednesday, 16 May 2012). Research following: Relates to catastrophic renewable energy policies in Germany and political revolt.

52

Green Agenda In Disarray As German Chancellor Fires Environment

Minister. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has sacked her environment minister, Norbert Roettgen, days after he led her party to a crushing defeat in a key regional election. The fact that Angela Merkel allowed one of her closest confidants to fall shows that "the crisis in the coalition government has now penetrated the innermost circle." Rttgen had failed not only as the top CDU candidate in North Rhine Westphalia, "but also as federal environment minister in Berlin responsible for the implementation of the green energy transition - one of the most important projects of this country," said the General Secretary of the Social Democrats (SPD) Andrea Nahles. SPD deputy Ulrich Kelber suggested: "We are now probably going to see how the government will blame Rttgen in the cheapest way for the totally botched energy policies." He feared that "those who never wanted a green energy transition will now be getting the upper hand even more." Windmills that will keep our lights on are one of the greatest and costliest fantasies of the age. (Source Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, UK. 9 Apr 2011) An extract:

Photo: ALAM

Booker: "... The belief which took hold 20 years ago, that the world was in the grip of runaway global warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases (and that) the planet could only be saved by abandoning fossil fuels and drawing our energy from wind and sun, for a while (the dream stage) seemed to go according to the scientific theory. As CO2 levels rose and the Earth continued to warm, our politicians started to propose every kind of drastic measure to reduce our emissions, such as building thousands of wind turbines. But in all sorts of ways, in the past few years, this dream and the theory behind it have begun colliding with reality. Carbon dioxide levels continued to rise, but global temperatures failed to follow. (As an example) Three times in the past 13 years in 1998, 2006 and 2010 they spiked upwards, thanks to periodic shifts in a major Pacific ocean current via a phenomenon known as El Nio which brings warm water to the surface and boosts temperatures across the world. Each time, it was trumpeted as the hottest year ever. But each time (as has been happening for millennia) as the ocean current reversed into La Nia, the spike was followed by an equally sharp cooling. 53

In 2007, temperatures fell by 0.75C; more than the entire net rise recorded through the whole of the 20th century! After they rose again to a new El Nio peak in 2010, we were told, only three months ago, by the compilers of the two chief surface-temperature records the UK Meteorological Office, in association with climate-gate scientist Dr Phil Jones of East Anglias Climatic Research Unit, and James Hansen of NASA that 2010 was the equal warmest or second warmest year ever! Last week, however, with the end of the latest La Nia, it was reported that global temperatures, as measured by satellites, had fallen by 0.65C since March 2010, making the world cooler now than its mean over the past 30 years! Yet again the computer models, predicting that, thanks to rising CO2, the world should have warmed in the past decade by 0.3C, have proved hopelessly wrong. If it hasnt looked too hot for the theory on which our politicians base their plans to change the world, then last week it looked equally dodgy for what has been one of the most grandiose of their responses to this supposed crisis: Two sets of figures exposed more than ever, the degree of delusion which surrounds the wish of our governments, in Brussels and in Westminster, that the centre piece of our energy policy must now be, to build even more windmills. The report that drew most media attention was that from a Scottish environmental charity which focused on the fact that last year, despite our having built yet more turbines, the lack of wind meant that they operated, on average, at only 21 per cent of their capacity the lowest percentage ever. Several times, when demand was at record levels, the contribution of wind to our electricity supply was virtually zero. Less attention was given, however, to figures put out by the Department for Energy and Climate Change, showing that the 3,168 turbines we have built, at a cost of billions of pounds, contributed on average, if very irregularly, only 1,141 megawatts to the national grid last year less than the output of a single large coal-fired power station. From the DECC figures it is possible to work out that, for this derisory contribution, we paid through our electricity bills a subsidy of nearly 1.2 billion, on top of the price of the electricity itself. Thus, in return for less than 3 per cent of our electricity, nearly 7 per cent of our bills were made up of hidden subsidies to the wind developers, a percentage due to treble and quadruple in coming years as the Government strives to meet the EU renewables target by building up to 10,000 more turbines, at a cost of 100 billion. World still waiting for 50 million Climate Refugees by 2010. This was the story in The Australian April 21, 2011.

54

Back in 2005 the University of Bonn in Germany in a scientific Paper funded by the United Nations, argued for a new category of refugee for people fleeing environmental catastrophes such as sea-level rises, desert expansions and flooding in places such as low lying Pacific Islands. The research predicted that by 2010 there would be 50 million Climate Change Refugees. As a result the United Nations Commission for Refugees drew up a world map showing where the 43.3 million displaced refugees would come from by 2010. With 2010 having come and gone, the practical evidence has shown the projection to be a total nonsense. (NB: The UN has since extended this timeline to 2020) Now we see, early 2011, a spokesman for the United Nations Environmental Program has just given reasons why the map has since been withdrawn, blaming questionable calculations by a contributor, Oxford University academic, Norman Myers. Professor Myers had also predicted that by 2050 the number of Climate Change refugees would have swelled to 200 million!! Post the Global Financial Crisis Renewables penny drops Now in the aftermath of the GFC from early 2007 to today (mid 2012), with the United States, Japan, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland in particular and almost every western economy, save for China, Australia and a few others, mired in unsustainable debt and teetering on the brink of economic catastrophe - European especially - the question must be asked: Can the world in the immediate future afford the demands required of the UNs Agenda 21 and its destructive utopian policy that, inter alia, has contributed to most socialist economies which have embraced it, being driven to the very edge of bankruptcy? Much of Europe and some American States had earlier embraced Agenda 21; including alternative energy policies, emission trading schemes and carbon taxes, the costs of which - especially government subsidies to promote high cost renewable energy sources have merely increased the indebtedness of many nations and states and greatly increased the living costs of their inhabitants. Now reality has set in: In the aftermath of the GFC, such programs have proven to be economically unsustainable and domestically unsaleable to the point where profligate socialist and green governments across the globe are crumbling and their citizens rioting in the streets. Given these frightening developments, new Governments worldwide both National and State, are retreating from these commitments under Agenda 21 and other United Nations climate change Kyoto Protocols, for example Bali (2007), Copenhagen (2009), Cancun (2010) and Rio (2012) including major G8 economies Japan, Russia and Canada. In the meantime, literally thousands of UN and government workers around the world continue to be highly paid and comfortably housed in the pursuit of policies, which are effectively dead. The people dont want them! Business doesnt want them! Workers dont want them! Governments in truth - simply cannot afford them. Notwithstanding these realities, the United Nations and some governments simply cannot bring themselves to accept the inevitable. Amazingly there are still some national Governments clinging to the fantasy of these discredited policies, despite the clear acknowledgement that despite

55

their enormously high cost, they have minor environmental benefits per se, seeking only to keep low cost non-renewable energy sources under the ground. Australia is amongst them. Those who dont seem to get it, or avoid admitting it, are UN and National politicians, the commentariat who live off them, workers including scientists who live off the public purse, the wealthy caf-lat green set, and those corporations and individuals skilled enough to see opportunities to make a big buck from trading schemes, at times fraudulently.

THE SEA-CHANGE IN CLIMATE SCIENTIFIC OPINION

As we have read here, the quantum of all these events particularly in the shadow of the climategate scandal - has seen a significant change over time: From a very cautious beginning, as more overwhelming counter scientific evidence has been proven, as well as that of manipulation, intimidation, conspiracy and deception even fraud there has been an emerging willingness by many in the scientific community to challenge and rebut the so-called consensus theory. Many more highly respected and eminent climate scientists have become emboldened in more recent times to now speak out; denying in fact that the majority of scientists consent to in Professor Lindzens words - this grotesquely dishonest alarmist style of climate change propaganda and calling for more reasoned and scientifically balanced debate. Unfortunately this did not quite extend to the Royal Society in its Conclusions which relied on, and repeated much of the now discredited IPCC scientific mantra below. Royal Society: In September 2010, the prestigious Royal Society in the United Kingdom, issued on behalf of its Fellows, a document Climate Change A summary of the Science. The document was prepared by a working group chaired by the Vice President of the Royal Society, Professor John Pethica FRS, and was approved by the Society Council. Although the document made no secret of the fact that it had relied heavily on the much criticized IPCC Reports for much of its data, no less than 43 of its eminent members had demanded that the Society review the science and issue a more balanced document that should include the research and opinions provided by more skeptical climate scientists. Discussing Future climate change at page 11, the Society Report has this to say: As with almost any attempt to forecast future conditions, projections of future climate change depend on a number of factors. Future emissions due to human activity will depend on social, technological and population changes, which cannot be known with confidence. The underlying uncertainties in climate science and the inability to predict precisely the size of future natural climate forcing mechanisms means that projections must be made which takes into account the range of uncertainties across these different areas

56

[Chaos Theory or butterfly effect - Another major complication In 1963 Lorenz published his acclaimed theory on the chaotic behaviour of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behaviour is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behaviour is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. When chaotic behaviour can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather, how can we rely on highly compromised computer modelling based on theoretical projections of a global climate system that attempts to mirror empirical evidence forward 50 or 100 years, and make sensible policy decisions affecting the entire world? It is in reality, a bridge too far for any scientific endeavour, unless that is - there can be greater certainty that the models can be shown to enjoy a higher degree of correlation with empirical evidence than we have seen thus far.] Notwithstanding, the UNs alarmist demands for world-wide political action to curb CO2 emissions ahead of the scientific evidence, can best be seen in the following quote from UN Agenda 21, Section 4, Chapter 35, paragraph 3: In the face of threats of irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific understanding should not be an excuse for postponing actions which are justified in their own right. The precautionary approach could provide a basis for policies relating to complex systems that are not yet fully understood and whose consequences of disturbance cannot yet be predicted.) SEA LEVEL RISE A LITANY OF MANIPULATION AND DECEPTION Page 13 of the Royal Society Report outlines it views in Aspects that are not well understood: There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century [i.e., at 20cm or 2mm per year] for a given temperature increase. Similarly, the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence Notwithstanding this call for caution, the outrageously false propaganda of US Agencies, NASA and NOAA in particular, has been little short of criminal. These are examples: First, comments by NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally on Arctic Sea Ice, published in National Geographic and reported by Seth Borenstein by Washington Associated Press, December 12, 2007:

57

An already relentless melting of the Arctic has greatly accelerated this summera sign that some scientists worry - could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years. Almost three years later, News, October 28, 2010: scientist Jay Zwally said: ice-free at the end of predictions. the following appeared in National Geographic After reviewing his own new data, NASA climate At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly summer by 2012, much faster than previous

So scientists in recent days have been asking themselves these questions: Was the record melt seen all over the Arctic in 2007 a blip amid relentless and steady warming? Or has everything sped up to a new climate cycle that goes beyond the worst case scenarios presented by computer models? The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming, said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines. The burning of coal, oil, and other fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are responsible for man-made global warming. For the past several days, government diplomats have been debating in Bali, (IPCC Conference) Indonesia, the outlines of a new climate treaty calling for tougher limits on these gases. What happens in the Arctic has implications for the rest of the world. Faster melting there means eventual sea level rise and more immediate changes in winter weather because of less sea ice. Based on this scientific prediction, NASA released on YouTube in June 2011 an astonishingly alarmist Video titled: NASA: Arctic Sea Ice GONE by Summer 2012 [gone entirely by Sept 22, 2012!] Well we are now at 2012 and we can assess those statements against what has actually happened. Watts Up With That, the worlds most viewed climate website had this to say earlier in the year: Its always important to remember what has been predicted by the elders of science, and to review those predictions when the time is right. ... at the end of summer on the Autumnal Equinox; September 22nd 2012, the Arctic will be nearly ice free according to a prominent NASA scientist in a National Geographic article on December 12, 2007. That is also the same article in which Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the governments snow and ice data centre in Boulder, Colorado; the future NSIDC director, made himself famous with this quote: The Arctic is screaming Watts, who analyses Antarctic satellite data monthly, comments: Doesnt seem all that dramatic to me.
Arctic Sea ice extent 30% or greater (DMI)

58

Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) Centre for Ocean and Ice Click picture to view at source

Australian Columnist, Andrew Bolt writing on May 23, 2012 in the Melbourne Herald Sun, concerning scientific alarmism stated: The world was warned back in 2006 during a scientific presentation at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in St. Louis, that many of the huge glaciers of Greenland are moving at an accelerated rate dumping twice as much ice into the sea than five years ago indicating that the ice sheet is undergoing a potentially catastrophic breakup. The report went on: The implications of the research are dramatic given Greenland holds enough ice to raise global sea levels by (21 feet or) more than 6.4 metres; a disaster scenario that would result in flooding of some of the worlds major population centres. The latest study shows that, rather than just melting relatively slowly, the ice sheet is showing all the signs of a mechanical break-up as glaciers slip ever faster into the ocean, aided by the lubricant of melt water forming at their base. Bolt writes: Now, however, [in 2012] according to the latest science, we are told that, Earlier research used a kinetic approach to estimate upper bounds of 0.8 to 2.0 metres for 21st century sea level rise. In Greenland the work assumed ice-sheet-wide, doubling of glaciers speeds (low-end scenario) or an order of magnitude increase in speeds (high-end scenario) from 2000 to 2010. Our wide sampling of actual 2000 to 2010 changes shows that glacier acceleration across the ice sheet, remains far below these estimates, suggesting that sea level rise associated with Greenland glacier dynamics remains well below the low-end scenario (of 9.3 cm by 2100). At present. our sampling of a large population of glaciers, many of which have sustained considerable thinning and retreat, suggests little

59

potential for the type of widespread extreme (i.e., order of magnitude) acceleration represented in the high-end scenario (46.7cm) by 2100. Our results are consistent with findings from recent numerical flow models. (Watts: Amazingly, there is still scientific computer based modelling suggesting sea level rises greater than 2 metres by 2100 (see Nature Climate Change: A sea of uncertainty April 6, 2010) [on which Governments still base policy?] Below now are a number of recent reports of research findings that seriously question the integrity of IPCC computerized projections of rising sea levels. What then is propaganda and what are facts? As the years pass as we have seen above - both the subject itself and the potential causes of sea level rise projected into the future by computer models, especially the melting of ice shelves in the arctics, offer the best evidence (as opposed to theories) to definitively monitor and compare satellite and physical evidence against computerised scientific alarmist projections. Bear with us now as much attention is devoted to this topic, to show how manipulative and deceptive the propaganda has become and how, in its implementation by socialist Governments and their institutions, it is now detrimentally affecting the rights of individual property owners. Alarmist claims Take for example IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, where it was suggested that the sea level rise in the twenty-first century would depend on how much ice will be lost from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets as a result of rapid accelerations in ice flow (due to global warming). The Panel concluded that the understanding of these effects is too limited ... to provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise in the twenty-first century. [However, excluding these effects] they projected a sea level rise of 0.260.59 metres by the 2090s for their highestemissions scenario. Note also U.S. presidential contender Al Gores An Inconvenient Truth which claimed that the collapse of a major ice sheet in Greenland or West Antarctica could raise global sea levels by six metres, flooding coasts and creating 100 million refugees. Australian Professors Ian Plimer and Robert Carter gave a presentation to an audience of landowners affected by a decision of the Lake Macquarie Council to adopt these outrageous projections. These are a couple of the many charts they produced. The nearest high quality sea level twice-daily data is from Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour. This is the record from 1915 to 2009:

60

The rise over the 20th Century has been slight; so slight that it can be compared to human hair, which on average is 0.1 mm thick. The rise has been an average of 5 human hair widths per annum, with most of that over 60 years ago. Lets compare that with what the NSW Government and Lake Macquarie Council are projecting for the 21st Century:

