• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Peer Reviewed anti agw science papers

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice

ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : Decadal to millennial cyclicity in varves and turbidites from the Arabian Sea: hypothesis of tidal origin

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr -- Viau et al. 30 (5): 455 -- Geology

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Aug27-PIPGreview2003.pdf

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2002/22/c022p187.pdf

SpringerLink - Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation‐based approaches

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2007/00000018/00000002/art00006

ScienceDirect - Quaternary Science Reviews : The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III -- Caillon et al. 299 (5613): 1728 -- Science

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/science/defreitas.pdf

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10//c010p069.pdf

paleng2_4p115abs

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf

Access : Time to ditch Kyoto : Nature

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~gheiss/Personal/Abstracts/SAJS2000_Abstr.html

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MornerEtAl2004.pdf

Welcome to MetaPress

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/prlresup2.pdf

Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene -- Bond et al. 294 (5549): 2130 -- Science

CSA

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/9700001.pdf

SpringerLink - Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 95, Numbers 1-2

What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends?

http://cumberland.samford.edu/images/biotech/Cumb.L.Rev.36.03.04.Christy.pdf

And that's just a handful. So stop the BS about "Where is the Peer Reviewed" anti-agw science. If you really are serious about understanding the Climate, first off you don't make BULL**** CLAIMS. This is just ONE reason the AGW'ers are dishonest people. They demand evidence, claim it doesn't exist, yet clearly, I have provided but a SMALL list of PEER REVIEWED papers for all to read. Let's see what excuses they make now... if they bother posting here at all.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,210
Reaction score
32,980
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't have time to go through all of these, so I'll do a few from the top for now:

Ooh. Off to a bad start. The petition project has a severe credibility problem. It's not really a peer-reviewed journal: they sent out their survey in a format that looked like the PNAS format, but was not actually reviewed in the usual manner. Their 31000 scientists... had no verification of qualifications involved. The petition creators admit that they didn't check signatures. This explains why the petition originally had some fictional characters and actors on the list. Plus, of the signors, only 39 self-identified as climatologists, and whether or not any of the signors were actually involved in climate research was not indicated at all in the survey.

Discussing the science on this page a bit, there's a lot of extraneous info in here. Tornado/hurricane information, etc. They kick off with the very common medieval warm period error: using temperature information from one area of the globe that shows the medieval warm period as being warmer than today. It wasn't. When you expand the temperature reconstruction to a global scale, you get a different temperature trend. There was a warm period then, but it wasn't globally warmer than we see today. Then they talk about temperature v. solar activity. Nobody disputes that solar activity is a strong factor in temperature, it's well accounted for. They again cherry pick information by comparing solar activity to arctic temperature. Solar activity has had the long-term trend of being totally flat since about 1960, yet temperatures rise.

They make the claim that we are now about 1C than the "medieval climate optimum," but that conflicts with the reconstructed temperature record. If they have different data, they fail to show it. Then they show you US temperature vs. solar activity. Why not global temperatures? Also, their total solar irradiance line doesn't match what NASA's data says. Then they repeat the TSI chart...except that we weren't able to measure TSI until more recently. They're showing you sunspot activity. Related, and a pretty good indicator of TSI, but it's not TSI. Strange mistake.

I think I'll move on. This paper is doing the usual "look, there's no correlation!" dance. What they fail to do is account for solar activity (and other forcings) while looking at CO2 vs temperature trends. Climate has a lot of variables, you can't just calculate one variable and declare that there's no connection.

During much of the Quaternary, the Earth's climate has undergone drastic changes most notably successive glacial and interglacial episodes. The past 150 kyr includes such a climatic cycle: the last interglacial, the last glacial and the present holocene interglacial. A new climatic−time series for this period has been obtained using delta18 O data from an Antarctic ice core.
This paper isn't anti-AGW. At least, I have to assume it's not since they don't mention anything of the sort in their abstract. I don't have a subscription to Nature. Yes, the earth has changed significantly over time. So? That doesn't mean we can't also cause a change.

These guys appear to be exploring historical temperature cycles in the Arabian sea. They make no mention of current trends or forcings. You're making the same fallacy as you did on the previous link.

