Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Press Release from Science & Environmental Policy Projec

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by pro-pilot, Dec 12, 2007.

  1. Checking out the published report on this through the International Journal of Climatology.

    Waiting for the full paper, will need to be fully checked out on some of its so called "inescapable" claims.


    Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

    These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

    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).

    The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.â€

    Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.â€

    Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface—and thus the climate.†Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.
  2. From here:

    Worth reading the whole article, even if it has an American politics slant.
  3. Fred Singer = Oil industry shill

    Not sure how many times that needs repeating pro-pilot

    Look up his stellar work for the tobacco industry if you want a measure on the guy
  4. Need we look up Al Gores and 80 % of the UN committee's benefactors?
    I suggest you do some homework.
    Everyone in position of being accepted as a reputable source of expertise has exposure to a broad range of funding and organisational interactions.

    My field is no different. I have worked for oil companies, government and the private sector.

    So shame on me too!

    They are all on the payroll in some shape or form. But what is clear is they are after a slice of your pay packet.

    Make no mistake.
  5. And the heroes of the 'other' team are reliable then?

    What about Michael Mann's "hockey stick," which proved that after 900 years of stable temperature, the last 100 years show a big rise. This graph, a pivotal bit of the IPCC report, only works because it completely ignores the medieval warm period between 1000-1300AD and the "Little Ice Age" which lasted into the mid 1800's. Not only that, but further work has shown that Mann's methodology was designed to produce a result regardless of the evidence. Even when fed random numbers, Mann's algorithms still produce hockey sticks.
  6. The 'hockey stick' has been discredited and discarded for years, and was only a visual aid for the argument in the first place. There's an odd kind of 'double discredit' here... continuing to bring up as part of the case against climate change things that the climate change people have discarded and repudiated long ago.
  7. The trouble is it's always Fred Singer though isn't it, you post a link off we toddle to have a read and pow it's old Freddie again.
  8. You missed my point entirely. My post was intended to highlight the logical fallacy called "argument from authority", where the statements of individuals are accepted because of the 'authority' of the individuals making them, or vice versa. The only arguments that truly carry authority are those borne of consensus, real consensus, not the false consensus arrived at by excluding dissenting arguments. If you take a poll of Christians you will get consensus on the existence of God, what we need in the AGW debate is a few dissenting voices to be included included in any attempt to achieve consensus, without them the consensus can have no credibility. My personal position is not in either camp, I do firmly believe however that the standard of proof being applied is inadequate for the globally significant politico/economic decisions currently being made.
  9. ...and in most asylums you'll find a Christian who 'is' God. You're confusing consensus with unanimity... and unanimity is an impossible standard because there will always, always be at least one dissenter.

    The consensus on climate change includes consideration of all claims and all positions. It is not argument from authority to suggest that when hundreds of scientists, including the vast majority of those in the relevant fields, agree, and a few scientists, often those speaking outside their professional fields, disagree, the majority group represents the scientific consensus on the issue.

    I mean, there are still people who believe the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon.
  10. But there isn't a consensus from a majority of scientists in the relevant fields. The media and politicians seem to like to imply that there is but the reality is that the debate is still very much ongoing - with people from different backgrounds providing all sorts of conflicting evidence. Ask any geochemist for example and most will tell you the whole "climate change" thing is a complete load of crap given the Earths atmosphere was once almost entirely CO2 with lower average temperatures, and the fact that natural sources of CO2 outweigh human contributions by an order of millions (possibly more).
  11. er, hullooooo! it is and we didn't. I can't believe you didn't know that.
  12. OK, here's a very simple test. Please link me to one published, peer reviewed scientific paper by a climate scientist stating that either (a) there is no global warming occurring or (b) there is global warming but the primary cause is not human activity. Should be pretty easy to do, seeing you're claiming that there is not even a majority consensus.
  13. Still missing the point I see;

    "Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

    However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

    They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

    Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

    Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.

    A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."


    NOBODY is denying warming is occurring, but plenty of qualified researchers are not yet convinced that it is Anthropogenic.
  14. Still not able to bring any scientific evidence, I see. Without peer review, you don't have science.
  15. Mate, just how obtuse can you get! That whole article related to a meta analysis of peer reviewed papers and quote;

    "one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly."

