Until the beginning of this year I would write on forums something along the lines of: “no warming for XXX years, but there is evidence for some melting of polar ice – that is what we would expect after the little ice-age”.
Then Tony Heller pointed out that globally sea ice was back to normal (now rising).
Then we heard that Antarctic ice had been INCREASING. also sea ice.
That left one real substantial pillar of the global warming religion: there had been studies showing Greenland ice had decreased.
Now today I read this report from the Danish site: Weather, Climate and Ocean Current Surface Mass Budget of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which shows that Greenland surface ice-mass has also been increasing.
Left: Map of the surface mass balance today (in mm water equivalent per day). Right: The average surface mass balance for today’s calendar date over the period 1990-2013.
So let me now review the main evidence I had for CO2 warming:
- Even though 69% suspect the temperature record has been tampered with, it is still safe to say there was an apparent temperature increase large enough to turn a predominate cooling scare into a warming scare. So, whilst we can’t ignore instrumentational errors and outright fraud, underneath was an apparent trend large enough to persuade those who then believed in global cooling. STILL TRUE
- CO2 levels have risen. There’s debate about how much of this rise is due to mankind, but the fact it has risen is not in dispute. STILL TRUE
- There is a scientific basis for the CO2 blanket. This is only large enough for a fraction of the predicted warming, but the fundamental, but small direct increase due to CO2 is based on reasonably sound science STILL TRUE
- There are indicators that the temperature may have changed. E.g. a small change in Arctic ice NOW FALSE and Himalaya glaciers. (False?) But these indicators are all dubious. NOW: CONTRARY TO CURRENT WARMING
- I’m going to add in sea level rise – even though the evidence points to a deacceleration of sea level rather than the necessary acceleration. NOW TAKE OUT
Now let me add in all the evidence for criminal activity:
Evidence of Criminal activity, fraud and corruption
- Climategate showed attempts to “get rid of medieval warming” and “hide the decline”. As this research was cited when applying for funds, it amounts to fraud.
- East Anglia University broke Freedom of Information law (but were not prosecuted due to time delay – although conspiracy to break FOI law doesn’t seem to have the same time limit)
- The Inquiries into Climategate showed widespread and high profile conspiracy to break the law and pervert the course of justice.
- NASA have repeated been found to have dishonestly cooled the past.
- NOAA have broken US law by refusing to comply with a lawful subpoena from their oversight committee.
- The fact NOAA will not disclose emails as the law requires, is very strong evidence that they have altered global temperature to fabricate a warming trend.
- Gleick committed a criminal act when he stole emails from Heartland.
- The continued use of out of date CO2 warming figures based on out of date HITRAN data when the new data shows considerably less warming.
- The BBC libel of sceptics and various other hate crimes by the BBC and like minded people.
- Shukla who syphoned off public money into a company run by all his relatives in what clearly looks extremely dubious: Uh, oh. Jagdish Shukla and the #RICO20 has captured the attention of Congress, and FOIA documents are coming out
- The Hockeystick – which no doubt started as a mistake by Mann, but which due to his failure to come clean, his repeated and false claim to be a Nobel laureate and other daft claims and assertions and his use of this bogus material to get funds and generally benefit himself, seems to constitute fraud.
Note: the only potential “crime” by any sceptic is the alleged “hack” of emails which the information commission later ruled should have been in the public domain. So the worst that can be said, is that if any hack occurred, it merely forced the UEA to comply with the law. (although I suspect it was an insider disgusted with their behaviour).
Conclusion
With the recent scandal at NOAA whereby they and NASA fabricated warming, it is now clear that none of the surface measurements can be trusted. As such, given that Antarctic and now Arctic ice is gaining in volume and not melting, and given the widespread corruption in the subject, it is now safe to say that there is no credible evidence of current warming. With no trends in extreme weather, floods, droughts, children know what snow is, CO2 the plant food is leading to record harvests and greening deserts, etc., there is now no credible evidence of any harm and indeed significant evidence of positive benefits.
Therefore I declare that Global Warming – the theory that said we should now be seeing massive warming and catastrophic effects – is disproved.
Note:
The data shows surface ice level is increasing. If temperature were affecting the ice, the first place we would expect to see melting is at the surface and therefore this is strong evidence that over the period 1990-present, that Greenland has not been melting. This however is not the same as “Greenland ice-mass” (as originally written). This would need to take account of glacier calving – a process which may reflect an “excess” accumulation of ice 10s of thousands of years ago (i.e. during the ice-age) and so the rate is not a good indication of what current temperature is doing as there need not be any correlation with present temperature.