I have called sea level rise the second last refuge of the global warming scoundrel, with ocean acidification being the last refuge. It no longer provides any refuge now that the relationship with solar activity has been quantified. (that should see a fall in the future, due to the forthcoming long term solar influence, which the Professors described in detail during his presentation). Lake Macquarie Councils actions are a direct result of the Australian governments support of the IPCCs climate alarmism, and adopted by the then State Labor Government. For example, The Australian Labor Government Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, released maps prepared by his Department late December 2010 of the Australian residential coastline from east to west, based on IPCC

61

predicted sea level rises of up to 1.1m by 2100 which, as stated above, has major financial implications for individual and commercial property rights across its vast coastline. More Research: Computer Models versus Reality Earlier in December 2010, geophysicist Michael Asten, a professorial fellow in the school of geosciences at Monash University, instanced two vastly differing scientific peer-reviewed papers on predicted sea level rises (The Australian newspaper, Dec 17): One by Svetlana Jevrejeva from Britains National Oceanography Centre which provides a calculation of 0.6m to 1.6m by 2100 using a range of climate models which also show predicted sea level change rates of 4.2mm to 5.4mm a year for the first decade (to 2010) of this century. Dr Asten then contrasted those predictions with actual data of just published observations by Ricardo Riva from Delft in the Netherlands, who together with other international colleagues, used satellite technology to measure actual global sea level rise in this same decade to be in the order of 1mm a year, which happens to be about the rate of sea-level increase that has been observed during the past century. In other words as Asten points out, the observational (actual) data suggests the problem as modelled may be overstated by a factor of 5. Asten rightly enquired whether Australian scientists employed in Government Agencies had bothered to brief Minister Combet on this discrepancy and its implications. It appears from these map releases they did not. If they did, it confirms that the Australian Government and its scientists are locked into a preconceived mind-set that brooks no opposing science. And they wonder why there are skeptics. No evidence of sea level rises in Pacific Islands In a letter to The Australian newspaper in September 2011, Mr. Tad Murty, wrote this: Between 1994 and 1997, I was director of the Australian tidal facility in Adelaide where I was also director of the Pacific sea-level and climate monitoring project. The program uses precise acoustic tide gauges and we had numerous gauges in the south Pacific islands and also around the Australian coast. During my tenure, we found nothing unusual in Kiribati or anywhere else as far as sea-level variations are concerned. No overall change to sand erosion on Sydney Beaches over 100 years In September 2011, Professor Ian Goodwin, Associate Professor of marine climate and geo-science at Macquarie University, was reported (Manly Daily newspaper, 17 Sept 2011) as having led a research team that had monitored ten (10) New South Wales surfing beaches to help address the challenges of climate change including sea level rises. For the past year he said that his team has surveyed the beaches using quad bikes and sonars to scan sea beds for beach erosion. They had also measured radiation of sand grains dating back 1000 years to determine the area impacted by waves.

62

Professor Goodwin said that, they had found that the Narrabeen peninsula on Sydneys northern beaches, Australia, was incredibly stable, contrary to claims that it was an erosion hot spot. Professor Goodwin went on to say that If you look over the past 100 years, there is no overall change in the position of the coastline or the amount of sand. Big storms can cause erosion but the sand usually returned within a few weeks. He also said that the area would see increased erosion over the next 10 years due to the La Nino weather pattern, which would cause more frequent storms, as happened in the 1950s and 1970s when the sand erosion was the most extreme in 100 years. He said that the linking of weather patterns with climate change was causing confusion, and that so far we dont have any evidence that any of the beaches have receded as a result of sea level rise. This is picturesque Bilgola Beach on Sydneys northern beaches after a devastating 1-in-100 year storm struck a stretch of the States coastline in May 1974. Home interiors and swimming pools were devastated along with 7 metres of sand; all swept away overnight. This was the scene in the morning.

63

Early morning at Sydneys Bilgola Beach post 1974, sand levels restored to normal. (Picture: Google Street View).

64

Sydneys Bilgola Beach on a typical Sunday morning post 1974 (Google)

These photographs show clearly that this storm almost 40 years ago was a most extreme weather event long before the concept of anthropogenic climate change and catastrophic CO2 emissions were postulated. It also 65

shows what has been happening throughout history; normal variable weather patterns are one thing, long term permanent climate change is quite another. Such extreme weather events today are attributed to climate change by many alarmist organizations and their believers. Australian Governments have made the nation a laughing stock! Billions wiped off Australian coastal properties based on socialist and UN propaganda. Watts Up With That is the worlds most popular website for scientific based research and information debunking alarmist climate change. Below is a post on February 3, 2012 relevant to Australia regarding projected sea level rises based on IPCC computerizes models. It carries an extension based on information provided by an Australian, David Archibald following decisions by the Australian Federal and State Labor Governments. In 2009, environmentalists employed in the New South Wales Labor Government made a regulation that local government councils in that state with ocean and lakeside boundaries would have to base their building permits on an expected sea level rise of 590 mm by 2090, and worse if melting of ice sheets occurred (which projection was based on IPCC computer models). This had the effect of wiping billions of dollars off the value of coastal properties, as well as ruining peoples lives. An Ethical Defense of Global-Warming Skepticism by William Irwin and Brian Williams of Kings College, Wilkes-Barre, PA . Extensive sea-level studies have been performed in the Maldives because of concerns that global warming will cause sea levels to rise and submerge the islands. Nils-Axel Mrner, the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University and former president of INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Research), has been studying sea levels for thirty-five years and sees no cause for alarm. Responding to the sea-level predictions by the IPCC, Mrner says (in his best Swedish style of English): That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set: Why? Because, they know the answer! And there you come to the point: They know the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations dont find it! I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of themnonewere sea-level specialists. They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing. Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The meteorological community works with computers; simple computers. Geologists dont do that! We go out in the field and observe, and then we can try to make a model with computerization; but its not the first thing.

66

Mrners comments about modeling are significant because they draw our attention to the main problem with the AGW argument. Proponents of AGW theory know that the small increases in CO2 produced by human activity will not cause catastrophic warming, and, as mentioned, their theory relies on a massive positive feedback loop with water vapor. The expectation of a positive feedback loop was not unreasonable at first, since warm air can hold more water vapor than cold air can. However, solid evidence did not exist for a massive feedback loop, and negative (cancelling) feedback mechanisms such as changes in cloud cover, were not properly included. This resulted in unrealistic modeling outcomes. Studies have since suggested that water vapor is not closely linked to CO2 levels. Simply stated, the assumption that CO2 would cause a massive positive feedback loop with water vapor, the backbone of global-warming theory, is in contradiction with the evidence. This explains the large systematic over-estimation of warming by virtually all of the computer models used by proponents of AGW theory. [This is the very argument put forward by Professor Tim Ball earlier] (Ref: Warren Meyer, Climate Skeptic, November 10, 2009, accessed online at: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/phoenix.) Flooding of Coral Islands: More Alarmism In 2010, scientists from New Zealand and Fiji (Paul Kench and Arthur Webb) debunked IPCC claims that rising sea levels would swamp Pacific Island nations. Rising Sea Levels swamp Pacific Islands; millions of climate refugees: Ajay Chibber, a UN Asst Secretary had written earlier: The islands of the Pacific Ocean can be likened to the proverbial canary in the coalmine as far as climate change goes, and the canary is drowning. It needs an immediate lifejacket. As referred to earlier, Oxfam had warned in a 2009 Report, that by 2050 some 150 million people may be displaced globally by climate change, half of them in the Asia Pacific region: The potential for climate displacement is especially of concern for low-lying atoll nations in Polynesia and Micronesia. Kench and Webbs research reported in The Australian newspaper of June 4 and 11, taken from publication in Global and Planetary Change and in New Scientist found from studies based on aerial photos and satellite imagery, that over the past 60 years all but 4 of the 27 Pacific islands studied have retained their size or grown, some by 20 to 30%. The researchers do not deny that climate change is having an impact on sea levels, but that they have been a long way short of the doomsday predictions of IPCC scientists: Our results contradict existing paradigms of island response and have significant implications for the consideration of island stability under ongoing sea level rise in the central pacific.

67

The missing 50 million climate change refugees that were predicted in 2005 research to happen by 2010. In fact, recent research around the world has now begun to question the IPCC's statements on long-term rising sea levels that have been based only on computer modelling. Latest studies based on empirical evidence show that sea levels changed plus or minus 25 cm between middle age warming and little ice age. Research now shows that temperatures were higher in the middle age warming period than in the entire 20th and 21st century to-date and that temperatures were dramatically lower during the little ice age. The last 100 years has shown only a minimal increase in sea levels. The IPCC has now extended the time line for its 50 million catastrophe to 2020. CORAL REEFS MORE ALARMISM SHATTERED It has been consensus opinion amongst IPCC aligned climate scientists and Marine Biologists that global warming, rising sea temperatures and acidification, would lead to permanent destruction of the worlds coral reefs. Lets start with a recent event; the alarmism that cam from The 12th International Coral Reef Symposium in Cairns, Australia, held in July 2012. This report was taken from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) program Lateline: Coral reefs face uncertain future: scientists (Posted July 10, 2012) Marine biologists have told a conference that the Great Barrier Reef is under serious threat from climate change within the next century. Steve Cannane, Presenter: Marine scientists are warning the Barrier Reef will not be the spectacular underwater wilderness it is now if the oceans continue to acidify. Scientific authorities have established the carbon emissions are making the seas more acidic. And they predict that without global action on climate change the future for the coral reefs is uncertain. Environment reporter Conor Duffy has more from Cairns. Conor Duffy, Reporter: The Great Barrier Reef's a marine paradise today, an underwater Eden that's the world's richest source of ocean life. But scientists have seen other reefs around the world change and they say a warmer, more acidic ocean isn't likely to have the same global appeal. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Univ. of Queensland: It's likely that organisms like sino bacteria which is a slimy green thing that goes over rocks; that may be ultimately the winner. Janice Lough, Aust Institute of Marine Science: We're taking corals out of their recent comfort zone and we've already seen responses. Conor Duffy: To adapt some say the reef would have to pull off a mass migration. Ove Heogh-Guldberg: If it's to keep up with climate change and that number, which is essentially moving from the north to the south of the Great Barrier Reef, is between 15 and 20 kilometres per year.

68

Conor Duffy: Scientists say it's not just coral that's at risk of changing. Lovers of reef fish might notice a difference to what ends up on their plate. The scientists say the changing marine environment will alter which fish thrive and survive. Not good news for divers or diners. Philip Munday, James Cook University: The sharpest declines are species that are going to be most affected are those that really depend on living coral for food and places to live. Conor Duffy: Throughout the hundreds of presentations, time and time again scientists have come back to climate change and it's clear they don't see much of a future for reefs without global action. John Pandolfi, Uni of Qld: Focus on the triage, focus on the urgency of the management and the things that need to be done to save this victim. Then we present two amazing scientific research papers in total conflict with the views of the Symposium. The question is, where did the first paper below, feature at this Australian Symposium? It was published from research undertaken by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, most likely a co-sponsor of the Symposium? The Australian newspaper reported on February 3, 2012 on a recent scientific peer-reviewed paper published late 2011 in the journal Global and Planetary Change by the Australian Institute of Marine Science. The work involved an extensive study of corals spanning more than 1000 kms of Australias coastline and found that the past century of ocean warming has been good for their growth, adding to growing evidence that corals are more resilient than previously thought. At each of the six locations from Geraldton to Darwin, scientists took cores from massive porites corals similar to a biopsy in humans and counted back to record their age in much the same way as tree-rings are counted. These extended as far back as the 18th century, but the main focus was on the period from 1900 to 2010. The researchers found that, contrary to their expectations warmer water had not negatively affected coral growth. Quite the opposite, in fact This followed a recent earlier paper in the same journal showing that organisms living within corals can adapt much better to warming water than was preciously thought. Then we have the second paper, described as almost a paradigm shift in our thinking about the future of coral reefs and acidification:

Scripps paper: Ocean acidification fears overhyped

Posted on January 9, 2012 by Anthony Watts

69

Global pH changes supposedly due to human caused CO2- Image via Wikipedia The following is reposted from Jo Nova, who did such a good job I decided there wasnt any way I could improve on it, except to add the map. This needed the wide attention WUWT brings. (Anthony Watts): Scripps blockbuster: Ocean acidification happens all the time naturally: There goes another scare campaign. Until recently we had very little data about real time changes in ocean pH around the world. Finally autonomous sensors placed in a variety of ecosystems from tropical to polar, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef give us the information we needed. It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the worlds oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and thats referred to as catastrophic, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day. Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats. Four sites were fairly stable (1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable (especially site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.

70

Figure 1. Map of pH sensor (SeaFET) deployment locations. See Table 1 for details of locations The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and (2) and some spots vary so much they reach the extreme pHs forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis. At Puerto Morelos (in Mexicos easternmost state, on the Yucatn Peninsula) the pH varied as much as 0.3 units per hour due to groundwater springs. Each day the pH bottomed at about 10am, and peaked shortly after sunset. These extreme sites tell us that some marine life can cope with larger, faster swings than the apocalyptic predictions suggest, though of course, no one is suggesting that the entire global ocean would be happy with similar extreme swings. Even the more stable and vast open ocean is not a fixed pH all year round. Hofmann writes that Open-water areas (in the Southern Ocean) experience a strong seasonal shift in seawater pH (~0.30.5 units) between austral summer and winter. This paper is such a game-changer, they talk about rewriting the null hypothesis: This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2 /lower pH conditions Matt Ridley: Taking Fears Of Acid Oceans With A Grain of Salt, wrote this report up for the Wall Street Journal: [GWPF] [Wall St Journal]:

71

The central concern is that lower pH will make it harder for corals, clams and other calcifier creatures to make calcium carbonate skeletons and shells. Yet this concern also may be overstated. Off Papua New Guinea and the Italian island of Ischia, where natural carbon-dioxide bubbles from volcanic vents make the sea less alkaline, and off the Yucatan, where underwater springs make seawater actually acidic, studies have shown that at least some kinds of calcifiers still thriveat least as far down as pH 7.8. In a recent experiment in the Mediterranean, reported in Nature Climate Change, corals and mollusks were transplanted to lower pH sites, where they proved able to calcify and grow at even faster than normal rates when exposed to the high [carbon-dioxide] levels projected for the next 300 years. In any case, freshwater mussels thrive in Scottish rivers, where the pH is as low as five. Human beings have indeed placed marine ecosystems under terrible pressure, but the chief culprits are overfishing and pollution. By comparison, a very slow reduction in the alkalinity of the oceans, well within the range of natural variation, is a modest threat, and it certainly does not merit apocalyptic headlines. We also know that adding CO2 in a sense is feeding the calcifying organisms (like it feeds life above the water too). Co2 dissolves as bicarbonate, which marine uses to make skeletons and shells from. So yes, a lower pH dissolves shells, but the extra CO2 increases shell formation. (Click to enlarge)

72

Figure 3. Metrics of short-term pH variability at 15 locations worldwide, ranked by ascending values. Mean = geometric mean; Max = maximum value recorded; Min = minimum value recorded; SD = standard deviation; Range = Max Min; Rate = mean of the absolute rate of change between adjacent data points. There are caveats: possibly marine life is already operating at the edge of its tolerances (we dont know), so pushing things further may be still detrimental. Also these extreme environments dont have the same variety of organisms that less extreme ones do, so we dont really want to convert the whole equatorial ocean into life as it exists in one Mexican Bay. But conditions in some places are changing more on daily basis than we are being warned to fear from a century long trend. The bottom line is that claims that these pH changes are unprecedented, fast or unnatural are overstating things dramatically. Typical estuarine environments have an inflow from rivers (with a lower pH) that fluctuates wildly, so do areas with upwelling, and even the pH in kelp forests varies dynamically. The alarmist headlines, fears of mass starvation, and satanic allusions are unjustified: Scientists label this acid trend the evil twin of climate change. Anthropogenic climate change set to trigger tipping points, Ocean acid threatens food chain, BBC News Acidifying oceans threaten food supply, UK warns,

73

What we dont know vastly eclipses what we do. We need to study the effects of human emissions of CO2, but not at the expense of other far more pressing threats. If we care about ocean-life (not to mention our food supply) we need to focus on things that threaten it now. References: Hofmann GE, Smith JE, Johnson KS, Send U, Levin LA, et al. (2011) High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison. PLoS ONE 6(12): e28983. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028983 [PLOS paper and graphs sourced here]. Hat tip Brice Bosnich (who wrote the post: The chemistry of ocean pH and acidification).

