climategate n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
ClimateGate PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
ClimateGate

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 78

ClimateGate - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 233 Views
  • Uploaded on

ClimateGate. Is Global Warming Completely Made-Up?. Introduction. On November 20, 2009 a computer hacker released 200 MB of data from the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) The data included over 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'ClimateGate' - cheng


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
climategate

ClimateGate

Is Global Warming Completely Made-Up?

introduction
Introduction
  • On November 20, 2009 a computer hacker released 200 MB of data from the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
  • The data included over 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents
  • Do these documents cast doubt on the reliability of the global warming data?
earth s temperature

Sun

Solar

Energy

Solar

Energy

Earth’s Temperature
earth s temperature1

Sun

Solar

Energy

Radiative

Cooling

Earth’s Temperature
earth s temperature2

Sun

Solar

Energy

Radiative

Cooling

Earth’s Temperature
earth s temperature3

Sun

Solar

Energy

Radiative

Cooling

Earth’s Temperature
earth s atmospheric gases

Nitrogen (N2)

Oxygen (O2)

Argon (Ar)

Water (H2O)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Methane (CH4)

Earth’s Atmospheric Gases

Non-Greenhouse

Gases

>99%

Greenhouse

Gases

<1%

runaway greenhouse effect

Sun

Venus

Runaway Greenhouse Effect
  • 97% carbon dioxide
  • 3% nitrogen
  • Water & sulfuric acid clouds
  • Temperature:860°F
carbon dioxide levels
Carbon Dioxide Levels

Muana Loa Readings

CO2 Levels Since 1958

370

350

CO2 (ppm)

330

310

40

30

20

10

0

420

370

320

CO2 (ppm)

270

220

Dome Concordia

Vostok Ice Core

170

600000

400000

200000

0

Time (YBP)

worldwide carbon emissions
Worldwide Carbon Emissions

Total

Liquid fuel

Solid fuel

Gas fuel

8

7

6

5

Carbon (109 metric tons)

4

3

2

1

0

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

Year

annual carbon emissions
Annual Carbon Emissions

Annual carbon emissions

Atmospheric CO2

Atmospheric CO2 average

8

6

Carbon (109 metric tons)

4

2

0

1955

1965

1975

1985

1995

2005

Year

university of east anglia emails
University of East Anglia Emails
  • Most of the emails are benign exchanges between scientists, largely of a technical nature
  • Some emails show a desire to hide or manipulate data that doesn’t fit the “party line.”
  • These scientists are not merely impartial data analyzers, but political activists engaged in an effort to influence energy policy
the players
The Players
  • Phil: Philip Jones, Head of the CRU
  • Mike: Michael Mann, of hockey stick fame
  • Keith: Keith Briffa, CRU scientist
  • Stephen McIntyre: Global warming critic (ClimateAudit.org, “CA”)
mike s nature trick
“Mike’s Nature Trick”

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

To: ray bradley <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>,mann@virginia.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu

Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or

first thing tomorrow.

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps

to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from

1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual

land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land

N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999

for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with

data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers

Phil

program coding maps24 pro
Program Coding (maps24.pro)
  • ; 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.
program coding calibrate nhrecon pro
Program Coding (calibrate_nhrecon.pro)
  • ; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
  • ; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
program coding briffa sep98 d pro
Program Coding (briffa_sep98_d.pro)
  • ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
  • ;
  • yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
  • valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
  • 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
past temperatures measurement
Past Temperatures Measurement
  • Proxy – a method that approximates a particular measurement (e.g., temperature)
    • Tree rings
    • Ice cores
    • Pollen records
    • Plant macrofossils
    • Sr/Ca isotope data
    • Oxygen isotopes from speleothem calcite (stalactites and stalagmites)
hockey stick controversy
“Hockey Stick” Controversy

0.6

Direct temperature measurements

Mann et al. 1999

0.4

0.2

0

Temperature Change (°C)

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Year

the problem with tree rings
The Problem with Tree Rings

0.3

Jones et al. 1998

Briffa et al. 1999

Mann et al. 1999

0.2

0.1

0

-0.1

Temperature Change (°C)

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Year

what influences tree rings
What Influences Tree Rings?
  • Temperature
  • Rainfall
  • Carbon dioxide concentration
is the hockey stick correct
Is the Hockey Stick Correct?

