Overview

* Global warming is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of

Science as an increase in the average temperature of the Earths
atmosphere, either by human industry and agriculture or by natural
causes like the Earth has experienced numerous times through its
history.[1]
* Some writers use the phrases global warming and climate change to
mean temperature changes strictly caused by human activity.
[2] [3] [4] Other writers use adjectives such as man-made and
anthropogenic to distinguish between human and non-human causes.
[5] [6] (Anthropogenic means of human origin,[7] and AGW stands for
anthropogenic global warming.[8])
* Just Facts Standards of Credibility require the use of language that is
precise and unambiguous. Hence, when human causes are stated or
implied, this research uses terms like man-made and human-induced.

Greenhouse Effect
* The greenhouse effect is a warming effect caused by certain gases that
retain heat from sunlight.[9] Without such gases, the average surface
temperature of the Earth would be below freezing, and as explained by
theEncyclopedia of Environmental Science, life, as we know it, would not
exist.[10] The global warming debate is centered upon whether added
greenhouse gases released by human activity will overheat the Earth and
cause harmful effects.[11]
* The table below shows the primary greenhouse gas composition of Earths
atmosphere. Most figures are coarse approximations (see footnotes for more
details):

Gas
Water
Vapor
Clouds
Carbon
Dioxide
Ozone

Portion of
atmosphere
(by volume)

Portion of greenhouse effect Portion of gas in

that would be absent ifall of
atmosphere
the gas were removed from
attributed to
Earths atmosphere[12]
human activity
36%

0%[15] [16]

14%

0%[17] [18]

0.04%[19]

12%

27%[20]

0.00001%[21]

3%

1 - 3%[13] [14]

Methane

0.0002%[22]

60%[23]

Carbon Dioxide

* Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a generally colorless, odorless, non-toxic, noncombustible gas.[24] [25] [26] It is also:
the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas and contributes
more to the greenhouse effect than any other gas released by human
activity;[27] [28]
vital to life, and almost all biochemicals found within living creatures
derive directly or indirectly from it;[29] [30] and
required for the photosynthesis of all plants.[31]
* CO2 is produced:
when animals, plants, and bacteria respire or breathe,
by the natural decay of organic matter,
by volcanic activity, and
when any material containing carbon is burned, such as oil, coal,
natural gas, or wood.[32] [33] [34] [35]
* Human activities currently release about 37 billion metric tons of CO2 per
year, which equates to about 5% of natural CO2 emissions. Natural
processes absorb the equivalent of all natural emissions plus about 57% of
man-made emissions, leaving an additional 16 billion metric tons of CO2 in
the atmosphere each year.[36]
* Since the outset of the industrial revolution in the late 1700s,[37] the
carbon dioxide concentration in Earths atmosphere has increased by about
41%, most rapidly from about 1960 onward:

 In permafrost regions, perennial snow accumulations trap air bubbles that

leave records of past airborne CO2 concentrations,[38] [39] [40] and
because regional CO2 concentrations vary by less than 10 parts per million
over the Earth, these local records are globally representative.[41] [42]
[43]

Global Temperature Changes

Satellite Data
* Instruments located on satellites can measure certain properties of oxygen
that vary with temperature. Data from these instruments is used to calculate
the average temperatures of different layers of the Earths atmosphere.
[44] [45]
* The lowermost layer of the atmosphere, which is called the lower
troposphere, ranges from ground level to about five miles (8 km) high.
[46] [47] According to satellite data correlated and adjusted by the National
Space Science and Technology Center at the University of Alabama
Huntsville, the average temperature of the lower troposphere increased by
0.60F (0.33C) between the 1980s and 2000s, mostly from 1997 to 2010:

[48] [49]
* For reference, a temperature analysis of a borehole drilled on a glacier in
Greenland found that the location was about 22F (12C) colder during the
last ice age than it is now.[50]
* Sources of uncertainty in satellite-derived temperatures involve variations
in satellite orbits, variations in measuring instruments, and variations in the
calculations used to translate raw data into temperatures.[51] [52]
* A 2011 paper in the International Journal of Remote Sensing estimates that
the accuracy of satellite-derived temperatures for the lower troposphere is
approaching 0.05F (0.03C) per decade, or 0.18F (0.1C) over 30+
years.[53]

Surface Temperatures
* According to temperature measurements taken near the Earths surface
that are correlated and adjusted by NASAs Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, the Earths average temperature warmed by 1.5F (0.8C) between
the 1880s and 2000s, mostly during 19071944 and 19762014:

[54] [55]
* According to temperature measurements taken near the Earths surface
that are correlated and adjusted by the Climatic Research Unit of the
University of East Anglia in the U.K., the Earths average temperature
warmed by 1.4F (0.8C) between the 1850s and 2000s, mostly during 19111944 and 1976-1998:

