Where is the real scientific evidence that climate change and anthropogenic global warming is not occurring?

Start with the funny data that Warmists use to "prove" that CO2 is the driver behind global warming:

- The CO2 vs temperature correlation is based on dubious ice core proxies for atmospheric CO2 concentrations http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indi...

* ignored atmospheric CO2 data is based on thousands of direct measurements going back to 1850 in various parts of the world by chemists which show:

1) Ice core CO2 data fails to show the CO2 spread out over the years, and does not show the natural variation in CO2 that happens.

2) Ice core CO2 data shows a bias toward lower CO2 concentrations indicating that the CO2 concentrations are indicative of trends over centuries, but not much else.

3) There really is no correlation between warming and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/docum...

- The recent Warming is not special, but rather boring compared to recent Warmings in the past.

1860-1880 | 0.163 Kelvin/decade

1910-1940 | 0.15 Kelvin/decade http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670....

Since 1979 | 0.144 Kelvin/decade http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#...

- If you look at where it has warmed, the pattern is that it warmed in the same places where it had previously cooled rather than where the IPCC predicted it would based on the anthropogenic CO2 climate driver theory. This indicates a natural oscillation rather than CO2 as the cause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg

* Warming since 1979 http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/MS...

* Cooling 1940 - 1970 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Cooling_M...

* IPCC Predicted Warming 1999 - 2099 http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/spm6.jpg

Edit @Jeff M:

Long Term: I consider "long term" to be a relative relational term where the meaning of "long" is a matter of context. I do not have a problem with the way you used it. Beyond that, you seem to have gotten my meaning quite well. The "cycle" is obviously the undoing of whatever caused the cooling between 1940 and 1970 as evidenced by the positive/negative aspect of the 2 maps side by side immediately above. Clearly, that is a better explanation than any comparison to the IPCC map would indicate for CO2. I do not know what the cause was, but it seems to me that a combination of PDO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg

and NAO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winter-NAO-Index...

and possibly other oceanic cycles would be a likely candidate. Solar changes might also be indicated. What is your theory for the cooling?

Edit @QT: 2nd derivative is negative for HadCRU:

www.tinyurl.com/7vvtw

Edit 2@QT: 2nd derivative = rate of change of slope.

Edit 3@QT: 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded. Instead of using only 1997 for your comparison, try 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. You will see huge changes in the result. tinyurl.com/3lgeft4

#1 @ NW Jack:

The two historical trends that you presented measured warming at the surface. However, the current trend that you listed measured warming in the mid-troposphere! Obviously, these two datasets cannot be compared with each other.

When we consider only surface temperature data, we realize that the Earth is indeed heating up extremely quickly. According to your first link, the surface warmed .161ºC per decade between 1975 and 2009. This is faster than the Earth warmed between 1910 and 1940.

In the interview you linked to, Phil Jones noted that rate of current rate of warming is less than the average rate of warming between 1975 and 1998. However, this overall trend was obscured an unprecedentedly large El Nino which occurred in 1998. Thus, the rate of warming from 1975 to 1997 would more accurately reflect the long-term trend over this period. The current rate of warming is much greater than this trend.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:...

From your link, it’s evident that the current trend is comparable to the rate of warming in the late nineteenth century. These two trends differed by only .002ºC per decade, which is nowhere near statically significant. Nevertheless, the warming trend in the nineteenth century lasted for only 20 years. The current warming trend, however, has lasted for well over 40 years. Therefore, the current warming will have much greater and widespread consequences.

#2 @ NW Jack (again)

Regardless, you still cannot compare the RSS and HadCRUT3 datasets. They use different sampling methods, have different base periods, have different homogeneity adjustment methods, apply different criteria for the elimination of outliers, etc. Therefore, all trends will appear larger in the HadCRUT3 dataset than in the RSS dataset.

However, the two datasets should agree on the relative size of the current warming trend compared to the historic periods that you listed. Unfortunately, the RSS dataset only extends back to the 1970s. So, I'll compare GISTemp and HadCRUT3 instead.

These two datasets also use different analysis methods. However, they both show that the current warming trend is greater than the warming trend in the early twentieth century. They also agree that the Earth is warming faster than it did between 1975 and 1997.

