General Climate Discussion

[straffo]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The Sahara is a local phenomenon. Local conditions are hot and dry.  

Globally, 70% of the earth's surface will be putting more water into the atmosphere, which should mean more global average rainfall.

nope , think of the saturation.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
so you guys don't like em?   but you agree with what he is saying tho right?

the math for Co2 doesn't add up.

you don't want to attack the science tho?  just the man?  The paper was not written by singer in any case..  he just  contributed.

"The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia)."

but.. it was peer reviewed.. his peers weren't moray or angus tho so maybe it wasn't a real peer reviewed paper?

and then there is this... ""Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.  "


lazs

Again, you end an argument with a quote... from a guy who makes new types of WHOOL.  

I'm not attacking the man, sir, he's entitled to his own opinion.  I'm attacking you for using him as a quoted source.  All three of the people you qouted from have been severely compromised, scientifically.

I ask you this.... when are you going to post this math, that "doesn't add up?"

 Do you know how to analyze this data for yourself?  You and I already know the answer to that question lazs.  Rest your opinion on the backs of people you don't know.  I can explain my end of the science... can you even begin to?>

[lazs2]

moray.. are you saying that the "scientists" who advocate MMGW are not making money and power off the deal?   Are they flying out to all these conferences and such on their own dime?

aren't we funneling billions of dollars to guys who start out with the conclusion that MMGW exists?

So you don't like the guy.. no big deal.. show me where he is wrong.. show me where the co2 math adds up... but wait... you don't actually believe that man made co2 will cause catastrophic climate change do you?

But...that is what they are trying to ram down our throats.. that somehow..  reducing our econmies to the stone age and some 50% reduction in something that they can't even prove is a cause.. that somehow.. that will overpower all natural science and climate change.

lazs

[lazs2]

and..  you say that the men have been comprimised.. prove it.  Hell.. every pro MMGW scientist that I have seen has had at least some of his work turn out to be gross exaggeration so far.  they all seem compromised to me.

I have no doubt you can explain your part of co2 causing man made global warming better than me..   we all await with baited breath.   There is so little convincing data out there that yours would be welcome.

lazs

[Ripsnort]

Interesting!  How many people here think sea levels would rise if all the sea ice melted?

Noted Sea Level Expert Accuses IPCC of Falsifying Data
Claims IPCC estimates are bunk; Observational data shows no sea level rise trend

Note: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner has been studying sea level change for 35 years. He is the former head of Stockholm University's department of Paleodeophysics and Geodynamics. Dr. Mörner is and an expert reviewer for the IPCC, leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project, and past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes.

A noted expert in sea level change has accused UN's IPCC panel of falsifying and destroying data (PDF) to support the panel's official conclusion of a rising sea level trend. The accusations include surreptitious substitution of datasets, selective use of data, presenting computer model simulations as physical data, and even the destruction of physical markers which fail to demonstrate sea level rise.

The expert, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, also raps the IPCC for their selection of 22 authors of their most recent report on sea level rise (SLR), none of which were sea level specialists. According to Mörner, the authors were chosen to "arrive at a predetermined conclusion" of global warming-induced disaster.

...

Mörner says it's becoming increasingly hard to perform objective climate research. In the European Community, a prerequisite for research grants is that the focus must be on global warming. Papers which don't support global warming aren't funded. "That's what dictatorships did, autocracies." He added, "They demanded that scientists produce what they wanted."
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9978

[Toad]

Morner is a neocon. Everybody knows that.

He was in the Swift Boat group too.

[Maverick]

Is he right inspite of being a neocon etc.? Are neocons allowed to be correct?

[Donzo]

Isn't the ice floating in the sea already displacing water?

Does your glass of ice water overflow when the ice melts?

[clerick]

Originally posted by Donzo
Isn't the ice floating in the sea already displacing water?

Does your glass of ice water overflow when the ice melts?

It would drop, the amount of the drop would depend on the density of the ice.  What most of these environmenalblist wackos are worried about is ice that is on  land causing the oceans to rise.  That is if the influx of fresh water doesn't screw up the ocean currents and cause an ice age first.  

