The IPCC is beginning to look like a bad parody of a good Monty Python skit.

There is a Monty Python skit where John Cleese’s character continually must apologize for his errors.  I believe I have the correct number of “sorry”s in the title, and Cleese pretty much repeats this throughout the whole skit.

The IPCC has made a lot of errors which have been documented all over the blogosphere.

Today, El Reg reports on another one.

The ice has not been melting at the advertised rate, the melt actually has been one-third to one-half the given rate depending on location.

And these new estimates are based on gravity measurements from the GRACE satellite array, two satellites 220 kilometers apart in space that measure distance from each other as accurately as possible.  The suggestion has been made that GRACE can measure to an accuracy of 10 microns.  An astonishing (and unbelievable to me) precision.

How many near Earth objects have passed between the Earth and the Moon just this last year?  How many more are out there?

These objects would obviously skew the gravitational readings of GRACE, but if they are unknown, how could they possibly be accounted for?  I am not convinced that once we detect a near Earth object that its gravitational effect on the GRACE array would be properly calculated and incorporated into the measurements given NASAs non-desire to correct NOAA data proven erroneous.

Further, I seriously doubt the effect of all the other masses in the solar system are incorporated into the GRACE estimation model, and if NASA wants to claim an accuracy of 0.00001 meters over a distance of 220,000 meters, a difference in magnitude of 22 billion, then I think they should be.

If NASA has incorporated all known and unknown masses in the solar system into their model, then, “I apologize unreservedly!”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is responsible for advising the UN on climate issues.

The reader is asked to look at their name and consider whether or not (no pun intended) this group is likely to conclude that climate is progressing naturally.

Several whitewashes, er studies, have cleared the IPCC of any wrong doing. 

This one does not.  Notably, this is a study by an independent group of scientists from around the world, the InterAcademy Council.

“The IPCC has raised public awareness of climate change, and driven policymakers,” said Harold Shapiro, chair of the IAC Committee to Review IPCC and former president of Princeton University. But the controversies that have erupted, and revelations of errors, have put the group under the microscope. “We recommend some significant reforms,” he told the U.N.

These scientists did not argue the validity of the climate models or the climatologist’s assumptions, rather the IAC scrutinized the scientific practices of the climatologists, and suggested:

“We did not redo the science,” said Shapiro. Instead, the IAC focused its attention on the procedures and methodologies of the IPCC, suggesting many areas for improvement.

The rate of melt of the Himalayan glaciers was one touchstone among skeptics of manmade global warming that the group addressed. Shapiro explained that many reviewers noted the lack of substance behind the claim, but their criticism didn’t make it into the final report. 

It appears that editors “didn’t follow through carefully enough on what review editors commented,” said Shapiro. 

And:

“We found in the summary for policymakers that there were two kinds of errors that came up — one is the kind where they place high confidence in something where there is very little evidence. The other is the kind where you make a statement … with no substantive value, in our judgment.” 

That seems to me to be a polite way of saying, “you guys aren’t scientists”.

Russia is burning, Pakistan is flooded, icebergs are melting, and so many are pointing the finger at “global warming”, or “climate change” which both have their underpinnings in the belief that human produced CO2 is having disastrous effects to the Earth’s climate.  The cyclical reasoned justification for this is that Russia is burning, Pakistan is flooded, and icebergs are melting.

Rest assured dear reader, so-called extreme weather happens all the time, it is quite natural, and therefore not extreme whatsoever.

This naturally occurring cyclical chaos does not have any basis in the CO2 concentration present in the atmosphere, but rather in the concepts of constructive and destructive interference.

A visual lesson on constructive and destructive interference will follow, but first I would like to submit three pieces of evidence in this trial of CO2.  Firstly, I will submit an historical record of fires in Russia, and secondly an historical account of a horrible cyclone in Pakistan, and lastly a discussion of the history of Arctic icebergs calving.

