Here is a scientist/mathematician's view of the BEST paper and its data and conclusions. This is the same person (Steve McIntyre) who brought down the infamous "hockey stick" temperature graph by deconstructing and analyzing its flawed methodology.
In the 1980s, John Christy and Roy Spencer revolutionized the measurement of temperature data through satellite measurement of oxygen radiance in the atmosphere. This accomplishment sidestepped the intractable problems of creating (what I’ll call) a “temperature reconstruction” from surface data known to be systemically contaminated (in unknown amounts) by urbanization, land use changes, station location changes, measurement changes, station discontinuities etc etc.
Also in the 1980s, Phil Jones and Jim Hansen created land temperature indices from surface data, indices that attracted widespread interest in the IPCC period. The source data for their indices came predominantly from the GHCN station data archive maintained by NOAA (who added their own index to the mix.) The BEST temperature index is in this tradition, though their methodology varies somewhat from simpler CRU methods, as they calculate their index on “sliced” segments of longer station records (see CA here) and weight series according to “reliability” – the properties of which are poorly understood (see Jeff Id here.)
The graphic below compares trends in the satellite period to March 2010 – the last usable date in the BEST series. (SH values in Apr 2010 come only from Antarctica and introduce a spurious low in the BEST monthly data.) Take a look – comments follow.
[see linked article for graph] Figure 1. Barplot showing trends in the satellite period. (deg C/decade 1979-Mar 2010.) Left – “downscaled” to surface; right – not downscaled to surface.
The BEST and CRU series run hotter than TLT satellite data (GLB Land series from RSS and UAH considered here), with the difference exacerbated when the observed satellite trends are “downscaled” to surface using the amplification factor of approximately 1.4 (that underpins the “great red spot” observed in model diagrams). An amplification factor is common ground to both Lindzen and (say) Gavin Schmidt, who agree that tropospheric trends are necessarily higher than surface trends simply though properties of the moist adiabat. In the left barplot, I’ve divided the satellite trends by 1.4 to obtain “downscaled” surface trends. In a comment below, Gavin Schmidt observes that an amplification factor is not a property of lapse rates over land. In the right barplot, I’ve accordingly shown the same information without “downscaling” (adding this to the barplot in yesterday’s post.) (Note Nov 2, 2011 – I’ve edited the commentary to incorporate this amendment and have placed prior commentary in this section in the comments below.)
The UAH trend over land is 0.173 deg C/decade (0.124 deg C downscaled) and the RSS trend from 0.198 deg C/decade (0.142 deg C/decade). I will examine this interesting property of the Great Red Spot on another occasion, but, for the purposes of this post, defer to Gavin Schmidt’s information on its properties. The simple barplot in Figure 1 clearly shows which controversies are real and which are straw men.
Christy and Spencer are two of the most prominent skeptics. Yet they are also authors of widely accepted satellite data showing warming in the past 30 years. To my knowledge, even the most adamant skydragon defers to the satellite data. BEST’s attempt to claim the territory up to and including satellite trends as unoccupied or contested Terra Nova is very misleading, since this part of the territory was already occupied by skeptics and warmists alike. The territory in dispute (post-1979) is the farther reaches of the trend data – the difference between the satellite record and CRU, and then between CRU and the outer limits of BEST.
BEST versus CRU On this basis, BEST (0.282 deg C/decade) runs about 0.06 deg C hotter than CRU (0.22 deg C/decade). My surmise, based on my post of Oct 31, 2011, is that this results from the combined effects of slicing and “reliability” reweighting, the precise proportion being hard to assign at this point and not relevant for present purposes. Commenter Robert observed that CRU now runs cooler than NOAA or GISS. In the corresponding 1979-2010, NOAA has a virtually identical trend to BEST (0.283 deg C/decade) also using GHCN data. It turns out that NOAA has changed its methodology earlier this year from one that was somewhat similar to CRU to one that uses Mennian sliced data. (I have thus far been unable to locate online information on previous NOAA versions.) This indicates that the difference between BEST (and NOAA) versus CRU is probably more due to slicing than to reweighting.
CRU vs Satellites CRU runs about about 0.03-0.05 deg C/decade warmer than TLT satellite trends over land and about 0.08-0.10/decade warmer in the 1979-2010 period than downscaled satellite data. Could this amount of increase be accounted for by urbanization and/or surface station quality problems? In my opinion, this is entirely within the range of possibility. (This is not the same statement as saying that the difference has been proven to be due to these factors. In my opinion, no one has done a satisfactory reconciliation.) From time to time, I’ve made comparisons between “more urban” and “more rural” sites in relatively controlled situations (e.g. Hawaii, around Tucson following a predecessor local survey) and when I do the comparisons, I find noticeable differences of this order of magnitude. I’ve also done comparisons of good and bad stations from Anthony’s data set and again observe differences that would contribute to this order of magnitude. But this is not the same thing as proving the opposite.
In the past, I’ve been wary of “unsupervised” comparisons of supposedly “urban” and supposedly “rural” subpopulations in papers by Jones, Peterson, Parker and others purporting to prove that UHI doesn’t “matter”. Such papers set up two populations – one “urban” and one ‘rural’, purport to show that the trends for each population are similar and claim that this “shows” that UHI is a non-factor in trends. In my examination of prior papers, each one has tended to founder on similar points. All too often, the two populations are very poorly stratified – with the “rural” population all too often containing urban cities, sometimes even rather large cities.
The BEST urbanization paper is entirely in the tradition of prior studies by Jones, Peterson, Karl etc. They purport to identify a “very rural” population by MODIS information and show that they “get” the same answer. Unfortunately, BEST have not lived up to their commitment to transparency in this paper. Code is not available. Worse, even the classification of sites between very rural and very urban is not archived, with the pdf of the paper disconcertingly pointing to a warning that the link is unavailable (making it appear like noone even read the final preprint before placing it online.) Mosher has noted inaccuracies in their location data and observes that there are perils for inexperienced users of MODIS data, Mosher reserving his opinion on whether the lead author of the urbanization paper, a grad student, managed to avoid these pitfalls until he’s had an opportunity to examine the still unavailable nuts and bolts of the paper.
Mosher, who’s studied MODIS classification of station data as carefully than anyone, observes that there are no truly “rural” (in a USHCN target sense) locations in South America – all stations come from environments that are settled to a greater or lesser degree. Under Oke’s original UHI concept, the cumulative UHI effect was, as a rule of thumb, proportional to log(population). If “urbanization” is occurring in towns and villages as well as in large cities – which it is, then the contribution of UHI increase to temperature increase will depend on the percentage change in population (rather than absolute population). If proportional increases are the same, then the rate of temperature increase will be the same in towns and villages as in cities.
If one takes the view that satellite trends provide our most accurate present knowledge of surface trends, then one has to conclude that the BEST methodological innovations (praised by realclimate) actually provide a worse estimate of surface trends than even CRU. In my opinion, it is highly legitimate (or as at least a null hypothesis) to place greatest weight on satellite data and presume that the higher trends in CRU and BEST arise from combinations of urbanization, changed land use, station quality, Mennian methodology etc. It seems to me that there is a high onus on anyone arguing in favor of a temperature reconstruction from surface station data (be it CRU or BEST) to demonstrate why this data with all its known problems should be preferred to the satellite data. This is not done in the BEST articles.
“Temperature Reconstructions” In discussions of proxy reconstructions, people sometimes ask: why does anyone care about proxy reconstructions in the modern period given the existence of the temperature record? The answer is that the modern period is used to calibrate the proxies. If the proxies don’t perform well in the modern period (e.g. the tree ring decline in the very large Briffa network), then the confidence, if any, that can be attached to reconstructions in pre-instrumental periods is reduced.
It seems to me that a very similar point can be made in respect to “temperature reconstructions” from somewhat flawed station records. Since 1979, we have satellite records of lower tropospheric temperatures over land that do not suffer from all the problems of surface stations. Yes, the satellite records have issues, but it seems to me that they are an order of magnitude more tractable than the surface station problems.
Continuing the analogy of proxy reconstructions, temperature reconstructions from surface station data in the satellite period (where we have benchmark data) should arguably be calibrated against satellite data. The calibration and reconstruction problem is not as difficult as trying to reconstruct past temperatures with tree rings, but neither is it trivial. And perhaps the problems encountered in one problem can shed a little light on the problems of the other.
Viewed as a reconstruction problem, the divergence between the satellite data and the BEST temperature reconstruction from surface data certainly suggests some sort of calibration problem in the BEST methodology. (Or alternatively, BEST have to show why the satellite data is wrong.) Given the relatively poor scaling of the BEST series in the calibration period relative to satellite data, one would have to take care against a similar effect in the pre-satellite period. However, the size of the effect appears likely to have been lower: both temperature trends in the pre-satellite period and world urbanization were lower in the pre-satellite period.
One great regret about BEST’s overall strategy. My own instinct as to the actual best way to improve the quality of temperature reconstructions from station data is to really focus on quality, rather than quantity. To follow the practices of geophysicists using data of uneven quality – start with the best data (according to objective standards) and work outwards calibrating the next best data on the best data.