I for one like the winter, so I'm going out to the garage to detune my cars and light an old pile of tires on fire.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
and..  you say that the men have been comprimised.. prove it.  Hell.. every pro MMGW scientist that I have seen has had at least some of his work turn out to be gross exaggeration so far.  they all seem compromised to me.

I have no doubt you can explain your part of co2 causing man made global warming better than me..   we all await with baited breath.   There is so little convincing data out there that yours would be welcome.

lazs

I just proved three of your sources to be questionable at best... and paid hacks at worst. Three of the past posts were your sources bibliographies, none of which had sht to do with any climate research... yet hacks like yourself see Dr. in front of a name and. since you have already made up your mind, you cite them as a source.  What else do you want?  You consistently ask for things after people ALREADY did them... are you slightly slower than others?

Ask the guy who makes new forms of wool what he thinks about carbon in the atmosphere... lol.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
and..  you say that the men have been comprimised.. prove it.  Hell.. every pro MMGW scientist that I have seen has had at least some of his work turn out to be gross exaggeration so far.  they all seem compromised to me.

I have no doubt you can explain your part of co2 causing man made global warming better than me..   we all await with baited breath.   There is so little convincing data out there that yours would be welcome.

lazs

And it's C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E-D.

Compromise (V)to expose or make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal, etc.;

I believe a guy who swears under oath he was paid by Exxon Mobil to undertake research for them, under the guise of climate research, then swears under oath 6 years later that he wasn't paid by Exxon Mobil.... He is C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E-D, and you should probably keep using him as a source of your delusionment.....it makes it easier to prove how little you research things.

[MORAY37]

Global Warming: How Do Scientists Know They're Not Wrong?
By Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff Writer

posted: 16 July 2007 09:34 am ET

Share this story
 Email From catastrophic sea level rise to jarring changes in local weather, humanity faces a potentially dangerous threat from the changes our own pollution has wrought on Earth’s climate. But since nothing in science can ever be proven with 100 percent certainty, how is it that scientists can be so sure that we are the cause of global warming?

For years, there has been clear scientific consensus that Earth’s climate is heating up and that humans are the culprits behind the trend, says Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at the University of California, San Diego.

A few years ago, she evaluated 928 scientific papers that dealt with global climate change and found that none disagreed about human-generated global warming. The results of her analysis were published in a 2004 essay in the journal Science.

And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences and numerous other noted scientific organizations have issued statements that unequivocally endorse the idea of global warming and attribute it to human activities.

“We’re confident about what’s going on,” said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Science in New York.

But even if there is a consensus, how can scientists be so confident about a trend playing out over dozens of years in the grand scheme of the Earth's existence? How do they know they didn’t miss something, or that there is not some other explanation for the world’s warming? After all, there was once a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat. How can scientists prove their position?


Best predictor wins

Contrary to popular parlance, science can never truly “prove” a theory. Science simply arrives at the best explanation of how the world works. Global warming can no more be “proven” than the theory of continental drift, the theory of evolution or the concept that germs carry diseases.

“All science is fallible,” Oreskes told LiveScience. “Climate science shouldn’t be expected to stand up to some fantasy standard that no science can live up to.”

Instead, a variety of methods and standards are used to evaluate the viability of different scientific explanations and theories. One such standard is how well a theory predicts the outcome of an event, and climate change theory has proven to be a strong predictor.

The effects of putting massive amounts of carbon dioxide in the air were predicted as long ago as the early 20th century by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius.

Noted oceanographer Roger Revelle’s 1957 predictions that carbon dioxide would build up in the atmosphere and cause noticeable changes by the year 2000 have been borne out by numerous studies, as has Princeton climatologist Suki Manabe’s 1980 prediction that the Earth’s poles would be first to see the effects of global warming.

Also in the 1980s, NASA climatologist James Hansen predicted with high accuracy what the global average temperature would be in 30 years time (now the present day).

Hansen's model predictions are “a shining example of a successful prediction in climate science,” said climatologist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University.