First, as to the current fires in some parts of Russia:

I would like to thank “oakwood” on the Watts Up With That blog for providing a translation created by “Trofim” and posted in an article on the Guardian’s website.  The translation of historical accounts by Trofim and provided by oakwood is presented following.

1298: There was a wholesale death of animals. In the same year there was a drought, and the woods and peat bogs burnt.

1364: Halfway through summer there was a complete smoke haze, the heat was dreadful, the forests, bogs and earth were burning, rivers dried up. The same thing happened the following year . . .

1431: following a blotting out of the sky, and pillars of fire, there was a drought – “the earth and the bogs smouldered, there was no clear sky for 6 weeks, nobody saw the sun, fishes, animals and birds died of the smoke.

1735: Empress Anna wrote to General Ushakov: “Andrei Ivanovich, here in St Petersburg it is so smoky that one cannot open the windows, and all because, just like last year, the forests are burning. We are surprised that no-one has thought about how to stem the fires, which are burning for the second year in a row”.

1831: Summer was unbearably hot, and as a consequence of numerous fires in the forests, there was a constant haze of smoke in the air, through which the sun appeared a red hot ball; the smell of burning was so strong, that it was difficult to breathe.

The years of 1839-1841 were known as the “hungry years”. In the spring of 1840, the spring sowings of corn disappeared in many places. From midway through April until the end of August not a drop of rain fell. From the beginning of summer the fields were covered with a dirty grey film of dust. All the plants wilted, dying from the heat and lack of water. It was extraordinarily hot and close, even though the sun, being covered in haze, shone very weakly through the haze of smoke. Here and there in various regions of Russia the forests and peat bogs were burning (the firest had begun already in 1939). there was a reddish haze, partially covering the sun, and there were dark, menacing clouds on the horizon. There was a choking stench of smoke which penetrated everywhere, even into houses where the windows remained closed.

1868: the weather was murderous. It rained once during the summer. There was a drought. The sun, like a red hot cinder, glowed through the clouds of smoke from the peat bogs. Near Peterhoff the forests and peat workings burnt, and troops dug trenches and flooded the subterranean fire. It was 40 centigrade in the open, and 28 in the shade.

1868: a prolonged drought in the northern regions was accompanied by devastating fires in various regions. Apart from the cities and villages affected by this catastrophe, the forests, peat workings and dried-up marshes were burning. In St Petersburg region smoke filled the city and its outlying districts for several weeks.

1875: While in western europe there is continual rain and they complain about the cold summer, here in Russia there is a terrible drought. In southern Russia all the cereal and fruit crops have died, and around St Petersburg the forest fires are such that in the city itself, especially in the evening, there is a thick haze of smoke and a smell of burning. Yesterday, the burning woods and peat bogs threatened the ammunitiion stores of the artillery range and even Okhtensk gunpowder factory.

1885: (in a letter from Peter Tchaikovsky, composer): I’m writing to you at three oclock in the afternoon in such darkness, you would think it was nine oclock at night. For several days, the horizon has been enveloped in a smoke haze, arising, they say, from fires in the forest and peat bogs. Visibility is diminishing by the day, and I’m starting to fear that we might even die of suffocation.

1917 (diary of Aleksandr Blok, poet): There is a smell of burning, as it seems, all around the city peat bogs, undergrowth and trees are burning. And no-one can extinguish it. That will be done only by rain and the winter. Yellowish-brown clouds of smoke envelope the villages, wide swaithes of undergrowth are burning, and God sends no rain, and what wheat there is in the fields is burning.

The original source is in Russian here.

It seems obvious that the current fires are not at all unprecedented.

Second, as to the current flooding in Pakistan:

From Wikipedia:

The 1970 Bhola cyclone was a devastating tropical cyclone that struck East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and India’s West Bengal on November 12, 1970. It was the deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded, and one of the deadliest natural disasters in modern times.  Up to 500,000 people lost their lives in the storm, primarily as a result of the storm surge that flooded much of the low-lying islands of the Ganges Delta. This cyclone was the sixth cyclonic storm of the 1970 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, and also the season’s strongest, reaching a strength equivalent to a Category 3 hurricane.

