My email to Wendy Carlisle, ABC journalist 22 June 2011.
She asked me to email her the peer reviewed references related to our long phone conversation. She did not reply, did not say thanks, did not refer to them, yet claimed after seeing me speak that I did not use peer reviewed references. Is it denial? Could be.
One paper which shows the models are wrong is linked and explained in this post:The models are wrong (but only by 400%). There are plenty of others I can pick from.
McKitrick, Ross R., Stephen McIntyre and Chad Herman (2010) “Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series” in press at Atmospheric Science Letters.
The hot spot has been missing since the 1990′s. The data on it has been reanalyzed to the end in an effort to find it. They resort to wind shear instead of thermometers, they use satellites instead of weather balloons, and they stretch the error bars until the uncertainties become so large they can say “the models are consistent with the observations”.(Santer 2008). They are desperate. This is the central point to their theory. Without the amplification, there is no crisis.
When people say the “Hot spot has been found” they might cite Thorne et al and my answer is: Thorne 2010: A very incomplete history of the missing hot spot. Or they might cite Sherwood 2008 – and you should see the graph he used. He changed the colour scale on the graph to make it appear that the hot spot had been found when it had not. The effect is so deceptive, it’s surprising that this graph was allowed to be placed in a peer reviewed journal. Sherwood 2008: Where you can find a hot spot at zero degrees.
A different approach was used by Anagostopoulos who also shows the models have little abilty to predict the climate. (I didn’t mention this on the phone)./
Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N.(2010) ‘A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]
This is the paper showing humidity levels have fallen instead of risen in the key part of the upper troposphere. Garth Paltridge is an Australian researcher – I can give you his contact number so you can ask him about this paper yourself.
Paltridge, G.,Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). [PDF]
Caillon et al showed there was an 800 year lag in the ice cores in 2003. Two years before Al Gore made his movie. His results are not disputed by anyone on either side.
Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J.,Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.[Discussion, CO2science]
I can toss a lot more papers your way, but don’t want to overwhelm you. Just ask if you want more. We’ve got peer reviewed references for many things including that the world was likely to be warmer 1000 years ago, 8000 years ago, and 130,000 years ago, and that sea levels started rising in 1700 (long before CO2 started rising). That the hockey stick is broken, that cloud changes appear to dampen the warming effect of CO2.That the energy balance of earth (mostly in the oceans) is also not behaving the way the models predict and that our surface thermometers are poor quality and overestimate the warming trend. Indeed we can show you photos of hundreds of stations that you don’t need a phd to understand are not accurately reporting trends because they are near buildings, concrete, airports, and air conditioners.
I hope that helps, it’s a deep pool.
Thanks for looking at the information.