Schmidt says that predictions by those who doubted global warming have failed to come true.

“Why don’t you trust a psychic? Because their predictions are wrong,” he told LiveScience. “The credibility goes to the side that gets these predictions right.”

Mounting evidence

Besides their successful predictions, climate scientists have been assembling a “body of evidence that has been growing significantly with each year,” Mann said.

Data from tree rings, ice cores and coral reefs taken with instrumental observations of air and ocean temperatures, sea ice melt and greenhouse gas concentrations have all emerged in support of climate change theory.

“There are 20 different lines of evidence that the planet is warming,” and the same goes for evidence that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere, Schmidt said. “All of these things are very incontrovertible.”

But skeptics have often raised the question of whether these observations and effects attributed to global warming may in fact be explained by natural variation or changes in solar radiation hitting the Earth.

Hurricane expert William Gray, of Colorado State University, told Discover magazine in a 2005 interview, "I'm not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle '40s to the early '70s. And there has been warming since the middle '70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.”

Isaac Newton had something to say about all this: In his seminal “Principia Mathematica,” he noted that if separate data sets are best explained by one theory or idea, that explanation is most likely the true explanation.

And studies have overwhelmingly shown that climate change scenarios in which greenhouse gases emitted from human activities cause global warming best explain the observed changes in Earth’s climate, Mann said—models that use only natural variation can’t account for the significant warming that has occurred in the last few decades.

Mythic ice age

One argument commonly used to cast doubt on the idea of global warming is the supposed predictions of an impending ice age by scientists in the 1970s. One might say: First the Earth was supposed to be getting colder; now scientists say it’s getting hotter—how can we trust scientists if they’re predictions are so wishy-washy?

Because the first prediction was never actually made. Rather, it’s something of an urban climate myth.

Mann says that this myth started from a “tiny grain of truth around which so much distortion and misinformation has been placed.”

Scientists were well aware of the warming that could be caused by increasing greenhouse gases, both Mann and Schmidt explained, but in the decades preceding the 1970s, aerosols, or air pollution, had been steadily increasing. These tiny particles tended to have a cooling effect in the atmosphere, and at the time, scientists were unsure who would win the climate-changing battle, aerosols or greenhouse gases.

“It was unclear what direction the climate was going,” Mann said.

But several popular media, such as Newsweek, ran articles that exaggerated what scientists had said about the potential of aerosols to cool the Earth.

But the battle is now over, and greenhouse gases have won.

“Human society has made a clear decision as to which direction [the climate] is going to go,” Mann said.

Future predictions

One of the remaining skeptics, is MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. While he acknowledges the trends of rising temperatures and greenhouse gases, Lindzen expressed his doubt on man’s culpability in the case and casts doubt on the dire predictions made by some climate models, in an April 2006 editorial for The Wall Street Journal.

“What the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred,” Lindzen wrote.

To be sure, there is a certain degree of uncertainty involved in modeling and predicting future changes in the climate, but “you don’t need to have a climate model to know that climate change is a problem,” Oreskes said.

Climate scientists have clearly met the burden of proof with the mounting evidence they’ve assembled and the strong predictive power of global warming theory, Oreskes said-- global warming is something to pay attention to.

Schmidt agrees. “All of these little things just reinforce the big picture,” he said. “And the big picture is very worrying.”

[MORAY37]

Increasing Acid Could Kill Most Coral by 2050
By Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff Writer

posted: 13 December 2007 02:01 pm ET

Share this story
 Email SAN FRANCISCO — The world’s coral reefs face almost certain death as increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are absorbed by the oceans, acidifying the water in which corals live, a new study warns.

In the past few decades, corals have come under increasing pressure from warming ocean waters, overfishing and disease. A recent study found corals in Pacific ocean were disappearing faster than previously thought.

The new study, to be presented tomorrow at a meeting here of the American Geophysical Union, points to yet another factor plaguing these underwater bastions of biodiversity: carbon dioxide.

