13 Aug 2017

Sorry about the amount of climate change posts in the last week but here we go again. At https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/dr-judith-curry-explains-the-real... ... which features Dr Judith Curry in a YouTube interview in which she lays out the many flaws and failures of common climate science and how this highly politicised subject misleads policy makers. It is meant to. On balance, she says, I don't see any particular danger from greenhouse warming as a result of co2. Humans may well have a certain amount of effect but natural factors far outweigh human contributions. Consensus science can be strong one moment - and mocked the next. The collapse of the consensus on cholesterol and heart disease is one such factor - but will climate change collapse at any time soon? Judith Curry is the former chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She first began to have reservations about global warming after the Climategate release of emails which showed evidence of gross abuse of data and the ideological drive behind the CAGW scare. One of the emails discussed how to get rid of the 1940s warming blip - and we all know how the high temperatures of the 1930s were reduced, and reduced, and reduced on multiple occasions. The 1930s were the warmest decade of the 20th century - but that was soon rectified by the CAGW crowd. It was imperative they diluted the temperatures of the 1930s and 1940s otherwise the alarmism over the 1990s would have rang hollow.

At https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/12/uncovered-decades-old-report-show... ... which is by a guest blogger who quotes retired climate scientist Tim Ball on several points. His claim is that the IPCC knew from the very start that climate data was inadequate. In 1999 the National Academy of Sciences (US) released a study expressing concern about the accuracy of the data used in the debate over climate change. They said thsere are deficiencies in the accuracy, quality, and continuity of the records that place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research result. Many of the signers of the report later became prominent members of the IPCC or publicly well known figures in the 'doom is about to fall upon us' brigade (such as James Hansen). They went on to use the IPCC as a vehicle to promote CAGW. 

The author's point is that they knew full well they could develop a rising temperature graph over 120 plus years simply because the data was inadequate. They ignore the fact the inadequacy of the data  negated the reliability of the work they planed and did for the IPCC. For example, the extents, density, and continuity of the data are completely inadequate as the basis for a mathematical computer model of global climate. In short, he says, they know they would have to modify and tweak the data, which was done. The trouble with doing that is the data is so inadequate that even their actions count not repress reality- and all the models run hot (as Judith Curry said in the first link). The IPCC committed itself to surface station data even though decisions had been made to replace the number of stations. There were two reasons fro the reduction - i) the anticipation of weather data from satellites, and ii) shrinking of research funds as a result of money being pushed towards research into global warming at the expense of everything else. The satellite data has shown temperatures have been largely flat over the last 20 years but the models have all shouted 'hottest year ever' through their CAGW mouthpieces, year after year.

Important points to bear in mind. There are no temperature stations with over 130 years of record. Viurtually all stations with over 100 years of data are in the eastern US or in western Europe. The report appeared shortly after HH Lamb released his autobiography (1997) in which he expanded on the larger limitations for climate research. In other words, they could not contradict HH Lamb and the report more or less supports the points he made. However, once he was off the scene HH Lamb was airbrushed out of climate science - his life times work lies untouched by most budding climate scientists. HH Lamb established the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in Norwich because, ' ... it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities'. This was actually the basis of all his work - establishing a record of the past. That is how we know about the Little Ice Age cooling and the Medieval Warm Period. HH Lamb shone a lamp that many modern climate scientists do not appreciate. In 1999 the people involved in the setting up of the IPCC, and their control of where it went, knew the data in their hands was entirely inadequate. HH Lamb had said so and their report had confirmed they knew it was inadequate - but that did not stop them from propagandising the CAGW alarmism. It also meant they knew from the very beginning that they had to create the data to make the global warming meme work, and this was done with models using dodge data adjustments. They must also have known they could only get away with it if they controlled all the major data centres - in the UK, the US, and Australia, as well as France and Germany. They had no control over the Chinese or the Russians - or indeed anybody outside their cosy little club (but they were able to infiltrate and influence climate research centres in the West with a great deal of success). However, even with all this control they were still on the wrong side of history as after 2000AD satellite data, supported by balloon records, were making a significant mockery of their models. This is when the subject of adjustments became a hot potato.