Jonas Thread

’90% certainty’

So not ALL papers will conclude there has been a change.

Right?

Or are you too dumb to count too?

Oh, work started again, Olap?

Yeah, you do engage a lot of bollocks.

All sound and fury, signifying nothing.

So Wow-spambot:

Where do you believe in those two papers, the core of that prominent AR4 claim is addressed? You know, the two quantified magnitudes of 1) warming and 2) certainty ...

Hint: Not anywhere in any part of the paper dealing with completely different things, like monsoons etc

Lionel, It seems that you too rather address me from another thread. Maybe (and I'm speculating here, assuming the best) you were too ashamed to argue alongside with that Über-stupid Wow-character who is illeterat beyoud belief.

You can prove me wrong, and I'd correct my position.

"Where do you believe in those two papers, the core of that prominent AR4 claim is addressed?"

Wow, you really ARE dumb!

Dumber than a sack of spanners from the crazy pool.

The AR4 claim was BASED ON papers. Several of them. You have two.

Do you know the difference between data and conclusion from the data?

Or do you REALLY think that one datapoint contains the entire conclusion?

Too dumb to read, too thick to think, crazier than a psycho squirrel!

"Not anywhere in any part of the paper dealing with completely different things like monsoons"

Really? So climate isn't the average of weather?

Thicker than a light year of lard...

"You can prove me wrong, and I’d correct my position."

Given your irrelevancy status, why the hell should anyone care about you changing your position?

It's just plain wrong.

Hell, it's so wrong it's "not even wrong".

Wow, claims "irrelevancy" staus on Jonas. :-D

Can it get any better? Parts of the bunch even try to win from afar, in a protected zone, instead of coming here. :-D

"Wow, claims “irrelevancy” staus on Jonas"

No, I pointed it out.

There's a difference.

What a riposte from the jonas-possessed punching bag. :-D Hilarious!

You can prove me wrong, and I’d correct my position.

You could never correct your position being only capable of behaving like Caenorhabditis elegans. i.e. you are at an evolutionary dead end.

Hopefully he is wrong!

http://notrickszone.com/2012/12/06/meteorologist-klaus-eckart-puls-sea-…

Joan, are you afraid of finding out how to get the data you're demanding?

Scared of a little work? Work-shy? Or just intimidated by facts?

"sea-level-rise-has-slowed-34-over-the-last-decade"

snrk.

Another idiot who doesn't do maths. Olap dog, do you know what weather is?

Wow, you seem to be a total idiot. Sorry to have to say that. I pity real idiots. But in your case you've made yourself to be one! Just amazing!

Lionel. Stupid insults just don't work (other than for the Wows of this world)

Yup, another self-professed, completely wrong and unsupported claim from joan here. "you seem to be a total idiot."

I'd have to have to be his teacher at school. He'd be all "I don't WANNA learn" and then, because he's not learning anything, blaming the teacher.

Don't you want to know how to get the information you've been harping on for a self-confessed 18+ months?

All this effort complaining about how SOMEONE ELSE must do all your work for you and you haven't got the energy to ask "OK, where do I get the data I've been demanding?".

Too dumb to read, too thick to change and completely hatstand.

AchutaRao, K.M., et al., 2006: Variability of ocean heat uptake: Reconciling observations and models. J. Geophys. Res., 111, C05019.

Ackerman, A.S., et al., 2000: Reduction of tropical cloudiness by soot. Science, 288, 1042–1047.

Adams, J.B., M.E. Mann, and C.M. Ammann, 2003: Proxy evidence for an El Nino-like response to volcanic forcing. Nature, 426(6964), 274–278.

Alexander, L.V., et al., 2006: Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D05109, doi:10.1029/2005JD006290.

Allan, R.J., and T.J. Ansell, 2006: A new globally-complete monthly historical gridded mean sea level pressure data set (HadSLP2): 1850-2004. J. Clim., 19, 5816–5842.

Allen, M.R., 2003: Liability for climate change. Nature, 421, 891–892.

Allen, M.R., and S.F.B. Tett, 1999: Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting. Clim. Dyn., 15, 419–434.

Allen, M.R., and W.J. Ingram, 2002: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature, 419, 224–232.

Allen, M.R., and D.A. Stainforth, 2002: Towards objective probabilistic climate forecasting. Nature, 419, 228–228.

Allen, M.R., and P.A. Stott, 2003: Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting, Part I: Theory. Clim. Dyn., 21, 477–491.

Allen, M.R., J.A. Kettleborough, and D.A. Stainforth, 2002: Model error in weather and climate forecasting. In: ECMWF Predictability of Weather and Climate Seminar [Palmer, T.N. (ed.)]. European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK, http://www.ecmwf.int/publications/library/do/references/list/209.

Allen, M.R., et al., 2000: Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change. Nature, 407, 617–620.

Ammann, C.M., G.A. Meehl, W.M. Washington, and C. Zender, 2003: A monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations of 20th century climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(12), 1657.

Anderson, T.L., et al., 2003: Climate forcing by aerosols: A hazy picture. Science, 300, 1103–1104.

Andronova, N.G., and M.E. Schlesinger, 2000: Causes of global temperature changes during the 19th and 20th centuries. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27(14), 2137–2140.

Andronova, N.G., and M.E. Schlesinger, 2001: Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res., 106(D19), 22605–22611.

Andronova, N.G., M.E. Schlesinger, and M.E. Mann, 2004: Are reconstructed pre-instrumental hemispheric temperatures consistent with instrumental hemispheric temperatures? Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L12202, doi:10.1029/2004GL019658.

Andronova, N.G., et al., 1999: Radiative forcing by volcanic aerosols from 1850 to 1994. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 16807–16826.

Andronova, N.G., et al., 2007: The concept of climate sensitivity: History and development. In: Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment [Schlesinger, M., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press.

Annan, J.D., and J.C. Hargreaves, 2006: Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06704, doi:10.1029/2005GL025259.

Annan, J.D., et al., 2005: Efficiently constraining climate sensitivity with paleoclimate simulations. Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere, 1, 181–184.

Arblaster, J.M., and G.A. Meehl, 2006: Contributions of external forcing to Southern Annular Mode trends. J. Clim., 19, 2896–2905.

Bader, J., and M. Latif, 2003: The impact of decadal-scale Indian Ocean sea surface temperature anomalies on Sahelian rainfall and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(22), 2169.

Banks, H.T., et al., 2000: Are observed decadal changes in intermediate water masses a signature of anthropogenic climate change? Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 2961–2964.

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, and R. Schnur, 2001: Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world’s oceans. Science, 292, 270–274.

Barnett, T.P., et al., 1999: Detection and attribution of recent climate change. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 80, 2631–2659.

Barnett, T.P., et al., 2005: Penetration of a warming signal in the world’s oceans: human impacts. Science, 309, 284–287.

Bauer, E., M. Claussen, V. Brovkin, and A. Huenerbein, 2003: Assessing climate forcings of the Earth system for the past millennium. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(6), 1276.

Beltrami, H., J.E. Smerdon, H.N. Pollack, and S. Huang, 2002: Continental heat gain in the global climate system. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 1167.

Bengtsson, L., K.I. Hodges, and E. Roechner, 2006: Storm tracks and climate change. J. Clim., 19, 3518–3543.

Berger, A., 1978: Long-term variations of caloric solar radiation resulting from the earth’s orbital elements. Quat. Res., 9, 139–167.

Berger, A., 1988: Milankovitch theory and climate. Rev. Geophys., 26, 624–657.

Berliner, L.M., R.A. Levine, and D.J. Shea, 2000: Bayesian climate change assessment. J. Clim., 13, 3805–3820.

Bertrand, C., M.F. Loutre, M. Crucifix, and A. Berger, 2002: Climate of the last millennium: a sensitivity study. Tellus, 54A(3), 221–244.

Betts, R.A., 2001: Biogeophysical impacts of land use on present-day climate: near surface temperature and radiative forcing. Atmos. Sci. Lett., 2, 39–51.

Bigelow, N.H., et al., 2003: Climate change and Arctic ecosystems: 1. Vegetation changes north of 55 degrees N between the last glacial maximum, mid-Holocene, and present. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D19), 8170, doi:10.1029/2002JD002558.

Bindoff, N.L., and T.J. McDougall, 2000: Decadal changes along an Indian Ocean section at 32S and their interpretation. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 30(6), 1207–1222.

Bjerknes, J., 1969: Atmospheric teleconnections from the equatorial Pacific. Mon. Weather Rev., 97, 163–172.

Boer, G.J., and B. Yu, 2003: Climate sensitivity and climate state. Clim. Dyn., 21, 167–176.

Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297–302.

Boyer, T.P., et al., 2005: Linear trends in salinity for the World Ocean, 1955-1998. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L01604.

Braconnot, P., S. Joussaume, O. Marti, and N. de Noblet, 1999: Synergistic feedbacks from ocean and vegetation on the African monsoon response to mid-Holocene insolation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 2481–2484.

Braconnot, P., O. Marti, S. Joussaume, and Y. Leclainche, 2000: Ocean feedback in response to 6 kyr BP insolation. J. Clim., 13(9), 1537–1553.

Braconnot, P., et al., 2004: Evaluation of PMIP coupled ocean-atmosphere simulations of the Mid-Holocene. In: Past Climate Variability through Europe and Africa [Battarbee, R.W., F. Gasse, and C.E. Stickley (eds.)]. Springer, London, UK, pp. 515-533.

Braganza, K., et al., 2003: Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part I - Variability and correlation structure. Clim. Dyn., 20, 491–502.

Braganza, K., et al., 2004: Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part II - Attribution of climate change during the 20th century. Clim. Dyn., 22, 823–838.

Briffa, K.R., et al., 2001: Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree ring density network. J. Geophys. Res., 106(D3), 2929–2941.

Broccoli, A.J., et al., 2003: Twentieth-century temperature and precipitation trends in ensemble climate simulations including natural and anthropogenic forcing. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D24), 4798.

Brohan, P., et al., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548.

Bryden, H.L., E. McDonagh, and B.A. King, 2003: Changes in ocean water mass properties: oscillations of trends? Science, 300, 2086–2088.

Bryden, H.L., H.R. Longworth, and S.A. Cunningham, 2005: Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25° N. Nature, 438, 655–657.

Burke, E.J., S.J. Brown, and N. Christidis, 2006: Modelling the recent evolution of global drought and projections for the 21st century with the Hadley Centre climate model. J. Hydrometeorol., 7, 1113–1125.

Caesar, J., L. Alexander, and R. Vose, 2006: Large-scale changes in observed daily maximum and minimum temperatures, 1946-2000. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D05101, doi:10.1029/2005JD006280.

Cai, W., P.H. Whetton, and D.J. Karoly, 2003: The response of the Antarctic Oscillation to increasing and stabilized atmospheric CO2. J. Clim., 16, 1525–1538.

Cane, M., et al., 2006: Progress in paleoclimate modeling. J. Clim., 19, 5031–5057.

Carril, A.F., C.G. Menéndez, and A. Navarra, 2005: Climate response associated with the Southern Annular Mode in the surroundings of Antarctic Peninsula: A multimodel ensemble analysis. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L16713, doi:10.1029/2005GL023581.

Chan, J.C.L., 2006: Comment on “Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment”. Science, 311, 1713.

Chan, J.C.L., and K.S. Liu, 2004: Global warming and western North Pacific typhoon activity from an observational perspective. J. Clim., 17, 4590–4602.

Chase, T.N., J.A. Knaff, R.A. Pielke, and E. Kalnay, 2003: Changes in global monsoon circulations since 1950. Natural Hazards, 29, 229–254.

Chen, J., B.E. Carlson, and A.D. Del Genio, 2002: Evidence for strengthening of the tropical general circulation in the 1990s. Science, 295, 838–841.

Christidis, N., et al., 2005: Detection of changes in temperature extremes during the second half of the 20th century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20716, doi:10.1029/2005GL023885.

Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and W.D. Braswell, 2000: MSU tropospheric temperatures: Dataset construction and radiosonde comparison. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 17, 1153–1170.

Chuang, C.C., et al., 2002: Cloud susceptibility and the first aerosol indirect forcing: Sensitivity to black carbon and aerosol concentrations. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D21), 4564, doi:10.1029/2000JD000215.

Church, J.A., N.J. White, and J.M. Arblaster, 2005: Volcanic eruptions: their impact on sea level and oceanic heat content. Nature, 438, 74–77.

Clement, A.C., R. Seager, and M.A. Cane, 2000: Suppression of El Nino during the mid-Holocene by changes in the Earth’s orbit. Paleoceanography, 15(6), 731–737.

Clement, A.C., A. Hall, and A.J. Broccoli, 2004: The importance of precessional signals in the tropical climate. Clim. Dyn., 22, 327–341.

CLIMAP (Climate: Long-range Investigation, Mapping and Prediction), 1981: Seasonal Reconstructions of the Earth’s Surface at the Last Glacial Maximum. Map Series Technical Report MC-36, Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.

Cobb, K.M., C.D. Charles, H. Cheng, and R.L. Edwards, 2003: El Nino/Southern Oscillation and tropical Pacific climate during the last millennium. Nature, 424(6946), 271–276.

Collins, M., 2000a: The El-Nino Southern Oscillation in the second Hadley Centre coupled model and its response to greenhouse warming. J. Clim., 13, 1299–1312.

Collins, M., 2000b: Understanding uncertainties in the response of ENSO to greenhouse warming. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 3509–3513.

Cook, E.R., et al., 2004: Long-term aridity changes in the western United States. Science, 306(5698), 1015–1018.

Coughlin, K., and K.K. Tung, 2004: Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D21105, doi:10.1029/2004JD004873.

Crooks, S., 2004: Solar Influence On Climate. PhD Thesis, University of Oxford.

Crooks, S.A., and L.J. Gray, 2005: Characterization of the 11-year solar signal using a multiple regression analysis of the ERA-40 dataset. J. Clim., 18(7), 996–1015.

Crowley, T.J., 2000: Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years. Science, 289(5477), 270–277.

Crowley, T.J., et al., 2003: Modeling ocean heat content changes during the last millennium. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(18), 1932.

Cubasch, U., et al., 1997: Simulation of the influence of solar radiation variations on the global climate with an ocean-atmosphere general circulation model. Clim. Dyn., 13(11), 757–767.

Cubasch, U., et al., 2001: Projections of future climate change. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 99–181.

Curry, R., B. Dickson, and I. Yashayaev, 2003: A change in the freshwater balance of the Atlantic Ocean over the past four decades. Nature, 426, 826–829.

Dai, A., K.E. Trenberth, and T.R. Karl, 1999: Effects of clouds, soil, moisture, precipitation and water vapour on diurnal temperature range. J. Clim., 12, 2451–2473.

Dai, A., et al., 2004: The recent Sahel drought is real. Int. J. Climatol., 24, 1323–1331.

D’Arrigo, R., et al., 2005: On the variability of ENSO over the past six centuries. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(3), L03711, doi:10.1029/2004GL022055.

Delworth, T.L., and T.R. Knutson, 2000: Simulation of early 20th century global warming. Science, 287, 2246–2250.

Delworth, T.L., and M.E. Mann, 2000: Observed and simulated multidecadal variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Clim. Dyn., 16(9), 661–676.

Delworth, T.L., V. Ramaswamy, and G.L. Stenchikov, 2005: The impact of aerosols on simulated ocean temperature and heat content in the 20th century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L24709, doi:10.1029/2005GL024457.

Delworth, T., et al., 2002: Review of simulations of climate variability and change with the GFDL R30 coupled climate model. Clim. Dyn., 19, 555–574.

Dickson, R.R., et al., 2002: Rapid freshening of the deep North Atlantic Ocean over the past four decades. Nature, 416, 832–837.

Douglass, D.H., and B.D. Clader, 2002: Climate sensitivity of the Earth to solar irradiance. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(16), 1786.

Douglass, D.H., and R.S. Knox, 2005: Climate forcing by volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L05710, doi:10.1029/2004GL022119.

Douglass, D.H., B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer, 2004: Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, doi:10.1029/2004GL020103.

Douville, H., 2006: Detection-attribution of global warming at the regional scale: How to deal with precipitation variability. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L02701, doi:10.1029/2005GL024967.

Douville, H., et al., 2002: Sensitivity of the hydrological cycle to increasing amounts of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Clim. Dyn., 20, 45–68.

Dumas, J.A., G.M. Flato, and A.J. Weaver, 2003: The impact of varying atmospheric forcing on the thickness of Arctic multi-year sea ice. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1918.

Dyurgerov, M.B., and M.F. Meier, 2005: Glaciers and the Changing Earth System: A 2004 Snapshot. Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 117 pp.

Easterling, D.R., et al., 2000: Climate extremes: Observations, modeling and impacts. Science, 289, 2068–2074.

Egorova, T., et al., 2004: Chemical and dynamical response to the 11-year variability of the solar irradiance simulated with a chemistry-climate model. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L06119, doi:10.1029/2003GL019294.

Elsner, J.B., X. Niu, and T.H. Jagger, 2004: Detecting shifts in hurricane rates using a Markov chain Monte Carlo approach. J. Clim., 17, 2652–2666.

Elsner, J.B., A.A. Tsonis, and T.H. Jagger, 2006: High-frequency variability in hurricane power dissipation and its relationship to global temperature. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 87, 763–768.

Emanuel, K., 2005: Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, 436, 686–688.

Emori, S., and S.J. Brown, 2005: Dynamic and thermodynamic changes in mean and extreme precipitation under changed climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L17706, doi:10.1029/2005GL023272.

Esper, J., E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber, 2002: Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability. Science, 295(5563), 2250–2253.

Fichefet, T., B. Tartinville, and H. Goosse, 2003: Antarctic sea ice variability during 1958-1999: A simulation with a global ice-ocean model. J. Geophys. Res., 108(C3), 3102–3113.

Folland, C.K., T. N. Palmer, and D. E. Parker, 1986: Sahel rainfall and worldwide sea temperatures 1901-85. Nature, 320, 602–607.

Folland, C.K., et al., 2001: Observed variability and change. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 881pp.

Fomby, T.B., and T.J. Vogelsang, 2002: The application of size-robust trend statistics to global-warming temperature series. J. Clim., 15, 117–123.

Forest, C.E., M.R. Allen, A.P. Sokolov, and P.H. Stone, 2001: Constraining climate model properties using optimal fingerprint detection methods. Clim. Dyn., 18, 277–295.

Forest, C.E., et al., 2002: Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent observations. Science, 295, 113.

Forest, D.J., P.H. Stone, and A.P. Sokolov, 2006: Estimated PDFs of climate system properties including natural and anthropogenic forcings. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01705, doi:10.1029/2005GL023977.

Forster, P.M.D.F., and J.M. Gregory, 2006: The climate sensitivity and its components diagnosed from Earth radiation budget data. J. Clim., 19, 39–52.

Foukal, P., G. North, and T. Wigley, 2004: A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science, 306, 68–69.

Foukal, P., C. Froehlich, H. Sruit, and T.M.L. Wigley, 2006: Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on Earth’s climate. Nature, 443, 161–166, doi:10.1038/nature05072.

Frame, D.J., et al., 2005: Constraining climate forecasts: The role of prior assumptions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L09702, doi:10.1029/2004GL022241.

Free, M., and J.K. Angell, 2002: Effect of volcanoes on the vertical temperature profile in radiosonde data. J. Geophys. Res., 107, doi:10.1029/2001JD001128.

Free, M., et al., 2005: Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC): A new dataset of large-area anomaly time series. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D22101, doi:10.1029/2005JD006169.

Frich, P., et al., 2002: Observed coherent changes in climatic extremes during the second half of the twentieth century. Clim. Res., 19, 193–212.

Fyfe, J.C., G.J. Boer, and G.M. Flato, 1999: The Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations and their projected changes under global warming. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 1601–1604.

Ganopolski, A., et al., 1998: The influence of vegetation-atmosphere-ocean interaction on climate during the mid-Holocene. Science, 280, 1916–1919.

Gedney, N., et al., 2006: Detection of a direct carbon dioxide effect in continental river runoff records. Nature, 439, 835–838.

Gent, P.R., and G. Danabasoglu, 2004: Heat uptake and the thermohaline circulation in the Coummunity Climate System Model, Version 2. J. Clim., 17, 4058–4069.

Gerber, S., et al., 2003: Constraining temperature variations over the last millennium by comparing simulated and observed atmospheric CO2. Clim. Dyn., 20(2–3), 281–299.

Giannini, A., R. Saravanan, and P. Chang, 2003: Oceanic forcing of Sahel rainfall on interannual to interdecadal time scales. Science, 302, 1027–1030.

Gibson, J.K., et al., 1997: ERA Description. ECMWF Reanalysis Project Report Series Vol. 1. European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK, 66 pp.

Gilgen, H., M. Wild, and A. Ohmura, 1998: Means and trends of shortwave irradiance at the surface estimated from global energy balance archive data. J. Clim., 11, 2042–2061.

Gillett, N.P., 2005: Northern Hemisphere circulation. Nature, 437, 496.

Gillett, N.P., and D.W.J. Thompson, 2003: Simulation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change. Science, 302, 273–275.

Gillett, N.P., H.F. Graf, and T.J. Osborn, 2003a: Climate change and the North Atlantic Oscillation. In: The North Atlantic Oscillation: Climate Significance and Environmental Impact [Hurrell, Y.K.J., G. Ottersen, and M. Visbeck (eds.)]. Geophysical Monograph Vol. 134, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 193-209.

Gillett, N.P., R.J. Allan, and T.J. Ansell, 2005: Detection of external influence on sea level pressure with a multi-model ensemble. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(19), L19714, doi:10.1029/2005GL023640.

Gillett, N.P., G.C. Hegerl, M.R. Allen, and P.A. Stott, 2000: Implications of changes in the Northern Hemispheric circulation for the detection of anthropogenic climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 993–996.

Gillett, N.P., F.W. Zwiers, A.J. Weaver, and P.A. Stott, 2003b: Detection of human influence on sea level pressure. Nature, 422, 292–294.

Gillett, N.P., A.J. Weaver, F.W. Zwiers, and M.D. Flannigan, 2004a: Detecting the effect of climate change on Canadian forest fires. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31(18), L18211, doi:10.1029/2004GL020876.

Gillett, N.P., A.J. Weaver, F.W. Zwiers, and M.F. Wehner, 2004b: Detection of volcanic influence on global precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31(12), L12217, doi:10.1029/2004GL020044.

Gillett, N.P., M.F. Wehner, S.F.B. Tett, and A.J. Weaver, 2004c: Testing the linearity of the response to combined greenhouse gas and sulfate aerosol forcing. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L14201, doi:10.1029/2004GL020111.

Gillett, N.P., et al., 2002a: Reconciling two approaches to the detection of anthropogenic influence on climate. J. Clim., 15, 326–329.

Gillett, N.P., et al., 2002b: How linear is the Arctic Oscillation response to greenhouse gases? J. Geophys. Res., 107, doi: 10.1029/2001JD000589.

Gillett, N.P., et al., 2002c: Detecting anthropogenic influence with a multi-model ensemble. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, doi:10.1029/2002GL015836.

Gleckler, P.J., et al., 2006: Krakatoa’s signature persists in the ocean. Nature, 439, 675.

Gleisner, H., and P. Thejll, 2003: Patterns of tropospheric response to solar variability. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 44–47.

Goeberle, C., and R. Gerdes, 2003: Mechanisms determining the variability of Arctic sea ice conditions and export. J. Clim., 16, 2843–2858.

Goldewijk, K.K., 2001: Estimating global land use change over the past 300 years: The HYDE Database. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 15(2), 417–433.

Goldstein, M., and J. Rougier, 2004: Probabilistic formulations for transferring inferences from mathematical models to physical systems. SIAM J. Sci. Computing, 26(2), 467–487.

Gonzalez-Rouco, F., H. von Storch, and E. Zorita, 2003: Deep soil temperature as proxy for surface air-temperature in a coupled model simulation of the last thousand years. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(21), 2116, doi:10.1029/2003GL018264.

Goosse, H., and H. Renssen, 2001: A two-phase response of the Southern Ocean to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28(18), 3469–3472.

Goosse, H., and H. Renssen, 2004: Exciting natural modes of variability by solar and volcanic forcing: idealized and realistic experiments. Clim. Dyn., 23(2), 153–163.

Goosse, H., et al., 2004: A late medieval warm period in the Southern Ocean as a delayed response to external forcing? Geophys. Res. Lett., 31(6), L06203, doi:10.1029/2003GL19140.

Errata Goosse, H., et al., 2005: Modelling the climate of the last millennium: What causes the differences between simulations? Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(6), L06710, doi:10.1029/2005GL022368.

Errata

Gray, L.J., R.G. Harrison, and J.D. Haigh, 2005: The Influence of Solar Changes on the Earth’s Climate. Hadley Centre Technical Note 62, The UK Met Office.

Greene, A.M., 2005: A time constant for hemispheric glacier mass balance. J. Glaciol., 51(174), 353–362.

Gregory, J.M., and P. Huybrechts, 2006: Ice-sheet contributions to future sea-level change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 364, 1709–1731.

Gregory, J.M., J.A. Lowe, and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Simulated global-mean sea-level changes over the last half-millennium. J. Clim., 19, 4576–4591.

Gregory, J.M., et al., 2002a: An observationally based estimate of the climate sensitivity. J. Clim., 15(22), 3117–3121.

Gregory, J.M., et al., 2002b: Recent and future changes in Arctic sea ice simulated by the HadCM3 AOGCM. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 2175.

Gregory, J.M., et al., 2004: Simulated and observed decadal variability in ocean heat content. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L15312.

Groisman, P.Y., et al., 1999: Changes in the probability of heavy precipitation: Important indicators of climatic change. Clim. Change, 42, 243–283.

Groisman, P.Y., et al., 2005: Trends in intense precipitation in the climate record. J. Clim., 18, 1326–1350.

Haarsma, R.J., F. Selten, N. Weber, and M. Kliphuis, 2005: Sahel rainfall variability and response to greenhouse warming. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L17702, doi:10.1029/2005GL023232.

Haigh, J.D., 2003: The effects of solar variability on the Earth’s climate. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 361, 95–111.

Hansen, J.E., M. Sato, and R. Ruedy, 1995: Long-term changes of the diurnal temperature cycle: implications about mechanisms of global climate change. Atmos. Res., 37, 175–209.

Hansen, J.E., M. Sato, and R. Ruedy, 1997: Radiative forcing and climate response. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 6831–6864.

Hansen, J., et al., 1984: Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In: Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity [Hansen, J.E., and T. Takahashi (eds.)]. Geophysical Monographs Vol. 29, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 130–163.

Hansen, J., et al., 2002: Climate forcings in Goddard Institute for Space Studies SI2000 simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D18), 4347.

Hansen, J., et al., 2005: Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431–1435.

Harrison, S., and C. Prentice, 2003: Climate and CO2 controls on global vegetation distribution at the last glacial maximum: analysis based on palaeovegetation data, biome modelling and palaeoclimate simulations. Global Change Biol., 9, 983–1004.

Harrison, S., P. Braconnot, C. Hewitt, and R.J. Stouffer, 2002: Fourth international workshop of The Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP): launching PMIP Phase II. Eos, 83, 447.

Harvey, L.D.D., 2004: Characterizing the annual-mean climatic effect of anthropogenic CO2 and aerosol emissions in eight coupled atmosphere-ocean GCMs. Clim. Dyn., 23, 569–599.

Harvey, L.D.D., and R.K. Kaufmann, 2002: Simultaneously constraining climate sensitivity and aerosol radiative forcing. J. Clim., 15 (20), 2837–2861.

Hasselmann, K., 1976: Stochastic climate models. Part 1. Theory. Tellus, 28, 473–485.

Hasselmann, K., 1979: On the signal-to-noise problem in atmospheric response studies. In: Meteorology of Tropical Oceans [Shaw, D.B. (ed.)]. Royal Meteorological Society, Bracknell, UK, pp. 251–259.

Hasselmann, K., 1997: Multi-pattern fingerprint method for detection and attribution of climate change. Climate Dyn., 13, 601–612.

Hasselmann, K., 1998: Conventional and Bayesian approach to climate-change detection and attribution. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 124, 2541–2565.

Hegerl, G.C., and M.R. Allen, 2002: Origins of model-data discrepancies in optimal fingerprinting. J. Clim., 15, 1348–1356.

Hegerl, G.C., and J.M. Wallace, 2002: Influence of patterns of climate variability on the difference between satellite and surface temperature trends. J. Clim., 15, 2412–2428.

Hegerl, G.C., P.D. Jones, and T.P. Barnett, 2001: Effect of observational sampling error on the detection and attribution of anthropogenic climate change. J. Clim., 14, 198–207.

Hegerl, G.C., F.W. Zwiers, V.V. Kharin, and P.A. Stott, 2004: Detectability of anthropogenic changes in temperature and precipitation extremes. J. Clim., 17, 3683–3700.

Hegerl, G.C., T. Crowley, W.T. Hyde, and D. Frame, 2006a: Constraints on climate sensitivity from temperature reconstructions of the past seven centuries. Nature, 440, doi:10.1038/nature04679.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 1996: Detecting greenhouse gas induced climate change with an optimal fingerprint method. J. Clim., 9, 2281–2306.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 1997: Multi-fingerprint detection and attribution of greenhouse-gas and aerosol-forced climate change. Clim. Dyn., 13, 613–634.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 2000: Detection and attribution of climate change: Sensitivity of results to climate model differences. Clim. Dyn., 16, 737–754.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 2003: Detection of volcanic, solar and greenhouse gas signals in paleo-reconstructions of Northern Hemispheric temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(5), 1242.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 2006b: Climate change detection and attribution: beyond mean temperature signals. J. Clim., 19, 5058–5077.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 2007: Detection of human influence on a new 1500yr climate reconstruction. J. Clim., 20, 650-666.

Held, I.M., and B.J. Soden, 2006: Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming. J. Clim., 19, 5686–5699.

Held, I.M., et al., 2005: Simulation of Sahel drought in the 20th and 21st centuries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102(50), 17891–17896.

Highwood, E.J., B.J. Hoskins, and P. Berrisford, 2000: Properties of the Arctic tropopause. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 126, 1515–1532.

Hoerling, M.P., J.W. Hurrell, J. Eischeid, and A. Phillips, 2006: Detection and attribution of twentieth-century northern and southern African rainfall change. J. Clim., 19, 3989–4008.

Hoerling, M.P., et al., 2005: Twentieth century North Atlantic climate change. Part II: Understanding the effect of Indian Ocean warming. Clim. Dyn., 23, 391–405.

Hoffert, M.I., and C. Covey, 1992: Deriving global climate sensitivity from paleoclimate reconstructions. Nature, 360, 573–576.

Holland, M.M., and M.N. Raphael, 2006: Twentieth century simulation of the southern hemisphere climate in coupled models. Part II: sea ice conditions and variability. Clim. Dyn., 26, 229–245.

Holloway, G., and T. Sou, 2002: Has Arctic sea ice rapidly thinned? J. Clim., 15, 1691–1701.

Hoyt, D.V., and K.H. Schatten, 1993: A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations, 1700-1992. J. Geophys. Res., 98, 18895–18906.

Huang, S.P., H.N. Pollack, and P.Y. Shen, 2000: Temperature trends ever the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature, 403(6771), 756–758.

Hulme, M., T.J. Osborn, and T.C. Johns, 1998: Precipitation sensitivity to global warming: Comparison of observations with HadCM2 simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 3379–3382.

Huntingford, C., P.A. Stott, M.R. Allen, and F.H. Lambert, 2006: Incorporating model uncertainty into attribution of observed temperature change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L05710, doi:10.1029/2005GL024831.

Hurrell, J.W., 1996: Influence of variations in extratropical wintertime teleconnections on Northern Hemisphere temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 665–668.

Hurrell, J.W., M.P. Hoerling, A.S. Phillips, and T. Xu, 2005: Twentieth century North Atlantic climate change. Part I: Assessing determinism. Clim. Dyn., 23, 371–389.

IDAG (International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group), 2005: Detecting and attributing external influences on the climate system: A review of recent advances. J. Clim., 18, 1291–1314.

IOCI, 2002: Climate Variability And Change In South West Western Australia, September 2002. Indian Ocean Climate Initiative, Perth, Australia, 34 pp.

IOCI, 2005: Indian Ocean Climate Initiative Stage 2: Report of Phase 1 Activity. Indian Ocean Climate Initiative, Perth, Australia, 42 pp.

IPCC, 1990: Climate Change: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Scientific Assessment [Houghton, J.T., G.J. Jenkins, and J.J. Ephraums (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 365 pp.

IPCC, 1996: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of the Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 572 pp.

IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881 pp.

Ishii, M., M. Kimoto, K. Sakamoto, and S.-I. Iwasaki, 2006: Steric sea level changes estimated from historical ocean subsurface temperature and salinity analyses. J. Oceanogr., 62, 155–170.

Ito, A., and J.E. Penner, 2005: Historical emissions of carbonaceous aerosols from biomass and fossil fuel burning for the period 1870-2000. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 19(2), GB2028, doi:10.1029/2004GB002374.

Johannssen, O.M., et al., 2004: Arctic climate change: observed and modeled temperature and sea-ice variability. Tellus, 56A, 328–341.

Jones, G.S., S.F.B. Tett, and P.A. Stott, 2003: Causes of atmospheric temperature change 1960-2000: A combined attribution analysis. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1228.

Jones, G.S., et al., 2005: Sensitivity of global scale attribution results to inclusion of climatic response to black carbon. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L14701, doi:10.1029/2005GL023370.

Jones, J.M., and M. Widmann, 2004: Early peak in Antarctic Oscillation index. Nature, 432, 290–291.

Jones, P.D., and M.E. Mann, 2004: Climate over past millennia. Rev. Geophys., 42(2), RG2002, doi:10.1029/2003RG000143.

Jones, P.D., T.J. Osborn, and K.R. Briffa, 2001: The evolution of climate over the last millennium. Science, 292(5517), 662–667.

Joos, F., et al., 2004: Transient simulations of Holocene atmospheric carbon dioxide and terrestrial carbon since the Last Glacial Maximum. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 18, 1–18.

Joussaume, S., and K.E. Taylor, 1995: Status of the Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project. In: Proceedings of the First International AMIP Scientific Conference, WCRP-92, Monterey, USA. WMO/TD-No. 732, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 425–430.

Kalnay, E., et al., 1996: The NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Project. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 77, 437–471.

Kaplan, J.O., I.C. Prentice, W. Knorr, and P.J. Valdes, 2002: Modeling the dynamics of terrestrial carbon storage since the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(22), 2074.

Karl, T.R., and R.W. Knight, 1998: Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the USA. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 79, 231–241.

Karl, T.R., and K.E. Trenberth, 2003: Modern global climate change. Science, 302, 1719–1723.

Karl, T.R., S.J. Hassol, C.D. Miller, and W.L. Murray (eds.), 2006: Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. A Report by the Climate Change Science Program and Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC, 180pp, http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm.

Karoly, D.J., 2003: Ozone and climate change. Science, 302, 236–237.

Karoly, D.J., and K. Braganza, 2001: Identifying global climate change using simple indices. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2205–2208.

Karoly, D.J., and K. Braganza, 2005a: Attribution of recent temperature changes in the Australian region. J. Clim., 18, 457–464.

Karoly, D.J., and K. Braganza, 2005b: A new approach to detection of anthropogenic temperature changes in the Australian region. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 89, 57–67.

Karoly, D.J., and Q. Wu, 2005: Detection of regional surface temperature trends. J. Clim., 18, 4337–4343.

Karoly, D.J., et al., 2003: Detection of a human influence on North American climate. Science, 302, 1200–1203.

Kass, R.E., and A.E. Raftery, 1995: Bayes Factors. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 90, 773–795.

Katz, R.W., 1999: Extreme value theory for precipitation: Sensitivity analysis for climate change. Adv. Water Resour., 23, 133–139.

Kaufmann, R.K., and D.L. Stern, 2002: Cointegration analysis of hemispheric temperature relations. J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4012.

Kennedy, M.C., and A. O’Hagan, 2001: Bayesian calibration of computer models. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B, 63(3), 425–464.

Kettleborough, J.A., B.B.B. Booth, P.A. Stott, and M.R. Allen, 2007: Estimates of uncertainty in predictions of global mean surface temperature. J. Clim., 20, 843-855.

Kiktev, D., D. Sexton, L. Alexander, and C. Folland, 2003: Comparison of modelled and observed trends in indices of daily climate extremes. J. Clim., 16, 3560–3571.

Kim, S.J., G.M. Flato, G.J. Boer, and N.A. McFarlane, 2002: A coupled climate model simulation of the Last Glacial Maximum, part 1: Transient multi-decadal response. Clim. Dyn., 19(5–6), 515–537.

Kirchner, I., et al., 1999: Climate model simulation of winter warming and summer cooling following the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 19039–19055.

Kistler, R., et al., 2001: The NCEP-NCAR 50-year reanalysis: Monthly means CD-ROM and documentation. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 82, 247–267.

Kitoh, A., and S. Murakami, 2002: Tropical Pacific climate at the mid-Holocene and the Last Glacial Maximum simulated by a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model. Paleoceanography, 17(3), 1047, doi:10.1029/2001PA000724.

Klein Tank, A.M.G., and G.P. Können, 2003: Trends in indices of daily temperature and precipitation extremes in Europe, 1946-99. J. Clim., 16, 3665–3680.

Klein Tank, A.M.G., G.P. Können, and F.M. Selten, 2005: Signals of anthropogenic influence on European warming as seen in the trend patterns of daily temperature variance. Int. J. Climatol., 25, 1–16.

Knight, J.R., et al., 2005: A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20708, doi:10.1029/2005GL024233.

Knutson, T.R., S. Manabe, and D. Gu, 1997: Simulated ENSO in a global coupled ocean-atmosphere model: Multidecadal amplitude modulation and CO2 sensitivity. J. Clim., 10(1), 138–161.

Knutson, T.R., T.L. Delworth, K.W. Dixon, and R.J. Stouffer, 1999: Model assessment of regional surface temperature trends (1949-1997). J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30981–30996.

Knutson, T.R., et al., 2006: Assessment of twentieth-century regional surface temperature trends using the GFDL CM2 coupled models. J. Clim., 19, 1624–1651.

Knutti, R., T.F. Stocker, F. Joos, and G.-K. Plattner, 2002: Constraints on radiative forcing and future climate change from observations and climate model ensembles. Nature, 416, 719–723.

Knutti, R., T.F. Stocker, F. Joos, and G.-K. Plattner, 2003: Probabilistic climate change projections using neural networks. Clim. Dyn., 21, 257–272.

Kristjansson, J.E., 2002: Studies of the aerosol indirect effect from sulfate and black carbon aerosols. J. Geophys. Res., 107, doi: 10.1029/2001JD000887.

Kucera, M., et al., 2005: Reconstruction of sea-surface temperatures from assemblages of planktonic foraminifera: multi-technique approach based on geographically constrained calibration data sets and its application to glacial Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Quat. Sci. Rev., 24(7–9), 951–998.

Kumar, A., F. Yang, L. Goddard, and S. Schubert, 2004: Differing trends in the tropical surface temperatures and precipitation over land and oceans. J. Clim., 17, 653–664.

Kunkel, K.E., X.-Z. Liang, J. Zhu, and Y. Lin, 2006: Can CGCMS simulate the twentieth century “warming hole” in the central United States? J. Clim., 19, 4137–4153.

Kushner, P.J., I.M. Held, and T.L. Delworth, 2001: Southern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation response to global warming. J. Clim., 14, 2238–3349.

Labitzke, K., 2004: On the signal of the 11-year sunspot cycle in the stratosphere and its modulation by the quasi, biennial oscillation. J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys., 66, 1151–1157.

Lal, M., and S.K. Singh, 2001: Global warming and monsoon climate. Mausam, 52, 245–262.

Lambert, F.H., P.A. Stott, M.R. Allen, and M.A. Palmer, 2004: Detection and attribution of changes in 20th century land precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31(10), L10203, doi:10.1029/2004GL019545.

Lambert, F.H., N.P. Gillett, D.A. Stone, and C. Huntingford, 2005: Attribution studies of observed land precipitation changes with nine coupled models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L18704, doi:10.1029/2005GL023654.

Lambert, S.J., and J.C. Fyfe, 2006: Changes in winter cyclone frequencies and strengths simulated in enhanced greenhouse warming experiments: Results from the models participating in the IPCC diagnostic exercise. Clim. Dyn., 26, 713–728.

Landsea, C.W., 2005: Hurricanes and global warming. Nature, 438, E11–E12.

Lean, J.L., J. Beer, and R. Bradley, 1995: Reconstruction of solar irradiance changes since 1610: Implications for climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 3195.

Lean, J.L., Y.M. Wang, and N.R. Sheeley, 2002: The effect of increasing solar activity on the Sun’s total and open magnetic flux during multiple cycles: Implications for solar forcing of climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(24), 2224, doi:10.1029/2002GL015880.

Lee, T.C.K., F.W. Zwiers, X. Zhang, and M. Tsao, 2006: Evidence of decadal climate prediction skill resulting from changes in anthropogenic forcing. J. Clim., 19, 5305–5318.

Lee, T.C.K., et al., 2005: A Bayesian approach to climate change detection and attribution. J. Clim., 18, 2429–2440.

Leroy, S.S., 1998: Detecting climate signals: Some Bayesian aspects. J. Clim., 11, 640–651.

Levis, S., J.A. Foley, and D. Pollard, 1999: CO2, climate, and vegetation feedbacks at the Last Glacial Maximum. J. Geophys. Res., 104(D24), 31191–31198.

Levis, S., G.B. Bonan, and C. Bonfils, 2004: Soil feedback drives the mid-Holocene North African monsoon northward in fully coupled CCSM2 simulations with a dynamic vegetation model. Clim. Dyn., 23(7–8), 791–802.

Levitus, S., J. Antonov, and T. Boyer, 2005: Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L02604, doi:10.1029/2004GL021592.

Levitus, S., J. Antonov, T.P. Boyer, and C. Stephens, 2000: Warming of the world ocean. Science, 287, 2225–2229.

Levitus, S., et al., 2001: Anthropogenic warming of the Earth’s climate system. Science, 292, 267–270.

Liepert, B., 2002: Observed reductions of surface solar radiation at sites in the United States and worldwide from 1961 to 1990. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 1421.

Lindsay, R.W., and J. Zhang, 2005: The thinning of arctic sea ice, 1988-2003: Have we passed a tipping point? J. Clim., 18, 4879–4894.

Lindzen, R.S., and C. Giannitsis, 2002: Reconciling observations of global temperature change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, doi:10.1029/2001GL014074.

Liu, Z.Y., J. Kutzbach, and L.X. Wu, 2000: Modeling climate shift of El Nino variability in the Holocene. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27(15), 2265–2268.

Liu, Z.Y., et al., 2005: Atmospheric CO2 forcing on glacial thermohaline circulation and climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(2), L02706, doi:10.1029/2004GL021929.

Lohmann, U., and G. Lesins, 2002: Stronger constraints on the anthropogenic indirect aerosol effect. Science, 298, 1012–1016.

Lohmann, U., and J. Feichter, 2005: Global indirect aerosol effects: A review. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 715–737.

Lorius, C., et al., 1990: The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Nature, 347, 139–145.

Lu, J., and T.L. Delworth, 2005: Oceanic forcing of the late 20th century Sahel drought. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L22706, doi:10.1029/2005GL023316.

Luterbacher, J., et al., 2002: Extending North Atlantic Oscillation reconstructions back to 1500. Atmos. Sci. Lett., 2(114–124).

Luterbacher, J., et al., 2004: European seasonal and annual temperature variability, trends, and extremes since 1500. Science, 303(5663), 1499–1503.

MacDonald, G.M., and R.A. Case, 2005: Variations in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation over the past millennium. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(8), L08703, doi:10.1029/2005GL022478.

Mann, M.E., and P.D. Jones, 2003: Global surface temperature over the past two millennia. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1820.

Mann, M.E., and K.A. Emanuel, 2006: Atlantic hurricane trends linked to climate change. Eos, 87, 233–241.

Mann, M.E., M.A. Cane, S.E. Zebiak, and A. Clement, 2005: Volcanic and solar forcing of the tropical Pacific over the past 1000 years. J. Clim., 18(3), 447–456.

Marshall, G.J., 2003: Trends in the Southern Annular Mode from observations and reanalyses. J. Clim., 16, 4134–4143.

Marshall, G.J., A. Orr, N.P.M. van Lipzig, and J.C. King, 2006: The impact of a changing Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode on Antarctic Peninsula summer temperatures. J. Clim., 19, 5388–5404.

Marshall, G.J., et al., 2004: Causes of exceptional atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L14205, doi:10.1029/2004GL019952.

Masson-Delmotte, V., et al., 2006: Past and future polar amplification of climate change: climate model intercomparisons and ice-core constraints. Clim. Dyn., 26, 513–529.

Matthews, H.D., et al., 2004: Natural and anthropogenic climate change: incorporating historical land cover change, vegetation dynamics and the global carbon cycle. Clim. Dyn., 22(5), 461–479.

May, W., 2004: Potential future changes in the Indian summer monsoon due to greenhouse warming: analysis of mechanisms in a global time-slice experiment. Clim. Dyn., 22, 389–414.

Maynard, K., J.F. Royer, and F. Chauvin, 2002: Impact of greenhouse warming on the West African summer monsoon. Clim. Dyn., 19, 499–514.

McAvaney, B.J., et al., 2001: Model evaluation. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 471–525.

Mears, C.A., and F.J. Wentz, 2005: The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature. Science, 309, 1548–1551.

Mears, C.A., M.C. Schabel, and F.J. Wentz, 2003: A reanalysis of the MSU channel 2 tropospheric temperature record. J. Clim., 16, 3650–3664.

Meehl, G.A., J.M. Arblaster, and C. Tebaldi, 2005: Understanding future patterns of precipitation extremes in climate model simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L18719, doi:10.1029/2005GL023680.

Meehl, G.A., et al., 2003: Solar and greenhouse gas forcing and climate response in the 20th century. J. Clim., 16, 426–444.

Meehl, G.A., et al., 2004: Combinations of natural and anthropogenic forcings in 20th century climate. J. Clim., 17, 3721–3727.

Meier, M.F., M.B. Dyurgerov, and G.J. McCabe, 2003: The health of glaciers: Recent changes in glacier regime. Clim. Change, 59, 123–135.

Mendelssohn, R., S.J. Bograd, F.B. Schwing, and D.M. Palacios, 2005: Teaching old indices new tricks: A state-space analysis of El Niño related climate indices. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L07709, doi:10.1029/2005GL022350.

Menon, S., A.D. Del Genio, D. Koch, and G. Tselioudis, 2002a: GCM Simulations of the aerosol indirect effect: Sensitivity to cloud parameterization and aerosol burden. J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 692–713.

Menon, S., J.E. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, and Y. Luo, 2002b: Climate effects of black carbon aerosols in China and India. Science, 297, 2250–2253.

Merryfield, W.J., 2006: Changes to ENSO under CO2 doubling in a multimodel ensemble. J. Clim., 19, 4009–4027.

Miller, R.L., G.A. Schmidt, and D.T. Shindell, 2006: Forced variations in the annular modes in the 20th century IPCC AR4 simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D18101, doi:10.1029/2005JD006323.

Milly, P.C.D., K.A. Dunne, and A.V. Vecchia, 2005: Global patterns of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature, 438, 347–350.

Min, S.-K., and A. Hense, 2006a: A Bayesian approach to climate model evaluation and multi-model averaging with an application to global mean surface temperatures from IPCC AR4 coupled climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L08708, doi:10.1029/2006GL025779.

Min, S.-K., and A. Hense, 2006b: A Bayesian assessment of climate change using multi-model ensembles. Part I: Global mean surface temperature. J. Clim., 19, 3237–3256.

Min, S.-K., A. Hense, and W.-T. Kwon, 2005: Regional-scale climate change detection using a Bayesian decision method. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L03706, doi:10.1029/2004GL021028.

Min, S.-K., A. Hense, H. Paeth, and W.-T. Kwon, 2004: A Bayesian decision method for climate change signal analysis. Meteorol. Z., 13, 421–436.

Mitchell, J.F.B., C.A. Wilson, and W.M. Cunningham, 1987: On CO2 climate sensitivity and model dependence of results. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 113, 293–322.

Mitchell, J.F.B., et al., 2001: Detection of climate change and attribution of causes. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 695–738.

Mitchell, T.D., and P.D. Jones, 2005: An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climatological observations and associated high-resolution grids. Int. J. Climatol., 25, 693–712.

Moberg, A., et al., 2005: Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature, 433, 613–617.

Monnin, E., et al., 2001: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Science, 291(5501), 112–114.

Montoya, M., H. von Storch, and T.J. Crowley, 2000: Climate simulation for 125,000 years ago with a coupled ocean-atmosphere General Circulation Model. J. Clim., 13, 1057–1070.

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2005: Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 86, 39–49.

Moy, C.M., G.O. Seltzer, D.T. Rodbell, and D.M. Anderson, 2002: Variability of El Nino/Southern Oscillation activity at millennial timescales during the Holocene epoch. Nature, 420(6912), 162–165.

Murray, R.J., N.L. Bindoff, and C.J.C. Reason, 2007: Modelling decadal changes on the Indian Ocean Section I5 at 32°S. J. Clim., accepted.

Nagashima, T., et al., 2006: The effect of carbonaceous aerosols on surface temperature in the mid twentieth century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L04702, doi:10.1029/2005GL024887.

Neelin, J.D., et al., 2006: Tropical drying trends in global warming models and observations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 103, 6110–6115.

Nesme-Ribes, E., et al., 1993: Solar dynamics and its impact on solar irradiance and the terrestrial climate. J. Geophys. Res., 98, 18923–18935.

New, M.G., M. Hulme, and P.D. Jones, 2000: Representing twentieth-century space-time climate variability. Part II: development of 1901-96 monthly grids of terrestrial surface climate. J. Clim., 13, 2217–2238.

Nicholls, N., 2003: Continued anomalous warming in Australia. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, doi:10.1029/2003GL017037.

Nicholls, N., 2005: Climate variability, climate change, and the Australian snow season. Aust. Meteorol. Mag., 54, 177–185.

Nicholls, N., P. Della-Marta, and D. Collins, 2005: 20th century changes in temperature and rainfall in New South Wales. Aust. Meteorol. Mag., 53, 263–268.

Nicholson, S.E., 2001: Climatic and environmental change in Africa during the last two centuries. Clim. Res., 17, 123–144.

North, G.R., and M. Stevens, 1998: Detecting climate signals in the surface temperature record. J. Clim., 11, 563–577.

North, G.R., K.-Y. Kim, S.S.P. Shen, and J.W. Hardin, 1995: Detection of forced climate signals. Part 1: Filter theory. J. Climate, 8, 401–408.

Novakov, T., et al., 2003: Large historical changes of fossil-fuel black carbon aerosols. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(6), 1324.

