The accusation of a lack of peer review (PR) by those who mount arguments against anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is at the heart of the elitism, consensus and ad hominem approach used by many supporters of AGW.
It is a red herring. Science should be like the Law; transparent and universally accessible.
It should not be used by specialists to dominate the general populace, or to promulgate ideological based alterations to the social and economic structure. Nor should it be used to stifle debate because, apart from anything else, the importance of science is diminished by such oppression. Because the AGW advocates have used such tactics, and been supported by a sizeable proportion of the mainstream media, the importance of blogs has grown. Their importance has also been highlighted by the degree of vitriol leveled at anti-AGW sites.
Most of all the PR argument is simply wrong.
As a layman my AGW education curve has been steep. But it has been informed by a number of peer reviewed papers which have provided substantial critiques of AGW. In the interest of providing a rebuttal to the insidious PR stigma I present my ‘top 10’ papers which mount arguments against AGW, nine of them peer-reviewed.
I have had to exclude a number of valuable articles; the McLean and Quirk paper on the Great Pacific Climate Change was my first exposure to the misrepresentation of temperature base periods; the first Beck paper is a notable exclusion; the castigation against Beck was particularly condescending and elitist, no doubt because he does not have a PhD; likewise none of the valuable contributions made by Monckton, Watts, Castles, Hughes, Lucia, Bob Tisdale or Steve Short are eligible.
But I am going to list 10 papers, and start with a non peer-reviewed paper as an exception because of his sustained and exemplary efforts, any one of which is worthy of a Doctorate.
1. Steve McIntyre’s Ohio State University Address;
How do we “know” that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium? (May 16, 2008)
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
This is a seminal paper which synthesizes all the errors and obfuscations to do with the Hockey Stick. It also demonstrates McIntyre’s methodical, scientific and unadorned approach to the issue.
2. Craig Loehle’s paper;
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies, Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058. 2007
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
This paper was important because it was a counterpoise to Mann’s tree-ring data and provided good support for the Medieval Warming Period, a major obstacle to AGW.
3.Douglass, Christy et al; this is the first of the GCM critiques;
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, 2007
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3058
This paper really touched a nerve and the level of hostility leveled at it was astounding; it mostly boiled down to nit-picking about Raobcore data and whether a falsification was distinct from a bias. The second link is to an addendum to the paper; comments 69-74 are entertaining.
4.Koutsoyiannis et al;
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850
Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 2008
This link is to the first presentation. This was a crucial paper; it covered the 18 year predictive history of the GCM’s on a regional basis; regionalism is the Achilles Heel of AGW.
5.Stockwell;
http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/article.pdf
Tests of Regional Climate Model Validity in the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report. 2008
This paper did the job on CSIRO and demonstrated the political imput into the AGW science.
6. Misckolczi;
Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary Atmospheres. Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40.
http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
This is my favourite. It has everything; the dead hand of AGW censorship, and the demolition of the AGW’s semi-infinite opaque layered atmosphere. People have quibbled about the Kirchhoff equations but Miskolczian –ve feedbacks have been established.
7. Essex, McKitrick, Andresen;
Does a Global Temperature Exist? Journal of Non-EquilibriumThermodynamics, 32 (1) 1-27. 2007
http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/JNETDY.2007.001?cookieSet=1
The fallacy of a global average temperature was taken to task in this paper, and, again, the reaction was hostile. This paper wittily compared averaging temperature to averaging the phone book; an important addition to the regionalism lexicon.
8. Spencer and Braswell;
Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A simple Model Demonstration, Journal of Climate.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2253.1
No list would be complete without Mr Cloud and –ve feedback. As well, Spencer has been a bastion of reliable temperature data. This was still a close call. Minschwaner and Dessler’s paper on RH decline as a response to increasing CO2 is a crucial paper, conforming to Miskolczi’s feedbacks.
9.Chilingar;
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. Volume 30, Issue 1, January 2008 , pages 1 – 9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727
An important paper about convective heat transfer which relegates CO2 radiative heating to its proper subordinate position; and incorporates atmospheric pressure as a heating factor. Thanks to Louis for alerting me to the paper. An honourable mention to the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper on the fallacy of the greenhouse concept and a host of other errors AGW science makes.
10. Pielke Sr et al;
Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 112. 2007.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf
An elegant paper which uses Stefan-Boltzman to support regionalism and show that the notion of a radiative imbalance is defeated by regional temperature based energy differentials. Somewhat superfluous since AR4, FIG 1 shows no global radiative imbalance.
Given the above, what 10 papers can AGW supporters produce to vindicate AGW?
Cohenite,
Newcastle, Australia
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I’m glad you included Spencer and Braswell’s 2008 paper (no. 8). It is seminal.
The common link in these papers is that the empirical data does not fit the hypothesis. I believe that hypotheses are modified to fit observed data or abandoned – not the other way around.
Nice one cohenite.
Miskolczi has had independent confirmation of his application Kirchoff’s (Eqn 4) in his 2007 paper from a researcher in the Netherlands.
Jan; any links to or details of the independent confirmation?
“It is a red herring. Science should be like the Law; transparent and universally accessible. ”
Sorry to have to break the new to you, but science is as complex and opaque as it is because of the limitations of human beings. That’s not the fault of science.
We can only know so much, and the more complex science becomes, the more specialised we humans have to become, since we can only know so much with our limited intelligence. You can blame science for that, but it’s like complaining about the weather.
“The accusation of a lack of peer review (PR) by those who mount arguments against anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is at the heart of the elitism, consensus and ad hominem approach used by many supporters of AGW. It is a red herring” – cohenite
Hmmm, not a good start. Mentioning the fact of a lack of peer review of a paper is not ad hominem. To suggest so is a red herring.
Are these really the ten best? I didn’t realise things were so grim.
McKitrick and Essex! Those two still determined to prove they don’t understand temperature, heh?
Does Ross still believe that GDP causes global warming??
Miscolczi mysteriously disappears.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/venus-unveiled/
First he’s there, then, when he can’t answer, he disappears.
“Fritz Möller followed up with a pioneering computation that took into account the increase of absolute humidity with temperature. Oops… his results showed a monstrous feedback. As the humidity rose, the water vapor would add its greenhouse effect, and the temperature might soar. The model could give an almost arbitrarily high temperature! This weird result stimulated Syukuro Manabe to develop a more realistic one-dimensional model. He included in his column of air the way convective updrafts carry heat up from the surface, a basic process that nearly every earlier calculation had failed to take into account. It was no wonder Möller’s surface had heated up without limit: his model had not used the fact that hot air would rise. Manabe also worked up a rough calculation for the effects of clouds. By 1967, in collaboration with Richard Wetherald, he was ready to see what might result from raising the level of CO2. Their model predicted that if the amount of CO2 doubled, global temperature would rise roughly two degrees C. This was probably the first paper to convince many scientists that they needed to think seriously about greenhouse warming. The computation was, so to speak, a “proof of principle.””
Back in the ’60’s convection was already being incorporated in climate papers on CO2 as a GHG.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/simple-question-simple-answer-no/langswitch_lang/in#more-595
Hear that, Cohenite?
“There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses
and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical
phenomena. The terms “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gases” are deliberate misnomers.”
Deliberate misnomers of course, it’s all just a conspiracy.
Oh, and Loehle!
As soon as I’d read the abstract I wondered if I’d find Soon and Baliunas figuring postively. Then I thought, surely not, he couldn’t possibly be relying on such a discredited piece of work, could he ? But, t here was Craig giving their 2003 disaster a warm embrace.
What a hoot!
Oh, come on SJT; comment 143 sums it up; Miskolczi’s model works in practice and was based on empirical evidence; Neal King’s objection is that he can configure a Kirchhoff based theoretical scenario where Miskolczi’s model is inconsistent. This sums up the whole farrago of AGW; computer models generating a virtual reality which is preferred over actuality.
On another tact, Raypierre at various comments, 27, 32 for instance, notes the pressure differences between the atmospheres of the 3 planets, Earth, Venus and Mars, and concludes that the extreme pressure on Venus, which broadens the band sensitivity of the CO2 molecule so that it becomes a super GHG, is responsible for the difference between Venus and, in particular Mars, which has low pressure. This is wrong for 2 reasons; line broadening only causes the absorbance peak to be widened; the total energy the molecule can absorb is not increased; the same amount is spread over a wider band; secondly, he ignores the natural point that the increased pressure itself is a heating factor. I might add that both the Miskolczi paper and the Chilingar convective model paper apply their respective models to actual observations about Venus with good correlation. Other than that, a good article about Venus.
Cohenite: Thanks for the kind words and for including me in such an esteemed group.
SJT; my final comment before ‘retiring’! I get sick of whacking you about the head.”if the amount of CO2 doubled, global temperature would rise roughly 2C.” Well, CO2 has risen approx 40% for a 0.65C increase, which is only 0.15C behind the 8 ball; so the remaining 60% in CO2 only has to raise temp 1.35C; SJT, you might be onto something; pity this estimate is well below the IPCC forcing range.
But it gets better.
These 2 of cohenites “top 10” are quite a pair.
First we have McKitrick and Essex deriding the idea of average global temperatures, but then Loehle arguing average global temperatures (across a massive 18, no there is no 0 mising at the end of that, temp time series ) to make his case for a global MWP and hence no contemporary AGW.
Oh, you kidder cohenite!
cohenite” “Jan; any links to or details of the independent confirmation?”
Unfortunately not yet it was a private communication. It was done by a Rob van Dorland using a 200 m radio tower to measure the atmospheric profiles and calculated downward LWR with an LBL program similar to HARTCODE and measured that also with a pyrgeometer. Upward radiation calcuclated using an emissivity of ,96.
Conclusion: “We see that, indeed, the radiation equilibrium extends to the surface. No net IR radiation heat flux reaches the atmosphere from the ground. It is either transmitted through the atmospheric window, or completely compensated by the LWD, or ED, in FM’s terms. The conclusion is, Rob’s Cabauw measurements support Ferenc Miskolczi’s major assumption.”
Some great resources here, a key influencer in the UK is the CBI, find their research here: http://www.avtclient.co.uk/climatereport/
Excellent Cohenite. I like Miskolczi’s approch.
Seems this is going to be one good thread
I hope your realestate is > 2M above SL
Invoking Venus as proof of a greenhouse effect is to, metaphorically, dive into shark infested waters.
What intrigues me is that all matter is made of electrically charged particles, including everything one can see “out there” and we know that electrical forces are far more powerful than gravititational ones, 10^39 greater, yet the strongest force in the universe seems to have no role to play in anything except powering our computers and cell phones and the other chattles of modern industrialised society.
Excellent summary Cohenite and I see the anonymice have squeaked in protest again.
Surely we’re not going to go over this rag tag bunch of nonsense again. I stopped reading at Chilingar – barf !
Philipona just empirically tramps over all this speculative bolsh.
Tellingly Cohenite – not a single paper “that makes you think twice”. Sigh …
Michael
Your comment about McKitrick, Essex and Andresen simply points to you not having read it.
Obviously you have not realised the crucial difference between intensive and extensive variables, let alone the definition of temperature, per se.
Cohers – mate – So you know – just kicking the dust etc – and making things a bit local – what would your explanations be for a warming Tasman Sea, a warming Indian Ocean, decrease in the Walker circulation, and changes in STR and SAM.
Hey look!! The Menshevik rah-rah squad from RealClimate just showed up. Guess supporting data for AGW must REALLY be flagging if they’ve got time to troll the internet looking for sites to pollute.
Luke or someone,
What about sending me the best 10 research papers (preferably peer reviewed) from the other side?
SJT
“Sorry to have to break the new to you, but science is as complex and opaque as it is because of the limitations of human beings. That’s not the fault of science.”
As science is something humans have created, it could hardly be opaque or incomprehensible – but then those who don’t understand science might think this.
S. Quigley “Some great resources here, a key influencer in the UK is the CBI, find their research here:”
“This report has not been written by evangelists but by business people.”
Not scientists then.
“As science is something humans have created, ”
We didn’t create it, we discovered it. Perhaps you could given me a technically correct and encompassing summary of quantum theory in one short paper?
Comment from Michael
Time September 10, 2008 at 11:25 pm says
McKitrick and Essex! Those two still determined to prove they don’t understand temperature, heh?
Does Ross still believe that GDP causes global warming?? Go ahead and give the sceptics more ammo. The points to a problem with Peterson, Parker, and others as listed in the TAR WG1. Temperature increases should not corrlate with GPD, yet do. The point is that the actual data contradict the claimed of temperature correction for UHI that is claimed in this WG1. Having correct temperature corrections and quantifying UHI is a necessary task per WG1 in the TAR. M&E show that the claim has problems. Due to the way that the derivation of sensitivity and the necessity of correct physics and their parameters in the GCM’s, as stated by WG1, this is not a minor point. The IPCC states that getting these correct are necessary for validating GCM’s the way it has been done. M&E have given sufficient reason to consider that the senstivity and the GCM’s are wrong based on actual data. Luci at rank-exploits is know using the last 8 years of data to show that the models are invalidated using actual data. Between the two, it would be rational to be sceptically of the IPCC claims. This does not mean that IPCC is wrong, but that there case is weaker than the written claim. A good paper could easily change this back to the IPCC claim is the stronger argument, but would need to be based on data. Another problem with the claims of IPCC about the development of models are anthropogenic fingerprints. In that the parameters and physics have to be right, the lack of an indicated fingerprint does cause the claim to be severely lessened by the sequence for their claim to be correct. The recent paper, where the lack of a fingerprint was explained by using an even small and more suspect dataset (wind sheer) that had to be modelled does not bolster the claim, but rather makes the contrary more likely. Tis is because the sequence requires that the data has been corrected or accounted for, and the parameters, and physics done correctlt for real data, real systems. Replacing a measured set of data with a computer generated set indicates that the parameters and sequence are not correct invalidating the WG1 claims for knowing that they have the sensitivity right.
Michael, there were 18 temperature constructions. I assume you did not read the article, because more than one reconstruction had more than one series for the reconstruction. One needs to be more specific as to what M&E were objecting as Louis pointed out. Also, you do not seem to realize is that Loehle displayed and wrote about was what was allowed by the data. In other words, he avoided the known mistakes of MBH9x that have repeatedly as shown by Dr Wegman to be, and I quote, “Bad science.” Now that the W&A and A&W have supported the complaints by McIntyre in the unassailable peer reveiw system, perhaps the problem is as Louis and Bird point out, when the AGW don’t like the answer they just move the goals or change the rules.
And yet wonder why sceptics are sceptics! I believe it is called cognitive dissonance on the AGW part.
Jennifer: The original hockey stick did it for me, that’s when I first noticed the rate of change. We can carry on about what’s in the tail till the cows come home but five decades of post geo phys instrument records is enough to settle the issue of rapid warming or not.
Looking back; any science doing proxy temps must eventually be calibrated to sea levels to be relevant in future calculations. All the B/S about CO2 involvement becomes a red herring just considering where that effort comes from.
Sure the battle for research funding was an issue for all involved early on but science in general has not fallen apart because some major institutions were slow on the uptake.
Public interest has not waned either and most people I meet are comfortable with both the media and their government’s environment policy shift. The current Murray Darling drought has hardened some opinion against federal intervention but we are getting on with water reform now.
The debate should return to the issue of stats before we pull scientists out of government agencies again. Where would sceptics be today without NASA, BoM, BRS or CSIRO?
When it comes to CRC’s in particular we don’t have enough information to get cocky.
Thank you John; you just saved me the effort of responding to Michael’s quite disingenuous complaint of an alleged inconsistency between Loehle and the Essex paper. I might add that your comment of moving the goal-posts is apt; more than that, AGW has thrown these flacky bits of terminology such as average temperature and greenhouse at the hoi poloi and to respond we occasionally have to use them.
The MWP was a global phenomena expressed on a regional basis; see;
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
luke; Philipona used 7 years of data which he resolved by estimating the source of the DLW; as various people have noted, including your nemesis, Graeme, the source of the radiation, H2O or CO2, was estimated pursuant to model parameters;here’s another one of your favourite person’s take on Philipona;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/philipona05.htm
I have not included any solar papers in my list; that meant leaving out a plethora of worthy anti-AGW PR papers; the reason for this is that even AGW supporters acknowledge the temperature effect we are discussing is 33K; the other 255K is solar. Now, as well as supplying some PR, pro-AGW papers, perhaps the pro-AGW crew can address the question of whether AGW is entirely responsible for that 33K surplus.
Louis,
Yes, I read it. Not that cohenite bothered to provide a link to it, other than thr abstract. but having read it, I canunderstand why.
McKitrick has his quixotic hoofprints all over it. Yet again were treated to their quite strange attempts to show that there are unlimited potential average temps and that we can’t have any idea of which is the most appropriate average to choose. The coffee cup and ice water example was especially dim.
Following on from their equally silly book McKitrick and Essex continue to refuse to recognize that it is weighted arithmetic means that are used in such calculations that make them useful and relevant.
It wasn’t hostility that was the reaction to this paper, but derision.
sjt: “Perhaps you could given me a technically correct and encompassing summary of quantum theory in one short paper?”
We discovered that the universe is quantised and that we can’t measure or observe both momentum and position at the same time with arbitrary precision, the rest is modelling based on probability (wave) functions.
What we have discovered is nature but the way we talk about it and work with it is typically human.
Hughes take on Philipona was so much drivel. Do you really need an answer? zzzzzz
Correct me if I’m wrong but not one resident Australian sceptic appears on that list, and of the 10 papers only 3 are peer reviewed in journals related to climate (or meteorology) – the majority aren’t peer review at all – and not one of these three challenges the observation of global warming, or CO2 as a greenhouse gas, or that more CO2 equals more warming.
BTW cohenite is it an ad hominen to demand that your doctor be trained as a doctor?
david “BTW cohenite is it an ad hominen to demand that your doctor be trained as a doctor?”
No but is also no ad hominem to demand coherent answers from him.
david; yes, well Stewart Franks is probably riven with envy at not being on the list; but we have the ongoing sagacity of a host of commentators here who have taken up the cudgels on behalf of Australia. 🙂
As a matter of interest David do you have any peer reveiwed material.?
Or are you just another scientific assessor/ adviser who doesnt measure up to his own standards– and thereby no different to anyone else.
Jones DA and Simmonds I, 1993. A climatology of Southern Hemisphere extratropical cyclones. Climate Dynamics, 9, 131-145.
Jones DA and Simmonds I 1993. Time and space spectral analyses of Southern Hemisphere sea level pressure variability. Mon. Wea. Rev., 121 661-672.
Jones DA and Simmonds I, 1994. A climatology of Southern Hemisphere anticyclones. Climate Dynamics, 10, 333-348.
Jones DA, 1996. Seasonal climate summary Southern Hemisphere (autumn 1996): A return to near-normal conditions in the Tropical Pacific. Aust. Meteor. Mag., 45, 267-274.
Jones DA and Beard G, 1998. Verification of Australian monthly district rainfall totals using high resolution gridded analyses. Aust. Meteor. Mag., 47, 37-50.
Jones DA, 1999. Characteristics of Australian land surface temperature variability. Theor. Appl. Climatol., 63, 11-31.
Jones DA, 2000. Seasonal climate summary Southern Hemisphere (winter 1999): a return to near-normal conditions in the Tropical Pacific. Aust. Meteor. Mag., 49, 139-148.
Jones DA and Trewin BC, 2000. On the relationships between the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Australian land surface temperature. Int. J. Climatol., 20, 697-719.
Jones DA and Trewin BC, 2000. On the description of monthly temperature anomalies over Australia. Aust. Meteor. Mag., 49, 261-276.
Jones DA and Trewin BC, 2002. On the adequacy of historical Australian daily temperature data for climate monitoring. Aust. Meteor. Mag., 51, 237-250.
Jones DA, 2002. The 2002 El Niño and its impacts on Australia. Bull. Aust. Met. Soc., 15, 91-95.
Jones DA, 2003. Seasonal climate summary southern hemisphere (winter 2002): consolidation of El Nino conditions in the Pacific. Aust. Meteor. Mag., 52, 203-312.
Jones D, Collins D, Nicholls N, Phan J and Della-Marta P, 2004 A new tool for tracking Australia’s climate variability and change. Bull. Aust. Met. Soc., 17, 65-69.
Jones DA, Watkins AB and Hennessey K, 2005. Science shows the human contribution to global warming. Engineers Australia, 44-47.
Diamond H, Jones D and Kuleshov Y, 2008. A Consolidated High Quality Database of Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclones.The Island Climate Update, No. 92, 6pp
Fawcett RJB, Jones DA and Beard GS, 2005. Verification of an operational seasonal forecasting system. Aust. Meteor. Mag., 54, 1-13.
Finkele K, Mills GA, Beard G and Jones DA, 2006. National gridded drought factors and comparison of two soil moisture deficit formulations used in prediction of Forest Fire Danger Index in Australia Aust. Meteor. Mag., 55, 183-197
Jovanovic B, Jones DA and Collins D 2008. A high quality monthly pan evaporation dataset for Australia. Climatic Change, 87, 517-535.
Kuleshov Y, Qi L, Fawcett R and Jones DA, 2008. On tropical cyclone activity in the Southern Hemisphere: Trends and the ENSO connection, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L14S08, doi:10.1029/2007GL032983.
McKeon GM, Hall WB, Crimp SJ, Howden SM, Stone RC and Jones DA, 1998. Climate change in Queensland’s grazing lands I. Approaches and climatic trends. Rangel. J., 20, 151-176.
Ryan BF, Jones DA and Gordon HB, 1992. The portrayal of the Australian equatorial monsoon shear line by GCMs: Enhanced greenhouse scenario implications. Climate Dynamics 7, 173-180.
Simmonds I and Jones DA, 1998. The mean structure and temporal variability of the semiannual oscillation in the southern extratropics. Int. J. Climatol., 18, 473-504.
Simmonds I, Jones DA and Walland DJ, 1999. Multi-decadal climate variability in the Antarctic region and global change. Annals of Glaciology, 27, 617-622.
Timbal B and Jones DA, 2008. Future projections of winter rainfall in South East Australia using a statistical downscaling technique. Climatic Change, 86, 165-187.
Weymouth G, Mills GA, Jones DA, Ebert EE and Manton MJ, 1999. A continental-scale daily rainfall analysis system. Aust. Meteor. Mag., 48, 169-179.
Power S, Plummer N, Pearce K, Walland D, Edward S, Jones D, Gipton S, Holper P, Whitehead R, 2008. Changes in Australian attitudes towards global warming. Metoworld.
Abbreviated list of Conference Papers and Research Reports
Jones DA, 1990. A spectral study of the transient atmospheric structure. A comparison of observational and model generated statistics. BSc Honours Report (unpublished), Dept of Meteorology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, 172pp.
