It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
No evidence that CO2 increases have any appreciable affect on global climate?

The physics of CO2's interaction with both external and internal heat sources is pretty well understood.

CO2 levels are well documented in the geological record and environmental conditions such as plant types, animal species and general climate is well documented too.

We can thus chart the relationship between various levels of CO2 and the climate is like. See the types of plants that flourish and die off along with the animals that populate an area at an approximate time. See the adaptations that these life forms make to survive in those conditions.

I would like to say as well that a fundamental scientific reality is at work in our interaction with the environment.

If we change a value inside a system, we affect that system.

Even if the Earth would be undergoing the same changes without our influence, our existence inherently alters the balance of Earth's systems. If we increase the levels of ANYTHING within the system, we offset it's balance.
The system must now change to seek a return to balance and since we have altered the values within it, the resulting point of balance will be different that it otherwise would have been.

Therefore, we absolutely affect the global climate system.

Now the question becomes, by how much? Well, since we are adding often toxic and dangerous materials to the system and since we do not understand the ultimate effects of anything that we add to the system, the only logical action to take is to minimize our disruption of the natural balance, thus minimizing the alteration of the point of balance and the instability with the system while it seeks to re-balance itself.

We have a counter argument that is irrational here, many are arguing that we should just continue to disrupt the system and hope that nothing too extreme will come from our interference. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me, because eventually our level of disruption WILL reach a point that cause the system to go to experience extreme fluctuations in an effort to find balance AND that final point of balance could be much different than what we are evolved to deal with.




posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Poptech
 


Deeeeeeeeeee- AMN!

I'm glad you're on my team bro!

This isn't my area of expertise, but I have often wondered if the evidence really results in a positive for both camps? If I tell you to test something to see if it is a liquid, one set of scientists look at a chunk of ice, observe melting, and deduce that it's state is in change to a liquid. A second set of scientists come in later, see the puddle, and say definitely liquid. Both are right, but the data used to deduce the results were very different.

With the AGW crowd it's an all or nothing venture. If the skeptics are in any way correct, then their position is broken (in their minds). This is what I have observed in debates here on ATS. However the skeptics in most cases acknowledge the AGW facts, and potential harm to the environment. Based on this observation, I think people are more willing to listen to NGW arguments, simply because they appear to have to more open minds.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Can you people ever tell me when people who got it wrong, like al gore and those rubbish fellows they call scientists will lose there jobs for lies, and pure bull.

Man made global warming is rubbish idea period, and how so many so called smart peopel even took it on is beyond me.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiberx

CO2 levels are well documented in the geological record and environmental conditions such as plant types, animal species and general climate is well documented too.

We can thus chart the relationship between various levels of CO2 and the climate is like. See the types of plants that flourish and die off along with the animals that populate an area at an approximate time. See the adaptations that these life forms make to survive in those conditions.

Yes this is documented and the relationship is that CO2 levels lag temperature changes,

CO2 lags Temperature changes:

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition
(Science, Volume 324, Number 5934, pp. 1551-1554, June 2009)
- Bärbel Hönisch et al.


The lack of a gradual decrease in interglacial PCO2 does not support the suggestion that a long-term drawdown of atmospheric CO2 was the main cause of the climate transition

Atmospheric CO2 Concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 27, Issue 5, March 2000)
- Andreas Indermuhle et al.


The lag was calculated for which the correlation coefficient of the CO2 record and the corresponding temperatures values reached a maximum. The simulation yields a lag of (1200 ± 700) yr.

Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination
(Science, Volume 291. Number 5501, January 2001)
- Eric Monnin et al.


The start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ± 600 years.

Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
(Nature, Volume 343, Number 6260, pp. 709-714, February 1990)
- Cynthia Kuo et al.


Temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.

Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Volume 283, Number 5408, pp. 1712-1714, March 1999)
- Hubertus Fischer et al.


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
(Science, Volume 318, Issue 5849, September 2007)
- Lowell Stott et al.


Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C 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 phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka (PDF)
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 583-589, February 2001)
- Manfred Mudelsee


Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0 ka

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science, Volume 299, Number 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon et al.


The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.



Well, since we are adding often toxic and dangerous materials to the system and since we do not understand the ultimate effects of anything that we add to the system, the only logical action to take is to minimize our disruption of the natural balance, thus minimizing the alteration of the point of balance and the instability with the system while it seeks to re-balance itself.

CO2 is neither toxic at current or plausible future levels nor dangerous,

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The legitimacy and importance of the peer-review process over recent years has been retrograded, perverted and made redundant by CAGW-advocates because the peer-reviewers are mostly working for the same international network of political institutions that is promoting the CAGW-cause. No where is this illustrated more perfectly than the situation with the 62 reviewers of the IPCC's all important chapter 9, in their AR4 report, the one that presented the 'evidence' of the disastrous effects of anthropogenic emissions if not pre-empted.

Some of them were government representatives and many of them had co-authored papers together (and thus bound to agree). They basically hijacked the process. In this case at least, the peer-review process was not impartial, independent and disinterested and its integrity and its judgements stand compromised. It's odd when CAGW alarmists say that we don't have any peer-reviewed evidence, when we clearly do, and it's hypocritical, because the IPCC are the ones gleaning their 'evidence' from student essays and mendaciously passing it off as peer-reveiwed.

I haven't perused the entire list of 800 peer-reviewed references, but from a cursory glance, it's interesting how such a large portion of them are from Energy & Environment. Whether this is because skeptical scientists are being blackballed from the peer-reviewed process I don't know. I think too much focus gets put on the peer-review process anyway though; sure, it's good, but it was never conceived as an essential part of the scientific method either and it can too easily be corrupted by having someone who is not impartial review it.
edit on 8-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D

I haven't perused the entire list of 800 peer-reviewed references, but from a cursory glance, it's interesting how such a large portion of them are from Energy & Environment. Whether this is because skeptical scientists are being blackballed from the peer-reviewed process I don't know.

Less than 16% of the list is from E&E but there are over 200 journals cited,

Journal Citation List:

AAPG Bulletin
Academic Questions
Advances in Geosciences
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Space Research
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Agricultural Meteorology
Agricultural Water Management
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Ambio
American Journal of Botany
Annales Geophysicae
Annals of Applied Statistics
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Applied Energy
Aquatic Botany
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
Arctic and Alpine Research
Area
Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law
Astronautics and Aeronautics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Astrophysics and Space Science Library
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Atmospheric Environment
British Medical Journal (BMJ)
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS)
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
Central European Journal of Physics
Chemical Engineering Progress
Chemical Innovation
Climate Dynamics
Climate of the Past
Climate Research
Climatic Change
Cold Regions Science and Technology
Comptes Rendus Geosciences
Contemporary South Asia
Current Opinion in Biotechnology
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Ecological Complexity
Ecological Modelling
Ecological Monographs
Ecology
Economic Affairs
Economic Analysis and Policy
Economics Bulletin
Emerging Infectious Diseases
Energy
Energy & Environment
Energy Fuels
Energy Policy
Energy Sources
Environment International
Environmental and Experimental Botany
Environmental Conservation
Environmental Geology
Environmental Geosciences
Environmental Health Perspectives
Environmental Law and Management
Environmental Politics
Environmental Research
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Environmental Software
Environmetrics
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
Fresenius' Journal of Analytical Chemistry
Futures
Geografiska Annaler
Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography
GeoJournal
Geology
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
Geophysical Research Letters
Geoscience Canada
Global and Planetary Change
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Global Change Biology
Global Environmental Change
GSA Today
Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences
Hydrological Sciences Journal
Il Nuovo Cimento C
Interfaces
International Journal of Biometeorology
International Journal of Climatology
International Journal of Environmental Studies
International Journal of Forecasting
International Journal of Global Energy Issues
International Journal of Global Warming
International Journal of Modern Physics B
International Journal of Remote Sensing
International Quarterly for Asian Studies
International Social Science Journal
Irish Astronomical Journal
Irrigation and Drainage
Iron & Steel Technology
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics
Journal of Biogeography
Journal of Chemical Education
Journal of Climate
Journal of Coastal Research
Journal of Cosmology
Journal of Environmental Sciences
Journal of Environmental Quality
Journal of Experimental Botany
Journal of Forestry
Journal of Fusion Energy
Journal of Geophysical Research
Journal of Hydrology
Journal of Information Ethics
Journal of International Studies
Journal of Lake Sciences
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering
Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics
Journal of Paleolimnology
Journal of Plant Physiology
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Journal of the American Water Resources Association
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society
Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering
Journal of Vegetation Science
La Chimica e l'Industria
Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Malaria Journal
Marine Geology
Marine Pollution Bulletin
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
Meteorologische Zeitschrift
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
Monthly Weather Review
Moscow University Physics Bulletin
Natural Hazards
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
Natural Hazards Review
Nature
Nature Biotechnology
Nature Geoscience
Netherlands Journal of Geosciences
New Astronomy
New Concepts In Global Tectonics
New Literary History
New Phytologist
New Zealand Geographer
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
Nordic Hydrology
Norwegian Polar Institute Letters
Oceanologica Acta
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Paleoceanography
Paleontological Journal
Physical Geography
Physical Review E
Physical Review Letters
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth
Physics Letters A
Physics Reports
Physics Today
Planetary and Space Science
Plant, Cell & Environment
Plant Ecology
Plant Physiology
PLoS Biology
Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering
Proceedings of the ICE - Civil Engineering
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union
Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
Proceedings of the Royal Society A
Progress in Physical Geography
Public Administration Review
Pure and Applied Geophysics
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
Quaternary International
Quaternary Research
Quaternary Science Reviews
Regulation
Risk Analysis
Russian Journal of Earth Sciences
Science
Science of the Total Environment
Science, Technology & Human Values
Scientia Horticulturae
Social Studies of Science
Society
Soil Science
Solar Physics
South African Journal of Science
Space Science Reviews
Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy
Statistics, Politics, and Policy
Surveys in Geophysics
Technology
Tellus A
The Astrophysical Journal
The Cato Journal
The Electricity Journal
The Holocene
The Independent Review
The Lancet
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
The Quarterly Review of Biology
The Review of Economics and Statistics
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
Topics in Catalysis
Waste Management
Water, Air, & Soil Pollution
Water Resources Research
Weather
Weather and Forecasting
World Economics

Journal Count: 226

...and yes much of that has to do with the difficulty skeptical scientists have in getting published. For an example of this I recommend reading,

Circling the Bandwagons: My Adventures Correcting the IPCC (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Poptech
 



Google record warm temperatures.
You'll get more articles then you will about cold weather.
Some how I don't think you will though.


www.newsbcm.com...
www.sofiaecho.com...
www.inforum.com...
www.lasvegassun.com...

I can play that game too.

All in the last few days.


I'll reply to your earlier post. I am waiting to see if I can get the references for the four Kinnimonths "papers" from an academic friend who might have free institutional access. If not, I will subscribe.
One is a report on a conference, one is the material he presented at a conference from 2009, the other is a book review.
Anyway.

Thank you for your reply.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

Google record warm temperatures.
You'll get more articles then you will about cold weather.

You have failed to demonstrate this.


All in the last few days

So were these...

2010 - North-west Qld experiences record low temperatures (ABC News, Australia, November 4, 2010)
2010 - Record low temperatures across eastern Australia (Stock and Land, Australia, November 5, 2010)
2010 - Saturday [Lakeland, Florida] Sees New Record For Cold Temps (The Ledger, November 6, 2010)
2010 - Vero Beach [Florida] hits record low Tuesday (TCPalm, November 9, 2010)


One is a report on a conference, one is the material he presented at a conference from 2009, the other is a book review.

Wrong, none are a book review, these two are peer-reviewed papers,

A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
- William Kininmonth


Climate Change - A Natural Hazard (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232, May 2003)
- William Kininmonth



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Poptech

Originally posted by atlasastro

Google record warm temperatures.
You'll get more articles then you will about cold weather.

You have failed to demonstrate this.



Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US


Meanwhile in 2010...


National heat records set in 2010
The year 2010 now has the most national extreme heat records for a single year--seventeen. The year 2008 is in second place, with fifteen. Here are the new records set during the period May - August:

Myanmar (Burma) had its hottest temperature in its recorded history on May 14 when the mercury hit 47.2°C (117°F) in Myinmu. This is the hottest reliably measured temperature in Southeast Asia records.

Pakistan had its hottest temperature on record on May 26 when the mercury hit an astonishing 53.5°C (128.3°F) at the town of Mohenjo-Daro, according to the Pakistani Meteorological Department. While this temperature reading must be reviewed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) for authenticity, not only is the 128.3°F reading the hottest temperature ever recorded in Pakistan, it is the hottest reliably measured temperature ever recorded on the continent of Asia (the reading of 129°F attributed to Tirat Tsvi, Israel in 1942 is an error.)

Kuwait recorded its hottest temperature on record on June 15 in Abdaly, according to the Kuwait Met office. The mercury hit 52.6°C (126.7°F).

Iraq had its hottest day in history on June 14 when the mercury hit 52.0°C (125.6°F) in Basra.

Saudi Arabia had its hottest temperature on record on June 22 with a reading of 52.0°C (125.6°F) in Jeddah, the second largest city in Saudi Arabia. The record heat was accompanied by a sandstorm, which caused eight power plants to go offline, resulting in blackouts to several Saudi cities.

Chad had its hottest day on record on June 22 when the temperature reached 47.6°C (117.7°F) at Faya.

Sudan recorded its hottest temperature on record on June 22 when the mercury rose to 49.7°C (121.5°F) at Dongola.

Niger set its record for hottest day on record on June 23 when the temperature reached 48.2°C (118.8°F) at Bilma.

Russia had its hottest temperature on record on July 11 when the mercury rose to 44.0°C (111.2°F) in Yashkul, Kalmykia Republic, in the European portion of Russia near the Kazakhstan border.The Asian portion of Russia also recorded its hottest temperature in history this year, a 42.7°C (108.9°F) reading at Ust Kara, in the Chita Republic on June 27.

Qatar had its hottest temperature on record on July 14 when the mercury hit 50.4°C (122.7°F) at Doha Airport.

Finland had its hottest temperature ever measured on July 29 when the mercury hit 37.2°C (99°F) at Joensuu Airport, Liperi.

