That’s sort of like asking, “What happened to the tooth fairy?”

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth’s great heat stores.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: “The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.”

Pacific decadal oscillation.   Yeah, baby.

What happens when you approach the anthropogenic global warming issue using ALL the data, instead of just a few handpicked points that can be made to appear to support AGW? The “evidence” for AGW does a disappearing act, that’s what,

A[s] WUWT readers know, the Briffa tree ring data that purports to show a “hockey stick” of warming in the late 20th century has now become highly suspect, and appears to have been the result of hand selected trees as opposed to using the larger data set available for the region.

OK, first the obligatory Briffa (Hadley Climate Research Unit) tree ring data versus Steve McIntyre’s plot of the recently available Schweingruber data from the same region.

 

Red = Briffa’s 12 hand picked trees Black = the other dataset NOT used

The Hantemirov- Shiyatov (HS) tree ring data that I downloaded from the NCDC is available from their FTP server here. I simply downloaded it and plotted it from the present back to the year 0AD (even though it extends much further back to the year 2067 BC) so that it would have a similar x scale to the Briffa data plot above for easy comparison. I also plotted a polynomial curve fit to the data to illustrate trend slope, plus a 30 year running average since 30 years is our currently accepted period for climate analysis.

Compare it to the Briffa (CRU) data above.

When I first saw this plot, I thought I had done something wrong. It was, well, just too flat. But I double checked my data import, the plot, the tools used to plot, and the output by running it 2 more times from scratch. Then I had Jeff Id over at the air vent take a look at it. He concurs that I’ve plotted the data correctly.

The trend is flat as road kill for the past 2000 years, though it does show an ever so slight cooling.

The first thing to note is that these data are not directly indexable to the set which Steve McIntyre used last week to demonstrate the non-existence of the “global warming hockey stick.” That being said, this data from 2002 is nevertheless relevant in addressing the evidence, if any, for warming from the tree ring data. Over 2000 data points went into this study, unlike the cherry-picked set used by Briffa in preparing his hockey stick graph. As can be seen from a non-cherry-picked data set, the plot of reconstructed temperature per year is essentially flat. What’s sad is that so would Briffa’s, if he had not artificially limited his data set.

Combine this with Steve McIntyre’s original decisive refutation of this latest “hockey stick” that the AGW cult had imagined it had found, and we see the case that can be made for AGW is quickly dissolving.

The second image below is, in my opinion, one of the most disquieting images ever presented at Climate Audit.

The image? The first one that is given above – the one showing how the reconstructed temperature plots differ, with and without all the extra data that Briffa lacked that allowed him to invent the hockey stick that supposedly proves global warming. The AGW collapse is happening so fast, in part, because so many of these proponents of AGW are being caught cooking the data. In other words, they’re being dishonest.

Frankly, it’s nearly to the point that if someone is really serious about arguing for AGW, they are either:

 1) Astoundingly ignorant

2) On somebody’s payroll

3) Dating an environmentalist

Perhaps this is why over 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition stating,

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

And it has come to my attention that pro-AGW fanatics are relying on some “remix” put together by Peter Sinclair. As was demonstrated previously, relying on Sinclair as an authority on matters of climate change is ridiculous. He’s an independent filmmaker, not a scientist, for crying out loud.

One of the standards used to determine whether something is “science” by the strict definition of the word is whether a theory can be used to make accurate predictions.  In light of the President’s ill-advised cheerleading at the UN yesterday, we should ask ourselves whether global warming actually meets this definition of science.  Global warming fanatics have proposed that as carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere increases, we will see proportional increases in temperature coupled with other climatological effects.  As Tony Watt at Watts Up With That points out, one of the key arguments  for global warming – that sea ice coverage continues to decrease (which in GreenSpeak translates into “RISING SEA LEVELS WIPING OUT COASTAL CITIES AND KILLING MILLIONS!!!!!”) is failing the prediction test,

2009 Arctic Sea Ice Extent exceeds 2005 for this date

Those that have been watching the IARC-JAXA Arctic sea ice plot, and noting the slope of gain, rather expected this to happen. Today it did.

