SeaLevel.info

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resources - Table of Contents:

1. Tools & site-search
2. References
3. Sea-level
4. Satellites & sea-level measurement
5. Sea ice, thermal expansion & sea-level
6. North Carolina & sea-level
7. Floods & sea-level
8. Climate Reports
9. Climate cycles
10. Temperatures
11. Greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide & methane
12. Energy
13. Other resources
14. See also: Blogs etc (climate blogs and other climate-related sites)

 

 

Resources

• Tools:
  • See the Sealevel.info Data page for sea-level analysis and graphing tools.
  • Google site search on sealevel.info: Search
  • Google site search on WUWT: Search
  • Google site search on PSMSL: Search
  • Google site search on NOAA CO-OPS: Search
  • Leo Goldstein's Climate Search Engine:
  • WebPlotDigitizer is an excellent free tool for digitizing graphs.
  • Wood for Trees: Paul Clark's very useful web site for analysis and interactive graphing of climate temperature data.↑
  • Dr. Kevin Cowtan of U. of York has a temperature graphing tool which is similar to WoodForTrees. In May, 2015 he also released a tool for graphing GHCN temperatures (with the in-your-face offensive name, “DENIAL101x temperature tool”), and usage instructions on the SkS blog. ↑
  • NOAA NCDC “Climate at a Glance” tool for graphing climate data for any U.S. State: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
  • There's a lot of climate data available from the KNMI Climate Explorer. ↑
  • Norwegian environmentlist Jan Kjetil Andersen has created an environmental analysis site, csens.org, which includes some sea-level tools. ↑
• References:
  • Glossary - ordered for readability
  • Glossary - ordered alphabetically
  • The "Dictionary of the Climate Debate" (DCD) is the most comprehensive glossary I've found of climate-related terminology.
  • WUWT also has a glossary, and a collection of book reviews.
  • NOAA's Tides and Currents Glossary is a very comprehensive glossary of the terminology used on their tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov web site.
  • The AMS has a huge glossary of meteorology & climate.
  • The BBC has a short climate change glossary.
  • The EPA also has a glossary.
  • So does the IPCC (in five languages), and they have a glossary and a long list of the acronyms used in AR5.
  • Common conversion factors for water, air, ice and sea-level, will help you answer questions like these:
    Q: “if a cubic mile of ice from the Greenland Ice Sheet melts and runs into the ocean, by how much will it raise worldwide average sea-level?” (A: 0.0106 mm)
    Q: “if a gigatonne of CO₂ is added to the atmosphere, by how much will it affect average atmospheric CO₂ levels?” (A: 0.124 ppmv)
  • Statistics: confidence intervals explained, and how to calculate composite standard deviations. ↑
  • Books: I am grateful to Peter F. Gill and Roger Helmer, MEP for this list of recommended books about climatology, from generally skeptical perspectives. ↑
• Sea-level:
  • Are you unsure of exactly what “sea-level” means? The MinutePhysics guy, Henry Reich, explains it nicely in this 3½ minute YouTube video: 
    What is Sea Level?.   (It's more complex than you probably think.) ↑
  • The NOAA sea-level data portal has a useful collection of links to several sea-level data collections. (NASA also has a new sea-level portal, but theirs is an “educational” page, devoted mostly to politicized climate propaganda, rather than real data.)
  • The most important thing that everyone should know about climate change and sea-level is that there's been no detectable sustained acceleration (increase) in the rate of sea-level rise in over 85 years. All around the world, the best sea-level measurements all show the same thing: an almost perfectly linear trend. Sea-level is rising no faster now, with CO₂ at 0.040% of the atmosphere, than it was when CO2 was less than 0.031% of the atmosphere, in the early 1930s, during the Great Depression. 
    There are about sixty good-quality, century-long records of sea-level around the world. A couple of them extend back more than 200 years. 
    Due to differences in local factors (primarily vertical land motion), the rates of sea-level change vary greatly between those locations. Some are recording falling sea-level, and more are recording rising sea-level; the average is slightly rising. 
    But they all show the same thing w/r/t accel­er­a­tion: none of them have meas­ured a statistically significant increase in the rate of sea-level rise in over 85 years. At most locations it's been more than a century since the rate of sea-level rise meas­ur­ably increased. 
    Since atmospheric GHG (mainly CO₂) levels have been increasing substantially for about seventy years, mostly because of fossil fuel use, the lack of acceleration in sea-level rise over that period means that anthropogenic GHG emissions have not detectably affected sea-level. 
    The sealevel.info data page has measurement data in spreadsheets, with links to graphs. ↑
  • Sea-level is not rising everywhere. The measured rate of coastal sea-level change varies from -17.59 mm/yr at Skagway, Alaska to +9.39 mm/yr at Kushiro, Japan. The average, calculated from measurements by the world's best long-term coastal tide gauges, is rising just under +1.5 mm/yr (about 6 inches per century).
  • Zervas, C. (2009), NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 053, Sea Level Variations of the United States, 1854 - 2006, is a great resource with in-depth information about determination of sea-level trends from tide gauge measurement records.
  • NOAA CO-OPS: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.shtml
  • PSMSL: http://www.psmsl.org/ (Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level) global repository for long-term sea-level data
  • GLOSS (Global Sea Level Observing System): http://www.gloss-sealevel.org/
  • GLOSS 1997 Implementation Plan Annex IV GLOSS-LTT station list
  • GOSIC: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gosic (or old version, or older version).
  • The Sea Level Station Monitoring Facility of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC-UNESCO) provides information about the operational status of global and regional networks of real time sea level stations, and links to many national data authorities. ↑
  • University of Hawaii Sea Level Center: http://uhslc.soest.hawaii.edu/ (and old site).
  • JASL: http://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/uhslc/jasl.html (and data). ↑
  • List of old-style PSMSL coast/country codes and station names (or here).
  • List of NOAA tide stations, "stations with verified data" & "complete index."
  • List of PSMSL Authorities and country/station codes.
  • NOAA's list of  45  129  U.S. tide stations for which NOAA did long term trend analysis (or new page).