They adopted the opposite strategy (a strategy equivalent to Mann’s proxy reconstructions). Throw everything into the black box with no regard for quality and hope that the mess can be salvaged with software. Unfortunately, it seems to me that slicing the data actually makes the product (like NOAA’s) worse product than CRU (using satellite data as a guide). It seems entirely reasonable to me that someone would attribute the difference between higher BEST trend and satellite trends not to the accuracy of BEST with flawed data, but to known problems with surface stations and artifacts of Mennnian methodology.
I don’t plan to spend much more time on it (due to other responsibilities).
[Nov 2 - there's a good interview with Rich Muller here where Muller comes across as the straightforward person that I know. I might add that he did a really excellent and sane lecture (link) on policy implications a while ago that crosscuts most of the standard divides. ]
ray, I have posted news reports from the past that said the "northwest passage" was open, it was navigated by ships, and there was speculation back then that the ice cap was melting. Then it close for DECADES.
We have only had direct, complete coverage of the poles and ice coverage since 1979. That is not long enough to know if the current level of ice is unprecedented.
Wait...what is common knowledge now? which argument are you going with? There are many so state yours for the record.
NO it means those with a certain agenda have billions to spend at confusing the issue and it's easy for people to make the easy decision to ignore science IMO.
WOW, I have stated everything I said in proper english and to the point. I suggest you read it and work it out for yourself. If you are having trouble with that you are probably also having trouble understanding this whole debate.
WOW, I have stated everything I said in proper english and to the point. I suggest you read it and work it out for yourself. If you are having trouble with that you are probably also having trouble understanding this whole debate.
And you said it in PROPER ENGLISH, not that Australian stuff!
WOW, I have stated everything I said in proper english and to the point. I suggest you read it and work it out for yourself. If you are having trouble with that you are probably also having trouble understanding this whole debate.
Wow, yes you stated everything so clearly you contradicted yourself, sometimes in the same post.
Examples....
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: When Krakatoa erupted in the 1880s the world temperature fell 1.2C almost immediately from the resulting ash cloud.
Also the planet is not 0.9c warmer in the last 50 years. It has been proven by studies already that the locations they measure the temperatures today are being impacted by expanses of concrete and everything else related to cities. 50 years ago the measuring stations were more rural.
The data they use is flawed. If "the planet" had warmed by that much I assume they are taking surface temperatures, underground temperatures, ocean temperates at various depths, atmospheric temperatures at different altitudes all into account? No, I didn't think so.
So you can't trust the temp data but are sure about the temperature decrease from the volcano in the 1880's The "studies" that have been peer reviewed and checked prove the opposite, no one can help it if some can't accept that. .
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero:
So what about the radical changes in temperatures between 1350 and 1850? Scientists (The same scientists who now blame man for current temperature rises.) theorise that solar activity and volcanic activity caused this. WOW, who would have thought. More proof man has no control over this planets temperatures. The planet is warming. So what. It has done it before, it will do it again. Scientists are theorists only. NOTHING is ever written is stone.
Remember about 15 years ago the same scientists were scaremongering that the world was heading for a new ice age? Then it was global warming. Now it is we don't really know so lets call it climate change.
Again you said the temp records or flawed but marched out a reason for temperature fluctuation....but according to you we can't trust the data anyways so why not keep your argument as that, if we can't trust the data then why would you come up with reasons for climate change?
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero:
Remember about 15 years ago the same scientists were scaremongering that the world was heading for a new ice age? Then it was global warming. Now it is we don't really know so lets call it climate change.
Who was claiming we were headed for an Ice-age 15 years ago?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-21-2012).]
CA reader Gary Wescom writes about more data quality problems with the Berkeley temperature study – see here. In a surprising number of records, the “seasonally adjusted” station data in the Berekely archive contains wildly incorrect data. Gary shows a number of cases, one of which, Longmont 2ESE, outside the nest of climate scientists in Boulder CO, is said to have temperatures below minus 50 deg C in the late fall as shown below:
[see pic at site above]
Figure 1. Longmont 2 ESE plotted from BEST Station Data. This is not an isolated incident. Gary reports: Of the 39028 sites listed in the data.txt file, arbitrarily counting only sites with 60 months of data or more, 34 had temperature blips of greater than +/- 50 degrees C, 215 greater than +/- 40 C, 592 greater than +/- 30 C, and 1404 greater than +/- 20 C. That is quite a large number of faulty temperature records, considering that this kind of error is something that is so easy to check for. A couple hours work is all it took to find these numbers. In the engineering world, this kind of error is not acceptable. It is an indication of poor quality control. Statistical algorithms were run on the data without subsequent checks on the results. Coding errors obviously existed that would have been caught with just a cursory examination of a few site temperature plots. That the BEST team felt the quality of their work, though preliminary, was adequate for public display is disconcerting.
Gary also observed a strange ringing problem in the data.
I observed earlier that I had been unable to replicate the implied calculation of monthly anomalies that occurred somewhere in the BEST algorithm in several stations that I looked at (with less exotic results.) It seems likely that there is some sort of error in the BEST algorithm for calculating monthly anomalies as the problems are always in the same month. When I looked at this previously, I couldn’t see where the problem occurred. (There isn’t any master script or road map to the code and I wasn’t sufficiently interested in the issue to try to figure out where their problem occurred. That should be their responsibility.)
Locations Even though GHCN data is the common building block of all the major temperature indices, its location information is inaccurate. Peter O’Neill see has spot checked a number of stations, locating numerous stations which are nowhere near their GHCN locations. Peter has notified GHCN of many of these errors. However, with the stubbornness that it is all too typical of the climate “community”, GHCN’s most recent edition (Aug 2011) perpetuated the location errors (see Peter’s account here.) Unfortunately, BEST has directly used GHCN location data, apparently without any due diligence of their own on these locations, though this has been a known problem area. In a number of cases, the incorrect locations will be classified as “very rural” under MODIS. For example, the incorrect locations of Cherbourg stations in the English Channel or Limassol in the Mediterranean will obviously not be classified as urban. In a number of cases that I looked at, BEST had duplicate versions of stations with incorrect GHCN locations. In cases where the incorrect location was classified differently than the correct location, essentially the same data would be classified as both rural and urban.
I haven’t parsed the BEST station details, but did look up some of the erroneous locations already noted by Peter and report on the first few that I looked at. Peter observed that Kzyl-Orda, Kazakhstan has a GHCN location of 49.82N 65.50E, which was over 5 degrees of separation from its true location near 44.71N 65.69E. BEST station 148338 Kzyl-Orda is also at GHCN 49.82N 65.50E. Other versions (124613 and 146861) are at 44.8233 65.530E and 44.8000 65.500E. Peter observed that Isola Gorgona, Italy had GHCN location of 42.40N 9.90E more than one degree away from its true location of 43.43N, 9.910E. BEST station 148309 (ISOLA GORGONA) has the incorrect GHCN location of 42.4N 9.9E.
The same sort of errors can be observed in virtually all the stations in Peter’s listing.
I realize that the climate community is pretty stubborn about this sort of thing. (Early CA readers recall that the “rain in Maine falls mainly in the Seine” – an error stubbornly repeated in Mann et al 2007.) While BEST should have been alert to this sort of known problem, it’s hardly unreasonable for them to presume that GHCN had done some sort of quality control on station locations during the past 20 years, but this in fact was presuming too much.
These errors will affect the BEST urbanization paper (the amount of the effect is not known at present.)
Originally posted by AusFiero: So what about the radical changes in temperatures between 1350 and 1850? Scientists theorise that solar activity and volcanic activity caused this. WOW, who would have thought. More proof man has no control over this planets temperatures.
When a large volcano erupts, like Krakatua, it spews tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid and condenses in the stratosphere to make sulfate aerosols. The aerosols reflect more light back into space. As a result the planet responds with cooler temperatures.
You overlook the simple fact that it takes a force to cause a change. You seem to confuse "man has no control over the planet" with "man cannot effect the planet." Nothing happens at random and for no reason. Everything is in response to a force. The planet cools when volcanos produce aerosols that reflect more sunlight. The planet warms when we add more heat absorbing molecules to the atmosphere like CO2. The planet simply responds to the given stimulus that are governed by well known physical processes.
Humans undeniably have the capacity to effect the planet. Maybe we cannot control it with a 'flip of a switch' but our actions have consequences, as all actions do.
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: The planet is warming. So what. It has done it before, it will do it again.
At least you're willing to admit the planet is warming. Some cannot even do that. In the past the planet has warmed and cooled. But the most significant and rapid warming that occurred in the last 65 million years was 6*C over 20,000 years. We've measured almost a full 1*C in 50 years alone.
What you don't explain is the force that is causing the planet to warm. What do you attribute the warming to? Will your attribution also be able to explain all the indicators?
Temps and CO2:
CO2 levels the last 800,000 years:
Sun Output vs Temperatures: Even though sun output data is only available since the satellite era (can't do it on Earth), you'll notice there's a correlation between sunspot numbers and output. With a really high number of sunspots (150) we get 1 watt more per meter squared consistently. Unfortunately for the denier "sunspot" argument there's no net increase.
Oceans are warmer:
Glaciers are disappearing:
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: Scientists are theorists only. NOTHING is ever written is stone.
If nothing was written in stone America wouldn't have won a war with two bombs and your GPS wouldn't work. Trying to throw science out the window because something is "just a theory" is ridiculous. Science has the only honest thing in the universe, physical laws.
