Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterWH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
An open letter to the UN Secretary General challenging “…the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate.”
It is signed by 141 scientists who say the science is not only not settled, but is flawed.
"The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year.

Our analysis, summarized in Figure 1 above, uses documented procedures for data over land (1), satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 (2), and a ship-based analysis for earlier years (3). Our estimated error (2σ, 95% confidence) in comparing nearby years, such as 1998 and 2005, increases from 0.05°C in recent years to 0.1°C at the beginning of the 20th century. Error sources include incomplete station coverage, quantified by sampling a model-generated data set with realistic variability at actual station locations, and partly subjective estimates of data quality problems (4).

Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century.

Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that “most global warming occurred before 1940”. More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade.

Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. Climate models show that the rate of warming is consistent with expectations (5). The observed rapid warming thus gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions (6).

The map shows that current warmth is nearly ubiquitous and largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Our ranking of 2005 as warmer than 1998 is a result mainly of the large positive Arctic anomaly. Excluding the region north of 75N, 1998 is warmer than 2005. If the entire Arctic Ocean were excluded, the ranking of 2005 may be even lower.

Our analysis differs from others by including estimated temperatures up to 1200 km from the nearest measurement station (7). The resulting spatial extrapolations and interpolations are accurate for temperature anomalies at seasonal and longer time scales at middle and high latitudes, where the spatial scale of anomalies is set by Rossby waves (7). Thus we believe that the remarkable Arctic warmth of 2005 is real, and the inclusion of estimated arctic temperatures is the primary reason for our rank of 2005 as the warmest year. Other characteristics of our analysis method are summarized in footnote "
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
 
An open letter to the UN Secretary General challenging “…the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate.”
It is signed by 141 scientists who say the science is not only not settled, but is flawed.
Also:
"Climate model simulations consistently show that in response to greenhouse gas forcing surface temperatures over land increase more rapidly than over sea. The enhanced warming over land is not simply a transient effect, since it is also present in equilibrium conditions. We examine 20 models from the IPCC AR4 database. The global land/sea warming ratio varies in the range 1.36–1.84, independent of global mean temperature change. In the presence of increasing radiative forcing, the warming ratio for a single model is fairly constant in time, implying that the land/sea temperature difference increases with time. The warming ratio varies with latitude, with a minimum in equatorial latitudes, and maxima in the subtropics. A simple explanation for these findings is provided, and comparisons are made with observations. For the low-latitude (40°S–40°N) mean, the models suggest a warming ratio of 1.51 ± 0.13, while recent observations suggest a ratio of 1.54 ± 0.09. "
See:
Land/sea warming ratio in response to climate change: IPCC AR4 model results and comparison with observations

Land/sea warming ratio in response to climate change: IPCC AR4 model results and comparison with observations
Rowan T. Sutton

Walker Institute for Climate System Research, University of Reading, Reading, UK

National Centre for Atmospheric Science-Climate, Reading, UK

Buwen Dong

Walker Institute for Climate System Research, University of Reading, Reading, UK

National Centre for Atmospheric Science-Climate, Reading, UK

Jonathan M. Gregory

Walker Institute for Climate System Research, University of Reading, Reading, UK

National Centre for Atmospheric Science-Climate, Reading, UK

Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office, Exeter, UK
 
"Results from optimal fingerprint methods indicate a discernible human influence on climate in temperature observations at the surface and aloft and over a range of applications. These methods can also provide a quantitative estimate of the magnitude of this influence. The use of a number of forced climate signals, and the extensive treatment of various (but not all) sources of uncertainty increases our confidence that a considerable part of the recent warming can be attributed to anthropogenic influences. The estimated signals and scaling factors remain subject to the considerable uncertainty in our knowledge of historic climate forcing from sources other than greenhouse gases. While estimates of the amplitude of a single anthropogenic signal are quite consistent between different model signals (see Figures 12.10, 12.12) and different approaches, joint estimates of the amplitude of several signals vary between models and approaches. Thus quantitative separation of the observed warming into anthropogenic and naturally forced components requires considerable caution. Nonetheless, all recent studies reject natural forcing and internal variability alone as a possible explanation of recent climate change. Analyses based on a single anthropogenic signal focusing on continental and global scales indicate that:

Changes over the past 30 to 50 years are very unlikely to be due to internal variability as simulated by current models.
The combined response to greenhouse and sulphate forcing is more consistent with the observed record than the response to greenhouse gases alone.
Inclusion of the simulated response to stratospheric ozone depletion improves the simulation of the vertical structure of the response.
Analyses based on multiple anthropogenic and natural signals indicate that:

The combination of natural external forcing (solar and volcanic) and internal variability is unlikely to account for the spatio-temporal pattern of change over the past 30 to 50 years, even allowing for possible amplification of the amplitude of natural responses by unknown feedback processes.
Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are likely to have made a significant and substantial contribution to the warming observed over the second half of the 20th century, possibly larger than the total observed warming.
The contribution from anthropogenic sulphate aerosols is less clear, but appears to lie in a range broadly consistent with the spread of current model simulations. A high sulphate aerosol forcing is consistently associated with a stronger response to greenhouse forcing.
Natural external forcing may have contributed to the warming that occurred in the early 20th century."

grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/462.htm
 
"The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year.