Nozawa, T., T. Nagashima, H. Shiogama, and S. Crooks, 2005: Detecting natural influence on surface air temperature in the early twentieth century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20719, doi:10.1029/2005GL023540.

Oerlemans, J., 2005: Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records. Science, 308, 675–677.

O’Hagan, A., and J. Forster, 2004: Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics. Volume 2b, Bayesian Inference. Arnold, London, 480 pp.

Ohmura, A., 2004: Cryosphere during the twentieth century, the state of the planet. In: The State of the Planet: Frontiers and Challenges in Geophysics [Sparks, R.S.J., and C.J. Hawkesworth (eds.)]. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, Washington, DC, pp. 239–257.

Oman, L., et al., 2005: Climatic response to high latitude volcanic eruptions. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D13103, doi:10.1029/2004JD005487.

Osborn, T.J., 2004: Simulating the winter North Atlantic Oscillation: the roles of internal variability and greenhouse gas forcing. Clim. Dyn., 22, 605–623.

Osborn, T.J., and M. Hulme, 1997: Development of a relationship between station and grid-box rainday frequencies for climate model evaluation. J. Clim., 10, 1885–1908.

Osborn, T.J., and K.R. Briffa, 2006: The spatial extent of 20th-century warmth in the context of the past 1200 years. Science, 311, 841–844.

Osborn, T.J., S. Raper, and K.R. Briffa, 2006: Simulated climate change during the last 1000 years: comparing the ECHO-G general circulation model with the MAGICC simple climate model. Clim. Dyn., 27, 185–197.

Osborn, T.J., et al., 1999: Evaluation of the North Atlantic Oscillation as simulated by a coupled climate model. Clim. Dyn., 15, 685–702.

Otto-Bliesner, B.L., 1999: El Nino La Nina and Sahel precipitation during the middle Holocene. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26(1), 87–90.

Otto-Bliesner, B.L., et al., 2003: Modeling El Nino and its tropical teleconnections during the last glacial-interglacial cycle. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(23), 2198, doi:10.1029/2003GL018553.

Paeth, H., A. Hense, R. Glowienka-Hense, and R. Voss, 1999: The North Atlantic Oscillation as an indicator for greenhouse-gas induced regional climate change. Clim. Dyn., 15, 953–960.

Palmer, M.A., L.J. Gray, M.R. Allen, and W.A. Norton, 2004: Solar forcing of climate: model results. Adv. Space Res., 34, 343–348.

Palmer, T.N., 1999: Predicting uncertainty in forecasts of weather and climate. Rep. Prog. Phys., 63, 71–116.

Palmer, T.N., and J. Räisänen, 2002: Quantifying the risk of extreme seasonal precipitation events in a changing climate. Nature, 415, 512–514.

Parker, D.E., L.V. Alexander, and J. Kennedy, 2004: Global and regional climate in 2003. Weather, 59, 145–152.

Parker, D.E., et al., 1997: A new global gridded radiosonde temperature database and recent temperature trends. Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 1499–1452.

Pasini, A., M. Lorè, and F. Ameli, 2006: Neural network modelling for the analysis of forcings/temperatures relationships at different scales in the climate system. Ecol. Model., 191, 58–67.

Peltier, W.R., 1994: Ice age paleotopography. Science, 265, 195–201.

Peltier, W.R., 2004: Global glacial isostasy and the surface of the ice-age Earth: the ICE-5G(VM2) model and GRACE. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 32, 111–149.

Penner, J.E., S.Y. Zhang, and C.C. Chuang, 2003: Soot and smoke aerosol may not warm climate. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D21), 4657, doi:10.1029/2003JD003409.

Penner, J.E., et al., 1997: Anthropogenic aerosols and climate change: A method for calibrating forcing. In: Assessing Climate Change: Results from the Model Evaluation Consortium for Climate Assessment [Howe, W., and A. Henderson-Sellers (eds.)]. Gordon & Breach Science Publishers, Sydney, Australia, pp. 91–111.

Penner, J.E., et al., 2007: Effect of black carbon on mid-troposphere and surface temperature trends. In: Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment [Schlesinger, M., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press.

Perlwitz, J., and H.-F. Graf, 2001: Troposphere-stratosphere dynamic coupling under strong and weak polar vortex conditions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 271–274.

Peterson, B.J., et al., 2002: Increasing river discharge to the Arctic Ocean. Science, 298, 2171–2173.

Pezza, A.B., and I. Simmonds, 2005: The first South Atlantic hurricane: Unprecedented blocking, low shear and climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L15712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023390.

Pielke, R.A. Jr., 2005: Are there trends in hurricane destruction? Nature, 438, E11.

Pielke, R.A. Jr., et al., 2005: Hurricanes and global warming. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 86, 1571–1575.

Pierce, D.W., et al., 2006: Anthropogenic warming of the oceans: observations and model results. J. Clim., 19, 1873–1900.

Pinker, R.T., B. Zhang, and E.G. Dutton, 2005: Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation? Science, 308, 850–854.

Pollack, H.N., and J.E. Smerdon, 2004: Borehole climate reconstructions: Spatial structure and hemispheric averages. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D11106, doi:10.1029/2003JD004163.

Prentice, I.C., and T. Webb, 1998: BIOME 6000: reconstructing global mid-Holocene vegetation patterns from palaeoecological records. J. Biogeogr., 25(6), 997–1005.

Prentice, I.C., and D. Jolly, 2000: Mid-Holocene and glacial-maximum vegetation geography of the northern continents and Africa. J. Biogeogr., 27(3), 507–519.

Qian, T., A. Dai, K.E. Trenberth, and K.W. Oleson, 2006: Simulation of global land surface conditions from 1948 to 2002: Part I: Forcing data and evaluations. J. Hydrometeorol., 7, 953–975.

Ramanathan, V., P.J. Crutzen, J.T. Kiehl, and D. Rosenfeld, 2001: Aerosols, climate, and the hydrological cycle. Science, 294, 2119–2124.

Ramanathan, V., et al., 2005: Atmospheric brown clouds: Impacts on South Asian climate and hydrological cycle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102, 5326–5333.

Ramankutty, N., and J.A. Foley, 1999: Estimating historical changes in global land cover: Croplands from 1700 to 1992. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 13(4), 997–1027.

Ramaswamy, V., et al., 2001: Radiative forcing of climate change. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 349–416.

Randel, W.J., and F. Wu, 2006: Biases in stratospheric temperature trends derived from historical radiosonde data. J. Clim., 19, 2094–2104.

Raper, S.C.B., J.M. Gregory, and R.J. Stouffer, 2002: The role of climate sensitivity and ocean heat uptake on AOGCM transient temperature response. J. Clim., 15, 124–130.

Rauthe, M., A. Hense, and H. Paeth, 2004: A model intercomparison study of climate change-signals in extratropical circulation. Int. J. Climatol., 24, 643–662.

Reader, M., and G. Boer, 1998: The modification of greenhouse gas warming by the direct effect of sulphate aerosols. Clim. Dyn., 14, 593–607.

Reichert, B.K., L. Bengtsson, and J. Oerlemans, 2002a: Recent glacier retreat exceeds internal variability. J. Clim., 15, 3069–3081.

Reichert, B.K., R. Schnur, and L. Bengtsson, 2002b: Global ocean warming tied to anthropogenic forcing. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(11), 1525.

Rigor, I.G., J.M. Wallace, and R.L. Colony, 2002: Response of sea ice to the Arctic Oscillation. J. Clim., 15, 2648–2668.

Rind, D., J. Perlwitz, and P. Lonergan, 2005a: AO/NAO response to climate change. Part I: The respective influences of stratospheric and tropospheric climate changes. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D12107, doi:10.1029/2004JD005103.

Rind, D., J. Perlwitz, and P. Lonergan, 2005b: AO/NAO response to climate change. Part II: The relative importance of low and high latitude temperature changes. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D12108, doi:10.1029/2004JD005686.

Rind, D., et al., 2004: The relative importance of solar and anthropogenic forcing of climate change between the Maunder Minimum and the present. J. Clim., 17(5), 906–929.

Robock, A., 2000: Volcanic eruptions and climate. Rev. Geophys., 38(2), 191–219.

Robock, A., and Y. Liu, 1994: The volcanic signal in Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model simulations. J. Clim., 7, 44–55.

Rothrock, D.A., J. Zhang, and Y. Yu, 2003: The arctic ice thickness anomaly of the 1990s: A consistent view from observations and models. J. Geophys. Res., 108(C3), 3083, doi:10.1029/2001JC001208.

Rotstayn, L.D., and J.E. Penner, 2001: Forcing, quasi-forcing and climate response. J. Clim., 14, 2960–2975.

Rotstayn, L.D., and U. Lohmann, 2002: Tropical rainfall trends and the indirect aerosol effect. J. Clim., 15, 2103–2116.

Rotstayn, L.D., and Y. Liu, 2003: Sensitivity of the first indirect aerosol effect to an increase of cloud droplet spectral dispersion with droplet number concentration. J. Clim., 16, 3476–3481.

Rowell, D.P., 1996: Reply to comments by Y.C. Sud and W.K.-M. Lau. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 122, 1007–1013.

Rowell, D.P., 2003: The Impact of Mediterranean SSTs on the Sahelian rainfall season. J. Clim., 16, 849–862.

Ruzmaikin, A., and J. Feynman, 2002: Solar influence on a major mode of atmospheric variability. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D14), doi:10.1029/2001JD001239.

Rybski, D., A. Bunde, S. Havlin, and H. von Storch, 2006: Long-term persistence in climate and the detection problem. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06718, doi:10.1029/2005GL025591.

Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, T. Barnett, and E. Anyamba, 1996a: Detection of climate change and attribution of causes. In: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 407–444.

Santer, B.D., et al., 1996b: A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Nature, 382, 39–46.

Santer, B.D., et al., 1996c: Reply to “Human effect on global climate?” Nature, 384, 522–525.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2000: Interpreting differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. Science, 287, 1227–1231.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2001: Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 28033–28059.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2003a: Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science, 301, 479–483.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2003b: Behavior of tropopause height and atmospheric temperature in models, reanalyses, and observations: Decadal changes. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D1), 4002.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2003c: Influence of satellite data uncertainties on the detection of externally-forced climate change. Science, 300, 1280–1284.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2004: Identification of anthropogenic climate change using a second-generation reanalysis. J. Geophys. Res., 109, doi:10.1029/2004JD005075.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2005: Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical atmosphere. Science, 309, 1551–1556.

Sato, M., J.E. Hansen, M.P. McCormick, and J.B. Pollack, 1993: Stratospheric aerosol optical depths, 1850-1990. J. Geophys. Res., 98, 22987–22994.

Scaife, A.A., J.R. Knight, G.K. Vallis, and C.K. Folland, 2005: A stratospheric influence on the winter NAO and North Atlantic surface climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L18715, doi:10.1029/2005GL023226.

Schär, C., and G. Jendritzky, 2004: Hot news for summer 2003. Nature, 432, 559–560.

Schär, C., et al., 2004: The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heat waves. Nature, 427, 332–336

Scherrer, S.C., C. Appenzeller, and M. Laternser, 2004: Trends in Swiss alpine snow days – the role of local and large scale climate variability. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, doi:10.1029/2004GL020255.

Scherrer, S.C., C. Appenzeller, M. A. Linger and C. Schär, 2005: European temperature distribution changes in observations and climate change scenarios. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, doi:10.1029/2005GL024108.

Schlesinger, M.E., and N. Ramankutty, 1992: Implications for global warming of intercycle solar irradiance variations. Nature, 360, 330–333.

Schlesinger, M.E., and N. Ramankutty, 1994: An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65-70 years. Nature, 367, 723–726.

Schneider, T., 2004: The tropopause and the thermal stratification in the extratropics of a dry atmosphere. J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1317–1340.

Schneider, T., and I.M. Held, 2001: Discriminants of twentieth-century changes in Earth surface temperatures. J. Clim., 14, 249–254.

Schneider von Deimling, T., H. Held, A. Ganopolski, and S. Rahmstorf, 2006: C

I leave the stupid insults to you JN, every time you 'mouth off' at climate scientists you are being stupidly insulting.

Here is some pleasant music to help you chill and calm down . I can recommend L' Arte del Violino too, especially that one shown performed by Elizabeth Wallfisch and the Raglan Baroque Players.

Here are some more to continue Wows list, do you know where this comes from JustNuts?

Schnur, R., and K. Hasselmann, 2005: Optimal fi ltering for Bayesian detection of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 24, 45–55.
Schwartz, S.E., 1993: Does fossil fuel combustion lead to global warming? Energy Int. J., 18, 1229–1248.
Schwartz, S.E., 2004: Uncertainty requirements in radiative forcing of climate change. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 54, 1351–1359.
Seidel, D.J., R.J. Ross, J.K. Angell, and G.C. Reid, 2001: Climatological characteristics of the tropical tropopause as revealed by radiosondes. J.
Geophys. Res., 106, 7857–7878.
Selten, F.M., G.W. Branstator, H.A. Dijkstra, and M. Kliphuis, 2004: Tropical origins for recent and future Northern Hemisphere climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L21205, doi:10.1029/2004GL020739.
Semenov, V.A., and L. Bengtsson, 2002: Secular trends in daily precipitation characteristics: Greenhouse gas simulation with a coupled AOGCM.
Clim. Dyn., 19, 123–140.
Senior, C.A., and J.F.B. Mitchell, 2000: The time dependence of climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 2685–2689.
Sexton, D.M.H., 2001: The effect of stratospheric ozone depletion on the phase of the Antarctic Oscillation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 3697–3700.
Sexton, D.M.H., D.P. Rowell, C.K. Folland, and D.J. Karoly, 2001: Detection of anthropogenic climate change using an atmospheric GCM.
Clim. Dyn., 17, 669–685.
Sexton, D.M.H., H. Grubb, K.P. Shine, and C.K. Folland, 2003: Design and analysis of climate model experiments for the effi cient estimation of anthropogenic signals. J. Clim., 16, 1320–1336.
Sherwood, S., J. Lanzante, and C. Meyer, 2005: Radiosonde daytime biases and late-20th century warming. Science, 309, 1156–1159.
Shin, S.I., et al., 2003: A simulation of the last glacial maximum climate using the NCAR-CCSM. Clim. Dyn., 20(2–3), 127–151.
Shindell, D.T., and G.A. Schmidt, 2004: Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases. Geophys. Res.Lett., 31, L18209, doi:10.1029/2004GL020724.
Shindell, D.T., R.L. Miller, G.A. Schmidt, and L. Pandolfo, 1999: Simulation of recent northern winter climate trends by greenhouse-gas forcing. Nature, 399, 452–455.
Shindell, D.T., G.A. Schmidt, R.L. Miller, and D. Rind, 2001a: Northern Hemispheric climate response to greenhouse gas, ozone, solar and volcanic forcing. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 7193–7210.
Shindell, D.T., G.A. Schmidt, R.L. Miller, and M.E. Mann, 2003: Volcanic and solar forcing of climate change during the preindustrial era. J. Clim., 16(24), 4094–4107.
Shindell, D.T., et al., 2001b: Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum. Science, 294(5549), 2149–2152.
Shiogama, H., M. Watanabe, M. Kimoto, and T. Nozawa, 2005: Anthropogenic and natural forcing impacts on ENSO-like decadal variability during the second half of the 20th century. Geophys. Res.
Lett., 32, L21714, doi:10.1029/2005GL023871.
Shiogama, H., et al., 2006: Infl uence of volcanic activity and changes in solar irradiance on surface air temperatures in the early twentieth century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L09702, doi:10.1029/2005GL025622.
Simmons, A.J., and J.K. Gibson, 2000: The ERA-40 Project Plan. ERA- 40 Project Report Series, Vol. 1, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK, 62 pp.
Smith, R.L., T.M.L. Wigley, and B.D. Santer, 2003: A bivariate time series approach to anthropogenic trend detection in hemispheric mean temperatures. J. Clim., 16, 1228–1240.
Soden, B.J., R.T. Wetherald, G.L. Stenchikov, and A. Robock, 2002: Global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A test of climate feedback by water vapor. Science, 296(5568), 727–730.
Soden, B.J., et al., 2005: The radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening. Science, 310(5749), 841–844.
Solow, A.R., and L.J. Moore, 2002: Testing for trend in North Atlantic hurricane activity, 1900-98. J. Clim., 15, 3111–3114.
Spagnoli, B., et al., 2002: Detecting climate change at a regional scale: the case of France. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, doi:10.1029/2001GL014619.
Stanhill, G., and S. Cohen, 2001: Global dimming, a review of the evidence for a widespread and signifi cant reduction in global radiation with a discussion of its probable causes and possible agricultural consequences.
Agric. Forest Meteorol., 107, 255–278.
Stark, S., R.A. Wood, and H.T. Banks, 2006: Reevaluating the causes of observed changes in Indian Ocean water masses. J. Clim., 19, 4075– 4086.
Stenchikov, G.L., et al., 2002: Arctic Oscillation response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption: Effects of volcanic aerosols and ozone depletion. J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4803.
Stenchikov, G., et al., 2004: Arctic Oscillation response to the 1991 Pinatubo eruption in the SKYHI GCM with a realistic Quasi-Biennial Oscillation.
J. Geophys. Res., 109, D03112, doi:10.1029/2003JD003699.
Stenchikov, G., et al., 2006: Arctic Oscillation response to volcanic eruptions in the IPCC AR4 climate models. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D07107, doi:10.1029/2005JD006286.
Stendel, M., I.A. Mogensen, and J.H. Christensen, 2006: Infl uence of various forcings on global climate in historical times using a coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model. Clim. Dyn., 26, 1–15.
Stern, D.I., 2005: Global sulfur emissions from 1850 to 2000. Chemosphere, 58, 163–175.
Stone, D.A., and A.J. Weaver, 2002: Daily minimum and maximum temperature trends in a climate model. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, doi:10.1029/2001GL014556.
Stone, D.A., and A.J. Weaver, 2003: Factors contributing to diurnal temperature trends in twentieth and twenty-fi rst century simulations of the CCCma coupled model. Clim. Dyn., 20, 435–445.
Stone, D.A., and M.R. Allen, 2005a: The end-to-end attribution problem: From emissions to impacts. Clim. Change, 71, 303–318.
Stone, D.A., and M.R. Allen, 2005b: Attribution of global surface warming without dynamical models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L18711, doi:10.1029/2005GL023682.

You see all the scientists that your insulting, both Curry and Lindzen is in their somewhere the latter with this: 'Reconciling observations of global temperature change.' and he is still trying and failing. I don't think he has heard of 'equilibrium climate sensitivity'.

Sheesh, look at it.

All that whining and complaining over 18+ months and not even a "thank you" from joan.

Anyone would think they'd not wanted an answer so they could continue whining.

Stuoid beyond belief ... Absolutely amazing how stupid some people can make themselves ...

Yeah, we noticed. Dumb as a sack of rubber spanners you are, joan.

However, you seem unwilling to stop making an obvious idiot out of yourself.

Probably because you're too dumb to realise.

Again Wow, you demonstrate that you have no clue. You copy a long list of referneces that everybody can find. But you haven't read them, and you don't know where to look or what to look after.

Same goes for Lionel. A long list which he hasn't read. Just hopes contains something along the lines of his beliefs.

Lionel, I did not have the impression that you were quite as stupid as signature 'Wow' who is so clueless it defies belief. But now you too seem to argue that the contents of the publications aren't relevant. Just their existence!?

And you too (like many others) want to imply that you speak for 'the climate scientists' when your not, when you post references you've never read or wouldn't understand.

And pretend to be 'insulted' on their behalf. Jeffie tried the same thing. But it is not the smartest trick when you don't even know what they are saying, or what is argued or questioned. And linking unread reports just gives this away ...

You're repeated linking and referring to cheap activism like Joe Romm, John Cook, Naomi Oreskes etc gives the impression you are more like a highschool kid ..

Also the reference to your posession of some books. I think you could aim at seeming a little bit more mature than that.

"cheap activism "

Ah the big giveaway from the Cubicle Kid.
CorporateWorld don't like activism, because it's practiced by 'activists'. 'Activists' is dirty word in CorporateWorld as it generally describes people trying to effect change, usually of a social nature.

CorporateWorld much prefers 'lobbyists' because they're then getting the kind of change that they've paid for. Jonarse never has a bad word to say about any fellow lobbyists for obvious reasons.

Worth recalling next time the word 'activism/activist' is used as a derogatory by Cubicle Kid as yet another in his endless supply of avoidance mechanisms.

They don't like activism they don't involve themselves in.

"You copy a long list of referneces that everybody can find."

You didn't.

So, joan, 18+ months whining and all for a list of stuff that you insist anyone could have found. Which you'd not managed for 18+ months despite all your insistence on getting it.

Do you realise that they will now have to recalibrate the scale of how hard you can fail?

You have broken the failometer.

"But you haven’t read them, and you don’t know where to look or what to look after. "

Well

1) Wrong. I know what to look for.

2) You, however, do not appear to, despite your protestations of how clever and smart and brilliant you are

3) You demanded to see the science papers. Well there they are.

Is the problem that you have spent 18+ months and you wasted all that time complaining and now you have the answer, you don' t know what to do with it?

You know, like Steve McIntyre with his CRU data.

chek

I use 'activism' as a description for those who aren't interested in finding out about reality, but rather who further a specific goal, belief or agenda.

You seem obsessed with the 'corperate world', as does Jeff and Oreskes, and many more activits on your side.
I couldn't care less.

I asked about the best arguments you believers (that's in the most positve sense) had for believing the IPCCs most prominent AR4 claim.

You all confirmed that you really believed it, but none of you had ever seen it, nor do you know anyone who has. It's all grapewine hearsay. Which I pointed out, since no one I've ever asked has seen any such science. And beleive me, I have asked a bunch of pro IPCC climate scientists as well. And promoters of IPCC-style consensus. The simply hadn't seen any such science.

Now some of you almost managed to acknowledge that there really isn't any proper science establishing those quantitative magnitudes. Just barely. Jeff at some point seemed to realize that. But couldn't really handle the consequences of that insight.

Others, some with PhDs, refused and tried the most stupid tricks to get around this embarrassing fact of lack of proper science. That the IPCC SPM essentially just pulled that claim out of their hat. Bernard J for instance. He wanted to talk about all the other references that didn't include said science instead. Or make stupid wagers about future arctic ice which I never even addressed. And Lionel and Wow here, the don't even know what the question is. Wow even tries first to link to a monsoon paper, showing that observations didn't match GHG-based models, and later on to convince himself that it the question was about the mere existence of references. Lionel chirps in with a boatload more of references he hasn't read, like a highschool kid.

You just couldn't make this up, chek. The funny thing though is that you all want to make this lack of substance my fault. And even some imagined corporate backing.

While in reality, things are rather simple. Show me the proper science, or implicitly admit that you have no clue. I'm certainly not gonna blame Wow for not finding any, or Lionel, or bill, ianam and all the others. But those of you who have degrees or even positions and published reports, and who made these claims but never could deliver on your assertions, you I'm going to remind of your failures.

I can't claim to have 1st hand insight into how the activist's brains function. But I've seen Jeff's responses and handling himslef first hand for 1½ years, and several others to. And the extent of reckless reality defeating nonsense spouted to defend his boneheaded beliefs in a counterfactual world is truly astounding. I would have expected such behavior from late teenage leftist cells in the seventies. Not from grown men in their sixties.

But the observations are real. Jeff Harvey has made these comments and (afaik) no imposter has written all the crazy things he has. Same goes for you. Not quite as mad, but just some comments ago you argued both that the was such science and that I was denying any A in AGW.

I don't know why you made such claims. But I assume that you thought this would serve your position somehow. I just don't understand how. One is easily refuted, in this very thread, the other would be easily demonstrable if it were true. And soon six years have passed and nobody has managed ..

Where does that leave you bunch? Well I guess you have to obsess about corporate lobbyists doing som shady stuff that causes the climatealarmism to underperfrom science- and opinionwise ...

And again counterfactual. Neither any monies or any campaigns are anywhere to be seen. But GreenPeace ExxonSecrets believs to have found som peanutcrumbs somwhere .. 'linked to' something they dislike.

Well. As always, handling numbers and magnitudes just isn't the thing for the activist side, is it chek?

Wow

You say you "know what to look for" and link to a scepticism confirming paper about monsoon patterns.

End of story!

You just couldn't look more stupid than that!

I never demanded the list entire of references. And you are definitely not the first faither to try that. Instead I asked specifically for those references that estalished that AR4 claim with proper science. You even wrote that your first two references (yes, you got that number right, which is about the accuracies you've achieved), that they did confirm that claim. And they didn't. They even showed something that more leans towards my side regarding the the bigger picture.

So you made a fool out of yourself, and were caught with your trousers at your ankles. You then tried a much longer list of references which you had not read either. And again you look like the fool.

I have no idea why you freel make such a fool out of yourself. But I will remind you of this. And that you earlier asked: What does it matter if there is science behind that AR4 claim.

I don't even need to add anything here. You are doing the job for me!

"You say you “know what to look for” and link to a scepticism confirming paper about monsoon patterns."

Yup.

I know this is astronomically beyond your grasp, but if you're going to attribute AGW to climate change, you have to know how the climate has changed first.

You, on the other hand, cannot see why you need to know about monsoons.

Apparently the failometer will need ANOTHER fix.

Damn, you're failing hard today.

"I never demanded the list entire of references."

Yes you did.

"I asked specifically for those references that estalished that AR4 claim with proper science."

And that is what you got.

Hey, has anyone else got a philips screwdriver so I can fix my effing failometer.

This retard is breaking the damn thing faster than I can tighten the bloody thing..!

"I use ‘activism’ as a description"

Yes, and you use that description to dimiss great scientists of the calibre of for example James Hansen, for the gang of doublle-digit IQs you hang with as your security blanket.

Watts and Montford do the same, but it only works on your unchallenged home turf. Don't bring that shit here. You've got way too much reading to do before you have any valid questions regarding attribution first.

JustNuts

Don't you use allot of words to say nothing.

ExxonSecrets - spider diagram of connections aside here is another side of the same coin:

International Forum on Globalization: Kochtopus "Carbon Billionaires" Create "Climate Deadlock"

But still you will rant (I could have used the words 'flail around' if you hadn't been Black Knighted) at the moon about how this is all a part of some communist plot led by Al Gore. Why are you so fixated about him I guess it is because this idiot likes to use Gore as a punchbag:

Monckton Banned From UN Climate Process For Offensive Stunt.

ROTFL - at last the clown is treated like one, nice. He being someone else who's credibility flushed down the toilet many moons ago. So keep spinning and digging.

I'll probably not bother you again here. I only commented on another thread about an item of which you should take notice not because I was scared or anything but because at some point one should stop wrestling with a pig as the pig likes getting dirty and thus discussing anything to do with science with you is literally a waste of time but that does not mean that the pig should be allowed to wallow in ignorance as well as *****.

chek, that 'great scientist' Jim Hansen promised meter of sea level rise the reminder of this century, because 'he knows things other don't'

He ceased to be a scientist long before that.

And he is not even part of the argument here.You are just rying to escape the inevitable. Montford or Watts aren't part of this either. But your fantasies about them are a core part of your belief system.

I have been asking for 'the reading to do' here since 1½ years. And you bozos have been deflecting for as long. For the most obvious reason there is ... Because you don't have anything better.

And Wow makes the most stupid claims imaginable. Even Jeffie wasn't ever this idiotic! He is insane in many other ways, primarily his imaginations about his 'opposition'. But he stayed away from such displays of stupidity!

"chek, that ‘great scientist’ Jim Hansen promised meter of sea level rise the reminder of this century, because ‘he knows things other don’t’"

Yers.

Can you do us a favour?

Go look at the year on your calendar. Ask a grown-up for help in translating it.

"You are just rying to escape the inevitable. Montford or Watts aren’t part of this either."

Yes they are.

"I have been asking for ‘the reading to do’ here since 1½ years."

And apparently you insist that anyone could have found the answer in no time at all.

Anyone buy you apparently.

Too dumb to remember to breathe in.

"And Wow makes the most stupid claims imaginable."

What claims would those be, joan?

You're exhibiting exactly the same signs as dementia, you know.

But that isn't the case.

You're just too dumb to read. Too thick to think. Too lost for words.

Lionel

I have seen ExxonSecrets. There is no beef there. I know of the obsesssion with the Koch brothers. There is no beef there either. Neither is there any with that two decade old Lancaster story.

Now you bring up Monckton as an argument for what? He is Al Gores counterpart, and about 100 times as knowledgable. And nothing I need to rely on.

Look Lionel, the stupidity abounds on your side. Al Gore is just one of them. Most politicians, churnolists, activists and NGOs are in there.

None of this proves the climate scare hypothesis wrong. But it seems that you heavily rely on stupid narratives as presented by Oreskes and others. While totally avoiding the relevant topics.

Look. I could number all the idiots arguing on your side and I would outnumber the cranks you can imagine (mostly wrongly) on the sceptical side by several orders of magnitudes.

But they are not an argument for why your side is wrong. They just illustrate the number of cooks lining up with your belief system hoping that it'd further their agenda.

Can't you try to argue a bit above that sandbox level? Or is Wow really the standard here?

Monsoon patters that disagree with GHGs forcing models?

This game is getting beyond your pay grade, Jonarse. You're making nonsensical non-sequiturs now because you're disassociated from the meaning of what you've previously just said. Which is what happens to most liars and charlatans.

I'm pretty sure Jim would have felt a certain degree of schadenfreude at seeing New York's West Side Highway under water last month.

chek

If you had any beef here, you'd put it forward by now. Instead you talk about nonsens like 'pay grade' 'corporate world' to evade the substance.

Hansen has been spectacularly wrong. Even if you guys would like to move the goal posts. Forget him. Let him torture GISS data as best as he can get away with. He is essentially irrelvant. Why do you want to bring him up when the IPCC cannot even support its own claims? Jim Hansen if he could would probably has done his best to reinforce it ...

But it's still not in there, chek. You are almost at Wow level in your beliefs ...

;-)

Deflection is all you have left, Jonarse. You sure as hell can't deal with that list of papers or the meaning contained therein. Or the predictions of the likes of Jim Hansen.

Luckily for you, your double digit IQ gang still fall for the 'look over there! A squirrel! ruse. For the moment.

Well, it's got to be hard for an old doddering drooling idiot to find out that 18 or more months of hard work was all for naught and if he'd gotten off his fat arse rather than demand aid of others (what a bloody leech!), he'd have had his demand answered within days at most.

Too dumb to read, too thick to think. And angry at the world not doing what he wants. Proper princess, him.

"Let him torture GISS data as best as he can get away with."

Another two-faced demand from the dimmest of the dim.

Apparently he's the only one allowed to move goalposts.

Really, joan? Got any proof of that or is this one of the (literally!) countless number of unsupported that are almost entirely wrong?

BS chek

I have been asking for those references since almost day one here. And nobody could provide them. The deflection attempts have been on your side!

The stupid list of papers dealing with (sometimes completely) different things are what have been attempted deflections.

Now sign Wow is so increadibly stupid, he probably doesn't know that a skeptic publication about monsson patters does not affirm that AR4 claim anyhow. But the not quite as stupid characters here know and understand this of course. But are too activist too acknowlwge the obvious.

And Jim Hansen still is no part of this discussion. Maybe one of your 'heroes' but I don't even see any need for ripping his stupidities to shreads.

Before you faithers realize that your are faithers wrt tp IPCC claims ...

"Another two-faced demand from the dimmest of the dim.
Apparently he’s the only one allowed to move goalposts.
Really, joan? Got any proof of that or is this one of the (literally!) countless number of unsupported [claims of yours] that are almost entirely wrong?"

And you've hit the nail smack bang on the head there, Wow.

Jonarse is allowed to make wild, unsupported claims, and the accompanying clown troupe is meant to go "um yuh, that might be possible .. and probaly is true". But put peer reviewed science from an arbitrarily assigned 'activist' scientist before them and they knee-jerkrejection in response.

It's the MO used by Watts, Montford, Mcintyre and Cubicle Kid here. What are the chances they're using it independently?

The sheer number of washed up, low-grade management retirees at Montford's who feel enabled by the Bish to look down on for instance, tthe Head of the R.S. as some sort of moron are an indicator of the intellectual subversion being practised there and elsewhere.

@chek,
,
For goodness sake chek, if you don't know about and have never seen, the empirical evidence for the AR4 "attribution" claim, just say!

What's the point of keep bringing non related issues into the discussion? Watts, Montford, McIntyre - Nothing to do with the point at hand, but OK, we get it, you don't like them.

We know the reason you keep harping on about "them" is you just don't understand the attribution claims and use a social ideology for detemining scientific truth -which is definitely the worst possible way of doing so.

I don't suppose that after months of prevarication there is any chance you will at this stage reach into your back pocket and say "Oh here's the evidence, I had it all along", if you could you would have done that by now, wouldn't you?

If you don't know, just "say" I don't know" and we can move on. Maybe some of the others will have more of a clue.

chek,

Your repeated failings are quite boring. And you still get it wrong.

I am the one asking for those published papers affirming that AR4 claim. And you are the ones not having seen them.

I have not commented upon papers I haven't read. Thats your department. And Wow's of course. Jeff is making other stuff up.

And what's that thing with blind faith in authority. Nothing has to accepted blindly just because Paul Nurs says so. Insterad it is evaluated on its merits. And Nurse has said numerous pretty stupid things about climate change and science.

You still believe only beacuas you want to believe

I've watched this thread on-and-off for the year+ its been running, and by and large thought Jonas had done a pretty fair job of sticking to the most trivial argument I've ever seen. But now...
[Monckton] is Al Gores counterpart, and about 100 times as knowledgable...

Bwahahahahaha!

I don't think I've ever seen anyone fail so hard. You just made even GSW look smart, and he's the rube who fell for John's "ice-age denial" comedy shtick...

That was almost worth the time I've spent down here.

@Frank

Thanks for stopping by Frank. You going to hang around to argue the point? Regulars, don't seem to have handle on the relationship between claims and evidence, maybe you're different?

You could just scuttle off of course.
;)

" I have been asking for those references since almost day one here. "

And apparently they are something that anyone (but not you) could find easily.

You had been given them before, but because that required "clicking on a link and reading", you refused to acknowledge it.

Too dumb to read, too thick to think and ignorant of everything.

"he probably doesn’t know that a skeptic publication about monsson patters does not affirm that AR4 claim anyhow"

So you're saying that paper wasn't science???

And since I'd already explained this to you: you need to know what's changed before you can assign reason for that change on AGW, it seems you are far too dumb to read.

"What’s the point of keep bringing non related issues into the discussion?"

You mean like Al Gore and completely made-up allegations against Hansen?

Yeah, what WAS the point of Joanarse doing that?

So to summarise, Jonas hasn't read any of the research papers that AR4 Chapter 9 is synthesised from, but complains there's no research backing up the Chapter's conclusions. And it took him this long to get there.

That really is one for The Global Annals of Idiotic Idiocy by Idiots.

That really is one for The Global Annals of Idiotic Idiocy by Idiots.

Yep. And these twits JN, GSW OP are beginning to make Curtin look rational and knowledgeable.

Cue wailings and nashings of teeth along the lines of 'what's that got to do with anything?

Monty Python has a treasure trove of material for a new farce from these twits. Who will be 'The Climate Change Twit of the Year'? Curtin was in the running but now ...!

Frank

You say that the fact that nobody ever seems to have seen the most prominent IPCC AR4 claim, is a trivial argument?

Well, I wouldn't put it like that. But it is one where the crowd here at least could come up with a counterargument. Or prove me wrong. And they can't. Instead we hear all kinds of nonsens and staming of angry little feet about ... well whatever flies through their heads.

There have been better discussions and arguments, but those have been extremeley few and rare. One of the (former) regulars, at least tried and tried hard to invent totally new physics but failed of course.

But it seems that even the regulars here shun away fron using Al Gore as a source of authority. (But bring up Romm, Cook, Gelbspan and Oreskes). And many of them seem to have some obsession about Monckton. Who of course is not a primary source of any argument either.

But I stick to what I said. Monckton actually debates those on the other side. Gore is manically afraid of that. even demands that journalists be screened before allowed to his venues. Mann is equally afraid of debating anything or anyone other than sympathetic adulation interviews with softball 'questions'.

I think you are the first defender of Al Gore here ...

Wow, you are still not with the program (after 1½ years). But repetition is the key to learning something. So I'll repeat.

The most prominent AR4 claim was presented in the SPM and stated:

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

where this 'very likely' is translated to 90% certainty.

There are two quantified claims there, and I have asked for the science establishing thos claims. And nobody has seen any such science. Nobody has read and can point me to any publications even purporting to establish these numbers.

And you, chek, Bernard and more, hope to divert from this fact with the most stupid deflections and strawmen imaginable.

I wonder why that is? (Well, not really. It's quite easy to imagine why you guys so desperately want to switch the topic. Especially, as Frank D says, since it is on the absolutely most basic and trivial level: Can you show the science behind it?)

Lionel A

I'm sorry to have neglected you for some comments. What was your latest point? You after all still believe that Sandy somehow can be shown to have been cause or aggravated by human emissions?

You share the beliefs of Justin Lancaster, who was Gore's go-between in dirty politics?

You believe what Oreskes, Gelbspan and the others say?

Well, I can't change your faith (by definition) but I have not seen any arguments from you why such faith would be supportable. You merely linked to mor individuals who share similar beliefs. Which I already knew.

And your petty attempts at insults are still pathetic and don't bite ..

You're flailing more than usual, joan.

"where this ‘very likely’ is translated to 90% certainty.

There are two quantified claims there, and I have asked for the science establishing thos claims."

And that is the list of papers you've been given.

Since you say that repetition is key to learning, obviously you're incapable of it.

I mean, we (and your poor teachers: say hi to your mom and pop for me!) already knew you couldn't learn, which is why they gave up.

But in the 40-odd years since you finished "homeschooling" you may have grown up.

Apparently you're still stuck at pre-shcool and unwilling to move forward.

My point:

Cue wailings and nashings of teeth along the lines of ‘what’s that got to do with anything?

proven:

Lionel A

I’m sorry to have neglected you for some comments. What was your latest point?

You just cannot help yourself can you.

The fact that you are still raking over attribution of Sandy, and making up stuff about Lancaster and throwing out Gore's name as if he was the fulcrum of climate science amply demonstrates your stubborn refusal to educate yourself.

Wow, well if it was in that list, someone would know in which reference (or references) this has been established. But nobody knows. They just, exactly like you, repeat their idiotic: 'It's in there somwhere' in blind and stupid faith!

Look, guys, you claim to have the science, the scientists, and facts on your side. But still, almost six years after the release, none of you has a clue!

It's no wonder you're being ridiculed for how poorly you argue. Especially if you pull out a monsoon paper and hope it would be it.

Lionel, re: Sandy, you confuse general opining with actual science. I know what Lancaster said, he does not convince, but the point is moot anyway!

"Wow, well if it was in that list"

The list IS the science that confirms the claims in AR4 you are asking for.

Not one of it because, you feckless moron, that is only one data point that is used to determine the effects of AGW and the changes seen in the climate.

"Most of the warming is due to AGW" requires that you at least list the drivers of climate, ascertain the warming, and assess the contributions of each of those drivers TO that warming.

Which is why there is no one paper because no one paper is written with all of that information in.

But then again, you're too dumb to read. You're probably crapping yourself transparent at having to read more than one paper.

"someone would know in which reference (or references) this has been established."

Yes, the list of those papers ARE the references used to make the statement.

Fuck you're dumb.

"re: Sandy, you confuse general opining with actual science."

Just because you think "science" is "anything that says AGW is fake" doesn't mean that actual science that isn't saying AGW is fake is not science.

You are the tweedledumbest.

Poor, poor Wow is in bad need of comfort. He does a full monty rain-dance and calims that a paper on monsoons support his case when it actually contradict his silly claims. Can it get any better? :-D

Yet he yells "IT IS IN THE LIST". :-D

Like Jonas has proven over and over again in these 4000 and counting posts: Deltoid is a climate threat shaking tent full och hot air and brimstone. Nothing else, with exception for stupidity and delusions. ;-)

Thank god its deflating. The more reasonable readers of this blog have come to thier senses when reading the "Real Science thread".

Well done Jonas!

"He does a full monty rain-dance and calims that a paper on monsoons support his case when it actually contradict his silly claims."

Since my claim was that that paper was one science paper used to come to the conclusion of the AR4 summary claim Jonearse has been whining on about for 18+ months AND IT IS, you seem to be in la-la land.

This, seemingly, is your permanent abode.

Olap dog: proof my claim is right and your assertion wrong:

Go to the IPCC AR4 Chapter 9 document and go to the references.

That paper is listed there.

Since that is the attribution chapter and the claim is about attributing AGW to the change in climate, I win.

Maybe the slug hoard could answer questions.

(yeah, I know, ever the optimist).

Does humanity's production of CO2 and agriculture have ZERO effect on the climate.

Yes or no.

Oh, the "list-argument" again! What a surprise! ;-)

What does the paper matter Wow, when it contains statements that make you look like first class ass?

Don't bother to answer. :-D

"Oh, the “list-argument” again! What a surprise!"

I guess you;re surprised when your check-out lady tells you that the total for your $1.25 bread and $2.60 margerine is $3.85 as well, huh?

"Don’t bother to answer."

This would be because you're too ignorant to understand, right?

Wow, how thick can one (Wow) be? I have answered Wow's Q many times already:

"Does humanity’s production of CO2 and agriculture have ZERO effect on the climate."

Answer: No! (Get it this time?)

My turn. Do you realy think that a paper that contradicts your beliefs strengthen your case? ;-)

"“Does humanity’s production of CO2 and agriculture have ZERO effect on the climate.”

Answer: No! (Get it this time?)"

OK, so what is the effect?

I.e. out of the warming seen so far, how much is due to humanity's activities.

Wow, I totally understand that you need to ask me what the effect is since you have no clue what the articles you referr to states. :-D

We don't know, especially Deltoids and other activist driven portentologists. With 100% certainty! ;-)

"We don’t know"

How would you find out, then?

E.g. how much warming has there been since 1850? Where would you find that.

How we would find out you ask me Wow. Well for starters we need to admit that we don't know. How's that?

Here is how the science stands and see this to discover more on the deniers lack of legs, and arms.

"Well for starters we need to admit that we don’t know. How’s that?"

Ignorant.

You're admitting YOU do not know how.

Do you want to know?

Come on, Olap, or is that your only step? "I don't know"?

Come on, you have already said it's not ZERO effect.

So you must know SOMETHING about the temperature change since 1850.

Or do you always make statements you can't support?

Careful Wow, you're getting dangerously close to getting Olouse to try to use his own brain to make his own thoughts, you naughty activist you.

Lionel

DeSmogBlog ... are you kidding me?

Wow, you (and others) have informed us that the IPCC has a list of references. You even pretended that this was a big revalation. (It wasn't of course). The question is whether or not any of these references contains proper science establishing that famous claim.

None of you knows. But many of you do hope so. And do so in blind faith. You are one of the blind faithers. Which we more sciency types know from early on.

Unfortunately, you are worse than many of your faither-friends

"The question is whether or not any of these references contains proper science establishing that famous claim."

No Jonarse the question is, how can you have a valid objection when you admit you haven't read the papers?

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

“The question is whether or not any of these references contains proper science establishing that famous claim.”

They do.

Each plays their part in the claim.

You're sitting there looking at a car and whining "Well, which bit of metal is the car?!?!?!?".

Sorry chek ..

But no! This is not how references are referenced. If there is a scientific claim, allegedly based on science, this publication(s)cience is/are referenced together with that claim.

One doesn't hide the supporting science from all the whole 'consensus-agreeing' scientists so that they cannot find it, and that they all need to take that claim on faith!

You! Every single one of you, who believe in that (now six year old claim) have done so in blind faith!
I on the other hand, who know about science, and who'd never accept such claims on hearsay, especially not if it is claimed to be science, have asked for those specific references.

You haven't. You wouldn't. You try at all costs to remain ignorant. You claim it is in there. But you haven't read, haven't checked them, you don't know. You just hope desperately! And the same goes for all others who cannot find and produce any such science.

Six years later (almost) and regarding 'the most important issue of our time', and not one single one of all your 'the science and scientist on our side'-types can find it anywhere, neither in those references, nor anywhere on the world wide web.

What is your argument here, chek? That I sould believe you because you blindly believe it? Because everybody else who believes it is equally clueless?

Jeff here has boasted that he befriends so many scientists and even gets to 'mingle with big guys' and non of his friends have seen or find it either?

You guys have no clue. It really is as simple as that! And on top of it, you actively want to remain both ignorant and mislead.

"But no! This is not how references are referenced."

Yeah, they're reerenced like this:

AchutaRao, K.M., et al., 2006: Variability of ocean heat uptake: Reconciling observations and models. J. Geophys. Res., 111, C05019.

Ackerman, A.S., et al., 2000: Reduction of tropical cloudiness by soot. Science, 288, 1042–1047.

Adams, J.B., M.E. Mann, and C.M. Ammann, 2003: Proxy evidence for an El Nino-like response to volcanic forcing. Nature, 426(6964), 274–278.

Alexander, L.V., et al., 2006: Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D05109, doi:10.1029/2005JD006290.

Allan, R.J., and T.J. Ansell, 2006: A new globally-complete monthly historical gridded mean sea level pressure data set (HadSLP2): 1850-2004. J. Clim., 19, 5816–5842.

Allen, M.R., 2003: Liability for climate change. Nature, 421, 891–892.

Allen, M.R., and S.F.B. Tett, 1999: Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting. Clim. Dyn., 15, 419–434.

Allen, M.R., and W.J. Ingram, 2002: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature, 419, 224–232.

Allen, M.R., and D.A. Stainforth, 2002: Towards objective probabilistic climate forecasting. Nature, 419, 228–228.

Allen, M.R., and P.A. Stott, 2003: Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting, Part I: Theory. Clim. Dyn., 21, 477–491.

Allen, M.R., J.A. Kettleborough, and D.A. Stainforth, 2002: Model error in weather and climate forecasting. In: ECMWF Predictability of Weather and Climate Seminar [Palmer, T.N. (ed.)]. European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK, http://www.ecmwf.int/publications/library/do/references/list/209.

Allen, M.R., et al., 2000: Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change. Nature, 407, 617–620.

Ammann, C.M., G.A. Meehl, W.M. Washington, and C. Zender, 2003: A monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations of 20th century climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(12), 1657.

Anderson, T.L., et al., 2003: Climate forcing by aerosols: A hazy picture. Science, 300, 1103–1104.

Andronova, N.G., and M.E. Schlesinger, 2000: Causes of global temperature changes during the 19th and 20th centuries. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27(14), 2137–2140.

Andronova, N.G., and M.E. Schlesinger, 2001: Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res., 106(D19), 22605–22611.

Andronova, N.G., M.E. Schlesinger, and M.E. Mann, 2004: Are reconstructed pre-instrumental hemispheric temperatures consistent with instrumental hemispheric temperatures? Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L12202, doi:10.1029/2004GL019658.

Andronova, N.G., et al., 1999: Radiative forcing by volcanic aerosols from 1850 to 1994. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 16807–16826.

Andronova, N.G., et al., 2007: The concept of climate sensitivity: History and development. In: Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment [Schlesinger, M., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press.

Annan, J.D., and J.C. Hargreaves, 2006: Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06704, doi:10.1029/2005GL025259.

Annan, J.D., et al., 2005: Efficiently constraining climate sensitivity with paleoclimate simulations. Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere, 1, 181–184.

Arblaster, J.M., and G.A. Meehl, 2006: Contributions of external forcing to Southern Annular Mode trends. J. Clim., 19, 2896–2905.

Bader, J., and M. Latif, 2003: The impact of decadal-scale Indian Ocean sea surface temperature anomalies on Sahelian rainfall and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(22), 2169.

Banks, H.T., et al., 2000: Are observed decadal changes in intermediate water masses a signature of anthropogenic climate change? Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 2961–2964.

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, and R. Schnur, 2001: Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world’s oceans. Science, 292, 270–274.

Barnett, T.P., et al., 1999: Detection and attribution of recent climate change. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 80, 2631–2659.

Barnett, T.P., et al., 2005: Penetration of a warming signal in the world’s oceans: human impacts. Science, 309, 284–287.

Bauer, E., M. Claussen, V. Brovkin, and A. Huenerbein, 2003: Assessing climate forcings of the Earth system for the past millennium. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(6), 1276.

Beltrami, H., J.E. Smerdon, H.N. Pollack, and S. Huang, 2002: Continental heat gain in the global climate system. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 1167.

Bengtsson, L., K.I. Hodges, and E. Roechner, 2006: Storm tracks and climate change. J. Clim., 19, 3518–3543.

Berger, A., 1978: Long-term variations of caloric solar radiation resulting from the earth’s orbital elements. Quat. Res., 9, 139–167.

Berger, A., 1988: Milankovitch theory and climate. Rev. Geophys., 26, 624–657.

Berliner, L.M., R.A. Levine, and D.J. Shea, 2000: Bayesian climate change assessment. J. Clim., 13, 3805–3820.

Bertrand, C., M.F. Loutre, M. Crucifix, and A. Berger, 2002: Climate of the last millennium: a sensitivity study. Tellus, 54A(3), 221–244.

Betts, R.A., 2001: Biogeophysical impacts of land use on present-day climate: near surface temperature and radiative forcing. Atmos. Sci. Lett., 2, 39–51.

Bigelow, N.H., et al., 2003: Climate change and Arctic ecosystems: 1. Vegetation changes north of 55 degrees N between the last glacial maximum, mid-Holocene, and present. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D19), 8170, doi:10.1029/2002JD002558.

Bindoff, N.L., and T.J. McDougall, 2000: Decadal changes along an Indian Ocean section at 32S and their interpretation. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 30(6), 1207–1222.

Bjerknes, J., 1969: Atmospheric teleconnections from the equatorial Pacific. Mon. Weather Rev., 97, 163–172.

Boer, G.J., and B. Yu, 2003: Climate sensitivity and climate state. Clim. Dyn., 21, 167–176.

Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297–302.

Boyer, T.P., et al., 2005: Linear trends in salinity for the World Ocean, 1955-1998. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L01604.

Braconnot, P., S. Joussaume, O. Marti, and N. de Noblet, 1999: Synergistic feedbacks from ocean and vegetation on the African monsoon response to mid-Holocene insolation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 2481–2484.

Braconnot, P., O. Marti, S. Joussaume, and Y. Leclainche, 2000: Ocean feedback in response to 6 kyr BP insolation. J. Clim., 13(9), 1537–1553.

Braconnot, P., et al., 2004: Evaluation of PMIP coupled ocean-atmosphere simulations of the Mid-Holocene. In: Past Climate Variability through Europe and Africa [Battarbee, R.W., F. Gasse, and C.E. Stickley (eds.)]. Springer, London, UK, pp. 515-533.

Braganza, K., et al., 2003: Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part I - Variability and correlation structure. Clim. Dyn., 20, 491–502.

