450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

[FactFinder]

Please remember that a peer reviewed journal published by peers of biased idiots who have a specific agenda isn't worth quite so much as a peer reviewed journal of people dedicated to finding the truth WHEREVER it leads them.

Here is just the beginning of the list of sources. Are these peers of biased idiots?

Popular Technology.net: 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

Journal Citation List:

AAPG Bulletin
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Space Research
Ambio
Annales Geophysicae
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
Central European Journal of Physics

 

[Old Rocks]

Atmospheric Solar Heat Amplifier Discovered | The Resilient Earth

Atmospheric Solar Heat Amplifier Discovered
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Fri, 09/11/2009 - 15:18
For decades, the supporters of CO2 driven global warming have discounted changes in solar irradiance as far too small to cause significant climate change. Though the Sun's output varies by less than a tenth of a percent in magnitude during its 11-year sunspot cycle, that small variation produces changes in sea surface temperatures two or three times as large as it should. A new study in Science demonstrates how two previously known mechanisms acting together amplify the Sun's impact in an unsuspected way. Not surprisingly, the new discovery is getting a cool reception from the CO2 climate change clique.
.
.
.
As I have previously reported, scientific evidence from NASA points to changes in the type of solar radiation arriving at the top of Earth's atmosphere as a possible trigger for other powerful climate regulating mechanisms. Scientists have discovered, that while total solar irradiance changes by only 0.1 percent, the change in the intensity of ultraviolet light varies by much larger amounts. According to Judith Lean, a solar physicist at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., its possible that long-term patterns—operating over hundreds or thousands of years—could cause even more pronounced swings in solar irradiance (see “Scientists Discover The Sun Does Affect Earth's Climate”). The discovery of the solar heat amplifying effect provides the causal link between historical changes in solar activity and climate change.

I see. And so, at a solar minimum, with a strong La Nina, we have the warmest decade on record.

TSI....low
ENSO....low

CO2....high

Temperature....High!

Hmmm..........

 

[FactFinder]

For several years after the onset of a solar minimum there is a continuing warming as the earth gives up its accumulated heat.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have already shown that the interpretation of one of the articles listed was completely skewed. What it was claimed it said was not what the article said. In fact, the article completely accepted AGW, it simply hypothesized an additional affect on top of AGW.

 

[FactFinder]

Greenland's Ice Armageddon Comes To An End | The Resilient Earth

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” asks geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. According to atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, “many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly, without having their professional careers ruined.”

 

[tigerbob]

Yet another thread on global warming that instantly dissolves into finger pointing, accusation and pseudo-scientific putdowns. How refreshing.

 

[Old Rocks]

For several years after the onset of a solar minimum there is a continuing warming as the earth gives up its accumulated heat.

So that is why the Oceans are warmer now than they have ever been?

AP on record ocean warming: “Breaking heat records in water is more ominous as a sign of global warming than breaking temperature marks on land.” « Climate Progress

Not only that, but the Artic Ocean is freezing at a slower rate than has ever been recorded. The present extent of the ice is less than it was at this time in 2007.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

[Diuretic]

Global warming - SourceWatch

"Heatwave shows climate scientists are right"

In January 2009, Australia was gripped by its worst drought in a century. And the blistering heat which scorched southern Australia proves the accuracy of warnings by scientists, said country’s Climate Change Minister Penny Wong. "All of this is consistent with climate change and all of this is consistent with what scientists told us would happen."

In the last week of January, temperatures hovered around 45 degrees in Adelaide, which experienced nearly a week of such temperatures. In Melbourne the temperature stayed above 43 degrees for days. Even normally mild Hobart was in the 40s. Over 28 people died, leaves fell off trees to conserve water, railway tracks buckled, with people retiring to their beds with deep-frozen hot-water bottles. [21]

The heat-wave came as most of the south of the country was already gripped by an unprecedented 12-year drought. The "Australian Alps" had had their driest three years ever, and the water from the vast Murray-Darling river system was failing to reach the sea for 40 per cent of the time. Harvests had also fallen sharply. [22] In one episode, over 10,000 homes were without power in southern Australia as the unprecedented demand for air conditioners, coupled with the heat, forced a substation to malfunction. [23]

People in Australia were calling it a once in a 100-year event, but scientists acknowledge that events such as these will become more common.