Cyprus recorded its hottest temperature on record on August 1 when the mercury hit 46.6°C (115.9°F) at Lefconica.

Belarus recorded its hottest temperature on record on August 6 when the mercury hit 38.9°C (102.0°F) in Gomel.

Ukraine recorded its hottest temperature on record when the mercury hit 42.0°C (107.6°F) at Luhansk on August 12.

All-time national heat records were missed by 1°C or less in many other nations this summer, including China, the Azores, Morocco, Estonia, and Latvia.

Extensive credit for researching these records goes to weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera, who maintains a comprehensive set of extreme temperature records on his web site.

National cold records set in 2010
No nations set record for their coldest temperature in history in 2010. Jeff Masters erroneously reported in his blog earlier this year that Guinea had done so. Guinea actually had its coldest temperature in history last year, on January 9, 2009, when the mercury hit 1.4°C (34.5°F) at Mali-ville in the Labe region.

Source



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Mc, they won't discuss that because it contradicts their nonsensical view of non-reality.

If they were rational people, this thread wouldn't even exist.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
You continue to fail to demonstrate this because that is only the continental U.S. and they start at 1950.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Poptech
 


You can spam all you want.
Your list does not remove the fact that the "papers" you calim are skeptical of AGW are in fact wrong.

Th whole point of my post was pointing out that even though they may raise skepticism, it is the CONTENT of that skepticism that should be used to judge its VALIDITY and not the fact that it is merely skeptical of AGW.

Again, here is one of your 'skeptical papers' and the contents of that skepticism which FAILS.
Have a look at this one.
www.populartechnology.net...
Number 26 on the list.
www.int-res.com...

It was done in 1998, the hottest year to date( at sloar maximum in El nino ) that claims we should not see any warming trends or "record maximiums".

We found no evidence for an increase in record temperatures. The fact that intra-annual and intra-monthly variance is declining suggests that we should see fewer record temperatures

Anyway.
Have a look at the records set this year.
Chad 47.6 °C (117.7 °F) Faya 2010-06-22

Sudan 49.6 °C (121.3 °F) Dongola 2010-06-25

Iraq 52.0 °C (125.7 °F) Basra 2010-06-14

Kuwait 52.6 °C (126.7 °F) Abdaly 2010-06-15

Myanmar 47.0 °C (116.6 °F) Myinmu 2010-05-12

Pakistan 53.5 °C (128.3 °F) Mohenjo-daro, Sindh 2010-05-26

Qatar 50.4 °C (122.7 °F) Doha 2010-07-14

Saudi Arabia 52.0 °C (125.6 °F) Jeddah 2010-06-22

Europe.
Belarus 38.9 °C(102 °F) Gomel 2010-08-07[3]

Cyprus 46.6 °C (115.9 °F) Lefkoniko, Cyprus 2010-08-0

Finland 37.2 °C (99.0 °F) Liperi 2010-07-29

Russia 44.0 °C (111.2 °F) Yashkul, Kalmykia 2010-07-11

Ukraine 42.0 °C (107.6 °F) Luhansk 2010-08-12
www.wunderground.com...

That is 13 new highest temperature records in One year. Solar minimum.
They said this.
www.int-res.com...


We found no evidence for an increase in record temperatures. The fact that intra-annual and intra-monthly variance is declining suggests that we should see fewer record temperatures


Which totally failed.
And you consider this valid as a skeptical view point on AGW.

How many other "papers in the list" are outdated incorrect view points?

I guess you need to bump the numbers.

Geez, that list of yours is looking good.
No really. I mean it.

P.S.
Still waiting on the reference to the review of E&E.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Poptech
You continue to fail to demonstrate this because that is only the continental U.S. and they start at 1950.


www.sciencedaily.com...

June was the fourth consecutive month that was the warmest on record for the combined global land and surface temperatures (March, April, and May were also the warmest). This was the 304th consecutive month with a combined global land and surface temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below average temperatures was February 1985.
It was the warmest June on record for the land surfaces of the globe. Previous record was set in 2005. The land surface temperature exceeded the previous record by 0.11˚C (0.20˚F). This large difference over land contributed strongly to the overall global land and ocean temperature anomaly.
The worldwide oceans experienced the fourth warmest June on record. Sea surface temperatures across the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean continued to decrease, damping ocean surface temperatures.
According to Beijing Climate Center, Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, and Jilin experienced their warmest June since records began in 1951. Meanwhile, Guizhou had its coolest June on record.
Spain experienced its coolest June temperature anomaly since 1997, according to Spain's meteorological office.
Year -to-Date January -- June 2010 Global Temperature Anomalies
Highlights:
The year-to-date (January-June) combined global land and ocean temperature was the warmest on record.
The worldwide land surface temperature had its second warmest year-to-date (January-June), behind 2007.
The worldwide ocean temperature was the second warmest year-to-date (January-June), behind 1998.
2010 surpassed 1998 (Feb, Jul, Aug) for the most "warmest months" in any calendar year.


www.sciencedaily.com...


The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for both April and for the period from January-April, according to NOAA. Additionally, last month's average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for any April, and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record.


www.sciencedaily.com...


ScienceDaily (Oct. 18, 2009) — The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the second warmest September on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Based on records going back to 1880, the monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides.


www.sciencedaily.com...


ScienceDaily (Apr. 20, 2009) — The combined global land and ocean surface average temperature for March 2009 was the 10th warmest since records began in 1880, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.


www.sciencedaily.com...


ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2010) — The world's combined global land and ocean surface temperature made last month the warmest March on record, according to NOAA. Taken separately, average ocean temperatures were the warmest for any March and the global land surface was the fourth warmest for any March on record. Additionally, the planet has seen the fourth warmest January -- March period on record.


Why is it so warm.
Well, one of your "friends" on the skeptics list tells us.
climaterealists.com...
In it Kinnmonth actually states this.

There is little disagreement that additional CO2 in the atmosphere will enhance the greenhouse
effect.

Are we pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?
Yes.
Will that effect the climate? Yes
He actually agrees that there is AGW.

You sure you want this guy on your "side".

Anyway, back to the list of GLOBAL warming trends.
www.sciencedaily.com...

ScienceDaily (June 17, 2010) — The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for May, March-May (Northern Hemisphere spring-Southern Hemisphere autumn), and the period January-May according to NOAA. Worldwide average land surface temperature for May and March-May was the warmest on record while the global ocean surface temperatures for both May and March-May were second warmest on record, behind 1998.


Oh, and BTW, we are still not in solar maximum and we ae moving out of La nina.
Imagine the trends when we hit solar maximum in El Nino.
You can say goodbye to 1998 records around 2012/2013.
Care to take a wager?



ScienceDaily (July 27, 2009) — The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Additionally, the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest on record. The global records began in 1880.

www.sciencedaily.com...

There you go.
Records in both hemispheres and the ocean over two years in La Nina and we are slowly coming out of an extended solar minimum, not to mention the trend in decreasing solar irradiance.
biocab.org...

According to the satellite data, solar irradiance has once again decreased from 2001 to the present. Currently, solar irradiance is decreasing and changes of surface temperature are also decreasing.


