By: By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle
(Reuters) – Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.
Getting this right is essential for the short and long-term planning of governments and businesses ranging from energy to construction, from agriculture to insurance. Many scientists say they expect a revival of warming in coming years.
Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.
The change may be a result of an observed decline in heat-trapping water vapor in the high atmosphere, for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations, scientists say.
Read the rest at: Reuters
“Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.”
Yeah, they were so right the first time ’round, that we should give them another shot at it?
My favorite part:
“Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.”
It’s just a pause now! No need to concern yourself with all the self righteous sanctimony, and fear-mongering of the last three decades, our imminent destruction is just on pause!
And for those of you that have been following this blog for some time now, does that third option they mention above look familiar at all to you? It should. I have posted many, many times about the narrow bandwidths, and diminishing returns of the heat absorbing properties of CO2.
They say that “Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change”, but I don’t even think that is right. The climate is changing at the same rate that is has changed for 4 1/2 billion years. Temperature is just one parameter of climate, and just because it has stopped, er, ah, um, paused does not mean climate change has paused. The climate is changing alright, it’s just getting COLDER!
Yeah, the enviro-mental whackos have no idea what’s going on, only a theory. But, hey, they have been brain washed with the liberal ideas of this c*r*a*p for , what, … maybe 5 or 6 decades. It started with several ‘naturalist’ like old Teddy Roosevelt and others and went on steroids in the 1950s and 1960s. The EPA added more steroids and from there several JATO packs were added. All we can hope for is to counter the lies they come up with and wait for the truth to come out that climate change isn’t really happening. Cut funding to the UN and IMF and fight the Cap and Trade idea. Do away with the EPA, IRS, TSA and most of the fed bureaucracies and their minions in order to cut spending and control government waste. And to think, all of this started with old Woodrow Wilson and TR.
Our top military staff accept that Global Warming happening, and the science and data behind that.
Do you think that our proud, brave and intelligent fighting men and women are idiots?
The hippies at the Pentagon are in on the scam? Seriously? Read the 2014 Quadrennial Review on AGW.
The Pentagon had the SAME view under Bush/Cheney. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-pentagons-guide-to-overcoming-climate-change-denial
Have the lefties at the US Navy joined them?? http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2009-02/arctic-melt-reopening-naval-frontier
Either you are with or against our Troops. Looks like the people here are desperate to undermine our military and preparedness.
Treasonous. You should all be ashamed.
That is a stretch. I guess you don’t understand what they do at the Pentagon. They game out every possible scenario, whether it be catastrophic global warming, or an invasion from aliens. They have studies, and reports on any possibility no matter how remote. I’m sure they have a report on global cooling and the possible effects of that too. It’s what they do! Just because they’ve done a study on it doesn’t mean that they believe, or accept it’s happening, or are advocating to take action. It just means that “if” it does happen, they have a contingency plan. Period. I think you are reading way too much into it.
What? That’s just the rationalizing of treasonous criticism of our armed forces.
Read the DoD 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review. http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf
Climate Change is not just one of a vast range of options our military is reviewing. It’s clueless to believe otherwise.
Actually read what our military is saying. Thankfully, they don’t have a knee-jerk political position to adhere to and aren’t in the pocket of the fossil fuel lobby.
And before anyone froths over Obama, they have had the SAME message for at over a decade.
“Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating.
These changes, coupled with other global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and infrastructure”.
Hey, I don’t mind if you have an opinion but calling my opinion “treasonous” is uncalled for. I served in the military for 5 years, and I am proud to have served. And I am not wrong about what I said about the Pentagon either. http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/11/the-pentagon-has-a-contingency-plan-if-blackberry-goes-belly-up/ http://www.exopoliticsgb.com/article/pentagon-plans-alien-invasion-exist-according-military-professor
I think the fact that they include a paragraph, that echos the exact position of the administration BTW, on the possible effects of AGW is more of a plea to get their budget increased than anything else. Read the executive summery, it’s pretty much one long whine about budget cuts.
As far as what is said about climate change, there are some major problems with it. “As greenhouse gas emissions increase.” Which they are, up over 400 ppm as of last year, so that bit is right. “Sea levels are rising” Well, this is true, but, the sea levels have been rising since the beginning of the latest inter-glacial period and there are problems with measuring sea levels. Mainly that the level of the land also changes because of isostatic rebound from the last glacial period, and tectonic plate movement. Here are some articles that cover these types of problems. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-changes/sea-level-rise/
“Average global temperatures are increasing.” Except that they have not in the last 16 years, i.e. the pause. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
“Severe weather patterns are accelerating.” http://www.wunderground.com/climate/extreme.asp http://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/content/there-really-increase-severe-weather http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/the-obama-administration-lies-about-hurricanes.php
So there you go Bucky. The argument that because the military says it, it must be true is a fallacy. Specifically the appeal to authority fallacy.