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: Remember about 15 years ago the same scientists were scaremongering that the world was heading for a new ice age? Then it was global warming. Now it is we don't really know so lets call it climate change.
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970's. It worries me that the 1970's feel like 15 years ago to you.
Global cooling had very little support in the scientific community. At the time, only 10% of scientific papers pointed towards "global cooling" while most of the papers predicted future warming. In 1959 Science News forecasted a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 from 1850 to 2000 with a consequent warming trend. There was a 29% increase of CO2. "Global warming" isn't a new. "Climate change" isn't either. The term "climate change" in the context of greenhouse gasses was used in 1968 by Paul R. Ehrlich.
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: The almighty dollar is driving this crap and people are making lots of money from it.
There's a lot more money in things that produce CO2 than the money in scientific research.
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: LOL, FlyingFieros confirmed what I said about Krakatoa. Radical climate change in a short period and went back 4 years later. No ill effects to the world.
I didn't confirm anything you said. Krakatoa may have affected the climate only temporarily, but it didn't "change" the climate at all.
You and I have a difference in magnitude when it comes to "climate change." Below is a graph. Look at the short period of change involved with Krakatoa compared to the warming trend. Krakatoa was very temporary and may have had "no ill effects on the world" but the rise after 1950 is not as temporary. The temperature change will effect our planet at fundamental levels especially if it continues, hence "climate change." Source.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: We don't need "crazy conspiracies".
Well it's about time!
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: We have the Climategate emails…
… Did you not know climategate is a conspiracy?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: …which showed that they colluded on various "tricks", truncating datasets that made a "wrong turn" (disproved warming), rigging peer review to keep contrary evidence from being published...the list goes on and on. YOU are ignoring THAT evidence.
You fail right out of the gate again. Let's ignore the fact that 8 different committees investigated the incident and found zero evidence of scientific misconduct. Let's ignore the fact that the emails were horribly taken out of context for political purposes. Let's ignore the fact that the emails were illegally obtained by criminals before showing up on right wing 'anti-climate change' blog sites. And let's ignore the fact that the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged after the investigations.
We can ignore all of that and put your silly conspiracy to rest once and for all because of one key fact: they released everything. You can double check their work. There's no point in trying to commit fraud because they would be caught.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Brief note on the divergence of the "climate models" from reality.
You're still stuck on prediction? The end of the world hasn't happened yet, I get that, but we are experiencing feedbacks.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Here is a scientist/mathematician's view of the BEST paper and its data and conclusions.
This is outdated (November 2011), it was written right after BEST announced results and before they released a lot of their work (July 2012). BEST released their code. His concerns were addressed.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-21-2012).]
SECRETARY-GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists.
quote
Mr. Secretary-General:
On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”
On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”
The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”
We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.
The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.
The “even larger climate shocks” you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.
The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur more often in the future. The U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) that there is “an absence of an attributable climate change signal” in trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities rebuild after natural catastrophes such as tropical storm Sandy.
There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.
The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.
Based upon these considerations, we ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not. We also ask that you acknowledge that policy actions by the U.N., or by the signatory nations to the UNFCCC, that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to exercise any significant influence on future climate. Climate policies therefore need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events however caused.
Signed by:
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Selenometria project on the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
Bjarne Andresen, Dr. Scient., physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a “global temperature”, Professor, Niels Bohr Institute (physics (thermodynamics) and chemistry), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
J. Scott Armstrong, PhD, Professor of Marketing, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, focus on analyzing climate forecasts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
James R. Barrante, Ph.D. (chemistry, Harvard University), Emeritus Professor of Physical Chemistry, Southern Connecticut State University, focus on studying the greenhouse gas behavior of CO2, Cheshire, Connecticut, U.S.A.
Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD (Earth Science, Birmingham, U.K.), FInstEng Aus Principal research scientist (ret.), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Franco Battaglia, PhD (Chemical Physics), Professor of Physics and Environmental Chemistry, University of Modena, Italy
Richard Becherer, BS (Physics, Boston College), MS (Physics, University of Illinois), PhD (Optics, University of Rochester), former Member of the Technical Staff – MIT Lincoln Laboratory, former Adjunct Professor – University of Connecticut, Areas of Specialization: optical radiation physics, coauthor – standard reference book Optical Radiation Measurements: Radiometry, Millis, MA, U.S.A.
Ian Bock, BSc, PhD, DSc, Biological sciences (retired), Ringkobing, Denmark
Ahmed Boucenna, PhD, Professor of Physics (strong climate focus), Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Ferhat Abbas University, Setif, Algéria
Antonio Brambati, PhD, Emeritus Professor (sedimentology), Department of Geological, Environmental and Marine Sciences (DiSGAM), University of Trieste (specialization: climate change as determined by Antarctic marine sediments), Trieste, Italy
Stephen C. Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), District Agriculture Agent, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, Palmer, Alaska, U.S.A.
Mark Lawrence Campbell, PhD (chemical physics; gas-phase kinetic research involving greenhouse gases (nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide)), Professor, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A.
Rudy Candler, PhD (Soil Chemistry, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)), former agricultural laboratory manager, School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management, UAF, co-authored papers regarding humic substances and potential CO2 production in the Arctic due to decomposition, Union, Oregon, U.S.A. Alan Carlin, B.S. (California Institute of Technology), PhD (economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), retired senior analyst and manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, former Chairman of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club (recipient of the Chapter’s Weldon Heald award for conservation work), U.S.A.
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., Arctic Animal Behavioural Ecologist, wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Turner Valley, Alberta, Canada
Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Uberto Crescenti, PhD, Full Professor of Applied Geology, Università G. d’Annunzio, Past President Società Geologica taliana, Chieti, Italy
Arthur Chadwick, PhD (Molecular Biology), Research Professor of Geology, Department of Biology and Geology, Southwestern Adventist University, Climate Specialties: dendrochronology (determination of past climate states by tree ring analysis), palynology (same but using pollen as a climate proxy), paleobotany and botany; Keene, Texas, U.S.A.
George V. Chilingar, PhD, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of Engineering (CO2/temp. focused research), University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Cornelia Codreanova, Diploma in Geography, Researcher (Areas of Specialization: formation of glacial lakes) at Liberec University, Czech Republic, Zwenkau, Germany Michael Coffman, PhD (Ecosystems Analysis and Climate Influences, University of Idaho), CEO of Sovereignty International, President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., Bangor, Maine, U.S.A.
Piers Corbyn, ARCS, MSc (Physics, Imperial College London)), FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range weather and climate forecasters, American Thinker Climate Forecaster of The Year 2010, London, United Kingdom
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Roger W. Cohen, B.S., M.S., PhD Physics, MIT and Rutgers University, Fellow, American Physical Society, initiated and managed for more than twenty years the only industrial basic research program in climate, Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Susan Crockford, PhD (Zoology/Evolutionary Biology/Archaeozoology), Adjunct Professor (Anthropology/Faculty of Graduate Studies), University of Victoria, Victoria, British Colombia, Canada
Walter Cunningham, B.S., M.S. (Physics – Institute of Geophysics And Planetary Sciences, UCLA), AMP – Harvard Graduate School of Business, Colonel (retired) U.S. Marine Corps, Apollo 7 Astronaut., Fellow – AAS, AIAA; Member AGU, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joseph D’Aleo, BS, MS (Meteorology, University of Wisconsin), Doctoral Studies (NYU), CMM, AMS Fellow, Executive Director – ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), College Professor Climatology/Meteorology, First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel, Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Professor of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
James E. Dent; B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant (hydrology & meteorology), Member of WMO OPACHE Group on Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England, United Kingdom
Willem de Lange, MSc (Hons), DPhil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Silvia Duhau, Ph.D. (physics), Solar Terrestrial Physics, Buenos Aires University, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Geoff Duffy, DEng (Dr of Engineering), PhD (Chemical Engineering), BSc, ASTCDip. (first chemical engineer to be a Fellow of the Royal Society in NZ), FIChemE, wide experience in radiant heat transfer and drying, chemical equilibria, etc. Has reviewed, analysed, and written brief reports and papers on climate change, Auckland, New Zealand
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington, University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.
Ole Henrik Ellestad, former Research Director, applied chemistry SINTEF, Professor in physical chemistry, University of Oslo, Managing director Norsk Regnesentral and Director for Science and Technology, Norwegian Research Council, widely published in infrared spectroscopy, Oslo, Norway
Per Engene, MSc, Biologist, Co-author – The Climate, Science and Politics (2009), Bø i Telemark, Norway
Gordon Fulks, B.S., M.S., PhD (Physics, University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind, electromagnetic and geophysical phenomena, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. Katya Georgieva, MSc (meteorology), PhD (solar-terrestrial climate physics), Professor, Space Research and Technologies Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.
Ivar Giaever PhD, Nobel Laureate in Physics 1973, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a professor-at-large at the University of Oslo, Applied BioPhysics, Troy, New York, U.S.A.
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, ScAgr, Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, Tropical pasture research and land use management, Director científico de INTTAS, Loma Plata, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mech, Eng.), Secretary General KTH International Climate Seminar 2006 and Climate analyst (NIPCC), Lidingö, Sweden
Laurence I. Gould, PhD, Professor of Physics, University of Hartford, Past Chair (2004), New England Section of the American Physical Society, West Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A.
Vincent Gray, PhD, New Zealand Climate Coalition, expert reviewer for the IPCC, author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.
