Global Warming - Scientific evidence

[BlasterBates]

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

I've posted a few papers for your persual.

Have a nice day.

[sasguru]

I've posted a few papers for your persual.

Have a nice day.

What's that prove? I expect there are hundreds of climate change denying papers in obscure journals around the world (most funded by special interests).

Have a nice day.

[pjclarke]

What happened to 1.? Is this just a cut-and-paste off the InterWeb?

2. Problems with Loehle's 'no tree-rings' proxy is discussed here.
Note that Mann et al 2008 also produced a 'no-dendro' version of their study, which appeared in PNAS, rather than E&E.

3. Douglass, Christy et al [predictably trumpeted as the 'death of AGW'] is no such thing.

4. Koutsoyiannis et al appeared in an obscure hydrology journal. Remember Mr Watts? Remember his theme that we cannot rely on individual surface stations? Wanna guess how many of the several thousand weather stations the authors used to 'disprove' the GCMs?

We decided to use eight stations (this number was dictated by time and resource limitations—the research is not funded). Hmmmm... Similar studies using better methodology and data contradicts this paper, e.g. Kiraly et al (2006, Tellus), Fraedrich and Blender (2003).

5. Cannot find this in Google Scholar - where was it published?

6. Misckolczi - ROFL!

7. These results suggest that current observational diagnoses of cloud feedback—and possibly other feedbacks—could be significantly biased in the positive direction.

A speculative paper, then. And one that, again, is contradicted by other studies.

8. Turns 100 years of Physics on its head - there is no greenhouse effect. Not!.

9. See Response here http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD010450.shtml

Hardly the nail in the coffin of the 1000+ studies that underpin the concensus, then.

[BlasterBates]

What happened to 1.? Is this just a cut-and-paste off the InterWeb?

2. Problems with Loehle's 'no tree-rings' proxy is discussed here.
Note that Mann et al 2008 also produced a 'no-dendro' version of their study, which appeared in PNAS, rather than E&E.

3. Douglass, Christy et al [predictably trumpeted as the 'death of AGW'] is no such thing.

4. Koutsoyiannis et al appeared in an obscure hydrology journal. Remember Mr Watts? Remember his theme that we cannot rely on individual surface stations? Wanna guess how many of the several thousand weather stations the authors used to 'disprove' the GCMs?

We decided to use eight stations (this number was dictated by time and resource limitations—the research is not funded). Hmmmm... Similar studies using better methodology and data contradicts this paper, e.g. Kiraly et al (2006, Tellus), Fraedrich and Blender (2003).

5. Cannot find this in Google Scholar - where was it published?

6. Misckolczi - ROFL!

7. These results suggest that current observational diagnoses of cloud feedback—and possibly other feedbacks—could be significantly biased in the positive direction.

A speculative paper, then. And one that, again, is contradicted by other studies.

8. Turns 100 years of Physics on its head - there is no greenhouse effect. Not!.

9. See Response here http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD010450.shtml

Hardly the nail in the coffin of the 1000+ studies that underpin the concensus, then.

Can you cite the rebuttals to these papers other than from blogs?

i.e peer reviewed journal papers I think one may have been though it looked like superficial opinion.

There are plenty of sceptical blogs I could cite from.

Always surprises me how much global warming research considering the resuorces at their disposal is based on superficial heresay (himalayan glaciers for example).

I think considering sceptics are on a shoe string budget and deliberately kept out of the debate, do a remarkable job. Don't you think?

IPCC removed Mann's hockey stick from the report, because it was discredited.

[pjclarke]

Er, [3]. [8]. and [9]. were peer-reviewed comments or rebuttals. Here they are again

[3]. https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-10-05-article.pdf

Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical
lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and
on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability,
and application of an inappropriate statistical ‘consistency test’.

[8] http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-p...4&size=largest

[2]. appeared in Energy & Environment. The aim of scientific journal publication is to put worthwhile research in front of an expert readership for scrutiny, with no political agenda. E&E appears in a handful of libraries worldwide and its review process lets through garbage like this. Consequently, it is not widely-read by serious scientists.

As regards Miskolczi et al, I quote Gavin Schmidt of NASA 'It's like asking for a peer-reviewed rebuttal of a claim that the moon is made of green cheese.'

I think considering sceptics are on a shoe string budget and deliberately kept out of the debate, do a remarkable job. Don't you think?

