Archive for the ‘climate scientist’ Category
Professor Anastasios Tsonis, [Meteorologist] of the University of Wisconsin, said: “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
reference to a recent email exchange from the blog whatsupwiththatwatts.
Dear Professor Anastasios Tsonis,The internet is all a buzz with a quote that is being credited to you.“We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”Is that an accurate reflection of what you believe?If it is, may I ask: Weren’t the 2000s the warmest decade on record? Where does that claim leave the matter of GHGs and the imbalance in Earth’s radiative budget? What about the heat that is being absorbed by the oceans?Thank you for your time and hopefully interest
Dear PeterYes this my quote.As for your question: at the end of the century we were sitting on the highest global temperature value of the modern record. Since then we have leveled off and we may in fact be cooling. “We have reached the top of the mountain”, therefore it’s not surprising that the last decade is one of the warmest on record. Think about it! The important aspect is that the warming of the 80s and 90s has stopped and the models missed it completely! The important issue is that we have entered a new regime in global temperature tendency. In fact, I find it very misleading that scientists will present “the warmest decade” argument to justify their beliefs (or failures).Regarding the oceans absorbing heat, it is another argument without solid proof.BestProf. Tsonis
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, believes the pause will last much longer than that. He points to repeated periods of warming and cooling in the 20th century.“Each one of those regimes lasts about 30 years … I would assume something like another 15 years of leveling off or cooling,” he told Fox News.
That goes well beyond the window the IPCC has acknowledged, which Tsonis and other scientists believe will significantly change the predictions for temperature rise over the next century.
“I know that the models are not adequate,” Tsonis told Fox News. “There are a lot of climate models out there. They don’t agree with each other – and they don’t agree with reality.”
In fact, the IPCC’s massive, complex new report acknowledges that none of the models predicted the hiatus. The authors write that it could be due to climate models over-predicting the response to increasing greenhouse gases, or a failure to account for water vapor in the upper atmosphere.
The bottom line – no one saw it coming.
“Almost all historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus,” the report states.
The claim that we have entered a cooling phase dates back to 2009 as co author:- Swanson, K.L. and A.A. Tsonis, 2009: Has the climate recently shifted? Geophysical Research Letters, 36 the paper and explanation are available as a guest post by Kyle Swanson with the non sceptical realclimate blog
What we find is that when interannual modes of variability in the climate system have what I’ll refer to as an “episode,” shifts in the multi-decadal global mean temperature trend appear to occur. I’ll leave the details of these episodes to interested readers (here and here), as things get pretty technical. It’s sufficient to note that we have an objective criteria for what defines an episode; we aren’t just eyeballing curves. The climate system appears to have had three distinct “episodes” during the 20th century (during the 1910′s, 1940′s, and 1970′s), and all three marked shifts in the trend of the global mean temperature, along with changes in the qualitative character of ENSO variability. We have also found similar types of shifts in a number of model simulations (both forced and unforced) that were run in support of the IPCC AR4 report.
The contentious part of our paper is that the climate system appears to have had another “episode” around the turn of the 21st century, coinciding with the much discussed “halt” in global warming. Whether or not such a halt has really occurred is of course controversial (it appears quite marked in the HadCRUT3 data, less so in GISTEMP); only time will tell if it’s real. Regardless, it’s important to note that we are not talking about global cooling, just a pause in warming.
the article ends
What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf. Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond.
Back in 2009 A Tsonis was not predicting global cooling. In September 2013 he is quoted in David Rose article in the Mail
Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: ‘We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped. The IPCC claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.
The Mail article is recycled material by Rose from January 2010 where he quotes Tsonis
Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.
‘They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries. ‘We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’ Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures.
Prof Tsonis said, last week 56 per cent of the surface of the United States was covered by snow. ‘That hasn’t happened for several decades,’ he pointed out. ‘It just isn’t true to say this is a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while.’ He recalled that towards the end of the last cold mode, the world’s media were preoccupied by fears of freezing. For example, in 1974, a Time magazine cover story predicted ‘Another Ice Age’, saying: ‘Man may be somewhat responsible – as a result of farming and fuel burning [which is] blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the Earth.’
Prof Tsonis said: ‘Perhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.’
…..Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles. But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.’These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’ Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with ‘hate emails’. He added: ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth.’ He said he also received hate mail from climate change sceptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming.