Charles B. Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), climate-related specialties: applied mathematics, modeling & simulation, software & systems engineering, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Management, University of Dallas; Assistant Professor, North Texas State University (Dr. Hammons found many serious flaws during a detailed study of the software, associated control files plus related email traffic of the Climate Research Unit temperature and other records and “adjustments” carried out in support of IPCC conclusions), Coyle, OK, U.S.A.
William Happer, PhD, Professor, Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, U.S.A.
Hermann Harde, PhD, Professur f. Lasertechnik & Werkstoffkunde (specialized in molecular spectroscopy, development of gas sensors and CO2-climate sensitivity), Helmut-Schmidt-Universität, Universität der Bundeswehr Fakultät für Elektrotechnik, Hamburg, Germany
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The Energy Advocate, Pueblo West, Colorado, U.S.A.
Ross Hays, Meteorologist, atmospheric scientist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility (currently working at McMurdo Station, Antarctica), Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.
Martin Hovland, M.Sc. (meteorology, University of Bergen), PhD (Dr Philos, University of Tromsø), FGS, Emeritus Professor, Geophysics, Centre for Geobiology, University of Bergen, member of the expert panel: Environmental Protection and Safety Panel (EPSP) for the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) and the Integrated ODP, Stavanger, Norway
Ole Humlum, PhD, Professor of Physical Geography, Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
Larry Irons, BS (Geology), MS (Geology), Sr. Geophysicist at Fairfield Nodal (specialization: paleoclimate), Lakewood, Colorado, U.S.A.
Terri Jackson, MSc (plasma physics), MPhil (energy economics), Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the energy/climate group at the Institute of Physics, London), United Kingdom
Albert F. Jacobs, Geol.Drs., P. Geol., Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Hans Jelbring, PhD Climatology, Stockholm University, MSc Electronic engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, BSc Meteorology, Stockholm University, Sweden Bill Kappel, B.S. (Physical Science-Geology), B.S. (Meteorology), Storm Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist, Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Extraordinary Research Associate; Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Tartu Observatory, Toravere, Estonia
Leonid F. Khilyuk, PhD, Science Secretary, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor of Engineering (CO2/temp. focused research), University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, Australia
Gerhard Kramm, Dr. rer. nat. (Theoretical Meteorology), Research Associate Professor, Geophysical Institute, Associate Faculty, College of Natural Science and Mathematics, University of Alaska Fairbanks, (climate specialties: Atmospheric energetics, physics of the atmospheric boundary layer, physical climatology – see interesting paper by Kramm et al), Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
Leif Kullman, PhD (Physical geography, plant ecology, landscape ecology), Professor, Physical geography, Department of Ecology and Environmental science, Umeå University, Areas of Specialization: Paleoclimate (Holocene to the present), glaciology, vegetation history, impact of modern climate on the living landscape, Umeå, Sweden
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, Independent economist, author specialised in climate issues, IPCC expert reviewer, author of Man-Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma and climate science-related Blog, The Netherlands
Rune Berg-Edland Larsen, PhD (Geology, Geochemistry), Professor, Dep. Geology and Geoengineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
C. (Kees) le Pair, PhD (Physics Leiden, Low Temperature Physics), former director of the Netherlands Research Organization FOM (fundamental physics) and subsequently founder and director of The Netherlands Technology Foundation STW. Served the Dutch Government many years as member of its General Energy Council and of the National Defense Research Council. Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences Honorary Medal and honorary doctorate in all technical sciences of the Delft University of technology, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, past President – Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Jay Lehr, B.Eng. (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Bryan Leyland, M.Sc., FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, MRSNZ, consulting engineer (power), Energy Issues Advisor – International Climate Science Coalition, Auckland, New Zealand
Edward Liebsch, B.A. (Earth Science, St. Cloud State University); M.S. (Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University), former Associate Scientist, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; former Adjunct Professor of Meteorology, St. Cloud State University, Environmental Consultant/Air Quality Scientist (Areas of Specialization: micrometeorology, greenhouse gas emissions), Maple Grove, Minnesota, U.S.A.
William Lindqvist, PhD (Applied Geology), Independent Geologic Consultant, Areas of Specialization: Climate Variation in the recent geologic past, Tiburon, California, U.S.A.
Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Prof. Dr. , PhD (Physics), retired from university of appl. sciences HTW, Saarbrücken (Germany), atmospheric temperature research, speaker of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), Heidelberg, Germany
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.
Oliver Manuel, BS, MS, PhD, Post-Doc (Space Physics), Associate - Climate & Solar Science Institute, Emeritus Professor, College of Arts & Sciences University of Missouri-Rolla, previously Research Scientist (US Geological Survey) and NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, U.S.A.
Francis Massen, professeur-docteur en physique (PhD equivalent, Universities of Nancy (France) and Liège (Belgium), Manager of the Meteorological Station of the Lycée Classique de Diekirch, specialising in the measurement of solar radiation and atmospheric gases. Collaborator to the WOUDC (World Ozone and UV Radiation Data Center), Diekirch, Luxembourg
Henri Masson, Prof. dr. ir., Emeritus Professor University of Antwerp (Energy & Environment Technology Management), Visiting professor Maastricht School of Management, specialist in dynamical (chaotic) complex system analysis, Antwerp, Belgium.
Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Expert reviewer, IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Quantification of Climate Sensitivity, Carie, Rannoch, Scotland
Nils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and Climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
John Nicol, PhD (Physics, James Cook University), Chairman – Australian climate Science Coalition, Brisbane, Australia
Ingemar Nordin, PhD, professor in philosophy of science (including a focus on “Climate research, philosophical and sociological aspects of a politicised research area”), Linköpings University, Sweden.
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., Professor Emeritus (School of Earth and Environment – see his Copenhagen Climate Challenge sea level article here), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A., Australia
Oleg M. Pokrovsky, BS, MS, PhD (mathematics and atmospheric physics – St. Petersburg State University, 1970), Dr. in Phys. and Math Sciences (1985), Professor in Geophysics (1995), principal scientist, Main Geophysical Observatory (RosHydroMet), Note: Dr. Pokrovsky analyzed long climates and concludes that anthropogenic CO2 impact is not the main contributor in climate change,St. Petersburg, Russia.
Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS (Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS (Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign); Meteorological/Oceanographic Data Analyst for the National Data Buoy Center, formerly Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, Urbana, U.S.A.
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology), University of Saskatchewan (see Professor Pratt’s article for a summary of his views), Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Professore-emeritus isotope-geophysics and planetary geology, Utrecht University, past director ZWO/NOW Institute of Isotope Geophysical Research, Past-President Royal Netherlands Society of Geology and Mining, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Oleg Raspopov, Doctor of Science and Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Professor – Geophysics, Senior Scientist, St. Petersburg Filial (Branch) of N.V.Pushkov Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowaves Propagation of RAS (climate specialty: climate in the past, particularly the influence of solar variability), Editor-in-Chief of journal “Geomagnetism and Aeronomy” (published by Russian Academy of Sciences), St. Petersburg, Russia
Curt G. Rose, BA, MA (University of Western Ontario), MA, PhD (Clark University), Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Studies and Geography, Bishop’s University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
S. Jeevananda Reddy, M.Sc. (Geophysics), Post Graduate Diploma (Applied Statistics, Andhra University), PhD (Agricultural Meteorology, Australian University, Canberra), Formerly Chief Technical Advisor—United Nations World Meteorological Organization (WMO) & Expert-Food and Agriculture Organization (UN), Convener - Forum for a Sustainable Environment, author of 500 scientific articles and several books – here is one: “Climate Change – Myths & Realities“, Hyderabad, India Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, former member of the board of management of the Netherlands Organization Applied Research TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, MSc (forest microclimate specialist), Principal Consultant – Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
Chris Schoneveld, MSc (Structural Geology), PhD (Geology), retired exploration geologist and geophysicist, Australia and France
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD (Geology/Geochemistry), Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, former IPCC expert reviewer, former Head of the Geological Museum, and former head of the Natural History Museum and Botanical Garden (UO), Oslo, Norway
John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom
Thomas P. Sheahen, B.S., PhD (Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), specialist in renewable energy, research and publication (applied optics) in modeling and measurement of absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2005-2009); Argonne National Laboratory (1988-1992); Bell Telephone labs (1966-73), National Bureau of Standards (1975-83), Oakland, Maryland, U.S.A.
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Environmental Sciences), University of Virginia, former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.
Frans W. Sluijter, Prof. dr ir, Emeritus Professor of theoretical physics, Technical University Eindhoven, Chairman—Skepsis Foundation, former vice-president of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, former President of the Division on Plasma Physics of the European Physical Society and former bureau member of the Scientific Committee on Sun-Terrestrial Physics, Euvelwegen, the Netherlands
Jan-Erik Solheim, MSc (Astrophysics), Professor, Institute of Physics, University of Tromsø, Norway (1971-2002), Professor (emeritus), Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo, Norway (1965-1970, 2002- present), climate specialties: sun and periodic climate variations, scientific paper by Professor Solheim “Solen varsler et kaldere tiår“, Baerum, Norway
H. Leighton Steward, Master of Science (Geology), Areas of Specialization: paleoclimates and empirical evidence that indicates CO2 is not a significant driver of climate change, Chairman, PlantsNeedCO2.org and CO2IsGreen.org, Chairman of the Institute for the Study of Earth and Man (geology, archeology & anthropology) at SMU in Dallas, Texas, Boerne, TX, U.S.A.
