New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’

[PersianPaladin]

Interesting that some academics are still contradicting the IPCC: -

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

[West is Best]

Interesting that some academics are still contradicting the IPCC: -

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

Very interesting PP. Would love to get hold of the full article. Edit - I should be able to get it when it appears online as I have an academic access to most journals.

[High Altitude]

Very interesting. Similar reading to a fascinating book i've just finished called 'Not by fire but by ice'. Well worth a read for an alternative view of climate change.....if a little dramatic.

[Chill]

I've just checked and have access to this paper.

Problem is I don't know how to may it available to view...

It is a PDF. Any ideas let me know.

Chris

[PersianPaladin]

Very interesting PP. Would love to get hold of the full article. Edit - I should be able to get it when it appears online as I have an academic access to most journals.

The article isnt listed on the Royal Society webpage: -

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116844649/issue

I've just checked and have access to this paper.

Problem is I don't know how to may it available to view...

It is a PDF. Any ideas let me know.

Chris

You need to have a program called Adobe Reader on your computer.

[John Cox]

I keep saying this but nobody listens

[jethro]

I keep saying this but nobody listens

Me too.

[Gray-Wolf]

Oh dear, oh dear ,oh dear.

Next.

[West is Best]

The article isnt listed on the Royal Society webpage: -

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116844649/issue

Hi PP.

It was published online on 5th December 2007. It looks like it will either be in the second hard copy Number in December or January: in either case that's Volume 37 Number 16.

You can purchase it online already, but I can't yet access it free through my University.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...=1&SRETRY=0

That link may not work in which case google the article's title and about 3 down you get straight to the online link.

Research Article

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions

David H. Douglass 1 *, John R. Christy 2, Benjamin D. Pearson 1, S. Fred Singer 3 4

1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA

2Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA

3Science and Environmental Policy Project, Arlington, VA 22202, USA

4University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA

email: David H. Douglass ([email protected])

*Correspondence to David H. Douglass, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA.

Keywords

climate trend • troposphere • observations

Abstract

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: 31 May 2007; Accepted: 11 October 2007

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1002/joc.1651 About DOI

Oh dear, oh dear ,oh dear.

Next.

Good to see you are maintaining an academic, unbiased and objective approach to current research. You really don't do the cause of AGW many favours ...

[Bobby]

I keep saying this but nobody listens doh.gif

It's only one study. It's not gospel or anything. There are thousands more who completely disagree with it, and nobody's even read it yet.

So don't get too excited.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

It's only one study. It's not gospel or anything. There are thousands more who completely disagree with it, and nobody's even read it yet.

So don't get too excited.

Isn't that the point with the whole discussion regarding global warming. Nothing is gospel, except the fact that the earth is currently, or has been recently, warming. How this is arrived at is fully open for debate, which I think IS the point of this, and other, threads.

Just a thought.

As for the research article, should make for an interesting read!

[PersianPaladin]

It's only one study. It's not gospel or anything. There are thousands more who completely disagree with it, and nobody's even read it yet.

So don't get too excited.

Not sure that there are thousands of others who get published in such high standard journals.

Still you are right, its not gospel and only one study ; it could indeed be just another bit of pathological science on behalf of the anti-AGW cynics.

[Gray-Wolf]

Would anyone care to name the countries who 'messed up ' the IPCC reports? The fact that the study is done in one of the biggest dissenters and the Journal is from another rings alarm bells in my tiny head.

In so far as 'doing/not doing' favours for the AGW cause....tough. I've said before I gave up giving a damn in 85' as my head was too bloodied from the brick wall I'd spent 15yrs ramming it into. Back then we could have made a start to ameliorating the worst AGW could throw at us, today? your knacker ed, completely and utterly kiboshed and it will be in the immediate future (and not down the line in someone else's old age) that the utter scale of what WE had accomplished will come abundantly clear.

The life that you live happens now. In the near future either the quality of this existence will be severely curtailed or your existence itself will be negated. If you were too young 20yrs ago blame your parents, if not, you should (in the words of one of my songs from back then) have 'Listened to me'.

