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

[Editor]

This link was sent to me and I haven't had a chance to go through and see that the linked papers do in fact support skepticism (if you think about it a lot of papers support positions and/or conclusions other than those drawn by their authors).

A quick glance at a few of the authors' names suggests they are likely as presented.

Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming from Popular Technology.

[Environutcracker]

Wow, that's quite a list. Spotted a few that I've read, thanks for posting that.

[Richard S Courtney]

Editor:

That is an interesting list, and I was interested to see some of my publications listed.

One paper I am disappointed that I did not see in the list is the paper by Richard Lindzen titled;
'Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?'
I very strongly recommend that it deserves to be read by all, and it can be downloaded from
http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762v1.pdf

It catalogues the deliberate corruption of climate science, several scientific organisations and several science journals.

Lindzen is the Alfred Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT.  As such he is beyond doubt the foremost climatologist in the world at present.  Hence, he is unassailable and can speak out with no fear of significant attack from the pygmies who scare about climate.

An example of the importance of the issues in Lindzen's paper is provided by his statement which relates to a subject reported in one of my paper's that is cited in the list.

Lindzen says;
"The IPCC regularly, through the 4th assessment, boasted of the ability of models to simulate this cooling (while failing to emphasize that each model required a different specification of of completely undetermined aerosol cooling in order to achieve this simulation (Kiehl, 2007)."

Lindzen's statement is correct.  However, this nature of the models was reported in peer reviewed literature long, long before 2007
(ref. Courtney RS, ‘An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre’, Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).

That paper published in 1999 (n.b. a decade ago) states that the 2nd IPCC Assessment Report made the same misrepresentation as Lindzen reports for the IPCC's 4th assessment.  And the only significant difference between my paper and Kiehl's (except for mine having been published 8 years earlier) is that my paper reported the ‘adjustment’ made to the Hadley Centre GCM and Kiehl's paper reports that other GCMs have adopted the same 'adjustment'.

My 1999 paper reports that the Hadley Centre GCM showed an unrealistic high warming trend over the twentieth century, and a cooling effect was added to overcome this drift. The cooling was assumed to be a result of anthropogenic aerosol.

So, cooling was input to the GCM to match the geographical distribution of the aerosol. And the total magnitude of the cooling was input to correct for the model drift: this was reasonable because the actual magnitude of the aerosol cooling effect is not known.

This was a reasonable model test. If the drift were a result of aerosol cooling then the geographical pattern of warming over the twentieth century indicated by the model would match observations.

However, the output of this model test provided a pattern of geographic variation in the warming that was very different from observations; e.g. the model predicted most cooling where most warming was observed.

This proved that the aerosol cooling was not the cause – or at least not the major cause – of the model drift.

The Hadley Centre overcame this unfortunate result by reporting the agreement of the global average temperature rise with observations.
But THIS AGREEMENT WAS FIXED AS AN INPUT TO THE TEST!
It was fixed by adjusting the degree of input cooling to make it fit!

However, this use of supposed ‘aerosol cooling’ to compensate for the model drift means that any input reduction to anthropogenic aerosol cooling must result in the model providing drift which is wrongly indicated as global warming.

In any other branch of science this 'aerosol cooling' fix would be considered to be at best incompetence and at worst fraud.

Importantly, this one fact alone proves - beyond any possibility of doubt - that the climate models provide incorrect indications of global warming.  My paper reported this in 1999, and no subsequent dispute of it has been published.  Eight years later Kiehle's paper reported the same, and there has been no published dispute of it.

So, it has been known for a decade that the predictions of global warming provided by the models are not valid.  Three IPCC so-called scientific reports have ignored the certain fact that the predictions of global warming provided by the models are not valid.

Importantly, the mass media has not reported that
1. it has been known for a decade that the predictions of global warming provided by the models are not valid
and
2. three IPCC so-called scientific reports have ignored the certain fact that the predictions of global warming provided by the models are not valid.

Regards

Richard

[Editor]

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.html

Better Recheck That List
 
My attention has just be called to a list of "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming." A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they'd better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn't represent what they think it does. (Roger Pielke Jr)

[Richard S Courtney]

Editor:

 I suggest that you read the discussion at the URL you provide.  Pielke's claim that his papers should not be called "Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming" is very strange and certainly illogical.

Also, the discussion includes this at item #22:

Andrew said... 22
The following has been added at the top of the post,

"The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. There are many more listings than just the 450 papers. The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary."
WED NOV 18, 07:21:00 PM MST

Wiith the amendment that "this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors", I cannot see any reason to reduce the list from the cited 450 papers.

Richard