Here’s the current IARC-JAXA Sea Ice Extent plot:

 

While 2009 minimum on 09/13 of 5,249, 844 was just  65, 312 sq km below 2005 in minimum extent, which occurred on 9/22/2005  with 5,315,156 sq km, it has now rebounded quickly and is higher by 38,438 sq km, just 2 days before the 9/22/05 minimum. On 9/22/2009 it may very well be close to 60-80,000 sq km higher than the minimum on the same date in 2005.

While by itself this event isn’t all that significant, it does illustrate the continued rebound for the second year. The fact that we only missed the 2005 minimum by 65, 312, which is about one days worth of melt during many days of the melt season is also noteworthy.

At the rate this is going, Al Gore’s tithe check is going to start getting mighty small.  This time, the German Helmhotz Association of National Research Centres  has left the flock, issuing a short position statement about the correlation between solar activity and climate change - Small fluctuations in solar activity, large influence on the climate,

Sun spot frequency has an unexpectedly strong influence on cloud formation and precipitation

Our sun does not radiate evenly. The best known example of radiation fluctuations is the famous 11-year cycle of sun spots. Nobody denies its influence on the natural climate variability, but climate models have, to-date, not been able to satisfactorily reconstruct its impact on climate activity.

Researchers from the USA and from Germany have now, for the first time, successfully simulated, in detail, the complex interaction between solar radiation, atmosphere, and the ocean. As the scientific journal Science reports in its latest issue, Gerald Meehl of the US-National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and his team have been able to calculate how the extremely small variations in radiation brings about a comparatively significant change in the System “Atmosphere-Ocean”.

Katja Matthes of the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, and co-author of the study, states: „Taking into consideration the complete radiation spectrum of the sun, the radiation intensity within one sun spot cycle varies by just 0.1 per cent. Complex interplay mechanisms in the stratosphere and the troposphere, however, create measurable changes in the water temperature of the Pacific and in precipitation”.

Top Down – Bottom up

In order for such reinforcement to take place many small wheels have to interdigitate. The initial process runs from the top downwards: increased solar radiation leads to more ozone and higher temperatures in the stratosphere. “The ultraviolet radiation share varies much more strongly than the other shares in the spectrum, i.e. by five to eight per cent, and that forms more ozone” explains Katja Matthes. As a result, especially the tropical stratosphere becomes warmer, which in turn leads to changed atmospheric circulation. Thus, the interrelated typical precipitation patterns in the tropics are also displaced.

The second process takes place in the opposite way: the higher solar activity leads to more evaporation in the cloud free areas. With the trade winds the increased amounts of moisture are transported to the equator, where they lead to stronger precipitation, lower water temperatures in the East Pacific and reduced cloud formation, which in turn allows for increased evaporation. Katja Matthes: “It is this positive back coupling that strengthens the process”. With this it is possible to explain the respective measurements and observations on the Earth’s surface.

Professor Reinhard Huettl, Chairman of the Scientific Executive Board of the GFZ (Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres) adds: “The study is important for comprehending the natural climatic variability, which – on different time scales – is significantly influenced by the sun. In order to better understand the anthropogenically induced climate change and to make more reliable future climate scenarios, it is very important to understand the underlying natural climatic variability. This investigation shows again that we still have substantial research needs to understand the climate system”. Together with the Alfred Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine Research and the Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum the GFZ is, therefore, organising a conference “Climate in the System Earth” scheduled for 2./3. November 2009 in Berlin.

What a novel idea….the sun has an impact on the earth’s climate???  It’s so crazy it can’t be true!

Besides, this report is easily dismissable.  The “Helmholtz Association” is probably just a creationist front group funded by Mark Sanford, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck.