[West is Best]

Hmmm ... the problem with that GW (just realised how appropriate that is!) is that it's not a way to win over hearts and minds. Your evangelical tone has one thinking more of the extremist sectarians in parts of the mid-west than people who are able to win an argument with normal, sane, middle of the road people - and that is surely where the debate is to be had. Allied to this is a persistent sense that some have tried to cut-off debate, something which exacerbates the notion that the argument about anthropogenic global warming contains flaws. The 'I'm right and that's the end of it' approach is usually in my experience a sign that someone is wrong!

[Gray-Wolf]

Hmmm ... the problem with that GW (just realised how appropriate that is!) is that it's not a way to win over hearts and minds. Your evangelical tone has one thinking more of the extremist sectarians in parts of the mid-west than people who are able to win an argument with normal, sane, middle of the road people - and that is surely where the debate is to be had. Allied to this is a persistent sense that some have tried to cut-off debate, something which exacerbates the notion that the argument about anthropogenic global warming contains flaws. The 'I'm right and that's the end of it' approach is usually in my experience a sign that someone is wrong!

And ohh how I hope I am! As wrong as a wrong thing gobbling down wrong pills !!! What do I , or any of us, stand to gain if I'm right???? Wrong ,wrong ,wrong ,wrong, oh how I wish to be barkingly off in my viewpoint, oh how I will celebrate the dissenters scorn at my wrongness.

Oh for a long life on a settled, energy rich planet.

[Michael Winston]

I've just checked and have access to this paper.

Problem is I don't know how to may it available to view...

It is a PDF. Any ideas let me know.

Chris

Hi, Chris.

You can download the Adobe Acrobat reader for free - that will open up the PDF file for you. 'Google' Adobe and it will give you the link to the Adobe home page.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Mike.

[Chill]

Sorry

I meant that I have access to the paper, it is up on my screen, but I don't know how to make it available to you guys to have a look through it too!!

Just trying to find a way to share the article.

Cheers

Chris

[Arnost]

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

The article may be accessed via at Icecap via the above link

cheers

Arnost

[Chill]

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

The article may be accessed via at Icecap via the above link

cheers

Arnost

Saves me bumbling about trying to work out how to show it!

Thanks

[PersianPaladin]

It states in the report that several runs of the GCM model were compared against actual records at various parts of the troposphere in the tropics; but unless I'm reading it incorrectly..it doesn't state the beginning date of the model runs and the location of the data derived from the tropics. It also states that for one simulation the latitudinal interpretation for tropics was 20N to 20S whereas the other was 30N to 30S.

I'm confused.

[parmenides3]

These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

The obvious question to ask, then, is why? One conclusion might be that if Douglass's findings contradict everyone else's it's because they've missed something. The other, is that Douglass is wrong. Given the publishing details, I'm not betting on him having discovered something that others have missed. Check out RC on Tropospheric temperature trends: http://www.realclimate.org/

:)P

[PersianPaladin]

The obvious question to ask, then, is why? One conclusion might be that if Douglass's findings contradict everyone else's it's because they've missed something. The other, is that Douglass is wrong. Given the publishing details, I'm not betting on him having discovered something that others have missed. Check out RC on Tropospheric temperature trends: http://www.realclimate.org/

P

There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

I wish I could understand some of the terminology used in statistical analysis, but I guess I'll just stick with real-world meterology.

One gripe is; why should you input uncertainty into measured real-world observations? Uncertainty is only a factor in model simulations; not present reality.

[West is Best]

The obvious question to ask, then, is why? One conclusion might be that if Douglass's findings contradict everyone else's it's because they've missed something. The other, is that Douglass is wrong.

And another is that in their headlong rush to 'prove' the AGW line others have misused and abused data.

This is an important paper.

[parmenides3]

Hi, La Nina.

So, you are saying that quite a lot of scientists have deliberately chosen to deceive each other and us, by producing material which does not follow the basic principles of science, and that the universities, institutions and journals have all agreed to conspire to allow them to do this? Of the two suggestions, once again, I think I know which I find more likely.

:)P

[VillagePlank]

One gripe is; why should you input uncertainty into measured real-world observations? Uncertainty is only a factor in model simulations; not present reality.

To account for uncertainty. The same reason that in your real world meterology you understand that the ensembles are a very important part of the big picture.