Trenberth Debunks Himself

[SSDD]

So we find that both sets of papers are honest about their reliability. But when I said robust, you knew PRECISELY what I was talking about. I guess I get to quote it for you (again).

You however are not honest at all. You pretend that the science is settled and have just said that AGW is proven...if it were, don't you think that the IPCC paper might include that proof.

I am skeptical because the science is in its infancy and there is more evidence against AGW than for it.....correlatory evidence is the poorest sort and that is really all you have.

Bullshit. Here is a fact. Man has never done what is happening right now and has been happening for over 100 years.

Man has NEVER mined and drilled for trillions of pounds of coal and oil and burnt them.
Never.

I point out that correlation does not equal causation, and what do you do? You try to rebutt the statement with correlation. Mankind has never eaten so many potatoes...perhaps that is what is causing climate change...man has never looked so far out into the universe...perhaps that is what is causing climate change.

You want to prove that our meager contribution to what remains a trace gas in the atmosphere is causing climate change, show me some empirical evidence that proves that an increase of 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause the climate to change...then tell me how much temperature increase that 100ppm causes and explain why temperatures have been stalled for 17 years now while CO2 continues to increase....and be prepared to back your claims up with actual hard evidence....not more correlation.

are in the middle of a great experiment, doing something that man hasn't done before.
And we have no idea of the ultimate outcome.

And the indicators is that a bad effect is occurring.

Ignore it if you want. Won't change a thing.

We are in the midst of a climate change on a planet whose climate has been constantly changing since it came into existence. For most of earth's history, it has been so warm on this planet that there was no ice...anywhere.

Ever wonder why there is a limit to how old ice cores are? Here is a clue, because at prior to the ice age we are currently in the process of exiting, there was no ice...no ice at the north pole, and no ice at the south pole. The global temperature was approximately 22 degrees C vs the 14.5C or so it is now... 8 degrees C warmer than the present without the benefit of mankind's CO2.

seem to think that man can't do anything to change or alter our environment.

Of course we can change our environment and can even alter the local and regional climate via changes in our use of land.....we can not, however alter the climate by producing CO2. That is a hoax. If you think otherwise, I encourage you to provide some hard evidence that a 100ppm increase in a trace gas can alter the global climate.

scientists used to warn us about nuclear winter in the advent of a full, all out nuclear war, were they (scientists) lying about the results? I mean, man can't effect something like the climate of the earth. Right?

Those scientists warning about nuclear winter had evidence on their side. They could demonstrate how much material a nuke of a particular yield could throw up into the air...then they could compare that with the known effects of volcanoes and come up with a reasonable estimate based on actual observation.

Climate science, on the other hand is not based on observation since no observation exists that proves that a small addition to a trace gas can alter the climate. No observation has ever been made of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...climate science is based on models which are in turn based on flawed physics, assumptions, and the bias of those who wrote the models.

Again, show me one piece of hard evidence that a 100ppm increase in a trace gas can alter the global climate and when you fail to find it, you might ask yourself on what basis you believe that it can.

 

[zeke]

You however are not honest at all. You pretend that the science is settled and have just said that AGW is proven...if it were, don't you think that the IPCC paper might include that proof.

I am skeptical because the science is in its infancy and there is more evidence against AGW than for it.....correlatory evidence is the poorest sort and that is really all you have.

Bullshit. Here is a fact. Man has never done what is happening right now and has been happening for over 100 years.

Man has NEVER mined and drilled for trillions of pounds of coal and oil and burnt them.
Never.

I point out that correlation does not equal causation, and what do you do? You try to rebutt the statement with correlation. Mankind has never eaten so many potatoes...perhaps that is what is causing climate change...man has never looked so far out into the universe...perhaps that is what is causing climate change.

You want to prove that our meager contribution to what remains a trace gas in the atmosphere is causing climate change, show me some empirical evidence that proves that an increase of 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause the climate to change...then tell me how much temperature increase that 100ppm causes and explain why temperatures have been stalled for 17 years now while CO2 continues to increase....and be prepared to back your claims up with actual hard evidence....not more correlation.




We are in the midst of a climate change on a planet whose climate has been constantly changing since it came into existence. For most of earth's history, it has been so warm on this planet that there was no ice...anywhere.

