Bespoke Climate Science: Temperature and CO2 Data Made to Order

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

From the beginning, the pattern of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its proponents was to produce the science required for the political agenda. It began publicly with James Hansen providing the science Senator Timothy Wirth required for his 1988 Congressional Hearing. The entire process was set up to allow for the creation of bespoke science to determine the political decisions. The Conference of the Parties COP), the political agency acts on the faux science of the Summary for Policymakers, which is released before the Physical Science Basis. Therefore, when the emails were leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) just before COP 15, they had to abandon the Kyoto Protocol.

The revelation by Dr. John Bates that the “pause-busting” graph produced by NOAA was manipulated was no surprise. It was just another piece of bespoke science produced to push forward the AGW agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement. Bates used strange terminology by saying the graph was “hyped” and based on unverifiable, misleading, data. This is Orwellian Newspeak, for saying it was deliberately falsified for a predetermined result. They cheated. Bates is not a whistleblower because he waited until he retired to speak out. It is likely he would still be silent if Hillary Clinton were elected.

If he was such a good climate scientist, why didn’t he see the corrupted science that was going on for most of his career? The answer is a combination of he didn’t know much about climate, and it would jeopardize his career and pension. I can’t repeat often enough German meteorologist and physicists Klaus-Ekhart Puls experience.

“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

Puls was on the outside, but Bates was on the inside. It makes a mockery of the claim that Bates was an expert and rigorous in the scientific method. That is not possible given the amount of conflicting information available to anybody who took even a cursory look. Apparently, everything Bates did assumed the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was settled. There were enough pieces of conflicting, missing or inaccurate evidence raising red flags everywhere. He ignored them all. Even now, I am unaware of him asking why Tom Karl took the actions he did. The answer is simple; the data was inadequate, but what there was didn’t fit the AGW hypothesis. It was essential to make the temperature go up to make their predictions correct, but also to fit the CO2 curve they were producing.

John Maynard Keynes said,

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?

In official, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) science, they change, ignore, or create ‘facts’ to achieve the desired result. Dr. Bates’s, less than adequate actions and exposure of the Karl fiasco at least took the corruption outside the skeptic community. It is also less likely to be covered up, refuted, obfuscated or contradicted with the new regime. However, even in the skeptic community, it is unlikely to receive the proper emphasis because people are still loathe to believe such a global deception can or did occur. It is global in geographic extent, but it is also global in the amount of corruption of data. Tom Karl’s corruption only dealt with the temperature of the last 20 years. The facts were not fitting the hypothesis all along. Karl’s problem was that temperature stopped increasing, but CO2 continued to increase. It was a Huxley moment,

The great tragedy of science, a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.”

The first and easiest defensive strategy only made things worse. They stopped calling it global warming and began calling it climate change. Proponents of the deception tried another tactic. Benjamin Santer said it is not statistically significant and will only qualify if it lasts 17 years. When that period came and went, more drastic measures were required. Panic set in, so they went to the fall-back position, alter the instrumental record – step forward the acknowledged master – Tom Karl. It was so obviously wrong that even Dr. Bates noticed. He claims his bosses ignored his protests. He should have gone public right then!

Some of us knew the global instrumental temperature record was being adjusted to fulfill the political AGW objective. We also knew the paleoclimate record was adjusted through the manipulations of the “hockey stick.” Ironically, that graph incorporated manipulated proxy records for the handle and manipulated instrumental records for the blade. It also incorporated another escape/excuse technique; the data goes missing. Phil Jones who created the blade lost his data. It is likely we will see more data (and even source codes) go missing as the deception is exposed. Will the mainstream media continue to ignore it?

The manipulation and production of bespoke temperature data were also carried out with the CO2 data. I can anticipate all the trolls trying to defend the ‘official’ CO2 science as they have done every time anyone presented individual pieces of contradictory evidence. In climate science, the violent reaction against an individual is a sure measure of how close that person is to exposing the truth. Now, the parallels with the temperature manipulation and the amount of CO2 evidence that fits the scenario but still produces failed predictions is overwhelming.

Some support for that comment is in the following information created to mislead and misdirect the public:

• Most people think CO2 is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas.

• Because CO2 is such a small percentage of the greenhouse gases they created a measure called “climate sensitivity,” which claims that CO2 is more “effective” as a greenhouse gas than water vapor. The sensitivity number has consistently decreased and many say it is zero. A few say it is a negative, cooling, agent.

• Estimates of the amount of annual human CO2 production added to the atmosphere are produced by the IPCC. They claim it is about 3% of the annual total. The number consistently increases despite changes in the world economy.

• They claimed the length of time CO2 remains in the atmosphere, known as the Residency Time, is at least 100 years. It is only 5 to 7 years. I know there are arguments about what residency time means, but it is irrelevant because the IPCC used the 100-year value in their calculations of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2.

• Their calculations added the human production of CO2 to the atmosphere but ignored the human portion removed. Agriculture and forestry probably remove 50 percent of total production.

• The Antarctic Ice cores and all other records show temperature increases before CO2. Most of the public still don’t know this, even though it was determined in the late 1990s.

• They falsely assumed that CO2 was evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere. The OCO2 satellite that began gathering data in September 2014 disproved it.

• They promoted or at least didn’t contradict, the claim that CO2 is a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on Earth. Research shows current levels of 400 ppm are approximately one-third the optimum for most plants. Empirical evidence from CO2 levels injected into commercial greenhouses indicates optimum yields at levels between 1000 and 1200 ppm. Interestingly, this is the average level of the last 300 million years. The plants are malnourished at 400 ppm.

The last point is important because the public is led to believe that CO2 levels are dangerously high, have never been higher, and any further increase is potentially catastrophic. The higher historic record of CO2 was as threatening to their AGW claims as the existence of previous warmer periods to their temperature claims. This lie was necessary to support the AGW hypothesis. They needed a low pre-industrial level for an upward trend to match the growth of industrialization. They also needed to eliminate troubling natural variability in the record.

Figure 1 shows CO2 levels from ice cores and stomata (pores on leaves) over a 2000-year span. It appeared in 2002 to contradict the official claims based just on ice cores.

clip_image002

Figure 1

The average level for the 2000-year ice core record is approximately 265 ppm with a variability of about 10 ppm created by a 70-year smoothing average, while it is 300+ ppm with 50 ppm variability for the stomata record. The stomata data show the higher readings and variability when compared to the excessively smoothed ice core record that became the base point for the modern instrumental readings (see Figure 3).

How well do ice core records represent the atmosphere for each year? The answer is they are not representative, and you have no idea which year is involved. I spent many hours discussing all the limitations with one of the best glacier experts, Dr. Fritz Koerner, one of the few people to drill in the Arctic and Antarctic. He told me in the late 1980s that his Arctic records were showing temperature changing before CO2.

It takes decades for the bubble of air to be trapped in the ice. There is no way of knowing which year or even decade is represented. The surface of a glacier is very wet as melting occurs even in winter under direct sunlight. Once the bubble is formed meltwater moving through the ice contaminates it. As Brent C. Christner, reported in “Detection, Recovery, Isolation and Characterization of Bacteria in Glacial Ice and Lake Vostok Accretion Ice” bacteria form in the ice, releasing gases even in 500,000 – year – old ice at considerable depth. Pressure of overlying ice, causes a change below 50m and brittle ice becomes plastic and begins to flow. The layers formed with each year of snowfall gradually disappear with increasing compression. It requires a considerable depth of ice over a long period to obtain a single reading at depth. Then there are the problems with contamination and losses during drilling and core recovery.

One of the first people to suffer attacks for daring to identify the problems with the CO2 data was Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski. In a paper titled, “Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2” he told a US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing that,

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”

“The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].”

The modelers did know about the 19th century data because Tom Wigley, who took over as Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) from Hubert Lamb, introduced them to the climate science community. I remember this well because his 1983 article, “The Pre-Industrial Carbon Dioxide Level” in Climatic Change became a seminar in my graduate climate class. Wigley did what many others have done in manipulating the climate story by cherry-picking from a wide range of readings, eliminating only high readings and claiming the pre-industrial level was approximately 270 ppm. This influenced the modelers Wigley was working with at the CRU and the IPCC. He was the key person directing the machinations as revealed by the leaked emails from the (CRU).

There are some 90,000 direct instrumental measures beginning in 1812 in the record Wigley analyzed. Scientists wanted to understand the composition and dynamics of the atmosphere, but, unlike today, began by collecting data before theorizing. These scientists were not collecting the data to prove global warming or any other theory. They took precise measurements with calibrated instruments as Ernst-Georg Beck thoroughly documented. These measures were as troubling as the famous 7c graph from the 1990 IPCC Report that showed the MWP. In an obituary, I quoted Beck’s friend Edgar Gartner as follows;

Due to his immense specialized knowledge and his methodical severity Ernst very promptly noticed numerous inconsistencies in the statements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He considered the warming of the earth’s atmosphere as a result of a rise of the carbon dioxide content of the air of approximately 0.03 to 0.04 percent as impossible. And he doubted that the curve of the CO2 increase noted on the Hawaii volcano Mauna Loa since 1957/58 could be extrapolated linearly back to the 19th century. (Translated from the German)

Beck sent me his preliminary research, and I supported his efforts but warned him of the vicious attacks he would experience. He wrote to me in November 2009, ironically the same month the emails were leaked from the CRU to say,

In Germany the situation is comparable to the times of medieval inquisition.

Wigley was not the first to misuse the 19th century data, but he did reintroduce it to the climate community. British Steam engineer Guy Stewart Callendar believed that increasing CO2 would cause warming. He did what Wigley and all pro-IPCC climate scientist have done by selecting only readings that support the hypothesis.

clip_image004

Figure 2 After Jaworowski (Trend lines added by author)

Figure 2 shows how the data group selected by Callendar dramatically lowers the average from approximately 370 ppm to 270ppm and alters the trend from decreasing to increasing.

Ernst-Georg Beck confirmed Jaworowski’s research. An article in Energy and Environment examined the readings in great detail and validated their findings. In a devastating conclusion, Beck states

“Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel.”

So the pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level put into the computer models that produce all future climate predictions. The models also incorrectly assume uniform atmospheric global distribution and virtually no variability of CO2 from year to year.

Beck also found,

“Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.”

He provided a plot (Figure 3) comparing 19th century readings with ice core and Mauna Loa data. You can see how the Mauna Loa record links smoothly on to the end of the ice core record. Compare that with the variability of the 19th century readings and the short OCO2 record. In fact, all the records show the variability, but it is statistically eliminated in both the ice core and Mauna Loa record. Variability is basic statistical technique generally ignored by climate science because it indicates the problems with their hypothesis. Consider what is lost if a 70-year is applied to any other climate data set. It virtually eliminates the modern instrumental record which is less than 70 years long for most weather stations.

clip_image006

Figure 3

Smoothing is applied to the Mauna Loa and all current atmospheric readings, which can vary up to 600 ppm in a single day. Statistician William Brigg’s advises that you never, ever, smooth a time-series. The loss is greater if high readings are eliminated before the smoothing. Charles Keeling, a devout ‘CO2 is causing warming’ believer, built the Mauna Loa station to achieve and control the results. In “50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauna Loa” Beck wrote,

“Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2 on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude.”

It is on the side of a volcano with CO2 leaking through very porous ground for hundreds of square kilometers around the crater. Keeling used the lowest afternoon readings and ignored natural sources to create the measures required.

 

As Beck noted, the Keeling family “owns the global monopoly of calibration of all CO2 measurements.” Keeling’s son is a co-author of the IPCC reports, and that agency accepts Keeling data as representative of global readings.

