Climate Change Predictions Falsified

There are small but important similarities with climate change and research in evolution. Both tend to create scenarios of hypothetical realities. Some interesting evidence recently came to light, NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011, shows the earth releasing more heat into space than what computer models predicting global warming said it would be.

Also published in Forbes

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions is generally referred to as the cause of all global warming. The question is asked, will carbon dioxide emissions produced by man indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds? What computer models say is one thing but real-time observations say another. The data clearly shows carbon dioxide emissions are not the major cause in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the computer models have predicted.

NASA satellite data has also shown more heat escaping into space between 1985 and 1999 than what computer models have predicted. So what does this mean? If man-made CO2 was responsible, there should be more heat being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than what is being detected. In other words, the real-time data should be on par with the predictions of the computer models, right?

Does this mean the earth will never warm up? No! Historically the earth has warmed and cooled long before the industrial revolution and will continue to do so. But isn’t this a striking similarity between climate change and evolution? Both theories hold to predictions that are later falsified by the actual data. Then it becomes a media and political circus with claims that the major agrees there is no debate in this theory. Indeed, but they are being paid to discover global warming rather than being paid to see whether or not man is causing it.  It’s the same thing with evolution, of course on different issues but their argument remains the same on the confirmation of it.

ClimateGate: What We Have Learned

In 2009, 1073 e-mails, attachments and files were posted anonymous on the internet. It didn’t take long, word spread like wildfire as thousands of people began downloading the documents. The material revealed communications  between an elite group of climate scientists and paloeclimatologists which were instrumental in influencing the IPCC’s view on climate change.

These communications also revealed how these elite scientists were hiding data, suppressing dissent by influencing journals not to publish papers contrary to their position thus using it to claim the science is settled on this issue when in fact it was not. Then  Freedom of Information requests came in, rather than turnover their raw data, they conspired to delete their emails and even one scientist wanted to delete all the climate data rather than turn it over and by the way, the climate data is still missing today.

Some Background

The need to sway government policies as well as public viewpoints around the world was needed according to those who believed in man-made global warming. In order to educate them into their way of thinking, one of these elite scientists (Mike Mann) came up with the now famous “hockey stick” graph was introduced to the world in 2001, which suggests that global temperatures remained virtually unchanged for centuries (denying that warming and cooling occurred historically), then shot up in the last few decades. This was implying that man was responsible for the warming. It became part of the U.N.’s 200l climate report and used for evidence.

Not only that, in order to give the graph some hard evidence, tree rings from Yamal, Russia was used by Keith Briffa from the CRU. Also, temperature reconstructions was claimed to be the hard evidence to back-up the graph. But for ten years Mike Mann and others refused to release the rest of the data in which they were basing their claim. When it comes to various scientific research, you generally release your raw data upon request so others can either verify or disprove your hypothesis. So what was going behind the scenes that Mike Mann and others would refuse such requests about their research?

Working Behind The Scenes

Tom Wigley from CRU, to Michael Mann on June 25, 2009. Mike was very concern about being called to testify at a Congressional hearing organized by the Chairs of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations about man-made global warming skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s who challenged the hockey stick science.

Tom Wigley writes

“A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleo reconstruction work as supporting the MBH   reconstructions. I am attaching my version of a comparison of the bulk of these other reconstructions. Although these all show the hockey stick shape, the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous.”

“If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all. I attach also a run with MAGICC using central-estimate climate nmodel parameters (DT2x = 2.6 degC, etc.—see the TAR), and forcings used by Caspar in the runs with paleo-CSM. I have another Figure somewhere that compares MAGICC with paleo-CSM. The agreement is nearly perfect (given that CSM has internally generated noise while MAGICC is pure signal). The support for the hockey stick is not just the paleo reconstructions, but also the model results. If one takes the best estimates of past forcing off the shelf, then the model results show the hockey stick shape.”

Not only was he nervous when the data wasn’t showing what he wanted to believe in, Tom Wigley restored to this particular tactic as he makes this stunning admission of what he did when writing to Phil Jones on September 27th 2009…

“I am fudging the data to take out as much of the ocean warming as I can. I can’t take out all of it, because then we would have no explanation for the land warming, which would raise suspicions. But even with my fudge factor, we still don’t have a convincing explanation for why the ocean warmed during this period.”