Ever wonder why there is a limit to how old ice cores are? Here is a clue, because at prior to the ice age we are currently in the process of exiting, there was no ice...no ice at the north pole, and no ice at the south pole. The global temperature was approximately 22 degrees C vs the 14.5C or so it is now... 8 degrees C warmer than the present without the benefit of mankind's CO2.

seem to think that man can't do anything to change or alter our environment.

Of course we can change our environment and can even alter the local and regional climate via changes in our use of land.....we can not, however alter the climate by producing CO2. That is a hoax. If you think otherwise, I encourage you to provide some hard evidence that a 100ppm increase in a trace gas can alter the global climate.

scientists used to warn us about nuclear winter in the advent of a full, all out nuclear war, were they (scientists) lying about the results? I mean, man can't effect something like the climate of the earth. Right?

Those scientists warning about nuclear winter had evidence on their side. They could demonstrate how much material a nuke of a particular yield could throw up into the air...then they could compare that with the known effects of volcanoes and come up with a reasonable estimate based on actual observation.

Climate science, on the other hand is not based on observation since no observation exists that proves that a small addition to a trace gas can alter the climate. No observation has ever been made of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...climate science is based on models which are in turn based on flawed physics, assumptions, and the bias of those who wrote the models.

Again, show me one piece of hard evidence that a 100ppm increase in a trace gas can alter the global climate and when you fail to find it, you might ask yourself on what basis you believe that it can.

Science used computer modeling and observation to put forth their opinion as to what an all out nuclear exchange would do to the earths climate. And you accept that.

Science uses computer modeling and observation to put forth their opinion as too why there is changes occurring that correlate with the burning of oil and coal. But that ain't good enough. (btw , computer power today is on a scale of how much more powerful today than the 60ties? and the bull shit about no observation today, wtf you talking about?)

Fucking amazing.

But you never did say when the last time man burnt trillions of pounds of oil and coal and put them into the atmosphere. What period did man do that and what was the outcome?

Of course, it hasn't been done before, no matter how much of a lying POS you want to be, you can't deny that this burning of coal and gas, at current scale, has NEVER been done before the recent history that now exists. And we have no fucking idea of what the long term effects of doing this will bring. But it ain't promising.

Why is that so fucking hard for people like you to admit? Have you got your entire persona wrapped up in being the smartest global warming denier on the board? You may be able to do that. Still makes you wrong, but wtf eh?

Good god dude, use a little common sense.

 

[asterism]

Go to http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

Scroll to page 237. Read the approximately 860 entries of supporting studies published in peer reviewed journals. These are the references for Chapter 2 of AR5: "Observations: Atmosphere and Surface". AR5 has fourteen (14) more chapters and six (6) annexes.

AR5 has orders of magnitude more supporting reference material - more EVIDENCE, all from peer reviewed, published studies, than does any collection you could even begin to assemble supporting your denier-cult fantasies.

I have read more than a few of them. the MAJORITY are meta analyses, computer models, and non peer reviewed "studies" promulgated by NGO's. Go ahead and read a few. Get back to me when you have something actually worth looking at.

Once again, I do not believe you. The IPCC has a firm policy about peer reviewed sources. Why don't YOU get back to me when you've decided to give honesty a try? The inordinately biased and unqualified blog Hockey Schtick puts up 70 links. I examined four of them and found that Hockey Schtick had simply lied about their contents and conclusions and that they had virtually NOTHING to say about AGW or solar causation. Out of ONE of FOURTEEN chapters of AR5 I give you 860 links to peer reviewed studies and you won't look at ONE of them and try to feed us more lies.

I'm really impressed with your academic principles 'professor'.

The same IPCC that included these studies?

The scandal deepens ? IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers | Watts Up With That?

 

[SSDD]

Science used computer modeling and observation to put forth their opinion as to what an all out nuclear exchange would do to the earths climate. And you accept that.

Do you guys ever think anything through? Of course not...if you did, you wouldn't be warmers. Can you grasp the difference between a model based on known, proven phenomena vs a model based on an unproven hypothesis? The effects of material thrown up into the atmosphere is a known, observable, testable quantity. The effects of CO2 on the climate are unproven, untested, unobserved hypothesis....nothing more. If you believe there is actual evidence that a wisp of an increase to a wisp of a trace gas in the atmosphere can alter the climate, then again, lets see it.

By the way, have you not noticed how badly the models have failed? If you write a model based on your hypothesis and it fails to predict the phenomena it is modeling, then your hypothesis is wrong...it is as easy as that. The models have proven beyond any doubt that the hypothesis is wrong since the models are the embodiment of the hypothesis.

