Presentation on theme: "Is the Western Climate Establishment Dr David Evans ?"— Presentation transcript:
Is the Western Climate Establishment Dr David Evans ?
Official Thermometer, Urbana Ohio USA See any problems?
Photo courtesy of Anthony Watts, and Steve Tiemeier
Official Thermometer, Bainbridge Georgia USA What about here?
Photo courtesy of Anthony Watts, and Joel McDade
Why do they Measure Temperature Like This? GW is tenths of a degree per century, so any slight artificial nudge is important Official siting requirements: –30 meters from an artificial source of heat –Level open clearing with typical ground cover 89% of 860 surveyed NOAA thermometers (of 1,221) are too close to an artificial source of heat
Marysville California Now dropped, but data back to 1897 still in official record Photo courtesy of Anthony Watts and
Marysville California The view from near the air conditioner exhausts Photo courtesy of Anthony Watts and
Why do they Measure Temperature Like This? What motive could there be, other than to inflate official temperatures? Why have we only found out about it because volunteers went out and photographed the official thermometers? Money not a problem: NOAA budget $4b+
Wastewater is Warm! Wastewater treatment tanks in Ontario Oregon Hey, wouldnt wastewater treatment plants be good places to measure global warming? Photo courtesy of Anthony Watts and
Sedro Woolley, Washington Photo courtesy of Anthony Watts, and Don and Liz Healy
Titusville, Florida Level open clearing, with ground cover typical of the region ??? Photo courtesy of Anthony Watts, and Don Kostuch
Why Wont the Media Cover it? Why hasnt the media published any of these photographs? Is the media failing to do its job, covering up for the climate establishment?
Baltimore Customs House Couldnt they at least move the thermometer away from the a/c? Photo courtesy of Anthony Watts and
Urban Heat Island Microclimate around a thermometer can change due to urban encroachment asphalt, concrete, buildings, air conditioners, cars, electrical appliances, changes in vegetation, etc. City of 1 million, compared to surrounds: –1 to 3°C warmer on average –Up to 12°C warmer in evenings
Observatory Hill, Sydney Started recording temperatures 1858, when Sydney population was 60,000. Photo courtesy of Anthony Watts
Observatory Hill, Sydney Today Photo courtesy of Anthony Watts
Global Network of Official Thermometers 54% of thermometers are at airports –Tarmac radiates heat (raises minimum and daily temperature readings) –Thermometers cop occasional blasts of jet exhaust Same network used by GISS, HadCrut, NCDC
Svalbard Airport, Norway The tarmac is the warmest surface around (kept clear in winter). Thermometer also nudged by jet exhaust and steam de-icers. Photo courtesy of Anthony Watts
What Are They Measuring? 80%+ of official global thermometers are at airports or in urban areas. Thermometers are placed to measure the growth and use of cities, air conditioners, planes, water treatment plants, cars, buses, trucks, asphalt, concrete, and tarmac. They measure temperatures at the globes warmest localities, not global temperatures. They are measuring urban warming and airport warming, not global warming!
How have the climate establishment been able to get away with this? Where are the regulators and auditors? Drug companies or financial institutions would be busted if they were this deceptive!
More Thermometer Tricks, 1 Adjustments to raw temperature data increase apparent warming substantially. In the USA, official adjustments account for nearly the entire temperature rise from the 1930s to They revise the official adjusted temperatures after a decade or so to increase recent warming. Raw Temperature Adjusted Temperature
More Thermometer Tricks, 2 Nearly 6,000 official global thermometers in 1980s. Now just 1,079. The removals increased the proportion of thermometers: –At airports (warmer than surrounds) –Nearer the equator (its hotter at the equator) –At lower altitudes (its colder in the mountains) They hide the raw temperatures and how they adjusted them. They evaded FOIs. They claim to have lost the original data.
Why? Why would the climate establishment play these tricks, if their case and data were strong? Dont these tricks strongly imply that their case is weak or wrong? And that they know it?
What Difference Does It Make? Warmest Year = 2006 Warming trend continuing Oh no! Were all going to fry!
Satellites Alternate method of measuring global temperature 24/7 All land and ocean, except near poles Initial calibration problems long since fixed Most reliable, extensive, and unbiased method
Warmest Year = 1998 Warming trend to about 2001, then level Large El Nino spike in 1998 Large El Nino spike in 2010, peaked in March Not so bad. Hmmm, how can warming have leveled off when our emissions are increasing!?!