    Its easy to claim a consensus if you exclude those dissenting, or as in the IPCC report, blatantly claim consensus from those who disagree \.

    "The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists. But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings. Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel."
  16. Isn't there an anal analysis forum you can take this too?
  17. Where do we begin? Sorry, just a quick small data dump.

    Delworth, T.L., Mann, M.E., Observed and Simulated Multidecadal Variability in the Northern Hemisphere, Climate Dynamics, 16, 661-676, 2000.

    Emanuel, K. (2005), Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years, Nature, online publication; published online 31 July 2005 | doi: 10.1038/nature03906

    Knutson, T. K., and R. E. Tuleya, 2004: Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization. Journal of Climate, 17(18), 3477-3495.

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    David H. Douglass 1 *, John R. Christy 2, Benjamin D. Pearson 1, S. Fred Singer 3 4
    1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA
    2Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA
    3Science and Environmental Policy Project, Arlington, VA 22202, USA
    4University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA

    email: David H. Douglass (douglass@pas.rochester.edu)

    *Correspondence to David H. Douglass, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA.

    climate trend • troposphere • observations

    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society

    Received: 31 May 2007; Accepted: 11 October 2007



    Politics Posing as Science Print Mail

    A Preliminary Assessment of the IPCC's Latest Climate Change Report
    By Kenneth P. Green, Joel M. Schwartz, Steven F. Hayward
    Posted: Monday, December 3, 2007


    AEI Online
    Publication Date: December 3, 2007

    No. 4, December 2007

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) new Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of its Synthesis Report (SR) should be taken with several chunks of salt.[1] The summary itself is a political document that downplays assessments of uncertainty from the scientific reports written by the main body of the IPCC, which themselves are far more subjective than the IPCC would have one believe. Equally important, both the IPCC's summaries and main reports omit much contrary evidence. In several cases, the SR disagrees with the reports on which it is based, and it fails to take account of cautionary publications in the scientific literature that were available early enough to have been incorporated into the SR. Climate change and climate policy are key issues for future human welfare, but that concern should translate into sober analysis and actions that are likely to do more good than harm. The people of the world should not let themselves be steamrolled by a report that reflects the IPCC's interest in promoting climate change fears, rather than in conveying the weight of the scientific evidence.

    Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses
    at relevant tide gauges world-wide
    G. Wöppelmann a,âŽ, B. Martin Miguez b, M.-N. Bouin c, Z. Altamimi c
    a University La Rochelle, CLDG, Av. Michel Crépeau, 17042 La Rochelle, France
    b Universidade de Vigo and Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas, CSIC, Vigo, Spain
    c Institut Géographique National, Saint-Mandé, France
    Received 6 September 2006; received in revised form 31 January 2007;


    Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the
    Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600
    N. Scafetta1 and B. J. West2
    Received 18 January 2007; revised 4 May 2007; accepted 5 June 2007; published 3 November 2007.
    [1] A phenomenological thermodynamic model is adopted to estimate the relative
    contribution of the solar-induced versus anthropogenic-added climate forcing during the
    industrial era. We compare different preindustrial temperature and solar data
    reconstruction scenarios since 1610. We argue that a realistic climate scenario is the
    one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (as the one shown by the
    paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al. (2005)) with the total solar
    irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al. (2005)).
    Under this scenario the Sun might have contributed up to approximately 50% (or more if
    ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite (Willson and Mordvinov, 2003) is
    implemented) of the observed global warming since 1900.

    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, D24S03, doi:10.1029/2007JD008437, 2007


    2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Treering Proxies
    Type: Journal Article
    Published: November 2007

    File Size: 866 KB Category: External Publications
    File Type: (Adobe PDF) Frequency: As Needed
    Download File:

    Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058.

    Note: Data presented in Figure 1 is available in a CSV file.

    Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.


