*Beyond Climategate: Virtually all climate ‘science’ temp. data is irrelevant and/or PHONY.

“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.” -Phil Jones, leading climate ‘scientist’
[from Climategate document 1120593115.txt]

Ignorance Is Futile:

In the wake of Climategate, a new study of raw surface temperature data in New Zealand proves that the official government  manipulated the 150 year temperature data to show warming in recent decades, when there wasn’t. These two developments underscore the reality that virtually all forms of historical and even present day methods of recording temperature, for projecting global warming, fall somewhere in between irrelevant and fraudulent.

Problems with long count historical proxies such as tree rings and ice cores, to faulty land surface data, to even satellite data are numerous and sobering despite these datasets being used to in an orchestrated ongoing fearmongering campaign to justify global government and global taxes as found in the Copenhagen Treaty.

The first item of interest is the new report that exposes official data manipulation in New Zealand’s land temperature data record. The raw data shows virtually no warming trend in 150 years, but the government graph shows IPCC style warming:

[Report here, and more perspective here.]

The method used to generate the official graph, like all NASA graphs, involves “correcting” the data. Shocking revelations from the recent Climategate scandal includes quotes from leading (and Nobel Prize winning) climate ‘scientists’  usage of phrases such as “hide the decline” & “artificially adjusted” in tandem with “corrected” & “reconstructed”, in their hacked / leaked emails & programming source code.

The issue of “corrected” data is already prompting a renewed push for the release of raw surface temperature data by many within the scientific community and general public. This Climategate revelation obtained from programming source code notes gives some perspective:

; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

[more excerpts from Climategate source code]

Government institutions such as NASA-GISS have a long history of refusing to release ‘uncorrected’ data, while recent insights into the Climategate scandal shows top UN-IPCC ‘scientists’ collaborating to delete data in order to prevent freedom of information request releases of their raw data.

Yet the real issue here is the validity of any and all of the data itself. The now infamous Climategate “hide the decline” quote is claimed torefer to modern era declines in proxy data measurements. Proxy data would include tree ring & ice core data, opposed to ‘real’ measurement such as surface station thermometer & satellite measurements.

The “decline” in question is likely rooted in the fact that proxy data is considered (by the Alarmist ‘scientists’ even) as accurate, until the modern era. They call it a ‘phenomenon’ as their own proxy data shows a decline in temperature starting in 1940, 1960 and so on. Despite their ‘scholarly’ ‘peer-reviewed’ papers claiming that humans are “causing” global warming, in truth they typically only use the proxies up to more modern times, and then they overlay surface and satellite data over the proxy data, which results in the warming you’ll typically note when viewing Alarmist graphs.

>other’s). After all, the early ( pre-instrumental) data are much less
>reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern
>calibrations that include them and when we don’t know the precise role of
>particular proxies in the earlier portions of reconstruction it remains
>problematic to assign genuine confidence limits at multidecadal and longer
>timescales.
[Keith Briffa, 938018124.txt]

So the issue becomes the accuracy of the ‘real’ temperature data, but first lets consider a key form of proxy data.

In contemplating the idea of using tree ring data to measure historical temperature data the everyday gardener could see its flaws, especially one operating a container garden. I currently have a massive container garden, with at least one hundred containers of different sizes, all the way up to 35 gallons, containing all different types and amounts of vegetable and perennial food plants. I’ve been gathering different soils here and there throughout the year. Beyond the obvious already said, different plants planted together can stunt or increase growth.

The potential for different results in identical temperature and moisture under these conditions is astounding. Yet beyond that, a look at Wikipedia reveals one single paragraph covering the advantages of tree ring data, while there are 9 separate sections on the disadvantages.

This is ‘alarming’ considering tree ring data was the primary source of the “Hockey Stick” graph, a key graph in Global Warming Alarmist mythology. It single handedly ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), it is a key piece of material used in Global Warming Alarmism, and was mainly authored by Michael Mann, one of the most damned in the Climategate scandal.

Here we see Mann discussing the intent to”contain” the MWP:

I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…
[from 1054736277.txt]

More from Mann:

thanks Phil,
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to  the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new
page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,
[from 1256735067.txt]

Meanwhile, an email by Phil Jones shows that Keith Briffa manipulated tree ring data:

Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.
Cheers
Phil
[from 1256747199.txt]

Here Gary Funkhouser admits to manipulating tree data:

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,
but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk
something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm
what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating
the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought
at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation
even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle
the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just
are what they are (that does sound Graybillian).
[from 0843161829.txt]

Another email shows even more manipulation:

There are also issues with ice cores, although not as profound as tree ring data, in my view.

