"More mistakes about Himalayan glaciers seem to have been uncovered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest report, further threatening its credibility and undermining the position of its chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri."

"Back in 1965 Paul Jose was one of the first to link solar modulation with planetary movements. He discovered that the planets roughly returned to the same position every 178.8 years (My research suggests 172 yrs). Jose's paper included a very rough solar radius graph which showed some modulation but was difficult to draw from. Later Theodor Landscheidt wrote many papers using a similar principle but mainly relied on solar torque graphs which ranged over long time periods, this made it difficult to predict a solar grand minimum except in a rough time frame. Landscheidt predicted a Grand Minimum to occur around 2030 which might be late, if the current trend continues.

Then Carl Smith in 2007 using JPL data and his own programming skills plotted the Angular Momentum of the Sun. This graph I believe is the Rosetta stone of solar science."

Earth's Future Climate.

The Climategate Timeline: 30 years visualized     link
 

På engelsk    , på dansk   (Pielke indslag er originalt på engelsk, og Svensmark er på dansk)

Bare lige en info hvis du skulle ønske at se Svensmarks indslag på den alternative klima konference om kosmisk stråling.
Det er faktisk den bedste forklaring jeg endnu har set på hans forskning.
Indslaget er på dansk og varer 30 min.

Det første indslag af Pielke er også godt, men er på engelsk originalt (kan dog ses med dansk tolkning, hvis det ønskes).
Pielke er ikke skeptiker men forklarer klimaændringer udfra regionnale ændringer i ”land-use” (landskabsændringer pga. menneskelig aktivitet) Indslaget varer 40 min.

På wikipedia omskrives der flittigt: (skrevet på klimadebat.dk af N.Skjoldby)

William Connoley, Website administrator på Wikipedia, har skrevet eller omskrevet 5.428 artikler om klimaet på wikipedia.
Siden 2003 har han kontrolleret wikis klimaartikler om bl.a. middelaldervarmen, men også global opvarmning, drivhuseffekt, temperaturmålinger, UHI, klimamodeller og global afkøling:
14/2 begyndte han at fjerne "Lille Istid" og 11/8 gik han i gang med "Middelaldervarmen" I oktober gik han igang med at skrive om hokeystaven, ifølge denne artikkel af Lawrence Solomon:

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/blog.html?b=fullcomment&e=lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor&s=Opinion

"The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear."
 

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?
 

Hvis citater som dette er korrekt, er det slemt:

Kilder:  CBS  WattsUp   ClimateDepot   BBC    KLIMADEBAT.DK    Telegraph UK  

Der er lavet en søge side der kan søge i disse email :  her

Nu er der så også fundet samme manipulation i andre lande: New Zealand

 

Video kommentar, Tim Ball

Kilde mm. er uklar men her er angiveligt Uddrag fra mails:

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.

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — butwe'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 forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
 

link   (med engelske undertitler på den finske tale)

"The video showing the climate research work of Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT and Steven McIntyre of Climate Audit is now up on YouTube. One of the most compelling portions of the program has to do with the erroneous reversal of the Tiljander sediments, and Dr. Michael Mann’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge his error, even though other authors of peer reviewed papers have done so. In my opinion, salvation of the hockey stick seems to trump the salvation of good science practice."

"Analysis of the satellite data shows a statistically significant cooling trend for the past 12 to 13 years"

link   link

"Both chironomid-based August air temperature inferences and sedimentological assemblages suggest that Southampton Island was affected by a regional warming between cal yr AD 1160–1360 and a regional cooling between cal yr AD 1360–1700."  link

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/19/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming/

Senator Fielding holds a crucial vote on the proposed Emissions Trading Legislation.  Fielding and four independent scientists faced the Minister for the Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, The Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett, and Professor Will Steffan, director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University. Read what happened from someone who was there.

Se også "No Evidence Paper" .

