450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
Crow
the climate "statisticians" !
<http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html>
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
- Reply To: Comments on Loehle, "correction To: A 2000-Year Global
Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies"
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 775-776, September
2008)
- Craig Loehle
A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7 Issue 4, pp. 213, December 2000)
- Robert C. Balling Jr.
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.
1693-1701, December 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, November 2000)
- Heinz Hug
A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)
- Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, Sergey Kravtsov
A scientific agenda for climate policy? (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 372, Issue 6505, pp. 400-402, December 1994)
- Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface
temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
- Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to
Benestad (2004) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
- A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface
temperature data: Erratum (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 265-268, December 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models
versus observation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
* An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the
Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, February 2009)
- Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John
R. Christy, Richard T. McNider
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, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-33, April 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 2004)
- Madhav L. Khandekar
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere really dangerous? (PDF)
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, Volume 50, Number 2, pp.
297-327, June 2002)
- C. R. de Freitas
Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?
(PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 253, Issues 3-4, pp.
328-339, January 2007)
- Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Frédéric
Fluteau, Agnès Genevey
- Response to comment on "Are there connections between Earth's
magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339,
2007" by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in
press, 2007 (PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 265, Issues 1-2, pp.
308-311, January 2008)
- Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Frédéric
Fluteau, Agnès Genevey
Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review (PDF)
(Norwegian Polar Institute Letters, Volume 119, May 1992)
- Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, V. Hisdal
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, pp.
8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene
Thermal Maximum warming
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, 576-580, July 2009)
- Richard E. Zeebe, James C. Zachos, Gerald R. Dickens
Climate as a Result of the Earth Heat Reflection (PDF)
(Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences, Volume 46, Number
2, pp. 29-40, May 2009)
- J. Barkāns, D. Žalostība
Climate Change - A Natural Hazard
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232, May 2003)
- William Kininmonth
Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 75-83, January 2009)
- Adrian K. Kerton
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Volume 88, Number 9, pp. 1211-1220, September 2004)
- Lee C. Gerhard
- Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and
politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, Volume 90, Number 3, pp. 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: detection and attribution of trends from long-term
geologic data
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 171, Issue 4, pp. 433-450, February 2004)
- Craig Loehle
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, Number 42, March 2007)
- Lance Endersbee
Climate change projections lack reality check
(Weather, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp. 212, December 2006)
- Madhav L. Khandekar
Climate Change Re-examined (PDF)
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 723–749,
2007)
- Joel M. Kauffman
Climate Chaotic Instability: Statistical Determination and Theoretical
Background
(Environmetrics, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp. 517-532, December 1998)
- Raymond Sneyers
Climate Dynamics and Global Change
(Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 26, pg 353-378, January 1994)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Climate outlook to 2030 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 615-619, September
2007)
- David C. Archibald
Climate Prediction as an Initial Value Problem (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 79, Number 12,
pp. 2743-2746, December 1998)
- Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill?
(PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 13, July 2009)
- Catherine Reifen, Ralf Toumi
Climate science and the phlogiston theory: weighing the evidence (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 3-4, pp. 441-447, July 2007)
- Arthur Rörsch
Climate stability: an inconvenient proof
(Civil Engineering, Volume 160, Issue 2, pp. 66-72, May 2007)
- David Bellamy, Jack Barrett
Climate Variations and the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect
(Ambio, Volume 27, Number 4, pp. 270-274, June 1998)
- Wibjörn Karlén
CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate: Comment (PDF)
(GSA Today, Volume 14, Issue 7, pp. 18–18, July 2004)
- Nir Shaviv, Jan Veizer
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate
change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental
Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008)
- G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin
Comment on "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27,
July 2009)
- Roland Granqvist
Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 17, pp. 4276–4293, September
2006)
- H. J. Fowler, D. R. Archer
Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 101-104, January
2009)
- Craig Loehle
Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
- Robert M. Carter
Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric
temperatures since 1979
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 183–186,
January 2001)
- John R. Christy, D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel,
W.B. Norris
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence
(PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 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 Facts Matter Anymore?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 323-326, May 2003)
- Patrick J. Michaels
Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? (PDF)
(Science of the Total Environment, Volume 114, pp. 227-284, August
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, Volume 88, Number 6,
pp. 913-928, June 2007)
- Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.
Does a Global Temperature Exist? (PDF)
(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp.
1–27, February 2007)
- Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Chemical Innovation, Volume 31, Number 5, pp 44-46, May 2001)
- Robert H. Essenhigh
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, pp.
79-90, Fall 2007)
--
Crow.
Tom P
> Some nice reading for the AGW supporters, the iceberg doomsayers and the
> climate "statisticians" !
>
> <http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html>
>
>
The problem with this kind of list is that it is already out of date.
Let's look at
> A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
> (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.