As carbon dioxide is emitted through the burning of fossil fuels, some of it is absorbed by the world’s oceans.

“About a third of the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans,” said study team member Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, “which helps slow greenhouse warming, but is a major pollutant of the oceans.”

When the carbon dioxide is absorbed in the water, it produces carbonic acid, the same acid that gives soft drinks their fizz. This acid also makes certain minerals dissolve more readily in seawater, particularly aragonite, the mineral used by corals and many other marine organisms to grow their skeletons.

Caldeira and his colleagues ran computer simulations of ocean chemistry based on a range of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, from 280 parts per million (ppm) (pre-industrial levels) to 5,000 parts per million. (Present levels are 380 ppm and rising.)

Their findings, detailed in the Dec. 14 issue of the journal Science, show that if current emission trends continue, 98 percent of present-day reef habitats will be too acidic by mid-century for reef growth.

“Before the industrial revolution, over 98 percent of warm water coral reefs were bathed with open ocean waters 3.5 times supersaturated with aragonite, meaning that corals could easily extract it to build reefs,” said study co-author Long Cao, also of the Carnegie Institution. “But if atmospheric CO2 stabilizes at 550 ppm—and even that would take concerted international efforts to achieve—no existing coral reef will remain in such an environment.”

At greatest risk of these changes are Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef, the world's largest living structure, and the reefs of the Caribbean Sea.

To slow ocean acidification, Caldeira and Cao warn, will likely take more stringent and immediate reductions in carbon dioxide than would be needed to reduce the other effects of global warming.

“The science speaks for itself. We have created conditions on Earth unlike anything most species alive today have experienced in their evolutionary history,” said co-author Bob Steneck of the University of Maine. “Corals are feeling the effects of our actions, and it is now or never if we want to safeguard these marine creatures and the livelihoods that depend on them.”

[MORAY37]

And I'll post, for you, Dr. Michael Mann's research, to save you the trouble, although, Lazs, you won't find any of it in a pop-up book.