Great by a guest climatologist over at Watts Up With That discussing the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere based upon some historical data obtained from ice cores.   Read the whole thing to get the nitty gritty of the science.  His conclusions are below, post

The last 5,000 years are trivial compared to the 420,000 years of the Vostok record; of even less significance are the last 1,200 years. However, climate science has put great emphasis on the features of this interval, even though they fit within the noise-envelope. The “medieval warm period” spanned 800 CE to 1,200 CE; Vostok shows it wasn’t really warm, but wasn’t really cold either. The “little ice age” followed (although average T was barely lower), and ended after the low of -1.84 °C around 1,770 CE. By the early 1800s, T was higher than it is at present, and it has fluctuated within levels typical of the last 11,000 years since then. It is remarkable that climate hysteria should be based on noise-level changes in T over the last 200 years, which is an eye-blink in the Vostok record. It seems to be the superstition of our time.

 

In summary, the Vostok record indicates that CO2 is in lagged equilibrium with T and that, for the range of T in Vostok, the dependency of CO2 on T is essentially linear. Unnaturally high CO2 for the last 5,000 years has had no apparent effect on T. This empirical evidence supports a conclusion that there cannot be any significant feedback between CO2 and T. Such feedback would cause predicted T and CO2 to show fundamental disagreement with the lag, spectrum and amplitudes evident in the Vostok record.

 

It is impossible to say how enduring the feedback fallacy will be. However, any such model proposed in the future can be regarded as qualitative if it does not specify lag, characteristic amplitude and period, and as speculative if it cannot be compared to the Vostok record. Accordingly, any such model can be ignored.

 

If we may depart for a moment from objectivity, any such model should be ignored if its proponents declare that it shows polar bears are in peril, and you can save them by painting your roof white and burning nuts and corn in your car.

Over at Anthony Watt’s excellent blog about climate and global warming – Watt’s Up With That? – we see Peter Sinclair get absolutely schooled for his dishonest and ignorant attempt to substantiate anthropogenic global warming. Who is Peter Sinclair? He’s a radical environut who puts out a (usually) weekly series of YouTube video documentaries entitled “ Climate Crock of the Week” in which he attempts to “debunk” the science that disproves global warming. Generally, while we can give Mr. Sinclair an “A” for effort, his “refutations” amount to little more than handwaving with a little ad hominem thrown in as filler. This should not surprise us, since Mr. Sinclair is not a scientist. In fact, he is an “independent film producer” whose only claim to anything even remotely resembling a relevant background in this field is that he apparently sat in on one of Al Gore’s Climate Project seminars. This didn’t stop him from trying to attack the temperature tracking station work done by Watt (an accredited meteorologist), making a thorough hash of the attempt while he was at it. Watt takes him apart,

….Sitting down Saturday night, to watch the video again, detecting through its exquisite subtleties and nuance, I couldn’t help but laugh, because once again I noticed that everything reported in it was just wrong.

In fact, it probably was the worst job of fact-finding I had ever seen, which as WUWT readers know, is a bold assessment. I’ve been involved in broadcast TV news for 25 years, and have seen some really bad work from greenhorns fresh out of reporters school. This video reminded me of those. It was as if whoever put it together had never researched it, but just strung together a bunch of graphics, video, photos, and a monotone voice-over track with ad hominems liberally sprinkled for seasoning. I figured it was probably just an overzealous college student out to save the world and this was some college project. It had that air of  radical burningman quality about it.

Curiosity piqued, I inquired into just who is this climate Solon? To my surprise, he turned out to be an “independent film producer” working out of his house in Midland, MI under the name “Greenman Studio”, one Peter Sinclair, a proud graduate of Al Gore’s Climate Camp. I still figured him to be a kid and imagined his mom was yelling down into the basement “Peter that’s too loud, turn it down!”

[snip]

….OK. But if Mr. Sinclair had contacted me (like a journalist would) before he made his video, instead of simply reading the NCDC Talking points memo (revised version seen here, PDF) he could have found out a few things, such as:

• NCDC used an old outdated version of my data set (April 2008) they found on my website and assumed it was “current”. Big mistake on their part. Big admission of not overly concerning himself with first-hand knowledge, or even substance, on his part.