Arlin B. Super, PhD (Meteorology – University of Wisconsin at Madison), former Professor of Meteorology at Montana State University, retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
Edward (Ted) R. Swart, D.Sc. (physical chemistry, University of Pretoria), M.Sc. and Ph.D. (math/computer science, University of Witwatersrand). Formerly Director of the Gulbenkian Centre, Dean of the Faculty of Science, Professor and Head of the Department of Computer Science, University of Rhodesia and past President of the Rhodesia Scientific Association. Set up the first radiocarbon dating laboratory in Africa. Most recently, Professor in the Department of Combinatorics and Optimization at the University of Waterloo and Chair of Computing and Information Science and Acting Dean at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, now retired in Kelowna British Columbia, Canada
George H. Taylor, B.A. (Mathematics, U.C. Santa Barbara), M.S. (Meteorology, University of Utah), Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Applied Climate Services, LLC, Former State Climatologist (Oregon), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1998-2000), Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.
J. E. Tilsley, P.Eng., BA Geol, Acadia University, 53 years of climate and paleoclimate studies related to development of economic mineral deposits, Aurora, Ontario, Canada
Göran Tullberg, Civilingenjör i Kemi (equivalent to Masters of Chemical Engineering), Co-author – The Climate, Science and Politics (2009) (see here for a review), formerly instructor of Organic Chemistry (specialization in “Climate chemistry”), Environmental Control and Environmental Protection Engineering at University in Växjö; Falsterbo, Sweden
Brian Gregory Valentine, PhD, Adjunct professor of engineering (aero and fluid dynamics specialization) at the University of Maryland, Technical manager at US Department of Energy, for large-scale modeling of atmospheric pollution, Technical referee for the US Department of Energy’s Office of Science programs in climate and atmospheric modeling conducted at American Universities and National Labs, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
Bas van Geel, PhD, paleo-climatologist, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, Research Group Paleoecology and Landscape Ecology, Faculty of Science, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD (Utrecht University), geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, Nelson, New Zealand
A.J. (Tom) van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geologyspecialism: Glacial Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, former President of the European Association of Science Editors Poznan, Poland
Fritz Vahrenholt, B.S. (chemistry), PhD (chemistry), Prof. Dr., Profes sor of Chemistry, University of Hamburg, Former Senator for environmental affairs of the State of Hamburg, former CEO of REpower Systems AG (wind turbines), Author of the book Die kalte Sonne: warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet (The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Crisis Isn’t Happening”, Hamburg, Germany
Michael G. Vershovsky, Ph.D. in meteorology (macrometeorology, long-term forecasts, climatology), Senior Researcher, Russian State Hydrometeorological University, works with, as he writes, “Atmospheric Centers of Action (cyclones and anticyclones, such as Icelandic depression, the South Pacific subtropical anticyclone, etc.). Changes in key parameters of these centers strongly indicate that the global temperature is influenced by these natural factors (not exclusively but nevertheless)”, St. Petersburg, Russia
Gösta Walin, PhD and Docent (theoretical Physics, University of Stockholm), Professor Emeritus in oceanografi, Earth Science Center, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden
Anthony Watts, ItWorks/IntelliWeather, Founder, surfacestations.org, Watts Up With That, Chico, California, U.S.A.
Carl Otto Weiss, Direktor und Professor at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Visiting Professor at University of Copenhagen, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Coauthor of ”Multiperiodic Climate Dynamics: Spectral Analysis of…“, Braunschweig, Germany
Forese-Carlo Wezel, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland David E. Wojick, PhD, PE, energy and environmental consultant, Technical Advisory Board member – Climate Science Coalition of America, Star Tannery, Virginia, U.S.A.
George T. Wolff, Ph.D., Principal Atmospheric Scientist, Air Improvement Resource, Inc., Novi, Michigan, U.S.A.
Bob Zybach, PhD (Environmental Sciences, Oregon State University), climate-related carbon sequestration research, MAIS, B.S., Director, Environmental Sciences Institute Peer review Institute, Cottage Grove, Oregon, U.S.A.
Milap Chand Sharma, PhD, Associate Professor of Glacial Geomorphology, Centre fort the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India Valentin A. Dergachev, PhD, Professor and Head of the Cosmic Ray Laboratory at Ioffe Physical-Technical Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
Vijay Kumar Raina, Ex-Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Ex-Chairman Project Advisory and Monitoring Committee on Himalayan glacier, DST, Govt. of India and currently Member Expert Committee on Climate Change Programme, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, author of 2010 MoEF Discussion Paper, “Himalayan Glaciers – State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change”, the first comprehensive study on the region. Winner of the Indian Antarctica Award, Chandigarh, India
Scott Chesner, B.S. (Meteorology, Penn State University), KETK Chief Meteorologist, KETK TV, previously Meteorologist with Accu Weather, Tyler, Texas, U.S.A
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 12-13-2012).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: SECRETARY-GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists.
I should have stopped reading at Al Gore.
I covered this already: //www.fiero.nl/forum/F...057033-51.html#p2029 From my position to call Hurricane Sandy an "Act of Global Warming" is to jump ahead of the science. We shall not say things about what we have not measured (hence the spirit of the Al Gore mention). The only people who are brave enough to do so believe they will be retroactively verified sometime in the future. I prefer to just follow the science as it progresses because we shouldn't pre-decide what it is we want nature to be. We should just be trying to learn more about it.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: In other words...LIE
Once again the Denier cherry picks data and draws WRONG and FRAUDULENT conclusions.
Usually when I see "…" in a quote I go find the real quote. I however know what I'm dealing with here. I hardly expect you to "verify" something before senselessly reposting political conspiracy theory hyped up nonsense.
Which by the way is against all the qualifications for the "evidence" you said you would be posting:
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: In this thread, I will be posting the evidence *against* man-made global warming. I will stick mostly to scientific papers and sources, although I will occasionally post articles from the news media, or even blogs, on the subject. However, I will try to stick to articles and blogs that cite scientific sources whenever possible. This is about valid proof, not hype, not bullshit.
You should realize you haven't got any scientific papers or sources that backup the subject of this thread. You have political sources that demonstrably misquote and over hype. That's it.
If you think Anthony Watts is a scientific source you're kidding yourself. He's financially connected to political interest groups and a college dropout who blogs for a hobby. He's not a scientist. He's a bored conspiracy theorist at best.
While I would like to continue to gradually confront you with the reality of having zero evidence "against" global warming, I digress. Let's get back to your inability to verify obviously cherry picked data.
Here's the actual quote from 1989:
quote
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
According to his actual quote, he's talking about being honest. Not lying. He's attacking the "soundbite" media circus practice of misquoting or cherry picking a line or 'fact' and using it to scare people. Exactly the method you used in your post.
In this article, written in 1996, Stephen Schneider comments on page 5 on being taken out of context since 1989. Almost 24 years later he's still being taken out of context. Talk about rehashing the old...
Stephen Schneider himself comments: "he resurrected an oft-quoted, but usually out of context partial quote, from a Discover Magazine interview in 1989 in which I decried soundbite science and journalism by pointing out that nobody gets enough time in the media either to cover all the caveats in depth, (i.e., “being honest”) or to present all the plausible threats (i.e., “being effective”). "
It's ironic you lied about someone who wants to be genuinely honest. You perfectly highlight the character of the Denier's.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-03-2012).]
The only people who are brave enough to do so believe they will be retroactively verified sometime in the future. I prefer to just follow the science as it progresses because we shouldn't pre-decide what it is we want nature to be. We should just be trying to learn more about it.
so, are you saying man is responsible for 'global warming' or not? Because if you are, please show me the science that undeniably proves this.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 12-03-2012).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Because if you are, please show me the science that undeniably proves this.
I cannot comply with your request by definition. Anything can be denied.
Bill Nye the science guy was boo'ed in Waco Texas for saying the moon reflects the sun's light. People deny sunlight reflects off the moon, in their world the moon itself is a 'light' just like the sun. While anything can be 'denied' - the 'denier' must have a reason for doing so. The people of Waco Texas have a reason, the bible, which says in Genesis 1:16 "God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night."
Can I post about science that cannot be denied? No I cannot, no one can. But if you would like to take a look at what I've posted in this thread and deny the VALIDITY of my statements, we can discuss the REASONS for your disagreement.
I have 22 other posts in this thread. You can start here if you haven't already. BEST is another good place to start.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: If you are going to call me a liar
I didn't call you a liar. I simply demonstrated you lying about Stephen Schneider is the pot calling the kettle black. Sorry you have issues with reality.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: and use the pejorative "denier",
It's like calling a illigimate child a bastard. It applies.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: I will no longer respond to your posts.
I'm surprised you haven't figured out that I don't need you to.
I removed the picture because the person quoted claims he was taken out of context. I haven't found the original quote, but will keep it redacted unless it proves he isn't being honest.
Can I post about science that cannot be denied? No I cannot, no one can. But if you would like to take a look at what I've posted in this thread and deny the VALIDITY of my statements, we can discuss the REASONS for your disagreement.
Yes, things can be denied, but it is hard to deny them when there is 'hard evidence'. Take for example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, I am sure there are probably fringe people out there that deny it, but there is hard evidence and science that supports this theory. The same can NOT be said for man being the cause of 'global warming'.