2

Mann et al. 1999

Esper et al. 2002

1

0

Temperature Change (°C)

-1

-2

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Year

is the hockey stick correct1

Medieval Warm Period

Mann et al. 1999

Esper et al. 2002

Moberg et al. 2005

Mann et al. 2008

Is the Hockey Stick Correct?

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

Temperature Change (°C)

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

-1.2

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Year

responses rebuttals
Responses/Rebuttals

From Real Climate:

  • “…the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.”
recorded worldwide temperatures
Recorded Worldwide Temperatures

Decreasing

Flat

Flat

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

D Mean Temperature (°C)

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

Year

historic los angeles temperatures
Historic Los Angeles Temperatures

Annual Temperatures

Summer Temperatures

Winter Temperatures

25

17

22

21

24

16

20

23

15

19

22

14

Temperature (°C)

18

21

13

17

20

12

16

19

11

15

18

10

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

Year

Year

Year

temperature history of the earth
Temperature History of the Earth
  • For the past 3 million years, the earth has been experiencing ~100,000 year cycles of glaciation followed by ~10,000 year interglacial periods
  • These climate periods are largely the result of cycles in the earth’s orbit – precession, obliquity, and eccentricity
orbital parameters eccentricity

Apehelion

Apehelion

Perihelion

Orbital Parameters: Eccentricity

Maximum: 0.061

Minimum: 0.005

Not to scale!

To Scale!

orbital parameters earth s climate

Precession(22 ky)

Obliquity(41 ky)

Eccentricity(100 ky)

Temperature

Orbital Parameters & Earth’s Climate

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Age (kya)

temperature history of the earth1
Temperature History of the Earth
  • For the past 3 million years, the earth has been experiencing ~100,000 year long cycles of glaciation followed by ~10,000 year long interglacial periods
  • Last ice age began to thaw 15,000 years ago, but was interrupted by the “Younger Dryas” event 12,900 years ago
younger dryas event

YoungerDryas

Medieval Warm

Ice Age

Little Ice Age

Younger Dryas Event

-25

0.35

-30

0.30

-35

0.25

Snow Accumulation (m/yr)

-40

0.20

Temperature (°C)

-45

0.15

-50

0.10

-55

0.05

20

15

10

5

0

Age (kya)

manipulating data1
Manipulating Data?

From: Gary Funkhouser <gary@LTRR.Arizona.EDU>

To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk

Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data

Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central

and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send

it to you.

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). I think I'll have

to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

manipulating data2
Manipulating Data?

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

To: tatm@insec.quorus.e-burg.su

Subject: the Yamal data

Date: Thu Oct 31 12:01:04 1996

Dear Rashit,

In looking at the data I now see that you have only sent data from abot 350bc onwards. What is the situation with the earlier data. I am very interested in the details of the 1st millennium B.C. and especially this period from about 500 to 100 B.C. We still have a gap in the Tornetrask data at about 350 B.C.

I was of the opinion that this period was very low growth in the chronology of yours shown by Stepan in Cambridge - but it does not seem so low in the chronology he gave me. What are your thoughts on this and is it possible to get the earlier data when you are happy with them?Thanks

very best wishes

Keith

manipulating data3
Manipulating Data?

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>

To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

Subject: 1940s

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600

Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>

Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly

explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the

land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,

then this would be significant for the global mean -- but

we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an

ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of

ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common

politicking
Politicking?

From: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de>

To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Rob.Swart@rivm.nl

Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100

Reply-to: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions --

politicking1
Politicking?

From: "Graham F Haughton" <G.F.Haughton@hull.ac.uk>

To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

Subject: RE: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:24 -0000

I know, I feel for you being in that position. If its any consolation we've had it here for years, very pointed commentary at all external seminars and elsewhere, always coming back to the same theme. Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness - I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, 'and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!'