• NCDC did not contact me about use of the data. The data, BTW is not yet public domain, though I plan to make it so after I’ve published my paper. So like Mr. Sinclair, technically they are also in violation of copyright. Surfacestations is a private project, I emphasize, what with the public-private concept being one of the major precipitors of the alarmosphere’s angst.

• That data NCDC found had not been quality controlled, many of the ratings changed after quality control was applied, thus changing the outcome.

• When notified of this, they did nothing to deal with the issue, such as notifying readers.

• NCDC published no methodology, data or formula used, or show work of any kind that would normally be required in a scientific paper.

• The author is missing from the document thus it was published anonymously. Apparently nobody at NCDC would put his or her name on it.

• When notified of the fact that the author’s name Thomas C. Peterson (of NCDC) was embedded in the properties of the PDF document (which happens on registration of the Adobe Acrobat program, causing insertion in all output), NCDC’s only response was to remove the author’s name from the document and place it back online. It is odd behavior for a scientist to publish work but not put your name on it.

• NCDC got the number of USHCN stations wrong in their original document document graph, citing 1228 when it is actually 1218 I notified them of this and they eventually fixed it.

• That NCDC original document did not even cite my published work,  or even use my name to credit me. I have the original which you can view here Note also the name in the document properties and the number of USHCN2 stations above the graph.

I’m regularly lambasted for publishing things here that are not “peer reviewed”. But, when NCDC does it, and does it unbelievably badly, not only is the “talking points memo” embraced by the alarmosphere as “truth” and “falsification”, but NOT ONE of those embracing it show the remotest interest in questioning why it fails to meet even the basic standards for a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

Please read the whole thing, it’s long, but quite revealing about the standards and ethics of the environmental wacko side of the blogosphere and the outfits they rely upon to get their information – shoddy and dishonest use of data, copyright infringement, refusal to actually address pushback from the other side, the whole enchilada. What’s sad is that Peter Sinclair’s “Climate Crock” series has become something of a gold standard for the Church of Global Warming on the internet, if the number of blogs and other links to it from pro-global warming outfits is any indication. So, how seriously can we really take the pro-global warming bloggers and “journalists,” when they rely on such subpar material to support their mythology? I mean, seriously, meteorologist vs. “independent film producer.” For the logical and rational person, the choice isn’t hard.

Is it any wonder that real scientists are abandoning the AGW mythology in droves? Even though the Al Gore epic cycle makes for an entertaining story, it’s simply no substitute for reality.

An absolutely damning exposé about the way money and political expediency drives the sham “research” that underlies arguments for anthropogenic global warming, from somebody who knows a whole lot more about science than Charles Johnson does –  Climate Money: Monopoly Science

(Hat Tip: Escovado)

Despite the billions of dollars in funding, outrageous mistakes have been made. One howler in particular, rewrote history and then persisted for years before one dedicated fact checker, working for free, exposed the fraud about the Hockey Stick Graph. Meanwhile agencies like the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, can’t afford to install temperature sensors to meet its own guidelines, because the workers are poorly trained and equipped to dig trenches only with garden trowels and shovels. NOAA “adjust” the data after the fact—apparently to compensate for sensors which are too close to air conditioners or car parks, yet it begs the question: If the climate is the biggest problem we face; if billions of dollars are needed, why can’t we install thermometers properly?

How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?

The real total of vested interests in climate-change science is far larger than just scientists doing pure research. The $30 billion in funding to the CCSP (graphed above) does not include work on green technologies like improving solar cells, or storing a harmless gas underground. Funding for climate technologies literally doubles the amount of money involved, and provides a much larger pool of respectable-looking people with impressive scientific cachet to issue more press releases—most of which have little to do with basic atmospheric physics, but almost all of which repeat the assumption that the climate will warm due to human emissions. In other words: a 30-billion-dollar cheer squad….