Mediamatters following the most recent Mail article contacted Tsonis on the issue of entering a new ice age:-
The Mail on Sunday*, as well as many subsequent accounts, also cited the remarks of a meteorologist, Anastasios Tsonis, about a “cooling trend” as evidence that scientists are “forecast[ing] an imminent ice age.” But in emails to Media Matters, Tsonis said that he had “never made a statement that the long-term warming has stopped” and that some media claims “differ[ed] greatly” from his statements (typos edited for clarity):
The media print titles from statements that differ greatly from the statements. My statement was that the warming of the 80s and 90s has stopped and it is likely according to our research that the planet will be cooling for the next 10-15 years. This is far from going to ice ages!!!
He added that he feels climate change is “an important issue for now and the future but we need to understand it better.”
Duncan Wingham is sometimes wrongly claimed to be a AGW sceptic.
Dr. Wingham and three colleagues published an article in the journal of the Royal Society that casts further doubt on the notion that global warming is adversely affecting Antarctica. By studying satellite data from 1992 to 2003 that surveyed 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet (72% of the ice sheet covering the entire land mass), they discovered that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing at the rate of 5 millimetres per year (plus or minus 1 mm per year). That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. According to their best estimates, Antarctica will “lower [authors’ italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm” per year. [from a 2007 ‘Denier’ site]
In the 1990s, Wingham was involved in a four-year satellite study of the Antarctic ice sheet. His conclusion then, and from later research, is that the Antarctic has contributed little to observed rising sea levels in the 20thC. Paradoxically Wingham stated It is possible that the consequences of global warming on sea level rise have been underestimated. He expanded Other sources of rise must be underestimated. In particular it is possible that the effect of global warming on thermal expansion [on the oceans] is larger than we thought.
In a 2005 interview Wingham stated Antarctic is to some extent insulated from global warming because to its north are zonal flows in the atmosphere and ocean, unimpeded by other landmasses…I am not denying global warming
From the article quoted in Wikipedia
“I am not denying global warming. For instance, Greenland, in the northern hemisphere, does seem to be going. But Greenland’s ice cap – Greeland is quite far south – is a last survivor from the ice age and only its height protects it. The more that cap melts, the more it will continue to melt as it gets lower and warmer. But Antarctica is different. Even in the Arctic I am sceptical of some claims that 40 per cent of the sea ice has already vanished, and that what remains is drastically thinning.
“Sparse data from subs in some parts of the Arctic do seem to show a thinning trend, but our preliminary observations using satellite data point to large growth and decay from year to year and place to place, by as much a meter in just a few years. Here too natural variability is considerable. No one doubts that the ultimate fate of Arctic ice looks a grim one, but I believe we have too few data to be confident of how fast it will meet its fate.”
The article dates from 2005- a 2012 report that includes Duncan Wingham is less sceptical of alarmist claims of diminishing Arctic Ice.
Nir Joseph Shaviv (Hebrew: ניר יוסף שביב, born July 6, 1972) is an Israeli‐Americanphysics professor, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science. He is currently an associate professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is also the head of the national coordinating council of faculty unions in Israel.
Dr. Shariv’s digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence — only speculation — that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change– the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming — is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC’s own findings, man’s role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man’s effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is “incriminating circumstantial evidence,” which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding “evidence of fingerprints.” Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, “without other ‘suspects.’ ” However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible “other suspects,” he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century’s warming.
“Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming,” he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist.”
The sun’s strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can’t have much of an influence on the climate — that C02 et al. don’t dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, “will not dramatically increase the global temperature,” Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant.”
The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% –sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth’s climate.
In another study, directly relevant to today’s climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth’s temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 — instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.
“I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue.” His conclusion: “I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go.”
How do cosmic rays alter the climate?
According to WUWT and GWPF – “Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures”.
Jasper Kirkby of CERN and his 62 co-authors, from 17 institutes in Europe and the USA, announce big effects of pions from an accelerator, which simulate the cosmic rays and ionize the air in the experimental chamber. The pions strongly promote the formation of clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules – aerosols of the kind that may grow into cloud condensation nuclei on which cloud droplets form. What’s more, there’s a very important clarification of the chemistry involved. [Aug 2011]
Nature who published the research balanced the findings.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory: ‘cosmic rays’ from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth’s atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe’s high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.
The findings, published today in Nature1, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.
For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet’s atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.
The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.
Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.
Outside of the denial-sphere the cosmic-ray effect is considered tiny when compared to CO2. More detail on why cosmic rays are poor at seeding clouds can be found here.
Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfield [this denier cut&paste spells his name wrongly] (Climate Scientist), Contributing Author to the UN IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes at the University of Colorado.
“Without question, much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
“Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy. Until that time, climate variability will remain controversial and uncertain.”
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld is a real climate scientist and currently assistant professor at Texas A&M University his work and interests include
My research activities entail a broad range of topics in climate variability and climate change. I focus primarily on surface-atmosphere interactions, over both the land and the oceans. One of these research areas investigates changes in high-latitude and high-altitude environments; specifically, the interactions between frozen ground (permafrost and seasonally frozen areas) and other cryospheric variables in the high latitudes of Eurasia, with the overlying atmosphere. Some of my other research studies the effects of land cover and land use change on climate across the Tibetan Plateau.
I also continue to explore ocean-atmosphere interactions in both the tropics and midlatitudes, such as interactions between the Pacific Ocean and synoptic-scale atmospheric circulation variability of the Northern Hemisphere. Additionally, I am evaluating climate patterns and atmospheric teleconnections, in terms of both their general variability and climate change.
Seasons of Change in the Arctic Environment– Interactions Between Frozen Ground in the Russian Arctic and Atmospheric Circulation –The Contribution of Land-Surface Processes to Climate Change on the Tibetan Plateau– Changes in Permafrost Dynamics over the Russian Arctic Drainage Basin– Permafrost Humor
Oliver Frauenfeld has had an illustrious career and was a contributing author for the 2007, IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 4: Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice, and Frozen Ground . [firefox has issues with security but it is safe] and has worked on several papers with T Zhang concerning permafrost and climate change.
One of his contributions to the paper and co-work with Zhang reads-
184.108.40.206 Seasonally Frozen Ground in Non-Permafrost Areas
The thickness of seasonally frozen ground has decreased by more than 0.34 m from 1956 through 1990 in Russia (Figure 4.20), primarily controlled by the increase in winter air temperature and snow depth (Frauenfeld et al., 2004). Over the Tibetan Plateau, the thickness of seasonally frozen ground has decreased by 0.05 to 0.22 m from 1967 through 1997 (Zhao et al., 2004). The driving force for the decrease in thickness of the seasonally frozen ground is the signiﬁ cant warming in cold seasons, while changes in snow depth play a minor role. The duration of seasonally frozen ground decreased by more than 20 days from 1967 through 1997 over the Tibetan Plateau, mainly due to the earlier onset of thaw in spring (Zhao et al.,2004). The estimated maximum extent of seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the NH from 1901 to 2002, with a decrease in spring of up to 15% (Figure 4.22; Zhang et al., 2003). There was little change in the areal extent of seasonally frozen ground during the early and midwinters.
Deniers like to cite Oliver Frauenfeld’s scepticism because having a real sceptic who not only knows his stuff but is also critical boosts their argument. However just using the number game chapter 4 of the 2007 IPCC report had over 50 scientists contributing to it.
Oliver Frauenfeld scepticism occurs in the Senate Minority report [which is mined frequently for sceptic quotes]
Climate scientist Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld, a co-author of the 2005 book Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming and a research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes at the University of Colorado, questions the accuracy of climate models. “Without question, much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it. Before we can accurately understand the midlatitudes’ response to tropical forcing, the tropical forcings themselves must be identified and understood,” Frauenfeld wrotein “Shattered Consensus.” Frauenfeld, a Contributing Author to the IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, added, “Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy. Until that time, climate variability will remain controversial and uncertain.”
Frauenfeld was a contributor to Shattered Consensus, producing one of the nine chapters by the usual climate deniers Patrick J. Michaels (Editor), Dr. Sallie L. Baliunas ), Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr Dr. Randall S. Cerveny , Dr. John Christy , Dr. Robert E. Davis , Dr. Ross McKitrick, Dr. Patrick J. Michaels , Dr. Eric S. Posmentier , Dr. Willie Soon and a book published in 2005 by the Marshall Institute.
The George C. Marshall Institute was established in 1984 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation to conduct technical assessments of scientific issues with an impact on public policy.
In every area of public policy, from national defense, to the environment, to the economy, decisions are shaped by developments in and arguments about science and technology. The need for accurate and impartial technical assessments has never been greater. However, even purely scientific appraisals are often politicized and misused by interest groups.
The Marshall Institute seeks to counter this trend by providing policymakers with rigorous, clearly written and unbiased technical analyses on a range of public policy issues. Through briefings to the press, publication programs, speaking tours and public forums, the Institute seeks to preserve the integrity of science and promote scientific literacy.
