Short tutorial on CO2 and Earth's climate.

[gsvol]

In contrast to the Al Gore/Obama/Chavez world socialist's alarmist bull crap lies:

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the
product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known
but under-appreciated solubility pump.

Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where
it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with
residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be
absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters.

Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich
sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it
appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by
lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted
back into the atmosphere.

Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four
interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and
fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility
of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean
circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse
gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused
nor amplified global temperature increases.

Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect
of global warming, not a cause.

Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for
ocean temperatures. When global temperature,
and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the
physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to
increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse
gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the
positive feedback would have been catastrophic.

While the conditions for such a catastrophe were
present in the Vostok record from natural causes,
the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide
does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

CO2 ACQUITTAL (Rocket Scientist's Journal)
_______________________________________________________________

The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels
over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data
Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers
refer to.

The blue line is temps, the red, CO2 levels. The deep valleys
represent 4 separate glaciation/ice-age periods. Look carefully
at this historical relationship between temps and CO2 levels
(the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep
in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has
warmed the earth in the past.

But does the data indeed show this?

Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this
400,000-year period actually *followed* temperature
increases -lagging behind by an average of 800 years!

So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these
past glaciations. Yet Gore continually and dishonestly claims
otherwise. Furthermore, the subsequent CO2 level increases
due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans,
never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away
greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and his friends keep warning
us about.

In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had
ever led to increased warming, at least not when the
levels were within 10-15 times of what they are today.
-etl
_______________________________________________________________

"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through
the last 500 million years.

There is no statistical correlation between the level of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500
million years and the temperature record in this interval.

In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide
concentration occurred during a major ice age that
occurred about 450 million years ago [Myr].

Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times
higher than at present." [also see 180 million years ago, same
thing happened]:

The Geologic Record and Climate Change - TCS Daily
_______________________________________________________________


So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong.

The most important players on the greenhouse stage are
water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but
high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while
low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby
help cool the planet -etl].

Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the
atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution)
while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the
atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and
even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due
to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts
for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps
70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds
(mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high
as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect
(e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation
Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a
Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal
of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous
oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor
greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance
of water it should be noted that changes in the relative
humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect
of doubling CO2.

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts
_______________________________________________________________


Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse
gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4).

Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global
warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water
vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps,
deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric
greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.),
are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which
is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas
concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power
generation, and transportation.

However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison
to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing
about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human
emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable
-- effect on global climate.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
_______________________________________________________________


Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) — Water vapor is known
to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the
extent of its contribution to global warming has been
debated.

Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have
estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping
effect of water in the air, validating the role of the
gas as a critical component of climate change.

Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

 

[tim]

hmmm.

 

[gsvol]

The SCOTUS decision on Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency back in April 2007 was wrong and needs to be reversed ASAP.

In that ruling, SCOTUS held “…that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” that the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to regulate under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act.” Within a year, multiple states and environment groups were filing additional lawsuits, demanding EPA regulation on emissions from vehicles… essentially placing them in the lofty position of becoming “climate scientists” capable of bypassing Congress via back room regulations.

Considering the SCOTUS opinion was founded on IPCC documentation… now called into question with the exposure of questionable and unstable correction and adjustment formulas… the EPA and enviros may now found themselves dead in the water with legal recourse.

 

[TennTradition]

The guy who wrote this is a perfect example of what I was talking about here: http://www.volnation.com/forum/politics/73668-did-epa-suppress-global-warming-study.html#post3002102

There are a lot of facts here, but the conclusions drawn from them don't always make sense or only part of the issue.

I would question whether or not CO2 has amplified temperature increase in the past. He asserts that it did not, that is not a fact, to the best of my understanding.

CO2 did lag these temperature increases, and it was an effect of those temperature increases - even the hated IPCC would agree with that. The argument that because CO2 lagged temperature in the past, it must always lag (and not lead) temperature is off the mark.

The author says that if any greenhouse gas could raise global temperatures then the feedback would be catastrophic. Water is a greenhouse gas, as he notes, that sees positive feedback, as he notes, yet that isn't out of control. The notion that other negative feedbacks would not come into play at some point is misguided. Water vapor increases temperatures, which causes more water to enter the atmosphere. This will cause more warming, until enough of the "good" clouds outweigh the "bad" clouds, then temperatures would stabilize. I'm not arguing that consideration of out of control positive feedbacks is silly, but to say what he said in a short, cut and dry matter is misleading.

The significant role of water vapor in warming our planet does not make the potential role of other greenhouse gases insignificant. Water is at its equilibrium, globally..that is why there big oceans of it. The earth's temperature is what it is because of this water/water vapor equilibrium. Notions of relative humidity changes on a global level are odd unless we are doing something to upset the transport mechanisms for water in the atmosphere. Sure, water vapor in the atmosphere will increase if temperatures increase (whether that's because the sun ramps up, our orbit shifts, CO2 causes warming, whatever), but water is what it is, and that fact doesn't diminish the fact that other greenhouse gases can cause warming.

Water is accounted for in climate models, without a doubt. I would suggest that this is one of the most critical components of the models, actually. Perhaps IP could offer his two cents on that. The amount that increased water vapor will warm (or cool) is a very important aspect of the models and I would love to see this area hashed out in a better way. The last article you cited is an attempt to do this it would seem. It is important because as CO2 warms the planet, the oceans release more water vapor, which will cause more warming...to a point, then you can stabilize due to the cooling effects of clouds. Understanding that dynamic is very important to predicting temperature increases.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

The guy who wrote this is a perfect example of what I was talking about here: http://www.volnation.com/forum/politics/73668-did-epa-suppress-global-warming-study.html#post3002102

There are a lot of facts here, but the conclusions drawn from them don't always make sense or only part of the issue.