Science has proven (core samples for one example) that the earth has gone through these warming cycles before. One might also say that we are still just coming out of the 'ice age' when comparing the global mean temperature over the geologic time of the earth.
I am not talking about what has happened in the last 100 years or so either like many climate 'experts' are comparing to. In fact, there are 100 fold as many climate 'experts' today than there was 30 years ago (in fact there has been an explosion in the last 10 years). Why do you think that is? Could it be because that is where all the research money is flowing to today? I work in a research facility and see it first hand, many PHD's 5 years ago were working towards a completely different goal, but when that money dried up they simply switched (or creatively reworded so that it somehow applies) their research to 'global warming' (the oil and gas industry is also another big one).
Am I denying that there has been a change in the temperature? No, I am simply saying that man is not to blame and that it is a natural occurring phenomenon and that all this effort and money should be focused on other aspect of the environment that we can change.
If you must jump on an environmental bang wagon about something, perhaps you should focus your efforts on the amount of garbage that we produce - everything is disposable, nothing is built to last or be cheaply serviced. Every city has a problem (in some 3rd world countries it is a severe problem with other countries using them as a dump especially with e-waste). At the rate that we are consuming things I can easily envision a world like the one portrayed in the animated movie Wall-e or perhaps the Kurt Russell movie Soldier.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Take for example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, I am sure there are probably fringe people out there that deny it, but there is hard evidence and science that supports this theory. The same can NOT be said for man being the cause of 'global warming'.
Actually the opposite is true. All the evidence we have says CO2 emissions from people is the best match. There is zero evidence of a yet to be discovered force to attribute the warming to. Finding a scientific study to backup the claim you just made about 'global warming' will be next to impossible.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Science has proven (core samples for one example) that the earth has gone through these warming cycles before. One might also say that we are still just coming out of the 'ice age' when comparing the global mean temperature over the geologic time of the earth.
The Earth has warmed and cooled but you do not acknowledge the time it has taken the planet to do this in the past. The most significant and rapid warming that occurred in the last 65 million years was 6*C over 20,000 years. We've measured a full 1*C in 50 years alone.
Our current temperature level is pretty low compared to specific instances in the past, as you noted. It only means the dawn of civilization emerged at a historically inconvenient time to start emitting greenhouse gasses like CO2. If the Earth was already in a position to start warming again, CO2 emissions from people can definitely be a catalyst.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Am I denying that there has been a change in the temperature? No, I am simply saying that man is not to blame and that it is a natural occurring phenomenon and that all this effort and money should be focused on other aspect of the environment that we can change.
What do you attribute the temperature change to? It takes a force to cause a change in our universe. Nothing happens at random and for no reason.
There's a massive body of evidence that attributes recent warming to human activity. So lets talk hard evidence: CO2 levels are higher than they've been in the last 800,000 years. There's zero evidence of a better match for the temperature increase we've seen than CO2.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: In fact, there are 100 fold as many climate 'experts' today than there was 30 years ago (in fact there has been an explosion in the last 10 years). Why do you think that is? Could it be because that is where all the research money is flowing to today?
If you think climate change is a scientific conspiracy to get funding, then state it as such. Just because more people are switching to an emerging science it doesn't constitute fraud or a conspiracy. Otherwise it could be stated that when people switched to study general relativity it was a financial conspiracy to make money off GPS receivers.
There's also a lot more financial interest in things that produce CO2 than money in science.
Actually the opposite is true. All the evidence we have says CO2 emissions from people is the best match. There is zero evidence of a yet to be discovered force to attribute the warming to. Finding a scientific study to backup the claim you just made about 'global warming' will be next to impossible.
Many scientific studies have shown that CO2 increase follows temperature increase in the pre-historical records. A few examples:
• “Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations” – Fischer, Wahlen, Smith, Mastroianni, Dec, Science 12, 1999 http://www.sciencemag.org/c...stract/283/5408/1712 : “High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.”
• “Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming” – Stott, Timmerman, Thunel, Science 2007 http://www.sciencemag.org/c...t/abstract/1143791v1 : “Here we establish the chronology of high and low latitude climate change at the last glacial termination by 14C dating benthic and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and Mg/Ca records from a marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific. Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2oC between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19-17 ka B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing.”
• “Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III” – Caillon, Severinghaus, Jouzel, Barnola, Kang, Lipenkov, Science 14, 2003 http://www.sciencemag.org/c...stract/299/5613/1728 : “The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years”
• “Stable Carbon Cycle–Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene” – Siegenthaler et al, Science 25, 2005 http://www.sciencemag.org/c...t/full/310/5752/1313 : “The lags of CO2 with respect to the Antarctic temperature over glacial terminations V to VII are 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively”
What about the possibilities put forward and shown in many papers that temperature is also could be tied to solar activity, sun spots or general sun activity - science is about looking at all possible causes. Maybe it is a combination of them all. Dismissing these causes seems to be the norm for some people.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
The Earth has warmed and cooled but you do not acknowledge the time it has taken the planet to do this in the past. The most significant and rapid warming that occurred in the last 65 million years was 6*C over 20,000 years. We've measured a full 1*C in 50 years alone.
Just want to point out, that the Vostok ice core has shown very significant temperature changes going from a warm climate to an ice age in as rapidly as a couple decades. So is 1°C over 50 years all that far off and will that rate continue (it could easily slow, but also increase - who really knows)?
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: What do you attribute the temperature change to? It takes a force to cause a change in our universe. Nothing happens at random and for no reason.
Please explain what you attribute the past changes to; before man was around, could the same forces not be at work here as well (solar wind, sun activity, etc)? While you are at it, please could you also explain the causes of the Medieval Warm Period, the Mini Ice Age and the Year Without a Summer? All were radical temperature changes.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: If you think climate change is a scientific conspiracy to get funding, then state it as such. Just because more people are switching to an emerging science it doesn't constitute fraud or a conspiracy. Otherwise it could be stated that when people switched to study general relativity it was a financial conspiracy to make money off GPS receivers.
There's also a lot more financial interest in things that produce CO2 than money in science.
When it comes down to getting funding for research, yes people are going to go where the money is. Would/can you work for free? Yes there is more money to be made in the areas that produce CO2 - there are guys here in Alberta that are making an easy 6 figure income working in the oil sands, but there is also lots on money to be made at the other end of the spectrum. David Suzuki (Canadian environments - and yes, he is a scientist) is not exactly living on the street (living pretty well I may add) - there are also many PHD's that I work with that are living pretty darn well also. Also to use that bad word, you think Al Gore is doing it for nothing as well?
edited to fix links.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 12-03-2012).]
Many scientific studies have shown that CO2 increase follows temperature increase in the pre-historical records. A few examples:
• “Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations” – Fischer, Wahlen, Smith, Mastroianni, Dec, Science 12, 1999 http://www.sciencemag.org/c...stract/283/5408/1712 : “High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.”
• “Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming” – Stott, Timmerman, Thunel, Science 2007 http://www.sciencemag.org/c...t/abstract/1143791v1 : “Here we establish the chronology of high and low latitude climate change at the last glacial termination by 14C dating benthic and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and Mg/Ca records from a marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific. Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2oC between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19-17 ka B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing.”
• “Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III” – Caillon, Severinghaus, Jouzel, Barnola, Kang, Lipenkov, Science 14, 2003 http://www.sciencemag.org/c...stract/299/5613/1728 : “The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years”
• “Stable Carbon Cycle–Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene” – Siegenthaler et al, Science 25, 2005 http://www.sciencemag.org/c...t/full/310/5752/1313 : “The lags of CO2 with respect to the Antarctic temperature over glacial terminations V to VII are 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively”
What about the possibilities put forward and shown in many papers that temperature is also could be tied to solar activity, sun spots or general sun activity - science is about looking at all possible causes. Maybe it is a combination of them all. Dismissing these causes seems to be the norm for some people.
Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags Antarctic temperature changes by around 1,000 years.
To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:
Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase.
Again if you look at the science the questions that you are asking about the sun have also been researched and found NOT to be the major contributor to current Climate Change. I think FlyingFieros has even covered much of it.
Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags Antarctic temperature changes by around 1,000 years.
To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:
Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase.
Again if you look at the science the questions that you are asking about the sun have also been researched and found NOT to be the major contributor to current Climate Change. I think FlyingFieros has even covered much of it.
[sarcasm]
...and MAN is to BLAME for every single one of those cycles...
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Many scientific studies have shown that CO2 increase follows temperature increase in the pre-historical records. A few examples...
What about the possibilities put forward and shown in many papers that temperature is also could be tied to solar activity, sun spots or general sun activity - science is about looking at all possible causes. Maybe it is a combination of them all. Dismissing these causes seems to be the norm for some people.
You have an interesting strategy. You verify what I said about the relationship between CO2 and temperatures by citing specific studies. But in your next breath you make an unsubstantiated claim of your own without citing anything at all. I do not need you to cite sources for my argument. Cite sources for your own claims. I challenged you to find a scientific study that backs up your claims about man made global warming.
The truth is of course scientists have looked at solar activity as apart of climate studies. The most recent would be the BEST study: "Berkeley Earth team was able to conclude that over 250 years, the contribution of solar activity to global warming is negligible." I posted about solar activity on this very page.