  • NOAA's list of PSMSL (non-U.S.) tide gauges for which NOAA did long term trend analysis (and an old version which also included the 45 U.S. stations).
  • NOAA's GOSIC Sea Level Station List (November 2013), and related documents.
  • A .csv data file received on 2012-07-20 from PSMSL, with the mapping between NOAA's station numbers and PSMSL's.
  • Prof. Richard Peltier's model-derived Glacial Isostatic Adjustment data files, and datasets page. (I saved 2011 versions here; note that the last 3 columns in the .txt files represent 100 years ago ["0.1 kBP"], present, and 100 years hence, respectively, rather than the 250 year intervals used in Prof. Peltier's latest datasets.) ↑
  • Tom Moriarty's collection of sea-level data (and related blog article).
  • ClimateWiki.org has a good overview of the subject of sea-level rise.
  • http://tinyurl.com/rahmstuff has information about the so-called "Rahmstorf Method" of predicting accelerated sea-level rise.
  • Meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet is a significant contributor to sea-level rise, but it is melting very, very slowly. It would take 100-150 centuries for it all to melt, at the current rate, and that rate apparently has not increased substantially in the last 85 years. (If it had increased then sea-level rise would have accelerated, which has not happened.) 
    It is known that during the MWP (circa 900-1300 AD) Greenland was significantly warmer than it currently is, apparently without causing notable global sea-level rise. One of the ways we know that Greenland was warmer then is that the Norsemen who colonized Greenland's coasts grew barley there, and it is too cold to grow barley there now, even with modern, quick-maturing cultivars. ↑
  • Antarctica's ice sheets are very stable. Ice accumulation and loss are very, very close to being in exact balance there. 
    Based on GRACE, Shepherd 2012 concluded that Antarctica ice mass change since 1992 has averaged -71 ±83 Gt/yr, which means they couldn't tell whether it's gaining or losing ice mass. Based on ICESat, Zwally 2012 found that Antarctica is gaining ice mass: +27 to +59 Gt/yr (averaged over five years), or +70 to +170 Gt/yr (averaged over 19 years). Based on CryoSat, McMillan (2014) found Antarctica is losing 79 to 241 Gt/yr of ice, though that's based on only 3 years of data. More recently, a NASA study in Dec. 2015 reported that Antarctica is gaining 82 ±25 Gt of ice per year. 
    The range from those various studies, with error bars, is from +170 Gt/yr to -241 Gt/yr, which is equivalent to just -0.47 to +0.67 mm/yr sea-level change. That's equivalent to less than 3 inches of sea-level change per century. 
    In other words, although we don't know whether Antarctica is gaining or losing ice, we do know the rate, either way, is so tiny that it's having a negligible effect on sea-level. ↑
  • The effect of meltwater from grounded ice on sea-level is more complex than you might expect. 
    If grounded ice melts and the meltwater finds its way into the ocean, of course it raises average global sea-level. But it also slightly changes the mass distribution on the Earth's surface, which changes local gravity fields, which changes the distribution of water in the oceans, and has uneven regional effects on sea-level. 
    Suppose, for example, that a substantial amount of ice were to melt from the Greenland Ice Sheet, and run into the ocean. The gravitational attraction by which the ice sheet attracts the surrounding ocean would be reduced, which would cause the ocean to recede in the vicinity of Greenland. It has been calculated by people who presumably know what they're talking about that in the vicinity of Greenland (and apparently as far away as parts of Europe) this effect would exceed the rise in sea-level due to water added to the ocean, so that sea-level at Greenland and the surrounding region would actually fall, rather than rise, as the ice sheet melted. 
    But that water which flows away from Greenland would also add to sea-level elsewhere, causing sea-level elsewhere around the globe to rise a bit faster than you would expect from a simple calculation from the amount of water added to the ocean. 
    Here's a short video from Boston University's Maureen Raymo, explaining it. 
    Additionally, the weight of the Greenland ice sheet on the ground beneath would be reduced, so the ground would then slowly rebound upward ("post-glacial rebound"), which would cause the sea-level at Greenland to continue to fall (or to rise at a reduced rate) for thousands of years into the future. That rebound (PGR) would, in turn, also change the gravity field, and thus the water distribution in the oceans, which would presumably reduce the rate of local sea-level fall near Greenland. 
    Harvard's Jerry Mitrovica explains it in greater detail here (after unfortunately spending 13½ minutes bludgeoning straw men, and just before erroneously conflating tide gauge and satellite data). Unfortunately, the video's owners are censoring commentary on YouTube. They “fake-approved” but hid ("ghosted") my critique. ↑
  • That lack of acceleration in sea-level rise is despite the fact that there are two anthropogenic factors, unrelated to climate, which should have been expected to cause a slight acceleration in sea-level rise: reservoir impoundment (which peaked with the filling of the reservoir behind the Aswan High Dam in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and has slowed since then), and groundwater extraction (which has accelerated). Both of those should have caused an increase in the rate of sea-level rise over the last 40 years. The fact that the rate of sea-level rise has nevertheless failed to increase at all suggests that the aggregate melt-water contribution to sea-level rise is slowing slightly, rather than increasing. ↑
• Satellites & sea-level measurement:
  • Aviso's satellite altimetry sea level data, notes, and graph (and old version, and criticism of their dramatic revisions to the ENVISAT data [alt] [2]). ↑
  • Univ. of Colorado Sea Level Research Group, Aviso and NOAA all have groups working on sea-level measurement by satellite altimetry. 