The cyclone formed over the central Bay of Bengal on November 8 and travelled north, intensifying as it did so. It reached its peak with winds of 185 km/h (115 mph) on November 12, and made landfall on the coast of East Pakistan that night. The storm surge devastated many of the offshore islands, wiping out villages and destroying crops throughout the region. In the most severely affected Thana, Tazumuddin, over 45% of the population of 167,000 was killed by the storm.

Source.

So, it seems the current flooding is not at all unprecedented either, even in modern times, and so what should be recent memory for environmental reporting.

Third, as to the recent calving of the Petermann ice shelf:

We discussed this before, but I wanted to analyze more closely the lack of journalistic integrity in the reporting done by not only CNN, but every account I have read of the event.

In the CNN article we have:

The ice island, which is about half the height of the Empire State Building, is the biggest piece of ice to break away from the Arctic icecap since 1962

However, we have no mention of how the current calf compares to the one calved in 1962.  The current calf is only one fourth the size of the calf in 1962.  This is easily researched and the “reporter” should have thought to do so.

Also, our CNN “reporter” (no idea who this is, as no attribution is made) never thought, “what caused the event in 1962?” while reporting that the recent event was CO2 related.

So the iceberg calving is not only unprecedented, but really unremarkable. As it turns out, iceberg’s calve. They do this because they grow so large and in such irregular shapes that gravity does its magic.

The honorable profession of journalism is dead.  Few investigate or stop to think in a cut-and-paste society that demands deadlines be met at Internet speeds.

Alternatively, we are deliberately being marketed a product, the product being “man made global warming is real and detrimental, listen to us”.

Now to the promised visual lesson on constructive and destructive interference.

We will first discuss destructive interference.

The following graphs were generated using the excellent freeware package MathGV.  Many thanks to Greg VanMullen for both his time and effort, and for making his program free for download!

In the below graph, we have a simple sine wave:

This sine wave gently undulates up and down through its cycles in a repeatable fashion.  Let’s consider this sine wave to represent the distance I am from the Sun during the day.  As the Earth rotates, I move closer and then further from the Sun.  The pattern is predicable and repeatable as is the sine wave.

The next sine wave will represent the distance my friend Ali is from the Sun throughout the day.  My friend Ali is from Pakistan, and for the purposes of the post I will consider Ali’s location to be directly opposite mine on the globe.  (Note to Janet Napolitano: I haven’t seen Ali since K-State nearly 20 years ago.)

Ali’s distance from the Sun would be opposite mine:

Now to the destructive interference.  Suppose we wanted to plot the total distance from the Sun of both Ali and me?  Here are the two sine waves plotted together:

My sine wave is represented as Y=sine(X), and Ali’s is Y=-sine(X), the opposite of mine. The Y axis is the vertical axis and represents the distance from the Sun. The X axis is the horizontal axis and represents the time of day.

Let’s add our two curves together to see the total distance of the two friends from the Sun at any point during the day.  What does sine(X) + -sine(X) equal:

The reader has no doubt guessed it would be a flat curve at zero along the X axis. We have together no motion about the Y axis, no further or nearer the Sun throughout the day.

For each positive point on my curve there was a correspondingly negative point on Ali’s curve, and for each positive point on Ali’s curve there was a correspondingly negative point on my curve.  This is destructive interference, we cancelled each other out.

Now let’s look at constructive interference:

Back to my curve:

Fortunately, Ali and his family and friends were okay during the current flooding, and he has come for a visit.  His curve would now look like mine:

Suppose we want to once again find the total distance of the two friends from the Sun at any point during the day.  What does sin(X) + sin(X) look like:

Here our curves complement each other perfectly, each peak is twice as high and each valley twice as deep.  This is constructive interference.

Now let’s introduce some interplay between the curves we’ve seen so far to see how fast things get complex.