Floods: During April, 2010, Scientists in Bangladesh posed a fresh

challenge to the UNs top climate change panel, saying its doomsday forecasts for the country in the bodys landmark 2007 Report were overblown. The IPCC, already under fire for errors in the 2007 report, had said a 1metre rise in sea-levels would flood 17% of Bangladesh and create 20 million refugees by 2050. But a new study funded by the Asian Development Bank, argues that the IPCC ignored the role sediment plays in countering sea-level rises. The IPCC report had ignored the 1 billion tones of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers, into Bangladesh every year. Sediments have been shaping Bangladeshs coast for thousands of years said Maminul Haque Sarker, Director of the Dhaka based Centre for Environmental and Geographic Information Services, who led the study. Even if the sea levels do rise 1 metre in line with the IPCCs 2007 predictions, most of the Bangladesh coastline will remain intact, he said. CLIMATE GLOSSARY ROYAL SOCIETY - SUMMARY OF THE SCIENCE This Royal Society document mentioned earlier outlines the science of climate change in a form that makes it understandable, with simplified explanations of the technical terms and drivers of climate change, yet hides the extremely high degree of scientific complexity inherent in the subject. It does NOT however deal with the impacts of climate change. These technical explanations, which include a Glossary of climate science terms, should be read for a better understanding of its report. For example: Wm2: (watts per metre squared) is the amount of energy that falls on a square metre in one second. Other glossary terms include: Carbon cycle; Climate forcing; Climate sensitivity and Internal climate variability Clouds: The Society Report states the greatest gap in understanding is being able to accurately model clouds and their impact on reflecting heat. The

74

strength of the uptake of CO2 by the land and oceans, which take up about half the emissions from human activity, is poorly understood, it says. And there is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales. High-performance computers are expected to improve confidence in regional predictions. There is also a possibility that unknown aspects of climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT and FORCING Page 4 discusses: The Greenhouse effect: The Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earths climate. Satellite observations show that almost 30% of the suns energy that reaches the earth is reflected back to space by clouds, gases and small particles in the atmosphere and by the earths surface. The remainder, about 240 watts per square metre, when averaged over the planet, is absorbed by the atmosphere and the surface. To balance the absorption of 240 Wm-2 from the Sun, the earths surface and atmosphere must emit the same amount of energy into space; they do so as infrared radiation. On average the surface emits significantly more than 240 Wm-2, but the net effect of absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases and clouds is to reduce the amount reaching space until it approximately balances incoming energy from the Sun. The surface is thus kept warmer than it otherwise would be, because in addition to the energy it receives from the Sun, it also receives infrared energy emitted by the atmosphere. The warming that results from this infrared energy is known as the greenhouse effect. [NASA Earth Observatory explains it this way: Earths heat engine does more than simply move heat from one part of the surface to another; it also moves heat from the Earths surface and lower atmosphere back to space. This flow of incoming and outgoing energy is Earths energy budget. For Earths temperature to be stable over long periods of time, incoming energy and outgoing energy have to be equal. In other words, the energy budget at the top of the atmosphere must balance. This state of balance is called radiative equilibrium. About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earths climate system. About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapour, dust, and ozone, and 48 percent passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface. Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.

75

The Royal Society explained: Measurements from the surface, research aircraft and satellites, together with laboratory observations and calculations, show that in addition to clouds, the two gases making the largest contribution to the greenhouse effect are water vapour [> 95%] followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) [0.039%]. There are smaller contributions from many other gases including ozone, methane, nitrous oxide and human made gases such as CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). Climate change on a global scale, whether natural or due to human activity, can be initiated by processes that modify either the amount of energy absorbed from the Sun, or the amount of infrared energy emitted to space. Climate change can therefore be initiated by changes in the energy received from the Sun, changes in the amounts or characteristics of greenhouse gases, particles and clouds, or changes in the reflectivity of the earths surface. The imbalance between the absorbed and emitted radiation that results from these changes will be referred to here as climate forcing (sometimes known as radiative forcing) and given in units of Wm-2. A positive climate forcing will tend to cause a warming and a negative forcing a cooling. Climate changes acts to restore the balance between the energy absorbed from the Sun and the infrared energy emitted into space. Page 8 of the Report discuses Changes in atmospheric composition: Global-average CO2 concentrations have been observed to increase from levels of around 280 parts per million (ppm) in the mid-19th century to around 388 ppm by the end of 2009. CO2 concentrations can be measured in ancient air trapped in bubbles in ice, deep below the surface in Antartica and Greenland; these show that present-day concentrations are higher in any that have been observed in the past 800,000 years, when CO2 varied between about 180 and 300 ppm. Various lines of evidence point strongly to human activity being the main reason for the recent increase, mainly due to burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) with smaller contributions from land use changes and cement manufacture. These observations show that about half of the CO2 emitted by human activity since the industrial revolution has remained in the atmosphere. The remainder has been taken up by the oceans, soils and plants although the exact amount going to each of these individually is less well known. Concentrations of many other [less significant] greenhouse gases have increased. The Report goes on the discuss Climate Forcing by greenhouse gas changes: Changes in atmospheric composition resulting from human activity have enhanced the natural greenhouse effect, causing positive climate forcing. Calculations, which are supported by laboratory and atmospheric measurements, indicate that these additional [green house] gases have caused a climate forcing during the industrial era of around 2.9 Wm-2, with an uncertainty of about 0.2 Wm-2. Other climate change mechanisms resulting from human activity are more uncertain (see later); calculations that take account of these other positive and

76

negative forcings (including the role of atmospheric particles) indicate that the net effect of all human activity has caused a positive climate forcing of around 1.6 Wm-2, with an estimated uncertainty of about 0.8 Wm-2. Application of established physical principles shows that, even in the absence of processes that amplify or reduce climate change, the climate sensitivity would be around 1C for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A climate forcing of 1.6 Wm-2 would, in this hypothetical case, lead to a globally averaged surface warming of about 0.4C. However, as will be discussed in paragraph 36, it is expected that the actual change, after accounting for the additional processes, will be greater than this. Page 10 deals with The carbon cycle and climate: Once atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increased, carbon cycle models (which simulate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, soils and plants) indicate that it would take a very long time for that increased CO2 to disappear; this is mainly due to well-known chemical reactions in the ocean. Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to pre-industrial concentrations. Other drivers of climate change: In addition to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, there are a large number of less well characterised contributions to climate forcing, both natural and human-induced. Volcanic eruptions are examples of a natural climate forcing mechanism. An individual volcanic eruption has its largest effects on the climate for only a few years after the eruption; these effects are dependant on the location, size and type of eruption. Natural forcing due to sustained variations in the energy emitted by the Sun over the past 150 years is estimated to be small (about 0.12 Wm-2); however direct observations of the energy emitted by the Sun only became available in the 1970sand estimates over longer periods rely on observations of changes in other characteristics of the Sun. A number of mechanisms have been proposed that could reduce or amplify the effect of solar variations; these remain areas of active research. THE SUN [Research reported in the Sydney Sun Herald September 13, 2009, showed that over the past millennium whenever the Sun experienced long periods of low sunspot numbers, the Earth had experienced equally long cold snaps. NASA Solar forecaster, Mr. David Hathaway, said that, the number of sunspots observed is the quietest seen in almost a century and that since the space age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high. In fact, five of the most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the past

77

50 years. Sunspot numbers move in regular 11 year cycles, so the timing of this quiet spell is not unexpected. What is unexpected is the depth and length of the spell. Some scientists believe that it may be the start of a long period when the solar cycle is depressed, as it has been during the past millennium. The most famous depression was the Maunder Minimum of 1645 to 1715 in which sunspots nearly vanished for 70 years. This solar event coincided with the coldest period of the Little Ice Age (1400 to 1850) Some scientists are wondering whether we are entering into another Maunder Minimum. Human activity results in emissions of many short-lived gases (such as carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide) and particles into the atmosphere. These affect the atmospheric concentrations of other climate-important gases such as ozone, and other particles, which lead to climate forcing. Calculations, coupled to a variety of atmospheric observations, indicate that particles have caused a negative climate forcing of around 0.5 Wm-2 with an uncertainty of 0.2 Wm-2. These particles also directly influence cloud properties; this more uncertain effect is discussed in paragraph 47. Climate Sensitivity [Computer] Models: The more complex climate models, supported by observations, allow climate sensitivity to be calculated in the presence of processes that amplify or reduce the size of the climate response. Increases in water vapour alone, in response to warming, are estimated to approximately double the climate sensitivity from its value in the absence of amplifying processes. There nevertheless remain uncertainties in how much water vapour amounts will change and how these changes will be distributed in the atmosphere, in response to a warming. [search: Soloman et al Contributions of Stratopheric Water Vapour]. Climate models indicate that the overall climate sensitivity (for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is likely to lie in the range 2C to 4.5C; this range is mainly due to the difficulties in simulating the overall effect of the response of clouds to climate change mentioned earlier. [Note: This comment is based entirely on the IPCC theory implanted in computer modelling that water vapour is a positive forcing, and amplifies warming, whereas Professors Tim Ball, Richard Lindzen, Swedish researcher Nils-Axel Mrner and others such as Dr. Susan Soloman and several below, have all referred to the latest research proving that clouds and water vapour can generate negative forcing. Quite apart from that, here we have IPCC Climate models suggesting that a doubling of CO2 will increase temperature by up to 4.5C, while the Royal Society is declaring less than 2C. Perhaps, though, we should revisit the earlier comments of several of the worlds most eminent climate scientists. First, Professor Bryson: Eighty

78

percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapour Questioner: And how much [do you think] is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Bryson: Eight hundredths of one percent: One one-thousandth as important as water vapour! You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide. Then Professor Richard Lindzen: "(even) If we doubled CO2you should get about 1C warming not very significant. Is what we have seen so far suggesting that you have more than that? The answer is no! The (computer) models say you should have seen more that 2 to 5 times more. (Scientifically) you should then accept that if you believe from the [computer] models that you actually should have gotten far more warming than you have seen, then some mysterious process has cancelled part of it. (or, ipso facto, the modelling has been wrong). And finally, Professor John Christy: The fact is that the rate at which the earths temperature is rising right now, which could account for various things, is less than 1 per century. Per century! [His emphasis]. NATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSION LEVELS Before we look at the Table below and the tiny contributions made by most of the worlds largest emitters of CO2 compared to China and the USA (neither of whom ratified the Kyoto Protocol and some of whom have since withdrawn), we need to remind ourselves of the comments made in 2011 by Professor Tim Ball, former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg on whether CO2 caused temperatures to rise or the other way around: CO2 is not causing global warming or climate change. I cant say it more boldly, but it doesnt seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most dont understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong, doesnt require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias [involved]. The 2007 IPCC Report claimed with over 90% certainty that human produced CO2 is almost the sole cause of global warming. But the evidence shows this cant be true; temperature changes before CO2 in every record of any duration for any time period; CO2 variability does not correlate with temperature at any point in the last 600 million years; atmospheric CO2 levels are currently at the lowest level in that period; in the 20th century most warming occurred before 1940 when human production of CO2 was very small; human production of CO2 increased the most after 1940 but global temperatures declined to 1985; from 2000 global temperatures declined while CO2 levels increased; and 79

any reduction in CO2 threatens plant life, oxygen production, and therefore all life on the planet.

(Source: Long-term trend in global CO2 emissions. 2011 report, Olivier, J.G.J., JanssensMaenhout, G., Peters, J.A.H.W. & J. Wilson (2011), The Hague: PBL/JRC.)

CLIMATE SENSITIVITY AND CO2 INFLUENCES OVERSTATED Bearing in mind Professor Balls condemnation of the anthropogenic global warming theory, and of CO2 as its driver of temperature, we need now to understand what CO2 is and how it is produced and the genuine role it plays in climate sensitivity (warming): Carbon Dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039% by volume. As part of the carbon cycle known as photosynthesis, plants and algae, etc., absorb carbon dioxide, light, and water to produce carbohydrate energy for themselves and create oxygen as a waste product. But in darkness photosynthesis cannot occur, and during the resultant respiration small amounts of carbon dioxide are produced. 80

Carbon dioxide is also produced by combustion of coal or hydrocarbons, the fermentation of liquids and the breathing of humans and animals. In addition it is emitted from volcanoes, hot springs, geysers and other places where the earths crust is thin; and is freed from carbonate rocks by dissolution. CO2 is also found in lakes, at depth under the sea and commingled with oil and gas deposits. The environmental effects of carbon dioxide are of significant interest. In the earth's atmosphere, it acts as a greenhouse gas which is believed to play a major role in global warming and anthropogenic climate change. (Source: Wikipedia))

Climate sensitivity is a measure of how responsive the temperature of the climate system is to a change in the radiative forcing. Although climate sensitivity is usually used in the context of radiative forcing by carbon dioxide, it is thought of as a general property of the climate system: the change in surface air temperature (Ts) following a unit change in radiative forcing (RF), and thus is expressed in units of C/(W/m2). For this to be useful, the measure must be independent of the nature of the forcing (e.g. from greenhouse gases or solar variation); to first order this is indeed found to be so. The climate sensitivity specifically due to CO2 is often expressed as the temperature change in C associated with a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. (Source: Wikipedia) Beforehand and below, yet again we see significant differing scientific opinions between those of IPCC aligned scientists and those who are not: This time, about what influence a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere might have on Climate Sensitivity and its effect on global warming. Below is an excellent guest Post (republished with permission) from Master Resource (now on Watts Up With That blogroll) by Chip Knappenberger discussing published Climate Sensitivity research papers: One of the key pieces to the anthropogenic climate/environment change puzzle, is the magnitude of the earths climate sensitivity generally defined as the global average temperature change, resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2). [The IPCC guidance is always aligned to Assessment Reports from consensus scientist findings.] One of the reasons that the climate change issue is so contentious is that our understanding of climate sensitivity is still rather incomplete. But new research efforts are beginning to provide evidence suggesting that the current estimates of the climate sensitivity should be better constrained and adjusted downwards. Such results help bolster the case being made by luke-warmers (outsiders) that climate change from anthropogenic fossil-fuel use will be moderate rather than extreme, and that an adaptive response may be more effective than attempts at mitigation. In its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the IPCC provided this general guidance on the climate sensitivity: 81

The equilibrium climate sensitivity] is likely to be in the range 2C to 4.5C with a best estimate of about 3C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5C. Values substantially higher than 4.5C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. In IPCC parlance, likely means an expertly assessed likelihood of an outcome or result with greater than a 66% chance of occurrence. Very unlikely means less than a 10% change of occurrence. The IPCCs assessment of the climate sensitivity based on its interpretation of the extant literature at the time of its assessment is shown in Figure 1. The IPCC routinely includes studies which conclude that there is a greater than a 10% possibility that the true climate sensitivity exceeds 6C, and some, which find that there is a greater than 5% possibility that it exceeds 10C. (Click)

Fig 1. Climate sensitivity distributions retained (and in some cases recast) by the IPCC from their assessment of the literature. Note that the distributions fall off much more slowly towards the right, which indicates that the IPCC considers the possibilities of the climate sensitivity having a very large positive value (that is, a large degree of global temperature rise for a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration) to be not inconsequential (source: IPCC AR4). [NB: Anthony Watts Watts Up With That - refers to this as the IPCC Fat Tail] If the true value of the climate sensitivity does turn out to exceed 6C, then we will be in for what will probably turn out to be fairly disruptive climate change. Even if the climate sensitivity lies much above 4.5C, coming climate change will be substantial. For one, my hope is that it lies below 3C, and actually turns out to be closer to 2C. A collection of research results, have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in recent months that buoys my hopes for a low-end climate sensitivity. Here are some salient quotes:

82

From Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Andreas Schmittner et al. 2011
Published: Science, 9 December 2011: Vol. 334 no. 6061 pp. 1385-1388

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1385.short - aff-1 Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 24.5 K as the 66% probability range, and non-zero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of highimpact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.72.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought. From Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content, by Magne Aldrin et al., 2012: The [climate sensitivity] mean is 2.0C which is lower than the IPCC estimate from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007), but this estimate increases if an extra forcing component is added, see the following text. The 95% credible interval (CI) ranges from 1.1C to 4.3C, whereas the 90% CI ranges from 1.2C to 3.5C. From A climate sensitivity estimate using Bayesian fusion of instrumental observations and an Earth Systems model, by Roman Olson et al., 2012: Current climate model projections are uncertain. This uncertainty is partly driven by the uncertainty in key model parameters such as climate sensitivity (CS)The mode of [our] climate sensitivity estimate is 2.8C, with the corresponding 95% credible interval ranging from 1.8 to 4.9C. The above papers examined the equilibrium climate sensitivitythat is the global temperature change that results when all climate systems reach equilibrium with the changes in climate forcing that result from a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content. The time it takes to reach equilibrium depends largely on the response of the oceans (and how quickly heat is distributed with in them) and is not known with much certainty. Estimates of the time to reach equilibrium run from decades to centuries. Thus, the equilibrium climate sensitivity may not be the best measure of how much temperature (and related) change may occur over the nearer term, like say, over the course of the remainder of the 21st century. A better estimate of that change is the transient climate response, or the amount of global temperature change that is manifest at the actual time that the atmospheric carbon dioxide is doubled (rather than waiting for the system to reach complete equilibrium). The transient climate response (TCR) is somewhat less than the equilibrium climate sensitivity.