We publish reports, host roundtables, workshops and collaborate with institutions that share our interest in basing public policy on scientific facts.
The Marshall Inst is a right wing thinktank and lobby group. Like most thinktanks their funders have an interest in CO2 reduction policy and the oil industry. According to the Marshall Institute Oliver Frauenfeld is still retained as a speaker.
What does Oliver Frauenfeld believe? Evidently by associating with the Marshall Institute his political leanings maybe to the right or he may need to pay off his mortgage. A Discovery Channel interview on melting permafrost gives an idea of his professional opinion.
Jan. 22, 2007 — Some of the perennially frozen ground high in the Himalayas has been shrinking, say Japanese scientists.
The year-round frozen “permafrost” ground was found to start at 17,000 to 17,400 feet above sea level (ASL) on the south-facing slopes of Nepal’s Khumbu Himal in 1973, but is now at 17,700 to 18,000 feet (ASL), report Kotaro Fukui and his colleagues in the February issue of the journal Global and Planetary Change. Oddly enough, another measurement of the permafrost there in 1991 showed the same lower limit as 2004.
“Thus, it is possible that the permafrost lower limit has risen 300 to 1,000 feet (100 to 300 meters) between 1973 and 1991, followed by a stable limit of 17,700 to 18,000 feet (5400 to 5500 meters) over the last decade,” the researchers report.
The likely cause of the thaw is global warming, which appears to be affecting the south-facing Khumbu Himal more quickly than on the nearby Tibetan Plateau, explains Fukui, a researcher at Japan’s National Institute of Polar Research. Unfortunately, because the researchers have only three permafrost snapshots to judge by — 1973, 1991 and 2004 — there’s just not enough data available to say much more about what’s going on.
“That’s the problem with any climate study: too little data,” said climatologist Oliver Frauenfeld of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Many places that are likely to see the greatest changes from global warming are in remote mountains or polar regions which are hard to monitor closely.
Besides just indicating climate changes, thawing permafrost poses special problems in mountainous regions. Thawed mountainsides that contain water are more likely to slide than permanently frozen ground, in which water is just another solid mineral, Frauenfeld explained.
On flat permafrost regions of the Arctic or Tibet, for example, thawing can cause roads and railroad tracks to buckle and building foundations to sink or collapse.
The good news, says Frauenfeld, is that even with the worse-case climate warming scenario, most permafrost in the world today would still be permafrost. In places like the Russian Arctic, for instance, a rise of -40 degrees to -30 degrees is a lot — but it’s still frozen.
Compared to the total area of frozen ground on Earth, said Frauenfeld, “The changes we’re seeing in the permafrost regions are not that big.”
The places most affected are those that are now hovering just under freezing in summer, which are at the fringes of the world’s permafrost zones, Frauenfeld said.
What does Fraunenfeld think now? A recent paper indicates that he is still sceptical, with a study that has seen little permafrost reduction in the high Eurasian plateau.
Dr Charles Wax past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. Currently professor of Geography and Climatology at Mississippi State University and has written peer reviewed papers.
“First off, there isn’t a consensus among scientists. Don’t let anybody tell you there is.”
Watch this video – ‘climate change is a good thing from the standpoint of us’
Global climate change may have little or nothing to do with mankind’s burning of fossil fuels and a lot to do with sunspot cycles and other natural phenomena that aren’t affected by greenhouse gases
[Wax] says variations in climate — often in only a few years — represent “much more of a threat than global warming of the magnitude we’re seeing.” For example, he notes, in 2007 Mississippi rainfall totaled only 34 inches for the entire year, and farmers faced severe drought conditions. “Yet, two years later in 2009, rainfall totaled 86.11 inches — two very different scenarios within just a very brief time span. A two-degree variation in average annual temperature by 2029, which some computer models are forecasting, isn’t that critical to our farmers, but a 50-inch variation in rainfall is. [deltafarmpress.com]
Despite Charles Wax’s qualifications he should read up on why the sun isn’t anything to do with current warming, why 2c is a serious increase in global temperature and why climate change is likely to increase extremes.
Dr David H Douglass Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester and a real climate scientist. As such he is frequently quoted as a genuine expert along with colleagues Richard Lindzin, John R. Christy, S. Fred Singer and Roger Pielke, who he has co-published papers with or issued criticism of climate science.