    New Research Suggests that Emissions Reductions Are a Risky and
    Very Expensive Way to Avoid Dangerous Global Climate Changes
    Alan Carlin
    June, 2007
    Proponents of greenhouse gas emissions reductions have long assumed that such
    reductions are the best approach to global climate change control and sometimes argued
    that they are the least risky approach. It is now generally understood that to be effective
    such reductions would have to involve most of the world and be very extensive and
    rapidly implemented. This paper examines the question of whether it is feasible to use
    only this approach to control dangerous global climate changes, the most critical of the
    climate change control objectives. I show that in one of two critical cases analyzed
    recent papers provide evidence that such an approach is not a feasible single approach to
    avoiding the dangerous climate changes predicted by a very prominent group of US
    climate change researchers. In the other case using a widely accepted international
    standard I show that such an approach appears to be very risky and much more expensive
    than previously thought. These conclusions further reinforce previous research that
    emissions reductions alone do not appear to be an effective and efficient single strategy
    for climate change control. So although emissions reductions can play a useful role in
    climate change control, other approaches would appear to be needed if dangerous climate
    changes are to be avoided. This conclusion suggests that the current proposals in a
    number of Western European countries and the United States to use emissions reductions
    as the sole means to control global warming may be doomed to failure in terms of
    avoiding such dangerous changes. An alternative approach is briefly discussed that
    would be more effective and efficient, and could avoid the perilous risks and high costs
    inherent in an emissions reduction only approach.

    Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 9, 07367, 2007
    SRef-ID: 1607-7962/gra/EGU2007-A-07367
    © European Geosciences Union 2007
    Modelling the Baltic Sea ocean climate on centennial
    time scale; temperature and sea ice
    D. Hansson, A. Omstedt
    Göteborg University, Earth Sciences Centre, Sweden (daniel@gvc.gu.se / Phone: +46
    The Baltic Sea has undergone large and sometimes rapid climate change in the past
    ranging from a generally cold little ice age to a generally warmer present. The little
    ice age ended in 1877 in the Baltic Sea region and the temperature has since increased
    more than 0.7°C during the past century. This directly impacts the maximum ice extent
    as it is dependent on the mean winter air temperature. Still, the range of the natural
    variability is not fully understood. It is of great interest to understand how the Baltic
    Sea will respond to future climate change, whether caused by natural variability or in
    combination with anthropogenic influences. Recent breakthroughs in climate research
    related to the Baltic Sea have made meteorological datasets on centennial timescales
    available. These datasets originate from high quality station data from 1893 and onwards
    and gridded multi-proxy reconstructions spanning the period 1500-2001. Using
    a process oriented coupled basin model we here investigate whether or not these
    datasets are suitable as forcing when modelling horizontally and vertically integrated
    water temperature and maximum ice extent of the Baltic Sea. The results are encouraging
    and are in good agreement with independently measured and historical data
    used as validation. The results indicate that the 20th century was the warmest century
    in the region with the least maximum ice extent of the last 500 years. On a decadal
    time scale, the 1990s, 1930s, and 1730s were the warmest decades and comparable in
    terms of both water temperature and maximum ice extent. Even though different climate
    forcing mechanisms may operate on the climate system today compared to over
    the last half millennium, it cannot clearly be stated that the region is experiencing
    climate change outside the natural limits of the past 500 years.



    Hansen is a modeller, and his scenario for the collapse of the ice sheets is based on a false model.

    Hansen has a model of an ice sheet sliding along an inclined plane, lubricated by meltwater, which is itself increasing because of global warming. The same model is adopted in many copy-cat papers. Christoffersen and Hambrey (2006) and Bamber et al. (2007). are typical papers, a popular article based on the same flawed model appeared in the June 2007 issue of National Geographic, and the idea is present in textbooks such as The Great Ice Age (2000) by R.C.L. Wilson et al.

    Hansen’s model, unfortunately, includes neither the main form of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets, nor an understanding of how glaciers flow. The predicted behaviour of the ice sheets is based on melting and accumulation rates at the present day, and on the concept of an ice sheet sliding down an inclined plane on a base lubricated by meltwater, which is itself increasing because of global warming. The idea of a glacier sliding downhill on a base lubricated by meltwater seemed a good idea when first presented by de Saussure in 1779, but a lot has been learned since then.

    Appenzeller, T. 2006. The Big Thaw. National Geographic, June 2007. 56-71.

    Bamber, J.L., Alley, R.B. and Joughin, I. 2007. Rapid response of modern day ice sheets to external forcing. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 257, 1-13.

    Carlin, A. 2007. NCEE Working Paper #07-07.