83

Two recent papers examined the transient climate sensitivity. Again, here are salient quotes. From Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations, by Nathan Gillett et al., 2012: ( www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1201/.../2011GL050226.pdf ) Our analysis also leads to a relatively low and tightly-constrained estimate of Transient Climate Response of 1.31.8C, and relatively low projections of 21st-century warming which is towards the lower end of the observationally constrained range assessed by [the IPCC AR4]. Then Probabilistic Estimates of Transient Climate Sensitivity Subject to Uncertainty in Forcing and Natural Variability, by Lauren Padilla et al., 2011: ( http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI3989.1 ) For uncertainty assumptions, best supported by global surface temperature data up to the present time, this paper finds a most likely present-day estimate of the transient climate sensitivity to be 1.6K, with 90% confidence the response will fall between 1.3 and 2.6K Now, by no means am I suggesting either that 1) the quotes above reflect all the intricacies of the respective papers, or 2) that these results are the end all and be all on the topic. Neither, in fact, is true. But, the excerpts above do reflect the general conclusion of each paper, as well as what makes them noteworthy. In fact, the IPCC in its Fifth Assessment Report (which is now under construction) will be terribly remiss (and misleading) if they present a Figure that looks anything like Figure 1 (above) from their Fourth Assessment Report. Posted on November 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That -WUWT)

84

[NB: Anthony Watts illustrates here the differences between the IPCC AR4 general guidance, and projection from today of a doubling of CO2]

A Demonstration of Negative Climate Sensitivity

Posted on June 19, 2012 by Willis Eschenbach Guest Post on WUWT by Willis Eschenbach Well, after my brief digression to some other topics, Ive finally been able to get back to the reason that I got the CERES albedo and radiation data in the first place. This was to look at the relationship between the top of atmosphere (TOA) radiation imbalance and the surface temperature. Recall that the IPCC says that a change in the TOA radiation of 3.7 W/m2 from a doubling of CO2 will lead to a 3C 1.5C temperature increase. This 3C per doubling is called the climate sensitivity, and its value is an open question. Figure 1, on the other hand, shows my results regarding the same question of the climate sensitivity. These reveal nothing like a 3C temperature rise from a doubling of CO2:

85

Figure 1 (above). (Click to enlarge): Gridcell-by-gridcell linear trends of the change in surface temperature (T) given the change in TOA radiation (F). Note that the surface temperature data is gridded on a 5x5 gridcell, while the CERES TOA radiation data is on a 1x1 gridcell basis. Graph includes a two-month lag between change in forcing and the change in temperature. There are a variety of interesting aspects to this particular graph. Let me start by describing how I constructed it. I began by taking the gridded HadCRUT3 temperature data for the period of the CERES study, Jan 2001 to Oct 2005. The HadCRUT data is on a 5x5 gridcell, so I first expanded that to 1x1 gridcells. Then I took the first differences (T) by subtracting each month from the succeeding month, to get the monthly change in temperature (T) in each gridcell. Then I compared that T dataset to the change in TOA radiation (F), which was constructed from the CERES TOA data. For each gridcell, I took the linear trend of the temperature changes T with respect to F. Of course, the climate sensitivity results from this procedure are in units of temperature change per forcing change, which is C per watt/square metre. To convert it to change in temperature per doubling of CO2, I multiplied the results by 3.7 W/m2 per doubling of CO2. Finally, I needed to adjust for the lag in the system. I did this in two ways. First, I selected the lag which gave the largest temperature change, which was a two month lag. These are the results shown in Figure 1. However, this is a cyclical record of the annual fluctuations, so the equilibrium sensitivity will be underestimated. Per the insights gained from my last analysis, Time Lags in the Climate System, the time lag is related to the size of the reduction in temperature swing. A 1-2 month lag in the system indicates a reduction in fluctuation of about 50%. So for my final adjustment, I doubled the indicated climate sensitivity. The results of this are the values shown in Figure 1.

86

Now, I have long argued, solely from first principles, that climate sensitivity is a non-linear function of temperature. I have said that the sensitivity was greater when it is colder, and that it is smaller when it is warmer. I have held that this relationship was non-linear, with a kink at the temperature range for tropical thunderstorm formation. Finally, I have also argued that in some places in the tropics the climate sensitivity is actually negative, due to the action of tropical clouds and thunderstorms. To test these claims, I plotted the sensitivity for each gridcell shown in Figure 1 against the annual average temperature for that same gridcell. The results are shown in Figure 2. As far as I know, this is the first observational evidence that shows the actual relationship between climate sensitivity and temperature, and it supports all of my contentions about that relationship.

Fig 2. Scatterplot of gridcell climate sensitivity versus gridcell temperature. Colors indicate the latitude, with red at the tropics, yellow in the temperate zones, and blue at the poles. Gray dashed line shows the linear trend, indicating that the climate sensitivity varies generally as -0.009 * temperature + 0.32 (p-value < 1e-16). There are some important things about this plot. First, it strongly supports my claim that the climate sensitivity varies inversely with the temperature. Next, it shows that a number of areas of the tropics actually do have negative climate sensitivity. Finally, it shows that the relationship is non-linear with a kink at around the temperature for the formation of tropical thunderstorms. This is important corroborative evidence for my hypothesis that the tropical clouds and thunderstorms act as governors of the tropical temperature and are the source of the negative climate sensitivity. Let me close by railing a bit against the pernicious nature of averages. Consider Figure 2. Normally, far too many climate scientists would take an average of that data, and come up with some number as the average climate sensitivity. But that number is meaningless, and worse, it gives the impression that the sensitivity is a fixed number. It is nothing of the sort. Not only, is it not 87

fixed, it is far, far from linear, and it goes negative at times. It is a dynamic response to changing conditions, not some fixed value. As a result, when we average it, we come away with entirely the wrong impression of what is happening in that most complex of phenomena, the climate system. While averaging is often useful, it conceals as much as it reveals, and it can lead one to badly erroneous conclusions. That is why so many of my graphs and charts show thousands of individual points, as in Figure 2. (above) Only by seeing the whole picture can we hope to understand the system. MISDIAGNOSIS OF FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE MODELS AGAIN New Paper On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earths Radiant Energy Balance By Spencer and Braswell. In August 2, 2011, a new study was reported in the peerreviewed science journal Remote Sensing. Co-author of this most interesting study, Roy Spencer, Ph.D., a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASAs Aqua satellite, reports real-world data from NASAs Terra satellite that contradicts multiple assumptions fed into computer models used to predict the future climate. The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show, Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans. In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted. In research published this week in the journal Remote Sensing http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UAs Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data, and showing what the atmosphere actually did do during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011. The newly published paper raises further questions on the robustness of multi-decadal global climate predictions. FRAUD OF GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM UNCOVERED Global Warming: Scientific findings indicating that rises in the earths temperature from the 20th century were of such magnitude as to eventually lead to catastrophic climate change, arose from research findings based on 88

tree ring temperature readings which, when highlighted in graph form, became known as the "Hockey Stick". The Research paper, published in 1998 by Dr. Michael Mann, then at the University of Virginia (now a Penn State climatologist) and by co-authors Bradley and Hughes, was named: Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. This catastrophic view was based on the "scientific" assumption that temperatures around the world had never in the past 1,000 years, been higher than that of the 20th century, and that such rises were a result of human and modern industrial development. To validate this claim, it was necessary to downplay the global significance of the Medieval Warming Period. This is what the hockey stick graph did! The Climategate emails tell it all: [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=228&filename=98883154 1.txt]). Indeed, based on this science (since proven to be fraudulent) the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report declared that "The 1990's are likely to have been the warmest decade of the past millennium, and that 1998 is likely to have been the warmest." The now (in)famous Hockey Stick Temperature Graph looked like this:

Responsibility for this catastrophic global warming was largely attributed to the increase in human induced fossil fuel (CO2) emissions of the highly developed western economies. This opinion, claimed to be supported (as time went on) by more than 75% of Scientists, became the mantra of the IPCC. Accordingly, if global warming was to be addressed by a reduction of CO2 emissions then the major developed nations of the world would need to adopt schemes that would force significant reductions in emissions at all levels of human activity, principally by the imposition of forms of taxes and by funding the development of other low emission, high cost, renewable energy sources.

89

As the problem was global, so would be the solution. Accordingly, the massive revenues raised from such schemes were to be transferred to governments of underdeveloped nations to compensate them for scaling back their own plans for economic development that might otherwise raise CO2 emissions even further. Massive foreign investment in many developing countries has shown this ideal to be fruitless, though most governments still demand the money. UN member States, comprised largely of undeveloped nations, leaped at the concept of reaping billions from developed economies. This notion of saving the planet was also embraced by the socialist dominated green movement. All that was required was the scientific evidence. Greed and political will would drive the rest. And so it happened. The entire process became hostage to political machinations from the United Nations down through socialist and liberal governments aided by the green movement; the new godless communists regarded by many as green on the outside, but pink on the inside. This set the scene for what was to develop into a scientific global warming industry where billions of taxpayer dollars were directed into any research that included or had implications for the words anthropogenic climate change. The hockey stick is a classic example. In order to undertake the customary scientific peer review (prove/disprove) of the research findings of Mann et al, some of the worlds leading climate scientists tried for years to obtain the original data that had supported their theory, but to no avail. Against all recognized scientific publishing principles, access to the information was repeatedly denied them by the authors; even in contravention of legally enforceable Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Eventually under legal sanctions they were forced to release it. This led to open warfare between scientists: For example: Sept 29, 2009 (http://www.sodahead.com/world-news/9292009) Confirmed! Global warming hockey stick Graph a fraud - data cherry-picked to show effect that wasn't there! and 2011 Further dynamite information regarding this fraud @ http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesuspaper.html) The hockey stick graph below is a classic from years back that has now been proven to be a fraud perpetrated by those pushing a liberal agenda, and using the debunked theory of man-made global warming to justify it. The graph was also a centerpiece of Al Gore's fear mongering. The researchers simply refused to disclose their data, even though the study was funded with taxpayer money. The timeline below tells us why:

90

First, In 1998, the paper published by Dr. Michael Mann and co-authors Bradley and Hughes becomes known as MBH98. The conclusion of the tree ring reconstruction of climate for the past 1,000 years is that we are now in the hottest period in modern history, ever. ...Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mathematician in Toronto, suspects tree rings aren't telling a valid story with that giant uptick at the right side of the graph, implicating the 20th century as the "hottest period in 1000 years," which alarmists latch onto as proof of AGW. The graph is dubbed the "Hockey Stick" and becomes famous. Al Gore uses it in his movie An Inconvenient Truth in the famous elevator scene. Secondly, Steve McIntyre attempts to replicate Michael Mann's tree ring work in the paper MBH98, but is stymied by lack of data archiving. He sends dozens of letters over the years trying to get access to data but access is denied. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph publish a paper in 2004 criticizing the work. Then a new website is formed in 2004 called Real Climate denouncing this published scientific criticism: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-c... McIntrye and McKitrick respond at http://www.rossmckitrick.com/hockeystick.html and again in 2009 http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/E10.full (devastatingly). Thirdly, many years elapse. McIntyre is still stymied trying to get access to the original source data so that he can replicate the Mann 1998 conclusion. In 2008 Mann publishes another paper bolstering his tree ring claim due to all of the controversy surrounding it. Then a Mann co-author and source of tree ring data (Prof Keith Briffa of the Hadley Climate Research Unit) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

91

Society in 2008, which has a strict data archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, Steve McIntyre fought for and won access to that data.... Fourth. Having the Yamal data in complete form, McIntyre replicates it, and discovers that one of Mann's co-authors, Briffa, had cherry-picked 10 tree data sets, out of a much larger set of trees sampled in Yamal. Fifth. When ALL of the tree ring data from Yamal is plotted, the famous hockey stick disappears. Not only does it disappear, but goes negative. The conclusion is inescapable. The tree ring data was hand picked to get the desired result. Here below are the relevant graphs showing the fraud:

The only questions remaining now are these: Is Mann to be thrown out for scientific fraud, possibly the worse offense one can make in academia; and, will the main-stream media notice and report on the hoax as much as they reported on it when the hockey stick graph was introduced? (NOTE: Despite the discrediting of Mann's hockey stick graph as an outand-out fraud, the purveyors of Anthropogenic Global Warming hysteria are still relying on it! In a 2009 issue of Scientific American, there is an article entitled Still Hotter Than Ever which claims that a new reconstruction of the past 600 yearsfinds similar results.)" 92

We now have outright confirmation that the data was deliberately selected to provide the dramatic eye catching result that made the hockey stick graph so famous. This is not science so much as a publicists dodgy manipulation of data to support a doubtful scheme. I am certain every scientist has faced the frustration of months of hard work merely showing no evidence for the proposed theory. Once again our scientists had no evidence. So they merely selected the best data points in a statistical distribution and discarded the rest. I can prove anything if I am allowed to do that. When these scientists floated their paper, they had no expectation anyone else would care and results were important in order to push their spurious claims. Then the world paid attention and they hid the data for ten years so no one could discover what they had done. That is now over and we are now left with a paper that manipulated the data in several places and actually fabricated the hockey stick upswing. It does not get any worse than this and on top of that it has been poisoning the debate for a decade instead of been called to account immediately. To add to the controversy, some years back a US Senate Inquiry into the IPCC "Hockey Stick" theory heard evidence from the President of the International Statistician's Society that the methodology used was so deficient statistically that it could have produced no other conclusion than the "hockey stick" bend. (see: Wegman Report Climate Audit) Again, recently - April 2010 - Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society - Britain's leading statistician - admitted that the graph shaped like an ice hockey stick which had been used to represent recent rises in global temperatures had been compiled using "inappropriate" methods and was "exaggerated". Orange Punch then claimed: Its pretty clear by now that ground-station temperature readings have been unreliable, manipulated, suppressed, cherrypicked and even adjusted to the point that they are all but worthless. After all, when even the alarmists claim temperatures have risen less than a single degree in a century, how much wiggle room for margin of error is needed to completely negate that? Bear in mind that this hockey stick formed the basis of supposed global warming for years. It is now accepted that the global mean temperature anomaly has increased less than 1 over the past century! Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is in fact a myth. Taking account also of Frank Lensners CO2, Temperature and Ice Ages above, proving that CO2 does not drive temperature, has put a stake through the heart of the anthropogenic global warming theory.

