Global Warming (now AKA 'Climate change').

I've been watching the issue of Global Warming with interest, and I've tried to keep an open mind. (Why is it now called 'Climate Change instead?).

The first thing that worried me was the lack of easily accessible basic data. It wasn't referenced in most of the sites I found, and I feel that it should be. If the Al Gores, Nicholas Sterns, and Tim Flannerys of the debate (who are NOT Climatologists), have seen data which convinces them, surely then that same data should be available to, should convince an objective viewer. Instead, we are often told that "the science is settled", accept that and act from there.

Well, after some research, I found the base data, the basic measurements that the debate centers on. The 4 main meeasurement nodes being; The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction (UK Met Office), data here; NASA's GISS (Goddard Institute), data here; UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville), (data) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems), (data).

When I look at that base data, graphed (a picture is worth a thousand words), I find things like this;

(Sourced from http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months)

and this;

(Sourced from http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months)

Now if you wade through the pinnacle of GW reports, the UN IPCC this 'Summary for policymakers' available here shows this graph (as close to a summary graphic as I could find);

(Sourced from http://www.ipcc.ch/press/index.htm and reproduced for the purposes of reporting, research, study and review under Copyright protection exception provisions)

Which shows a steep and continuing rise in global temperatures. The noticeable difference is that the real world (per the measured data in the first 2 graphs), and the IPCC modelling haven't agreed with each other since about 2001 at least. That started me thinking, and looking.

When I searched, I found some excellent articles, like this one;

"I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting..., ...When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects...".
"...But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"...".

"The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever...."

The Australian, David Evans, 18 July 2008

And when you keep looking, you find sites like this one, (a computer programmer and 'Green' who makes a point of just presenting the data), and this one which provides "A Critical Examination of Climate Change". It also provides numerous links of interest.

You note the IPCC report says things like;

"...Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade..."

And yet you can go to sites like this (University of Illonois Cryosphere webpage) and compare satellite photos of Arctic ice extent which tells a different story - at least since 2007 when things chilled substantially (and you can plug in your own dates as verification). Also, Antarctic - Southern Hemisphere ice is increasing!

(This site has been tracking all the things they say are caused by Climate change - quite a list - who would have thunk?).

This article asks "if their case is so good, why try so fervently to extinguish other points of view?". Good question. (I'll add to this in coming days). Suffice it to say, the more I read, the more tending towards the sceptical I am becoming.