Jones DA and Simmonds I, 1993. The winter distribution of cyclone frequency, cyclogenesis and cyclolysis in the Southern Hemisphere. Research activities in atmospheric and oceanic modelling. No. 18. WMO/ICSU World Climate Research Programme, 2.6-2.8.
Jones DA and Simmonds I, 1993. An objective climatology of Southern Hemisphere extratropical cyclones. Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Southern Hemisphere meteorology. Hobart, Australia. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 44-45.
Jones DA and Simmonds I, 1994. A Climatology of Southern Hemisphere anticyclones. Research activities in atmospheric and oceanic modelling. No. 19. WMO/ICSU World Climate Research Programme, 2.8-2.9.
Jones DA, 1994. An objective study of Southern Hemisphere synoptic activity. PhD Thesis. School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, 392pp.
Jones DA 1994. A numerical vortex finding, tracking and statistics package. BMRC Research Report No. 41. Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia, 37pp.
Jones DA and Weymouth G, 1997. An Australian monthly rainfall data set. Technical Report No. 70, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia, 19pp.
Jones DA, 1998. The prediction of Australian land surface temperatures using near global sea surface temperature patterns. BMRC Research Report No. 70. Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia, 44pp.
Jones DA, 1999. The prediction of Australian land surface temperatures using near global sea surface temperature patterns. Proceedings of the twenty third annual climate diagnostics and prediction workshop. Miami, USA, 260-263.
Finkele K, Mills GA, Beard G and Jones DA, 2006. National daily gridded soil moisture deficit and drought factors for use in prediction of Forest Fire Danger Index in Australia. BMRC Research Report No. 119, Bur. Met. Australia.
Mills GM, Weymouth G, Jones DA, Ebert EE, Manton M, Lorkin J and Kelly J, 1997. A national objective daily rainfall analysis system. BMRC Techniques Development Report No. 1, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia, 30pp.
Simmonds I and Jones DA, 1996. The variance explained by the pressure semiannual oscillation at Casey Antarctica and its sensitivity to record length. No. 23. WMO/ICSU World Climate Research Programme, 2.58-2.59.
Wright WJ, de Hoedt G, Plummer N, Jones DA and Chitty S, 1996. Low frequency climate variability over Australia. Proceedings second Australian conference on agricultural meteorology. Canberra, Australia, 102-106.
Wright WJ and Jones DA, 2003. Long-term rainfall declines in southern Australia. Proceedings. National Drought Forum, Brisbane, Australia, 12pp.
Wright WJ and Jones DA 2003. Climate prediction – a potential tool for effective fire resource management planning. 3rd International Wildland Fire Conference, Sydney, Australia, 8pp.
I’ve been a bit slack in updating this list in recent times.
I had to hand to a student a handbook for RMIT uni today, i had a quick look at the environmental science subjects that they offer and hold themselves up as being the best. Not one of the subjects had science as a prerequisite. some had maths, all had english.
So how qualified are these so called environmental or climate scientists I wonder?!
Well David quite a list, we know how your bread get buttered! Doesnt stop you making silly comments like a 0.3C increase has caused a 30cm sea level rise…though does it? ( apologies if you are not the same david)
Toby, right David but I didn’t say that. Suggest you go back and check what I really “said”.
Anyway, lets not side-track. Question is… why can’t the Australian sceptics publish? Why is the public debate not mirrored by a science one?
David; I’m not going errand running; I’ve done this before with luke, and while interesting, I have to say all of his references either worked against AGW or had sufficient ambivalence so as to have utility for both sides of the argument; I have looked at 2 of what I thought were the most promising of your list;
Kuleshov et al;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032983.shtml
This gives no aid to your position; the paper outlines trend patterns for TC’s based on hemispheric ENSO variations.
2 Ryan et al;
http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/200703/smith.pdf
This is a potted and salutory review of CSIRO modelling; need I remind you of Stockwell?
Don’t worry too much David, most commentators here wouldn’t know a genuine climate scientist if they fell over one.
gavin; that’s not true; I’ve fallen over Stewart Franks and I recognised him immediately as a climate scientist who actually gets his hands dirty in the field!
“Now you might think 0.5 to 0.8C isn’t much, but it has led to 30cm of sea level rise,” your words David, not mine……..
Can anyone direct me to a model that has actually worked and shown a provable outcome using historical data sources rather than just the future dire predictive models?
What I mean is shouldn’t the climate change models being used now be able to be applied with past data to predict, for example, last year’s weather to have any validity.
Models should be perpetually accurate to have legitimacy.
“Luke or someone,
What about sending me the best 10 research papers (preferably peer reviewed) from the other side?” – Jennifer.
My, Jen still want others to do her research for her.
On a related point we could compare one of cohenites “Top 10” with an, dare I say, equivalent. I won’t quibble over results, just the method.
Let’s take Loehle’s effort with his 2000 yr reconstruction and Mann, whom he refers to in his paper, as a reasonable comparison.
Leohle uses 18 time series. Mann et al use hundreds. Loehle doesn’t explain why these are good choices, or representative. Mann gives reasonable explanations of the underlying assumtpions, whether or not you agree with them. This part of the reason for the extensive debate over Mann. You can argue with the assumtpions, because you know what they are. That’s a luxuary Loehle doesn’t offer.
Then Loehle simply produces a straight average of temps. No confidence interval or errror bars (an omission so glaring that Loehle was compelled to produce them later).
Not surprisingly, Loehle finishes by saying that “It must be emphasized, of course, that this result is based on limited data”.
Very limited, Craig.
And this is “top 10” stuff!!
The comparison is a fair representation of the overall debate. The “skeptical” argument is thin and caried by a small number of poor-quality papers that struggle to meet the standards of scientific methodology expected.
And it answers Davids question – it’s far easier to flog off opinion pieces to newspapers than it is to produce quality science for publication.
OK; so Loehle has been signaled out as the weak link; some half-baked comments about Miskolczi and the usual throw-a-way line about Chilingar; Loehle says this about his sampling; “This gave a total of eighteen series with quite wide geographic coverage (including tropical) and based on multiple proxies.”
Koutsoyiannis did something similar. Mann used a vast amount of rubbish just as he did with his ‘new’ paper; ask McIntyre. Mann is also a dissembler; he failed to report the failure of the bristlecone pines of Western Colorado to conform to the hockeystick; there are many other examples of duplicity; read McIntyre’s report, number 1 on my list. And what about Ammann and Wahl? If the AGW thesis is so robust why the need to lie, obfuscate and misrepresent. I don’t know which is worse, the nonsense of AGW or the high and mighty moral tone of its acolytes.
“OK; so Loehle has been signaled out as the weak link” – cohenite
More like the missing link.
ahah, that David… thanks.
Now let’s see…
1. We have governments that direct science research funding into “policy relevant” areas. This clairvoyance of scientific truth means that research outside policy relevant areas get virtually no funding and of course few papers appear from those areas.
2. You may not think it reading other postings here but scientists are smart enough to work out where the money and jobs are to be found. Paying mortgages and food etc is a powerful motivator to be seen to adopt a certain position. In a similar fashion scientific organizations know where and how to best benefit from research funding systems so its hardly a surprise to see the executive bodies of such organizations supporting the government positions.
3. Several high profile journals – “Nature”, “Science” and “Geophysical Research Letters” to name just a few – have made it clear by word or deed that they consider the science to be settled and will rarely publish anything that expresses a contrary position. If its not the journals themselves blocking the publication then it could be the peer-reviewers who will support papers that endorse their own positions and condemn those that don’t.
4. The kudos, both through the media and one’s peers, are obtained by following the line determined by government policy, not by being a radical.
In these circumstances it is (a) pretty amazing that any papers sceptical of a significant human influence on climate ever see the light of day, and (b) that we are not flooded with papers that precisely describe and quantify all scientific processes by which carbon dioxide impacts the atmosphere.
The first I can understand; the second I can only conclude is because knowledge is lacking and there’s too many gaps to try to hide.
I forgot to ask David how much research money his organization has received for projects that either seek to prove or assume a human influence on climate over the last 10 years.
I’ll be fair .. how much for other projects too?
I notice that it hasn’t warmed as per the AGW Hypothesis, for Ten(10) years….
I noticed that August was again cooler than it should have been….
It is relevant to note that Global temperature is supposed to increase as a response to increased levels of CO2 from Anthropogenic sources….. CO2 has increased by 4%, while temperature has actually dropped.
There seems to be a general cognitive dissonance between those who model climate and what the climate is observed to be doing.
….. in my humble opinion.
Michael says:
“Leohle uses 18 time series. Mann et al use hundreds. Loehle doesn’t explain why these are good choices, or representative”
Loehe used all non-tree series that had been calibrated to temperature the original authors.
Mann grabs anything that might be a proxy and arbitrarily selects them based on their correlation with the recent temperature record – a technique that would produce a hockey from noise.
To make matters worse, Mann invents his own algorithms to calculate a weighted average and expects people to accept them as legimate.
Loehe 2008 is by far the better paper and probably gives us the best picture we can get given the unreliable data.
And he blithley dismisses the fact that they were calibrated in different ways.
Which still leaves the problem that one of cohenites other “top 10” articles compleltley repudiates the temp averaging that Loehle relies on to draw his conclusion.
So who’s right, McKitrick or Loehle?
Well put Raven.
Mann’s method reminds me of Hansen’s. Grab data, no matter how contaminated it may be, then trust the algorithms to sort it out.
“Which still leaves the problem that one of cohenites other “top 10″ articles compleltley repudiates the temp averaging that Loehle relies on to draw his conclusion.”
That’s the beauty of being a denier, rather than a sceptic. Being able to believe in mutually contradictory theories at the same time. For example, according to Watts, there is no warming, but the warming is caused by the sun.
Michael…. Do you mean McIntyre or McKitrick? 🙂
Where’s that Irena today with her filibuster length hectoring posts? We could all do with a little self-improvement, especially as Cohenite has gone and spoken out of turn.
OK Jen – I’ll play but be more locally focused and stay in the region.
I think there is quite good evidence to suggest a number on anthropogenic influences at work locally, along with inter-annual and decadal variability. The detective story points to changes in the southern hemisphere involving the Walker circulation, SAM, STR, Indian Ocean, EAC, and aerosols (and others).
Strange how you guys never seem to see any of this as to me it seems fairly obvious. And even if you don’t believe you’d at least be pretty curious I would think.
And of course we don’t know everything – of course some things are not as conclusive as critics may like – but to be totally dismissive I would suggest is reckless from a risk management view point.
And none of this implies an immediate carbon tax is required so let’s not race off on immediate diversions.
But if you were undertaking some consultancy work for Murray irrigation interests – how do you brief them on such material?
25 references. We can go global some other time.
Alory, G., S. Wijffels, and G. Meyers (2007), Observed temperature trends in the Indian Ocean over 1960–1999 and associated mechanisms, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L02606, doi:10.1029/2006GL028044.
Arblaster, J. M., and G. A. Meehl, 2006: Contributions of external forcings to southern annular mode trends. J. Climate, 19, 2896–2905.
Cai W., D. Bi, J. Church, T. Cowan, M. Dix, L. Rotstayn (2006), Pan-oceanic response to increasing anthropogenic aerosols: Impacts on the Southern Hemisphere oceanic circulation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L21707, doi:10.1029/2006GL027513.
Cai, G. Shi, T. Cowan, D. Bi, and J. Ribbe, 2005: The response of the southern annular mode, the East Australian Current, and the southern midlatitude ocean circulation to global warming. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L23706, doi:10.1029/ 2005GL024701.
Cai, P. H. Whetton, and D. J. Karoly, 2003: The response of the Antarctic Oscillation to increasing and stabilized atmospheric CO2. J. Climate, 16, 1525–1538.
Cai, W. (2006), Antarctic ozone depletion causes an intensification of the Southern Ocean super-gyre circulation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L03712, doi:10.1029/2005GL024911.
Cai, W., 2006: Antarctic ozone depletion causes an intensification of the Southern Ocean super-gyre circulation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L03712, doi:10.1029/2005GL024911.
Cai, W., and T. Cowan (2006), SAM and regional rainfall in IPCC AR4 models: Can anthropogenic forcing account for southwest Western Australian winter rainfall reduction?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L24708, doi:10.1029/2006GL028037.
Cai, W., and T. Cowan (2008), Dynamics of late autumn rainfall reduction over southeastern Australia, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L09708, doi:10.1029/2008GL033727.
Cai, W., and T. Cowan (2008), Evidence of impacts from rising temperature on inflows to the Murray-Darling Basin, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L07701, doi:10.1029/2008GL033390.
Cai, W., and T. Cowan, 2007: Trends in Southern Hemisphere Circulation in IPCC AR4 Models over 1950–99: Ozone Depletion versus Greenhouse Forcing. J. Climate, 20, 681–693.
Cai, W., T. Cowan, M. Dix, L. Rotstayn, J. Ribbe, G. Shi, and S. Wijffels (2007), Anthropogenic aerosol forcing and the structure of temperature trends in the southern Indian Ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L14611, doi:10.1029/2007GL030380.
Domingues C., Church, J., White, N., Gleckler, P., Wijffels, S., Barker, P. & Dunn, J. (2008) Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise. Nature 453, 1090-1093 | doi:10.1038/nature07080
Fyfe, J. C., and O. A. Saenko (2006), Simulated changes in the extratropical Southern Hemisphere winds and currents, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06701, doi:10.1029/2005GL025332.
Fyfe, J. C., and O. A. Saenko, 2005: Human-induced change in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. J. Climate, 18, 3068–3073
Gillett, N. P., and D. W. J. Thompson, 2003: Simulation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change. Science, 302, 273–275.
Hendon, H.H., Thompson, D.W.J. and Wheeler, M.C. 2007. Australian Rainfall and Surface Temperature Variations Associated with the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode. Journal of Climate, 20(11): 2452-2467. DOI: 10.1175/JCLI4134.1
Lough, J. M. (2007), Tropical river flow and rainfall reconstructions from coral luminescence: Great Barrier Reef, Australia, Paleoceanography, 22, PA2218, doi:10.1029/2006PA001377.
Murphy, B.F. and Timbal, B. 2008. A review of recent climate variability and climate change in southeastern Australia. International Journal of Climatology, 28(7): 859-879
Power, S. B., and I. N. Smith (2007), Weakening of the Walker Circulation and apparent dominance of El Niño both reach record levels, but has ENSO really changed?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L18702, doi:10.1029/2007GL030854.
Rakich, C. S., N. J. Holbrook, and B. Timbal (2008), A pressure gradient metric capturing planetary-scale influences on eastern Australian rainfall, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08713, doi:10.1029/2007GL032970.
Rotstayn, L. D., et al. (2007), Have Australian rainfall and cloudiness increased due to the remote effects of Asian anthropogenic aerosols?, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D09202, doi:10.1029/2006JD007712.
Russell, J. L., K. W. Dixon, A. Gnanadesikan, R. J. Stouffer, and J. R. Toggweiler, 2006a: The Southern Hemisphere westerlies in a warming world: Propping open the door to the deep ocean. J. Climate, 19, 6382–6390.
Shindell, D. T., and G. A. Schmidt (2004), Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L18209, doi:10.1029/2004GL020724.
Timbal, B., Wheeler, M. and Hope, P. On the relationship of the rainfall in the southwest and southeast of Australia. Part II: Possible causes of recent declines. Journal of Climate.
Michael
I guessed as much – you don’t understand the difference between intensive and extensive variables – and it’s Chris Essex who is behind this part of the science, not Ross McKitrick.
But if you were undertaking some consultancy work for Murray irrigation interests – how do you brief them on such material?
You’re not now peddling Barry’s Hucksterism that AGW is responsible for the drought, are you?
Still no comment on Spencer & Braswell … still no comment on plateaued temperatures for the last decade … still no comment on arbitrary pea&thimble time grabs
ho hum
SJT – “For example, according to Watts, there is no warming, but the warming is caused by the sun.”
Bull. No one believes UHI single-handedly accounts for all global warming.
Heck, the local alarmists and plenty of bloggers think the sun IS responsible for the recent cooling and when it subsides we’re in for some mega-warming. This isn’t supported by RC.
And the IPCC denies that UHI is an issue but then GISS uses an algorithm to adjust urban stations based on the rural neighbours. If this isn’t necessary you’re just screwing with your data for no reason.
Plenty of contradictions on both sides of the fence.
The paper Jennifer is after is one basically refuting Svante Arrhennius’ papers on dropping CO2 causing ice ages – because this is the initial hypothesis on which the rest is built.
Thats ten-to-zero so far as far as I’m concerned. I’ve not seen a single alarmist paper that could justify the cost of the ink.
But if I’m wrong why don’t you on the science-fraud side of
the argument each post your favourite study. JUST ONE STUDY.
If each of you independently post the one study that you think is the most convincing we ought to be able to hunt down some real evidence amongst it all.
(I DON’T THINKSO.)
“OK Jen – I’ll play but be more locally focused and stay in the region.”
Luke you idiot. Lets just have the one study that you find the most convincing. You, being a moron, are not here to set homework in the form of wild-goose-chases for people far far smarter and less tendentious then yourself.
Pick one.
GO!!!
What would Arrenhius think of these clowns feeding off one of his speculations that turned out to be wrong???
What an embarrassment to his memory!!!
I suspect he’s spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken.
Bird just STFU you droning tedious moron ! I was invited. And drop the Ra persona sock puppet – it’s just soooo obvious.
Michael dismisses Loehle’s and supports Mann even when the validity of the statistical methods of Mann have been shown to be bogus repeatedly? Obvious bias, so his opinions can be ignored. But can anyone direct me to a good technical critique of Loehle’s paper I can read? Always like to look at both sides of an issue.
Luke, Thanks for beginning to respond regarding important papers, BUT, can you, like Cohenite, please place them in some context so we know why that are significant in the context of AGW.
Luke which is the study that you find most convincing? Being as you are an idiot why should we pick up after you? I mean its pretty damn feeble to just throw all these evidence-free pdf’s out there as a wild goose chase. Thats pretty feeble don’t you reckon Luke? I think its weak as piss what do you think?
Just give us the study you find the most convincing.
That way we get to see what it is that idiots and science frauds find most convincing.
And we might need this information one day.
The following list is a contribution in response to David’s claim that Australian skeptics don’t publish. Bob Carter is a geologist and thus the contribution of many of the following papers to climate science is from the perspective of the geological record:
CARTER, R.M. 2007 Stratigraphy into the 21st Century. Stratigraphy 4, 187-193.
CARTER, R.M., DE FREITAS, C.R., GOKLANY, I.M., HOLLAND, D. & LINDZEN, R.S. 2007 Climate change. Climate science and the Stern Review. World Economics 8, 161-182.
HOLLAND, D., CARTER, R.M., DE FREITAS, C.R., GOKLANY, I.M. & LINDZEN, R.S. 2007 Climate change. Response to Simmonds and Steffen. World Economics 8, 143-151.
CARTER, R.M. 2007 The myth of dangerous human-caused climate change. Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, New Leaders Conference, Brisbane, May 2-3 2007, Conference Proceedings p. 61-74.
CARTER, R.M. 2007 The role of intermediate-depth currents in continental shelf-slope accretion: Canterbury Drifts, Southwest Pacific Ocean. In: VIANA, A. R. & REBESCO, M. (eds) Economic and Palaeoceanographic Significance of Contourite Deposits. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 276, 129–154.
CARTER, R.M., de FREITAS, C.R., GOKLANY, I.M., HOLLAND, D. & LINDZEN, R.S. 2006 The Stern Review: A Dual Critique. Part I: The Science. World Economics 7, 165-198.
CARTER, R.M. 2006 Great news for the Great Barrier Reef: Tully River water quality. Energy & Environment 17(4), 527-548.
JAMES, N.P., BONE, Y., CARTER, R.M. & MURRAY-WALLACE, C.V. 2006 Origin of the Late Neogene Roe Plains and their calcarenite veneer: implications for sedimentology & tectonics in the Great Australian Bight. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 53, 407-419.
HOLLAND, M.E., SCHULTHEISS, P.J., CARTER, R.M., ROBERTS, J.A. & FRANCIS, T.J.G. 2005 IODP’s untapped wealth:multi-parameter logging of legacy core. Scientific Drilling 1, 50-51.
CARTER, R.M. 2005 The status of local “stages” in the New Zealand Plio-Pleistocene. New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 48, 623-639.
CARTER, R.M. 2005 A New Zealand climatic template back to c. 3.9 Ma: ODP Site 1119, Canterbury Bight, south-west Pacific Ocean, and its relationship to onland successions. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 35: 9-42.
ABBOTT, S.T., NAISH, T.R., CARTER, R.M. & PILLANS, B.J. 2005 Sequence Stratigraphy of the Nukumaruan stratotype (Pliocene-Pleistocene, c. 2.08-1.63 Ma), Wanganui Basin, New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 35, 123-150.
NAISH, T.R., FIELD, B.D., ZHU, H., MELHUISH, A., CARTER, R.M., ABBOTT, S.T., EDWARDS, S., ALLOWAY, B.V., WILSON, G.S., NIESSEN, F., BARKER, A., BROWNE, G.H. & MASLEN, G. 2005 Integrated outcrop, drill core, borehole and seismic stratigraphic architecture of a cyclothemic, shallow-marine depositional system, Wanganui Basin, New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 35, 91-122.
CARTER, R.M. & NORRIS, R.J. 2005 The Geology of the Blackmount district, Te Anau & Waiau Basins, western Southland. Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, Science Report 2004/23, 97 pp., Figs. 1-156, 1:50 000 map, CD-ROM.
Carter, R.M., Fulthorpe, C.S.; Lu, H. 2004 Canterbury Drifts at Ocean Drilling Program Site 1119, New Zealand: climatic modulation of southwest Pacific intermediate water flows since 3.9 Ma. Geology 32, 1005-1008.
CARTER, R.M.; GAMMON, P. 2004 New Zealand maritime glaciation: millennial-scale southern climate change since 3.9 Ma. Science, 304, 1659-1662 (supporting online material).
CARTER, R.M., GAMMON, P.R.; MILLWOOD, L. 2004 Glacial-interglacial (MIS 1-10) migrations of the Subtropical Front (STC) across ODP Site 1119, Canterbury Bight, Southwest Pacific Ocean. Marine Geology 205, 29-58.
CARTER, L., CARTER, R.M.; McCAVE, I. 2004 Evolution of the sedimentary system beneath the deep Pacific inflow off eastern New Zealand. Marine Geology 205, 9-27.
GRAHAM, I.J.; CARTER, R.M.; DITCHBURN, R.G.; ZONDERVAN, A. 2004 Chronostratigraphy of ODP 181, Site 1121 (foot of Campbell Plateau, Southwest Pacific Ocean) using 10Be/9Be dating of sediment and entrapped ferromanganese nodules. Marine Geology 205, 227-247.