Mann, M.E., Sabbatelli, T.A., Neu, U., Evidence for a Modest Undercount Bias in Early Historical Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Counts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L22707, doi:10.1029/2007GL031781, 2007.
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Wahl, E., Ammann, C., Reply to Comments on “Testing the Fidelity of Methods Used in Proxy-based Reconstructions of Past Climate” by Smerdon and Kaplan, J. Climate, 20, 5671-5674, 2007.
Sabbatelli, T.A., Mann, M.E., The Influence of Climate State Variables on Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Occurrence Rates, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D17114, doi: 10.1029/2007JD008385, 2007.
Mann, M.E., Emanuel, K.A., Holland, G.J., Webster, P.J., Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Revisited, Eos, 88, 36, p. 349-350, 2007.
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Wahl, E., Ammann, C., Reply to Comments on “Testing the Fidelity of Methods Used in Proxy-based Reconstructions of Past Climate” by Zorita et al, J. Climate, 20, 3699-3703, 2007.
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Wahl, E., Ammann, C., Robustness of Proxy-Based Climate Field Reconstruction Methods, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D12109, doi: 10.1029/2006JD008272, 2007.
Mann, M.E., Climate Over the Past Two Millennia, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 35, 111-136, 2007.
[
Mann, M.E., Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Kiefer, T., Kull, C., Wanner, H., Past Millennia Climate Variability, Eos, 87, 526-527, 2006.
Goosse, H., Arzel, O., Luterbacher, J., Mann, M.E., Renssen, H., Riedwyl, N., Timmermann, A., Xoplaki, E., Wanner, H., The origin of the European "Medieval Warm Period", Climate of the Past, 2, 99-113, 2006.
Goosse, H., Renssen, H., Timmermann, A., Bradley, R.S., Mann, M.E., Using paleoclimate proxy-data to select optimal realisations in an ensemble of simulations of the climate of the past millennium, Climate Dynamics, 27, 165-184, 2006.
Mann, M.E., Emanuel, K.A., Atlantic Hurricane Trends linked to Climate Change, Eos, 87, 24, p 233, 238, 241, 2006.
Mann, M.E., Climate Changes Over the Past Millennium: Relationships with Mediterranean Climates, Nuovo Cimento C, 29, 73-80, 2006.
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Wahl, E., Ammann, C., Testing the Fidelity of Methods Used in Proxy-based Reconstructions of Past Climate, Journal of Climate, 18, 4097-4107, 2005.
Knight, J.R., Allan, R.J., Folland, C.K., Vellinga, M., Mann, M.E., A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L20708, doi:10.1029/2005GL024233, 2005.
Cronin, T.M., Thunell, R., Dwyer, G.S., Saenger, C., Mann, M.E., Vann, C., Seal, R.R. II Multiproxy evidence of Holocene climate variability from estuarine sediments, eastern North America, Paleoceanography, 20, PA4006, doi: 10.1029/2005PA001145, 2005.
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal of Climate, 18, 2308-2329, 2005.
Cook, B.I., Smith, T.M., Mann, M.E., The North Atlantic Oscillation and regional phenology prediction over Europe, Global Change Biology, 11, 919-926, 2005.
Frauenfeld, O.W., Davis, R.E., Mann, M.E., A Distinctly Interdecadal Signal of Pacific Ocean–Atmosphere Interaction, Journal of Climate, 18, 1709-1718, 2005.
Mann, M.E., Cane, M.A., Zebiak, S.E., Clement, A., Volcanic and Solar Forcing of the Tropical Pacific Over the Past 1000 Years, Journal of Climate, 18, 447-456, 2005.
D'Arrigo, R.D., Cook, E.R., Wilson, R.J., Allan, R., Mann, M.E., On the Variability of ENSO Over the Past Six Centuries, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L03711, doi: 10.1029/2004GL022055, 2005.
Zhang, Z., Mann, M.E., Coupled Patterns of Spatiotemporal Variability in Northern Hemisphere Sea Level Pressure and Conterminous U.S. Drought, Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, D03108, doi: 10.1029/2004JD004896, 2005.
Schmidt, G.A., Shindell, D.T., Miller, R.L., Mann, M.E., Rind, D., General Circulation Modeling of Holocene climate variability, Quaternary Science Reviews, 23, 2167-2181, 2004.
Cook, B.I., Mann, M.E., D'Odorico, P., Smith, T.M., Statistical Simulation of the Influence of the NAO on European Winter Surface Temperatures: Applications to Phenological Modeling, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D16106, doi: 10.1029/2003JD004305, 2004.
Zhang, Z., Mann, M.E., Cook, E.R., Alternative methods of proxy-based climate field reconstruction: application to summer drought over the conterminous United States back to AD 1700 from tree-ring data, The Holocene, 14, 502-516, 2004.
Andronova, N.G., Schlesinger, M.E., Mann, M.E., Are Reconstructed Pre-Instrumental Hemispheric Temperatures Consistent With Instrumental Hemispheric Temperatures?, Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L12202, doi: 10.1029/2004GL019658, 2004.
Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004.
Mann, M.E., On Smoothing Potentially Non-Stationary Climate Time Series, Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L07214, doi: 10.1029/2004GL019569, 2004.
Schmidt, G.A., Mann, M.E., Reply to comment on ‘‘Ground vs. surface air temperature trends: Implications for borehole surface temperature reconstructions’’ by D. Chapman et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L07206, doi: 10.1029/2003GL0119144, 2004.
L'Heureux, M.L., Mann, M.E., Cook B.I., Gleason, B.E., Vose, R.S., Atmospheric Circulation Influences on Seasonal PrecipitationPatterns in Alaska during the latter 20th Century, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D06106, doi:10.1029/2003JD003845, 2004.
Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Mann, M.E., Faluvegi, G., Dynamic winter climate response to large tropical volcanic eruptions since 1600, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D05104, doi: 10.1029/2003JD004151, 2004.
Adams, J.B., Mann, M.E., D'Hondt, S., The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction: Modeling carbon flux and ecological response, Paleoceanography, 19, PA1002, doi: 10.1029/2002PA000849, 2004.
Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Miller, R.L., Mann, M.E., Volcanic and Solar Forcing of Climate Change during the Preindustrial Era, Journal of Climate, 16, 4094-4107, 2003.
Adams, J.B., Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Proxy Evidence for an El Nino-like Response to Volcanic Forcing, Nature, 426, 274-278, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J. T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., Response to Comment on 'On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century Warmth', Eos, 84, 473, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Paleoclimate, Global Change, and the Future (book review), Eos, 84, 419-420, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D., Global surface temperature over the past two millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (15), 1820, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J.T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century Warmth,Eos, 84, 256-258, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Schmidt, G.A., Ground vs. Surface Air Temperature Trends: Implications for Borehole Surface Temperature Reconstructions,Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (12), 1607, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017170, 2003.
Andrews, J.T., Hardadottir, J., Stoner, J.S., Mann, M.E., Kristjansdottir, G.B., Koc, N., Decadal to Millennial-scale periodicities in North Iceland shelf sediments over the last 12,000 cal yrs: long-term North Atlantic oceanographic variability and Solar Forcing, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 210, 453-465, 2003.
D'Arrigo, R.D., Cook, E.R., Mann, M.E., Jacoby, G.C., Tree-ring reconstructions of temperature and sea-level pressure variability associated with the warm-season Arctic Oscillation since AD 1650, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (11), 1549, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017250, 2003.
Covey, C., AchutaRao, K.M., Cubasch, U., Jones, P.D., Lambert, S.J., Mann, M.E., Philips, T.J., Taylor, K.E., An overview of results from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Global and Planetary Change, 37, 103-133, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., Optimal Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003.
[Correction(Rutherford and Mann, 2004)]
Braganza, K., Karoly, D.J., Hirst, A.C., Mann, M.E., Stott, P, Stouffer, R.J., Tett, S.F.B., Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part I - variability and correlation structure, Climate Dynamics, 20, 491-502, 2003.
Gerber, S., Joos, F., Bruegger, P.P., Stocker, T.F., Mann, M.E., Sitch, S., Constraining Temperature Variations over the last Millennium by Comparing Simulated and Observed Atmospheric CO2, Climate Dynamics, 20, 281-299, 2003.
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Delworth, T.L., Stouffer, R., Climate Field Reconstruction Under Stationary and Nonstationary Forcing, Journal of Climate, 16, 462-479, 2003.