Well, there are the amateurs, and then there are the 'pros' funded by Exxonmobile et al. I think they all do a wonderful job of creating FUD, making noise, spreading misinformation and long-discredited claims and recycling erroneous myths. Myths like ...

IPCC removed Mann's hockey stick from the report, because it was discredited.

I don't know which sceptic blog that is from, however it is demonstrably false - Mann, Bradley Hughes 1999 (aka 'The Hockey Stick' aka MBH99) is cited and the various criticisms of it discussed and dismissed in the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter on Paleoclimate, as one would expect. Since AR3 it has been joined by several other studies, all of which are consistent with the Hockey Stick.

[sasguru]

I do think its game, set and match to Mr clarke.

[sasguru]

I think considering sceptics are on a shoe string budget ..

You see its statements like this that make you appear foolish. A cursory google would lead you to the millions of dollars poured into denialist propaganda by special interest groups. But I think you know that, being the troll you are.

A good analogy is the millions spent by tobacco companies to "disprove" the link between smoking and cancer.

[EternalOptimist]

You see its statements like this that make you appear foolish. A cursory google would lead you to the millions of dollars poured into denialist propaganda by special interest groups. But I think you know that, being the troll you are.

A good analogy is the millions spent by tobacco companies to "disprove" the link between smoking and cancer.

I agree on one thing, there is an agenda here.
When the Himalayan glaciers were melting, it was due to AGW and half of pakistan was due to be left without water.
Now that the Himalayan glaciers are thickening, it is due to AGW and half of Pakistan is due to be left without water.

It seems that whatever happens, whatever about faces are performed, whatever hoops the AGW alarmists have to jump through, its always the fault of AGW.

The polar bears were facing a tough time due to AGW. No wait, their numbers are multiplying, how long before that is caused by warming?

[Churchill]

I agree on one thing, there is an agenda here.
When the Himalayan glaciers were melting, it was due to AGW and half of pakistan was due to be left without water.
Now that the Himalayan glaciers are thickening, it is due to AGW and half of Pakistan is due to be left without water.

It seems that whatever happens, whatever about faces are performed, whatever hoops the AGW alarmists have to jump through, its always the fault of AGW.

The polar bears were facing a tough time due to AGW. No wait, their numbers are multiplying, how long before that is caused by warming?

Still, it'll leave Pakistan without water so there are plus points.

[BlasterBates]

What happened to 1.? Is this just a cut-and-paste off the InterWeb?

2. Problems with Loehle's 'no tree-rings' proxy is discussed here.
Note that Mann et al 2008 also produced a 'no-dendro' version of their study, which appeared in PNAS, rather than E&E.

3. Douglass, Christy et al [predictably trumpeted as the 'death of AGW'] is no such thing.

4. Koutsoyiannis et al appeared in an obscure hydrology journal. Remember Mr Watts? Remember his theme that we cannot rely on individual surface stations? Wanna guess how many of the several thousand weather stations the authors used to 'disprove' the GCMs?

We decided to use eight stations (this number was dictated by time and resource limitations—the research is not funded). Hmmmm... Similar studies using better methodology and data contradicts this paper, e.g. Kiraly et al (2006, Tellus), Fraedrich and Blender (2003).

5. Cannot find this in Google Scholar - where was it published?

6. Misckolczi - ROFL!

7. These results suggest that current observational diagnoses of cloud feedback—and possibly other feedbacks—could be significantly biased in the positive direction.

A speculative paper, then. And one that, again, is contradicted by other studies.

8. Turns 100 years of Physics on its head - there is no greenhouse effect. Not!.

9. See Response here http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD010450.shtml

Hardly the nail in the coffin of the 1000+ studies that underpin the concensus, then.

thx for that, what about these:



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

- Addendum to A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model Predictions (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

- The Consistency of Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere: A Comment on Santer et al (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

A critical review of some recent Australian regional climate reports
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 1, pp. 13-28, January 2006)
- John D. McLean

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 dissenting view on global climate change
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 6, Issue 6, pp. 62-69, July 1993)
- Henry R. Linden

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 sceptical view of climate change and water resources planning
(Irrigation and Drainage, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp. 221-226, July 2001)
- Geoff Kite

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)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
- Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider

- Correction to "An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere" (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 14, January 2010)
- Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider

An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers (PDF)
(Iron & Steel Technology, Volume 5, Number 7, pp. 87-98, July 2008)
- John Stubbles

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