The IPCC and its proponents needed to control two variables, temperature and CO2, to create their AGW narrative. Both variables had to begin low at the start of the pre-industrial period and increase steadily to the present. Both had to be higher in the modern record than at any time before. Manipulation of temperature records, long known about in the skeptic community, were recently exposed by an insider, Dr. John Bates. The immediate attempts to downplay his revelation are proof that it is problematic. NOAA had already disclosed its typical reaction by shamefacedly using the intellectual property argument when Congressman Lamar Smith subpoenaed the data. This dodge was originally recommended by Phil Jones to IPCC and CRU members in a February 6, 2004, email and exploited by Michael Mann. It is egregious and unacceptable because it prevents the essential practice of science to achieve reproducible results. Worse, it is work paid for by the taxpayer and then used to impinge unnecessary taxes, rules, and regulations on those taxpayers. It is the greatest deception in history and only gets worse as bureaucrats, and so many with political and financial interests continue to defend the indefensible.


Caveat from Anthony:  As I have said on other occasions, I don’t view the atmospheric CO2 work of Ernst-Georg Beck as being particularly accurate or useful, due to the uncertainty of his chemical reduction method, and the fact that many of his measurements were done within cities, which have highly variable CO2 levels that aren’t representative of global values. In figure 3, note the “local effective concentration” label. I simply don’t consider the 19th century measurements accurate enough to be credible to compare to current global values. – Anthony Watts

 

Advertisements

172 thoughts on “Bespoke Climate Science: Temperature and CO2 Data Made to Order

  1. Older data such as that of Ernst-Georg Beck must not be ignored but Anthony is correct that it may not prove to be particularly useful – specifically because of accuracy. Often a large(r) plus – minus uncertainty must be applied.
    Consider sea water temperatures taken from sailing ships 300 years ago: The specific thermometer calibrations are generally unknown, the ability of the sailor(s) to correctly read them, the probable temperature change in the bucket of water after it was dipped from the sea, variation from ship-to-ship and time-to time, etc, etc all make it necessary to assign a rather large ‘unknowable’ error figure to the readings.
    The same process must be assigned to CO2 data taken long ago. It IS data but it is probably not as close to the ‘true’ value as we would need and is therefore not necessarily useful for analyzing the small effect of small changes where we don’t even know with any precision what the forcing factors are.

    • The problem with Anthony’s comment is that we have no global values prior to the OCO2 satellite and it shows just how wrong all the assumptions about global atmospheric CO2 were. None of this alters the adjustments, cherry-picking, and manipulation of data made to achieve a low pre-industrial to fit the political agenda. The 19th century data is purer than the totally contrived Mauna Loa data.

      • Ernst Beck august 7, 2010 2:05 am

        Dear Anthony, you wrote: “I don’t think Beck’s work is worth much in the context of trends because many of the historical samples he cites were done by less accurate chemical reduction methods and taken in cities with little or no quality control from point to point or metadata.”
        That’s not true! This is Ferdinands propaganda.
        I do not use data from cities and the chemical methods are well known in every analytical textbook and very accurate (0.33-3%). August Krogh and Otto Warburg had received their Nobel awards using these methods. Please check the sources on my website.

      • That’s not true! This is Ferdinands propaganda.

        Over the years, I have had a number of exchanges with Ferdinand on the Beck study, and Ferdinand appears to accept that there is nothing wrong with the accuracy of the lab results; there is no significant problem with the equipment, lab practice or procedures.

        The issue he has is with sampling. The problem being that CO2 is not a well mixed gas at low altitude and can vary by several hundred percent.

      • Mr. Watt’s comment is misguided, for reasons noted by Mr. Verney. The difference between Beck’s and Keeling’s measurements is not due to technique but to their position. When Keeling made measurements at the ground, he found huge changes of CO2 – just like Beck. There, CO2 was strongly affected by air from individual sources and sinks of CO2, changes of concentration that shift with the wind. If Beck’s technique were operated continuously at Mauna Loa where, because it is in the middle of the Pacific and thousands of metres above the ground, it would show the same changes as Keeling’s technique. Having been mixed into the atmosphere, concentrations there are closer to average CO2. Had Beck’s technique been adopted for this long term monitoring, instead of the nouveau Keeling technique, we would therefore have a continuous record of atmospheric CO2 over the entire 20th century.

      • This may be a little aside, but interesting, as Krogh’s just mentioned early work came as a surprise to me several years ago. He apparently moved over into a rapidly expanding field of physiological regulation and produced a classic on Osmotic Regulation in Aquatic Animals in 1939, which is how I ran into his work in graduate school. One might surmise that he found fluxes easier to study in better organized living systems.

        Around Sputnik time there was a lot of ecological interest in gas exchange, partly with the hope that algal or other systems could regenerate oxygen for astronauts. This is also the time when some began to realize that we were going into information overload.

        I have a more recent recollection that Krogh did not care all that much about Arrhenius’ idea, which may have more to do with his experience than any physical-chemical argument. Will look and watch for more of this because if Krogh’s later work is any guide I would trust him. Didn’t he get another Nobel Prize for his later work?

      • Excellent article as usual Tim. I have studied the Ernst-Georg Beck data and feel it is quite useful. If nothing else it confirms the variability of atmospheric CO2 and is said to be accurate to 1-3%

        I believe the IPCC pulled a swifty and in fact created the first hockey stick by taking the long series of very low sensitivity ice core data and tacking the very high resolution Muana Loa data onto the end with a very convenient big upswing.

        I do not believe that it is scientifically acceptable to join two completely different data sets like this.

      • Tim,

        We have been there before…
        The main problem with Becks data is not (with a few exceptions) the accuracy of the measurement techniques, but with where was measured. What Beck has done is taking measurements from every place in the world and simply lumping them all together, without any quality control: the good, the bad and the ugly.

        You can forget all the data made over land: these are extremely variable between day and night. As most historical samples were taken once or a few times a day, the time of sampling shows enormous differences in CO2 levels. One of the basic series causing the 1942 “peak” in Beck’s data is at Giessen. That was from 4 samples a day which show a standard deviation (1 sigma) of 68 ppmv. Compare that to Barrow (Alaska, 8 ppmv including seasonal changes) Mauna Loa (4 ppmv, including seasonal changes and volcanic vents) and the South Pole (1 ppmv), here for a few days in summer in a modern sampling station, not far from the historical one:

        If you take all the historical samples made on board of sea ships or coastal with wind from the seaside, these are all around the ice core CO2 data for the same period. Unfortunately, there are no ship’s measurements in the “peak” period to be compared with.

        See further all the problems with Beck’s interpretation of the historical data at:
        http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

        Then the resolution and accuracy of ice cores.

        There is no way of knowing which year or even decade is represented.

        Indeed that is right. The resolution of an ice core is a function of the yearly (snow) precipitation and is between 10 years (coastal) and 600 years (far inland). The repeatability of the CO2 measurements is 1.2 ppmv (1 sigma) for different samples of the same ice core at the same depth and up to 5 ppmv between ice cores for the same average gas age.
        With 10 years resolution it is easy to compare the 1942 “peak” of Beck’s data: there is no peak in the ice core data, no drop in the δ13C data of coralline sponges and no drop in stomata (density) data… The 1942 “peak” in Beck’s data simply doesn’t exist.

        Moreover, there is a direct overlap between the ice core data of Law Dome and the South Pole for the period 1960-1980:

        The “corrections” as mentioned are needed because in stagnant air, as is the case for a large part in firn, heavier isotopes and molecules tend to increase at the bottom. To perform that, the 15N/14N ratio change is measured and other isotopes and molecules are adjusted accordingly. That is less than 1% for CO2 levels.

        Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski.

        Sigh.
        Please Tim, let him rest in peace, together with his ideas about CO2 in ice cores. He was probably a brilliant scientist about radio-nuclides in ice cores, but as far as I know, never performed any CO2 measurement. All his objections from begin 1990’s were point by point rejected by the work of Etheridge ea. on three Law Dome ice cores, published in 1996:
        http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome
        for the same ice cores, δ13C measurements were performed:
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50668/pdf
        As the recent CO2 and δ13C changes are opposite to each other, that means that the CO2 increase is either from human use of fossil fuels of from vegetation decay, not from the oceans, which have a higher δ13C than the atmosphere. As the oxygen measurements reveal: vegetation is currently a sink for CO2, not a source…
        See further:
        http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

        They claimed the length of time CO2 remains in the atmosphere, known as the Residency Time, is at least 100 years. It is only 5 to 7 years.

        Tim, why do you repeat that nonsense? It only shows that you have no idea what residence time means. The residence time of any molecule CO2, of whatever origin, in the atmosphere indeed is slightly over 5 years (agreed by the IPCC), before being swapped with a CO2 molecule from another reservoir. That doesn’t change the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere with one gram. The real time needed to remove all extra CO2 in the atmosphere is what is current in the atmosphere above the ocean-atmosphere equilibrium (according to Henry’s law: ~110 ppmv) and what the resulting net sink rate is (~2.15 ppmv/year):
        110 / 2.15 = ~51 years. Highly linear over the past 55+ years.

        That is far longer than the 5 years residence time, but much shorter than the 100’s of years of the IPCC. They use the Bern model, for which there is no sign in the sink rate – until now.

        Many other objections you wrote about the CO2 data are complete nonsense, rejected many times here by me and others. You simply repeat them again and again, which is a disserve to every real skeptic, who wants to debate the warmistas with real arguments, not fake ones…

      • afonzarelli,

        There are many coastal stations which measure CO2: Barrow (Alaska), La Jolla pier (California),…

        The main point is that one may use only data that are measured when the wind is not from the land side, as that is much higher at night and lower during the day…

        There are over 70 stations worldwide that measure “background” CO2 data, plus regular flights and ships’ measurements. Further some 400 stations (including tall towers) measuring over land to try to measure the in/out fluxes of CO2. See:
        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/

    • “… specifically because of accuracy” simply because data is old, it does not imply lack of accuracy. Upon what do you base your statement?

      • See my comment above. There is nothing wrong with accuracy. The issue is with sampling. It is a bit like the problem with weather stations and the land thermometer record, brought about by station moves and encroachment of UHI etc. The measurements we take today from weather stations cannot easily be compared to those taken in the 1930s/1940s.

      • Stomata react to averages. Sampling takes a one time sample and measures what the CO2 was at that instant in time.

      • Mark, with respect to stomata, why would they react to averages, when the plants bearing leaves have to live in and survive the local and highly variable conditions they face hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly; in addition to the locally variable genetics of the individual plants.

      • Plant stomata (density) is a reaction of the plant to the average local CO2 level in the previous growing season (info from Tom van Hoof, stomata specialist). Once in the knobs for the next season, that doesn’t change anymore. Thus plant stomata reflect the local CO2 levels averaged over a full growing season. That in itself gives already a bias of +40 ppmv compared to “background” levels like at Mauna Loa and South Pole.
        Plant stomata data are calibrated with ice core data over the past century. The point is that nobody knows how the local CO2 levels changed over the centuries due to changes in land use in the main wind direction, or even changes in the main wind direction itself between e.g. the MWP and LIA and back to higher temperatures now…

    • “Consider sea water temperatures taken from sailing ships 300 years ago:…
      The specific thermometer calibrations are generally unknown…”

      Now consider the sea water temperatures taken from engine room inlet temperature gauges somewhat more recently.

      Ship’s engine cooling water inlet temperature data is acquired from readings of the engine room cooling inlet temperature gauges by the engineers at their convenience.

      There is no standard for either the location of the inlets with regard especially to depth below the surface, the position in the pipework of the measuring instruments or the time of day the reading is taken.

      The instruments themselves are of industrial quality, their limit of error in °C per DIN EN 13190 is ±2 deg C. or sometimes even ±4 deg. C for a class 2 instrument, as can be seen in the tables here: DS_IN0007_GB_1334.pdf . After installation it is exceptionally unlikely that they are ever checked for calibration.

      It is not clear how such readings can be compared with the readings from buoy instruments specified to a limit of error of tenths or even hundreds of a degree C. or why they are considered to have any value whatsoever for the purposes to which they are put, which is to produce historic trends apparently precise to 0.001 deg. C upon which spending of literally trillions of £/$/whatever are decided.