[56] [57]
* Sources of uncertainty in surface temperature data involve very
incomplete temperature records in the earlier years,[58] systematic
changes in measurement methods,[59] calculation and reporting
errors,[60] [61] [62][63] [64] [65] [66] data adjustments that are performed
when instruments are moved to different locations,[67]instrument precision,
[68] instrument positioning,[69] and missing documentation/raw data.
[70] [71]
* A 2006 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research that calculates
uncertainties in surface temperature data states that a:
definitive assessment of uncertainties is impossible, because it is always
possible that some unknown error has contaminated the data, and no
quantitative allowance can be made for such unknowns.[72]
* Oceans constitute about 71% of the Earths surface.[73] Changes in air
temperature over the worlds oceans are typically based on measurements
of water temperature at depths varying from less than 3 feet to more than
49 feet.[74] [75] This data is combined with changes in air temperature over
land areas to produce global averages.[76] [77]

* A 2001 paper in Geophysical Research Letters contrasted water and air

temperature changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean using three sources of
measurements. One of these was a series of buoys, each containing
thermometers located ten feet above the water and at one foot below the
water. The study found that water temperatures increased on average by
0.23F (0.13C) per decade between 1979 and 1999, while air temperatures
cooled by 0.02 to 0.09F (0.01 to 0.06C) per decade during the same period.
[78]
* A 2011 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research examined the
locations of 1,007 of the 1,221 monitoring stations used to determine
average surface temperature changes across the continental United States.
The paper found that 92% of these stations are positioned in sites that can
cause errors of 1.8F (1C) or more.[79] [80] For example, some stations are
located over asphalt (making them hotter at certain times), and others are
located in partial shade (making them cooler at certain times). By comparing
data from poorly positioned stations with other stations that are properly
positioned, the study determined that the temperature irregularities in the
poorly positioned stations cancel one another so that their average
temperature trends are statistically indistinguishable from the properly
positioned stations. As of July 2015, no similar study has been conducted on
a global basis.[81]

Comparisons
* From 19792014, the three temperate datasets posted above differed from
one another by an annual average of 0.13F (0.07C). The largest gap
between any of the datasets in any year was 0.38F (0.21C), and the
smallest gap was 0F/C:

[82]

Proxies
* To reconstruct global average temperatures in the era before instrumental
measurements were made on a global scale, scientists use proxies that
respond to changes in climate, such as the widths of tree rings and certain
elements of the geological record, to estimate temperature variations in the
past.[83] [84]
* The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body
established in 1988 by the United Nations and World Meteorological
Organization. It is the leading international body for the assessment of
climate change, and its work serves as the key basis for climate policy
decisions made by governments throughout the world.[85] [86] [87] The
IPCC states:
To determine whether 20th century warming is unusual, it is essential to
place it in the context of longer-term climate variability.[88]

* The first IPCC report (1990) contains the following graph of average global
temperature changes over the past 1,000 years based upon proxies. It shows
a Medieval warm period that was warmer than the present era and a Little
Ice Age that was cooler. The report states that
some of the global warming since 1850 could be a recovery from the Little
Ice Age rather than a direct result of human activities. So it is important to
recognize that natural variations of climate are appreciable and will
modulate any future changes induced by man.

[89]
* The second IPCC report (1995) states that data prior to 1400 are too
sparse to allow the reliable estimation of global mean temperature and
shows a graph of proxy-derived temperatures for Earths Northern
Hemisphere from 1400 onward with different details but a similar overall
trend to the first report.[90]
* The third IPCC report (2001) states that the latest proxy studies indicate
the conventional terms of Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period
appear to have limited utility in describing global mean temperature
changes in past centuries. The report contains the following graph of
average temperature changes in Earths Northern Hemisphere, showing
higher temperatures at present than at any time in the past 1,000 years.

[91]
* This graph is called the hockey stick graph because the curve looks like a
hockey stick laid on its side (click on footnote for graphic illustration).
[92] The red part of the curve represents modern instrument-measured
surface temperatures, the blue represents proxy data, the black line is a
smoothed average of the proxy data, and the gray represents the margin of
error with 95% confidence.[93] [94]
* The IPCCs hockey stick graph was adapted from a 1999 paper
in Geophysical Research Letters authored by climatologist Michael Mann and
others. This paper was based upon a 1998 paper by the same authors that
appeared in the journal Nature.[95] [96] Multiple versions of this graph
appear in different sections of the IPCC report, including the Scientific
section,[97] Synthesis,[98] and twice in the Summary for
Policymakers.[99]
* This graph has been the subject of disputes in scientific journals,
[100] [101] congressional hearings,[102] [103]and legal proceedings
including a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.[104] [105] Just Facts

