Can you offer links to *peer reviewed* research supporting your position?

Question

Can you offer links to *peer reviewed* research supporting your position?

Answer 1

Yeah sure.



Meehl et al. (2004) is one of my favorites, showing that natural effects can't account for essentially any of the warming over the past 50 years. Humans can't account for much of the early 20th century warming either. A combination of both accounts for the global warming over the past century very well.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2



Laštovička et al. (2006) showed that the upper layers of the atmosphere are cooling, which is consistent with an increased greenhouse effect (and very hard for any 'natural' warming effect to explain).

http://www.ufa.cas.cz/html/climaero/topics/global_change_science.pdf



A number of studies have measured the increase in downward and decrease in upward longwave radiation, quantifying the warming effect from increased CO2 and other GHGs.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1?isAuthorized=no

http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf



Even though I linked 5 of those, I'm only counting them as 1 :-)



Trenberth et al. (2009) used satellite data to measure the Earth's energy balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and found that the net imbalance was 0.9 Watts per square meter - quantifying the global energy imbalance due to the increased greenhouse effect which is causing the planet to warm.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1



And finally, another of my favorites, Knutti and Hegerl (2008) put together a review of a whole bunch of climate sensitivity estimates using various different methods, from paleoclimate data to instrumental temperature data to climate models, and all were in general agreement that equilibrium climate sensitivity is between 2 and 4.5°C (most likely 3°C) for doubled atmospheric CO2.

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf



jim - you could have just said "No, science scares me, I prefer to get my information from Rush Limbaugh."



spider boy - "I know how to Google stuff. I bet you do too. Those are easily verifiable facts."



I'm not sure you do know how to Google stuff, because everything you said was factually wrong. I think you meant to say "those are easily falsifiable lies." Obviously you can't back any of that up, because you made no effort to do so, and your claims are demonstrably wrong. Every single one.

Answer 2

I am not a scientist, but my "position" as an interested citizen is to read and understand as much of the science as possible, and to accept the clear and logical scientific consensus even where I am not directly informed.



There is a scientific consensus that the peer-reviewed articles in this collection are solid and important: http://www.amazon.com/Warming-Papers-David-Archer/dp/product-description/1405196165/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books



The most thorough history of this science is summarized here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm and I would generally agree with author Weart's assessment of, for example, the peer-reviewed papers by Revelle and Suess, Bolin and Ericsson (that the ability of oceans to absorb CO2 would be limited) and Manabe and Wetherall (that the radiation balance would support a sustained and growing human-caused greenhouse effect) that are included in the collection.



If you study this in detail, I have a feeling that you'll find that, over the past decade or two, the only solid peer-reviewed papers written by "contrarians" concern minor or speculative tangents off the principal scientific issues, and mainly serve as fig-leafs for the authors to act as figureheads for denial outside of those articles, and as grist for deliberate misinterpretation by denial blogs, astroturf think tanks, etc.

Answer 3

Anticipating some Energy & Environment 'peer reviewed' papers, see if you can spot one rather obvious error of the paper by David C Archibald titled "Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response" and published by Energy & Environment in 2006 after an 'exhaustive peer review process'.



http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Solar%20Cycles%2024%20and%2025%20and%20Predicted%20Climate%20Response.pdf



Hint: it's on page 31 (of the journal; page 4 of the PDF).



To Maxx:





<>



Don't know where you got that (though I have some idea) but the actual study is far less conclusive: "Finally, this study has shown that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to variability and PERHAPS recent trends in global temperature, a relationship that is not included in current global climate models." http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/McLean_deFreitas_Carter_JGR_2009.pdf



<>



Typical example of what happens when an AGW denier reads something into a scientific paper which simply is not there and how this then gets picked up and repeated endlessly by the rest of the deniers. The NASA press release on the paper is clear: "Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected." http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cooling-plant-growth.html



And the researchers concluded in their paper their results were well within the range projected by the IPCC. Scientific journalist and Youtube user Potholer54 dedicated an entire video to this particular bogus story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3vIWD4tAHc



<>



Allen never says in his paper that they have a LARGE negative cooling effect, he merely says they have a negative cooling effect which results in a net cooling of the climate system. He also states that there is a long wave heating effect at night because of those same clouds. http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/%7Esgs02rpa/PAPERS/Allan11MA.pdf



Anthony Watts ran an article on this paper to which Richard P. Allen responded: "I was surprised that this paper was mis-interpreted as suggesting negative cloud feedback. This is a basic error by the author of the post that has been highlighted by many contributors including Roy Spencer." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/new-peer-reviewed-paper-clouds-have-large-negative-feedback-cooling-effect-on-earths-radiation-budget/



<>



Picking nits? I just shot down 3 out of 4 of your claims (Lindzen's 2nd report is really just one, it merely updates the first).