    Note: Even though the satellite measurements show no acceleration in sea-level rise, changes in how the satellite data is processed and adjusted have substantially increased the amount of sea-level rise which U. Colorado reports. There are many different factors which can affect reported trends, but which are difficult to ascertain with certainty, and are subject to substantial and often mysterious corrections. This article & discussion at WUWT explain it. (h/t Steve Case) ↑
    
  • Unfortunately, measurement of sea-level by satellite altimetry is unreliable. Physicist Willie Soon explains the problems starting at 17:37 in this very informative hour-long lecture. ↑
  • To address some of these problems, in 2011 NASA proposed (and re-proposed in 2014 / 2015) a new mission called the Geodetic Reference Antenna in SPace (GRASP). The proposal is discussed here, and its implications for measuring sea-level are discussed here. The Europeans are apparently considering a similar mission (E-GRASP). ↑
  • DORIS (Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite) is a Doppler satellite tracking system for determining satellite locations. ↑
  • NOAAs National Geodetic Survey CORS program (Continuously Operating Reference Stations) provides satellite-based 3D positional data, measuring subsidence, uplift, and lateral movement of the Earth's surface at more than 1,900 locations. Here's a map showing the station locations: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS_Map/. ↑
  • SONEL GPS stations, and vertical land motion (VLM) estimates, and tide-gauge data. ↑
• Sea ice, thermal expansion & sea-level:
  • When the den­sity of water de­creas­es, due to either warm­ing or freez­ing, its vol­ume in­creases. That's called “ther­­mal expan­sion” or “therm­o­steric expan­sion.” This phot­o­graph shows an exam­ple of locally elevated sea-level due to therm­o­steric expan­sion. 
    Contrary to a wide­spread mis­con­cep­tion, sea-level rise due to thermal expansion does not neces­sar­ily affect sea-level at the shore­lines, nor any­where else, except locally, where the expan­sion occurs. Changes in the density of the upper layer of the deep ocean produce sea-level change which is strictly local, because gravity balances mass, not volume. It can affect sea-level meas­ure­ments taken via satel­lite altim­etry, but it does not affect the coasts, and should not be included in sea-level estimates used for coastal planning. ↑
  • Floating sea ice does not directly affect coastal sea levels, so the much-ballyhooed Arctic ice extent is unimportant w/r/t sea-level. But if you're curious about sea ice trends, you can see them graphed on the U. Illinois Cryosphere Today site. Sea ice extent in each hemisphere varies drastically by season, but the global total is always between 14 and 24 million square kilometers, with hardly any significant long-term trend (though climate alarmists often predict an imminent dramatic decline [or 2]). 
    1/22/2017 UPDATE: 2016 saw a sudden decline in reported global sea ice extent, which occurred coincidentally with the demise of the DMSP F17 & F19 satellites that were measuring it. Because of that timing, I'm skeptical that the decline is real, but “hardly any significant trend” is not a proper description for 2016's reported sea ice extent numbers. 
    Globally, sea-ice can only indirectly affect sea-level (slightly), by affecting snowfall. When sea ice coverage goes down, evaporation from the ocean increases, which causes increased "lake/ocean-effect" snow deposition on ice sheets and glaciers, increasing grounded ice mass, and decreasing sea-level. ↑
  • The details of how sea ice extent is counted can have a large effect on the reported trends. (h/t Ron Clutz) ↑
  • Denmark's Meteorologiske Institut (DMI) has had a graph comparing the current year to the preceding ten years' "30%+" Arctic sea ice extent, with coastal zones masked out, by graphing each year in a different color on the same horizontal timescale. They also have a graph comparing the current year to the preceding four years' "15%+" Arctic sea ice extent. In both graphs, the current (partial) year is graphed with a heavier black line. 
    As of January 2016, depending on which graph you chose, you can could "prove" that Arctic sea ice extent is either the highest (in the "30%+" graph) it's been in the last eleven years, or the nearly the lowest (in the "15%+" graph) it's been in the last five years. 
    Update: On 2016-02-18 DMI discontinued the "30%+" version, which had showed high recent Arctic ice extents. The differing trends were apparently due to a technical problem with the "30%+" version. ↑
  • The University of Illinois has a graph of global sea ice extent starting in 1979; click on it for the full-sized, updated version: 
    
    Note:  due to the demise of the DMSP F17 & F19 satellites, U. Illinois sea ice extent data since March, 2016 is degraded.
  • The NSIDC also has graphs of Arctic & Southern Ocean sea ice extent, and the MASIE (Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent) product (though currently only for the Arctic). 
    As of May, 2016, the NSIDC has switched to using the DMSP F18 satellite for their sea ice data (though only 10 of 24 SSMIS channels are still functional on that satellite), due to the failures of the F19 & F17 satellites in February & April, respectively. ↑
  • Unfortunately, graphs of sea ice which start with 1979, like the U. Illinois sea ice graph, are somewhat misleading, because 1979 was a peak year for Arctic sea ice extent (though not Southern Ocean sea ice extent). The 1990 IPCC FAR reported on p.224 that: 
      “...satellite observations have been used to map sea-ice extent routinely since the early 1970s. ... Since about 1976 the areal extent of sea-ice in the Northern Hemisphere has varied about a constant climatological level but in 1972-1975 sea-ice extent was significantly less. In the Southern Hemisphere since about 1981, sea-ice extent has also varied about a constant level. Between 1973 and 1980 there were periods of several years when Southern Hemisphere sea-ice extent was either appreciably more than or less than that typical in the 1980s.” 
    The units in that FAR graph are millions of sq-km, but they used an ice concentration threshold of 10%, rather than the 15% which is more common today (which makes the FAR ice extent numbers a bit larger). The 1979 peak appears to represent a growth of somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0 million sq-km over five years. For comparison, since the 1980s it appears that Arctic ice extent maximums have declined about 1 million sq-km, and minimums by about twice that. So it appears that at least half of the current over-hyped decline in Arctic sea ice is due to the anomalous 1979 starting point. 
    Recent research suggests that the late 1970s growth in Arctic sea ice had probably been ongoing since the early 1950s, and that the increase in Arctic sea ice over the third quarter of the 20th century was as large as the decrease in sea ice over the subsequent thirty years. 
    The IPCC's 1995 SAR also mentioned the early (pre-1979) satellite meas­ure­ments (WGI p.150), but more recent IPCC Assessment Reports do not. 
    1979 was the beginning of sea ice measurements by the Nimbus 7 satellite.  NASA has apparently lost the earlier sea ice measurements, from Nimbus 5, Nimbus 6, and Seasat 1. The most important pre-1979 data are from Nimbus 5, the first satellite with a scanning microwave radiometer which could view ice through clouds. It collected data from December 11, 1972 through May 16, 1977.