Braganza, K., et al., 2004: Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part II - Attribution of climate change during the 20th century. Clim. Dyn., 22, 823–838.

Briffa, K.R., et al., 2001: Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree ring density network. J. Geophys. Res., 106(D3), 2929–2941.

Broccoli, A.J., et al., 2003: Twentieth-century temperature and precipitation trends in ensemble climate simulations including natural and anthropogenic forcing. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D24), 4798.

Brohan, P., et al., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548.

Bryden, H.L., E. McDonagh, and B.A. King, 2003: Changes in ocean water mass properties: oscillations of trends? Science, 300, 2086–2088.

Bryden, H.L., H.R. Longworth, and S.A. Cunningham, 2005: Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25° N. Nature, 438, 655–657.

Burke, E.J., S.J. Brown, and N. Christidis, 2006: Modelling the recent evolution of global drought and projections for the 21st century with the Hadley Centre climate model. J. Hydrometeorol., 7, 1113–1125.

Caesar, J., L. Alexander, and R. Vose, 2006: Large-scale changes in observed daily maximum and minimum temperatures, 1946-2000. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D05101, doi:10.1029/2005JD006280.

Cai, W., P.H. Whetton, and D.J. Karoly, 2003: The response of the Antarctic Oscillation to increasing and stabilized atmospheric CO2. J. Clim., 16, 1525–1538.

Cane, M., et al., 2006: Progress in paleoclimate modeling. J. Clim., 19, 5031–5057.

Carril, A.F., C.G. Menéndez, and A. Navarra, 2005: Climate response associated with the Southern Annular Mode in the surroundings of Antarctic Peninsula: A multimodel ensemble analysis. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L16713, doi:10.1029/2005GL023581.

.
.
.

"One doesn’t hide the supporting science from all the whole ‘consensus-agreeing’ scientists so that they cannot find it,"

The scientists CAN find it.

You can't but that's not notworthy since you're not a scientist.

"I on the other hand, ... have asked for those specific references. "

And you've been given them.

chek, listen to your buddy Wow ..

He has found a pile of scrap metal parts, and they are numbered. And Wow asserts: Each of these is part of the whole. Together they form a car. Not only that, a car with specified performans. Nobody can se the car, find that car, even less so establish any possible performance.

But Wow is certain. It's in there, all parts of the car, and it's really really powerful! 'Trust me' he says! And trust me on the performance too. I know nothing about any of those parts. Haven't seen them, don't know their function, what they are for. Just know that they are numbered. So trust me! I am looking at and can clearly the entire car!

says Wow.

"What is your argument here, chek? That I sould believe you because you blindly believe it?"

No Jonarse, the point has always been that if you wanted to know, you'd read the papers. But you don't. Instead you make stupid claims about 'faith' and 'hiding', like the dumb conspiracist you are.

If you wanted to know you'd read. But instead you'd rather make political claims about 'activism' and your own 'brilliance', like the vain little tosser you are.

"Nobody can se the car"

Gosh, did you really hear that?

It's psychosis, old man.

Mind you, if you put "Joanarse can't see the car", you'd be closer.

"But Wow is certain. It’s in there, all parts of the car, and it’s really really powerful! ‘Trust me’ "

No, don't trust me. Read for yourself.

Oh, I forgot: you're too dumb to read.

chek, as I said, this not how science is references. The point is that neither you, nor anybody in the entire world can produce science that properly establishes those two specified and quantified levels. Not even six years later! Although everybody has heard those claims many times!

Only über-morons like Wow even claim that such science exists at all. In hos case so obviously in blind faith. But the same is true for you. If you believe that claim, you do so in blind faith. As does every single body who believes it!

Look kids, you say you have all the science and scientists on your side (which you don't) but still a fair number. And nowhere in the entire world is any such science to be found or even its foundations or details discussed. Nowhere!

That's why you (and many others) try to list long lists of irrelevant references to run away from the obvious ...

"chek, as I said, this not how science is references."

Can you stop pretending to be yoda.

Wow, we all know that imagining things is the preferred method for you and many more here. Now you have imagined a 'car with outstanding performanc' in a heap of random pieces of scrap metal parts. Jeffie thinks he can see 'a higher truth' by looing inwards into the big emptiness filld to the brim with fantasies ..

"we all know"

Really?

Lets do a quick scientific check on this, yes?

Jeff, chek, lional, do you all three agree with Joan?

Stop whining about you having to do some work and do it.

Oh, sorry, forgot. Too ignorant to think.

Lionel

DeSmogBlog … are you kidding me?

Stop whinnying and read and earn something from the sources that you have been pointed at - hint they are all peer reviewed papers each on some aspect of attributing climate change . Of course you may need a load of supporting literature so here is a start:

Books to help JustNuts with science and stuff.

To which I could add these:

Principles of Planetary Climate by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert

The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast by David Archer (Editor), Ray Pierrehumbert (Editor)

The Great Ocean Conveyor: Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change by Wally Broecker

Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate (New in Paper) (Princeton Science Library) by William F. Ruddiman

Earth's Climate: Past and Future by William F. Ruddiman

Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach by
William James Burroughs [note this one could do with an update in some areas but Svensmark is put in his place although not overtly]

Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science by Tom Garrison

And there is always this excellent resource:

Open Climate Science 101 and click on 'Video Lectures' and it is good to go.

Now stop moaning and get on with learning.

Lionel

o you have peer reviewed papers attributing Sandy to human CO2? Are you kidding me?

Or are you trying to help chek and Wow with theyr denial? THen you need to point at the references i AR4 ...

Lionel

It seems you confuse quite a few things, and since your preferred sources are the more notorious blogs and sites, maybe it isn't that suprising after all.

I am quite aware of the hypothesis and what is argued in its name. But a hypothesis is not established just because it has been published, or has worked for some partial curve fit. It takes an aweful lot more than just repetition and supporters.

Or support from activists' faith. NGOs and politicians or the UN. Real science works very differently. Proposed explanaitons need to be presented properly and unambiguously, and the need to work consistently. Handwaiving and making new excuses for every failure dosn't cut it.

I'm aware that you are at a stage where you read smething, and believe it as fact (or try to dismiss it) without being to able to judge and decide. You seem still to try to identify authorities to believe. And you land at those reinforcing what you already believe. That's human, but not a very good method for finding things out for real.

If you can't answer proper questions and even pointed ones and criticism, it just shows that your understanding wasn't that deep after all. And if you even get angry, it just shows the same thing but more clearly ..

And you can hser see how people react when they have their beliefs questioned ... some completely derail and get very angry ... And become even less convincing ...

"And nowhere in the entire world is any such science to be found or even its foundations or details discussed. Nowhere! !

You've admitted you haven't read the research, so how can you make that statement? You can't, so you make it up.

"That’s why you (and many others) try to list long lists of irrelevant references to run away from the obvious"

You haven't read them, so how can you classify them as either relevant or irrelevant? You can't, so you make it up. Again.

"Handwaiving and making new excuses for every failure dosn’t cut it. "

And yet that's all you can ever do.
Incessantly.
Along with making stuff up, aka lying.

"Real science works very differently. Proposed explanaitons need to be presented properly and unambiguously, and the need to work consistently."

Congratulations, You're describing how published science works. Well done to you Jonarse for stating the bleedin' obvious.

Where you go wrong is in expecting to be able to understand it without putting in the work, or demanding explanations be in tweetable format or whatever cockamamie conditions you denier morons arbitrarily decide to impose. So let's cut the pretending - you're deniers because of your politics, not because of your (lack of) scientific understanding.

If you had actual objections to the science you wouldn't be piffling about on blogs making fools of yourselves every day. You'd be doing... well, best not give you ideas you're unable to formulate for yourself. That'd just be piling cruelty as well as ridicule onto the afflicted.

chek, you are wrong once more

I have read quite a few. Earlier I used to read references when climate faithers claimed some particular piece of science or evidence was to be found in a certain references. And almost always, such claims were vastly overstated. If they weren't simply untrue. (It seems that lying, or just making things up guessing is endemic among your guys).

And even here, I have been following a few such claims, and even offered others. But that claim isn't even adressed scientifically there. Sometimes you can find some armwaiving in the discussion sectionm but no science claiming to establish anything even close to that AR4 claim.

Problem is, always was, and still is:

This claim, which everybody with a TV and/or newspaper around the world has heard many times, that

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”

.. that this claim is taken on faith by everybody who believes and repeats it. Every-single-frikking-body!

And nobody has to read references who nowhere claim to establish this, to confirm it. And which nobody says is (ie references as) the source for that AR4 claim. There are no references, chek. There is no scientific source to this claim, chek, and looking through the WG 1 chapter 9 and all the appendices and figure captions, supplementary information etc, makes this quite obvious. As does the fact that nobody else claims to have seen such science, or discusses it, or tries to explain it on pro-AGW blogs and references to its source. Nobody, nowhere, around the entire world chek.

But still, people like you and many more want to believe in its existence so badly that you make total fools out of yourselves.

And believe me, it's not me who has caused this. The AR4 was published in 2007, even before I started to look closer at all those wild climate claims.

Sorry for the messed up quite. It should read:

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

and end thereafter!

No chek,

I don't go wrong. I am asking the right questions. I am looking for the science that allegedly supports these claims. I am asking those who are convinced if they have seen, read and understood said science. I am asking them if they can explain it and defend its merits and against criticism.

I am the one reading the scientific papers ans see if the claimed conclusions are supported by the word and data presented there. But as I just said, nobody even claims to have done such science. So in that particular case, there is nothing to read up to.

It is you who claim all kinds of things without having checked or even seen it, who are unwilling to put in the work. Heck, I asked about this the first time 1½ years ago, and although most of you here destest me like the plague, and you wouldn't wish anything more than to prove me wrong, all you manage to do is to deflect and evade the core question.

Which is typical for members of the climate scare church. Who essentially lose it whenever their faith is challanged or just questioned. Have you seen Wow, who says that this claim is a car built of many many separate parts, by people who don't have a car as a goal even. And Wow explains that he (the IPCC and 'scientists') can vouch for both the car (its existence) and its performance!?

All this nuttery is on your side, chek. Not mine. The blind belief in authority, the unability to argue any facts. The unability to read what is said, or understand the issues even. On your side. You are just one part of this. Jeff is another, all the anonymous Wows of all the blogs. And those media 'experts' and even Mann and Gore and the others. Who are so afraid of facing opposition they avoid it at all costs.

You ferret here about Montford etc, but I have never seen you even daring to voice an argument there. Actually Frank D has, but rarely any good ones. And even here, the most CV-fist-shaking supporter, needs to hide in the protect zone, where he dares mouthing of with his fantasies about me.

chek, you say:

" you’re deniers because of your politics, not because of your (lack of) scientific understanding"

Again counterfactual. It is you and your side who obsess about politics of your opponents. I have been asking about the science you claim is supporting your faith.

There just isn't anything that you can get right, is there? Every argument needs to be twisted. To get away from the real issues, the core questions, from reality. It's and endelss battle agains all the strawmen you manage to create, isn't it?

Have you seen any proper science even attempting to establish that AR4 claim? Yes or No?

And since the answer is so obvious, what is it you are hoping to accomplish by denying it?

What is your best hope for the outcome of such denial?

And sorry for repeating this, but it really is hilarious.

Signature Wow tried to give references to that alleged science, and came yo with a study of monsoon patterns, which found that the claims by GHG hypothesis modelled monsoons were not supported by the real data. And this joke of a climate activists accuses me of not reading the science. Can you believe this? You couldn't make it up if you tried! And you supported his nonsens chek ...

:-)

And you wonder why less and less poeple take you seriously?

@Jonas,

I wouldn't bother with wow Jonas. In the Grand Debate, I think he sees himself as a rather volatile "Attack Moron", doing as much damage to, and falling out with, his own side as he does with the "Enemy" ;)

Ianam's had problems with him I think. He had a conversation with him claiming the best way to win an argument was to say something stupid.... Personally I think this was a ruse - get your excuses in early sort of thing. Difficult to know with wow though, I've never actually known him say anything that wasn't stupid, so it's difficult to make a meaningful comparison.

GSW

There is not much substance coming from any of these clowns, who blindly and desperatly hope the references in AR4 somwhere somehow contain science supporting that claim they all want to believe more than anything.

I just think its entertaining to remind them of this some 1½ years later, after they've tried to find such support.

And I agree, Wow sounds like a badly programmed spam-bot, but still manages to sometimes pick up the topic. I don't think he's a robot, but certainly as thick as one most of the time ...

The AR4 was published in 2007, even before I started to look closer at all those wild climate claims.

So, you a relative newbie to this subject. Little wonder you have not managed to grasp that contained in a vast body of research. Your a novice and likely to stay that way given your attitude.

Jonarse, you've already admitted to not reading the papers, and now suddenly, you have. How does that even happen? Unless you're a habitual liar, which a gimp like GSW has no problem with of course, given his support role..

Griselda, touching as your stupid-driven loyalty is, you seem blithely unaware that your darling Black Knight, Sir Jonarse the Liar is being hacked to pieces before your very eyes.

He can't even keep his story straight any longer, although that's likely because he's such a vain dildo, he can't keep track of what he's told you idiots and what he's already told the outside world.

A word of advice. Never put your faith in 'heroes'. Especially not those with the calibre of Jonarse, the scatterbrained Cubicle Kid. Like you have much of a pool to choose from anyway...

"Stop whinnying and read"

You forget: he's too dumb to read.

"@Jonas,
I wouldn’t bother with wow Jonas. "

So, joan, apparently GSW thinks I'm far too intelligent for you to manage to hoodwink.

What do you think?

"Again counterfactual. It is you and your side who obsess about politics of your opponents"

Again, wrong.

You keep whinging on about Al Gore. A politician.

hell, check, Joan here doesn't even know what to look for.

Has absolutely no clue as to how you would answer the question "How much has climate changed due to human activity".

Olap, of course, knows that it isn't something. They don't know what it IS, but they know it's not something, though not what other number it might be, but are CONVINCED it's not that number.

You know, no ideas but "It's not that".

Which is rather denialist, isn't it?

"Heck, I asked about this the first time 1½ years ago"

Heck, you were given a link but because it began with "www.ipcc.ch" you didn't click on it.

The 18+ months of wasted time is YOUR fault.

Because you're too dumb to read, too thick to think and too crusty to change.

@Jonas

"but still manages to sometimes pick up the topic"

I wouldn't read too much into that Jonas. Not a spam-bot, just an individual incapable of a continuous stream of thought. Ideas appear and disappear at random, hence the repeated multiple postings and repostings. There's no evaluation of what's been said to him, no reasoned argument forthcoming, just post post post - an "Attack Attack Attack Moron" as it were. Up to you obviously whether you engage or not.

@Jonas

Doesn't look as though chek had the empirical science behind attribution in his back pocket after all. ;)

They're happy to continue on regardless though, sans evidence. Easier to just skim over that bit in favour of imagining the "horrors" ahead - Like children sitting in the dark telling ghost stories. The science just becomes an emotion then; can be "felt" rather than understood. Not the best way of dealing with reality I would have thought - but hey, it takes all sorts doesn't it?

Lionel, I am definitely not a newbie to real science. Thats my real field of expertise. You, however seem to be a newbie even to climatology .. which involves all kinds of nonsense ..

First you need to determine what part of that climate consensue has (the possibility of) a real scientificaly based hyptothesis at the bottom (ie remove all that creative armwaiving and prophecies about the future).

When you know what part at least has is soundly formulated, you need to check what can be argued in favour and what speaks against such a hypothesis. And you need to handle both parts with equal care.

It is, like your mates here demonstrate, not something where you can pick on favoured side, and then hammer away screaming at everything not agreeing with it. You need to do the work, and remain on your intellectual toes.

In this debate, your side has almost completely lost that capacity (and there was not to much to begin with)

It doesn't suffice just believing the presentations of your side. And I don't think you've gotten beyond that yet. Especially not if you hang at such sites as you link

GSW

But I would presume that both of then, in their actual life consider themselves to be adults and even not stupid. And yet here they willingly disolay the abloutely nuutiest beliefs and arguments as if totally disconnected from reality.

I agree, that most likely it is pure emotional, even rage. But they really seem unable to control it. Jeffie too, wants so see him as and adult, even an accomplished one. But is unable to think one straight thought from beginning to end.

Wow most loses the plot after three words. He got the 'two part (of his own argument) right at some time, but couldn't handle the content of longer sentences. Monsoon became a 'data point' which should e seen as pieces of scrap metal. And the car and its performance was what he imagined built on the 'two ...

It really is quite amazing. And even mor, all those who thinks he is making valid points ...

@Jonas,

"all those who thinks he is making valid points"

Like LB's physics remember? Lining up to "endorse" his mangling of F=ma.

"Monsoon became a ‘data point’ which should e seen as pieces of scrap metal"

eh..OK. Given up reading wow's stuff, if you can make sense of it, you've got it wrong, it isn't what he meant.

And Jeff(ie), where to start? A "supposed" Scientist (albeit a soft science) that as a point of principle, refuses to be clear on what he knows and doesn't know, so he can communicate the things he "feels". As Edie Campbell's dad tried to point out him the other day- He is "unique".

I'd always assumed that when the graduates left university they'd had the words "How Do You Know?" bullied into them, certainly true in Physics, although I noticed with some regret that even Manchester now has it's own "Tyndall" (but then there's money for such things, and hey, why not?)

Zoology may be different, more a specialized field of farming than science, even so, the principles are relatively easy to grasp and follow. Jeff - the Scientific Method "Denier".
;)

chek

There is no 'story to keep straight'. It's much simpler than that.

Nobody, no one in the entire world has seen any proper science detailing those two specific and quantified levels or that AR4 claim. End of story.

I certainly have not, and I've been looking. And I am asking those who belive in it, if they have seen and read any such thing (fully well knowing they haven't). And then pointing out that the believe their cherrished story in blind faith. And that the same goes for all of you, and even those consensus climate scientists whom you pin your hopes to.

End of story once more. And deep down you know it too (Even Jeffie knows). There is no science establishing those levels, just wishful hopes based on halfheared curvefits, and opinions by those who hope it would be in a certain way. But no science chek.

Bernard and Jeff (in the protected zone) try to talk up their confidence that this claim somehow still is supportable by some science or CVs or the like ...

But it ain't so! You guys are just trying to get away from the fact, from real reality, from that no one has ever seen such science. And all those repeating this and similar claims are doing this in blind faith. And now knowlingly in blind faith.

You are in denial and want to blame me for this lack of science and of substance in your claims. It is a quite pathetic show you putting up. You and all the others here. are frantically running from realit, and trying to come up with utter nonsens for why you still should get away with not knowing, remaining ignorant, and convincing yourselves that this all somehow should be my (or Exxon's or whatever's) malice and fault.

You not having any science to back up your claims, you want to explain it with me, my person and all kind of things you concoct up and imagine. It's my fault that you been believing things in blind faith. And not only you, all the others too. Right!?

And not only them. The entire 'climate science consensus community' ... Those allegedly behind this gigantic cimate threat that has a gigantic industry running over the entire globe with an endless string of stupidities attached to it ...

But all those conconced scientists never stpped to ask and see the science ... and its Jonas' fault!? Amazing

;-)

JN:

Lionel, I am definitely not a newbie to real science. Thats my real field of expertise.

Really! Tell us more. Why are you so coy about the details?

You, however seem to be a newbie even to climatology .. which involves all kinds of nonsense ..

Sorry to disappoint you but after a career involving, amongst others, qualification in aeronautical engineering science, applied mechanics, mathematics including calculus, statistics, complex numbers, (and much, much more) and weather systems this coupled with a growing knowledge of computer systems and software development led to the Meteorological Office offering me a job as a scientific officer.

Also since the early 1990s I have become increasingly interested in and studied aspects of climate and change (well all science is to do with change of one sort or another). This having realised on a sweltering holiday in the South of France in 1988, where temperatures rose much above the norm' even for that location, coupled with experiences at sea that something was up. How do you think I was able to offer you texts dealing with the relevant topics.

You on the other hand have, by self confession only been looking at climate for a dog-watch [1], and you throw insults at scientists who have made it their life's work to assess the forces at work. This a life of studying the science physics, biology, chemistry and mathematical tools such as statistics so as to be able to conduct a research project, quantify the results and present conclusions which are coherent with other bodies of research and acceptable to other scientists involved in those aspects, and these aspects could be many including climate, and other, models of one type or another.

If you can parse that correctly you should understand the disparity between you and they.

[1] A dog watch was an abbreviated watch, on a two watch system, aboard RN ships so that periods of watches WRT actual times alternated from one day to the next. The full watch period was four hours, with a bell rung at the first half hour mark and incrementing by one at each successive half hour thus causing eight bells to be rung at the end of the watch. The dog-watch was shortened [2] to two hours.

[2] The Patrick O'Brian character Stephen Maturin - no capable seaman himself, in 'Master and Commander' etc, joked at the captains table when asked by a 'newbie' why a watch was called a dog-watch with the 'clever' quip, 'Why, because it is curtailed'.

GSW:

Zoology may be different, more a specialized field of farming than science, even so, the principles are relatively easy to grasp and follow. Jeff – the Scientific Method “Denier”.

Zoology more a field of farming than science! Oh my! That is classic stupid.

With every statement you expose your deep seated ignorance. You wouldn't recognise the scientific method if you fell over it. You need help, as does your mentor.

Jonas,

Sorry I missed your reply yesterday.

Please provide evidence for your assertion that Monckton is 100 times as knowledgable as Al Gore. How did you quantify that number? What are the error margins? If this is just your opinion, surely you should have been explicit about that?

I suspect there is no basis for that figure at all and you just made it up. Do you normally go around making up figures and asserting them as fact?

Oh, and Jonas:

"I think you are the first defender of Al Gore here …"

Please point out where I defended Al Gore. If you can find such a defence, please point it out. If not, please acknowledge that I did not defend Gore, or it will look like you are just making up your own facts.

Thats not very scientific, is it?

"Doesn’t look as though chek had the empirical science behind attribution in his back pocket after all."

No, he had it in the AR4 report, not his back pocket.

"Do you normally go around making up figures and asserting them as fact?"

Oh you bet he does!

Big time!

" Easier to just skim over that bit in favour of imagining the “horrors” ahead "

Like "Australia will collapse back into the stone age"

Or "This is just a scam to install a communist world order"

Yeah, you're always imaginging things. Including horrors.

Why?

Because you're too dumb to read.

"Lionel, I am definitely not a newbie to real science. Thats my real field of expertise"

Another incorrect statement from Joan.

"Wow most loses the plot after three words"

Yup, another incorrect statement from Joan.

Can't manage to post without littering them around.

No problem Frank D

But this is very very cute:

Do you normally go around making up figures and asserting them as fact?

You ask this here? At Deltoid of all places? Where a string of characters do nothing but trying to invent their own facts? And not only in colloquial speech ..

Very cute!

But I repeat what I said originally:

Now you bring up Monckton as an argument for what? He is Al Gores counterpart, and about 100 times as knowledgable. And nothing I need to rely on.

But I'm sorry, you were saying something? Something important? You sounded very happy in your last comment.

"Monsoon became a ‘data point’ which should e seen as pieces of scrap metal. "

Too dumb to read a dictionary. Even though they explain every word.

Poor little babbie.

a·nal·o·gy
/əˈnaləjē/
Noun

A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
A correspondence or partial similarity.

Of course knowing it was an analogy would require Joan to read the word "like".

As previously affirmed, too dumb to read.

He's like one of those insane long-term drunks yelling at his imaginary friend and smelling of piss and shit, only attended by the other alcoholics turning insane from liver damage.

"Where a string of characters do nothing but trying to invent their own facts?"

Did anyone hear that in "Lord Windbourne" voice?

"Here? With me? With *my* reputation?".

?

Joan, you are the major current produce of numbers with no basis in reality.

You are posting on deltoid.

The real problem is that you can't answer Frank's question.

" Now you bring up Monckton as an argument for what? He is Al Gores counterpart, and about 100 times as knowledgable. And nothing I need to rely on.

But I’m sorry, you were saying something?"

Yes, he was saying have you any evidence of your statement.

We've asked for many many years if you have EVER had ANY evidence for your claims.

So far neither you, GSW/Olap (who has had to go off and wash one of his socks because he was finding it uncomfortable), Dai Duffski and the rest of the ignorance fan club have EVER even ONCE managed to provide any proof at all for your statements.

Apparently you don't do evidence.

"Bernard and Jeff (in the protected zone) try to talk up their confidence that this claim somehow still is supportable by some science or CVs or the like … "

OK, apparently expertise is shown by claiming it.

I am 10,000,000 times more intelligent than you, Watts, RP Sr and Jr, Christy and Monckton ADDED TOGETHER.

I know more maths, more latin, more about Mrs Thatcher, more about economy, more about chemistry, more about satellites, more about imagery, more about weather presenting and more about everything than these people collectively or individually.

I am far far far smarter than you.

There is a wonderful exposition on the modus operandi (deniers, ask Monckton if you don't understand) and just plain idiocy behind the propaganda (and Monckton could well have learned something from Dad here) of the denial machine Between the science and a hard place: The intellectual incoherence of lukewarmism. Part One: jimming the Overton window. and the name of that site addresses you directly you members of the alphabet soup. You are all 'stark naked' when it comes to intellectual honesty.

"But all those conconced scientists never stpped to ask and see the science"

For the same reason they don't ask to see the proofs of 1+1.

Because, unlike you, they have already seen the evidence.

See? I'm far far far smarter than you. I knew that, you didn't.

Frank D

Oh, you made a Gore-remark too? Sorry, missed that at first. I think you are the first one here defending Al Gore against criticism. (here Monckton being much more knowledgable). Yes, that's the imporession you gave and what I thought.
Is there a problem somewhere in there?

You talked about him first, Joan? What? You think Al Gore only exists for you?

Mind you, I'm far more intelligent than you by several score orders of magnitude, hence I can remember things like that.

As for Monckton? He's a mental gnat compared to Al Gore.

(another example of how much smarter I am than you: the word is "impression")

"Is there a problem somewhere in there?"

Yes, the problem is that Monckton is insane. Medical condition. But he thinks that he has cured it (because he's nuts, as ascertained earlier).

He's far far dumber than Al Gore.

Therefore the problem is that your asseriong is wrong.

Actually, I think Monckton's counterpart is Chemical Ali.

But nutty as fruit looms.

@Jonas

That caused a bit of a fuss, let's see;

Someone who believes in CAGW because it was hot on holiday (South of France) back in 1988. mmm... compelling.

Someone who wants "error bars" on rhetoric. mmm... curious.

Someone who blames it all on the "Denial Machine". mmm... probably an Ecologist.

Nothing on the science behind the attribution claim however. Disappointing, perhaps they would like another go? We'll score them this time, bonus points for the most original answer!

Lionel A

Now you claim to be a seasoned professional, with numerous skills. Even being offered a job as a 'scientific officer'!?

But in spite of that, you link to the worst activist blogs, read Gelbspan and Oreskes and accept them as facts? Or whatever Lancaster said he believed? And no even a link to 'Idiot-Tracker'?

And you want to tell me that you are a professional?

And you even try to tell me about the scientific method? Surely you're joking Lionel!

Idiot tracker ... whodathunkit

:-)

GSW I would have thought Lionel to be a highschool kid ... Born much later than 1988 ...

Just think of it. He says he remember 1988 in souther France, and even claims to have noticed that it is "much above the norm' even for that location"

How did he did that you think? Spent many summer vacations there? Searched the internet a decade later when it was starting to come up? A guy who ferrets about idiots and deniers and links to 'Idiot Tracker' wants to portray himslef as a seasoned professional of many skills ...

Ah that's Deltoid for you ... discussing 'climate science'

Regarding Frank, I think he can do better than those clowns. But he chose to try nitpicking irrelevancies .... And posturing with indignation

" Do you normally go around making up figures and asserting them as fact?"

I think he decided that was his best shot ... if so, probably a correct assessment

@Jonas

Detta är kul!
;)

Yes, but sorry for the poor spelling sometimes ...
Wow is funny too. He thinks his car part analogy was clever ...

:-)

@Jonas

Spelling not a problem Jonas. Not entirely sure what I last posted, hope it was decent.

"Wow is funny too"

Careful, you might start getting too attached and then hold back on Destroying them quite as effectively as you do.
;)

"Someone who believes in CAGW because it was hot on holiday (South of France) back in 1988"

Total count of real people in that group: 0

"Someone who wants “error bars” on rhetoric."

Total count of real people in that group: 0

"Someone who blames it all on the “Denial Machine""

Total count of real people in that group: 0

Yup, you're batting 100% on imaginary people.

". Even being offered a job as a ‘scientific officer’!? "

Yet another case where I'm far far far smarter than you.

There is a civil servie grade "scientific officer".

Apparently there is no limit to your ignorance!

"But in spite of that, you link to the worst activist blogs"

What? Like WUWT, Jonova, bishophill?

No, never linked against activist blogs.

YOU have, though.

"read Gelbspan and Oreskes"

Yeah, read.

It's how you learn things. But you're too dumb to read, aren't you.

"and accept them as facts?"

Yes because they have evidence. You know, corroboration.

Something you deniers don't do.

"And no even a link to ‘Idiot-Tracker’?"

Yup, what's up with that?

"And you even try to tell me about the scientific method"

Yeah, this does rather require you're actually capable of learning.

But you find ignorance much more comfortable.

"He says he remember 1988 in souther France"

Remembers. Past tense.

Southern. Souther would be wrong.

Then again, I'm far far more intelligent than you.

And GSW didn't spot it. Because he's no smarter than you.

"How did he did that you think? Spent many summer vacations there?"

Well that would work, wouldn't it.

Or looked at decades of records of weather. You know, evidence. Something you and the other deniers don't do, because that would require learning and reading. These are not your strong points.

"A guy who ferrets about idiots and deniers and links to ‘Idiot Tracker'"

Ferrets: either an animal or an activity of looking around for something.

Again, another word incorrectly used.

Whats up with that?

"” Do you normally go around making up figures and asserting them as fact?”

I think he decided that was his best shot"

Yeah, it's not as if you could answer it, is it.

You just make shit up and assert them as fact.

I see that Bernard J, chek, Lionel and Wow are trying to reaffirm each other in the protected zone. Bernard still tries to evade the absence of any proper sciencethat does establlish the AR4 claim, by demanding that I provide him with a the list that didn't ..

But what would there possibly be to 'destroy' with Wow? More than three words and he is lost ... An extremely poor analogy about a car becomes the core of his belie:. It is hidden in there, among the parts. He can see it, and 'the scientists' he assures ...

No I appreciate him/it because the others too think his points are so valid ... :-)

"He thinks his car part analogy was clever … "

Oh, now you've learned a new word!

Well done, boy. Here's a bikkit for you! Nice bikkit! Mmmmm.

Of course, it's far beyond your comprehension, though, isn't it.

Too dumb to read, too thick to think.

"Spelling not a problem Jonas."

I see, you're one of those New-Age PC "There's no such thing as a wrong answer" sort of people who ruined teaching.

"I see that Bernard J, chek, Lionel and Wow are trying to reaffirm each other in the protected zone"

Yeah, the insane often have visions and fantasies.

The failure of the liver will do that to you.

"Bernard still tries to evade the absence of any proper sciencethat does establlish the AR4 claim, "

Still forgotton how to read, Joan?

You've been given a long list of proper science that establishes the AR4 claim.

But then again, your brain can't hold on to anything beyond the 10-minute limit of short term memory.

The old and drunk frequently have this problem.

The problem is you're thick, Joan.

"An extremely poor analogy about a car becomes the core of his belie:"

Well, it's "belief" first of all.

And the analogy was perfect. You're just too stupid to understand.

I'd explain, but you wouldn't get it.

@Jonas

"But what would there possibly be to ‘destroy’ with Wow"

Your reasoning, as always, is flawless. Can't argue with that.
;)

Ah, GSW and Joan are only talking with each other. But still wish to complain nobody else is talking to them. Of course, when you're as nuts as a sack of squirrels on crack, coherent thought is impossible.

The echo chamber is the only place they feel safe.

And idiots prefer the company of themselves.

You two love-birds enjoy each other's company now.

"GSW
December 8, 2012

@Jonas

“But what would there possibly be to ‘destroy’ with Wow”

Your reasoning, as always, is terrible. Can’t argue with that.
;)"

Indeed, can't argue with that. Joan really IS a terrible thinker.

" More than three words and he is lost … "

Yeah, the baby thinks that because THEY can't see you, you can't see them. Because he's lost after three words of reading, he thinks that I must be too.

Joan hasn't yet finished teething.

There was no problem with the translation. And I agree ..

But what was Lionel A thinking there? Trying to pass himself off as a seasoned professional!?

Well, yes.

He is a seasoned professional. He said so. It's not all about CVs and so on, you know.

Ah Wow, you think that I should talk to you too? About what? Your many fantasies? Your blind faith in things you have neither seen nor would understand if you did? Your compulsive posting rants?

Sorry, but there is no content, and there is no reasoning. You are unable to form any choherent argument, just line up random statements of not very interesting beliefs ...

Wow, you got one three word sentence right:

"He said so"

Pretty spot on, I would say! Now, what was the argument you tried to build upon that?

"what was the argument you tried to build upon that?"

That you're a CV-fist-shaking supporter and are trying to claim that a fact must be supported by a CV.

Ah, talk of blind faith!

Your blind faith in Monckton.

Your blind faith in how AGW is all a scam.

All because you don't understand science.

"Trying to pass himself off as a seasoned professional!?"

What was your argument here? Or were you just confused at all the words?

As I said, Wow ..

Up to three words, you're doing OK. At least sometimes. Here is another sentence, and two words there you got right. But again bungled it completely when you tossed in more words:

You have already been given two papers which the AR4 assessment claim was based on

For your convenience I highlighted the two correct words for you ...

Yes, so you can bold two words.

Well done. Have a bikkit.

Now what was your argument you're trying to build from there 'cos at the moment you're completely lost.

Tell us, Joan, are you wearing your underpants on your head with two pencils stuffed up your nose?

'cos you're wibbling.

Underpants getting in the way?

Sigh! I know not why I grapple with this pig (JN), but here we go again.

No chek,

I don’t go wrong. I am asking the right questions.

Well JN that is where you are dead wrong WRT Sandy for you see, well you would have done had you bothered to look past your growing nose, you were asking the wrong question as Kevin Trenberth wrote:

According to NCAR senior climatologist Kevin E. Trenberth, "The answer to the oft-asked question of whether an event is caused by climate change is that it is the wrong question.

Found here: Framing the way to relate climate extremes to climate change you can download the PDF and the quote is found on the very first page where Trenberth continues:

All weather events are affected by climate change
because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.

Which is what has been explained to you time and time again for you have to admit to writing this:

December 2, 2012

My question was if you believe there any part of Sandy can be attributed to human CO2 emissions.

Wrongly phrased for I understand (not believe) that part of Sandy can be attributed to human CO2 emissions for reasons explained up thread and reinforced by Trenberth and also a study of the physical science.

Here is another variant from you December 5, 2012 :

We’ve seen just lately how desperately many of you want to linke [sic] Sandy to AGW, ...

A link has been established, unless of course you don't understand the meaning of your own phrases.

And here is another cracker, December 4, 2012:

But I really wonder: Why are you all so keen on having various disasters occuring?

No you dolt, this is typical denier logic fail,.we don't want these disasters to happen you muppet we are trying to help prevent them, or now being late prevent the worst of theme.

You are flailing and failing.

"
"But I really wonder: Why are you all so keen on having various disasters occuring?"

"No you dolt, this is typical denier logic fail",

I hate to contradict you Lionel, but that wasn't 'logic' of the denier kind, or any other.

It was an example of sheer batshit fruitcakery of the most insane kind. Most likely a product of the same mental disorder that likens zoology to farming, and therefore most likely the same source of support that magically (along with the magical thinking involved in 'wishing' disasters) turns up when Jonarse paints himself into the inevitable corners his crazed logic and overweening vanity leads him into.

I'm off out for the night now, but I woudn't be all that surprised to find various if not many, many love letters of support for our mentally unstable hero posted here upon the morrow.

100 times, Jonas.

I only asked for the basis of that number. And all you gave me was projection.

C'mon, J - as a scientist - how did you derive the figure of 100 times. Why should we think that Monckton knows 100 times as much as Gore and not 50 times. Or 10 times. Or some other number.

You make an assertion, but do you have any backing for it?

Even your dopey fanboi GSW thinks this is rhetoric. But would you use rhetoric, J? You're all about the facts, aren't you, But if I have misunderstood, and it was just empty posturing, just say so. I won't think less of you for admitting it. And then we can start considering your many other assertions that turned out to also be rhetorical flourishes.

I'm just trying to get to the facts here Jonas. Seems like your more interested in wafting impressive-sounding but baseless numbers about. So how do you determine "100 times"?

"that’s the imporession [sic] you gave and what I thought."
Jonas, I'm not responsible for your incorrect assumptions, so you don't need to project your error onto me. Perhaps you can (as I asked earlier) point to where I defended Gore. You can just admit you were wrong on your assumption. I won't think less of you.

@FrankD

!t's a hyperbole Frank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

"Hyperbole (play /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.[2]"

Not difficult to come to terms with I would have thought. The x100 is a hypebole and not meant to be taken literally. It's a very common form of rhetoric.

If you have link saying "error bars" should be attached Hyperboles, please post, I could do with a laugh.

Anyway, thanks for stopping bye again.

"!t’s a hyperbole Frank"

Since hypberbole is not countable, you mean "It's hyperbole".

But still the statement is wrong. Monckton is medically brain damaged. Graves disease. He was never smart before then, but he's unhinged and he's made up his past to suit what he would prefer to be (since reality doesn't matter anywhere near as much as his ego).

But if Joan's statement was hyperbole, then prove Mocnkton is smarter than Gore.

FrankD

"about 100 times" means exactly that. Look, Al Gore does not really know that much. He would look like a fool on a level playing field with almost any skeptic. He, like so many others on your side, is patently incapable of even getting the skeptic viewpoints correctly.

All he has is meomorized talkning points he doesn't really understand. Dividing anything by near zero yields high numbers. 100 times is reasonable considering his fact to nonsens/strawman ratio.

But I'm sorry to say, your 'questions' here sound ike quite boring posturing about something you clearly didn't assume was a 'scientific statement'. Why you then need to pretend it was anything else than the obvious, I don't know. But hey, this is Deltoid and the regulars pretend to be 'interested' in about anything else but the relevant and core issues ..

Regarding 'Incorrect assumptions' you get it wrong too. Firstly I was describing my thoughts, my assumptions. Just as I also stated. And correctly! Secondly, posturing people like yourself, rarely ever present what they mean or their objectivs openly and honestly.

So my assumptions are still the same. Your alleged interest in 'errorbars for that number 100', I don't give one bit for. Its all about the posturing. And this time your pretence was a relative comparison between Monckton (which many here obsess about) and Al Gore which not even I hold against you.

It is only Lionel who brings up Oreskes, Lancaster, Gelbspan seemingly unaware of that essentailly all these stories revolve around the same few bits of alleged data and allegations. Well, Jeff Harvey is obsessed too with those secret millions constantly flowing towars skepticism, and which never materialize or can be substatiated

But I agree with GSW, please continue to pretend to be interested in errorbars and stating numbers correctly or even as facts here at Deltoid. Your arguments for this 'interest' are entertaining too ...

"“about 100 times” means exactly that"

Ah, so GSW was wrong.

" Al Gore does not really know that much"

From his CV:

After achieving a 1355 (out of 1600) on his SAT, he applied and enrolled in Harvard College.

he enlisted in the U.S. Army despite his opposition with the Vietnam War. According to Gore, he felt it was his civic duty to serve his country and he ended up in Vietnam in 1971 for the last seven months of his service.

he was elected to his first term as a Representative in 1976.

He served in the House until 1984 when he ran for and won a seat in the Senate. Al Gore served as Senator from Tennessee until 1993 when he became the forty-fifth vice president.

After serving two terms as vice-president under Bill Clinton...

And he runs a company. Quite a successful one.

Now, where is YOUR CV, Joan?

Meanwhile you have ZERO experience.

Monckton claims he has cured AIDS and Graves Disease. Claims he's a member of the House of Lords and claims he was science adviser for Mrs Thatcher (a chemist) as opposed to the reality: he was there to take notes because of his Journalism experience.

Yes, the same people who bugged the phone of a grieving family to dig up dirt on the dead girl included Monckton.

"Regarding ‘Incorrect assumptions’ you get it wrong too. Firstly I was describing my thoughts, my assumptions."

Yup, they're wrong. "Incorrect assumptions". And you got it wrong there too when you claimed he "get[sic] it wrong too".

"for that number 100′, I don’t give one bit for. Its all about the posturing"

Indeed, that fiture (and indeed the claim for error bars) is all just posturing.

Because you're clueless.

"It is only Lionel who brings up Oreskes, Lancaster, Gelbspan seemingly unaware of that essentailly all these stories revolve around the same few bits of alleged data and allegations"

That's your allegation.

Indeed it is all you have: allegation.

No proof.

You don't do proof.

Because you have no proof.

"Dividing anything by near zero yields high numbers."

And a stitch in time saves nine.

However, like your statements, they bear no relation to the claims around.

Where are these divisions being made?

Oh, just another assertion. No proof.

"So my assumptions are still the same"

Yup, they're incorrect.

"Firstly I was describing my thoughts, my assumptions. Just as I also stated. And correctly!"

Moncktonian there.

Yes, you were correctly stating your statement. The statement and thoughts are incorrect.

That is correct: your statements are incorrect.

"He, like so many others on your side, is patently incapable of even getting the skeptic viewpoints correctly. "

This is because they don't say what their viewpoint is based on.

When one side is saying "So where's your evidence for your claim of a worldwide conspiracy?" and you're saying "Dividing numbers by a small number makes them bigger!!!", there's no viewpoint expressed from the deniers.

Just noise.

"All he has is meomorized talkning points"

He understands them just fine.

What makes you claim otherwise?

FrankD, it seems you have a mate who also tries to defend al Gore now ...

:-)

And where are you going with that?

Or are you being pointless again?

Problem is, see, Monckton is a paedo.

Anthony Watts helps groom for him (I mean, just look at that 'tash! It's definitely a paedo 'tash!).

As expected, the Griselda support personality has been busy.
And Jonarse, Al Gore is a politician the USA. Not a climate scientist.

Not evidence of 'big oil' buying scientists per se but nonetheless buying the policy makers to sidestep the science, which is just as heinous GOP Energy Chair Received Last-Minute Big Oil Donations After Hinting Oil Subsidies Could End

The second oldest profession in the world here, corrupt bought politicians, could be hand in hand with the first too and thus compromised. They can be viewed as different sides of the same coin.

Note post 5 by Ozonator and the reference to working in a dangerous, toxic environment. Don't I know it! Upton willing to allow 'favours' for a mere 5k, shameful. Indeed high class hookers cost more for all-nighters.

No Lionel,

'pig' and 'dolt' are not arguments either. Neither are statements by Kevin Trenberth. Trenberth btw is hardly the guy who gets to say which questions are right or wrong to ask. He was one of the early IPCC scandals about trying (falsly) attributing weather and storms to AGW. Against those who knew better.

That things change when things change is a trivial truism. Hwoever, the relevant question, the attempt to make part of Sandy attributed to humans is not.I asked that specific question to see if there were some among your not abadoning knowledge (the insight of its non existence) with faith.

You too seemed more than anything wanting to see and hoping to believe some kind of human CO2-link to Sandy. And you can't to that. Listing that there are numerous on your side, will not establish any such attribution.

Especially since there has not been any discernable trend regarding extreme events like this. Not even heatwaves are worse than corresponding to what one would expect at a slight increase in temperatures.

The whole 'extreme weather' meme is another red herring and essentially independent of what some dream might be caused by CO2 and the tmeperatures.

And no, Lionel, you cannot do any such attribution. Nobody can. And those who make claims like this are either guessing wildly, lying or just plain incompetent ...

Lionel ...

Politics are dirty, have always been. Jeffs (and others) claimed that milions were flowing to skeptical voices secretly ...

Jeffs (and others) claimed that milions were flowing to skeptical voices secretly …

Well they were correct.

But then arguing with you is like trying to nail a jelly to the wall. You duck and dive and weave around every bit of evidence placed in front of you.

Yes chek

Al Gore is a politician. Who received several awards for his mockumentary on dangerous climate change caused by 'climate pollution'.

He is a joke in this debate. By every standard. And he is a coward and dishonest too. But as I said, I don't hold Gore against you. I wouldn't even have expected anyone trying to defend his drivel (but apparently there were).

Wha'ts your point? I pointed out that many among you obsess about Monckton. And what a joke his counterpart is on your side. But I must revise that. Nowadays, Gore unsuccessfully tries to engage children scoring points in an online debunk-by-cut'n'paste-ready-phrases-game.

Not even your own side takes Gore seriously or wants him anywhere near. Well, at least not anybody with some remaining sense and integrity ...

Lionel ...

No Jeff wasn't correct, and he couldn't present äny millions either. Neither can Gore, Oreskes, Mann, and those others who incessantly speak about those 'well founded organized and orhestrated attacks on ..' what they want to portray as 'climate science'.

The real science community, which involves quite a few more than that self selected cirkle, has much more diverse and nuanced views on the topic of climate science that what you can pick up at SkSc or DeSmogBlog ...

In short: Anybody claiming anything is even closer to 'settled science' is not part of the science.

Lionel

I have opened the Trenberth-link. It's not very good. But he probaly states the things you would like to beleive in. Albeit even he is careful not to overstate his case. However, the case he is trying to make is just that: A tentative case he wants to make. And it's extremely thin. Already in the beginning he mostly needs to rely on modelling of the effects. Furhter he wants to apply his reverted version of a null hypothesesis to his arguments, he essentially gives away what he wants to accomplish. He wants to argue that others should prove that any certain event was not affected by any human part of any climate change.

Sorry, Lionel. He certainly shares your views. But demonstrating any such specific attribution he cannot do. And he even states so, ie that your:

" part of Sandy can be attributed to human CO2 emissions for reasons explained up thread "-attempt

is wonglly phrased. Now, I don't expect you to understand that or why it is so. And the fact that you try to put in a "reinforced by Trenberth and also a study of the physical science" once again shows that you rather spout words that you hope sound convincing than have the capacity to convince using reality based arguments.

By now, you should have understood that appeals to claimed authorities on your own side don't really cut it. Especially when they don't even claim what you ar trying to get across ..

The point is Jonarse is that deniers like you and all the rest have nothing to say, apart from griping about your imaginings of what science is, bitching and slandering real scientists, the attempted smearing of anyone who agrees with them or defers to their expertise, and inventing phantom ranks of imaginary 'silent majority' scientist who of course agree with you but are otherwise unknown except to the stupid and gullible that activists like you prey on .

That's what you do because you have nothing. No science and not even a coherent counter argument.

BTW Lionel

I see you are pretending to be cocky in the December thread. Along with several of those who have been cocky too before, about that AR4-claim and its alleged base on proper science.

No problem with me. I don't expect much more from the regulars here. But if you don't want to be laughed at för exactly the same reasons, you need to dp far better than that.

Bernard J really really really wants to hope that there si proper science behind his beliefs (and so do many others). But non of them can produce any. In their case, mostly because they couldn't read science either. So they really don't know. But for sure, some of them have at least attempted to find this or similar claims in the (then) published litterature. And failed. So all they have still is only hope, that somebody else has seen it and knows ...

Look Lionel, you are not in the best of positions here. Linking to DesmogBlog, to Idiot-Tracker and SkSc, referring to Gelbsan and Oreskes etc, while trying to pass off as a seasoned professional.

Aligning yourself with Bernard J on this matter surely won't help you. And any proper science for that claim, you most certainly haven't seen. Meaning: You too are hoping it to be valid in blind faith ...

JN

But he probaly states the things you would like to beleive in

No he most definitely makes statements that support the fact that Sandy was linked to global warming. No probably about it.

Also, I understand these facts it is not a belief system, that is for the dog-watchers like you.

As for 'settled science' of course in the wider context the science is not settled and nobody claims it is. What is claimed, correctly, is that enough science of climate is understood to know that we are conducting a very dangerous experiment by burning as much fossil fuel as we can.

And its not all about models, but I suppose you are an expert on those too. What sort of models are you referring to? Do you even know how models are constructed, and run. Hint, much understood physics is used for parametrization and constructing the equations at the heart of models.

Can you state supply me with some of the essential constants and how they are derived? That means state them btw.

If you cannot, or will not, understand that is your tough!

chek ..

What most of you here are arguing has nothing to do with science. And almost everythin to do with faith and religion.

I don't even know what particular part you are attacking in your latest comment. But it would suffice that you finally (almost six years later) show me that there was proper and solid science on which the IPCC built their most prominent claim upon.

That's all. Just show it if it exists. Consult as many 'climate scientists' in the world trying to help you as you please. But present it without further deflection.

But if you can't, you just can't. And neither can Bernard, Jeff, nor Lionel and all the others. Or any climate sicentist in the world. Regardless if ew use the narrow selfselected defintion or include real scientists too.

That's all there is to it.I Don't even blame you for not fininding it. I am far mor inquisitive than you ever were, and I have never seen or found anything even getting close to such science. The only difference is that I don't accept claims on pure faith.

Which scientists would I be smearing BTW? When I say that no such science exists? Because it is the other way around. No scientists have put their name behind such a specific claim, and also shown how they arrived at it .. None!

The silent majoiryt? Really? That would be your side, who regularly claim to speak for 'the scientific community', as Jeff for instance.

The whole idea, of the existance of such a unified community, and that it would take a common stance on such a unresoved issue, by it self is ludicrous ... And is only forwarded by a small number of named voices ... most of which btw know very little about the matter.

Lionel/Sandy

Yes he probably makes statements that 'support' the idea. And I even think he truly belives the existance of a connection.

But that was never the questions. From early on, I acknowledged that many on your side would like to believe such things.

But I asked if you (and Jeff, and others) thought that one can make such an attribution. Which is something very different.

I already know what people belive on your side Lionel, That's why I ask to see the science.

Re: Models, I have said plenty about those. I am not opposed at all to them. But in 'climate science' models substitute reality far to often, and are used for arguments presented on your side. Models which have almost no predictive skills ...

But if you were the seasoned professional you claimed to be, you'd of course know that already!

Yes Jonarse, your routine goes down well with the anti-intellectuals your denier base cultivates Professional scientists and those in related fields are over-reliant on models, or are over-reaching or are seeing things that aren't there or otherwise just plain wrong one way or another that's never actually specified or quantified - in your untrained, uneducated and unprofessional view.

But then, that's all you can do when you're a nobody playing the fostering doubt game without having any viable counter argument. And without that crucial ingredient, you're a nobody from nowhere with nothing.

chek

How many times have you tried calling me 'jonarse' by now? And who do think is the anti-intellectual?

I have asked you, all the others, and those you refer to as 'professional scientists' for the basis of the most prominent claim by the IPCC AR4 .. and you guys come up with repsonses like 'jonars' or 'denialist' ..