Current trend: http://www.flickr.com/photos/54578587@N08/57224545...

1975-1997: http://www.flickr.com/photos/54578587@N08/57224517...

1910-1940: http://www.flickr.com/photos/54578587@N08/57218819...

#3 @ NW Jack:

What is the second derivative that you're referring to?

#4 @ NW Jack:

Actually, from what I can tell, the warming appears to be accelerating:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54578587@N08/57359271...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54578587@N08/57353777...

#5 @ NW Jack

You may actually be right.

Hansen et al. concluded that the Earth's energy imbalance had declined in the past decade or so.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.1140v1 (see page 35)

#6 @ NW Jack:

The rate of warming between 1990 and 2010 is actually slightly greater than the average rate of warming between 1977 and 1998.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54578587@N08/57376253...

Regardless, the average rate of warming between 1977 and 1998 is not reflexive of the ENTIRE period, since most of the warming occurred in 1998.

Furthermore, the climate system as a whole did not warm significantly during this year. The extreme temperatures in 1998 were caused by the presence of an extremely large El Nino. During an El Nino event, heat is simply redistributed through the Earth - the climate system as a whole does not gain very much energy. Therefore, the warming trend between 1977 and 1997 most accurately reflects the Earth's rate of heat uptake over this relative period.

Regarding your graph:

You used a period of 9 years to represent the current rate of warming. However, natural variability has a great influence on atmospheric temperatures over this short of a time period. Try using a longer period:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:...

In both of these cases, the current warming trend appears to be less than the historical trend which you presented. This still may be due natural variability. However, it also could have been caused by a declining energy imbalance since 2003, as described by Hansen et al. 2011.

I am not a scientist. I am an engineer. I am not a non-believer, but am just skeptical because I review the only data we have that looks at history long-range (Ice Core Data). I see the earth seems to have been warming and cooling for many thousands of years in both long range and short cycles. I see the rate of change in both directions id very rapid at times, and the peaks and valleys are lower and higher than we are at now. The CO2 data appears to also track with these trends long before man was a significant variable. I couple this info with the fact that the models put forth by the "Scientific" experts seem to have been fooled by mother nature the past 10-15 years leads me to the conclusion that we really don't understand this process very well just yet. I am not saying the theories are not valid, and may in fact turn out to be correct in time. Just not yet, without many odd assumptions and explanations for the obvious incorrect predictions. I have worked a lot with data analysis in my career over the past 50 years, and do understand just how difficult it is to analyze data in a process where the range of data change is barely even measurable with most common instruments for shorter ranges of time combined with one of the most complex processes ever analyzed is bound for potential failure unless the time frame is VERY long. Maybe too long to save us????

cannot prove a negative.

all the doctored data proves man made warming is a myth.

maybe there is warming and this could be a good thing as man can thrive in warmer climes. but it is not man made.

even the UN retracted its position on this topic and none of the dire predictions have come about over the last 10 years of this nonsense.

Where is the evidence that lizard people living in the center of the earth are not massing to take over the surface? It's difficult to prove a negative. The pro-AGW side is making the claim. The burden of proof falls on them, All the Skeptics have to do is show their evidence is not solid.

The best and most reasoned Skeptical rebuttal I've read comes from Joanne Nova in an 11-part series. Read part three which I have linked to, and read more if interested.

If you want something more concrete, consider this: The current end-of-the world models show we will experience a 2-6 degree temperature increase by the end of this century if we don't do something drastic now. We also know that doubling the CO2 concentration causes a 0.8 C increase by itself. The climate community believes this increase will be greatly amplified by feedbacks- melting ice, melting permafrost, more water in the air, etc. I think the increase will be 0.8 C. Why? Look at history! We have doubled the CO2 concentration since the beginning of the industrial revolution and how much has the temperature gone up? I claim that another doubling will have the same effect. Now bring on the thumbs down.

Edit: So I was mistaken, I thought you actually wanted to know, rather than simply argue for your side. You won't find a good rebuttal in the peer reviewed literature.

If you believe the hockey stick graph, we should be in a period of rapid warming. The record from the Argo buoys contradicts that. The deafening silence from those in charge of the data implies there is no warming.