There is debate concerning the spatial extent and magnitude of the recently identified 1500 yr climate oscillation. Existing evidence is largely restricted to the North Atlantic and adjacent landmasses. The spatial extent, magnitude, and effects of these climate variations within the terrestrial environment during the Holocene have not been established. We show that millennial-scale climate variability caused changes in vegetation communities across all of North America with a periodicity of 1650 ± 500 yr during the past 14 000 calendar years (cal yr). Times of major transitions identified in pollen records occurred at 600, 1650, 2850, 4030, 6700, 8100, 10 190, 12 900, and 13 800 cal yr B.P., consistent with ice and marine records. We suggest that North Atlantic millennial-scale climate variability is associated with rearrangements of the atmospheric circulation with far-reaching influences on the climate.
Yet again, no mention of current trends or forcings. Yes, we know there are natural cycles. That doesn't automatically mean the current trend is a natural cycle.

This guy thinks the models aren't good enough for a prediction. Ok. Not sure I'd label that "anti-AGW" but rather "we don't know enough yet." This is a pretty good paper, although it's a few years old. I'll have to check up on what improvements have been made to the models in the mean time.

This isn't even a paper.
The abstract claims the writers "show that human effects are negligible." I can't comment further because the paper is not accessible without a subscription. If you know a place that has the full paper, I'd love to read it.

Anyway, that's enough for now. I got like 3 hours of continuously interrupted sleep last night and I can't really see straight anymore.
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
A. The first one's a joke -- that petition -- it was debunked a long time ago.

B. That's it? Even if everyone of them was what you say -- multiply that by 1000 and that's the other side.

That's the consensus.

Don't let partisan hackery dig us in deeper than we already are.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't have time to go through all of these, so I'll do a few from the top for now:


Ooh. Off to a bad start. The petition project has a severe credibility problem. It's not really a peer-reviewed journal: they sent out their survey in a format that looked like the PNAS format, but was not actually reviewed in the usual manner. Their 31000 scientists... had no verification of qualifications involved. The petition creators admit that they didn't check signatures. This explains why the petition originally had some fictional characters and actors on the list. Plus, of the signors, only 39 self-identified as climatologists, and whether or not any of the signors were actually involved in climate research was not indicated at all in the survey.

Discussing the science on this page a bit, there's a lot of extraneous info in here. Tornado/hurricane information, etc. They kick off with the very common medieval warm period error: using temperature information from one area of the globe that shows the medieval warm period as being warmer than today. It wasn't. When you expand the temperature reconstruction to a global scale, you get a different temperature trend. There was a warm period then, but it wasn't globally warmer than we see today. Then they talk about temperature v. solar activity. Nobody disputes that solar activity is a strong factor in temperature, it's well accounted for. They again cherry pick information by comparing solar activity to arctic temperature. Solar activity has had the long-term trend of being totally flat since about 1960, yet temperatures rise.

They make the claim that we are now about 1C than the "medieval climate optimum," but that conflicts with the reconstructed temperature record. If they have different data, they fail to show it. Then they show you US temperature vs. solar activity. Why not global temperatures? Also, their total solar irradiance line doesn't match what NASA's data says. Then they repeat the TSI chart...except that we weren't able to measure TSI until more recently. They're showing you sunspot activity. Related, and a pretty good indicator of TSI, but it's not TSI. Strange mistake.

I think I'll move on. This paper is doing the usual "look, there's no correlation!" dance. What they fail to do is account for solar activity (and other forcings) while looking at CO2 vs temperature trends. Climate has a lot of variables, you can't just calculate one variable and declare that there's no connection.





This paper isn't anti-AGW. At least, I have to assume it's not since they don't mention anything of the sort in their abstract. I don't have a subscription to Nature. Yes, the earth has changed significantly over time. So? That doesn't mean we can't also cause a change.



These guys appear to be exploring historical temperature cycles in the Arabian sea. They make no mention of current trends or forcings. You're making the same fallacy as you did on the previous link.





Yet again, no mention of current trends or forcings. Yes, we know there are natural cycles. That doesn't automatically mean the current trend is a natural cycle.



This guy thinks the models aren't good enough for a prediction. Ok. Not sure I'd label that "anti-AGW" but rather "we don't know enough yet." This is a pretty good paper, although it's a few years old. I'll have to check up on what improvements have been made to the models in the mean time.


This isn't even a paper.

The abstract claims the writers "show that human effects are negligible." I can't comment further because the paper is not accessible without a subscription. If you know a place that has the full paper, I'd love to read it.