>Incidently, arguing that any particular series is probably better
>on the basis of what we now about glaciers or solar output is flaky indeed.
>Glacier mass balance is driven by the difference mainly in winter
>accumulation and summer ablation , filtered in a complex non-linear way to
>give variously lagged tongue advance/retreat .Simple inference on the
>precidence of modern day snout positions does not translate easily into
>absolute (or relative) temperature levels now or in the past.
[Keith Briffa, 938018124.txt]

None-the-less, ice cores along with other proxies still show a decline in the modern era, as discussed in Climategate emails and source code. Kevin Trenberth:

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. …
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

So let’s get “real”. The “increased temperature” that the Climategate documents discuss, that they “know” is there despite it not existing in their own data, is based on surface station and satellite data. Yet surface data is perhaps the most flawed, while satellites don’t actually measure direct temperature and require math modeling in attempts to derive temperature data.

The  “hide the decline” phrase refers to proxy data. The fact that New Zealand temperatures have hardly risen, would seem to explain why it is remote-based proxy data would show a decline when surface temp station data has risen since the 1940’s & 60’s (when urbanization has been rapidly expanding to this day).

‘Check me out, I know the temperature of my roof!’

Which brings us to the issue of unscientific surface station locations & methods, including instruments located near blacktop pavement and air conditioning unit exhausts, while already counting on humans to walk outside and record the high and low temps, daily, decade after decade.

To understand this issue you must first comprehend Urban Heat Island Effect. UHIE is the reality that urban modernization skews surface temperatures, and it turns out that most US based surface stations are located in urban or at least semi-urban locations. SurfaceStations.org is an open database project to visit and photo each of the over 1200 station sites in the US. So far they’ve visited over 80% of US sites, and the results are ‘alarming’:

The results thus far show that about 10% of U.S. based surface stations are what we’d consider scientific. The rest are what we’d consider real data as far as our daily lives are concerned, as being in the city you’d want city temperatures reported to you each day.

Here is an example of a scientific station, and its 100 year data graph:

And an unscientific one:

[more surface station & UHIE info is found here]

So in assessing global climate change you’d want to check if ocean temperatures have risen. Tom Wigley to Phil Jones:

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since
1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might
claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
[from 1257546975.txt]

In any case, it’s clear and obvious that surface station data is completely irrelevant in attempting to assess global climate change, which brings us to satellite data…

Wikipedia:

Satellites do not measure temperature as such. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.^[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data to calculate temperature trends have obtained a range of values.

Kevin Trenberth, in October 2009, admits that NASA’s CERES satellite data is “lacking”:

At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
[from 1255523796.txt]

However, today Global Warming skeptic Dr. John Christy suggests satellites today have about 95% accuracy. The problem still is that they have only been in existence since 1978, and we’ve already seen what we have to go by historically.

No recent warming in the tropics worth discussing (satellite data):

No long term warming in Denmark worth discussing (remote land stations):

In fact that graph shows actual cooling after 1940 and even more after 1960, much like the “hide the decline” computer code highlighted earlier that is claimed to be in reference to the proxy data. This stuff becomes more damning the more you look at it. The following IPCC 20th Century graph with future projection doesn’t show the post-1940 decline as seen above (described by WIgley as a “blip” here):

The UN’s IPCC, along with the ‘hacked’ CRU, has been the primary driving source of Global Warming Alarmism. This admission by Keith Briffa about the IPCC’s ethics is ‘alarming’:

I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.
[from 1177890796.txt]

More heart-felt doubts by Alarmist Keith Briffa:

> There is still a potential problem with non-linear responses in the
>very recent period of some biological proxies ( or perhaps a fertilisation
>through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to present a
>nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand
>years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite
>so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and
>those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some
>unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do
>not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
> For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate.
[Keith Briffa, 938018124.txt]

So in closing, “Global Warming” ‘science’ is in effect baseless. But what we do know is that life supporting plants breath in CO2, which means more food for the world and a better vegetable garden for me.