Temperaturer i Arktis 1880-2004 :

"The trend in global mean surface temperatures since the satellite temperature data and global
CO2 concentration data became available in 1980, if it were extrapolated as far as 2100 (Figure
9), would fall considerably short of the IPCC’s official predictions"

TheAustralian      South.Hem.Sea ice    

...The analysis of 14C in atmospheric CO2 showed that it took some years for exchanges of CO2 between the hemispheres before the 14C was uniformly distributed…

“If 75% of CO2 from fossil fuel is emitted north of latitude 30 then some time lag might be expected due to the sharp year-to-year variations in the estimated amounts left in the atmosphere. A simple model, following the example of the 14Cdata with a one year mixing time, would suggest a delay of 6 months for CO2 changes in concentration in the Northern Hemisphere to appear in the Southern Hemisphere.

“A correlation plot of …year on year differences of monthly measurements at Mauna Loa against those at the South Pole [shows]… the time difference is positive when the South Pole data leads the Mauna Loa data. Any negative bias (asymmetry in the plot) would indicate a delayed arrival of CO2 in the Southern Hemisphere.

“There does not appear to be any time difference between the hemispheres. This suggests that the annual increases [in atmospheric carbon dioxide] may be coming from a global or equatorial source.”

Mere om CO2 (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
 

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” -
Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface
system.” -
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson,
the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190
studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Contradiction #1:
IPCC projects global warming at a rate of 0.2C per decade in the early 21st century; so far the first 8 years of the 21st century have shown cooling at an average rate of around 0.1C per decade. Oops!

Contradiction #2:
IPCC states that the rate of sea level rise has increased in the latter part of the 20th century, switching from tide gauge records to satellite altimetry; the tide gauge record shows a slight decrease in sea level rise in the second half of the 20th century, as compared to the first half. Hmm.

Contradiction #3:
IPCC states that changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of only 0.12 W/m2, equivalent to a net warming of around 0.02C; several studies by solar scientists conclude that the 20th century warming caused by the unusually high level of solar activity is around 0.35C. Ouch!

Contradiction #4:
IPCC states that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years, ignoring overwhelming physical and historical evidence of a warmer global Medieval Warm Period. Huh?

Contradiction #5:
IPCC claims that the satellite temperature record has shown a faster rate of tropospheric warming than that at the surface, confirming the anthropogenic cause of warming; both the satellite and radiosonde record show less warming than the surface record. Oops!

Contradiction #6:
IPCC models all assume a strongly positive feedback from clouds with warming, resulting in 1.3C of the total assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C; actual physical observations show a strongly negative net feedback from clouds of around the same order of magnitude; correcting the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity for this factor brings it to around 0.6 to 0.8C, rather than 3.2C. Ouch!

Contradiction #7:
IPCC states confidently that the upward distortion of the surface temperature record due to the urban heat island effect has a negligible influence of less than 0.006C per decade; many studies from all over the world show that the UHI influence is thirty to fifty times as great as claimed by IPCC. Oh, oh!

Before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modelling efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution."

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability."
citat: 
Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Rapport fra marts 2007 omhandlende et studie af temperaturer i Californien fra 1910-2006, hvor der sammenlignes nymæssigt område med landligt område .
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy/ChristyJR_07EC_subEAQ_written.pdf
"indicate that changes since 1910 are more consistent with the impacts of land-use changes than the effects currently expected from the enhanced greenhouse theory"

Professor Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences fra Ottawa Universitet, professor og oceanograf Carl Wunsch fra MIT (Massachusetts Institute Technology), professor Philip Stott, Department of Biogeography fra London Universitet, professor Richard Lindzen fra MIT, professor Synn-Ichi Akasofu, leder af International Arctic Research Centre, klimatologen Tim Ball fra Winnipeg Universitet, John Christy, Department of Atmospheric Science fra Alabama Universitet og en af IPCC-rapportens hovedforfattere, Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA, professor Patrick Michaels, Department of Environmental Sciences fra Virginia Universitet samt Nigel Calder, tidligere redaktør på New Scientist, og klimatologen Piers Corbyn.

...more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, ...between
1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy
better than 3%), were arbitrarily rejected. ...The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time.

• Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit little evidence of atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging from nearly zero to the low end of past IPCC forecasts. There is no significant warming in the tropical troposphere (the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere), which accounts for half the world’s atmosphere, despite model predictions that warming should be amplified there.