> 1693-1701, December 2007)
> - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
>
Looking for citations to this paper we find:
Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
troposphere, B. D. Santer et al. Int. J. Climatol. 28: 1703�1722 (2008)
ABSTRACT: A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP) identified a �potentially serious inconsistency� between modelled
and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early
versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the
tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate
models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming
in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases
(GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational
estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that
there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed
trends in tropical lapse rates.
Santer's paper effectively demolished Douglass' claims. Nevertheless,
this will not stop denialists from propagating outdated and incorrect
information.
BTW I see the list is already on wattsupwiththat. Surprise surprise.
JohnM
> Crow wrote:
> > Some nice reading for the AGW supporters, the iceberg doomsayers and the
> > climate "statisticians" !
>
>
> The problem with this kind of list is that it is already out of date.
> Let's look at
>
> > A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
> > (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.
> > 1693-1701, December 2007)
> > - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
>
> Looking for citations to this paper we find:
> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
>
> ABSTRACT: A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
> and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early
> versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the
> tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate
> models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming
> in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases
> (GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational
> estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that
> there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed
> trends in tropical lapse rates.
>
> Santer's paper effectively demolished Douglass' claims. Nevertheless,
> this will not stop denialists from propagating outdated and incorrect
> information.
>
> BTW I see the list is already on wattsupwiththat. Surprise surprise.
Are you seriously proposing that we look at the science before
deciding what is actually happening to the climate? <irony>
Goober Pyle
There are several papers peer reviewed by the CATO and Heritage
institutes that state that there is no such think as global warming
and we are actually in a period of global cooling, caused by evil
spirits and bad bodily humors.
Steve Milloy of junkscience.com has a degree in health sciences, and
as a scientist he says that bunk.
So does Lord Monckton. He's a blueblood!
Tom P
> On Nov 15, 4:00 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> Crow wrote:
>>> Some nice reading for the AGW supporters, the iceberg doomsayers and the
>>> climate "statisticians" !
>>> <http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-support...>
>> The problem with this kind of list is that it is already out of date.
>> Let's look at
>>
>>> A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
>>> (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.
>>> 1693-1701, December 2007)
>>> - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
>> Looking for citations to this paper we find:
>> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
>>
>> ABSTRACT: A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
>> and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early
>> versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the
>> tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate
>> models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming
>> in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases
>> (GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational
>> estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that
>> there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed
>> trends in tropical lapse rates.
>>
>> Santer's paper effectively demolished Douglass' claims. Nevertheless,
>> this will not stop denialists from propagating outdated and incorrect
>> information.
>>
>> BTW I see the list is already on wattsupwiththat. Surprise surprise.
>
> Are you seriously proposing that we look at the science before
> deciding what is actually happening to the climate? <irony>
The problem is that there are extremely powerful interest groups
working at providing disinformation about AGW - exactly the same ones
that lobbyed to block CFC legislation, acid rain legislation and smoking
legislation.
Their primary message is to propagate the myth that AGW does not have
a sound scientific basis, even though the scientific basis for AGW was
already well established beyond any doubt over three decades ago.
Crow's posting is a further example of the way this disinformation is
spread thanks to the Internet. The same day that populartechnology.net
published the list, it was copied by wattsupwiththat.com. No doubt we
can expect to see x repostings of the same post in this NG, regardless
of whether any of the purported peer-reviewed papers hold any water or
not. It may well have been a lot of work for "Andrew" to gather the
list, it will be much more work and a lot of time wasted verifying every
one of the claims.
T.
Claudius Denk
> Crow wrote:
> > Some nice reading for the AGW supporters, the iceberg doomsayers and the
> > climate "statisticians" !
>
>
> The problem with this kind of list is that it is already out of date.
Out of date?
> Let's look at
>
> > A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
> > (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.
> > 1693-1701, December 2007)
2007 is out of date?
> > - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
>
> Looking for citations to this paper we find:
> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> troposphere, B. D. Santer et al. Int. J. Climatol. 28: 1703–1722 (2008)
>
> ABSTRACT: A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
> (CCSP) identified a ‘potentially serious inconsistency’ between modelled
> and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early
> versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the
> tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate
> models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming
> in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases
> (GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational
> estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that
> there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed
> trends in tropical lapse rates.
Absurd. There's a discrepancies between the observed trends between
two different data sources. More specifically, global warming
disappears when the satellite data is used. So it's silly for you to
suggest discrepancies magically disappear.
>
> Santer's paper effectively demolished Douglass' claims.
Demolished? How so? Did you actually read Santer's paper? I suggest
you do.
> Nevertheless,
> this will not stop denialists from propagating outdated and incorrect
> information.
Outdated? The paper you suggest is older than the one you dispute.
So you must have your head up your ass.
Capt. Bill
> Outdated? The paper you suggest is older than the one you dispute.
> So you must have your head up your ass.
I hear there are 30,000 scientists with 30,000 peer reviewed papers
and all of them say that Algore created global warming so he could
cash in, raise our taxes and subject us to world wide socialist
domination.
30,000 scientists can't be wrong. As a naturopath, I know these
things because I'm a scientist too.