Science uses computer modeling and observation to put forth their opinion as too why there is changes occurring that correlate with the burning of oil and coal. But that ain't good enough. (btw , computer power today is on a scale of how much more powerful today than the 60ties? and the bull shit about no observation today, wtf you talking about?)

What observation? The fact is that there is nothing....absolutely nothing going on in the climate today that is unprecedented. Every observation one could make regarding the climate today has happened prior to the advent of the internal combustion engine during times when the CO2 level was "safe". The whole idea that the present climate change is due to man's CO2 is demolished by the fact that the earth has warmed faster, and to higher temperatures without our CO2.

The fact that you guys can ignore the entire climate history of the earth in favor of an unstestable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis is amazing. Does it occur to you that the earth is still in the process of coming out of an ice age? What do you suppose that has looked like i the past?

you never did say when the last time man burnt trillions of pounds of oil and coal and put them into the atmosphere. What period did man do that and what was the outcome?

It doesn't matter. The fact that the temperature has been much warmer than the present without man's CO2 is hard evidence that something else is happening. We know so little about the climate and its workings, that we can't even begin, at this point, to make a rational guess as to what is happening. It isn't a trace gas in the atmosphere as evidenced by the fact that temperatures have stalled while CO2 has continued to increase at record levels. If CO2 were in fact, responsible for the little warming that has happened in the past century, the temperature would not have stalled for the past 17 years.

course, it hasn't been done before, no matter how much of a lying POS you want to be, you can't deny that this burning of coal and gas, at current scale, has NEVER been done before the recent history that now exists. And we have no fucking idea of what the long term effects of doing this will bring. But it ain't promising.

Again, irrelevant as temperatures have been much higher without our CO2. You don't seem to be able to grasp that. If our CO2 is the control knob, why has the global temperature been so much warmer than the present without it....The earth has entered ice ages with atmospheric CO2 levels in the 4500ppm range.

is that so fucking hard for people like you to admit? Have you got your entire persona wrapped up in being the smartest global warming denier on the board? You may be able to do that. Still makes you wrong, but wtf eh?

Why is it impossible for you guys to admit that the hypothesis is incorrect and AGW is a sham. The models are based on what climate science believes happens when more CO2 is added to the atmosphere. More CO2 has been added to the atmosphere and what the models predicted has not happened. They predicted more warming and what we have is no warming for 17 years and perhaps a slight cooling trend. Models based on a high atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 did not predict this so clearly, the hypothesis is falsified.

god dude, use a little common sense.

I may say the same to you. The models based on the hypothesis have failed but you still believe the hypothesis. Suppose I developed a model for a new sort of aircraft and my model demonstrated that the aircraft was superior in many ways to present aircraft....then we build the aircraft based on the parameters of the model and it fails miserably....do you continue to have faith in my aircraft design, or do you tell me to go back to the drawing board?

 

[SSDD]

I have read more than a few of them. the MAJORITY are meta analyses, computer models, and non peer reviewed "studies" promulgated by NGO's. Go ahead and read a few. Get back to me when you have something actually worth looking at.

Once again, I do not believe you. The IPCC has a firm policy about peer reviewed sources. Why don't YOU get back to me when you've decided to give honesty a try? The inordinately biased and unqualified blog Hockey Schtick puts up 70 links. I examined four of them and found that Hockey Schtick had simply lied about their contents and conclusions and that they had virtually NOTHING to say about AGW or solar causation. Out of ONE of FOURTEEN chapters of AR5 I give you 860 links to peer reviewed studies and you won't look at ONE of them and try to feed us more lies.

I'm really impressed with your academic principles 'professor'.

The same IPCC that included these studies?

The scandal deepens ? IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers | Watts Up With That?

Thanks, I was looking for that and couldn't remember where I saw it. So much for the IPCC's strict safeguards regarding peer reviewed papers.

 

[Abraham3]

They always had the policy, they just didnt ALWAYS follow it. They have tightened up considerably since.

Now since you claim to have read a lot of the 860 papers referenced at the back of Chapter 2 of AR5, why don't you find some that aren't peer reviewed as you claimed? In fact, just for parity's sake, why don't you find four of them and show them worthless, as I did with the links from Hot Schtick?

 

[SSDD]

They always had the policy, they just didnt ALWAYS follow it. They have tightened up considerably since.