In another email dated in October 2009 by Tom Wigley to author of the hockey stick science, Mike Mann…

“The figure you sent [from Gavin Schmidt] is very deceptive, As an example, historical runs with PCM (Parallel Climate Model) look as though they match observationsbut the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by [the U.N. climate panel].”

Panel Agrees To Reforms: Updated 5-29-2011

The email leakage were not the only things that caused a major loss of confidence with scientists backing man-made global warming, also errors like the rate of the Himalayan glacier melting.

In this month’s Nature News

“After months of soul-searching, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has agreed on reforms intended to restore confidence in its integrity and its assessments of climate science…”

“A new conflict-of-interest policy will require all IPCC officials and authors to disclose financial and other interests relevant to their work (Pachauri had been harshly criticized in 2009 for alleged conflicts of interest.) The meeting also adopted a detailed protocol for addressing errors in existing and future IPCC reports, along with guidelines to ensure that descriptions of scientific uncertainties remain consistent across reports. “This is a heartening and encouraging outcome of the review we started one year ago,” Pachauri told Nature. “It will strengthen the IPCC and help restore public trust in the climate sciences.”

“The first major test of these changes will be towards the end of this year, with the release of a report assessing whether climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events. Despite much speculation, there is scant scientific evidence for such a link — particularly between climate warming, storm frequency and economic losses — and the report is expected to spark renewed controversy. “It’ll be interesting to see how the IPCC will handle this hot potato where stakes are high but solid peer-reviewed results are few,” says Silke Beck, a policy expert at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany.”

In conclusion

What we have learned is a small group of elite scientists got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. We have also learned how very intelligent people hold to their bias so much, it doesn’t matter what the evidence says, only what they believe and want the public to believe in. We have to remember, scientists are only humans, some make common mistakes while others like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley with their hockey stick science are outright liars!

Mummified Forest Discovered

One of the more remarkable discoveries reported towards the end of this year is an ancient mummified forest with well-preserved seedpods, leaves, and logs pretty deep in the Canadian Arctic. Scientists were on a mission to find out what impact with supposedly man-made global warming was having. The mummified trees were dated with an evolutionary assumption of  2 to 8 million years old.

What is very interesting about this story, the trees could still rot today! In fact, Science Daily reports…

“They also suspect that many more mummified forests could emerge across North America as Arctic ice continues to melt. As the wood is exposed and begins to rot, it could release significant amounts of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — and actually boost global warming.”

Another very interesting aspect, the mummified forest resembles one we observe today hundreds of miles further south which indicates the Arctic was in a much warmer period.  Scientists needed to rescue these young looking items in light of evolution by going beyond the science. They suggested a rapid burial happened with a landslide being the cause but lacked an answer on how many landslides must be would be cover enough rotting mummified trees to raise concerns about greenhouse gases.  However, the lack of answer is least of it’s problems with details on landslides mummifying a forest rather this fact, no living material can last forever in its original state, unless replaced by minerals, as in petrification and fossilization.  This is real wood that one could burn in a fireplace and could also rot!

“When we started pulling leaves out of the soil, that was surreal, to know that it’s millions of years old and that you can hold it in your hand,” one of the researchers announced to the American Geophysical Union last week.  A colleague familiar with fossil forests called this find “extraordinary,” speaking of “Finding wood that is millions of years old in such good condition—almost as if you just picked it up from the forest floor….”

These trees are not that old in reality (neither were the dinosaurs bones with blood vessels discovered last year) only in these scientists imagination based on a faulty framework.  Suggesting petrification or fossilization can be defied because it’s the only way to explain why real wood being able to last millions of years without minerals replacing its original form.  This is not science rather its forcing the data into a particular framework.

Climategate One Year Later

One of the most revealing documents ever released on how certain scientists who were manipulating data in favor of their conclusions about man-made climate change. Many proponents have been in damage control ever since trying to downplay the significance of those documents…

“What are the impacts from Climategate one year later?  The scientific data continues to build conclusively proving that the Earth is warming. Just today, the National Climatic Data Center based in Asheville, NC confirmed that 2010 is already tied with 1998 as the warmest year on record based on date from January through October 2010.  When the final two months of the year are computed, 2010 may emerge as the uncontested ‘winner.”