    Correction (2016-01-10): This NASA page says, "This [Nimbus 5 sea ice] data set is available from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, (NSIDC)." On the NCIDC site, we find the Nimbus Data Rescue Project, which has recovered some previously lost data from Nimbus 1, 2 & 3, some of it very recently. That's great news! For Nimbus 5, NSIDC has sea-ice concentration data through December 1976 available for download, and associated documentation. I don't know what happened to the 1977 data, and I don't know why the last three IPCC Assessment Reports have not utilized the 1973-1976 data. ↑
• North Carolina sea-level:
  • NC-20.com is an organization representing the twenty coastal North Carolina counties. The sealevel.info webmaster, Dave Burton, is one of several NC-20 Science Advisors. ↑
  • The 2010-2012 North Carolina sea-level fight: In 2010 the NC DCM's Coastal Resources Commission (old) (CRC) Science Panel on Coastal Hazards (old) produced a severely-flawed "Assessment Report" (alt) projecting wildly accelerated sea-level rise, to justify potentially ruinous regulatory changes for NC's coastal communities. That Report prompted critiques from physicist John Droz (part 1 and part 2), sealevel.info webmaster Dave Burton (here), and others. Burton also discussed the Report in this lecture at the John Locke Foundation. 
    In April 2012, the CRC Science Panel issued an Addendum (alt) to their 2010 Report, defending the Report's conclusions even while abandoning its key claim that the rate of sea-level rise has accelerated. Six of the Report's authors also issued a separate defense of the Report, which doubled down on its errors. 
    The NC General Assembly then enacted a new law, HB-819, by lopsided margins, requiring further study of the issue before imposing regulations. 
    HB-819 was harshly criticized by Climate Movement activists like Duke University's Bill Chameides, who claimed that it was a bill to "mandate how much sea level will rise," and said that it legislates "how much sea level rise is lawfully allowable." Those false accusations prompted this rebuttal from sealevel.info webmaster Burton. 
    Physicist John Droz has compiled a very useful Timeline/History of the kerfuffle over sea-level rise in North Carolina. 
    The CRC Science Panel's final 2015 Report is vastly improved from the 2010 version, but still has some problems. ↑
  • NCDENR: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/cm/sea-level-rise (or old version)
  • www.ncsealevelrise.com: NC Sea Level Rise Impact Study; the webmaster here, Dave Burton, is on their Advisory Committee.
  • nccoos.org: North Carolina Coastal Ocean Observing System.
  • ncfloodmaps.com: North Carolina Floodplain Mapping System.
  • The State Climate Office of North Carolina is hosted by NCSU, in Raleigh. ↑
  • December 2, 2016 — North Carolina's top environmental official, DEQ Secretary Don van der Vaart, has written two excellent letters about the role and policies of the EPA, which are worth your time to read. The first, which was also signed by the top environmental officials of four other States, was to President-elect Donald Trump. The second was to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. ↑
• Floods & sea-level:
  • The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Act of 2012 mandates that FEMA create new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) which incorporate climate science and sea-level rise projections.
  • FEMA National Flood Insurance Program: Flood Hazard Mapping.
  • FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program Community Status Book, including State-by-State lists of FEMA's six-digit "Community Numbers" (a/k/a "Community Identification Number," "Community ID," or "CID").
• Climate Reports:
  • IPCC.ch is the web site of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC"), the embattled flagship Climate Movement institution, which has produced five Assessment Reports on climate change, to date. (The sealevel.info webmaster, Dave Burton, was an IPCC AR5 WGI Expert Reviewer.) 
    Unfortunately, the IPCC has very serious credibility issues. Investigative journalist Donna Laframboise explains the problems in this enlightening lecture: 
    Why almost nothing you know about the IPCC is true. 
    (It's 31 minutes long, but, to her credit, Ms. Laframboise speaks so clearly that she's perfectly understandable if you play the video at 1.5x or even 2x speed, which will reduce the playing time to as little as 15½ minutes.) 
    Ms. Laframboise has also written a highly-acclaimed book. ↑
  • nipccreport.org is the web site of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). They've produced a series of climate reports by teams of distinguished scientists, in response to the IPCC's reports.↑
  • The 2014 National Climate Assessment Report is a detailed statement of the Obama Administration's official position on climate issues, though President Obama's former Undersecretary for Science, Steven Koonin, has since admitted to being somewhat of a skeptic.[2] ↑
  • The Republican Staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works has released a series of 39(!) (and counting) excellent white papers and other documents, including the definitive report on the UEA CRU's leaked “ClimateGate” emails: 'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (Feb. 23, 2010). It is 73 pages long, plus 10 pages of footnotes with hyperlinks. 
    Three years later they released a 23-page follow-up report, Critical Thinking on Climate Change (July 18, 2013), and year after that they released another 92-page report, The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama's EPA (July 30, 2014).  