We have seen the curve of sine(X), and the curve of sine(X)-sine(X) and the curve of 2sine(X). These are very simple curves producing simple graphs. Let’s look at another curve. This one is sine(2X)-sine(X). Really similar to what we have looked at thusfar, so we would be right in assuming another very simple graph of this curve. However, here is the graph of the curve sine(2X)-sine(X):

Things get really complicated really fast! Suppose this were a graph of the climate. What one would expect to occur next would really depend on where the observer begins on the graph, that is when the observer was born or otherwise became interested in studying the climate.

Consider each graduation between lines on the X axis as a generation of man. How could anyone be expected to know what would occur to the climate in the next generation?

In almost every generation, an observer would not see the trendline described by their father and would believe their grandfather simply had lost his mind!

And this was a very simple curve, most certainly less complicated than the actual curve that describes the climate (if one can actually be constructed – which I doubt.)

I propose that climate is the sum total of all of the effects on the climate.  Revolutionary, I know, no doubt Nobel Prize winning material there.

Each effect on climate can be plotted as a curve.  Some of the curves would be continuous, such as wind or ocean current flow.  Some of the curves would be single events such as a volcano erupting or a meteor strike.

The total number of contributors to the climate system, and therefore the number of curves necessary to plot a climate curve, that is, to make a prediction, is unknown.

Although climate scientists use super computers, the actual number of variables and their influences through constructive and destructive interference with one another is unknown.

Don’t be fooled dear reader into believing that simply because scientists use super computers the results are therefore accurate.  The results depend entirely on the proper inputs being identified, the proper effect of each input on each other input being identified, the proper climate model being created, and the proper bug free program being written.

Needless to say, I feel this is a hopeless, silly endeavor.  Predicting the weather is important, predicting future climate is unpossible (Simpson’s anyone?)  The climate models we have today do not even predict past climate accurately, why should they be trusted to predict future climate?

What are some of the climate variables a simple man from Kansas is aware of:

• Slight changes in the distance of the Earth from the Sun as the Sun’s gravity well drags the Earth about the cosmos
• Slight changes in Earth’s position within the plane of the ecliptic as the Sun’s gravity well drags the Earth about the cosmos
• Slight changes in the Solar System’s location within the galactic plane as the galaxy’s gravity well drags the Solar System about the cosmos
• Slight changes in the Sun’s intensity
• Slight changes in the relationship between the tilt of the Earth/Moon system’s gravitational axis and the Sun’s equator where the Sun’s magnetic disturbance and thus solar flares are greatest
• Slight changes in cloud cover caused by infrequent cosmic ray activity
• Slight changes in cloud cover caused by precipitation changes
• Slight changes in cloud cover due to changes in the jet stream and other wind patterns
• Slight changes in wind patterns due to slight changes in the height of mountain ranges due to plate tectonics
• Slight changes in wind patterns due to slight changes in the depths of valleys as running rivers erode the Earth
• Slight changes in precipitation on land due to changing wind patterns alternating whether rain is deposit on land or sea
• Slight changes in atmospheric gas concentrations
• The occasional eruption of volcanoes on land
• The occasional eruption of volcanoes under the sea
• The continuous belching forth of our planet’s innards upon itself along the ocean ridges
• Slight changes in the width of the ocean’s ridges, reducing or increasing the resistance to the release of gasses
• Slight changes to the amount of continental plates as they subduct or grow, or perhaps slightly expand the volume of the planet
• Slight changes in magmatic patterns within the mantle
• Slight changes in the drift of the core
• Slight changes in land use patterns (the changes in the amount of land dedicated to farming, forestry, cities, etc.)
• Slight changes in the amount of methane welling up from the ocean’s floors
• Slight changes to the reflectivity of the Earth (albedo) as plants grow and cast shadows and then die, and as buildings are built or destroyed, and as natural occurrences darken or lighten waters
• Slight changes in albedo due to changing ice patterns
• Slight changes in the Earth’s magnetic field that allow or disallow a varying amount of cosmic rays and solar radiation into the atmosphere
• Slight changes to the Sun’s magnetic field
• The occasional earthquake
• The occasional meteor strike
• The continuous depositing on the Earth of the Solar System’s dust that becomes trapped in the gravity well of the Earth
• Slight changes to the ratio between the volume of plant matter (respirators of oxygen) to animal matter (respirators of carbon dioxide)
• Slight changes to the production of energy by mankind