• There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway. Perceptions of increased extreme weather events are potentially due to increased reporting. There is too little data to reliably confirm these perceptions.

• There is no globally-consistent pattern in long-term precipitation trends, snow-covered area, or snow depth. Arctic sea ice thickness showed an abrupt loss prior to the 1990s, and the loss stopped shortly thereafter. There is insufficient data to conclude that there are any trends in Antarctic sea ice thickness.

• Natural climatic variability is now believed to be substantially larger than previously estimated, as is the uncertainty associated with historical temperature reconstructions.

• Attributing an observed climate change to a specific cause like greenhouse gas emissions is not formally possible, and therefore relies on computer model simulations. These attribution studies do not take into account the basic uncertainty about climate models, or all potentially important influences like aerosols, solar activity, and land use changes.

• Computer models project a range of future forecasts, which are inherently uncertain for the coming century, especially at the regional level. It is not possible to say which, if any, of today’s climate models are reliable for climate prediction and forecasting.

"»Når vi taler om, at temperaturen ligger fem-seks grader over normalen i hele Nordeuropa, så er det ikke et tegn på den globale temperaturstigning, for den ligger nede på en tiendedel grad over en række år.«"

"VOLDSOMME udslag i klimaet er historisk set ikke enestående. Under den sidste istid på den nordlige halvkugle skete der 26 gange ekstreme ændringer i temperaturen over en meget kort periode uden nogen åbenlys naturlig forklaring.

»Det, vi kan se af iskerneboringerne, er, at der på den linie af lange perioder med istid ligger en masse piskesmæld i klimaet, som er meget hurtigere. Det er meget bratte og voldsomme klimaforandringer inden for en menneskealder. Vi har iskernedata, der viser, at temperaturen på Grønland i disse piskesmæld steg med 14 grader i gennemsnit inden for 25 år."

"Has hot weather occurred before in the US? All time record high temperatures by states begin in 1888. Only eleven of the states have uniquely seen record highs since 1950 (35 occurred prior to 1950, 4 states had records occurring both before and after 1950.)"  

Interessant om dette har ændret sig siden 2000 ? Må vist lige undersøge det  .
Link til liste over temperatur rekorder i USA

"Eftersom klimamodellerne overhovedet ikke inddrager solens indvirkning på jordens skydække, betyder det, at de hidtidige klimamodeller ikke kan bruges til at lave de forudsigelser, som de bruges til at lave. Det er problematisk, at man politisk har et videnskabeligt set ufuldstændigt grundlag for klimapolitikken,« mener Henrik Svensmark."

"... at der en halv snes gange er forekommet tilsvarende kolde perioder inden for de sidste ca. 10.000 år, hvor temperaturen i Nordatlanten er gået op og ned cirka 2 graders celsius, hvad der i virkeligheden er enorme udsving. Det er der endnu ingen af klimamodellerne, der kan forklare, og før de kan det, er deres fremskrivninger af fremtidige klimaændringer højst usikre,« mener Jasper Kirkby. "

"Jasper Kirkby: »Er hypotesen om sol-kosmisk-stråling-skyer rigtig, betyder det, at klimamodellerne, der forsøger at fremskrive udviklingen i klimaet frem til år 2100, er ufuldstændige, fordi de ikke har solens og de kosmiske strålers påvirkning af skydannelsen. Skydannelsen vil foregå anderledes, end man hidtil har troet. Skyerne er i så fald ikke bare et resultat af klimaet – som antaget i klimamodellerne – men er med til at skabe klimaet. Det er måske ikke overraskende for atmosfærefysikere, eftersom det i det internationale klimapanel IPCCs seneste statusrapport fra 2001 hed, at »mekanismerne, der forstærker solens påvirkning af klimaet, ikke er velforstået.« ...
...  man kan ikke lave overbevisende projektioner af den fremtidige opvarmning som forårsaget af menneskeskabte drivhusgasser, før man har inddraget alle de naturlige klimatiske ændringer og forklaret ændringer igennem de sidste få tusind år, som er sammenlignelige med det sidste århundredes klimaændringer .