    BTW, the Climategate whistleblower did not release only emails (analyzed here by Dr. John Costella). He or she also released a lot of computer source code, and it is just as damning as the emails. Here's a sample. (Also, Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller, a longtime climate alarmist, did a good job of explaining Michael Mann's infamous Climategate “hide the decline” email, in this video.) ↑
  • Environmentalist David Siegel shares "What I Learned about Climate Change." He learned a lot, and so can you. ↑
  • 1974 CIA Report on climate change (or here) entitled, A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems. (Of course, the dreaded climate threat then was global cooling, rather than warming.) ↑
  • In 1975, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a 270-page Climate Report (or here) entitled, Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action. ↑
  • National Geographic, Nov. 1976: What's Happening to Our Climate? ↑
  • University of Oslo climatologist Ole Humlum's Climate4You.com site has a remarkably comprehensive collection of climate information. He's also produced annual climate reports for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 & 2016. ↑
  • The Arctic Council's Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) Report (2005), and AMAP Synthesis Report (2004). ↑
  • In 2009 U.S. EPA economist & physicist Alan Carlin prepared a scathing internal report criticizing the EPA's reliance on outdated IPCC conclusions for its controversial GHG/CO₂ Endangerment Finding in support of the Obama Administration's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The EPA quashed the report, but Carlin was eventually vindicated. See also the 2016 Tropical Hot Spot Research Report. ↑
  • The 2016 Tropical Hot Spot Research Report, by James P. Wallace III, John R. Christy & Joseph S. D'Alero, reports the results of a 2016 investigation into the alleged existence of a so-called “tropical hot spot,” as predicted by GCMs, and used as justification for the EPA's controversial GHG/CO₂ Endangerment Finding. The site hosts pdfs of the Executive Summary and Full Report. See also the 2009 Alan Carlin report. ↑
  • The Grantham Institute in London is one of the more sober climate alarmist institutions. ↑
  • CFACT's 2016 State of the Climate Report is from a skeptical perspective. ↑
  • TheBestSchools.org is hosting an ongoing, in-depth, online debate between two leading figures in the argument over climate change: Prof. David Karoly represents the “alarmist” side. Prof. Will Happer represents the “skeptical” side. Here are the links:
    • FCD Series introduction: The Most Rigorous Debate on Climate Change & Global Warming
    • Introduction: Karoly-Happer Dialogue on Global Warming
    • Alarmist side: Karoly interview
    • Skeptical side: Happer interview
    • Alarmist side: Karoly major statement
    • Skeptical side: Happer major statement
    • 2017-1-21 Update: Dr. Karoly has apparently dropped out, and TheBestSchools.org is running a contest to find someone to replace him in this conversation. ↑
• Climate cycles:
  • Golden Gate Weather Services has a nice graph of ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) history, showing the El Niño (warm) and La Niña (cool) years and intensities. (Click the graph for a full-sized version.) The just-concluded 2015-2016 El Niño closely resembles the 1997-98 El Niño. For much, much more detail, see NOAA's weekly ENSO status report, and the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology's ENSO Wrap-Up page and NINO 3.4 SST Index graph. 
    Australia's NCI (National Computational Infrastructure) Visualisation Team has produced a highly detailed, beautiful animation of the 1997-98 El Niño, and WUWT has a discussion about it. 
    ENSO does not affect long-term sea-level trends, and does not affect properly-calculated globally averaged sea-level. But because it affects Pacific trade winds, it is inversely correlated with sea-level at some Pacific tide gauges, like Kwajalein, in the Marshall Islands (western Pacific), as discussed here and here, and positively correlated with sea-level in the eastern Pacific. ↑
  • Another important but poorly understood climate cycle is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which cycles over approximately 60-70 years. It affects temperatures and sea-levels, mainly in the North Atlantic, and accounts for a small part of the warming seen in the northern hemisphere since the 1970s. Dr. Judith Curry has written a very informative article about it. Its correlation with sea-level is seen most strikingly at Murmansk, on the Barents Sea. ↑
  • The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)[2] is Pacific Ocean climate cycle of approximately 25-50 years duration. There's some discussion on WUWT. ↑
• Temperatures:
  • NASA's GISS works with NCDC to archive and analyze the U.S. Surface Temperature data. Since 1999, wholesale "adjustments" to the old data have added about 0.7 °C (1.26 °F) of warming to the 20^th century's reported temperature trend! GISS has only the latest version on their web site, but I've compiled a collection of historical GISS "Fig.D" data files, back to mid-1999. ↑
  • Anthony Watts' SurfaceStations.org project has definitively demonstrated severe problems with the U.S. surface temperature record, problems which mostly inflate the warming reported. Watts and a small army of volunteers have methodically surveyed and photographed over 1000 USHCN surface temperature measurement stations. A large majority of the stations have major siting problems or other issues. When only high-quality stations are analyzed, 37% of NOAA's claimed U.S. warming trend for the last 30 years disappears. (Discussion here.) ↑
  • SurfaceTemperatures.org is the web site of the International Surface Temperature Initiative, which aims to bring transparency to global surface temperature data. (There's a related article here.) ↑
  • “Averaged” temperature trends are heavily affected by just what is being averaged. For example, when NASA GISS substitutes faster-rising polar land surface temperatures for slower-changing sea-surface temperatures in those regions, it exaggerates the “average” temperature trend. ↑
  • In 1975, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a Report which, among other things, on p. 148 (or p. 172 as Adobe Reader numbers the pages) graphed the sharp decline in Northern Hemisphere temperatures since the 1940s. That cooling trend fueled the 1970s global cooling scare, but most of the decline has been erased by subsequent adjustments to the historical data, which is suspiciously convenient for the global warming alarmist narrative. ↑
  • In Jan.-Feb. 2015 Journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Kevin Cowtan had an argument about NOAA's adjustments to the global land surface temperature record, and sealevel.info webmaster Dave got involved. ↑
  • “Climate Sensitivity” is a measure of the (in)stability of the Earth's temperatures, most commonly defined as the globally averaged temperature increase to be expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (e.g., an increase from 285 ppmv to 570 ppmv, or from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv). (See also TCR and ECS.) 
    If essentially all of the 20^th century's estimated warming is attributed to CO₂ and methane, it would imply a TCR (medium-term) climate sensitivity of 1.84 ±0.11 °C (Barrett) or 1.34 (0.91–2.44) °C (Lewis & Curry 2016). To the extent that the 20^th century's warming was natural, or due to other unaccounted for or underaccounted for anthropogenic forcings, or if the 20^th century's warming has been overestimated, it means that TCR sensitivity is necessarily lower. 
    ECS is defined as either "Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity" (EqCS) or "Effective Climate Sensitivity" (EfCS), two similar measures of very long-term (multiple century) climate sensitivity. Because some climate processes are very slow, ECS is thought to be significantly higher than TCR. I've seen the ECS-to-TCR ratio variously estimated between 1.3:1 and 1.65:1, with 1.5:1 a typical estimate. 
