Here is a reconstruction of the temperature of this interglacial, which had an optimum about 4000 to 8000 years ago. Both the Kaufman and Kobashi papers confirm this. Being from a single site, the Kobashi results have a question mark over them, but I would tend to trust any paper with Jason Box's name in it. Box, though, has also made a "health warning" abut this paper, as Agno said.
Symphony of Science tackles Climate Change. Best one yet, with Bill Nye "The Science Guy", Professor Richard Alley from Penn State U, and Isaac Asimov who should need no introduction.
This won't be well received by anyone who considers a creationist scientist not to be a "true scientist."
Climate sensitivity clouded with doubt
From "The Science is Settled" Department. Climate sensitivity is the biggest unknown in climate research. If climate sensitivity is low, then increasing CO2 levels are a non-problem. The IPCC claims that sensitivity is high and that therefore regulating emissions is necessary.
However, a new paper by Dr Roy Spencer and William Braswell, based on real world observations rather than incomplete models, claims that determination of sensitivity is as yet unsolved, because of the difficulty in distinguishing forcings and feedbacks:
"While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."The paper is technical, but its conclusion shows that anyone who says "the science is settled" is either ignorant or wilfully deceptive.
Climate sensitivity clouded with doubt | Australian Climate Madness
The study is by a 'creationist' and an ally and, therefore, not credible. It has been thoroughly dissected by actual climate scientists and shown to be the shoddy pretext that it is.
And, if I recall correctly, (I will not waste the time checking) it was published in a 'Vanity" publication; a publication that invites submissions and allows the submitters to choose reviewers. Published there because no reputable publication will countenance such rubbish.
It reflects not science, but what Spencer has sunk to.
"Spencer's model is too simple, excluding important factors like ocean dynamics and treats cloud feedbacks as forcings. A subsequent study by Dessler (2011) found that Spencer's paper was not a test of climate sensitivity or feedbacks, and his assumptions do not match empirical observational data. "
Roy Spencer's paper on climate sensitivity
Last edited by Agnotologist; 13th September 2012 at 03:17 PM.
.... a post from an Indian quack doctor and politician
.... a post from American Thinker claiming a certain dead scientist was "revolting". She was misquoted and the whole thing was a fabrication.
.... and now this!
From what I read on the (manufactured cry for help) Denial of Science and History thread, the thread author doesn't have much of a track record on this forum worth consideration.
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
I wonder how close his detractors here at Politics.ie come to his standard of excellence.
And Hitler was awarded the Iron Cross for bravery in WWI. Alexander studied under Aristotle. Do you want a long list of those with qualification of some sort whose lives were not exactly exemplary?
What has Spencer's bio to do with his distortions of science? Singer, Lindzen, Idso and more all were scientists with backgrounds and who have gone rogue.