The so called past “evidence” is a bunch of hooey. Up until the mid 1940s, we had no way of actually “knowing” what was going on with the “climate”. The ice samples are only a theory and a guess at best. Telling me what was happening in the 1800s just doesn’t get it. I want CONCRETE data, not guess work. If anything caused a blip in the 1940s global temperature, it would be the result of WWII and atomic/nuclear testing, but only a small, temporary blip. There are several things that cause the so called climate change, and none of them are related to human existence. 1.) The solar variance along with the Milankovitch idea: Changes in the Earth’s position, within several million miles, due to its orbit and fluctuations. Just think, the inner two planets are at smoldering temps and the outer planets are frozen gasses. 2.) The Earth’s own molten core along with the geothermal zones, both ocean bottom and on land. A large volcano emits more damaging gasses and heat than the US of A over time. And just think, how many are there active, today??? That doesn’t include the moderate, constant zones all over the World. Try regulating all of that. Yes, there are changes, but they are natural and there’s nothing we can do about it. Wasting billions and billions of dollars, euroes and whatever, at climate change isn’t going to do anything but bankrupt the hard working tax payers and support the corrupt UN and their climate change minions. I do admit we need to be developing renewable energy sources, but not a break neck speeds and funded with tax monies going to corrupt politicos and their special interest buddies. The private sector is the best solution, even though it has some corruption. The natural laws will take care of them. Let the corporations pay for and benefit from their ideas. The day will come and we will be ready for it … in spite of ourselves. The problem I see with renewable energy sources is the extra long payback, if any. Example: The wind mills – very expensive, both in equipment, transporting and installation and that doesn’t include the ongoing maintenance. Payback – estimated at 20 years +. I venture to say that the payback never happens. The poor tax payer also paid for that bad venture also. Tax breaks, special fed funding, lost monies due to kick backs and fed corruption.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Well said.
I do disagree on one point, and that you said that climate change isn’t really happening. I disagree. The climate is most certainly changing as it has always done, for as long as there has been a climate it has gone through countless changes, and will continue to do so as long as there is a climate on this planet.
I think this point is important to understand because it is the one fact that has allowed this scam to go on as long as it has. When they were saying it’s going to get warmer, (because of CO2), it actually was getting warmer. This lent credence to the claim. Then when things weren’t going along as predicted, that’s when the names started to morph from “global warming” to “global climate change”, to my personal favorite “global climate disruption”!
Yeah, aside from that, I agree 100%.
Hi George. Intersting points, but can you explain to me why you consider paleoclimatic data such as ice core samples not to be data? Also, can you cite the peer reviewed science that finds solar forcing to be the primary driving force for climate change? If you visit the giss NASA website, and other scientific journals, I think you’ll find the science is now quite clear on this. Yes there is solar forcing, but it is slight compared to human emissions forcings. I think it is fair to request, since this has implications for future generations, that any scientific statements made here come accompanied with the peer reviewed research. Otherwise these are discussions of belief. Great to ask the questions, but scientific answers need to be backed up.
Hi Middle Way. Can you explain to me how the peer reviewed research and science from GISS, and other scientific journals have got it all wrong? Also, if human emissions forcing is so powerful, how do you explain, as the scientists in the posted story above are attempting, that there has been a “pause” in said forcing? I think part of the problem is that there has been within certain scientific communities, mainly climatology, that computer models are accepted as factual data, and are also accepted as scientific evidence. Then the model data is crunched by another team and another computer and the almost identical output of that model is called peer reviewed. I bet that just about everything you believe to be true about climate science is the direct result of computer modeling. I invite you to check that. Go back and look at everything you have read that has led you to your beliefs. I am willing to bet that most, if not all of them were the direct result of computer models. And I think that is true because all of the computer models were wrong, and now they are scrambling to explain it. But what’s more interesting is that the scientists who study the Sun have been pretty much right on with their predictions. Go figure.
