CO2 Emissions Missing Link to Global Warming

We've continuously increased CO2 emissions without fail for the past 2 centuries, yet it has had no noticeable effect on the temperature measurements collected. We have not seen an acceleration in warming.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes


We've had a 150 year period now where CO2 emissions have risen exponentially from 1860 levels. Where is the similar exponential growth in higher temperatures? The fact that we can increase CO2 emissions from 2002 and yet show a drop in temperatures implies that CO2 emissions are not the primary driver of warming, perhaps not even a minor factor. Those who argue for a delayed effect must also answer why we haven't seen such an effect after 150 years. Shouldn't we have seen exponential rises in temperature by now that track CO2 emissions? Why haven't we? These are legitimate questions that need to be answered. More failed models that wrongly predict future temperatures are not what's needed. And consistent with the scientific method, models that have shown themselves to be seriously out-of-line with data time and time again are discredited and new models based on the same old ones receive little regard until they fit in line with data.

It is not the skeptics that are unscientific, it is those who put up these models that have proven themselves to be wrong time and time again. There should be zero weight given to these false models by anyone claiming to be unbiased and scientific, this is the standard approach used in every scientific field from biology to physics.

It is just not understandable how people can continue to claim CO2 is a primary driver when the 150 year data clearly shows otherwise. They have to first explain why they were wrong to be taken seriously, and that's just a first step. Otherwise, the theories that fit in with the data, namely that CO2 is a lagging indicator and is not a primary driver of warming, should be the mainstream established theory that all people and policy makers adhere to.

Climategate's Phil Jones Says No Statistically Significant Global Warming Since 1995

What Phil Jones, former director of CRU at East Anglia states should be noted carefully. For once he doesn't B.S. and so admits what we've known all along (from data) that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years and that the Earth has cooled since 2002. Who's in denial? Global warming advocates who continue to pine for something that hasn't shown itself for 15 years. Again, where is the evidence for global warming? Instead of just saying it's there, why don't you listen to Phil Jones?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA's press office.

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

Bin Laden's Hip New Message: Global Warming, Same Old Goal

Perhaps realizing that his calls for jihad and terror have limited appeal, Bin Laden is now targeting a broader audience through a new message emphasizing the dangers of global warming. Unsurprisingly, his solution remains the same, destroy the United States and other Western industrial countries who are responsible for the death of millions through climate change.

Boy this guy's got some serious political game; if your message isn't finding much acceptance, just rehash it to fit the popular trend of the day and all of a sudden you sound no different than Al Gore or the other celebrated global warming preachers. Hell, maybe he won't have to live in a cave anymore, he'll stay in luxury hotels instead, fly around in a private jet, and all the while still keep true to his original goal of destroying the West. The only question is when will he get his Nobel Peace Prize and funding from the UN? Al-Queda Against Global Warming: Death to America, could be the next big NGO, well done Bin Laden!

Osama bin Laden blamed the United States and other industrialised countries for causing global warming in an extraordinary message issued yesterday.

In a departure from his usual religious rants, the Al Qaeda leader lectured on the dangers of climate change, claiming the only solution was to 'bring the wheels of the American economy' to a halt.

Rather than vows to inflict death and destruction on the U.S. and its allies, the man behind the September 11 atrocity in New York discussed the environmental future of the planet and monetary policy.

'This is a message to the whole world about those who are causing climate change, whether deliberately or not, and what we should do about that,' he declared.

He blamed Western industrialised nations for hunger, causing flooding and the destruction of fertile ground across the globe.

And he warned solutions must be 'drastic' rather than 'partial'.

Although bin Laden has briefly referred to climate change and global warming in past messages, this fresh audiotape was his first dedicated to the topic.

The speech, which included almost no religious rhetoric, has been interpreted as an attempt by the terror leader to broaden the appeal of his message beyond Islamic militants.

'Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality,' he said in the tape released to the Al Jazeera television network, adding: 'All of the industrialised countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility.'

Bin Laden referred to the fact that while wealthy nations had agreed to the Kyoto Protocol that binds them to emissions targets, former U.S. President George Bush later rejected such limitations in deference to big business.

continue reading story

New Scandal Over Global Warming Data

Uh oh, leaked e-mails from a prominent global warming research group, the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England, reveal that data might have been falsified, cherry-picked, or made up. Other documents and e-mails reveal that the climate model the CRU uses to predict and make their case for future global warming is so riddled with errors and bad code that it is virtually worthless. The CRU's data and model were major contributors in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. The UN's report is what the United States EPA relies on most heavily to argue that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and thus need to be regulated. It all looks like a house of cards that is about to fall. Here is the link to the CBS News article quoted below.

A few days after leaked e-mail messages appeared on the Internet, the U.S. Congress may probe whether prominent scientists who are advocates of global warming theories misrepresented the truth about climate change.

Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, said on Monday the leaked correspondence suggested researchers "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not," according to a transcript of a radio interview posted on his Web site. Aides for Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, are also looking into the disclosure.

The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it "relies on most heavily" when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

Last week's leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field's most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data ("have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots"), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

One e-mail message, apparently from CRU director Phil Jones, references the U.K.'s Freedom of Information Act when asking another researcher to delete correspondence that might be disclosed in response to public records law: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise." Another, also apparently from Jones: global warming skeptics "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." (Jones was a contributing author to the chapter of the U.N.'s IPCC report titled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.")

In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:

I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

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!

Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?...

As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!"

More on cherry picking from this site.

And more evidence of fraud/cherry picking here.