So there you have it, after 10 years of a cooling period, 2010 may be one of the warmest, conclusive evidence that man is the cause, right? Not exactly…If the evidence is so overwhelming then why was there a climategate in the first place?

Also, why was there a willingness to destroy information rather than release it under the British Freedom of Information (FOI) law and the intimidation of publications willing to publish skeptical articles if climate change was caused by man? The mainstream media practically avoided covering the story. There has only been since the documents were leaked to the public a year ago, twelve stories. Instead of reporting the news, their beliefs were injected into the stories, for example, Last December, Anne Thompson cited “experts” to bolster global warming science, saying “They say it doesn’t matter what’s in those emails. The Earth is changing.” So committed fraud by hiding “the decline,” evading government laws or trying to keep skeptics from being published didn’t matter to the mainstream media, which had been producing story after story for years about the supposed threat of climate change.

Some other errors were discovered as well last year, such as the Himalayan glaciers were going to disappear in 2035 which was used as climate-change evidence, rather than in 2350—an error drawn to the public’s attention not by a newspaper or a “skeptic” blogger but ….by an IPCC author.

Despite damage control in full mode, the public at large has become even more skeptical of the cause of climate-change, historically before cars were invented places like Greenland went through a warming period, (that’s how it got it’s name) then started to go through a cooling period where the Vikings who settled there had to leave. So when there are fluctuations in temperatures, it’s not proof in itself that man is the cause. Computer models are not conclusive evidence either.

What we learned from climategate is, proponents want to restore much of the earth back to the animals, and treat man like a disease that needs to stop spreading. We also learned that scientists will manipulate the data even more so now because their allies have cleared them and no punishment happened as a result.

Scientific Consensus Goes Into New Territory

The world is observing something unprecedented. Within a few short months the international scientific consensus has unraveled! It began with hacked e-mails being leaked over the internet which became known as “climategate.”

Science daily reported…

“Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to the results of a national survey released January 27 by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities…Only 50 percent of Americans now say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” about global warming, a 13-point decrease.”

The University where “climategate” began and provided damaging evidence that the hacked documents revealed. They  were found to have breached the terms of the freedom of information act.

The BBC reported…

“In a statement, Deputy Information Commissioner Graham Smith said it was an offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information act “to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information”. He said the requests were made by a climate change sceptic in the 2007-2008 period and as the case was more than six months old “the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone” under existing legislation.”

The article admitted which is new territory within itself, that the University of East Anglia had damaged public interest by withholding information. What’s even more interesting, the mainstream media which advocated global warming has been publishing more skeptical articles, for example in Science Daily

“Glaciologists at the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography (LEGOS — CNRS/CNES/IRD/Université Toulouse 3) and their US and Canadian colleagues (1) have shown that previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40 years. Recent data from the SPOT 5 and ASTER satellites have enabled researchers to extensively map mass loss in these glaciers, which contributed 0.12 mm/year to sea-level rise between 1962 and 2006, rather than 0.17 mm/year as previously estimated.”

And one of the most critical pieces that questions what scientists really know was previously unheard of a few months ago…

“The notion that scientists understand how changes in Earth’s orbit affect climate well enough for estimating long-term natural climate trends that underlie any anthropogenic climate change is challenged by findings just published.”

More unraveling includes the Himalayan glaciers where the IPCC claimed the glaciers would disappear by 2035. It took two months after the chairman was informed to correct it. The chairman alluded to his busy schedule for his slowness. This is not all, in another story

“IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level — 26 percent — to the area threatened by river flooding — 29 percent — Vallaart said…Correcting the error had been “on the agenda several times” but had never actually happened, Vallaart said.

Was the IPCC too busy to correct this problem too? Not even a well known science journal believes that! In fact, they have a their own take on it which called for integrity in science!

Another error in IPCC studies claims that global warming could cut rain fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020. A remarkable change in such a short period of time. But Professor Chris Field, says there is no evidence to support such a claim and he is right.

What is all this telling us about global warming and practicing science? How reliable is the scientific consensus? Who polices them? There is a wider disconnect between big science and the public at large. Also, more papers challenging man-made global warming are being published and the consensus itself is being looked at much closer than ever before. What we are observing is so unprecedented and so refreshing!

Exposed ‘science’ of Man-Made Global Warming!