There is a variation of sun output between high sunspot numbers and low sunspot numbers. With a high number of sunspots Earth receives 1 more watt per meter squared. This increase is completely inconsequential because there's no net increase between high and low: Source.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Just want to point out, that the Vostok ice core has shown very significant temperature changes going from a warm climate to an ice age in as rapidly as a couple decades. So is 1°C over 50 years all that far off and will that rate continue (it could easily slow, but also increase - who really knows)?
Still, it takes a force to cause a change. We've measured lots of potential forces and the best match is still CO2 from human emissions.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Please explain what you attribute the past changes to; before man was around, could the same forces not be at work here as well
You mean like major volcanic activity, orbital variations, solar output, changes in greenhouse gas concentration like methane or carbon dioxide, or a mass extinction event?
Aside from human emissions changing the concentration of greenhouse gasses, we've ruled all of those out.
So back to my original question. I'm assuming you believed the same causes of climate change in the past were at work right now. Seeing how that's not possible, what do you attribute the change to? Or more directly, why can't CO2 be the cause?
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: David Suzuki (Canadian environments - and yes, he is a scientist) is not exactly living on the street (living pretty well I may add) - there are also many PHD's that I work with that are living pretty darn well also. Also to use that bad word, you think Al Gore is doing it for nothing as well?
Is climate science off limits in a free market? There's nothing wrong with working for a living.
Every industry has individuals who fall off the ethical tightrope. You cannot discredit all of science in this fashion.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-04-2012).]
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Is climate science off limits in a free market? There's nothing wrong with working for a living. Every industry has individuals who fall off the ethical tightrope. You cannot discredit all of science in this fashion.
Just pointing out there there is money in science, you implied that there wasn't so much and these people are doing it for the good of mankind. I was simply pointing out that people will jump on a band wagon for a paycheck. As the saying goes "if there is a steady paycheck, I will believe anything you want".
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: You have an interesting strategy. You verify what I said about the relationship between CO2 and temperatures by citing specific studies.
No, you state that CO2 is the cause for the temperature increasing (ie. CO2 goes up, temp goes up), did you not notice that a rise in CO2 happens after an increase in temperature? One thing to note, water vapour is also a 'green house gas' and comprises a far larger concentration than CO2 in the atmosphere. Could any rise in temperature result of an increase in water vapour due to the sun warming it? As water evaporates, CO2 is released so the increase so is the increase due to an increase in water vapor and not necessarly man made?
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Just pointing out there there is money in science, you implied that there wasn't so much and these people are doing it for the good of mankind. I was simply pointing out that people will jump on a band wagon for a paycheck. As the saying goes "if there is a steady paycheck, I will believe anything you want".
Real scientists are into science for their own curiosity. Money or honors isn't the motive. Finding out how it works is the motive.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: No, you state that CO2 is the cause for the temperature increasing (ie. CO2 goes up, temp goes up), did you not notice that a rise in CO2 happens after an increase in temperature?
I didn't 'notice' because it's not exactly true. When the planet starts recovering from an ice age the initial warming is caused by orbital cycles. The warm oceans release more CO2 than cool oceans over the same time period. As CO2 levels begin to rise the temperature warming is amplified by CO2's greenhouse effect. CO2 may 'lag' behind because it didn't start the initial warming but CO2 definitely has a warming effect.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: One thing to note, water vapour is also a 'green house gas' and comprises a far larger concentration than CO2 in the atmosphere. Could any rise in temperature result of an increase in water vapour due to the sun warming it?
The amount of water vapor the air can hold has one important factor: the temperature of the air. Warmer air holds more moisture than cool air. We've already discussed sun output, more sun energy output is not responsible for the warming we are seeing. However CO2 levels have risen. CO2 is a documented greenhouse gas. CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere which increases the atmospheres fundamental potential to retain more water vapor and therefore more heat.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: As water evaporates, CO2 is released so is the increase due to an increase in water vapor and not necessarly man made?
You stopped short of explaining the cause for more water vapor. It's not the sun.
The amount of water vapor the air can hold has one important factor: the temperature of the air. Warmer air holds more moisture than cool air. We've already discussed sun output, more sun energy output is not responsible for the warming we are seeing. However CO2 levels have risen. CO2 is a documented greenhouse gas. CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere which increases the atmospheres fundamental potential to retain more water vapor and therefore more heat.
There are many documented 'green house' gases - water vapour is one and it is the most overlooked even though it accounts for the largest quanity in the atmosphere. Why is that?
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
You stopped short of explaining the cause for more water vapor. It's not the sun.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: There are many documented 'green house' gases - water vapour is one and it is the most overlooked even though it accounts for the largest quanity in the atmosphere. Why is that?
Simple, there's zero evidence suggesting water vapor is at fault. All evidence, and there is a mountain of scientific evidence, points to human CO2 emissions.
Water vapor is 'overlooked' as the warming culprit because humans are not adding water vapor to the atmosphere. Even if we were, the average time for a water molecule in the atmosphere is 9 days. Not years or centuries like methane and carbon dioxide that we are emitting. The reason water vapor stays a short period is because it's responsible for clouds, rain, snow, and generally what we know as weather.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Water evaporates, never said it was the sun.
Water doesn't just 'evaporate' for no reason, there are simple physical laws that govern how much will evaporate. Water vapor reaches a equilibrium directly corresponding to air temperature. You cannot have "more water vapor" without "more temperature."
You suggested the CO2 increase was due to an increase in water vapor, which is the complete opposite of the truth. You suggested this without explaining how or why.
Indisputable is the scientific consensus that has been reached: the temperature change we have measured can only be attributed to CO2. There is zero evidence to suggest something else is at fault.
You have yet to dethrone CO2 as the culprit. You have been reaching for far out improbabilities that have already been analyzed and debunked.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-05-2012).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: There are many documented 'green house' gases - water vapour is one and it is the most overlooked even though it accounts for the largest quanity in the atmosphere. Why is that?
Water evaporates, never said it was the sun.
RAIN
there is no quick eazy process like rain for CO2
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
"flyinfieros" keeps saying that CO2 hasn't been debunked or whatever. But CO2 is a poor explanation. There is something called "R squared correlation", which is a fancy way of saying "what percentage of the time is it true?"
Here is the percentage for CO2 1905-1998. It is 44%
Here is the percentage for CO2 from about 1997-2008. It is 0.07% Hmmm...are those better or worse than lottery odds?
Here is the percentage for the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) plus the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which was at work LONG before mankind's CO2 could be a temperature driver. It is 85%
Who in their right mind bets on something with a winning percentage of 44%, which then declines to 0.07%, instead of betting on a winning percentage of 85%??? That is what the warmists want us to do with OUR money.
"flyinfieros" keeps saying that CO2 hasn't been debunked or whatever. But CO2 is a poor explanation. There is something called "R squared correlation", which is a fancy way of saying "what percentage of the time is it true?"
Here is the percentage for CO2 1905-1998. It is 44%
Here is the percentage for CO2 from about 1997-2008. It is 0.07% Hmmm...are those better or worse than lottery odds?
Here is the percentage for the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) plus the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which was at work LONG before mankind's CO2 could be a temperature driver. It is 85%
Who in their right mind bets on something with a winning percentage of 44%, which then declines to 0.07%, instead of betting on a winning percentage of 85%??? That is what the warmists want us to do with OUR money.
Can we have the source on these graphs as I am wondering if USHCN is just for the U.S. or is global and so on?
Originally posted by newf: Can we have the source on these graphs as I am wondering if USHCN is just for the U.S. or is global and so on?
There's a reason his graphs are sourceless. Allow me... Here's the blogging college dropout conspiracy theorist he got them from. Here's the actual paper written in 2008 where two of the graphs came from. The "R squared correlation" graph is unrelated to the paper and is likely a fabrication. Here's the source of the "R squared correlation" graph.
The paper is heavily based off old debunked information: the over-hyped effects of urbanization on datasets, the over-hyped effects of station siting issues by Watts, and the over-hyped effects of solar output. All of it has been debunked BEST and studies before it. To be expected the paper falsely concludes the planet "might" not warm, but will cool instead.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: "flyinfieros" keeps saying that CO2 hasn't been debunked or whatever. But CO2 is a poor explanation.
The reality is CO2 hasn't been debunked. CO2 is the best explanation. I can point to a scientific consensus and several studies to verify this. You point to fabricated arguments based on nothing of substance.
You desperately hold on to the faith that CO2 cannot be the cause of the warming. This is self evident in how you abandon a debunked theory and scramble for a new cause each time. You are biased against reality.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Who in their right mind bets on something with a winning percentage of 44%, which then declines to 0.07%, instead of betting on a winning percentage of 85%??? That is what the warmists want us to do with OUR money.
This comparison is worthless. You're comparing an oscillation with no actual net increase to short term temperature changes with a long term positive trend. Warmists spend time and money helping you understand your own graphs. Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-05-2012).]
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: This comparison is worthless. You're comparing an oscillation with no actual net increase to short term temperature changes with a long term positive trend. Warmists spend time and money helping you understand your own graphs.
A long term trend which started with the end to the "little ice age". Temperatures simply are climbing back to "normal" (as if there is anything such as a "normal" temperature for the Earth).