Graham

politicking2
Politicking?

From: mann@snow.geo.umass.edu

To: coleje@spot.colorado.edu, drdendro@ldgo.columbia.edu, jto@ngdc.noaa.gov, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, luckman@sscl.uwo.ca, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, rbradley@climate1.geo.umass.edu

Subject: Re: climate of the last millennia...

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:06:20 -0400 (EDT)

Dear all,

I just wanted to thank Keith for his comments. They are right on target.

There is indeed, as many of us are aware, at least one key player in the

modeling community that has made overly dismissive statements about the

value of proxy data as late, because of what might be argued as his/her

own naive assessment/analysis of these data. This presents the danger of

just the sort of backlash that Keith warns of, and makes all the more

pressing the need for more of a community-wide strategizing on our part.

I think the workshop in Jan that Peck is hosting will go far in this

regard, and I personally am really looking forward to it!

politicking3
Politicking?

From: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>

To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

Subject: Re: attacks against Keith

Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:06:20 -0400

Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>

Hi Phil,

lets not get into the topic of hate mail. I promise you I could fill your inbox w/ a very

long list of vitriolic attacks, diatribes, and threats I've received.

Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and highly

intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign. We saw

it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat Obama's health plan,

we'll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap & trade bill that passed

congress this summer. It isn't coincidental that the original McIntyre and McKitrick E&E

paper w/ press release came out the day before the U.S. senate was considering the McCain

Lieberman climate bill in '05.

not releasing data
Not Releasing Data

Testimony of Stephen McIntyre

Phil Jones (CRU):

“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Written submission of Stephen McIntyre before the Subcommittee on oversight and investigations, Energy and Commerce Committee, United States House of Representatives, July 19, 2006.

not releasing data1
Not Releasing Data

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

To: mann@virginia.edu

Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA

Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005

Cc: "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu>

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use

this to our advantage to get the series updated !...

…The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.

Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !

Cheers

Phil

PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.

Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

not releasing data2
Not Releasing Data

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

To: Tom Wigley <wigley@cgd.ucar.edu>

Subject: Re: FOIA

Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005

Tom,

I'll look at what you've said over the weekend re CCSP.

I don't know the other panel members. I've not heard any

more about it since agreeing a week ago.

As for FOIA Sarah isn't technically employed by UEA and she

will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.

I wouldn't worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get

used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.

Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,

so I will be hiding behind them. I'll be passing any

requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to

deal with them.

Cheers

Phil

not releasing data3
Not Releasing Data

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

To: santer1@llnl.gov, Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>

Subject: Re: Schles suggestion

Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008

Ben,

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school - the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I've got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian - who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on - at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn't know the number we're dealing with. We are in double figures.

not releasing data4
Not Releasing Data

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@meteo.psu.edu>

Subject: IPCC & FOI

Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't

have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil

covering up
Covering Up

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

To: "Michael E. Mann“, "raymond s. bradley"

Subject: A couple of things

Date: Fri May 9 09:53:41 2008

Mike, Ray, Caspar,

A couple of things - don't pass on either…

…2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but

this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim

have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way

around this.

I can't wait for the Wengen review to come out with the Appendix showing what

that 1990 IPCC Figure was really based on.

The Garnaut review appears to be an Australian version of the Stern Report.

This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!

Cheers

Phil

covering up1
Covering Up

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

To: mann@virginia.edu

Subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice - YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!

Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004

Mike,

This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading - please ! I'm trying to redress the balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the kettle black - Christian doesn't make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian message so you don't get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get more advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.

PLEASE DELETE - just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm

Cheers

Phil

covering up2
Covering Up

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:37:29 +0000

To: Christian Azar <christian.azar@fy.chalmers.se>, christian.pfister@hist.unibe.ch

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

Subject: Re: AW: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice

Dear Steve et al,

I've been away this week until today. Although the responses so far all make valid points, I will add my thoughts...