  2. …and in local (NorCal) news, Folsom Dam is discharging 84,200 cubic feet of water per second–enough to cover nearly 2 acres with one foot of water each second. The American River Parkway is flooded, and the main channel is running FAST. Aaand that little problem on the Oroville Dam Spillway is slowly growing…. Chalk one up for our permanent drought.

  3. From the beginning, the pattern of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its proponents was to produce the science required for the political agenda.

    If Man can’t be blamed then there is no excuse to control Man.

    Science should be the just the study of the physical “stuff” around us. Nothing more.

  4. “From the beginning, the pattern of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its proponents was to produce the science required for the political agenda.”

    Yup. An agenda of DISASTROUS de-industrialization.

    It’s got zero to do with climate. That’s just the pretense. A pioneering founder of the global warming scare put it this way:

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -ex UNEP Director Maurice Strong

    THAT is the motivation driving the leftists behind the global warming lunacy. You see that every day in their endless protests about energy pipelines and fracking etc, because the core of society is .. energy. It’s no coincidence that the leftist loons are protesting ENERGY! (And their renewables are costly impractical gimmicks that will NOT provide for society’s needs. Renewables are a cover for their desire to de-energize society.)

    They may not say it openly, that their goal is to de-energize and thus de-industrialize western society, but that’s what most of the leftists want: civilization is too “bustling” and they have monk-like secular guilt over that. In 1973, even before he was pushing global warming, Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren didn’t try to hide it, saying: “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.”

    More plainly, THIS is the leftist dream:

    “We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster… to bomb us into the stone age, where we might live like Indians.” -Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue

    The leftists see draconian CO2 cuts as the ticket to fold up industrial civilization, if all goes “well.”

    But unfortunately, for them, and everybody else, it wouldn’t lead to a utopian Eden where “we may live like Indians.” Instead we would have some form of disaster akin to this:

    “You have to remember what happened in Albania,” Bokaris [an Albanian] said, describing how that country’s population felled trees en masse after the collapse of communism. “Even the trees lining the roads were chopped down.”

    A leftist senator said this:

    “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” -Senator Tim Wirth, 1994

    NO. It’s not the right thing to do. The massive CO2 cuts that left demands would not lead to some kind of beautiful Eden but to unparalleled disaster!

    • I knew liberal heads would burst if cheap energy were available to ALL but couldn’t sum it up. You did. Thanks. PS A world without people….that’s Eden.

    • These guys are crazy. That’s for sure. But energy would not last forever. When it would be evident that the last reserves of oil are exhausted, it would be the end of this civilization. It would be huge crash, and a huge hecatomb. I would send us all to the stone age. I do not understand why this people are eager to witness to watch the end of the world. Before the oil and coal would be exhausted we need to make a lot more atomic plants. But the end of this civilization would eventually arrive. I cannot understand the eagerness to watch it.

  5. … the intellectual property argument …

    As far as I can tell, the only intellectual property that would apply is copyright.
    1 – Facts and data can’t be copyrighted.
    2 – Works by the U.S. Government are placed directly into the public domain.
    link

    Also, it’s a freedom of speech issue as the government can not use copyright to stifle criticism.

    That’s exactly what’s going on here. Some folks need a good kick upside the head.

  6. Discounting the earlier data because of an imputed lack of accuracy is, really selling the data short, in my opinion. In a way, the 1850s and thereabouts were a Golden Age for analytical chemistry. Accuracy and precision became the meat and potatoes of the measurement chemist, a tradition that continues to this day. Throughout the whole era, new and better analysis techniques were under constant development. Error analysis of new and existing methods was pivotal to demonstrating that one method was superior to another.

    In short, these people knew what they were doing. Claims for accuracy from the 1800s are on the order of 1 – 3%. This is more than reasonable given the methods and equipment of the day. It is true that we do much better today, but that does not mean the early measurements were just plain wrong. They claimed 1 – 3%, and I think that is just about right.

    It is also worth noting that some of the people doing the measurements became major figures in the history of the development of chemical analysis.

    • Absolutely.

      There is nothing wrong with the accuracy of the results.

      There is, however, an issue with sampling and whether it is truly representative.

  7. Can we drop the Bates thing? Didn’t he already admit that while QA/QC corners may have cut, that the results were not compromised?

    • No we can’t and should not drop the ‘Bates’ thing. NOAA refused to provide Lamar Smith with the data. Why? There is only one conclusion.

      • Thank you for another great article Tim.

        We wrote this in 2002 and it is still true.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/24/epic-failure-of-the-canadian-climate-model/#comment-1457619

        [excerpt]

        If the large energy companies want to regain the moral high ground, they should adopt these two statements as their policies on climate and energy.

        Originally published in 2002 in the PEGG, reprinted at their request by several other professional journals , the Globe and Mail and la Presse in translation:
        http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

        On global warming:

        “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

        On green energy:

        “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

        *********************************************************************

      • This is absurd. Many folks have shown that there was no ‘smoking gun’ with the adjustments, and Bates himself has stated as much. Its too bad because there are legitimate potential gripes about the UN version of climate science, but this kind of stuff continues to get traction.

      • I am sorry, Mr. Geiger, but the gun looks pretty damn smokey to me!

        The smoke has been getting thicker for almost 30 years now, and I can’t even see the gun anymore.

        The whole climate change paradigm is about as solid as the mortgage paradigm of 2006. Almost nothing is true about the AGW paradigm. It has all been slowly nudged away from reality so gently that few have noticed, and most don’t want to believe it, even when you show them the facts.

        We are witnessing the beginning of the collapse of the global warming paradigm. It never fit reality, but now the differences are becoming too large to ignore. There is not enough smoke in the world to continue hiding the simple fact that the AGW theory is wrong.

    • In what way did Dr Bates say that the results were not compromised. He was pretty effective in demonstrating that the Karl-15 paper was a work of politics, not science.

    • “So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation …” (Dr Bates).
      Nothing to see there, in fact ‘world’s best practice’ in Climate Science™.

    • If you haven’t followed proper QA/QC then your results are meaningless and must be ignored.
      Would you fly on a plane where the engineers had decided to skip QA/QC?

  8. The industry equivalent of what the IPCC has done would be if a company participated in a cooperative effort to develop an open interface which they drove towards one they had already patented all possible implementations of.

    It’s inconceivable that anyone could be blind to this obvious conflict of interest, yet this is a common trait among all who consider the IPCC authoritative. Does anyone who thinks so care to comment on why this isn’t a conflict of interest?

    The IPCC requires a significant effect from mankind’s CO2 emissions to justify its existence and agenda, yet has become the arbiter of what is and what is not ‘consensus’ climate science by virtue of what they publish in their reports. This is classic ‘positive’ feedback where political feedback positively reinforces scientific error, as long as it supports the political agenda.

  9. I was taught that one had to try to avoid statistical artifacts, where the conclusion is determined by the testing procedure for significance. My math skills are not very good, but surely there are ways to not drop evidence, but account for the presumed error.

    • Not if you need to create enough warming to cause a panicked stampede to destroy industrial civilisation.

      • Just imagine, the real danger awaiting us is the next glacial age. I that comes we are all lost.
        It is not totally absurd, but nobody can predict this anyway. It all depends on which thing is driving
        the climate drift. And this is not yet known. But the former interglacials mean something, we are on the verge of this one. Five hundred years, a thousand years, two thousands, etc. Watch the curves of Vostok-Petite. Watching this graphic I realized they were telling lies about global warming. Other graphics like GISP2 tell us also how varied can be the climate.

      • I know. Climate science is largely an exercise in what has been called in other contexts “sagecraft” , producing expert opinions with all the “validity” of “expert witnesses” used by liability lawyers.

      • The congress was paying those guys to preach the global warming. I you pay money to people to tell lies, he would not stop till the money stops falling over them. I congress now decide to stop the financing of global warming global warming would dry out.

      • The congress was paying those guys to preach the global warming. If you pay money to people to tell lies, they would not stop till the money stops falling over them. If congress now decide to stop the financing of global warming this epic phenomenon would dry out.

  10. “From the beginning, the pattern of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its proponents was to produce the science required for the political agenda.”

    Nope. This is just Ball’s biased opinion. His views are typical of a tiny, misguided minority.

    • Tony. I’m Not entirely sure what your promoting here, but?

      Nope. It’s your pea size brain that’s grasping at straw, “Ball’s biased opinion” He has more honesty and integrate than the whole gang of IPPC hucksters or the crooks over at the 97% club. Other wise he would be a very rich well traveled man attending phony Climate conferences, promoting NOAA /NASA… manipulated data! All on the taxpayers dime!!!

      Climate change promoters and rent seekers are like tailors a nip here a tuck there and Waller you have a baggy suit to hide the tailor made fudged data. Wamist fiction and adjustments bears no resemblance to the real data/facts!!

      Go Dr. Ball you are a real hero!

    • “From the beginning, the pattern of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its proponents was to produce the science required for the political agenda.”

      Yep, That quote describes the whole thing in a nutshell…

    • @Tony Mcleod: If you truly believe what you are telling us, there is something you need to do.

      Go to your local library and enlighten yourself on the psychological concept of cognitive dissonance (or read up on the subject online). It’s what you are going through now. Please note: YOU are the one with the belief system here—not the skeptics.

      • @Tony Mcleod: Thank you for admitting that CAGW is just an opinion.

        The problem here for you Tony is that the skeptics are applying something called the scientific method to that CAGW opinion. The scientific method appears to be something else you need to enlighten yourself about. I will suggest here that the scientific method is the basis, the foundation for scientific discourse itself. It is the means for determining the robustness and soundness of any theory in science (which is all that CAGW still is).

        When you attack those who apply the scientific method to ANY theory, you are attacking science itself.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.

      • Mr. T- everyone can have their own opinion. You’ve got yours, I don’t have one on this subject. I look at data, like the founding documents of the UN Framework Convention and the IPCC. They are political organizations with POLITICAL purposes.
        The subject of climate and climate change has simply not been studied in almost all the public literature used by those political bodies. They have only studied human caused sources of climate change. Given the available records it’s impossible to determine the human causes without also determining the natural causes. They have not done that. Period.

      • philohippous
        “everyone can have their own opinion. You’ve got yours, I don’t have one on this subject.”

        Then you say:.
        “They are political organizations with POLITICAL purposes.”

        Um…

        The good news is that opinions can change.

      • “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.

        “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

        – Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC

        Source: http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

      • “Outgoing UN IPCC Chief reveals global warming ‘is my religion and my dharma’”

        and

        “Scientists say IPCC puts politics before science, needs reform”

        and on and on. Not a solitary opinion. Widely held, and by IPCC itself. The IPCC is a political organization. You really have sunk to a new low to declare otherwise.

      • The science is politicised.
        That’s not opinion. That’s proven fact dating back to 1992 when the science started to be significantly funded. There was proportionate no climate science funded before the signing of the UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCC) in 1992.
        So let us look at what was signed. That will tell us if the science is biased or accurate. It is linked here so you can check it yourself.
        UNFCCC Article 4.1 (g) says

        (g) Promote and cooperate in scientific, technological, technical, socio-economic and other research, systematic observation and development of data archives related to the climate system and intended to further the understanding and to reduce or eliminate the remaining uncertainties regarding the causes, effects, magnitude and timing of climate change and the economic and social consequences of various response strategies;

        Note this says the remaining uncertainties. They are not researching that which is certain.
        And what is certain? This is not “remaining” from the opening two paragraphs of the Convention.

        Acknowledging that change in the Earth’s climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind, Concerned that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind,

        tony mcleod , you are wrong. This is the link.

      • So real world data is just an opinion.
        It really is sad the way you alarmists think so little of yourselves, that you are willing to destroy what little integrity you once had in order to support your agenda.

      • Tony

        Ya it’s all oppion except why then spend so much time trying to brain wash and scare my kids in the public school system? It’s an agenda driven political religion, its purpose is to scare as many people as possible into giving up their freedom and liberty to a class of self serving elites loop jobs that think they know what’s best for everyone.

      • Lots of links, mcleod, lots. Those two hits were the first hits on Dr. Google from a simple search.