There really isn't that much to add, is there?

And mind you, I'm not fostering doubt here. I'm pointing out the bleeding obvious. Doubt is the natural state of good science, and it's not even necessary here.

And of course, we have people on your side trying to write books about 'doubt' no longer being essential in the quest for improved knowledge, that today proper trust in bureaucratic constructed 'authorities' suffices ..

Well call me old fashioned, but I still would like to see the evidence before the veridct is decided.

And also, those who decide on the veridict and think the evidence may (or may not) come in later ... they don't really convince me. About anything.

Jonas

Re: Models, I have said plenty about those.

But nothing that made any sense or indicated that you understood their function, varied depending upon the model, or anything else about them.

Once again you skated around direct questions. You have nothing just like the one interviewed here being a Wendy Wright of climate science. Note how polite the recipient of her tripe was.

You will know be know as Wendy, leader of the Wendy Club from here on in.

You will now be known as Wendy, leader of the Wendy Club from here on in. Arthritic finger trouble this damp evening.

Lionel

I don't think you've read even a fraction of this thread. So stop telling what I have not ever said. Most of you are all about attacking strawmen when you think you are talking ti 'deniers', while already that term indicates that you not really are with the program ...

I have no clue why you bring up some Wendy now? Sounds as disconnected as 'dog watch' earlier. But you where on the Oreseks/Gore/Gelspan believer side before .. weren't you?

Jonarse, calling you out for being a particularly stupid arse - so stupid it has become ingrained in your name now - is not anti-intellectual. It's public recognition of your role as an arse spraeding arseyness wherever you go in what you like to imagine is the continuation of the fine tradition of scepticism, but in your case it isn't, it's merely being an arse.

Real anti-intellectualism is exemplified by those - like you and your little support posse (chuckle) attempting to denigrate, say, zoology as 'farming', or that 'alarmists' "want" disasters to happen by predicting them. That's real stupid-arse stuff that insults the intellect.

To Jonarse's list of arse attributes I should of course add the cumulative impacts of the freely provided list of AR4 Chapter 9 papers demonstrating the human impact on climate leading to the >90% (really >95%) probability claim.agreed by the world's leading climate scientists, none of which he has any specific disagreement with (he hasn't read any of them, except when he suddenly decides he has).

Jonarse just 'doubts' it..Which is good enough for paid up shilldom everywhere, but laughable elsewhere.

chek

Some of you seemingly pride themselves for finding the AR4 WG9 references. And hope that their existence somehow make the point none of you can make, or even dare to approach.

It's quite enterteining. You, Bernard, Wow, point frantically at tht list, claim 'it must be in there, somwhere' and pretend that your 'finding that list for me' somehow shows how 'intellectual' you all are.

It's all very cute. And the contorsions you go through (and the vocabulary you use) to redifine reality is endearing ... But won't fly.

Before you handle or at least look at reality, you're still in denial

Yep, that's your one and only riff but it doesn't work because it's an argument from ignorance.

Which is why you punt it to the stupid and deluded and ignorant, and have never taken it anywhere it would make an impact if it were true.

Wrong again chek, it's definitely not my 'only riff'

But it's one so simple that even you and your cohorts can understand it, if you only let go clinging to the denial-faith, that thescience none of you (or anybody else) has never seen ...

.. after all is in there, well hidden and disguised as something else, in that long list.

And no, the calim was 90% certainty, definitely not 95%. And as we know, IPCC-90% means just nothing more than asking the claimant one extra time: 'Are you sure?'

However, in this case, not even a named cliamant ....

chek

Here is a good illustration of your own desperation. You say:

"Which is why you punt it to the stupid and deluded and ignorant, and have never taken it anywhere it would make an impact if it were true"

First, you demonstrate that it's only blind faith on your behalf, that you really don't know (and propably never have encountered anybody who knows either). Secondly, you demonstrate that this place is not capable of even addressing the obvious and very simple question: Is there a reference to that claim? And thirdly, as so many others here, you want to invent (fabricate) what I have done and have not.

It also shows how desperately you want my observation to be untrue. Just because it matters, and you know why.

But as I said, only blind faithers, or disingeneous activists make this claim nowadays. And actively chose denial and to remain ignorant after this has been pointed out to them.

BTW, I don't think all readers here are " stupid and deluded and ignorant", but I think that those who actually understand the matter (and are on your side of the climatescare belief) will keep quite about this. Since it hardly furthers that belief if discussed openly ...

That's not an answer Jonarse, you're just riffing again.

The fact is your riff only works on lamebrain deniers and you've got nowhere else to go with it . Not even your handful of sceptic scientists (Spencer/Lindzen/Curry/) will touch it because arguments from ignorance would make them look bad.

chek,

You weren't asking anything, so there is no need to 'answer' anything either. Instead I was once more explaining the landscape to you, whcih you still seem to deny and avoid through the weirdest constructs of why you should remain ignorant.

The latest attempt was to claim to speak for Curry and Lindzen!? What an utter joke you are. Do you really think that? Full blown mythomaniac? Jeff thinks he speaks for 'the scientific community' which already as a concept is idiotic in its absurdity.

The problem is that there aren't even any scientists (no non-skeptics either) who've put their name scientifically behind such that AR4 claim.

And although, you and the Jeff-Bernards of the world more than anything would like it to be differently ... you have not found any such names or publication(s). And nobody you know and ask has either ... it's just repetition of 'but there is a long list of references'

As I said, chek, you are still in denial. And your lame attempts to make me responsible for that, or for the lack of proper science is just laughable!

You, here, where you all pretend that 'the peer reviewed science' is the gold standard of truth ... have no clue. Or worse, and by now: Are in full denial!

"Instead I was once more explaining the landscape to you,"

That would be geography, Joan.

Try to stick with the program, and don't bring in side issues to cloud the fact that you're incompetent.

"Jonas N
December 9, 2012

No Lionel,

‘pig’ and ‘dolt’ are not arguments either. "

Joan, Loinal was just letting you know the facts. The facts are not an agument, the argument is supported by facts.

The fact is you're a dipshit. Dolt. Moron. Denier.

"As I said, chek, you are still in denial. "

And as we've said, you're wrong.

Wow ... pulling out 'facts' again from between his ears ... What's new?

Still getting it wrong, Jonas.

When will you ever make a correct statement?

PS your brain is between your ears.

Well, mine.

Yours? Anyone's guess.

It's a fact Jonas is wrong.

And when he says "pulling facts from your ears" he may mean "wrong" but in fact he is, yet again, wrong in that attribution.

Indeed he has two states: wrong and wrong.

Wow ... have you found any references yet, establishing that AR4 claim? Or is it still only between your ears that you can imagine there (metaphorically) is a car with specified performance among the many pieces of scrap metal that all we others both easily can find and see and identify?

Oh dear Wow, your really quite good car analogy didn't work so I don't think he's ever going to see the forest by examining individual trees either.

Between you and evreyone, I think he could, but it's his one hit riff on the bobblehead circuit that earns him that great following he's got..

So chek ..

You also think there is a car in there, among the parts, and with a very specific performance, but that this claim does not have to be detailed anyhere in particular. And the asserted magnitudes are the results of 'seeing the bigger picture, the car among all the parts, and its performance'!?

Is that your position now? Only the emporor can see the clothes?

;-)

Thing is chek, had there been any such specifics, or only claimes to what they show, we could have moved on to the next step: Examining them, to se what they are actually worth.

But since none of you even knows of an attempt to establish said specifics, we can't really scrutinize that work has been done, and to see if it holds water.

We need to 'trust' dignitaries like the IPCC or those anonymous people signing off the SPM that among all this rubble is a finely tuned car which can do things nobody else in the world manages (determine such certainties)

Sorry chekky-chap, this is not how it works in science. Especially not if you want to claim this is the best assessment available, from the best experts there are, undergoing the most elaborate peer-review ever devised ..

As long as you can't show it ... you are still only and blindly repeating it in faith.

"But since none of you even knows of an attempt to establish said specifics, we can’t really scrutinize that work has been done, and to see if it holds water".

The specifics are in the papers listed that Chapter 9 is based on.

"Sorry chekky-chap, this is not how it works in science."

Well it's not like you'd actually know, or your opinion has any value, with you not actually being a scientist and having to rely on your fantasy idea of how it works. Like most deniers in fact.

No chek, they are not!

If they were, somebody would have seen/found them by now, and one could scrutinize how the established that 90% certainty.

Before you present such work, you are just guessing and hoping blindly. In desperate .. I wouldn't even call it faith anymore since your arguments are shifting and drifting ... now it's a forrest ... and the trees somehow.

But no, real science works exactly in the way I describe it: Specific claims are presented together with how one arrived at them.

Your incessant denialist/deniar-ramblings are just idiotic .. have been the entire time. As have many of your other methods ...

You''re really just talking rubbish now Jonarse. The attribution of greater than 90% is supported by the work in Chapter 9, and likely will produce a figure with greater confidence based on more recent dataand aa longer period in AR5.

Cranks and deniers will never be convinced, nor have you produced anything of value by way of data to counter the estimation.

Other than naysaying and phoney 'arguments' about what you 'believe' science to be or should be, you had and still have nothing at all.

Chek ... show me that proper science, or admit (what you already know). There is no such science to be found. A bit of handwaiving in chapter 9, but no references.

You guys have for 1½ years been trying to evade the obvious. That you had and still have no clue ...

And most of you seem patently unable to deal with real science, don't even know what the scientific method is. On the most basic of levels, chek. Like not just inventing facts and numbers ..

All that trash talk you've been spewing doesn't change any of this. And deep down you know it. You just can't handle it ...

Jonas

Do yourself a favour, and a favour for everyone else around here, by watching this from start to finish:

Tyndall Lecture: GC43I. Successful Predictions

You do realise the significance of the name Tyndall I suppose. If not then the book mentioned towards the end 'The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast' by David Archer (Editor), Ray Pierrehumbert (Editor) will help you out.

You will hear something about the development and use of models and how disparities between model projections and recorded data were tackled and reconciled. Science is always on going as studies supply answers but pose other questions. As I wrote no body this side of the argument agrees that all the science is settled just enough of it to know that, 'Houston, we have a problem', and so will Houston as the seas continue to rise.

Now, no more prevaricating, or dodging of direct questions or asking of wrong questions which are hallmarks of the errant denier. Try learning something for once for it takes longer than a dog-watch (and I did explain to you what that was about so don't play dumb) of attention to get the bigger picture.

@Lionel

Actually Lionel, I tried to watch that yesterday and stopped. The images of Lindzen and then, Christie and Spencer with the a big red stamp of Wrong over the top was pretty bad. It's one thing having a bit of a "rough and tumble", name calling on a blog, but at a fall meeting of the AGU? Pierrehumbert doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference.

It's easy to think of a few on the Alarmist side who have been wrong, Hansens forecasts from twenty years ago for example. But he didn't get the same "Treatment", so pretty bad IMO. Crossed a line on professional courtesy there, says more about Pierrhumbert than the individuals he had a go at.

Facts always bother you, don't they Griselda?

Lindzen was wrong about his 'iris' fantasy, and Christie & Spencer's work was a disaster until RSS found what they were doing wrong and put it right.

Describing them as 'wrong'is being professionally kind; incompetent and/or misleading to cater to their political/religious views might well be closer to the truth

...and no, you can't say the same about Jim Hansen, despite what your echoing sewers lead you to believe.

@chek

It's OK chek, I know you don't understand the point being made, why should you?
;)

It's OK Griselda, I understand you don't understand your tone trolling is meaningless and factually incorrect.

Pierrehumbert doesn’t seem to be able to tell the difference.

Tell the difference between what exactly. Another example of woolly thinking from you.

As for Lindzen, Spencer and Christie the deserved those labels, why because they are still being wrong when speaking to lay audiences or in places where they are not challenged on the spot like they should be.

Indeed Lindzen is bordering on the territory of 'Not Even Wrong' as he tries to still push the message that climate sensitivity is low. There is next to no signal coming out of his noise.

In addition take note you of The Wendy Club, as you watch that Tyndall lecture presentation note the diagram that resembles the shape seen in reds here:

2012 Is The Hottest, Most Extreme Year In U.S. History,

the resemblance struck me as soon as I saw that slide in the lecture.

chek, Christy and SPencer corrected anad improved their analysis along the way, when they learnt more. I have no clue where you gor 'disaster' from, but it certainly does not reflect reality. It is probably the same stupid stuff you pick up at your activist sites.

Spencer and Christy improving their results is common practice in real science. The denial of problems of any kind is the opposite.

If you were interested in disasters, there are plenty on your side. And I don't mean honest mistakes that were promptly corrected.

Lionel, the problem for you is that there is essentially no emprical support for a high sensitivity. True, there are those who wish for it, model it. But the empirical support is scarce and of low quality. You wouldn't know that of course, since your method is to read what you want to hear and then to believe in it.

You earlier claimed to be a seasoned professional, but your arguments mostly are of the level: My dad is stronger than yours, I know, he told me so ...

Right Jonarse, so you not only deny denial exists, and deny organised funded denial exists, but you also now deny history.

Wow you really are aiming to be the denier's denier aren't you?

Well, when you've finished congratulating yourself on creating your very own space-time continuum where everything's just lovely for you and your whacko beliefs to live happily ever afte together, you might like to look up Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel (of RSS), and perhaps recall thatyour lies are easily found out, you incorrigibly stupid wazzuck.

chek, the obvious denial visible is you guys arguing there is proper science which nobody has seen or can name ..

With respect to RSS, it is true that Wentz discovered a calculation error which subsequently was corrected. This is how proper science works. It definitely was no major error, much less a disaster. But one term had the wron sign.

It is you nutters who scram 'disaster' over such things. And defend Mann's and other's shenaningans to the bitter end.

BTW, where did you pick up that this should have been a 'disaster'? Certainly you haven't checked any details for yourself (as with that infamous AR4 claim), but are repeating hysterics you found on some other screaming activis site? Exaggerating it further.

Again, you accuse me wrongly of lying when it was you who (again) was very ill informed.

BTW, these things have been covered in this thread before, remember? But probably not.

I would like to point out that you once more tried the stupid denier-label which is completely unappropriate for science, even if you disagree, and attempt to use it for those who not blindly accept your version (ie belief) in a fixed narrative.

I would call this practice stupid. Nothing else. But there seems to be a patterns.

BTW, there is no funding of 'denial' since this term only exists inside the extremely narrow mindset of activists who cannot argue their case.

BTW have you still not found that tree in the forrest you how established your beliefs?

You just can't help yourself, can you Jonarse? You don't need to lie (as you never tired of telling us ~ 2K posts ago) but you do it all the time.

chek, what is it with your screechers?

Can't argue one single point properly. Not even those cases where your side has a perspective worth discussing or investigating?

Can't represent you own views in a balanced manner?

Can't read what the other side actually says, and
Instead must invent the silliest strawmen to attack

Beliefs that a simple calculation error by someone else, somehow strengthens the hypothesis you believe in?

Incessantly scream idiot terms like 'denialist' 'arse' and the like, as part of an argument for your beliefs? Even thinking it is 'science' youäre arguing?

Making stuff up, because you would like it to be true?

Is there any end to what you will try to avoid approaching reality?

Jonarse, there's no point in arguing with a liar.
Comments rely on the good faith oif those participating - and neither you nor your any of your posse possess that.

In passing, I do wonder how many of the reality based community would recognise your little bowdlerised fable version of the Spencer/RSS saga, as relayed by a crank for cranks.. And all down to one little bitty sign, eh? I'm sure the Griselda personality at least will buy that one.

@Jonas

Your,
"Can’t argue one single point properly....."

chek's another

@Jonas

Your,
“Can’t argue one single point properly…..”

chek's another wow I'm afraid Jonas, can't actually follow what's being said. So just flaps around wildy making a noise.

@chek
The things you label "lies" are actually problems with your reading and comprehension skills.

chek, the difference between you and me is that I don't need to fake anything. I don't need to lie, or make things up, I can easily correct it those time I make a mistake. I don't think your side's hypothesis must be wrong because it attracts so many whackos, I evaluate things on their merits.

You and many more on your side on the other hand, see this as a verbal war, where any concession is an unbearable defeat. The obsessive use of the term 'denier' clearly indicates that it is a 'take no prisoners'-approach'.

At the same time when you can't argue almost any of the points. And you scream that there are references which nobody has ever seen.

This apporach is stupid beyond belief. A immature poorly developed field such as climate science will be open to al kinds of revisions and false alleys along its way. But you guys feel you have to go all in on one early attempt, and seemingly because it failed in so many ways. I would say that now you are the ones in denial ..

Now, obviously you don't know a lot about climate science, and neither about real science, you don't even understand let alone recognize a scientific argument. Activist shouting is what you are capable of. And get even angrier when you're mocked for your ineptitude. You who here (and to some extent even publicly) have the numbers on your side, and who claim to have the science on your side´, the peer reviewed literature.

But when asked where it is, you all lose it .. and start screeching. And hoping the number of other screechers confirms you ... or helps and saves you.

GSW

in one way they are cute. The have tried so many approaches, labelling with 'deniers' 'arse' and 'lier' is just one of them. Inbetween they have argued all kinds of other positions, why everybody shoud have to accept their faith, but without ever presenting an argumet för why one should. Sometimes, it is that they have a link which repeats their faith. But at the slightests counterquestion, it all falters and derails, and they are back at the stupid labels ..

They among them have slightly different styles, but they all back away before it comes to actually showing the strength of the cards. Now, their understanding of strength varies quite a lot. Some think that insults are strength, other hope that claims by 'scientists' make it science, or things stated by activist blogs, or because they can be read in a book, or listened to at a presentation.

But before it comes to any real test, they all back off and revert to that tribal groupthink ..

The most funny part I think is when I need to help them to get their own arguments right, when they don't even are aware of their own sides best and sharpest arguments, and just spew memorized phrases they hope have anything to do with it ...

:-)

Jonarse will now babble away to himself via the Griselda plug-in for a while in order to put as much space as possible up to cover his little faux pas.

@Jonas

Coincidentally I was revisiting "Groupthink" earlier. Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink, thought about Deltoids when I read it - there's a character for every one. See if I can re find it.

@Jonas

8 simple symptoms.

Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.

Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.

Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.

Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".

Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

@Jonas

"they don’t even are aware of their own sides best and sharpest arguments"

Yes, I've noticed that as well - But it wouldn't be much fun if we gave them clues as to what they were - a bit like having an argument with yourself.

There is something familiar about cheks debating style though, I'm sure I've seen it before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56HzuoajN5g
;)

My god, these two idiots talk a lot, don't they?

Pity they can only talk bollocks.

The most funny part I think is when I need to help them to get their own arguments right, when they don’t even are aware of their own sides best and sharpest arguments

For example, when they say:

there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years

,

they could actually have truthfully claimed:

there has been no global warming for almost 16 years

but as we all know, they're just a bunch of clowns.

GSW: "The x100 is a hypebole and not meant to be taken literally."
Jonas: “about 100 times” means exactly that"
Jeebus, you'd think your claque could get its story straight on one point as simple as this. GSW, your hero Jonas says his number is to be taken literally, whatever you think. But thanks for playing.

Jonas: "it seems you have a mate who also tries to defend al Gore now …"
You still can't show where I defended Gore, can you Jonas? If you could, you would. But rather than the smallest "concedo", you just have to project your own reality. And you expect to be taken seriously?

Jonas: "I don’t need to fake anything. I don’t need to lie, or make things up, I can easily correct it those time I make a mistake. "
See above. Prove it by doing it. Otherwise, you are self evidently a liar or simply delusional. Pathetic - in the literal sense. "You're a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity."

@FrankD

Only trying to help, you seemed to be struggling.
;)

Anyway you've had answer from the "Man" himself. Please be my guest...
;)

Are these two STILL coming up empty?

Ridiculous FrankD

Errorbars, or 'getting the story straight' on a colloquial figure of speech ...

Look chap, if you think I was too flattering on the Lord or too harsh on the Veep, if your ballpark figure is closer to, say 12 .. Why dont't you just say that?

And still FrankD. I did not claim you defended Al Gore, I said it looks or seems like it .. It still does. Your main motive of course is a different one. but your way of going about it is ... ehrm, well ... a bit awkward.

And seriously, you demand here on Deltoid, that things are specified, facts clearly stated, estimates accompanied by errorbars or confidence intervals? And you demand straight consistent explanations ...

And you yourself fail on these demands ...

Gimme a break ... Or straighten your act! Empty posturing is getting so old ....

Lionel, the problem for you is that there is essentially no emprical support for a high sensitivity...

I'll correct that for you, 'there is no empirical support for the low climate sensitivity favoured by such as Lindzen'. None.

As ever you phrasing is poor, for it left open the value range of 'high'.

You prove the old adage that 'one can lead a horse to water but when the horse turns out to be an ass you cannot make it drink'. It has become abundantly clear Jonas that you are too ignorant to realise how ignorant you are, you being in fact wilfully ignorant at that.

You think others are posturing and lying when in fact that describes you to a T, if only lying to yourself. This is sad for you are beyond help unless you seek professional help from the psychoanalysts and medics.

One last thought. It has been highlighted yet again, on a nearby thread, how Heartland pays for some scientists to betray their cause as the Crockford-Polar Bear study lemon shows:

Heartland Payments to University of Victoria Professor Susan Crockford Probed.

But of course you, in another fit of empty posturing, will slander that source. Which will be a stark demonstration that it is you that is getting tedious.

With that I leave you to wrestle with yourself in the mud, you empty vessel making so much noise, with no signal apparent.

Lionel A

If you claim there is no empirical evidence for low sensitivity, then you are either extremely ill informed and/or extremely unfamiliar with the topic or just in outright denial ..

I would assume a bit of all those parts, Lionel ..

You can for instance look at the simulations of responses to volcanos, where the models react far more violently than observations. Or you can observe what has happened for the last ~150 years or so, to make simple estimations. And you can do quite a lot more, a bit more detailed work and arguments about why. The high sensitivity, almost always is derived using model simulations to and fitted to very limited constrained datasets.

I watched some of the videos and links you provided, but got bored pretty quick. None of them (afik) addressed the real problemativ issues and questions. It was just a repeat of the saga we hear, it was the usual stuff put out to support the hypthesis, but without really testing it trying to evaluate its consistent usefulness.

You then go on about a lot of invectives that have nothing to do at all with any such topic. Those make you look like the likes of Wow or chek. You at least seem more capable of writing sentences wich form a meaning. I'd suggest you stick to that (and leave the idiotic ranting to those who believe that this is their best argument).

Wrt to Crockford, I don't even see the point. Firstly it is peanut crumb money, secondly it is from a think tank and to a different field than skepticism of (C)AGW, Thirdly, you have not even come close to establishing that Heartland "pays for some scientists to betray their cause" and neither have you demonstrated that it is a lemon. (And no, neither DeSmogBlog nor Jeff H opinions are valid debunkings). I haven't even bothered to check out that story, because it again is so irrelevant to the core issues. And it bears all the hallmarks of climate scare activists running amok again over somebody not singing their tune ...

And why would anybody do that?

Bring out the ones (on your side) who can argue their position without such displays if infantile spouting and other childish behaviour.

That goes for you (of course) but also for those whom you would like to portray as serious debaters of your sides version.

And No. DeSmogBlog most certainly is not among them. The very link you provided demonstrates this almost immediately. as I said, those who feel that the need to label others as 'denialists' etc are most definitely not the source of any knowledge or balanced or even one-sided but objective information.

It's once more shouting feast littered with:

"climate denying Heartland Spinstitute"
"on the denier dole at Heartland"
" has a history of denying climate science"
" speaker for its anti-science International Climate Science Coalition"
"Heartland's Denial-a-Palooza"

Well, you call this 'a soruce'!? Well, I think these guys are idiots, and cannot believe that any seasoned professional would consider what they say to be taken seriously.

No sorry Lionel A. This kind of stuff seems to be the main 'source' of your understanding about both the debate and the issues (both policy- and science-wise).

No wonder you have to fill your comments with that much activist lingo and misconceptions.

"And no, neither DeSmogBlog nor Jeff H opinions are valid debunkings"

How the hell would you know? Or are you now an expert on the population ecology of polar bears? Next you'll be telling me you are revising Stephen Hubble's Neutral Biodiversity model. Crockford is a pseudo IMHO. She has 19 publications and 49 citations in her career. A pittance. Nowhere in her research resume is there anything close to her doing anything related to the study of large wild quadrupeds. And for a scientist with her lack of pedigree, 750 dollars is not a tiny amount; I could support 3 Masters Projects on it, meaning 3 publications. Of course, Jonarse, you wouldn't know about any of that, your not being a scientist and having published zippo in your non-scientific career.

You claim not to have seen the video then say that my debunking is invalid. Bullshit. My debunking is categorical. There's nothing about recruitment, temporal lag effects or per capita fitness. End of story. And the fact that Crockford speaks at a shindig funded by two fossil-fuel funded shindigs is the clincher. If she had any common sense she'd distance herself from their stinking money and affiliation.

I now try and refrain from writing into a thread dedicated to a full blown nincompoop. But that arrogant noncompoop tends to cross the line all the time. Listen J: you can't stand in a room with me when it comes to science. And especially anything realted to ecology. Stick with basket weaving or whatever it is you do. And by defending the Heartland Institute, all you do is make yourselof look even more like a right wing loony than you already do to most posters here.

Man, however obvious you make it they still can't help themselves walking straight into it

Jonas then: “about 100 times” means exactly that”
Jonas now: "... on a colloquial figure of speech …"

Now Jonas can't even agree with himself! LOL!

"Why dont’t you just say that? "
Why would I say that when not saying it means I get watch you turn yourself inside out trying to both deny it and defend it. Too funny!

Jonas:"And you demand straight consistent explanations … And you yourself fail on these demands … Gimme a break … Or straighten your act! Empty posturing is getting so old "

Says the guy who has nothing on Deltoid but 18 months of inconsistency and empty posturing. It's like he's looking in a mirror and doesn't recognise himself! Even birds can do that, Jonas, even birds. Christ, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

No, I tell a lie, it is funny. You're completely hopeless Jonas...do continue...

my italics bad..hopefully this will fix.

Jeff

I know that you cannot keep one argument straight in your head. I know this from empirical observations over 1½ hear now. You know: Empirical evidence! That you, in your compulsive desire to denigrate those who not blindly share your beliefs, make essentially every logical fallacy in the book. You who feel compelled to spout 'denier' 'idiot' 'moron' 'mentally insane' etc almost every time you inhale, and you do inhale a lot ..

What I was saying is that Lionel can't use you as an authoritative source for anything about those he calls 'deniers'

Essentially what I'm saying is that you are patently incapable of keeping your head straight and level. (And I have 1½ years of data to back this up, Jeff).

I am not an "expert on the population ecology of polar bears", and have neither claimed to be. I even pointed out that I haven't bothered to delve into the matter. But neither is Lionel and I pointed out that his 'debunking' which he too seemed extraordinarily sure of was based on extremely one sided activist sources (which didn't even address that issue). Regarding your 'debunking' I have not seen that (nor what you are debunking) but again it sounded like you attacked all kinds of other things not really central (as with Lomborg).

And again, you start rambling with your CV, it seems to be a pissing contest to you, as you so aptly described it in one of your earliest comments to me. But the only skunk in the room is the CV-pissant ...

Regarding the science: I am standing in the room with you. and explaining the basics to you. On the very simplest matters to start with. Like not inventing 'facts' because thei fit your story.

Mind you, it's you who mostly stays or sneaks away. And when you are here (or are shouting from you padded zone) you are hardly ever debating anything wrt to science. It's mostly shouting, angry feet stämping, and ridiculous CV-waiving.

As I said, mostly you cannot even get what others say correctly. Not even after being reminded repeatedly.

And you seem to be totally forgetting that it's the nutters who are obsessed with Heartland. They state openly what they do, and do it. No need to defend anything there. But apparently enough to make a lot of you lose badly.

And finally Jeff, those millions secretly funnelled to 'climate deniers', where are they? Is this yet another display of you being absolutely terrible with handling numbers?

FrankD

I realize, here at Deltoid, the simplest things can be unsurmountably difficult. You tried to argue that my statement should be presented scientifially correct and with error margins, or understood in such way:

"C’mon, J – as a scientist – how did you derive the figure of 100 times"
"Please provide evidence for your assertion"
"What are the error margins?"
"If this is just your opinion, surely you should have been explicit about that"

Now I can see two (mutually exclusive) possibilites here:

1) The person asking believes that every word spoken/written here is to be taken as a scientifically full and correct presentation of the topic, and that 'knowledgable' is a scientifically well defined measurable scalar quantity, and that 'about 100 times' means a derived number. And is incapable of recignizing colloquial language on a blog. Or

2) He does not hold such beliefs, and is aware of how discussions on blogs go. But still felt he had to push exactly that ...

It's either one or the other, Frank. Neither of them is very impressive ...

Forbet the my damned CV, will you Jonas?!!! I was just saying that you disagree with me for the sake of it. If I say its sunny you'll say its rainiing. If I say its warm you say its cold. If I say polar bears are white you'll say they aren't. And so it goes.

Crockfords talk was poor in my opinion. Why would she, of all people, delve into this issue unless there was some alterior incentive? Bjorn Lomborg suggested a few years ago that polar bears are under no threat because they would, in his opinion, 'adapt to a reduction in sea ice by becoming more terrestrial, like their brown bear cousins'. Seriously, he said this. I am sure because I would argue that its nonsense you would opt to agree with him. But of course we are talking about a highly K-selected species at the end of the food chain with a very slow genetic turnover. Perhaps house flies could adapt in a century or two but a large, long-lived quadruped with very long generation times? Forget it.

This is the garabge that is spewed out endlessly by the think tank brigade and from denier sites. And you appear to go along with it. But my CV has nothinbg to do with it. However, I am trained in population ecology and that should matter, whether or not you like to know it. As for funding, how much do you think the PR industry, the think tanks and the astroturf groups are worth? Ever hear of Edward Bernays? Knbow anythign about Burson-Marstellar, Hill-Knowlton, Porter-Novelli, Ketchum, Shandwick, Edelman, et al? How much these companies are worth? Who many of their most important clients are? What about the hundreds of libertartian think tanks? Who funds them? Why?

What's seriously annoying is that you don't appear to know anything about lobbying, the history of PR, and the underlying motives for hiring third parties. Thsi enables you to forever play dumb with the facts with respect to corporate agendas. The "I don't know, therefore its all nonsense" approach.

Corporations are legally obliged to maximize profits for their shareholders. Failure to do so will have seriious repercussions for them. They see the imposition of regulations as a profound threat to the way that they do business. Therefore, they see investing large sums in influencing public policy decisions as a good investment. This explains why huge sums are invested through multiple channels in anti-environmental PR.

But I am sick of saying this. I've read volumes on the damned subject over the past 20 years. What we see in reality is the tip of a disinformation iceberg. You don't believe it. TOUGH. Frankly, Jonas, I don't really give a damn what you think. If you feel that the fossil fuel lobby is tirelessly looking for the truth and is open and honest in tis dealings and does not influence policy decision making, then goodie for you. You can live in your myopic world. But I don't.

Jeff ...

Your reading skills are extremely poor, and combined with at the same time imagining (fabricating) things out of thin air, just because you want them to be i a certain way ..

.. make you a terrible debater, and an extremely unreliable source of anything, be it just information or reference to som science, or a book you've read or video you've seen.

What I said, and what I'll say again is that no one should take your word for anything about how bad a person or his/her work is when you at the same time want to lable them as 'denier' or any of your endless smears about such ..

I have here 1½ years of data to support my observation that you are not capable of correctly respresenting others and what they say and claim. Not!

This is different from saying that everything you say therfore also must be wrong. That would be unscientific. But using and heavily relying on data known to be corrupted would also be ..

You say that her talk was poor in your opinion. And I believe you. You have been very consistent about where your opinions land when describing non-alarmists/activists. And extremly inconsistent with the facts (and fabrications) on the way to get there, Jeff. That's what I'm saying.

Maybe here talk was poor (haven't seen it), maybe it had som points and others were qestionable. However, I would never take your sole word for it, but instead assume it was yet another emotional knee-jerk reaction. Particularly since you again felt it necessary bring up your CV and her's too. And then you start about 'some alterior incentive' which is your second meme. But again only on one side of the debate.

It's good that you are trained in population ecology (I am not), but very strange that you then spend 1½ year telling me both what and who I am, am not, and how wrong I must be on anything else. While not addressing what I say, and instead inventing all kinds of stuff. The impression Jeff, is that you aren't really trained at behaving like a scientist. Here, you for certain haven't. Almost never.

Wrt to lobbying I think you are very ill informed. Of course there is plenty of lobbying, but industry and capitalism is not interested in libertarian policy. And lobbying is directed at those in power. And from both sides. Your argument here wrt climate science is extremely weak. I would say that there is far more lobbying affirming the 'needs for climate investments' than for the no-need version.

You go on about the disinformation, but can never present any of that. All you do is shout that somebody not agreeing with your (often very narrow minded) narrative therefor must be, not only dead wrong, but a lying shill for paid illicit interests, or something similar. It's just a very immature understanding of people. And of course a vew which is applied extremely onesided to the issue. With almost total blindness towards the other side.

And I really don't understand what it is with your constant and massive strawmen-production?

"If you feel that the fossil fuel lobby is tirelessly looking for the truth and is open and honest in tis dealings and does not influence policy decision making ..."

Who makes up this stuff for you? I expect industries trying to make money from producing and selling their products. And look after their interests in general. And of course having opinions about policies that affect them.

"tirelessly looking for the truth and is open and honest in ..."

What drivel is this Jeff? Who has ever believed that lobbying is about something else? WHich part of politics is it you don't understand? Do you really believe that one side is pure as driven snow, and all the dirt is on the other side Jeff?

And still, this has nothing to do with what is being debated here (when some of you actually do debate). The fossil industry doesn't have a dog in the climate fight, they will profit from many stupid descisions. And when it comes to actual policy descisions, your side of the trench is the baddie ... those banks who want to administrate carbon trading, or receive subsidies for windfarms, solar, etc. Because receiving money that way is so much easier than earning it by selling something worth its price ..

Finally: Whenever you use 'denier' or 'anti-science' or even 'anti-environmantal' as part of your argument, you display that you have no better arguments. It's only stupid labelling of things you don't like. And there is so much you don't like Jeff ... and don't understand.

I even think there is a connection

Jeff contd.

You write in your padded zone that:

"I am sick of the mega-troll" referring to me.

Well, I would rather call mosts of those trolling on your side the trolls. You included. Just look at their language (your's included)

But you also write that this AR4 90% figure was essentially something made up for 'policy makers' and "I said, the figure is purely to give the public and especially policymakers some kind of estimate"

And you are (very likely) correct that some would have liked that number to be even higher. You say it was 'sceptics' who held them back, and if so that would have been the scientifically prudent way or at least direction to pull in.

But you completely lose it again (scientifically) when you say that this number (90%) was arrived at and based on the degree of (self selected) consensus.

Jeff Harvey:

Certainties, or error margins, or confidence intervals about an observation and about what may have caused it are never, I repeat never established this way!

The nmber of agreeing voices/opinions/experts is something completely different than evaluating statistical claims of confidence.

It seems that your first part is fairly correct (the expert opinion, in a negotioation with others), but you are wrong if you think that "anybody could see that"

And you are very wrong when subscribing to chek's or Bernard's version of 'its in there, but it just can't be seen' and nobody has to have seen it ...'. Again, that would be anti-science.

You want to settle this by just proclaiming: "But the 90% figure IS ... based on a a summary of the hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in support of AGW. End of bloody story! "

Again, you display how little real scientist there is in you. You argue, that if only sufficiently many agree, or publish various studies not disagreeing with the hypthesis, this strengthens the hypothesis, and increases the certainty of its claims!

That's scientific trash Jeff. Activist PR-lingo, yes. But not anywhere near any real science. And you are way out of your leage here. And moreover, you should know this by now!

I seem to recall not many months the New Zealand Crank Science Coalition put up a foaming crank similar to Jonarse here, puffed up with righteous indignation about what science was and how it should be done.

After ascertaining there was neither professional experience or qualification or relevant education the judge told the self-appointed 'expert' to take a walk as his 'evidence' (such as it was - the usual denier tripe) was inadmissible.

I expect the denial dens failed to report how unimpressed the rest of the world is with ten-a-penny amateur super-scientist cranks.

thanx for sharing, chek ..

But if I really was that crank, then surely you would have come up with something, anything better than telling me what you blindly believe is established by those whom you blindly believe are the only experts allowed to say anything ... and even expect to be accepted as 'truth' without presenting the data or the work ..

Ah, but you HAVE been presented with the data AND the work in that long list of papers that Chapter 9 is based on, kindly provided by the IPCC and refreshed for you very, very recently by Wow and Lionel..

You sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la no data or work', doesn't alter the fact you're a moron who will not bother reading them, or - more to the point - understand them.

chek, there have been numerous types on your side who've said: 'But there are references, a long list of them'. And have hoped that this settles anything, even tried triumphantly '.. but yoyr were too stupid to find them' (or that this gets them of the hook for some time, in a debate).

We've been over this. Unless there is real science establishing, or at least attempting to establish those specified levels, unless there exists such published science, it doesn't exist.

Now chek, scientific publishing, and referencing, is done for a certain purpose; So hat it can be found!

Simple as that! If it exists (existed in 2007) it can be found. The only tiny little detail would be to actually find it. And I have been looking and asking. And haven't found any of it. Neither has any single body on your side. None!

The assertions by you and others, that is in there (without knowing, without having actually seen read and preferably understood too) mean absolutely zip. Its just brainless chatter (and unsubstantiated belief in unnamed authority).

And that's what you, wow, Bernard, and a whole lot of others have shouted here for 1½. Your beliefs and emotions.

The whole excecise of reposting long lists you haven't read is nonsense. I have read quite a few of them, glanced through more. None of the ones pointed out to me have been even close. Haven't even made that claim. You and Bernad counterfactually claiming the opposite doesn't change it. It just shows your desperation.

And the fact that I wouldn't understand real science when I read it, compared to the lot of you whose 'strongest argument' seems to be 'Jonarse' and the like is just laughable.

Your last comment once more demonstrated that this is your belief:

"but you HAVE been presented with the data AND the work in that long list of papers that Chapter 9 is based on, kindly provided by the IPCC"

Thing is still: No one knows were those specific AR4 claims came from. Certainly not any of those who try to mouth off here, and just as you say:

"sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting ‘la la la [it's all there] data [and] work’"

FYIO I will not be discussing anything with you:

BBC Earth The Climate Wars 1 of 3 Battle Begins.

Note one early take home point is that when new data came in Schneider changed his mind - good science by a good scientist.

@Lionel

Schneider never changed his mind! He always thought the planet was screwed! The only thing that changed were his reasons for thinking it. Perfectly happy switching between screwed Scenario A to screwed Scenario C, the "We're OK" Scenario B was never an option for him. What a good scientist, whatever the evidence (or lack of) he "knows" it's bad.

You stick to your riff Jonarse, after all it's all you know and all you've got. It'll maybe be good for a support cabaret gig at Montford's incensed retirees' shack every once in a while.

"I have here 1½ years of data"

Yawn. Jonas the bore. Note how his posts are becoming more and more like polemical rants.

Before you bust an artery, Jonas, sit down and pour yourself a stiff drink. Chek has you figured out completely. You come across as a mouth foaming, rabid nutter. Well done.

As far as corporate lobbying is concerned, its no use discussing this with you. You know even less about this than about most other subjects, and that's saying a lot. You camouflage your rank ignorance in verbosity. I'm not wasting any more valuable time watching you writhe in the quicksand over this one.

@Jeff

Bye Jeff, again. Don't bother coming back to this thread until you have some empirical evidence to present. You'll be missed.
;)

@All

Sorry chaps, if I could summarize where we are upto;

We’ve arrived at the conclusion that there is no empirical evidence behind the Sandy attribution claim.[At least as far as anybody here is aware]

We’ve arrived at the conclusion that there is no empirical evidence behind the AR4 attribution claim.[At least as far as anybody here is aware]

But you guys go around trumpeting these things as undeniable fact! The Science says etc... when it does no such thing!

It's "Faither's" that believe without evidence. Read the 8 symptoms of Groupthink again - it's you lot to a Tee.

GSW,

Ah, Jonas' little ego wart. The empirical evidence was presented in the lists provided by Bernard, Chek and Lionel. Guess you and your hero can't read. I have yet to see much of anything from his Royal Highness except lengthy rants about how much he understands science better than anyone else and thus deserves reverential respect. As Chek said, a one riff man; AR4/90%. A broken record. I prefer heavy thrash metal riffs which have some ooomph.

Of the smidgeons of data you have contributed, some was embarrassingly made up from the top of your head (the amphibian stuff) and the other garbage - like Crockford's wretched lecture - I suspect you gleaned from Climate Depot or some other abominable site. Truth is your 'science' is even more of an embarrassment than your hero's - if indeed that is possible.

@Jeff

"how much he understands science better than anyone else"

He understands it better than you jeff, as does my daughter's hamster.
;)

GSW ...

It seems that chek's argument now is:

'I and all the others on my side have now denied the non-existence of any proper science establishing those two most prominent specified (quantified) AR4 claims for so long, you reminding me/us/everybody of that non-existence is an old boring riff ...

Jeff tries something similar but more wrt to his own fact and strawman fabrications ... He's done it for 1½ years, so why shouldn't he continue?

And there is more of the nonsense: 'chek has figured me out ... ' and that's a new reason why the IPCC in 2007 was allowed to just make numbers up.

Other versions have been:' I speak for Lindzen, Curry and Spencer .. and they all think you're embarrassing'.

Completely laughable! For me stating the obvious: They all are just blind believers ...

Jeff tries once more the obviously false: "You know even less about this than about most other subjects, and that’s saying a lot"

Jeff. who says he teaches classes where he spouts his invented nonsense (about me, he promised). They guy is all about inventing his own world, where he holds all the truths and his CV is the proof of all of them ...

Sounds more than a little bit wacko to me ..

Jeff, now your being and idiot. Bernard, chek and wow have not read those lister papers and certainly not claimed those specified levels were established in any spcific one of them. they're just blowing smoke. Louminous B and Martin Vermeer at least specified some references, which however not made any such claims based on any presented work.

How you can call no-show 'evidence' is beyond me. Only ignorant activists try such things. Certainly no scientists, and I don't even have to restrict myself to the ´'real' variety among them.

Your claim that long lists wich do not contain any 'evidence' are the evidence is beyond the stupid. But unfortunately, it's what you are about. Nonsens sputtering whenever you don't have a clue .. which is essentially every time you stray outside your field (inside, I haven't checked yet, but I don't expect higher standards from you there)

Actually no, Griselda. What we're seeing here is the pathological state of denialism which intently focuses on single aspects and hopes the bigger picture will go away.

Thus by way of analogy, you bray that cancer cannot be linked to any single cigarette, as Sandy can't be attributed to AGW and there is no formula for attribution.

But actually the conditions that caused Sandy can be shown to be what is predicted in a warming world, along with all the other extreme weather events we've experienced globally this past decade. And the particular subjects covered by the papers in AR4 Ch9 in aggregate can lead to a high degree of statistical probability.Though not necessarily to any old Tom, Dick or self-proclaimed expert such as you and Jonarse.

But you morons just keep your attention on that one proverbial tree. It isn't changing much at all. But Burnham Wood is coming to burn down your castle.

@chek

"But actually the conditions that caused Sandy can be shown to be what is predicted in a warming world"

Ah, I see were you've gone wrong. The conditions that caused Sandy are "consistent" with a non warmed world also. Therefore it is not evidence of anything. Hope that helps.

"He’s done it for 1½ years, so why shouldn’t he continue"

Gee Mr. one riff, you are obsessed with that figure. Is it your age? And don't flatter yourself, Jonas. I wouldn't break wind at a lecture I give in discussing an anonymous entity like you. You see, nobody worth anything has ever heard of you. Your shrinking fan base here is down to 1.5. a figure you seem ever so fond of.

Then this from super-schmuck: "He understands it better than you jeff, as does my daughter’s hamster".

According to who? You? N=1? Ha! That's a hoot. With your lack of acumen and insidious logic? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Your hero has no pudding; no papers, no lectures, no nothing. Just vacuous rants on a little blog.

Try harder, man! You can do better than that!

Tell us all you can about the many,many1000 mile diameter superstorms that have hit the Eastern Seaboard in late October that you're implying like the reflexively ignorant twat you are Griselda. And keep focussing on that single event just as I predicted your mental condition would dictate.

chek, you talk about 'the bigger picture', and that's another one of your sides memes. Essentially it says: OK, we don't really know that much about anything, but everything we don't know points in our direction, and whenever we see anything, it confirms all of the above ...that anything goes.

I don't need to call this 'denialism', its just weirdo relgion. But it seems to be a very important part of your lifes ..

Just as you say: Many repetions of something non-established can lead to a high degree of established certainty ..

Itäs wacko-science, if anybody claims this as a scientist. And fortunately only nutters really try this. Unfortunately, some of them have PhD:s and even waive them in reinforcement ...

@Jeff

I thought you'd gone, ego bruised, never to return.

"Your hero has no pudding; no papers, no lectures, no nothing."

No pudding? You have had an odd education in the sciences. Anyway, with Christmas coming up, how do you know he has "no pudding"?

Jeff .. In any scientific debate I would crush you. Completely! You have no idea at all what science is about. How things are established and knowledge moves forward. None!

That a (non-) fact inventing fabricator even starts mouting off about logic is a total farce.

And Jeff, you've been given so many hints not to continue making a fool of yourself, its amazing that you try even harder ...

But I guess thatäs who you are. Look at the ones here who have sided with you. You even bring them (and their numbers) up as support. Characters who can write 'Jonarse' many many times. But only repeat their blind beliefs. Or spout nonsense in small incoherent bursts like Wow. Or Lionel who gets his facts from DeSmogBlog who are worse than you lot. What's that? N=3?

Well if you are that many, why don't yuu prove me wrong on the most basic topic I've been chasing you about: That AR4 claim. Instead of just repeating your fairy tales about the hidden trassure nobobdy has ever seen, and that everybody who has (as you are certain about) made a wow never to reveal to anyon otside the trusted circle ... Which you apparently don't belong to.

The idea of something nobody can point at being 'the evidence' is nothing more than the emporors non-existing clothes ..

Jeff you ferrocious CV-waiving PhD, claiming to be a 'scientist' ..

I also wonder how you established your oft repeated claim that I have no pudding? And all the other versions of the same story you've tried? How did you establish that?

I have been whipping your ass around here, wrt to what real science says, can say and cannot. And making shreds of many of your claims, often by only pointing to your won words.

You look like a little schoolboy to me, who is angry and emotional, but cannot show that his claims are correct. On the contrary, he is so angry because he has been proven wrong so many times and so definitely ..

How did you establish all those claims you've made about me, failed schoolyard bully Jeff?

How?

@Jonas

You've definitely got a pudding then Jonas? Good. Jeff had me concerned you were going to be puddingless over Christmas. Glad that's sorted, we can all rest easy now.
;)

Jonarse, before your meds overdose fully kicks in, I'll remind you that neither you nor your plug-ins have yet provided one scintilla of evidence for any single one of your increasingly grandiose and self-aggrandising claims.

The only thing that you've made at all plain is that you aren't fit to lick the boots of the most junior faculty assistant's assistant intern that contributed in their small and humble way to AR4. At least they achieved something, as opposed the the incredibly obese big fat zero that epitomises your life so far..

chek, your are borderline-Jeffie now with your fantasies. Either it's in there. And everyone can look at it, or we have the nutters brigade claiming that the eating of the forrest is in the trees, or the high performance car is in blindly swallowning the scrap metal cars ..

And you seemt to argue now, that all those other publications (which don't establish said AR¤ claims) have avhieved something, in contrast to me!?

And you established this how? By Jeffie-style borderline introspection?

You all .. all of you who proudly have proclaimed things like 'science on your side' and back to the 'peer reviewed litterature' and 'scientific community' and 'consensus' and all that ..

... you have after 1½ years of searching or hoping that somebody else will, found and come up with ...

absolutely zip!

About the most prominent claim made by the IPCC in 2007. Zero! Nilch! Nada! And this, according to your own grandiose logic, is my fault some 5½ years later.

Congratulations! Your logic is truly innovative and new .. never before seen by humanity.

And you now pretend to be a boot licking expert too, chek? Really?

:-)

Correction:

or we have the nutters brigade claiming that the eating of the forrest is in the trees, or the high performance car is in blindly swallowning the scrap metal parts..

"Either it’s in there. And everyone can look at it"

To correct your fallacy, what you actually should say is "Everyone with the qualifications, experience and intelligence".

Without all three, the numbers are meaningless, and that's where you've failed everytime on all three counts. Disappointing as it must be for a raging egotist like you, the fact is you're not quaified Jonarse.

Montford's farm entertainment is the highpoint of your future, m'lad.

@All

Reposting this from earlier in an attempt to arrive at a concensus, before we were side tracked on to puddings which I still maintain is a "non issue".

We’ve arrived at the conclusion that there is no empirical evidence behind the Sandy attribution claim.[At least as far as anybody here is aware]

We’ve arrived at the conclusion that there is no empirical evidence behind the AR4 attribution claim.[At least as far as anybody here is aware]

But you guys go around trumpeting these things as undeniable fact! The Science says etc… when it does no such thing!

It’s “Faither’s” that believe without evidence. Read the 8 symptoms of Groupthink again – it’s you lot to a Tee.

Purely an afterthought Jonarse (and this can include any of your plug-in support personalities) link me to one conversation anywhere on the internet you've had with an accredited scientist, or a publication presented, where you haven't been dismissed as a crazy-cracker whang-bang within five hundred words.

I'm betting someone with your obviously self-honed and highly self-regarded skillset and erudition has never managed it. Ever.

Aww, c'mon Jonarse. There must be many occasions where you've had cause to point out to professional scientists where they're getting it all wrong. Or is it just climate scientists that you conveniently (bearing in mind the proven well-funded campaign against them) have issues with, while woefully lacking in education or expertise yourself? Not like that's ever deterred a crank!

Come now Jonarse don't be shy. Someone with your giant ego must have been raliing against poor professional standards for years now in a whole host of scientific fields... yes?

No, I didn't think so either.

Jesus, those two clowns take a hell of a lot of time to say bugger all.

They don't even manage bollocks any more, their posts are now completely content free.

I guess they found that even the tiniest bit of actual information detracts from their religious mantras.

We can believe GSW, who's never said anything sensible, or we can believe BoM:
"Tropical cyclones derive their energy from the warm tropical oceans"
And NASA:
"extra-tropical cyclones are fueled by sharp temperature contrasts between masses of warm and cool air."
and NOAA
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tafb/atl_anom.gif

Or, as summarised by a respected professional:
"The sea surface temperatures along the Atlantic coast have been running at over 3°C above normal for a region extending 800 km off shore all the way from Florida to Canada. Global warming contributes 0.6°C to this. With every degree C, the water holding of the atmosphere goes up 7%, and the moisture provides fuel for the tropical storm, increases its intensity, and magnifies the rainfall by double that amount compared with normal conditions. Global climate change has contributed to the higher sea surface and ocean temperatures, and a warmer and moister atmosphere, and its effects are in the range of 5 to 10%."