Richter, C.; McCave, I.N.; Carter, R.M.; Carter L.; et al. 2004 Southwest Pacific Gateways, Sites 1119-1125. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Reports 181 plus CD-ROM.
CARTER, R.M., McCAVE, I.N.; CARTER, L. 2004 Fronts, flows, drifts, volcanoes, and the evolution of the southwestern gateway to the Pacific Ocean. In: Proceedings of Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Reports In: Richter, C., Carter, R.M., McCave, I.N., Carter, L. et al. 2004 Southwest Pacific Gateways, Sites 1119-1125. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Reports 181.
LARCOMBE, P.; CARTER, R.M. 2004 Cyclone pumping, sediment partitioning and the development of the Great Barrier Reef shelf system: a review. Quaternary Science Reviews 23, 107-135.
CARTER, R.M., ABBOTT, S.T., GRAHAM, I.J.; NAISH, T.R. 2002 The middle Pleistocene Merced-2 and -3 Sequences from Ocean Beach, San Francisco. Sedimentary Geology 153, 23-51.
DUNBAR, G.B., DICKENS, G.R.; CARTER, R.M. 2000 Sediment flux across the Great Barrier Reef shelf to the Queensland Trough over the last 300 ky. Sedimentary Geology 133, 49-92.
WARD, I.A.K., LARCOMBE, P., BRINKMAN, R.; CARTER, R.M. 1999 Sedimentary processes and the Pandora wreck, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Journal of Field Archaeology 26, 41-53.
CARTER, R.M., McCAVE, I.N., RICHTER, C., CARTER, L. et al. 1999 Southwest Pacific Gateways, Sites 1119-1125. Proceedings of Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports 181, pp.1-112 + CD-ROM.
SAUL, G., NAISH, T.R., ABBOTT, S.T.; CARTER, R.M. 1999 Sedimentary Cyclicity in the marine Plio-Pleistocene of Wanganui Basin (N.Z.): sequence stratigraphic motifs characteristic of the last 2.5 Ma. Geological Society of America, Bulletin 111, 524-537.
CARTER, R.M.; NAISH, T.R. (eds.) 1999 The high-resolution chronostratigraphic and sequence stratigraphic record of the Plio-Pleistocene Wanganui Basin. New Zealand Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, Folio 2.
ABBOTT, S.T.; CARTER, R.M. 1999 Stratigraphy of the Castlecliffian type section: ten mid-Pleistocene sequences from the Wanganui coast, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 42, 91-111.
CARTER, R.M., ABBOTT, S.T.; NAISH, T.R. 1999 Plio-Pleistocene cyclothems from Wanganui Basin, New Zealand: type locality for an astrochronologic time-scale, or template for recognizing ancient glacio-eustasy? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A357, 1861-1872.
CARTER, R.M. 1998 Two models: global sea-level change and sequence stratigraphic architecture. In: Carter, R.M., Naish, T.R., Ito, M. & Pillans, B.J. (eds.) 1998 Sequence Stratigraphy in the Plio-Pleistocene: an Evaluation. Sedimentary Geology (Special Issue) 122, 23-36.
CARTER, R.M., FULTHORPE, C.S.; NAISH, T.R. 1998 Sequence concepts at seismic and outcrop scale: the distinction between physical and conceptual stratigaphic surfaces. In: Carter, R.M., Naish, T.R., Ito, M. & Pillans, B.J. (eds.), Sequence Stratigraphy in the Plio-Pleistocene: an Evaluation. Sedimentary Geology (Special Issue) 122, 165-179.
CARTER, R.M.; NAISH, T.R. 1998 A review of Wanganui Basin, New Zealand: global reference section for shallow marine, Plio-Pleistocene (2.5-0 Ma) cyclostratigraphy. In: Carter, R.M., Naish, T.R., Ito, M. & Pillans, B.J. (eds.) 1998 Sequence Stratigraphy in the Plio-Pleistocene: an Evaluation. Sedimentary Geology (Special Issue) 122, 37-52.
ORPIN, A.R., GAMMON, P.R., NAISH, T.R.; CARTER, R.M. 1998 Modern and ancient Zygochlamys delicatula shellbeds in New Zealand, and their sequence stratigraphic implications. In: Carter, R.M., Naish, T.R., Ito, M. & Pillans, B.J. (eds.), Sequence Stratigraphy in the Plio-Pleistocene: an Evaluation. Sedimentary Geology (Special Issue) 122, 267-284.
CARTER, R.M.; NAISH, T.R. 1998 Have local Ages/Stages outlived their usefulness for the New Zealand Plio-Pleistocene? New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 41, 271-279.
LARCOMBE, P.; CARTER, R.M. 1998 Sequence architecture during the Holocene transgression: an example from the Great Barrier Reef shelf, Australia. Sedimentary Geology 117, 97-121.
NAISH, T., ABBOTT, S.T., ALLOWAY, B.V., BEU, A.G., CARTER, R.M., EDWARDS, A.R., JOURNEAUX, T.J. KAMP, P.J.J., PILLANS, B. J., SAUL, G.S.; WOOLFE, K.J. 1998 Astronomical calibration of a southern hemisphere Plio-Pleistocene reference section, Wanganui Basin, New Zealand. Quaternary Science Reviews 17, 695-710.
ABBOTT, S.T.; CARTER, R.M. 1997 Macrofossil associations from mid-Pleistocene cyclothems, Castlecliff section, New Zealand: implications for sequence stratigraphy. Palaios 12, 182-210.
CARTER, L., CARTER, R.M., McCAVE, I.N.; GAMBLE, J. 1996 Regional sediment recycling in the abyssal Southwest Pacific Ocean. Geology 24, 735-738.
CARTER, R.M.; CARTER, L. 1996 The abyssal Bounty Fan and lower Bounty Channel: evolution of a rifted-margin sedimentary system. Marine Geology 130, 182-202.
CARTER, R.M., CARTER, L.; McCAVE I.N. 1996 Current controlled sediment deposition from the shelf to the deep ocean: the Cenozoic evolution of circulation through the SW Pacific gateway. Geologisches Rundschau 85, 438-451.
FULTHORPE, C.S.; CARTER, R.M.; MILLER, K.G.; WILSON, J. 1996 Marshall Paraconformity: a mid-Oligocene record of inception of the Antarctic circumpolar current and coeval glacio-eustatic lowstand. Marine & Petroleum Geology 13, 61-77.
LARCOMBE, P., CARTER, R.M., DYE, J., GAGAN, M.K.; JOHNSON, D.P. 1995 The nature of the post-glacial sea-level rise, central Great Barrier Reef, Australia: new evidence for episodic rise. Marine Geology 127, 1-44.
ABBOTT, S.T.; CARTER, R.M. 1994 The sequence architecture of mid-Pleistocene (0.35-0.95 Ma) cyclothems from New Zealand: facies development during a period of known orbital control on sea-level cyclicity. In: de Boer, P.L. & Smith, D.G. (eds.), “Orbital Forcing and Cyclic Sequences”. International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication 19, 367-394.
BEAMAN, R., LARCOMBE, P.; CARTER, R.M. 1994 New evidence for the Holocene sea-level high from the inner shelf, central Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Journal of Sedimentary Research A64, 881-885.
CARTER, R.M., CARTER, L.; DAVY, B. 1994 Geologic and stratigraphic history of the Bounty Trough, southwestern Pacific Ocean. Marine & Petroleum Geology 11, 79-93.
HAYWICK, D.W., HENDERSON, R.A.; CARTER, R.M. 1992 Sedimentology of 40 000 year Milankovitch-controlled cyclothems from central Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. Sedimentology 39, 675-696.
CARTER, L.; CARTER, R.M. 1993 Sedimentary evolution of the Bounty Trough: a Cretaceous rift basin, southwestern Pacific Ocean. In: Ballance, P.F. (ed), South Pacific Sedimentary Basins. Sedimentary Basins of the World, 2 (Series Editor, K.J. Hsu), Elsevier, 51-67.
CARTER, R.M., JOHNSON, D.P.; HOOPER, K. 1993 Episodic post-glacial sea-level rise and the sedimentary evolution of a tropical continental embayment (Cleveland Bay, Great Barrier Reef shelf, Australia). Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 40, 229-255.
CARTER, R.M.; CARTER, L. 1992 Seismic imaging of Pleistocene deep-sea cyclothems: implications for sequence stratigraphy. Terra Nova 4, 682-692.
CARTER, R.M., ABBOTT, S.T., FULTHORPE, C.S., HAYWICK, D.J.; HENDERSON, R.A. 1991 Application of global sea-level and sequence stratigraphic models in southern hemisphere Neogene strata from New Zealand. In: MacDonald, D.I.M. (ed.), “Sedimentation, Tectonics and Eustasy”, International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication #12, 41-65.
FULTHORPE, C.S.; CARTER, R.M. 1991 Continental shelf Progradation by sediment drift accretion. Geological Society of America, Bulletin 103, 300-309.
HAYWICK, D.W., LOWE, D.A., BEU, A.G., HENDERSON, R.A.; CARTER, R.M. 1991 Plio-Pleistocene (Nukumaruan) lithostratigraphy of The Tangoio block, and origin of sedimentary cyclicity, central Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 34, 213-225
CARTER, L.; CARTER, R.M. 1990 Lacustrine sediment traps and their effect on continental shelf sedimentation – South Island, New Zealand. GeoMarine Letters 10: 93-100.
CARTER, L., CARTER, R.M., NELSON, C.S., FULTHORPE, C.S.; NEIL, H.L. 1990 Evolution of Pliocene to Recent abyssal sediment waves on Bounty Channel levees, New Zealand. Marine Geology 95:97-109.
FULTHORPE, C.S.; CARTER, R.M. 1989 Test of seismic sequence methodology on a southern hemisphere passive margin: the Canterbury Basin, New Zealand. Marine & Petroleum Geology 6:348-359.
ABBOTT, S.T., HAYWICK, D.W., CARTER, R.M.; HENDERSON, R.A. 1989 Facies signature of late Neogene eustatic sea-level fluctuations exemplified in Plio-Pleistocene cyclothems, North Island, New Zealand. 28th International Geological Congress, Washington (D.C.), Abstracts, pp.1-2.
GAGAN, M., JOHNSON, D.P.; CARTER, R.M. 1988 The Cyclone Winifred storm bed, central Great Barrier Reef shelf, Australia. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 58:845-856.
CARTER, R.M. 1988 The nature and evolution of deep-sea channels. Basin Research, v.1:41-54.
CARTER, R.M. 1988 Plate boundary tectonics, global sea-level changes and the development of the eastern South Island continental margin, New Zealand, southwest Pacific. Marine and Petroleum Geology, v.5:90-107.
CARTER, R.M. 1988 Post-breakup stratigraphy (Cretaceous-Cainozoic Kaikoura Synthem) of the east Otago continental shelf and slope, South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, v.31(4), 405-429.
CARTER, L.; CARTER, R.M. 1988 Late Quaternary development of left-bank-dominant levees in the Bounty Trough, New Zealand. Marine Geology, v.78:185-197.
CARTER, R.M.; CARTER, L. 1987 The Bounty Channel System: a 55-million-year-old sediment conduit to the deep sea, southwest Pacific. Geo-Marine Letters, v.7:183-190.
JOHNSON, D.P.; CARTER, R.M. 1987 Sedimentary framework of mainland fringing reef development, Cape Tribulation area. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Technical Memorandum, TM-14, p.37.
CARTER, R.M.; JOHNSON, D.P. 1986 Sea-level controls on the post-glacial development of the Great Barrier Reef, Queensland. Marine Geology, v.71:137-164.
CARTER, R.M.; CARTER, L.; JOHNSON, D.P. 1986 Submergent shorelines in the SW Pacific: evidence for an episodic post-glacial transgression. Sedimentology, v.33:629-649.
CARTER, R.M.; CARTER, L. 1986 Holocene evolution of the nearshore sand wedge, south Otago continental shelf, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, v.29:413-424.
CARTER, R.M. 1985 The mid-Oligocene Marshall Paraconformity, New Zealand: coincidence with global eustatic sea-level fall or rise? Journal of Geology, v.93:359-371.
CARTER, R.M.; CARTER, L.; WILLIAMS, J.J.; LANDIS, C.A. 1985 Modern and relict sedimentation on the south Otago continental shelf, New Zealand. New Zealand Oceanographic Institute Memoir, v.93:43 pp.
GRIGGS, G.B.; CARTER, L.; KENNETT, J.P.; CARTER, R.M. 1983 Late Quaternary marine stratigraphy southeast of New Zealand. Geological Society of America, Bulletin 94:791-797.
NORRIS, R.J.; CARTER, R.M. 1982 Fault-bounded blocks and their role in localising sedimentation and deformation adjacent to the Alpine Fault, southern New Zealand. Tectonophysics, v.87:11-23.
CARTER, R.M., CARTER, L. 1982 The Motunau Fault and other structures at the southern edge of the Australian-Pacific plate boundary, offshore Marlborough. Tectonophysics, v.88:133-159.
CARTER, L.; CARTER, R.M.; GRIGGS, G.B. 1982 Sedimentation in the Conway Trough, a deep near-shore basin at the junction of the Alpine transform and Hikurangi subduction plate boundary, New Zealand. Sedimentology, v.29:475-497.
CARTER, R.M.; LINDQVIST, J.K.; NORRIS, R.J. 1982 Oligocene unconformities and nodular phosphate-hardground horizons in western Southland and northern West Coast. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, v.12:11-46.
NORRIS, R.J.; CARTER, R.M. 1980 Offshore sedimentary basins at the southern end of the Alpine Fault, New Zealand. International Association of Sedimentologists, Special Publication, v.4:237-265.
CARTER, R.M. 1979 Trench-slope channels from the New Zealand Jurassic: the Otekura Formation, Sandy Bay, south Otago. Sedimentology, v.26:475-496.
NORRIS, R.J.; CARTER, R.M.; TURNBULL, I.M. 1978 Cainozoic sedimentation in basins adjacent to a major continental transform boundary in southern New Zealand. Journal of the Geological Society of London, v.135:191-205.
CARTER, R.M.; HICKS, M.D.; NORRIS, R.J.; TURNBULL, I.M. 1978 Sedimentation patterns in an ancient arc-trench-ocean basin complex: Carboniferous to Jurassic Rangitata Orogen, New Zealand. In: Stanley, D.J.; Kelling, G. (eds.), Sedimentation in Submarine Canyons, Fans and Trenches, Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, chapter 23:340-361.
CARTER, R.M.; NORRIS, R.J. 1977 Redeposited conglomerates in a Miocene flysch sequence at Blackmount, western Southland, New Zealand. Sedimentary Geology, v.18:289-319.
CARTER, R.M.; LINDQVIST, J.K. 1977 Balleny Group, Chalky Island, southern New Zealand: an inferred Oligocene submarine canyon and fan complex. Pacific Geology, v.12:1-46.
CROOKS, I.; CARTER, R.M. 1976 Stratigraphy of Maruia and Matiri Formations in their type section (Trent Stream, Matiri River, Murchison). Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, v.6:459-487.
CARTER, R.M.; NORRIS, R.J. 1976 Cainozoic history of southern New Zealand: an accord between geological observations and plate tectonic predictions. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v.31:85-94.
CARTER, R.M. 1975 Mass-emplaced sand-fingers at Mararoa construction site, southern New Zealand. Sedimentology, v.22:275-288.
CARTER, R.M.; LINDQVIST, J.K. 1975 Sealers Bay submarine fan complex, Oligocene, southern New Zealand. Sedimentology, v.22:465-483.
CARTER, R.M. 1975 A discussion and classification of subaqueous mass-transport with particular application to grain-flow, slurry-flow and fluxoturbidites. Earth Science Reviews, v.11:145-177.
TURNBULL, I.M.; BARRY, J.M.; CARTER, R.M.; NORRIS, R.J. 1975 The Bobs Cove Beds and their relationship to the Moonlight Fault Zone. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, v.5:355-394.
CARTER, R.M.; LANDIS, C.A.; NORRIS, R.J.; BISHOP, D.G. 1974 Suggestions towards a high-level nomenclature for New Zealand rocks. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, v.4:5-18.
CARTER, R.M. 1974 Geographies of the past. New Zealand’s Nature Heritage, v.1:102-107, 129-135.
CARTER, R.M. 1974 The moulding of the landscape. New Zealand’s Nature Heritage, v.1:191-200, 211-217.
CARTER, R.M. 1974 A New Zealand case-study of the need for local time-scales. Letheia, v.7:181-202.
DUNCAN, R.A.; MCDOUGALL, I.; CARTER, R.M.; COOMBS, D.S. 1974 Pitcairn Island – another Pacific hot spot? Nature, v.251:679-682.
CARTER, R.M. 1972 Wanganui strata of Komako District, Pohangina Valley, Ruahine Range, Manawatu. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, v.2:293-324.
CARTER, R.M. 1972 Adaptations of British Chalk Bivalvia. Journal of Paleontology, v.46:325-340.
CARTER, R.M.; LANDIS, C.A. 1972 Correlative Oligocene unconformities in southern Australasia. Nature (Physical Science), v.237:12-13.
CARTER, R.M. 1970 A proposal for the subdivision of Tertiary time in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, v.13:350-363.
CARTER, R.M. 1968 On the biology and palaeontology of some predators of bivalved mollusca. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology and Palaeoecology, v.4:29-65.
CARTER, R.M. 1968 Functional studies on the Cretaceous oyster Arctostrea. Palaeontology, v.11:458-485.
CARTER, R.M. 1967 On Lison’s model of bivalve shell form, and its biological interpretation. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, v.37:265-278.
CARTER, R.M. 1967 The geology of Pitcairn Island, south Pacific Ocean. Bernice P.Bishop Museum, Bulletin, v.231:38 pp.
So you can link twenty studies but you WILL NOT LINK ONE.
You see this is what science fraud looks like. If any of you were wondering what science fraud looks and smells like this is it.
He can link 20 to waste peoples time. But he won’t link one thats convincing because he doesn’t have one.
Right Luke. Lets see one link that you find particularly informative and convincing.
Lets go Luke.
Plus we would want you to explain WHY you are posting that link and why you think that particular link is particularly convincing.
Well you see Jen – the point is that it’s the totality of all the interlinked changes – ocean circulation, ocean warming – Indian Ocean and Tasman Sea, IOD, STR, SAM, Walker Circulation, increased climate variability in reef catchments, – even a Gayndah-Deniliquin index. Observations unravelled by modelling. And in view of all of this one might suspect something is going on?
(BTW Birdy – climate is easy – you said so yourself – so given it’s so easy – you’ll be able to whip through all these refs by bed time – surely you don’t need your hand held?)
Louis Hissink said…”Your comment about McKitrick, Essex and Andresen simply points to you not having read it”.
Don’t forget Louis that the nigglers compare everything said here to the gospel at realclimate and Deltoid. None of them have the ability to think for themselves.
Recently, I was invited as part of a group to visit RC and Deltoid to present my views. I did visit Deltoid out of curiosity and was surprised to see part of an arguement of mine presented there for ridicule. Anyone coming from that milieu would not have the foggiest about technical terms like temperature. They also wouldn’t understand anything McKitrick was talking about. He hang’s out with real climate scientists like Patrick Michaels.
Please explain how you can simultaneously believe Miskolczi and Chilingar? They invoke diametrically opposite (and still wrong) physics.
Miskolczi depends on his calculation of radiative emission from the atmosphere and Chilingar says it doesn;t exist. Chilingar doesn;t believe in gravity either.
The who list is full of such contradictions.
Michael said…”Leohle uses 18 time series. Mann et al use hundreds”.
I’m on to the methodology of alarmists like you. You cherry pick irrelevant data and try to squeeze it by as significant. The significance of Loehle’s work is that he re-established the MWP and the LIA that everyone knew was there but that Mann had lost, even though the IPCC showed graphs for both in 1990.
Loehle did not use tree ring data and his reasoning is sound. He claimed tree rings can get narrower in warmer climates due to a lack of precipitation.
Doh!! Guess what all of Mann’s research is based on? So, Loehle re-established the MWP and the LIA, which have extensive peer-reviewed studies to back them, and you find that surprising, while backing a study that lost them?
Give your head a shake. The only negative review of Loehle’s work came from RC. Surprise, surprise…the home of Michael Mann. I have a new way of looking at science. If RC pans it, I know it is good science.
Gordon,
Alas, you are right – they don’t think for themselves, only what they have been trained to think. I often end up having the impression that responding to the niggling anonymice here is much like those computerised help centres which modern, IT focussed, telecoms have – you wonder which button to press to redirect the query to a real living human being.
I may add that there is an interesting discussion going on in a sceptic forum on downwelling IR – too early to indicate what the conclusion is but I have a feeling Phillipona’s interpretation of the data might be incomplete.
I have an experiment in design stage and I need an inexpensive way of observing and measuring IR.
Max said…”shouldn’t the climate change models being used now be able to be applied with past data to predict, for example, last year’s weather to have any validity”.
They tried that Max, but they had to use fudge factors liberally to do even that.
In this article:
John Christy makes this telling statement:
“The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: “We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans.”
We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don’t have thermometers marked with “this much is human-caused” and “this much is natural”.
So, I would have written this conclusion as “Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change.”
In other words, models can’t oredict the past on their own…they need fudge factors like CO2 as a feedback.
Eli: “Chilingar says it doesn;t exist. Chilingar doesn;t believe in gravity either.”
I must have missed that can you pleas point out where he does that?
Will N
The Loehle paper was critiqued extensively (and interactively with Lohle) on the climate audit website by a whole bunch of competent scientists. After the completion of the process Loehle and McCullock prepared a revised version of the paper and this was published at E&E.
Jen,
As you will notice from the publication list by Bob Carter there is a lot on NZ geology. That’s at least partly because he is an expat Kiwi.
eli; Chilingar says radiative emission from the atmosphere doesn’t exist; wrong.
Climate science IS easy Luke. Now which is the study you find most convincing?
“Comment from Eli Rabett
Time September 11, 2008 at 2:21 pm”
Eli. No point complaining about the other sides evidence when you yourself have none. Are you yourself able to point to any one study that you find particularly convincing?
Or will you admit to having been engaged in the promotion of science fraud?
Eli and Luke. One each. Go!!! Don’t keep us waiting. Hopefully its a different study from each of you.
luke; that list you posted; I’ve done some running around in respect of the Cai and Cowan pieces before; the only other 2 which stand out are the Dominigues paper and the Shindell effort; Domingues is rebutted by the Willis et al paper here;
http://climatesci.org/2008/06/20/diagnosis-of-global-sea-level-and-upper-ocean-heat-content-on-seasonal-to-interannual-timescales-paper-willis-et-al-2008-published/
I’ll post seperately on the Shindell effort.
Mate – you’re just playing blocksies – at some point the penny might drop that a whole bunch of stuff has changed ! The totality.
Some short term distraction by Pielke re Willis is irrelevant in this. Relax and let yourself think.