Claudius Denk
> JohnM wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 4:00 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> >> Crow wrote:
> >>> Some nice reading for the AGW supporters, the iceberg doomsayers and the
> >>> climate "statisticians" !
> >>> <http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-support...>
> >> The problem with this kind of list is that it is already out of date.
> >> Let's look at
>
> >>> A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
> >>> (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.
> >>> 1693-1701, December 2007)
> >>> - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
> >> Looking for citations to this paper we find:
> >> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
>
> >> ABSTRACT: A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
> >> and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early
> >> versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the
> >> tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate
> >> models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming
> >> in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases
> >> (GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational
> >> estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that
> >> there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed
> >> trends in tropical lapse rates.
>
> >> Santer's paper effectively demolished Douglass' claims. Nevertheless,
> >> this will not stop denialists from propagating outdated and incorrect
> >> information.
>
> >> BTW I see the list is already on wattsupwiththat. Surprise surprise.
>
> > Are you seriously proposing that we look at the science before
> > deciding what is actually happening to the climate? <irony>
>
> The problem is that there are extremely powerful interest groups
> working at providing disinformation about AGW
Yeah, like IPCC and realclimate, Hadley, NASA, etc.
> - exactly the same ones
> that lobbyed to block CFC legislation, acid rain legislation and smoking
> legislation.
You sound paranoid.
> Their primary message is to propagate the myth that AGW does not have
> a sound scientific basis, even though the scientific basis for AGW was
> already well established beyond any doubt over three decades ago.
> Crow's posting is a further example of the way this disinformation is
> spread thanks to the Internet. The same day that populartechnology.net
> published the list, it was copied by wattsupwiththat.com. No doubt we
> can expect to see x repostings of the same post in this NG, regardless
> of whether any of the purported peer-reviewed papers hold any water or
> not. It may well have been a lot of work for "Andrew" to gather the
> list, it will be much more work and a lot of time wasted verifying every
> one of the claims.
Since you can't dispute the facts you dispute the motives of your
opponents and your source is your imagination.
>
> T.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Claudius Denk
Bill, science isn't a democracy and being a naturopath doesn't make
you a scientist.
Tom P
> On Nov 15, 7:00 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> Crow wrote:
>>> Some nice reading for the AGW supporters, the iceberg doomsayers and the
>>> climate "statisticians" !
>>> <http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-support...>
>> The problem with this kind of list is that it is already out of date.
>
> Out of date?
>
>> Let's look at
>>
>>> A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
>>> (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.
>>> 1693-1701, December 2007)
>
> 2007 is out of date?
>
>>> - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
>> Looking for citations to this paper we find:
>> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
>>
>> ABSTRACT: A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
>> and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early
>> versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the
>> tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate
>> models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming
>> in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases
>> (GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational
>> estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that
>> there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed
>> trends in tropical lapse rates.
>
> Absurd. There's a discrepancies between the observed trends between
> two different data sources. More specifically, global warming
> disappears when the satellite data is used. So it's silly for you to
> suggest discrepancies magically disappear.
>
>> Santer's paper effectively demolished Douglass' claims.
>
> Demolished? How so? Did you actually read Santer's paper? I suggest
> you do.
>
>
>> Nevertheless,
>> this will not stop denialists from propagating outdated and incorrect
>> information.
>
> Outdated? The paper you suggest is older than the one you dispute.
Santers paper published online 10 Oct 2008 specifically refers to
Douglass's paper of 2007. You can see the explicit reference to the
publication date and page number on pg. 17. Santer devotes some pages
to discussing Douglass' results and showing where his claims are mistaken.
> So you must have your head up your ass.
You may be thinking of an older paper by Santer, but if so you should
be careful not to make a fool of yourself by making abusive remarks that
apply equally well to yourself.
Tom P
> On Nov 15, 8:55 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> JohnM wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 4:00 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>>> Crow wrote:
>>>>> Some nice reading for the AGW supporters, the iceberg doomsayers and the
>>>>> climate "statisticians" !
>>>>> <http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-support...>
>>>> The problem with this kind of list is that it is already out of date.
>>>> Let's look at
>>>>> A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
>>>>> (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.
>>>>> 1693-1701, December 2007)
>>>>> - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
>>>> Looking for citations to this paper we find:
>>>> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
>>>> ABSTRACT: A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
>>>> and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early
>>>> versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the
>>>> tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate
>>>> models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming
>>>> in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases
>>>> (GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational
>>>> estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that
>>>> there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed
>>>> trends in tropical lapse rates.
>>>> Santer's paper effectively demolished Douglass' claims. Nevertheless,
>>>> this will not stop denialists from propagating outdated and incorrect
>>>> information.
>>>> BTW I see the list is already on wattsupwiththat. Surprise surprise.
>>> Are you seriously proposing that we look at the science before
>>> deciding what is actually happening to the climate? <irony>
>> The problem is that there are extremely powerful interest groups
>> working at providing disinformation about AGW
>
> Yeah, like IPCC and realclimate, Hadley, NASA, etc.