As is typical in the denial-o-sphere, people either have no clue what the papers they refer to conclude, cherry-pick those papers or willfully misrepresent them. This then gets picked up by places such as WUWT and copy-pasted endlessly on the denier sites and blogs without anyone anytime bothering to check the claim. Yet somehow that is regarded as 'sound science' by the deniers.



For my papers, I refer to the IPCC periodical assessments which is the most thorough and inclusive assessment of peer-reviewed climate related science papers ever done.

Answer 4

Do you specifically want papers to do with AGW or just general global warming? I read mostly palaeoclimate papers and could just give you the current list thats sitting on my desk to read when I go into work tomorrow :D?



edit: Ok on my current reading list



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638099001126

"Identification of a C25 highly branched isoprenoid (HBI) diene in Antarctic sediments, Antarctic sea-ice diatoms and cultured diatoms"



Basically this is a new proxy for measuring sea ice extent in antartica which will help with modelling changes in sea ice due to climate change.



http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004PA001110.shtml

"Temporal and spatial variation in tetraether membrane lipids of marine Crenarchaeota in particulate organic matter: Implications for TEX86 paleothermometry "



GDGT's are used as a paleothermometer so this paper explores the variations in how well the TEX86 temperature proxy works.



http://biogeochemistry.org/index.php?option=com_jombib&task=showbib&id=144

"High resolution UK37 sea surface temperature reconstruction in the Norwegian Sea during the Holocene"



Alkenones are used to reconstruct past sea surface temperatures. This paper looks at how temperatures changed during the Holocene.



I have another few papers to read but they are all related to GDGT's which I have already mentioned.

Answer 5

One such article was sneaked into a peer-reviewed Washington State biology publication, a magazine dedicated to a specific discipline, like organic chemistry. Anyway, it was discovered by the editor that an ID proponent had approved the ID article and bypassed the process. The issue was pulled, re-printed with an apology and the scientist was dismissed from the society. That means he's cannot even subscribe to the magazine he tried to destroy. So, it is not available. The buffoon William Dembski was cited earlier. He holds doctorates in math and philosophy and publishes with an appeal to the public, like other non-scientists Lee Strobel, Philip Johnson and Ken Ham. Biochemist Michael Behe publishes ID appeals to the public, but when he submits a paper on biochemistry, you bet your boots it's within the scientific method. There are quite a few junk science journals out there, like the one published by Michigan's Calvin College, editor/publisher Hershel Shanks of Biblical Archaeology Review and of course the slick glossy junk journal of The Discovery Institute.

Answer 6

Yes I can but pal review isn't very useful when the reviewers are as delusional and invested in the system as the writer. That is common in climate science because vast sums of money have financed it to find political propaganda. It is not that difficult to create a cult by even mindless manipulation of data as we got from Mann. He stated IN HIS OWN WORDS HOW HE MANIPULATED THE PEER REVIEW. I am not angry, it just seems that some people can even disregard that inconvenient truth when it interferes with their agenda. Imagine I was speaking like a parent in a firm voice to a child that thought they knew better than their parents.

Answer 7

Adolf Hitler's solutions for the "Jewish problem," passed "peer review" handily.



Anyone, or anything can pass "peer review" if one carefully selects the peers.



Peer review is much less useful than acutally being right and making sense, don't you think?



Edit...



Please... There are plenty... what's the point of jumping through hoops that don't need to be jumped through?

Answer 8

OK Chem, here's some:

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



This 20 year study determined that as temperature increases so does the amount of IR radiation going out into space. This is the opposite of what we have been told by ‘consensus’ Global Warming researchers. Greenhouse gases ARE NOT trapping the heat so as it builds up, therefore greenhouse gases cannot be responsible for the recent trend of increased global temperature. See figure 2 for actual measured output radiation verses predicted by various climate models.



On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data

Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi

Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

(and)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf



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



On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications



Shows that when the sea is getting warmer, the Earth emits more radiation



Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2

1Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U. S. A.



2Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea

(Manuscript received 23 February 2011; revised 22 May 2011; accepted 22 May 2011)

© The Korean Meteorological Society and Springer 2011

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf



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



Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans.



Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D14104, 8 PP., 2009

doi:10.1029/2008JD011637 - published 23 July 2009



http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml



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



NASA Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Low Sensitivity To CO2 Doubling: 'UN's IPCC Global Warming Science Is Imploding' -- 'Climate models are definitely, and spectacularly, wrong' - AGW-feedback vanquished



Study's authors - L. Bounoua, F. G. Hall, P. J. Sellers, A. Kumar, C. J. Tucker, M. L. Imhoff (2010)



Published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (subscription required)



But you can read article about the paper here:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/nasa-peer-reviewed-study-finds-low-sensitivity-to-co2-doubling-the-uns-ipcc-global-warming-science-i.html

(maybe you have a subscription to journal Geophysical Research Letters, I don’t)



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



Clouds have large negative cooling effect on Earth’s radiation budget. - Richard P. Allan



Combining satellite data and models to estimate cloud radiative effect at the surface and in the atmosphere - Article first published online: 22 AUG 2011



Abstract is here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/met.285/abstract



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



**Jeff M - how does your #1 paper "Ecological responses to recent climate change" support the claim that the warming is man-made?