Hi Neilio. I’m up for constructive debate, but not sure I follow your response on this matter. Peer reviewed research (the process of experts reviewing other experts work, and validating its scientific rigour) and GISS (one of the leading institutes for climatic research) don’t have it wrong. As is the scientific process, they are engaged in an ongoing analysis of the issue, refining their understanding over time. As for your bet, you have lost already. Much of GISS research under James Hansen, indeed it is the basis of his entire thesis, has been the examination of empirical paleoclimatic data (ie. ice cores). He himself understands and explains the limitations of climate change modelling of any sort in his work (read his book ‘storms of my grandchildren’). The overwhelming consensus within any respectable journal you care to pick up is that anthropogenic global warming is happening (and this is understood empirically) – and the risks of not doing anything are great. In terms of answering your question about the pause, why ask me to explain this? I’m convinced solely because a huge majority of expert scientists are convinced, not because I am a scientist. If you need to know, why not actually ask scientists, or read the IPCC 5th report when it comes out? Even this article is not counter AGW, it simply highlights the complexity of the issue in hand, and the difficulty of motivating policy change under such variability. But as Pachauri says in the article, ‘the trend is unmistakeable.’ It is as though you have read a different article to me! Why not visit skepticalscience.com, and put your points on the table there. I think it is important to open the ideas you have to full scientific scrutiny, at least for furthering all our understanding of the issue. Surely that is what you want to do – especially if you are right? Who knows, maybe you will find that piece of the puzzle that the whole scientific community has missed so far. However, on this particular point, I wouldn’t hold your breath.
I’m sorry but you are mistaken.
“After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth’s atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth’s climate. Hansen’s development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth’s climate. In 2009 his first book, Storms of My Grandchildren, was published.
From 1981 to 2013, he was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.”
Are you living in a bubble? That is all Hansen has ever done. He develops computer models! The paleoclimatic data from various proxy studies that were conducted by other people, not James Hansen himself, including ice core samples, tree rings, ocean floor sediments, ect., were data that went into his climate models. James Hansen designs, and programs, computer models. That’s what he does! That’s what he is! That’s all he has ever been! Well that and a total whacko.
You seem to believe that AGW is happening. All I ask is where? Where is this warming occurring? The answer is it’s not.
Yes Neilio. Wikipedia – good place to start! Read ‘Storms of My Grandchildren’ – I dare you! Then re-read your posts here. In the book, he lays down his and others thesis from the empirical data. He discusses climatic modelling and the benefits and pitfalls, including the uncertainties and limitations associated with them. The key point is that it is the empirical evidence that is the basis of his alarm, and the science of ‘climatic tipping points’ which few models can predict. As for is AGW actually happening? Check out GISS and other journals for the global mean surface temperature analysis (again empirical), as well as the Berkeley Earth publications http://berkeleyearth.org/about/- available on line. This group was set up to objectively review all actual (not modelled) temperature records afresh, funded by sceptics and non-sceptics alike. What did they find? You got it! And before you say that the temperatures used don’t take into account localised warning effects of urban areas, they have that covered too. But I suppose what I am most interested in, is why are you so fixed on this? Why use a proxy scientific article like this, as evidence that the entire science community has it wrong. Either you value science or you don’t. I too was extremely sceptical a few years back, but the more reading of science journals I did the more my position changed. I think it is good to visit sites like this, where some elephant in the room could be illuminated and turn the whole thing on its head. I hope this elephant is found, and scientists are wrong – it would be better for us all. But at the moment the consensus is clear – you can’t even argue that one. And I never find that elephant. All I find is cherry picked wishy washy sources, and weak uninformed arguments and the use of words like ‘whacko’. Why not read storms of my grandchildren or a science journal and see where it takes you – I dare you?
What, do you work for the publisher? Or are you just a Hansen sycophant?
I am interested in scientific evidence just as much as you claim to be. Your problem is one of denial. Denial that all of the past predictions were wrong. What did you say? Oh yes, “They are engaged in an ongoing analysis of the issue, refining their understanding over time.” Give me a break. The “BSD” in my little avatar icon stands for male bovine excrement detector, and that line is complete male bovine excrement.
Here is something your BFF said.
“Hansen, often called the “godfather of global warming,” asserted earlier this month that blistering heat across the United States is so rare that it can’t be anything but the man-made global warming he has been warning about for decades. “This is not some scientific theory,” he told the Associated Press. “We are now experiencing scientific fact.”-”
But wait! Did you not say that “They are engaged in an ongoing analysis of the issue, refining their understanding over time.”? Sounds to me like he was certain about it, hence the use of the word “fact”. As we see now by the actual temperature record that there has been no warming for 15 years, it would appear that Hansen’s assertion of fact was incorrect, or the term I think I used was “wrong”.