Consensus is often used against creationism and those who are skeptical of man-made global warming.  However, consensus with certain scientists is not the same as the true prophets of God found in the Bible. What has become known as “Climate Gate” has good and bad news. Firstly, someone in the Climatic Research Unit, decided to hack into a server used by scientists, gathered data (160mb) which most likely he or she was familiar with and posted on the internet for everyone to read.

Secondly, the data consisted of  3,000 e-mails over a 13 year period of time. These documents revealed some very embarrassing details on how they conducted research that supposedly points to global warming.

The Wallstreet Journal reports in their opinion piece…

“Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn’t toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view. “It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow,” glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents “could scarcely be more damaging.” And that’s from a believer.”

These e-mails with major implications also shows what creationists and intelligent design proponents have been accusing academic journals and Universities for years of doing the same thing to them. Liberals worldwide including a popular blog of PZ Myers are so embarrassed that some are now restricting people from commenting on their forums or blogs such as Greg Laden who stated his blog will not become “a dumping ground”  but many of his readers as well as himself cannot bare to take what they normally dish out on a regular basis!

What is really interesting PZ Myers hasn’t posted anything on his popular blog about the incident (most likely fearing an onslaught of criticism) rather he’s keeping to his normal pattern which is the “Discovery Institute hates science” slogan, crashing polls, and complaining about creationists.

All the e-mails which excludes the 3,000 currently online were not released to the public. Most likely there are more e-mails which we haven’t seen yet that could tell us of more scientists engaging in an unethical way. Competitive Enterprise Institute, filed a lawsuit against NASA because the suit alleges, for the past three years they have refused to make public any documents under the freedom of information act.

In light of all this,  investigations are being put in place while Democrats are being pressured to hold hearings. Could we see the release of more conversations between climate scientists? According to the Telegraph, “Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.” There is now a high change of data getting deleted before these figures are released.

Many billions of dollars have been spent on the research, which is another possible motivation for scientists in climate research to be deceptive. It’s practically the same thing  happening with  the hypothesis of evolution!

Man-Made Global Warming: Good or Bad Science?

For the last 30 years and more there has been a continuous reduction of man-made CO2 being released. Since Obama has been elected, the policy on global warming has shifted. There is a bill lawmakers are considering whose purpose is “to make energy more expensive” so we use less in order to effect a climate change for the better.

This is an interest story, because of my locality where the electric company has asked the state for an increase in rates. The United States is in a recession, so why would the electric company want to raise rates? Their reasoning is this, profits are way down, because they are not selling the electricity they once did. Did you see that? This is totally contrary to what lawmakers for the energy bill are proposing. So it appears the consumer is a bad position, if we use less our rates might go up, if we use more, our rates go up, who is this benefiting? Certainly not the average consumer or poor person! This sort of squeeze happens in the science aspect of it as we shall see in a moment.

The sun has been in a quiet mode so low in fact it’s creating records for the least activity in it’s known history. ICR reports

“There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the 366 days in 2008 (73 percent), and as of May 7, 2009, there had been no sunspots on 109 of the 127 days since the year began (86 percent). Solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center concluded, “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum.” Sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center agreed, stating, “This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century.”

The energy we observe coming from the sun is a major driving force for the earth’s climate system. It has been already observe that little or zero solar activity has caused global cooling for example, the Little Ice Age between about 1550 and 1750 A.D. It had nearly zero sunspot activity and temperatures were generally cooler over most of Europe.

Today, with low sunspot activity, we have been also seeing a cooling change in the climate, back in 2003, NASA reported that the world’s oceans have been losing heat. Temps since 2001, have been going down. Even in my locality, for this summer, the temp average is down 5.9 degrees. It hasn’t been a very hot summer at all, although it has had some hot moments.

So let’s say we eliminate the industrial age, would that be a cure all? No, this is where the squeeze comes in. Science daily reported man-made global warming happening 5,000 years ago! These types of studies imply, if man wasn’t around, the earth would be just fine.

In conclusion, man-made global warming is bad science but very profitable for those who study it and advocate it like Al Gore. The climate is a very complex system in which we do not fully understand. We do observe a temp flux on how the sun behaves rather than what man produces.

Historical warming and cooling are normal, we don’t have the power to alter the weather. Does that mean, we should pollute more with our cars? No, it would be nice someday to be driving all electrical cars that’s if it’s affordable, then it would be practical.