Since what? Since they got caught accepting activist blogs as scientific evidence? And is or is not AR5 built upon the foundation laid by all the previous AR's?

And don't forget that they ignored a very large body of peer reviewed published papers finding that the sun was the key player in our climate.

In fact, just for parity's sake, why don't you find four of them and show them worthless, as I did with the links from Hot Schtick?

All we found out there was that you are damned near illiterate. You got your ass handed to you on every count. You are one of the worst liars on this board and you take every opportunity to prove it.

 

[westwall]

Go to http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

Scroll to page 237. Read the approximately 860 entries of supporting studies published in peer reviewed journals. These are the references for Chapter 2 of AR5: "Observations: Atmosphere and Surface". AR5 has fourteen (14) more chapters and six (6) annexes.

AR5 has orders of magnitude more supporting reference material - more EVIDENCE, all from peer reviewed, published studies, than does any collection you could even begin to assemble supporting your denier-cult fantasies.

I have read more than a few of them. the MAJORITY are meta analyses, computer models, and non peer reviewed "studies" promulgated by NGO's. Go ahead and read a few. Get back to me when you have something actually worth looking at.

Once again, I do not believe you. The IPCC has a firm policy about peer reviewed sources. Why don't YOU get back to me when you've decided to give honesty a try? The inordinately biased and unqualified blog Hockey Schtick puts up 70 links. I examined four of them and found that Hockey Schtick had simply lied about their contents and conclusions and that they had virtually NOTHING to say about AGW or solar causation. Out of ONE of FOURTEEN chapters of AR5 I give you 860 links to peer reviewed studies and you won't look at ONE of them and try to feed us more lies.

I'm really impressed with your academic principles 'professor'.

I don't want you to believe me. I want you TO READ SOME OF THE PAPERS YOU ARE SO PROUD OF and then get back to me so we can review them. Do you get it now?

 

[westwall]

So we find that both sets of papers are honest about their reliability. But when I said robust, you knew PRECISELY what I was talking about. I guess I get to quote it for you (again).

You however are not honest at all. You pretend that the science is settled and have just said that AGW is proven...if it were, don't you think that the IPCC paper might include that proof.

I am skeptical because the science is in its infancy and there is more evidence against AGW than for it.....correlatory evidence is the poorest sort and that is really all you have.

Bullshit. Here is a fact. Man has never done what is happening right now and has been happening for over 100 years.

Man has NEVER mined and drilled for trillions of pounds of coal and oil and burnt them.
Never.

We are in the middle of a great experiment, doing something that man hasn't done before.
And we have no idea of the ultimate outcome.

And the indicators is that a bad effect is occurring.

Ignore it if you want. Won't change a thing.

You seem to think that man can't do anything to change or alter our environment.

When scientists used to warn us about nuclear winter in the advent of a full, all out nuclear war, were they (scientists) lying about the results? I mean, man can't effect something like the climate of the earth. Right?

It doesn't matter what man has done or hasn't done. What matters is there is no discernible pattern or effect that is based on empirical observations anywhere in the world today. NONE. You may make all of the claims you wish, but if there is no measurable impact, your claims are meaningless.

 

[westwall]

Bullshit. Here is a fact. Man has never done what is happening right now and has been happening for over 100 years.

Man has NEVER mined and drilled for trillions of pounds of coal and oil and burnt them.
Never.

I point out that correlation does not equal causation, and what do you do? You try to rebutt the statement with correlation. Mankind has never eaten so many potatoes...perhaps that is what is causing climate change...man has never looked so far out into the universe...perhaps that is what is causing climate change.

You want to prove that our meager contribution to what remains a trace gas in the atmosphere is causing climate change, show me some empirical evidence that proves that an increase of 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause the climate to change...then tell me how much temperature increase that 100ppm causes and explain why temperatures have been stalled for 17 years now while CO2 continues to increase....and be prepared to back your claims up with actual hard evidence....not more correlation.




We are in the midst of a climate change on a planet whose climate has been constantly changing since it came into existence. For most of earth's history, it has been so warm on this planet that there was no ice...anywhere.

Ever wonder why there is a limit to how old ice cores are? Here is a clue, because at prior to the ice age we are currently in the process of exiting, there was no ice...no ice at the north pole, and no ice at the south pole. The global temperature was approximately 22 degrees C vs the 14.5C or so it is now... 8 degrees C warmer than the present without the benefit of mankind's CO2.