And we are still getting records.
Hmmmmm.
I wonder what it could be. Lets have a look at what YOUR skeptics think.
Kinnmonth states this.

There is little disagreement that additional CO2 in the atmosphere will enhance the greenhouse
effect.

Are we pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?
Yes.
Will that effect the climate? Yes
Is that observed?
Yes.
We are seeing warming even though solar irradiance has decreased, we are in a cool cycle of the oscillation and sun spot activity is coming out of an extended minimum.
You do the math,



edit on 11/11/10 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
Your list does not remove the fact that the "papers" you calim are skeptical of AGW are in fact wrong.

Incorrect, you have failed to demonstrate this.


Th whole point of my post was pointing out that even though they may raise skepticism, it is the CONTENT of that skepticism that should be used to judge its VALIDITY and not the fact that it is merely skeptical of AGW.

And you have failed to make this point.


Again, here is one of your 'skeptical papers' and the contents of that skepticism which FAILS.

It was done in 1998, the hottest year to date( at sloar maximum in El nino ) that claims we should not see any warming trends or "record maximiums".

www.int-res.com...


We found no evidence for an increase in record temperatures. The fact that intra-annual and intra-monthly variance is declining suggests that we should see fewer record temperatures

Lie, it does not say you will not see any but rather fewer. You have failed to provide a peer-reviewed paper that discredit's the original's findings of reduced temperature variability as the century progressed.


Have a look at the records set this year.

Lets look,

-14 °C Eskdalemuir, Scotland (January 4, 2010)
-16.7 °C Beijing, China (January 6, 2010)
1.6 °C West Palm Beach, Florida (January 5, 2010)
-2.2 °C Tampa, Florida (January 6, 2010)
-2.7 °C Lakeland, Florida (January 6, 2010)
-24.7 °C Bonghwa, South Korea (January 6, 2010)
-25.9 °C Munsan, South Korea (January 6, 2010)
-41 °C Røros, Norway (January 6, 2010)
3.8 °C Havana, Cuba (January 11, 2010)
2.2 °C Miami, Florida (January 11, 2010)
-3.8 °C Tampa, Florida (January 11, 2010)
-10 °C Tallahassee, Florida (January 11, 2010)
-24.5 °C Knezha, Bulgaria (January 25, 2010)
-16.1 °C Fairbanks, Alasks (September 29, 2010)
-3.8 °C Queensland, Australia (November 4, 2010)



Which totally failed.

You failed and lied.


Still waiting on the reference to the review of E&E.

What review? WTF are you talking about?
edit on 11-11-2010 by Poptech because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-11-2010 by Poptech because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-11-2010 by Poptech because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Yawn...

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

NOAA: U.S. Has 36th Coolest Spring on Record

NOAA: 2008 Temperature for U.S. Near Average, was Coldest Since 1997; Below Average for December


In it Kinnmonth actually states this.

"There is little disagreement that additional CO2 in the atmosphere will enhance the greenhouse
effect"

He actually agrees that there is AGW.

You sure you want this guy on your "side".

LMAO, you are clueless. Many skeptics support that CO2 can have a greenhouse effect, it is the magnitude and the potential "catastrophe" they disagree with. When you ask if I want someone who is arguing against alarm on my side, of course! The list is explicitly titled:

800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
edit on 11-11-2010 by Poptech because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   

LMAO, you are clueless.
Maybe you can add me to your Skeptics list.


Many skeptics support that CO2 can have a greenhouse effect, it is the magnitude and the potential "catastrophe" they disagree with.

Tsk. Tsk. Don't move the goal posts now.

The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.
www.populartechnology.net...
Yawn. Skeptical of AGW!

Are we pumping CO2 into the atmosphere? Yes.
Will this effect the climate? Yes.
This is AGW.
Are we observing Global Warming? Yes.
Are we observing trends that will effect people?Yes.
Are people concerned? Yes, and some are alarmed, especially people in the Maldives, I suggest the Skeptics pick up and move there if they think the "alarmists" have got it wrong.


I agree that in any debate there is a spectrum of opinion, ranging to the extreme, and we see this with proponents of AGW as well as those skeptical of this. But your list does not state that it is only concerned with "Alarm". It does not even clarify what "Alarm" is in any context so as to clarify what it is actually skeptical about.
Generalizing the debate and any opinion relating to action on climate change to "alarm" in order to debase the topic. That is all the intention is as I will show later in this post.




When you ask if I want someone who is arguing against alarm on my side, of course!

You can dress your denial up in any costume you want buddy.
Calling it skepticism of "Alarm" does not negate the fact that you needed to bump numbers with pseudo- science from the Likes of Archibald and Kinnimonth, Balling, Micheals, Singer, Ball et al.

BTW, I don't need a published paper to understand how Kinnimonth and Archibald are Wrong. A simple look at the material, if you understand it, tells you that they are wrong.

Lets take Archibald, maybe you can answer these questions for me.
From this post

Climate outlook to 2030 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 615-619, September 2007)
- David C. Archibald


One common claim and argument that Archibald sited is that the Earth has not warmed since 1998. Which in a context is correct, as 1998 was unusually hot and the hottest year to date, but the 30 year trend shows it is warming. So he cherry picks his point to dismiss a long term trend. The quotes below show that he is wrong as we are seeing new warm records.
He distorts sea ice data.
He shows no scale in solar isolation when linking it to temperature and is only using data for the USA.

He links the Dalton Minimum to a 2 degree decline in Europe but forgets to mention Two volcanic eruptions that wiped out an entire Summer, the Tambora eruption that is recorded in the Ice core Data as a sulphate spike.

Now on to this little bit.


We found no evidence for an increase in record temperatures.
Really!

The fact that intra-annual and intra-monthly variance is declining suggests that we should see fewer record temperatures

Lie, it does not say you will not see any but rather fewer. You have failed to provide a peer-reviewed paper that discredit's the original's findings of reduced temperature variability as the century progressed.

I am not lying, they are wrong. It is just that you either don't understand what they are talking about or you are being deliberately ignorant.
I don't need provide peer reviewed material to address the significance of reduced variability, because, they use variability to predict trends in the climate. That they got wrong. They show that they are wrong. With their predictions.
All that you see is the word "decline", and "no evidence for an increase in record temps" and "fewer record temps" etc. But what you need to understand is that they are using a decline in variance between days, months and years. They did not find a decline in temperature, they are trying to link decline in variation to a decline in temperature.

AND you have used this is the list as Skepticism of Global Warming, I don't see them addressing alarm.
Epic Fail.

So!
I don't need to address the variance issue because they are trying to link a decline in variation as being significant to the overall trend in warming and the subsequent belief that there will be fewer record temps.
They failed. The facts speak for themselves.
Do you even understand what you are using. The fact that both you and I have plastered this thread with records SHOWS this to be wrong.
Thanks for helping me prove my point.

I guess this is fewer records BTW though, hey!



www.sciencedaily.com...

June was the fourth consecutive month that was the warmest on record for the combined global land and surface temperatures (March, April, and May were also the warmest). This was the 304th consecutive month with a combined global land and surface temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below average temperatures was February 1985.

Who gives a stuff about the variation between the days, months, or years.
This is what you said I need to show.