An Admission from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically- significant global warming Dr Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK. February 2010, in a BBC interview Cooling since 2002, but too short to be statistically significant
Ocean Temperatures Argo started mid ,000+ floats, cover all the oceans Ocean data before Argo is nearly worthless.
Argo Results Argo results are not made public. Have to ask Josh Willis and get lucky. Last data given out to anyone outside the establishment, AFAIK, was to early 2008:
The Argo Scandal Why no website showing the latest global ocean temperature as measured by Argo? The western public have paid for this crucial data. In science, you should share your data. If Argo showed warming oceans, wouldnt it would be publicized endlessly? Good news! We can only conclude that Argo is not showing ocean warming.
Temperature Record for Last 2,000 Years Use best data in each period: –1979 – Now: Satellites –1850 – 1979: Land thermometers –16 AD – 1850: Loehles reconstruction, 18 proxies over wide geographical range: sediments, boreholes, pollen, oxygen-18, stalagmites, magnesium to calcium ratios, algae, and cave formation. No tree rings. First reconstruction in which every proxy calibrated to temperature in peer-reviewed article.
Current global warming trend started before 1700, some 310 years ago.
If the pattern persists, were going to see a couple of decades of cooling soon.
Human Emissions of CO2 US Department of Energy has figures on worldwide emissions back to 1751 from: –Fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) –Cement production –Gas flaring Deforestation omitted, but is relatively small –Offset by reforestation, afforestation, new crops –Accelerated by fossil fuels, post 1850 –European forests replaced by coal by 1751
Current global warming trend started before Human emissions were negligible before Human emissions did not cause or start current global warming trend.
Human emissions dont appear to be affecting the rate of warming either.
Human CO2 Emissions Are The Alleged Cause, But… Have you ever seen a graph before that compares human CO2 emissions and temperature? Alleged cause and effect never compared!?! Comparison destroys the idea that human CO2 is causing global warming. <1% of human emissions before % after % after 1998yet no warming!
Establishment Revises History Comparison of human CO2 and temperature makes theory of man-made global warming theory look foolish and absurd Establishment needed to make start of global warming coincide with ramp up in human emissions, say One small bureaucratic problem…
IPCC First Assessment Report, 1990 IPCC Second Assessment Report, 1996 Both show the current global warming trend starting before 1700.
Manns Hockey Stick, 1998 The most influential climate graph ever. Matches the start date of the current global warming trend to human CO2 emissions.
Hockey Stick Uncovered As a Fraud by 2006 Widely discredited in scientific circles outside the western climate establishment. Statistical processing emphasizes hockey- stick shaped proxies, almost ignores others. Although Mann used a variety of temperature proxies as inputs, only the tree rings from bristlecone pines really counted. Bristlecone pines are notorious for a growth spurt in the twentieth century for reasons not directly connected to temperature
Wegman Cans Mann US Congress appointed three independent leading statisticians, headed by Professor Edward Wegman, to report in –In general, we found [Manns methods] to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms [by their main critics] to be valid and compelling –Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
The Chinese Torpedoed Copenhagen negotiations 2009 Say more research is needed to establish whether warming is man-made (Xie Zhenhua, Jan 2010). August 2010: Book appeared in state- sanctioned bookstores, suggesting the Chinese government completely rejects the theoryLow Carbon Plot, by Gou Hongyang Other Climate Establishments:
The Chinese: Low Carbon Plot Will the increase in Carbon Dioxide definitely lead to the planet warming? Although there have been many many reports published by research institutes that verify this, but from the viewpoint of the history of man, and scientific method, the theories have not yet achieved scientific proof.
The Chinese: Low Carbon Plot Argues that the theory of man-made global warming is a conspiracy between Western governments and business to protect their own way of life, at the expense of the entire developing worldin other words, 80% of the worlds population. (From book review, The Dragons Dissent)
The Russians Always opposed the theory of man-made global warming: Reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming. Climate is heavily influenced by solar cycles.
The Indians National Action Plan on Climate Change in 2008: No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established. February 2010: Indian government sets up its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it cannot rely on the IPCC.
Other Climate Establishments Disagree Largest emitters: China, USA, Russia, India Climate establishments are independent. 3 of 4 dont agree with the CO2 theory Our media often remind us that almost all climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. No, only most western climate scientists.
Most Western Climate Scientists Believe Global Warming is Man-Made True, but murky. Believers took over bodies that fund western climate science in late 1980s - early 1990s: –Fired skeptics, or hindered their careers. Al Gore sacked some while VP. –Hired only people who believed the theory. Consequently all authority figures in western climate science are believers.