Trends depend on where you start and stop them. Starting at the end of a particularly cold period will NATURALLY produce a warming trend.
quote
scientific consensus
...which is eaningless. Science isn't done by vote.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-05-2012).]
Thank you, flyinfieros, for pointing back to the evidence against AGW that I've already presented!
CO2 vs. temperature
Total solar irradiance
PDO/AMO versus temperature
Temperature vs. CO2 last decade (to 2008)
Surface and satellite data versus CO2, last 10 years (to 2008)
Table of correlation comparisons of all factors
=====================================
So, CO2 is a poor match for the last 100+ years, for the last 10 years, and that hasn't been changing in the last few years. There are actually GOOD explainations (better correlations) for the entire period, none of which are CO2. And THAT is why I say "game, set, match". Because CO2 is the WORST possible cause of the warming, based on the real world data.
Wow. Talk about "meaningless". I don't think anyone is arguing that there is a degree for degree temperature correlation between the ocean and land temperatures. Just because the land temperatures go up 1 degree and sea temperatures only go up .5 degree, that isn't mean to imply they should match precisely. The ocean temperatures have a number of effects on both weather and climate, such as cloud cover, precipitation, wind and general weather patterns.
Here is a more extensive analysis of the possible influence of PDO/AMO
Kyoto Protocol expiration won’t provide reality check
Last summer’s Rio+20 Conference tried unsuccessfully to rivet global attention on the latest “urgent problem” of unsustainable development. This week, another United Nations five-star-hotel convention, in Doha, Qatar, is working overtime to revive climate alarmism as a “central organizing principle” for global governance.
The strategies remain unchanged: There are treaties, laws, regulations and higher taxes for hydrocarbon energy, all under the direction of unelected, unaccountable fanatics who insist they are saving planet Earth from ecological collapse. The agenda is likewise the same: Slash hydrocarbon use, transfer wealth, regulate economic growth and control people’s lives.
With the Kyoto Protocol set to expire at the end of December, Qatar conventioneers are determined to forge new international agreements in the face of numerous harsh realities.
The United States never ratified Kyoto and is not bound by its dictates, and the country’s reduced economic and political stature make it harder to play a lead role in forging a new agreement. Canada, Japan and New Zealand will not participate in a new treaty. The European Union is drowning in debt and struggling under soaring renewable-energy costs that threaten families, jobs, companies and entire industries.
China, Brazil, India, Indonesia and other emerging markets refuse to limit the use of fossil fuels they need to build their economies and lift millions out of poverty. They say industrialized nations must agree to further greenhouse gas reductions before they will consider doing so, and holding developing countries to developed-nation standards would be inequitable.
Poor countries increasingly understand that carbon-dioxide emission restrictions will prevent them from expanding and subject them to control by environmental activists and U.N. regulators. They also realize that massive wealth transfers from formerly rich countries — for climate-change mitigation, adaptation and reparation — are increasingly unlikely and would go mostly to bureaucrats, autocrats and kleptocrats, with little trickling down to ordinary people.
The scientific realities are equally bad for alarmists.
Average planetary temperatures have not risen in 16 years, even as atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels have crept upward to 0.0391 percent (391 parts per million). While global-warming alarmists continue to say 2010 or, in the United States, 2012 was “the hottest on record,” actual data show that the difference between those and other allegedly “hottest years” is only a few hundredths of a degree. The 1930s still hold the record for the steamiest years in American history.
NASA has conceded that Arctic sea-ice reductions during 2012 were caused mostly by enormous, long-lasting storms that broke up huge sections of the polar ice cap. Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice continues to expand, setting new records. The rate of sea-level rise has not been accelerating and actually may be decreasing, according to recent studies.
Even with Hurricane Sandy, November 2012 marks the quietest long-term hurricane period since the Civil War, with only one major hurricane strike on the U.S. mainland in seven years. Large tornadoes also have fallen in frequency since the 1950s, and the 2012 season was the most peaceful on record. Only 12 tornadoes touched down in the United States in July 2012, says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shattering the July 1960 record low of 42.
Alarmists insist that Sandy was “unprecedented” and “proof that climate change is real.” However, devastating hurricanes have struck New York, New Jersey and Canada’s Maritime Provinces many times over the centuries. Newfoundland’s deadliest hurricane killed 4,000 people in 1775, while Category 1 to 3 storms hit the provinces in 1866, 1873, 1886, 1893, 1939, 1959, 1963 and 2003. New York City was hammered by major storms in 1693, 1788, 1821, 1893, the 1938 “Long Island Express,” 1944 and 1954.
Climate change is natural, normal, cyclical, frequent, unpredictable and sometimes catastrophic, as the Little Ice Age — lasting from the 16th century to the 19th century — certainly was for European civilization.
These realities won’t stop the alarmists. There simply is too much money and power at stake. Tens of billions of dollars are transferred annually from taxpayers and energy users to eco-activists, scientists who hype climate disasters, regulators, carbon tax “investors” and renewable-energy and carbon-capture subsidy-seekers. They have every incentive to promote climate scares and attack anyone who voices skepticism about carbon-dioxide-driven climate-change catastrophes.
Reality will not stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is preparing to impose new carbon-dioxide regulations. Nor will it stop Congress and the White House from viewing carbon taxes as a new source of revenue for funding stimulus and entitlement programs. That these actions would strangle our economy, kill millions of jobs and eradicate expected government revenues does not occur to them.
The real danger is not climate change. With our economic and technological resources, we can adapt to almost any changes Mother Nature might throw at us — short of another glacial period that buries much of the world under a mile of ice.
The real danger is treaties, laws, regulations and taxes imposed in the name of preventing global-warming catastrophes that exist only in computer models, horror movies and environmentalist press releases. These political schemes will exacerbate and perpetuate poverty, disease, unemployment and economic stagnation. That is neither just nor sustainable.
Congress and the U.N. need to return to their founding principles, get serious about poverty alleviation and economic betterment for people everywhere and implement constructive solutions to the real problems that confront civilization.
David Rothbard is president of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, where Craig Rucker is executive director.
Originally posted by fierobear: NASA has conceded that Arctic sea-ice reductions during 2012 were caused mostly by enormous, long-lasting storms that broke up huge sections of the polar ice cap. Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice continues to expand, setting new records. The rate of sea-level rise has not been accelerating and actually may be decreasing, according to recent studies.
So it may be that 2012 has been something of an anomaly, because of the storms, but the latest reports to hit the popular news sites are saying something else again, 'bear.
Polar ice sheets melting have added 11mm to global sea levels since 1992 Nearly two dozen research teams collaborated to study polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica and discovered definitively that they have added 11mm to global sea levels since 1992, melting ever more quickly. http://en.mercopress.com/20...ain&utm_campaign=rss
Lead author of the research, Professor Andrew Shepherd of Leeds University, explained that East Antarctica ice sheet, which is the largest, has acquired more mass due to increased snowfall. Still, the study determined that Greenland, West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula were all losing mass, more than offsetting East Antarctica's gain.
“We can now say for sure that Antarctica is losing ice and we can see how the rate of loss from Greenland is going up over the same period as well,” he said. “We've brought everybody together to produce a single estimate and it turns out that estimate is two to three times more reliable than the last one.”
He noted that the figure is in line with climate change predictions.
“We would expect Greenland to melt more rapidly because the temperatures have risen,” he commented. “We would expect West Antarctica to flow more quickly because the ocean is warmer. And we would also expect East Antarctica to grow because there's more snowfall as a consequence of climate warming.”
The findings are in line with various forecasts by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 assessment, and will be considered for the next report due in September 2013.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-06-2012).]
David Rothbard (born in Bridgeport, Connecticut) is President of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a climate-change denial propaganda organization he co-founded in 1985. CFACT purports to be a public policy organization focusing on issues of environment and development but is actually an anti-environment, anti-science, pro-corporation platform funded by ExxonMobil.
Rothbard also co-hosts with CFACT Executive Director, Craig Rucker, a daily national radio commentary called "Just the Facts" that has been airing for twelve years on some 200 radio stations from coast to coast.
ExxonMobil contributed $5,000 in each of 1997 and 1998.[11] Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website adds that Exxon has contributed a further $577,000 between 2000 and 2007 ↑ "Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow", ExxonSecrets.org, accessed April 2009.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-06-2012).]
I just caught the last part of a 60 minute segment on The Science Channel called "Global Weirding".
Since I only saw the last part, I only got some of the sense of it. I came in just when they were talking about The Little Ice Age in Europe from 1650 to 1700. A climate scientist from the U.K. was saying that projected warming of the Arctic would actually cause colder weather in Europe and the U.S., but at the same time, cause warmer weather in Canada and the Mediterranean that would push the net balance towards warming on a global scale.
They were saying that extreme weather events are becoming the new normal.
I would like to see the full 60 minutes. Looked for it on line, but didn't find it. Have to wait until they air it again.
Sorry, i meant to lead the article with "commentary". I will add that.
quote
Originally posted by newf:
David Rothbard (born in Bridgeport, Connecticut) is President of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a climate-change denial propaganda organization he co-founded in 1985.
Opinion. And whose?
quote
CFACT purports to be a public policy organization focusing on issues of environment and development but is actually an anti-environment, anti-science, pro-corporation platform funded by ExxonMobil.
The "studies" that have been peer reviewed and checked prove the opposite, no one can help it if some can't accept that.
