Climate summary for global warming 2012

Write full summary on global warming data. Only the science, no politics as that is irrelevant and dragged in to confuse the opposition by unscrupulous fanatics.

Notes:

UN use 1850 as temperature base, current measurements taken 1979 onwards by satellite.
PDO/Multidecadal oscillation 30 years cold and warm from solar activity and Milankovitch cycles. Always have, always will.
Medieval warm period revised around 2000 despite still being in all older records. Can't both be right.
Temperature risen 0.8C from a 50% rise in CO2 less around half of that from natural causes.
Sea ice and level barely changed over period beyond normal variation (many studies cited).

All temperature rises only exist in imagination (models and claims) ahead of our lifetimes (2050-2100). That is not scientific is impossible to know or observe.
Current datasets include almost universal adjustments up worldwide when the hockey stick rises. A common practice implies a common source, ie instructions to do so.
If revised temperatures mean old ones were wrong (and glacier measurements etc) that proves that before those measurements were altered the science was inadequate. And until the next ones ad infinitum.
If you can model a human mind you can model the climate. If not, stick to weather forecasting only and that's wrong most of the time.
20 years on original IPCC estimates all above actual 2012 temperatures, what does that say about the models and their future predictions?

Mechanisms requiring positive feedback which would increase the bare 1C per doubling of CO2 is from increased moisture in the air, which is a stronger greenhouse gas. After a rise from 260-400 no such mechanism has been present, observation says if the experiment is half run and there was no expected delay, there is no such feedback, partly as the water vapour which is released goes to clouds, which block the sun and cool.

Ottmar Edenhoffer, IPCC head economist stated clearly in 2010 it was not about the climate but economic redistribution. That ought to have been sufficient, except no one besides the original reported ever published it. I wonder why?

Climategate 1 and 2 clearly show scientists working together by email worldwide and colluding to smooth gaps and falls in temperature as well as criticising others for doing so. No one has been challenged since despite being published widely. Of course if the authorities charged to deal with such trangressions had given the orders to do so how could they punish them as it would lead back to them anyway.

Unlike the temperature the sea level rise is caused half by thermal expansion, not possible without serious warming (way over 2C and above) and half by land ice melting, requiring serious warming. The sea rose 7 inches in the 20th century and current rises already show this to be expected if nothing changes. Under current conditions there is no known mechanism able to make the temperatures rise sharply from CO2 in the future, as it has already with no such rise. Simply adding more as it currently occurring can from existing trends only cause a maximum of maybe 1.5C by 2100, which recent studies are revising downwards as a result. As such this is so much within existing variations that there would be no issue to address, the IPCC are working at a 3-6C rise, which apart from having no direct knowledge of the effects bears no relationship to actual recent changes. The only evidence we do have is from the Roman and Medieval warm periods, both showing an improvement in living conditions for the majority as most people would expect.

Recent studies correlating solar changes (sunspots and radiation) with past temperature changes show a fit almost 100% closer than with CO2, combined with the PDO it is almost exact. Why have the IPCC not taken that into account in their new report drafts? In advance some have been leaked, and appear to now be catching on to what I and many like me have said for a decade or so. As long as they do then our work will be done.

The media and scientists alike have worked on the least scientific methods of all, induction and prediction. Taking small local changes and extending them to the total would fail any student, so just because they are already qualified so can't fail twice is no different to a failure action. Predicting in a non-linear system becomes so unstable over time the error bars are wider than the range itself. Normally they would never exceed this parameter, but all IPCC diagrams do. Both these actions have disqualified the scientists from any further role in this area as they have used methods foreign to good science, no different to be caught cheating outright. Little different to the 30 billion tons a year being said to be lost from the Himalayan glaciers till this year, when someone actually measured them and found they had lost nothing. No apology or explanation followed.

Climate must look from the wide to the narrow. With temperature, ice and sea levels known within narrow parameters, nothing else is possible to pin on them. Coral bleaching is often used, although coral is one of the oldest living organisms on the planet so clearly not sensitive to such tiny variations let alone the massive ones in the distant past. Polar bears were admitted in a Canadian court case (under oath) to be 'at a healthy population' while their eye was off the ball campaigning to stop oil pipelines or a similar blockage of any form of new industry in the name of 'emissions', and didn't realise by attempting to stop such events in the future, they inadvertantly admitted the problem currently did not actually exist.

To summarise: Using approved UN figures

Temperature has risen around 0.8C since 1850
CO2 has risen from 260-400ppm
Sea level has risen around 7 inches a century
The world ice is roughly stable overall, shrinking in the north and growing in the south
There has been no warming in 16 years
CO2 has risen steadily
The temperature chart follows the 60 year oscillation and solar activity far better than CO2 which is roughly a 45' angle.
Errors and inadequate measurements are constantly being altered, meaning until that point they were not fit for purpose. Who is to say they are now as that may happen again indefinitely.
Temperatures are below even the error bars of the IPCC 1990 projections for 2010.
Making projections is less reliable with distance ahead. It is not acceptable to have parameters smaller than the increasing error margins as they become negligible and meaningless.
The media take individual studies showing local changes and pretend they represent a world situation, which are further taken up by politicians. Basing an issue on unscientific foundations makes it void per se.
Polar bears and coral can be measured fairly well and neither are suffering as claimed by the pressure groups.
There is plenty of data showing any warming releases CO2 from the ocean and thus is a symptom of warming, not a cause.
Similar warming can be found throughout the solar system, the one common element being the solar part.
----------------------------

Taken as a whole, how is it possible to say anything decisive about the hitherto unknown results of a 50% plus increase in CO2 while all else stayed as before? In fact without a scientific control, ie an identical planet with no CO2 increase, anything else would only be supposition and speculation. Furthermore when an experiment is half run, ie a doubling of CO2, and no moisture or other mechanism causing positive feedback has been seen to be present. The figures are constantly disputed, many equally qualified scientists offer contradictory positions yet are treated as if they do not exist, or worse still incompetent or dishonest. Yet why should one scientist be any more correct than another until the situation plays out to the end? Given so many measurements are either adjusted before release or altered long since, if you were in a hospital or business with such variations you'd either risk dying or losing your money. Why should standards be any lower just because there is no direct loss from errors?

I will keep editing this until it is completed.