        You know you are tilting at windmills, and goring oxen. Open your eyes.

      • Then you say:.
        “They are political organizations with POLITICAL purposes.”
        Tony, what part of “Intergovernmental” do you not understand?

      • tony mcleod:

        You correctly say text

        Opinions, just opinions. Mine, yours, Ball’s. Opinions are like a-holes, everyone has got one.<

        I agree, so I prefer documented verifiable facts.
        Hence, I write to tell you the facts of the matter which you dispute, and I quote from – and provide links to – official Procedures of the IPCC so you can check the facts for yourself.

        The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions.
        The facts are as follows.

        It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with its political summaries. And this is proper because all IPCC Reports are political documents although some are presented as so-called ‘Scientific Reports’.

        Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

        We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

        This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.

        This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.

        Appendix A of the most recent IPCC Report (the AR5) states this where it says.

        4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel

        Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis .

        This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.

        The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.

        The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.

        This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC.
        These are stated at
        http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

        Near its beginning that document says

        ROLE

        2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

        This says the IPCC exists to provide
        (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
        and
        (b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

        Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.

        The IPCC achieves its “Role” by
        1
        amendment of its so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose
        2
        by politicians approving the SPM
        3
        then the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.

        All IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.

        I hope this dispels your doubts at the simple truth of the IPCC’s “Role” and how the IPCC’s procedures ensure it fulfills that “Role”.

        Richard

      • Opinions, just opinions. Mine, yours, Ball’s. Opinions are like a-holes, everyone has got one.

        And some people, notably evangelists of the alarmist cause, spend a lot of their time blowing smoke up other people’s …

    • Tony,

      The fact is that the science Hansen supplied to provide the theoretical basis for an absurdly high sensitivity used to justify the formation of the IPCC is based on a misapplication of Bode’s math targeted for linear amplifier design. A forcing input and delta temperature output are not linearly related to each other, nor is the implicit, infinite supply assumed by Bode present. How else can 4.3 W/m^2 of output surface emissions (0.8C increase) arise from only 1 W/m^2 of input forcing, per the IPCC sensitivity factor? How can this possibly be accepted and reinforced without the aforementioned conflict of interest? If you really believe that 1 W/m^2 can be turned into 4.3 W/m^2 and that there’s no conflict of interest distorting climate science, would you be interested in purchasing a magic unicorn?

      • Tony,

        “How much?”

        The sensitivity is over-estimated by about a factor of 4. Rather than 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2, according to the IPCC, first principles physics bounds to be between about 0.2 and 0.3C per W/m^2 and most likely closer to 0.2 than 0.3.

        Each of the 240 W/m^2 of post albedo input power results in 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions for a total of about 390 W/m^2, thus the last and the next W/m^2 of forcing can contribute no more than about 1.6 W/m^2, which corresponds to about 0.3C per W/m^2 at the current average temperature of about 287.5K. There is no possible way that the next W/m^2 can increase surface emissions by the 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental emissions required to sustain a 0.8C increase.

        The extra 0.6 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing is the net effect of surface heat retention by GHG’s and clouds as both absorb some fraction of surface emissions.and returns about half back to the surface. Even if the atmosphere absorbed 100% of surface emissions, the result would only be 2 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing which corresponds to less than the 0.4C per W/m^2 lower bound claimed by the IPCC.

        The mistakes are so absurd they would be comical if not for the expensive ramifications.

      • afonzarelli,
        I’m still training the unicorn to puke rainbows with a pot of gold at the other end. Right now, the rainbows are in black and white, come out of its ass and end in a deep dark pit. I guess it’s still magical and consistent with a belief in IPCC pseudo science.

      • “training the unicorn to puke rainbows with a pot of gold”

        You’re just trying to jack the price up.

      • Tony,
        “You’re just trying to jack the price up.”

        You’re just trying to avoid acknowledging the conflict of interest at the IPCC and the biased, broken, and politically directed pseudo-science they use to support their trivially falsifiable conclusions.

      • No, I’m trying to avoid your opinion. I’m not a research scientist at the cutting edge – all I have is second hand opinions.
        Sheesh, about time some of you guys admit that’s all you have too. Any cutting edge climate researchers amongst you? No, I didn’t think so. Amateurs like me who don’t know what they don’t know. Look up Dunning Kruger effect.

        opinion
        əˈpɪnjən/Submit
        noun
        1.
        a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

      • tony,

        My work does not comprise an opinion, but represents the kind of due diligence I have never seen applied by anyone in consensus climate science. Anything I’ve said I can back up with data, logic and math. I’ve studied a broad range of proxies from ice cores to satellite and surface measurements, divined the relationships (transfer functions) between dozens of different climate variables, built climate models, 3d atmospheric simulation tools driven by HITRAN data, many analytical and visualization tools and I’ve studied many papers and can even identify the specific paper where climate science jumped the shark (Hansen’s 1984 feedback paper followed by Schlesinger’s ‘corrections’ a short time later).

        You still haven’t addressed the conflict of interest at the IPCC that has driven it to nudge climate science in a particular direction. This conflict of interest is far from an opinion but is an immutable fact. Without CAGW, the IPCC would have no reason to exist and it’s agenda of climate reparations would become unsupportable.

        I suggest that rather than have only second hand opinions while avoiding the truth, do the due diligence yourself and the truth will reveal itself.

      • Tony,
        I’m not a research scientist at the cutting edge – all I have is second hand opinions…… Amateurs like me who don’t know what they don’t know.

        So, why should anyone listen to your opinion on anything research science-related? Even if we concurred with what you say, all we would form would be third-hand opinions. And why do you feel obligated to voice opinions about matters that are outside your range of expertise? Do you think you are forming some kind of public service by parading your ignorance and your ability to parrot opinions and judgements you don’t understand?

    • The IPCC is clearly a political organization. It has a political charter, a political aim, and political monies.

      This is widely known. You are exposing your slip.

      • Forrest Gardener February 9, 2017 at 8:38 pm
        It has a political name too. Intergovernmental Panel. It’s surprising how many people think the I is for international.

        That’s why it’s acronym should be IGPOCC.

      • The alarmists define a “real scientist” as anyone who agrees with them. Regardless of experience or credentials.

      • A punching opportunity?

        “Paging Ben Santer! Dr Ben Santer please report to the back alley, your services are requested!”

    • tony,

      ““From the beginning, the pattern of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its proponents was to produce the science required for the political agenda.

      “Nope. This is just Ball’s biased opinion.”

      Can you show us instances when what was produced did not fit the political agenda? If not, what in the world are you bitching about?

  11. The three broken legs of the IPPC scam: 1 anthropogenic emissions have caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, 2. rising CO2 concentrations cause global earth surface temperatures to rise, and 3. present atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are higher than they have been during this interglacial. My study of existing data strongly indicates that multiple length global water cycles are controlling the earth’s global surface temperature and that atmospheric CO2 is literally going along for the ride.

    • When the uncertainties are large enough, then it becomes much easier to fit the data to the model, or the other way round. Especially if you can reduce the statistical significance value from 95% to 90% and not get called on it!

      This is why the official modellers’ line will not be rejected by the IPCC in our lifetime. If they like, they can also just tweak the aerosol contribution a bit to make everything fit when they need to. If even that looks like it might be getting more difficult, then they could start emphasizing the qualitative differences between various types of aerosol.

      Bottom line: The plausible excuses for the model failures are already lined up. They will not run out of plausible excuses for model failure.

      That should, of course, have disqualified the models as policy-ready tools from the get-go, but we’re talking climate-science here, not real science.

    • frhaynie – yup.

      Humanity may also be affecting atmospheric CO2 through deforestation, fossil fuel combustion, etc., but this has an insignificant impact upon Earth’s temperature and climate. Climate is insensitive to increasing CO2.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/comment-page-1/#comment-2417313

      Excerpts below are from Veizer (GAC 2005). Dr. Bates also works on the global water and energy cycle.

      As I proved in January 2008 (MacRae, icecap.us), dCO2/dt varies with temperature and its integral atmospheric CO2 lags global temperature by about 9 months in the modern data record. Quelle surprise!

      Best, Allan

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/06/the-bern-model-puzzle/#comment-982270

      Excerpts from Veizer (GAC 2005):

      “Pages 14-15: The postulated causation sequence is therefore: brighter sun => enhanced thermal flux + solar wind => muted CRF => less low-level clouds => lower albedo => warmer climate.

      Pages 21-22: The hydrologic cycle, in turn, provides us with our climate, including its temperature component. On land, sunlight, temperature, and concomitant availability of water are the dominant controls of biological activity and thus of the rate of photosynthesis and respiration. In the oceans, the rise in temperature results in release of CO2 into air. These two processes together increase the flux of CO2 into the atmosphere. If only short time scales are considered, such a sequence of events would be essentially opposite to that of the IPCC scenario, which drives the models from the bottom up, by assuming that CO2 is the principal climate driver and that variations in celestial input are of subordinate or negligible impact….

      … The atmosphere today contains ~ 730 PgC (1 PgC = 1015 g of carbon) as CO2 (Fig. 19). Gross primary productivity (GPP) on land, and the complementary respiration flux of opposite sign, each account annually for ~ 120 Pg. The air/sea exchange flux, in part biologically mediated, accounts for an additional ~90 Pg per year. Biological processes are therefore clearly the most important controls of atmospheric CO2 levels, with an equivalent of the entire atmospheric CO2 budget absorbed and released by the biosphere every few years. The terrestrial biosphere thus appears to have been the dominant interactive reservoir, at least on the annual to decadal time scales, with oceans likely taking over on centennial to millennial time scales.”

  12. When the evidence is examined and has benn found to support a pre- agreed result then the process thus supported might be termed ‘the Narritive’ rather than IPCC science. When having a discussion of the false nature of conclusions due to the false data put in to begin with any number of well educated standard AGW Narritive believers it is very easy if they are non-scientists to find their level of technical information understanding (usually low ) and very hard to get them to consider educating themselves at sites such as this. Mostly arguments supporting their view are from authority. The analogy I use to think of the Narritive and the lack of skepticism and fact checking which allows it to hang in there so long is this whole hoax process is similar to the Sub-prime mortgage crisis as depicted in the movie ‘the Big Short’ . In the movie the financial skeptics see the situation clearly and act accordingly. The skeptics place bets by ‘shorting’ the eventual collapse of value of the bundled tranches by inventing the credit default swap insurance instrument. The characters in the movie had the same problem with getting those who supported the narritive , whether in government or financial service , to just believe what the facts clearly showed. It did not happen. So now as with the Bond rating companies from the movie those whose function it is to vet the studies do not because they support and benefit from the Narritive. Now this impass may resolve with the onset of global cooling not just a pause which would reveal CO2 as a weak GHG.

  13. I’ll add to Anthony’s Caveat:

    In my opinion, Tim Ball is very wide of the mark in his denigration and condemnation of Bates, rushing to judgement before Bates has even presented his evidence to any investigating body. Ball seems sadly unaware of what Bates’ position and responsibilities were at NOAA. I doubt that Ball knows anything about Bates and does not seem to have read even the two posts at Judith Curry’s on the situation.

    It is just as reprehensible for Ball to sling mud at Bates without any evidence of wrongdoing as it was/is for Boslough and Schmidt to continue to falsely accuse Robinson of misconduct. Ball’s accusation of Tom Karl are equally improper until the evidence has been laid on the table and judged by those in possession of all the facts.

    • rushing to judgement before Bates has even presented his evidence to any investigating body.

      To some extent, I agree, but Bates has published his version of events to the public courtroom, and in the public courtroom it will be tried.

      Let us also not forget where Dr. Ball is coming from. While Mann, Briffa, Hansen, Jones and many others were hiding declines, hiding data, hiding code, and Bates was quietly collecting his paycheck while saying nothing, Dr. Ball was speaking out. It cost him dearly. I remember at one point the smear jobs against him were so intense that he had to get a photocopy of his actual degree published on line just to prove that the accusations that he didn’t have one were false. His academic career was ruined because he spoke out when almost nobody else did.