No corrective mechanisms exist in government funded climate science: –No competition (no private climate research) –No auditing (like financial areas) –No regulation (like food and drugs) –No organized and funded opposition to test or criticize theories and champion alternatives Anyone who speaks out comes under peer- pressure to be quiet, because it threatens funding and careers. Its Never Going To Change
The only current climate scientists who are skeptical are a few old blokes who were appointed before 1990 and refuse to budge, e.g. Richard Lindzen at MIT is approaching 70. Their Opposition is Old or Retired Climate scientists who speak out are nearly all retired, no longer dependent on government climate money.
Example: Joanne Simpson, the first woman to receive a PhD in meteorology and among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years, worked for NASA but in retirement said: Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. … But as a scientist I remain skeptical.
Shenanigans At The Heart The argument for man-made GW is: 1.Humans raising CO2 levels 2.CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so surface temperatures rise: Direct warming. 3.Earth responds to direct warming: feedbacks. Feedbacks amplify the direct warming threefold. Chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Ample evidence for first two links. No evidence for the 3rd link, which provides two thirds of the projected warming.
Why? The climate establishment and media only talk about the first two links. Hardly anyone knows about the third link. If the case for man-made global warming is strong, why this obfuscation? The effect of the feedbacks is the crucial question in climate science
There is an Empirical Test for The Feedback Link!! Expressed as a pattern of warming in the atmosphere. Climate models all predict a hotspot, a strong warming in the atmosphere over the tropics at about 12 km. Hotspot is the amplifying feedbacks in action.
Source: US CCSP 2006, p. 25. Similar in IPCC 2007, p.675. Climate Model Predictions
Source: US CCSP 2006, p. 116 Observations This is all the data there is, or ever will be, until we have another episode of global warming.
Comparison Conclusions: 1.Climate models are wrong 2.Man-made global warming is greatly exaggerated
The Establishment Response 1.Ignore it. Discrepancy first apparent ~ Deny the data No, data too credible. 3.Find the hotspot in the data! Adjusted the data in accordance with various theories and radiosonde wind data, reprocess it:
Source: Journal of Climate, Vol. 21, p.5346 Sherwood, 2008, Finds the Hotspot Can you see the problem? (short thick bars indicate latitudes discussed in text where sonde adjustments in the troposphere still appear inadequate)
The Old Color Scale Trick !! The color of zero changeits red! So if the atmosphere stayed at exactly the same temperature everywhere, Sherwoods interpretation would be an all-red graph! The reds in his diagram blend together and it is impossible to see where his hotspot might be. His hotspot is too faint anyway, because the hotspot in the climate models is at least 0.6°C over two decades.
Why? If Sherwood used the same color scale as the previous diagrams, it would be obvious he had not found the hotspot. What purpose could that color scale serve, except to mislead? Even if you dont understand the hotspot stuff, isnt a tricky color scale like this a sign of deception, a solid hint they are trying to hide something?
Gores Convenient Lie Gores Movie, An Inconvenient Truth, convinced many that CO2 and temperature are highly correlated so raising CO2 levels will raise temperatures.
Gore Omitted a Tiny Tiny Detail Changes in temperature happen 800 years on average before the corresponding changes in CO2. Established by 2003, Gores movie Gore lied (by omission). Mr. Gore owns and runs companies involved in curbing carbon emissions. Net worth $2 million in 2000 approaching $1,000 million in 2009.
Why? Why didnt the climate establishment or the media publicly correct Gores lie? Doesnt this show that the climate establishment and media are playing politics rather than disinterestedly searching for and publishing the truth?
Conclusions The obvious cheating of the western climate establishment strongly suggests they are hiding something and thus are wrong. That their cheating is so blatant suggests that the media has not put them under any real scrutiny.
Car-Park Warming Now dropped, but data back to 1897 still in official record Photo courtesy of Anthony Watts and
Human emissions did not cause or start current global warming trend. Human CO2 EmissionsRelevant How?
Human emissions dont appear to be affecting the rate of warming either. Human CO2 EmissionsRelevant How?
Climate Models Wrong, Exaggerate
Ocean Cooling, Kept Hidden
Do You Trust Them? The tarmac is the warmest surface around (kept clear in winter). Thermometer also nudged by jet exhaust and steam de-icers. Photo courtesy of Anthony Watts
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? sciencespeak.com Paper soon to be published at