I would question whether or not CO2 has amplified temperature increase in the past. He asserts that it did not, that is not a fact, to the best of my understanding.

CO2 did lag these temperature increases, and it was an effect of those temperature increases - even the hated IPCC would agree with that. The argument that because CO2 lagged temperature in the past, it must always lag (and not lead) temperature is off the mark.

The author says that if any greenhouse gas could raise global temperatures then the feedback would be catastrophic. Water is a greenhouse gas, as he notes, that sees positive feedback, as he notes, yet that isn't out of control. The notion that other negative feedbacks would not come into play at some point is misguided. Water vapor increases temperatures, which causes more water to enter the atmosphere. This will cause more warming, until enough of the "good" clouds outweigh the "bad" clouds, then temperatures would stabilize. I'm not arguing that consideration of out of control positive feedbacks is silly, but to say what he said in a short, cut and dry matter is misleading.

The significant role of water vapor in warming our planet does not make the potential role of other greenhouse gases insignificant. Water is at its equilibrium, globally..that is why there big oceans of it. The earth's temperature is what it is because of this water/water vapor equilibrium. Notions of relative humidity changes on a global level are odd unless we are doing something to upset the transport mechanisms for water in the atmosphere. Sure, water vapor in the atmosphere will increase if temperatures increase (whether that's because the sun ramps up, our orbit shifts, CO2 causes warming, whatever), but water is what it is, and that fact doesn't diminish the fact that other greenhouse gases can cause warming.

Water is accounted for in climate models, without a doubt. I would suggest that this is one of the most critical components of the models, actually. Perhaps IP could offer his two cents on that. The amount that increased water vapor will warm (or cool) is a very important aspect of the models and I would love to see this area hashed out in a better way. The last article you cited is an attempt to do this it would seem. It is important because as CO2 warms the planet, the oceans release more water vapor, which will cause more warming...to a point, then you can stabilize due to the cooling effects of clouds. Understanding that dynamic is very important to predicting temperature increases.

You know TT, sometimes science takes things way beyond what they should. Climate Change is one of those things. It's too simple to just say that the Earth warms and cools on it's own. Instead, they want to claim that we are the problem (which animals would be a bigger problem) and then proceed to tax us for more money to do useless research that won't prove helpful because there is nothing they can do to change how much CO2 humans or animals put out. I mean, think about it, are they going to make us wear some type of devices on our orifices to limit the amount of CO2 we can breath out, fart, or burp?? Understanding why climate change is happening is one thing, but creating a conspiracy theory to extract money out of the American people, and the world for that matter, is grounds for treason and extortion. That's really pretty simple to understand. If they wanted to study the climate change, use private industry to do so.

 

[TennTradition]

I would say that the nature of science is to ask questions that dig deeper than simple answers. It's what the field does.

With regard to human/animal emissions of CO2, animals obtain their carbon from natural feedstock in the form of plants or animals that obtained their carbon from plants. As long as animals are not eating long-sequestered carbon (such as eating coal), then there is a very quick uptake of that CO2 when the next crop comes in. As long as we are growing our food, then we are pretty much recycling our CO2 emissions. As for our methane emissions, that is a bit different since plants don't take the methane back up and you have to wait for the methane to be oxidized back to CO2.

 

[Oldvol75]

I just use the old fashion method! I go outside, its either hot or cold, it was 31 this morning here in east central alabama.

 

[gsvol]

The guy who wrote this is a perfect example of what I was talking about here: http://www.volnation.com/forum/politics/73668-did-epa-suppress-global-warming-study.html#post3002102

FYI, I don't use google very often, bear in mind
that Al Gore is an unpaid advisor to Google.

I don't trust google to be unbiased, as a matter
of fact I often find them very biased on certain
controversial issues.

I didn't use google to come up with my original post
or hardly any topic I post on for that matter.

There are a lot of facts here, but the conclusions drawn from them don't always make sense or only part of the issue.

Specifically??

I would question whether or not CO2 has amplified temperature increase in the past. He asserts that it did not, that is not a fact, to the best of my understanding.

Well we have a good record for the past 400,000
years that says so.

CO2 did lag these temperature increases, and it was an effect of those temperature increases - even the hated IPCC would agree with that. The argument that because CO2 lagged temperature in the past, it must always lag (and not lead) temperature is off the mark.

To say that what has been true for 400,000 years
may change in the future is one thing but to say
what the IPCC is saying; ie; CO2 will lead and not
lag future temperatures and to say different is to
be a doubter etc etc is ludicrous.

The author says that if any greenhouse gas could raise global temperatures then the feedback would be catastrophic. Water is a greenhouse gas, as he notes, that sees positive feedback, as he notes, yet that isn't out of control. The notion that other negative feedbacks would not come into play at some point is misguided. Water vapor increases temperatures, which causes more water to enter the atmosphere. This will cause more warming, until enough of the "good" clouds outweigh the "bad" clouds, then temperatures would stabilize. I'm not arguing that consideration of out of control positive feedbacks is silly, but to say what he said in a short, cut and dry matter is misleading.

To say that it would be catastrophic is exactly what
the IPCC is saying.

Not nearly as misleading as what the IPCC is saying.

From the purloined emails we have learned that the
'hockey stick' record of temperatures was not just
some statistical error, it was indeed a purposeful
attempt at deception!

Not only that, we have learned that some scientists
at the top of those who supprt the IPCC theory
have attempted to hide the fact that currently
temperatures have been decreasing rather than
increasing.