Anyway, that's enough for now. I got like 3 hours of continuously interrupted sleep last night and I can't really see straight anymore.

See folks, even when it's peer reviewed, it's not good enough. Why bother posting anything that counters AGW with certain folks, they don't CARE what you source, what you think, or what you bring up, it's always WRONG. And the reasonings are generally the most flimsy of counters. If you don't post what they want to hear, they won't listen. I listen, I've even agreed with some of the stuff they've posted to a point, but the big point, conclusion I disagree with, that MAN si the source of climatic change/warming.

The dishonesty of the AGW crows astounds.
 
Last edited:

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
See folks, even when it's peer reviewed, it's not good enough. Why bother posting anything that counters AGW with certain folks, they don't CARE what you source, what you think, or what you bring up, it's always WRONG. And the reasonings are generally the most flimsy of counters. If you don't post what they want to hear, they won't listen. I listen, I've even agreed with some of the stuff they've posted to a point, but the big point, conclusion I disagree with, that MAN si the source of climatic change/warming.

The dishonesty of the AGW crows astounds.
This must be the most terrible interpretation of his post I could imagine. He said most of those papers are not peer reviewed or their subject is not AWG.

Its ok though, I am not stupid, you were hoping someone would say something to that extent and what duece said was close enough for you.
 
Last edited:

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I wonder if the pro-hoaxers understand that science isn't determined by consensus?

And their continued insistence on "peer-reviewed" papers is ludicrous, considering that part of their hoax was the selection of reviewers with established pro-hoax credentials.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
This must be the most terrible interpretation of his post I could imagine. He said most of those papers are not peer reviewed or their subject is not AWG.

Its ok though, I am not stupid, you were hoping someone would say something to that extent and what duece said was close enough for you.
Yeah, you got it. You got me nailed. HE says those are "peer reviewed" Well **** son, that must be it, that whole list, just farce, Deuce said so. And the "subject isn't AGW". No it the subject picks apart the peices of AGW.

Take this one for example:
What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends?

Click the link. Just one, at random.

The point of this thread was to show how disingenuous Deuce and the AGW Groupies are. "Show us evidence, show us Peer Reviewed Science". And this is what happens. They claim it's NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,210
Reaction score
32,980
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah, you got it. You got me nailed. HE says those are "peer reviewed" Well **** son, that must be it, that whole list, just farce, Deuce said so. And the "subject isn't AGW". No it the subject picks apart the peices of AGW.

Take this one for example:
What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends?

Click the link. Just one, at random.

The point of this thread was to show how disingenuous Deuce and the AGW Groupies are. "Show us evidence, show us Peer Reviewed Science". And this is what happens. They claim it's NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
A couple of these legitmately were not peer-reviewed papers. A couple others weren't actually "anti-AGW" like you claimed. It's not good enough because the ones I looked at don't say what you think they say. So far I "reviewed" only one abstract that was legitimately anti-AGW. Unfortunately, I was only able to read the abstract without a subscription to their journal.

How is this so hard to understand? Did you expect one abstract to change my opinion on the whole issue?
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
A couple of these legitmately were not peer-reviewed papers. A couple others weren't actually "anti-AGW" like you claimed. It's not good enough because the ones I looked at don't say what you think they say. So far I "reviewed" only one abstract that was legitimately anti-AGW. Unfortunately, I was only able to read the abstract without a subscription to their journal.

How is this so hard to understand? Did you expect one abstract to change my opinion on the whole issue?
\

I just want you to be you Deuce, I can't explain your dishonesty better then your own behavior.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,210
Reaction score
32,980
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
\

I just want you to be you Deuce, I can't explain your dishonesty better then your own behavior.
So, in your opinion, someone stating the earth has gone through historical climate cycles is "anti-AGW?"
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,774
Reaction score
8,571
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I wonder if the pro-hoaxers understand that science isn't determined by consensus?

And their continued insistence on "peer-reviewed" papers is ludicrous, considering that part of their hoax was the selection of reviewers with established pro-hoax credentials.
Of science is not determined by consensus, but neither is it determined by a few people dissagreeing with what is generally accepted.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,238
Reaction score
19,589
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Accepted according to who?
Good point.

Originally Posted by drz-400
This must be the most terrible interpretation of his post I could imagine. He said most of those papers are not peer reviewed or their subject is not AWG.