Each of the above, and I am sure there are many more, would have their own curve representing their contribution to Earth’s climate.  None of the curves are likely the simple sine waves this post has presented, and to make the point again: each of the above would have to be evaluated against each of the other to properly account for the constructive and destructive influence each would have on the climate.

Further, and more to the point of this post: each of the above have different times between the repetition of their patterns, for those that are not one-offs. The varying durations (periods) of the curves, the varying shapes of the curves, the varying intensity (amplitudes) of the curves, and the varying amount of interference due to the current presence or non-presence of each of the above plus all the actual climatic influences makes for a natural yet chaotic climate system.

Super computer or not, I just simply cannot accept that human produced CO2 is the driving factor of the Earth’s climate, or really, that it is of much concern at all.

A massive 100 square mile ice sheet has broken from Greenland.  It has been calculated that the amount of fresh water in the sheet would supply all the US’ drinking water needs for 120 days!  Here is the article.

From the article:

The ice island, which is about half the height of the Empire State Building, is the biggest piece of ice to break away from the Arctic icecap since 1962

And then several paragraphs later, perhaps revealing the attention span of the author is:

Environmentalists say ice melt is being caused by global warming with Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reaching their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years

Can’t have it both ways CNN.

An El’ Reg article titled Global Warming Brings Peace and Happiness has some interesting points as well as the following two direct hits:

The idea that tiny changes in climate (either way) cause catastrophic effects, against which we’re powerless, is really the last in a line of medieval superstitions.

and,

The fear of science and technological innovation runs so deep with some people, that self-flagellation is always preferred.

The article begins by detailing five periods in Chinese history where cooling temps brought famine which subsequently led to regime change each time. 

I say, “spot on!” to El’ Reg, and a heartfelt, “good luck!” with Vulture 1-X.  Looks like you’re off to a sound start.  I’ve been following PARIS since the original announcement.

I keep a list of articles for ideas for posts like everyone else.

This is an older one, but one I want to present nonetheless: here.

This is a discussion on American Thinker regarding alarmists decrying melting on the west side of Antarctica that happens to be located over a volcanic zone.  These same alarmists of course fail to discuss the increasing ice forming elsewhere on Antarctica.

It’s all how you market the message.

El Reg is reporting on an ice core taken of the Larsen ice shelf.

This core is a record breaking 445.6 meters long and was cut into 1 meter sections which will be returned to the US National Science Foundation in the next few months for study.

We await the analysis.

There were two main themes, at least as I remember from Orwell’s 1984: constant surveillance and the re-writing of history.  As happenstance would have it, the day after writing about the constant surveillance aspect of 1984, I stumbled across the re-writing history aspect of 1984 in a current article on ScienceDaily.

The article discusses the possibility that the melting of a very large glacier in North America quite a bit ago caused the Gulf Stream to shut down, dropping tempertures across northern Europe.  The glacier in question, the Laurentide ice sheet, was so massive that North America is still rebounding from the crushing effects of the weight, this post glacial rebound.

If the good reader were to search on YouTube for “post glacial rebound” there is a fair chance the reader would find our friend from Call Me Al.  This is included not to suggest North America’s north eastern land masses are not still rising as an effect of the tremendous weight of the glacier being lifted, but as an amusing reminder of the wackiness of some in this debate.

ScienceDaily seems to have had some of the wackiness rub off.  The article linked above attributes the stoppage of the Gulf Stream to the fresh water runoff turning to ice and plunging northern Europe into a mini ice-age:

This resulted in huge amounts of fresh water mixing with the salt water of the Arctic Ocean. As a result, more sea-ice was created which flowed into the North Atlantic, causing the northward continuation of the Gulf Stream to shut down.