    Christoffersen, P. & Hambrey, M.J. 2006. Is the Greenland Ice Sheet in a state of collapse? Geology Today, v.22, pp. 98-103.

    De Saussure, H-B. 1779-1796. Voyages dans les Alpes.(4 volumes) Manget, Geneva.

    Hansen, J. 2007. Scientific reticence and sea level rise. Environmental Research Letters, May 24.

    M.F. Perutz. Mechanism of glacier flow. Proc.Phys.Soc., 52, 132-135, 1940.

    van der Veen, C.J., Leftwich, T., von Frese, R., Csatho, B.M. & Li, J. 2007. Subglacial topography and geothermal heat flux: Potential interactions with drainage of the Greenland ice sheet, Geophysical Research Letters, v.34, LI2501, doi:10.1029/2007 GL030046.

    Time to ditch Kyoto
    Gwyn Prins1 & Steve Rayner2

    Gwyn Prins is at the London School of Economics Mackinder Centre for the Study of Long Wave Events, London WC2A 2AE, UK.
    Steve Rayner is at the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 1HP, UK.
    Top of pageAbstractClimate policy after 2012, when the Kyoto treaty expires, needs a radical rethink. More of the same won't do, argue Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner.

    The Kyoto Protocol is a symbolically important expression of governments' concern about climate change. But as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, it has failed

    Nature 449, 973-975 (25 October 2007) | doi:10.1038/449973a; Published online 24 October 2007


    Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support
    relevance in climate predictions
    1,3,*, M. R. ALLEN
    2, E. R. TREDGER
    1Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Environmental Change Institute,
    Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford,
    South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
    2Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Oxford
    University, Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
    3Centre for the Analysis of Time-series, Department of Statistics, Columbia
    House, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street,
    London WC2A 2AE, UK
    Over the last 20 years, climate models have been developed to an impressive level of
    complexity. They are core tools in the study of the interactions of many climatic
    processes and justifiably provide an additional strand in the argument that
    anthropogenic climate change is a critical global problem. Over a similar period, there
    has been growing interest in the interpretation and probabilistic analysis of the output of
    computer models; particularly, models of natural systems. The results of these areas of
    research are being sought and utilized in the development of policy, in other academic
    disciplines, and more generally in societal decision making. Here, our focus is solely on
    complex climate models as predictive tools on decadal and longer time scales. We argue
    for a reassessment of the role of such models when used for this purpose and a
    reconsideration of strategies for model development and experimental design. Building
    on more generic work, we categorize sources of uncertainty as they relate to this specific
    problem and discuss experimental strategies available for their quantification. Complex
    climate models, as predictive tools for many variables and scales, cannot be meaningfully
    calibrated because they are simulating a never before experienced state of the system;
    the problem is one of extrapolation. It is therefore inappropriate to apply any of the
    currently available generic techniques which utilize observations to calibrate or weight
    models to produce forecast probabilities for the real world. To do so is misleading to the
    users of climate science in wider society. In this context, we discuss where we derive
    confidence in climate forecasts and present some concepts to aid discussion and
    communicate the state-of-the-art. Effective communication of the underlying assumptions
    and sources of forecast uncertainty is critical in the interaction between climate
    science, the impacts communities and society in general.