Back to the question in hand:

1. The papers that MM refer came out in Nature in 1998 and to a lesser extent in GRL in 1999. These reviewers did not request the data (all the proxy series) and the code. So, acceding to the request for this to do the review is setting a VERY dangerous precedent.

Mike has made all the data series and this is all anyone should need. Making model code available is something else.

bad manners
Bad Manners

From: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>

To: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk

Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding…

Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700

Dear Phil,

I've known Rick Piltz for many years. He's a good guy. I believe he used

to work with Mike MacCracken at the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat

the xxxx out of him. Very tempted.

I'll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can.

The only reason these guys are going after you is because your work is

of crucial importance - it changed the way the world thinks about human

effects on climate. Your work mattered in the 1980s, and it matters now.

With best wishes,

Ben

bad manners1
Bad Manners

From: Scott Rutherford <srutherford@gso.uri.edu>

To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>

Subject: Re: Soon & Baliunas

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:53:07 -0500

Cc: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@duke.edu>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu>, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

<x-rich>Dear All,

…Finally, Tom's suggestion of Eos struck me as a great way to get a

short, pointed story out to the most people (though I have no feel for

the international distribution). My sense (being relatively new to

this field compared to everyone else) is that within the neo- and

mesoclimate research community there is a (relatively small?) group of

people who don't or won't "get it" and there is nothing we can do

about them aside from continuing to publish quality work in quality

journals (or calling in a Mafia hit). Those (e.g. us) who are

engrossed in the issues and are aware of all the literature should be

able to distinguish between well done and poor work. Should then the

intent of this proposed contribution be to education those who are not

directly involved in MWP/LIA issues including those both on the

perifery of the issue as well as those outside? If so, then the issue

that Phil raised about not letting it get buried is significant and I

think Eos is a great way to get people to see it.

Cheers,

Scott

bad manners2
Bad Manners

From: Caspar Ammann <ammann@ucar.edu>

To: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

Subject: Re: request for your emails

Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:14:46 -0600

Cc: "keith Briffa" <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, p.jones@uea.ac.uk

Hi Tim,

in response to your inquiry about my take on the confidentiality of my email communications

with you, Keith or Phil, I have to say that the intent of these emails is to reply or

communicate with the individuals on the distribution list, and they are not intended for

general 'publication'. If I would consider my texts to potentially get wider dissemination

then I would probably have written them in a different style. Having said that, as far as I

can remember (and I haven't checked in the records, if they even still exist) I have never

written an explicit statement on these messages that would label them strictly confidential.

Not sure if this is of any help, but it seems to me that it reflects our standard way of

interaction in the scientific community.

Caspar

responses rebuttals1
Responses/Rebuttals

From Real Climate:

  • “It is tempting to point fingers and declare that people should not have been so open with their thoughts, but who amongst us would really be happy to have all of their email made public?”
responses rebuttals2
Responses/Rebuttals

Mike Hulme, another climatologist at University of East Anglia:

“This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.”

climate studies research
Climate Studies Research
  • NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
  • State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
  • American Geophysical Union (AGU)
  • American Institute of Physics (AIP)
  • National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
  • American Meteorological Society (AMS)
  • Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS
gregor mendel s peas
Gregor Mendel’s Peas
  • Mendel was the founder of modern genetic inheritance
  • His 1866 paper established the rules of inheritance for genetic traits
  • Subsequent analysis revealed that his results were “too good,” with only 1 in 100,000 chance that his results could have been so close to the theoretical ratios by chance
gregor mendel s peas1
Gregor Mendel’s Peas
  • Either Mendel tweaked the data to make it closer to the expected results
  • Or Mendel did not publish experiments that might not have been technically perfect.
  • In particular, Mendel’s traits all segregated independently (on different chromosomes)
  • Mendel probably tossed data from traits in which linkage was present
conclusions
Conclusions
  • Climate scientists have attempted to make their data look better than what it is
  • Leading climatologists have attempted to silence critics and prevent publication of critical studies
  • A number of climatologists have a political agenda and are attempting to influence energy policy throughout the world
global warming has stopped
Global Warming Has Stopped?