Of course we can change our environment and can even alter the local and regional climate via changes in our use of land.....we can not, however alter the climate by producing CO2. That is a hoax. If you think otherwise, I encourage you to provide some hard evidence that a 100ppm increase in a trace gas can alter the global climate.

scientists used to warn us about nuclear winter in the advent of a full, all out nuclear war, were they (scientists) lying about the results? I mean, man can't effect something like the climate of the earth. Right?

Those scientists warning about nuclear winter had evidence on their side. They could demonstrate how much material a nuke of a particular yield could throw up into the air...then they could compare that with the known effects of volcanoes and come up with a reasonable estimate based on actual observation.

Climate science, on the other hand is not based on observation since no observation exists that proves that a small addition to a trace gas can alter the climate. No observation has ever been made of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...climate science is based on models which are in turn based on flawed physics, assumptions, and the bias of those who wrote the models.

Again, show me one piece of hard evidence that a 100ppm increase in a trace gas can alter the global climate and when you fail to find it, you might ask yourself on what basis you believe that it can.

Science used computer modeling and observation to put forth their opinion as to what an all out nuclear exchange would do to the earths climate. And you accept that.

Science uses computer modeling and observation to put forth their opinion as too why there is changes occurring that correlate with the burning of oil and coal. But that ain't good enough. (btw , computer power today is on a scale of how much more powerful today than the 60ties? and the bull shit about no observation today, wtf you talking about?)

Fucking amazing.

But you never did say when the last time man burnt trillions of pounds of oil and coal and put them into the atmosphere. What period did man do that and what was the outcome?

Of course, it hasn't been done before, no matter how much of a lying POS you want to be, you can't deny that this burning of coal and gas, at current scale, has NEVER been done before the recent history that now exists. And we have no fucking idea of what the long term effects of doing this will bring. But it ain't promising.

Why is that so fucking hard for people like you to admit? Have you got your entire persona wrapped up in being the smartest global warming denier on the board? You may be able to do that. Still makes you wrong, but wtf eh?

Good god dude, use a little common sense.

And you choose to ignore the fact that numerous studies have shown the computer models you're so proud of to be "less than worthless" in the words of one MIT study.

 

[mamooth]

Those awful models. That is, an average of all of the 23 models from AR4, compared against temps.

Models « Open Mind

Let the screeches of "I HATE TAMINO!" begin. Or you could try some cherrypicking, selecting only the models that weren't good. It's worked for you before.

You can't argue with success, but denialists will keep on trying.

 

[SwimExpert]

So we find that both sets of papers are honest about their reliability. But when I said robust, you knew PRECISELY what I was talking about. I guess I get to quote it for you (again).

You however are not honest at all. You pretend that the science is settled and have just said that AGW is proven...if it were, don't you think that the IPCC paper might include that proof.

I am skeptical because the science is in its infancy and there is more evidence against AGW than for it.....correlatory evidence is the poorest sort and that is really all you have.

Bullshit. Here is a fact. Man has never done what is happening right now and has been happening for over 100 years.

Man has NEVER mined and drilled for trillions of pounds of coal and oil and burnt them.
Never.

We are in the middle of a great experiment, doing something that man hasn't done before.
And we have no idea of the ultimate outcome.

And the indicators is that a bad effect is occurring.

Ignore it if you want. Won't change a thing.

You seem to think that man can't do anything to change or alter our environment.

When scientists used to warn us about nuclear winter in the advent of a full, all out nuclear war, were they (scientists) lying about the results? I mean, man can't effect something like the climate of the earth. Right?

What part of "correlation does not imply causation" is a mystery for you?

 

[Abraham3]

I don't want you to believe me.

Good.

I want you TO READ SOME OF THE PAPERS YOU ARE SO PROUD OF and then get back to me so we can review them.

Number 1

http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~markusdonat/Papers/Donat_etal_2013_HadEX2_JGR_10.1002_jgrd.50150.pdf
Journal of Geophysical Research

Updated analyses of temperature and precipitation extreme indices
since the beginning of the twentieth century: The HadEX2 dataset

M. G. Donat,1L. V. Alexander,1,2H. Yang,1 I. Durre,3R. Vose,3R. J. H. Dunn,4K. M. Willett,4E. Aguilar,5 M. Brunet,5,21 J. Caesar,4B. Hewitson,6C. Jack,6 A. M. G. Klein Tank,7A. C. Kruger,8 J. Marengo,9 T. C. Peterson,3 M. Renom,10C. Oria Rojas,11 M. Rusticucci,12 J. Salinger,13 A. S. Elrayah,14 S. S. Sekele,8 A. K. Srivastava,15B. Trewin,16C. Villarroel,17 L. A. Vincent,18 P. Zhai,19 X. Zhang,18 and S. Kitching2,20