Cohenite simply choosing papers that agree with your paradigm is not science. It’s stupid.
“In the interest of providing a rebuttal to the insidious PR stigma I present my ‘top 10’ papers which mount arguments against AGW, nine of them peer-reviewed.”
Big deal… I mean really who cares if you feel that there are these ‘elitists’ or whatever.
Are you seriously suggesting that this is how you think this debate should be settled? By comparing a top ten?
Is this how a legal debate would be conducted? I can’t think of a dumber way to conduct a debate.
I had great hopes for the rebirth of this site, however it still the same cheerleading nonsense as ever.
“the castigation against Beck was particularly condescending and elitist, no doubt because he does not have a PhD;”
This is a cheap political shot. Are you training to be a politician becuase you are “on message” that’s for sure!
Ohhh the Elites are stoppin the truth! Ohhh it’s elitist science! ohhh the naughty elitists!
Soon we’ll have latte left, or Leftards…
You know what would be more enlightening Cohenite? If you told us what evidence you would require to accept AGW as a valid hypothesis.
So what eveidence do you need?
Actually maybe we should ask everyone here? Perhaps the evidence is already there and you don’t know it.
I bet your answer will be “there’s no evidence that would convince me of AGW”
And that’s because your belief is a political one.
“I’m on to the methodology of alarmists like you. You cherry pick irrelevant data and try to squeeze it by as significant. The significance of Loehle’s work is that he re-established the MWP and the LIA that everyone knew was there but that Mann had lost, even though the IPCC showed graphs for both in 1990.
Loehle did not use tree ring data and his reasoning is sound. He claimed tree rings can get narrower in warmer climates due to a lack of precipitation.
Doh!! Guess what all of Mann’s research is based on? So, Loehle re-established the MWP and the LIA, which have extensive peer-reviewed studies to back them, and you find that surprising, while backing a study that lost them?”
No, Manns lastet paper has results with no tree ring data, just to keep you happy. If anyone is cherry picking, it’s Loehle. How can Mann be the cherry picker if he’s using hundreds of proxies, while Loehle isn’t, but he’s only using ten.
luke; I think Jennifer is right; you need to narrow your list with some commentary as to why you have chosen the papers; IMO.
Here is another paper by Shindell;
http:www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/
This paper is interesting (and I’ve left out the // because I’m having trouble posting it) because it asserts the LIA was only a regional effect; Shindell says “that the reduced brightness of the Sun during the Maunder minimum causes global average surface temperature changes of only a few tenths of a degree, in line with the small change in solar output. However, regional cooling over Europe and North America is 5-10 times larger due to a shift in atmospheric winds.”
That’s some regional anomaly; Michael, who has been mischievious with his alleged contradiction between Essex and Loehle should consider this. Loehle computed a mean of the 18 anomaly regions; obviously the MWP and LIA impacted in differing ways over all the regions; a mean will not show that; it simply shows all the regions were effected; harking back to Essex and the telephone directory; averaging that will be meaningless for any one number but it will show that all the regions/numbers are in the same book; the need for an average temp has been because of the greenhouse analogy; it is a false one, as are thermal blankets, furnaces and the rest of it; it has enabled AGW alarmists to promulgate global catastrophe; a recent thread devoted to Glikson and his regrettable tipping points illustrates this; the Dansgaard-Oeschger events he uses are regional events in the northern hemisphere. The global radiative imbalances which flow from the semi-infinite, opaque atmospheric model which underpins AGW is the prime example of how the averaging motif is abused by AGW; the theoretical papers, Miskolczi and Chilingar, show this is wrong in both a modelling sense and in terms of how the data supports them; but a so-far neglected paper which I have included, Pielke sr’s on Stefan-Boltzman, really nails this point; regional temperature-based differences in IR flux defeat any notion of an ‘average’ global radiative imbalance required by AGW.
NT; stop scewing around; pick 10 and explain why.
Relax and let yourself think; ha! Go with the force, eh?
Obviously quantity is preferable to quality – but if you don’t actually understand the papers themselves, then it’s a guess if I deluge them with enough, perhaps 1 might fit Jennifer’s specifications.
Seriously this is like picking my top ten songs of all time and saying “They beat yours”
So I’ll give you my top ten songs – because it’s as relevant.
1. Once in a lifetime (Talking Heads)
2. Fade out (Radiohead)
3. Place without a postcard (Midnight Oil)
4. Same old scene (Roxy Music)
5. Ashes to Ashes (David Bowie)
6. Memories can’t wait (Talking Heads)
7. Life in the Fast Lane (The Eagles)
8. Come Together (The Beatles)
9. Echoes (Pink Floyd)
10. Ramble On (Led Zepplin)
See, my ten beats yours.
Come on Cohenite, What would prove AGW for you?
Eli Rabbet Says:
Miskolczi depends on his calculation of radiative emission from the atmosphere and Chilingar says it doesn;t exist. Chilingar doesn;t believe in gravity either.
Eli you ought to hang your head in shame and embarrassment as a result of quoting the deplorable Krugman on economic matters.
And by the way the nonsense you spouted about the superiority of mitigation was a crock of shit proving that if you know so little about economics you shouldn’t be talking about AGW as your judgment on any matter should not be trusted.
The sheer nonsense was deplorable. here:
http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/rabbets-and-carrots-without-the-stick/
As usual you peddle off at 50 MHP and won’t answer to all that stupidity you wrote.
We need an apology for your stupidity, Eli. Nothing less will do.
And for this too, Rabbet:
eli; Chilingar says radiative emission from the atmosphere doesn’t exist; wrong.
I prefer Dark Side of the Moon; where all the radiative flux ends up; and where Hansen and Gore et al will have to hide when this blows over.
“Echoes” eh? – very cool. Sort of like here.
Cohenite – mate – Yes go with the flow indeed – such as spinning up your super-gyre and modifying your EAC.
Birdy wants to pick one – so why not try the first one.
Lets have that one study that you find particularly convincing Luke you fraud.
This is very important. Uncommitted third parties ought to be able to judge just what it is that lying idiots find convincing.
Lets have it Luke.
““the castigation against Beck was particularly condescending and elitist, no doubt because he does not have a PhD;””
Beck produced what must be one of the worst papers in the history of science, except that it’s not, because it’s not science.
“Loehle did not use tree ring data and his reasoning is sound. He claimed tree rings can get narrower in warmer climates due to a lack of precipitation.”
He was right not to use tree ring data but you bought his reasoning? This is lunacy? We’ve seen how precipitation reacts to warmth. The more warmth the more precipitation. But not on a time period that we can make a good link too for a yearly basis or even for a decadal basis.
And since CO2-levels lead to faster growth, and CO2 levels result from a warmer climate with time delays…… so obviously tree-ring growth is an inappropriate proxy, except perhaps as a rough clue over periods of thousands of years.
So he just arbitrarily pulls this upside-down nonsense out of the air and you go along with it?
Obviously tree-ring growth wasn’t a good proxy. So he is right to reject it as a main proxy. But it was a proxy that would have caused something akin to a hockey stick for the post-war period quite apart from any other dodgy behaviour that the science-fraud Mann (for example) got himself involved with.
OK, SJT; let’s look at the 10 worst papers on AGW; my money is on Mann 1 & 2, Ammann and Wahl, Sherwood and Allen, the bucket nonsense ( I start to laugh just thinking about it); a couple of Johnson papers where it was, it’s warming, no, it’s cooling, no, it’s buggered off; Philipona, I’m afraid, not for the topic, DLW, which is a crucial topic, but for raising an argument based on 7years (of bad luck), and someone’s back yard; then to round it out, a couple of Hansen’s where he references himself 49 out of 50, and the last one is a misprint.
“Cohenite simply choosing papers that agree with your paradigm is not science. It’s stupid…..”
NT he doesn’t do that you lying jerk. He thinks things through.
Now give me one study that you find particularly convincing.
IF YOU WEREN’T FRAUDS THIS WOULD NOT BE HARD WORK.
One study at a time NT. Not twenty. Just one which you yourself are impressed as to its convincing nature.
I reckon you should just say what evidence would convince you of the reality of AGW. Why would it take?
We can make lists of papers we like etc. But that’s not very useful, what we want is evidence, right? So what evidence would convince you?
If you answer I’ll even go and look for it.
Sorry, that should read “What would it take?”
So we have got three clear frauds who cannot each single out even ONE STUDY that they themselves find convincing.
People this is what science fraud looks like. How could it be otherwise?
The idea of the liars is not to post a study but that they post twenty.
I hate the Philipona study more than the others. Because its so blatantly set up to deceive and particularly when the cut off year is taken into consideration.
I hate it because it could actually fool members of the laity who were giving the subject their best shot for the first time. The rest of the ones I’ve seen are merely evidence-deprived and ineffectual.
Not a bad list NT!
luke; had alook at your designated paper by Alory et al;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028044.shtml
They look at a SST warming due a complex interaction between a shifting of the subtropical gyre and SAM; interesting and right up Bob Tisdale’s and Steve Short’s alley’s I’d suggest.
NT; I’ve asked you before about the 33K and what proportion you think is due to AGW; whether the temeprature gradient of the atmosphere is consistent with pressure; why, given IPCC forcing for CO2 increase, have temperatures deviated so much from that forcing; that’s it; give me an incontrovertible example of a manifest AGW fingerprint (try to avoid stratospheric cooling, or at least read the refutation of Fu et al’s study by Spencer and Christy).
“Beck produced what must be one of the worst papers in the history of science, except that it’s not, because it’s not science.”
You filthy dog. You couldn’t find a damn thing wrong with it!!! Lets have it now. You wouldn’t produce any valid criticisms before. Well lets have it now.
This is important since Becks work implies that the CO2 levels will soon flatten out and drop. Which is a great tragedy and something we need to prepare for. Since for someone who only took scientific evidence into account, we could satisfy ourselves with the idea that extra-CO2 would mitigate the new little-ice-age, not in terms of warmth, but in terms of WEALTH-PRODUCTION.
What we have on the way instead amounts to a perfect storm that the environmentalists, have thrown us into. The evidence would suggest then that there will be cooling, perhaps with good rainfall and high CO2 at first, but later with drought, lower CO2 levels, and the cold.
The implications of the Beck study are therefore earth-shattering. Since with the ice core data, it was suggested that the relevant delay was about 800 years. Whereas Beck showed that the CO2 will react far more quickly than that to the oncoming cooling.
Now you are a filthy liar. Since it is implied by your statement that you had a valid objection to Beck. You did not!!!
I wish someone serious would review the paper. It certainly looked like a vigilant and well-reasoned paper to me. And one which seemed to require some more research to confirm, amend or overturn.
“I reckon you should just say what evidence would convince you of the reality of AGW.”
JUST ANY EVIDENCE WOULD BE GOOD FOR A START NT YOU JERK.
Anything you moron.
Just come up with SOMETHING.
Stop stalling.
Come up with SOMETHING.
Buddha, Allah, Ahura Mazda, bloody bloody bloody You are a dishonest idiot.
JUST…. COME…. UP…..WITH…. SOME …. EVIDENCE.
I’m not fussy. I’d just like some evidence. Something, anything, thats not already included in the hypothesis. Something that doesn’t insist that the hypothesis proves itself.
How stupid are you people? Don’t you even know what evidence is?
Here’s the conclusion from one of Luke’s papers by Cai & Cowan – note the ifs and maybes and suggests. By normal scientific standards this is pathetically weak and anyone who bases policy on it is simply irresponsible:
Recent studies have suggested that the weakening of the Walker Circulation and the changing ENSO characteristics is in part induced by a climate change forcing [e.g., Power and Smith, 2007; Vecchi et al., 2006]. There is a consensus that the long-term IO warming is at least in part due to global warming [Alory et al., 2007], and the fact that the weakening in the meridional IO SST index is linked to the long-term IO warming suggests a component of climate change is active in the rainfall reduction. A quantification of the relative importance of different forcing factors awaits further investigation.
I’m not sure if this has been mentioned here already or not: there are better things to do than read the comments section here carefully every day. Anyway, it is Real Climate’s recent post on the “simple” explanation for AGW:
http://tinyurl.com/6y4h6v
And Jennifer: this calling for “best papers” thing is getting tiresome, if you don’t make it clear where you are coming from. Have you decided already that the proof is not there and is never likely to be? Do you think AGW might be true, but just not with a high enough degree of certainty to take action, even on a precautionary basis? Do you feel you have a vested interest in showing that governments should not take action? What is your motive for demanding people’s best proof, when you know the science is spread over thousands of papers, not to mention text books, etc? Unless you disclose your position, it just sounds like your engaged in a game, rather similar to the one tobacco interests ran for years to try to successfully convince governments the issue should be left alone.
Sorry. I meant “food-production” and not “wealth-production”. Without extra-CO2 to mitigate against cold, frost-damage and cooling-lead-drought, then world agricultural production will be under serious stress. And since this coincides with a decades-long period of high energy prices the anti-capitalists have really dropped us into a perfect storm.
I cannot stress the seriousness of this and how dangerous is the tolerance everyone seems to have with science fraud and the worship of unreason.
I get the feeling that even the smart guys here don’t really take it personally. Like they might like the idea that they are blatantly superior to these morons.
But its a real race to stomp these people. Stomp them, humiliate them, expose the identity of the bigshots who slum-it anonymously on blogs, destroy their reputations, and get them all fired.
Every month counts.
But all is not yet lost. Since it takes only 3 years to build a nuclear plant once all the red tape is out of the way. And since under conditions of energy stress its more costly to invade Australia.
Cohenite, I asked you what would convince you of AGW, not what you think is wrong with it.
And I answered your question re: 33K.
I think there is a problem here. You don’t actually know what would be convincing evidence so when people present it to you, you just say “that’s not evidence”. I don’t think you would accept anything as evidence.
Graeme. Have you thought about what evidence you would find convincing? You keep demanding evidence. What sort do you require?
Cohenite,
“whether the temeprature gradient of the atmosphere is consistent with pressure”
I was under the impression that very high areas of the upper atmsophere were actually very hot. Am I wrong?
Thanks Libby,
What’s your top ten?
” but a so-far neglected paper which I have included, Pielke sr’s on Stefan-Boltzman, really nails this point; regional temperature-based differences in IR flux defeat any notion of an ‘average’ global radiative imbalance required by AGW…”
I cannot help wondering if I might have helped inspire this one. This was a subject I often talked about on his blog.
I know how ridiculous that sounds. But still I have to see it that way. Since I was hyping a marginalist approach so aggressively for such a long time. Insisting that Stefan Boltzmanns law implied that the models were ridiculous and also that it meant that oceanic circulation was far more important than previously thought and not just about moving the thermal energy around.
I was out there on the net all the time beating people up with the idea that this was all obvious and established fact when it had occurred to me without any precedent that I could find.
And another thing: anyone can tell just from the titles that the vast majority of those Bob Carter papers are to do with his field and (I would bet) have nothing to do with climate change, not even peripherally. The relevance of being widely published is hard to see. It’s like the diverse group of tertiary qualified experts who are 9/11 truthers: their opinion adds nothing to the debate if they have never done detailed work relevant to how burning buildings might collapse.
I’ve been queried for asking for the top 10 papers from the other side? I guess I try very hard to be objective. And objectivity is perhaps recognising your preferences and then subjecting them to scrutiny. I am of the opinion that there are no seminal papers that make impressive reading for the AGW case, but I am keen to be proven wrong.
NT; just google atmospheric temperature profile;
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter1/vert_temp_all.html
Convective influence is apparent, as is solar; where are the AGW fingerprints?
Graeme, I didn’t mean to steal your thunder.
Thought you might like to know that the UK’s Met Office (using some of the most powerful computers available for weather forecasting) confidently told all and sundry that the UK was going to have one of its hottest summers on record.
The outcome: one of the wetest and coolest!!
No wonder many of us are sceptical of doomsday predictions based on computer models.
Until AGW supporters can provide evidence that CO2 drives warming (or will have any discernable impact on it if caused by other factors) then we have a right to be concerned that resources are being directed at the wrong ‘problem’.
Jennifer, why are you asking here? Why not ask someone from a university? Why not seek a text book.
There is a post on Realclimate on this exact thing and does give references to papers.
What evidence would you need to convince you of AGW?
Cohenite I found one on Wikipedia, but it wouldn’t post for some reason.
Why would this show AGW? It’s an idealised diagram.
I will ask once more, if you don’t reply I’ll assume you wouldn’t be convinced by any evidence.
What evidence would convince you of AGW?
Steve from Brisbane; your point is specious as your link to a rather redundant RC article show; the article disingenuously claims that climate is complex so a simple explanation of climate change must be complex; but the fact is AGW has postulated a simple cause; CO2. This has been the guts of AGW since it began; it is extremely hypocritical to say after all the hysteria and apocalyptic talk that definitive evidence is not available when vast and disruptive economic and social measures have been demanded and instigated; to parphrase Graeme; put up or shut up.
So Jen – you’re completely happy why SAM, STR, Indian Ocean, Tasman Sea, EAC, Walker circulation, extreme drought temperatures, wind run, reef catchment rainfall variability, NW WA rainfall, SW WA rainfall has changed.
Not even a hint of curiosity? Wow ! It’s the lack of curiosity that is interesting. As you see in the reverse I’m most curious?
NT; I’ve said; an incontrovertible fingerprint.
Cohenite
What is that? Do you know what an incontrovertible fingerprint is?
Here’s one paper listed as seminal on Realclimate.
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0469/24/3/pdf/i1520-0469-24-3-241.pdf
Here is an interesting paper that was linked at watts up with that
seems to be based on actual measurements of the greenhouse effect and shows that the effect of CO2 increase is tiny because CO2 is already close to saturation.
It also show that evaporation cools the planet by 14C or so, a massive negative feedback.
cheers
NT well some evidence that models work would be a good start. Since the predictions are all based on model predictions, getting one to get the past right without “fudge factors” would be agood start.
steve from brisbane : Carter is at least a real scientist, what exactly is a climate scientist?…judging from RMIT climate sciences, to get into the courses you do not even need to have studied science……ask your self a question.
Those thousands of scientists who signed petitions stating they were sceptical actually had real science degrees…why are they sceptical. ( and don t try the ad hom that the names are made up!).
Cohenite,
you are missing an important point with this:
“but the fact is AGW has postulated a simple cause; CO2. ”
There are other gases involved…
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/194/4266/685
You can get that for free (as I have a copy) but I can’t find it right now.
Toby, that isn’t evidence of AGW. Evidence I would assume would be something we could see or measure.
Such as ice mass-balances, temperatures, movement of species to higher latitudes and altitudes, changes in precipitation patterns etc.
darn I cant get the link to work.
its Here is an interesting paper that was linked at watts up with that
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf
Silly question I know, however AGW supporters want CO2 emmissions cut because in their opinion they increase warming. Therefore, if over the next 10 years we gather substantial evidence that we’re heading for a prolonged cooling period or even another Ice Age will they support increased CO2 emissions?
NT; the Minschwaner paper rebuts the gist of your link; in fact this is why the enhanced greenhouse concept is wrong; RH does not stay fixed.
NT, I agree that is not real evidence, but since the models are what is required to turn co2 into a doomsday gas and heat the planet dramatically, rather than in a minor and pleasant way. I would have thought it a prerequisite that the models had been tested and verified….they don t seem to work very well, so why are we worried.
When the earth heats up above the emps of the MWP , without the suns activity being at similar levels, then you start to have a case…but since this is not the case in my opinion as yet the evidence is not there. Yes the Npole has warmed up and Greenland marginally…but not a lot!
So this “evidence” as you put it because it is still within recent natural bounds, does not get me excited.
Sorry i am out to see pirates of penzance, so gone for the night
Cohenite.
What paper? Do you have a link? Are you sure that this Minschwaner paper hasn’t been refuted? Also, if it did refute it, why is the greenhouse effect still accepted science?
This is why this kind of discussion is silly. Because it is a game where we all post papers and say “I’m right”. It’s a very poor kind of analysis.
So what does your incontravertible fingerprint look like?
Toby, you need to look at paleoclimates. The idea that warmer = pleasant (for us) is flawed. Human’s have never existed in anything other than an ice age (we are still in one), we evloved with ice age animals and plants. If we moved out of the ice age and into a more Tertiary style climate I don’t think we’ll cope.
“Yes the Npole has warmed up and Greenland marginally…but not a lot!”
Well the retreat of glaciers in that region is beyond where they were 3000 years ago. You can look around the world at where glaciers have retereated and typically they reveal ground and artiffacts over 3000 years old. And the sun is at solar min… Doesn’t get much lower than this.
Oh Gosh, I feel embarrassed to be listed with these giants. I want to let your readers know the paper is not peer reviewed, but then the report that it critiques isn’t either. I also think it hasn’t really demonstrated political input. I see it more like telling a fortune teller I can’t find evidence of their skill (at predicting droughts).
“I was under the impression that very high areas of the upper atmsophere were actually very hot. Am I wrong?”
But thats not to deny the pressure gradient in the troposphere or in the first many kilometres of the Venusian atmosphere. You cannot just blithely wish away the findings you would make if you climbed a mountain in the tropics on any given day. What happens with these upper atmospheric layers where the air is very thin and can be of very high temperature but without the ability to retain a great quantity of joules-per-volume….. well you ought not use that as a distraction to the reality of what happens when the pressure is between what it is at the top of the troposphere and between what it is on the surface of Venus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To explain how the high temperatures of some layers of the upper atmosphere are possible I would like to assume that three different principles are working.
The idea that heat flows from hotter to cooler areas. But also I would make the assumption that, for the most part, the actual joules per cubic metre are reducing the higher you go up. That might always be the case. But its a worthy working assumption for the sake of trying to figure out whats going on up there. And we will soon see some factors that could go against this working assumption.
The third assumption that would help me explain (before someone tells me what’s really going on) the temperature gradients is to recognise and take on board what Alan Siddons has been saying about space as being akin to an insulator.
He’s pointed this out a number of times. And to the extent that this is true it ought to put into perspective the relative importance of radiation versus conduction-and-convection when it comes to the top layers and also in other parts of this science-fraud controversy.
You see if convection and conduction are taken out of the picture, or more correctly reduced as to their importance in sending the heat out into space as you go higher…. then the heat being sent out into space is reliant on radiation alone. The science-fraud brings forth radiation and diminishes the importance of other measures of heat transference and buildup. But when we are talking about the layer of atmosphere you have referred to this is where radiation is going to ACTUALLY be of overwhelming importance.
Is it so surprising what happens to these molecules in the upper atmosphere? Thinly dispersed as they are they will still be copping IR coming from below and full spectrum coming from above. And they will have a hard time getting rid of this thermal energy through upward convection or brownian motion to transfer the energy to space. So its like they’ll be highly on radiation and lateral transfer of energy. As compared to the situation on the surface where other factors are important.