1366.8

1366.6

1366.4

1366.2

1366.0

Solar Irradiance (W/m2)

1365.8

1365.6

1365.4

1365.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

D Mean Temperature (°C)

0.2

0.0

-0.2

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

volcanoes put out more co 2 than fossil fuel burning
Volcanoes Put Out More CO2 Than Fossil Fuel Burning

Fossil Fuel

Volcanoes

10

8

6

Carbon (109 metric tons)

4

2

0

global warming is caused by sunspots
Global Warming is Caused by Sunspots

250

0.8

0.6

200

0.4

150

0.2

Sunspots

D Mean Temperature (°C)

0.0

100

-0.2

50

-0.4

0

-0.6

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

Year

hadley temperatures vs sunspots
Hadley Temperatures Vs. Sunspots

250

1.5

1.0

200

0.0

150

Sunspots

D Mean Temperature (°C)

-0.5

100

-1.0

50

-1.5

-2.0

0

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

Year

global warming is caused by gcr
Global Warming is Caused by GCR

4600

4400

4200

4000

3800

Gamma Cosmic Rays

3600

3400

3200

3000

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

D Mean Temperature (°C)

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Year

co 2 vs temperature

CO2 Vs. Sea Level

40

320

6

20

4

300

0

2

280

-20

0

260

CO2(ppmv)

-40

-2

Relative Sea Level

Temperature

240

-60

-4

220

-80

-6

200

-100

-8

-120

-10

180

CO2 Vs. Temperature

500000

400000

300000

200000

100000

0

Time (ybp)

Rohling et al. 2009. Antarctic temperature and global sea level closely coupled over the last five glacial cycles. Nature Geoscience 2:500.

global warming is due to urban heat islands
Global Warming is Due to Urban Heat Islands

-4.1

-4

-2

-1

-.5

-.2

.2

.5

1

2

4

4.1

2009 Temperature Changes Compared to 1951-1980

global warming primarily impacts the northern hemisphere

Land vs. Ocean

Land

Ocean

1920

1960

2000

Year

Global Warming Primarily Impacts the Northern Hemisphere

Northern vs. Southern Latitude

1.0

Northern Hemisphere

Southern Hemisphere

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Temperature Change (°C)

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

1920

1960

2000

Year

sea levels will rise 5 6 ft
Sea Levels Will Rise 5-6 ft?
  • Present rate is 1.8 ± 0.3 mm/yr (7.4 in/century)
  • Accelerating at a rate of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm/yr2
  • If acceleration continues, could result in 12 in/century sea level rise
  • Scenarios claiming 1 meter or more rise are unrealistic
  • Recently, the California State Lands Commission said that sea levels could rise 55 inches this century, inundating ports
changing sea levels

Global Temperature Change

Changing Sea Levels

20

10

0

Relative Sea Level (cm)

-10

Amsterdam, Netherlands

Brest, France

Swinoujscie, Poland

-20

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

Adapted from IPCC SYR Figure 2-5

how much temperature increase
How Much Temperature Increase?
  • Global warming alarmists propose up to 9°C increase this century
  • Two studies put the minimum at 1.5°C and maximum at 4.5°C or 6.2°C
  • Another study puts the minimum at 2.5°C
predictions vs reality
Predictions Vs. Reality

1.5

Annual Mean Global Temperature Change

1.0

DT (°C)

0.5

0

OBSERVED

SCENARIO A

SCENARIO B

SCENARIO C

-0.4

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2019

Date

Exponential Increase in carbon emissions

Moderate reduction in carbon emissions

Drastic reduction in carbon emissions

Observed temps through 1988

Hansen, J. 1988. Journal Of Geophysical Research 93:9241.

temperature extrapolation
Temperature Extrapolation

2.5

2.0

1.5

DT (°C)

1.0

0.5

0

-0.4

1960

2040

2060

2080

2100

1980

2000

2020

Date

conclusions1
Conclusions
  • Global warming is occurring
  • The majority of the warming is probably due to human activity
  • Some warming is probably due to cyclical solar/orbital variation