    AR5 estimates ECS sensitivity to be 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C (midrange 3.0 °C), assuming that 100% of the 20th century's warming was due to anthropogenic GHGs. Climate sensitivity estimates in the scientific literature vary wildly, but have generally been declining.[1][2][3] 
    Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels' Feb. 28, 2017 Congressional Testimony included an excellent, in-depth discussion of climate sensitivity. ↑
  • A 2014 paper by LLNL's Ben Santer, et al sought to subtract out the effects of ENSO and the Pinatubo (1991) & El Chichón (1982) volcanic aerosols, from measured (satellite) temperature data, to find the underlying temperature trends. This graph is "Fig. 1c" from that paper; the black line is averaged CMIP5 models, the blue & red are measured temperatures: 
     
    Two things stand out: 
    1. The models run hot. The CMIP5 computer models (the black line) show a lot more warming than the satellites. The models show about 0.65C warming over the 35-year period, but the satellites measured only about half that. And, 
    2. The “pause” in global warming began around 1993. The measured warming is all in the first 14 years (1979-1993). Their graph (with corrections to compensate for both ENSO and volcanic forcings) shows no noticeable warming since then. 
    Note, too, that although the Santer graph still shows an average of almost 0.1°C per decade of warming, that's partially because it starts in 1979. The late 1970s were the frigid end of an extended cooling period in the northern hemisphere, and 1979 was a particularly chilly year, as you can see in this graph of U.S. temperatures, from a 1999 Hansen/NASA paper. 
    The fact that when volcanic aerosols & ENSO are accounted for the models run hot by about a factor of two is evidence that the IPCC's estimates of climate sensitivity are high by about a factor of two, and it suggests that a substantial part, perhaps half, of the global warming since the mid-1800s was natural, rather than anthropogenic. ↑
• Greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide & methane:
  • NOAA has measurement data and graphs of atmospheric carbon dioxide & methane trends at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, where CO₂ has been precisely and continuously measured by modern spec­tros­copy since March, 1958, and CH₄ since 1984. Outdoor CO₂ levels there average about 400 ppmv, and are increasing by about 2 ppmv/year. (Indoor CO₂ levels are typically much higher.) 
    Prior to 1958, CO₂ measurements (by chemical methods) are generally thought to have been less reliable (and were certainly less consistent) than modern spectrographic measurements, but modern measurements of CO₂ levels in “old air” samples trapped in tiny bubbles in Antarctic ice cores give fairly consistent results (though reliably dating those measurements is more challenging).[1] [2] [3] ↑
  • Contrary to a widespread Internet hoax, volcanoes contribute a negligible amount of CO₂ to the atmosphere, compared to human emissions, on human time scales. (On geological time scales it's a different matter.) 
    In a graph of CO₂ levels, you can't even see the increase in measured CO₂ levels far away from a volcano, not even from the enormous 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption, and certainly not from Mt. Etna. 
    In fact, the opposite is true. A temporary reduction in the growth rate of atmospheric CO₂ was noticeable over the 2 to 3 years following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, perhaps because particulates ejected by the eruption cooled the planet, which temporarily increased CO₂ absorption by the oceans (because gases like CO₂ dissolve more readily in cool water than in warmer water), and/or perhaps because iron and other minerals in the volcanic ash fertilized the ocean and thereby increased CO₂ uptake by ocean biota (Sarmiento, 1993). 
    Most scientists estimate that mankind's CO₂ emissions from burning fossil fuels and making concrete are more than 100 times as large as CO₂ emissions from all volcanoes (though estimates of CO₂ emissions from submarine volcanoes are very rough guesses, and some geologists — notably Ian Plimer — think they are badly underestimated). 
    The good news is that's not a problem. Just the opposite, in fact. Read on... ↑
  • CO₂ levels elevated to more than eight times the current average ambient out­door level of 400 ppmv (0.04%) are harm­less to humans and animals. NASA kept the at­mos­phere in the Space Shuttle at about 5000 ppmv (0.5%) CO₂. The air in the Inter­na­tional Space Station is kept at about 4 mm Hg = 5400 ppmv (0.54%) CO₂, though one study rec­o­mmends that they lower that to 2.5 mm Hg = 3300 ppmv. CO₂ levels in sub­ma­rines are often even higher. ↑
  • But it has long been known that elevated CO₂ levels are highly bene­ficial to plants. That's why most com­mer­cial green­houses use CO2 gen­er­a­tors to keep CO₂ at 3x to 4x ambient levels, at sig­nif­i­cant expense. That's an increase 8 to 12 times as great as the ~100 ppmv increase which ⅔ century of heavy fossil fuel use has caused in outdoor levels. Greenhouse operators spend the money to keep CO₂ levels that high because doing so dramatically improves the growth of most plants. 
    In 1920 it was reported by Sci­en­tific Amer­i­can (and re-reported else­where) that experiments with carbon dioxide enrichment showed that CO₂ from blast furnace exhaust gas could be used to increase various crop yields by from 100% to 300%. Scientific American called CO₂ “the precious air fertilizer.” Crops tested included tomatoes, spinach, castor oil plants, potatoes, lupines, and barley. 
    Conversely, low CO₂ concentrations are very detrimental to plants, and levels which stay below about 150 ppmv threaten the viability of C3 plants. 
    That's one of the reasons that 20^th century global warming has been accompanied by dramatic improve­ments in agricultural productivity. 
    Extra CO₂ also makes plants more drought resistant and water-efficient, by improving stomatal conductance relative to transpiration, which is especially helpful in arid regions. (Google finds many articles about it.) When air passes through plant stomata (pores), two things happen: the plant absorbs CO₂, and the plant loses water through transpiration. When CO₂ levels are higher, the ratio of CO₂ absorbed to water lost improves, which improves both plant growth and drought resistance. The plants also commonly respond to elevated CO₂ by reducing the density of the stomata in their leaves, which reduces water loss. As a result, some of the world's deserts and near-deserts are greening. 
    Recent research indicates that elevated CO₂ even helps salt marshes resist encroachment by rising sea-level, because the extra CO₂ helps the vegetation grow faster. 
    Hundreds of other studies confirm that elevated CO₂ levels are highly beneficial to almost all plants, and experimental evidence suggests that many of those studies underestimate the benefit. 