>
>
>> - exactly the same ones
>> that lobbyed to block CFC legislation, acid rain legislation and smoking
>> legislation.
>
> You sound paranoid.
>
Claudius Denk
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 7:00 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> >> Crow wrote:
> >>> Some nice reading for the AGW supporters, the iceberg doomsayers and the
> >>> climate "statisticians" !
> >>> <http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-support...>
> >> The problem with this kind of list is that it is already out of date.
>
> > Out of date?
>
> >> Let's look at
>
> >>> A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
> >>> (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.
> >>> 1693-1701, December 2007)
>
> > 2007 is out of date?
>
> >>> - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
> >> Looking for citations to this paper we find:
> >> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
>
> >> ABSTRACT: A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
> >> and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early
> >> versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the
> >> tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate
> >> models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming
> >> in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases
> >> (GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational
> >> estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that
> >> there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed
> >> trends in tropical lapse rates.
>
> > Absurd. There's a discrepancies between the observed trends between
> > two different data sources. More specifically, global warming
> > disappears when the satellite data is used. So it's silly for you to
> > suggest discrepancies magically disappear.
>
> >> Santer's paper effectively demolished Douglass' claims.
>
> > Demolished? How so? Did you actually read Santer's paper? I suggest
> > you do.
>
> I have it in front of me.
Good, then you should have no trouble quoting it directly to support
your claim that, "Santer's paper effectively demolished Douglass'
claims." Right? Now take a deep breath, read the paper and make an
honest attempt to debate the subject. No more whining. Just do it.
> >> Nevertheless,
> >> this will not stop denialists from propagating outdated and incorrect
> >> information.
>
> > Outdated? The paper you suggest is older than the one you dispute.
>
> Santers paper published online 10 Oct 2008 specifically refers to
> Douglass's paper of 2007. You can see the explicit reference to the
> publication date and page number on pg. 17. Santer devotes some pages
> to discussing Douglass' results and showing where his claims are mistaken.
You're the one that said the date was an issue. Now support your
claim, you flippin retard.
>
> > So you must have your head up your ass.
>
> You may be thinking of an older paper by Santer, but if so you should
> be careful not to make a fool of yourself by making abusive remarks that
> apply equally well to yourself.
Put up or shut up jackass.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> BTW I see the list is already on wattsupwiththat. Surprise surprise.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Claudius Denk
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 8:55 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> >> JohnM wrote:
> >>> On Nov 15, 4:00 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> >>>> Crow wrote:
> >>>>> Some nice reading for the AGW supporters, the iceberg doomsayers and the
> >>>>> climate "statisticians" !
> >>>>> <http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-support...>
> >>>> The problem with this kind of list is that it is already out of date.
> >>>> Let's look at
> >>>>> A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
> >>>>> (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.
> >>>>> 1693-1701, December 2007)
> >>>>> - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
> >>>> Looking for citations to this paper we find:
> >>>> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> >>>> ABSTRACT: A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
> >>>> and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early
> >>>> versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the
> >>>> tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate
> >>>> models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming
> >>>> in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases
> >>>> (GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational
> >>>> estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that
> >>>> there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed
> >>>> trends in tropical lapse rates.
> >>>> Santer's paper effectively demolished Douglass' claims. Nevertheless,
> >>>> this will not stop denialists from propagating outdated and incorrect
> >>>> information.
> >>>> BTW I see the list is already on wattsupwiththat. Surprise surprise.
> >>> Are you seriously proposing that we look at the science before
> >>> deciding what is actually happening to the climate? <irony>
> >> The problem is that there are extremely powerful interest groups
> >> working at providing disinformation about AGW
>
> > Yeah, like IPCC and realclimate, Hadley, NASA, etc.
>
> >> - exactly the same ones
> >> that lobbyed to block CFC legislation, acid rain legislation and smoking
> >> legislation.
>
> > You sound paranoid.
>
> Google Marshall Institute.
It's not my responsibility to support your delusions.
Crow
> The problem with this kind of list is that it is already out of date.
Cherrypicking as usual, eh?
for your convenience: below is a selection of the 2009 entries.
Warm regards & happy reading! :-)
* An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the
Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, February 2009)
- Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John
R. Christy, Richard T. McNider
Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene
Thermal Maximum warming
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, 576-580, July 2009)
- Richard E. Zeebe, James C. Zachos, Gerald R. Dickens
Climate as a Result of the Earth Heat Reflection (PDF)
(Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences, Volume 46, Number
2, pp. 29-40, May 2009)
- J. Barkāns, D. Žalostība
Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 75-83, January 2009)
- Adrian K. Kerton
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 projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill?
(PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 13, July 2009)
- Catherine Reifen, Ralf Toumi
Comment on “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27,
July 2009)
- Roland Granqvist
Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 101-104, January
2009)
- Craig Loehle
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The
Frame Of Physics (PDF)
(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp.