93

As Professors Lindzen and Bryson assert, even if CO2 emissions were to double, the effect on global temperatures would be minor. If this is also true, then political policy decisions to dramatically reduce emissions via a carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading schemes will do nothing for the environment, but make a lot of people very wealthy at the expense of countless millions who can least afford it.

Another Broken Hockey Stick!

Acclaimed Climate Science Project in Australia fundamentally flawed! Australia May 17, 2012: The initial headlines from the University of Melbourne press release were being promoted everywhere:1000 years of climate data confirms Australias warming. Warming since 1950 unprecedented: study shouted Melbournes The Age and nationally in The Australian that same day. The story was on ABC 24 and ABC news where Dr Joelle Gergis, a palaeoclimatologist at the University of Melbourne's School of Earth Sciences, proclaimed: there are no other warm periods in the last 1000 years that match the warming experienced in Australasia since 1950! There were pages in Science Alert, Campus Daily Eco news, The Conversation, Real Climate* and Think Progress. The dramatic story ran like this: Dr Gergis, spent two years collecting and analysing kauri data. Early last decade, data collected at Northland led to a peer-approved study that named the years over the past four centuries in which the climate had been most influenced by strong El Nino events over the Pacific. This week the north New Zealand tree ring data was used to help paint a much bigger picture: what scientists say is the most complete climate record available for Australasia covering the past millennium. The first study of its kind, it drew on 27 biological and geological records, including 12 tree ring data sets, mainly from New Zealand, 13 coral sets from Indonesia, the South-west Pacific and Western Australia and two ice cores from Antarctica. Scientists used the data to produce a long-term temperature record, and found the past five decades were very likely to have been the warmest since 1000AD. Published in the Journal of Climate and drawing on decades of work by 30 scientists, it will help form the basis for the Australasian palaeo-climate section of the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due in 2013-14. According to Gergis, the study's lead author, rigorous analysis had confirmed the reconstruction was robust. The numbers were crunched in 3000 different ways. 94

"The take-home message here is that 95 per cent of our 3000 reconstructions show that there are no 50-year periods in the past 1000 years that match or exceed the post-1950 warming," she says. Co-author and University of Melbourne climate science Professor David Karoly says the study for the first time establishes that claims there was a substantial mediaeval warm period hotter than today had no basis in Australasia. Oh! Oh! Fatal Flaws in methodology Climate Science skeptics began an independent review of the paper, and three weeks after it was published a team at renowned Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyres ClimateAudit.org uncovered a problem so significant that the authors announced that the paper is on hold. It has since been withdrawn from the American Meteorological Society website. Bishop Hill on June 7, 2012 under Another Hockey Stick Broken has probably the best summary of what this means, and how it unfolded: When asked for the full data Dr Gergis refused!! It was discovered that Gergis has an activist past, which she has recently tried to hide. She was proud to mention in her biography that her data has been requested from 16 nations: So requests from Tunisia, Cuba, and Brazil are OK; but Canada not so much. Apparently she didnt appreciate McIntyres expertise with statistics and told him to get the data himself from the original authors, and added This is commonly referred to as research. We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter. On ABCs AM program, Professor David Karoly enthused about how the study was strong because it relied more on observations not modelling and claimed he had high confidence in the results. Honourable Retreat: June 2012 came this stunning admission to McIntyre: Dear Stephen, I am contacting you on behalf of all the authors of the Gergis et al (2012) study Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results. While the paper states that both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 19211990 period, we discovered on Tuesday 5 June that the records used in the final analysis were not detrended for proxy selection, making this statement incorrect. Although this is an unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have implications for the results reported in the study. The journal has been contacted and the publication of the study has been put on hold. 95

This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked. We would be grateful if you would post the notice below on your Climate Audit web site. We would like to thank you and the participants at the ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which also identified this data processing issue. Thanks, David Karoly The inconsistency between replicated correlations and Gergis claims was first pointed out anonymously by Jean S here on June 5 at 4:42 pm blog time (Canada). As readers have noted in comments, its interesting that Karoly says that they had independently discovered this issue on June 5 a claim that is distinctly shall-we-say Gavinesque (See the Feb 2009 posts on the Mystery Man.) In truth, even before this paper was withdrawn and before it was promoted, investigative reporters had plenty to wonder about. [e.g., Prof. Farquhar, ANU] Lets not bother to get into the point that the results of crunching the data 3000 different ways means their confidence came from models, not from the 27 proxies, most of which didnt cover the full 1000 years, or the Australian mainland either. Apart from Adam Morton in The Age, most investigative journalists never thought to ask the question How much warmer are we now than 1000 years ago? If they had, Gergis would have had to say by a tenth of a degree. Technically it was 0.09C. The certainty of Australia being 0.09 of a degree cooler 1000 years ago comes down to observations from a batch of trees in Tasmania and New Zealand. Theyre accurate to one hundredth of a degree across a continent and sea? Funding? Funding apparently ran to $A340,000 but may have been nearly a million dollars (at least thats what Gergis thought in 2009. I can find no official record of it): The project, funded by the Australian Research Councils Linkage scheme, is worth a total of $950K and will run from mid-2009 to mid-2012. [Source: Joelle Gergis has deleted her blog. Cached copy here. Webcite copy] UPDATE: Did Gergis get more funding for this from outside the ARC? If so from where or whom?

96

With strong doubt cast on the Gergis claim of Australias warming since 1950 unprecedented, let us look now at that, and the general consensus claim that the planet is facing catastrophic runaway global temperatures and AGW unless there is a dramatic reduction in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere

Paper: Rates of Change in Antarctic Ice Core Temperatures

http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/boe-rates-of-change-inantarctic-ice-core-temperatures/ The Whiteboard - Ron Broberg, 21 June, 2012

Another line of argument for a catastrophic impact of climate change is in the rate of change of global temperatures and/or ocean acidification. In this post, Im going to poke a bit at the rates of change in global temperature via ice core data. This step from globally to particular Antarctic locations is questionable and Ill look closer to see if this is justified in a latter post. With that said, what do the ice cores hold ? First up, as seen in the chart above, is the venerable 420K Vostock Ice Core data provided by the NOAA Paleoclimate data store. I have simply taken the time series and calculated change in temperature (dT)(degC) for every discrete time step in the series (dt)(years). Dividing dT by dt (dT/dt) provides the average rate of change over that time step. I have multiplied by 100 years to get the changes in temperature per century. I have overlain a simple exponential decay curve on the data. The Vostock chart certainly supports the idea that changes in temperature greater than about 1C per century are very unusual and greater than 1.5C per century are down right rare. But lets take a look at a second chart, below, for the EPICA Dome C 800K ice cores.

97

The EPICA data contains much greater frequency of high rates of warming (>1C/century). One reason for this is the finer resolution of the EPICA data in which 36% of the time steps are less than 50 years, as opposed to the Vostock data in which only 7.5% of the time steps are less than 50 years. And shorter time spans show a much greater range of warming/cooling trends. The scatter plot below shows the discrete warming/cooling changes plotted against the length of the time span for that step for both time steps.

One take-away is that over the Quaternary (most recent geologic period), sharp changes in Antarctic temperatures only occur over periods of several decades or less. Centuries-long warming tends to occur at a rate of about 1C /Century or less. Some 11% of the data with a time step between 50 and 100 years showed warming greater than 2C/century, and 44% of the data with time steps less than 50 years show this much warming/cooling. But 0% of the data with a time step greater than 100 years showed warming that great. If the Antarctic data can be extrapolated to the world, and if the warming predicted by modeling of ~2C/century is sustained for periods longer than century, AGW will force a truly unusual rate of warming.

98

But there could be a problem. The above statistics are only meaningful if the time steps in the core data are roughly random. If an analysis method was used where sampling resolution increased as deuterium changes increased, then the frequency data is forced and the statistics quoted above meaningless. A quick look Jouzel 2007 and the SOM found no indication of the sampling methodology. Perhaps an alternate method would be to extrapolate the data along a time series and then resample at different time scales. Trying this idea out, I took the EPICA Dome C data and fitted it to a time line with a time step of one year via a linear approximation function (approx). Then I sampled the data at different time steps of 1, 10, 100 and 1000 years. Sure enough, the re-sampled data has a much lower percentage of high value trends. Trends of 2C/century or greater occurred only 4.3, 3.8, 0.1, and 0 per cent of the time when averaged over 1, 10, 100, and 1000 year time steps. (I am guessing that the original sampling method deliberately sampled at higher resolution when it detected greater changes but this is only a guess. It could be that changes associated with high rates of change in temperature caused physical changes in the samples which are reflected in this data.)

Having scoped the data space a bit, to zoom on time scales of interest in AGW, what follows is for time steps of 60, 120, 240, and 480 years. For these time periods, warming greater than 2C/century occurs only 1.1% in 60-year time steps and drops off very quickly. So a global warming trend this high, sustained for over a century would be very unusual (if Antarctic and global trends are comparable). What about a lower trend of 1C/century? Even this lower trend is pretty unusual when sustained over time, occurring in only about 6% of the 60year cuts and in less than 1% of the 240-year trends and 0% of the 480year trends.

99

Bottom line (Conclusion): If AGW causes a sustained warming (over centuries) similar to that seen over the last decade or projected in IPCC AR4 models, that would be a highly unusual climate change and it seems likely that the rate of change would be of more consequence to natural systems than the magnitude of the rise itself. Source here References: Petit, J.R., et al., 2001, Vostok Ice Core Data for 420,000 Years, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2001-076. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA. Jouzel, J., et al. 2007. EPICA Dome C Ice Core 800KYr Deuterium Data and Temperature Estimates. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2007-091. NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA

CLIMATEGATE! Back to late 2009 and a total bombshell

On November 19, 2009, climate science was severely shaken by the release of a collection of email messages [see later], together with a collection of data and data processing programs, that were hacked or revealed by a whistle blower from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) one of the key centers of global warming research. These emails and text files have been the subject of intense debate, calling into question assumptions on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. Then a later report: A scientist at the University of East Anglia has been questioned by detectives investigating how controversial emails were leaked from the campuss climate research unit. Norfolk police have interviewed and taken a formal statement from Paul Dennis, 54, another climate researcher who heads an adjacent laboratory. The leaked emails from the head of the unit, Professor Phil Jones, surfaced just before the Copenhagen conference in December [2009] and caused a furore because they suggested that data which did not support theories of global warming was being deliberately withheld. Dennis denies leaking the material. But it is understood that his links with climate change skeptic bloggers in North America drew him to the attention of the investigating team, and have exposed rifts within the universitys environmental science faculty. Dennis refused to sign a petition in support of Jones when the scandal broke. He told friends he was one of several staff unwilling to put their names to the Met Office-inspired statement in support of the global warming camp, because science isnt done by consensus.

100

University sources say the head of department, Professor Jacquie Burgess, received a letter from Dennis at the height of the email uproar, calling for more open release of data. He appears to have disapproved of the way Jones resisted Freedom of Information (FOI) requests [for supporting data]. Dennis own research, which dates fluctuating temperatures in ice cores stretching back thousands of years, does not support the more catastrophic current predictions of runaway global warming. CRU EMAILS (shocking revelations if you can spare the time!) Sometime in November 2009 someone hacked a Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) server and obtained emails between several prominent climate researchers (Mann, Jones, Briffa, etc.).Someone then put the emails in a searchable database: [http://www.eastangliaemails.com]. The following series of emails clearly show that the unprecedented warming was far from certain and that the CRU climatologists tried to hide any data that indicated the actual uncertainty (bold emphasis added in emails below). Email: Keith Briffa to Mann, Jones and others, Sep 22, 1999, (Subject: IPCC Revisions [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=136&filename=93801812 4.txt]) I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter. For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to, and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate. Email: Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Nov 16, 1999, (Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement). [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075. txt] I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. 101

Email: Raymond Bradley to Frank Oldfield, Jul 10, 2000, (Subject: IPCC Revisions [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=172&filename=96323383 9.txt]) The very strong trend in the 20th century calibration period accounts for much of the success of our calibration and makes it unlikely that we would be able to reconstruct such an extraordinary period as the 1990s with much success. Furthermore, it may be that Mann et al simply don't have the long-term trend right, due to underestimation of low frequency info. Whether we have the 1000-year trend right is far less certain (and one reason why I hedge my bets on whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been "warm", to the irritation of my coauthors!). So, possibly if you crank up the trend over 1000 years, you find that the envelope of uncertainty is comparable with at least some of the future scenarios, which of course begs the question as to what the likely forcing was 1000 years ago. (My money is firmly on an increase in solar irradiance, based on the 10-Be data.). Another issue is whether we have estimated the totality of uncertainty in the long-term data set used -- maybe the envelope is really much larger, due to inherent characteristics of the proxy data themselves.... again this would cause the past and future envelopes to overlap. Email: Chick Keller to Mann, Jones, Briffa, and others, Mar 2, 2001, (Subject: Some thoughts on climate change proxy temperatures in the last 1,000 yrs [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=219&filename=98356649 7.txt]). Anyone looking at the records gets the impression that the temperature amplitude for many individual records/sites over the past 1000 years or so is often larger than 1C. They thus recognize that natural variability is unlikely to generate such large changes unless the sun is having more effect than direct forcing, or there is some fortuitous but detectable combination of forcings. And they see this as evidence that the 0.8C or so temperature rise in the 20th century is not all that special. The community, however, in making ensemble averages gets a much smaller amplitude ~0.5C. which they say shows that reasonable combinations of solar direct plus volcanos and internal variability with the help of THC can indeed explain this AND the 20th century warming is unique. We must address the question: what forcings can generate large amplitude temperature variations over hundreds of years, regional though they may be (and, could these occur at different times in different regions due to shifting heat inertia patterns)? If we can't do this, then there might be something wrong with our rationale that the 102

average is low amplitude even though many regions see high amplitude. This may be the nubbin of the disagreement, and until we answer it, many careful scientists will decide the issue is still unsettled and that indeed climate in the past may well have varied as much or more than in the last hundred years. One way, would be to note that the temperature amplitude (1000 1950) for each [proxy record] is ~1.5C. Thus you could conclude that hemispheric/global climate varied say over a degree Celcius (although with regional differences). Another way would be to average the records. The resulting temperature amplitude would be smaller because extremes would cancel since variability is large and each region's extremes occur at different times. Thus, if people simply looked at several records they would get the impression that temperature variations were large, ~1.5C. Imagine their surprise when they see that the ensemble averages you publish have much smaller amplitude. (Also, I note that most proxy temperature records claim timing errors of +-50 years or so. What is the possibility that records are cancelling each other out on variations in the hundred year frame due simply to timing errors? as in hitting or missing C&L's triple warming peak 10001200 AD) Email exchange between: Michael Mann, Edward Cook and Tom Crowley, May 2, 2001, (Subject: Hockey Stick) [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=228&filename=98883154 1.txt]). Cook to Mann: My statement that the MWP [Middle Age Warming Period] appeared to be comparable to the 20th century does not imply, nor was it meant to imply, that somehow the 20th century temperature is not truly anomalous and being driven by greenhouse gases. To quote from my email, I would not claim (and nor would Jan) that it exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not have the precision or the proxy replication to say that yet. (Note the use of the word "precision. This clearly relates to the issue of error variance and confidence intervals; a point that you clearly emphasize in describing your series. Also note the emphasis on "late 20th century". I think that most researchers in global change research would agree that the emergence of a clear greenhouse forcing signal has really only occurred since after 1970.) I am not debating this point, although I do think that there still exists a significant uncertainty as to the relative contributions of natural and greenhouse forcing to warming during the past 20-30 years at least. Cook to Crowley: These chronologies are not good at preserving high-frequency climate information because of the scattering of sites 103

and the mix of different species, but the low-frequency patterns are probably reflecting the same long-term changes in temperature. Jan then averaged the 2 RCS chronologies together to produce a single chronology extending back to AD 800. It has a very well defined Medieval Warm Period - Little Ice Age - 20th Century Warming pattern, punctuated by strong decadal fluctuations of inferred cold that correspond well with known histories of neo-glacial advance in some parts of the NH (northern hemisphere) the Esper series shows a very strong, even canonical, Medieval Warm Period Little Ice Age 20th Century Warming pattern, which is largely missing from the hockey stick. I would not claim (and nor would Jan) that it exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not have the precision or the proxy replication to say that yet. This being said, I do find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event to be grossly premature and probably wrong. Email exchange between: Michael Mann and John Christy, May 23, 2001, (Subject: IPCC [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=230&filename=99071838 2.txt] Mann expressed disappointment that Christy went on John Stossels TV show). Mann to Christy: I'll be very disturbed if you turn out to have played into this in a way that is unfair to your co-authors on chapter 2 [of the IPCC TAR] [i.e., IPCC Third Assessment Report], and your colleagues in general. This wouldn't have surprised me coming from certain individuals, but I honestly expected more from you Christy to Mann: In one of the pre-interviews they asked about the "Hockey Stick". I told them of my doubts about the inter-century precision of the record, especially the early part, and that other records suggested the period 1000 years ago was warmer. I've been very disappointed with what has gone on even with respect to some of the IPCC elders and their pronouncements for forthcoming disasters. the dozens of climate change disasters that have been dumped on the average citizen is designed to be overly alarmist and could lead us to make some bad policy decisions. (I've got a good story about the writers of the TIME cover piece a couple of months ago which proves they were not out to discuss the issue but to ignore science and influence government.) Regarding the IPCC. The IPCC TAR is good, but it is not perfect nor sacred and is open to criticism as any document should be. Some of the story lines used to generate high temperature changes are simply ridiculous.