These facts overwhelmingly support the theory
that solar activity and not earth's atmospheric
activity is the governing principle in cyclic planet
temperature fluctuations.

The significant role of water vapor in warming our planet does not make the potential role of other greenhouse gases insignificant. Water is at its equilibrium, globally..that is why there big oceans of it. The earth's temperature is what it is because of this water/water vapor equilibrium. Notions of relative humidity changes on a global level are odd unless we are doing something to upset the transport mechanisms for water in the atmosphere. Sure, water vapor in the atmosphere will increase if temperatures increase (whether that's because the sun ramps up, our orbit shifts, CO2 causes warming, whatever), but water is what it is, and that fact doesn't diminish the fact that other greenhouse gases can cause warming.

A lot of questions there, mostly uanswered.

Personally I don't want to pay about $6,000 in energy
costs a year because someone has some unproven theory.

Next I don't want some politically appointed bureaucrat
deciding just how much or how little I would have to
pay to satisfy my allocation of carbon credits for my
business or one that might employ me.

Water is accounted for in climate models, without a doubt. I would suggest that this is one of the most critical components of the models, actually. Perhaps IP could offer his two cents on that. The amount that increased water vapor will warm (or cool) is a very important aspect of the models and I would love to see this area hashed out in a better way. The last article you cited is an attempt to do this it would seem. It is important because as CO2 warms the planet, the oceans release more water vapor, which will cause more warming...to a point, then you can stabilize due to the cooling effects of clouds. Understanding that dynamic is very important to predicting temperature increases.

The argument that water has been underaccounted for
and CO2 has been way overestimated is a valid argument.

You know TT, sometimes science takes things way beyond what they should. Climate Change is one of those things. It's too simple to just say that the Earth warms and cools on it's own. Instead, they want to claim that we are the problem (which animals would be a bigger problem) and then proceed to tax us for more money to do useless research that won't prove helpful because there is nothing they can do to change how much CO2 humans or animals put out. I mean, think about it, are they going to make us wear some type of devices on our orifices to limit the amount of CO2 we can breath out, fart, or burp?? Understanding why climate change is happening is one thing, but creating a conspiracy theory to extract money out of the American people, and the world for that matter, is grounds for treason and extortion. That's really pretty simple to understand. If they wanted to study the climate change, use private industry to do so.

Here is an example of what you are talking about:

Nopenhagen talking points.

These talking points obviously cater to a political agenda.

Many of those points simply are not true to science.

Many are quite theoretical as well.

Buried deep within the talking points:

More specifically, the average annual per-capita
emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric
ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-90% below the per-
capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

In 1900 Americans were putting out 1 to
2 Mt/year/per-capita.

Nowhere in this Copenhagen clusterf**k is an
expansion of nuclear power discussed, so the
“goal” evidently, is to have all humans live the
same equalized quality of life…the same quality
of life as the humans now living in rural Mexico.

And I have witnessed families in rural Mexico
living in holes dug out in the ground with zero
power supply other than firewood they could
gather.

I just use the old fashion method! I go outside, its either hot or cold, it was 31 this morning here in east central alabama.

To augment your observations I just happen
to have a ton of weather rocks that I am
releasing at wholesale prices to the public.

These weather rocks are infalible and are
currently available to the first 5,000 to order
at the amazingly low price of $5 + shipping
and handling!!! (instructions included.)

 

[TennTradition]

I don't have a lot of time right now, so I just wanted to point out that I wasn't saying you googled that information, GS. I am saying that what they guy wrote is filled with a lot of the assertions of data (that most agree on) followed by a conclusion (that is contested), which is similar to a lot of other things you find on the issue. So, in summary, I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the guy you quoted. Second, I wasn't really referring to google as much as how he made his points.

 

[gsvol]

I don't have a lot of time right now, so I just wanted to point out that I wasn't saying you googled that information, GS. I am saying that what they guy wrote is filled with a lot of the assertions of data (that most agree on) followed by a conclusion (that is contested), which is similar to a lot of other things you find on the issue. So, in summary, I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the guy you quoted. Second, I wasn't really referring to google as much as how he made his points.

That was in reference to your:

The guy who wrote this is a perfect example of what I was talking about here: http://www.volnation.com/forum/politics/polit...ml#post3002102

BTW, the UN IPCC makes their points exactly that way
and they have had to manipulate data even to do that.

FYI, I linked four different sources, (in the original post),
let's discuss their credibility.

The IPCC has lost it's credibility!

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen has warned:

"'He who controls carbon controls life.
It is a bureaucrat's dream to control
carbon dioxide."

Czech physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, formerly of Harvard
University and a global-warming skeptic, reacted to
Schellnhuber's CO2 personal "budget" proposal by
citing tyrannical movements of the past.

"What Schellnhuber has just said is just breathtaking,
and it helps me to understand how crazy political
movements such as the Nazis or communists could
have so easily taken over a nation that is as
sensible as Germany," Motl wrote on Sept. 6, 2009.

What is most surprising is that even the granddaddy
of global warming treaties, the Kyoto Protocol, would
have had barely a measurable impact on global CO2
levels even if fully enacted and assuming the U.N.
was correct on the science.

The congressional global warming cap-and-trade
bill has been declared "scientifically meaningless,"
and President Obama's own EPA is now on
record admitting that U.S. cap-and-trade bill
"would not impact world CO2 levels."

Controlling climate change appears not to be
about controlling temperatures, but about
controlling human freedom. Czech President
Vaclav Klaus, who lived through totalitarian
regimes, now warns that the biggest threat
to freedom and democracy is from
"ambitious environmentalism."

Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre.

Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the
original balance between incoming and outgoing
radiation by about 2%.

There is general agreement on the above findings.

At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless
of whether any relation between the observed
warming and the observed increase in minor
greenhouse gases can be established.

Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the
U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can
be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link
the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the
weakness of any case for concern.

The main statement publicized after the last IPCC
Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it
was likely that most of the warming since 1957
(a point of anomalous cold) was due to man.

This claim was based on the weak argument
that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't
reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998
without some forcing, and that the only forcing
that they could think of was man.

Even this argument assumes that these models
adequately deal with natural internal variability—
that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino,
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers
acknowledged that the failure of these models
to anticipate the absence of warming for the
past dozen years was due to the failure of
these models to account for this natural internal
variability.

Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument
for anthropogenic climate change
was shown to be false.

etc etc

At this point, few scientists would argue that the
science is settled. In particular, the question remains
as to whether water vapor and clouds have positive
or negative feedbacks.

The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by
positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and
the history of the earth's climate offers some
guidance on this matter. About 2.5 billion years ago,
the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare
this with the 2% perturbation that a doubling of CO2
would produce), and yet the evidence is that the
oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that
temperatures might not have been very different
from today's.

Carl Sagan in the 1970s referred to this as the
"Early Faint Sun Paradox."

For more than 30 years there have been attempts
to resolve the paradox with greenhouse gases.
Some have suggested CO2—but the amount needed
was thousands of times greater than present levels
and incompatible with geological evidence.

What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe?

The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion,
considerably greater than that implied in the hacked
emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps
not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely
the suggestion that the very existence of warming or
of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe.

This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams.

The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are
simply a matter of the response of a single number,
GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for
that matter), represents a gigantic step backward
in the science of climate.

Global warming: An inconvenient hoax

A lot of inconvenient truths are starting to appear
in the battle over global warming. Even the term,
“global warming” is being attenuated by retrenching
environmentalists.

The preferred term is now “climate change.” This
shift in language was occasioned by the unexpected
observation that, for the last eleven years, the
Earth’s average temperatures have been cooling.

So much for Michael Mann’s vaunted “hockey stick”
chart, which predicted we would all be cooked in our
greenhouse by the end of this century.

Some day, when your grandchild asks you how so
many folks could have been suckered in by Algore
and the IPCC/CRU crowd, you can just say that it
took you a while to discover that there was more
truth to be found in The Louisville Examiner than
on the pages of The New York Times.

And the kid will say: “New York Times?
What’s that, grandpa?”

 

[TennTradition]

I know that was in reference to the provided link...my point was that I was referring to the referenced PhD and not you, unless you wrote the piece that you quoted.


I think that Lindzen makes some good points in the middle piece from the WSJ. They are certainly better than the CO2 has lagged temperature in the past arguments he is fond of quoting. I don't see why he likes that one. A lag does not mean it cannot lead when there is some other source for CO2 present (other than the bubbling ocean when temps increase). Historically, that really wasn't the case. Now there is a net positive CO2 forcing. This alone doesn't mean that temperatures have to rise with this forcing, but it certainly doesn't mean that they can't.

I also completely disagree that the term climate change was adopted because for the last 11 years temperatures have been falling.
-The first problem with that statement is that it doesn't come close to telling the true story. You could say that temperatures have fallen over the last 11 years, and you would be right. I could say that temperatures have risen over the last 10 years, and I would be right. These are the kinds of statements I was talking about in the link that I provided previously. They are fact, but lead to the wrong conclusions (i.e., don't tell the whole story). I would argue that saying 'have been falling' rather than 'have fallen' is also incorrect because 'have been falling' implies constant slope, but that is really just semantics and isn't the real problem with the statement.
-Second, the notion that climate change was adopted as a cover to explain temperature rises and falls is odd to me. I don't see it that way at all, and I don't believe it is the case. Rather, I suggest that the term climate change was adopted because climate pertains to more than just temperature. For example, it also pertains to precipitation. The term climate change more accurately captures the science that looks at all of these changes...not just warming.

 

[gsvol]

I know that was in reference to the provided link...my point was that I was referring to the referenced PhD and not you, unless you wrote the piece that you quoted.


I think that Lindzen makes some good points in the middle piece from the WSJ. They are certainly better than the CO2 has lagged temperature in the past arguments he is fond of quoting. I don't see why he likes that one. A lag does not mean it cannot lead when there is some other source for CO2 present (other than the bubbling ocean when temps increase). Historically, that really wasn't the case. Now there is a net positive CO2 forcing. This alone doesn't mean that temperatures have to rise with this forcing, but it certainly doesn't mean that they can't.

I also completely disagree that the term climate change was adopted because for the last 11 years temperatures have been falling.
-The first problem with that statement is that it doesn't come close to telling the true story. You could say that temperatures have fallen over the last 11 years, and you would be right. I could say that temperatures have risen over the last 10 years, and I would be right. These are the kinds of statements I was talking about in the link that I provided previously. They are fact, but lead to the wrong conclusions (i.e., don't tell the whole story). I would argue that saying 'have been falling' rather than 'have fallen' is also incorrect because 'have been falling' implies constant slope, but that is really just semantics and isn't the real problem with the statement.
-Second, the notion that climate change was adopted as a cover to explain temperature rises and falls is odd to me. I don't see it that way at all, and I don't believe it is the case. Rather, I suggest that the term climate change was adopted because climate pertains to more than just temperature. For example, it also pertains to precipitation. The term climate change more accurately captures the science that looks at all of these changes...not just warming.