Where does that leave GSW and his ineffectual blathering?

chek, you're not making any sense and you are changing your story (if there ever was a coherent one)

Obviously I am right about:
“Either it’s in there. And everyone can look at it”

Your reply:
"To correct your fallacy, what you actually should say is “Everyone with the qualifications, experience and intelligence”.

would imply that all of you here (and everywhere else) who have tried identifying the science behind them AR4 claims lack those requirements.

"Without all three, the numbers are meaningless"

Oh certainly, numbers are meaninglsess to quite a lot of you. But you don't even know what papers supposedly contain those numbers. You are still just guessing and hoping in blind faith (or rather desperation by now).

To me, numbers matter. And that's why I have been asking to see them. And as I said: “Either it’s in there. And everyone can look at it ...”

You still seem to be in denial about reality, chek ... And in your latest attempt to get around it you disqualified all I've ever asked "on all three counts"

Wow, you were saying something about 'content free comments' and 'religious mantras'!?

Have you found the car yet? Among those random pieces? And what it's capable off? Or was that just another content free guess conforming with your relgious beliefs?

Don't answer. It was a rhetorical quesstion ....

:-)

PS Wow, that means that the answer is obvious

@Vince

Thanks Vince, if you'd been paying attention you would have known we already did Trenberth. Your "Mystery" professional.

Another content-free contribution from GSW that doesn't even attempt to grapple with anything substantive.

Does warm water feed cyclones?
Is the Atlantic warm?

Are the BoM, NASA, and NOAA all completely ignorant and does the thoroughly unqualified GSW know way more than they do?

These are the questions that your delusion prevents you from answering.

Dumber than Bolt.

@Vince

Quick catch up for your on attribution of Sandy; Trenberth's view that it isn't the right question - well, unfortunately it's the one being asked. Trenberth's musings on a different question are of no doubt of interest to him, but of no interest to those seeking a nod (or otherwise) on attribution.

Another way of posing this to you, if we can't detect any increase in the intensity of hurricanes and we don't get more of them, what difference does it make to anybody? The world is as it was! No matter what Trenberth's answer to a different question says.

Quick catch-up, you insist that it is answered.

How come you believe Trenberth here but nowhere else?

Another content-free wibbling from the dumbest of the dumb.

NO holds barred among the portentologists I see. :-D The fired-faced and CV-waiving climate scare geezer is really hitting it off sticking to hos fantasies and infantile conspircies instead of adressing topics from the real world.

And his arm candy follow suit trying to patch up their damages egos with insults and more fantasies. :-D

Another illiterate cement-headed post from Olaus. No surprise there.

If one hasn't got a clue about something, then demean and ridicule it. Its what the unholy trinity have mastered on the asylum thread. None of them have read anything on the topic of lobbying, therefore it doesn't exist.

Talk about stupid.

More for The Wendy Club to take note of, I will ignore non sensible replies from their direction:

Interview: ‘Chasing Ice’ Star James Balog Talks Art, Science, Rationality, And Climate Denial.

You see it matters not how you try to distort the real message nature will always do what nature does, as Richard Feynman pointed out in his Challenger shuttle disaster report. And when you poke nature with a big stick (elevated GHG levels from human activities) the nature will, respond and is doing just that.

I have been following the work of Balog and Extreme Ice Survey for some time now and their pictures are proof that it isn't all about sensible heat.

The Wendy Club can shout and scream all they like but their case is empty. And how many direct questions has the circus troop leader now evaded? I doubt he knows, not being able to count into two digits. What a shower of jerks!

VInce W

You haven't been paying attention, have your?

You post som trivial facts about storms being driven by temperature differences and such, which nobody ever doubted, and which has been the reason as long as there has been weather .. You link to some colourful graphic purporting to show temperature anomalies, and regionally (already a reason to be wary. And further to copy (anonymously) to some text by Trenberth who firstly already is know for making unwarranted links to storms, but which secondly deals with something different:

Even if the Trenberth-claims are highly speculative and not very accurate (about the numbers), he is speaking about global warming, very carfully avoiding to talk about any possible anthropogenic part of it. Same goes for his sealevel arguments (which is truly pathetic). Meaning that his hypothesized percentage claims would be barely detectable. But more specifically, he doesn't even try to link Sandy or part of it to human CO2. He just does the usual handwaiving, underlining and omitting the relevant words to give the impression of something other than he can support.

And still, these are his opinions, and the attribution of any of this, of numbers, is not established by opiniong about them. Not even 'expert-opining', and particularly not exrrets who have been playing fast and lose with the truth before on the very same subject, Vince ...

But had you been pying attention, you could have picked all this up already before. And as you might know (and I've been pointing out here, for 1½ years) in real science you have to pay attention to the details, all the details. If you can't even read simpler statements (like yours) correctly, you will inevitably go astray .. especially if the purpose was to give you another impression than what can be supported.

VInce W

You haven’t been paying attention, have your?

Now I am not replying to you but at you. There is a subtle difference, one that you probably won't grasp, but that's your problem.

When all one gets is 'white noise' one filters it out. You use so many, many words to say nothing of value and that is 'white noise'.

And I notice that our friend Jeffie, in his padded zone, once again tries to defy the gravity of reality. First he thinks chek has come with som brilliant deadly (p"ure magic") demolishing (while actually declaring all of you, including himself as incompetent for not being able to find the references) by "asking the right questions". And of course Jeffie (in his patented style) directly goes on to declare 'the truth' about it, ie fabricating his own facts once more.

Had he been paying attention here, he would have known that his 'facts' had been proven wrong at this fine site (where some people pretend to 'defend science' while a few actually discuss its contents). Even more funny is that our own Jeffie-troll was quick to comment even then (and actually partly quite sensibly).

However, this of course was not the only one I've asked. And I would challenge you to find any one (climate sceintist) working on attribution to defend that AR4 claim based on science. Have agreeing opinions, yes. But that's something very different, as all scientists among you should know from early on (but I fear that you don't)

So, Olap, how would you determine whether there's been any warming?

Lionel A

I don't think you should be talking about noise levels either. As I've told you before, you don't seem to know that much about what is required in real science. Instead you seem to have been thrawling the net for support of your beliefs (and found such). But then gone on from there tho also believe, that everything you hear/read (from one side) also must be the truth. And that is a very fatal mistake.

Wrt Trenberth here, you already lost the argument. Even an über-alarmist and activist like Trenberth, essentially confirms what I've been saying. Such attribution is essentially impossible (even if it were to exist to his assumed levels today).

Sorry Lionel, but piling up childish insults will not change that fact.

Padded zone? You really are a dork, Jonas. Look at the walls all around you, dumbass! This is the padded cell. Named in your honor. Its probably your biggest achievement yet in science. Congratulations!

FYI, I am revising a paper we are going to submit to PLoS Biology. I co-authored on that went into the same journal three weeks ago. I've had 15 papers this year... what's your tally, Jonas?

Lastly, did you even watch any of the video? Or, in true Jonas fashion, do you just ignore it and claim that the presenter isn't a 'real' scientist? Of all the idiotic things you've said, Jonas (and we could write an encyclopedia on that) your claim to be able to summarily dismiss scientists with years of research, hundreds of publications and pedigree in their fields is quite remarkable.

What facts have been proven wrong, you clown? The polar bear arguments? I was correct. GSWs feeble foray into discussing the factors underlying amphibian declines? Ditto. I was correct again. The prevailing view amongst the scientific community on the human component underpinning the recent and current warming? Unless you think a few pseudos on the academic fringe and a bevvy of right wing think tanks are correct, then you lose again.

I have explained the basis of the 90% attribution figure. You appear to be the only sad git on the planet who obsesses over it. As Chek said, a one riff man, and the only man (along with your few acolytes here) who obsesses over it.

"Even an über-alarmist and activist like Trenberth"

Lionel, Chek, Wow, Vince, Frank: why are we even responding to this grade A idiot? Statements like this alone underpin the fact that he is as biased and dishonest as they come.

Ah Jeff ... once more you try labelling me ab 'idiot' even a ' grade A idiot'.. While none of you can come up with proper answers, or just deal with the facts and issues on the table.

I have explained to you before why Trenberth shouldn't be viewed as a neutral arbiter of facts and science. He very very much has a dog in this fight, and has been (scientifically) hurt over his activism. You may deny that, Jeff, but your opinons will not change that fact. Neither will your childish attempts at insults.

But I appreciate that you once more lean towards, and appeal to some of the lower commenters here, who are (sometimes) even worse than you. Like spambot-emulator Wow, or 'errorbar-demander' Frank. You belong with these guys, and I appreciate both you and them, holding and hiding behind each others skirts, when unable to debate (well almost) anything ..

And Jeff, you are the dishonest one here. Fabricating all kinds of thins out of the emptiness between your ears, sometimes (quite regularly) even in direct contradiction what was said just a few comments earlier. Or you are a compulsive mythomaniac unable tocontrol your urges.

You want to call me a grade A idiot, but the idiocy in your own and many other's comments you are either totally unaware of, or it doesn't bother you because they are puking in your preferred direction!?

BTW Jeff, I missed commenting on your latest update of your CV-polishing again. Consider it noticed ... :-)

But yes, It is your padded zone. You've been screaming here for 1½ years, that I should be banned, even from this thread. You are so afraid of dealing with even the simpler facts, that having people silenced (even 'swatted out') is what your hope for. Unfortunately, quite a few on your side harbour equally fascist dreams. And say so openly. But additionally don't want to be openly opposed in public ...

And regarding the climate hysteria, your mega billion buck industry often tries its damndest to silence dissent.

Well Jeff, I think (don't know, but think and hope) that your side has peaked, that it culminated with the 2006/2007 Peace Priece and Gore-mockumentary ... and that better science slowly is entering the field, that those loony green policies (windmill parks, solar subsidies) will dwindle and go bankrupt. Unfortunaltey, a lot of damage has already been done, and will cost decent people a lot for a long time to come. But hopfully the stupdities this time will be exposed before the lead to full blown human disasters as in last centurey ...

I can't be certain, but fascism, communism and other socialism gone berserk is hopefully a thing of the past.

@Jeff

"What facts have been proven wrong, you clown? The polar bear arguments? I was correct. GSWs feeble foray into discussing the factors underlying amphibian declines? Ditto. I was correct again."

Wha? Ah, that's how you spend your twilight years on St Helena, fantasizing about past glories that never happened, at least not in the world outside your head anyway. Bit sad really.
;)

Lionel, Chek, Wow, Vince, Frank: why are we even responding to this grade A idiot?

I can't speak for you Jeff, but I'm here because he's become hilarious. I'm betting that he could prattle on here for another 18 months without ever twigging why his 100 times comment was so funny.

More projection than a multiplex cinema. Self-delusion to rival Monty Python's Black Knight. And each just a little more shrill than the last. I predict cockroaches by Christmas. :-)

Jeff .. I just opened that video with Kevin Anderson. And he starts out pomising some 3.5 degrees C rise by 2040, ie in 27 year ( 4.2 C over 'preindustrial' and 6 C by the end of the century)

That is close to 10 times the rate we have been seeing so far (and allowing the most alarmistic interpretations of the record).

You call this 'sobering' ... Well, insobriety is a better description, both for the contents and those who actually swallow this.

It seems as if you (who are dangerously unaware of how proper science needs to be done) put a very large part of your faith in 'future experts' who promise disaster. And of course, such and similar cults have always attracted a certain membership ...

But their leaders usually live quite comfortable lives and continue to do so ...

FrankD

Usually I expect people to bring on the best arguments they have ...

"You’ve been screaming here for 1½ years"

Not THAT number again. Sigh.

And I don't scream at intelletual wannabes. At least get THAT straight. You aren't worth it.

See Frank's last posting. I think that pretty well sums up my attitude towards you and your joker pack as well.

Finallky this gem: " I have explained to you before why Trenberth shouldn’t be viewed as a neutral arbiter of facts and science. He very very much has a dog in this fight, and has been (scientifically) hurt over his activism"

And Watts, McIntyre, Morano, the Heartland Institute et al. are 'neutral' arbiters?!?!

Your posts get funnier by the minute.

You just don't get it Jeff!? lindly swinging at fabricated strawmen again!

Neither of those you name are neutral arbiters, or should be viewed as original sources for anything (apart the actual work theydo).

However, they in various ways inform us of various things you and the alarmist side would rather have hidden and never discussed ... That's also why you are so obsessed with them and try to smear them in al (un-)thinkable ways. Like the incessant conspiracy theories that they are front for a big oil lobby etc ..

Peter Gleick just went further down that nutter alley than many of you. But DeSmogBlog etc theu're all in there with him, and Lionel gets his 'fact' from them.

And oh, Jeffie ..

You don't scream at people, you say. You called me an grade A idiot, in a matter-of-fact kind of level tone,as a statement of fact and (in accordance with FrankD's demands) attached error margins and explained how you 'derived' that fact.

Sure, Jeff. Here's the question for you:

Do you then scream at your intellectual superiors?

Jonarse really does cherish a fantasy version of his 'reality' that is almost good enough to be a spoof! The actual everyday word is of course 'delusional'.
And if "(apart the actual work they do)"( isn't arse covering denialism of the most personality-as-celeb-culture-obviousness ...
Hint Jonarse - it's the work they do that gives them their status. That must be hard to swallow when you yourself have nothing whatsoever to offer apart from lo-rent innuendo backed up by even less of nothing than you usually have.

chek, you have been delusional as long as I have seen you here. No content what so ever. Jonarse this, Jonarse that ... denialist and what else.

and your fantasies that the magic tree is somwhere in the middle of the forrest. But only the selected would be able to recognize it.

Delusional nutter stuff ... But you're not alone, if that is of any comfort. Jeff thought your demolishing denial was 'pure magic'! FrankD thinks he finally found some leverage. Wow ... well, lets not mention him. And Lionel desperately hopes that Sandy is attrubuted to human CO2.

And among you, you reinforce how right you are. Brilliant ...

;-)

"and your fantasies that the magic tree is somwhere in the middle of the forrest. But only the selected "qualified" would be able to recognize it."

Quite a difference in meaning there Jonarse. No doubt jealousy at exclusion is also at root part of your little ideological jihad. But if you were born thick and can't make the grade no matter how much you wish and wish and stamp your foot, too bad. That's life

That’s life

That's right chek 'but not as we know it', I think Jonas 'Wendy' N is a Klingon. Klingingon to his fantasies.

Jonas,

I am very calm when I call you a grade A idiot. No screaming necessary. And certainly not over some low grade web inhabiting denier pundit. Heck, its not like you are famous or anything. You are an anonymous little blip.

You are loathe to admit that you don't know much about political advocacy, which you clearly know nothing about. You have said several times how brilliant you are, that you have a fantastic education et al. ad nauseum, but you never provide any proof of it. Its your word, and we are supposed to swallow it. At least I have provided evidence, a word you through about flippantly with respect to evidence for AGW.

As for Kevin Anderson's quite outstanding lecture, it is also clear that you hardly looked at it. He uses as his basis for projected temeprature increases the conclusions of a think tank, the International Energy Agency (hardly left wing loonies there). The fact is that even many on the political right are waking up to the reality of AGW. Your rank hatred of climate blogs like DeSmog, this one and related sites, whilst giving sites like WUWT and Bishop's Hill a free pass, is further evidnece of your libertarian bias. You don't hesitate to smear the names of scientists you don't like, either. I'd love to see you give a performance at an international conference some time. That would be a real hoot, seeing you shouting at delegates you don't like how much they aren't 'real' scientists like your heroes Lindzen, Michaels, Balling, Idso, Baliunas, Singer and the other think tank brigadiers.

But you don't do conferences, do you Jonas? You don't do peer-reviewed papers either, or lectures. So what is it exactly that you do? OH. YES. Of course! Stand by on the sidelines and snipe away. Pass judgment as if your view is the bottom line. You and GSW have that art mastered. And your trained monkey (Olaus) is there to provide support.

Jeff, the video Anderson video kept getting hung around 10 minutes .. but his startout was nuttery ..

And I wonder why som many on your side must hinge on the nuttiest prophecies ... a tenfold warming rate compared to hiterto observed, and sustained over decades.

Sure, you want to believe this stuff, your call. But nuttery neverthe less (even if its from non-leftwing-loonies).

And no, hardly anything you written to me has ever been calm or balanced. You just aren't calm and balanced. You are angry, impulsive, compulsive and emotional ... almost everytime you post here.

And you need to fabricate your own 'truths' as you have for 1½ years. Why do you think this is so necessary for you?

Jonas's spin becomes flat - the outlook is thus terminal.

That's a figure of speech based upon an aviation phenomenon.

Just as dog-watch was a figure of speech based on common RN idiom.

Just because you don't know ought about those also does not invalidate their use.

Once again this is at you not to you.

"You are angry, impulsive, compulsive and emotional … almost everytime you post here"

No, I only get like that when Dallas Cowboys lose... or I can't find my Overkill or Testament CDs... or if my latest paper is bounced from Animal Behaviour...

Here? You? No.

Jonas, Since you've said 1½ years about a million times now, I can't wait for the 2 year target to pass... just to see a new number....

Trenberth (2012) "All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be."

I guess GSW will now, because he cites Trenberth as such a source of correct knowledge, that Sandy is attributable to AGW.

“You’ve been screaming here for 1½ years”

Typing doesn't scream, Joan.

Any screaming you hear is in your own head.

Frank, you'll notice that Olap is reticent now about pursuit of the scientific method.

He was all gung-ho about how he doesn't deny it's warming, but he caught himself having to explain that he doesn't know why he thinks it warming.

And refuses to work out how you'd go about finding out if the weather is getting warmer.

Jeff ..

For 1½ years you've been:

1) Waiving your CV as it it was some kind of an argument for anything

2) Trying to label others as idiots, deniers, DK-afflicties, mentally ill, and much more

3) Invented (fabricated) all kind of your own 'fact' about your opponents

4) Attacked whole brigades strawmen errected by your own fantasy

5) Been largely unable to address any of the relevant topics and questions about them, even re: your own statements

6) Displayed absolutely terrible logic in almost any kind of
argument or reasoning

7) Have made gross factual errors, and counterfactual claims about what others stated. And of course:

8) Been exceedingly rude, while at the same time whining about much not receiving enough reverence from those responding

(9) Possibly you have been dishonest about more than one thing. Your claimed calmness while displaying all of the above, is very hard to believe)

But all of these things have been of your own choice, and I will gladly remind you of them again when we hit the 2-year mark.

"1) Waiving"

Read a dictionary.

It's you who keep demanding to see his CV.

"2) Trying to label others as idiots, deniers, DK-afflicties, mentally ill, and much more"

No, accurately labelling people who are idiots, deniers, DK-sufferers, mentally deficient and so on.

I.e. you.

"3) Invented (fabricated) ..."

Nope, that'd be you again. You only have invented statements as of fact.

"Attacked whole brigades strawmen errected by your own fantasy"

Still you.

"Been largely unable to address any of the relevant topics and questions about them, even re: your own statements"

You again.

"Displayed absolutely terrible logic in almost any kind of
argument or reasoning"

Yup, you again.

"Have made gross factual errors, and counterfactual claims about what others stated."

And this is yet again you.

"Been exceedingly rude, while at the same time whining about much not receiving enough reverence from those responding"

Hey, these are all YOU!

"Possibly you have been dishonest about more than one thing. Your claimed calmness while displaying all of the above, is very hard to believe)"

So definitely you.

But all of these things have been of your own choice.

Lionel A

You have informed me of your beliefs wrt to Sandy and that (some part of) it can be attributed to human CO2. You even gave a lot of links which you hoped demonstrated such attribution.

Well Lionel, they did not. They weren't even close or only attempting that. They repeated the belief that there can have been som influence. But that is something completely different.

I am sorry that you are unable to distinguish the two, but thats your problem. And I think you have more urgen difficulties than that which you should tackle before.

For starters, you should try to learn what the deabte actually is about. CLinging to blind beliefs of how incompetent your opposition must be, lands you right there with the Jeffies, Bernards, checks and others. And your arguments look like those of a fool ...

This becaomes even more obvious if you feel that terms like 'denier' and 'moron' somehow strengten your position.

And please don't pretend to know about science or the scientific method ..

Jeff, I forgot one important point above.

9) Albeit having being helped on several of the simpler aspects of 'the scientific method' you are unbelievably ignorant of what it requiers and why it is important to adhere to it. (You seem to think that 'publication' is the highest pinnacle of science. It most definitely is not)

chek

What you are saying is that absolutely no one here, nor elsewhere in the entire world has been 'qualified' to identify your gem tree in the forrest.

That's what I've been saying the entire time: You are taking its existence in blind faith ...

Jonas 'Wendy' N, another for you to listen and learn something, and note in the 2012 Cryosphere Investigator Award presentation we heard these words:

...Dual approach of using theory AND climate models...

, think about the significance of that.

Nye Lecture: C24A. 'Hot Ice and Wondrous Strange Snow': Three-Phase Mixtures or...

"Well Lionel, they did not."

Well, Joan, actually they did. They were pretty much dead on the money. YOU didn't understand them, though. It would have helped if you'd read them, but that isn't actually possible for you.

"They repeated the belief that there can have been som influence."

Even you admitted high SSTs are the creator of hurricanes.

Are you denying that now?

"9) Albeit having being helped on several of the simpler aspects of ‘the scientific method’ you are unbelievably ignorant of what it requiers and why it is important to adhere to it"

Nope, you again.

PS you seem to think that publishing is proof of error. It is not.

Let me tell you how it will be
There's CV for you, no CV for me
'Cause I'm the twat man, yeah, I'm the twatman

Should two per cent appear too small
Be thankful we have any at all
'Cause I'm the twatman, yeah I'm the twatman

If you give me proofs, I just won't see
If you insist, I'll talk just shit
If you get too close I'll run away
If you go away I'll say "I beat!"

Don't ask me what I want it for
Give me stuff I just whine more
'Cause I'm the twatman, yeah, I'm the twatman

Now my advice for those who die
I've had mine, you're gonna fry
'Cause I'm the twatman, yeah, I'm the twatman
And they're working to enslave me, I am sure.

"What you are saying is that absolutely no one here, nor elsewhere in the entire world has been ‘qualified’ to identify your gem tree in the forrest".

No that's specifically NOT it. My point is that those qualified see past the single tree that you're fixated on and can see the forest. Hence the reference to Birnam (Burnham) Wood coming to burn down your castle earlier. Try reading Macbeth to understand that analogy

Incidentally that neatly encapsualtes two items you accuse Jeff of in one single short post from you: viz. “Displayed absolutely terrible logic in almost any kind of
argument or reasoning” and: “Have made gross factual errors, and counterfactual claims about what others stated.”

Perhaps you'll also now understand the psychological phenomenom of 'projection' you've often been accused of too.

@All

This just keeps getting derailed, it would be good if we could arrive at a concensus position on the following;

We’ve arrived at the conclusion that there is no empirical evidence behind the Sandy attribution claim.[At least as far as anybody here is aware]

We’ve arrived at the conclusion that there is no empirical evidence behind the AR4 attribution claim.[At least as far as anybody here is aware]

I think that by default we all agree these are true; no empirical evidence forthcoming after some considerable period of time.

It's time for honesty here I think.

No, you're just talking pish, GSW.

... and ignorant, uninformed pish at that.

Come back when you've had a few relevant papers published, Griselda. Your two-bit layman's wishful thinking is only good for helping fluff up your Jonarse fantasies of an evening.

@chek,

That's ok chek, I don't even expect you to understand what is being asked- So out pops your bland comment, hoping it will all go away and someone else changes the subject.

Oh and Griselda, you see that trail of dismembered limbs and viscera leading to that head somehow still managing to say his nonsense catchphrase but nothing else apart from other random disjointed nonsense and now exposed self-recrimination?

That's your 'hero' Jonarse, that is.

That’s your ‘hero’ Jonarse, that is.

Which by now is that eyeball rolling along the ground saying to itself 'eye should have looked, eye should have read'. SAD.

BTW It may surprise the Wendy Club to learn that the retina etc is classed as a part of the brain, an extension of.

That’s ok Griselda, I don’t even expect you to understand even the most minute aspect of planetary climate.

You keep on playing support plug-in for your distressed 'hero', and who knows, one day he may return on a white charger wraithed in silver clouds to sweep you off your feet to a land where the IPCC are never heard of, because you're all too illiterate.

@Lionel,chek

"hoping it will all go away and someone else changes the subject."

Which Lionel just bizarrely attempted with,

"to learn that the retina etc is classed as a part of the brain, an extension of."

Dear me, you just can't face the truth can you, but we knew that already. How sad.

"I don’t even expect you to understand what is being asked-"

No, we understand what you're asking. That, however, is the problem: you're asking us to lie.

Unless you're affirming the "Royal We", you are alone with Joan in your assertion that there's no science behind the AR4 claims.

@All

Ok, so far we have two (Lionel,chek) that choose to "opt out" of reality, anymore?

@wow

Don't worry wow, I'm not counting you - you were never truly "in reality" in the first place. Be unfair to say you had "opted out" of something you weren't even aware of.

Griselda, are you familiar with the phrase 'whistling in the dark?'
Because that's what you're doing.
It's what morons do when they've got nothing, not even nerve.

@chek

It's alright chek, I've counted you already.

Hey, GSW, you weren't counting me because you can't count.

And what "reality" are you talking about?

It certainly isn't one where "there is no science behind the AR4 claims".

Do you want the list of papers again?

AchutaRao, K.M., et al., 2006: Variability of ocean heat uptake: Reconciling observations and models. J. Geophys. Res., 111, C05019.

Ackerman, A.S., et al., 2000: Reduction of tropical cloudiness by soot. Science, 288, 1042–1047.

Adams, J.B., M.E. Mann, and C.M. Ammann, 2003: Proxy evidence for an El Nino-like response to volcanic forcing. Nature, 426(6964), 274–278.

Alexander, L.V., et al., 2006: Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D05109, doi:10.1029/2005JD006290.

Allan, R.J., and T.J. Ansell, 2006: A new globally-complete monthly historical gridded mean sea level pressure data set (HadSLP2): 1850-2004. J. Clim., 19, 5816–5842.

Allen, M.R., 2003: Liability for climate change. Nature, 421, 891–892.

Allen, M.R., and S.F.B. Tett, 1999: Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting. Clim. Dyn., 15, 419–434.

Allen, M.R., and W.J. Ingram, 2002: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature, 419, 224–232.

Allen, M.R., and D.A. Stainforth, 2002: Towards objective probabilistic climate forecasting. Nature, 419, 228–228.

Allen, M.R., and P.A. Stott, 2003: Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting, Part I: Theory. Clim. Dyn., 21, 477–491.

Allen, M.R., J.A. Kettleborough, and D.A. Stainforth, 2002: Model error in weather and climate forecasting. In: ECMWF Predictability of Weather and Climate Seminar [Palmer, T.N. (ed.)]. European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK, http://www.ecmwf.int/publications/library/do/references/list/209.

Allen, M.R., et al., 2000: Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change. Nature, 407, 617–620.

Ammann, C.M., G.A. Meehl, W.M. Washington, and C. Zender, 2003: A monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations of 20th century climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(12), 1657.

Anderson, T.L., et al., 2003: Climate forcing by aerosols: A hazy picture. Science, 300, 1103–1104.

Andronova, N.G., and M.E. Schlesinger, 2000: Causes of global temperature changes during the 19th and 20th centuries. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27(14), 2137–2140.

Andronova, N.G., and M.E. Schlesinger, 2001: Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res., 106(D19), 22605–22611.

Andronova, N.G., M.E. Schlesinger, and M.E. Mann, 2004: Are reconstructed pre-instrumental hemispheric temperatures consistent with instrumental hemispheric temperatures? Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L12202, doi:10.1029/2004GL019658.

Andronova, N.G., et al., 1999: Radiative forcing by volcanic aerosols from 1850 to 1994. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 16807–16826.

Andronova, N.G., et al., 2007: The concept of climate sensitivity: History and development. In: Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment [Schlesinger, M., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press.

Annan, J.D., and J.C. Hargreaves, 2006: Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06704, doi:10.1029/2005GL025259.

Annan, J.D., et al., 2005: Efficiently constraining climate sensitivity with paleoclimate simulations. Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere, 1, 181–184.

Arblaster, J.M., and G.A. Meehl, 2006: Contributions of external forcing to Southern Annular Mode trends. J. Clim., 19, 2896–2905.

Bader, J., and M. Latif, 2003: The impact of decadal-scale Indian Ocean sea surface temperature anomalies on Sahelian rainfall and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(22), 2169.

Banks, H.T., et al., 2000: Are observed decadal changes in intermediate water masses a signature of anthropogenic climate change? Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 2961–2964.

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, and R. Schnur, 2001: Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world’s oceans. Science, 292, 270–274.

Barnett, T.P., et al., 1999: Detection and attribution of recent climate change. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 80, 2631–2659.

Barnett, T.P., et al., 2005: Penetration of a warming signal in the world’s oceans: human impacts. Science, 309, 284–287.

Bauer, E., M. Claussen, V. Brovkin, and A. Huenerbein, 2003: Assessing climate forcings of the Earth system for the past millennium. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(6), 1276.

Beltrami, H., J.E. Smerdon, H.N. Pollack, and S. Huang, 2002: Continental heat gain in the global climate system. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 1167.

Bengtsson, L., K.I. Hodges, and E. Roechner, 2006: Storm tracks and climate change. J. Clim., 19, 3518–3543.

Berger, A., 1978: Long-term variations of caloric solar radiation resulting from the earth’s orbital elements. Quat. Res., 9, 139–167.

Berger, A., 1988: Milankovitch theory and climate. Rev. Geophys., 26, 624–657.

Berliner, L.M., R.A. Levine, and D.J. Shea, 2000: Bayesian climate change assessment. J. Clim., 13, 3805–3820.

Bertrand, C., M.F. Loutre, M. Crucifix, and A. Berger, 2002: Climate of the last millennium: a sensitivity study. Tellus, 54A(3), 221–244.

Betts, R.A., 2001: Biogeophysical impacts of land use on present-day climate: near surface temperature and radiative forcing. Atmos. Sci. Lett., 2, 39–51.

Bigelow, N.H., et al., 2003: Climate change and Arctic ecosystems: 1. Vegetation changes north of 55 degrees N between the last glacial maximum, mid-Holocene, and present. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D19), 8170, doi:10.1029/2002JD002558.

Bindoff, N.L., and T.J. McDougall, 2000: Decadal changes along an Indian Ocean section at 32S and their interpretation. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 30(6), 1207–1222.

Bjerknes, J., 1969: Atmospheric teleconnections from the equatorial Pacific. Mon. Weather Rev., 97, 163–172.

Boer, G.J., and B. Yu, 2003: Climate sensitivity and climate state. Clim. Dyn., 21, 167–176.

Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297–302.

Boyer, T.P., et al., 2005: Linear trends in salinity for the World Ocean, 1955-1998. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L01604.

Braconnot, P., S. Joussaume, O. Marti, and N. de Noblet, 1999: Synergistic feedbacks from ocean and vegetation on the African monsoon response to mid-Holocene insolation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 2481–2484.

Braconnot, P., O. Marti, S. Joussaume, and Y. Leclainche, 2000: Ocean feedback in response to 6 kyr BP insolation. J. Clim., 13(9), 1537–1553.

Braconnot, P., et al., 2004: Evaluation of PMIP coupled ocean-atmosphere simulations of the Mid-Holocene. In: Past Climate Variability through Europe and Africa [Battarbee, R.W., F. Gasse, and C.E. Stickley (eds.)]. Springer, London, UK, pp. 515-533.

Braganza, K., et al., 2003: Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part I - Variability and correlation structure. Clim. Dyn., 20, 491–502.

Braganza, K., et al., 2004: Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part II - Attribution of climate change during the 20th century. Clim. Dyn., 22, 823–838.

Briffa, K.R., et al., 2001: Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree ring density network. J. Geophys. Res., 106(D3), 2929–2941.

Broccoli, A.J., et al., 2003: Twentieth-century temperature and precipitation trends in ensemble climate simulations including natural and anthropogenic forcing. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D24), 4798.

Brohan, P., et al., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548.

Bryden, H.L., E. McDonagh, and B.A. King, 2003: Changes in ocean water mass properties: oscillations of trends? Science, 300, 2086–2088.

Bryden, H.L., H.R. Longworth, and S.A. Cunningham, 2005: Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25° N. Nature, 438, 655–657.

Burke, E.J., S.J. Brown, and N. Christidis, 2006: Modelling the recent evolution of global drought and projections for the 21st century with the Hadley Centre climate model. J. Hydrometeorol., 7, 1113–1125.

Caesar, J., L. Alexander, and R. Vose, 2006: Large-scale changes in observed daily maximum and minimum temperatures, 1946-2000. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D05101, doi:10.1029/2005JD006280.

Cai, W., P.H. Whetton, and D.J. Karoly, 2003: The response of the Antarctic Oscillation to increasing and stabilized atmospheric CO2. J. Clim., 16, 1525–1538.

Cane, M., et al., 2006: Progress in paleoclimate modeling. J. Clim., 19, 5031–5057.

Carril, A.F., C.G. Menéndez, and A. Navarra, 2005: Climate response associated with the Southern Annular Mode in the surroundings of Antarctic Peninsula: A multimodel ensemble analysis. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L16713, doi:10.1029/2005GL023581.

Chan, J.C.L., 2006: Comment on “Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment”. Science, 311, 1713.

Chan, J.C.L., and K.S. Liu, 2004: Global warming and western North Pacific typhoon activity from an observational perspective. J. Clim., 17, 4590–4602.

Chase, T.N., J.A. Knaff, R.A. Pielke, and E. Kalnay, 2003: Changes in global monsoon circulations since 1950. Natural Hazards, 29, 229–254.

Chen, J., B.E. Carlson, and A.D. Del Genio, 2002: Evidence for strengthening of the tropical general circulation in the 1990s. Science, 295, 838–841.

Christidis, N., et al., 2005: Detection of changes in temperature extremes during the second half of the 20th century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20716, doi:10.1029/2005GL023885.

Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and W.D. Braswell, 2000: MSU tropospheric temperatures: Dataset construction and radiosonde comparison. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 17, 1153–1170.

Chuang, C.C., et al., 2002: Cloud susceptibility and the first aerosol indirect forcing: Sensitivity to black carbon and aerosol concentrations. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D21), 4564, doi:10.1029/2000JD000215.

Church, J.A., N.J. White, and J.M. Arblaster, 2005: Volcanic eruptions: their impact on sea level and oceanic heat content. Nature, 438, 74–77.

Clement, A.C., R. Seager, and M.A. Cane, 2000: Suppression of El Nino during the mid-Holocene by changes in the Earth’s orbit. Paleoceanography, 15(6), 731–737.

Clement, A.C., A. Hall, and A.J. Broccoli, 2004: The importance of precessional signals in the tropical climate. Clim. Dyn., 22, 327–341.

CLIMAP (Climate: Long-range Investigation, Mapping and Prediction), 1981: Seasonal Reconstructions of the Earth’s Surface at the Last Glacial Maximum. Map Series Technical Report MC-36, Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.

Cobb, K.M., C.D. Charles, H. Cheng, and R.L. Edwards, 2003: El Nino/Southern Oscillation and tropical Pacific climate during the last millennium. Nature, 424(6946), 271–276.

Collins, M., 2000a: The El-Nino Southern Oscillation in the second Hadley Centre coupled model and its response to greenhouse warming. J. Clim., 13, 1299–1312.

Collins, M., 2000b: Understanding uncertainties in the response of ENSO to greenhouse warming. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 3509–3513.

Cook, E.R., et al., 2004: Long-term aridity changes in the western United States. Science, 306(5698), 1015–1018.

Coughlin, K., and K.K. Tung, 2004: Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D21105, doi:10.1029/2004JD004873.

Crooks, S., 2004: Solar Influence On Climate. PhD Thesis, University of Oxford.

Crooks, S.A., and L.J. Gray, 2005: Characterization of the 11-year solar signal using a multiple regression analysis of the ERA-40 dataset. J. Clim., 18(7), 996–1015.

Crowley, T.J., 2000: Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years. Science, 289(5477), 270–277.

Crowley, T.J., et al., 2003: Modeling ocean heat content changes during the last millennium. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(18), 1932.

Cubasch, U., et al., 1997: Simulation of the influence of solar radiation variations on the global climate with an ocean-atmosphere general circulation model. Clim. Dyn., 13(11), 757–767.

Cubasch, U., et al., 2001: Projections of future climate change. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 99–181.

Curry, R., B. Dickson, and I. Yashayaev, 2003: A change in the freshwater balance of the Atlantic Ocean over the past four decades. Nature, 426, 826–829.

Dai, A., K.E. Trenberth, and T.R. Karl, 1999: Effects of clouds, soil, moisture, precipitation and water vapour on diurnal temperature range. J. Clim., 12, 2451–2473.

Dai, A., et al., 2004: The recent Sahel drought is real. Int. J. Climatol., 24, 1323–1331.

D’Arrigo, R., et al., 2005: On the variability of ENSO over the past six centuries. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(3), L03711, doi:10.1029/2004GL022055.

Delworth, T.L., and T.R. Knutson, 2000: Simulation of early 20th century global warming. Science, 287, 2246–2250.

Delworth, T.L., and M.E. Mann, 2000: Observed and simulated multidecadal variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Clim. Dyn., 16(9), 661–676.

Delworth, T.L., V. Ramaswamy, and G.L. Stenchikov, 2005: The impact of aerosols on simulated ocean temperature and heat content in the 20th century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L24709, doi:10.1029/2005GL024457.

Delworth, T., et al., 2002: Review of simulations of climate variability and change with the GFDL R30 coupled climate model. Clim. Dyn., 19, 555–574.

Dickson, R.R., et al., 2002: Rapid freshening of the deep North Atlantic Ocean over the past four decades. Nature, 416, 832–837.

Douglass, D.H., and B.D. Clader, 2002: Climate sensitivity of the Earth to solar irradiance. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(16), 1786.

Douglass, D.H., and R.S. Knox, 2005: Climate forcing by volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L05710, doi:10.1029/2004GL022119.

Douglass, D.H., B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer, 2004: Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, doi:10.1029/2004GL020103.

Douville, H., 2006: Detection-attribution of global warming at the regional scale: How to deal with precipitation variability. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L02701, doi:10.1029/2005GL024967.

Douville, H., et al., 2002: Sensitivity of the hydrological cycle to increasing amounts of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Clim. Dyn., 20, 45–68.

Dumas, J.A., G.M. Flato, and A.J. Weaver, 2003: The impact of varying atmospheric forcing on the thickness of Arctic multi-year sea ice. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1918.

Dyurgerov, M.B., and M.F. Meier, 2005: Glaciers and the Changing Earth System: A 2004 Snapshot. Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 117 pp.

Easterling, D.R., et al., 2000: Climate extremes: Observations, modeling and impacts. Science, 289, 2068–2074.

Egorova, T., et al., 2004: Chemical and dynamical response to the 11-year variability of the solar irradiance simulated with a chemistry-climate model. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L06119, doi:10.1029/2003GL019294.

Elsner, J.B., X. Niu, and T.H. Jagger, 2004: Detecting shifts in hurricane rates using a Markov chain Monte Carlo approach. J. Clim., 17, 2652–2666.

Elsner, J.B., A.A. Tsonis, and T.H. Jagger, 2006: High-frequency variability in hurricane power dissipation and its relationship to global temperature. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 87, 763–768.

Emanuel, K., 2005: Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, 436, 686–688.

Emori, S., and S.J. Brown, 2005: Dynamic and thermodynamic changes in mean and extreme precipitation under changed climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L17706, doi:10.1029/2005GL023272.

Esper, J., E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber, 2002: Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability. Science, 295(5563), 2250–2253.

Fichefet, T., B. Tartinville, and H. Goosse, 2003: Antarctic sea ice variability during 1958-1999: A simulation with a global ice-ocean model. J. Geophys. Res., 108(C3), 3102–3113.

Folland, C.K., T. N. Palmer, and D. E. Parker, 1986: Sahel rainfall and worldwide sea temperatures 1901-85. Nature, 320, 602–607.

Folland, C.K., et al., 2001: Observed variability and change. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 881pp.

Fomby, T.B., and T.J. Vogelsang, 2002: The application of size-robust trend statistics to global-warming temperature series. J. Clim., 15, 117–123.

Forest, C.E., M.R. Allen, A.P. Sokolov, and P.H. Stone, 2001: Constraining climate model properties using optimal fingerprint detection methods. Clim. Dyn., 18, 277–295.

Forest, C.E., et al., 2002: Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent observations. Science, 295, 113.

Forest, D.J., P.H. Stone, and A.P. Sokolov, 2006: Estimated PDFs of climate system properties including natural and anthropogenic forcings. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01705, doi:10.1029/2005GL023977.

Forster, P.M.D.F., and J.M. Gregory, 2006: The climate sensitivity and its components diagnosed from Earth radiation budget data. J. Clim., 19, 39–52.

Foukal, P., G. North, and T. Wigley, 2004: A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science, 306, 68–69.

Foukal, P., C. Froehlich, H. Sruit, and T.M.L. Wigley, 2006: Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on Earth’s climate. Nature, 443, 161–166, doi:10.1038/nature05072.

Frame, D.J., et al., 2005: Constraining climate forecasts: The role of prior assumptions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L09702, doi:10.1029/2004GL022241.

Free, M., and J.K. Angell, 2002: Effect of volcanoes on the vertical temperature profile in radiosonde data. J. Geophys. Res., 107, doi:10.1029/2001JD001128.

Free, M., et al., 2005: Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC): A new dataset of large-area anomaly time series. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D22101, doi:10.1029/2005JD006169.

Frich, P., et al., 2002: Observed coherent changes in climatic extremes during the second half of the twentieth century. Clim. Res., 19, 193–212.

Fyfe, J.C., G.J. Boer, and G.M. Flato, 1999: The Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations and their projected changes under global warming. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 1601–1604.

Ganopolski, A., et al., 1998: The influence of vegetation-atmosphere-ocean interaction on climate during the mid-Holocene. Science, 280, 1916–1919.

Gedney, N., et al., 2006: Detection of a direct carbon dioxide effect in continental river runoff records. Nature, 439, 835–838.

Gent, P.R., and G. Danabasoglu, 2004: Heat uptake and the thermohaline circulation in the Coummunity Climate System Model, Version 2. J. Clim., 17, 4058–4069.

Gerber, S., et al., 2003: Constraining temperature variations over the last millennium by comparing simulated and observed atmospheric CO2. Clim. Dyn., 20(2–3), 281–299.

Giannini, A., R. Saravanan, and P. Chang, 2003: Oceanic forcing of Sahel rainfall on interannual to interdecadal time scales. Science, 302, 1027–1030.

Gibson, J.K., et al., 1997: ERA Description. ECMWF Reanalysis Project Report Series Vol. 1. European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK, 66 pp.

Gilgen, H., M. Wild, and A. Ohmura, 1998: Means and trends of shortwave irradiance at the surface estimated from global energy balance archive data. J. Clim., 11, 2042–2061.

Gillett, N.P., 2005: Northern Hemisphere circulation. Nature, 437, 496.

Gillett, N.P., and D.W.J. Thompson, 2003: Simulation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change. Science, 302, 273–275.

Gillett, N.P., H.F. Graf, and T.J. Osborn, 2003a: Climate change and the North Atlantic Oscillation. In: The North Atlantic Oscillation: Climate Significance and Environmental Impact [Hurrell, Y.K.J., G. Ottersen, and M. Visbeck (eds.)]. Geophysical Monograph Vol. 134, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 193-209.

Gillett, N.P., R.J. Allan, and T.J. Ansell, 2005: Detection of external influence on sea level pressure with a multi-model ensemble. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(19), L19714, doi:10.1029/2005GL023640.

Gillett, N.P., G.C. Hegerl, M.R. Allen, and P.A. Stott, 2000: Implications of changes in the Northern Hemispheric circulation for the detection of anthropogenic climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 993–996.

Gillett, N.P., F.W. Zwiers, A.J. Weaver, and P.A. Stott, 2003b: Detection of human influence on sea level pressure. Nature, 422, 292–294.

Gillett, N.P., A.J. Weaver, F.W. Zwiers, and M.D. Flannigan, 2004a: Detecting the effect of climate change on Canadian forest fires. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31(18), L18211, doi:10.1029/2004GL020876.

Gillett, N.P., A.J. Weaver, F.W. Zwiers, and M.F. Wehner, 2004b: Detection of volcanic influence on global precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31(12), L12217, doi:10.1029/2004GL020044.

Gillett, N.P., M.F. Wehner, S.F.B. Tett, and A.J. Weaver, 2004c: Testing the linearity of the response to combined greenhouse gas and sulfate aerosol forcing. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L14201, doi:10.1029/2004GL020111.

Gillett, N.P., et al., 2002a: Reconciling two approaches to the detection of anthropogenic influence on climate. J. Clim., 15, 326–329.

Gillett, N.P., et al., 2002b: How linear is the Arctic Oscillation response to greenhouse gases? J. Geophys. Res., 107, doi: 10.1029/2001JD000589.

Gillett, N.P., et al., 2002c: Detecting anthropogenic influence with a multi-model ensemble. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, doi:10.1029/2002GL015836.

Gleckler, P.J., et al., 2006: Krakatoa’s signature persists in the ocean. Nature, 439, 675.

Gleisner, H., and P. Thejll, 2003: Patterns of tropospheric response to solar variability. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 44–47.

Goeberle, C., and R. Gerdes, 2003: Mechanisms determining the variability of Arctic sea ice conditions and export. J. Clim., 16, 2843–2858.

Goldewijk, K.K., 2001: Estimating global land use change over the past 300 years: The HYDE Database. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 15(2), 417–433.

Goldstein, M., and J. Rougier, 2004: Probabilistic formulations for transferring inferences from mathematical models to physical systems. SIAM J. Sci. Computing, 26(2), 467–487.

Gonzalez-Rouco, F., H. von Storch, and E. Zorita, 2003: Deep soil temperature as proxy for surface air-temperature in a coupled model simulation of the last thousand years. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(21), 2116, doi:10.1029/2003GL018264.

Goosse, H., and H. Renssen, 2001: A two-phase response of the Southern Ocean to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28(18), 3469–3472.

Goosse, H., and H. Renssen, 2004: Exciting natural modes of variability by solar and volcanic forcing: idealized and realistic experiments. Clim. Dyn., 23(2), 153–163.

Goosse, H., et al., 2004: A late medieval warm period in the Southern Ocean as a delayed response to external forcing? Geophys. Res. Lett., 31(6), L06203, doi:10.1029/2003GL19140.

Errata Goosse, H., et al., 2005: Modelling the climate of the last millennium: What causes the differences between simulations? Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(6), L06710, doi:10.1029/2005GL022368.

Errata

Gray, L.J., R.G. Harrison, and J.D. Haigh, 2005: The Influence of Solar Changes on the Earth’s Climate. Hadley Centre Technical Note 62, The UK Met Office.

Greene, A.M., 2005: A time constant for hemispheric glacier mass balance. J. Glaciol., 51(174), 353–362.

Gregory, J.M., and P. Huybrechts, 2006: Ice-sheet contributions to future sea-level change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 364, 1709–1731.

Gregory, J.M., J.A. Lowe, and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Simulated global-mean sea-level changes over the last half-millennium. J. Clim., 19, 4576–4591.

Gregory, J.M., et al., 2002a: An observationally based estimate of the climate sensitivity. J. Clim., 15(22), 3117–3121.

Gregory, J.M., et al., 2002b: Recent and future changes in Arctic sea ice simulated by the HadCM3 AOGCM. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 2175.

Gregory, J.M., et al., 2004: Simulated and observed decadal variability in ocean heat content. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L15312.

Groisman, P.Y., et al., 1999: Changes in the probability of heavy precipitation: Important indicators of climatic change. Clim. Change, 42, 243–283.

Groisman, P.Y., et al., 2005: Trends in intense precipitation in the climate record. J. Clim., 18, 1326–1350.

Haarsma, R.J., F. Selten, N. Weber, and M. Kliphuis, 2005: Sahel rainfall variability and response to greenhouse warming. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L17702, doi:10.1029/2005GL023232.

Haigh, J.D., 2003: The effects of solar variability on the Earth’s climate. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 361, 95–111.

Hansen, J.E., M. Sato, and R. Ruedy, 1995: Long-term changes of the diurnal temperature cycle: implications about mechanisms of global climate change. Atmos. Res., 37, 175–209.

Hansen, J.E., M. Sato, and R. Ruedy, 1997: Radiative forcing and climate response. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 6831–6864.

Hansen, J., et al., 1984: Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In: Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity [Hansen, J.E., and T. Takahashi (eds.)]. Geophysical Monographs Vol. 29, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 130–163.

Hansen, J., et al., 2002: Climate forcings in Goddard Institute for Space Studies SI2000 simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D18), 4347.

Hansen, J., et al., 2005: Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431–1435.

Harrison, S., and C. Prentice, 2003: Climate and CO2 controls on global vegetation distribution at the last glacial maximum: analysis based on palaeovegetation data, biome modelling and palaeoclimate simulations. Global Change Biol., 9, 983–1004.

Harrison, S., P. Braconnot, C. Hewitt, and R.J. Stouffer, 2002: Fourth international workshop of The Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP): launching PMIP Phase II. Eos, 83, 447.

Harvey, L.D.D., 2004: Characterizing the annual-mean climatic effect of anthropogenic CO2 and aerosol emissions in eight coupled atmosphere-ocean GCMs. Clim. Dyn., 23, 569–599.

Harvey, L.D.D., and R.K. Kaufmann, 2002: Simultaneously constraining climate sensitivity and aerosol radiative forcing. J. Clim., 15 (20), 2837–2861.

Hasselmann, K., 1976: Stochastic climate models. Part 1. Theory. Tellus, 28, 473–485.

Hasselmann, K., 1979: On the signal-to-noise problem in atmospheric response studies. In: Meteorology of Tropical Oceans [Shaw, D.B. (ed.)]. Royal Meteorological Society, Bracknell, UK, pp. 251–259.

Hasselmann, K., 1997: Multi-pattern fingerprint method for detection and attribution of climate change. Climate Dyn., 13, 601–612.

Hasselmann, K., 1998: Conventional and Bayesian approach to climate-change detection and attribution. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 124, 2541–2565.

Hegerl, G.C., and M.R. Allen, 2002: Origins of model-data discrepancies in optimal fingerprinting. J. Clim., 15, 1348–1356.

Hegerl, G.C., and J.M. Wallace, 2002: Influence of patterns of climate variability on the difference between satellite and surface temperature trends. J. Clim., 15, 2412–2428.

Hegerl, G.C., P.D. Jones, and T.P. Barnett, 2001: Effect of observational sampling error on the detection and attribution of anthropogenic climate change. J. Clim., 14, 198–207.

