Peer Reviewed Articles that Debunk AGW Theory

PatriotNews · #1 (**permalink**) 12-17-2008, 06:45 AM

This thread is dedicated to peer reviewed articles that debunk anthropogenic global warming theories. Please feel free to add to the thread if you have one. Only one peer reviewed article per post please.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY
Int. J. Climatol. (2007)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

Quote:

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model
predictions

1. Introduction
A panel convened by the National Research Council (2000) found for the satellite era (since 1979) ‘[a]pparently conflicting surface and tropospheric temperature trends’ that could not be reconciled, with the Earth’s surface warming faster than the lower troposphere. The panel concluded, after considering possible systematic errors that ‘[a] substantial disparity remains.’ From a study of several independent observational datasets Douglass et al. (2004b) confirmed that the disparity was real and arose mostly in the tropical zone. Also, Douglass et al. (2004a) showed that three state-of-the-art General Circulation Models (GCMs) predicted a temperature trend that increased with altitude, reaching a maximum ratio to the surface trend (‘amplification’ factor R) as much as 1.5–2.0 at a pressure (altitude) about 200–400 hPa. This was in disagreement with observations, which showed flat or decreasing amplification factors with altitude.

5. Summary
We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our conclusion is that the present evidence, with the application of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this proposition.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

PatriotNews · #2 (**permalink**) 12-17-2008, 07:34 AM

CLIMATE RESEARCH
Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001

Quote:

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon
dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties

Quote:

1. INTRODUCTION
A complete and comprehensive calculation of the effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration must overcome 3 closely connected problems: (1) calculation of the future trajectory of the air’s CO2 concentration, (2) calculation of its climatic effects, and (3) separation of the CO2 impacts from other climatic changes.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Our current lack of understanding of the Earth’s climate system does not allow us to determine reliably the magnitude of climate change that will be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, let alone whether this change will be for better or for worse. We raise a point concerning value judgment here because a value assignment is prerequisite to evaluating the need for human mitigation of adverse consequences of climate change. If natural and largely uncontrollable factors that yield rapid climate change are common, are humans capable of actively modifying climate for the better? Such a question has been posed and cautiously answered in the negative, e.g., by Kellogg & Schneider (1974). Given current concerns about rapid climate change, several geoengineering proposals are being revived and debated in the literature (e.g., Schneider 1996, Betts 2000, Govindasamy & Caldeira 2000). We argue that even if climate is hypersensitive to small perturbations in radiative forcing, the task of understanding climate processes must still be accomplished before any effective action can be taken.

Our review of the literature has shown that GCMs are not sufficiently robust to provide an understanding of the potential effects of CO2 on climate necessary for public discussion.

Submitted: September 19, 2000; Accepted: January 8, 2001
Proofs received from author(s): July 10, 2001
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/18/c018p259.pdf

capeo · #3 (**permalink**) 12-17-2008, 07:44 AM

Read the last line of the second article.

PatriotNews · #4 (**permalink**) 12-17-2008, 07:57 AM

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
VOLUME 18 No. 2 2007

Quote:

THE CHALLENGE OF THE MAIN STREAM VIEW
ON THE HISTORICAL DATA
During my own review of the literature, I observed that the evaluation of Reiset’s and Müntz’s work by Callendar and Keeling was erroneous. This made me investigate carefully the criteria that were used by these and other authors to accept or to reject such historical data.

According to Callendar, Keeling and the IPCC, CO2 variations to be observed in air were due diurnal, and seasonal cycles, or to glacial/interglacial fluctuations. Natural concentrations are assumed to have been in equilibrium until mankind disturbed the natural situation. In this way, any long term observations that might display decadal to centennial natural variations in atmospheric CO2 are ruled out a priori by Callendar and Keeling.

As I discuss further below, these criticisms by Callendar and Keeling, and the selective way in which they discarded previous data, are not able to be justified. Their most egregious error was perhaps the dismissal of all data which showed variations from their presupposed average.

http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/d...018-2_Beck.pdf

PatriotNews · #5 (**permalink**) 12-17-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capeo

Read the last line of the second article.