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



***spikey - I'm not seeing how any of those papers bolster your argument that the warming is man-made.



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



****Jeff M - As for the link that goes to a blog, that's the best I can do, the paper is behind a paywall. My position is that all the warming that has happened can be attributed to natural cycles of which the most important is variations in the Sun's output. El Nino and La Nina are not things I invoke, but they are natural cycles and not incompatible with what I believe.



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



*****Gringo - You are picking nits --- where are your papers?



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



******Jeff M - This paper states: "This work has demonstrated the presence of a small but statistically significant influence of GCRs on Earth’s atmosphere over mid-latitude regions. This effect is present in both ISCCP satellite data and NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data for at least the last 20 years suggesting that small fluctuations in solar activity may be linked to changes in the Earth’s atmosphere via a relationship between the GCR flux and cloud cover; such a connection may amplify small changes in solar activity."



Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes

B. A. Laken1,2, D. R. Kniveton1, and M. R. Frogley1

1Department of Geography, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, England, BN1 9QJ, UK

2Instituto de Astrof´ısica de Canarias, 38205 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain

Received: 7 June 2010 – Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.: 2 August 2010

Revised: 16 November 2010 – Accepted: 18 November 2010 – Published: 24 November 2010

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf



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

Answer 9

Peer review was corrupted by those you champion or haven't you been paying attention. Obviously you haven't or you wouldn't be so confused about your facts.



I am tired of the ignorance of alarmists who like to pretend any warming is caused by humans. If you mean AGW then say so. Otherwise it is ignorant or deceptive or both. It has been warming for 300 years. It is deceptive to attempt to blame that on humans. Are you also going to blame the cooling 700 years ago on humans. We have scrapes from glacier on exposed rock in Central Park. Is that evidence of global warming too?

Answer 10

Certainly



1 - http://eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/Ecol206/Walther%20et%20al%20Nature%202002.pdf (Walther, 2002)



"Ecological responses to recent climate change"



Shows that spatial distributions of flora and fauna, migratory habits of birds, and so on indicate a warming climate.





2 - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4204.1 (Griggs, 2006)



"Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS"



Griggs' paper builds upon Harries' 2001 original paper dealing with differences between IRIS and IMG and adds new data with AIRS. These papers show what the current warming trend is attributable to.



3 - http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml (Wang, 2009)



"Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008"



Measurements from 36 sites show the current warming is mainly attributable to CO2 and the positive feedback water vapour.



4 - http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/full/ngeo1022.html (Friedlingstein, 2010)



"Update on CO2 emissions"



Shows the amount of CO2 emissions that were attributable to humans during 2009 at 30.8 billion tons.



5 - http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/sioref4_2001.pdf (Keeling, 2001 plus updated measurements)



"Exchanges of Atmospheric CO2 and 13CO2 with the Terrestrial Biosphere and Oceans from 1978 to 2000."



Part 4 of an article showing that the ratio of 13CO2 to 12CO2 is changing indicating plant based origin, of which various fossil fuels are thought to have formed from. This combined with the Mauna Loa measurements taken by the same institute show increase of about 2ppm per year or about 15.6 billion tons showing that human emissions are greater than atmospheric increase.

( http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv )



Maxx: My first paper does not. What it does support is that the Earth is warming. Each individual link above shows one aspect of global warming/anthropogenic global warming that has been questioned by people you would regard as 'skeptics'. One of those is that the Earth is currently in a cooling trend.



One of your links was to a blog and does not even give the name of the paper. Right in the article though it does state that the number is within the range of the IPCC. I also don't understand your stance. One minute you are attributing climate variation to the Sun while the next you are attributing it to ENSO and your last one deals with cloud feedback models.



Maxx: Then perhaps, instead of posting a rebuttal to climate sensitivity concerning increasing greenhouse gas concentration, you should instead show data that confirms your own belief. As the papers you mentioned do nothing but provide arguments against against increasing temperatures due to increasing greenhouse gas concentration, climate sensitivity, ENSO cycles and, for some reason, cloud feedback scenarios. Show me data that the current, long term warming trend is attributable to solar input especially considering it has been declining for decades now.

Answer 11

"Peer" review, or "Clique" review?



BTW, It's been getting cooler for 16 years now. The sea levels are falling. The ice caps are growing. The polar bears are thriving.



Can I back it up??



Of course. I know how to Google stuff. I bet you do too. Those are easily verifiable facts. You'll even find those facts in "peer reviewed" literature--for what that is worth.