Hegerl, G.C., F.W. Zwiers, V.V. Kharin, and P.A. Stott, 2004: Detectability of anthropogenic changes in temperature and precipitation extremes. J. Clim., 17, 3683–3700.

Hegerl, G.C., T. Crowley, W.T. Hyde, and D. Frame, 2006a: Constraints on climate sensitivity from temperature reconstructions of the past seven centuries. Nature, 440, doi:10.1038/nature04679.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 1996: Detecting greenhouse gas induced climate change with an optimal fingerprint method. J. Clim., 9, 2281–2306.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 1997: Multi-fingerprint detection and attribution of greenhouse-gas and aerosol-forced climate change. Clim. Dyn., 13, 613–634.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 2000: Detection and attribution of climate change: Sensitivity of results to climate model differences. Clim. Dyn., 16, 737–754.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 2003: Detection of volcanic, solar and greenhouse gas signals in paleo-reconstructions of Northern Hemispheric temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(5), 1242.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 2006b: Climate change detection and attribution: beyond mean temperature signals. J. Clim., 19, 5058–5077.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 2007: Detection of human influence on a new 1500yr climate reconstruction. J. Clim., 20, 650-666.

Held, I.M., and B.J. Soden, 2006: Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming. J. Clim., 19, 5686–5699.

Held, I.M., et al., 2005: Simulation of Sahel drought in the 20th and 21st centuries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102(50), 17891–17896.

Highwood, E.J., B.J. Hoskins, and P. Berrisford, 2000: Properties of the Arctic tropopause. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 126, 1515–1532.

Hoerling, M.P., J.W. Hurrell, J. Eischeid, and A. Phillips, 2006: Detection and attribution of twentieth-century northern and southern African rainfall change. J. Clim., 19, 3989–4008.

Hoerling, M.P., et al., 2005: Twentieth century North Atlantic climate change. Part II: Understanding the effect of Indian Ocean warming. Clim. Dyn., 23, 391–405.

Hoffert, M.I., and C. Covey, 1992: Deriving global climate sensitivity from paleoclimate reconstructions. Nature, 360, 573–576.

Holland, M.M., and M.N. Raphael, 2006: Twentieth century simulation of the southern hemisphere climate in coupled models. Part II: sea ice conditions and variability. Clim. Dyn., 26, 229–245.

Holloway, G., and T. Sou, 2002: Has Arctic sea ice rapidly thinned? J. Clim., 15, 1691–1701.

Hoyt, D.V., and K.H. Schatten, 1993: A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations, 1700-1992. J. Geophys. Res., 98, 18895–18906.

Huang, S.P., H.N. Pollack, and P.Y. Shen, 2000: Temperature trends ever the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature, 403(6771), 756–758.

Hulme, M., T.J. Osborn, and T.C. Johns, 1998: Precipitation sensitivity to global warming: Comparison of observations with HadCM2 simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 3379–3382.

Huntingford, C., P.A. Stott, M.R. Allen, and F.H. Lambert, 2006: Incorporating model uncertainty into attribution of observed temperature change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L05710, doi:10.1029/2005GL024831.

Hurrell, J.W., 1996: Influence of variations in extratropical wintertime teleconnections on Northern Hemisphere temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 665–668.

Hurrell, J.W., M.P. Hoerling, A.S. Phillips, and T. Xu, 2005: Twentieth century North Atlantic climate change. Part I: Assessing determinism. Clim. Dyn., 23, 371–389.

IDAG (International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group), 2005: Detecting and attributing external influences on the climate system: A review of recent advances. J. Clim., 18, 1291–1314.

IOCI, 2002: Climate Variability And Change In South West Western Australia, September 2002. Indian Ocean Climate Initiative, Perth, Australia, 34 pp.

IOCI, 2005: Indian Ocean Climate Initiative Stage 2: Report of Phase 1 Activity. Indian Ocean Climate Initiative, Perth, Australia, 42 pp.

IPCC, 1990: Climate Change: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Scientific Assessment [Houghton, J.T., G.J. Jenkins, and J.J. Ephraums (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 365 pp.

IPCC, 1996: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of the Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 572 pp.

IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881 pp.

Ishii, M., M. Kimoto, K. Sakamoto, and S.-I. Iwasaki, 2006: Steric sea level changes estimated from historical ocean subsurface temperature and salinity analyses. J. Oceanogr., 62, 155–170.

Ito, A., and J.E. Penner, 2005: Historical emissions of carbonaceous aerosols from biomass and fossil fuel burning for the period 1870-2000. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 19(2), GB2028, doi:10.1029/2004GB002374.

Johannssen, O.M., et al., 2004: Arctic climate change: observed and modeled temperature and sea-ice variability. Tellus, 56A, 328–341.

Jones, G.S., S.F.B. Tett, and P.A. Stott, 2003: Causes of atmospheric temperature change 1960-2000: A combined attribution analysis. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1228.

Jones, G.S., et al., 2005: Sensitivity of global scale attribution results to inclusion of climatic response to black carbon. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L14701, doi:10.1029/2005GL023370.

Jones, J.M., and M. Widmann, 2004: Early peak in Antarctic Oscillation index. Nature, 432, 290–291.

Jones, P.D., and M.E. Mann, 2004: Climate over past millennia. Rev. Geophys., 42(2), RG2002, doi:10.1029/2003RG000143.

Jones, P.D., T.J. Osborn, and K.R. Briffa, 2001: The evolution of climate over the last millennium. Science, 292(5517), 662–667.

Joos, F., et al., 2004: Transient simulations of Holocene atmospheric carbon dioxide and terrestrial carbon since the Last Glacial Maximum. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 18, 1–18.

Joussaume, S., and K.E. Taylor, 1995: Status of the Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project. In: Proceedings of the First International AMIP Scientific Conference, WCRP-92, Monterey, USA. WMO/TD-No. 732, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 425–430.

Kalnay, E., et al., 1996: The NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Project. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 77, 437–471.

Kaplan, J.O., I.C. Prentice, W. Knorr, and P.J. Valdes, 2002: Modeling the dynamics of terrestrial carbon storage since the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(22), 2074.

Karl, T.R., and R.W. Knight, 1998: Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the USA. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 79, 231–241.

Karl, T.R., and K.E. Trenberth, 2003: Modern global climate change. Science, 302, 1719–1723.

Karl, T.R., S.J. Hassol, C.D. Miller, and W.L. Murray (eds.), 2006: Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. A Report by the Climate Change Science Program and Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC, 180pp, http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm.

Karoly, D.J., 2003: Ozone and climate change. Science, 302, 236–237.

Karoly, D.J., and K. Braganza, 2001: Identifying global climate change using simple indices. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2205–2208.

Karoly, D.J., and K. Braganza, 2005a: Attribution of recent temperature changes in the Australian region. J. Clim., 18, 457–464.

Karoly, D.J., and K. Braganza, 2005b: A new approach to detection of anthropogenic temperature changes in the Australian region. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 89, 57–67.

Karoly, D.J., and Q. Wu, 2005: Detection of regional surface temperature trends. J. Clim., 18, 4337–4343.

Karoly, D.J., et al., 2003: Detection of a human influence on North American climate. Science, 302, 1200–1203.

Kass, R.E., and A.E. Raftery, 1995: Bayes Factors. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 90, 773–795.

Katz, R.W., 1999: Extreme value theory for precipitation: Sensitivity analysis for climate change. Adv. Water Resour., 23, 133–139.

Kaufmann, R.K., and D.L. Stern, 2002: Cointegration analysis of hemispheric temperature relations. J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4012.

Kennedy, M.C., and A. O’Hagan, 2001: Bayesian calibration of computer models. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B, 63(3), 425–464.

Kettleborough, J.A., B.B.B. Booth, P.A. Stott, and M.R. Allen, 2007: Estimates of uncertainty in predictions of global mean surface temperature. J. Clim., 20, 843-855.

Kiktev, D., D. Sexton, L. Alexander, and C. Folland, 2003: Comparison of modelled and observed trends in indices of daily climate extremes. J. Clim., 16, 3560–3571.

Kim, S.J., G.M. Flato, G.J. Boer, and N.A. McFarlane, 2002: A coupled climate model simulation of the Last Glacial Maximum, part 1: Transient multi-decadal response. Clim. Dyn., 19(5–6), 515–537.

Kirchner, I., et al., 1999: Climate model simulation of winter warming and summer cooling following the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 19039–19055.

Kistler, R., et al., 2001: The NCEP-NCAR 50-year reanalysis: Monthly means CD-ROM and documentation. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 82, 247–267.

Kitoh, A., and S. Murakami, 2002: Tropical Pacific climate at the mid-Holocene and the Last Glacial Maximum simulated by a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model. Paleoceanography, 17(3), 1047, doi:10.1029/2001PA000724.

Klein Tank, A.M.G., and G.P. Können, 2003: Trends in indices of daily temperature and precipitation extremes in Europe, 1946-99. J. Clim., 16, 3665–3680.

Klein Tank, A.M.G., G.P. Können, and F.M. Selten, 2005: Signals of anthropogenic influence on European warming as seen in the trend patterns of daily temperature variance. Int. J. Climatol., 25, 1–16.

Knight, J.R., et al., 2005: A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20708, doi:10.1029/2005GL024233.

Knutson, T.R., S. Manabe, and D. Gu, 1997: Simulated ENSO in a global coupled ocean-atmosphere model: Multidecadal amplitude modulation and CO2 sensitivity. J. Clim., 10(1), 138–161.

Knutson, T.R., T.L. Delworth, K.W. Dixon, and R.J. Stouffer, 1999: Model assessment of regional surface temperature trends (1949-1997). J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30981–30996.

Knutson, T.R., et al., 2006: Assessment of twentieth-century regional surface temperature trends using the GFDL CM2 coupled models. J. Clim., 19, 1624–1651.

Knutti, R., T.F. Stocker, F. Joos, and G.-K. Plattner, 2002: Constraints on radiative forcing and future climate change from observations and climate model ensembles. Nature, 416, 719–723.

Knutti, R., T.F. Stocker, F. Joos, and G.-K. Plattner, 2003: Probabilistic climate change projections using neural networks. Clim. Dyn., 21, 257–272.

Kristjansson, J.E., 2002: Studies of the aerosol indirect effect from sulfate and black carbon aerosols. J. Geophys. Res., 107, doi: 10.1029/2001JD000887.

Kucera, M., et al., 2005: Reconstruction of sea-surface temperatures from assemblages of planktonic foraminifera: multi-technique approach based on geographically constrained calibration data sets and its application to glacial Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Quat. Sci. Rev., 24(7–9), 951–998.

Kumar, A., F. Yang, L. Goddard, and S. Schubert, 2004: Differing trends in the tropical surface temperatures and precipitation over land and oceans. J. Clim., 17, 653–664.

Kunkel, K.E., X.-Z. Liang, J. Zhu, and Y. Lin, 2006: Can CGCMS simulate the twentieth century “warming hole” in the central United States? J. Clim., 19, 4137–4153.

Kushner, P.J., I.M. Held, and T.L. Delworth, 2001: Southern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation response to global warming. J. Clim., 14, 2238–3349.

Labitzke, K., 2004: On the signal of the 11-year sunspot cycle in the stratosphere and its modulation by the quasi, biennial oscillation. J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys., 66, 1151–1157.

Lal, M., and S.K. Singh, 2001: Global warming and monsoon climate. Mausam, 52, 245–262.

Lambert, F.H., P.A. Stott, M.R. Allen, and M.A. Palmer, 2004: Detection and attribution of changes in 20th century land precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31(10), L10203, doi:10.1029/2004GL019545.

Lambert, F.H., N.P. Gillett, D.A. Stone, and C. Huntingford, 2005: Attribution studies of observed land precipitation changes with nine coupled models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L18704, doi:10.1029/2005GL023654.

Lambert, S.J., and J.C. Fyfe, 2006: Changes in winter cyclone frequencies and strengths simulated in enhanced greenhouse warming experiments: Results from the models participating in the IPCC diagnostic exercise. Clim. Dyn., 26, 713–728.

Landsea, C.W., 2005: Hurricanes and global warming. Nature, 438, E11–E12.

Lean, J.L., J. Beer, and R. Bradley, 1995: Reconstruction of solar irradiance changes since 1610: Implications for climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 3195.

Lean, J.L., Y.M. Wang, and N.R. Sheeley, 2002: The effect of increasing solar activity on the Sun’s total and open magnetic flux during multiple cycles: Implications for solar forcing of climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(24), 2224, doi:10.1029/2002GL015880.

Lee, T.C.K., F.W. Zwiers, X. Zhang, and M. Tsao, 2006: Evidence of decadal climate prediction skill resulting from changes in anthropogenic forcing. J. Clim., 19, 5305–5318.

Lee, T.C.K., et al., 2005: A Bayesian approach to climate change detection and attribution. J. Clim., 18, 2429–2440.

Leroy, S.S., 1998: Detecting climate signals: Some Bayesian aspects. J. Clim., 11, 640–651.

Levis, S., J.A. Foley, and D. Pollard, 1999: CO2, climate, and vegetation feedbacks at the Last Glacial Maximum. J. Geophys. Res., 104(D24), 31191–31198.

Levis, S., G.B. Bonan, and C. Bonfils, 2004: Soil feedback drives the mid-Holocene North African monsoon northward in fully coupled CCSM2 simulations with a dynamic vegetation model. Clim. Dyn., 23(7–8), 791–802.

Levitus, S., J. Antonov, and T. Boyer, 2005: Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L02604, doi:10.1029/2004GL021592.

Levitus, S., J. Antonov, T.P. Boyer, and C. Stephens, 2000: Warming of the world ocean. Science, 287, 2225–2229.

Levitus, S., et al., 2001: Anthropogenic warming of the Earth’s climate system. Science, 292, 267–270.

Liepert, B., 2002: Observed reductions of surface solar radiation at sites in the United States and worldwide from 1961 to 1990. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 1421.

Lindsay, R.W., and J. Zhang, 2005: The thinning of arctic sea ice, 1988-2003: Have we passed a tipping point? J. Clim., 18, 4879–4894.

Lindzen, R.S., and C. Giannitsis, 2002: Reconciling observations of global temperature change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, doi:10.1029/2001GL014074.

Liu, Z.Y., J. Kutzbach, and L.X. Wu, 2000: Modeling climate shift of El Nino variability in the Holocene. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27(15), 2265–2268.

Liu, Z.Y., et al., 2005: Atmospheric CO2 forcing on glacial thermohaline circulation and climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(2), L02706, doi:10.1029/2004GL021929.

Lohmann, U., and G. Lesins, 2002: Stronger constraints on the anthropogenic indirect aerosol effect. Science, 298, 1012–1016.

Lohmann, U., and J. Feichter, 2005: Global indirect aerosol effects: A review. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 715–737.

Lorius, C., et al., 1990: The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Nature, 347, 139–145.

Lu, J., and T.L. Delworth, 2005: Oceanic forcing of the late 20th century Sahel drought. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L22706, doi:10.1029/2005GL023316.

Luterbacher, J., et al., 2002: Extending North Atlantic Oscillation reconstructions back to 1500. Atmos. Sci. Lett., 2(114–124).

Luterbacher, J., et al., 2004: European seasonal and annual temperature variability, trends, and extremes since 1500. Science, 303(5663), 1499–1503.

MacDonald, G.M., and R.A. Case, 2005: Variations in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation over the past millennium. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(8), L08703, doi:10.1029/2005GL022478.

Mann, M.E., and P.D. Jones, 2003: Global surface temperature over the past two millennia. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1820.

Mann, M.E., and K.A. Emanuel, 2006: Atlantic hurricane trends linked to climate change. Eos, 87, 233–241.

Mann, M.E., M.A. Cane, S.E. Zebiak, and A. Clement, 2005: Volcanic and solar forcing of the tropical Pacific over the past 1000 years. J. Clim., 18(3), 447–456.

Marshall, G.J., 2003: Trends in the Southern Annular Mode from observations and reanalyses. J. Clim., 16, 4134–4143.

Marshall, G.J., A. Orr, N.P.M. van Lipzig, and J.C. King, 2006: The impact of a changing Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode on Antarctic Peninsula summer temperatures. J. Clim., 19, 5388–5404.

Marshall, G.J., et al., 2004: Causes of exceptional atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L14205, doi:10.1029/2004GL019952.

Masson-Delmotte, V., et al., 2006: Past and future polar amplification of climate change: climate model intercomparisons and ice-core constraints. Clim. Dyn., 26, 513–529.

Matthews, H.D., et al., 2004: Natural and anthropogenic climate change: incorporating historical land cover change, vegetation dynamics and the global carbon cycle. Clim. Dyn., 22(5), 461–479.

May, W., 2004: Potential future changes in the Indian summer monsoon due to greenhouse warming: analysis of mechanisms in a global time-slice experiment. Clim. Dyn., 22, 389–414.

Maynard, K., J.F. Royer, and F. Chauvin, 2002: Impact of greenhouse warming on the West African summer monsoon. Clim. Dyn., 19, 499–514.

McAvaney, B.J., et al., 2001: Model evaluation. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 471–525.

Mears, C.A., and F.J. Wentz, 2005: The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature. Science, 309, 1548–1551.

Mears, C.A., M.C. Schabel, and F.J. Wentz, 2003: A reanalysis of the MSU channel 2 tropospheric temperature record. J. Clim., 16, 3650–3664.

Meehl, G.A., J.M. Arblaster, and C. Tebaldi, 2005: Understanding future patterns of precipitation extremes in climate model simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L18719, doi:10.1029/2005GL023680.

Meehl, G.A., et al., 2003: Solar and greenhouse gas forcing and climate response in the 20th century. J. Clim., 16, 426–444.

Meehl, G.A., et al., 2004: Combinations of natural and anthropogenic forcings in 20th century climate. J. Clim., 17, 3721–3727.

Meier, M.F., M.B. Dyurgerov, and G.J. McCabe, 2003: The health of glaciers: Recent changes in glacier regime. Clim. Change, 59, 123–135.

Mendelssohn, R., S.J. Bograd, F.B. Schwing, and D.M. Palacios, 2005: Teaching old indices new tricks: A state-space analysis of El Niño related climate indices. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L07709, doi:10.1029/2005GL022350.

Menon, S., A.D. Del Genio, D. Koch, and G. Tselioudis, 2002a: GCM Simulations of the aerosol indirect effect: Sensitivity to cloud parameterization and aerosol burden. J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 692–713.

Menon, S., J.E. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, and Y. Luo, 2002b: Climate effects of black carbon aerosols in China and India. Science, 297, 2250–2253.

Merryfield, W.J., 2006: Changes to ENSO under CO2 doubling in a multimodel ensemble. J. Clim., 19, 4009–4027.

Miller, R.L., G.A. Schmidt, and D.T. Shindell, 2006: Forced variations in the annular modes in the 20th century IPCC AR4 simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D18101, doi:10.1029/2005JD006323.

Milly, P.C.D., K.A. Dunne, and A.V. Vecchia, 2005: Global patterns of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature, 438, 347–350.

Min, S.-K., and A. Hense, 2006a: A Bayesian approach to climate model evaluation and multi-model averaging with an application to global mean surface temperatures from IPCC AR4 coupled climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L08708, doi:10.1029/2006GL025779.

Min, S.-K., and A. Hense, 2006b: A Bayesian assessment of climate change using multi-model ensembles. Part I: Global mean surface temperature. J. Clim., 19, 3237–3256.

Min, S.-K., A. Hense, and W.-T. Kwon, 2005: Regional-scale climate change detection using a Bayesian decision method. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L03706, doi:10.1029/2004GL021028.

Min, S.-K., A. Hense, H. Paeth, and W.-T. Kwon, 2004: A Bayesian decision method for climate change signal analysis. Meteorol. Z., 13, 421–436.

Mitchell, J.F.B., C.A. Wilson, and W.M. Cunningham, 1987: On CO2 climate sensitivity and model dependence of results. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 113, 293–322.

Mitchell, J.F.B., et al., 2001: Detection of climate change and attribution of causes. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 695–738.

Mitchell, T.D., and P.D. Jones, 2005: An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climatological observations and associated high-resolution grids. Int. J. Climatol., 25, 693–712.

Moberg, A., et al., 2005: Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature, 433, 613–617.

Monnin, E., et al., 2001: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Science, 291(5501), 112–114.

Montoya, M., H. von Storch, and T.J. Crowley, 2000: Climate simulation for 125,000 years ago with a coupled ocean-atmosphere General Circulation Model. J. Clim., 13, 1057–1070.

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2005: Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 86, 39–49.

Moy, C.M., G.O. Seltzer, D.T. Rodbell, and D.M. Anderson, 2002: Variability of El Nino/Southern Oscillation activity at millennial timescales during the Holocene epoch. Nature, 420(6912), 162–165.

Murray, R.J., N.L. Bindoff, and C.J.C. Reason, 2007: Modelling decadal changes on the Indian Ocean Section I5 at 32°S. J. Clim., accepted.

Nagashima, T., et al., 2006: The effect of carbonaceous aerosols on surface temperature in the mid twentieth century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L04702, doi:10.1029/2005GL024887.

Neelin, J.D., et al., 2006: Tropical drying trends in global warming models and observations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 103, 6110–6115.

Nesme-Ribes, E., et al., 1993: Solar dynamics and its impact on solar irradiance and the terrestrial climate. J. Geophys. Res., 98, 18923–18935.

New, M.G., M. Hulme, and P.D. Jones, 2000: Representing twentieth-century space-time climate variability. Part II: development of 1901-96 monthly grids of terrestrial surface climate. J. Clim., 13, 2217–2238.

Nicholls, N., 2003: Continued anomalous warming in Australia. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, doi:10.1029/2003GL017037.

Nicholls, N., 2005: Climate variability, climate change, and the Australian snow season. Aust. Meteorol. Mag., 54, 177–185.

Nicholls, N., P. Della-Marta, and D. Collins, 2005: 20th century changes in temperature and rainfall in New South Wales. Aust. Meteorol. Mag., 53, 263–268.

Nicholson, S.E., 2001: Climatic and environmental change in Africa during the last two centuries. Clim. Res., 17, 123–144.

North, G.R., and M. Stevens, 1998: Detecting climate signals in the surface temperature record. J. Clim., 11, 563–577.

North, G.R., K.-Y. Kim, S.S.P. Shen, and J.W. Hardin, 1995: Detection of forced climate signals. Part 1: Filter theory. J. Climate, 8, 401–408.

Novakov, T., et al., 2003: Large historical changes of fossil-fuel black carbon aerosols. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(6), 1324.

Nozawa, T., T. Nagashima, H. Shiogama, and S. Crooks, 2005: Detecting natural influence on surface air temperature in the early twentieth century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20719, doi:10.1029/2005GL023540.

Oerlemans, J., 2005: Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records. Science, 308, 675–677.

O’Hagan, A., and J. Forster, 2004: Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics. Volume 2b, Bayesian Inference. Arnold, London, 480 pp.

Ohmura, A., 2004: Cryosphere during the twentieth century, the state of the planet. In: The State of the Planet: Frontiers and Challenges in Geophysics [Sparks, R.S.J., and C.J. Hawkesworth (eds.)]. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, Washington, DC, pp. 239–257.

Oman, L., et al., 2005: Climatic response to high latitude volcanic eruptions. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D13103, doi:10.1029/2004JD005487.

Osborn, T.J., 2004: Simulating the winter North Atlantic Oscillation: the roles of internal variability and greenhouse gas forcing. Clim. Dyn., 22, 605–623.

Osborn, T.J., and M. Hulme, 1997: Development of a relationship between station and grid-box rainday frequencies for climate model evaluation. J. Clim., 10, 1885–1908.

Osborn, T.J., and K.R. Briffa, 2006: The spatial extent of 20th-century warmth in the context of the past 1200 years. Science, 311, 841–844.

Osborn, T.J., S. Raper, and K.R. Briffa, 2006: Simulated climate change during the last 1000 years: comparing the ECHO-G general circulation model with the MAGICC simple climate model. Clim. Dyn., 27, 185–197.

Osborn, T.J., et al., 1999: Evaluation of the North Atlantic Oscillation as simulated by a coupled climate model. Clim. Dyn., 15, 685–702.

Otto-Bliesner, B.L., 1999: El Nino La Nina and Sahel precipitation during the middle Holocene. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26(1), 87–90.

Otto-Bliesner, B.L., et al., 2003: Modeling El Nino and its tropical teleconnections during the last glacial-interglacial cycle. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(23), 2198, doi:10.1029/2003GL018553.

Paeth, H., A. Hense, R. Glowienka-Hense, and R. Voss, 1999: The North Atlantic Oscillation as an indicator for greenhouse-gas induced regional climate change. Clim. Dyn., 15, 953–960.

Palmer, M.A., L.J. Gray, M.R. Allen, and W.A. Norton, 2004: Solar forcing of climate: model results. Adv. Space Res., 34, 343–348.

Palmer, T.N., 1999: Predicting uncertainty in forecasts of weather and climate. Rep. Prog. Phys., 63, 71–116.

Palmer, T.N., and J. Räisänen, 2002: Quantifying the risk of extreme seasonal precipitation events in a changing climate. Nature, 415, 512–514.

Parker, D.E., L.V. Alexander, and J. Kennedy, 2004: Global and regional climate in 2003. Weather, 59, 145–152.

Parker, D.E., et al., 1997: A new global gridded radiosonde temperature database and recent temperature trends. Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 1499–1452.

Pasini, A., M. Lorè, and F. Ameli, 2006: Neural network modelling for the analysis of forcings/temperatures relationships at different scales in the climate system. Ecol. Model., 191, 58–67.

Peltier, W.R., 1994: Ice age paleotopography. Science, 265, 195–201.

Peltier, W.R., 2004: Global glacial isostasy and the surface of the ice-age Earth: the ICE-5G(VM2) model and GRACE. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 32, 111–149.

Penner, J.E., S.Y. Zhang, and C.C. Chuang, 2003: Soot and smoke aerosol may not warm climate. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D21), 4657, doi:10.1029/2003JD003409.

Penner, J.E., et al., 1997: Anthropogenic aerosols and climate change: A method for calibrating forcing. In: Assessing Climate Change: Results from the Model Evaluation Consortium for Climate Assessment [Howe, W., and A. Henderson-Sellers (eds.)]. Gordon & Breach Science Publishers, Sydney, Australia, pp. 91–111.

Penner, J.E., et al., 2007: Effect of black carbon on mid-troposphere and surface temperature trends. In: Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment [Schlesinger, M., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press.

Perlwitz, J., and H.-F. Graf, 2001: Troposphere-stratosphere dynamic coupling under strong and weak polar vortex conditions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 271–274.

Peterson, B.J., et al., 2002: Increasing river discharge to the Arctic Ocean. Science, 298, 2171–2173.

Pezza, A.B., and I. Simmonds, 2005: The first South Atlantic hurricane: Unprecedented blocking, low shear and climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L15712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023390.

Pielke, R.A. Jr., 2005: Are there trends in hurricane destruction? Nature, 438, E11.

Pielke, R.A. Jr., et al., 2005: Hurricanes and global warming. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 86, 1571–1575.

Pierce, D.W., et al., 2006: Anthropogenic warming of the oceans: observations and model results. J. Clim., 19, 1873–1900.

Pinker, R.T., B. Zhang, and E.G. Dutton, 2005: Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation? Science, 308, 850–854.

Pollack, H.N., and J.E. Smerdon, 2004: Borehole climate reconstructions: Spatial structure and hemispheric averages. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D11106, doi:10.1029/2003JD004163.

Prentice, I.C., and T. Webb, 1998: BIOME 6000: reconstructing global mid-Holocene vegetation patterns from palaeoecological records. J. Biogeogr., 25(6), 997–1005.

Prentice, I.C., and D. Jolly, 2000: Mid-Holocene and glacial-maximum vegetation geography of the northern continents and Africa. J. Biogeogr., 27(3), 507–519.

Qian, T., A. Dai, K.E. Trenberth, and K.W. Oleson, 2006: Simulation of global land surface conditions from 1948 to 2002: Part I: Forcing data and evaluations. J. Hydrometeorol., 7, 953–975.

Ramanathan, V., P.J. Crutzen, J.T. Kiehl, and D. Rosenfeld, 2001: Aerosols, climate, and the hydrological cycle. Science, 294, 2119–2124.

Ramanathan, V., et al., 2005: Atmospheric brown clouds: Impacts on South Asian climate and hydrological cycle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102, 5326–5333.

Ramankutty, N., and J.A. Foley, 1999: Estimating historical changes in global land cover: Croplands from 1700 to 1992. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 13(4), 997–1027.

Ramaswamy, V., et al., 2001: Radiative forcing of climate change. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 349–416.

Randel, W.J., and F. Wu, 2006: Biases in stratospheric temperature trends derived from historical radiosonde data. J. Clim., 19, 2094–2104.

Raper, S.C.B., J.M. Gregory, and R.J. Stouffer, 2002: The role of climate sensitivity and ocean heat uptake on AOGCM transient temperature response. J. Clim., 15, 124–130.

Rauthe, M., A. Hense, and H. Paeth, 2004: A model intercomparison study of climate change-signals in extratropical circulation. Int. J. Climatol., 24, 643–662.

Reader, M., and G. Boer, 1998: The modification of greenhouse gas warming by the direct effect of sulphate aerosols. Clim. Dyn., 14, 593–607.

Reichert, B.K., L. Bengtsson, and J. Oerlemans, 2002a: Recent glacier retreat exceeds internal variability. J. Clim., 15, 3069–3081.

Reichert, B.K., R. Schnur, and L. Bengtsson, 2002b: Global ocean warming tied to anthropogenic forcing. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(11), 1525.

Rigor, I.G., J.M. Wallace, and R.L. Colony, 2002: Response of sea ice to the Arctic Oscillation. J. Clim., 15, 2648–2668.

Rind, D., J. Perlwitz, and P. Lonergan, 2005a: AO/NAO response to climate change. Part I: The respective influences of stratospheric and tropospheric climate changes. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D12107, doi:10.1029/2004JD005103.

Rind, D., J. Perlwitz, and P. Lonergan, 2005b: AO/NAO response to climate change. Part II: The relative importance of low and high latitude temperature changes. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D12108, doi:10.1029/2004JD005686.

Rind, D., et al., 2004: The relative importance of solar and anthropogenic forcing of climate change between the Maunder Minimum and the present. J. Clim., 17(5), 906–929.

Robock, A., 2000: Volcanic eruptions and climate. Rev. Geophys., 38(2), 191–219.

Robock, A., and Y. Liu, 1994: The volcanic signal in Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model simulations. J. Clim., 7, 44–55.

Rothrock, D.A., J. Zhang, and Y. Yu, 2003: The arctic ice thickness anomaly of the 1990s: A consistent view from observations and models. J. Geophys. Res., 108(C3), 3083, doi:10.1029/2001JC001208.

Rotstayn, L.D., and J.E. Penner, 2001: Forcing, quasi-forcing and climate response. J. Clim., 14, 2960–2975.

Rotstayn, L.D., and U. Lohmann, 2002: Tropical rainfall trends and the indirect aerosol effect. J. Clim., 15, 2103–2116.

Rotstayn, L.D., and Y. Liu, 2003: Sensitivity of the first indirect aerosol effect to an increase of cloud droplet spectral dispersion with droplet number concentration. J. Clim., 16, 3476–3481.

Rowell, D.P., 1996: Reply to comments by Y.C. Sud and W.K.-M. Lau. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 122, 1007–1013.

Rowell, D.P., 2003: The Impact of Mediterranean SSTs on the Sahelian rainfall season. J. Clim., 16, 849–862.

Ruzmaikin, A., and J. Feynman, 2002: Solar influence on a major mode of atmospheric variability. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D14), doi:10.1029/2001JD001239.

Rybski, D., A. Bunde, S. Havlin, and H. von Storch, 2006: Long-term persistence in climate and the detection problem. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06718, doi:10.1029/2005GL025591.

Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, T. Barnett, and E. Anyamba, 1996a: Detection of climate change and attribution of causes. In: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 407–444.

Santer, B.D., et al., 1996b: A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Nature, 382, 39–46.

Santer, B.D., et al., 1996c: Reply to “Human effect on global climate?” Nature, 384, 522–525.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2000: Interpreting differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. Science, 287, 1227–1231.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2001: Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 28033–28059.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2003a: Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science, 301, 479–483.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2003b: Behavior of tropopause height and atmospheric temperature in models, reanalyses, and observations: Decadal changes. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D1), 4002.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2003c: Influence of satellite data uncertainties on the detection of externally-forced climate change. Science, 300, 1280–1284.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2004: Identification of anthropogenic climate change using a second-generation reanalysis. J. Geophys. Res., 109, doi:10.1029/2004JD005075.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2005: Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical atmosphere. Science, 309, 1551–1556.

Sato, M., J.E. Hansen, M.P. McCormick, and J.B. Pollack, 1993: Stratospheric aerosol optical depths, 1850-1990. J. Geophys. Res., 98, 22987–22994.

Scaife, A.A., J.R. Knight, G.K. Vallis, and C.K. Folland, 2005: A stratospheric influence on the winter NAO and North Atlantic surface climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L18715, doi:10.1029/2005GL023226.

Schär, C., and G. Jendritzky, 2004: Hot news for summer 2003. Nature, 432, 559–560.

Schär, C., et al., 2004: The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heat waves. Nature, 427, 332–336

Scherrer, S.C., C. Appenzeller, and M. Laternser, 2004: Trends in Swiss alpine snow days – the role of local and large scale climate variability. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, doi:10.1029/2004GL020255.

Scherrer, S.C., C. Appenzeller, M. A. Linger and C. Schär, 2005: European temperature distribution changes in observations and climate change scenarios. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, doi:10.1029/2005GL024108.

Schlesinger, M.E., and N. Ramankutty, 1992: Implications for global warming of intercycle solar irradiance variations. Nature, 360, 330–333.

Schlesinger, M.E., and N. Ramankutty, 1994: An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65-70 years. Nature, 367, 723–726.

Schneider, T., 2004: The tropopause and the thermal stratification in the extratropics of a dry atmosphere. J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1317–1340.

Schneider, T., and I.M. Held, 2001: Discriminants of

chek, your problem is that I can read such science, I can see both if that claim is addressed and how it is tackled, and if they actually manage to domonstrate those levels.

I am fully aware that you can't (and th

at many others here can't either).

But your stupid analogy with a forrest of trees at best beating around some little bush, but all these trees and bushes together form some higher truth .. is just plain ridiculous. It shows (once more) that you have no clue about how real science is done.

It's the Jeffie-style version, 'if sufficiently many talk about it often, repeat it, believe and agree, than it somehow strengthens the belief and the hypothesis.

No!

It doens't work that way! Never did!

It's nonsense: "Those qualified to see" can see the forrest, and from that view determine things no one managed to see and claim and demonstrate individually. Its sheer and utter nonsense, chek. Nothing else! And it's what you and quite a few more here have been spouting since I raised the question.

Lionel is getting utterly pathetic, thinking that presentations and reports about other things somehow make Sandy attributable to human CO2. by lining up people who also would like it to be so. He too is completely unaware of what real science is. Its once more the handwaving stuff: 'But the proper experts can feel the connection'. Sheer nonsense!

Also, what about the reality where you failed to answer the question "How do you find out how the climate has changed"?

Are you still not visiting that reality?

"chek, your problem is that I can read such science,"

If you can, the problem must therefore be that you won't.

You have to be numerate to count, Griselda. But luckily for you the nothing that you possess might be just within your grasp.

" ‘if sufficiently many talk about it often, repeat it, believe and agree, than it somehow strengthens the belief and the hypothesis.

No!

It doens’t work that way! Never did! "

Yes it does.

When nobody apart from two people thought that cold fusion happened, it wasn't sciemce fact.

When a few people failed to reproduce the work, it wasn't refuted yet.

When scores of attempts had been tried and scores more looked at the data and scores more looked at the theory, and all those agreed it was bunkum, then it was a scientific fact that cold fusion wasn't seen.

"It’s nonsense: “Those qualified to see” can see the forrest"

How are you qualified to see?

Wow, I still chuckle at the time you listed two papers, claimed them to be it, and one of them was about monsoon patterns, and on top of that showing that those didn't agree with GHG model simulation trends.

Just amazing what nonsense you people can come up with, in order to avoid reality for som more time.

I don't remember who it was, but one of you was very hopeful that AR5 would make even stronger statements.

Albeit nothing really is going you guys' way. The hysteria about arctic ice and extreme wether, both are diversions from the fact that the temperature just isn't doing what you guys need it to do ... and for 1½ decades now, various post hoc amendments have been required to keep your hypthesis upright ... but increasingly more wobbly and sick ...

You guys will proably be oamong the last to understand what happened.

"Wow, I still chuckle at the time you listed two papers, claimed them to be it,"

Yes, false memories are all you seem to have.

Drugs?

"showing that those didn’t agree with GHG model simulation trends."

Why are you going off at tangents?

The request was for science supporting AR4's claim. Not showing a demanded inerrancy of models.

So, you're not qualified to see.

Wow ... there is no science establishing those AR4 claim levels. None!

And the absence of any such science does not need to be refuted.

That you clowns here, who obviously aren't qualified to handle anything responsibly, take these claims in blind faith is understandable. But that the two of you, on top of your impotence, claim that what you cannot see, have never found, arent qualified to read, that you two bozos assert that it's in there, allthough nobody else, not even on your side, dares to make these specific claims is just hilarious.

And you've had 1½ years to move a little little bit forward. But it seem's you'd rather go the opposite way.

It's just marvelous.

:-)

And now for an encore Jonarse is reduced to hoping that focussing on ever shorter periods will validate his skewed 'reasoning' wrt global temperature. Yes, he's just going down on the up escalator.

No wonder Grant Foster cut him off at the knees within three posts last year. Good times, good times.

"Wow … there is no science establishing those AR4 claim levels. None! "

Wrong.

Again.

"And the absence of any such science does not need to be refuted."

The existence of all those science papers need to be explained away though, if you're going to claim "No science".

Never have done.

Just denied it all exists.

And still nothing on how you happen to be "qualified to see".

Is this because that would require you to actually have a CV?

"that you two bozos assert that it’s in there"

It's here:

AchutaRao, K.M., et al., 2006: Variability of ocean heat uptake: Reconciling observations and models. J. Geophys. Res., 111, C05019.

Ackerman, A.S., et al., 2000: Reduction of tropical cloudiness by soot. Science, 288, 1042–1047.

Adams, J.B., M.E. Mann, and C.M. Ammann, 2003: Proxy evidence for an El Nino-like response to volcanic forcing. Nature, 426(6964), 274–278.

Alexander, L.V., et al., 2006: Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D05109, doi:10.1029/2005JD006290.

Allan, R.J., and T.J. Ansell, 2006: A new globally-complete monthly historical gridded mean sea level pressure data set (HadSLP2): 1850-2004. J. Clim., 19, 5816–5842.

Allen, M.R., 2003: Liability for climate change. Nature, 421, 891–892.

Allen, M.R., and S.F.B. Tett, 1999: Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting. Clim. Dyn., 15, 419–434.

Allen, M.R., and W.J. Ingram, 2002: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature, 419, 224–232.

Allen, M.R., and D.A. Stainforth, 2002: Towards objective probabilistic climate forecasting. Nature, 419, 228–228.

Allen, M.R., and P.A. Stott, 2003: Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting, Part I: Theory. Clim. Dyn., 21, 477–491.

Allen, M.R., J.A. Kettleborough, and D.A. Stainforth, 2002: Model error in weather and climate forecasting. In: ECMWF Predictability of Weather and Climate Seminar [Palmer, T.N. (ed.)]. European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK, http://www.ecmwf.int/publications/library/do/references/list/209.

Allen, M.R., et al., 2000: Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change. Nature, 407, 617–620.

Ammann, C.M., G.A. Meehl, W.M. Washington, and C. Zender, 2003: A monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations of 20th century climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(12), 1657.

Anderson, T.L., et al., 2003: Climate forcing by aerosols: A hazy picture. Science, 300, 1103–1104.

Andronova, N.G., and M.E. Schlesinger, 2000: Causes of global temperature changes during the 19th and 20th centuries. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27(14), 2137–2140.

Andronova, N.G., and M.E. Schlesinger, 2001: Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res., 106(D19), 22605–22611.

Andronova, N.G., M.E. Schlesinger, and M.E. Mann, 2004: Are reconstructed pre-instrumental hemispheric temperatures consistent with instrumental hemispheric temperatures? Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L12202, doi:10.1029/2004GL019658.

Andronova, N.G., et al., 1999: Radiative forcing by volcanic aerosols from 1850 to 1994. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 16807–16826.

Andronova, N.G., et al., 2007: The concept of climate sensitivity: History and development. In: Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment [Schlesinger, M., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press.

Annan, J.D., and J.C. Hargreaves, 2006: Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06704, doi:10.1029/2005GL025259.

Annan, J.D., et al., 2005: Efficiently constraining climate sensitivity with paleoclimate simulations. Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere, 1, 181–184.

Arblaster, J.M., and G.A. Meehl, 2006: Contributions of external forcing to Southern Annular Mode trends. J. Clim., 19, 2896–2905.

Bader, J., and M. Latif, 2003: The impact of decadal-scale Indian Ocean sea surface temperature anomalies on Sahelian rainfall and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(22), 2169.

Banks, H.T., et al., 2000: Are observed decadal changes in intermediate water masses a signature of anthropogenic climate change? Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 2961–2964.

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, and R. Schnur, 2001: Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world’s oceans. Science, 292, 270–274.

Barnett, T.P., et al., 1999: Detection and attribution of recent climate change. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 80, 2631–2659.

Barnett, T.P., et al., 2005: Penetration of a warming signal in the world’s oceans: human impacts. Science, 309, 284–287.

Bauer, E., M. Claussen, V. Brovkin, and A. Huenerbein, 2003: Assessing climate forcings of the Earth system for the past millennium. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(6), 1276.

Beltrami, H., J.E. Smerdon, H.N. Pollack, and S. Huang, 2002: Continental heat gain in the global climate system. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 1167.

Bengtsson, L., K.I. Hodges, and E. Roechner, 2006: Storm tracks and climate change. J. Clim., 19, 3518–3543.

Berger, A., 1978: Long-term variations of caloric solar radiation resulting from the earth’s orbital elements. Quat. Res., 9, 139–167.

Berger, A., 1988: Milankovitch theory and climate. Rev. Geophys., 26, 624–657.

Berliner, L.M., R.A. Levine, and D.J. Shea, 2000: Bayesian climate change assessment. J. Clim., 13, 3805–3820.

Bertrand, C., M.F. Loutre, M. Crucifix, and A. Berger, 2002: Climate of the last millennium: a sensitivity study. Tellus, 54A(3), 221–244.

Betts, R.A., 2001: Biogeophysical impacts of land use on present-day climate: near surface temperature and radiative forcing. Atmos. Sci. Lett., 2, 39–51.

Bigelow, N.H., et al., 2003: Climate change and Arctic ecosystems: 1. Vegetation changes north of 55 degrees N between the last glacial maximum, mid-Holocene, and present. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D19), 8170, doi:10.1029/2002JD002558.

Bindoff, N.L., and T.J. McDougall, 2000: Decadal changes along an Indian Ocean section at 32S and their interpretation. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 30(6), 1207–1222.

Bjerknes, J., 1969: Atmospheric teleconnections from the equatorial Pacific. Mon. Weather Rev., 97, 163–172.

Boer, G.J., and B. Yu, 2003: Climate sensitivity and climate state. Clim. Dyn., 21, 167–176.

Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297–302.

Boyer, T.P., et al., 2005: Linear trends in salinity for the World Ocean, 1955-1998. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L01604.

Braconnot, P., S. Joussaume, O. Marti, and N. de Noblet, 1999: Synergistic feedbacks from ocean and vegetation on the African monsoon response to mid-Holocene insolation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 2481–2484.

Braconnot, P., O. Marti, S. Joussaume, and Y. Leclainche, 2000: Ocean feedback in response to 6 kyr BP insolation. J. Clim., 13(9), 1537–1553.

Braconnot, P., et al., 2004: Evaluation of PMIP coupled ocean-atmosphere simulations of the Mid-Holocene. In: Past Climate Variability through Europe and Africa [Battarbee, R.W., F. Gasse, and C.E. Stickley (eds.)]. Springer, London, UK, pp. 515-533.

Braganza, K., et al., 2003: Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part I – Variability and correlation structure. Clim. Dyn., 20, 491–502.

Braganza, K., et al., 2004: Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part II – Attribution of climate change during the 20th century. Clim. Dyn., 22, 823–838.

Briffa, K.R., et al., 2001: Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree ring density network. J. Geophys. Res., 106(D3), 2929–2941.

Broccoli, A.J., et al., 2003: Twentieth-century temperature and precipitation trends in ensemble climate simulations including natural and anthropogenic forcing. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D24), 4798.

Brohan, P., et al., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548.

Bryden, H.L., E. McDonagh, and B.A. King, 2003: Changes in ocean water mass properties: oscillations of trends? Science, 300, 2086–2088.

Bryden, H.L., H.R. Longworth, and S.A. Cunningham, 2005: Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25° N. Nature, 438, 655–657.

Burke, E.J., S.J. Brown, and N. Christidis, 2006: Modelling the recent evolution of global drought and projections for the 21st century with the Hadley Centre climate model. J. Hydrometeorol., 7, 1113–1125.

Caesar, J., L. Alexander, and R. Vose, 2006: Large-scale changes in observed daily maximum and minimum temperatures, 1946-2000. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D05101, doi:10.1029/2005JD006280.

Cai, W., P.H. Whetton, and D.J. Karoly, 2003: The response of the Antarctic Oscillation to increasing and stabilized atmospheric CO2. J. Clim., 16, 1525–1538.

Cane, M., et al., 2006: Progress in paleoclimate modeling. J. Clim., 19, 5031–5057.

Carril, A.F., C.G. Menéndez, and A. Navarra, 2005: Climate response associated with the Southern Annular Mode in the surroundings of Antarctic Peninsula: A multimodel ensemble analysis. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L16713, doi:10.1029/2005GL023581.

Chan, J.C.L., 2006: Comment on “Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment”. Science, 311, 1713.

Chan, J.C.L., and K.S. Liu, 2004: Global warming and western North Pacific typhoon activity from an observational perspective. J. Clim., 17, 4590–4602.

Chase, T.N., J.A. Knaff, R.A. Pielke, and E. Kalnay, 2003: Changes in global monsoon circulations since 1950. Natural Hazards, 29, 229–254.

Chen, J., B.E. Carlson, and A.D. Del Genio, 2002: Evidence for strengthening of the tropical general circulation in the 1990s. Science, 295, 838–841.

Christidis, N., et al., 2005: Detection of changes in temperature extremes during the second half of the 20th century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20716, doi:10.1029/2005GL023885.

Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and W.D. Braswell, 2000: MSU tropospheric temperatures: Dataset construction and radiosonde comparison. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 17, 1153–1170.

Chuang, C.C., et al., 2002: Cloud susceptibility and the first aerosol indirect forcing: Sensitivity to black carbon and aerosol concentrations. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D21), 4564, doi:10.1029/2000JD000215.

Church, J.A., N.J. White, and J.M. Arblaster, 2005: Volcanic eruptions: their impact on sea level and oceanic heat content. Nature, 438, 74–77.

Clement, A.C., R. Seager, and M.A. Cane, 2000: Suppression of El Nino during the mid-Holocene by changes in the Earth’s orbit. Paleoceanography, 15(6), 731–737.

Clement, A.C., A. Hall, and A.J. Broccoli, 2004: The importance of precessional signals in the tropical climate. Clim. Dyn., 22, 327–341.

CLIMAP (Climate: Long-range Investigation, Mapping and Prediction), 1981: Seasonal Reconstructions of the Earth’s Surface at the Last Glacial Maximum. Map Series Technical Report MC-36, Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.

Cobb, K.M., C.D. Charles, H. Cheng, and R.L. Edwards, 2003: El Nino/Southern Oscillation and tropical Pacific climate during the last millennium. Nature, 424(6946), 271–276.

Collins, M., 2000a: The El-Nino Southern Oscillation in the second Hadley Centre coupled model and its response to greenhouse warming. J. Clim., 13, 1299–1312.

Collins, M., 2000b: Understanding uncertainties in the response of ENSO to greenhouse warming. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 3509–3513.

Cook, E.R., et al., 2004: Long-term aridity changes in the western United States. Science, 306(5698), 1015–1018.

Coughlin, K., and K.K. Tung, 2004: Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D21105, doi:10.1029/2004JD004873.

Crooks, S., 2004: Solar Influence On Climate. PhD Thesis, University of Oxford.

Crooks, S.A., and L.J. Gray, 2005: Characterization of the 11-year solar signal using a multiple regression analysis of the ERA-40 dataset. J. Clim., 18(7), 996–1015.

Crowley, T.J., 2000: Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years. Science, 289(5477), 270–277.

Crowley, T.J., et al., 2003: Modeling ocean heat content changes during the last millennium. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(18), 1932.

Cubasch, U., et al., 1997: Simulation of the influence of solar radiation variations on the global climate with an ocean-atmosphere general circulation model. Clim. Dyn., 13(11), 757–767.

Cubasch, U., et al., 2001: Projections of future climate change. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 99–181.

Curry, R., B. Dickson, and I. Yashayaev, 2003: A change in the freshwater balance of the Atlantic Ocean over the past four decades. Nature, 426, 826–829.

Dai, A., K.E. Trenberth, and T.R. Karl, 1999: Effects of clouds, soil, moisture, precipitation and water vapour on diurnal temperature range. J. Clim., 12, 2451–2473.

Dai, A., et al., 2004: The recent Sahel drought is real. Int. J. Climatol., 24, 1323–1331.

D’Arrigo, R., et al., 2005: On the variability of ENSO over the past six centuries. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(3), L03711, doi:10.1029/2004GL022055.

Delworth, T.L., and T.R. Knutson, 2000: Simulation of early 20th century global warming. Science, 287, 2246–2250.

Delworth, T.L., and M.E. Mann, 2000: Observed and simulated multidecadal variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Clim. Dyn., 16(9), 661–676.

Delworth, T.L., V. Ramaswamy, and G.L. Stenchikov, 2005: The impact of aerosols on simulated ocean temperature and heat content in the 20th century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L24709, doi:10.1029/2005GL024457.

Delworth, T., et al., 2002: Review of simulations of climate variability and change with the GFDL R30 coupled climate model. Clim. Dyn., 19, 555–574.

Dickson, R.R., et al., 2002: Rapid freshening of the deep North Atlantic Ocean over the past four decades. Nature, 416, 832–837.

Douglass, D.H., and B.D. Clader, 2002: Climate sensitivity of the Earth to solar irradiance. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(16), 1786.

Douglass, D.H., and R.S. Knox, 2005: Climate forcing by volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L05710, doi:10.1029/2004GL022119.

Douglass, D.H., B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer, 2004: Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, doi:10.1029/2004GL020103.