104

Email between Phil Jones and John Christy, Jul 5, 2005, (Subject: This and that [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=544&filename=11205931 15.txt]). Jones to Christy: I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish. Jones appended to the email, text from Joe Barton (Chairman of the US House of Representatives) to Rajendra Pachauri (Chairman of the IPCC): In recent peer-reviewed articles in Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Energy & Environment, among others, researchers question the results of this work. As these researchers find, based on the available information, the conclusions concerning temperature histories - and hence whether warming in the 20th century is actually unprecedented - cannot be supported by the Mann et al., studies. In addition, we understand from the February 14 Journal and these other reports, that researchers have failed to replicate the findings of these studies, in part because of problems with the underlying data and the calculations used to reach the conclusions. This highly influential political comment, together with the lack of scientific evidence to support global warming beyond the 1990s and the strong evidence of systemic temperature manipulation across the globe, is in stark contrast to the Concluding remarks of the Royal Society Report that seem to have been drafted more in sympathy with IPCC Reports, as is its own more cautionary statements in the body of the Report. For example, conclusions at page 15 state: There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue, as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound for coastal communities and ecosystems.

More comment at: Global Warming Science [last update: 2009/11/27] www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming
The popular global warming theory: that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused unprecedented global warming in the second half of the 20 th century, is based strictly on the combination of two features: 1. The use of computer models the climate models cannot reproduce the warming from 1970 2000 without CO2, and 2. The requirement that the warming from 1970 through the 1990s is unprecedented.

105

If the late 20th century warming cant be shown to be unprecedented, then there is a major problem with the theory (there has been no warming since the late 1990s, which is also becoming a problem for the theory). We can now see from the emails above that the alarmist claims are far from settled even amongst the in climate scientific community. Yet the IPCC went to considerable effort to provide evidence that the warming was unprecedented. The hockey-stick graph produced by Michael Mann (and used by the IPCC and Al Gore) eliminated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in order to exaggerate the 20th century warming. We see this reflected in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001). The figure below shows average northern hemisphere temperature anomalies for the years 1000 - 2000 known as the hockey-stick graph (due to its shape) as used in the IPCC TAR. (The hockey-stick was eventually debunked by the National Academy of Sciences and others. See Fig below)

Dr. David Deming (University of Oklahoma, College of Earth and Energy) said in his testimony to Congress (June 12, 2006) [http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543] I had another interesting experience around the time [when] my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. Heavy criticism resulted in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) now showing an obfuscated replacement figure for the debunked hockey-stick the spaghetti-graph: The accompanying AR4 text states: The heterogeneous nature of climate during the Medieval Warm Period is illustrated by the wide spread of values exhibited by the individual records.

106

As we can see from above, many climate scientists disagreed with the Mann/IPCC position that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age didnt really exist. But since the IPCC is the global political master of the climate consensus the manipulated unprecedented story became official. Consider for example, Moberg et al, 2005. The full paper makes very interesting reading and again challenges the Hockey Stick theory Here we reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the past 2,000 years by combining low-resolution proxies with tree-ring data According to our reconstruction, high temperaturessimilar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990occurred around AD 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7 K below the average of 196190 occurred around AD 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue. The following figure is from their paper: [http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MobergEtAl2 005.pdf]

107

The following two Northern Hemisphere based figures compare the Moberg 2005 Figure (b) above to the Mann et al sponsored IPCC hockey-stick (top) and spaghetti graph (bottom), showing how the IPCC is obfuscating.

108

This IPCC position is at odds with the findings of many other scientists. For example, research at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics report on a recent paper using proxies, which verifies the occurrence of the MWP: [http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html] A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1350 to 1850 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century. (Note how the Gergis research contradicts this!!).

2012: PROOF MWP AND LIA WERE GLOBAL EVENTS

In March 2012 a team of scientists led by Syracuse University geochemist Zunli Lu reported a new key in the form of ikaite, a rare mineral that forms in cold waters. Composed of calcium carbonate and water, ikaite crystals can be found off the coasts of Antarctica and Greenland. Ikaite is an icy version of limestone, say Lu, assistant professor of earth sciences in SUs College of Arts and Sciences. The crystals are only stable under cold conditions and actually melt at room temperature. It turns out the water that holds the crystal structure together (called the hydration water) traps information about temperatures present when the 109

crystals formed. This finding by Lus research team establishes, for the first time, ikaite as a reliable proxy for studying past climate conditions. The research was recently published online in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters and will appear in print on April 1. Lu conducted most of the experimental work for the study while a post-doctoral researcher at Oxford University. Data interpretation was done after he arrived at SU. The scientists studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica. The sediment layers were deposited over 2,000 years. The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the Little Ice Age, approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the Medieval Warm Period, approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago. Both climate events have been documented in Northern Europe, but studies have been inconclusive as to whether the conditions in Northern Europe extended to Antarctica. Ikaite crystals incorporate ocean bottom water into their structure as they form. During cooling periods, when ice sheets are expanding, ocean bottom water accumulates heavy oxygen isotopes (oxygen 18). When glaciers melt, fresh water, enriched in light oxygen isotopes (oxygen 16), mixes with the bottom water. The scientists analyzed the ratio of the oxygen isotopes in the hydration water and in the calcium carbonate. They compared the results with climate conditions established in Northern Europe across a 2,000year time frame. They found a direct correlation between the rise and fall of oxygen 18 in the crystals and the documented warming and cooling periods. We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica, Lu says. More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes. Professor Jones confessed to the BBC: The warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. Jones was referring to those four distinct warming periods from modern ground thermometer records during 1860-1880, 1910-1940, 19751998 and 1975-2009. The vast majority of scientists agree that the 20th century warming period of so much doom-saying and concern, began around 1975. Firstly, that Jones admits warming stalled a mere twenty years later confirms skeptics analyses that there is no enduring statistical trend to prove a signal of man made global warming. But, secondly, by conceding that there is no statistical difference between any of these four short warming periods, when in each of them temperatures rose about 0.16 Degrees C per decade (under 2.0 Degrees C per century) before falling back, Jones, himself, debunks the hype that the Earth is set for any catastrophic global warming. 110

Indeed, the most up to date peer-reviewed study we have is by KERR (2009), who concludes there has been global cooling since 1998a further nail in the coffin of the man made global warming myth. Moreover, his graph tells us what the satellite records prove about the temperatures in the lower atmosphere between 1990-2008: These facts are then backed up by Lord Moncktons global temperature graph (below) where all four of the worlds major global surface temperature datasets (NASA GISS; RSS; UAH; and Hadley /University of East Anglia) together prove the existence of a decline in temperatures that has now persisted for seven [in 2012=14] years. The key to what is driving our planets climate may be found in the graph (below) which shows a clear correlation between temperatures and ocean and sun cycles. [as well as CO2]

The undisputed data in these graphs proves that the panic over catastrophic man-made climate change cannot be substantiated by facts. The discredited IPCC and those incompetent (perhaps corrupt) politicians who bought into this scam must now be swept away. Thus, it is the objectivity that underpins the scientific method and defended for so long by skeptical climate scientists, that has finally vanquished the self-serving subjectivism and scare tactics of political ideologues.

TEMPERATURE RECORDS MANIPULATION AND FRAUD C3 Headlines: Shocking evidence of manipulated temp data
Global warming science facts can be very disturbing at times NOAA
http://www.c3headlines.com/temp-readings-balloonsbuoyssatellitesurfaceurbanrural/

There is strong disagreement amongst consensus climate scientists and socalled skeptics that Global surface temperatures have been flat since 1998 or The trend in global surface temperatures has been nearly flat since the late 1990s. Such claims have been strongly opposed by most scientists and institutions promoting the anthropogenic global warming theory. At the very least we should quote consensus scientist, Dr. Susan Soloman, (a world authority on climate change and IPCC Panelist) who in her paper 111

mentioned earlier Contributions to Stratospheric Water Vapour to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming, had this to say: http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/475-water-vapour-and-the-recent-globaltemperature-hiatus.html Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapour near the surface. But this is different its a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didnt expect. .the trend in global surface temperatures has been nearly flat since the late 1990s despite continuing increases in the forcing due to the sum of the well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, halocarbons, and N2O), raising questions regarding the understanding of forced climate change, its drivers, the parameters that define natural internal variability, and how fully these terms are represented in climate models. [our emphasis] The first thing to be noted in this paper is that it is, once again, predicated on the now well-established fact that the global annual average temperature has remained constant for the past decade. There are still many commentators who deny this. They should read this section from the beginning of this paper in one of the worlds top two peer-reviewed science journals. That said, if proof is needed as to the deliberate manipulation of data to suit the global warming theory, there could be none more shocking than this provided from the C3 website above. This falls into line with out later expos of attempts to sabotage long-standing temperature measuring sites right across the globe, including even at Darwin Airport, Australia (by as much as an extraordinary 6. Manipulation is probably a too generous description of what is taking place. Fraud my be more apt.
(click on image to enlarge)

112

'C3' and others have often written about the fabrication of global warming by various climate agencies around the world. NOAA has been at the forefront of "adjusting" historical temperatures to fabricate increased warming for modern decades (1960's and more recent) and increased cooling for the earlier decades (pre-1960's). The adjacent chart visually depicts the changes to monthly global temperatures that NOAA has made since 2008 (updated through May 2012). Since 2008 they have "adjusted" every single month back to January 1880 (that's 1,548 months of "adjusted" empirical evidence through 2008) except for one solitary month (December 2006). The chart is a plot of coolest temperature adjustment to the warmest temperature adjustment - from left to right. Summary factoids below: 1. Out of 1,548 monthly temperature records, NOAA "cooled" 754 months a. 49% of all months had their historical temperatures lowered b. Total "cooling" applied was -29C degrees 2. Out of 754 "cooled" months, only 17 of those had dates post-1959. 113

a. That's only 2% - one would naturally expect close to 50% of all cooled months to be post-1959 if adjustments were applied with robust scientific rationale 3. Out of 1,548 monthly temperature records, NOAA "warmed" 793 months a. 51% of all months had their historical temperatures raised b. Total "warming" applied was +23C degrees 4. Out of 793 "warmed" months, 570 had dates post-1959 a. That's 72% - not exactly random; more like adjustments due to a nonscientific rationale 5. Extreme "cooling" adjustments - 223 months exceeded -0.5C deg a. 30% had extreme cooling applied 6. Extreme "warming" adjustments - 70 months exceeded +0.5C deg a. Only 9% had extreme warming applied 7. One example of wacky (nonsensical) adjacent temperature adjustments a. December 1881 = +0.10C deg (adjusted up since 2008) b. January 1882 = -0.02C deg (adjusted down since 2008) Keep in mind, when reviewing the above factoids and chart that these are NOAA adjustments made to historical temperatures (January 1, 1880 thru December 31, 2008) since 2008. The NOAA adjustments to the historical temperature dataset made prior to 2008 have also been massive, as indicated here by an Oak Ridge National Laboratory analysis. Clearly, since the Obama election of 2008, NOAA has pursued a frequent policy of temperature adjustments (literally monthly) to meet some nonscientific objective. Their methodology has primarily consisted of lowering the majority of temperature records prior to 1960 and raising those post-1959. The cumulative effect of all these adjustments is to build a better case that modern warming is a result of human CO2 emissions. No other major climate science agency has pursued such an aggressive (ie, frequent) process of fabricating temperatures. Finally, some proponents of the NOAA methodology attempt to rationalize all these adjustments as "quality control/management" which is patently absurd. During 2012 alone, NOAA has "quality control" adjusted the entire historical temperature record at least 18 times - for example, they have reported at least 18 different temperatures for January 1880 over the past 5 months. This is not "quality control" in any sense that experts of quality control would understand. Instead, it's ludicrous faux-science for non-scientific reasons, month after month, plain and simple. Conclusion: The global warming science facts are that NOAA promotes a fake style of climate science by essentially fabricating temperatures it's enhanced modern "global warming," either by raising or cooling the appropriate temperature records.

WEATHER STATION FRAUD NOW GLOBAL

114

CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg

By Marc Sheppard American

Thinker Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britains premiere climate institute [CRU] was not contained within the nations borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our governments principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda. Not only does the preliminary report [PDF] indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published, and historically ranked. Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph DAleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). DAleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, [w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue. And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales. As youll soon see, the ultimate effects of these statistical transgressions on the reports which influence climate alarm and subsequently world energy policy are nothing short of staggering. NOAA Data In / Garbage Out: Although satellite temperature measurements have been available since 1978, most global temperature analyses still rely on data captured from landbased thermometers, scattered more or less about the planet. It is that data which NOAA receives and disseminates although not before performing some sleight-of-hand on it. Smith has done much of the heavy lifting involved in analyzing the NOAA/GISS data and software, and he chronicles his often frustrating experiences at his fascinating website. There, detail-seekers will find plenty to

115

satisfy, divided into easily-navigated sections some designed specifically for us geeks, but most readily approachable to readers of all technical strata. Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe. Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts. Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAAs selection bias that Smith found infinitely more troubling. It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI). For example, Canadas reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. Thats right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65. And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as The Garden Spot of the Arctic due to its unusually moderate summers. Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach and he rightly observed that: It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set. Thats because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped. Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the cold ones in California. But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this selection bias creates a +0.6C warming in U.S. temperature history. 116

And no wonder imagine the accuracy of campaign tracking polls if Gallup were to include only the replies of Democrats in their statistics. But it gets worse. Prior to publication, NOAA effects a number of adjustments to the cherrypicked stations data, supposedly to eliminate flagrant outliers, adjust for time of day heat variance, and homogenize stations with their neighbors in order to compensate for discontinuities. This last one, they state, is accomplished by essentially adjusting each to jive closely with the mean of its five closest neighbors. But given the plummeting number of stations, and the likely disregard for the latitude, elevation, or UHI of such neighbors, its no surprise that such homogenizing seems to always result in warmer readings. DARWIN, AUSTRALIA - TEMPERATURES MANIPULATED UP 6C The chart below is from Willis Eschenbachs WUWT essay, The smoking gun at Darwin Zero, and it plots GHCN* Raw versus homogeneity-adjusted temperature data at Darwin International Airport in Australia. The adjustments actually reversed the 20th-century trend from temperatures falling at 0.7C per century to temperatures rising at 1.2C per century. (click)

He writes: Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized Darwin records, I went to see how they had homogenized each of the individual station records. What made up that strange average in the Fig (above)? This is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized versions.