I don't need peer reviewed literature to shoot holes in the AGW facade. All I need is a long memory. Piers Corbyn consistently beats the Met with his forecasts. The most damning evidence comes from the warmists themselves. In 1988, James Hansen predicted a sharp warming trend if the concentration of atmospheric CO2 continued to rise. As it turns out, he grossly overestimated the effect of increasing CO2.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/scary-exaggeratio...

But we already know the effect of doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration. It causes a 0.8 C rise in temperature- no supercomputers needed, just a look at history.

From the site wilds posted: "If the Argo data showed a warming trend, don’t you suppose it would be publicized endlessly? The climate establishment and the mainstream media are keen to trumpet any evidence of warming. Good news! From the silence we can only conclude that Argo is not showing any ocean warming."

Then they take 5 years and basically claim that that is a climate trend. Especially when considering a climate trend you usually take a few decades.

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/sst_global.jpg

I find it odd how skeptics constantly state that the recorded data and measurements are much to short a time to show a trend yet they post a 5 year trend and claim that SSTs are in a long-term cooling trend.

@NWJack: So with your response to me you are then claiming that the data I posted is again much to short to indicate a long term trend? You are therefor stating that there are natural oscillations or cycles that can account for the current warming that last longer than the time period I posted. I'm curious what exactly these oscillations are. Any answers?

I love the Popular Technology list that one of the most vehement anti-science answerers posts. Whenever I go through that list I find that the almost all of the papers that really attempt to refute global warming were published in a "journal" that pretty much EXISTS to give anti-global warming cheerleaders a place to publish their "research." Then when you look at some of the other papers they're counting it's good for a laugh too--among the 900 papers they're counting at least some which are only corrections to the mistakes they made in other papers! Many of the other papers don't really refute AGW at all, but just talk about certain aspects of it. I see they've included a paper that questions whether CO2 has really increased in the atmosphere...published in 1955.

This batch of 900 papers reminds me of what Einstein said when there was a pamphlet that was published "100 Authors Against Einstein," Einstein retorted "If I were wrong, one would be enough." Deniers of AGW attempt to throw whatever garbage they can at the science, hoping that some will stick. It doesn't matter if it's irrelevant, wrong, or simply a lie, they'll use whatever they think is an argument against it. The problem is that all they have is garbage--if they had anything valid they wouldn't need 900 papers or 31000 bogus signatures--they would just need to present believable science.

EDIT: It's pretty amusing that when I put "journal" and "research" in quotes, the anti-science guy knew just which publication I was questioning the legitimacy of, EVEN THOUGH I NEVER MENTIONED THE NAME. Let's face it, he knows it's not a legitimate scientific journal also, that's why he's so defensive about it. I'm willing to even call it peer-reviewed (by the way, peer review is something else I didn't mention in my answer) --it's a peer-reviewed mouthpiece for anti-AGW propaganda.

As for calling someone "anti-science," I do that when I see someone repeatedly ask questions about science, then ignore all the answers that have to do with the science and instead choose an answer that only has to do with politics; or when I see someone repeatedly impugn the character of scientists based purely on innuendo and prejudice. I think someone like that has a hatred of science and scientists.

Another EDIT: Ottawa Mike, thanks for the link. I had never heard of that guy and never looked at that site before (the only blog I regularly look at is Dr. Jeff Masters on Weather Underground), but it does look like he comes to pretty much the same conclusions I do about that list, namely that it (1) consists of some papers disputing AGW, mostly written by just a few people and published in a single journal of dubious integrity and (2) a bunch of other papers that don't really dispute AGW at all, but question certain details. The list is designed so that non-scientific people that are inclined to reject AGW can say "Look at all these actual scientific papers that dispute AGW," when in fact most of them do nothing of the sort.

It's interesting that you seem to realize how poor the list is, but you still promote it.

One more EDIT: Ok Mike, fair enough. By the way, McAfee warned me about the link in your answer (anenglishmanscastle) and it attempted to install software on my computer--I'd stay away from there.

Some Religious types like to say "Prove God doesn't exist" ...

.. which is always a giant red flag that they don't quite understand Science - because it's virtually impossible to prove a negative.