He said this too:
“These weather events are not simply an example of what climate change could bring. They are caused by climate change. The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills…”
And, guess what. He was incorrect, or as I like to say WRONG, about these things too.
So far he has a terrible track record. Take a look at this:
In it you will see what the predictions of the climate models, including your idol’s models, look like compared to the actual temperature record. You’ll see that the computer projections were all quite off the mark, or as I like to say WRONG!
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are probably more infatuated with the good Dr. Hansen more for his activism than anything else. Why else would you ignore the facts of reality?
There’s plenty of government waste to blame on both sides of the political spectrum. Not to mention the stuff that benefits corporations vs. middle-sized and small businesses. but let’s blame Liberals for it all. Yes, that’s the solution! What is the cost to the average tax payer (real not contrived) related directly to global warming/climate change compared to any other “problem area/agency/etc.” you care to choose…? And have we, or anyone in the world for that matter, changed their lifestyles or economies to any real extent due to this issue? Nope. So after all this time (as stated above) and all the sinister planning by said liberal-minded evildoers, what has it accomplished? Not much to speak of, beyond perhaps, mileage requirements for cars/light trucks. Wow, scary.
Well all I can say on this is to ask you what is the political affiliation of the majority of people who say that AGW is a dire threat to the planet? And what is the political affiliation of the majority of people who say that AGW is a scam?
And if it’s not a scam, why is it that there has been trillions of dollars spent on AGW with no effect? It’s all been flushed down a toilet and been pocketed by people who have gained tremendous wealth. Who are they?
Hi Neilio. Interesting line of argument, but I’m afraid I find it akin to that of someone ‘clutching at straws’ – using apparent gaps in arguments to try to create something that just isn’t there, or accusing others of the very thing they are themselves indulging in. But I don’t think that it is constructive to oppose one another entirely. It seems we have a common interest in scientific evidence. I’m just not sure where on the warming earth you are finding this stuff, what peer reviewed sources you are reading, nor why you favour personal blog sites over scientific journals to try to establish scientific truth. It is like bringing a water pistol to a gun fight! At least use a different medium, eg. claim that science itself is all rubbish. If one thing is established fact, it is that peer reviewed journals are more scientifically reliable than personal blogs. You aren’t giving me anything to run with here – I need some peer reviewed science, both temperature records and analysis of empirical evidence that is counter AGW. Then I will write to sceptical science and if they can’t find fault, you have yourself a convert. No need to overcome any denial here. But for the record, there is nothing irregular about being certain about something and still refining your understanding of it. Many scientists are certain that smoking causes cancer, and yet they continue to refine their understanding of it – why, how etc. I heard one scientist who is completely certain about AGW acknowledge that 80% of the science is still not understood. That is why all these papers are still being published, but no journal I have seen recently is still debating whether AGW is happening. (see http://www.nature.com, http://www.springer.com, http://www.sciencedomain.org etc. etc) In terms of this temp record business – did you check out the Berkeley site? I checked your link, but I’m not sure what models this graph shows since it doesn’t say, and I argued above that the empirical data is sufficient to prove AGW anyway (see GISS paleoclimatic analysis). Models are useful for many things, but not to be relied upon for proving AGW according to scientists. Check out my link, as well as the unravelling of similar counter claims at http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2013/04/climate-scientists-struggle-to-explain-warming-slowdown/#comments. Now it has been a pleasure debating with you, but there is much to do and probably not much time. I’ll keep checking this post, but unless there are some links to proper peer reviewed science, since science is the medium you were debating in before I even joined this post, I’m going to have to go apply my energy elsewhere. Good luck with your journey. I hope you are right, but in the meantime, I’m going with the peer reviewed journals.
Peer reviewed studies? Ok. You asked for it.
There are also a lot of studies that look at solar influence.
Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate (Journal of Coastal Research, SI 50, pp. 955-968, 2007) – Richard Mackey
Solar activity variations and global temperature (Energy [Oxford], vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1273-1284, 1993) – Eigil Friis-Christensen
Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width from Chile (AD 1587–1994) (Planetary and Space Science, vol. 55, issue 1-2, pp. 158-164, January 2007) – Nivaor Rodolfo Rigozoa, Daniel Jean Roger Nordemann, Heitor Evangelista da Silva, Mariza Pereira de Souza Echer, Ezequiel Echer
Solar correlates of Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude climate variability (International Journal of Climatology, vol. 22, issue 8, pp. 901-915, 27 May 2002) – Ronald E. Thresher
Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate (Science, vol. 284. no. 5412, pp. 305 – 308, 9 April 1999) – Drew Shindell, David Rind, Nambeth Balachandran, Judith Lean, Patrick Lonergan
Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands (Science, vol. 292. no. 5520, pp. 1367-1370, 18 May 2001) – David A. Hodell, Mark Brenner, Jason H. Curtis, Thomas Guilderson
Solar total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature record (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 96, no. D2, pp. 2835–2844, 1991) – George C. Reid
Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 25, issue 7, pp. 1035-1038, 1998) – E. W. Cliver, V. Boriakoff, J. Feynman
Solar variability and ring widths in fossil trees (Il Nuovo Cimento C, vol. 19, no. 4, July 1996) – S. Cecchini, M. Galli, T. Nanni, L. Ruggiero
Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia (Space Science Reviews, vol. 125, issue 1-4, pp. 67-79, 22 December 2006) – J. Beer, M. Vonmoos, R. Muscheler
Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34, L08203, 2007) – H. B. Hammel, G.W. Lockwood
Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34, L14703, 2007) – Charles D. Camp, Ka Kit Tung
The link between the solar dynamo and climate – The evidence from a long mean air temperature series from Northern Ireland (Irish Astronomical Journal, vol. 21, no. 3-4, pp. 251-254, 09/1994) – C.J. Butler, D.J. Johnston
The Sun–Earth Connection in Time Scales from Years to Decades and Centuries (Space Science Reviews, v. 95, issue 1/2, pp. 625-637, 2001) – T. I. Pulkkinen, H. Nevanlinna, P. J. Pulkkinen, M. Lockwood
Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, L16712, 2005) – Willie Soon
Variability of the solar cycle length during the past five centuries and the apparent association with terrestrial climate (Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, vol. 57, issue 8, pp. 835-845, July 1995) – K. Lassen, E. Friis-Christensen
Variations in Radiocarbon Concentration and Sunspot Activity (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 66, p. 273, 01/1961) – M. Stuiver
Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages (Science, vol. 194. no. 4270, pp. 1121-1132, 10 December 1976) – J. D. Hays, John Imbrie, N. J. Shackleton
Variations of solar coronal hole area and terrestrial lower tropospheric air temperature from 1979 to mid-1998: astronomical forcings of change in Earth’s climate? (New Astronomy, vol. 4, issue 8, pp. 563-579, January 2000) – W. Soon, S. Baliunas, E. S. Posmentier, P. Okeke
What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection? (Advances in Space Research, vol. 20, issue 4-5, pp. 913-921, 1997) – Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark
Will We Face Global Warming in the Nearest Future? (Geomagnetism i Aeronomia, vol. 43, pp. 124-127, 2003) – V. S. Bashkirtsev, G. P. Mashnich
Solar Cosmic Rays.
Solar variability influences on weather and climate: Possible connections through cosmic ray fluxes and storm intensification (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 94, no. D12, pp. 14783-14792, October 1989) – Brian A, Tinsley, Geoffrey M. Brown, Philip H. Scherrer
Hale-cycle effects in cosmic-ray intensity during the last four cycles (Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 246, no. 1, March 1996) – H. Mavromichalaki, A. Belehaki, X. Rafios, I. Tsagouri
Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage–a Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 1225-1232, July 1997) – Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen
Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate (Physical Review Letters, vol. 81, issue 22, pp. 5027-5030, 30 November 1998) – Henrik Svensmark
Reply to comments on “Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage–a missing link in solar-climate relationships” (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, vol. 62, issue 1, pp. 79-80, January 2000) – Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen
Cosmic rays and Earth’s climate (Space Science Reviews, v. 93, issue 1/2, pp. 175-185, July 2000) – Henrik Svensmark
Cosmic rays and climate–The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming (Astronomy & Geophysics, vol. 41, issue 4, pp 4. 18-4. 22, August 2000) – E Pallé Bagó, C J Butler
Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate (Space Science Reviews, v. 94, issue 1/2, pp. 215-230, November 2000) – Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark
Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays (Physical Review Letters, vol. 85, issue 23, pp. 5004-5007, December 2000) – Nigel D Marsh, Henrik Svensmark
On the relationship of cosmic ray flux and precipitation (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1527–1530, 2001) – Dominic R. Kniveton and Martin C. Todd
Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of aerosols: Implications for global cloudiness and climate (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 107, no. A7, pp. SIA 8-1, July 2002) – Fangqun Yu
The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth (New Astronomy, vol. 8, issue 1, pp. 39-77, January 2003) – Nir J. Shaviv
Galactic cosmic ray and El Niño-Southern Oscillation trends in International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project D2 low-cloud properties (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 108, no. D6, pp. AAC 6-1, March 2003) – Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark
The effects of galactic cosmic rays, modulated by solar terrestrial magnetic fields, on the climate (Russian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 6, no. 5, October 2004) – V. A. Dergachev, P. B. Dmitriev, O. M. Raspopov, B. Van Geel
Formation of large NAT particles and denitrification in polar stratosphere: possible role of cosmic rays and effect of solar activity (Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol. 4, issue 9/10, pp. 2273-2283, November 2004) – F. Yu
Long-term variations of the surface pressure in the North Atlantic and possible association with solar activity and galactic cosmic rays (Advances in Space Research, vol. 35, issue 3, pp. 484-490, 2005) – S. V. Veretenenko, V. A. Dergachev, P. B. Dmitriyev
Galactic Cosmic Rays and Insolation are the Main Drivers of Global Climate of the Earth (arXiv:hep-ph/0506208, June 2005) – V. D. Rusov, I. V. Radin, A. V. Glushkov, V. N. Vaschenko, V. N. Pavlovich, T. N. Zelentsova, O. T. Mihalys, V. A. Tarasov, A. Kolos
On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 110, issue A8, August 2005) – Nir J. Shaviv
Cosmic rays and the biosphere over 4 billion years (Astronomische Nachrichten, vol. 327, issue 9, Page 871, 2006) – Henrik Svensmark
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays (Physics/0612145v1, December 2006) – Henrik Svensmark
Interstellar-Terrestrial Relations: Variable Cosmic Environments, The Dynamic Heliosphere, and Their Imprints on Terrestrial Archives and Climate (Space Science Reviews, vol. 127, no. 1-4, December 2006) – K. Scherer, H. Fichtner, T. Borrmann, J. Beer, L. Desorgher, E. Flükiger, H. Fahr, S. Ferreira, U. Langner, M. Potgieter, B. Heber, J. Masarik, N. Shaviv, J. Veizer
Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds (Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A, vol. 462, issue 2068, p. 1221-1233, April 2006) – R. Giles Harrison, David B. Stephenson
Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges (Astronomy & Geophysics, vol. 48 issue 1, pp. 1. 18-1. 24, February 2007) – Henrik Svensmark
Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series (Journal Advances in Space Research, February 2007) – Charles A. Perrya
200-year variations in cosmic rays modulated by solar activity and their climatic response (Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, vol. 71, no. 7, July 2007) – O. M. Raspopov, V. A. Dergachev
On the possible contribution of solar-cosmic factors to the global warming of XX century (Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, vo. 71, no. 7, July 2007) – M. G. Ogurtsov
Cosmic rays and climate of the Earth: possible connection (Comptes Rendus Geosciences, December 2007) – Ilya G. Usoskina, Gennady A. Kovaltsovb
Galactic Cosmic Rays – Clouds Effect and Bifurcation Model of the Earth Global Climate. Part 1. Theory (arXiv:0803. 2765, Mar 2008) -V. Rusov, A. Glushkov, V. Vaschenko, O. Mihalys, S. Kosenko, S. Mavrodiev, B. Vachev
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (Climate Research, vol. 26: 159-173, 2004) – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature measurements (Climate Research, vol. 10: 27-33, 1998) – Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling Jr., Russell S. Vose, Paul C. Knappenberger
Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin (Journal of Climate, vol. 19, issue 17, pp. 4276–4293, September 2006) – H. J. Fowler, D. R. Archer
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, L13207, 2004) – David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels
Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures since 1979 (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 183–186, 2001) – J. R. Christy, D. E. Parker, S. J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel, W. B. Norris
Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment (American Meteorological Society, 88:6, 913-928, 2007) – R. Pielke Sr., A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N. Doesken, M. Cai. , S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K. G. Hubbard, X. Lin, H. Li, S. Raman
Does a Global Temperature Exist? (Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, June 2006) – Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen
Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, L03209, 2004) – Willie W. H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas
Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years (Springer Wien, Volume 95, January, 2007) – Lin Zhen-Shan, Sun Xian
Nature of observed temperature changes across the United States during the 20th century (Climate Research, vol. 17: 45–53, 2001) – Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Robert E. Davis
Natural signals in the MSU lower tropospheric temperature record (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 27, no. 18, pp. 2905–2908, 2000) – Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger
Observed warming in cold anticyclones (Climate Research, vol. 14: 1–6, 2000) – Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Robert C. Balling Jr., Robert E. Davis
Revised 21st century temperature projections (Climate Research, vol. 23: 1–9, 2002) – Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis
Test for harmful collinearity among predictor variables used in modeling global temperature (Climate Research, vol. 24: 15-18, 2003) – David H. Douglass, B. David Clader, John R. Christy, Patrick J. Michaels, David A. Belsley
Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 112, D06102, 2007) – John R. Christy, William B. Norris, Roy W. Spencer, Justin J. Hnilo
What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends? (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, L06211, 2004) – J. R. Christy, W. B. Norris
Hey! You wanted peer review studies. I have listed but a small number of them above. You go ahead and run those by your pals at climateskepticassasins.fools all you want Middle Way, and get back to me in a couple of years.