117

Darwin Zero Homogeneity Adjustments. Black line shows amount and timing of adjustments. (*Search GHCN Global Historical Climatology Network) Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies such an adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? Theyve just added a huge artificial, totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it certainly looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right but with a six degree per century trend!!? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style they are indisputable evidence that the homogenized data has been changed to fit the preconceptions of someone [high in authority] about whether the earth is warming. Global Temperature Bias [Manipulation is the correct word] WUWTs editor, Anthony Watts, has calculated the overall U.S. homogeneity bias to be 0.5F to the positive, which alone accounts for almost one half of the 1.2F warming over the last century. Add Smiths selection bias to the mix and poof actual warming completely disappears! Yet believe it or not, the manipulation does not stop there.

GISS Garbage In / Globaloney Out The scientists at NASAs Goddard Institute (GISS) are widely considered to be the worlds leading researchers into atmospheric and climate changes. And their Surface Temperature (GISTemp) analysis system is undoubtedly the premiere source for global surface temperature anomaly reports. In creating its widely disseminated maps and charts, the program merges station

118

readings collected from the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) with GHCN and USHCN data from NOAA. It then puts the merged data through a few adjustments of its own. First, it further homogenizes stations, supposedly adjusting for UHI by (according to NASA) changing the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbours, while retaining the short term monthly and annual variations. Of course, the reduced number of stations will have the same effect on GISSs UHI correction as it did on NOAAs discontinuity homogenization the creation of artificial warming. Furthermore, in his communications with me, Smith cited boatloads of problems and errors he found in the Fortran code written to accomplish this task, ranging from hot airport stations being mismarked as rural to the correction having the wrong sign (+/-) and therefore increasing when it meant to decrease or vice-versa. And according to NASA, If no such neighbours exist or the overlap of the rural combination and the non-rural record is less than 20 years, the station is completely dropped; if the rural records are shorter, part of the non-rural record is dropped. However, Smith points out that a dropped record may be from a location that has existed for 100 years. For instance, if an aging piece of equipment gets swapped out, thereby changing its identification number, the time horizon reinitializes to zero years. Even having a large enough temporal gap (e.g., during a world war) might cause the data to just get tossed out. But the real chicanery begins in the next phase, wherein the planet is flattened and stretched onto an 8,000-box grid, into which the time series are converted to a series of anomalies (degree variances from the baseline). Now, you might wonder just how one manages to fill 8,000 boxes using 1,500 stations. Heres NASAs solution For each grid box, the stations within that grid box and also any station within 1200km of the centre of that box are combined using the reference station method. Even on paper, the design flaws inherent in such a process should be glaringly obvious. So its no surprise that Smith found many examples of problems surfacing in actual practice. He offered me Hawaii for starters. It seems that all of the Aloha States surviving stations reside in major airports. Nonetheless, this unrepresentative hot data is whats used to infill the surrounding empty Grid Boxes up to 1200 km out to sea. So in effect, you have jet airport tarmacs standing in for temperature over water 1200 km closer to the North Pole. An isolated problem? Hardly, reports Smith. From KUSIs Global Warming: The Other Side: Theres a wonderful baseline for Bolivia a very high mountainous country right up until 1990 when the data ends. And if you look on the [GISS] November 2009 anomaly map, youll see a very 119

red rosy hot Bolivia [boxed in blue]. But how do you get a hot Bolivia when you havent measured the temperature for 20 years?

Of course, you already know the answer: GISS simply fills in the missing numbers originally cool, as Bolivia contains proportionately more land above 10,000 feet than any other country in the world with hot ones available in neighboring stations on a beach in Peru or somewhere in the Amazon jungle. Remember that single station north of 65 latitude which they located in a warm section of northern Canada? Joe DAleo explained its purpose: To estimate temperatures in the Northwest Territory [boxed in green above], they either have to rely on that location or look further south. Pretty slick, huh? And those are but a few examples. In fact, throughout the entire grid, cooler station data are dropped and filled in by temperatures extrapolated from warmer stations in a manner obviously designed to overestimate warming and convince you that its your fault.

Government and Intergovernmental Agencies Globaloney In / Green Gospel Out Smith attributes up to 3F (more in some places) of added warming trend between NOAAs data adjustment and GIStemp processing. Thats over twice last centurys reported warming. And yet, not only are NOAAs bogus data accepted as green gospel, but so are its equally bogus hysterical claims, like this one from the 2006 annual State of the Climate in 2005 [PDF]:

120

Globally averaged mean annual air temperature in 2005 slightly exceeded the previous record heat of 1998, making 2005 the warmest year on record. And as DAleo points out in the preliminary report, the recent NOAA proclamation that June 2009 was the second-warmest June in 130 years will go down in the history books, despite multiple satellite assessments ranking it as the 15th-coldest in 31 years. Even when our own National Weather Service (NWS) makes its frequent announcements that a certain month or year was the hottest ever, or that five of the warmest years on record occurred last decade, theyre basing such hyperbole entirely on NOAAs warm-biased data. And how can anyone possibly read GISS chief James Hansens Sunday claim that 2009 was tied with 2007 for second-warmest year overall, and the Southern Hemispheres absolute warmest in 130 years of global instrumental temperature records, without laughing hysterically? Its especially laughable when one considers that NOAA had just released a statement claiming that very same year (2009) to be tied with 2006 for the fifth-warmest year on record. So how do alarmists reconcile one government centre reporting 2009 as tied for second while another had it tied for fifth? If youre WaPos Andrew Freedman, you simply chalk it up to different data analysis methods before adjudicating both NASA and NOAA innocent of any impropriety based solely on their pointless assertions that they didnt do it. Earth to Andrew: Different data analysis methods? Try replacing analysis with manipulation, and ye shall find enlightenment. But by far the most significant impact of this data fraud is that it ultimately bubbles up to the pages of the climate alarmists bible: The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report. Heaven And Earth Global Warming: The Missing Science Climate skeptic, Australian Cardinal George Pell, quoted extensively in July 2010 [Sunday Telegraph] from Professor Ian Plimers Heaven And Earth Global Warming: The Missing Science published by Connor Court 2009. Plimers book cites scientific evidence from pollen studies, drill cores and like sediments to show that temperatures were 2C to 6C warmer around the world in the period from 250BC to 450AD a period of 700 years. Records from the time show that citrus trees and grapes were grown in England as far as Hadrians Wall and olive groves on the Rhine River in Germany. Not only was it warmer and wetter, but sea levels were also lower. Professor Plimer also cites scientific evidence from the Middle Ages: Tree rings, boreholes, sediment cores from oceans and flood plains, pollen studies, 121

peat bogs, ice cores, fossils and carbon chemistry, show that temperatures were warmer throughout the world from 900-1300AD than they are now by 1C to 2.5C in different places. In Greenland during this period, cattle and sheep were run and crops like barley were grown. Grapevines were grown in Newfoundland and vineyards in Germany were grown 220 metres higher than today. Roots and stumps in the Polar Urals suggest that the tree line was 30 metres higher in 1000AD. Warmer temperatures and higher rainfall during the Medieval Warming period enabled societies and economic life to flourish. In Europe it saw the growth of cities. Chinas population doubled in the course of a century and records from China and Japan also indicate that they experienced warmer temperatures. As there was no manufacturing or heavy industry in Roman or Medieval times, why then were temperatures higher? Following more claims of scientific duplicity, an extensive scientific review published in July 2010 of the East Anglia Universitys Climate Research Unit research methodology that had graphed global temperature rises and which was published in 1999 by the World Meteorological Organisation, revealed that the CRU had failed to show declining temperature data from treerings that had diverged from actual measurements taken in the 1960s. The CRU was also criticized for failing to provide information to other scientists wishing to check the data as to the location of the Weather Stations used to gather temperature records, and that emails were deleted to ensure that the data would be unavailable under FOI requests.

DECEPTIONS, DISASTERS & LONG TERM CLIMATE CHANGE

MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD (MWP) and LITTLE ICE AGE: Scientific papers presented to the IPCC (e.g., by Mann, Bradley Hughes; Bradley and Jones 1993; Hughes and Diaz 1994 etc) downplaying these as euro-centric and normal; the two most contrary periods of warming and cooling in our recorded history, which periods are in direct conflict with claims of anthropogenic climate change. Climategate emails show this to be contrived. "Medieval Warming Period" (between 950-1350) when global temperatures rose and gradually fell over several centuries to a high point well above those of today, which so patently could not have been caused by human activity and by C02 Watts up with that November 29, 2009: The idea of a medieval warm period was formulated for the first time in 1965 by the English climatologist Hubert H. Lamb [1]. Lamb, who founded the UK Climate Research Unit (CRU) in 1971, saw the peak of the warming period around 1300 (i.e. in the High Middle Ages). He estimated that temperatures then were 1-2 C above the normal period of 1931-1960. In the high North, it was even up to 4 122

degrees warmer. The regular voyages of the Vikings between Iceland and Greenland were rarely hindered by ice, and many burial places of the Vikings in Greenland still lie in the permafrost. Glaciers were smaller than today. Also the global retreat of glaciers that occurred in the period between 900 to 1300 speaks for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. An interesting detail is that many glaciers pulling back since 1850 reveal plant remnants from the Middle Ages, which is a clear proof that the extent of the glaciers at that time was lower than today. Historical traditions also show evidence of unusual warmth at this time. Years around 1180 brought the warmest winter decade ever known. In January 1186/87, the trees were in bloom near Strasbourg. And even earlier you come across a longer heat phase, roughly between 1021 and 1040. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot. This had been exploited to create foundation stones for the bridge in Regensburg that year The graph below reflects temperature variations during the Medieval Warming Period followed by the Little Ice Age taken from 6000 borehole sites. The evidence is overwhelming of both periods.

Clear evidence of the warm phase of the Middle Ages can also be found in the limits of crop cultivation. The tree-line in the Alps climbed to 2000 meters, higher than current levels. Winery was possible in Germany at the Rhine and Mosel up to 200 meters above the present limits, in Pomerania, East Prussia, England and southern Scotland and in southern Norway, therefore, much farther north than is the case today. On the basis of pollen record there is evidence that during the Middle Ages, right up to Trondheim in Norway, wheat was grown and until nearly the 70th parallel/latitude barley was cultivated. In many parts of the UK arable land reached heights that were never reached again later. Also in Asia historical sources report that the margin of cultivation of citrus fruits was never as far north as in the 13th century. Accordingly, it must have been warmer at the time about 1 C than today. 123

However, amazingly, a search of the net under Medieval Warm Period will produce a raft of denials, one after the other, all planted by consensus supporters of the Hockey Stick Theory (which usually includes the graph). Many are under headings Medieval Warm Period Myths. There is no mention of the indisputable historical physical evidence above to support these views. An identical raft of planted data appears on the net when one searches for Little Ice Age (together with the Hockey Stick graph). No mention is made of the indisputable historical physical evidence to support this period either. It is a documented fact that winter Ice Fairs were held on the frozen River Thames for some 200 years. There is no mention of this; only that the reduced temperatures were part of a normal pattern, as were the increased temperatures of the MWP. "Little Ice Age" (between 1350-1850) when the northern hemisphere, in particular, was gradually engulfed in ice. The River Thames began freezing over in winter, which extended continuously from 1607 until 1814. The Bosphorus River frooze in 1622. New York Harbour froze over in 1780 and the centre of Sydney had its only recorded snow-fall in 1836. In 1794-95 the French armies were able to invade Holland by marching over it's frozen rivers whilst the Dutch fleet was packed in ice. Finland lost about one third of its population to starvation and disease, which had similar effects throughout large alpine areas of Europe. Thankfully, the IPCC has since acknowledged that contrary to such earlier IPCC scientific claims, these two major climate change periods were in fact worldwide events and not confined just to the northern hemisphere. Studies in Kenya, Peru, South Africa, New Zaland and Tasmania in Australia, have confirmed this new view. Emails drawn from Professor Jones of the CRU at East Anglia University prove that climate scientists deliberately downplayed the Middle Age Warming Period to support their faulty research of global warming in the 20th century.

SCIENTIFIC, GOVERNMENT & POLITICAL EXAGGERATIONS

POLAR BEARS: Regarding the claim by the U.S. Geological Survey, that polar bears were facing extinction! In May 2008 Professor J Scott Armstrong and colleagues reported scientific findings from their audit of this claim at the request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study, Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit, by Prof. Armstrong, Mr Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and Mr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, found that there was no sound scientific basis for the claim. Their Paper is scheduled to appear in the September/October 2008 issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces. Professor Armstrong is author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most

124

frequently cited book on forecasting methods, and Principles of Forecasting. He is a co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, the International Symposium on Forecasting etc. The authors examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports. The studies include Forecasting the Wide-Range Status of Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century by Steven C. Amstrup et. al. and Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea II: Demography and Population Growth in Relation to Sea Ice Conditions by Christine M. Hunter et al. Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only 10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently contravened. Further, they write, the Geological Survey Reports do not adequately substantiate the authors assumptions about changes to sea ice and polar bears ability to adapt that are key to the recommendations. Therefore, the authors write that a key feature of the U.S. Geological Survey Report is not scientifically supported. The consequence of these findings, they maintain, is significant: The Interior Department cannot use the series of negative reports as a sound scientific basis for a decision about listing the polar bear as an endangered species. CYCLONES: The 2007 benchmark IPCC Report on Climate Change said that an increase in cyclone-force storms since 1970 was probably caused by climate change, sighting Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Dennis, and stated that the world could expect a big increase in such storms over the 21st Century. Al Gore's latest book "Our Choice" depicts a world beset by supercyclones if carbon emissions keep rising. The latest research conducted by the US National Hurricane Centre and published early 2010 in "Nature Geoscience" paints a very different picture. The Centre's research suggests that the rise in cyclone frequency since 1995 was part of a natural cycle and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline. The study draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact of global warming will be to reduce the frequency of tropical storms, albeit with a slight increase in their intensity. The Centre concluded that, "Hurricanes are much less sensitive to temperature increase than the IPCC Report suggested. Whilst there are a lot of legitimate concerns about climate change, hurricanes are not among them." GLACIERS: In 2010 the Dutch Government ordered an inquiry into findings contained in the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report and concerns over climategate. The Inquiry found that the 2007 Report falsely claimed that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Most glaciologists believe that they would take at least 300 years to melt. The IPCC report also claimed that more than 50% of The Netherlands was below sea level. However, the correct figure is 26 percent.

