ClimateGate
Is Global Warming
Completely Made-Up?
By Rich Deem
www.GodAndScience.org
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?
Purpose
• Climate change has little to do with the
Christian faith. Why study it?
• Conservatives (mostly Christians?)
insist that the science behind global
warming is made-up
• Remember Y2K?
• If Christians are going to speak on nontheological issues, we best be informed
Earth’s Temperature
Solar
Sun
Energy
Solar
Energy
Earth’s Temperature
Sun
Solar
Energy
Radiative
Cooling
Earth’s Temperature
Sun
Solar
Energy
Radiative
Cooling
Earth’s Temperature
Sun
Solar
Energy
Radiative
Cooling
Sun
Greenhouse Effect
Earth’s Atmospheric Gases
Nitrogen (N2)
Oxygen (O2)
Argon (Ar)
Non>99%
Greenhouse
Gases
Water (H2O)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Methane (CH4)
Greenhouse
<1%
Gases
Sun
Runaway Greenhouse Effect
• 97% carbon dioxide
• 3% nitrogen
• Water & sulfuric
acid clouds
• Temperature:
860°F
Venus
Carbon Dioxide
CO2 (ppm)
420
Carbon Dioxide Levels
CO2 (ppm)
370
320
Muana Loa Readings
CO2 Levels Since 1958
370
350
330
310
40 30 20 10 0
270
220
Dome Concordia
170 600000
Vostok Ice Core
400000
200000
Time (YBP)
0
Carbon (109 metric tons)
Worldwide Carbon Emissions
8
7
6
5
Total
Liquid fuel
Solid fuel
Gas fuel
4
3
2
1
0
1750
1800
1850
1900
Year
1950
2000
Carbon (109 metric tons)
8
Annual Carbon Emissions
6
Annual carbon emissions
Atmospheric CO2
Atmospheric CO2 average
4
2
0
1955
1965
1975
1985
Year
1995
2005
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
• 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”)
Fixing the Data?
“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)
• ; 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)
• ; 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)
• ; 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
• 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)
Temperature Change (°C)
“Hockey Stick” Controversy
0.6
0.4
Direct temperature measurements
Mann et al. 1999
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
1000
1200
1400
1600
Year
1800
2000
Temperature Change (°C)
The Problem with Tree Rings
0.3
Jones et al. 1998
Briffa et al. 1999
0.2
Mann et al. 1999
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
1000 1200
1400
1600
Year
1800
2000
What Influences Tree Rings?
• Temperature
• Rainfall
• Carbon dioxide concentration
Temperature Change (°C)
Is the Hockey Stick Correct?
2
Mann et al. 1999
Esper et al. 2002
1
0
-1
-2
800
1000
1200
1400
Year
1600
1800
2000
Is the Hockey Stick Correct?
Temperature Change (°C)
0.4
Medieval Warm Period
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Mann et al. 1999
Esper et al. 2002
Moberg et al. 2005
Mann et al. 2008
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
0
400
800
1200
Year
1600
2000
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.”
Past Temperatures
D Mean Temperature (°C)
0.8
Recorded Worldwide
Temperatures
Flat
0.6
0.4
Decreasing
Flat
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
1880
1900
1920
1940
Year
1960
1980
2000
Historic Los Angeles
Temperatures
Temperature (°C)
Annual Temperatures
Summer Temperatures
Winter Temperatures
22
25
17
21
24
16
20
23
15
19
22
14
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
• 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: Precession
Apehelion
Perihelion
Orbital Parameters: Obliquity
24.5°
22.5°
Orbital Parameters: Eccentricity
Maximum: 0.061
Minimum: 0.005
Apehelion
Apehelion
Perihelion
NotScale!
To
to scale!
Orbital Parameters & Earth’s Climate
Precession
(22 ky)
Obliquity
(41 ky)
Eccentricity
(100 ky)
Temperature
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Age (kya)
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
Temperature (°C)
-25
-30
0.35
Younger
Dryas
0.30
Medieval Warm
-35
-40 Ice Age
0.25
Little Ice Age 0.20
-45
0.15
-50
0.10
-55
20
15
10
Age (kya)
5
0.05
0
Snow Accumulation (m/yr)
Younger Dryas Event
Manipulating Data?
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 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 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
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 --
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
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!
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
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 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
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 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
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
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 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 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
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 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
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/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/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
 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
• 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 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
• 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 Myths
Global Warming Has Stopped?
1366.8
1366.6
0.6
0.4
1366.4
1366.2
1366.0
0.2
0.0
1365.8
1365.6
1365.4
1365.2
-0.2
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
Solar Irradiance (W/m2)
D Mean Temperature (°C)
0.8
Carbon (109 metric tons)
Volcanoes Put Out More CO2
Than Fossil Fuel Burning
10
8
6
4
2
0
Volcanoes
Fossil Fuel
Global Warming is Caused by
Sunspots
250
D Mean Temperature (°C)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
150
0.0
100
-0.2
50
-0.4
-0.6
1880
1900
1920
1940
Year
1960
1980
2000
0
Sunspots
200
1.5
250
1.0
200
0.0
150
-0.5
100
-1.0
-1.5
50
-2.0
1750
0
1800
1850
1900
Year
1950
2000
Sunspots
D Mean Temperature (°C)
Hadley Temperatures Vs.
Sunspots
4600
4400
0.8
4200
0.6
4000
0.4
3800
0.2
3600
0.0
3400
-0.2
3200
-0.4
1950
1960
1970
1980
Year
1990
2000
3000
2010
Gamma Cosmic Rays
D Mean Temperature (°C)
1.0
Global Warming is Caused by
GCR
40
6
320
20
4
300
20
280
-20
0
260
-40
-2
240
-60
-4
CO2 (ppmv)
Sea Level
Relative
Temperature
CO
CO
Temperature
Sea Level
2 Vs.
2 Vs.
220
-80
-6
-100
-8
200
-120
-10
180
500000
400000
300000
200000
Time (ybp)
100000
0
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
2009 Temperature Changes Compared to 1951-1980
-4.1
-4
-2
-1
-.5
-.2
.2
.5
1
2
4
4.1
Mt. Kilimanjaro’ Glaciers are Melting
Because of Global Warming
Global Warming Primarily Impacts
the Northern Hemisphere
Temperature Change (°C)
Northern vs. Southern Latitude
Land vs. Ocean
1.0
0.8
0.6
Northern Hemisphere
Southern Hemisphere
Land
Ocean
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
1920
1960
Year
2000
1920
1960
Year
2000
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
Relative Sea Level (cm)
Global Temperature Change
20
10
0
-10
-20
1700
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Brest, France
Swinoujscie, Poland
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
Adapted from IPCC SYR Figure 2-5
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
Annual Mean Global Temperature Change
1.5
Exponential Increase in carbon emissions
DT (°C)
1.0
Moderate reduction in carbon emissions
0.5
Drastic reduction in carbon emissions
Observed temps through 1988
0
OBSERVED
SCENARIO A
SCENARIO B
SCENARIO C
-0.4
1960
1970
1980
1990
Hansen, J. 1988. Journal Of Geophysical Research 93:9241. Date
2000
2010
2019
Temperature Extrapolation
2.5
2.0
DT (°C)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
-0.4
1960
1980
2000
2040
2020
Date
2060
2080
2100
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