I have. I did. It does not mitigate the main thesis or the conclusions of the scientists or their report.

capeo · #6 (**permalink**) 12-17-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotNews

I have. I did. It does not mitigate the main thesis or the conclusions of the scientists or their report.

"it does not claim to disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate."

I would say it does actually. The article is about the difficulty of climate modeling and really arrives at no conclusion. It's also an article not a research paper. It's a point of discussion, nothing more. I haven't read the others yet. It really doesn't matter though, for every one you find there are twenty that support the current models. That's science. With something as complex as climate modeling you are not going to get the same interpretations of data across the board.

PatriotNews · #7 (**permalink**) 12-17-2008, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capeo

"it does not claim to disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate."

I would say it does actually. The article is about the difficulty of climate modeling and really arrives at no conclusion. It's also an article not a research paper. It's a point of discussion, nothing more. I haven't read the others yet.

Then you just don't understand the thesis of their report. They are not attempting to "claim to disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate." What they are saying is that "Our current lack of understanding of the Earth’s climate system does not allow us to determine reliably the magnitude of climate change that will be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions." What they have set out to prove is that the current climate modeling is useless or meaningless given the complexity of the Earth's entire global climate system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by capeo

It really doesn't matter though, for every one you find there are twenty that support the current models. That's science. With something as complex as climate modeling you are not going to get the same interpretations of data across the board.

That is why the modeling is useless. This is the point I've been making, that there is no concensus amongst the scientists.

capeo · #8 (**permalink**) 12-17-2008, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotNews

Then you just don't understand the thesis of their report. They are not attempting to "claim to disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate." What they are saying is that "Our current lack of understanding of the Earth’s climate system does not allow us to determine reliably the magnitude of climate change that will be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions." What they have set out to prove is that the current climate modeling is useless or meaningless given the complexity of the Earth's entire global climate system.

That is why the modeling is useless. This is the point I've been making, that there is no concensus amongst the scientists.

No. There is a huge consensus amongst scientists. This doesn't preclude a small fraction of scientists dissenting though. Again, that's science. It's sort of like dark energy models. Astrophysicists know something is there, its effects are detectable and while the most believe it is some kind unknown field model there are some who see it explained within special relativity. It doesn't stop it from being there. All models show unprecedented warming and past warming events have been connected to CO2. Whether it's us entirely or not, even the biggest detractors have to admit we are not helping it. Consequently there is no good reason not abandon CO2 emission based processes as quickly as possible in favor of alternative methods.

PatriotNews · #9 (**permalink**) 12-17-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capeo

No. There is a huge consensus amongst scientists. This doesn't preclude a small fraction of scientists dissenting though.

That is the subject for yet another thread (consensus or number of dissenting scientists). I don't feel I have to argue every article or the entire global warming hoax with you on this thread. That wasn't my intention. My intention is to post the peer reviewed articles for people to read. If you don't understand the point of any of these articles I really couldn't care less. I am not going to explain them to you because they are meant to stand alone and speak for themselves. Believe them or not. Goodbye.

PatriotNews · #10 (**permalink**) 12-17-2008, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
As a consequence of greenhouse forcing, all state-of-the-art general circulation models predict a positive temperature trend that is greater for the troposphere than the surface. This predicted positive trend increases in value with altitude until it reaches a maximum ratio with respect to the surface of as much as 1.5 to 2.0 at about 200–400 hPa. However, the temperature trends from several independent observational data sets show decreasing as well as mostly negative values. This disparity indicates that the three models examined here fail to account for the effects of greenhouse forcings. Received 29 March 2004; accepted 16 June 2004; published 9 July 2004

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL020103.shtml

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Two Great Articles	hendrixpujols11	Elections & Campaigns	0	08-24-2008 03:49 PM
Full Text of Articles of Impeachment	DemocratsBlog	Political Blogs	0	06-10-2008 02:10 AM
DeBunk This, Please pg 1 of 2 pgs	justabubba	Current Events	6	01-06-2008 09:33 PM
Music Downloads... Peer-to-Peer	LoSconosciuto	Off-Topic Chat	11	01-03-2006 10:46 AM