      So, if I were to accuse Bates of sitting on his hands when he should have been speaking out, that would be unfair and unwarranted. But coming from Dr. Ball, it is fair comment. He’s paid a heavy price for crying foul while still working in the field.

      Thank you Dr. Ball for all you’ve done.

    • Kip Hansen,

      “In my opinion, Tim Ball is very wide of the mark in his denigration and condemnation of Bates, rushing to judgement before Bates has even presented his evidence to any investigating body.”

      I could agree to the extent that he does not make it perfectly clear that it is his opinion (as you just did) . . but it says right at the top;

      “Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball”

      I read it as an “opinion piece”, and see no compelling reason for him to refrain from giving his informed opinions on the matter . . particularly if he provides his reasoning for us to consider. That’s what freedom of speech/the press is for, it seems to me. The idea that we, in general, are to await some “official” presentation before discussing this stuff freely is somewhat troubling to me . . though I grant you have every right to express your sense that caution is called for on our part, as readers of those opinions, and agree it is called for.

      • John ==> Tim Ball is certainly entitled to his opinion, as I am to mine and you to yours. And, as I say, it is my opinion that he has rushed to judgement, condemning Bates’ before the evidence has even been presented. In a sense, throwing the baby (Bates’ heroic action) out with the dirty bath water.

        The same thing happens in any criminal case that hits the headlines — people issue their judgments based on partial reports from the press, biased interviews and the pronouncements of pundits. — all instead of waiting for the evidence.

        On Bates, read Judith Curry’s “Backstory” segment from her original post on this issue. It appears just above the start of the Comments Section. — it might give you a more complete picture.

      • Kip,

        “The same thing happens in any criminal case that hits the headlines — people issue their judgments based on partial reports from the press, biased interviews and the pronouncements of pundits. — all instead of waiting for the evidence.”

        Sure, but do you also fault those who applaud/praise this man – “all instead of waiting for the evidence”? I see what is written here as something of a response to that gun-jumping ; ) more-so than an independent attempt to vilify him . . A call for caution in making him out to be a hero, or superior scientist who simply had no reason to suspect a political agenda was “driving” the science, until this particular reason under discussion came along. He’d have to be pretty dense not to have detected the potential long ago, it seems to me . .

      • PS –

        This aspect seems to me to be particularly important to consider;

        “Dr. Bates’s, less than adequate actions and exposure of the Karl fiasco at least took the corruption outside the skeptic community. It is also less likely to be covered up, refuted, obfuscated or contradicted with the new regime. However, even in the skeptic community, it is unlikely to receive the proper emphasis because people are still loathe to believe such a global deception can or did occur.”

        I fear, as Mr. Ball clearly does it seems to me, that this CAGW affair will not end with a big “lesson learned” moment, so as to make it very difficult for future mass DECEPTIONS along scientific lines to be pulled off, so to speak. If this global wave quietly sinks beneath the “settled science you must accept or else” surface, into the “Oops, nobody’s perfect, but at least science is self correcting” deep, then I say; Houston, we still have a problem ; )

      • JohnKnight ==> I call Bates’ action heroic because it is — considering the calumny that is heaped on any scientist working in Climate Science that comes out and makes even the slightest contrary-to-doctrine statements — for example, Judith Curry, Pielke Jr (a warmist but not alarmist himself), you know the list. His action is heroic whether or not it turns out to be what Hard-Core Skeptics have been waiting for.

        What his revelations will amount to when all the evidence is on the public’s table is still unknown.

        A brave thing to do, nonetheless.

        Tim Ball vilifies Bates as if Bates had been “hiding the evidence that it was all a hoax all along.”, which is clearly not true.

      • Kip Hansen,

        “JohnKnight ==> I call Bates’ action heroic because it is — ”

        In your opinion, at this point in time, right? I mean, you don’t know just how bad the situation might be, in terms of other . . improprieties which now (since the climate has changed significantly in the . . big bosses offices ; ) might constitute good reasons in the minds of some, to distance oneself from those who, until rather recently at least, apparently had inclination toward making life difficult for someone “that comes out and makes even the slightest contrary-to-doctrine statements”, but it could pretty bad, don’t you allow?

        I mean bad enough that someone in Mr. Bates’ position might see staying with the ship, so to speak, as the more . . risk laden option he now faces, ya know?

        “His action is heroic whether or not it turns out to be what Hard-Core Skeptics have been waiting for.”

        But, I thought you disfavored “rushing to judgement” in such matters? . .

        “Tim Ball vilifies Bates as if Bates had been “hiding the evidence that it was all a hoax all along.”, which is clearly not true.”

        . . so much for my thought there . .

        I remain fearful of this CAGW matter serving as an invitation, rather than a deterrent, to future mass deceptions employing the ostensible authority and integrity of big silence, because so many people, even among so called skeptics, are either ethically or logically challenged to the point of not being able to grasp that such things are even possible . . or undesirable perhaps???

      • Opps, that was supposed to say “… future mass deceptions employing the ostensible authority and integrity of big science ..” . . if that makes any difference ; )

      • John ==> I admit I’m not quite following your argument — not quite getting what point you are trying ti make about Bates.

        Did you read what Judith Curry called her “Backstory”? If not, I recommend it. Bates discussed all this with Curry in 2015, Curry suggested going public, Bates decided to try to handle it internally through NOAA internal processes. That got nowhere, apparently. So, having retired, he decided to go public now.

        Heroic because he knew he would have to pay the price that Curry, Pielke, Lindzen, Soon, Pielke Jr., Freeman Tyson, the Robinsons, […the list is lfar too long] have all paid.

        It may not align with your opinion, which is fine — but to me it is heroic.

      • “Heroic because he knew he would have to pay the price that Curry, Pielke, Lindzen, Soon, Pielke Jr., Freeman Tyson, the Robinsons, […the list is lfar too long] have all paid.”

        He sure don’t talk like someone anticipating paying that sort of price . . and I really don’t understand how you could fail to realize that if the CAGW as settled science clan loses their iron fisted grip on ostensible credibility, he won’t pay that particular price you mention. I find it extremely difficult to believe this has not crossed your mind, sir . .

        You are speaking as though you don’t think that “tyrannical” sort of power to destroy those who don’t tow the CAGW line, so to speak, is itself not in jeopardy (including in part because of what this man did), and this is beyond believable to me . . It’s like you’re convinced that state of affairs is permanent. Are you? Do you believe in ten years people will still be afraid to speak their minds about any doubts they have that the CAGW is settled science?

        If so, please explain how it will survive, in your opinion . . If not, why are speaking of this man (or anyone else) necessarily paying that same price?

      • PS ~ I immediately suspect anyone who speaks and acts as though dishonest people cannot get college degrees . . just so you know ; )

      • PPS ~ Ms. Curry pretty much destroyed her credibility with me as a reliable judge of Mr. Bates, when she wrote these words.

        “There is no one, anywhere, that is a greater champion for data integrity and transparency.”

        If she had said this, or words to the effect, I’d take her far more seriously;

        *There is no one, anywhere, that I consider to be a greater champion for data integrity and transparency.*

        She is not an all-knowing God (I am convinced ; ) so if she speaks as though she is, particularly when trying to get me to believe her impression of someone else, I see her as at least somewhat . . gullible. That’s a moment when I really need to see that you are aware of the potential for bias and self-deception . . if you want me to believe it’s not happening in you right then. I take it she trusts him, but see no compelling reason to trust her trust in him. To me, it’s like a little kid saying their mom is best mom in the whole world ; )

    • “In my opinion,”
      Refreshingly honest lead in to your post Kip. Pity a few more on here weren’t following your example.

      So much confusion between opinions and facts.

  14. RCP did a piece rejecting the GOP “elders” (like the “progressive” Romney and the 96 year old George Schultz) that want Trump to champion a “substantial” carbon tax: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/02/09/dont_let_party_elders_fool_you_on_carbon_tax_133035.html

    A comment from walleyekiller at the above link:

    The GOP needs to stop waffling on the moronic fantasy behind the climate change movement.

    It’s time, once and for all, to call out the “scientists” who oversee this gigantic corruption of the evidence as to what is occurring.

    It has been demonstrated way too many times that the “scientists” behind the movement, a number which continues to grow at an alarming rate, are willing to bend and distort the evidence like a pretzel, in an attempt to spur government action.

    The issue is hopelessly enmeshed in garnering a predetermined outcome, ever more government control in every phase of human activity. Simply put, the leaders of this movement should be jailed, including higher ups within too may government bureaucracies.

    It is in fact the exact opposite of science.

    The GOP must come out as a party, and absolutely reject this lunacy.

    • Yes. If there were warming it would lead to an increase in crops. Plus, any rise in CO2 will lead to a DRAMATIC increases in crops:

      The leftist chicken littles keep scare-mongering about the future of farm output. But what about now? They keep saying “climate change is already happening and already costing a fortune.” In the eighties many were saying that global warming would have already caused much of the world to be under water, and that AGW-caused mass famine would already be happening.

      Well, the loons were wrong. Instead we have this, largely of product of increased CO2:

    • Yeah, warming causes cold. Supreme chutzpah. And, people idiots fall for it. Whether the world warms or not, butter still would not melt in their mouths.

      • But this is why the emphasis has been changed to climate change, not global warming.

        And as you know they are shifting this to climate disruption etc.

        Soon we will be told that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas but rather a climate change gas, or climate disruption gas.

    • Yes, if you have drunk the kool aid there is nothing that the magic molecule CO2 cannot do.

      Speaking personally I had a complete head of hair before CO2 levels increased. Not only that but I towered over my infant son. And I’ve put on weight. All due to that magic molecule.

  15. Tim Ball noted that Bates did not say much until he retired. There are a lot of scientists in that position. What usually happens is that management finds some excuse to fire or release them, which then neutralizes their speaking out.
    This is also a problem at Universities where CAGW reigns. Students working under people like Mann would not get their degree or thesis approved. We saw what happened to one student that was questioned a number of years ago by someone (Steve McIntyre?) re tree rings.

    • Then they can no longer practice science. It is why I long advocated against science bureaucrats.

      All this makes a mockery of open societies with freedom of speech or even a pretence of transparency.. It also confirms Edmund Burke’s comment that “The only thing necessary fro the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” All those who stayed silent, like Bates, are as guilty, if not more so, than those who cheated society.

      What bothers me is that many of the skeptics have become as dogmatic as the alarmists they attack. We had trials at Nuremberg, which I followed when I was 10 years old, in which the Nazi defence of “just following orders” was rejected. In fact, it is now known as the Nuremberg Defense. Obviously we haven’t learned anything.

      I know the trolls will say he is comparing the climate scandal with Nazism, but if you can’t see that it really is just a matter of degree then we can expect it to happen again because that is how it always happens – gradualism.

      By the way, I received some of the nastiest emails from academics and other skeptics.

  16. Dr. Tim Ball: “Bates is not a whistleblower because he waited until he retired to speak out. It is likely he would still be silent if Hillary Clinton were elected.”

    WR: I remembered some remarks on Dr. John Bates that oppose this opinion:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/09/dr-judith-curry-speaks-out-on-climate-sciences-fatal-flaw-the-failure-to-explore-and-understand-uncertainty/
    Dr. Judith Curry:
    “She indicated that she has been in contact with NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates over the last 18 months discussing his experience with the lack of scientific rigor in NOAA’s handling of data sets where critical temperature data has not been properly archived, documented or evaluated consistent with standards established by NOAA itself. “

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/#comment-2417325
    “Roy Spencer February 5, 2017 at 5:14 am
    I’ve know John Bates for many years…he spearheaded the archival of long-term satellite datasets at NOAA. As others have pointed out, note that people like him (and me) tend to speak out only after resigning/retiring from government service. Otherwise it’s career suicide.”