Theoretically as the earth warms, more CO2 is
released into the atmosphere from warming oceans
and during cooling periods the oceans absorb more
CO2, there is far more to be said for that theory than
the theory that human release of CO2 from fossil
fuels will drive the atmosphere into some sort of
catastrophic direction.

Changing rhetoric from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
also fits nicely into marxist theory in that propaganda
should always be in a state of flux.

You make an excellent argument for NOT passing
any carbon restriction regulations nor signing a
binding international treaty, especially when that
which is proposed is so draconian.

We CANNOT stop all climate change under
any circumstances.

What is now being proposed would have a minimal
effect on climate but a HUGE effect on economy,
not to mention give some people immense power
to regulate. (and to rake in huge profits from the
peons) Any time that happens there is
always a very real chance of abuse of power.

Here is a humorous article on climategate.

But don't worry, it's all "peer-reviewed."

Here's what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague
Michael Mann of Penn State mean by "peer review".

When Climate Research published a paper dissenting
from the Jones-Mann "consensus," Jones demanded
that the journal "rid itself of this troublesome editor,"
and Mann advised that "we have to stop considering
Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal.

Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the
climate research community to no longer submit to,
or cite papers."

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical
Research Letters also showed signs of wandering
off the "consensus" reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley
("one of the world's foremost experts on climate
change") suggested they get the goods on its
editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the
American Geophysical Union to "get him ousted."

When another pair of troublesome dissenters
emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, "I can't
see either of these papers being in the next
IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out
somehow – even if we have to redefine what
the peer-review literature is!"

Which, in essence, is what they did. The more
frantically they talked up "peer review" as the
only legitimate basis for criticism, the more
assiduously they turned the process into what
James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics
of international science.

The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is
unimproveable: "How To Forge A Consensus."
Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting
scientists: That's "peer review," climate-style.

The more their echo chamber shriveled, the more
Mann and Jones insisted that they and only they
represent the "peer-reviewed" "consensus." And
gullible types like Ed Begley Jr. and Andrew Revkin
of the New York Times fell for it hook, line and
tree-ring.

The e-mails of "Andy" (as his CRU chums fondly
know him) are especially pitiful. Confronted by
serious questions from Stephen McIntyre, the
dogged Ontario retiree whose "Climate Audit"
Web site exposed the fraud of Dr. Mann's global-
warming "hockey stick" graph, "Andy" writes to
Dr. Mann to say not to worry, he's going to
"cover" the story from a more oblique angle:

"I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the
value of the peer review process and not on
the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.

"peer review, for all its imperfections, is where
the herky-jerky process of knowledge building
happens, would you agree?"

And, amazingly, Dr. Mann does!

"Re, your point at the end – you've taken the
words out of my mouth."

And that's what Andrew Revkin did, week in,
week out: He took the words out of Michael
Mann's mouth and served them up to impressionable
readers of the New York Times and opportunist
politicians around the world champing at the bit
to inaugurate a vast global regulatory body to
confiscate trillions of dollars of your hard-earned
wealth in the cause of "saving the planet" from
an imaginary crisis concocted by a few dozen
thuggish ideologues. If you fall for this after the
revelations of the past week, you're as big a dupe
as Begley or Revkin.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" wondered Juvenal:
Who watches the watchmen? But the beauty of the
climate-change tree-ring circus is that you never
need to ask "Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?"

Mann peer-reviewed Jones, and Jones peer-reviewed
Mann, and anyone who questioned their theories got
exiled to the unwarmed wastes of Siberia.

The "consensus" warm-mongers could have declared
it only counts as "peer-reviewed" if it's published in
Peer-Reviewed Studies published by Mann & Jones
Publishing Inc.

 

[TennTradition]

Theoretically as the earth warms, more CO2 is
released into the atmosphere from warming oceans
and during cooling periods the oceans absorb more
CO2, there is far more to be said for that theory than
the theory that human release of CO2 from fossil
fuels will drive the atmosphere into some sort of
catastrophic direction.

I suppose the ocean uptake/source is a theory, but it is so well documented that I would put it closer to fact. However, the two mechanisms are not competing, and are actually integrated with each other in existing climate models.

 

[gsvol]

I suppose the ocean uptake/source is a theory, but it is so well documented that I would put it closer to fact. However, the two mechanisms are not competing, and are actually integrated with each other in existing climate models.

Dr Glassman has a PHD in applied physics and
(I believe) was head of the USAF missile program
at one time. (at any rate he headed up some missile
program, hence the respect he receives in Rocket
Scientist mag.)

Again, IPCC global climate models are fatally flawed.
(link to four of his recent articles plus the original from
2006.)

This was the second link was in my original post.

This succession of annually deposited layers
comprises one of the best climate records in
the world and are comparable to the records
obtained from ice cores. In Effingham Inlet we
have an almost complete record that spans
the entire Holocene -- nearly 10,000 years!

We make x-rays of these yearly deposited
laminations and scan them with computers.
The computer records several thousand years
of records and can recognize patterns, trends
and cycles that we cannot discern visually.

What we have found is that many of the cycles
that we find correspond to various sun spot cycles.

A Sunspot cycle is an irregular cycle, averaging
about 11 years in length, during which the number
of sunspots (and of their associated outbursts)
rises and then drops again. We found a correlation
between these 11-year sunspot cycles and cycles
recognizable in our sedimentary and marine
productivity records in Effingham Inlet.

As we analyzed our marine records in detail we
identified other sunspot cycles as well using a
time series analysis technique known as wavelet
time series analysis.