As with all Scientific Theories, the burden of proof is on those who propose it.

Your question is very demonstrative of the fact that Anthropogenic Global Warming has become a Religion. Advocates have become Believers, Skeptics have become Deniers. The Science is Settled & daily the Climate Change Priests intone that "The fool hath said in his heart there is no Global Warming".

The problem with the AGW crowd is the complete LACK of Skepticism .... ESPECIALLY in light of the last 15 years. Climate Change theorists predicated a runaway greenhouse effect, aka the 'hockey stick' graph. What we got instead was a 15 year flat period with virtually no warming.

The total human caused release of prehistoric CO2 has changed it's atmospheric concentration by about 0.01 %.

So is it time for Government to skyrocket the price of fossil fuel energy through massive 'cap & trade' style energy taxes? Obama's green policies have already doubled the price of gas, are we safer from the alleged Temperature Apocalypse?

Or is this junk science? Do we have a lot of well meaning environmentalists seeing the hand of man in everything, much as Christians always see the hand of God. And is the whole show is funded by Socialists looking for an excuse to give more control of energy to Government?

I can't prove Man Made Global Warming is false.

But it is painfully clear that there is cause for skepticism.

Do our leaders believe? Obama has a moratorium on new drilling in the Gulf - but just promised to back offshore drilling in Brazil. Al Gore has a giant carbon footprint.

The CO2 levels bear watching. But so do the Politicians & Scientists.

And if you find yourself without skepticism, be honest enough to admit you're in a Religion.

East Anglia Global Temp chart 1850 to 2010

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Global Warming Hacked Email **

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Exa...

Obama says Cap & Trade makes energy prices skyrocket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNSZ62xiD4M&feature...

Professor Phil Jones: No Global Warming since 1995

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Cl...

Research Agenda 21.

where is the real scientific evidence that proves bigfoot is not australopithicus giganticus? its where ALL proof of negatives is: in the land of ozzzz.

I'm sure what you are looking for specifically so I'll have to point you to a whole bunch of peer reviewed scientific papers and you can search for yourself. You have to keep in mind that obviously the climate changes so that's not in question. And I would say that it's pretty universally accepted that CO2 concentration levels in the atmosphere also have an effect on the climate. The major question is how much does CO2 drive the climate. This driving or forcing of the climate is called "climate sensitivity". It is also universally agreed that the exact climate sensitivity to increased CO2 is not known with one of the biggest uncertainties being the relationship to cloud cover increases and decreases, height of clouds and precipitation.

CO2 Science has several volumes of issues which describe peer reviewed science on climate change which claim to show the CO2 effect is not as great as thought: http://www.co2science.org/issues/issuearch.php

Popular Technology has compiled a list of peer reviewed science that questions how much CO2 affects the climate and the Earth's average temperature: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-revi...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Edit@pegminer: I presume when you write "journal" and "research" you are referring to the science journal Energy and Environment (E&E). You accuse me of being "anti-science", whatever that means. E&E is in fact a peer-reviewed journal. Evidence is as follows:

Thompson Reuters Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI) lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal: http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/j...

EBSCO Publishing lists Energy & Environment as a Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Journal: http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.p...

"All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing: http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/121493/

"E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

So pegminer, when you put "research" and "journal" in quotes and repeatedly refuse to acknowledge E&E as a peer reviewed journal and the studies is publishes, I can very safely and openly call you "anti-science".

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Edit2@pegminer: Whatever dude, go hang out with your Greenpeace buddy here, he says all the things you like to hear: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Edit3@Trevor: You state: "Note: In arriving at the value of 2.952°C the calculation ignores all other factors that contribute to warming / cooling. However, because some of these are positive forces and some are negative, when they’re factored in the result is about the same."

In other words, what you are saying is that current temperature should be the same as 1750, in other words a running average of zero change over the past 260 years. Is there peer reviewed science that has confirmed this? As well, your number of 280ppm for past CO2 in 1750 is not a fact. See here: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003901...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Edit4@pegminer: I was just answering the question where he wanted to see scientific evidence from the "other side". I haven't read all those studies obviously and I don't "promote" that list. However, it would take a lot of research to dig up all those peer-reviewed studies so I was just helping with this question.