275-364, January 2009)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect
(Environmental Geology, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp.1207-1213, September
2009)
- G. V. Chilingar, O. G. Sorokhtin, L. Khilyuk, M. V. Gorfunkel
Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D14, July 2009)
- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter
Irreproducible Results in Thompson et al., “Abrupt Tropical Climate
Change: Past and Present” (PNAS 2006)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 3, pp. 367-373, July 2009)
- J. Huston McCulloch
Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance
(Physics Letters A, Volume 373, Issue 36, pp. 3296-3300, August 2009)
- David H. Douglassa, Robert S. Knox
--
Crow.
Tom P
> Tom P wrote:
>
>> The problem with this kind of list is that it is already out of date.
>
> Cherrypicking as usual, eh?
>
> for your convenience: below is a selection of the 2009 entries.
>
> Warm regards & happy reading! :-)
>
As you failed to understand my post and simply deleted it, I'll reinsert it.
Let's look at
> A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
> (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.
1693-1701, December 2007)
> - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
>
Looking for citations to this paper we find:
Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
troposphere, B. D. Santer et al. Int. J. Climatol. 28: 1703�1722 (2008)
ABSTRACT: A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP) identified a �potentially serious inconsistency� between modelled
and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early
versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the
tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate
models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming
in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases
(GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational
estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that
there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed
trends in tropical lapse rates.
Santer's 2008 paper refuted Douglass' 2007 claims. That is what I mean
by out of date.
Tom P
> On Nov 15, 9:30 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 7:00 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>>> Crow wrote:
>>>>> Some nice reading for the AGW supporters, the iceberg doomsayers and the
>>>>> climate "statisticians" !
>>>>> <http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-support...>
>>>> The problem with this kind of list is that it is already out of date.
>>> Out of date?
>>>> Let's look at
>>>>> A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
>>>>> (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.
>>>>> 1693-1701, December 2007)
>>> 2007 is out of date?
>>>>> - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
>>>> Looking for citations to this paper we find:
>>>> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
>>>> ABSTRACT: A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
As far as I am aware 2008 comes after 2007. I have told which papers I
am talking about.
>>> So you must have your head up your ass.
>> You may be thinking of an older paper by Santer, but if so you should
>> be careful not to make a fool of yourself by making abusive remarks that
>> apply equally well to yourself.
>
> Put up or shut up jackass.
>
You inability to communicate without lapsing into obscenities gives all
of us a fairly clear picture of your intellectual capacities. As far as
I can see you are just a troll and a timewaster. You are welcome to
prove otherwise by writing something intelligible.
BDR-529
because this is not a scientific journal. Let's just take another one to
see what it is like:
> Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? (PDF)
> (Science of the Total Environment, Volume 114, pp. 227-284, August 1992)
> - Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, N. Ono
Indeed, this is an elsevier journal, but it is 16 years old. And then
you start to look for the name Zbigniew Jaworowski where you find on
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski#Opinions
Climate change
Jaworowski's works on ice cores were published in Jaworowski (1994,
1992) and in reports Jaworowski (1990, 1992). Jaworowski has suggested
that the long-term CO2 record is an artifact caused by the structural
changes of the ice with depth and by postcoring processes.
However, Jaworowski's views are rejected by the scientific community.
Increases in CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the Vostok core are similar
for the last two glacial-interglacial transitions, even though only the
most recent transition is located in the brittle zone. Such evidence
argues that the atmospheric trace-gas signal is not strongly affected by
the presence of the brittle zone. [1] Similarly Hans Oeschger [2] states
that "...Some of (Jaworowski's) statements are drastically wrong from
the physical point of view".
All the above provides sufficient evidence that who have to avoid the
name Zbigniew Jaworowski, the man is a crack-pot, Hans Oeschger declared
the man scientifically seen dead already a long time ago.
Now, I could dig a little bit deeper in this famous list of 450 papers,
but one rotten apple in the basket probably means that there are more.
An AGW denier was kicked in the nuts, how painful,
Q
Crow
> Crow wrote:
>> Tom P wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with this kind of list is that it is already out of date.
>>
>> Cherrypicking as usual, eh?
>>
>> for your convenience: below is a selection of the 2009 entries.
>>
>> Warm regards & happy reading! :-)
>>
>
> As you failed to understand my post and simply deleted it, I'll reinsert it.
> Let's look at
>
Still 449 to go, cherrypicker!
--
Crow.
erschro...@gmail.com
> Some nice reading for the AGW supporters, the iceberg doomsayers and
> the climate "statisticians" !
How many of these you checked out and verified?
>
> <http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-support...>
>
> 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
E&E is a journal by Soon, a noted denialist. No serious scientist
publishes there, and it's not abstracted by any of the scientific
services.
>
> - Reply To: Comments on Loehle, "correction To: A 2000-Year Global
> Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies"
> (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 775-776, September
> 2008)
> - Craig Loehle
Same old.
>
> A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
> (Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7 Issue 4, pp. 213, December 2000)
> - Robert C. Balling Jr.
9 years out of date.
>
> A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
> (PDF)
> (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.
> 1693-1701, December 2007)
> - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred
> Singer
Singer? You cite Singer with a straight face?
>
> A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by
> carbon dioxide
> (Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638, November 2000)
> - Heinz Hug
E&E again.
>
> A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts (PDF)
> (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)
> - Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, Sergey Kravtsov
>
> A scientific agenda for climate policy? (PDF)
> (Nature, Volume 372, Issue 6505, pp. 400-402, December 1994)
> - Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
>
> A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface
> temperature data (PDF)
> (Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
> - Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Do you realize neither of those is a scientist?
realclimate:
First of all, there are a number of issues that they did not address
that logically must must be addressed for their conclusions to be
tenable. MM04 failed to acknowledge other independent data supporting
the instrumental thermometer-based land surface temperature
observations, such as satellite-derived temperature trend estimates
over land areas in the Northern Hemisphere (Intergovernmental
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Third Assessment Report,
Chapter 2, Box 2.1, p. 106) that cannot conceivably be subject to the
non-climatic sources of bias considered by them. Furthermore, they
fail to reconcile their hypothesis with the established large-scale
warming evident from global sea surface temperature data that, again,
cannot be influenced by the local, non-climatic factors they argue
contaminate evidence for surface warming. By focusing on thermometer-
based land observations only, and ignoring other evidence conflicting
with their hypothesis, MM04 failed to address basic flaws in their
arguments.
Perhaps even more troubling, it has been noted elsewhere that MM04
confused “degrees” and “radians” in their calculations of areal
weighting factors, rendering all of their calculations incorrect, and
their conclusions presumably entirely invalid.
The focus of this piece, however, is on yet another fundamental
problem with their analysis as identified by Benestad (2004). Benestad
(2004) repeated their analysis using a different statistical model
(linear and generalised multiple regression model) and the same data
set. Benestad (2004) first reproduced the basic results of MM04 (i.e.,
established similar coefficients for the various factors used by MM04)
using the full data set. This established an appropriate baseline for
further tests of the robustness of their statistical model. As
described below, their statistical model failed these tests,
dramatically.
>
> - Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to
> Benestad (2004) (PDF)
> (Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
> - Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
A reply? So basically a letter to the editor.
>
> - A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface
> temperature data: Erratum (PDF)
> (Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 265-268, December 2004)
> - Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
You cite their erratum as a source?
>
> Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models
> versus observation (PDF)
> (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
> - David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Singer. Sigh.
>
> * An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the
> Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
> (Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, February 2009)
> - Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John
> R. Christy, Richard T. McNider
Pielke and Christy. Sigh.
>
> 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
E&E again.
>
> Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical
> temperature measurements (PDF)
> (Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-33, April 1998)
> - Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling Jr, Russell S. Vose, Paul C.
> Knappenberger
Michaels again.
>
> 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 2004)
> - Madhav L. Khandekar
>
E&E again.
> Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
> atmosphere really dangerous? (PDF)
> (Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, Volume 50, Number 2, pp.
> 297-327, June 2002)
> - C. R. de Freitas
Not only this guy, but a petroleum journal?
>
> Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?
> (PDF)
> (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 253, Issues 3-4, pp.
> 328-339, January 2007)
> - Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Frédéric
> Fluteau, Agnès Genevey
>
> - Response to comment on "Are there connections between Earth's
> magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339,
> 2007" by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in
> press, 2007 (PDF)
> (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 265, Issues 1-2, pp.
> 308-311, January 2008)
> - Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Frédéric
> Fluteau, Agnès Genevey
>
> Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review (PDF)
> (Norwegian Polar Institute Letters, Volume 119, May 1992)
> - Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, V. Hisdal
Oh great. Segalstad compiled the infamous list which he didn't bother
to read.
>
> Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
> (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, pp.
> 8335-8342, August 1997)
> - Richard S. Lindzen
>
So besides Lindzen, Singer, Michaels, McKitrick, de Freitas, Idso, and
E&E, you've got nothing.
> Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene
> Thermal Maximum warming
> (Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, 576-580, July 2009)
> - Richard E. Zeebe, James C. Zachos, Gerald R. Dickens
Who cares? The issue is the current warming.
>
> Climate as a Result of the Earth Heat Reflection (PDF)
> (Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences, Volume 46, Number
> 2, pp. 29-40, May 2009)
> - J. Barkāns, D. Žalostība
Wow, you had to go to Latvia for a cite!
>
> Climate Change - A Natural Hazard
> (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232, May 2003)
> - William Kininmonth
>
E&E
> Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
> (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 75-83, January 2009)
> - Adrian K. Kerton
E&E
>
> Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
> (AAPG Bulletin, Volume 88, Number 9, pp. 1211-1220, September 2004)
> - Lee C. Gerhard
>
> - Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and
> politics: Reply
> (AAPG Bulletin, Volume 90, Number 3, pp. 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
E&E
>
> Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term
> geologic data
> (Ecological Modelling, Volume 171, Issue 4, pp. 433-450, February 2004)
> - Craig Loehle
>
> 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
E&E
>
> Climate Change is Nothing New! (PDF)
> (New Concepts In Global Tectonics, Number 42, March 2007)
> - Lance Endersbee
>
> Climate change projections lack reality check
> (Weather, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp. 212, December 2006)
> - Madhav L. Khandekar
>
> Climate Change Re-examined (PDF)
> (Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 723–749,
> 2007)
> - Joel M. Kauffman
>
> Climate Chaotic Instability: Statistical Determination and Theoretical
> Background
> (Environmetrics, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp. 517-532, December 1998)
> - Raymond Sneyers
>
> Climate Dynamics and Global Change
> (Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 26, pg 353-378, January 1994)
> - Richard S. Lindzen
>
> Climate outlook to 2030 (PDF)
> (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 615-619, September
> 2007)
> - David C. Archibald
E&E
> Does a Global Temperature...
>
> read more »
Crow
> So besides Lindzen, Singer, Michaels, McKitrick, de Freitas, Idso, and
> E&E, you've got nothing.
And you have only Al Gore and Mann...
You'll have to do better than your famous one line rebuttals if you
really want anybody here to take you serious.
I guess you have another 400 to go!
--
Crow.
Claudius Denk
So, it would appear that the skeptics are winning 2 to 7.
tunderbar
> Crow wrote:
> > Some nice reading for the AGW supporters, the iceberg doomsayers and the
> > climate "statisticians" !
>
>
> The problem with this kind of list is that it is already out of date.
> Let's look at
>
> > A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
> > (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.
> > 1693-1701, December 2007)
> > - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
>
> Looking for citations to this paper we find:
> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
>
> ABSTRACT: A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
> and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early
> versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the
> tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate
> models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming
> in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases
> (GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational
> estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that
> there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed
> trends in tropical lapse rates.
>
> Santer's paper effectively demolished Douglass' claims. Nevertheless,
> this will not stop denialists from propagating outdated and incorrect
> information.
>
> BTW I see the list is already on wattsupwiththat. Surprise surprise.
Wow. One half-assed critique of one paper nullifies all 450 peer-
reviewed papers. You agwers have an amazing capacity for sweeping
leaps of logic.
BDR-529
Skeptics have nothing to say, no one takes them serious.
Q
--
Type-2 diabetes since July 2009, 1000 mg/day metformin, BMI 26.3
Agent Orange
> Skeptics have nothing to say, no one takes them serious.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/green/sns-green-us-climate-poll,0,2547175.story
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans seem to be cooling toward global warming.
Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting
warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the
share of people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing
temperatures to rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world
forums gear up for possible action against climate
change."......."Only about a third, or 36 percent of the respondents,
feel that human activities — such as pollution from power plants,
factories and automobiles — are behind a temperature increase. That's
down from 47 percent from 2006 through last year's poll."
http://www.examiner.com/x-219-Denver-Weather-Examiner~y2009m3d11-Gallup-Poll--Americans-doubting-global-warming
"In a just released poll from the Gallup Organization, while a
majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is
accurately portrayed, 41% now believe it is exaggerated. That is the
highest percentage of ‘doubters’ since 1998.
Perhaps most significantly, more Americans say the problem is
exaggerated versus underestimated – 41% to 28%. The exaggerated
statistic has been steadily rising since 2005 after a drop from 2004
to 2005."
http://www.meteorologynews.com/2009/03/15/global-warming-skeptics-gaining-ground/
"(METEOROLOGYNEWS.com) Several recent studies have indicated that
those who believe global warming is not caused primarily by human
activity – often labeled “skeptics” – are gaining ground in convincing
the public that global warming fears are not as significant as some
claim. Although many in the scientific community maintain global
warming is caused primarily by human activity, a small but growing
group of climatologists and other scientists are gaining traction in
convincing the public that the debate is not as settled as Al Gore and
other global warming alarmists would have them believe."
So it would appear that your claim that "no one takes them [skeptics]
serious" is fatally flawed. Obviously an awful lot of people take
them very seriously. Maybe not you, perhaps, but a lot of people, yes.
mrbawana2u
> > On Nov 16, 8:53 am, Crow <C...@thebirds.invalid> wrote:
> >> erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> So besides Lindzen, Singer, Michaels, McKitrick, de Freitas, Idso, and
> >>> E&E, you've got nothing.
> >> And you have only Al Gore and Mann...
> >> You'll have to do better than your famous one line rebuttals if you
> >> really want anybody here to take you serious.
> >> I guess you have another 400 to go!
>
> >> --
> >> Crow.
>
> > So, it would appear that the skeptics are winning 2 to 7.
>
> Skeptics have nothing to say, no one takes them serious.
English your second language, fucktard?
Go eat a candy bar.