We found good evidence of the 75-90 year
Gleissberg Solar Cycle, the 200-500 year Suess
Solar Cycle, and the 1,100 year Bond Solar Cycle
with the shorter wavelength cycles apparently
piggybacking on the longer ones. In the records
from Effingham Inlet these cycles show up
independently in all the isotopic, geochemical,
sedimentological and paleontological proxies
examined.



Although these British Columbia records, indicating
a clear influence of the sun on climate, are very
good they not the first studies to make such a
correlation. Here are a couple of examples. The
first graphic shows a clear correlation between
global sea surface temperature and sunspot
number. The warming as we came out of the
Little Ice Age is very clear.

There are several graphs that clearly show CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere to be following
solar activity.

1. If CO2 is of such critical importance to
climate change why was there a large
temperature rise prior to the early 1940s
when 80 percent of the human produced
carbon dioxide was produced after World
War II?

2. When CO2 levels finally began to increase
dramatically in the postwar years why was
there a concomitant interval of about 30 years
of cooling?

One would think that if CO2 had such critical
control over climate that the relative abundance
of CO2 in the atmosphere would be in lock step
with global temperature. Many researchers realize
the difficulties that are presented by trying to
make CO2 the key factor in climate change.

As a result there has been renewed research,
much of it in the past year or so, into the idea
that there really is a connection between
variability in solar output and global temperature.



This new interest in solar forcing of climate centers
around ideas put forward by Dr. Jan Veizer of the
University of Ottawa that variability in the amount
of galactic cosmic rays striking the earth are influential
in climate change, acting as an amplifier.

Galactic cosmic rays, are not really rays at all,
but are basically stripped down neutrons and
protons that are given off periodically throughout
the galaxy when a supernova occurs.

They bombard the solar system and earth
continually. An interesting correlation has
been observed between the sun spot cycle,
galactic cosmic rays, and global cloudiness.

The following diagram shows the abundance of
low clouds colored in blue, which as you can see
is cyclic.

The abundance of low clouds corresponds very
closely to the level of solar radiance, as indicated
by the green line. Both the proportion of low clouds
and the level of solar radiance in turn correspond
closely with the proportion of cosmic rays striking
the Earth. They are all moving in concert with
each other.



Thus the more cosmic rays that strikes the
earth at any particular time, the more clouds
that form.

The more clouds that form, the lower global
temperatures become, because they tend to
bounce back warming sunlight. Since there is
an observed 1.7 percent variation in low cloud
formation between a solar maximum and minimum
this is a significant variability capable of causing
real climate change.



In summary then we have galactic cosmic rays
continually striking the earth. Independent of
the cosmic rays striking the solar system the
sun is continually going through sunspot cycles.

As I mentioned previously, the amount of solar
flaring follows the 11-year sun spot cycle, and
varies even more through the longer Gleissberg,
Suess and Bond solar cycles.

The larger the number of flares produced
by the sun, the fewer the proportion of
cosmic rays that strike the earth, as these
flares tend to deflect the cosmic rays.



Thus when cosmic rays are deflected away
from the Earth there are fewer clouds, which
permits a little bit more secondary radiation
to penetrate to the surface. Thus we no
longer have the problem caused by solar
variability only varying by 0.1% through a
sunspot cycle, the change in global cloudiness
permits more than ample solar energy through,
which can significantly change climate.

There is now a viable explanation to explain
the great correlation that has been observed
between solar records and temperature records.
The correlation gets even better through longer
-scale solar cycles. For example, the intensity
of cosmic rays varies by 15 percent through
the 11-year sun spot cycle. At the longer
wavelength decadal-scale Gleissberg, centennial
-scale Seuss, and millennial-scale Bond cycles
the cosmic ray intensity varies by up to
four times that much, causing significant
changes to the climate.

But if the sun is important to climate change
what role do greenhouse gases play then?

Greenhouse gases are really important. They
make up something like 0.1 percent of our
atmosphere and are a critical component of
the Earths biosphere.

If you listen to the rhetoric produced by some
environmental groups one would come away
with the understanding that , all greenhouse
gases must be expunged.

However, without them, the earth would
be uninhabitable; it'd be too cold.



The media, special interest groups, and even
some government produced literature all report
that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.

I was at the Canadian Museum of Nature a few
months ago where a traveling display was set
up that clearly, and erroneously I might add,
indicated that CO2 was the most important
greenhouse gas.

The number one greenhouse gas is actually
water vapor. It's something like 98 percent,
by volume, of all greenhouse gases.
.............................


To give you an example of this comparison
lets consider the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere. In the 19th century, when the
world was relatively unindustrialized the level
of CO2 in the atmosphere stood at around
285 ppm. By 2003 the level of CO2 in the
atmosphere, primarily the result of industrialization
and land use changes, stood at 376 ppm.

The resultant influence on climate has been
minimal.

Computer models say that this increase in CO2
should have heated the Earth up significantly
by this stage.

But what about CO2 and climate change?
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have
increased to 376 ppm in 2003, about a 30
percent increase from pre-industrial times.
Most of that increase has been due to fossil
fuel burning and land use changes.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 can and does
have an impact upon global temperatures.
But what impact will it have?

The idea put forward by the IPCC is that
CO2 the major greenhouse gas and any
increases in the proportion of CO2 in the
atmosphere will cause a major warming in
earth's climate.

This scenario is at odds with the
empirical evidence recorded in the
geological record.



It is important to look at the empirical
geological record of climate change and
atmospheric CO2 concentrations and see
what that tells us about the long-term
correlation between climate and CO2
concentrations because that's a lot better
than the 100 years of temperature records
that we have.

At times in the past CO2 levels have been
up to 16 times higher than at present.