Received 31 July 2012; revised 17 December 2012; accepted 27 December 2012.
[1]

In this study, we present the collation and analysis of the gridded land-based dataset of indices of temperature and precipitation extremes: HadEX2. Indices were calculated based on station data using a consistent approach recommended by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Expert Team on Climate Change Detection and Indices, resulting in the production of 17 temperature and 12 precipitation indices derived from daily maximum and minimum temperature and precipitation observations. High-quality in situ observations from over 7000 temperature and 11,000 precipitation meteorological stations across the globe were obtained to calculate the indices over the period of record available for each station. Monthly and annual indices were then interpolated onto a 3.75
2.5
longitude-latitude grid over the period 1901–2010. Linear trends in the gridded fields were computed and tested for statistical significance. Overall there was very good agreement with the previous HadEX dataset during the overlapping data period. Results showed widespread significant changes in temperature extremes consistent with warming, especially for those indices derived from daily minimum temperature over the whole 110 years of record but with stronger trends in more recent decades. Seasonal results showed significant warming in all seasons but more so in the colder months. Precipitation indices also showed widespread and significant trends, but the changes were much more spatially heterogeneous compared with temperature changes. However, results indicated more areas with significant increasing trends in extreme precipitation amounts, intensity, and frequency than areas with decreasing trends.

Citation: Donat, M. G., et al. (2013), Updated analyses of temperature and precipitation extreme indices since the beginning of the twentieth century: The HadEX2 dataset, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50150

 

[SwimExpert]

man has never looked so far out into the universe...perhaps that is what is causing climate change.

That is actually a very real possibility. The further out into the universe we gaze, the more light we suck into the atmosphere from far off stars. This has led to an exponential increase in solar radiation coming into atmosphere from across the universe over the past several decades, which matches very precisely with the observed increases in global average temperatures. After selectively adjusting to eliminate discrepancies, of course.

All this extra star light is causing the ice caps to melt and will kill the penguins! Stop stellar exploration now!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Those awful models. That is, an average of all of the 23 models from AR4, compared against temps.

Models « Open Mind

Let the screeches of "I HATE TAMINO!" begin. Or you could try some cherrypicking, selecting only the models that weren't good. It's worked for you before.

You can't argue with success, but denialists will keep on trying.

I'd like to see this for AR2? AR4 is way to close to now.

 

[SwimExpert]

Those awful models.

Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe was a revolutionary scientific breakthrough in astronomy, pulling together centuries of research and study into a single comprehensible theory. Ptolemy's model offered unprecedented accuracy in predicting the motions of the heavenly bodies, and explained aspects of the motion of the planets that could not be previously understood, and which had long confounded astronomers. Ptolemy's model was so powerful that for more than 1,000 years it was virtually gospel.

However, Ptolemy's was not reality. It was, in fact, drastically different than what the truth actually is.

 

[Abraham3]

Next:

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY

Int. J. Climatol. 29: 851–862 (2009)
Published online 26 November 2008 in Wiley InterScience
(Wiley Online Library) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1750

Variability in wintertime position and strength of the North
Pacific jet stream as represented by re-analysis data

Neil P. Bartona* and Andrew W. Ellisb, a Center for Climatic Research, Department of Geography, University of Delaware, 216 Pearson Hall, Newark, DE 19716-2541, USA b School of Geographical Sciences, Arizona State University, Arizona, USA

