The Dog Ate My Global Warming Data
09/23/09 - National Review by Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute.
[edited] The data needed to verify forecasts of global warming have disappeared. Maybe they were lost or deleted from some discarded computer. A few people know what happened, they aren’t talking much, and what they say makes no sense.
Phil Jones and Tom Wigley authored the first comprehensive history of surface temperature, in the early 1980's. They worked at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, Climate Research Unit. Their paper served as the primary reference for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It supported the IPCC claim of a “discernible human influence on global climate", a warming of 0.6° ± 0.2°C in the 20th century.
Jones and Wigley used data from ground weather stations not designed to monitor long term trends. Many stations were placed near trees, in parking lots, and near heat vents. Changing urban settings surely biased readings. They modified the temperature data before using it in climate models. But, Jones and Wigley did not report their original data or how thay had modified it.
The Australian scientist Warwick Hughes wondered where the error estimate of “± 0.2°” came from. He wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, politely asking for the original data.
Jones responded “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
That response discredits Jones. The entire purpose of looking at scientific results is to discover any errors.
Jones has given out some data, refused other requests, claimed he was restricted by confidentiality agreements, refused to release data to "non academics", and finally claimed not to have the original data because he lacked space to store it.
The story of climate change is based on this data. The history of science has many examples of fraud where data was conveniently lost or was later found to be altered in ways that were mistaken or biased.
A scientist without data is as persuasive as a cab driver. He has an opinion, but no facts to back it up. He is asking for trust. Trust is not a scientific principle of research or discovery.
Heartland Institute 2009 Conference on Climate Change
03/10/09 - Heartland.org
[edited] Global Warming is not and never was a crisis. More than 75 papers and keynote addresses were presented by some of the world's leading climatologists, economists, policy makers, and opinion leaders. You can see videos and Power Point slides for many of the presentations.
The Science Debate About Climate Change is Not Over
08/05/09 - OpenMarket by Marlo Lewis
There are three basic issues in the climate change debate: How much has the world warmed? How much from greenhouse gases? What will more greenhouse gases do? These issues are not settled, not even close, and here is why.
One of many points. The U.S. surface temperature record is supposed to be the best in the world. But, it is riddled with false warming biases. "We found stations located next to exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near structures that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations at wastewater plants, where waste digestion raises the air temperature."
There are nice graphs with medium scientific detail. It is quite readable, or watch the video.
Global Warming Science is Not Settled
08/31/09 - ABC News by John Stossel
Stossel suggests that government is a poor choice for organizing effective research on Global Warming. His 8 minute video segment on global warming is easy to watch.
Consider that true science welcomes criticism and meets questions with detailed explanations. The claim that "the debate is over" is a mark of arbitrary authority, not the scientific method.
In history, Galileo offered explanation and observation of a solar system centered on the Sun. His government and Church oppressors placed him under house arrest and claimed that the debate was over.
Dispelling the Global Warming Myth
03/22/09 - PowerLineBlog by John Hinderaker
[edited] The Heartland Institute sponsored the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York. The Conference differed from most such events in that it was devoted to science, not politics or propaganda.
See the charts displayed at PowerLineBlog.
- Climate swings of the last 12,000 years. Our current temperature changes have been repeated far into the past.
- Temperature trends. The governmnet run IPCC predicts runaway temperature increases, but where is the trend from the actual data?
- If anything, the climate is cooling. Note that atmospheric temperature bounces around like a playful cat.
- Plot of atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature. There is no correlation, see for yourself.
- Plots of solar radiation and CO2 versus atmospheric temperature. The Sun is doing it, and CO2 doesn't matter.
The most interesting one to me is that last graph of global temperature compared to variations in sunlight and carbon dioxide. Changes in solar radiation are driving temperature change, not carbon dioxide. Who would have thought that was possible (smile)?
Click to view at full size.
The Cause Of Global Warming
11/04/2000 - Lecture to the Wellington Branch of the Royal Society of New Zealand by Vincent Gray, Climate Consultant
Atmospheric temperature must be the standard for determining Global Warming, because ground measurements are dependent on changing local environment.
Roads, urbanization, and even weathering paint in ground stations creates changing measurements that are not consistent with gradually changing environmental temperature.
Gray examines many sources of data to come to his conclusions. Note that this was in 2000! Where is the detailed refutation by the Global Warming proponents?
[edited] Three methods of measuring global temperature show no signs of global warming, but a fourth method does:
- No - Tree rings, sediments and other proxys, for the past 1000 years.
- No - Weather balloons for the past 44 years.
- No - Satellites for the past 21 years.
- Yes - Surface measurements at weather stations.
Surface measurements give an intermittent and irregular average global increase of a mere 0.6°C (1.1°F) over 140 years. Individual records are highly variable and regional. In remote areas they sometimes show no change or even a decrease in temperature.
Temperature measurements carried out away from human influence show no evidence of global warming.
The small and irregular rise shown by many surface stations must be caused by changes in their thermal environment over long periods of time, such as better heating, larger buildings, darkening of surfaces, sealing of roads, increases in vehicles and aircraft, increased shielding from the atmosphere, and deterioration of painted surfaces.
Global Warming Caused by Humans is a Scam
The famous Hockey Stick graph showing global warming is based on bad data and a political motivation.
Carbon Dioxide Does Not Drive Climate
01/04/09 - WSJ.com Notable and Quotable
TalkingAboutTheWeather.com by Harold Ambler, via HuffingtonPost
[edited] The theory that carbon dioxide "drives" climate in any meaningful way is simply wrong. Carbon dioxide cannot absorb an unlimited amount of infrared radiation. Why not? Because it only absorbs heat along limited bandwidths, and is already absorbing just about everything it can. (read more)
Global Warming in 1000 Years
Susan Solomon is a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and lead author of an analysis published Monday.
[edited] Absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans acts to cool the Earth. Release of heat from the oceans warms the Earth. These processes will work against each other to keep temperatures almost constant for more than 1,000 years.After that, watch out!
Gerald Dickens is Professor of Earth science at Rice University.
[edited] There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way climate models link temperature and carbon. They do not explain what appears in the geological record.
Climate models explain only half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming 55 million years ago, the period known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM. The amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly during the PETM for unknown reasons.
Something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. Some processes not accounted for in current climate models caused a substantial portion of the warming. These same climate models are used by the IPCC for the current best estimates of 21st Century warming.
[edited] The IPCC has changed from a scientific institution that tries to be policy relevant into a political institution that pretends to be scientific.
There are more than enough climate activists, while there are too few solid and neutral bodies that make well-founded statements about climate change and climate policy.
The IPCC selects authors and bureau members by political belief, not on academic quality. The member countries are represented by their environment departments, instead of their research departments and academies.
Working Groups 2 and 3 of the AR4 (Assessment Report 4) violated all IPCC procedures. The conclusions are scientifically unfounded in part, and some are even copied from the environmental movement. The AR4 was substantially changed after the final review, even in parts that had already been accepted by the referees. Valid comments were ignored.
AR4 contains crude errors as a result, only some known publicly. These errors are in the chapters, the technical summaries, the summaries for policy makers, and the synthesis report. The errors are not random. Working Group 2 systematically portrays climate change as a bigger problem than is scientifically acceptable. Working Group 3 systematically portrays climate policy as easier and cheaper than can be responsibly concluded from the academic research.
The selection process for AR5 should be suspended until transparency is guaranteed and additional nominations are considered.