    2007 The Royal Society, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007)

    Allen, M. R. & Stainforth, D. A. 2002 Towards objective probabilistic climate forecasting. Nature
    419, 228. (doi:10.1038/nature01092a)
    Allen, M. R., Frame, D., Kettleborough, J. & Stainforth, D. A. 2006 Model error in weather and
    climate forecasting. In Predictability of weather and climate (eds T. Palmer & R. Hagedorn),
    ch. 15, pp. 391–427. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Andreae, M. O., Jones, C. D. & Cox, P. M. 2005 Strong present-day aerosol cooling implies a hot
    future. Nature 435, 1187–1190. (doi:10.1038/nature03671)
    Bevan, K. 2002 Towards a coherent philosophy for modelling the environment. Proc. R. Soc. A
    458, 2465–2484. (doi:10.1098/rspa.2002.0986)
    Brocker, J.&Smith, L.A. In press. Increasing the reliability of reliability diagrams. Weather Forecast.
    Chatfield, C. 2002 Confessions of a pragmatic statistician. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. D—Stat. 51, 1–20.
    Chatfield, C. 2003 The analysis of time series: an introduction, 6th edn. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman
    and Hall/CRC.
    Covey, C., AchutaRao, K., Lambert, S. J. & Taylor, K. E. 2000 Intercomparison of present and future
    climates simulated by coupled ocean-atmosphereGCMs. Technical report 66—Programfor climate
    model diagnosis and intercomparison. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
    Cubasch, U. 2001 Climate change 2001. In The science of climate change (ed. J. T. Houghton),
    ch. 9, pp. 527–582. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Cullen, M. J. P. 1993 The unified forecast climate model. Meteorol. Mag. 122, 81–94.
    Frame, D. J. 2005 Constraining climate forecasts: the role of prior assumptions. Geophys. Res.
    Lett. 32, L09702. (doi:10.1029/2004GL022241)
    Giorgi, F. & Mearns, L. O. 2002 Calculation of average, uncertainty range and reliability of regional
    climate changes from AOGCMsimulations via the ‘reliability ensemble averaging’ (REA)method.
    J. Clim. 15, 1141–1158. (doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015!1141:COAURAO2.0.CO;2)
    Grimm, A. M., Sahai, A. K. & Ropelewski, C. F. 2006 Interdecadal variations in AGCM simulation
    skills. J. Clim. 19, 3406–3419. (doi:10.1175/JCLI3803.1)
    Hayhoe, H., Frumhoff, P., Schneider, S., Luers, A. & Field, C. 2006 Regional assessment of climate
    impacts on California under alternative emissions pathways—key findings and implications for
    stabilisation. In Avoiding dangerous climate change, ch. 24. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
    University Press.
    Kemp, M. 2005 Science in culture: inventing an icon. Nature 437, 1238. (doi:10.1038/4371238a)
    Kennedy, M. C. & O’Hagan, A. 2001 Bayesian calibration of computer models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser.
    B—Stat. Methodol. 63, 425–450. (doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00294)
    Knutti, R., Meehl, G., Allen, M. R. & Stainforth, D. A. 2006 Constraining climate sensitivity from
    the seasonal cycle in surface temperature. J. Clim. 19, 4224–4233. (doi:10.1175/JCLI3865.1)
    Lopez, A., Tebaldi, C., New, M., Stainforth, D., Allen, M. & Kettleborough, J. 2006 Two
    approaches to quantifying uncertainty in global temperature changes under different forcing
    scenarios. J. Clim. 19, 4785–4796. (doi:10.1175/JCLI3895.1)
    McAvaney, B. J. 2001 Climate change 2001. In The science of climate change (ed. J. T. Houghton),
    ch. 8, pp. 471–524. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Meehl, G. A., Covey, C., Delworth, T., Latif, M., McAvaney, B., Mitchell, J. F. B., Stouffer, R. J. &
    Taylor, K. E. Submitted. The global coupled climate multi-model dataset: a new era in climate
    change research.
    Muller, B. 2002 Equity in global climate change: the great divide. Publication EV31. Oxford, UK:
    Oxford Institute for Energy Studies
    Murphy, J. M. et al. 2004 Quantifying uncertainties in climate change from a large ensemble of
    general circulation model predictions. Nature 430, 768–772. (doi:10.1038/nature02771)
    O’Hagan, A. & Oakley, J. E. 2004 Probability is perfect, but we can’t elicit it perfectly. Rel. Eng.
    Syst. Safety 85, 239–248. (doi:10.1016/j.ress.2004.03.014)
    Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K. & Belitz, K. 1994 Verification, validation, and confirmation of
    numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 263, 641–646. (doi:10.1126/science.263.5147.641)
    Palmer, T. 2000 Predicting uncertainty in forecasts of weather and climate. Rep. Prog. Phys. 63,
    71–116. (doi:10.1088/0034-4885/63/2/201)