ABSTRACT: The popular National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) re-analysis database was used to create a mean winter seasonal jet stream database for the northern Pacific Ocean region for the period 1948–1949 through 2004–2005. Grids of mean seasonal 300 hPa scalar wind were used to determine the latitudinal position of the primary mid-latitude jet on a longitudinal resolution of 2.5° from eastern Asia to western North America. The position and strength of the jet stream across this region are key determinants of winter precipitation variability downstream across the predominantly arid western region of North America. Results show that the latitudinal position of the jet exhibits greater variance over the eastern half of the northern Pacific Ocean, while the greatest variance in the speed of the seasonal jet occurs across the central northern Pacific Ocean. A statistically significant increase in the speed of the mean seasonal jet occurred over the central area of the northern Pacific Ocean during the last half of the 20th century. A spatially consistent but statistically insignificant trend toward a more southerly position of the jet occurred during the study period. The results do not confirm current theories of a general pole-ward shift in mid-latitude jet streams in association with recent and future climate change, suggesting that such an observed or theoretical hemispheric shift may not necessarily be evident within a particular region or that any shift over the last 50 years has been less than the 2.5° resolution of the NCEP/NCAR dataset. The jet stream data support the connection between the jet and the Pacific-North American atmospheric teleconnection pattern and between the jet and the oscillation of sea surface temperature anomalies in the northern Pacific Ocean known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Copyright
 2008 Royal Meteorological SocietyKEY WORDS jet stream; North Pacific Ocean; winter; climatology
Received 31 July 2007; Revised 24 June 2008; Accepted 28 June 2008

 

[Abraham3]

and next:

http://herb.atmos.colostate.edu/tristan/publications/2008_FLXHR_lecuyer_jgr.pdf
Impact of clouds on atmospheric heating based on the R04 CloudSat
fluxes and heating rates data set

Tristan S. L’Ecuyer,1 Norman B. Wood,1 Taryn Haladay,1 Graeme L. Stephens,1
and Paul W. Stackhouse Jr.2

Received 11 February 2008; revised 5 June 2008; accepted 26 August 2008; published 6 December 2008.
[1]

Among the largest uncertainties in quantifying the radiative impacts of clouds are
those that arise from the inherent difficulty in precisely specifying the vertical distribution
of cloud optical properties using passive satellite measurements. Motivated by the need
to address this problem, CloudSat was launched in April 2006 carrying into orbit the first
millimeter wavelength cloud radar to be flown in space. Retrieved profiles of liquid and
ice cloud microphysical properties from this Cloud Profiling Radar form the basis of the
CloudSat’s fluxes and heating rates algorithm, 2B-FLXHR, a standard product that
provides high vertical resolution profiles of radiative fluxes and atmospheric heating rates
on the global scale. This paper describes the physical basis of the 2B-FLXHR algorithm
and documents the first year of 2B-FLXHR data in the context of assessing the radiative
impact of clouds on global and regional scales. The analysis confirms that cloud
contributions to atmospheric radiative heating are small on the global scale because of a
cancelation of the much larger regional heating from high clouds in the tropics and cooling
from low clouds at higher latitudes. Preliminary efforts to assess the accuracy of the
2B-FLXHR product using coincident CERES data demonstrate that outgoing longwave
fluxes are better represented than those in the shortwave but both exhibit good agreement
with CERES on scales longer than 5 days and larger than 5
. Colocated CALIPSO
observations of clouds that are undetected by CloudSat further indicate that while thin
cirrus can introduce modest uncertainty in the products, low clouds that are obscured by
ground clutter represent a far more important source of error in the current

How's that search going... the one for the NON-peer reviewed studies among the 860 with which you claimed that list was filled? Eh?

 

[Abraham3]

Number 4 (only 856 to go... and then there are the next 14 chapters)

Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale

B. D. Santer1, C. Mears2, C. Doutriaux1, P. Caldwell1, P. J. Gleckler1, T. M. L. Wigley3, S. Solomon4, N. P. Gillett5, D. Ivanova1, T. R. Karl6, J. R. Lanzante7, G. A. Meehl3, P. A. Stott8, K. E. Taylor1, P. W. Thorne6, M. F. Wehner9, F. J. Wentz2
Article first published online: 18 NOV 2011

DOI: 10.1029/2011JD016263

Copyright 2011 by the American Geophysical Union.
Issue Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012)
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012)
Volume 116, Issue D22, November 2011
[1]

We compare global-scale changes in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) with model simulations of forced and unforced TLT changes. While previous work has focused on a single period of record, we select analysis timescales ranging from 10 to 32 years, and then compare all possible observed TLT trends on each timescale with corresponding multi-model distributions of forced and unforced trends. We use observed estimates of the signal component of TLT changes and model estimates of climate noise to calculate timescale-dependent signal-to-noise ratios (S/N). These ratios are small (less than 1) on the 10-year timescale, increasing to more than 3.9 for 32-year trends. This large change in S/N is primarily due to a decrease in the amplitude of internally generated variability with increasing trend length. Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

 

[Abraham3]

WESTWALL,

let me know when you've read these and we can review them together.