You have failed to provide a peer-reviewed paper that discredit's the original's findings of reduced temperature variability as the century progressed.

I don't need to show a reduced variability. Because the trend is record setting. Read the above as just one example of data that show no use for linking a decline in variability with climate temperature that will show fewer record temps.

It was the warmest June on record for the land surfaces of the globe. Previous record was set in 2005. The land surface temperature exceeded the previous record by 0.11˚C (0.20˚F). This large difference over land contributed strongly to the overall global land and ocean temperature anomaly.
The worldwide oceans experienced the fourth warmest June on record. Sea surface temperatures across the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean continued to decrease, damping ocean surface temperatures.
According to Beijing Climate Center, Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, and Jilin experienced their warmest June since records began in 1951. Meanwhile, Guizhou had its coolest June on record.
Spain experienced its coolest June temperature anomaly since 1997, according to Spain's meteorological office.
Year -to-Date January -- June 2010 Global Temperature Anomalies
Highlights:
The year-to-date (January-June) combined global land and ocean temperature was the warmest on record.
The worldwide land surface temperature had its second warmest year-to-date (January-June), behind 2007.
The worldwide ocean temperature was the second warmest year-to-date (January-June), behind 1998.
2010 surpassed 1998 (Feb, Jul, Aug) for the most "warmest months" in any calendar year.


www.sciencedaily.com...


The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for both April and for the period from January-April, according to NOAA. Additionally, last month's average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for any April, and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record.


www.sciencedaily.com...


ScienceDaily (Oct. 18, 2009) — The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the second warmest September on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Based on records going back to 1880, the monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides.


www.sciencedaily.com...


ScienceDaily (Apr. 20, 2009) — The combined global land and ocean surface average temperature for March 2009 was the 10th warmest since records began in 1880, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.


www.sciencedaily.com...


ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2010) — The world's combined global land and ocean surface temperature made last month the warmest March on record, according to NOAA. Taken separately, average ocean temperatures were the warmest for any March and the global land surface was the fourth warmest for any March on record. Additionally, the planet has seen the fourth warmest January -- March period on record.



www.sciencedaily.com...

ScienceDaily (June 17, 2010) — The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for May, March-May (Northern Hemisphere spring-Southern Hemisphere autumn), and the period January-May according to NOAA. Worldwide average land surface temperature for May and March-May was the warmest on record while the global ocean surface temperatures for both May and March-May were second warmest on record, behind 1998.




ScienceDaily (July 27, 2009) — The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Additionally, the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest on record. The global records began in 1880.

Yep, that seems to be fewer.



On the subject of the record Lows you like to spam.
Just show a global trend in cooling.
That is all you have to do mate!
I mean, why bother with individual examples. You should be able to show a global trend in cooling if all these record lows are significant.
That is the same logic applied to the record highs. I can show record highs with a trend in warming GLOBALLY.
If all your spam cooling links are significant to this debate you should easily show a trend of GLOBAL cooling.
That would make you records significant as a trend.
Can you do that?

If you could, you wouldn't need lame papers that attempt to link inter annual and monthly variations as "skepticism".


What I find the most amusing is the quote you have on PopTech.

It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints.
Comment By John H.
www.populartechnology.net...

This is how you misrepresent stuff.
From your list. The paper of the "decline in variability" that you use a skepticism of AGW.
www.int-res.com...

Patrick J. Michaels1,*, Robert C. Balling Jr2, Russell S. Vose2, Paul C. Knappenberger1

Robert C. Balling.

Between December 1998[1] and September 2001[2] Balling was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[3]
Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). [4] Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.

www.sourcewatch.org...


Next.
Paul Keppenberg.

Paul C. ("Chip") Knappenberger is the Administrator of the World Climate Report[1], a blog published by New Hope Environmental Services, "an advocacy science consulting firm"[2] run by global warming skeptic, Patrick J. Michaels. New Hope Environmental Services does not disclose its clients but these have included fossil-fuel based power utilities including Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association and Intermountain Rural Electric Association. In an affidavit in a court case Michaels argued against disclosure of his clients on the grounds that "large companies are understandably adverse to negative publicity. Thus, the global warming controversy has created an environment in which companies who wish to support New Hope's research and advocacy about global warming science are increasingly willing to do so only if their support remains confidential
www.sourcewatch.org...
Wow.
What a co-incidence, the next guy who authored the paper Patrick J. Micheals.
This is a great quote from Pat:

Michaels was, until late 2007, a Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia Department of Environmental Sciences. A biographical note at that time described Michaels "research interests" as being "The core issue over the next ten years will not be "How much will the climate warm?" but, rather, "Why did it warm so little?"
We can see how little all those records are!

Any way, guess what Pat also does.

Michaels spoke at events organized by the Consumer Alert, the North Carolina Coal Institute, the Pacific Research Institute, the Kentucky Coal Operators Association, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the Virginia Coal Council, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, AMAX Energy Corporation, Consolidation Coal Corporation, Cincinnati Gas and Electric, Chief Executive Conference on Global Warming, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Aerosol Association, the Massie Coal Corporation, the Indiana Coal Mining Institute, the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Virginia Petroleum Council, the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Wyoming Mining Association, Virginia Power, Amax Energy Corporation, American Electric Power, Alabama Electric Power Cooperative, the American Policy Center, the World Coal Conference, American Public Power Association, American Mining Congress, Maine Conservation Rights Institute, the Federalist Society, the Kentucky Mining Institute, Denver Coal Club and the Ashland Oil Corporation.[3] (See Patrick Michaels speaking engagements for further details).

Wow. Imagine that, all those Big oil and power companies.

Michaels was also a "supporter" of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, an industry-funded PR front group created in 1993 and run by the APCO Worldwide public relations firm. It worked to hang the label of "junk science" on environmentalists. The group is now defunct.[19]

Can you say "spread disinformation please Mr. Pat Micheals"?


Michaels prominence also led to new funding from fossil fuel interests. In 1991-92 an anonymous donor made of grant of $50,000 to Michaels for his work on climate change, the Edison Electric Institute paid $25,000 between 1992 and 1995 for a literature review of climate change and updates. Western Fuels Association contributed $63,000 for "research on global climate change" and between 1994 $98,000 from Gesamtverband des Deutschen Stenkohlenbergbaus in Germany.[3]
Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels."[22]
One substantial benefit in having created New Hope Environmental Services was that corporate funders could route financial support for Michaels work via the firm which was under no obligation to disclose who its clients were. After its was created, further corporate funding was noticeably absent from Michaels university curriculum vitae.[3] He continued to attract public funding for projects, such as $195,000 from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality for "research on science and policy on global warming." He also gained $98,000 from the Cato Institute to underwrite the the production of The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming, a book he co-authored with Robert C. Balling, Jr.[3]
A furor was raised when it was revealed in 2006 that, at customer expense, Patrick Michaels was quietly paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), which burns coal to help confuse the issue of global warming. In a nine-page memo, the general manager of the Colorado-based IREA co-operative, Stanley Lewandowski Jr., railed against the the scientific consensus supporting the need to curb greenhouse gases. The memo, which was circulated in mid-July 2006 to more than 900 members of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, was leaked to ABC News. "We decided to support Dr. Patrick Michaels and his group (New Hope Environmental Services, Inc.) ... In February of this year, IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels." Lewandowski also wrote that IREA had rattled the tin for Michaels amongst other groups and "have obtained additional contributions and pledges for Dr. Michaels group." The memo also reports on others campaigning against taking action to limit climate change. "The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has been running two ads in ten states that were financed by General Motors and the Ford Motor Company," he wrote.[23] [24]

In an August 2010 interview with CNN, Michaels estimated that about 40% of his funding came from the oil industry.[26]
www.sourcewatch.org...