125

ICE MELT: Recent research, designed to show the contribution of melting glaciers to rising sea levels, has reached an unexpected conclusion. A paper published in the scientific journal Nature early 2012 showed that the worlds greatest snowcapped peaks had in fact lost no ice whatsoever over the previous 10 years. The findings based on satellite measurements of the peaks from Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan showed that whilst lower-altitude glaciers were seen to be melting over the past eight years, snow was also being added. The report concluded that between 443 billion and 629 billion tonnes of meltwater from ALL the worlds glaciers was added to the sea each year, enough to raise its level by about 1.5mm a year, in addition to the 2mm a year caused by the expansion of the warming ocean. The new findings also revealed that previous ice-melt data had been biased towards easier-to-reach glacier sites that were more prone to melting. The new study used satellites to measure tiny changes in the earths gravitational pull caused by loss of ice cover. In another alarmist example reported in August 2010, a geophysics engineer working with the National Centre for Scientific Research in France, had attributed the build-up of a dangerous pocket of water under a glacier on Mt. Blanc which contained an estimated 65,000 cubic metres of water and which was likely to burst with devastating consequences for the local tourist village of St. Gervais, to be the result of global warming which had reduced the snow covering on the glacier thus exposing it to cold. It was pointed out however, that a similar pocket containing 80,000 cubic metres had burst in mid 1892. One questions what contribution humans had made back then to CO2 emissions and global warming? FLOWERS and PLANTS: Claims that the worlds flowers faced mass extinction from global warming and failure to cut CO2 emissions, have been found to be overstated. The IPCCs latest Report published in 2007 had claimed that There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5C to 2.5C (relative to 1980 to 1999). (Go back again and look at Lindzen and Christys comments.) The Jodrell Laboratory part of the Royal Botanical Gardens in London has found that flowers can inherit the ability to cope with changes in both temperature and rainfall, with entire species adapting to the new conditions within two decades. They also found that many plants could survive rapid changes in climate that meteorologists predict will result from a failure to cut emissions. The Jodrell study found that plants in addition to genetic code adaptation to a changing environment by natural selection through normal evolutionary process as discovered by Darwin - could also adapt to hotter, wetter or drier conditions by changing the way by which genes were switched on and off by complex chemical modifications, a process known as epigenetics. No change in their DNA sequence is required for them to pass this ability on to future generations. The study concluded that plant species could rapidly make these

126

adaptations with temperature rises of 2-3C. WEATHER DISASTERS: The British Royal Meteorological Society has pointed out (August 2010) that the number of weather related disasters has more than doubled in the past 30 years and that global warming is the only logical explanation! However, the Head of reinsurer Munich Re, responding to the claim, said that its analysis of ALL weather disasters, not just those that involved significant insured losses which had also taken account of population changes and development, found that since 1980, floods and landslides had trebled and storms had doubled with the annual number of all disasters having risen from 339 in the 1980s to 547 in the 1990s and to 693 in the decade to 2009. However, after adjusting for bias for disasters that could not have been caused by human induced CO2 emissions, such as tsunamis and earthquakes, the study found that half of the rises recorded over the past 30 years was most likely due to more sophisticated and detailed reporting of events. Using this benchmark, the first 50% of recorded floods and storms was discounted when producing the long-term trend. GREEN NONSENSE FROM SENATOR BROWN: Australian Senator Robert (Bob) Brown, then leader of the Greens Party verbally made an extraordinary and most ignorant statement when interviewed January 17, 2011 on Sky News concerning the devastating flood crisis that has hit Australia over recent weeks: He said Theres very little doubt that the burning of fossil fuel is responsible for the hottest oceans weve ever seen off Australia, which in turn the scientists are saying very clearly, is responsible for the quite extraordinary and harrowing floods that weve seen!! As recently as May 2011, the Head of the IPCC who was visiting Australia, categorically denied that the recent catastrophic weather in eastern Australia could be attributed to climate change. Indeed the record floods across Australia in late December 2010 and early January 2011 and again late 2011 and early 2012 have been entirely attributed by weather scientists to a strong La Nia system; the first stronger than the second, both of which followed an extended El Nio that had brought a decade long drought to much of Australia. No reference whatever was made to climate change by local weather scientists over that period. Australia has a long history of withering droughts and massive flooding, caused entirely by the cyclical El Nio and La Nia oscillating weather patterns that afflict this and other Pacific ocean and their coastal continents, from which Australia has suffered numerous times. Indeed weather scientists have conceded that the current floods are similar to those of the 1950s and 1970s and still regard those of 1893 (long before the notion of anthropogenic global warming from CO2 emissions) as Australias most damaging. LIVESTOCK and GREENHOUSE GASSES: The UN Report of 2006 argued that the world's livestock caused more greenhouse gasses than all the global 127

transport combined. Research conducted by the University of California has dismissed such claims as scientifically inaccurate. UK ENERGY DEPT CHILD ADVERTS UNSCIENTIFIC: Early in 2010 the Advertising Standards Authority banned two UK Energy Department advertisements featuring nursery rhymes warning of the dangers of climate change, suggesting that Britain faces an inevitable increase in storms, floods and heat waves unless greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control. Following a deluge of complaints and a comparison by the ASA with science provided by the IPCC, the ASA ruled that the claims were not supported by solid science and refused future publication. AL GORES FILM SCIENTIFIC ERRORS: In 2007 a controversial documentary on climate change, which has been sent to thousands of schools, has been criticised by a UK High Court judge for being 'alarmist' and 'exaggerated'. Mr Justice Burton said former US vice-president Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" was 'one-sided' and would breach education rules unless accompanied by a warning. Despite winning lavish praise from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry, Mr Gore's documentary was found to contain 'nine scientific errors' by the judge. INSULATION and CARBON REDUCTION: Australias Rudd/Gillard Labor Government's claims - provided by its own Department of Climate Change that retrofitting insulation into the roofs of 2.7 million Australian homes at a cost of $2.45 billion would produce reductions of 49.4 million tonnes of carbon by 2020, have been debunked as "bogus" and "absurd" by Associate Professor Williamson, a thermal performance expert at the University of Adelaide, who has independently estimated - using official figures and studies - that the real benefits are four to five times less than the modelling produced by the Department. Two other experts who provide advice to the Australian Government on greenhouse gas emissions have concurred with Dr Williamson's conclusions. RAINFORESTS: The United Nations' climate change panel is facing fresh criticism after new research contradicted the organisation's claims about the devastating effect climate change could have on the Amazon rainforest. A new study, funded by NASA has found that the most serious drought in the Amazon for more than a century had little impact on the rainforest's vegetation. The findings appear to disprove claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could react drastically to even a small reduction in rainfall and could see the trees replaced by tropical grassland. SKEPTICISM AND INTEGRITY A VIRTUE A booklet titled "On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research" produced and published by the National Academy of Science in 1995, provides a set of criteria to guide the conduct of scientists as they

128

navigate their way through the difficult choices they have to make in the way they conduct themselves ethically. It states: "The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results." (courtesy, www: John Daly). SO WHERE DO WE GO NOW WITH CLIMATE SCIENCE AND THE IPCC? bittooth.blogspot.com/2012/03/dr-judith-curry-on-ipcc.html March 8, 2012 This is a most revealing and candid interview with Dr Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, confirming many aspects covered here, and offering her controversial views on how climate science has been functioning and about the limited future of the IPCC: This week James Stafford, who runs the Oilprice.com website contacted me to ask if I wanted to run an interview that they had conducted with Dr. Judith Curry on the IPCC Dr. Curry writes the discussions on climate change at her website Climate, Etc. (The original interview can be found at Oilprice.com. I am glad to reproduce it here ): OilPrice.com: What are your personal beliefs on climate change? The causes and how serious a threat climate change is to the continued existence of society as we know it. Dr. Curry: The climate is always changing. Climate is currently changing because of a combination of natural and human induced effects. The natural effects include variations of the sun, volcanic eruptions, and oscillations of the ocean. The human induced effects include the greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, pollution aerosols, and land use changes. The key scientific issue is determining how much of the climate change is associated with humans. This is not a simple thing to determine. The most recent IPCC assessment report states: "Most [50%] of the warming in the latter half of the 20th century is very likely [>90%] due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." There is certainly some contribution from the greenhouse gases, but whether it is currently a dominant factor or will be a dominant factor in the next century, is a topic under active debate, and I don't think the high confidence level [>90%] is warranted given the uncertainties. As I stated in my testimony last year: "Based upon the background knowledge that we have, the threat does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation." OilPrice.com: You have said in the past that you were troubled by the lack of cooperation between organizations studying climate change, and that you want to see more transparency with the data collected. How do you suggest we encourage/force transparency and collaboration?

129

Judith Curry: We are seeing some positive steps in this regard. Government agencies that fund climate research are working to develop better databases. Perhaps of greatest interest is the effort being undertaken by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which is a (mostly) privately funded effort to compile and document a new data base on surface temperatures, in a completely open and transparent way. OilPrice.com: Do you feel climatologists should be putting more effort into determining the effect of the sun on our climate? As the IPCC primarily focuses on CO2 as the cause of climate change Is the importance of CO2 overestimated and the importance of the sun is underestimated? Judith Curry: I absolutely think that more effort is needed in determining the effect of the sun on our climate. The sun is receiving increased attention (and funding), and there is a lively debate underway on interpreting the recent satellite data record, reconstructing past solar variability, and predicting the solar variability over the 21st century. Nearly all of the solar scientists are predicting some solar cooling in the next century, but the magnitude of the possible or likely cooling is hotly debated and highly uncertain. OilPrice.com: You are well known in climate and energy circles for breaking from the ranks of the IPCC and questioning the current information out there. What do you see as the reasons for the increase in skepticism towards global warming over the last few years. Judith Curry: Because of the IPCC and its consensus seeking process, the rewards for scientists have been mostly in embellishing the consensus, and this includes government funding. Because of recent criticisms of the IPCC and a growing understanding that the climate system is not easily understood, an increasing number of scientists are becoming emboldened to challenge some of the basic conclusions of the IPCC, and I think this is a healthy thing for the science. OilPrice.com: What are your views on the idea that CO2 may not be a significant contributor to climate change? How do you think such a revelation, if true, will affect the world economy, and possibly shatter public confidence in scientific institutions that have said we must reduce CO2 emissions in order to save the planet? Judith Curry: Personally, I think we put the CO2 stabilization policy cart' way before the scientific horse. The UN treaty on dangerous climate change in 1992 was formulated and signed before we even had discernible' evidence of warming induced by CO2, as reported in 1995 by the IPCC second assessment report. As a result of this, we have only been considering one policy option (CO2 stabilization), which in my opinion is not a robust policy option given the uncertainties in how much climate is changing in response to CO2. OilPrice.com: There has been quite a bit of talk recently on geo-engineering with entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates and Richard Branson pushing for a "plan B" which utilizes geo-engineering to manipulate the environment in order to cool the atmosphere. Geo-engineering could be much cheaper than reducing emissions, and also much quicker to produce results and scientists are lobbying governments and international organizations for funds to experiment with various approaches, such as fertilizing the oceans or spraying reflective particles and chemicals into the upper atmosphere in order to reflect sunlight and heat back into space. What are your thoughts on geo-

130

engineering? Is it a realistic solution to solving climate change or is it a possible red herring? Judith Curry: With regards to geo-engineering, there are two major concerns. The first is whether the technologies will actually work, in terms of having the anticipated impact on the climate. The second is the possibility of unintended consequences of the geo-engineering. OilPrice.com: You have been noted to criticize the IPCC quite openly in the past on several topics. Even going so far as to say: "It is my sad conclusion that opening your mind on this subject (climate change controversy) sends you down the slippery slope of challenging many aspects of the IPCC consensus." Do you believe that the organization as a whole needs to be assessed in order to better serve progress on climate change? What suggestions do you have on how the organization should function? Judith Curry: The IPCC might have outlived its usefulness. Lets see what the next assessment report comes up with. But we are getting diminishing returns from these assessments, and they take up an enormous amount of scientists' time. OilPrice.com: Would renewable energy technologies have received the massive amounts of funding we have seen over the last few years without global warming concerns? Judith Curry: I think there are other issues that are driving the interest and funding in renewables, including clean air and energy security issues and economics, but I agree that global warming concerns have probably provided a big boost. OilPrice.com: What do you believe are the best solutions to overcoming/reversing climate change; is a common consensus needed in order to effectively combat climate change? Judith Curry: The UN approach of seeking a global consensus on the science to support an international treaty on CO2 stabilization simply hasn't worked, for a variety of reasons. There are a range of possible policy options, and we need to have a real discussion that looks at the costs, benefits and unintended consequences of each. Successful solutions are more likely to be regional in nature than global. OilPrice.com: I saw an interesting comment on another site regarding climate science that I thought I'd get your opinion on as it raises some very interesting arguments: Climate science has claimed for 30 years that it affects the safety of hundreds of millions of people, or perhaps the whole planet. If it gets it wrong, equally, millions may suffer from high energy costs, hunger due to biofuels, and lost opportunity from misdirected funds, notwithstanding the projected benefits from as yet impractical renewable energy. Yet, we have allowed it to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex - all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review. Judith Curry: I agree that there is lack of accountability in the whole climate enterprise, and it does not meet the standards that you would find in engineering or regulatory science. I have argued that this needs to change, by implementing data quality and model verification and validation standards.

131

OilPrice.com: Do you believe that the language used in papers and at conferences is a problem? The public just wants straight answers to questions: Is the climate warming, By how much, and what will the effects be? Scientists need to step out from behind the curtain and engage the public with straight answers and in their own words. Is this achievable, or is climate science too complex to be explained in laymen's terms? Or is it because even climate scientists can't agree on the exact answers? Judith Curry: I think the biggest failure in communicating climate science to the public has been the reliance on argument from consensus. We haven't done a good job of explaining all this, particularly in the context of the scientific disagreement SAD CONCLUSION TO OUR QUESTIONS Having started out with some foreboding that the bite being taken in this book would be more than could be chewed, the unmistakable and sad conclusion now is that every one of our four essential questions at the start that demanded careful scrutiny, have all been answered in the affirmative. We see unmistakable proof now, that all this, is not about the science of climate and protecting our environment; its about the policies of socialism intermingled with pernicious green ideology, using vast sums money that western nations did, and do not have, and who have borrowed at the expense of their citizens to promote theories based on manipulation and fraud, using state sponsored propaganda that has allowed it to take a firm hold on those of us who trust and believe in decency and scientific integrity and sound economic management. As that great philosopher Edmund Burke once said All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. The current debt level of the United States is $15 trillion dollars.
This is 1 billion dollars in $US100 dollar bills stacked on pallets.

132

This is $15 trillion in $US100 dollar bills (http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/ ) Written in numbers thats $15,000,000,000,000. The U.S. government national debt surpassed 15 trillion dollars in 2011. Thats 20% of the entire world's combined GDP and in 2011 the National Debt exceeded 100% of GDP and into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio that has countries like Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Italy, and Spain dealing with bankruptcy. These together with the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, have all funded massive global warming and renewable energy policies to the tune of tens of billions.

GOOD SCIENTISTS AND TRUE Now finally, it must be strongly acknowledged that there are many thousands of totally reputable, highly trained and competent scientific personnel men and women - currently working studiously in the interests of truth and scientific integrity in climate science and related fields. The numerous examples of manipulation and lack of scientific rigour even integrity bordering on fraud, seems to be concentrated in a limited number of extremely high level institutions and individuals, both at academic and government, to support pre-conceived policy and funding objectives set by the IPCC. The pity is, as we have seen, that the power of and need for money and the exercise of political power to achieve politically pre-determined ends, has driven many of these good people to succumb and fall into a consensus mind-set in order to further their careers. However, we are seeing a sea-change beginning with some of the great leaders of the climate science world who know the truth and are prepared to speak out. Whilst empirical evidence will eventually win out over propaganda given time, the immediate struggle for truth and a new direction must begin in the community with you! Dont be intimidated or afraid to stand strong and question. IMPORTANT If one wants to get a really good idea of the extraordinary level of manipulation the average citizen is up against, a must read is The smoking gun at Darwin Zero, in all its shocking detail. The explanation of the final graph will blow your mind! Keep on reading about the Official gross

133

manipulation (fraud is a better word) of global temperature records that have been kept since the 17th century and of the manipulation of temperature recording stations from cold to hot locations by government institutions and departments. FOR HEROES Remember, there are literally thousands of public servants around the world on the climate change gravy train who spend an enormous amount of time planting alarmist and fraudulent propaganda about catastrophic climate change and global warming on the net, most of it directed a high school and tertiary students. Its time we all did a lot more individual and independent research and reading to learn just what is being done to perpetuate the most outrageous fraud ever undertaken or sanctioned by world governments and their institutions.

134