    [Thank you for your courage, your morality. .mod]

    WR: We don’t only need to use the right data in regard to temperatures, we also have to be correct to use the right facts in regard to people. That means: check the facts first, also about people.
    It is well known that whistleblowers normally will be ‘crunched’ by the system. They deserve all our respect, on whatever moment they speak out. Besides, we need all whistleblowers because they are the only ones who can give us the proof that the system works in the way it is supposed that the system works.

    As. Dr. Ball knows himself:
    davidmhoffer February 9, 2017 at 7:40 pm
    “Let us also not forget where Dr. Ball is coming from. While Mann, Briffa, Hansen, Jones and many others were hiding declines, hiding data, hiding code, and Bates was quietly collecting his paycheck while saying nothing, Dr. Ball was speaking out. It cost him dearly. I remember at one point the smear jobs against him were so intense that he had to get a photocopy of his actual degree published on line just to prove that the accusations that he didn’t have one were false. His academic career was ruined because he spoke out when almost nobody else did.”

    At least the above statement sketches the background for the emotions of Dr. Ball. But, as we require from other people to use only the correct data, we ourselves should be as correct in our treatment of other people as well. No assumptions: facts.

    Dr. John Bates deserves the same respect and correct treatment as Dr. Tim Ball deserves (and deserved) himself.

    • There are not many people with a family and kids to look after who would throw their careers under a bus.

      I think that Dr Ball’s criticisms of Dr Bates to be too harsh. People who talk out at any stage, deserve support, and if they do not get it then they are likely to remain forever silent.

      I consider the thrust of this article could have been made without any personal criticism being levied at Dr Bates, and it would have been better for it.

  17. Rubbish. I attended the June 2015 Heartland Conference when Congressman Lamar Smith told us ho with people at NOA had rejected his subpoena. Think about that, bureaucrats rejecting a Congressional subpoena over what? Climate data.

    I am afraid the Nuremberg, just following orders is alive and well in the USA.

    It is the beginning of the end because as Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men todo nothing”.

    America and Canada are on the verge of collapse. America and Canada are on the verge of collapsing. They are fulfilling Alexander Tytler’s (1747-1813) observation that

    “A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for the candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed with a dictatorship.”

    The average age of the world’s greatest democratic nations has been 200 years. Each has been through the following sequence

    From bondage to spiritual faith
    From faith to great courage
    From courage to liberty
    From liberty to abundance
    From abundance to complacency
    From complacency to selfishness’
    From selfishness to apathy
    From apathy to dependency
    And from dependency back again into bondage.

    At about the same time (1788) Alexander Hamilton described modern America.

    “As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature.” –Alexander Hamilton, 1788

    Despite the Trump election there is a fifth column operating using any means fair or foul to undermine the State. John Adams warned
    “I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States.” and Thomas Jefferson said

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    I don’t think there are enough patriots willing to make the sacrifice. .

    Meanwhile many will gather in Washington for another Heartland conference and achieve nothing because they will continue to speak among themselves about the science. What they need to talk about is the corruption of science and think of ways of explaining it to the public, but that won’t happen because they will make excuses just like they are doing for Bates. It is unbelievable all the people that still hold jobs after the disclosures of Climategate, but then lack of accountability is the norm in society at large, not just climate science.

    Apparently career suicide is more serious than fooling the entire world into wasting trillions of dollars, capers communities and entire ways of life. You need to do more than give your heads a shake. Remember what Emeritus professor Hal Lewis wrote in his resignation from the American Physical Society,

    “the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

    • Bravo Tim!

      There is much greater virtue, and there was much greater risk and actual harm, to those who blew the whistle on the CAGW scam two decades ago than to those who did so now, after retirement, the Trump election, etc.

      I am just pleased that Dr. Bates came forward at all – he could have stayed hiding in the weeds, like so many others still do.

      Scientists like yourself and Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon and others who spoke out decades ago should forever be remembered as the courageous few, who risked (and sometimes lost) their careers in order to speak the truth and suffered the consequences of global warming thugism.

      I want to see the climate scammers prosecuted at the criminal level, and their organizations sued in the USA under civil RICO and elsewhere under other suitable causes of action.

      The cost to society of this CAGW scam has not just been in trillions of dollars; it has been in millions of lives.

      These warmist fraudsters belong in jail.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/24/gagged-not-hardly/comment-page-1/#comment-2406707

      The global warming scammers have a much greater problem than allegedly being gagged.

      Global warming is a blatant scam that cost society tens of trillions of dollars.

      I suggest that the costs of this scam are so high that civil RICO lawsuits will become commonplace in the USA, and some of the top warmist scammers will end up in jail.

      We can assume that the paper shredders and hard-disc erasers are working overtime, but there will still be a digital trail (and lots of time in jail?).

      Regards, Allan

      • https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/dealing-with-climate-change-in-the-Correction IN CAPS to my above post:

        “The cost to society of this CAGW scam has not just been in TENS OF trillions of dollars; it has been in TENS OF millions of lives.”

        Respectfully submitted,
        Allan MacRae, P.Eng.

        The following post is from 2009:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/dealing-with-climate-change-in-the-context-of-other-more-urgent-threats-to-human-and-environmental-well-being/#comment-128055

        stumpy (21:27:41) :

        The money spent on Kyoto IN A SINGLE YEAR is sufficient to bring clean water and sanitation to every person on earth AND OPERATE THESE SYSTEMS FOREVER; these two factors alone would massively extend the lives of those in the third world and considerably reduce deaths, particularly infant deaths.

        ***********************************************

        If i recall correctly, the source for this statement was Bjorn Lomborg, several years ago, at the time of his first Copenhagen Consensus.

        I’ve added significant corrections in CAPS.

        Good comments Stumpy – thank you.

        ***********************************************

        To put this issue into perspective, in the decades that we have been obsessed with the false crisis of Global Warming, as many as 50 million children below the age of five have died worldwide from contaminated water – equal to ALL the people who died in the Second World War.

        Catastrophic Humanmade Global Warming is the BIG LIE of our time, and speaking the truth on this issue is an ethical and professional obligation.

        I think we know enough from the satellite and surface data to state that Earth’s climate is insensitive to recent increases in atmospheric CO2. There has been no net global warming since 1940 – a full PDO cycle – in spite of an 800% increase in humanmade CO2 emissions.

        We do not even know for certain that humanmade emissions are the cause of increased atmospheric CO2. We do know that at time scales ranging from years to hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 trends LAG, do NOT lead, temperature.

        We also know that the only significant measured impact of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations is increased plant growth and drought resistance.

        Furthermore, in all probability a slightly warmer world would reduce human mortality, not increase it.

        These are my honest opinions, based on several decades of study.

        Regards to all, Allan

    • I am sorry for what you have gone through. I too have lost a job because I spoke out.
      However, we must recognize that the war has not been won, and we need all the allies we can find.
      The fact that Dr. Bates stayed quiet all those years is something to be ashamed of and is something that he will have to live with. The fact that he could have done something and chose not to, means that he does bear part of the blame for the damage that the alarmists have done to the world.
      It’s a hard thing to put your reputation and career on the line.
      Even though his career is no longer on the line, his reputation and the peace of his family still are.

      • MarkW wrote:
        “I too have lost a job because I spoke out.”

        If less than two years have elapsed, you may (in the Trump era) sue your former employer IF you can prove sufficient grounds under a suitable cause of action.

        You can also sue under civil RICO if your former employer has scammed the government for “global warming” funds, and you can seek TRIPLE damages.

        Regards, Allan

    • “Despite the Trump election there is a fifth column operating using any means fair or foul to undermine the State.”

      This is true, but the behavior of the fifth column is so blatant now that they have called attention to themselves, and have shown themselves to be a big problem. This will cause the Trump administration to be extra vigilant in digging out the leftwing backstabbers.

  18. I simply don’t consider the 19th century measurements accurate enough to be credible to compare to current global values. – Anthony Watts

    With respect, the 19th century measurements were very accurate. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the lab work, the equipment, methodology etc.

    The issue with Beck’s work is

    that many of his measurements were done within cities, which have highly variable CO2 levels that aren’t representative of global values.

    This impacts upon whether CO2 is or is not a well mixed gas. At medium to high altitudes, eg., the sort of altitude at which Mauna Loa samples/measures CO2, it would appear that CO2 is a reasonably well mixed. As OCO-2 suggests, at medium/high altitudes CO2 varies between about 380 ppm to 410ppm. Nominally 395 +/- 15 ppm. So we are talking about a variation of less than +/- 4%.

    However at low altitude, say below 1000m, CO2 can locally be up to about 800 ppm and down to about 250 ppm. At low altitude, CO2 is anything but well mixed. Beck’s data simply reflects the fact that CO2 is not well mixed at low altitudes, and therefore does not in itself tell us much about what medium to high altitude CO2 levels were at the time of the experiments.

    How does the variability in CO2 at low altitude impact upon the theory, the IPCC and other have never explained. Can one see local variations in temperature consistent with local variations of CO2, and if not why not?

    I have often suggested that since science is about experimentation and replication of results, the Beck data should be replicated. We should today resample from the same sites, the same time of year, preferably, the same time during the day, and then analyse the results using the 19th/20th century equipment, practices, procedures and methodology and see what results we now obtain. Obviously if a place where the sample is taken has undergone radical change, then that sampling should be kept separate and viewed cautiously.

    We should also retrofit with LIG thermometers the best sited stations which have no station moves, no encroachment of UHI, or land changes and which have the best quality data and record keeping in the 1930s/1940s, and observe what temperatures are today seen using the same LIG thermometers and the same TOB and practices as were used by that station back in the 1930s/1940s. There would then be no adjustment to data. Simply compare raw data with raw data, and no attempt to make a global anomaly. Just a direct comparison station by station.

    The problem in this science is the data. One can have no confidence in any of it. One needs to replicate the observation experiments that were done in the past so we can get some feel for what if any changes have actually taken place. It is not difficult. It is what science is.

    • Thank you richard verney – excellent thoughts.

      I am gratified that some people remember Ernst Beck’s work – I do not think he was accorded sufficient respect, during an era when it was acceptable to scoff at the work of any skeptic and to treat the Hockey Team with a deference that they never deserved.
      (I just searched “Mann-made global warming” (in quotes) and got 6200 hits.)

      It has been years since I looked at Beck. He diligently collected a large body of data that would otherwise have been ignored, and his data did raise legitimate questions about the false warmist narrative.

      Beck was an early gladiator in the high-risk skeptics’ arena, and he paid the price. I think we should remember him with good favour, and with gratitude.

      • Allan, one thing i always liked about him (digging into blog archives) was that he was very direct and i found him to be quite the breath of fresh air. So many times people get bogged down (in back and forths), he had a knack for cutting to the chase and blowing things out of the water. He may not have been the most sophisticated, but he more than made up for that with his blunt style…

        It should be noted that his co2 data is inconsistent with shallow ice cores… Your data, on the other hand is very consistent. The above graphs were made by “you know who” using bart’s southern hemisphere hadcrut4 data. Note the data matches around the turn of the century when the carbon growthrate was a steady .2-.3 ppm/year. (at that point in time we can reasonably expect little problem with smoothing) The early twentieth century saw a quadrupling of the carbon growthrate over just a few decades, this according to the same temp data. At that point we might reasonably expect to see some smoothing with ice core data showing higher concentrations than reality (and we do). All other changes in the growth rate since then have been relatively minor, at most just half of a doubling. And as i think you probably well know, ice cores match up very well with reality in the MLO era. (and if you didn’t know, “you know who” would surely tell you… ☺)

      • afonzarelli,

        Nice graphss that I have made some years ago…
        They show that a simple calculation based on human emissions and a linear sink rate of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium (the green line) in retrofit performs much better than Bart’s retrofitted temperature (the red line) only based CO2 levels before 1960…

    • CO2 is pretty wéll mixed in the atmosphere. Many industrial mixers cannot do a better job. In the end it has not too much effect. Climate scientists do not generally know that the absorption by CO2 in the atmosphere does not increase after 1 km altitude.

    • richard verney,

      Thanks for that!