Thats three from four all working for think tanks associated with Big Oil and Energy. What a coincidence!

So this is how it works. You fund guys to write papers that look skeptical of AGW. They then write a paper that states

We found no evidence for an increase in record temperatures. The fact that intra-annual and intra-monthly variance is declining suggests that we should see fewer record temperatures

They then get a journal, one outside the field (hello journal focused on Energy) of expertise, to publish the journal. It is then posted on blogs and websites that are linked to the groups that these men also are associated with. It is spread as "skeptical science".

Patrick Michaels was quietly paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), which burns coal to help confuse the issue of global warming.
www.sourcewatch.org...
Then it appears on Poptech. Then an ATS member fooled into thinking it is a genuine piece of skepticism posted it here for debate. Then I read it. And reviewed it. Researched it. Criticized it.
Then you turned up, Poptech.


That sick feeling in your stomach right now, don't fight it, its just the truth sinking in.
How many other papers on your list by these Boys?

Let me tell you.
A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
- Robert C. Balling Jr.

A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

- Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

- A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data: Erratum (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 265-268, December 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature measurements (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-33, April 1998)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling Jr, Russell S. Vose, Paul C. Knappenberger


Anthropogenic Warming in North Alaska?
(Journal of Climate, Volume 1, Issue 9, pp. 942–945, September 1988)
- Patrick J. Michaels et al.


Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels


Do Facts Matter Anymore?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 323-326, May 2003)
- Patrick J. Michaels

Evaluating the climatic effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 via an analysis of Earth's historical temperature record
(The Science of The Total Environment, Volume 106, Issue 3, pp. 239-242, July 1991)
- Sherwood B. Idso, Robert C. Balling Jr.


Evidence for "publication Bias" Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
- Patrick J. Michaels


Global Warming: A Reduced Threat?
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 73, Issue 10, pp. 1563–1577, October 1992)
- Patrick J. Michaels, David E. Stooksbury

Interpreting the Global Temperature Record
(Economic Affairs, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp. 18-21, April 1994)
- Robert C. Balling Jr.

Nature of observed temperature changes across the United States during the 20th century (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 17, Number 1, pp. 45–53, July 2001)
- Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Robert E. Davis


Natural signals in the MSU lower tropospheric temperature record
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 27, Number 18, pp. 2905–2908, September 2000)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger


Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, December 2007)
- Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels


Surface air temperature response to increasing global industrial productivity: A beneficial greenhouse effect?
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 44, Number 1, pp. 37-41, March 1991)
- Sherwood B. Idso, Robert C. Balling Jr.


Test for harmful collinearity among predictor variables used in modeling global temperature (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 24, Number 1, pp. 15-18, June 2003)
- David H. Douglass, B. David Clader, John R. Christy, Patrick J. Michaels, David A. Belsley


The greenhouse effect and global change: review and reappraisal
(International Journal of Environmental Studies, Volume 36, Numbers 1-2, pp. 55-71, July 1990)
- Patrick J. Michaels


The Way of Warming (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 23, Number 3, 2000)
- Patrick J. Michaels

Changing Heat-Related Mortality in the United States (PDF)
(Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 111, Number 14, pp. 1712-1718, November 2003)
- Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Wendy M. Novicoff

One

Decadal changes in heat-related human mortality in the eastern United States (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 175-184. September 2002)
- Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Wendy M. Novicoff, Patrick J. Michaels

Two
Decadal changes in summer mortality in U.S. cities
(International Journal of Biometeorology, Volume 47, Number 3, pp. 166-175, May 2003)
- Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Wendy M. Novicoff, Patrick J. Michaels

Three.

Seasonality of climate–human mortality relationships in US cities and impacts of climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 1, pp. 61-76, April 2004)
- Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels,
Wendy M. Novicoff

Hang on, those three papers are the SAME, just a different journal, year and title!!!!!!
I guess you need to bump the numbers.

Sea-surface temperatures and tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 9, May 2006)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Robert E. Davis

Characteristics of long-duration precipitation events across the United States
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 22, November 2007)
- David M. Brommer, Randall S. Cerveny, Robert C. Balling Jr.


Compilation and Discussion of Trends in Severe Storms in the United States: Popular Perception v. Climate Reality
(Natural Hazards, Volume 29, Number 2, pp. 103-112, June 2003)
- Robert C. Balling Jr., Randall S. Cerveny


Greenhouse warming may moderate British storminess
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 46, Numbers 3-4, September 1991)
- Robert C. Balling Jr., Randall S. Cerveny, T. A. Miller, Sherwood B. Idso


Trends in precipitation on the wettest days of the year across the contiguous USA?
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 24, Number 15, pp. 1873-1882, December 2004)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis


Analysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temperature database (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp. 25-1, May 2002)
- Robert C. Balling Jr., Craig D. Idso


Scientific Shortcomings in the EPA's Endangerment Finding from Greenhouse Gases (PDF)
(The Cato Journal, Volume 29 Number 3, pp. 497-521, 2009)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger


The Failure of the Popular Vision of Global Warming
(Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 9, Number 1, pp. 53-82, 1992)
- Patrick J. Michaels


The greenhouse effect: Chicken Little and our response to global warming
(Journal of Forestry, Journal Volume 87, Number 7, pp. 35-39, 1989)
- Patrick J. Michaels


- Human effect on global climate? (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 384, Number 6609, pp. 522-523, December 1996)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger


Patrick Michaels was quietly paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), which burns coal to help confuse the issue of global warming.
www.sourcewatch.org...

Paul C. ("Chip") Knappenberger is the Administrator of the World Climate Report[1], a blog published by New Hope Environmental Services, "an advocacy science consulting firm"[2] run by global warming skeptic, Patrick J. Michaels. New Hope Environmental Services does not disclose its clients but these have included fossil-fuel based power utilities including Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association and Intermountain Rural Electric Association. In an affidavit in a court case Michaels argued against disclosure of his clients on the grounds that "large companies are understandably adverse to negative publicity.

www.sourcewatch.org...

Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). [4] Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.

www.sourcewatch.org...


I think you need to change the name of the 800 peer reviewed papers, most of which are written by just a few people who are paid to present skeptical view points.









edit on 12/11/10 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


hehe nice work atlasastro!


Unfortunately I think you and I both know there's no convincing these far gone idealogues when they made their bed a long time ago and now refuse to wake up and acknowledge how much the entire frame is built on lies, corrupt science and corporate fraud.

So the more you point this uncomfortable reality out to them, the more they'll just shriek it's some sort of ad hominem attack, and how "dogmatic" you are for playing this card - even though their entire deck is based on the idea that mainstream science is lying and corrupt.