Without the heat being brought across the Atlantic by the Gulf Stream, temperatures in Europe plunged from similar to what they are today, back to glacial temperatures with average winter temperatures of -25oC.

I can fathom (nautical pun for the astute reader) how icebergs could affect the Trade Winds, being above the surface, but I cannot understand any effect icebergs would have on a current hundreds of meters deep.  Sure, Icebergs extend nine tenths of their mass into the seas, but any current would easily swirl around or under, or just melt channels through.  Also, any effect on the Trade Winds would have to be because the icebergs miraculously froze into shapes that directed the winds away from the prevailing pattern, which seems unlikely.

I suppose now is not the time to suggest to ScienceDaily that a rigorous examination of current scientific theory would suggest that it’s the winds that keep northern Europe warm, not the currents.

Let’s stick with ScienceDaily’s supposition that current theory (I did it again!) should be abandoned for olde timey musings, and point out why 1984 is applicable here: we were never at war with the East we have always been at war with the West.

In 1984, Orwell had a running monologue from the government re-writing history so the populace wouldn’t question the changing enemy in the continuous war being waged.

And that’s what we have here from ScienceDaily.  By asserting that melting glaciers contributed sufficient fresh water to the Arctic Ocean that froze into glaciers, disrupting the northward flow of the Gulf Stream, ScienceDaily has re-written the alarmists’ accepted position on how the Gulf Stream might cease to flow.

The correct alarmist projection is that fresh water would reduce the salinity of surface sea waters to the point that the cold sea water would cease to drop, disrupting the global conveyor and preventing the warm sea waters from reaching northern Europe.

The alarmists would kindly ask the reader to put aside reason at this point and not state the obvious: that the surface waters cannot both be cold enough to sink and warm enough to warm Europe; that is, if the Gulf Stream were propelled by the Gulf Stream waters being cold and sinking in the North Atlantic, then where is the conveyance of warm water?  How does the warm water ride on top of the cold water?  Are we being expected to believe that this warm piggy-backing water gains sufficient momentum that when the cold water sinks, this warm water is propelled the remaining distance across the Atlantic?  Come on guys…the Trade Winds are helping here both to move the water and to act primarily as the engine transfering tropical warmth.

You can’t have it both ways, either the fresh water freezes into glaciers, which means the cold sea water is still free to fall to the depths, or the fresh water lowers the salinity and therefore density of the sea water meaning the fresh water didn’t freeze, it mixed with the sea water.  The positions are mutually exclusive.

We have always been at war with the East, we have never been at war with the West.

El Reg is reporting that German and Russian scientists have found that fluctuations during interglacials might be normal based on studies of the last interglacial 115,000 years ago.

This really is very bad news, as we’re likely at the end (in geologic terms) of the Holocene interglacial, and it is therefore likely that the ice will return in the coming hundreds of years.

(I know, now I’m making a prediction regarding a 100+ year time frame as I harped about here.)

If the gentle reader would care to launch their search engine of choice and query: “snowball+earth” – “hansen is wrong” the most extreme possible concern will present itself.

“The observed instability with the proven occurrence of short warming events during the transition from the last interglacial to the last glacial epoch could be, when viewed carefully, a general, naturally occurring characteristic of such transition phases,” concludes UFZ boffin Dr Tatjana Boettger.

Boffin = scientist in England’s english for some reason.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution recently reported that water as warm as 39 F was contributing to the melting of glaciers around Greenland.  This water was not warmed by global climate change in the Northern latitude, but rather was a current coming from the tropics.

So, I think the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has just verified the gulf stream has random attributes.  Who, who has ever held a hose, would have thought?

Where might some of the warmer water come from?  How about superheated vents in the Caribbean.

The researchers expect the vents to be warmer than 403 C!  How long might this good Earth have been belching forth this scorching stew upon itself?  How much longer will it continue?