Our analysis, summarized in Figure 1 above, uses documented procedures for data over land (1), satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 (2), and a ship-based analysis for earlier years (3). Our estimated error (2σ, 95% confidence) in comparing nearby years, such as 1998 and 2005, increases from 0.05°C in recent years to 0.1°C at the beginning of the 20th century. Error sources include incomplete station coverage, quantified by sampling a model-generated data set with realistic variability at actual station locations, and partly subjective estimates of data quality problems (4).

Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century.

Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that “most global warming occurred before 1940”. More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade.

Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. Climate models show that the rate of warming is consistent with expectations (5). The observed rapid warming thus gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions (6).

The map shows that current warmth is nearly ubiquitous and largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Our ranking of 2005 as warmer than 1998 is a result mainly of the large positive Arctic anomaly. Excluding the region north of 75N, 1998 is warmer than 2005. If the entire Arctic Ocean were excluded, the ranking of 2005 may be even lower.

Our analysis differs from others by including estimated temperatures up to 1200 km from the nearest measurement station (7). The resulting spatial extrapolations and interpolations are accurate for temperature anomalies at seasonal and longer time scales at middle and high latitudes, where the spatial scale of anomalies is set by Rossby waves (7). Thus we believe that the remarkable Arctic warmth of 2005 is real, and the inclusion of estimated arctic temperatures is the primary reason for our rank of 2005 as the warmest year. Other characteristics of our analysis method are summarized in footnote "
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
You quoted NASA!!

NASA hiding climate data!!
from that link -
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, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.
Go figure…

NASA is dragging its feet in responding to a request from Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who has ben trying to gain access to NASA’s climate figures under FOI. After the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit , a cloud, a very big and black cloud, hangs over the head of NASA’s climate data.

For a read on the leaked emails enjoy this climategate expose article.
 
And a very learned and qualified person at that!
Well what would you expect from someone at the conservative Freemen Institute? Of course he’s going to doubt climate change.

Here’s an alternate perspective, in a paper delivered today at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San Francisco; there are about thirty sessions on climate change at the conference, indicating the threat is being taken very seriously:
**
Steven Newton, “Creationism and Climate Change”**
ID#ED31C-03; Location: 3020 (Moscone West)
Time of Presentation: Dec 16 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM

“Although creationists focus on the biological sciences, recently creationists have also expanded their attacks to include the earth sciences, especially on the topic of climate change. The creationist effort to deny climate change, in addition to evolution and radiometric dating, is part of a broader denial of the methodology and validity of science itself. Creationist misinformation can pose a serious problem for science educators, who are further hindered by the poor treatment of the earth sciences and climate change in state science standards. Recent changes to Texas’ science standards, for example, require that students learn “different views on the existence of global warming.” Because of Texas’ large influence on the national textbook market, textbooks presenting non-scientific “different views” about climate change—or simply omitting the subject entirely because of the alleged “controversy”—could become part of K-12 classrooms across the country.”
 
"Pope calls for action on climate change
VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI called for urgent action to protect the environment, saying Tuesday that climate change and natural catastrophes threaten the rights to life, food, health — and ultimately peace.

In his annual message on the Roman Catholic Church’s World Day of Peace, the pope argued that the world’s economic, social, and environmental problems are moral crises that require mankind to rethink its way of living."
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_on_re_eu/climate_pope
So the environmental problems that we are facing today are in fact MORAL problems. We have to follow the Pope in matters of faith and morals.
 