But I thought I'd pile a few more logs onto the cognitive denier dissonance fire you just started:


Also referenced multiple times on Poptech's list (I hit control+F and counted):

Sherwood B. Idso (66 times):

Here's all that really needs to be said about Dr. Idso's ethics:


In 1991, the Western Fuels Association spent $250,000 to produce a propaganda video which was shown extensively in the George Bush White House as well as in the capitals of OPEC. Titled "The Greening of Planet Earth," the video is narrated by Dr. Sherwood Idso, a "greenhouse skeptic" who was also scheduled to participate in the coal industry's "ICE" public relations campaign. The film was produced by a company headed by Idso's wife and funded by the coal industry.

U.S. Coal Industry: Global Warming Is Good For Us

Video can be found here.


Now another scientist featured in that propaganda filled claptrap is none other than -

Richard Lindzen (cited in Poptech's list 23 times):

He's also deeply tied to this Western Fuels Association - which is a $400 million+ consortium of coal utilities if anyone's wondering by the way -


Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

That quote comes from a 1995 article that also points out in May of that year, Lindzen was hired as as part of a panel of 3 expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels on the environmental impacts of coal burning.

Guess who the other 2 expert witnesses were:

Pat Michaels and Robert Balling.

Source
THE HEAT IS ON: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial
Ross Geldspan, Harper's Magazine 1995

SHILLS man. Such OBVIOUS lobbyist tools. And these are the so-called experts the denialists use to question the integrity of the mainstream scientific establishment? What a total. utter. ludicrous. JOKE.

My favorite thing about Michaels is you don't even need to dig up any sources to find what out what a corporate stooge he is - you can hear it straight from the horse's mouth:
Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil

I could go on considering there's so many other notorious sheisters on that list like Willie Soon (cited 22 times) and Ross McKitrick (16 times)...but what's the use...

So I'll end with this:

Roy Spencer, whose name actually appears "only" 7 times - which is surprising considering he's one of the most well known, outspoken "anti-alarmist" climate skeptic soothsayers out there.

But maybe his lack of formal participation in the peer-review denier pool party is because of stuff like this:



That's Spencer's own UAH satellite data.

So this whole "it's getting colder" nonsense isn't even validated by the skeptics themselves.

But yeah - let's keep flooding threads with irrelevant links to snowstorms and freezing walruses to obfuscate and derail this discussion. Because we all know that's the skeptics only M.O. - since science wise they don't have an actual leg to stand on. 450, 800, 23857892 papers - whatever - still not a shred of any real substance within them.

edit on 12-11-2010 by mc_squared because: c is for cookie



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro Maybe you can add me to your Skeptics list.

But you are not a skeptic so that is illogical.


Tsk. Tsk. Don't move the goal posts now.

They were never moved, you created the strawman argument yourself.



The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.
www.populartechnology.net...
Yawn. Skeptical of AGW!

Yes, some are and others are supporting skepticism of the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.


Are we pumping CO2 into the atmosphere? Yes.
Will this effect the climate? Yes.

This is debatable, especially the magnitude.


Are we observing Global Warming? Yes.

That depends on your starting point. Since the end of the little ice age there is only evidence of a mild fraction of a degree increase in global temperature,




Are we observing trends that will effect people?Yes.

The alleged negative effects are debatable.


Are people concerned? Yes, and some are alarmed, especially people in the Maldives, I suggest the Skeptics pick up and move there if they think the "alarmists" have got it wrong.

This is discredited with a peer-reviewed paper on the list,

New perspectives for the future of the Maldives
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 40, Issue 1-2, pp. 177-182, January 2004)
- Nils-Axel Morner, Michael Tooley, Goran Possnert


"Novel prospects for the Maldives do not include a condemnation to future flooding. The people of the Maldives have, in the past, survived a higher sea level of about 50–60 cm. The present trend lack signs of a sea level rise. On the contrary, there is firm morphological evidence of a significant sea level fall in the last 30 years. This sea level fall is likely to be the effect of increased evaporation and an intensification of the NE-monsoon over the central Indian Ocean."


I agree that in any debate there is a spectrum of opinion, ranging to the extreme, and we see this with proponents of AGW as well as those skeptical of this. But your list does not state that it is only concerned with "Alarm". It does not even clarify what "Alarm" is in any context so as to clarify what it is actually skeptical about.

It explicitly says "Alarm". Generally this is any negative economic or environmental effect of AGW.


Generalizing the debate and any opinion relating to action on climate change to "alarm" in order to debase the topic. That is all the intention is as I will show later in this post.

Alarmists such as yourself always have a hard time understanding what would be considered alarming, you simply have further confirmed this hypothesis.


You can dress your denial up in any costume you want buddy.
Calling it skepticism of "Alarm" does not negate the fact that you needed to bump numbers with pseudo- science from the Likes of Archibald and Kinnimonth, Balling, Micheals, Singer, Ball et al.

You can state as many lies as you like but it does not make them anymore true. All the papers listed support skepticism of AGW Alarm.


BTW, I don't need a published paper to understand how Kinnimonth and Archibald are Wrong.

You have failed to produce peer-reviewed papers that refute their papers in the peer-reviewed literature and thus have nothing.


I am not lying, they are wrong. It is just that you either don't understand what they are talking about or you are being deliberately ignorant.

Wrong, you lied. The paper does not state any but rather fewer


I don't need provide peer reviewed material to address...

Just like I though nothing. When you can locate a peer-reviewed rebuttal let me know.


On the subject of the record Lows you like to...
Just show a global trend in cooling.
That is all you have to do mate!

Easy,




What I find the most amusing is the quote you have on PopTech.

It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints.
Comment By John H.

Yes in the context that a counter viewpoint to their own does not exist in the peer-reviewed literature. It is safe to say skeptics have never made this argument about alarmists.

And once all your pathetic arguments get shot down you turn right away to smears from a smear website full of lies,

$$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy

- Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)

A project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), [...]

These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities... [...]

As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: "You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques." [...]

...The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.

- Center for Media and Democracy (Discover the Networks)

An anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization that seeks to expose right-wing "public relations spin and propaganda".

In CMD's view, capitalism generally, and corporations in particular, are the principal root causes of societal ills in the U.S. and abroad. The Capital Research Center, which rates the ideological leanings of nonprofit organizations, places CMD near the extreme far left of the spectrum. The website ActivistCash, which provides "information about the funding source[s] of radical anti-consumer organizations and activists," characterizes CMD as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization." [...]

CMD was founded by the leftist writer and environmental activist John Stauber, who continues to serve as the Center's Executive Director. Stauber began his activism in high school when he organized anti-Vietnam War protests and early Earth Day events. The co-author (with SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton) of six books, Stauber created the now-defunct website Vote2StopBush.org. He is also an unpaid advisor to several organizations, including the Action Coalition for Media Education, the Center for Food Safety, the Liberty Tree Foundation, the Media Education Foundation, and the Organic Consumers Association.

The aforementioned Sheldon Rampton currently serves as CMD's Research Director. A graduate of Princeton University, Rampton was formerly an outreach coordinator for the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, a group established in 1984 to oppose President Reagan's efforts to stop the spread of Communism in Central America, and currently dedicated to promoting a leftist vision of "social justice in Nicaragua through alternative models of development and activism."