    Prof. Freeman Dyson, America's most illustrious living physicist (who took over Albert Einstein's old job at Princeton), says, "It's certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation. About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO₂ we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it's a real plus to burn coal and oil." ↑
  • Princeton atmospheric physicist Prof. William Happer is a friend and colleague of Prof. Freeman Dyson. He is one of the world's leading experts on the absorption & emission spectra, mechanisms, and warming effect of CO₂. In 2014 he gave a very informative lecture as part of the UNC Physics Colloquium series. Unfortunately, no video recording was made, but I made an audio recording, and he kindly sent me his slides, which I combined with the audio recording to make a video. 
    In 2016 he had a delightful and very informative conversation with TheBestSchools.org, which is well worth reading; a couple of months later he wrote a follow-up article. ↑
  • Additional CO₂ has a diminishing warming effect on temperatures, due to saturation of CO₂'s main IR absorption bands. MODTRAN calculates that about 20 ppmv (and the NCAR Radiation Code calculates 40 ppmv) of CO₂ would generate fully half the warming produced by current levels (about 400 ppmv). 
    It is usually calculated that doubling atmospheric CO₂ (e.g., an increase from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv) would be a climate “forcing” equivalent to about a 3.7 W/m² increase in TSI, or perhaps a bit less, before feedbacks, though Prof. Happer has found evidence that CO₂'s forcing is commonly overestimated by about 40%. ↑
  • Barrett Bellamy Climate has a wealth of authoritative, in-depth information about how CO₂ and other GHGs affect climate. ↑
  • Methane (CH₄) is also a greenhouse gas, but the warming effect of anthropogenic methane is slight. 
    There's only about 1.8 ppmv of methane in the atmosphere. A “big” increase in methane levels might be on the order of +0.1 or +0.2 ppmv (i.e, from 1.8 to 1.9 or 2.0 ppmv). The warming potential of methane is estimated to be about 45 times that of CO₂, so increasing CH₄ by 0.1 ppmv would warm the planet about as much as a 4.5 ppmv (= ~1.1%) increase in CO₂ — i.e., negligible. 
    What's more, the effect of a spike in methane levels would be very transient, because even if you don't burn it, methane in the atmosphere oxidizes with a half-life of only about 6–8 years, into minute amounts of CO₂ and water:  CH₄ + 2·O₂ → CO₂ + 2·H₂O ↑
  • 31,487 American scientists (including sealevel.info webmaster Dave Burton, and including engineers in relevant specialties) have signed the Global Warming Petition, signifying our agreement with this statement: 
    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” ↑
  • The EC Joint Research Centre's Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) has estimated anthropogenic carbon dioxide and overall GHG emissions by country. ↑
  • CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) cdiac.esd.ornl.gov is part of the U.S. Department of Energy. ↑
• Energy:
  • Energy Citizens lobbies in the USA for sound energy policies.
  • PTCfacts.info is a site about the (problems with) Wind Production Tax Credits.
  • North Carolina Energy Coalition, sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute (now defunct).
  • AdvancedEnergyForLife.com is an excellent site by coal producer Peabody Energy, which has an interesting graph showing the correlation between the size of the world's economy and the use of coal to produce electricity.
  • Does fracking cause earthquakes? Climatologist Anthony Watts examines the evidence.
  • Roger Andrews' & Euan Mearns' “Energy Matters” blog is excellent. ↑
     
• This is a classic 1965 educational film from Encyclopedia Britannica Films and the American Geological Institute, courtesy of the LSU Center for GeoInformatics: 
  Beach: A River of Sand. 
  It explains how sand beaches are affected by manmade structures and the forces of nature. (Note: It is 20 minutes long at normal speed, but I preferred watching it sped up to 1.5x normal.) ↑
• Also from LSU is this informative 2011 lecture by the late Roy K. Dokka: 
  D1S2 Roy Dokka: Subsidence. 
  Subsidence, rather than global sea-level rise, is the main factor affecting many coasts, especially the U.S. Gulf Coast. 
  Note: this lecture is 36 minutes long, but Dr. Dokka spoke very slowly and clearly, so you can save a lot of time by speeding it up to 1.5x or even 2x speed. That works if you view it with an HTML5-capable browser, like Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, or Edge. It works in Internet Explorer 11, too, if using HTML5 to play the video, but not when using FlashPlayer. ↑
• The Heartland Institute is one of the world's finest public policy think tanks, and they've compiled an impressive collection of information about the December, 2015 COP-21 Paris climate conference, here: https://www.heartland.org/Cop21M/
• James Hansen is an extreme climate catastrophist, representing the far Left wing of the Climate Movement. While it is tempting to dismiss him as a kook, he does sometimes have interesting things to say. He and his colleague, Makiko Sato, have a small web site entitled, Updating the Climate Science. ↑
• Estimates of "climate sensitivity" have been decreasing. Unfortunately, the IPCC is slow to notice it. ↑
• “Feedbacks” are central to the climate debate, especially w/r/t how they affect climate sensitivity.
• The U.S. Department of Energy runs the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility (ARM).
• British Oceanographic Data Centre: http://www.bodc.ac.uk/ and NTSLF.
• OOPC is the "Ocean Observations Panel for Climate;" their web site is
  http://ioc-goos-oopc.org
• The WMO in Geneva hosts the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), and links to other climate-related data.
• IOOS: http://www.ocean.us/ocean_us_mission (archive of defunct site).
• MODTRAN, NCAR and other models are on-line at Univ. Chicago: http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/modtran_form.html
  http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/modtran.orig.html
  http://forecast.uchicago.edu/models.html
  http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/
  (see also the AER Radiative Transfer Working Group web site)
• Principles of Forecasting are highly applicable to climatology (but widely ignored). ↑
• Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller has an interesting website, speech and slide presentation entitled, "The Colder Side of Global Warming," which you can view here: 
  The Colder Side of Global Warming (or starting at 46:20 in this longer video). ↑
• Meteorologist Joe Bastardi has written many insightful essays about weather and climate.
• Annular modes are meteorolgical phenomena which might also have significant long term climate effects. Google finds much more information. ↑
• ScienceUnderAssault.info is a site about the corruption of science; see also the "science (is a mess)" section of this web site.