Also:
"Climate model simulations consistently show that in response to greenhouse gas forcing surface temperatures over land increase more rapidly than over sea. The enhanced warming over land is not simply a transient effect, since it is also present in equilibrium conditions. We examine 20 models from the IPCC AR4 database. The global land/sea warming ratio varies in the range 1.36–1.84, independent of global mean temperature change. In the presence of increasing radiative forcing, the warming ratio for a single model is fairly constant in time, implying that the land/sea temperature difference increases with time. The warming ratio varies with latitude, with a minimum in equatorial latitudes, and maxima in the subtropics. A simple explanation for these findings is provided, and comparisons are made with observations. For the low-latitude (40°S–40°N) mean, the models suggest a warming ratio of 1.51 ± 0.13, while recent observations suggest a ratio of 1.54 ± 0.09. "
See:
Land/sea warming ratio in response to climate change: IPCC AR4 model results and comparison with observations

Land/sea warming ratio in response to climate change: IPCC AR4 model results and comparison with observations
Rowan T. Sutton

Walker Institute for Climate System Research, University of Reading, Reading, UK

National Centre for Atmospheric Science-Climate, Reading, UK

Buwen Dong

Walker Institute for Climate System Research, University of Reading, Reading, UK

National Centre for Atmospheric Science-Climate, Reading, UK

Jonathan M. Gregory

Walker Institute for Climate System Research, University of Reading, Reading, UK

National Centre for Atmospheric Science-Climate, Reading, UK

Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office, Exeter, UK
Do you know that these people are under investigation? Or got their Data from those under investigation? Incluing the IPCC data
 
Well what would you expect from someone at the conservative Freemen Institute? Of course he’s going to doubt climate change.

Here’s an alternate perspective, in a paper delivered today at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San Francisco; there are about thirty sessions on climate change at the conference, indicating the threat is being taken very seriously:
**
Steven Newton, “Creationism and Climate Change”**
ID#ED31C-03; Location: 3020 (Moscone West)
Time of Presentation: Dec 16 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM

“Although creationists focus on the biological sciences, recently creationists have also expanded their attacks to include the earth sciences, especially on the topic of climate change. The creationist effort to deny climate change, in addition to evolution and radiometric dating, is part of a broader denial of the methodology and validity of science itself. Creationist misinformation can pose a serious problem for science educators, who are further hindered by the poor treatment of the earth sciences and climate change in state science standards. Recent changes to Texas’ science standards, for example, require that students learn “different views on the existence of global warming.” Because of Texas’ large influence on the national textbook market, textbooks presenting non-scientific “different views” about climate change—or simply omitting the subject entirely because of the alleged “controversy”—could become part of K-12 classrooms across the country.”
link please
 
According to this it’s Creationists who are skeptics an should be feared.

**
Steven Newton, “Creationism and Climate Change”
ID#ED31C-03; Location: 3020 (Moscone West)
Time of Presentation: Dec 16 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM

“Although creationists focus on the biological sciences, recently creationists have also expanded their attacks to include the earth sciences, especially on the topic of climate change. The creationist effort to deny climate change, in addition to evolution and radiometric dating, is part of a broader denial of the methodology and validity of science itself. Creationist misinformation can pose a serious problem for science educators, who are further hindered by the poor treatment of the earth sciences and climate change in state science standards. Recent changes to Texas’ science standards, for example, require that students learn “different views on the existence of global warming.” Because of Texas’ large influence on the national textbook market, textbooks presenting non-scientific “different views” about climate change—or simply omitting the subject entirely because of the alleged “controversy”—could become part of K-12 classrooms across the country.”**

I’m an evolutionist…and a skeptic of AGW
require that students learn “different views on the existence of global warming.”
AND this is bad???
 
Well what would you expect from someone at the conservative Freemen Institute? Of course he’s going to doubt climate change.

Premise No.!: A person works at the Freemen Institute.
Conclusion: Of course he’s going to doubt climate change.
Missing Premise No.2: everyone who works at the Freemen Institute must doubt climate change.
Oh, that’s mighty fine logic indeed.Not…:clapping:

In actual fact, there is no link between conservatism and belief or scepticism re climate change as you infer.
Here’s an alternate perspective, in a paper delivered today at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San Francisco; there are about thirty sessions on climate change at the conference, indicating the threat is being taken very seriously:
**
Steven Newton, “Creationism and Climate Change”**
 
Yes, there’s a bit of selective listening going on, when AGW deniers listen carefully to the views of the pope and bishops on moral matters relating to unborn human life, and yet dismiss their teachings on moral matters relating to climate change.

StAnastasia
You are attempting to deceive us. (again :rolleyes:)
No one here has stated that the teachings should be dismissed.

What has been pointed out is that all of their speeches tell us to do no more then is already church teaching.
 
This is just silly extremism to suggest that the voices who shout loudest are the real face of the global warming debate. That dismisses the legions of termperate voices contributing to the discussion.
There are no ‘legions’ of voices of scientists for global warming.
This is simply a made up fact with no real basis in reality.

Safety in numbers. :rolleyes:
 
Here’s an alternate perspective, in a paper delivered today at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San Francisco;

Steven Newton, "Creationism and Climate Change"
ID#ED31C-03; Location: 3020 (Moscone West)
Time of Presentation: Dec 16 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM
This isn’t an alternative perspective. It is a thinly veiled straw man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top