The rule of thermal energy moving from hotter to colder areas does seem to contain an exception on the face of things. And that would be in the suns corona. So thats a mystery that would teach us a lot if we went to unravel it. Now I don’t THINK that this is relevant in this case of the high temperature upper-atmosphere. I think we ought to basically be able to understand that without recourse to other mysteries.
The troposphere reduces in temperature and pressure with height. Hence obviously with height it also reduces in terms of joules-per-cubic-metre.
But the stratosphere INCREASES its temperature with height. I’m going to assume until someone corrects me that the absolute joules held per cubic metre goes on reducing with height even in the stratosphere as you go higher. But this might not be strictly true because of Ozone and UV working together.
“Temperatures decrease at middle latitudes from an average of 15°C at sea level to about -55°C at the beginning of the tropopause. At the poles, the troposphere is thinner and the temperature only decreases to -45°C, while at the equator the temperature at the top of the troposphere can reach -75°C.[citation needed]”
Note the counter-intuitive idea of the tropopause being cooler at the equator than at the poles. It is the solving of such mysteries that is the best way of understanding things.
“the top of the stratosphere has a temperature of about 270 K (−3°C or 26.6°F), just slightly below the freezing point of water.[1] This top is called the stratopause, above which temperature again decreases with height.”
Thats a pretty big increase in temperature as you go up in the stratosphere. From about -55 degrees to -3 degrees. One would wonder if my assumption that the joules-per-volume would entirely hold up here.
Ozone is produced by UV light affecting the oxygen. One wonders if this production doesn’t then happen disproportionately at the top of the stratosphere since the Ozone, once produced, then absorbs the UV radiation. One wonders if the ozone then doesn’t migrate down from the top through the normal mixing of gasses.
But what you (NT) were talking about would relate mostly to the layer two layers above. Which is to say the Thermosphere.
So we have the troposphere with reducing temperature with altitude, the stratosphere increasing temperature with
altitude, the mesophere reducing temperature with altitude and the thermosphere increasing temperature with altitude.
And you were talking about the thermosphere. Anything that is happening there ought not allow you to look the other way when it comes to the basic laws of gasses, cruelly ignored by the generic alarmist models pedalled to the public like sugar-water to the children.
“Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation by the small amount of residual oxygen still present.
Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 15,000°C.
Radiation causes the atmosphere particles in this layer to become electrically charged (see ionosphere), enabling radio waves to bounce off and be received beyond the horizon.
At the exosphere, beginning at 500 to 2,000 km above the earth’s surface, the atmosphere mixes into space.
The few particles of gas in this area can reach 2,500°C (4532°F) during the day.
Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH CONTACT WITH THE FEW ATOMS OF GAS TO TRANSFER MUCH HEAT.
A normal thermometer would read significantly below 0°C.”
So you got that NT?
There is just nothing there which could allow you to willfully and rudely ignore what Alan Siddons, cohenite, Louis, Barry Moore and others have been telling you about the basic nature of gasses, heat energy, compression and so forth that these guys have been kindly instructing you on.
Don’t change the subject and pretend that you are making a valid point. Changing the subject is one thing. The pretense that you are making a valid point in doing so is another.
Its clear that nothing about the thermosphere contradicts anything that cohenite has said or any scientific understanding that a scuba diving shop business owner might pick up in the expansion of his business activities.
Heat, temperature, compression and all that. And all we hear about is computer power and watts-per-square metre from these jerk-offs and frauds.
It sickens me.
I’m disgusted.
Its not hard or esoteric science that is needed here. Its rather the integration and working through of the inferences associated with basic science coming from all different directions.
How could these research-grant-whores have failed to integrate into their understanding all this gear to do with the laws of gas behaviour, compression and all that?
Well we know how. And it sickens me all the more.
Note to NASA: Fire Dr. James Hansen, now.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/
“Yes the Npole has warmed up and Greenland marginally…but not a lot!”
NT quotes the above and responds to it:
“Well the retreat of glaciers in that region is beyond where they were 3000 years ago.”
SO I SEZ:
This is likely bogus. But why choose 3000 years?
Try 6000 years and see if you can get away with it?
NT is likely wrong and him saying it makes no difference one way or another but he could be right depending on what exact decade he’s taking about roughly 3000 years ago.
Malinkovitch cycles have gone against us for 6000 years or so. The temperature has been falling for 5000 years due to Malinkovitch but subject to the oscillations of solar activity.
But the 20th century solar activity was so powerful that it brought us up to about the average temperature of the last 3000 years. Way above the downward gradient of the last 5000 years.
So you know. NT could be right by pure accident. But he’s more than likely just quoting some tendentious fool from realclimate who himself is grasping at straws.
Who are you relying on NT? Gavin from realclimate?
NT; the Minschwaner paper is here; I have excluded the // because it won’t post; there is a link in the Stockwell piece;
http:mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/Minschwaner_2004.pdf
And a very useful discussion of atmospheric humidity and EG is done by Stockwell here;
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/giss-global-temperature-dips-in-august/
“And Jennifer: this calling for “best papers” thing is getting tiresome, if you don’t make it clear where you are coming from..”
What are you on about blockhead?
They didn’t come up with a paper. Not one. Why don’t you come up with one? Just one will do? You are supporting science fraud. I’m not wrong. But suppose I was….. then it would be easy for you to simply come up with what you think is your most convincing paper.
You need detection and attribution. DETECTION-AND-ATTRIBUTION?
Got that jerk? Or am I going too fast for you?
DETECTION AND ATTRIBUTION:
That is to say you need at least a fair attempt to reconstruct the history of CO2-levels and pull out a CO2-warming-effect from all the noise. It doesn’t have to be decisive in my view. Just an honest attempt to make that connection empirically. That is to say through reconstruction and attribution. I say reconstruction for this narrower case since the CO2 levels have to be reconstructed. The last fellow who tried to do this was pilloried world-wide. But if you don’t do it you have no case.
Pretty bloody simple I would have thought you jerk.
And when something is actually having an effect we CAN find it. Look at volcanic eruptions? If they are large we can clearly pull an estimate of the effect from the data.
So go and find a study you dumbass. And don’t display your virulent contempt of the need for evidence again at least until such time as you drag your ass back here with a decent study of this nature or on one knee to apologize to us all for your stupidity.
The stupidity of you guys is really oppressive after awhile. Its rude. You weren’t brought up right is what it is.
The temperature keeps dropping as we argue…
“Toby, that isn’t evidence of AGW. Evidence I would assume would be something we could see or measure.
Such as ice mass-balances, temperatures, movement of species to higher latitudes and altitudes, changes in precipitation patterns etc.”
No no no you drop-kick. It could be all or one of those things. But its got to be specific evidence related to a specific hypothesis.
It can be evidence that would seem to verify or falsify a specific hypothesis. But either way you need the clear hypothesis.
Lets look at what you said again:
“Toby, that isn’t evidence of AGW. Evidence I would assume would be something we could see or measure
Such as ice mass-balances, temperatures, movement of species to higher latitudes and altitudes, changes in precipitation patterns etc.”
You know I know whats going on here. You are expecting to be able to in effect swamp us with mindless panic-talk in lieu of evidence.
So its:
ICE-MELTING…….ARRRRRGGGGHHHHH,
HOT DAY IN SASKATCHEAN……..LORD HELP US!!!
THE CRITTERS ARE HEADING FOR THE HILLS (A WOMAN SCREAMS)
THE WAVES ARE ROLLING BACKWARDS, WE CANNOT MAKE HAY AS IT RAINS IN THE SUMMER, AND AUNT FLORENCE RAN DOWN THE MAIN STREET STARK NAKED I JUST CANNOT TAKE THIS GLOBAL WARMING ANY MORE.
You see all this stupid-talk you are getting away with comes from this side-stepping of the need to team up a specific hypothesis with specific evidence. I’m not saying this isn’t willful stupidity. But we have a whole section of society that has forgotten or never knew what evidence was about.
I mean they might watch and be able to follow some forensics TV show. They might even understand it all a bit. But as soon as they come to climate-talk-talk then following sound scientific methodology becomes Verbotten. And when somebody actually insists on it he/she becomes a target of fear and great anger.
It isn’t complicated NT. Define clearly the hypothesis. In your own words. Then go get the evidence. If you are wrong the evidence won’t be there. Or at least you won’t get full spectrum convergence.
But at least start with some evidence. Don’t have to prove that the potato grows only on the highest branches all in one hit.
Graeme, so much anger… You should really see someone. Seriously how do you conduct yourself in day to day life? You are a freak.
So Birdy – like in your own words – when did it start? The symptoms….
Lukey talking about illnesses and symptoms reminded me to ask you if you’ve been over at Barry Huckster’s drag recently.
You know he’s selling a full range of Barry low carb(on) diet now. Hahahahahahahahahahahha.
Not a low carb diet… a low carbon diet.
Tomorrow he’s going to try and sell a low carbonate drink to compete with coke. You know all those bubbles in coke add to AGW. Barry’s low carbonate soda’s will be flat of course.
🙂
Cohenite, interesting paper.
It is important to note that the Manabe and Wetherald state clearly that their model is only for constant humidity.
I can’t really comment on the vailidity of Minschwaner (and nor should I), but lets assume it’s true.
So,
1. They acknowledge the greenhouse effect .
So your theory that the greenhouse effect is trivial seems… wrong.
2. They use models to demonstrate this.
So you are disagreeing with all those who post here declaring that models are useless.
3. Their model predicts an increase of 1.2K (as opposed to the 2K predicted by Manabe). Not so different really. Still is AGW. The IPCC predicts what? Probably in the same region???
NT
Have the models been audited for their effectiveness? NOT peer reviewed but straight out audited.
This could have been a good thread Jennifer.
I could have withstood some of the comments from your fan club, but when you yourself listed most of Bob Carter’s papers … well, you lost me – again.
It’s like an ‘alarmist’ listing all of Hansen’s papers.
What’s the point then? My hero is better than yours?
No Jennifer … you really aren’t contributing to constructive debate. You are no better than the extremists from the ‘other side’.
“Silly question I know, however AGW supporters want CO2 emissions cut because in their opinion they increase warming. Therefore, if over the next 10 years we gather substantial evidence that we’re heading for a prolonged cooling period or even another Ice Age will they support increased CO2 emissions?”
Its NOT a silly question Bickers.
IT IS THE QUINTESSENTIAL QUESTION.
These lunatics have banned commonsense from this whole subject. We live in a typically frozen and barren planet. At least on land. Most of the time Europe and Canada are uninhabitable and we have these brief interglacials.
We have no prospect of catastrophic warming. All the evidence points to very serious cooling. And the worst shock of all is some evidence that was quickly brushed aside from a fellow called Beck that would seem to indicate that we will go through this cold period without the benefits of high CO2 levels.
The warm periods are the good periods for landed species. The cold periods are periods of mass-death and extinction and apart from the beginnings of these periods they are also DRY periods. Periods of widespread drought.
You must not ever let these people intimidate you into giving up your commonsense on this matter. These people know that we live in an ice-house world and they just don’t care.
Well Cohers – you’ve been holding back on me – I didn’t know AIMS had dropped another GRL paper.
Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are significantly
warming along the northwest (NW) and northeast (NE)
coasts of Australia – regions containing well-protected and
internationally significant tropical marine ecosystems. The
magnitude and spatial distribution of observed warming of
annual, maximum and minimum SSTs is examined, 1950–
2007. Observed warming is comparable along the NE and
NW coasts although greater along the NE coast south
15S, greater at higher than lower latitudes, and greater
for annual minimum than annual maximum SSTs. Average
climate zones have also shifted >200 km south along the NE
coast and about half that distance along the NW coast. If
current trends continue, annual average SSTs in northern
parts could be 0.5C warmer and those of more southern
parts 2.0C warmer within the next 100 years. These rapid
changes in oceanic climate are already causing responses in
Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems and these responses,
if present rates of warming continue, can only intensify.
Citation: Lough, J. M. (2008), Shifting climate zones for
Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35,
L14708, doi:10.1029/2008GL034634.
1.
Just one of those jigsaw pieces that drifts ashore – and also like –
Observations of warming on the Western
Australian continental shelf
Alan Pearce A and Ming Feng A , B
A CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Private Bag 5, Wembley, WA 6913, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: ming.feng@csiro.au
Global temperature datasets indicate a warming trend in the south-eastern Indian Ocean of ~0.02°C year–1. This is supported by in situ temperature measurements at a coastal monitoring station on the Western Australian continental shelf that have shown a mean temperature rise of 0.013°C year–1 since 1951, corresponding to ~0.6°C over the past 5 decades. Measurements from three other shallow stations between 1985 and 2004 indicated warming trends of 0.026–0.034°C year–1. It is suggested that enhanced air–sea heat flux into the south-eastern Indian Ocean may be a key factor in the rising temperature trend. There has also been a steady rise in salinity over the past half-century. At interannual scales, coherent temperature variability at the various stations indicates that larger-scale processes are influencing the shelf waters and are linked with El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-related events in coastal sea level and hence the Leeuwin Current.
Marine and Freshwater Research 58(10) 914–920
Submitted: 18 April 2007 Accepted: 11 September 2007 Published: 30 October 2007
Full text DOI: 10.1071/MF07082
and to both get your hopes up and dash them in the one paper
Wainwright, L.,
G. Meyers, S. Wijffels, and L. Pigot (2008), Change in the
Indonesian Throughflow with the climatic shift of 1976/77,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L03604, doi:10.1029/2007GL031911.
A climate shift occurred in 1976 with Pacific equatorial
temperatures experiencing a sharp rise and was first identified
as a change in the background state of the El Nin˜o Southern
Oscillation. The associated weakening of easterly trade winds
across the Pacific led to our hypothesis that the Indonesian
Throughflow (ITF) had also weakened. The change in volume
transport of ITF before and after December 1975 was
estimated using all the available subsurface temperature data
on the IX1 expendable bathythermograph (XBT) line between
Australia and Indonesia. Sea surface temperature (SST) rose
by 1–2C, which could be due to increased air-sea heat flux
and/or a change in regional circulation. A subsurface cooling
in the main thermocline was attributed to a weakening of the
Pacific trade winds. The South Equatorial Current (SEC)
diminished in size and weakened in strength. The net westward
volume transport between Australia and Indonesia showed a
decrease of2.5 Sverdrups, or 23%.
It is known that at interannual time scales thermocline
depth anomalies associated with ENSO are transmitted
to the Indian Ocean from the Pacific via Rossby and coastal
Kelvin waveguides [Wijffels and Meyers, 2004; Cai et al.,
2005; Cai et al., 2007]. This suggests natural variation, such
as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation [Power et al., 1999],
could cause the observed shoaling of the thermocline in the
eastern Indian Ocean. The rate of Pacific equatorial upwelling
decreased for 25 years since the early 1970’s, then the
trend reversed after 1998 [McPhaden and Zhang, 2004].
The easterly wind that controls Pacific upwelling also drives
the ITF.
[18] On the other hand, Cai et al. [2007] suggested that
the subsurface cooling could be due to the southern Indian’s
Ocean response to Northern Hemisphere aerosols. Alory et
al. [2007] used the IPCC multimodel results to show that
the shoaling over the 20th century is most likely an effect of
human induced climate change. Vecchi et al. [2006] found a
weakening of the Walker circulation due to changes in the
Indo-Pacific sea level pressure in observations and a climate
change model and attributed the changed Walker circulation
to anthropogenic forcing..
“Have the models been audited for their effectiveness? NOT peer reviewed but straight out audited.”
No they haven’t. Or to the extent that they have such thinking has been pushed to the outer dark.
On this blog we have seen a few serious thinkers audit these ideas. In doing so it ought not be assumed that their implied models are the final word.
But the thing is ra the alarmist model is just ridiculous from the getgo. It makes no sense. Bears no relation to the real world. Ignores sidelines and tones down almost every important consideration, aggregates things to an extent that no-one would suffer in other fields of study.
The whole thing is an appalling joke. And Arrenhius himself would likely come back as an assassin if he could. Just to wipe out the stupidity of these loons taking up some idea of his that had already been proven wrong. These lunatics have failed to go back to the drawing board. They will not go back to the drawing board.
They simply refuse to follow scientific evidence.
You have to get used to it. Science has only been functioning a short time. If these goons have their way it may have short legs as a series of functioning institutional behaviours. And so any idea you have that this level of fraud must not be happening because it “could not” happen have to be dismissed.
You must accept things as they are.
I didn’t know the tropical belt had widened!?
Nature Geoscience 1, 21 – 24 (2008)
Published online: 2 December 2007 | doi:10.1038/ngeo.2007.38
Widening of the tropical belt in a changing climate
Dian J. Seidel1, Qiang Fu2, William J. Randel3 & Thomas J. Reichler4
Some of the earliest unequivocal signs of climate change have been the warming of the air and ocean, thawing of land and melting of ice in the Arctic. But recent studies are showing that the tropics are also changing. Several lines of evidence show that over the past few decades the tropical belt has expanded. This expansion has potentially important implications for subtropical societies and may lead to profound changes in the global climate system. Most importantly, poleward movement of large-scale atmospheric circulation systems, such as jet streams and storm tracks, could result in shifts in precipitation patterns affecting natural ecosystems, agriculture, and water resources. The implications of the expansion for stratospheric circulation and the distribution of ozone in the atmosphere are as yet poorly understood. The observed recent rate of expansion is greater than climate model projections of expansion over the twenty-first century, which suggests that there is still much to be learned about this aspect of global climate change.
“Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are significantly
warming along the northwest (NW) and northeast (NE)
coasts of Australia – regions containing well-protected and
internationally significant tropical marine ecosystems….”
What a load of crap. At the best of times this would be an entirely meaningless statement without a clear start and finish date.
“Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are significantly
warming along the northwest (NW) and northeast (NE)
coasts of Australia – regions containing well-protected and
internationally significant tropical marine ecosystems.”
Where’s the start and finish date Luke? Dummy? I’d be too embarrassed to post such a thing without a start and finish date.
Hey I’ll tell you what. You find the missing start and finish date and I’ll be you they aren’t from 2004-2008. Or 2004-2007 inclusive of that whole year.
If this isn’t a totally meaningless study then its out of date. The tide turned. The imbedded oceanic energy peaked and now seems to be heading down.
You got nothing dummy.
I really don’t get it. Nearly all of the warmers on this site are hard leftists. Would any of these critters support the idea that firms could push the sale of shares without a prospectus and regulation. Of course they wouldn’t.
So why are they not demanding that all the models used by IPCC receive an audit like these would expect for firms.
Dishonest clowns.
nuts!
You see how Luke just stooges himself because he refuses to relate what he deems to be evidence to a specific hypothesis. There is no hope for him for he is an idiot. But the rest of you might learn from his obvious stupidity.
Luke.
Was that excerpt audited? NOT peer reviewed but audited.
The problem with peer review is that you could end up with Barry Huckster as a reviewer. This is the guy who’s peddling low carbon food at his blog.
Why would anyone want to trust him, Luke? Explain that to me.
The tropical belt widens in the warmer times and thins out in the cooler times. Surely this ought not surprise anyone. Its just not going to last is all. Same with the subtropical belt. The warmer planet means a widening of better conditions and not a roasting of the already hot areas in the way that our own CSIRO has tried to lie to us about.
This brings the lie to what Luke has tried on previously. The attempts to link warming with drought. Which is the opposite of the case albeit not necessarily in the short-run.
Still if CO2-warming were possible than it ought to have no short-term downside on rainfall. It ought to be all positive benefits and no costs involved. Alas that all seems to be a bit of a pipe-dream. More is the pity.
Birdy – if you going to use a sock puppet don’t post at the same time – bit obvious.
Luke,
in case you might have forgotten, but its global warming and global climate change, not localised changes.
I interpret this to mean that your citations concentrate on the local because the global is beyond their expertise – most scientists are not silly enough to extrapolate their work globally.
However the anonymice here seem not to have noticed this problem.
Great logic – goof ball – so when it’s happening it’s actually not happening. Ah ha. Makes sense.
That’s right sinkers – those little changes seem to be everywhere (globally). That’s why there are models with regional effects – duh I never knew dat says Louis.
I can see the doubt at work in you Louis. It’s starting to dawn on you isn’t it. Come on – tell ! It’s OK.
NT; IPCC forcing figures are calculated from WG1 Table 6.2; for a doubling of CO2 the forcing is 3.7-9wm^2; translated into a temperature response is the difficult bit; here is a list of papers, some under the IPCC auspices, which have done this; it is by no means complete;
http:members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html (// excluded)
I reckon 3-4.5C will get you out of trouble; now, CO2 has gone up 40% since 1900; temperature has gone up, according to HadCrut and GISS, about 0.6-7C;
http://i32.tinypic.com/2s01m5y.jpg
Since 2001, temperature has dropped 0.04C averaged across all data collectors, as shown by lucia;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ipcc-falsifies-gavin.gif
So, from 1900 temperature has increased 0.56-0.66C; but based on a 40% increase in CO2 and IPCC forcing for a doubling of CO2 pro-rata temperature should have gone up 1.3-2C; there is a shortfall of approx 0.7-1.4; further, for the remaining 60% increase in CO2 to conform to IPCC forcing, temperatures will have to go up 6.2-9.83; the contradiction is; for the remaining 60% increase in CO2 to produce conformity with IPCC forcing for a doubling of CO2, the forcing and temperature will have to greatly exceed IPCC figures. Then there is the problem that CO2 trends in the 20thC have followed temperature movements; excluding the period from 1940-76 when temperature fell and CO2 continued to rise.
Luke,
As we are not on video conference, seeing anything is a bit of a stretch, so the rest of your post above isn’t much different to a bit of sticky gum stuck on the sole of my shoe.
But I have wondered whether collating all your comments here into a book might be a saleable item to the tree criers or oil howlers.
There’s money to be made here, I suspect but I just realised that Al Gore has swamped the market.
luke; drips and drops; so, the upwelling decreased until the late 1990’s; the last para is a tack on; all the pro-AGW conclusions are model driven.
Pick a paper luke, and go with it.
“Michael dismisses Loehle’s and supports Mann even when the validity of the statistical methods of Mann have been shown to be bogus repeatedly? Obvious bias, so his opinions can be ignored.” – Will N
My dismissal of Loehle is based on the poverty of the work. Where most reconstructions are using a minumum of hundreds of time series, Loehle goes for just 18. He gives no detailed explanations of the assumptions, and then he extracts a result with no inidcated confidence levels.
If you find Mann dubious for reasons of methodology and statistical treatment, then Loehle must be beyond the pale.
Yet, we tend to find just the opposite.
“The significance of Loehle’s work is that he re-established the MWP and the LIA that everyone knew was there but that Mann had lost, even though the IPCC showed graphs for both in 1990.
Doh!! Guess what all of Mann’s research is based on? So, Loehle re-established the MWP and the LIA, which have extensive peer-reviewed studies to back them, and you find that surprising, while backing a study that lost them?” – Gordon Robertson
Extensive peer-reviewed studies that back them, huh?