Douville, H., 2006: Detection-attribution of global warming at the regional scale: How to deal with precipitation variability. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L02701, doi:10.1029/2005GL024967.

Douville, H., et al., 2002: Sensitivity of the hydrological cycle to increasing amounts of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Clim. Dyn., 20, 45–68.

Dumas, J.A., G.M. Flato, and A.J. Weaver, 2003: The impact of varying atmospheric forcing on the thickness of Arctic multi-year sea ice. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1918.

Dyurgerov, M.B., and M.F. Meier, 2005: Glaciers and the Changing Earth System: A 2004 Snapshot. Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 117 pp.

Easterling, D.R., et al., 2000: Climate extremes: Observations, modeling and impacts. Science, 289, 2068–2074.

Egorova, T., et al., 2004: Chemical and dynamical response to the 11-year variability of the solar irradiance simulated with a chemistry-climate model. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L06119, doi:10.1029/2003GL019294.

Elsner, J.B., X. Niu, and T.H. Jagger, 2004: Detecting shifts in hurricane rates using a Markov chain Monte Carlo approach. J. Clim., 17, 2652–2666.

Elsner, J.B., A.A. Tsonis, and T.H. Jagger, 2006: High-frequency variability in hurricane power dissipation and its relationship to global temperature. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 87, 763–768.

Emanuel, K., 2005: Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, 436, 686–688.

Emori, S., and S.J. Brown, 2005: Dynamic and thermodynamic changes in mean and extreme precipitation under changed climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L17706, doi:10.1029/2005GL023272.

Esper, J., E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber, 2002: Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability. Science, 295(5563), 2250–2253.

Fichefet, T., B. Tartinville, and H. Goosse, 2003: Antarctic sea ice variability during 1958-1999: A simulation with a global ice-ocean model. J. Geophys. Res., 108(C3), 3102–3113.

Folland, C.K., T. N. Palmer, and D. E. Parker, 1986: Sahel rainfall and worldwide sea temperatures 1901-85. Nature, 320, 602–607.

Folland, C.K., et al., 2001: Observed variability and change. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 881pp.

Fomby, T.B., and T.J. Vogelsang, 2002: The application of size-robust trend statistics to global-warming temperature series. J. Clim., 15, 117–123.

Forest, C.E., M.R. Allen, A.P. Sokolov, and P.H. Stone, 2001: Constraining climate model properties using optimal fingerprint detection methods. Clim. Dyn., 18, 277–295.

Forest, C.E., et al., 2002: Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent observations. Science, 295, 113.

Forest, D.J., P.H. Stone, and A.P. Sokolov, 2006: Estimated PDFs of climate system properties including natural and anthropogenic forcings. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01705, doi:10.1029/2005GL023977.

Forster, P.M.D.F., and J.M. Gregory, 2006: The climate sensitivity and its components diagnosed from Earth radiation budget data. J. Clim., 19, 39–52.

Foukal, P., G. North, and T. Wigley, 2004: A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science, 306, 68–69.

Foukal, P., C. Froehlich, H. Sruit, and T.M.L. Wigley, 2006: Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on Earth’s climate. Nature, 443, 161–166, doi:10.1038/nature05072.

Frame, D.J., et al., 2005: Constraining climate forecasts: The role of prior assumptions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L09702, doi:10.1029/2004GL022241.

Free, M., and J.K. Angell, 2002: Effect of volcanoes on the vertical temperature profile in radiosonde data. J. Geophys. Res., 107, doi:10.1029/2001JD001128.

Free, M., et al., 2005: Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC): A new dataset of large-area anomaly time series. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D22101, doi:10.1029/2005JD006169.

Frich, P., et al., 2002: Observed coherent changes in climatic extremes during the second half of the twentieth century. Clim. Res., 19, 193–212.

Fyfe, J.C., G.J. Boer, and G.M. Flato, 1999: The Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations and their projected changes under global warming. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 1601–1604.

Ganopolski, A., et al., 1998: The influence of vegetation-atmosphere-ocean interaction on climate during the mid-Holocene. Science, 280, 1916–1919.

Gedney, N., et al., 2006: Detection of a direct carbon dioxide effect in continental river runoff records. Nature, 439, 835–838.

Gent, P.R., and G. Danabasoglu, 2004: Heat uptake and the thermohaline circulation in the Coummunity Climate System Model, Version 2. J. Clim., 17, 4058–4069.

Gerber, S., et al., 2003: Constraining temperature variations over the last millennium by comparing simulated and observed atmospheric CO2. Clim. Dyn., 20(2–3), 281–299.

Giannini, A., R. Saravanan, and P. Chang, 2003: Oceanic forcing of Sahel rainfall on interannual to interdecadal time scales. Science, 302, 1027–1030.

Gibson, J.K., et al., 1997: ERA Description. ECMWF Reanalysis Project Report Series Vol. 1. European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK, 66 pp.

Gilgen, H., M. Wild, and A. Ohmura, 1998: Means and trends of shortwave irradiance at the surface estimated from global energy balance archive data. J. Clim., 11, 2042–2061.

Gillett, N.P., 2005: Northern Hemisphere circulation. Nature, 437, 496.

Gillett, N.P., and D.W.J. Thompson, 2003: Simulation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change. Science, 302, 273–275.

Gillett, N.P., H.F. Graf, and T.J. Osborn, 2003a: Climate change and the North Atlantic Oscillation. In: The North Atlantic Oscillation: Climate Significance and Environmental Impact [Hurrell, Y.K.J., G. Ottersen, and M. Visbeck (eds.)]. Geophysical Monograph Vol. 134, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 193-209.

Gillett, N.P., R.J. Allan, and T.J. Ansell, 2005: Detection of external influence on sea level pressure with a multi-model ensemble. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(19), L19714, doi:10.1029/2005GL023640.

Gillett, N.P., G.C. Hegerl, M.R. Allen, and P.A. Stott, 2000: Implications of changes in the Northern Hemispheric circulation for the detection of anthropogenic climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 993–996.

Gillett, N.P., F.W. Zwiers, A.J. Weaver, and P.A. Stott, 2003b: Detection of human influence on sea level pressure. Nature, 422, 292–294.

Gillett, N.P., A.J. Weaver, F.W. Zwiers, and M.D. Flannigan, 2004a: Detecting the effect of climate change on Canadian forest fires. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31(18), L18211, doi:10.1029/2004GL020876.

Gillett, N.P., A.J. Weaver, F.W. Zwiers, and M.F. Wehner, 2004b: Detection of volcanic influence on global precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31(12), L12217, doi:10.1029/2004GL020044.

Gillett, N.P., M.F. Wehner, S.F.B. Tett, and A.J. Weaver, 2004c: Testing the linearity of the response to combined greenhouse gas and sulfate aerosol forcing. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L14201, doi:10.1029/2004GL020111.

Gillett, N.P., et al., 2002a: Reconciling two approaches to the detection of anthropogenic influence on climate. J. Clim., 15, 326–329.

Gillett, N.P., et al., 2002b: How linear is the Arctic Oscillation response to greenhouse gases? J. Geophys. Res., 107, doi: 10.1029/2001JD000589.

Gillett, N.P., et al., 2002c: Detecting anthropogenic influence with a multi-model ensemble. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, doi:10.1029/2002GL015836.

Gleckler, P.J., et al., 2006: Krakatoa’s signature persists in the ocean. Nature, 439, 675.

Gleisner, H., and P. Thejll, 2003: Patterns of tropospheric response to solar variability. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 44–47.

Goeberle, C., and R. Gerdes, 2003: Mechanisms determining the variability of Arctic sea ice conditions and export. J. Clim., 16, 2843–2858.

Goldewijk, K.K., 2001: Estimating global land use change over the past 300 years: The HYDE Database. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 15(2), 417–433.

Goldstein, M., and J. Rougier, 2004: Probabilistic formulations for transferring inferences from mathematical models to physical systems. SIAM J. Sci. Computing, 26(2), 467–487.

Gonzalez-Rouco, F., H. von Storch, and E. Zorita, 2003: Deep soil temperature as proxy for surface air-temperature in a coupled model simulation of the last thousand years. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(21), 2116, doi:10.1029/2003GL018264.

Goosse, H., and H. Renssen, 2001: A two-phase response of the Southern Ocean to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28(18), 3469–3472.

Goosse, H., and H. Renssen, 2004: Exciting natural modes of variability by solar and volcanic forcing: idealized and realistic experiments. Clim. Dyn., 23(2), 153–163.

Goosse, H., et al., 2004: A late medieval warm period in the Southern Ocean as a delayed response to external forcing? Geophys. Res. Lett., 31(6), L06203, doi:10.1029/2003GL19140.

Errata Goosse, H., et al., 2005: Modelling the climate of the last millennium: What causes the differences between simulations? Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(6), L06710, doi:10.1029/2005GL022368.

Errata

Gray, L.J., R.G. Harrison, and J.D. Haigh, 2005: The Influence of Solar Changes on the Earth’s Climate. Hadley Centre Technical Note 62, The UK Met Office.

Greene, A.M., 2005: A time constant for hemispheric glacier mass balance. J. Glaciol., 51(174), 353–362.

Gregory, J.M., and P. Huybrechts, 2006: Ice-sheet contributions to future sea-level change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 364, 1709–1731.

Gregory, J.M., J.A. Lowe, and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Simulated global-mean sea-level changes over the last half-millennium. J. Clim., 19, 4576–4591.

Gregory, J.M., et al., 2002a: An observationally based estimate of the climate sensitivity. J. Clim., 15(22), 3117–3121.

Gregory, J.M., et al., 2002b: Recent and future changes in Arctic sea ice simulated by the HadCM3 AOGCM. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 2175.

Gregory, J.M., et al., 2004: Simulated and observed decadal variability in ocean heat content. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L15312.

Groisman, P.Y., et al., 1999: Changes in the probability of heavy precipitation: Important indicators of climatic change. Clim. Change, 42, 243–283.

Groisman, P.Y., et al., 2005: Trends in intense precipitation in the climate record. J. Clim., 18, 1326–1350.

Haarsma, R.J., F. Selten, N. Weber, and M. Kliphuis, 2005: Sahel rainfall variability and response to greenhouse warming. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L17702, doi:10.1029/2005GL023232.

Haigh, J.D., 2003: The effects of solar variability on the Earth’s climate. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 361, 95–111.

Hansen, J.E., M. Sato, and R. Ruedy, 1995: Long-term changes of the diurnal temperature cycle: implications about mechanisms of global climate change. Atmos. Res., 37, 175–209.

Hansen, J.E., M. Sato, and R. Ruedy, 1997: Radiative forcing and climate response. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 6831–6864.

Hansen, J., et al., 1984: Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In: Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity [Hansen, J.E., and T. Takahashi (eds.)]. Geophysical Monographs Vol. 29, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 130–163.

Hansen, J., et al., 2002: Climate forcings in Goddard Institute for Space Studies SI2000 simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D18), 4347.

Hansen, J., et al., 2005: Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431–1435.

Harrison, S., and C. Prentice, 2003: Climate and CO2 controls on global vegetation distribution at the last glacial maximum: analysis based on palaeovegetation data, biome modelling and palaeoclimate simulations. Global Change Biol., 9, 983–1004.

Harrison, S., P. Braconnot, C. Hewitt, and R.J. Stouffer, 2002: Fourth international workshop of The Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP): launching PMIP Phase II. Eos, 83, 447.

Harvey, L.D.D., 2004: Characterizing the annual-mean climatic effect of anthropogenic CO2 and aerosol emissions in eight coupled atmosphere-ocean GCMs. Clim. Dyn., 23, 569–599.

Harvey, L.D.D., and R.K. Kaufmann, 2002: Simultaneously constraining climate sensitivity and aerosol radiative forcing. J. Clim., 15 (20), 2837–2861.

Hasselmann, K., 1976: Stochastic climate models. Part 1. Theory. Tellus, 28, 473–485.

Hasselmann, K., 1979: On the signal-to-noise problem in atmospheric response studies. In: Meteorology of Tropical Oceans [Shaw, D.B. (ed.)]. Royal Meteorological Society, Bracknell, UK, pp. 251–259.

Hasselmann, K., 1997: Multi-pattern fingerprint method for detection and attribution of climate change. Climate Dyn., 13, 601–612.

Hasselmann, K., 1998: Conventional and Bayesian approach to climate-change detection and attribution. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 124, 2541–2565.

Hegerl, G.C., and M.R. Allen, 2002: Origins of model-data discrepancies in optimal fingerprinting. J. Clim., 15, 1348–1356.

Hegerl, G.C., and J.M. Wallace, 2002: Influence of patterns of climate variability on the difference between satellite and surface temperature trends. J. Clim., 15, 2412–2428.

Hegerl, G.C., P.D. Jones, and T.P. Barnett, 2001: Effect of observational sampling error on the detection and attribution of anthropogenic climate change. J. Clim., 14, 198–207.

Hegerl, G.C., F.W. Zwiers, V.V. Kharin, and P.A. Stott, 2004: Detectability of anthropogenic changes in temperature and precipitation extremes. J. Clim., 17, 3683–3700.

Hegerl, G.C., T. Crowley, W.T. Hyde, and D. Frame, 2006a: Constraints on climate sensitivity from temperature reconstructions of the past seven centuries. Nature, 440, doi:10.1038/nature04679.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 1996: Detecting greenhouse gas induced climate change with an optimal fingerprint method. J. Clim., 9, 2281–2306.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 1997: Multi-fingerprint detection and attribution of greenhouse-gas and aerosol-forced climate change. Clim. Dyn., 13, 613–634.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 2000: Detection and attribution of climate change: Sensitivity of results to climate model differences. Clim. Dyn., 16, 737–754.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 2003: Detection of volcanic, solar and greenhouse gas signals in paleo-reconstructions of Northern Hemispheric temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(5), 1242.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 2006b: Climate change detection and attribution: beyond mean temperature signals. J. Clim., 19, 5058–5077.

Hegerl, G.C., et al., 2007: Detection of human influence on a new 1500yr climate reconstruction. J. Clim., 20, 650-666.

Held, I.M., and B.J. Soden, 2006: Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming. J. Clim., 19, 5686–5699.

Held, I.M., et al., 2005: Simulation of Sahel drought in the 20th and 21st centuries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102(50), 17891–17896.

Highwood, E.J., B.J. Hoskins, and P. Berrisford, 2000: Properties of the Arctic tropopause. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 126, 1515–1532.

Hoerling, M.P., J.W. Hurrell, J. Eischeid, and A. Phillips, 2006: Detection and attribution of twentieth-century northern and southern African rainfall change. J. Clim., 19, 3989–4008.

Hoerling, M.P., et al., 2005: Twentieth century North Atlantic climate change. Part II: Understanding the effect of Indian Ocean warming. Clim. Dyn., 23, 391–405.

Hoffert, M.I., and C. Covey, 1992: Deriving global climate sensitivity from paleoclimate reconstructions. Nature, 360, 573–576.

Holland, M.M., and M.N. Raphael, 2006: Twentieth century simulation of the southern hemisphere climate in coupled models. Part II: sea ice conditions and variability. Clim. Dyn., 26, 229–245.

Holloway, G., and T. Sou, 2002: Has Arctic sea ice rapidly thinned? J. Clim., 15, 1691–1701.

Hoyt, D.V., and K.H. Schatten, 1993: A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations, 1700-1992. J. Geophys. Res., 98, 18895–18906.

Huang, S.P., H.N. Pollack, and P.Y. Shen, 2000: Temperature trends ever the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature, 403(6771), 756–758.

Hulme, M., T.J. Osborn, and T.C. Johns, 1998: Precipitation sensitivity to global warming: Comparison of observations with HadCM2 simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 3379–3382.

Huntingford, C., P.A. Stott, M.R. Allen, and F.H. Lambert, 2006: Incorporating model uncertainty into attribution of observed temperature change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L05710, doi:10.1029/2005GL024831.

Hurrell, J.W., 1996: Influence of variations in extratropical wintertime teleconnections on Northern Hemisphere temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 665–668.

Hurrell, J.W., M.P. Hoerling, A.S. Phillips, and T. Xu, 2005: Twentieth century North Atlantic climate change. Part I: Assessing determinism. Clim. Dyn., 23, 371–389.

IDAG (International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group), 2005: Detecting and attributing external influences on the climate system: A review of recent advances. J. Clim., 18, 1291–1314.

IOCI, 2002: Climate Variability And Change In South West Western Australia, September 2002. Indian Ocean Climate Initiative, Perth, Australia, 34 pp.

IOCI, 2005: Indian Ocean Climate Initiative Stage 2: Report of Phase 1 Activity. Indian Ocean Climate Initiative, Perth, Australia, 42 pp.

IPCC, 1990: Climate Change: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Scientific Assessment [Houghton, J.T., G.J. Jenkins, and J.J. Ephraums (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 365 pp.

IPCC, 1996: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of the Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 572 pp.

IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881 pp.

Ishii, M., M. Kimoto, K. Sakamoto, and S.-I. Iwasaki, 2006: Steric sea level changes estimated from historical ocean subsurface temperature and salinity analyses. J. Oceanogr., 62, 155–170.

Ito, A., and J.E. Penner, 2005: Historical emissions of carbonaceous aerosols from biomass and fossil fuel burning for the period 1870-2000. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 19(2), GB2028, doi:10.1029/2004GB002374.

Johannssen, O.M., et al., 2004: Arctic climate change: observed and modeled temperature and sea-ice variability. Tellus, 56A, 328–341.

Jones, G.S., S.F.B. Tett, and P.A. Stott, 2003: Causes of atmospheric temperature change 1960-2000: A combined attribution analysis. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1228.

Jones, G.S., et al., 2005: Sensitivity of global scale attribution results to inclusion of climatic response to black carbon. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L14701, doi:10.1029/2005GL023370.

Jones, J.M., and M. Widmann, 2004: Early peak in Antarctic Oscillation index. Nature, 432, 290–291.

Jones, P.D., and M.E. Mann, 2004: Climate over past millennia. Rev. Geophys., 42(2), RG2002, doi:10.1029/2003RG000143.

Jones, P.D., T.J. Osborn, and K.R. Briffa, 2001: The evolution of climate over the last millennium. Science, 292(5517), 662–667.

Joos, F., et al., 2004: Transient simulations of Holocene atmospheric carbon dioxide and terrestrial carbon since the Last Glacial Maximum. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 18, 1–18.

Joussaume, S., and K.E. Taylor, 1995: Status of the Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project. In: Proceedings of the First International AMIP Scientific Conference, WCRP-92, Monterey, USA. WMO/TD-No. 732, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 425–430.

Kalnay, E., et al., 1996: The NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Project. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 77, 437–471.

Kaplan, J.O., I.C. Prentice, W. Knorr, and P.J. Valdes, 2002: Modeling the dynamics of terrestrial carbon storage since the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(22), 2074.

Karl, T.R., and R.W. Knight, 1998: Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the USA. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 79, 231–241.

Karl, T.R., and K.E. Trenberth, 2003: Modern global climate change. Science, 302, 1719–1723.

Karl, T.R., S.J. Hassol, C.D. Miller, and W.L. Murray (eds.), 2006: Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. A Report by the Climate Change Science Program and Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC, 180pp, http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm.

Karoly, D.J., 2003: Ozone and climate change. Science, 302, 236–237.

Karoly, D.J., and K. Braganza, 2001: Identifying global climate change using simple indices. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2205–2208.

Karoly, D.J., and K. Braganza, 2005a: Attribution of recent temperature changes in the Australian region. J. Clim., 18, 457–464.

Karoly, D.J., and K. Braganza, 2005b: A new approach to detection of anthropogenic temperature changes in the Australian region. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 89, 57–67.

Karoly, D.J., and Q. Wu, 2005: Detection of regional surface temperature trends. J. Clim., 18, 4337–4343.

Karoly, D.J., et al., 2003: Detection of a human influence on North American climate. Science, 302, 1200–1203.

Kass, R.E., and A.E. Raftery, 1995: Bayes Factors. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 90, 773–795.

Katz, R.W., 1999: Extreme value theory for precipitation: Sensitivity analysis for climate change. Adv. Water Resour., 23, 133–139.

Kaufmann, R.K., and D.L. Stern, 2002: Cointegration analysis of hemispheric temperature relations. J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4012.

Kennedy, M.C., and A. O’Hagan, 2001: Bayesian calibration of computer models. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B, 63(3), 425–464.

Kettleborough, J.A., B.B.B. Booth, P.A. Stott, and M.R. Allen, 2007: Estimates of uncertainty in predictions of global mean surface temperature. J. Clim., 20, 843-855.

Kiktev, D., D. Sexton, L. Alexander, and C. Folland, 2003: Comparison of modelled and observed trends in indices of daily climate extremes. J. Clim., 16, 3560–3571.

Kim, S.J., G.M. Flato, G.J. Boer, and N.A. McFarlane, 2002: A coupled climate model simulation of the Last Glacial Maximum, part 1: Transient multi-decadal response. Clim. Dyn., 19(5–6), 515–537.

Kirchner, I., et al., 1999: Climate model simulation of winter warming and summer cooling following the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 19039–19055.

Kistler, R., et al., 2001: The NCEP-NCAR 50-year reanalysis: Monthly means CD-ROM and documentation. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 82, 247–267.

Kitoh, A., and S. Murakami, 2002: Tropical Pacific climate at the mid-Holocene and the Last Glacial Maximum simulated by a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model. Paleoceanography, 17(3), 1047, doi:10.1029/2001PA000724.

Klein Tank, A.M.G., and G.P. Können, 2003: Trends in indices of daily temperature and precipitation extremes in Europe, 1946-99. J. Clim., 16, 3665–3680.

Klein Tank, A.M.G., G.P. Können, and F.M. Selten, 2005: Signals of anthropogenic influence on European warming as seen in the trend patterns of daily temperature variance. Int. J. Climatol., 25, 1–16.

Knight, J.R., et al., 2005: A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20708, doi:10.1029/2005GL024233.

Knutson, T.R., S. Manabe, and D. Gu, 1997: Simulated ENSO in a global coupled ocean-atmosphere model: Multidecadal amplitude modulation and CO2 sensitivity. J. Clim., 10(1), 138–161.

Knutson, T.R., T.L. Delworth, K.W. Dixon, and R.J. Stouffer, 1999: Model assessment of regional surface temperature trends (1949-1997). J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30981–30996.

Knutson, T.R., et al., 2006: Assessment of twentieth-century regional surface temperature trends using the GFDL CM2 coupled models. J. Clim., 19, 1624–1651.

Knutti, R., T.F. Stocker, F. Joos, and G.-K. Plattner, 2002: Constraints on radiative forcing and future climate change from observations and climate model ensembles. Nature, 416, 719–723.

Knutti, R., T.F. Stocker, F. Joos, and G.-K. Plattner, 2003: Probabilistic climate change projections using neural networks. Clim. Dyn., 21, 257–272.

Kristjansson, J.E., 2002: Studies of the aerosol indirect effect from sulfate and black carbon aerosols. J. Geophys. Res., 107, doi: 10.1029/2001JD000887.

Kucera, M., et al., 2005: Reconstruction of sea-surface temperatures from assemblages of planktonic foraminifera: multi-technique approach based on geographically constrained calibration data sets and its application to glacial Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Quat. Sci. Rev., 24(7–9), 951–998.

Kumar, A., F. Yang, L. Goddard, and S. Schubert, 2004: Differing trends in the tropical surface temperatures and precipitation over land and oceans. J. Clim., 17, 653–664.

Kunkel, K.E., X.-Z. Liang, J. Zhu, and Y. Lin, 2006: Can CGCMS simulate the twentieth century “warming hole” in the central United States? J. Clim., 19, 4137–4153.

Kushner, P.J., I.M. Held, and T.L. Delworth, 2001: Southern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation response to global warming. J. Clim., 14, 2238–3349.

Labitzke, K., 2004: On the signal of the 11-year sunspot cycle in the stratosphere and its modulation by the quasi, biennial oscillation. J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys., 66, 1151–1157.

Lal, M., and S.K. Singh, 2001: Global warming and monsoon climate. Mausam, 52, 245–262.

Lambert, F.H., P.A. Stott, M.R. Allen, and M.A. Palmer, 2004: Detection and attribution of changes in 20th century land precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31(10), L10203, doi:10.1029/2004GL019545.

Lambert, F.H., N.P. Gillett, D.A. Stone, and C. Huntingford, 2005: Attribution studies of observed land precipitation changes with nine coupled models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L18704, doi:10.1029/2005GL023654.

Lambert, S.J., and J.C. Fyfe, 2006: Changes in winter cyclone frequencies and strengths simulated in enhanced greenhouse warming experiments: Results from the models participating in the IPCC diagnostic exercise. Clim. Dyn., 26, 713–728.

Landsea, C.W., 2005: Hurricanes and global warming. Nature, 438, E11–E12.

Lean, J.L., J. Beer, and R. Bradley, 1995: Reconstruction of solar irradiance changes since 1610: Implications for climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 3195.

Lean, J.L., Y.M. Wang, and N.R. Sheeley, 2002: The effect of increasing solar activity on the Sun’s total and open magnetic flux during multiple cycles: Implications for solar forcing of climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(24), 2224, doi:10.1029/2002GL015880.

Lee, T.C.K., F.W. Zwiers, X. Zhang, and M. Tsao, 2006: Evidence of decadal climate prediction skill resulting from changes in anthropogenic forcing. J. Clim., 19, 5305–5318.

Lee, T.C.K., et al., 2005: A Bayesian approach to climate change detection and attribution. J. Clim., 18, 2429–2440.

Leroy, S.S., 1998: Detecting climate signals: Some Bayesian aspects. J. Clim., 11, 640–651.

Levis, S., J.A. Foley, and D. Pollard, 1999: CO2, climate, and vegetation feedbacks at the Last Glacial Maximum. J. Geophys. Res., 104(D24), 31191–31198.

Levis, S., G.B. Bonan, and C. Bonfils, 2004: Soil feedback drives the mid-Holocene North African monsoon northward in fully coupled CCSM2 simulations with a dynamic vegetation model. Clim. Dyn., 23(7–8), 791–802.

Levitus, S., J. Antonov, and T. Boyer, 2005: Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L02604, doi:10.1029/2004GL021592.

Levitus, S., J. Antonov, T.P. Boyer, and C. Stephens, 2000: Warming of the world ocean. Science, 287, 2225–2229.

Levitus, S., et al., 2001: Anthropogenic warming of the Earth’s climate system. Science, 292, 267–270.

Liepert, B., 2002: Observed reductions of surface solar radiation at sites in the United States and worldwide from 1961 to 1990. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 1421.

Lindsay, R.W., and J. Zhang, 2005: The thinning of arctic sea ice, 1988-2003: Have we passed a tipping point? J. Clim., 18, 4879–4894.

Lindzen, R.S., and C. Giannitsis, 2002: Reconciling observations of global temperature change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, doi:10.1029/2001GL014074.

Liu, Z.Y., J. Kutzbach, and L.X. Wu, 2000: Modeling climate shift of El Nino variability in the Holocene. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27(15), 2265–2268.

Liu, Z.Y., et al., 2005: Atmospheric CO2 forcing on glacial thermohaline circulation and climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(2), L02706, doi:10.1029/2004GL021929.

Lohmann, U., and G. Lesins, 2002: Stronger constraints on the anthropogenic indirect aerosol effect. Science, 298, 1012–1016.

Lohmann, U., and J. Feichter, 2005: Global indirect aerosol effects: A review. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 715–737.

Lorius, C., et al., 1990: The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Nature, 347, 139–145.

Lu, J., and T.L. Delworth, 2005: Oceanic forcing of the late 20th century Sahel drought. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L22706, doi:10.1029/2005GL023316.

Luterbacher, J., et al., 2002: Extending North Atlantic Oscillation reconstructions back to 1500. Atmos. Sci. Lett., 2(114–124).

Luterbacher, J., et al., 2004: European seasonal and annual temperature variability, trends, and extremes since 1500. Science, 303(5663), 1499–1503.

MacDonald, G.M., and R.A. Case, 2005: Variations in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation over the past millennium. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(8), L08703, doi:10.1029/2005GL022478.

Mann, M.E., and P.D. Jones, 2003: Global surface temperature over the past two millennia. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1820.

Mann, M.E., and K.A. Emanuel, 2006: Atlantic hurricane trends linked to climate change. Eos, 87, 233–241.

Mann, M.E., M.A. Cane, S.E. Zebiak, and A. Clement, 2005: Volcanic and solar forcing of the tropical Pacific over the past 1000 years. J. Clim., 18(3), 447–456.

Marshall, G.J., 2003: Trends in the Southern Annular Mode from observations and reanalyses. J. Clim., 16, 4134–4143.

Marshall, G.J., A. Orr, N.P.M. van Lipzig, and J.C. King, 2006: The impact of a changing Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode on Antarctic Peninsula summer temperatures. J. Clim., 19, 5388–5404.

Marshall, G.J., et al., 2004: Causes of exceptional atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L14205, doi:10.1029/2004GL019952.

Masson-Delmotte, V., et al., 2006: Past and future polar amplification of climate change: climate model intercomparisons and ice-core constraints. Clim. Dyn., 26, 513–529.

Matthews, H.D., et al., 2004: Natural and anthropogenic climate change: incorporating historical land cover change, vegetation dynamics and the global carbon cycle. Clim. Dyn., 22(5), 461–479.

May, W., 2004: Potential future changes in the Indian summer monsoon due to greenhouse warming: analysis of mechanisms in a global time-slice experiment. Clim. Dyn., 22, 389–414.

Maynard, K., J.F. Royer, and F. Chauvin, 2002: Impact of greenhouse warming on the West African summer monsoon. Clim. Dyn., 19, 499–514.

McAvaney, B.J., et al., 2001: Model evaluation. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 471–525.

Mears, C.A., and F.J. Wentz, 2005: The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature. Science, 309, 1548–1551.

Mears, C.A., M.C. Schabel, and F.J. Wentz, 2003: A reanalysis of the MSU channel 2 tropospheric temperature record. J. Clim., 16, 3650–3664.

Meehl, G.A., J.M. Arblaster, and C. Tebaldi, 2005: Understanding future patterns of precipitation extremes in climate model simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L18719, doi:10.1029/2005GL023680.

Meehl, G.A., et al., 2003: Solar and greenhouse gas forcing and climate response in the 20th century. J. Clim., 16, 426–444.

Meehl, G.A., et al., 2004: Combinations of natural and anthropogenic forcings in 20th century climate. J. Clim., 17, 3721–3727.

Meier, M.F., M.B. Dyurgerov, and G.J. McCabe, 2003: The health of glaciers: Recent changes in glacier regime. Clim. Change, 59, 123–135.

Mendelssohn, R., S.J. Bograd, F.B. Schwing, and D.M. Palacios, 2005: Teaching old indices new tricks: A state-space analysis of El Niño related climate indices. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L07709, doi:10.1029/2005GL022350.

Menon, S., A.D. Del Genio, D. Koch, and G. Tselioudis, 2002a: GCM Simulations of the aerosol indirect effect: Sensitivity to cloud parameterization and aerosol burden. J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 692–713.

Menon, S., J.E. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, and Y. Luo, 2002b: Climate effects of black carbon aerosols in China and India. Science, 297, 2250–2253.

Merryfield, W.J., 2006: Changes to ENSO under CO2 doubling in a multimodel ensemble. J. Clim., 19, 4009–4027.

Miller, R.L., G.A. Schmidt, and D.T. Shindell, 2006: Forced variations in the annular modes in the 20th century IPCC AR4 simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D18101, doi:10.1029/2005JD006323.

Milly, P.C.D., K.A. Dunne, and A.V. Vecchia, 2005: Global patterns of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature, 438, 347–350.

Min, S.-K., and A. Hense, 2006a: A Bayesian approach to climate model evaluation and multi-model averaging with an application to global mean surface temperatures from IPCC AR4 coupled climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L08708, doi:10.1029/2006GL025779.

Min, S.-K., and A. Hense, 2006b: A Bayesian assessment of climate change using multi-model ensembles. Part I: Global mean surface temperature. J. Clim., 19, 3237–3256.

Min, S.-K., A. Hense, and W.-T. Kwon, 2005: Regional-scale climate change detection using a Bayesian decision method. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L03706, doi:10.1029/2004GL021028.

Min, S.-K., A. Hense, H. Paeth, and W.-T. Kwon, 2004: A Bayesian decision method for climate change signal analysis. Meteorol. Z., 13, 421–436.

Mitchell, J.F.B., C.A. Wilson, and W.M. Cunningham, 1987: On CO2 climate sensitivity and model dependence of results. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 113, 293–322.

Mitchell, J.F.B., et al., 2001: Detection of climate change and attribution of causes. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 695–738.

Mitchell, T.D., and P.D. Jones, 2005: An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climatological observations and associated high-resolution grids. Int. J. Climatol., 25, 693–712.

Moberg, A., et al., 2005: Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature, 433, 613–617.

Monnin, E., et al., 2001: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Science, 291(5501), 112–114.

Montoya, M., H. von Storch, and T.J. Crowley, 2000: Climate simulation for 125,000 years ago with a coupled ocean-atmosphere General Circulation Model. J. Clim., 13, 1057–1070.

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2005: Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 86, 39–49.

Moy, C.M., G.O. Seltzer, D.T. Rodbell, and D.M. Anderson, 2002: Variability of El Nino/Southern Oscillation activity at millennial timescales during the Holocene epoch. Nature, 420(6912), 162–165.

Murray, R.J., N.L. Bindoff, and C.J.C. Reason, 2007: Modelling decadal changes on the Indian Ocean Section I5 at 32°S. J. Clim., accepted.

Nagashima, T., et al., 2006: The effect of carbonaceous aerosols on surface temperature in the mid twentieth century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L04702, doi:10.1029/2005GL024887.

Neelin, J.D., et al., 2006: Tropical drying trends in global warming models and observations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 103, 6110–6115.

Nesme-Ribes, E., et al., 1993: Solar dynamics and its impact on solar irradiance and the terrestrial climate. J. Geophys. Res., 98, 18923–18935.

New, M.G., M. Hulme, and P.D. Jones, 2000: Representing twentieth-century space-time climate variability. Part II: development of 1901-96 monthly grids of terrestrial surface climate. J. Clim., 13, 2217–2238.

Nicholls, N., 2003: Continued anomalous warming in Australia. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, doi:10.1029/2003GL017037.

Nicholls, N., 2005: Climate variability, climate change, and the Australian snow season. Aust. Meteorol. Mag., 54, 177–185.

Nicholls, N., P. Della-Marta, and D. Collins, 2005: 20th century changes in temperature and rainfall in New South Wales. Aust. Meteorol. Mag., 53, 263–268.

Nicholson, S.E., 2001: Climatic and environmental change in Africa during the last two centuries. Clim. Res., 17, 123–144.

North, G.R., and M. Stevens, 1998: Detecting climate signals in the surface temperature record. J. Clim., 11, 563–577.

North, G.R., K.-Y. Kim, S.S.P. Shen, and J.W. Hardin, 1995: Detection of forced climate signals. Part 1: Filter theory. J. Climate, 8, 401–408.

Novakov, T., et al., 2003: Large historical changes of fossil-fuel black carbon aerosols. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(6), 1324.

Nozawa, T., T. Nagashima, H. Shiogama, and S. Crooks, 2005: Detecting natural influence on surface air temperature in the early twentieth century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20719, doi:10.1029/2005GL023540.

Oerlemans, J., 2005: Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records. Science, 308, 675–677.

O’Hagan, A., and J. Forster, 2004: Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics. Volume 2b, Bayesian Inference. Arnold, London, 480 pp.

Ohmura, A., 2004: Cryosphere during the twentieth century, the state of the planet. In: The State of the Planet: Frontiers and Challenges in Geophysics [Sparks, R.S.J., and C.J. Hawkesworth (eds.)]. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, Washington, DC, pp. 239–257.

Oman, L., et al., 2005: Climatic response to high latitude volcanic eruptions. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D13103, doi:10.1029/2004JD005487.

Osborn, T.J., 2004: Simulating the winter North Atlantic Oscillation: the roles of internal variability and greenhouse gas forcing. Clim. Dyn., 22, 605–623.

Osborn, T.J., and M. Hulme, 1997: Development of a relationship between station and grid-box rainday frequencies for climate model evaluation. J. Clim., 10, 1885–1908.

Osborn, T.J., and K.R. Briffa, 2006: The spatial extent of 20th-century warmth in the context of the past 1200 years. Science, 311, 841–844.

Osborn, T.J., S. Raper, and K.R. Briffa, 2006: Simulated climate change during the last 1000 years: comparing the ECHO-G general circulation model with the MAGICC simple climate model. Clim. Dyn., 27, 185–197.

Osborn, T.J., et al., 1999: Evaluation of the North Atlantic Oscillation as simulated by a coupled climate model. Clim. Dyn., 15, 685–702.

Otto-Bliesner, B.L., 1999: El Nino La Nina and Sahel precipitation during the middle Holocene. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26(1), 87–90.

Otto-Bliesner, B.L., et al., 2003: Modeling El Nino and its tropical teleconnections during the last glacial-interglacial cycle. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(23), 2198, doi:10.1029/2003GL018553.

Paeth, H., A. Hense, R. Glowienka-Hense, and R. Voss, 1999: The North Atlantic Oscillation as an indicator for greenhouse-gas induced regional climate change. Clim. Dyn., 15, 953–960.

Palmer, M.A., L.J. Gray, M.R. Allen, and W.A. Norton, 2004: Solar forcing of climate: model results. Adv. Space Res., 34, 343–348.

Palmer, T.N., 1999: Predicting uncertainty in forecasts of weather and climate. Rep. Prog. Phys., 63, 71–116.

Palmer, T.N., and J. Räisänen, 2002: Quantifying the risk of extreme seasonal precipitation events in a changing climate. Nature, 415, 512–514.

Parker, D.E., L.V. Alexander, and J. Kennedy, 2004: Global and regional climate in 2003. Weather, 59, 145–152.

Parker, D.E., et al., 1997: A new global gridded radiosonde temperature database and recent temperature trends. Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 1499–1452.

Pasini, A., M. Lorè, and F. Ameli, 2006: Neural network modelling for the analysis of forcings/temperatures relationships at different scales in the climate system. Ecol. Model., 191, 58–67.

Peltier, W.R., 1994: Ice age paleotopography. Science, 265, 195–201.

Peltier, W.R., 2004: Global glacial isostasy and the surface of the ice-age Earth: the ICE-5G(VM2) model and GRACE. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 32, 111–149.

Penner, J.E., S.Y. Zhang, and C.C. Chuang, 2003: Soot and smoke aerosol may not warm climate. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D21), 4657, doi:10.1029/2003JD003409.

Penner, J.E., et al., 1997: Anthropogenic aerosols and climate change: A method for calibrating forcing. In: Assessing Climate Change: Results from the Model Evaluation Consortium for Climate Assessment [Howe, W., and A. Henderson-Sellers (eds.)]. Gordon & Breach Science Publishers, Sydney, Australia, pp. 91–111.

Penner, J.E., et al., 2007: Effect of black carbon on mid-troposphere and surface temperature trends. In: Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment [Schlesinger, M., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press.

Perlwitz, J., and H.-F. Graf, 2001: Troposphere-stratosphere dynamic coupling under strong and weak polar vortex conditions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 271–274.

Peterson, B.J., et al., 2002: Increasing river discharge to the Arctic Ocean. Science, 298, 2171–2173.

Pezza, A.B., and I. Simmonds, 2005: The first South Atlantic hurricane: Unprecedented blocking, low shear and climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L15712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023390.

Pielke, R.A. Jr., 2005: Are there trends in hurricane destruction? Nature, 438, E11.

Pielke, R.A. Jr., et al., 2005: Hurricanes and global warming. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 86, 1571–1575.

Pierce, D.W., et al., 2006: Anthropogenic warming of the oceans: observations and model results. J. Clim., 19, 1873–1900.

Pinker, R.T., B. Zhang, and E.G. Dutton, 2005: Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation? Science, 308, 850–854.

Pollack, H.N., and J.E. Smerdon, 2004: Borehole climate reconstructions: Spatial structure and hemispheric averages. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D11106, doi:10.1029/2003JD004163.

Prentice, I.C., and T. Webb, 1998: BIOME 6000: reconstructing global mid-Holocene vegetation patterns from palaeoecological records. J. Biogeogr., 25(6), 997–1005.

Prentice, I.C., and D. Jolly, 2000: Mid-Holocene and glacial-maximum vegetation geography of the northern continents and Africa. J. Biogeogr., 27(3), 507–519.

Qian, T., A. Dai, K.E. Trenberth, and K.W. Oleson, 2006: Simulation of global land surface conditions from 1948 to 2002: Part I: Forcing data and evaluations. J. Hydrometeorol., 7, 953–975.

Ramanathan, V., P.J. Crutzen, J.T. Kiehl, and D. Rosenfeld, 2001: Aerosols, climate, and the hydrological cycle. Science, 294, 2119–2124.

Ramanathan, V., et al., 2005: Atmospheric brown clouds: Impacts on South Asian climate and hydrological cycle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102, 5326–5333.

Ramankutty, N., and J.A. Foley, 1999: Estimating historical changes in global land cover: Croplands from 1700 to 1992. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 13(4), 997–1027.

Ramaswamy, V., et al., 2001: Radiative forcing of climate change. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 349–416.

Randel, W.J., and F. Wu, 2006: Biases in stratospheric temperature trends derived from historical radiosonde data. J. Clim., 19, 2094–2104.

Raper, S.C.B., J.M. Gregory, and R.J. Stouffer, 2002: The role of climate sensitivity and ocean heat uptake on AOGCM transient temperature response. J. Clim., 15, 124–130.

Rauthe, M., A. Hense, and H. Paeth, 2004: A model intercomparison study of climate change-signals in extratropical circulation. Int. J. Climatol., 24, 643–662.

Reader, M., and G. Boer, 1998: The modification of greenhouse gas warming by the direct effect of sulphate aerosols. Clim. Dyn., 14, 593–607.

Reichert, B.K., L. Bengtsson, and J. Oerlemans, 2002a: Recent glacier retreat exceeds internal variability. J. Clim., 15, 3069–3081.

Reichert, B.K., R. Schnur, and L. Bengtsson, 2002b: Global ocean warming tied to anthropogenic forcing. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(11), 1525.

Rigor, I.G., J.M. Wallace, and R.L. Colony, 2002: Response of sea ice to the Arctic Oscillation. J. Clim., 15, 2648–2668.

Rind, D., J. Perlwitz, and P. Lonergan, 2005a: AO/NAO response to climate change. Part I: The respective influences of stratospheric and tropospheric climate changes. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D12107, doi:10.1029/2004JD005103.

Rind, D., J. Perlwitz, and P. Lonergan, 2005b: AO/NAO response to climate change. Part II: The relative importance of low and high latitude temperature changes. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D12108, doi:10.1029/2004JD005686.

Rind, D., et al., 2004: The relative importance of solar and anthropogenic forcing of climate change between the Maunder Minimum and the present. J. Clim., 17(5), 906–929.

Robock, A., 2000: Volcanic eruptions and climate. Rev. Geophys., 38(2), 191–219.

Robock, A., and Y. Liu, 1994: The volcanic signal in Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model simulations. J. Clim., 7, 44–55.

Rothrock, D.A., J. Zhang, and Y. Yu, 2003: The arctic ice thickness anomaly of the 1990s: A consistent view from observations and models. J. Geophys. Res., 108(C3), 3083, doi:10.1029/2001JC001208.

Rotstayn, L.D., and J.E. Penner, 2001: Forcing, quasi-forcing and climate response. J. Clim., 14, 2960–2975.

Rotstayn, L.D., and U. Lohmann, 2002: Tropical rainfall trends and the indirect aerosol effect. J. Clim., 15, 2103–2116.

Rotstayn, L.D., and Y. Liu, 2003: Sensitivity of the first indirect aerosol effect to an increase of cloud droplet spectral dispersion with droplet number concentration. J. Clim., 16, 3476–3481.

Rowell, D.P., 1996: Reply to comments by Y.C. Sud and W.K.-M. Lau. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 122, 1007–1013.

Rowell, D.P., 2003: The Impact of Mediterranean SSTs on the Sahelian rainfall season. J. Clim., 16, 849–862.

Ruzmaikin, A., and J. Feynman, 2002: Solar influence on a major mode of atmospheric variability. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D14), doi:10.1029/2001JD001239.

Rybski, D., A. Bunde, S. Havlin, and H. von Storch, 2006: Long-term persistence in climate and the detection problem. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06718, doi:10.1029/2005GL025591.

Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, T. Barnett, and E. Anyamba, 1996a: Detection of climate change and attribution of causes. In: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 407–444.

Santer, B.D., et al., 1996b: A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Nature, 382, 39–46.

Santer, B.D., et al., 1996c: Reply to “Human effect on global climate?” Nature, 384, 522–525.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2000: Interpreting differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. Science, 287, 1227–1231.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2001: Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 28033–28059.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2003a: Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science, 301, 479–483.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2003b: Behavior of tropopause height and atmospheric temperature in models, reanalyses, and observations: Decadal changes. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D1), 4002.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2003c: Influence of satellite data uncertainties on the detection of externally-forced climate change. Science, 300, 1280–1284.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2004: Identification of anthropogenic climate change using a second-generation reanalysis. J. Geophys. Res., 109, doi:10.1029/2004JD005075.

Santer, B.D., et al., 2005: Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical atmosphere. Science, 309, 1551–1556.

Sato, M., J.E. Hansen, M.P. McCormick, and J.B. Pollack, 1993: Stratospheric aerosol optical depths, 1850-1990. J. Geophys. Res., 98, 22987–22994.

Scaife, A.A., J.R. Knight, G.K. Vallis, and C.K. Folland, 2005: A stratospheric influence on the winter NAO and North Atlantic surface climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L18715, doi:10.1029/2005GL023226.

Schär, C., and G. Jendritzky, 2004: Hot news for summer 2003. Nature, 432, 559–560.

Schär, C., et al., 2004: The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heat waves. Nature, 427, 332–336

Scherrer, S.C., C. Appenzeller, and M. Laternser, 2004: Trends in Swiss alpine snow days – the role of local and large scale climate variability. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, doi:10.1029/2004GL020255.

Scherrer, S.C., C. Appenzeller, M. A. Linger and C. Schär, 2005: European temperature distribution changes in observations and climate change scenarios. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, doi:10.1029/2005GL024108.

Schlesinger, M.E., and N. Ramankutty, 1992: Implications for global warming of intercycle solar irradiance variations. Nature, 360, 330–333.

Schlesinger, M.E., and N. Ramankutty, 1994: An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65-70 years. Nature, 367, 723–726.

Schneider, T., 2004: The tropopause and the thermal stratification in the extratropics of a dry atmosphere. J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1317–1340.

Well timed Wow.

Now keep focussing on that 'magic tree' Jonarse - why, it's not changing at all. But Birnam Wood is coming for you..

chek .. your desperate hope of the pudding is in the forrest and can only be seen by the qualified and selected ... is such a joke.

For once, I can say that your crank-buddy Jeff is far closer regarding this. He still want's to portray it very differently, and make this lack of science (in 2007) somhow my fault in 2011/12, but at least he doesn't blindly believe in the fairy in the forrest which only can be seen by the dedicated believers ..

And even in your next attempt you get it wrong. The hiatius doesn't valdiate anything for me. I am merely pointing out that the gap between projections (belief, and models with large built feedbacks) and observed reality increases steadily as the years go by, and very much faster diminish the likelihood of the hypothesis still being correct.

Incidentally, it is a little like the reverse of those 'attribution studies' that after all exist. Those look for patterns that the models 'preddict' and hope that resemblence of pattern is attribution (they call it 'fingerprinting'). But if you use the same models and techniques for more and more years with poorer and poorer agreement, the 'attribution' shrinks again.

But hey, you know by now that those attributions in he AR4 were qualified expert guesses at best, and motivated by what deemed to be reasonable curve fits. You do know this, don't you?

It has (previously) been discussed at some length here.

:-)

Look ... Wow presents a heap of various metal parts, chek sees the forrest again .. and they both are certain that what the don't see and cannot point out ..

.. must be in there and have wonderfully, rumored properties and features ..

.. but only to be seen by the tru believers who accepted the faith. And sworn never to speak about it in front of the faithless.

Just marvelous!

Wow .. this doesn't come lightly to me ... but you seem to be a complete idiot .. your many postings are so incoherent and so unrelated, and so confused that it is very hard to even imagine that there is a (somewhat) rational human being behind that keybord .. Sorry, I cannot imagine anybody actually making as stupid comments as you have been consistently over years ..

But I appreciate your presence here. Occasionally your buddies here, count you in as support for their cause, even as pasrt of the argument. I find this truly endearing when you gang up and in unison proclaim that you must be right ...

Too dumb to understand, and too vain to admit it.

My gran had a saying - show me your friends, and I'll show you who you are. You really ought to take time to revise all the posts - allegedly in supportof you - by Griselda, Olouse and PantieZ until you fully appreciatethe rarified vacuum between their collectivist ears. Only then will you recognise yourself and your pointless mission here, Jonarse.

"belief, and models with large built feedbacks"

No, they aren't using "Jonarse" science, they're using REAL science.

In real science of climate, there are no "large built feedbacks". The feedbacks come out naturally from the science.

65% of the warming of the earth by all greenhouse gasses are from H2O.

CO2 manages a little under 25%.

That's a natural large feedback of about 2.5:1. The IPCC and the REAL climate science models get a feedback of somewhat under this (around 2:1).

Reality, unfortunately for you, Joan, doesn't agree with your phantasy depiction.

"your many postings are so incoherent and so unrelated"

What? Like the one asking "How are you qualified to see"?

I note that you've wriggled away and ignored it time and time again, much like Olap's mindbender: "How would you go about finding out the temperature change?".

It comes very easily for me to say this: the idiot in the room is you.

"Look … Wow presents a heap of various metal parts"

I'm sorry, your assertion makes no sense.

Well, Tim, is this thread of any use any more?

Ban the silly fucker and close this thread.

"but only to be seen by the tru believers who accepted the faith".

You seem to be driven by your religious programming to frame everything within that context Jonarse. Another young victim of the Catholic Church perhaps?

At any rate, apart from your specious little self-invented tenet (that complex science must be accessible to morons to be valid) you haven't had one single scientific point to make in your time here. Not a single one, apart from the occasional fruit loopy denier top-ten ones like your recent ...er... 'understanding' of the direction global temperature is going in.

Just so you understand that the perjorative 'moron' as applied to you has basis in factual observation.

Well chek, it certainly is a slow mission. But by now, essentially everybody knows that those AR4 claims where pulled out of a hat, not based on any presented science. Not even poor or questionable science. But none!

Jeff has realized that (partly and grudgingly), many others have done so too. And even you are fully aware of that you have no clue at all (hence the stupid scrap parts trees car forrest analogies).