And all this is Peer reviewed... you're so right lazs.. they're all abondoning it.  






 
 

[lazs2]

but moray.. manns hockey stick has been discredited by everyone.. soooo.. he lied.. he is compromised  no?    

as for the papers.. that is old news.. not only did andrea thompson use flawed methodolgy to review the papers but... it is outdated now..  she could not find a single paper that didn't agree with man made global warming?

but wait.. her outdated study...even if true.. is old news..

http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/peer-reviewed-papers-support-climate-sceptics/

latest studies of over 500 CURRENT peer reviewed papers show.....

"2007 alone has provided an abundance of peer-reviewed papers debunking the man-made CO2 “consensus”.   A recent survey of peer-reviewed papers from 2004-2007 reveals that less than half of published papers endorse man-made global warming theory.  In the past 4 months, there has been a rush of sceptical peer-reviewed papers.  A good reference is the US Senate report: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8 <http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8>
 

Which is interesting in the fact that... if 5 years ago she couldn't even find anyone who didn't believe in catastrohic man made global warming..

It would now appear that the alarmists are losing ground.  they are losing priests at an alarming rate.

Imagine the "hockey stick" graph if you used peer reviewed papers from say...  1990 to 2007..  it would show this flat line with all these "scientists" saying it was man made and the end of times for a decade of so.. a nice flat line then... POW  the hockey stick.. all of a sudden... only 7% believed it was man made and the end of times.. the rest either don't know or 6% ( a gazillion percent increase) think it is a bunch of alarmist BS.

you guys are losing ground not gaining.  You may win but it won't be on the science it will be on bullying and shouting down the people who disagree.

lazs