Adelaide, South Australia. November 2009, Spring. We've just put up with a record heatwave for November. Five days over 35c, where I am the max has been 39c and above for about four days. This is supposed to be Spring. Those are high summer temperatures, the sort of thing we get in February and March. Tomorrow is going to be a bit cooler, for one day, then it's forecast to get to 41c for several days. Spring. You can bang on as much as you like, all I know is that this is not our usual weather pattern and in living memory no-one can remember when we had a Spring like this. I am going to ensure that my vote goes to the party that accepts that global climate change has been adversely effected by human activity and no vested interests are going to stop me urging my government to act constructively. There isn't much time to act but unfortunately many governments around the world are paralysed into indecision because of the vested interests that hold sway over them.

Heck a bit of critical thinking would go a long way. People died in those heat waves earlier this year, even the koalas were camped out on the roadside looking for water and coming into people's houses to get a drink or be bathed. It's not bloody theoretical, trust me.

 

[Old Rocks]

Real science from a peer reviewed journal.


Greenland ice cap melting faster than ever

Satellite observations and a state-of-the art regional atmospheric model have independently confirmed that the Greenland ice sheet is loosing mass at an accelerating rate, reports a new study in Science.

 

[editec]

Greenland's Ice Armageddon Comes To An End | The Resilient Earth

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” asks geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. According to atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, “many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly, without having their professional careers ruined.”

Speaking as a layman, I continue to find it extremely distressing that we humans cannot even agree to some things that one would THINK would be obvious and undeniable

Is the global atmosphere and ocean heating or cooling?

Are the world's oceans rising or falling?

Are th world's polar icecaps and glaciers melting or growing?

Jesus K-rist on a crutch, if science cannot tell us those things without doubt, what good is it?

 

[FactFinder]

For several years after the onset of a solar minimum there is a continuing warming as the earth gives up its accumulated heat.

So that is why the Oceans are warmer now than they have ever been?

AP on record ocean warming: “Breaking heat records in water is more ominous as a sign of global warming than breaking temperature marks on land.” « Climate Progress

Not only that, but the Artic Ocean is freezing at a slower rate than has ever been recorded. The present extent of the ice is less than it was at this time in 2007.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Jennifer Marohasy » Correcting Ocean Cooling: NASAChanges Data to Fit the Models Adjusts Data from Buoys
Correcting Ocean Cooling: NASAChanges Data to Fit the Models Adjusts Data from Buoys
Posted by jennifer, November 11th, 2008 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change

NASA scientist, Josh Willis, was so concerned that his data, showing ocean cooling, did not fit the official consensus on climate change that he searched for a solution. Eventually he “applied a correction” so the historical ocean temperature record showed a relatively steady increase in line with the climate models.

Perhaps Dr Willis really did get it wrong between 2003 and 2005 when his data showed a large decrease in the heat content of the ocean. But after reading his justification for the correction, I am not convinced. Indeed and I am left wondering how to ever trust the official temperature record again.

At least you admit that the Arctic ice extent is again growing.

 

[FactFinder]

Greenland's Ice Armageddon Comes To An End | The Resilient Earth

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” asks geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. According to atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, “many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly, without having their professional careers ruined.”

Speaking as a layman, I continue to find it extremely distressing that we humans cannot even agree to some things that one would THINK would be obvious and undeniable

Is the global atmosphere and ocean heating or cooling?

Are the world's oceans rising or falling?

Are th world's polar icecaps and glaciers melting or growing?

Jesus K-rist on a crutch, if science cannot tell us those things without doubt, what good is it?

A fair statement that I believe can only be answered by asking who is benefitting and why?

 

[Old Rocks]

Science has told us what is happening on all of those issues. However, big energy money has purchased the credentials of a few whores to deny the evidence.

Within the scientific community, the consensus is simply overwhelming that the earth is warming, ocean and atmosphere, that the oceans are rising, and that the primary cause is anthropogenic through the GHGs our industry releases.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists in this field get funding in the millions. Big energy has profits in the trillions.

Who would benefit from the denial of evidence?

Who would lose money if we took the neccessary steps to alleviate the situation?

 

[FactFinder]

Scientists in this field get funding in the millions. Big energy has profits in the trillions.