Hi Neilio. Wow – I admire the time you have put in here. Thank you for producing such a list right at the 11th hour. I appreciate the reading you are clearly doing, and it helps me keep an open mind. I figure I aught to respond, although its not looking so good as I feed the first few into the skeptical science search bar! Just to say, I hope anyone else who stumbles across this thread will check these out too, with an open mind and perspective. I certainly think it is good you have listed them, and having been extremely skeptical and unconvinced about AGW when I started reading about all this, I certainly have no fears about them sending me back there again. Bring it on! But I already recognise some of these papers / names as having come out the other side of the scientific discourse a little worse for wear I’m afraid schwartz, svensmark, camp and tung, and knappenberger for example. Indeed the contested areas you raise; solar variations, solar rays and temperature, have been largely undone in all the main journals I have come across, although I’m glad they are still being questioned. But what amazes me most is that non-scientists like me and you still feel in a position to verify which peer reviewed science is right and which is wrong! Isn’t that crazy. Ehy don’t we just accept we don’t understand it and go with the consensus of respected journals that have never failed us?
According to skeptical science:
‘Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).
Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes’ survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don’t reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser’s list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:
“Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact.”‘
I’m going to check out alot of the articles you listed though, since there might be something that has survived the debunking process. And that would certainly require some further investigation. I have to say though, I find Climate sensitivity more compelling than the topics you raised above. Solar variation lost me shortly after ‘The great GW swindle’ and some of the Giss papers on the topic. Temperature fell away after the Berkeley earth team published their stuff online. The position of the academy of sciences is certainly clear, and in terms of sheer quantity of research your short list dwindles into insignificance when you open any respectable journal and explore it with an open mind. That seems to be enough for m (at last I can’t find any other way to form a respectable opinion) – I don’t know about you and other readers here? I guess perhaps you think there is a conspiracy or something? SS goes on; ‘That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.’ Anyone else reading this, I would say that precisely because of everything you read here, the picture doesn’t look at all clear. I agree with that. But I think it is for this reason you must do your own reading and stay critical, stay honest and openminded, and don’t let yourself believe what you want to. Perhaps I’ll be in touch again in 2 years Neilio after reading much more, and who knows, I might have found that missing piece of the puzzle amongst the papers you listed. I hope so, I really do. On the other hand, I might not, and we may be two years closer to something we’d all rather avoid. Because of this, my ‘risk assessment’ reads: Lets get our skates on right now! And until that changes, I’m getting my skates on right now. I wish you well…..I wish us all well….
So, you only believe the peer review studies that Skeptical Science blog tells you is ok? You said before that I was getting all of my information from non scientific blogs, and that I shouldn’t believe any of it because it wasn’t peer reviewed studies. So I give you a whole bunch of peer reviewed studies, and now you say they don’t count because of what they say about them at a non scientific blog. And John Cook is not a climate scientist. HE’S A COMPUTER ENGINEER!!! Go figure.
I am going to ask you a simple question, again, and I would like a simple answer. Where is the warming?
Oh, and I almost forgot…. journalists?
Ok, just one more post. In short, I quote this site because it exists precisely for the reason you describe above, and I described previously. If you disagree with something on there, it is the references you need to check out first and foremost. If the site has misrepresented something from the journals, then that is a publication breach that you should definitely pursue.
John Cook ‘is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature.’
Feels like a nice place to leave it, although it would have been nice if youd tackled some other parts of my post, rather than just the huge gaping gaps! (that was a joke by the way!) I didn’t say the papers you referenced didn’t count, but this is about more than just counting isn’t it? I feel like I want to say, don’t you know what you are doing here? The way you are going about all this, do you not see what you are doing? But I just don’t think that ‘ll make any difference.
I’ll finish by answering your question:
Where is the warming? Ans: http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
Find whatever I’m sure you will with this today, and we’ll see where we are in 2 years…. Anyone else who is reading this, I encourage you not to believe me or Neilio. Do your own openminded research. Devote some time, read widely, and don’t fool yourself.