Well, if you read Loehle’s paper, he mentions two – one being an earlier paper by himself, and the other the ill-fated Soon and Baliunas. In case you’ve unfamiliar, Soon and Baliunas came a cropper when they “re-established the MWP”. A dozen or so of the authors they had cited complained that the pair had completely mis-used their work in their study.
I’m still dumbfounded that Loehle cited that paper.
“That’s some regional anomaly; Michael, who has been mischievious with his alleged contradiction between Essex and Loehle should consider this. Loehle computed a mean of the 18 anomaly regions; obviously the MWP and LIA impacted in differing ways over all the regions; a mean will not show that; it simply shows all the regions were effected; harking back to Essex and the telephone directory; averaging that will be meaningless for any one number but it will show that all the regions/numbers are in the same book; the need for an average temp has been because of the greenhouse analogy; it is a false one,” – cohenite
You’ve just stated the contradiction between McKitrick & Esssex and Loehle, yourself.
They say there is no such thing as a global av temp, and Loehle produces one to show the MWP being warmer than the 20thC.
So, which do you believe? They can’t both be right.
Michael: “He gives no detailed explanations of the assumptions, and then he extracts a result with no inidcated confidence levels.”
this is quite incorrect the first paper had a few flaws until it was audited by the crew at climate audit with Julien Emile-Geay (one of Mann’s) students taking part. After that he produced a corrected quality paper. Mann after being audited and smacked down by NAS panel came back with more of the same
Michael using an average temperature for radiation calculations is not physically correct using Stefan-Boltzmann because SB is only for isothermal bodies (or surfaces), but taking an average as a statistical measure which is what Craig Loehle is just fine.
Luke, I am looking for papers that provide evidence that carbon dioxide is a problem/a pollutant. Scanning the titles of your papers … well we know there are problems with smog and ozone depletion, but its carbon that the IPCC and Penny Wong seem most concerned about. I must say I am surprised that you guys haven’t been able to provide a short list, focused on carbon dioxide as a warmer with commentary. AGain, I say seminal paper would be good.
luke; how about Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 BAMS paper. Anything to stop Micheal’s rubbish about Loehle and average temperature.
The sea ice decline/ reduction in August in the Arctis , is the fastest ever recorded ( since 1979) , writes the Norwegian Polar Institute on its website:
http://npweb.npolar.no/Artikler/2008/1221040008.57
Jennifer, try this Manabe paper
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0469/24/3/pdf/i1520-0469-24-3-241.pdf
Jen – jeez all these effects have a significant CO2 based greenhouse forcing component. None of this is about pollution or the UV effects of ozone depletion. Read the papers. Been telling you for a few years now. And all the bits keep falling into place.
I have given you a short list of effects a number of times above. You have a whole bunch of local climate effects linked to a combination of greenhouse forcing combined with the climatic effects of ozone depletion. As someone who say sthey are really interested in this debate – well if you’re serious you’d print the papers and start reading 1 to n.
If at the end of that you don’t see anything well I’ll be very impressed.
So you’ve indulged anti-CSIRO stories by all sorts of “expert commentators” for years – yet you haven’t read your “opponents” recent PUBLISHED material?? Come on … fair crack of the whip. And that’s published contemporary climate science in climate related journals not geology.
Ah, Cohenite, you see …
The AGW people here completely ignore Spencer & Braswell, refuse to acknowledge the temp differentials of the last decade, like Glikson’s scarey-bear geological tipping points but dismiss out of hand Carter’s many papers on measured cycles, use pea&thimble time spans, waffle about “totality”, demand some criterion to accept AGW without posing the mirror question (ie. what criterion to refute AGW), but above all argue endlessly on the theory of the physics involved without comparing it’s projections to on-going empirical data.
Spencer & Braswell’s paper puts a strong case for the AGW component, such as it is, being of quite minor importance in climatic cycling. Given the temp differentials for a decade now (about 33% of the arbitrary 30 year time span chosen by AGW) and best-guess comparisons with the MWP and LIA conditions, that’s about where I’m at.
Cohenite,
I would say this is where science is, arguing over how much extra a doubling of CO2 will produce. The values range from 1K to 6K – but mostly hover in the 2-3 K range.
And yes, sure temps will fluctuate in the short term. I expect by 2012-2013 we will have passed the 1998 temp.
Cohenite – did not McIntryre say it was appropriate for Loehle to produce an analysis using the proxies that he did. However that doesn’t mean it’s accurate or definitive. Indeed I though McIntyre more of less said that he simply doesn’t know whether the MWP was warmer than today or not. i.e. case not proven either way. (that’s if that sort of thing is important to you).
Jennifer (to Luke) – “I am looking for papers that provide evidence that carbon dioxide is a problem/a pollutant … ”
So, if I scan the titles of your (Bob Carter) papers …
Don’t you see the Socratic irony in your argument?
Jennifer and all; my apologies; I’ve just noticed David stockwell’s 6.59pm post indicating his paper was not peer-reviewed; feel free to castigate me.
“Anything to stop Micheal’s rubbish about Loehle and average temperature.” – cohenite
It’s McKitrick and Essex who are rubbishing av temps.
You’ve cited them approvingly, making your promotion of Loehle a tad complicated.
luke; re: MWP; Barry Moore has shown us that AR4 is the best source of anti-AGW information; with that in mind I direct you to this AR4 graph:
http:www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig610.png (// removed).
Look Luke,
D’oh, Questyion is pal, got a papah that disses ole Arhennius maaate ?
No Micheal, you got this wrong….
[“They say there is no such thing as a global av temp, and Loehle produces one to show the MWP being warmer than the 20thC. So, which do you believe? They can’t both be right.”…….]
Loehle didn’t define an average Global temperature…. He just showed via proxies that didn’t use tree rings, that the MWP existed and the LIA existed…. As for the temperatures…
The assumption would be, that if vikings bred sheep and grew crops, it would have had to be warmer than what it was in the nineteen eighties.
You need to think a bit more on that….. No agricultural Viking sheep farming settlements could have existed on Greenland in the 1700 to1850’s….
So it is not an assumption to say it was warmer in the 1200’s… It would have to be a fact.
Look tree ring growth is a bad proxy for temperature. Its a better proxy for CO2 levels and only an indirect proxy for temperature. One that would have great delays involved with it.
So it has to be taken out of the proxies. That ought to be obvious.
Michael you are barking up the wrong tree. Its as if you see this as a supercomputing and statistical exercise. Well you use all your tools I guess. But climate science ought to be more about sorting out the more important from the less important cycles and influences.
So less is more when it comes to cranking up your computers.
The article by Spencer Weart, over at RC, was given as an explanation of why no simple paper or set of papers can be used to demonstrate the dangers of AGW. He concluded:
“The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors. People who refuse to acknowledge that complexity should not be surprised when their demands for an easy calculation go unanswered.”
Exactly the point! Much of that complexity is not understood and assumptions are made to fill in the missing knowledge. Many of these missing components are huge and integral to the question of the magnatude of AGW. There are no clear values for such things as clouds, aerosols, solar, oceans and feedbacks. Assumptions are made on all of these based on very limited knowledge or data. For each one, a whole array of values may have equal probability of being right, but AGW crisis promoters always choose the value that supports their hypothesis, a practice that would get them a failing grade on a 6th grade science fair project.
Skeptics, whose responsibility is not to come up with their own theory of climate change but to point out the weakness of the AGW theory, do just that, by showing how the assumptions do not fit the available evidence and/or how the theory does not predict and/or hindcast climate very well.
Oreskes made a big stink about how not even one PR paper refuted the AGW theory. Likewise, a similarly dishonest science historian could do a study showing that not even one PR paper can be found that varifies the AGW theory. Her report was based on the dishonest assumption that any single paper could either refute or varify such a complex theory. Totally dishonest!
The devil is in the details, and one by one, the details being revealed by skeptics are showing that the AGW theory is not compatable with reality; at the process level, in the past and in the present.
On the other hand, supporters are not showing how the theory is robust, but simply assuming that it is and generating fanciful fictions about future consequences known as IPCC reports!
It is truly disgraceful and as Graeme Bird just pointed out…extremely dangerous!
The only way proponents have been able to show compatability is by proclaiming that AGW can produce any result, which would also get a 6th grader a failing grade!
I am a little perplexed by the criticsm of my posting Bob Carter’s paper. I begin the comment explaining that it is in response to David claiming Australian skeptics don’t publish in peer reviewed jounrals. Perhaps I should have just posted this reference to disprove his point:
CARTER, R.M.; GAMMON, P. 2004 New Zealand maritime glaciation: millennial-scale southern climate change since 3.9 Ma. Science, 304, 1659-1662
SJT:
“No, Manns lastet paper has results with no tree ring data, just to keep you happy. If anyone is cherry picking, it’s Loehle. How can Mann be the cherry picker if he’s using hundreds of proxies, while Loehle isn’t, but he’s only using ten.”
I can’t believe you never heard the old saw:
Figures don’t lie, but, liars figure.
Y’all been doing waaaay too much figurin’!!!
Luke, you keep pointing to SPECIFIC areas where warming has happened. You tryin’ to tell us that not everywhere is warming?? That other areas just might be coolin’???
Go figure!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
KuknKat – I can’t believe you actually wrote all that. Are you some sort of mega drongo? Wow.
Are you guys that dumb that you think AGW should uniformly veneer the world with a new climate all up 3.14159 degrees higher? No – not dumb just avoiding the evidence that’s staring you in the face. Movement of patterns of circulation is just what you might expect !
No extra greenhouse accumulating energy in the oceans wouldn’t do that you are right.
Now say what you mean. Don’t call it climate change because the climate always changes.
But you are right. It would not lead to a uniform change. As your outdated study shows it will indeed lead to the spreading of the tropical and subtropical conditions.
You’ve managed some pretty clever footwork here but this reinforces your earlier lies about warming and drought going hand in hand. Which contrary to the CSIRO and yourself is the opposite of the case.
>CARTER, R.M.; GAMMON, P. 2004 New Zealand maritime glaciation: millennial-scale southern climate change since 3.9 Ma. Science, 304, 1659-1662.
Jen this paper has no relevance to AGW.
I am please you have found one paper (which I was aware of – yep read it 4 years ago).
Perhaps you might strip out of Carter’s list those papers which are not climate and those papers which are not scientifically peer reviewed. you could start with “World Economics”, and “E&E”.
I look forward to seeing the list of climate paper in peer reviewed journals by the Australian sceptics from the last 10 years.
Here is your chance to show us that there really is a science debate.
What I mean to say above is that warming generally, whatever the cause, leads to the spreading of the warmer wetter conditions. This does not imply that the cause is extra-CO2. But just that accumulated energy in the oceans spreads the better conditions around.
Even in glacial periods we don’t expect the temperature at the equator to be much different. The warm wet conditions are expanded.
Stewart Franks talking sense.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24331854-7583,00.html
“Luke, I am looking for papers that provide evidence that carbon dioxide is a problem/a pollutant. Scanning the titles of your papers … well we know there are problems with smog and ozone depletion, but its carbon that the IPCC and Penny Wong seem most concerned about. I must say I am surprised that you guys haven’t been able to provide a short list, focused on carbon dioxide as a warmer with commentary. AGain, I say seminal paper would be good.”
Realclimate has just the article for you, then.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/simple-question-simple-answer-no/
There is no simple answer. If you want to know a good history of papers and how the science progressed over a long period of time, then Weart refers to many papers for his history of AGW research.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm#814
He has hundreds of references for you to progress through.
“But it would do little good to present a copy of the Manabe-Wetherald paper to a senior engineer who demands a proof that global warming is a problem. The paper gives only a sketch of complex and lengthy computations that take place, so to speak, offstage. And nobody at the time or since would trust the paper’s numbers as a precise prediction. There were still too many important factors that the model did not include. For example, it was only in the 1970s that scientists realized they had to take into account how smoke, dust and other aerosols from human activity interact with radiation, and how the aerosols affect cloudiness as well. And so on and so forth.
The greenhouse problem was not the first time climatologists hit this wall. Consider, for example, attempts to calculate the trade winds, a simple and important feature of the atmosphere. For generations, theorists wrote down the basic equations for fluid flow and heat transfer on the surface of a rotating sphere, aiming to produce a precise description of our planet’s structure of convective cells and winds in a few lines of equations… or a few pages… or a few dozen pages. They always failed. It was only with the advent of powerful digital computers in the 1960s that people were able to solve the problem through millions of numerical computations. If someone asks for an “explanation” of the trade winds, we can wave our hands and talk about tropical heating, the rotation of the earth and baroclinic instability. But if we are pressed for details with actual numbers, we can do no more than dump a truckload of printouts showing all the arithmetic computations.
I’m not saying we don’t understand the greenhouse effect. We understand the basic physics just fine, and can explain it in a minute to a curious non-scientist. (Like this: greenhouse gases let sunlight through to the Earth’s surface, which gets warm; the surface sends infrared radiation back up, which is absorbed by the gases at various levels and warms up the air; the air radiates some of this energy back to the surface, keeping it warmer than it would be without the gases.) For a scientist, you can give a technical explanation in a few paragraphs. But if you want to get reliable numbers – if you want to know whether raising the level of greenhouse gases will bring a trivial warming or a catastrophe – you have to figure in humidity, convection, aerosol pollution, and a pile of other features of the climate system, all fitted together in lengthy computer runs.
Physics is rich in phenomena that are simple in appearance but cannot be calculated in simple terms. Global warming is like that. People may yearn for a short, clear way to predict how much warming we are likely to face. Alas, no such simple calculation exists. The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors. People who refuse to acknowledge that complexity should not be surprised when their demands for an easy calculation go unanswered.”
Just at there is no easy answer to much in science, even something as universal as gravity. You can be presented with any number of descriptions of behaviour, but we are only just now trying to prove how the mechanism works.
Yes Janama, and poor old Nelson points out the obvious and gets slandered from pillar to post. By scientists who should know better, but never seem to come out and say it.Still waiting for your evidence of a 30 cm sea rise David…..i even gave you your quote again for the 4 th time earlier in this thread…..
Hi DAvid,
I would have to disagree with you on the relevance of the paper. Doesn’t it includes a reconstruction of past climate based on sediment cores? And doesn’t this disprove your earlier claim that Australian climate skeptics don’t publish?
Toby this is what you claimed I said…
>Well David quite a list, we know how your bread get buttered! Doesnt stop you making silly comments like a 0.3C increase has caused a 30cm sea level rise..
This is what I wrote…
>>“Now you might think 0.5 to 0.8C isn’t much, but it has led to 30cm of sea level rise,”
BUT the 0.5 to 0.8C is your warming estimate not mine – I take my estimates from the peer review. Looking at global temperatures in the last century the warming is 0.74C via a linear trend, but greater than 1C on a decadal running mean trend.
The sea level rise has been caused by the warming, which by all published estimates is around 1C over the last century.
What was your point?
>And doesn’t this disprove your earlier claim that Australian climate skeptics don’t publish?
Jen, if you look back you will find I didn’t make such a blanket claim… though I know as a fact that Bill, John, David and yourself have never published a climate paper in a peer reviewed journal in the last decade.
Bob has published very numerous geology papers. Geology tells us that numerous past instances of warming have been associated with CO2 (either via feedback, or by CO2 forcing). Bob’s paper has no relevance to the mechanisms of the current warming, nor places global warming in any context.
I look forward to seeing the list of climate paper in peer reviewed journals by the Australian sceptics from the last 10 years.
Here is your chance to show us that there really is a science debate.
david: “Bob’s paper has no relevance to the mechanisms of the current warming, nor places global warming in any context.”
Same goes for Michael Mann’s papers (as well as Amman & Wahl and a host of others) perhaps you should tell them I’m sure they’ll believe it coming from you.
“If you find Mann dubious for reasons of methodology and statistical treatment, then Loehle must be beyond the pale.”
I’m sorry, let me clarify my question: I’m not interested in the opinions of anonymous comment posters on web blogs. 🙂
Does anyone who wishes to criticise Loehle have links to criticisms and responses to criticisms by climate scientists, preferably mediated?
Of course, free country, say what you want, but don’t expect to be taken seriously if you can’t back up your opinions. That goes for both the ‘alarmists’ and the ‘deniers’ here.
“No, Manns lastet paper has results with no tree ring data, just to keep you happy. If anyone is cherry picking, it’s Loehle. How can Mann be the cherry picker if he’s using hundreds of proxies, while Loehle isn’t, but he’s only using ten.”
Four or five good ones ought to be enough. Hundreds of proxies is deeply suspicious. Sounds like he’s cherry picking and failing to throw out the worst proxies. Hundreds of proxies will let a known science fraud manipulate the data and it will make his study opaque to scrutiny.
Why did he use 100’s? Why not just 3-6?
With 3 already you have a tie-break. With hundreds you can introduce all sorts of statistical trickery.
You need to select the best tools for the job. Two would definitely be inconclusive. You would lack a tie-break. Six would probably be more than enough if they are six of the best that allow you to set up a range from which the historical reality cannot plausibly be outside this range.
For a scientist, you can give a technical explanation in a few paragraphs. But if you want to get reliable numbers – if you want to know whether raising the level of greenhouse gases will bring a trivial warming or a catastrophe – you have to figure in humidity, convection, aerosol pollution, and a pile of other features of the climate system, all fitted together in lengthy computer runs.
precisely SJT, most don t argue co2 has no effect, we argue over the feedback effects created by the other factors stated above ( and unknowns). This is why we dispute the degree of warming being suggested. AND since no models can even get the past right, why would you do anything about the future?
Terry Mcrann made some fantastic points in ydays herald http:www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24326897-664,00.html note // removed
The science is driving the politics, and the politics makes no sense at all…..
That the sea level has not risen 30cm, irrespective of the temp increase. Thats the point I am making. The 0.5-.8 was your comment related to me saying at least half of teh warming seen is attributable to natural causes…something that is not disputed …is it?
AND we know teh sea has been rising since the end of the LIA, and recent satelite data suggests its actually dropped a fraction.
YOU know exactly what my point was, and you backed away from it very quickly last week cos you boxed yourself into a corner tha ti cant even rememeber.
BUT its clar you ar happy to exarerate the science…and that is teh problem with climate science, so many do it.
Thats why i am sceptical, i dont trust scientists much anymore becuase now manipulation is becoming teh norm. And few come out and point out teh flaws.
“Perhaps you might strip out of Carter’s list those papers which are not climate and those papers which are not scientifically peer reviewed. you could start with “World Economics”, and “E&E”. ”
Yes David, and you like wise can strip out all the Conference Proceedings, Forums Workshops and talks to organisations like the Institute of Engineers, for gods sake–these are being passed off by you, as Peer Reveiwed. What a hoot.
Oh by the way, how many papers of relevance to AGW has Flannery published.?
No criticism of him, or Gore when it suits your cause, is there.
Why dont you parrot the mantra to them, and set an example for us all.
BTW David, if you have such experience in the science of AGW why dont you engage in debates herein, and show the contributors where they are wrong.
I notice that you make no rebuttals of Cohenites positions, for example.
Is this an example of standard of debate in the agencies of Govt that has underpinned the advice given on why we should screw our economy and livelihood?
Why is it that if anyone does an analysis of the same material used by the IPCC and arrives at a different conclusion, that immediately elicit calls from the people like you to produce a paper, when they already exist.
Isnt it the case that the “peer review of the IPCC reports is not looking too good–
“SJT, most don t argue co2 has no effect, ”
You don’t read these pages enough, Toby. Just getting that basic fact acknowledged seems to take up half the space here.
SJT,
What is your argument here? Are you saying that because AGW is complex, one can not present any papers that support the theory?
No one is asking for one paper that totally validates the theory, just a paper or two that presents evidence that humans are responsible for the warming of the 20th century, that is not based on assumptions, but actual measurements.
Skeptics publish papers demonstrating how the theory is not compatable with very specific observations. Supporters keep pointing to models built on assumptions and avoid talking about things like, natural climate variations, ocean circulations, correlations with solar, lack of proper temperature signatures in the atmosphere, recent global cooling, CO2 lag in paleo studies, poor correlaton between CO2 and 20th century temperatures, strong evidence of a negative water vapor feedback with very little evidence of a significant positive water vapor feedback, Antarctic cooling and so on.
Time and again, the skeptics raise serious questions about the assumptions of AGW, presenting real world evidence to show that those assumptions are incorrect. That is science. Time and again AGW supporters refuse to address the issues, or present real world evidence that their assumptions are correct. Without computer models, AGW supporters can only claim about a half a degree warming from a doubling of CO2. The rest is all fairy tale stuff, and the skeptics are proving it.
This whole notion you have that the theory is too complex to be supported by individual scientific papers is a hoot! Hey, I need you to write me a check for $10,000. I sure would like to tell you why it is so important, but it is just to complex for you to understand. So if you really care about the planet, bend over, write the check and stop being such a denier!
SJT
People arguing against AGW here don’t seem to be able to construct a coherent argument.
First they claim there is no greenhouse effect. Then they claim it’s small, then it’s no so small but is a good thing.
Jennifer Sez:
And doesn’t this disprove your earlier claim that Australian climate skeptics don’t publish?
Anonymous jerk david sez:
“Jen, if you look back you will find I didn’t make such a blanket claim… ”
So I sez:
You’ve just been totally stomped you idiot. You and all these clowns that make these claims against climate rationalists have just been shown to be totally in error. And you don’t appear to want to concede the point.
If you were new to this subject and you were ill-informed we would expect you to come back and say things like “My goodness I was ill-informed…. I’m just going to send out a hit-team to those liars at gristmill who lead me astray…..”
Or you might say ” Goodness me. I had no idea. And the climate rationalist studies are so much more decisive…..”
But instead you cannot seem to accept that you were wrong. That your point, a stupid one for starters, was totally defeated. Defeated outright. It hardly matters whether you characterise your wrongheaded comments as being “sweeping” or not. They were wrong and decisively proved wrong. Your comments were in fact sweeping. But that doesn’t matter.
You see this is why you are on the wrong side of the argument and people like me are on the superior side. When I’m proved wrong I learn something. I feel the humiliation, take it on the chin, acknowledge that I’ve been taught a lesson. And lock in what I’ve learnt.
Your type never learn anything. You are an unscience idiot. And in a months time you will be anonymously somewhere else making the same sorts of non-arguments to do with peer review.
We see that you’ve brought up this superstition a number of times. I’ve dealt with it. You haven’t even attempted to explain your superstitious attitude to peer review.
By that you mean PUBLISHING IN JOURNALS THAT LEFTISTS ACCEPT. Thats all you mean. And the act of publishing cannot and does not affect the validity of the reasoning in any shape or form.
We are just going to have to go over it again. What the laity may think you clowns mean by peer review sounds fair enough. It sounds akin to the interaction between Newton and Hook but in a more balanced and friendly sense.