      One addition: CO2 levels show very little variability if measured over the sea surface: there are no practical differences between Mauna Loa at 3,400 meters and Mauna Kea at 3 meters above sea level…

      There is an interesting modern station near the historical station of Giessen, Germany. The latter is on the base of the 1942 “peak” in Beck’s compilation of historical data. That is situated in Linden/Giessen at about 4 km of the original site and still semi-rural, at the edge of forests, fields and urbanisation. The main difference is that there is much more traffic now than 70 years ago… Even so, much of the day/night variability seems to be by vegetation, especially under inverse conditions.

      Linden/Giessen takes half hour samples via GC, measuring CO2 and other gases of interest, see:
      http://www.hlnug.de/messwerte/luft.html and specific for Linden/Giessen at:
      http://www.hlnug.de/?id=9231&station=1005
      (the CO2 data are in mg/m3, must be recalculated for ppmv with a factor 0.556)

      Take the data for 14 July, 2005 with a huge inversion layer above Germany:

      The historical measurements were 3 times a day (not 4 times from memory…) at 7 am, 2 pm and 9 pm. 7 am and 9 pm are at the flanks of huge changes, thus 15 minutes earlier or later sampling could give a difference of 20 ppmv or more… Moreover when these 3 samples are averaged, that gives already a positive bias of ~40 ppmv compared to Mauna Loa for the same day…

  19. It is clear from the disconnect between historic Earth temperatures and rising CO2, that CO2 cannot control Earth’s climate, regardless of its source. Water Vapor is over 90% of Earth’s atmospheric greenhouse gas. Water Vapor absorbs and releases vast amounts of heat energy by changing state to and from water and then ice. CO2 cannot do this. CO2 only goes directly to ice at minus 109 degrees – a temperature that never occurs near the Earth’s surface. Water Vapor makes the most important control of Earthly surface temperatures when it forms clouds. Clouds reflect 90% of the sun’s heating radiation from their upper sides. This indirect control of Earthly surface temperatures by clouds is primary. The Sun’s surface activity indirectly controls the formation of clouds by blocking cosmic rays. Sunspots indicate the sun’s surface activity. Sunspots correlate directly with Earth’s Surface Temperature history. It’s the Sun, Not CO2 that governs Earthly temperatures. This connection is being obscured by NASA & NOAA by their adjusting current Temperature measurements upward and adjusting their own previously published temperature measurements downward so it aligns with rising CO2. 1939 was hottest before it was adjusted downward.
    For a complete demonstration of all these points, see Paullitely.com, and particularly the post “How in the Universe….

  20. No paper should be allowed as evidence if the data it’s based upon is not presented in full. ‘Lost data’ = no paper, no exceptions.

    Secondly, if the IPCC insist on a CO2 residency time of 100 years then the recent pause / slowdown is even more damning for AGW theory, as it would suggest that not just the past 18-20 years CO2 emissions have had effectively no impact on atmospheric temps, but the ENTIRE last century of CO2 emissions haven’t either.

  21. Tim, your post is degraded by your color commentary related to your opinions about Bates. If you have an argument, make one. Persuasive inserts are for commercials intent on selling something. As such I find it grating to mix the two forms of writing into something that is trying to read like a piece of technical argument. Failing grade.

    • More rubbish. At worst my comments are appeals to authority, but they are authorities from the past who accurately foresaw the debacle that is society, science, and climate science today.

      I made my point in the original article that they cooked the CO2 books just like they did the temperature books. Some of those who commented on my article did so with ad hominem attacks against me instead of providing counter arguments to my points.

      Your comment is almost as shallow because I am making a philosophical argument not a technical one. My approach was forced by their use of climate science to push their political and philosophical argument. That is why I made the point about the upcoming Heartland climate conference being about the science when the issue should be helping the majority of society to understand what was done and how it was done. Trump is going to ask them what he should do and they won’t be able to tell him.

    • In re Bates: better late than never.

      And that from the first commenter in our host’s first blog post on Bates’ apostasy, pointing out that the alleged WB waited for a new sheriff in the WH.

  22. “And finally, the recording of results should be done in a disinterested way. That’s a very funny phrase which always bothers me–because it means that after the guy’s all done with the thing, he doesn’t give a darn about the results, but that isn’t the point. Disinterest here means that they are not reported in such a way as to try to influence the reader into an idea that’s different than what the evidence indicates.

    What’s the right way and the wrong way to report results? Disinterestedly, so that the other man is free to understand precisely what you are saying, and as nearly as possible not covering it with your desires. That this is a useful thing, that this is a thing which helps each of us to understand each other, in fact to develop in a way that isn’t personally in our own interest, but for the general development of ideas, is a very valuable thing. And so there is, if you will, a kind of scientific morality.” — Feynman

  23. I am always skeptical of anything I read but when it comes to climate science I am amazed at the level of deception some will go to to promote AGW. While reading the above article I tried to fact check all the main points. In doing so I came across this article in the new scientist that was trying to debunk CO2 increase is good for plants. They purposefully left out C3 plants in favor of talking about C4 plants and how an increase in CO2 would not be beneficial. Amazing, but I guess I should not be surprised.

    Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
    By David Chandler and Michael Le Page

    See all climate myths in our special feature.

    According to some accounts, the rise in carbon dioxide will usher in a new golden age where food production will be higher than ever before and most plants and animals will thrive as never before. If it sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is.

    CO2 is the source of the carbon that plants turn into organic compounds, and it is well established that higher CO2 levels can have a fertilising effect on many plants, boosting growth by as much as a third.

    However, some plants already have mechanisms for concentrating CO2 in their tissues, known as C4 photosynthesis, so higher CO2 will not boost the growth of C4 plants.

    Where water is a limiting factor, all plants could benefit. Plants lose water through the pores in leaves that let CO2 enter. Higher CO2 levels mean they do not need to open these pores as much, reducing water loss.

    However, it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact of the fertilisation effect on plant growth. Numerous groups around the world have been conducting experiments in which plots of land are supplied with enhanced CO2, while comparable nearby plots remain at normal levels.

    These experiments suggest that higher CO2 levels could boost the yields of non-C4 crops by around 13 per cent.

  24. It’s not surprising that someone would place their family, themselves first. There is real risk to oppose a secular orthodoxy, which was amplified to catastrophic proportions in the last hundred years or so.

  25. A comment on this point: “They claimed the length of time CO2 remains in the atmosphere, known as the Residency Time, is at least 100 years. It is only 5 to 7 years. I know there are arguments about what residency time means, but it is irrelevant because the IPCC used the 100-year value in their calculations of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2.”

    Radioactive 14C concentration decrease since 1964 shows (see figure) that the residence time of a small CO2 increase, which is not present in the atmosphere, is 16 years. No models needed, just measurements. Shorter residence times for anthropogenic CO2 are not possible, because it behaves in the same way as 14C.
    The residence time of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is 55 years, because this stuff is already in the oceans and in the biosphere from where it recycles back into the atmosphere all the time. The only outlet is the flux into the deep ocean.

    • Aveollila,

      There is a problem with 14C as representing the behaviour of the sink speed of any extra total CO2 (or 99% 12CO2):

      What is going into the deep oceans near the poles is the current isotopic composition (minus the air-water isotopic shift), what comes out near the equator is the isotopic composition of ~1000 years ago (minus the water-air isotopic shift). That makes that at the height of the atomic bomb tests the 14C removed was over twice the 14C which returned (plus the 14C decay itself). The overall decay rate for 14C therefore is about 3 times the overall decay rate for any 12CO2 excess above equilibrium.

      The observed excess CO2 decay rate since Mauna Loa is ~51 years, quite linear over the years…

      Here the sink and source estimates for total CO2 and 14CO2 around 1960 at the maximum 14C level in the atmosphere:

      Of 100% 12CO2 going into the deep oceans, about 97.5% is returning in the same year.
      Of 100% 14CO2 going into the deep oceans, about 45% is returning in the same year.
      That makes that the decay rate of any excess 14CO2 is much faster than for any excess 12CO2…

      The same problem occurs with the “thinning” of the human δ13C “signal” from burning fossil fuels: the drop in δ13C is only 1/3 of what can be expected if all human induced CO2 remained in the atmosphere. As there are huge exchanges (~40 GtC/year) between the deep oceans and the atmosphere, the higher δ13C from the deep oceans removes about 2/3 of the δ13C drop…

    • Aveollila,

      Sorry, overlooked your last paragraph, which shows that you did know the difference between 14CO2 and 12CO2 decay rates…

      The problem with Tim’s as good as with the IPCC’s “residence time” is that they mix the two definitions:
      – The (real) residence time = mass / throughput, which governs the fate of any individual CO2 molecule in the atmosphere, whatever its origin. That doesn’t remove or add any CO2 mass from/to the atmosphere.
      – The (e-fold) decay rate is how much is removed out of the atmosphere as function of the extra CO2 pressure, whatever its origin, which is extra pressure / mass removal (or cause/effect)…

    • 3) http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2004.ems
      From tables accessible at 2) and 3) we can do some decadal average annual analysis as:
      Decade 1 2 3 4 5
      Years ’54-63 ’64-’73 ’74-’83 ’84-’93 ’94-`03
      Ave. annual fuel emissions (Gt/yr) 2.4 3.4 5.0 6.0 6.7
      Percent change decade to decade 42 47 20 12
      Ave. annual atmos. conc’n delta (ppm/yr) 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.8
      Atmos. conc’n delta per Gt emission (ppB) 333 324 280 250 270
      Implied atmospheric retention (Gt) 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.1 3.7
      Airborne fraction (%) 71 68 58 52 55
      Ocean uptake from fuel (Gt) 0.7 1.1 2.1 2.9 3.0
      Deforestation factor (%) guesstimate* 1.03 1.06 1.09 1.12 1.15
      Total emissions (Gt) 2.5 3.6 5.5 6.7 7.7
      Airborne fraction of total (%) 68 64 53 46 48
      Ocean uptake total (Gt) 0.8 1.3 2.6 3.6 4.0
      *The above fuel emissions from 3) do not include any factor for deforestation/land use. Recent total emissions have been estimated by AGW advocates as slightly less than 8 Gt/yr total, giving about an additional 15% for deforestation/land use. As deforestation is to a degree linked to third world population, we can assume that factor was sequentially lower going back to prior decades. Using a higher factor for prior decades won’t change anything much. Column 3 fuel emissions data corresponds almost exactly with IPCC SAR figures.

      While total average annual emissions have gone up by a factor of 3, ocean uptake has gone up by a factor of 5. That is hardly consistent with slow mixing or near saturation of surface waters. What seems to be happening is that increasing atmospheric partial pressure is increasing the rate of ocean uptake with the rate of increase slowed by surface warming/acidification.
      4) http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
      snip Q. How long does it take for the oceans and terrestrial biosphere to take up carbon
      after it is burned?
      A. For a single molecule of CO2 released from the burning of a pound of carbon, say from burning coal, the time required is 3-4 years. This estimate is based on the carbon mass in the atmosphere and up take rates for the oceans and terrestrial biosphere. Model estimates
      for the atmospheric lifetime of a large pulse of CO2 has been estimated to be 50-200 years (i.e., the time required for a large injection to be completely dampened from the atmosphere). Snip
      This range seems to be an actual range depending on time frame, rather than the uncertainty among models. [See (5) below].