Its ok though, I am not stupid, you were hoping someone would say something to that extent and what duece said was close enough for you.
Why do people feel the need to state that they are not not stupid?

I am not stupid and understand that people are not stupid when they post non-stupid stupidity...

But since you said that his post was a terrible interpretation when it was in fact spot on, I am not sure what to say...

If fact, Deuce backed up Vichio's own interpretation by doing EXACTLY what Vichio said! How perfectly ironic... but you missed that apparently.

Spend more time focusing on what people are talking about instead of telling us how not stupid you are next time...

Originally Posted by MrVicchio
See folks, even when it's peer reviewed, it's not good enough. Why bother posting anything that counters AGW with certain folks, they don't CARE what you source, what you think, or what you bring up, it's always WRONG. And the reasonings are generally the most flimsy of counters. If you don't post what they want to hear, they won't listen. I listen, I've even agreed with some of the stuff they've posted to a point, but the big point, conclusion I disagree with, that MAN si the source of climatic change/warming.

The dishonesty of the AGW crows astounds.
Never good enough... I agree. I too, have been far more open and agreeable than he.
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Good point.



Why do people feel the need to state that they are not not stupid?

I am not stupid and understand that people are not stupid when they post non-stupid stupidity...

But since you said that his post was a terrible interpretation when it was in fact spot on, I am not sure what to say...

If fact, Deuce backed up Vichio's own interpretation by doing EXACTLY what Vichio said! How perfectly ironic... but you missed that apparently.

Spend more time focusing on what people are talking about instead of telling us how not stupid you are next time...



Never good enough... I agree. I too, have been far more open and agreeable than he.
This thread is a waste. If someone responds to anything vicchio is just going to say,

"See folks, look at the dishonesty. Peer reviewed is not even good enough."
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yeah, you got it. You got me nailed. HE says those are "peer reviewed" Well **** son, that must be it, that whole list, just farce, Deuce said so. And the "subject isn't AGW". No it the subject picks apart the peices of AGW.

Take this one for example:
What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends?

Click the link. Just one, at random.

The point of this thread was to show how disingenuous Deuce and the AGW Groupies are. "Show us evidence, show us Peer Reviewed Science". And this is what happens. They claim it's NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Personally I would not conclude from that paper that there is no global warming being caused by humans. The paper you cited is focused on reconciling different datasets that measure the change in temperature per decade. The datasets used can conclude that for dec 1978 to nov 2003 the temp. change for lower elevation data is .08 +- .05 C per decade (this was reinforced by an earlier study).

Here is a link to the whole paper:
http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/christy_norris_trop_temp_trends_GRL_2004.pdf
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
This thread is a waste. If someone responds to anything vicchio is just going to say,

"See folks, look at the dishonesty. Peer reviewed is not even good enough."
Rofl, nice try. Deuce and bowerbird been asking for Peer Reviewed Papers and credible sources arguing against AGW. I've spent several days saying no, why bother you'll just say they aren't good enough, or ignore them...

So I got bored and posted them. Gee, bowerbird never showed here (though in another thread I posted some of these and bowerbird just outright rejected the list as wrong) and Deuce well...

Did exactly what I said he'd do, and his co-horts would join him...

Sometimes, it's too easy to call what others are going to do.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Personally I would not conclude from that paper that there is no global warming being caused by humans. The paper you cited is focused on reconciling different datasets that measure the change in temperature per decade. The datasets used can conclude that for dec 1978 to nov 2003 the temp. change for lower elevation data is .08 +- .05 C per decade (this was reinforced by an earlier study).

Here is a link to the whole paper:
http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/christy_norris_trop_temp_trends_GRL_2004.pdf
That's your personal conclusion. I'm sorry you find that so. Thanks for posting the .pdf so that others may reach a conclusion of their own.
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's your personal conclusion. I'm sorry you find that so. Thanks for posting the .pdf so that others may reach a conclusion of their own.
I am curious what you think the conclusions of that paper are? Do you want to discuss these papers or talk ****?
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am curious what you think the conclusions of that paper are? Do you want to discuss these papers or talk ****?
When you spend this much energy, talking about AGW "papers" I might think you really give a ****. It's amazing how much "scrutiny" people like you suddenly get into when it's not pro-agw.


I believe my stance on these papers was clear by the reason I posted them, in the OP. Each of these represent a piece of the puzzle to understanding climate, and they don't show MAN OMG MAN as the culprit.