No person is an expert in all specialities and probably thats been the case at least since Humboldt. So that therefore any one of us is subject to missing out considerations from all sorts of areas that we are only dimly aware of. The fact of this also means that laity review is what we ought to be after and not peer review. It also means that someone like me, with no experience at all in science field work, is not handicapped all that much when I go to audit the reasoning of what people are saying here. As a matter of fact it might mean that I can look at the overall reasoning with pretty fresh eyes. Since none of us has mastered all the specialities all of us ought to be able to judge the reasoning involved here if that reasoning is presented openly and clearly for laity review. A good example of this open and clear presentation is with Austrian economics at mises.org. These guys do not hide their logical inferences in any shape or form. Climate alarmists spend all their time dancing and hiding their reasoning. They refuse to answer questions openly. They don’t want to be caught out. And the same goes for climate rationalists now because of the terrible atmosphere that the alarmists have produced. The international abuse and defamation by people like Lambert and his new Major-Me.
But since none of us are specialists something that “peer review” SOUNDS-like would seem to be necessary. And that something is the conceptual audit of intelligent people from diverse areas of expertise. This is not what is now meant by “peer review”. In fact the current usage appears to be diametrically opposed to this. Peer review now seems to mean specialists policing specialists. Gatekeepers controlling what goes to the media who control what filters down to the newspapers.
But you are such a moron you haven’t explained your superstitious position on peer review in the first place.
Be that as it may your point has been decisively stomped by Dr Marohasy and cohenite and just take it on the chin and accept you were wrong. And if you, SJT and NT were to come back under your own names this might force you to lift your game and take responsibility for some of the stuff you’ve been saying.
“Loehle didn’t define an average Global temperature” – J. Hansford
Loehle’s whole approach was to produce a “global temperature reconstruction”, by, as he puts it, “simple averaging”.
Graeme, you are a moron.
Cohenite,
You ignored the fact you had posted a paper that agreed with AGW warming of 1.2K
Do you have anything to say or are you happy to let your contradictory standpoint remain unresolved?
Graeme “Sounds like he’s cherry picking and failing to throw out the worst proxies. Hundreds of proxies will let a known science fraud manipulate the data and it will make his study opaque to scrutiny.”
It’s in the weighting he gives to the series that produce the shape he wants not quite cherry picking but damn close.
“I look forward to seeing the list of climate paper in peer reviewed journals by the Australian sceptics from the last 10 years.
Here is your chance to show us that there really is a science debate.” – david
david,
Dot’t hold your breath!
“People arguing against AGW here don’t seem to be able to construct a coherent argument.
First they claim there is no greenhouse effect. Then they claim it’s small, then it’s no so small but is a good thing.”
No “group think” there.
SJT
Your argument is to deem the issue to be so complex that mere mortals are unable to comprehend it.
But wait, there is more, our Climate Change priests, who engineered this complexity, are waiting in the wings to instruct us how to behave and conduct ourselves in a sustainbale society from their reading of the Climate Change Scripture!
However like Martin Luther, I might not agree with the idea that Climate Pope or his pestilent priests have the right to instruct me how to conduct myself in life, and demand I pay them for this so I protest.
This is why I am sceptical.
NT; I presume you are referring to the Minschwaner paper; no contradiction buddy; have I not pointed out ad infinitum that the forcing of temperature by CO2 according to IPCC formula is hopelessly incoherent with estimates ranging from 0.15 Statistically insignificant) to 9C; the point about Minschwaner, which you ignore, is that EG and runnaway is impossible; the second point you ignore is that a temperature response to CO2 forcing of the amount Minschwaner arrives at has already, in practical terms, been reached, and further CO2 put into the atmosphere are irrelevant, except to Steve’s cynaobacteria.
Now, Michael, David, luke, little SJT, and the rest of you obscurantists go to Jennifer’s post above with Stewart Franks’ article featured; now Franks is a scientist, and a brave one.
So NT its ok for believers to have all number of scenarios and all number of papers saying different things. But somehow teh sceptics have to have just one argument?
There are so many flaws , how can you just have one argument against them?
“For a scientist, you can give a technical explanation in a few paragraphs. But if you want to get reliable numbers – if you want to know whether raising the level of greenhouse gases will bring a trivial warming or a catastrophe – you have to figure in humidity, convection, aerosol pollution, and a pile of other features of the climate system, all fitted together in lengthy computer runs.
precisely SJT, most don t argue co2 has no effect, we argue over the feedback effects created by the other factors stated above ( and unknowns). This is why we dispute the degree of warming being suggested. AND since no models can even get the past right, why would you do anything about the future?
‘For a scientist, you can give a technical explanation in a few paragraphs. But if you want to get reliable numbers – if you want to know whether raising the level of greenhouse gases will bring a trivial warming or a catastrophe – you have to figure in humidity, convection, aerosol pollution, and a pile of other features of the climate system, all fitted together in lengthy computer runs.”
This quote of SJT’s sums it up perfectly, so many factors ( and prob many more we know ntg about yet), but sceptics should only have one line of argument? Get real!
Please read that link i posted above to Terry Mcranns article yday. Even if the science is valid, until you guys convince, India, China etc that there is aproblem, scientists forcing countries like australia to lower growth and living standards, will just make climate chang eharder to deal with not easier.
Note this does not mean i do not support finding viable alternative energy sources!
I find David’s: “Humans do contribute to global warming” Jones DA, Watkins AB, Hennessy K. 2005. September 2005. Engineers Australia. Pp. 44-47 a relevant read.
I like starting with claim 4 p47, where he makes this point of the “McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) has found temperatures warmer than the present around 1500AD” where in the abstract they say “We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.”. So, David has all these papers and cannot read first the abstract and then the paper, yet quotes it in a manner opposite that the authors wrote. David also points out “has been widely discredited by climate scientists (Wahl and Ammann, in press; Rutherford et al, in press) and is at odds with dozens of other published papers.” Yes, these dozen of papers that have been shown to be flawed as indicated by Dr. Wegman, and now the W&A and the A&W papers, while both Dr. Wegman and NAS agreed about the use of bristlecone pines, and their derivatives, and that the MBH9X was “bad science” and despite claims otherwise, M&M did show that MBH mined for “hockeysticks”.
Another really great comment is “In a recent northern hemisphere paleoclimate reconstruction Moberg et al (2005) concluded: “We find no evidence for any earlier periods in the last two millennia with warmer conditions than the post-1990 period – in agreement with previous similar studies.” These paleoclimate observation-based studies are supported by a range of theoretical and modelling studies, which show that the recent greenhouse forcings swamp any low frequency natural variations due to solar variations or volcanism over the last millennium (Crowley, 2000; von Storch et al, 2005).” Why is this important? Because WG1 pointed out that the models have to get it right. Why do the models have to get it right? Becuase in order to detemine a climate sensitivity with a result of temperature anomalies and power flux rather than a mass/energy balance, an assumption of equilibrium had to be made. Remember this was after the warmest year in the warmest decade, in the warmest etc. PR blitz. So what does it mean now? Temperature is dropping, what happened to the equilibrium? Even more important what happened to the skill as alluded in this paper before the recent cooling. Lucia is showing the IPCC prediction is falsified. This indicates that the claim that the models are right, these models that agree with the flawed hockey stick, is wrong. The real problem is that this by WG1 TAR indicates that they did not get the models right, thus the claim of the anthrogogenic fingerprint is falsified. I reccomend reading this paper and look at the claims and the present falsification of the MBH, W&A, IPCC model constraints. The present Max Planc paper instead of showing AGW will return, it may or may not, supports the invalidation of the IPCC claims of AGW. Not warming, it has been warming for quite a number of years. Just the falsification of the IPCC claims of man caused climate change.
Thankyou Gordon, Graeme and ra for your comments about models – very useful.
NT,
The people arguing against the AGW theory don’t need to present a unified argument, only demonstrate that the current AGW theory is not correct.
I have been debating AGW for at least 15 years and have never understood this irrational argument. The skeptics do not, and have no obligation to, posses a perfect theory of climate change! The skeptics are not demanding that the rest of the planet do as they say based on their theory. It is the AGW supporters who make the claim that they know what will happen to future climate. It is their responsibility to prove it, or at least present real evidence indicating a high probability that they are correct, BEFORE demanding the rest of the world change its ways!
This whole idea that one can not point out an error unless one can do the job better is ridicules. I do not need to know how to play the piano to know when the wrong note is played. Skeptics do not need to be able to predict future climate to know that the models can’t do it either.
The skeptics have done a great job at pointing out the seemingly endless weaknesses in the prevailing AGW theory. The fact that skeptics may disagree on some of the finer points of the argument is totally irrelevant, and perfectly logical. Hansen and Gore are totally out of step with the IPCC, but I guess you think that is just fine!
Can you say ‘cognitive disonance’?
Cohenite.
Yes runaway isn’t goind to happen here. EG has happened in the past, so not sure why you don’t think it will happen again.
As I said earlier, this is where science is at: How much warming do we expect?
And as you point out the numbers vary.
You suggest that Minschwaner are right? Well why? What is so good about their modelling that means they are better than the models mentioned by the IPCC?
What makes Minschwaner right?
“As I said earlier, this is where science is at: How much warming do we expect?”
No thats wrong. The science tells us we will be cooling. The question is to what extent will human activity hold off the drop in CO2-levels and what sort of consolation that will be.
A possible question is will the industrial-CO2 ALSO help us with some sort of slight warming effect.
It is the above that we have no evidence for. It was a reasonable speculation however. And its reasonable to expect that this warming, if it exists at all, however weak, will be a good thing.
Stop lying about where the science is at. And go to my post on the sea level thread if you want a little bit of conceptual ammunition. You don’t get human generosity of a greater magnitude than this.
When I say “warming” above I obviously mean “hypothetical mitigation of vicious natural cooling.”
Again. Don’t tell lies about where the science is at.
Toby and Jim,
You have missed the point. On this post(by Cohenite) he has used contradictory science to demonstrate that AGW is not real. You cannot use one paper to falsify one aspect, and then another paper to falsify another, when the two papers are mutually exclusive.
He attempted to show that the Greenhouse effect is negligable. He posted a paper he said showed why (Minschwaner), it contradicts earlier an earlier paper he posted (Miskolczi). one claims there is a greenhouse effect due to greenhouse gases, tthe other claims it is due to optical depth. You can’t have it both ways.
Skeptics use a scatter shot approach, using one kind of physics to ‘disprove’ one aspect and an opposing kind of physics to ‘disprove’ another. You need to have an internally consistent argument.
Cohenite,
After reading through Miskolczi, I am struck by the thought how does the author account for changes in the Earth’s climate in the past? Is he suggesting that the optical depth in the Creatceous was much higher?
Also, how do you know they are right? Do you understand the math?
“After reading through Miskolczi, I am struck by the thought how does the author account for changes in the Earth’s climate in the past?”
Why anyone would expect paleoclimatology in a paper on modern empirical atmospheric measurements and interpretation is beyond me. Unless of course one is laying down a red herring.
NT; this is indeed one of the main objections to Miskcolczi; namely his model would bar a snowball earth, and, allegedly, ice-ages; IMO this is wrong because Miskolczi deals with balances based on the incipient insolation; ice-ages are Milankovitch events which are caused by decreases in insolation connected with axis and orbital variation; who knows what caused snowball?
Can I do the math? Yes, with my wife by my side muttering, “it’s a good thing you earn a lot” and such ironic disparagements.
Cohenite, I am impressed. I hate partial differential equations, urgh!
OK… So you just find Miskolczi more convincing despite this?
Well, fair enough…
“On this post(by Cohenite) he has used contradictory science to demonstrate that AGW is not real.”
Thats not the question you idiot. The energy-deprivation-crusade is still fraudulent if the effect of industrial-CO2-release is a cooling-mitigator that is too small to not be beneficial.
Get your definitions right you moron.
Jan; sorry about the clash there; just reiterating; if your source, Rob van Dorland comes up with further stuff, or publishes, please let us know.
“…who knows what caused snowball?”
Dude. The snowball happened when solar activity was thought to be a good 4% or so less than it is now. Thats a massive difference. A difference that over hundreds of millions of years could translate down to the core when we think about how the planet entire can accumulate energy or get to a point where the whole place is covered by an insulating barrier of ice.
‘
If you were a gaia-believer this ice would amount to a sort of triage to life on earth. Although back then we aren’t talking about any life that was too complicated. The layer of ice under gaia thinking would be a last final attempt to hold sufficient heat in.
These glacial periods. They wipe out a lot of the landed life-on-earth but enhance what is going on in the seas. Like ruthless triage.
I really don’t see a great mystery to the snowball earth. But am just disgusted that Goddard tried to downgrade it to a slushball on account of their computer model failure. They went with their failing computer and against the empirical evidence.
Our sun is on the “main sequence” and if current star models are right its activity increases in a pretty straight-line at about 5% per billion years (from memory.)
Cohenite” “Jan; sorry about the clash there; just reiterating; if your source, Rob van Dorland comes up with further stuff, or publishes, please let us know.”
You can count on it if I’m still in the world.
PS cohenite you want to see it for yourself then pm janp at CA forum.
“No one is asking for one paper that totally validates the theory, just a paper or two that presents evidence that humans are responsible for the warming of the 20th century, that is not based on assumptions, but actual measurements.”
This is not fair or reasonable. Scientific theories are based on long and often complex rational inferences from empirical data open to interpretation. Evolutionary theory, big bang theory, etc. You can’t just go out and take some measurements… open and shut case.
‘Deniers’ seem to ‘demand’ proof in the same way that creationists ‘demand’ proof for evolutionary theories (presumably by demanding that they be shown something evolving in front of their eyes).
Of course, the fact that the ‘alarmists’ here even seem to be aware of how to build a rational argument is a concern also. Answering a different question, or arguing from final consequences, is not even logically coherent…
Is there anyone I haven’t insulted yet? 🙂
Will “Scientific theories are based on long and often complex rational inferences from empirical data open to interpretation.”
Fair enough but to notice that firing an IR beam from a hot source through a C02 enriched sample and noticing that less comes out of the other side and from that drawing the inference that the ice ages were caused by CO2 depletion is to draw a long bow indeed. Already at that time Kirchoff’s law of heat radiation proposed 40 years earlier was well known. Milankovitch has since then proposed his theory that has in turn been validated and still the myth persists.
Will, I thought I was doing ok for an ‘alarmist’. I thought I’d kept on topic pretty well and pointed out the flaws in Cohenite’s ‘refutations’.
One thing I find interesting is that no one will say what the evidence they want is. Cohenite came close and asked for a indisputable fingerprint (or something like that), but then couldn’t actually say what that would look like.
I doubt anyone here would know what to look for as evidence of AGW. How can you know if you have evidence if you don’t know what you are looking for?
“This is not fair or reasonable….”
No you are being an idiot mate. Look you have to start somewhere and you could start by not being an idiot and by attempting to find even one study that attempts, however imperfectly, to make that empirical link.
What you have to do is reconstruct CO2 history. Reconstruct temperature history and try to pull out a CO2-link from the noise.
Jan don’t be telling him “fair enough.” You’ll just encourage him in his idiocy and thats no good for him and anyone else.
“One thing I find interesting is that no one will say what the evidence they want is. ”
No you are lying. What a filthy lie. I’ve just described it over and over and over again until my forearms are getting sore from all the timing.
IS THERE NOTHING YOU WON’T LIE ABOUT.
Just come up with some empirical evidence for your case you jerk.
We are not even fussy here. You have a blank sheet. Just try. If you cannot find any then you are wrong or the 50 billion in loot stolen for the purpose has been horribly ill-spent.
Now come up with something or just die. Just focus and make your filthy lying black heart stop through zen thought control techniques you dope.
“Skeptics use a scatter shot approach, using one kind of physics to ‘disprove’ one aspect and an opposing kind of physics to ‘disprove’ another. You need to have an internally consistent argument.”
As this site demonstrates so well, you don’t need anything of the sort.
“if I’m still in the world.”
Let’s hope so Jan; I can’t handle these all-sorts by myself.
“How can you know if you have evidence if you don’t know what you are looking for.”
Excellent; NT is channelling Rumsfeld; these would be the unknown knowns or the known unknowns?
Graeme; you’ve excelled yourself; I nearly choked through laughter; zen thought control indeed.
Ahura Mazda you people are such bastards. First you say there is all this overwhelming evidence. Than you cannot come up with any evidence when asked though you keep claiming there is just this massive sky-high volume of it all piling up all around like neon lights as to the glaring obviousness of it all. Now you say that its unfair and unreasonable that you ought to come up with evidence prior to destroying millions of livelihoods, wrecking whole industries, if not whole countries, and causing trillions in economic damage.
And then NT lies and claims that no-one has described what evidence is.
If you wanted evidence that aerosols cooled things down its pretty simple. Find the volcanic eruptions, look at the prevailing trends, and make some sort of ballpark estimate.
We can do it for aerosols because theory and empirical evidence converge and we can make that link. With CO2 the empirical evidence isn’t there. The theory is ludicrous from the getgo. And so you don’t have the evidence and the theory needs to be revised. The old paradigm dumped and replaced by a new one.
But you think otherwise so where is your evidence? Where is your CO2-reconstruction for starters?
Beck tried to make one and we never heard the end of your crowds idiocy about his study.
“Skeptics use a scatter shot approach, using one kind of physics to ‘disprove’ one aspect and an opposing kind of physics to ‘disprove’ another. You need to have an internally consistent argument.”
No no no no no (said five ways).
This is convergent falsification. Not scattershot. And the physics used hasn’t been directly contrary. Rather its coming from convergent angles. Since a simplification of the earths system…. involves… well…. SIMPLIFICATION…
….. then when you are ripping apart a really stupid simplification (that is the prevailing watts-per-square metre model) its only good and proper that you do it from different angles.
So if one bloke emphasizes the bogus idea of back-radiation getting a surface to heat itself when the energy is coming off that surface. Another bloke might say that this shows that the back-radiation can only have an effect on the reduction in the rate of cooling and so greenhouse is probably exaggerated as to the magnitude of its effect for this and other reasons. Another says that:
…. that which is a poor reflector is a good emitter….
… and so greenhouse is a dubious concept, another takes all of this on board and suggests that greenhouse has been exaggerated by at least one and probably two orders of magnitude……
… Still another person goes back to the flat earth science and says that since overturning, gas law, and accumulated joules in the ocean are part of the story, then 30 degrees estimates for greenhouse are obviously way overestimated so that the effect of an increase in CO2 is going to be correspondingly slighter than what the alarmist estimates show…
.. Another says that he thinks aersols and back-radiation are important but that they do all their work in about the first 10 metres so the extra is not going to do a great deal.. Since we already have aerosols, water vapour clouds and all that….
……A biologist shows that CO2 can be negative on some time scales because it can reduce the oceans photic zone via overstimulating microscopic life….
…. And if others can show a negative feedback via a CO2 influence on the vertical movement of pockets of air and so forth….
These aren’t really contradictory versions of physics at all. I mean we aren’t a monolithic bunch of zombies like your crowd so we disagree on this or that. But it isn’t directly contradictory physics. The different people are merely coming at it from different angles. And the deal is that since your side hasn’t come up with the empirical evidence and your base reasoning is so damned ridiculous this is the way that we better explain what is going on.
There are thousands of influences on the planetary heat budget. Most of them in the form of CYCLES. That might be voodoo to you-too. But like it or not thats what this subject entails. This is not a subject condusive to notions of static-equilibrium. And its a matter of figuring out what is the important influences and what influences are less important.
So far changes to CO2-levels have to be relegated to the unimportant as an influence. Thats just a fact unless you want to get all emotional and weepy about it.
Now lets have some sort of evidence.
Jan Pompe: “Drawing the inference that the ice ages were caused by CO2 depletion is to draw a long bow indeed.”
The age of the universe is calculated using very fine ‘temperature’ measurements of the cosmic background radiation. In other words, it’s derived from a very very long chain of reasoning coming out of, essentially, the the static you see on an analog TV set when it’s not tuned to a station… Of course, my analogy doesn’t refute your argument; I’m just pointing out that it’s not necessarily far fetched.
NT: “One thing I find interesting is that no one will say what the evidence they want is.”
A cause-effect relationship between CO2 and rising (or decreasing) temperatures, in both directions, would have been really nice… I suspect AGW got a lot of support because there was an apparent solid empirical fundation for the theory based on ice cores. When that no longer turned out to be the case, AGW had already become a social and political movement to be reckoned with. Nonetheless, you raise an excellent point. ‘Deniers’ do need to be clear on what they expect as evidence and it has to be reasonable. If it’s true that evidence for AGW is now largely based on model predictions, some way to fairly evaluate the models in a non-partisan way (i.e., without moving the goals posts by either side) would at least be a start.
“The age of the universe is calculated using very fine ‘temperature’ measurements of the cosmic background radiation. ”
Thats all nonsense too. But its less directly harmful nonsense.
Arrenhius’ thesis, a fine inductive leap at the time, was proved wrong. Thats the way of things. If some of your inductive leaps weren’t proved wrong it means you aren’t coming up with anything new.
cohenite said…”with that in mind I direct you to this AR4 graph:…”
The thing that slays me about the graphs is the expanded vertical temperature scale. We all know that is compared to the average temperature of about 15 C, and that the anomaly is used to give the graph readability. The uneducated, however, look at a rise on a graph of 0.5 C and think it means a great deal due to the steepness of the curve.
I like this comparison on Ian Schumacker’s page:
http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html
Compare Figure 1 to Figure 5, where the vertical axis has been put in better perspective to the 15 C average.
“In other words, it’s derived from a very very long chain of reasoning coming out of, essentially, the the static you see on an analog TV set when it’s not tuned to a station… Of course, my analogy doesn’t refute your argument; I’m just pointing out that it’s not necessarily far fetched.”
It is far-fetched. Long linear chains of deductive reasoning are always going to come out with stupid conclusions.
Our reasoning must be convergent. And never fall for this vanity that we can nut things out with linear chains of deductive thought.
Such linear chains of reasoning are not sensitive to the tiniest mistake in any part of the chain. And they put all the other tools away for long stretches, leaving only deduction and maths.
We must come at problems from all angles and in a convergent way. Modern cosmology has been taken over by mathematicians posing as natural philosophers. Its a particularly hard priesthood-cartel to break as it has erected an impenetrable maths-barrier.
But its getting sillier all the time because these people don’t know a reduction to absurdity when they see it.
“‘Deniers’ do need to be clear on what they expect as evidence and it has to be reasonable……”
I for one have been clear you lying filthy idiot. If you cannot come up with the evidence WHAT IS THAT TELLING YOU YOU MORON?
What is it telling you?
If you don’t know what thats telling you you are just too stupid for the subject.