An April 2001 commentary in the liberal publication Village Voice said of Rampton and Stauber: "These guys come from the far side of liberal."

- Center for Media & Democracy (Activist Cash)

The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own.



So this is how it works. You fund guys to write papers that look skeptical of AGW. ...They then get a journal, one outside the field (hello journal focused on Energy) of expertise, to publish the journal. It is then posted on blogs and websites that are linked to the groups that these men also are associated with. It is spread as "skeptical science". ...Then it appears on Poptech. Then an ATS member fooled into thinking it is a genuine piece of skepticism posted it here for debate.

All lies. There are over 200 peer-reviewed journals on the list,

Journal Citation List:

AAPG Bulletin
Academic Questions
Advances in Geosciences
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Space Research
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Agricultural Meteorology
Agricultural Water Management
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Ambio
American Journal of Botany
Annales Geophysicae
Annals of Applied Statistics
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Applied Energy
Aquatic Botany
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
Arctic and Alpine Research
Area
Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law
Astronautics and Aeronautics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Astrophysics and Space Science Library
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Atmospheric Environment
British Medical Journal (BMJ)
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS)
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
Central European Journal of Physics
Chemical Engineering Progress
Chemical Innovation
Climate Dynamics
Climate of the Past
Climate Research
Climatic Change
Cold Regions Science and Technology
Comptes Rendus Geosciences
Contemporary South Asia
Current Opinion in Biotechnology
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Ecological Complexity
Ecological Modelling
Ecological Monographs
Ecology
Economic Affairs
Economic Analysis and Policy
Economics Bulletin
Emerging Infectious Diseases
Energy
Energy & Environment
Energy Fuels
Energy Policy
Energy Sources
Environment International
Environmental and Experimental Botany
Environmental Conservation
Environmental Geology
Environmental Geosciences
Environmental Health Perspectives
Environmental Law and Management
Environmental Politics
Environmental Research
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Environmental Software
Environmetrics
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
Fresenius' Journal of Analytical Chemistry
Futures
Geografiska Annaler
Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography
GeoJournal
Geology
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
Geophysical Research Letters
Geoscience Canada
Global and Planetary Change
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Global Change Biology
Global Environmental Change
GSA Today
Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences
Hydrological Sciences Journal
Il Nuovo Cimento C
Interfaces
International Journal of Biometeorology
International Journal of Climatology
International Journal of Environmental Studies
International Journal of Forecasting
International Journal of Global Energy Issues
International Journal of Global Warming
International Journal of Modern Physics B
International Journal of Remote Sensing
International Quarterly for Asian Studies
International Social Science Journal
Irish Astronomical Journal
Irrigation and Drainage
Iron & Steel Technology
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics
Journal of Biogeography
Journal of Chemical Education
Journal of Climate
Journal of Coastal Research
Journal of Cosmology
Journal of Environmental Sciences
Journal of Environmental Quality
Journal of Experimental Botany
Journal of Forestry
Journal of Fusion Energy
Journal of Geophysical Research
Journal of Hydrology
Journal of Information Ethics
Journal of International Studies
Journal of Lake Sciences
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering
Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics
Journal of Paleolimnology
Journal of Plant Physiology
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Journal of the American Water Resources Association
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society
Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering
Journal of Vegetation Science
La Chimica e l'Industria
Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Malaria Journal
Marine Geology
Marine Pollution Bulletin
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
Meteorologische Zeitschrift
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
Monthly Weather Review
Moscow University Physics Bulletin
Natural Hazards
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
Natural Hazards Review
Nature
Nature Biotechnology
Nature Geoscience
Netherlands Journal of Geosciences
New Astronomy
New Concepts In Global Tectonics
New Literary History
New Phytologist
New Zealand Geographer
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
Nordic Hydrology
Norwegian Polar Institute Letters
Oceanologica Acta
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Paleoceanography
Paleontological Journal
Physical Geography
Physical Review E
Physical Review Letters
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth
Physics Letters A
Physics Reports
Physics Today
Planetary and Space Science
Plant, Cell & Environment
Plant Ecology
Plant Physiology
PLoS Biology
Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering
Proceedings of the ICE - Civil Engineering
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union
Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
Proceedings of the Royal Society A
Progress in Physical Geography
Public Administration Review
Pure and Applied Geophysics
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
Quaternary International
Quaternary Research
Quaternary Science Reviews
Regulation
Risk Analysis
Russian Journal of Earth Sciences
Science
Science of the Total Environment
Science, Technology & Human Values
Scientia Horticulturae
Social Studies of Science
Society
Soil Science
Solar Physics
South African Journal of Science
Space Science Reviews
Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy
Statistics, Politics, and Policy
Surveys in Geophysics
Technology
Tellus A
The Astrophysical Journal
The Cato Journal
The Electricity Journal
The Holocene
The Independent Review
The Lancet
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
The Quarterly Review of Biology
The Review of Economics and Statistics
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
Topics in Catalysis
Waste Management
Water, Air, & Soil Pollution
Water Resources Research
Weather
Weather and Forecasting
World Economics

Journal Count: 226


One

Decadal changes in heat-related human mortality in the eastern United States (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 175-184. September 2002)
- Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Wendy M. Novicoff, Patrick J. Michaels

Two
Decadal changes in summer mortality in U.S. cities
(International Journal of Biometeorology, Volume 47, Number 3, pp. 166-175, May 2003)
- Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Wendy M. Novicoff, Patrick J. Michaels

Three.

Seasonality of climate–human mortality relationships in US cities and impacts of climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 1, pp. 61-76, April 2004)
- Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels,
Wendy M. Novicoff

Hang on, those three papers are the SAME, just a different journal, year and title!!!!!!
I guess you need to bump the numbers.

Absolute lie none of those papers are the same. Are you really that desperate?

Dr. Michaels and Dr. Balling have forgotten more about climate science than you know.

Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971), S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975), Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979), Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979), Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986), Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007), President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987), Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989), Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988), Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999), Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute (1992-Present), Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute (1996-Present), Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Member, Association of American Geographers, Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present), Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)

Robert C. Balling Jr., A.B. Geography, Wittenberg University (1974), M.A. Geography, Bowling Green State University (1975), Ph.D. Geography, University of Oklahoma (1979), Research Fellow, Center for Agricultural Meteorology and Climatology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (1979-1981), Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (1979-1984), Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Arizona State University (1985-1986), Research Associate, Laboratory of Climatology and Department of Geography, Arizona State University (1985-1987), Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, and Assistant Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University (1987-1988), Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, and Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University (1988-1989), Associate Professor, Department of Geography, and Director, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University (1989-1998), Professor, Department of Geography, and Director, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University (1998-2004), Contributer, IPCC (1991-Present), Professor, School of Geographical Sciences, and Director and/or Associate Director, Masters of Advanced Study, Geographic Information Systems Program, Arizona State University (2004-Present)

You have nothing.



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Poptech
 


lol and just like that you help prove exactly what I wrote in the above post.

Again does this look like it came from a website full of lies?
Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil

You frivolously accuse all of mainstream science of being corrupt and lying but then wah wah cry foul when you get a dose of your own medicine.

Pathetic.



new topics




 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join