presently does not have the resources to conclusively assess all the
competing claims on this issue, but the facts we have verified are as follows:
The visual accord between the red instrument-measured surface
temperatures and the blue proxy-derived temperatures is the result of
statistical operations, not concurring data.[106]
The authors used a statistical operation to generate the graph that
does not yield a simple average of the proxy data but emphasizes any data
with a hockey stick shape, placing up to 390 times more weight on some
data than others.[107] [108]
When this statistical operation is not used, the hockey stick shape does
not appear in the statistical measure that shows the closest fit to the data.
The shape appears in measures that show subordinate trends in the data.
[109] [110] [111] [112]
The gray areas representing the margin of error fail to account for
model uncertainty.[113] [114]
* The fourth IPCC report (2007) states that there are far from sufficient data
to make any meaningful estimates of global medieval warmth, and shows
the following graph of temperature changes for the Northern Hemisphere
over the past 1,300 years. This graph, which is called a spaghetti graph, is
constructed with data from 12 proxy studies spliced with instrumentmeasured surface temperatures (the dark black line):

[115]

* Click here for facts about the IPCCs practice of splicing proxy studies with
instrument-measured surface temperatures.
* The fifth IPCC report (2013) states that challenges persist in reconstructing
temperatures before the time of the instrumental record due to limitations
of spatial sampling, uncertainties in individual proxy records and challenges
associated with the statistical methods used to calibrate and integrate multiproxy information. This report contains the following spaghetti graphs of
proxy studies spliced with instrument-measured surface temperatures (the
black lines):

[116]
* The following are sources of uncertainty in proxy-derived temperatures:
[V]ery few proxy series are truly independent: There is a degree of
common input to virtually every one, because there are still only a small
number of long, well-dated, high-resolution proxy records.[117] [118][119]
A 2011 paper in the Annals of Applied Statistics found that the most
comprehensive publicly available database of proxies do not predict
temperature significantly better than random series generated
independently of temperature.[120]

[T]he raw data are generally subjected to some form of statistical

manipulation, through which only part of the original climate information can
be retrieved (typically less than 50%).[121]
[M]ost proxies respond to seasonally specific temperatures, not to
average annual temperatures.[122][123]
The margins of error depicted in graphs do not reflect all of the
uncertainties inherent in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions
based on proxy data.[124]
The authors of the IPCC report and the papers cited in it select which
proxy data to include,[125] exclude,[126] adjust,[127] and extrapolate.[128]
* In 2009, an unknown individual(s) released more than 1,000 emails (many
dealing with proxy studies) from the University of East Anglias Climatic
Research Unit (CRU). The materials were authored by some of the worlds
leading climate scientists and accompanied by the following note:
We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We
hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.
[129] [130]
* These emails (commonly referred to as the ClimateGate emails) show IPCC
scientists and authors:
proposing to conduct an honest study about the uncertainties of
proxies and then to publish, retire, and dont leave a forwarding address,
because what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study
will show that we honestly know f**k-all (i.e., little or nothing[131]) about
Northern Hemisphere temperature variability over periods of more than a
hundred years.[132]
writing, I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards
apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy
data but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. I believe that the
recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe
that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over
thousands of years as Mike [Mann] appears to and I contend that that
there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene
[11,000 years ago to present] that require explanation and that could
represent part of the current or future background variability of our
climate.[133]

writing, I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC,
which were not always the same.[134]
writing, In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by
IPCC.[135]
planning to have the editor of a scientific journal ousted if he exhibits
skepticism of global warming.[136]
instructing each other to delete emails relating to the 2007 IPCC
report.[137]
planning to evade Britains Freedom of Information Act.[138]
planning to boycott scientific journals that require authors to release all
data and calculations used in their published papers.[139]
writing, I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished
but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any
conclusions). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules
and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which
might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly
everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this.[140]
writing, it would be nice to try to contain the putative MWP
[Medieval Warm period], even if we dont yet have a hemispheric mean
reconstruction available that far back.[141]
planning to shorten the timeframe of a proxy data series so it would
do what we want.[142]
burying one of their own studies, because it produced an outcome they
did not want. (Click here for comprehensive facts about this email.)
writing, Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real
temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from
1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.[143] (Click here for comprehensive
facts about this email.)