You believe what you want to believe. If you want to confuse yourself with all of these peer reviewed, um Skepticalscience approved peer reviewed studies that’s fine. Go right ahead. For me it’s a simple matter of looking at what the predictions of future warming were, and if they came true or not. The answer is usually not.
I have one more question for you just to see where your mind is. Is the ocean’s pH level acidic, or is it alkaline?
Really is the last one now.
For anyone else reading this, we got there eventually. Neilio has revealed the widespread but totally flawed way of assessing the validity of climate science / global warming. If he was to have read widely enough elsewhere, he would understand both the uses and limitations of modelling. No disrespect Neilio, since I think you have brought some valid queries to the table, but c’mon, lives are at stake here. If you are trying to understand something, you need to understand the tools being used to understand that something. If you don’t, then ask questions rather than assume answers. Your fixation on modelling is just one part of a much larger jigsaw puzzle; the pieces of which are being added all the time. The picture is becoming clearer and clearer. This is the crucial point – yes model predictions are essential tools, but they have large degrees of uncertainty and known limitations for localised effects and modelling cloud cover etc. I can relate to your concerns around this, since I only became convinced through the paleoclimatic empirical analysis, but arriving where you have in the way you have is flawed. Full stop. Modelling is the best we have until the crystal ball is invented, but many models are actually very robust. And this is no surprise if you understand conservation of energy and energy balance. Just like you can still predict what temp your oven will hit if you understand it’s insulation properties, although you may struggle to plot the curve if there is some cold water in there, a big block of something that might melt, and you also open the door a few times along the way.
So to use whether or not the modelled predictions actually match the temperature record as it unfolds, as the basis of your entire judgement on whether climate change of AGW is happening, is absurd. The scientific community is just not that inept. So please, please, anyone reading this, stay openminded but stay real. Be as sensible about the discource as you are about your own understanding of the science. There is an awful lot to do, and probably – although we can’t be sure – not much time. I hope you take from this what you will Neilio. Over and out.
So you think that was the only way I approached assessing the validity of anthropogenic global warming? Not quite. I do understand quite a bit about heating, cooling, heat transfer through conduction, convection, and radiation. That is part of my job to understand those things and others like the pressure/temperature relationship, laws of thermodynamics, entropy, superheat, sub-cooling…. you get the point.
Basically I started doing research many years ago. It was shortly after our Al Gore proclaimed that “The debate is over, the science is settled, the world has a fever, and we are the cause!” Up until that point I was a firm believer in AGW. It made perfect sense to me…… but. I thought Eyeore, That’s what I call Al Gore, was a bit over-the-top saying that the science was settled, and that the debate was over, so I started looking into AGW, and found almost immediately that there was still a debate, and the science was far from settled. I found this video and was intrigued.
I thought the section about CO2 was a little lacking, so I did a lot of research on CO2. What I found out about CO2 is why I am a skeptic, and is why I will always be a skeptic about AGW. I won’t go into details but I will tell you to look into the heat absorption properties of CO2, and the diminishing returns from saturation of infrared light bandwidths that CO2 absorbs. Basically once the bandwidths are saturated, adding more CO2 will do practically nothing. Well, it will but it is a negative exponent and is statistically insignificant.
So looking at predictions vs. results is not the path that I arrived at my conclusions upon. It’s just a convenient perch to comment upon because I know that the real world data will not do what was predicted. And it’s just easier to point to than the complicated scientific explanations.
I will comment that you sound like you have been sucked in by the scaremongering. Relax, it’s all BS.
Really? That’s rather chicken-**it of you to post what you think and then go away. I gave you what you wanted but it wasn’t good enough because a lot of that scientific, peer-reviewed research was said to be “refuted” at Skeptical Science. It really is telling that you have put all of your trust into that particular blog. Oh yeah, you claim to be all about “peer-review” but you are not really. You are all about what is approved “peer-review” studies by the folks at Skeptical Science. Does that not give you pause? What exactly is the scientific basis from Skeptical Science that refutes these scientific peer-reviewed papers? You said, “But what amazes me most is that non-scientists like me and you still feel in a position to verify which peer reviewed science is right and which is wrong!” To that I say you have not verified a thing! You have surrendered that as a personal task, and given it over to Skeptical Science!
I can understand that you are afraid. That’s ok. There is nothing wrong with being afraid. But there is something wrong with letting fear guide you.
Tell you what, you read this and then tell me what’s so great about Skeptical Science again.