Or was that not so clear to you?
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When you spend this much energy, talking about AGW "papers" I might think you really give a ****. It's amazing how much "scrutiny" people like you suddenly get into when it's not pro-agw.


I believe my stance on these papers was clear by the reason I posted them, in the OP. Each of these represent a piece of the puzzle to understanding climate, and they don't show MAN OMG MAN as the culprit.

Or was that not so clear to you?
I didn't even scrutinize the paper. I told you what it is about. Though I could have scrutinized it by asking why their results in the LT are different than surface temperature readings. That would be a pretty significant piece to the puzzle.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,210
Reaction score
32,980
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When you spend this much energy, talking about AGW "papers" I might think you really give a ****. It's amazing how much "scrutiny" people like you suddenly get into when it's not pro-agw.


I believe my stance on these papers was clear by the reason I posted them, in the OP. Each of these represent a piece of the puzzle to understanding climate, and they don't show MAN OMG MAN as the culprit.

Or was that not so clear to you?
I'm really sorry if I offended you when I said the papers you linked aren't actually saying what you think they're saying. But the ones I looked at so far aren't really "anti-AGW," except the one abstract I pointed out. (the petition project is laughable. they really do have no credibility)

MrV, you can't just paste a bunch of papers without actually reading them yourself and expect me to just accept them and say OH MAN SUDDENLY I REALIZE IM WRONG!
 
Last edited:

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
See folks, even when it's peer reviewed, it's not good enough. Why bother posting anything that counters AGW with certain folks, they don't CARE what you source, what you think, or what you bring up, it's always WRONG. And the reasonings are generally the most flimsy of counters. If you don't post what they want to hear, they won't listen. I listen, I've even agreed with some of the stuff they've posted to a point, but the big point, conclusion I disagree with, that MAN si the source of climatic change/warming.

The dishonesty of the AGW crows astounds.
What part of "It IS NOT PEER REVIEWED" was not clear.

Peer review is a scientific process that has VERY strict rules

I notice too that you have started a new thread rather than address my rebuttal of these links in the other thread
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Personally I would not conclude from that paper that there is no global warming being caused by humans. The paper you cited is focused on reconciling different datasets that measure the change in temperature per decade. The datasets used can conclude that for dec 1978 to nov 2003 the temp. change for lower elevation data is .08 +- .05 C per decade (this was reinforced by an earlier study).

Here is a link to the whole paper:
http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/christy_norris_trop_temp_trends_GRL_2004.pdf
You know there is something fishy with the paper when 4 out of the 12 references are to papers that the authors have previously published.

But Christy and Spencer have been proven wrong

ohn Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).

Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.

To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.
The rest is here

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You know there is something fishy with the paper when 4 out of the 12 references are to papers that the authors have previously published.

But Christy and Spencer have been proven wrong



The rest is here

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere
Christy and spencer are a pretty big names in the GW field. They have worked a lot on the UAW data set for satellite measurement of temperatures in the lower atmosphere. It's not that fishy that their names are referenced several times in that paper because they are the people who have been doing the most research on that data set. I wouldn't say they were proven wrong, but rather the data set has been revised. That data set has been revised like 10 times over the years (all of it done by spencer or christy), to continue to make it more and more accurate. There is a similar data set out there that produces different results, it is called RSS. As of yet, there is no way to know whether the the most updated versions of RSS or of UAH are the most accurate.

Page 43 on this paper shows the history of the dataset, sources of the errors, and the magnitudes of the changes:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-all.pdf
 
Last edited:

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Christy and spencer are a pretty big names in the GW field. They have worked a lot on the UAW data set for satellite measurement of temperatures in the lower atmosphere. It's not that fishy that their names are referenced several times in that paper because they are the people who have been doing the most research on that data set. I wouldn't say they were proven wrong, but rather the data set has been revised. That data set has been revised like 10 times over the years (all of it done by spencer or christy), to continue to make it more and more accurate. There is a similar data set out there that produces different results, it is called RSS. As of yet, there is no way to know whether the the most updated versions of RSS or of UAH are the most accurate.

Page 43 on this paper shows the history of the dataset, sources of the errors, and the magnitudes of the changes:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-all.pdf
Thank-you that is a nice review of the data. It does also support how science works by revision of hypothesis when new evidence becomes availale
 
Top Bottom