What are we to believe about global warming now that the below 15 points have recently come to light?
1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.
7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.
10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.
11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century “global warming”.
12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.
13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.
14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”
15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full investigation and audit.
More Pages:
- Solar Producer: Is Global Warming A Hoax? (7/10/2011)
- Solar Products: A New Way To Look At Global Warming? (6/17/2011)
- Unless GLOBAL WARMING IS JUST AN EXCUSE BY POLITICIANS TO RAISE TAXES why don’t they fund more solar research?
- Is another ‘Little Ice Age’ on the horizon??
- Solar Producer: Could Someone Please Check My Essay For Grammatical Errors And Punctuation ? (6/17/2011)
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I know I keep saying this but:Read the below, the Lamb” referred to is the man who changed his mind from global cooling (his nick-name was The Ice Man!) to Global warming after ONE hot summer!
He founded the Climate Change department in guess where– East Anglia University!!!
Lamb graduated in 1935 and, after working at the Meteorological Office, London, where he led the climatic variation research, he started the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Norwich. He eventually became honorary professor in the School of Environmental Science at that university.
His main aim has been to build up a detailed picture of the climates of the past and to acquire sufficient understanding of them to be able to see how climate might develop. By examining such records as ships’ logs he has been able to reconstruct much of the climate of the last two to three hundred years; for earlier periods he has used such evidence as the fluctuations in tree-ring width. The results of his researches were published in his two-volume Climate: Present, Past and Future (1972, 1977).
NOTE THE PART ABOUT SHIP’S LOGS AND NOW READ ON!!!!
What really bugs me is that these “Warmies” base in part temperature rises since 1850 in 1/100 of 1 degree Celsius.
Who are they kidding if they think that in 1850 or even today there were/are instruments capable of measuring this?
I was a seaman for many years, it was the apprentice’s job to visit our little weather station, take the readings which were sent back to the Met Office as part of the official records.
Imagine, off he would toddle, get there, open the door, have a cigarette, during which time the sun is flooding into the weather station, looks into the weather station and realises he has let the wet bulb of the thermometer dry out. Off he toddles again to fetch fresh water to wet the bulb, leaving the door open again, wets the bulb, takes the reading from the Mercury thermometer and records it.
His next job would be to take the sea temperature to be collated ashore.
The method was: a small bucket would be swung over the side, seawater collected, the bucket hauled back up to the bridge wing ( a lengthy process during which time the bucket and contents were subject to the external forces prevailing, sun or cold), a thermometer inserted into the water, a reading taken and recorded.
Unfortunately at the moment the bucket arrives at the bridge his buddy turns up, time for another cigarette and a natter about last night’s DVD. The bucket of sea water sits all this time in the blazing sun. He then takes the temperature and records it.
He then has to record, without the aid of a calibrated anemometer, the wind speed. He asks the officer of the watch, “What do you think the wind speed is?” “I dunno, put down what you want, I’m busy.”
The records are then sent by radio to The UK Meteorological Office.
This is the way The UK Meteorological Office has obtained its data for decades, centuries before the advent of radio the ships had to mail in their findings and position, most of the time unless they were in port they didn’t even know precisely where they were!
And they base AGW on this? Grow up.
Not exactly a method on which to base a whole earth encompassing movement, is it really?
This is the way most weather readings are taken at sea,
by can’t -really be-arsed seamen, how knowing this can I possibly believe any of this AGW bollox?
The surface data cannot be trusted.
Got any statistical analysis through peer review to demonstrate this? There are papers showing heat island effects, but heat islands are accounted for before temperatures are published. You need to demonstrate that they are larger than the compensation made for them.
On the subject of #4, Dr Roy Spencer disagrees (admittedly not reviewed, but I can’t find a paper on it):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/new-work-on-the-recent-warming-of-northern-hemispheric-land-areas/
‘at face value, this plot seems to indicate that the rapid decrease in the number of stations included in the GHCN database in recent years has not caused a spurious warming trend in the Jones dataset — at least not since 1986.’
6. was Watts and D’Aleo’s thing. Seems their surfacestations project identified a cooling bias in the US temperature record. Link to paper here.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html
10. there are some interesting divergences. LTTs seem far more sensitive to things like El Nino; the ENSO switch caused about 0.8C of warming in UAH satellite, but about 0.5C of warming in GISTemp surface. The sharp decline in long term MEI index since 1995 might account for some of the observed divergence, although I don’t know if the divergence is statistically significant or not (and if it is, whether or not it can be explained by how the surface =/= the troposphere):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
Surface results are supported by boreholes:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/core.html
Changing seasonal arrival times, melt seasons, shifts of plants and animals, glacier & ice sheet mass balance also support the approximate scale and timing of warming.
Of course the record needs to be continually looked at, but until you start getting articles through peer review that handle the actual numbers, I will remain skeptical of your unsubstantiated claims.
What are we to believe about global warming deniers now that the erroneous and false accusations of paid deniers has come to light.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html
Pretty simple – most of your claims are wrong and have no basis in fact. But if you don’t want to believe the surface temperature station data, satellite temperature data shows the same warming trend.
Well, I’m not really sure anymore. It’s hard to know what to believe these days because so many of the “figures” have been wrong. I do think that humans are playing some part in the warming but apparently, some people have been exaggerating because their numbers turned out to be incorrect. Overall, yeah, we’re warming, but I don’t know if it’s as extreme as some people make it sound. Don’t believe the people that say it doesn’t exist at all because it’s just ridiculous. With all the fuels that we burn and send into the air, it would make sense that we’re making things worse. It’s kinda obvious. But again, I don’t really know how bad it is, and I don’t know if anyone is really sure at all.