    Piani, C., Frame, D. J., Stainforth, D. A. & Allen, M. R. 2005 Constraints on climate change from
    a multi-thousand member ensemble of simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L23825. (doi:10.
    Rougier, J. et al. Submitted. Emulating the sensitivity of the HadSM3 climate model using
    ensembles from different but related climate models.
    Russell, B. 1946 The problems of philosophy, p. 63, 2nd edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    Smith, L. A. 2000 Disentangling uncertainty and error: on the predictability of nonlinear systems.
    In Nonlinear dynamics and statistics (ed. A. I. Mees), pp. 31–64. Boston, MA: Birkhauser.
    Smith, L. A. 2002 What might we learn from climate forecasts? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99,
    2487–2492. (doi:10.1073/pnas.012580599)
    Smith, L. A. 2006 Predictability past predictability present. In Predictability of weather and
    climate (eds T. Palmer & R. Hagedorn), ch. 9, pp. 217–250. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
    University Press.
    Spiegel, E. A. 1987 Chaos—a mixed metaphor for turbulence. Proc. R. Soc. A 413, 87–95. (doi:10.
    Stainforth, D. A., Allen, M. R., Frame, D., Kettleborough, J., Christensen, C., Aina, T. & Collins,
    M. 2004 Climateprediction.net: a global community for research in climate physics. In
    Environmental online communication (ed. A. Scharl), pp. 101–112. London, UK: Springer.
    Stainforth, D. A. et al. 2005 Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of
    greenhouse gases. Nature 433, 403–406. (doi:10.1038/nature03301)
    Stainforth, D. A., Downing, T. E., Washington, R., Lopez, A. & New, M. 2007 Issues in the
    interpretation of climate model ensembles to inform decisions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365,
    2163–2177. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2073)
    Stern, N. 2006 Stern review on the economics of climate change. HM Treasury.
    Stott, P. A. & Kettleborough, J. A. 2002 Origins and estimates of uncertainty in predictions of
    twenty-first century temperature rise. Nature 416, 723–726. (doi:10.1038/416723a)
    Stott, P. A. et al. 2001 Attribution of twentieth century temperature change to natural and
    anthropogenic causes. Clim. Dyn. 17, 1–21. (doi:10.1007/PL00007924)
    Stott, P. A., Kettleborough, J. A. & Allen, M. R. 2006 Uncertainty in continental-scale
    temperature predictions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L02708. (doi:10.1029/2005GL024423)
    Sutton, R. T. & Hodson, D. L. R. 2005 Atlantic Ocean forcing of North American and European
    summer climate. Science 309, 115–118. (doi:10.1126/science.1109496)
    Tebaldi, C., Smith, R. L., Nychka, D. & Mearns, L. O. 2005 Quantifying uncertainty in projections
    of regional climate change: a Bayesian approach to the analysis of multimodel ensembles.
    J. Clim. 18, 1524–1540. (doi:10.1175/JCLI3363.1)
    Trenberth, K. E., Dai, A., Rasmussen, R. M. & Parsons, D. B. 2003 The changing character of
    precipitation. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 1205–1217. (doi:10.1175/BAMS-84-9-1205)
    UKCIP02 2002 UK climate impacts programme scenarios. See http://www.ukcip.org.uk/scenarios/.
    UKCIP08 2006 Expressed preferences for the next package of UK climate change information.
    UKCIP report. See http://www.ukcip.org.uk/scenarios/ukcip08/documents/User_Consultation_
    Walter, K. M., Zimov, S. A., Chanton, J. P., Verbyla, D. & Chapin III, F. S. 2006 Methane
    bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming. Nature 443,
    71–75. (doi:10.1038/nature05040)
    Williams, K. D., Senior, C. A. & Mitchell, J. F. B. 2001 Transient climate change in the Hadley
    centre models: the role of physical processes. J. Clim. 14, 2659–2674. (doi:10.1175/1520-
  18. In response to Sudz. The paper you cited was a meta-analysis of peer reviewed papers that itself failed to pass peer review. Sorry, try again.

    Pro-pilot: thanx, that's exactly the type of evidence/info I was looking for. Nice work. Will get back to you once I've had a chance to digest it a bit.
  19. My apologies! an off topic discussion in the 'off topic forum', how thoughtless.
  20. Hurricane intensity is an area I'll leave alone: although increased heat in the weather system does suggest increased hurricane intensity, the mechanisms are extremely complex, and hurricanes are rare enough events that there's way too little data to test any claims at this point. Lack of more intense hurricanes is by itself not enough to refute climate change, just as the existence of more intense hurricanes by itself would not be enough to establish climate change.