UPDATE: Those of you coming in from Climate Audit and Science Blogs might like to take a look at our post on AlGorithms, Himalayan glaciers, Strawmen (new New NEW) and the good Ms. Byrne after reading this.
Tony at Deltoid points to a web site put together by a young lady, Kristen Byrnes, in Portland as a refutation of the IPCC AR4.
I'm disappointed no one talked about "Ponder the Maunder", the extra credit assignment of a 15-year-old student that rips one in the global warming scam. It just goes without saying that a school project is far more trustworthy than anything coming out of the IPCC. James Hansen is paid lots of money!Richard Tol is a great fan thinking her more accurate than the Stern Report and Inconvenient Truth.
If a 15-yr-old can punch tiny holes, then all credibility is gone. Anyone who does not want to believe Al Gore's message, just has to point to Kristen Byrnes and say "ha ha, he cannot even hold his own against a school kid". Debate over.Ms Byrnes is now using her new found popularity to establish the Kristen Byrnes Science Foundation. This being the case, google first lead Eli to the Kristen Byrnes Science Foundation review of an Inconvenient Truth, as good a place to start as any. A key point in Ms. Byrnes' argument is that
Al then shows global temperatures for the past 100 years using a graph similar to the one below. “In any given year it might look like it’s going down but the overall trend is extremely clear” I’ve added the green line, which is CO2. What Al does not show you is that most of the warming started before the CO2 increase. He also fails to mention the cool period between 1944 and 1976 does not correlate with greenhouse theory; the globe should have been warming at that timeEach of the large divisions on the right of Ms. Byrnes' graph would correspond to about 20 ppm CO2. Now that green line looked awfully familiar to the bunnies, a flat line with a little bump to the left and a sharp rise to the right, so we started looking for graphs of CO2 concentrations as a function of time, and we found this one in a pretty good presentation by Steven Schwartz (PS it is also in the TAR, but not nearly as prettified.)The shape of the CO2 mixing ratio that Ms. Byrnes added is the same, the only problem is that her curve starts in 1880, using the data from 800. A millenia among friends is not a big deal, but if you look at the curve immediately above you see that the CO2 mixing ratio actually started to rise ~ 1800 not at 1940 as in Ms. Byrnes' addition, which she specifically says she added by herself.
UPDATE2: By popular (and unpopular) demand, Eli has been asked to plot the NOAA temperature anomalies and the CO2 mixing ratios on the same figure. The temperature data is that from NOAA contained in an ftp file. The CO2 information comes from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. The Mauna Loa CO2 measurements are shown as a purple line. The Law Dome ice core CO2 measurements are shown as brown triangles and the Siple ice core measurements as green squares. The reader can see this figure more clearly by clicking on it.
Jules Virdee (and also here) and Judith Curry gave good advice in a very nice way at Climate Audit and Eli held off to see if it would be accepted, but sadly no, they got junior high attitude just as Eli did.
It is worth spending a minute or two with the actual CO2 rise. The first part of the rise comes from land use changes, particularly the settlement of the American west, and parts of South America and Australia. Industrialization only starts to bite about 1850-1900, a point that is often lost.
Finally we can look at the relationship between CO2 mixing ratio and global surface temperature anomaly in a figure from the Pew Center on Climate Change
So unfortunately we are left with a number of questions about the source of this error, upon which the edifice is built and is this astroturf?
For a discussion of Ms. Byrnes' cherry picking on the slopes of Kilimanjaro, there can be no better read than Ray Pierrehumbert's discussion of tropical glacier retreat.
UPDATE: Hans Erren rightly points out that Eli, lazy Rabett that he is, has copied graphs showing the concentration of CO2 to compare with global temperature anomalies rather than the CO2 forcing which is proportional to the logarithm of the concentration. Bad bunny. Steven Schwartz's presentation linked above has the appropriate information