      5) http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/atearchive/s76a2398.htm
      For the above decades 1 through 5, we have now had 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0 half lives respectively. From 3) and 5) and using an average half life of 11 years, (based on real 14C measurement) we get a total remaining injection in 2004 from the prior 5 decades of 139 Gt, which equates to an increase in atmospheric concentration of 66 ppm. The actual increase from 1954 to 2004 was very near 63 ppm. This result lends some credibility to the 50 year atmospheric residence time estimate. [See (9) below]. A 200 year residence time gives an 81 ppm delta since 1954, which is much too high.
      Surprisingly, if we go all the way back to 1750 and compute the residence time using fuel emissions only we get a value very close to 200 years. (A 40 year ½ life gives a ppm delta of 99 vs an actual of 96 using 280 ppm as the correct value in 1750). If we assume that terrestrial uptake closely matches land use emissions, (this is essentially the IPCC assumption), and we know that the airborne fraction from 1964 through 2003 had a weighted average of 58%, to
      shift to a long term 40 year ½ life from a near term 11 year ½ life, we would have to have prior 40 year period weighted average airborne fractions like 80% for ’24-’63, and 90%-100% before that. Since emissions in the last 40 years have been 3 times higher than in the period from 1924 to 1963 and 30 times higher than 1844 to 1883 it is not too hard to believe that the rapid growth in atmospheric partial pressure has forced such a change in airborne fraction. With rising SSTs we can expect the partial pressure forced rate of ocean uptake to be offset to a growing degree. (Of course we now know that since 2003 we have not had rising SSTs, rather a slight cooling.)As emission rates decline in the future, and with the delayed impact of ocean warming the half life can be expected to begin growing again but it seems very unlikely that the residence time for a pulse of CO2 would get back to 200 years.

  26. We may say that Arrhenius invented the GH phenomenon and the warming effect of CO2 but it has no impact in the present-day science of IPCC. The warming effects of CO2 can be calculated according to a very simple formula

    dT = CSP * 5.35 * (CO2/280)

    If the real science cannot find anything wrong with this formula, they have to say that they have no better way or they do not know what is wrong. It is not a scientific statement that CO2 has no warming effect. If you say so 1) you say that there is no GH effect, which is nonsense, 2) CO2 has a role in the GH effect but it stopped at CO2 level 280 ppm. Any other options? Yes, you can say that the increasing CO2 concentration has a warming effect but the climate system has a negative feedback feature, which eliminates all the deviations from the pre-set temperature value of 15 degrees.

    My conclusion is that there is something wrong in the formula above.

  27. “Because CO2 is such a small percentage of the greenhouse gases they created a measure called “climate sensitivity,” which claims that CO2 is more “effective” as a greenhouse gas than water vapor.”

    Told to us by the same people who tell us that “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

      • Go read about the Globall Warming Potential (GWP) index. It was first used when we pointed out that Methane was a fraction of the total greenhouse gases so they said it was more effective than CO2 and it was more effective than water vapour. As I recall it is inthe IPCC Glossary.

  28. About the CO2 GH effects. Yes, If you mean that GWEP values, then CO2 is stronger than H2O. This key figure is totally unrealistic and it is created to support AGW theory. In my mind was the contributions of GH gases in the GH effect and in this calculation H”O is stil number one.

  29. Reply to F Englebeen 3:41 PM I wrote the following in 2008
    I went from
    > Jaworowski to Beck, to RC on Beck, to Law Dome, and to
    > several other sources. Seems to me that most all are right, and most all
    > are wrong. To wit:
    > Both Jaworowski and Beck seem to think that the measurements Beck presents
    > are global, and therefore ice cores are wrong. They also are thinking
    > statically rather than dynamically. RC agrees and points out, correctly,
    > that there was no CO2 source that could create the 1942 peak (globally).
    > Beck says the peak is not WWII because there are elevated readings in
    > Alaska and Poona India.
    > Let’s assume that the warm spell peaking about 1938 made a small
    > contribution and WWII made a large contribution. There is no reason that
    > there couldn’t have been local spikes also in Alaska (military staging)
    > and Poona (industrialized part of India supporting the Asian campaign).
    > Most of the measurements were from Europe, and in ’41/’42 Europe was in
    > flames. Imagine a high ridge of elevated CO2 across Europe that is
    > continuously flowing out to become well mixed around the world. By the
    > time it gets to the South Pole 200 ppm would probably be no more than 20
    > ppm.
    > Now consider that a few year spike (bottom to bottom 1935 to 1952) gets
    > averaged out over abouit 80 years during ice closure, so its maybe 4 ppm.
    > By the time the core is made, 1942 ice is deep enough to form CO2
    > clathrates, but not oxygen or nitrogen per Jaworowski, so when the core
    > depressurizes, some more of the peak is lost, now 1 ppm.
    > Now see Law Dome, per Etheridge “flat to slightly up and down” from about
    > 1935 to 1952.
    > You can take the Law Dome CO2 plot, look only at the last 100 years, and
    > fit Beck’s peak right on the unexplained flat.
    > There was plenty of CO2 to generate that ridge over Europe, and it was
    > WWII. Beck is right, the ice core is right, RC is right; Beck is wrong, RC
    > is wrong, but the ice core remains right.
    > It would be nice if people didn’t jump to conclusions and would think
    > dynamically.

    See http://www.scribd.com/doc/147447107/Breaking-Ice-Hockey-Sticks-Can-Ice-Be-Trusted to add fractionation to the story.

    • Murray,

      Beck’s peak is based on contaminated data, period. Poona, India, measured CO2 under, inbetween and over growing crops, nothing comparable to “background” CO2 levels.
      The data from Barrow, Alaska are part of the “ugly” data, as the equipment was intended to measure the health of the researcher by measuring CO2 in their exhaled air at 20,000 to 40,000 ppmv with an accuracy of +/- 150 ppmv. That equiment was calibrated with outside air. If the reading was between 250-500 ppmv, the equipment was ready to use… It is these calibration data that Beck used as “real” outside air data…
      With a minimum of qaulity control, such data would be discarded…

      Even if WWII had a huge contribution, it is simply impossible that there was such a peak in CO2: 80 ppmv is the equivalent of burning 1/3 of all vegetation on earth (including tropical forests) and regrowing it all in a few years. If that was the case, that would be significant in the stomata data and the d13C drop and return. Both show zero influence around 1942.

      Further, the open pores in firn allow a lot of exchange between CO2 in the pores and the atmosphere: 40 years of migration for Law Dome before closing the bubbles: The average age of the CO2 level at the bottom of the firn is only 7 years younger than in the atmosphere, not 20 years as you expect. The resolution of the CO2 in the gas bubbles is only 8 years, as that is the time period to seal all different bubbles at different time intervals. Thus if there was such a 80 ppmv, it would have given an at least 40 ppmv peak in the Law Dome ice cores… There were no clathrates neither melt layers in the Law Dome ice cores. Clathrates BTW decompose under vacuum, thus normally not a problem with the grating technique and certainly not with the sublimation technique.

      About Jonthan Drake’s article: I had some discussions with him in the past where he had similar fantasies: mathematically right, but with a complete lack of cause and effect insight…
      Indeed the smallest atoms and molecules show some fractionation at bubble closing time, but CO2 is not one of them. If it had an influence, CO2 levels in ice cores with enormous differences in bubble closing time should show huge differences in CO2 levels for the same average gas age and CO2 levels would decrease over time during conservation, as is the case for the O2/N2 ratio…

  30. This is beyond a joke. Look at the data.
    http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2nh/from:1880/to:1940/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1880/to:1940/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1880/to:1940
    The SH data follows the NH too closely to have really been a measurement rather than calculated from NH anomalies. HadSST2 and HadSST3 NH differ much more than HadSST2SH and HadSST3NH.
    There are large differences between all 4 in the period 1940-1970
    http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2nh/from:1880/mean:12/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1880/mean:12/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1880/mean:12/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1880/mean:12
    As a lot of people have pointed out, the integral of the GTA correlates well with CO2 levels (or the derivative of global CO2 levels correlates well with GTA). The best correlation is with HadSSTv3SH (southern hemisphere). The next best is with HadSSTv2NH, much better than HadSSTv3NH or v2SH.
    http://woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-co2/mean:12/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1959/offset:0.4/integral/scale:0.25/offset:315/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1959/offset:0.4/integral/scale:0.25/offset:330/plot/hadsst2nh/from:1959/offset:0.4/integral/scale:0.25/offset:330/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1959/offset:0.4/integral/scale:0.25/offset:330
    (v2NH, v2SH and v3NH offset to show how the hemispheres are closer than the different versions)
    My guess is that there needed to be a quick fix after this
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/14/curry-on-the-cowtan-way-pausebuster-is-there-anything-useful-in-it/
    Only a guess but I’m pretty confident that the Keeling curve is the integral of the calculated SH SST (now) with local measurements merely noise and that the adjustments to the NH data would have made a large and noticeable change to the ESRL Mauna Loa CO2 levels if nothing were done. Someone cocked up when adjusting the NH data to kill two birds with one stone ie get rid of that 40s blip as well as the pause and a quick fix was needed.
    http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2nh/from:1959/offset:0.4/integral/scale:0.25/offset:320/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1959/offset:0.4/integral/scale:0.25/offset:315
    I know that its harsh criticism (I will not use the F word) but this needs to come out.

  31. Quotations from Edmund Burke (12 January 1729 – 9 July 1797)

    Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
    Speech at Bristol Previous to the Election (6 September 1780)

    Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
    Letter to M. de Menonville (October 1789)

    ************************************************************

  32. Dr. Ball is certainly entitled to his opinion, and I don’t know Dr. Bates from Adam, but I think there is more to consider here. First of all, Dr. Bates likely went into his career with an affection for the environment like a lot of people wanting to “make a difference”. And let’s be honest, the question of CO2 warming the planet was at least on its face a legitimate question needing some attention within the 40 years of Dr. Bates career. And it is possible that throughout his career he has fallen victim to confirmation bias, or been in roles too junior or too isolated to allow him to fully see how all the sausage is made. In short, there is room to believe that Dr. Bates may be a good guy who just wasn’t in a position to know enough to see that something was truly wrong until relatively late in his career.

    It also clear that Dr. Bates has been trying for some time to work within the system to try to reform it, raising concerns through the proper channels and championing practices that support integrity. We should also consider that until very recently with the change in administration there has been an executive branch that seen fit to ignore the will of the people, the laws on the books, and indeed the constitution whenever it suited their political agenda, and any protest Dr. Bates might have raised would have amounted to him being discredited and marginalized. What would have been the point? At least by working from within he could try to reform the process and try to limit NOAA’s ability to manipulate data.

    You have to also understand working for the federal government like I do. I’ve spent most of my career in the private sector and only recently have spent a couple of years doing a federal contracting job. It was a huge culture shock. The number one question that never gets answered is “why”. Why is that process that way? Why don’t we consider any alternatives? Most people don’t know or care why. Some decision was made years ago by some bureaucrat about how and why something is done, and it is seldom questioned thereafter. It is a world where most people are just passing time waiting for their pension as their reward for enduring mindless tedium, and those who come into it with any passion or drive are quickly subdued or cast out, leaving only the bitter clingers to remain to sustain the system. Gains are measured in inches not miles, and change only seems to occur as a reaction to an absolute disaster. It is easy to understand that someone like Dr. Bates who spent his entire career in that environment was not equipped to appreciate just how out of touch NOAA is with the real world way that things are done.

    So while I understand Dr. Ball’s reservation not to hoist Dr. Bates to the level of hero, I also would err on the side of not casting him as a villain. Consider that he has at least raised doubts about NOAA, which then can beg the question, “if this one example is a problem, then are there more examples? Is this a symptom of a much larger problem?” Consider also that he paved the way for others to step forward, not only at NOAA, but perhaps NASA, the EPA, etc. Even if Dr. Bates isn’t the best example of a whistle blower, he is at least the first from NOAA, and that is worthy of some acknowledgement.

  33. If your understanding of the global carbon cycle is so base as to broadly suggest that 50% of carbon is sequestered through photosynthesis. I can’t help but wonder what else you’ve exaggerated, or misrepresented out of lack of background.

    FYI 110 out of the 112.5 billion tons of C per year are sequestered by the biosphere. And this figure doesn’t actually help your theory in the slightest.

    If the worlds fauna could conceivably sequester upwards of 1000 ppm co2 than there would not be a +4.5-6.5 billion tons of carbon per year in surplus after photosynthesis and carbon sinks! The plants are not starving….

  34. About the residence time. I can just confirm the comment of Engelbeen. I have carried out my own calculations applying quite simple atmosphere-ocean-biosphere model. There are two residence times. The anthropogenic CO2 16 years, and the total CO2 55 years.

Comments are closed.