But probably too immature to deal with his, albeit implicitly admitting that it is the 'greater truth' is not science but som more 'holisitc understanding of the ways of Gaia' contained not in published science, but hovering above the entirety of 'climate science'. Or the fact that you need to change the 'story' and the reason for not being able to come up with something, and constantly trying to make it my fault somehow that the IPCC made claims it cannot substantiate, not even how it made them ..

Deep down, you know too (you're not that stupid) And it probably agonizes the lot of you, that's why you are all so desperately trying to get around it, constructing reasons why it shouldn't matter, that somebody else should have informed you (and it therefore shouldn't be valid) and other contortions ..

It's quite fun to watch

In reality, this thing is settled long ago. And no scientist on your side worth his salt even makes any such claims ... it is only repeated by those who have no clue and have never questioned it. Ie not any real scientists ..

What's fun to watch Jonarse is your excruciating logic trying to justify your not having any answer whatsoever to any of those listed papers establishing the probability of human attribution at >90% (really >95%).

You have no answer at all except blithe dismissal, which doesn't work except on the level of moron that denialism seeks to cultivate. But that ain't here.

chek, there have been a few commenters here who have had valid points, interesting view, who made reasonable challenges of what I said, and were capable of discussing topics where the answers are still not settled (ie climate science in genera).

You definitely weren't among them. Your ranting has been essentially brainless (with few interspersed speckles of reasonable fragments, quickly abandoned again).

I can't remember any time you contributed nything of substance. Your mouthing off against me has mostly been completely brainless, which is easily checked by just reading your claims. Utter nonsens almost all of the time. Another small minded ignorant activist keybord warrior. With no clout at all .. None!

But probably representative for quite a few in those circles you frequent (but probably a bit dumber than average, since you display this so well)

And wow is your buddy ... Priceless! ;-)

"But by now, essentially everybody knows that those AR4 claims where pulled out of a hat"

Wrong again.

No need to chek ... none of these papers make any such claim based on demonstrated science. You are delusional or/and in denial ..

And we both know that you are guessing blindly, that you are completely, utterly uncapable of reading any real science dealing with qunatified specifics.

I'd say you are an idiot too ... like your buddy Wow. Making claims that even the IPCC never made, and saying it is in the science you have neither read nor would understand. And idiot making idiotic statements.

" none of these papers make any such claim based on demonstrated science"

That isn't what you demanded.

You demanded the science behind the AR4 claim.

Wow, you truly are a full blown idiot .. In lack even of the most basic reading skills. And chek and Jeffie think you are a valuable addition to their 'skillsets'

:-)

And yet another incorrect declaration from Joan.

Well Jonarse, on the one hand we have you, the delusional eccentric nobody with his unreliable claims and an accompanying gaggle of likeminded airheads full of nonsense declarations of what the science 'should be' but no actual technical proficiency demonstrated at all, anywhere, ever.

And on the other the IPCC report consisting of the peer reviewed work from a list of leading, published scientists in their field longer than a giraffe's necktie.

Only a complete lunatic wouild hesitate to choose which group had more credibility. But that's the audience you'll settle for aint it, Jonarse. You'll find them awaiting you over at Watts' and Montford's sites.

@All

I think we are getting there on confronting reality. We have two so far (Lionel+chek) "opting out". Jeff's a no show, probably off defending polar bears somewhere against the combined forces of Wellington and the Heartland Institute.

By default ,our concensus position is;;

We’ve arrived at the conclusion that there is no empirical evidence behind the Sandy attribution claim.[At least as far as anybody here is aware]

We’ve arrived at the conclusion that there is no empirical evidence behind the AR4 attribution claim.[At least as far as anybody here is aware]

I think that by default we all agree these are true; no empirical evidence forthcoming after some considerable period of time.

It’s time for honesty here I think.

And the honest position is that you and your troll collective have achieved nothing apart from demonstrating your total lack of understanding and reading ability.

GSW

In all fairness, Jeffie is aware of what that 90% AR4 certainty is worth, and also why and how it came about. Almost at least. But cannot say this more openly to the rest here ...

And too wants to turn this, me being correct, to somehow still being my fault.

@All

For those late to the discussion (and without a closed mind), Judith Curry has a good summary of the "difficulties" with the AR4 attribution claim here;

http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/24/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and…

"Therefore the confidence in #7[AR4 attribution] should not exceed 40%, and possibly not exceed 25%, which is the premise with the lowest confidence level. With a confidence level in the range 25-40%, IPCC’s conclusion would be plausible (not “very likely”)"

and;

"From this analysis, it seems that the AR4’s assessment of confidence at the very likely (90-99%) level cannot be objectively justified, even if the word “most” is interpreted to imply a number that is only slightly greater than 50%. A heavy dose of expert judgment is required to come up with “very likely” confidence."

From the summary;

"It is concluded that the IPCC needs logic police, in addition to uncertainty cops and statistics sentries"

Judith Curry is a climate scientist, Chair of of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and frequently attacked for broaching the problems with the IPCC's case in a frank and open manner.

There is no empirical evidence for AR4 attribution, refusal to accept this makes you just another victim of "Groupthink".

@jonas

" But cannot say this more openly to the rest here …"

Yes jonas, Groupthink symptoms No. 6;

"Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. "

and No. 8;

"Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information."

@Jonas

We could probably add symptom No. 7 to that;

"Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement."

@All

Come on you lot! Lionel and chek are "on record" for "opting out" of reality. What about the rest you?

chek, still wrong (but you got one part right)

There are no scientists who made said claim and put their names behind it on a publications. There is no peer reviewed science anywhere making those claims. None! The authority you try to project nowhere made this claim. Instead it is made by a much smaller political body and was put in the SPM, and without having any support in the AR4 reports (not released yet at the time)

But you are right that it is all ablout belief (imagined "credibility") for those who cling to it.

And the matter is still the simplest possible:

Either it's in there, and everybody can find it, read it, scrutinize it ... or it's not.

Your pinning your thinning and despairing hopes to that somewhere (deep in that 'forrest') that gem is still to be found. although none of your 'scientists' ever refers to it as existent. Or that your ignorant band of faithers can remain ignorant and deny reality based on the drivel you've tried here for 1½ years, and have believed in blind faith for almost six ...

"Judith Curry is a climate scientist, Chair of of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and frequently attacked for broaching the problems with the IPCC’s case in a frank and open manner."

And that's a blogpost.

GSW

In all fairness, Jeffie has put his understanding of those claimed AR4 levels in writing. He posts many purely idiotic things in between, but he has actually said fully sensible things about this on several occasions. And in stark contrast to what the morons here wish to believe.You can ridicule him for a long list of stupidities he has commited here, but I am actually not blaming him for not publicly denouncing the other faithers here I can however remind of that they and he have incompatible 'stories' on the matter ...

Given that he has invested so much emotion on his side being the righteous one, and me being the moron, his admissions there cannot have come easily. And yes, he probably wants to shield the rest from this realisation.

I think he is worth some credit for this, especially since almost nothing else he has tried is ...

GSW, thanks for finding that Curry comment. I think my point has been glaringly self evident (No published papers in AR4 make those claims), but she actually opines about what would be more reasonable levels ...

Still busy saying nothing, Joan.

Whining continuously is something a two-year-old does.

contd.

Funny how chek immedeately reverses into full denial mode: If the obvious hasn't been published in a peer reviewed climate paper, he is allowed to deny it. While having argued here, that the claim itself does't have to be found in he peer reviewed literature, that it can be imagined hovering in the cloud above the long list of all of the references ..

You can't make these guys up ...

:-)

@Jonas,

"GSW, thanks for finding that Curry comment."

Not a problem Jonas. As you say, it's been nearly 6 years now and the dubious nature of the statement well and truly "outed". Not made it thru to the alarmist blogs yet though, Groupthink censorship at it's finest.
;)

You know what Joan reminds me of: the PHB in Dilbert.

GSW, I've probably said this before but up till 2007 I thought that the climate alarmism was of course overblown by the media, the NGOs and other activists, and exploited by politicians (of all kind) ..

.. but that it had some scientific foundation which (if you checked the literature) was not nearly as severe as it sounded publicly(*).

However, it was this AR4 claim that made it fully clear to me that also the science part had been corrupted (politics have always been). This statement stood out as so obviously unscientific that any real scientist must have reacted strongly. And the fact that it not only slipped through but became the centerpiece of the AR4 message showed that this was about something entirely different than 'the best science available, summarized by the best eperts in the field'.

The corruption had been going on longer than that, but until that moment I was prepared to give the IPCC process the benifit of the doubt, and assumed that the occasional cock-ups, the sloppy science (Mann etc) and the zealotry was what anybody should expect from a large bureaucratic organisation.

Others were on this earlier, but after Gores AIT, that AR4 SPM, and the unravelling of Mann's stick, the activism essentially exploded (in slow-motion) in their faces. Still does. And the warring we see now (arctic summer ice, weather events, glaciers and polar bears etc) are the aftermath of the stupidity embarked upon when that UN body tried to convince the world that the climate not only can be affected by man, but also can (and must be) controlled ..

What we see now is the fighting over the political wreckage and monies and power to get access to. Science has left that building (and I feel a bit sorry for all those decent 'climate scientisst' who never were part of the corruption and only did their job)

(*) Too a large extent, this is still true. Much of the work is decent and honest, and only spun a bit towards alarmism in the phrasing and discussions etc.

"Funny how chek immedeately reverses into full denial mode"

No it isn't - it's what any rational person would do.

Curry's most recently famed for not beng able to substantiate her work or let it be subjected to the scrutiny of perr review, hence her two-bit assertions via blogposts, rather than submitting considered work for peer review by fellow experts who would recognise the unsupported crap she spouts lately.

You morons would be horrified if the IPCC behaved in the same way, but because you like what you hear from Curry, you buy it wholesale. Just like morons.

chek ...

That's the whole point: That infamous IPCC AR4 SPM claim is not published anywhere in the peer reviewed literature, it is worded into the summary text ..

Your full denial mode reversal is what a moron would do. The rational person would check the claim (not chek!) or would have checked it at the latest when it is being questioned.

You truly are a full blown moron. You don't even see when your scoring own goal after own goal. Well, others can ...

As you've previously admitted to not reading any of the references in AR$ Ch 9, and clearly don't comprehend what a 'summary' is, all you can do is bang out your one riff.

At least your rabble finds it catchy, although with airheads like those....

“Funny how chek immedeately reverses into full denial mode”

Well where's the science that backs up Curry's statements, then?

I see that Jeff and Bernard J are continuing to lie about how they 'demolished' me, by exchanging strawmen trophies filled with their usual backwards reasoning: 'If Jonas doesn't do what we demand of him, our beliefs must be true..and thus he is proven wrong' or something similar ..

Of course it is all nonsense. Those nutters cannot get one opposing position correct, not even if you repeat it endlessly.

Their own depiction of the 'denier moron' they want to believe in more than anything in the world, is permanently etched into their retina and working memory and is the only thing they can see clearly. Reality, and coping with it, is only a nuisance for them and detracts from that wonderfully simple and clear (engraved) picture.

If you want to see true denialism, it suffices to see the contortions of the believers and the faithers when confronted even with simpler pieces of (easily chackable) information.

Bernard still argues, somehow, that I should prove (to him, of all morons) that the said claim is not in a random list of his choice.

Jeff asks if I have asked climate scientists the same question, and I have answered affirmative, I have even done so in his presence (here). But the nutter goes back to his retina engraved image. Full denial mode ..

But what can you expect? Early on, he thought my questions were about Michael Mann at least three times (with me correcting him) before even understanding that simple fact (that they were not)

Retina engraved ...

And one more character, jp, joins in and too rather wants to maintain the activist narrative, and deny the obvious.

It's simply astounding that so many of them claiming to have both the science and the scientists (*) on their side, some even claiming to be scientists themselves, totally derail when you ask them to show the actual science on which their claims are supposedly based.

Anybody in science, not understanding why this both is necessary, and why this is the reasonable question to ask, has abandoned science already ..

(*) It is usually a good indicator that it's not abouit science anymore, when people make claims about either what 'the science' or 'the scientists' shows or say (believing that this is one and also well defined single position), or even worse, when the claim to speak for them or an (supposedly equally single well aligned) 'scienentific community'. Such terms may be used in more colloquial use, but the moment it is made a center part of the argument, it reveals either ignorance or activism or both.

chek you idiot .. making nonsens up Jeffie-style:

"As you’ve previously admitted to not reading any of the references in AR$ Ch 9"

proven wrong in this very thread. Both the 'admittance' and the 'not reading'

You are truly and idiot, chek!

Wow .. where is the science that backs up the official UN-IPCC statements?

You know the official assessment by of the best science by the world's best experts!?

Sorry if you haven't caught on to what the question was yet. (It's been up there for some time now, Wow)

Curry speaks and argues for herself. I'm sorry Wow, but she uses difficult words and often sentences much longer than three words ... I don't think I can help you very much over there, but you are of course free to ask

Re: Judith Curry

It's funny that she ask and touches upon the exact same questions I've been raising here for som time now. And one of your reverred 'cliamte scientists' too ...

It must bugger you maddeningly ...

Those questions were not allowed to be asked, was the meme here for the longest time ...

;-)

@Jonas

"I see that Jeff and Bernard J are continuing to lie about how they ‘demolished’ me"

Indeed jonas, they do appear to have a lot to say on other threads (where they are safe), rewriting history, but they daren't say it here, you might speak back!
;)
Very brave aren't they!

These two trolls GSW and Joan brought to you by the letters

MT

Well where’s the science that backs up Curry’s statements, then?

"Those nutters"

Look in the mirror, Jonas. What do you see? A: A nutter.

You haven't told us the names of the well known climate scientists you have exchanged comments with. Tell us. I wait with baited breath.

You didn't answer my point about whether or not you've used your esteemed brilliance to write a paper for a scientific journal, whether you've applied to attend a major conference to give a lecture, or whether Deltoid and a few denial blogs are the extent of your unrivalled greatness.

Have you? Come on smart-ass, tell us?

You won't. Any more than you'll tell us your day job. Because the answers are these: No paper in preparation. No intention tgo attend a conference, let alone to speak at one. And yes, Deltoid and BH and one or two others is the extent of your foray into the academic world.

If I am correct in these assumptions (and its up to you to prove me wrong), then yes, you have been demolished. Crushed. Chewed up and spat out with the proverbial garbage. Simply because you haven't got the guts to take your frankly stupid ideas to the bigger, badder world.

One day you will melt away from Deltoid like the Arctic ice is doing so now, but in your case it will be a relief to be free of what is in my opinion an egotistical, narcissistic, deluded crank with delusions of grandeur.

Your pet ape can defend you all you like but the truth is that you clowns are an intellectually bankrupt little island. If you both think you are so clever then get off of your scared little backsides and take your supposed wisdom to the real world. Leave us at Deltoid in peace.

"proven wrong in this very thread. Both the ‘admittance’ and the ‘not reading’ "

Your meds must be affecting your short term memory Jonarse. Although actually you've contradicted yourself so many times now, you should be very, very specific about what you have read.

chek .. as I just said, you are just an idiot .. approaching Wow level

Great answer Jonarse, and as worthless as your claims. It's not like anybody can't revisit the last few pages to gain an insight into your dishonesty, oh no.

As I said, you are an idiot, and very likely a dishonest one at that ...

Jeff ..

You are the nutter. Sorry to say that, but there is no other way of describing you. But you inadvertently grouped Deltoid with what you call 'denier blogs'

And that you are not paying attention is quite obvious. But the degree of your sloppiness is truly amazing. It is unbecoming any real scientist (which you are not, and I am more and more questioning the (soft variety-) scientist label as well).

Here at Deltoid, in your (commenting) presence, I posed the exact same question to a namned IPCC-approved climate scientist, and even received an attempt at an answer and a reference (which however didn't contain said claims).

I have asked the same question at RC, with several of your 'heros' and that question is erased (which is their preferred way to argue the strength of their own position)

At the most prominent climate blog (in Sweden, and sceptic) (one of) the most prominent swedish climate scientist comments quite regularly. He is pretty much on track with the IPCC version of the science, but on the lower part of the climate sensitivity span (I think). He is actually the only one who gave an answer which I found fully acceptable

I haven't asked Judith Curry (and maybe I should have, haven't been commenting much on her blog) but she askes the very same questions and makes the very same points I have been making for the same 1½ years you (and your cohorts) have been doing your worst to avoid them.

But your whole question is moot, Jeff. And as (an alleged) scientist you should understand that, understood that long long ago!

My question is the most obvious one to be asked, in response to those claims. The most obvious question imaginable by a scientist:

'So that's what you claim? Let me see the data and your calculations, let me see how you arrived at that conculsion .. '

Whether it is me, Judith Curry, or any other scientist who is asking is irrelevant. It's the one sensible question to ask!

Another quite reasonable (follow up) question would be to ask why so few among you and the scientists on your side haven't raised the same question. Curry is quite late to that party too. Or why it is that you feel the need to fight all kinds of wars to not reveal your science, to avoid dealing with even the simplest aspects of reality? You should ask yourself here at Deltoid why the most obvious little details result in 1½ intellectual derailing of not only you, but a major part of this blog!

Your problem, Jeff, is and always has been that you are fighting against reality. You want it to be something very different than it is! (Your many fact-fabrications are just one part of it). Why the heck would you otherwise spend 1½ years to get away from the most obvious scientific question regarding that claim (and additionally making a total horse's arse out of yourself while trying)?

Why are you fighting reality Jeff?

The "demolished. Crushed. Chewed up and spat out with the proverbial garbage" is still only in your fantasy jeff, and before you stop and consistently stop to imagining things you will never get better. Maybe it's already too late ...

"The “demolished. Crushed. Chewed up and spat out with the proverbial garbage” is still only in your fantasy jeff,"

Nope, that's your reality Jonarse. Your amateur whacko version of reference-free science with your self-invented 'conditions' and poorly formed rhetoric hasn't gained a micrometer of traction here or anywhere else.

All you can do is repeat, repeat and repeat some more hoping for a different outcome. Which is of course Einstein's definition of insanity - also a diagnosis which wouldn't surprise all that many here.

Jonas,

You still have not answered my other questions. But no need; the answer is clearly NO to all of them. At least that is clear.

So its a 77 year old researcher (Bengtsson) and Judith 'double agent' Curry. Gee, you really have the bases covered there. But then again, that's in keeping with you. Cite two names and that's the world of climate science. Pretty pathetic, really.

I'd also like to ask you where you get all of this free time to prattle off lengthy and tedious replies here on Deltoid. Do you actually have a life? Or is this it?

You are one sad, git.

chek - you idiot, have you already forgotten that it is you and the IPCC that does not have any reference(s) for its most prominent claims?

Some more history for the dog-watch only Wendy Club, one with an apposite title : Nothin’ but Noise

Now note who prompted that piece, yes arch brownlasher [1] Patrick J Michaels, well know for his involvement with Western Fuels (look that one up you history challenged twits). Don't believe me then watch this:

Pat Michaels admits: '40 percent' of funding comes from big oil.. There you heard it yourself, from the horses (asses) mouth. Consider that Western Fuels was a coal shifting operation and it is clear that Michaels' hands are as black as black with the filth.

Michaels' recent behaviour suggests that he hasn't changed any for he is still penning BS articles in places such as Forbes and the WSJ.

If you read the Ehrlichs' book you will realise how Michaels has helped the world sustain a course directed over the ecological cliff, never mind the fiscal. For that he will be remembered as will Lindzen and the others in that troop the list being too long, with only a few one-time scientists, to include here.

[1] A term used, by Anne H. Ehrlich in that excellent must read if have not already book co-authored with her husband Paul 'Betrayal of Science and Reason' (1996 HB, 1998 PB) to describe those perverting science so as to earn their cheques from the fossil fuel lobby (FFL). Michaels is mentioned here too, as are Lindzen and Singer. Now I may just treat you to snippets that reveal how much time we have lost because of twerps such as this Wendy Club.

Jeff ...

"a 77 year old researcher (Bengtsson) and Judith ‘double agent’ Curry"

Well, I see you are bringing out the heavy artillery here /Sarc off.

And you are again fighting reality. In vain.

"Cite two names and that’s the world of climate science. Pretty pathetic, really"

Are you so totally in denial? Firstly, I've asked many more. Secondly, if it's me or anyone else asking is irrelevant. The question itself is the most relevant and obvious to ask, when presetend with such a claim.

Why are you fighting reality so desperately?

"You still have not answered my other questions. But no need; the answer is clearly NO to all of them. At least that is clear"

Establishing 'facts' Jeffie-style again, aren't we?

;-)

Keeping on track with the Crockford crock perhaps the sensible readers here would like to sign up to this:

SAVE the ARCTIC

"I’ve asked many more"

Who? I am sorry to disappoint you but I don't think a scintilla you say seriously. Bluff, bluff and more bluff. Tell us: WHO? WHO?! Or do you think that by giving names you'll get in trouble? Grow up, man!

And you still haven't answered my questions, which again tells me your answer is NO, NO, NO etc. Deltoid is where you will remain. That being the case, what the hell do you think you are achieveing here? Sure, you've got one other sad little person (GSW) and occassionally a second (Olaus) in your corner. But what do you expect to achieve? Clearly you think you've stumbled upon some important and amazing facts that have somehow by some strange reason (or due to a conspiracy) have bypassed the rank and file of the climate science world. If so, why persist here?

I think we can all figure out the answer to that little nugget....

Jeff ..

Why are you trying to get away from reality? I don't care whether you believe me or not? I guess a notorious fact fabricator mistrusts anyone!? Have you been telling lies here knowingly Jeff? Because I haven't. Because I don't have to.

But it doesn't matter whom more I have asked. Anyway, the real scientists (who have not seen that purported science) will not calim that they have (and probably try to avoid the question, because either way it's embarrassing). Curry is asking the questions.

And it's nothing I stumbled across, Jeff! That claim was in the face of everyone who watched TV or read a major newspaper, back in 2007. You know that!

And still, six years later almost, non of you believers have come up with the scientific(!) source of those claims. None! Not one single one.

What I have achieved here? I have made it abundandtly and glaringly clear to you and everybody watching that the most prominent AR4 claim by the whole lot of you (who believe in it) is taken in blind faith! Every single one of you!

Almost none even dared to put forward any reference which purported to contain the scientific basis!

You have often accused me of "earth shattering" this and that. And been wrong. But the fact that you simply cannot deal with reality is unsurmountable to you ..

Either dig up any scientific attempts at establishing those claims, or acknowledge that you can't, that you just chose to believe it. And I think that too has been aptly demonstrated. And all the other places where your side goes on about climate hysteria is equally afraid of reality (and leans very heavily on the delete-button. Tim deletes my comments too, unless I post in a 1½ year old thread ;-) )

@Jeff

"do you think that by giving names you’ll get in trouble"

I'm curious too, what have peoples names got to do with determining anything? It's like your obsession with dismissing opinions or evidence on the basis of the smoking habits of a person's relatives. It seems you wish to put everything on the "Scales of Truth" other than the relevant details.

It's just a device to avoid dealing with reality. Your fantasy "Science" is nothing more than escapism fo your prejudices, there's nothing objective about it. Science is about being objective after all.

"chek – you idiot, have you already forgotten that it is you and the IPCC that does not have any reference(s) for its most prominent claims?"

...says Jonarse who admits to not having read the papers referenced in AR4 Ch9 and therefore can't understand the summary. The word 'moron' may well be crediting him with more intelligence than is deserved.

"I don’t care whether you believe me or not?"

Not a question. So why the question mark?

I wonder whether the idea (if it can be graced with the label "idea") is to have deltoid so full of empty crap from the trollific duo that nobody can be bothered to read here any more.

Close this thread and banhammer the silly fuck.

Jeff,

do you think reavealing the names of the alleged papers/authors for that AR4 claim would get them in trouble?

:-)

I think there is a good reason for why nobody will put their name(s) to it.

Wow ... the signal to noise ratio here would increase drastically if you jusst stopped commenting, same goes for chek. And if Jeff would restrict himself to be on topic, and skip his fantasies and emotional rants, his comments would be 2-3 lines. And if you all abandon defending your ignorance, we could even discusse relevant matters, and quite a few of you move forward slowly. But I'm afraid you are too afraid to let go of your faith ...

chek .. still fantasizing about non existent science

"What I have achieved here? I have made it abundandtly and glaringly clear to you and everybody watching that the most prominent AR4 claim by the whole lot of you (who believe in it) is taken in blind faith! Every single one of you! "

No Jonarse, what you've made clear here is that you're a noisy little ignoramus who hasn't a clue about how science works in the real world, or attribution studies.

If you won't read the papers previously provided you can read the shorter Cliff Notes versions here and here

Remember to clamp your lips with your fingers, so they don't get tired too quickly.

As for your oft-spouted absolute bollocks about nobody being willing to put their names to the attribution statement, here's pretty much a who's who of keading climate scientists either as lead authors, contributing authors and review editors. In addition to the opreviously supplied list of references. It's at the end of Chapter 9, you illiterate fuckwit.

"Coordinating Lead Authors: Gabriele C. Hegerl (USA, Germany), Francis W. Zwiers (Canada)

Lead Authors: Pascale Braconnot (France), Nathan P. Gillett (UK), Yong Luo (China), Jose A. Marengo Orsini (Brazil, Peru), Neville Nicholls (Australia), Joyce E. Penner (USA), Peter A. Stott (UK)

Contributing Authors: M. Allen (UK), C. Ammann (USA), N. Andronova (USA), R.A. Betts (UK), A. Clement (USA), W.D. Collins (USA), S. Crooks (UK), T.L. Delworth (USA), C. Forest (USA), P. Forster (UK), H. Goosse (Belgium), J.M. Gregory (UK), D. Harvey (Canada), G.S. Jones (UK), F. Joos (Switzerland), J. Kenyon (USA), J. Kettleborough (UK), V. Kharin (Canada), R. Knutti (Switzerland), F.H. Lambert (UK), M. Lavine (USA), T.C.K. Lee (Canada), D. Levinson (USA), V. Masson-Delmotte (France), T. Nozawa (Japan), B. Otto-Bliesner (USA), D. Pierce (USA), S. Power (Australia), D. Rind (USA), L. Rotstayn (Australia), B. D. Santer (USA), C. Senior (UK), D. Sexton (UK), S. Stark (UK), D.A. Stone (UK), S. Tett (UK), P. Thorne (UK), R. van Dorland (The Netherlands), M. Wang (USA), B. Wielicki (USA), T. Wong (USA), L. Xu (USA, China), X. Zhang (Canada), E. Zorita (Germany, Spain)

Review Editors: David J. Karoly (USA, Australia), Laban Ogallo (Kenya), Serge Planton (France)

This chapter should be cited as: Hegerl, G.C., F. W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo, J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E. Penner and P.A. Stott, 2007: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA"

chek .. I have achieved exactly that.

Every time I say I would like to see the real (by 2007) published science on which those claims is based, I get the most stupid replies from the most idiotic commenters here. About almost anything else except this alleged science.

It's as simple as that. If there is real science behind it, it's there for everybody to see. If it's not there, nobody can see it. It's really as simple as that.

That you haven't seen any is bvious, that Jeff hasn't is obvious too. Same goes for all the others.

And the list of chapter authors is equally irrelevant, there is no science in those chapters, it is an alleged assessment of existing science. But there is no reference to that claim in the chapter either, just awkwardly worded footnotes and figure captions etc.

Before anyone can see, read and check this alleged science, you all take both the claim and its existence on faith.

In your case that's obvious, but it's true for all of you clinging to that claim, or blindly hoping there is som magic tree in the forrest, or a hidden sportscar in the heap of scrap metal, or whatever stupid analogy you want to use.

You've spent 1½ years trying to avoid getting to the core of this, and instead tried to most stupid appeals to constructed authority or to delegitimize the question or who is asking them.

All of these attempts are utterly stsupid, idiotic. And thoe only reason you guys try this is the obvious. The truth hurts too much. It has to be avoided at al costs ...

Jonarse, it's perfectly simple to anyone with a functioning brain.

You - being an ignorant ass - are unable to form a valid opinion because complex science is beyond you. You have no rational choice but to concede the estimation by experts based on the same material made available to you, but illuminated ten-fold by their education, experience and training. There are many examples in the modern woirld where the same situation is true of many fields beyond lay understanding.

However, with you being an irrational fuckwit unwilling to invest in the necessary education to achieve a similar understanding, you make the irrational ego-driven choice to not accept expert opinion. And then you wind up in la-la cuckoo land with Griselda and Olapdog and PantieZ. That's your choice, buty please don't expect to be taken seriously because of it.

By the by, my estimation is you're a simple two-bit grifter hoping to make a few dollars out of the denial gravy train. Likely on the same Monckton mailing list as Anders Brevik, also likely loosely connected to the right wing Swedish network dedicated to reversing European socialism that Rove contacted to ensure a (false) indictment was lodged against Assange and probably even murkier stuff than that. But I'd give up that notion, you haven't got the skills in any shape or form and you're way out of your depth..

It's just amazing how stupid the attempts are by the faithers. I just followed chek's first link and it confirms exactly what I have been saying: It says

"No single study is a "smoking gun." Nor has any single study or combination of studies undermined the large body of evidence supporting the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming."

Meaning: There is no such study that establishes those specific claims. Instead it reflects some combined opinion, and the stronly worded support is that the claim hasn't been proven wrong by "any single study".

It's the same 'We have no better explanation' all over again!

It goes on to list 'the lines of evicence' (incidentally a phrase I've seen many times here) and lists treerings(!) and model simulations ...

Most funny is that it relies heavily on a reference [7] with 12 sub-categories. Clicking on these, it returns you to the very same Wikipedia entry you're already reading!

You couldn't make this up. Wikipedia is notoriously unrealiable wrt climate change and AGW, but even when they get to write their own story, they confirm what I've been saying here

Almost as funny is the list of cited phrases a bit further down. It cites various worded phrases which can be taken as expressing belief in said claims. You find wordings like:

"observed spatial patterns ..are similar to those predicted by state-of-the-art climate models ... It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities"

"Our analysis suggests ..."

".. cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability .."

It even lists some propblems with UHA satellite records, as support for the attribution! And names (the journal) Science as the references, but links to Gavin Schmidt and Real Climate (a notorious dishonest blog).

You couldn't make this up!

Even unprovoked, the best argument these guys can make is that I am right, and that the numbers should be accepted on faith. And chek links to this ...

Probably because it also tries his 'the magic tree is hidden in the forrest, and only the selected can identify it, and aren't allowed to talk to non-believers'-meme ..

But hey, thanx chek. I would never have looked at Wikipedia for support for anything wrt climate and AGW. But you made me look. And even your side, when it gets to put out its story uncontested says essentiall what I have been saying all along (and Jeff actually has become aware of):

That those AR4 claim levels are essentially pulled out of the hat of someone, who isn't even claimed to have a name ...

Problably your most 'meaty' contribution here. Rivaling Wow's reference to a monsoon-study showing disagreement with GHG-hypothesis based models.

And chek links to it, hoping that

As has been said plenty of times before, the science is beyond you and your hick incredulity is not a valid argument.

chek .. Science is not about opinions, it is about demonstrating that a hypothesis works, and presenting how this demonstration is carried out. And good science is about testing these hypotheses, trying to falsify them by seeing if the withstand critical tests.

Again you demonstrate how little you understand of this when you allud to some 'valid scientific opinion'. You explicitly write that I must "concede the estimation by experts based on the same material made available to [me]"

Well, chek, but science is not about conceding to the opinions of others. To trust their estimations. Especially when no one made these claims with their estimations presented, how they were arrives at, and their names put behind them.

The rest of your is just as idiotic as you lowest level.

Needing to include Breivik reveals what gutter scraping scum you are. And you think a full blown idiot like you can teach me anything? For example with a Wikipedia-link that confirms what I've been saying?

Look chek, I know there are plenty of idiots on your side of the climate hysteria, and many of them are in there for the totally wrong reasons (just look at Jeff). But you and Wow are even better examples for making that point ...

And trust me, you are far from the only ones. Essentially everyone trying to defend this kind of nonsense non-science is on the same level ..

Wikipedia ... 'we have no better explanation' ...

Well, at least the IPCC didn't put it that clearly, chek

Yes, chek ... idiots trying to declare me 'incompetent' come by the dozens. The read Wikipedia, and don't even understand what's said there. And spend years trying to make their own own ignorance the basis and even their arguments for their beliefs ...

Simply amazing!

So does that mean you're finally ready to reveal which climate research papers you have actually read, Jonas?

"‘we have no better explanation’ "

That includes you, Jonarse. So given the probability arrived at by the recognised best brains in the world (which obviously doesn't include you) that's what RationalWorld will go with.

That you can't formulate a better theory than "well maybe not, I don't know" is why the ignorant and impotent aren't pursued for their worthless opinions.

And regarding Breivik? (I noticed you were familiar enough to correct the spelling), let's just say that over the past 18 months (as you're fond of reminding us), your monstrous egotism has let some things slip. So let's nor pretend that your twisted ideology isn't playing a large part in your reduction of science to some sort of personal pantomime for you.

Stu .. of hand-moving-box-fame ...

Here, the ones I've said I read suffice ... but you guys don't even remeber those. Or are in denial

Oh chek ... and now the arguments get even more loony:

'You don't have a better explanation either .. '

Marvelous. And sorry, I should have anticipated this level of stupidty too. But just now, I didn't. I didn't expect Breivik either, although I know the level of nuttery I'm dealing with ..

But thanks for reminding me

:-)

But you see. I never claimed to be the best available science assed by the world leading experts, and put unsuported claims in official reports and releases to be spread and echoed around the world.

I do however say this: If none of all these experts even can show how these claims are arrived at, and put this in public display, in one of your treasured peer reviewed publications, then I will remind you of that you are just repeating those claims in blind faith based on authority without even names attached to it ...

You can't remember what YOU said and whine about us not remembering????

"unsuported claims "

But the claims are supported Jonarse by the chapter's named authors. The anonymity is just your own little supporting fantasy you added in. Of course, not having the expertise to read or understand the references, you wouldn't know that.

And actually doing so would interfere with your riff.

You'll notice everyone that Joan here has managed to say NOTHING about what papers they have read.

As long as they don't say anything, they can't be caught out in a flat-out lie.

And joan LIKES lying.

" I never claimed to be the best available science assed by the world leading experts"

Oh dear, you made a mistake, Joan. You made a statement that is a lie:

Dec 12: “Those qualified to see” can see the forrest, and from that view determine things no one managed to see and claim and demonstrate individually

Dec 4: And yes, my education is better than yours. Far better. As are my degrees.

Dec 4: I’ve given enough hints about my professional skills and background that even a fanatic avtivist would get it if he just wanted.

Ok, a bit amused by chek's Wikipedia-attempt above, I folloed his second link. Whic lead to the same wikipedia entry ...

My-oh-my ...

You guys really belive in that just repeating the same things more and more often, getting them printed and linked in more places, repeated more times by more unknowing voices ..

.. that this somehow strengthens the case for those beliefs. That reality bends and bows to the repitition of uttered faith ..

.. and you guys talk about science!?

It's a disgrace. Fortunately, this very nonsense is slowly coming to an end. I don't know what is going to take its place, but I'm sure some new hysteria will arise, and the same band of activists and their successors will jump on the next bandwagon, and urge us to believe that exactly the same remidies will be required to solve the next upcoming calamity ...

Just as it has been before every time ...

. <------- Evidence

0 < ------Joan
/|\
|

".. and you guys talk about science!? "

No, we talk about science.

But someone "homeschooled" by the Village Idiot doesn't know what the hell they're doing.

(by the way, talking of the village idiot, say hi to your dad for me)

"Ok, a bit amused by chek’s Wikipedia-attempt above, I folloed his second link. Whic lead to the same wikipedia entry "

No, it doesn't Jonarse. They are quite separate. Although I expect in the same way that to a racist all Blacks and Asians look the same, anything vaguely 'sciency' seems the same to you.

And spare us your tired philosophy - although again, it would go down with demands for an encore at Montford's Home for Confused and Undereducated Misanthropes. But I suspect it's too late for that and your "reputation" won't survive your time here.

Yes chek,

The IPCC exists, you are correct there
And it's reports are written by people, correct again
And the various chapters are authored by its authors, once more correct
And these authors have names, tue again
And alledge to assess the science, also true
But don't present or constitute science by themselves
Instead, they purport to assess published science
Peer reviewed and in press by 2007, as they proudly announce.
Which means, available for eveyone to see (who asks)

Well chek, the little problem is that I have been asking to see this, and I've done so for quite some time. And in my opinion others should have done so for more than six years (and possibly have) but nobody seems to be able to answer, or even willing to address this issue. Albeit it being the most prominent AR4 claim.

If you feel like it, you can restrict your search among all those references, to those who are co-authored by the chapter lead authors. But you still have to provide the science, the published references, with named authors who allegedly claim these levels of attribution and confidence ..

If you can't you are just echoing faith (based on opinions, of others) ...

chek .. now it's racist black and asians looking the same ...

Is there any level too low for you to stoop to?

"anything vaguely ‘sciency’ " says chek, after having linked two times to the same Wikipedia entry, but different sub-headings. Which explicitly stated that there is no explicit science underpinning said AR4 claims, that it instead is a 'considered opinion' by those selected to opine about it ...

And as its main support cites various sources saying 'we have no other/better explanation' and thereafter tries throwing this at me:

"you can’t formulate a better theory"

This is the level of 'science' with you chek. Wikipedia entries, saying 'we have no better explanation' and when challenged retorting "you can’t formulate a better theory" ...

Everything you say, when you get to specifics, confirms my statement, which I made already 1½ years ago here.

Maybe you should have stuck with the 'You are an idiot and moron' meme only if your goal was to co´ver and protect your home turf ... idiot county, that is.

Jonas, I believe you finally got the message through. :-)

"Jonas, I believe you finally got the message through"

Oh, goofball, he did a l-o-n-g time ago, the message being that he's an egotistical twerp.

Its really sad seeing the pathetic little moron wallowing in the mud, writing ridiculously long rants, refusing to read any of the myriad of studies that made up the basis of the summary chapter in IPCC-2007. What is even sadder is that this schmuck thinks that Deltoid is his global platform to spew his vitriol. As I said, before, what a loser.

Its strange how even his die-hard fab club think its just fine that he can claim things time and time again (i.e. his education is better than ours; he speaks with many scientists etc.) without the need to provide a shred of proof.

And note how our Swedish sad-sack not only refuses to address these simple questions, which are relevant, but also why he doesn't take his alleged genius level wisdom elsewhere into the BIG world (where it matters). I have asked if he is writing a peer-reviewed rebuttal. NO ANSWER. I have asked him is he intends to submit a lecture for a conference on climate change. NO ANSWER. And of course NO ANSWER means - you guessed it - NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

He clearly feels he is on safe ground in one tiny innocuous corner of the blogosphere, where he can be buffered by the sheer lack of people interested in his garbage, and be sure of the support of a few other right wing lunatics.

I fully expect a page-length rant from Jonas in response to this containing the usual caveats:

- Nobody has provided evidence for the attribution claim
- He's a lot smarter than anyone else here
- We are all hysterical and scream a lot
- We are all hand waving
- He alone know what real science is
- Nobody has come close to countering his wonderful arguments in 1½ years
- Hi opponents make things up all the time and live in idiot-land
- All our arguments are faith-based

etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. The record is broken.

And then watch GSW write a curt response in which he pats is hero on the back whilst dismissing the rest of us as fools for not recognizing the true genius in our midst. Or something along those lines.

Again, its pathetic.

Jeff, you are making progress. You didn't mention your CV at all. What will come of this?

Olaus,

Jonas has said he is better educated than anyone else here and that he has the relevant expertise to argue his corner.He also says that he has conversed with many climate scientists, and that he has read the relevant literature. As usual he has not provided any proof.

Strange that he demands proof of the AR4 attribution from us but that he constantly makes remarks in which when he asked for proof he constantly evades and obfuscates. Pretty hypocritical I would say.

He is therefore not making any progress. What will come of that?

Jeff, not "what will come out of that", but waht has come out of this. And the answer is plain and simple that Jonas hasn't only held his corner, he has painted you into one, an a very small one at that. The only thing still preventing you from seeing this is based on pure faith and uncritical thinking.

As a neutral bystander it is more than obvious that Jonas don't evade and obfuscate. He stays on topic while you guys start inventing facts and tussle with strawmen instead of dealing with what's on the table.

Olap, now you're back, maybe you can continue your quest.

How would you find out whether the temperature has been rising.

"Instead, they purport to assess published science"

Any yet again Joan here makes life up to be convenient for itself.

WG1 assesses the science.

"As a neutral bystander it is more than obvious that Jonas don’t evade and obfuscate"

Bulls***. You arfen't a neutral bystander.

Jonas is the king of evasion. He makes a lot of statements (see above) then backtrracks when challenged on them. He's clearly hardly read a single study that has been listed by Bernard, Lionel and others. His strategy is simple: expect others here to do his work for him.For us to go painstakingly through the summary chapter in IPCC IV and to lay out the science behind the attribution for him.

This is twisted logic. The last IPCC document is the most peer-reviewed document in scientific history. It went through 12 rounds of internal and 3 rounds of external peer-review. If Jonas thinks he has found a major glitch, then its up to him to go through the reams of literature and point out to us where they are making things up that are not based on science but as forever says on faith.

But he wo'n't do that, and that is where the impasse is. We - his opponents, which clearly repesent a massive majority on Deltoid - want him to go through the studies and point out the flaws that make the 90% attribtion figure false and/or unscientific. He, on the other hand, expects us to do his dirty work for him.

That would be fine if we were the ones countering the conclusions of a document that has been verified and supported by every Academy of Science in every nation on Earth. Of course, when confronted with this salient little fact, your hero then makes up stupid things like saying we don't know the decisions of these esteemed organizations was reached. That allows him to invalidate their statements on the most flimsy basis. He then expects us to write to every Academy for proof that their conclusions were reached via the rank and file fopinions of their membership. Unless we do that, then he can assert that these stastements are meaningless. And you take this crap seriously? You thibnk that a neutral observer would read that and say, "Old Jonas has a point there". Get real, man! Only an eel could try and slither from this, and Jonas apparently is covered in slime.

This is when I began to see Jonas for what he really is: a time wasting clown. Let him go through all of the publications in the summary chapter of IPCC and then use that to discount the 90% figure. Its not ouyr job, given the fact that the 2007 report has been accepted by every major scientific body.

I have said until I am blue in the face: the 90% figure is a handle for policy makers and the public WHO, RIGHTFULLY OR WRONGFULLY DEMAND HANDLES. If the repoirt had concluded that evidence for the human fingerprint on the recent warming is 'highly significant' alone, you can bet your bottom dollar that a journalist, pundit or politician would have griped that this doesn't say enough. They want numbers! Percentages! So one is provided, and bingo! Its not based on the science! Its not based on the science! The denial lobby is great at this kind of thing. That is why I loathe the lot of them so much. They aren't interested in sound science but in anything that will defeat the implementation of regulations limiting some corporate activity or the other. In this sense science becomes an area that must be twisted, distorted or mangled in pursuit of a hidden agenda.

As an aside, I have asked Jonas a billion times why he persistes here, on one small innocuous corner of the blogosphere. If he is so adament of scientific wrong doing, why does ne not get off his butt and go to arenas where he might make a dent? He won't get anywhere here, and all he does is bang his head against a wall. My take is that he is a big man in a small pond here, and he likes that. Out there, in the big bad world, as I said yesterday, he is a nobody, and his ideas and arguments would be quickly vanquished.

If you think he can stand his corner in this little venue, then let's see how well he does in the real scientific world. My guess is that he wouldn't last a second.

Jeff, you're still fabricating your won 'facts' ...

I have been asking for the references that establish these claims, and read those few which actially have been given together with the claim that they indeed contain that claim. Every time I've done so, they didn't. Mostly they contained som attemps at 'attribution' but never even close to establishing the AR4 specified levels.

I've said this many times, from the startout, and still the moron brigade here tries to frame it as:

"you’ve previously admitted to not reading any of the references"

and you your attempts are equally nutty:

"refusing to read any of the myriad of studies that "

I don't really know why you guys are so defiant wrt reality, but it must be deeply rooted ...

"this schmuck thinks that Deltoid is his global platform "

Again, pure invention by Jeffie ..

Lets take the main claim here, the papers that allegedly make up the basis for those specified AR4 claim levels.

As I've said many times, I've read those references put forward here (accompanied with the claim of being it). They were not that many, but at least one 'cliamte scientist' offered his best shot (Jeffie stood by, commented, and now denies that fact, and claimes the opposite)

Earlier, I used to check offered references more eagerly, but since it was the same story every time, ie that those who put it forward hadn't even read it, and they never contained any such claims (much less, scientific basis for it), I started asksing this beforehand. Bernard J demanded that I list all those paper, but I truly can't remember all, this is a time span of over half a decade, and most papers were very uniteresting. However, he thinks this (me not providing that list) is his triumphant get out free card. It is very obvious that Bernard is not the kind of guy who understands attribution, or what it takes to establish high certainties. Neither is Jeff of course, and I'm not even blaming any of them for their lack of training. But they don't stop there. their whole gambit has been:

'Because we are stupid and ignorant, because we haven't read these papers, because we don't know anybpdy who really knows or even claims to have seen or done the proper science ..

.. therefore Jonas must be stupid too. And cannot have read or understood anything. And knows as little as we. And has not asked the right questions. Or isn't allowed to ask them, etc'

It's all quite pathetic. As I said, if that claim is in there (in the publications), it was there in 2007 and can be found and seen by anybod who wants to.

(Idiot reality-denier) chek of course cannot either read such science, but twice tried the same Wikipedia entry that pretty much said exactly what I have been saying all along, and even appended a bunch of quotes, phrases (supposedly supporting the 'attribution, but really only) demonstrating how handwaivingly these claims are made. Essentially:

'We really believe in this, amd we have no better explanation ..'

Well, that's proably true, but it doesn't constitute science. And this is where where you've been since 2007 it seems.

And Jeff's 1½ years attempts of making this about something (almost anything) else are just pathetic. As are his attempts at putting me down ony any other issue .. truky pathetic. And failures, consistently.

Jeff .. one thing you got right. That 90% figure is not science, it's for political anad journalistic consumption

All the other, all that I 'have to do' according to you is just evasion, smokescreeen. And I would be very very suprised if this claim was in there while the reports were going through review.

Jeff goes on trying to prop the AR4 with more appeals to authority, but again, these are all words, and no substance. If those claimed levels were demonstrated in the science, one only would have to point them out, but instead we gett (here) 1½ years of idiotic drivel. I am glad that Judith Curry finally asks the same questions ... they should have been raised long before. And by those who allegedly vetted that AR4 report ... (if they ever got to see this before)

So to condense - Jonarse read some unspecified papers, imagines them to be the same story everytime (beyond his comprehension? Who knows, he doesn't specify) skims two wiki pages so quickly they merge into one, then complaining there's no science, cranks out his riff one more time.

You destroy yourself on the rocks of your own stupidity Jonarse.

chek ..

The condensation is, you guys have no clue, and you have all been taken this claim on faith, believing somebody else has checked its veracity

And it's amaing beyond belief that you link to the same Wikipedia-entry, only at different locations on the same page, and believe that they were two different entries. Especially after I point this out to you ...

But learning is slow, isn't chek, approaching non existent ...

Its a pity you can't direct-link to the many priceless attempts by the nutter brigade, and they aren't numbered any longer either (and previously, the numbering could quitely change weeks later, when Tim decided to delete some comments, making the reading very difficult).

However, chek twofold link to the same Wikipedia page is above, Dec 13, where he says:

"No Jonarse, what you’ve made clear here is that you’re a noisy little ignoramus who hasn’t a clue about how science works in the real world, or attribution studies.

If you won’t read the papers previously provided you can read the shorter Cliff Notes versions here and here"

You can't make these guys up even if you tried. He even wanted to make a point of me spelling Breivik correctly ...

What a bunch of loons ...

Here's a proposal. For every post by one of us, Jonas makes about a dozen. And many of those go on and on. He clearly wants to have the last word, and has clearly shown that, as far he is concerned, Deltoid is it. There will be no publications or lectures or conferences where he will share his 'wisdom' with the assembled scientists. Yes, Deltoid is his final stop. His continued refusal to answer this question is his answer. No. Deltoid is my world he says; this is my thread and I'll cry if I want to!

So take it away, Mr. know-it-all. Have your final lengthy rant then leave us all here in peace.

One last point, then the floor (rant) is yours, brain-boy. You wrote above, "therefore Jonas must be stupid too"

You got that right.

There is nothing to what Joan wants to do.

The claims of wanting science are rejected (if, for example, you give a link to a website like "nature", it's suspect, alarmist even).

Claims of wanting to inform people of his facts fall flat because no actual evidence is given to support any alternative view.

There is no point to the posts joan makes other than to be a dickhead in public.

Jeff ... Thank you for confirming the level of your 'logic' and that my description of it was accurate. I'll give you the whole thing again, for clarity. I summarized the core of your combined 'arguments' as:

"Because we are stupid and ignorant, because we haven’t read these papers, because we don’t know anybpdy who really knows or even claims to have seen or done the proper science ..

.. therefore Jonas must be stupid too. And cannot have read or understood anything. And knows as little as we. And has not asked the right questions. Or isn’t allowed to ask them, etc"

I actully didn't expect you to confirm this as clearly.

Applause! Applause! Only a mini-rant!

FYI and also for GSW: more water heaped on the denial machine. Um. What was GSW saying a little while back about the 'climate change scare' going in reverse?

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-science-doubters-world-warming-080143…

I win.

Jeff, do you not read what you write yourself? Often two thirds of your comments are various versions of CV-shaking and 'fact fabrication' about your imagined demons/enemies. The last third sometimes vaguely addresses the topic, but more often than not gets the facts wrong or barks madly at som strawmen ..

I guess, this too somehow must be my fault!?

Just had a thought.

Is Joan here ACTUALLY a pen-name of Monckton?

Certainly writes like him. i.e. completely barking mad.

Is Joan here ACTUALLY a pen-name of Monckton?

Not probable, no Latin thrown about. Besides even Monckton is more literate than this twerp. We have seen so much incoherent, repetitive if incoherence can be, drivel from his direction, enough to make a post-modernist weep.

Another Dire tribe in one...two...

Remember, Monckton's brain is rotting from Graves. When was the last time you saw him using latin? And note: he wasn't even very good at it.

His last attempt was to dress up in a dress and pretend to be a delegate from an arab country or somesuch.

Monckton has DEFINITELY degenerated.

And Joan here has degenerated too: their spelling and avoidance were never this bad early on in the thread.

Stu .. of hand-moving-box-fame …

Oh precious, please keep bringing that up. You're and GSW are not just a running joke on every other thread that has ever mentioned that particular episode... you've started a local meme.

(Man, I really hope when I start my truck and drive off in a minute or two that my wheels will follow. I have it on good authority my engine will, though).

Here, the ones I’ve said I read suffice …

Name one climate paper that you have read, with your own, substantive critique, and I will send you $100. Don't you want to make money off of rubes like me, Jonas?