As has been stated by meteorologist Anthony Watts on his blog “Watts Up With That” for years, the Guardian is now reporting  that wind driven icebergs into warmer waters, where the icebergs subsequently melt, contributes up to a third of the sea ice extent loss since the late 1970′s.

The late 1970′s, that is when the climatic curve had reached its coolest point (lowest amplitude) since the last period in the curve, and when we have since been lamenting the loss of sea ice observed by satellite.

Why was the recent coldest period chosen to represent the norm, and therefore the amount of sea ice we should expect in the Arctic?  Who knows?  Only those who ignore the fact that the Arctic was largely free of ice in the 1940′s can answer.

The Telegraph reports that the IPCC, in the Assessment Report 4:

“In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.”

WTF?

Five total errors have been identified in the UN IPCC 2007 report regarding Himalayan glaciation.  This is the report that won the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore’s fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Interesting pass-the-buck quotes from the article:

“I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs,” Dr Pachauri said.  (Yes, Pachauri, our railroad engineer that was perhaps seen at Stonehenge).

“I was keeping quiet as I was working here,” he said. “My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?”  (“he” = Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist who made the informal prediction that Himalayan glaciers may melt in 40 years, thus securing a position working for Pachauri.)

Are they throwing themselves to the wolves?  After all, a scientist has only their reputation, they don’t actually have any marketable skills that they can take to another employer.  Only their reputation, based solely on their work, their assumptions, and their conclusions.  If their work is called into question, they’re looking for a new career.

It’ll be fun to watch the unfolding struggle from within the AGW community.

“My job is not to point out mistakes”, “you know the might of the IPCC”, “what about all the other(s)..who did not speak out”.  Unbelievable.

The University of Wyoming Department of Atmospheric Sciences provides additional analysis of ice core data: here.  Again, scientists not influenced by whatever conditions drive the UN IPCC scientists conclude that there is a near 1000 year lag in the rising of carbon dioxide after warming occurs.  This analysis calibrates the ice core data against known volcanic eruptions by measuring the PH of each ice core slice, so there can be no doubt that the University of Wyoming correctly dated each slice of the core.  And again: temperature first, then carbon dioxide.

What does NOAA say?  I have called into question the integrity of NOAA’s director before. 

So, from NOAA’s site we have three studies on the ice core data from the Vostok ice core.  The first study, Petit et al., has the age of the cores and the measured CO2, and no mention of the temperature.  The Barnola et al. study again makes no mention of temperature. 

The third study provides an abstract which states, “Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations,” and further, “the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.”

This graph from elsewhere on the NOAA site shows the analysis from six ice cores drilled around the world.  The data plots are similar, sure there are some differences, most notably the Byrd sample seems to follow the general long term trends of the others, but doesn’t react as strongly in the short term.  The similarity in the data plots seem to suggest that any changes occuring are indeed global in effect.

Global warming, global increase in CO2 concentrations.  NOAA’s analysis states that CO2 concentrations increase by 80 to 100 parts per million some period of time after the previous cooling period ends due to “the buildup of the terrestrial biospere”, i.e. due to more animals being present, more plant matter decaying, and other biological production of CO2.

So what is the effect of the additional CO2 that we are producing?  We simply cannot say.  It certainly doesn’t cause the atmospere to warm.  It may contribute somewhat to ocean acidification, although to what degree is almost certainly round off error. 

A search on the NOAA site for “ice core” returns at this time 535 hits.  535 opportunities for the NOAA director to educate herself before going before Congress.

NASA has overestimated the amount of ice that has recently melted in Antarctica, and further, the melting of ice in Antarctica has possibly been occuring for the last 20,000 years: here.

What the hell is going on?  Everywhere we look the effects of global warming are shown to not be as serious as advertised, and the more we look the more obvious it is that man made CO2 doesn’t affect global temperatures at all.

How can this not be viewed as a willingness among scientists to position their research as global warming science and a complete and abject failure of reporters to be anything more than willing accomplices in the deception?

Are there no more journalists?  Edward R. Murrow of this generation, where are you?