Michael said…”Soon and Baliunas came a cropper when they “re-established the MWP””
I’m curious as to who did the ‘cropper’-ing. It wasn’t the crew at RC, was it? That’s where most of the discrediting comes from these days.
Gordon; have a look at Fig’s 5 & 6 in this paper;
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
Gordon,
It wasn’t RC, it was a host of the people whose papers were cited by Soon and Baliunas. When they saw how they had misused those cited works, they were less than pleased.
I’m still curious how cohenite manages to reconcile McKitrick & Essex with Loehle.
Some kind of specific acceptance of the completely contradictory.
“This is convergent falsification. ”
A laugh a minute, you should get a standup act.
Micheal; there have been numerous explanations offered by me and other commentators during the course of this thread as to why your allegation of some profound, ineluctable contradiction between the Essex paper’s denigration of the concept of a global average temperature and Loehle’s paper, which gives a mean representation of a number of regional anomalies where the MWP was expressed in regionally different ways, is wrong; Loehle did this to enable a graphic representation, and a form consistent rebuttal of the egregious Mann fictional hockey stick graph which was expressed on a global basis; Loehle did what he did to make a consistent rebuttal of Mann; your persistence with your spurious complaint is puerile and typical of the AGW based criticisms that have been on this thread.
Cohenite, probably trained in environmental science at RMIT! no prior science needed…says a lot doesnt it!
No no SJT. This is no scattershot approach. We are talking convergent falsification. Which is entirely redundant by the way. If that gives your argument-from-smugness the ring of truth to it. It puts us all in a bit of a bind to be called upon to rip to pieces a way of thinking that has no evidence in favour of it in the first place…..
…No evidence in favour of it in the first place by your own admission!!!! Or at least by your own OMISSION.
Because is you have some evidence let us have it right here right now and I’m not setting a high bar at all:
GO!!!!
And another thing Michael and others; if you want real misrepresentation and obfuscation of science, noone does it better than Mann; the Hockey Stick is absolutely essential for AGW; without it AGW is just Hansen synaptic disentergration; well, guess what, the Hockey Stick is an illusion;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3601#comments
“the Hockey Stick is absolutely essential for AGW;”
Not at all, I have asked a researcher about the significance of the HS. It only represents about 10% of the case. Read the report, there is a lot more information in there than just the HS.
“the Hockey Stick is absolutely essential for AGW”
Sure was enough for me. What is more related to Cape Grim CO2 measurements?
“Numerous explanations” cohenite??
Well, several statments of disagreement.
McKitrick and Essex don’t just deride a global mean temp, they take aim at any claims of average temp, castigating the very notion that this has any real physcial meaning. They parade a series of rather silly scenarios to do so.
Loehle paper on its own is less of a problem. It’s pretty weak for a number of reasons, but is at least an interesting attempt that could be re-done. But his self-defined method of “simple averaging” of temps is exactly what McKitrick and Essex are taking a mighty swipe at.
It’s simply untenable that one of your “top 10” trashes the methodology employed by one of the others.
Well coordinated SJT and gavin.
Will: “f course, my analogy doesn’t refute your argument; I’m just pointing out that it’s not necessarily far fetched”
It was far fetched in the context of what was already known about absorbers of electromagnetic radiation i.e. that they are also good emitters. When the temperatures of the source and the sample are equal (the situation with the atmosphere and earth’s surface) you don’t see any absorption (Kirchoff’s law proposed 40 years earlier).
Hang on a minute Michael. What are you saying here?
Are you playing some word-game where you resuscitate Mann and run down Loehle on the basis of different meanings of the word “averaging”?
You might want to expand on this a bit just to show us that this isn’t some stupid word-game where you re-calibrate the worthiness of two studies by reference to a critique of one of them.
Its as though you are running further and further from the subject at hand.
So lets get this right. You’ve pivoted on the word “averaging” used in a critique of one study. And used this as a leverage point to lift up a fraudulent study and beat down a study that you cannot show is invalid.
Prior to that you or someone else was using the fact that Mann has used way too many proxies in his new study to put down a study that used a more than adequate 10 proxies.
If it was up to me I would have used maybe 5 and worked harder to get all aspects of the use of the data right. But in any case you seem to be using different studies against themselves by just bitching about things rather than going direct at the subject with one or other study in mind.
But since you yourself cannot come up with any evidence for this racket this sort of bitching about indirect stuff is really just what I call “ontologically conjuring the Sasquatch.”
You might take note of various studies. But you’ve got to focus on the subject itself.
In passing I will note that Manns first study was obvious science fraud without worrying about any statistical esoterica.
Using tree-ring growth for CO2 levels would have been one thing. But he used it for warming. Which obviously was going to lead to a fake run-up in overstated warming post-war
Well Cohenite, now that this thread seems to have run its course, how would you summarise it. Would you for eg,
1. Change the list of 10
2. Increase or decrease your level of scepticism.
3. Seen any links to paper(s), peer reviewed or other wise, that definitively underpin the AGW position.
4. Come across any evidence at all that would supports the Fed government screwing up the economy.
5. Increased or decreased your confidence on the IPCC/peer review process.
6 Seen any case for increasing or decreasing the level of science funding in climate research by Govt agencies.
Malcolm; next port of call; 10 worst, as in misleading, pro-AGW papers.
Great — that will be fun.
It should certainly get the one dimensional on the hop, and demonstrate yet again that it is not enough for the alarmists to think they are right, but they have to be seen to have been right.
That means the processes have to stack up as well— which they dont.
Cohenite
notice SJT and Gavin make much ado about correlation being causation, or not so much ado in one case.
It will be interesting seeing what the 10 worst could be.
Well, this blog has been very telling. I was absolutely gobsmacked when Will Nitschke stated that it was not “fair or reasonable” to ask for evidence that a theory is correct! Why not just openly proclaim that AGW supporters have a ‘divine right’ to say and do what ever they want? “Thus Hansen spake the words and the words became truth; the heavens and the Earth aligning themselves accordingly!”
It is fascinating that no evidence was offered that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and that it was considered insulting (or unfair) to even ask for evidence!
The IPCC, of course, does make an argument for CO2 as the primary driver of climate change. It goes like this: “We have come up with a theory that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and built models to this effect. When we hold CO2 constant in our models, the global temperatures do not change. Since historical temperatures have changed and CO2 has changed, CO2 must be the primary driver of Climate change!”
Here is a similar argument: I have a theory that President Bush is responsible for all good things that have happened on Earth for the last 8 years and have built a model to that effect. When I remove President Bush from my model, no good things happen. In reality, some good things did happen and President Bush was in office…proving that President Bush is responsible for all the good things!
The (non)arguments are identical in logical structure, yet I doubt that any AGW supporter who bought into the IPCC argument would have any trouble recognizing the ridiculus, circular nature of the ‘Bush=goodness’ argument!
It continues to astound me that there is such a huge push to inflict untold suffering on the human population based completely on an argument that is obviously rubbish!
Again, I say, one can not be an AGW supporter without a healthy amount of cognitive disonance! Welcome to the post-rational world!
Right Jim. The alarmist camp is dead from the neck up. But this doesn’t stop Tim Lamberts MAJOR-ME….(that is to say the beloved Professor Barry Brook….) from continuing with a power-load of circular reasoning.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/14/what-if-the-sun-got-stuck/#more-421
Here he contradicts another thread he wrote. Which claimed that the question was why haven’t we cooled even more? Why have the temperatures held up? Then in this other thread he talks about El Nina and solar influences. He doesn’t think once about the oceans having accumulated a great amount of joules and still being relatively “warm” in this regard.
But nothing phases these guys and least of all Tim Lamberts Major-Me. He just keeps going like a combination between Uncle Fester and the eveready bunny. After much circular reasoning he announces this bizzare conclusion:
“Thus if the sun remains “out”, i.e., stuck for a long period in the current solar minimum, it can offset only about 7 years of CO2 increase.”
He says this yet he will not come on here and present a study that brings forth evidence for CO2-warming. He is assuming 3 degrees for a doubling. Total nonsense and flat our irrational. But he doesn’t so much as have any evidence for CO2-warming. He doesn’t know of any evidence for it, he cannot find anyone with such evidence. He doesn’t know anyone who could track such evidence down.
By his own reasoning this CANNOT be right. Since he is going on the air temperature alone. And we have had at least a 5% increase in CO2 since 1998. So why at least 2 years of cooling? If he used the Argos floats or the sea level as proxy for joules within the system, rather than merely air temperature, he might be able to make a case for some sort of humbler CO2 influence. But no he’s sticking with his ludicrous 3 degrees for a doubling based on nothing at all.
Imagine if this 3 degrees business were true? How fortunate we would be? We’d have our own thermostat. Our own ability to expand the tropical and subtropical zones to help us through the Landsheidt minimum. I’d like to believe this stuff only its rubbish. You put on your wishful thinking hat you might imagine one tenth of this slipping through the data and unable to be recognized. But if CO2-warming isn’t negative its probably even less than that.
“It continues to astound me that there is such a huge push to inflict untold suffering on the human population based completely on an argument that is obviously rubbish!’
…and riddled with fraudulent misrepresentation, involving a very bad system that is 300 years over due for a rethink, but willingly condoned by those who by their silence, are complicit.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/what_hockey_stick.html
Graeme,
You remind me of the last time, many years ago, that I actually tried to discuss something at the RC website. They were making fun of Dr. Bill Gray, who has maintained for decades that 20th century temperatures were driven by ocean cycles and that global cooling was imminent in the early 21st Century. They were not kind, basically calling him a fossil and a moron, because he could not fully explain the ocean cycle/climate mechanism.
Now, as the planet cools precisely as Bill Gray predicted, the AGW crowd says it is just a brief delay in the warming and the result of some ocean cycle, although they fail to explain the mechanism.
Has the AGW community ever admitted to being mistaken about anything related to climate change? I don’t recall such a confession. You would think that with something as complex as climate change, that they may admit that they were mistaken about something over the last 20 years. But no! I gues they truly believe that they guessed right from the beginning and that all of the evidence against them is simply wrong!
Hospitalization may be in order!
That we will be going into cooling appears to be an hypothesis converging from more than one angle from all the scientific areas where people take evidence seriously.
I’ve taken a punt and am predicting that the sea-level, and then CO2-levels, will also turn down. The sea levels in one or two years from now. The CO2 levels a few years after that. Its only punt but its hard to see how it could be otherwise.
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/co2-levels-can-drop-precipitously-and-will-drop-soon/
Graeme Bird,
Not using an Apple computer are you? 🙂
Easier to use Philip Stott’s blog method – the Apple Mac thingy.
Jim Clarke,
Bill Grays’s ideas on the oceans driving the climate seems interesting – Lance Endersbee has pointed out that its essentially a surface area effect we are dealing with – rather than the variations of the internal physics of a whisper thin flim of gas enveloping the Earth.
Incidentally Luke seems to have found a new home – David Stockwell’s blog.
Its not a waltz. Its no foxtrot. But its some sort of dance between the sun and the oceans that does it.
Its a one-way-biased system and if either one won’t dance we are headed for cooling.
Louis: “Incidentally Luke seems to have found a new home – David Stockwell’s blog.”
I thought I noticed a distinct rise in noise level over there.
“notice SJT and Gavin make much ado about correlation being causation,”
Liar
SJT
I sense from your reactions and mealy mouthed retorts that you admit losing, but then it’s not what they say that is the clue, but how they say it.
I see Al Gore’s financial state might have reached a tipping point during the last day or so. Are the AGW crowd going to start a chook raffle to help him meet his costs?
The significance of Beck’s works should not be overlooked, despite not making it to the top-ten.
Most significant for science is IMO that Ernst Georg Beck did his homework. He did a literature search and reconstructed several measured CO2 profiles, investigating how and where the CO2 levels were measured. The last being from his background as a chemist; and being familiar with some of the still-used techniques for measuring gas concentrations.
The historical reconstruction of CO2 levels pre-Mauna Loa and the Keeling revisionism of “historical CO2” is not just interesting and enlightening; it’s devastating to the AGW via CO2 hypothesis. CO2 levels of 400 ppm measured in the middle of the 19th century didn’t provoke a tipping point.
CO2 levels were measured to rise (and fall) not only in the expected diurnal and seasonal cycles, but also over several years.
Regionality of CO2 levels is also significant. Concentrations measured over the South Atlantic in the 1920’s varied by (IIRC) well over 100 ppm, being lowest in the cold parts and highest where it got warmer. There are obviously effects due to solubility in water.
More recent research has confirmed metabolic, biological processes significantly alter surface-level CO2 concentrations, be that on water or land. Photosynthesis is important in the biological processes; but that can change raidly with cloud cover.
It is all very, very complicated. And it seems that many things that are as yet largely unknown are significant natural contributors to changes in CO2 levels.
Not that CO2 has much to do with climate; other than feeding the life that’s evolved along with changes in climate.
Right. I was impressed with it. And it changed my head around since it means that if we don’t get our energy-production together really quickly we could face disaster.
I really was hoping for that cold snap to come with high CO2. If we don’t trash this crowd and get energy production up we could face famines across the world.
I cannot shame or abuse a single valid argument against Beck out of these people. I think this was stunning work as to its importance to policy.
Northwest Passage II Monday, Sep. 13, 1937
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770864-2,00.html
Year was 1937 —– 3 years after 1934, the warmest year.
We can change the climate, yes we can, prevent the coming Ice Age. Giant Panatomic Canal.
Climate Change Deniers “Top Ten List” http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/climate-change-deniers-top-ten-list/
I am reminded, however, of conversations with creationists/ID proponents where a smattering of citations are provided (where usually only about a sentence or two is topical) and the overwhelming weight of evidence in opposition is ignored.
There are always abberant results, these don’t, necessarily, invalidate anything.
Here is a more comprehensive list…
180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
– Ernst-Georg Beck
50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauna Loa (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, pp. 1017-1028(12), Number 7, 2008)
– Ernst-Georg Beck
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638(8), November 1, 2000)
– Heinz Hug
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 26: 159-173, 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
– Richard S. Courtney
Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature measurements (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 27-33, 1998)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling Jr, Russell S. Vose, Paul C. Knappenberger
Ancient atmosphere- Validity of ice records
(Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Volume 1, Number 3, September 1994)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski
Are Climate Model Projections Reliable Enough For Climate Policy?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 521-525, July 1, 2004)
– Madhav L. Khandekar
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? (PDF)
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
– C. R. de Freitas
Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review (PDF)
(Norwegian Polar Institute Letters, Vol. 119, 1992)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, V. Hisdal
Biased Policy Advice from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 929-936(8), December 2007)
– Richard S.J. Tol
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Climate Change and the World Bank: Opportunity for Global Governance?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-50(24), January 1, 1999)
– S.A. Boehmer-Christiansen
Climate as a Result of the Earth Heat Reflection (PDF)
(Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences, Volume 46, Number 2, 2009)
– J. Barkāns, D. Žalostība
Climate Change – A Natural Hazard
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232(18), May 1, 2003)
– William Kininmonth
Climate change and the world bank: Opportunity for global governance?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-50(24), January 1, 1999)
– Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
– Lee C. Gerhard
– Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Climate Change: Dangers of a Singular Approach and Consideration of a Sensible Strategy
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 201-205, January 2009)
– Tim F. Ball
Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
– V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos
Climate Change is Nothing New! (PDF)
(New Concepts In Global Tectonics, No. 42, March 2007)
– Lance Endersbee
Climate change projections lack reality check
(Weather, Volume 61, Issue 7, Page 212, December 29, 2006)
– Madhav L. Khandekar
Climate Change Re-examined (PDF)
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
– Joel M. Kauffman
Climate Dynamics and Global Change
(Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 26, pg 353-378, January 1994)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Climate outlook to 2030 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 615-619(5), September 2007)
– David C. Archibald
Climate Policy : Quo Vadis?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 207-213, January 2009)
– Hans Labohm
Climate science and the phlogiston theory: weighing the evidence (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 3-4, pp. 441-447(7), July 2007)
– Arthur Rorsch
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998)
– Sherwood B. Idso
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pages 1 – 9, January 2008)
– G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin
Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 101-104(4), January 2009)
– Craig Loehle
Crystal balls, virtual realities and ‘storylines’
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
– Richard S. Courtney
Dangerous Assumptions (PDF)
(Nature, 452, 531-532, April 3, 2008)
– Roger Pielke Jr., Tom Wigley, Christopher Green
Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
– Robert M. Carter
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 31, L13207, 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels
Do deep ocean temperature records verify models? (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp. 95-1, April, 2002)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? (PDF)
(Science of the Total Environment, vol. 114, pp. 227-284, 1992)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, N. Ono
Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88:6, 913-928, 2007)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.
Does a Global Temperature Exist? (PDF)
(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, June 2006)
– Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen
Does CO2 really drive global warming? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
– Robert H. Essenhigh
Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 131-144(14), January 2009)
– Oliver K. Manuel
Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
– Craig D. Idso
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie H. Soon
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L03209, 2004)
– Willie H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas
Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
– Patrick J. Michaels
Extreme Weather Trends Vs. Dangerous Climate Change: A Need for Critical Reassessment
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2,pp. 327-332, March 2005)
– Madhav L. Khandekar
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 30, 2009)
– Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Free speech about climate change
(Society, Volume 44, Number 4, May, 2007)
– Christopher Monckton
Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability (PDF)
(Physical Review Letters, Vol. 89, No. 2, July 8, 2002)
– R. B. Govindan, Dmitry Vyushin, Armin Bunde, Stephen Brenner, Shlomo Havlin, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber
Global Warming (PDF)
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
– Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
– Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong
Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
– Marcel Leroux
Global Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear (PDF)
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 247-256, 2005)
– David Deming
Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
– Dennis Ambler
Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for a new approach
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 4, July 2006)
– David Henderson
Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for rethinking
(World Economics Journal, Volume 8, Number 2, 2007)
– David Henderson
Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (PDF)
(Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, vol. 111, no 1, pp. 1-40, 2007)
– Ferenc M. Miskolczi
Has the IPCC exaggerated adverse impact of Global Warming on human societies? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, September 2008)
– Madhav L. Khandekar
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
– S. Fred Singer
Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
– A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future (PDF)
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
– Willie H. Soon
In defense of Milankovitch (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L24703, December 21, 2006)
– Gerard Roe
Irreproducible Results in Thompson et al., “Abrupt Tropical Climate Change: Past and Present” (PNAS 2006)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 3 , pp. 367-373(7), July 2009)
– J. Huston McCulloch
Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
– Indur M. Goklany
Is Climate Change the “Defining Challenge of Our Age”?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 3, pp. 279-302, July 2009)
– Indur M. Goklany
Is Stern Review on climate change alarmist?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 521-532(12), September 2007)
– S. Niggol Seo
Key Aspects of Global Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 469-503(35), July 1, 2004)
– Ya. K. Kondratyev
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, August, 2008)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy
Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
– Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo
Microclimate Exposures of Surface-Based Weather Stations: Implications For The Assessment of Long-Term Temperature Trends (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 86, Issue 4, April 2005)
– Christopher A. Davey, Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al. (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 95, January, 2007)
– Lin Zhen-Shan, Sun Xian
Nature of observed temperature changes across the United States during the 20th century (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 17: 45–53, 2001)
– Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Robert E. Davis
Natural signals in the MSU lower tropospheric temperature record
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 18, pp. 2905–2908, 2000)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger
New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 327-350, 1 May 2003)
– Landscheidt T.
Oceanic influences on recent continental warming (PDF)
(Climate Dynamics, 2008)
– G.P. Compo, P.D. Sardeshmukh
On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system (PDF)
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
– Olavi Kamer
On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? (PDF)
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
– L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
On the credibility of climate predictions (PDF)
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671-684, 2008)
– D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides
On the sensitivity of the atmosphere to the doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration and on water vapour feedback
( Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 4, pp. 603-607(5), July 2006)
– Jack Barrett, David Bellamy, Heinz Hug
Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide
(Energy Fuels, 23 (5), pp 2773–2784, April 1, 2009)
– Robert H. Essenhigh
– Response to W. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal of “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
(Environmental Geology, Volume 54, Number 7, June, 2008)
– L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 21, Issue 21, November 2008)
– Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell
Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
– A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese
Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, 2008)
– Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell
Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 23, 89–110, January 2003)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
– Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Rate of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Controlled by Natural Temperature Variations (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, pp. 995-1011, December 2008)
– Fred Goldberg
Revised 21st century temperature projections (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 23: 1–9, 2002)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
– Klaus-Martin Schulte
Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models (PDF)
(Social Studies of Science, Vol. 35, No. 6, 895-922, 2005)
– Myanna Lahsen
Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system (PDF)
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
– Olavi Kärner
Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 105-121(17), January 2009)
– Tom Quirk
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
– S. Fred Singer
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
– Vincent Gray
Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
– Olavi Kärner
The carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18(18), January 1, 1999)
– N. Calder
The cause of global warming (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
– Vincent Gray
The Eco-Industrial Complex in USA – Global Warming and Rent-Seeking Coalitions
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, December 2008)
– Ivan Jankovic
The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
– Douglas J. Keenan
The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
– David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis
The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science (PDF)
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 162, Issue 8-9, pp. 1557-1586, August 2005)
Madhav L. Khandekar, TS Murty, P Chittibabu
The Government Grant System: Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation? (PDF)
(Journal of Information Ethics, Volume 16, Number 1, Spring 2007)
– Donald W. Miller
The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
– H. Jelbring
The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
– A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes
The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 159-185(27), May 1, 2003)
– I. Castles, D. Henderson
The IPCC future projections: are they plausible? (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 1998)
– Vincent Gray
The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
– William J.R. Alexander
The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
– Wojick D. E.
The value of climate forecasting
(Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 7, Number 3, June, 1985)
– Garth W. Paltridge
“The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data (PDF)
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, February 2009)
– Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking, Michael Pook
Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
– Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm
Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, 2007)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.
Useless Arithmetic: Ten Points to Ponder When Using Mathematical Models in Environmental Decision Making (PDF)
(Public Administration Review, Volume 68 Issue 3, Pages 470-479, March 24, 2008)
– Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, Orrin H. Pilkey
An Inconvenient Truth:
An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle
(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September, 2007)
– David R. Legates
An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction
(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
– Roy W. Spencer
Hockey Stick: (MBH98)
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, February 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
– Reply to comment by Huybers on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
– Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data (PDF)
(Nature 433, 613-617, February 2005)
– Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko and Wibjörn Karlén
Comment on “The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years”
(Science, Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1844, June 2007)
– Gerd Bürger
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
– Craig Loehle
– Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 1 , pp. 93-100(8), January 2008)
– Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch
Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair and Its Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
– David Holland
A mathematical analysis of the divergence problem in dendroclimatology (PDF)
(Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9488-8, June 2, 2008)
– C. Loehle
Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions (PDF)
(PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 6, February 10, 2009)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
The latest issue of Energy and Environment has a special section on climate change.
The article ‘A null hypothesis for CO2’ E&E 22(4) 171-200 (2010) may be worthy of a mention here.