The bottom chart shows the range of global
temperature through the last 500 million years.

There is no statistical correlation between
the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
through the last 500 million years and the
temperature record in this interval.

In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon
dioxide concentration occurred during a major
ice age that occurred about 450 million years
ago.

Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time
were about 15 times higher than at present.

Let's move to a little bit more recent geological
history. There have been about 33 glacial advances
and retreats through the last two million years or
so. Through the last 10,000 years we have been
in the Holocene interglacial, a warm episode
between the last glaciation and the next one
that will begin in the relatively near, geologically
speaking, future. The last glaciation peaked about
18,000 years ago with the ice sheets retreating
rapidly over just a few thousand years. Before that
there was another interglacial that began about
130,000 years ago and lasted about 10,000 years.

What I would like to draw your attention to is
the level of CO2 levels, as preserved in prehistoric
air bubbles, from very high quality ice core records
from Antarctica. When researchers first looked at
the results from these cores they observed a
repeating correlation between CO2 and temperature
through several glacial/interglacial cycles.

However, when they began to look at higher
resolution cycles they say something different.

They observed that temperature would go up first,
with CO2 coming up later.

I teach a general climate change course. To get
the significance of this correlation over to the
students I use the following analogy.

I tell the students that based on these records
if you believe that climate is being driven by
CO2 then they probably would have no difficulty
in accepting the idea that Winston Churchill
was instrumental in the defeat of King Herold
by Duke William of Orange at the Battle of
Hastings in 1066.


If you can believe that this historical
temporal incongruity could be feasible
then you can have no problem believing
that CO2 is what's driving Earth's climate
system.


In conclusion, the geologic record clearly
shows us that there really is little correlation
between CO2 levels and temperature.

Although CO2 can have a minor influence
on global temperature the effect is minimal
and short lived as this cycle sits on top of
the much larger water cycle, which is what
truly controls global temperatures.

The water cycle is in turn primarily
influenced by natural celestial cycles
and trends.

 

[TennTradition]

Why is it so popular to use data collected when there was no net positive CO2 forcing to argue that CO2 can't drive climate in the presence of a net positive CO2 forcing?

 

[gsvol]

Why is it so popular to use data collected when there was no net positive CO2 forcing to argue that CO2 can't drive climate in the presence of a net positive CO2 forcing?

Two reasons:

1. Because CO2 has never yet been a net forcing agent in climate change.

2. Because if in the future at some point CO2 should become a net forcing agent, it's effects would be too small to be bothersome.

Note; CO2 has been demonized by some as a pollutant, this is NOT scientifically factual.

 

[TennTradition]

Two reasons:

1. Because CO2 has never yet been a net forcing agent in climate change.

2. Because if in the future at some point CO2 should become a net forcing agent, it's effects would be too small to be bothersome.

Note; CO2 has been demonized by some as a pollutant, this is NOT scientifically factual.

Point 1 and 2 would seem to be similar. Both rest upon the belief that CO2 cannot cause significant (let's say on the order of several degrees C) temperature rise. Gaining a better understanding of that question (and the effects if there is a temperature) is at the heart of climate science. I'm not a climate scientist so I can't prove either side with any authority, but I obviously lean more to the side of believing research that suggests CO2 can cause these sorts of temperature increases.

At the heart of these temperature increases, though, is the water feedback effect...which I we may be able to agree is a key cog in either argument.

 

[gsvol]

Point 1 and 2 would seem to be similar. Both rest upon the belief that CO2 cannot cause significant (let's say on the order of several degrees C) temperature rise. Gaining a better understanding of that question (and the effects if there is a temperature) is at the heart of climate science. I'm not a climate scientist so I can't prove either side with any authority, but I obviously lean more to the side of believing research that suggests CO2 can cause these sorts of temperature increases.

At the heart of these temperature increases, though, is the water feedback effect...which I we may be able to agree is a key cog in either argument.

Obviously I don't agree at all with the former.

Can you direct me to any research that suggests CO2 can cause these sorts of temperature increases???

Back when the enviro scare was the next ice age, I was somewhat open minded and for anyone who experienced the winter of '51, the threat seemed much more real than current claims of run-a-way global warming (aka climate change), so I made inquiries and found most of those claims were based on false assumptions.

I've had the good fortune to have met some very intelligent, educated and honest people, (as well as my share of absolute scumbags) during my life time.

Seek and ye shall find.

For instance if I wanted serious help with my computer, the last time I had a major problem a guy that wrote some of the software on the world's first nuclear submarine came over and in about twenty minutes he solved the problem and I didn't have any similar problem for at least ten years. (He did it for free btw.)

Now about the latter part that we possibly could have a meeting of the minds.

It is my understanding that water vapor is 98% of our greenhouse gas and the amount of water vapor we have in our atmosphere at any time is goverened overwhelmingly by solar/celestial activity and has little if anything to do with CO2 levels.

Give me some theory about how we can control solar activity and you have my attention.

(Of course a few degress C would change climate patterns significantly but then what is being proposed in the US senate bears huge costs but does very very little to solve the problem as it is presented to the public.)

Botton line we have several degrees C leeway that supports happy prosperous productive life on Earth.

 

[gsvol]

Glad to have that settled.

"What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe?

The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion,
considerably greater than that implied in the hacked
emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps
not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely
the suggestion that the very existence of warming or
of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe."

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT's foremost climatoolgist.

Consider the real Earth weather history as produced in post 10 of this thread. (in comparison to the misleading and purposely falsified data produced by the IPCC)

Here is some of the alarmist IPCC propaganda being shown in Copenhagen:

What the IPCC predicts as worst case scenario isn't even worse than the best time weather wise in human history, maybe even since the last ice age, at the very least the very best in the last thousand years.