• Some scientists have speculated that anthropogenic warming could cause an increase in the frequency and/or intensity of “extreme weather” events, like hurricanes and tornadoes. However, that has not happened, thus far. Here are some graphs:
  http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png
  http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png
  http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png 
  Climatologist James Hansen claimed on p.250 of his 2009 book that during global warming melting ice sheets will keep the oceans cool at extreme latitudes, while the tropics warm due to GHGs, with the result that the “increasing temperature gradient is going to drive stronger storms.” However, these days “everybody knows” the opposite: that “Polar Amplification” (first speculated by Arrhenius in the 19^th century) is expected to cause temperatures to rise faster at higher latitudes. Many scientists also believe that non-linear negative feedbacks limit warming in the tropics. Yet I have never heard Hansen, nor any other climate alarmist, speculate that the reduced temperature gradient might reduce extreme weather. ↑
• The Copenhagen Consensus is a project of Danish environmentalist and “global prioritizer” Bjørn Lomborg and a long list of distinguished associates.
• “Follow the money!” The best scientific evidence indicates that anthropogenic climate change is modest and benign, and no threat to anyone, but that hasn't stopped its promoters from basing a large family of big industries on it. Government-mandated renewable energy, “green” products, “Climate Change Consulting,” and inflated reinsurance for hypothetical climate risks are draining taxpayers' & consumers' pockets all over the world, to the eye-popping tune of $1.5 trillion per year. ↑
• Leading companies in the reinsurance industry, like Munich Re and Risk Management Solutions (RMS), are major supporters of the most extreme climate alarmists. It's easy to see why: dire forecasts of climate-related catastrophes are money in the bank for these companies, because they're used to justify huge rate increases, and the more those forecasts diverge from reality the more money the re-insurers make. ↑
• Willis Eschenbach applied the Rahmstorf “semi-empirical modeling” approach to temperature data, and, voilà! 
  “Here you go, it's the secret of climate that we've searched for so long,” writes Willis. “Only problem? …” 
  Willis makes a great point about a very common scientific pitfall. Can you guess what the “problem” is? 
  No? Here's a clue:
  http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations ↑
• NOAA has many climate-related datasets. Unfortunately, NOAA works to prevent routine archiving of their data, to impede comparisons between versions. ↑
• The USGS has created a "Sea-level rise modeling handbook," as a resource guide for coastal land managers. (I'm not impressed by it, though. -DB)
• Over 3,500 Argo floats are constantly measuring the ocean temperature and salinity. Some of the floats also have other sensors. The Global Marine Argo Atlas is free software that you can download and run on your own computer, to examine Argo data. ↑
• BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management) boem.gov
• NOIA (National Ocean Industries Association) noia.org
• Sea level data set to music. Yeah, that's right. By Tom Moriarty.
• Clouds are the elephant in the climate living room. They're obviously extremely important, but they're very poorly understood. High, whispy cirrus clouds have a warming effect, because they are made of ice crystals, which makes them much more nearly opaque to outgoing longwave infrared than to incoming visible and near-IR solar radiation. Lower clouds, which are made of liquid water droplets, have a strong cooling effect in daytime, but a warming effect at night. The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) studied cloud data from satellites between 1983 and 2009, but how clouds are affected by warming or cooling climate is very complex; for instance, see this next item: ↑
• The Sun seems to be entering a "quiet" phase, similar to the Maunder and Dalton Minimums during the Little Ice Age, contrary to NASA's 2006 (and most other) predictions.  
  NOAA maintains a handy graph of sunspot numbers, updated monthly. Also, Belgian astronomer Jan Janssens has a wealth of information about the current solar cycle and related topics, on his site. (For more on sunspot cycles see also [1], [2] & [3].)  
  Historically, an active Sun has been correlated with warming, particularly with the Earth's emergence from the Little Ice Age (LIA), into the current Modern Climate Optimum. A quiet Sun was correlated with harsh, cold climate during the the Little Ice Age. Perhaps anthropogenic GHGs will prevent LIA-like conditions from occurring this time. Perhaps. 
  The good folks at CO2 Science have more information on the MWP & LIA, here:
  http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php 
  Just how the solar sunspot cycle could affect the Earth's climate so much is not understood with certainty. Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is not believed to change much with variations in sunspot activity, so if those tiny TSI changes were triggering large climate shifts, it would suggest that the Earth's climate balance is quite unstable, and climate sensitivity must be implausibly high. 
  However, the work of Henrik Svensmark, Jasper Kirkby [2] & others suggests another possibility. Solar variation might be a much larger effective forcing than thought, not because of changes in TSI, but because of a much more obscure chain of effects: changes in the Sun's magnetic field, which are strongly correlated with sunspot cycle minima & maxima, affect cosmic rays reaching the Earth, and that affects cloud formation, which affects climate. 
  Svensmark and Nigel Calder have written a book about it, The Chilling Stars: A Cosmic View of Climate Change. There's a video documentary about it, too: 
  The Cloud Mystery - Svensmark, Shaviv & Veizer 
  Their theory is consistent with a low climate sensitivity to things like CO₂ and TSI, yet a large effect from sunspot cycle changes. If they're right, or if there's some other causal mechanism, like the Stephen Wilde hypothesis, then it is possible that the cooling effect of another Maunder Minimum could even exceed the warming effect of anthropogenic GHGs, perhaps even leading to another LIA, even with CO₂ levels above 400 ppmv. 
  In 2016 Svensmark published a new paper (discussed here & here), reporting evidence that the Sun does, indeed, influence cloud cover on the earth. (See also [1] & [2].) ↑
• The "97% consensus" myth: Do 97% of experts really agree with the IPCC that human CO₂ emissions are causing dangerous global warming? (Not even close!) ↑
• The anonymous Climategate whisleblower released a “readme” manifesto, explaining why it is important that such scientfic malpractice be exposed. ↑
• Papers
• Powerpoint presentations

 

 

Last modified: 31-Mar-2017 (version 137)
Copyright © 2012-2017, David A. Burton.
Note:  the “last modified” date and version number on this web
page are maintained automatically by TLIB Version Control.