Douglass regularly publishes climate related science papers but the main paper quoted by deniers dates back from 2007 where he is cited as the lead author.
- A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer Int. J. Climatol. (2007) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651. DOI: 10.1260/095830509787689277.
The basis of the paper which was a review of data rather actual collection comes to a simple conclusion that the expected ‘hotspot’ in the atmosphere at the tropics was not there and so therefore climate change predictions or rather models [which expected a hotspot] were wrong. However the paper was criticised for several issues not least the fact that it was wrong.
Dr Ben Santer , Dr Tom Wigley and 15 other colleagues, have published a new paper in the International Journal of Climatology on this very issue. It thoroughly quashes the Evan’s claim, and also hammers the related critiques of climate science, by Dr David Douglass, Dr John Christy, Dr Benjamin Pearson and Dr S. Fred Singer, which claimed a significant discrepancy between theory and observations in terms of the warming of the lower atmosphere. What’s particularly good news for the large non-scientific community who has interest in science behind these issues, is that the paper’s authors have also put together a FAQ. In it, they explain, using non-technical language, all the key sceptical arguments on this issue, and the latest evidence. The figure above is from the fact sheet. I’ll just quote a couple of key points from it:
Using state-of-the-art observational datasets and results from a large archive of computer mode simulations, a consortium of scientists from 12 different institutions has resolved a long-standing conundrum in climate science – the apparent discrepancy between simulated and observed temperature trends in the tropics. Research published by this group indicates that there is no fundamental discrepancy between modeled and observed tropical temperature trends when one accounts for: 1) the (currently large) uncertainties in observations; 2) the statistical uncertainties in estimating trends from observations. These results refute a recent claim that model and observed tropical temperature trends “disagree to a statistically significant extent”. This claim was based on the application of a flawed statistical test and the use of older observational datasets.
The bottom line is that we obtained results strikingly different from those of Douglass et al. The “robust statistical test” that they used to compare models and observations had at least one serious flaw – its failure to account for any uncertainty in the “signal component” of observed temperature trends (see QUESTION 7). This flaw led them to reach incorrect conclusions. We showed this by applying their test to randomly generated data with the same statistical properties as the observed temperature data, but without any underlying “signal trend”. In this “synthetic data” case, we knew that significant differences in temperature trends could occur by chance only, and thus would happen infrequently. When we applied the Douglass et al. test, however, we found that even randomly generated data showed statistically significant trend differences much more frequently than we would expect on the basis of chance alone. A test that fails to behave properly when used with random data – when one knows in advance what rresults to expect – cannot be expected to perform reliably when applied to real observational and model data.
Go read the whole thing (there are 10 frequently-asked-questions answered in all).
Dr. David R. Legates (Climatologist) Delaware State Climatologist, Professor and director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware.
“Scientific debate continues regarding the extent to which human activities contribute to global warming and what the potential impact on the environment might be. Importantly, much of the scientific evidence contradicts assertions that substantial global warming is likely to occur soon and that the predicted warming will harm the Earth’s biosphere.”
“Sea levels have been rising – in fact, they have been rising since the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago – but there is no evidence of an accelerating trend.” [that would be the end of the ice-age 9,000 years ago]
“In sum, the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21st century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change.”
Not [currently] the Delaware State climatologist and repeatedly told not to refer to that title by the Governor Ruth Ann Minner. The conflict between the post as representing the State and the Science and personal views is highlighted in this link. Currently a geography professor, ardent skeptic of AGW. Being one of only a few scientists that are skeptical and a minority opinion the few papers he has produced are superseded by the thousands of other papers. He may have a point but I would not trust a scientist that backs up his argument for intelligent design.
“We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”
Hardly the opinion of someone who looks at the evidence.
Dr. Richard Keen lecturer in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado, has worked with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, specializes in volcanic aerosols and climate change studies.
“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC.”
“The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade.”
Keen is the lowest rank of ‘instuctor’ at the University in the meteorology department. Keen’s quiz and arguments are extremely suspect going beyond just cherry picking but going out to mis-inform. To conclude that there is in fact global cooling is a very odd position to take.
Dr Richard Muller – physicist, professor at University of California, Berkeley. He is also a faculty senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
sceptic until 31 March 2011
Set up BEST to re-study temperature data because he didn’t trust the results only to come up with an identical graph.
Dr. Richard Lindzen–Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”
The sceptics trump card who is actually a climate scientist, but a renowned contrarian.