Anecdotes and Local Conditions

* A 2008 survey of 660 Virginia residents found that the most common
answer people give for believing or disbelieving in global warming is their
personal experience of the climate.[144]
* The state of Virginia contains 0.02% of the worlds surface area.[145]
* A 2001 ClimateGate email states:

Look at the instrumental record! There are huge differences between

different regions - Alaska has warmed substantially while eastern North
America cooled after the 1950s. Locking onto local records, no matter how
beautiful, can lead to serious errors.[146]
* The continental United States contains 1.6% of the worlds surface area,
and the entire United States (including Alaska and Hawaii) contains 1.9% of
the worlds surface area.[147]

* A 2008 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research found that the area
covered by sea ice in the Arctic was declining by about 4.0% per decade,
while the area covered by sea ice in the Antarctic was increasing by about
1.7% per decade.[148] [149]
* A 2006 paper in Geophysical Research Letters found that since 1979,
Antarctica has been growing colder in the summer and fall seasons but
warmer in the winter and spring seasons, except for 50% of East Antarctica,
which has also been cooling in the winter.[150]
* A 2006 paper in the Journal of Climate found that glaciers in the western
Himalayan mountains thickened and expanded from 1961-2000, while
glaciers in the eastern Himalayas decayed and retreated.[151]
* In 2007, the New York Times published a story by Andrew Revkin entitled:
Scientists Report Severe Retreat of Arctic Ice. The last paragraph of the
story reads: Sea ice around Antarctica has seen unusual winter expansions
recently, and this week is near a record high.[152]

* In 2000, James J. McCarthy, a Harvard oceanographer and IPCC co-chair,

[153] saw a mile-wide stretch of open ocean at the North Pole while serving
as a guest lecturer on an Arctic tourist cruise. He informed the New York
Times, which ran a front-page story stating:
The North Pole is melting.
The last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water
was more than 50 million years ago.
This is more evidence that global warming may be real and already
affecting climate.[154]
* Like the New York Times:

the Associated Press reported: For the first time in 50 million years,
visitors to the North Pole can see something extraordinary: water.[155]
the U.K. Guardian ran a headline stating: First ice-free North Pole in
50m years.[156]
* Two days after the New York Times article was published, the
London Times quoted a professor of ocean physics at Cambridge who stated,
Claims that the North Pole is now ice-free for the first time in 50 million
years [are] complete rubbish, absolute nonsense.[157] [158]
* Eight days later, the New York Times issued a correction stating that:
the original article misstated the normal conditions of the sea ice.
a clear spot has probably opened at the pole before.
10% of the high Arctic region is clear of ice in a typical
summer.[159] [160]
* In the June 13, 1963 issue of New Scientist, a U.S. Navy sonar specialist and
onboard scientist for several submarine missions to the Artic and North Pole,
described the ice conditions by stating:
During the summer, open water spaces appear everywhere between the
floes and form holes in the ice canopy through which the submarine can
readily reach the surface.[161] [162] [163]
* This picture shows two U.S. submarines surfacing at the North Pole in
August of 1962:

[164] [165]

* In 2013, Forecast the Factsa grassroots human rights organization

dedicated to ensuring that Americans hear the truth about climate change
published the following graphic purporting to show a recent photo of the
North Pole:

[166] [167]
* Along with the graphic, Forecast the Facts wrote that this lake formed at
the North Pole due to unprecedented melting Arctic sea ice.[168] [169]
* The photo above was not taken at the North Pole. It was taken from a buoy
located about 350 miles from the North Pole.[170] [171] [172] [173] [174]
* The first humans to visit the surface of the North Pole region during
summer were the crew of the USS Skate, a nuclear submarine that surfaced
40 miles from the North Pole in August of 1958.[175] In the January 1959

issue of Life magazine, the commander of this mission described the ice
cover by stating:
We repeatedly found open water where we could surface.[176]
* Within four days after Forecast the Facts published the graphic above,
media outlets reported the following:
North Pole Melting Leaves Small Lake At The Top Of The World Now
THIS is a wakeup call! Huffington Post[177] [178]
Lake Forms as Ice Melts at the Top of the World Newsmax[179]
The Scariest Lake in the World Sits at the North Pole Common
Dreams[180]
North Pole is now a lake New York Post[181]
Global warming pollution has melted the Arctic and created a lake at
the top of the North Pole sea ice. Daily Kos[182]
Melting Polar Ice Cap Created A Lake On Top Of The World
Forbes[183]
At some point, temperatures at the North Pole got balmy enough to
create a lake where there should be a brick of frozen ice.
Relevant magazine[184]
In what has now become an annual occurrence, the North Poles ice
has melted, turning the Earths most northern point into a lake. Yahoo
News/The Atlantic[185]
Startling images show melting North Pole turning into a lake.
Toronto Star[186]
* None of these articles stated or implied that such conditions have prevailed
for as long as mankind has had the technology to visit the surface of the
North Pole in the summer.[187] [188]
* After publishing an article documenting the facts above, Just Facts
contacted Forecast the Facts to offer an opportunity to respond.[189] As of
January 2016, Forecast the Facts has not replied or issued a correction.[190]
[191]
* Forecast the Facts has since changed its name to
ClimateTruth.org.[192] Its board of academic advisors includes:
Dr. Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn
State University.
Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated
Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University.
John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow