Global Warming - Scientific evidence

[BlasterBates]

You don't understand peer review.

This should help:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

Read it and then hopefully next time you'll cite a peer reviewed source.

Jounalism is good but there is a difference.

[sasguru]

Read it and then hopefully next time you'll cite a peer reviewed source.

Jounalism is good but there is a difference.

Bit rich coming from you, eh?
What's the matter, Swiss banks not working you hard enough?

I think the following quote form the link is telling:

With the release of the revised statement[80] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[2][81]

[pjclarke]

Peer-Reviewed You Say?

Okey-Dokey

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change".

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

Regarding Dr Spencer, These days, when global warming inactivists need to trot out somebody with some semblance of scientific credentials (from the dwindling supply who have made themselves available for such purposes), it seems that they increasingly turn to Roy Spencer, a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama. Roy does have a handful of peer-reviewed publications, some of which have quite decent and interesting results in them. However, the thing you have to understand is that what he gets through peer-review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you’d think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere.

[Doggy Styles]

Blimey, all your posts are so long. I haven't got time.

[sasguru]

Blimey, all your posts are so long. I haven't got time.

Don't let the door hit your arse as you exit the thread.

[BlasterBates]

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003

...and ignore 7 years of research, a bit out of date, don't you think. That's changed.

[sasguru]

...and ignore 7 years of research, a bit out of date, don't you think. That's changed.

And in any case as you well know most of the funding goes towards research institutes with preconceived ideas on CO2 and global warming. You aint going to get funding to look at the solar cycle. So you're bound to get a much higher volume of papers.

You don't resolve a scientific debate by doing a statistical analysis on pro and con views.

OK but what about

With the release of the revised statement[80] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[2][81]

You are in effect claiming a global conspiracy of monumental and unprecedented proportions by the scientific bodies of the world.

But I guess like deluded people everywhere that seems a reasonable claim to you.

[pjclarke]

and ignore 7 years of research, a bit out of date, don't you think. That's changed.

Sure, a new survey now might throw up a handful of papers that question some aspect of the scienctific concensus, that is how science progresses: but the ratio is still overwhelmingly (as in > 100:1) in favour of AGW.

Are there any specific papers you had in mind?

[BlasterBates]

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.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-c...ictions?page=6
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-conten...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/...01?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/?...2008JCLI2253.1
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/publi.../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.

Here's a few.

[sasguru]

Are there any specific papers you had in mind?

Ah, the coup de grace.
Do remember to wipe the knife afterwards.