As we discussed earlier on twitter, NASA is not a monolithic organisation. The maverick databending outfit is NASA GISS headed up by Jimmy Hansen and now by Gavin Schmitty.
NASA JPL on the other hand do sound work and shouldn’t be tarred with the same brush.
There is now no physical evidence supporting them. Instead this scam is being kept alive by the fraudulent activity of NASA and NOAA who are now clearly and unequivocally the outliers proving that there is something very very wrong with the station data and particularly how it is being put together. I would be very surprised if a criminal case could not be put together against “Gavin Schmitty” and many others and if anyone is skating on thin ice it is them. I just cannot conceive any realistic defence for them now. The evidence of station tampering is “legion”, they have done more than turn a blind eye, instead they have set out to “hide the decline”. This is one of the most expensive policy debacles ever on this planet, in former centuries they would LITERALLY be facing hanging drawing and quartering.
Fortunately, for them we are more humane – but they are certainly facing the prospect of long prison sentences.
The problem lies in the fact that too many people now have vested interests in keeping this scam afloat, not least all those politicians protecting their very own gravy-trains. The general public is still kept in the dark as far as the data that we on these blog sites are aware of. Once again, if all you have to provide information is the likes of the BBC, the subliminal(?) message sent out to the mass of uninterested sheepsies is that AGW is a present and dangerous threat. Once again, yesterday the BBC was sending out messages of doom and gloom ‘2C rise, we’re all doomed’ ‘major sea-level rises, we’ll all drown’. If you’re Joe public, that’s the message you get from a ‘trusted’ source. The dilemma is how we get the different message out to the masses when our efforts are swamped by the MSM/politico/religious outputs. I fear that until people see the ice-sheets encroaching on their doorsteps, we’ll continue to be seen as ‘criminal deniers’
But on the other side, the Republicans have tied themselves to the sceptic view and now one of the surest ways to get a Republican president would be to bring this house of cards down and all those “vested interests” (who are almost without exception democrat supporters as they have their snouts deep in the trough of public money.
‘There is a scientific basis for the CO2 blanket.’
Not really. Most of the so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ in Earth’s atmosphere is water vapour.
Where are the stats showing water vapour data?
The scientific evidence for a CO2 blanket is actually non existent, as is the evidence for any specific molecule to have heat trapping qualities (greenhouse effect). It should have been discarded as a theory back in 1909 when Woods did an experiment falsifying “back radiation”, but Arrhenius was on the Nobel Prize committee and his theory about radiative absorption bands equalling a heat trapping mechanism kept popping up every few decades until it had a political reason to be taken seriously.
The truth about why the “surface” of Earth is warmer than the surface of the moon, is better understood if you ask the question “where is the surface of Jupiter?”. At the top of its atmosphere is the correct answer. Descend into any atmosphere (regardless of what it is made of) and temperature will rise with pressure. Molecules don’t receive any extra energy. Heat is not “trapped”. You simply get more and more molecules inside any given volume as you descend. Venus has 96 times more atmosphere than Earth and so much more molecules of gas at its “surface”. The temperature of Jupiter also exceeds that of Earth as you descend. Up to 9000C at its core.
I agree that “heat trapping” is not a credible scientific theory – but instead it is “noddy science” – a model used to explain to the public and worse many academics and “scientists” what ought to happen with more CO2.
However, the actual process by which CO2 affects the climate is completely different. A better way to describe it I think is that the CO2 marginally changes the height of the effective surface of the atmosphere, so that the lapse rate (sometimes called adiabatic lapse rate) then slightly increases or decreases. So, the CO2 is not so much trapping gases as altering the scale of the lapse rate heating (marginally).
So, e.g. a 0.15C warming (the kind of direct CO2 warming that might be expected to have occurred last century) would raise the effective height of the atmosphere by 0.15/6.5 = 23m Thus a doubling of CO2 (usually quoted as ~1C but 0.6C is more likely), is likely to raise the effective height of the top of the atmosphere by 100m.
In other words, we will get the same heating effect going down Big Ben – which explains why it is not explained this way!
Pingback: Most useful links when explaining climate science to alarmists | Scottish Sceptic