BDR529
There were no 450 papers and Tom P and I already spoke a few kind words.
Q
JohnM
Ouroboros Rex
Like all denialists, this one relies on lies and cowardice. lol
erschro...@gmail.com
> erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > So besides Lindzen, Singer, Michaels, McKitrick, de Freitas, Idso, and
> > E&E, you've got nothing.
>
> And you have only Al Gore and Mann...
Wow, you right-wingers sure have a thing for Gore. Does the thought
of him get you all aquiver?
mrbawana2u
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 11:53 am, Crow <C...@thebirds.invalid> wrote:
>
> > erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > So besides Lindzen, Singer, Michaels, McKitrick, de Freitas, Idso, and
> > > E&E, you've got nothing.
>
> > And you have only Al Gore and Mann...
>
What awards/prizes have the "right-wingers" bestowed on the AlphaTard,
tturd packer?
(Besides the one way ticket to LOSERVILLE)
It seems that it's you left-turd-retards that grease your well used
asses for the Goron.
Tom P
Ok. Let's work down the list and look at some more.
A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts
Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov
Conclusion at the end.. " ... However, comparison of the
2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event
suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted
after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which
may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend."
Note two things. One, the authors use a computer simulation of a future
event. Apparently computer simulations are ok with skeptics as long as
they don't come from the IPCC?
Two, they do not reject AGW, on the contrary, their modelled
prediction is superimposed on AGW.
Next, A scientific agenda for climate policy? (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 372, Issue 6505, pp. 400-402, December 1994)
- Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Sorry, this is an op-ed piece, not a peer reviewed paper. Sonja
Boehmer-Christiansen is well known for her political views.
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface
temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
What this paper purports to find is that the temperature record
correlates with economic progress. In some ways, this is not surprising,
becauseover the decades the earth is getting warmer and at the same time
the GDP is growing . But does that mean one causes the other? Why not
just correlate temperature with designer handbags and prove that
designer handbags are the case of GW?
Fortunately Benestad looked at the McKitrick paper and wrote in a letter
to the editors:
"..However, when a validation was performed on a similar analysis for
which the regression model was calibrated with a sub-
set of the data, and the remaining data were used for
validation, it became apparent that models based on
the factors that McKitrick & Michaels used had no skill
(i.e. were not able to reproduce the independent data).
The negligence to account for inter-station dependen-
cies in the analysis resulted in spurious results and
inflated confidence levels in the analysis of McKitrick
& Michaels. There is therefore no evidence suggesting
that the temperature trends are systematically in-
fluenced by non-climatic factors. "
So that's three more down, without even mentioning the E&E so-called
papers. Try for more?
T.
Crow
> So that's three more down, without even mentioning the E&E so-called papers.
> Try for more?
Please do!
And note that finding *one* author disagreeing with a given paper does
not render the original paper invalid or wrong. Or is that the way AGW
peer reviewal is supposed to work? :oÞ
--
Crow.
Tom P
Er, wrong. You forgot the thousands of papers published over the last
three decades that are in line with AGW.
A much better way of judging the significance anyway to to look at the
number of citations that authors get.
Claudius Denk
I think a better way is the number of scientists that are willing to
debate.
Skeptics 1000 (plus), AGW Whackos 0
BDR-529
Uh Uh, AGW deniers: -1, AGW supporters: +1000. The -1 is for cheating.
Q
Claudius Denk
I think a better way is the number of scientists that are willing to
debate.
Skeptics 1000 (plus), AGW Whackos 0
Uh Uh, AGW deniers: -1, AGW supporters: +1000. The -1 is for cheating.
Q
Name one AGW supporter that is willing to debate.
Roger Coppock
> Some nice reading for the AGW supporters, the iceberg doomsayers and
> the climate "statisticians" !
>
> <http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-support...>
>
> proxies (PDF)
> (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December
> 2007)
OPs! Look no further! This isn't a list of science papers.
The compiler of this list thinks that the fossil fuel industry
trade journal "Energy and Environment" publishes
peer-reviewed science. This isn't a list of science papers.
Please see:
Rob Dekker
RealClimate response :
... there is a lot of nonsense in that list, padded out with papers that are
completely mainstream and not 'skeptical' at all, and containing dozens of
mutually incompatible results (Khilyuk and Chillangar anyone?). Still there
are clearly some papers (as we discussed above) that get into the literature
despite fundamental flaws. A nice complement to this list would be the
number of papers that subsequently rebut them (lots) or how often they are
cited outside the 'skeptic' circle (rarely). Nonetheless, even if this list
was legit (which it isn't), 450 papers in ten years (or so) out of the tens
of thousands on the subject is a pretty small fraction. - gavin]
Earl Evleth
"Crow" <Cr...@thebirds.invalid> wrote:
> (Energy & Environment,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment
The journal takes a skeptical view towards climate change
The journal is not listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing
service for academic journals.
The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited.
Peer reviewed? Who are the peers? The foxes in the chicken coop!