Who would benefit from the denial of evidence?

Who would lose money if we took the neccessary steps to alleviate the situation?

How much would Al Gore, Goldman Sachs and their cronies get from carbon credits?

They already have companies/investments in place figuring they have already bought off Congress.

 

[Diuretic]

Greenland's Ice Armageddon Comes To An End | The Resilient Earth

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” asks geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. According to atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, “many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly, without having their professional careers ruined.”

Speaking as a layman, I continue to find it extremely distressing that we humans cannot even agree to some things that one would THINK would be obvious and undeniable

Is the global atmosphere and ocean heating or cooling?

Are the world's oceans rising or falling?

Are th world's polar icecaps and glaciers melting or growing?

Jesus K-rist on a crutch, if science cannot tell us those things without doubt, what good is it?

A fair statement that I believe can only be answered by asking who is benefitting and why?

If you sit and think about that for a moment, I mean really think about it (clue Rocks has just helped you out) then it's apparent.

I assume that various climatological measurements are objective, I have to assume that. Then the obvious disagreement is over cause. And that's where you have to look. Unfortunately the vested interests have clouded the issues and have cleverly made it an ideological issue in some countries. I will admit that the more extreme environmentalists haven't helped and have allowed joe public to be convinced they're all "enviro-nuts" but put them aside. When dispassionate, obective scientists can show that human industrial activity is the cause of global climate change then we simply have to act to reduce it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists in this field get funding in the millions. Big energy has profits in the trillions.

Who would benefit from the denial of evidence?

Who would lose money if we took the neccessary steps to alleviate the situation?

How much would Al Gore, Goldman Sachs and their cronies get from carbon credits?

They already have companies/investments in place figuring they have already bought off Congress.

Cap and Trade actually worked for the sulphate emissions. It may well work for the CO2 emissions.

My preferred path would simply be a ten year timetable in shutting down all GHG emmitting generation units, worldwide, starting with the most polluting first.

 

[FactFinder]

Scientists in this field get funding in the millions. Big energy has profits in the trillions.

Who would benefit from the denial of evidence?

Who would lose money if we took the neccessary steps to alleviate the situation?

How much would Al Gore, Goldman Sachs and their cronies get from carbon credits?

They already have companies/investments in place figuring they have already bought off Congress.

Cap and Trade actually worked for the sulphate emissions. It may well work for the CO2 emissions.

My preferred path would simply be a ten year timetable in shutting down all GHG emmitting generation units, worldwide, starting with the most polluting first.

Sulfate emissions were real pollutants. CO2 is neither a pollutant nor a proven cause of global warming which is now cooling.

 

[tigerbob]

Scientists in this field get funding in the millions. Big energy has profits in the trillions.

Who would benefit from the denial of evidence?

Who would lose money if we took the neccessary steps to alleviate the situation?

I want to believe that the position of the scientific community is altruistic. But I've seen other industries where scientific evidence has been manipulated to support an agenda and where anyone that denies it is shouted down and has their career ruined.

Climate science is too complex for the layman to understand without dedicating thousands of hours to an in-depth study of the subject. Some people may have the time / inclination to do just that. Others (most others) don't, so they skim a few articles and rely on those they are supposed to be able to trust. But when one doesn't know why one PhD is more reliable than another PhD, the task becomes almost impossible. Most people tend to listen to the loudest voice, which is usually the politically correct voice. This doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but it's not a sound basis for forming an opinion.

To answer your question, big energy would clearly benefit, both through increased consumer confidence in their product and through the lack of need to spend a portion of their profits refuting claims and lobbying.

The scientists in this field would clearly not benefit. It it was shown that climate change was not the threat they say it is their funding would dry up and they'd have to look for new ways to earn a living.

 

[FactFinder]

Goldman Sachs, engineering a carbon credit bubble? | Alternat1ve.com - One Alternative Energy Blog

The author breakdowns the banks self serving operation in this paragraph:

Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased.

It also points out that the bank is now setting its sights on the carbon credit market which it says will be the new bubble market for them to prop up. If you go to the Goldman Sachs website right now you will see that it is indeed into green investing.

Adding some more interesting info on Goldman:
http://watertreading.blogspot.com/2009/07/speculation-terrorism-how-big-banks-and.html