[snip]

Normally this might not be such a problem, because the lure of fame and fortune by categorically “busting” a well-accepted idea would attract some people. In most scientific fields, if someone debunks a big Nature or Science paper, they are suddenly cited more often; are the next in line for a promotion and find it easier to get grants. They attract better PhD students to help, are invited to speak at more conferences, and placed higher in the program. Instead in climate science, the reward is the notoriety of a personal attack page on Desmog¹, ExxonSecrets² or Sourcewatch³, dedicated to listing every mistake on any topic you may have made, any connection you may have had with the fossil fuel industry, no matter how long ago or how tenuous. The attack-dog sites will also attack your religious beliefs if you have any. Roy Spencer, for example, has been repeatedly attacked for being Christian (though no one has yet come up with any reason why that could affect his satellite data).

Ironically, the “activist” websites use paid bloggers. DeSmog is a funded wing of a professional PR group Hoggan⁴ and Associates (who are paid to promote clients⁵ like David Suzuki Foundation, ethical funds, and companies that sell alternative energy sources like hydro power, hydrogen and fuel cells.) ExxonSecrets is funded by Greenpeace⁶ (who live off donations to “save” the planet, and presumably do better when the planet appears to need saving).

Most scientific fields are looking for answers, not looking to prove only one side of a hypothesis. There are a few researchers who are paid to disprove the hypothesis of Global Warming, and most of them are investigated and pilloried as if they were a politician running for office. This is not how science works, by ad hominem attack. The intimidation, disrespect and ostracism leveled at people who ask awkward questions acts like a form of censorship. Not many fields of science have dedicated smear sites for scientists. Money talks.

Money definitely talks.  It’s no secret that a large driving force behind Al Gore’s push on this issue is the fact that he hopes to cash in on selling “carbon credits” to companies being forced to either scale back production or else look  for ways to shift their costs around to maintain present levels. 

Let’s face it – the science underlying anthropogenic global warming is shoddy.  The Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked (yet I’ve still had scientifically-illiterate types try to use it when arguing with me).  It’s well-known that the earth has actually been cooling for over a decade.  We know that the ground-level temperature data used to generate the “warming trends” that the ecos harp about was taken using temperature sensors placed in extremely unrepresentative and inappropriate places (such as near exhaust ports for heat exchangers and the like).  We know that just as much glaciation has been taking place as de-glaciation.  We know that the polar bears aren’t going to go extinct because they can’t find ice floes from which to hunt for seals.  Anybody who can simply read data knows this. 

Yet, supposedly smart people literally spend their lives trying to scare us into running around like chickens with our heads cut off worrying about AGW.  Why?

As JoNova shows us, follow the money, baby, follow the money.

This time from 60+ German scientists who are encouraging their own government to get off the global warming hysterics bandwagon.  Any bets on how long it’ll take somebody on the Left to refer to these guys as “Nazis”?

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

This latest development comes on the heels of a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth’s failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion. (See “Related Links” at bottom of this article for more inconvenient scientific developments.)

The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and requested a “convening of an impartial panel” that is “free of ideology” to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.

The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that “humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.”

“More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,” the scientists wrote. “Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree,” they added.

“The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility,” the scientists wrote.

“Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred,” the scientists wrote.

“The belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion,” the scientists wrote. “The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming,” they added.

But we should just ignore these guys, since they’re probably all creationists anywise, right Charles?

Coming to us via Climate Depot, a glimpse at what real scientists think about the anthropogenic global warming mythology,

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

The editorial claimed the “consensus” view was growing “increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is “startled” by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members.

The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”

Dozens of letters were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum’s colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum’s climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum’s use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum’s editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”

One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: “When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise.”

Baum ’startled’ by scientists reaction

Baum wrote on July 27, that he was “startled” and “surprised” by the “contempt” and “vehemence” of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming “consensus.”

“Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming,” Baum wrote.

Click the link to see a sampling of the letters that have been received. 

As a chemist, it does my heart good to see my fellow chemists rejecting science-by-groupthink.  Baum is an embarassment.  If he can’t keep his politics from clouding his scientific judgment, then he really does need to step down as EiC.