You know what, even when IPCC researchers were making their computer model projections, and even after removing real data and replacing it with false data, (aka data rape) they still had problems making the computer models say what they wanted them to say.

Source, GRU leaked emails.

The "Harry Read Me" file is a file that documents the frustration of a programmer who is trying to manipulate the climate data in a program to give climatologists (using that term very loosely, obviosly the main sources for the IPCC are turning out to be members of a criminal conspiracy) the result that they want. It even documents that the real “raw” climate data has been erased.

Exercpts:

“What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah- there is no ’supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – )”

“You can’t imagine what this has cost me — to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance …”

“OH F— THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases.”

“This whole project is SUCH A MESS …”

"One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up - but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!"

"Got it to work.. sort of. Turns out I had included enough information in the ACT file, and so was able to
write auminmaxresync.for. A few teething troubles, but two new databases ('tm[n|x].0707301343.dtb')
created with 13654 stations in each. And yes - the headers are identical ."

"Almost perfect! But unfortunately, there is a slight discrepancy, and they have a habit of being tips of
icebergs. If you add up the header/station counts of the new tmin database, merg and lost files, you get
13654 + 579 + 122 = 14355, the original station count. If you try the same check for tmax, however, you get
13654 + 570 + 93 = 14317, two more than the original count! I suspected a couple of stations were being
counted twice, so using 'comm' I looked for identical headers. Unfortunately there weren't any!! So I have
invented two stations, hmm."

And that's just the tip of the iceberg people.

Full speed ahead though for the good ship Obama. :clapping:

Oh and watch out for icebergs, they may not be melting as fast as you claim to think!!! (listen for crunches)

And when you start crunching numbers, be careful you don't crunch your own!!!!

 

[TennTradition]

I would like to know more about the 'trick' that Phil (or whatever his name is) was talking about when he said he applied Mann's Nature trick. It seems to me that he is just talking about plotting the calibrated instrumental temperature record alongside the tree-ring reconstructions to provide perspective on the fact that some of the tree-ring reconstructions show a decline. I'm not sure that it is any sort of actual statistical trick. It is a plot, with more data on it. Is that true? Or did they replace data on the plot? If they did replace data, did they cite that in the legend?

GS, IP, anyone actually know what he was talking about when he said the 'Nature trick.'

I will say that it is interesting to review some of these emails. However, I would absolutely caution those who read them that they must be read in context and individual quotes being pulled out of that context could lead to misrepresentation.

With that said, it is obvious that these climate guys at East Anglia don't like skeptics. Honestly, if it were my line of work, I wouldn't either. It would certainly get old to have the focus of your scientific work politicized every day. Of course, they chose the area ... I guess they'll have to deal with it.

 

[gsvol]

I would like to know more about the 'trick' that Phil (or whatever his name is) was talking about when he said he applied Mann's Nature trick. It seems to me that he is just talking about plotting the calibrated instrumental temperature record alongside the tree-ring reconstructions to provide perspective on the fact that some of the tree-ring reconstructions show a decline. I'm not sure that it is any sort of actual statistical trick. It is a plot, with more data on it. Is that true? Or did they replace data on the plot? If they did replace data, did they cite that in the legend?

GS, IP, anyone actually know what he was talking about when he said the 'Nature trick.'

I will say that it is interesting to review some of these emails. However, I would absolutely caution those who read them that they must be read in context and individual quotes being pulled out of that context could lead to misrepresentation.

With that said, it is obvious that these climate guys at East Anglia don't like skeptics. Honestly, if it were my line of work, I wouldn't either. It would certainly get old to have the focus of your scientific work politicized every day. Of course, they chose the area ... I guess they'll have to deal with it.

I think I understand the 'nature trick' thingie but that term is in dispute and has been thrown up as a smokescreen meant to lead to more controversy and polarization, using the divide and conquer technique, imo.

I'll get back to that later in more detail as to my understanding of what was meant. (in context of course.)

Presently though, I would like to move on to the larger issue, namely the validity of the IPCC conclusions.

Let me point out (from this thread), the NIWA contibution to the IPCC.

Unlike the GRU, NIWA DID NOT destroy (or hide) it's original hard data, evidence shows however that it DID manipulate it's data for political purposes.

Why does NIWA’s graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different?

Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

It is relatively easy to find out. We compared raw data for each station (from NIWA’s web site) with the adjusted official data, which we obtained from one of Dr Salinger’s colleagues.

Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.
...................................

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming.

All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below.

There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature.

It’s a disgrace.

......................................

The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming – points out the striking similarities with the CRU scandal.

Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data.

Now guess who else is very sensitive about releasing their data through the FOIA???

Give yourself and A+ if you said NASA.

Chris Horner... said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.
..............................................

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again...

Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center which runs the GISS laboratory, said they are working on Mr. Horner's request, though he couldn't say why they have taken so long.

He said he was unfamiliar with the British controversy and couldn't say whether NASA was susceptible to the same challenges to its data. The White House has dismissed the British e-mails as irrelevant.

(hey those emails included ones to and from Mann at Penn ST, high up muck-a-mucks at the United States White House, two climate reporters, aka repukers, at the NYTs and other official climate research centers having great influence on alarmist IPCC reports.)gs

The Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to respond to requests within 20 days. Mr. Horner says he's never received an official acknowledgement of his three separate FOIA requests, but has received e-mails showing the agency is aware of them.

He said he has provided NASA with a notice of intent to sue under FOIA, but said he also hopes members of Congress get involved and demand the information be released.