What Do We Think About Climate Change

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by blacksmith

One thing to always keep in mind:
The people in government (virtually ALL governments)
have a primary focus on control. They look for any
justification for increasing the amount of control that
they have over the people in the country that they're in
charge of administrating (and -naturally- any other countries
that they can get a finger into). Global warming gives governments
everywhere an excellent reason to get an immense increase of
control over their population and business in their countries.
They just LOVE the concept of "global warming".
Note that they have no interest in stopping global warming even
if it existed and even if -by regulation- they could do so.
They'd be reducing their control as well as the amount of money
that they could make otherwise. How many politicians have that
kind of integrity? (or -for that matter- any integrity at all?).
HUGE bucks have already been invested in "carbon credit exchange"
to allow countries and companies to keep doing what they're already
doing by simply paying a fee/fine/operating cost. Naturally, that
will just be passed down to the consumer, so it's not a single buck
out of their profits. It does ends up being skin off the back of the working
middle class, and, eventually, they will be unable to keep buying
whatever it is that's being sold, but since modern business is driven
by quarterly profits, they could care less...once they've got a few
million, it's all a game.
Note: A sure way to get a lot of money coming your way:
come up with a "crisis" that can only be solved by bigger government.
Government research money (taxes) will come flowing to you by the truckload.
(Figure out how to justify an "air tax" and you'll be set for life).
A sure way to get funding cut (or never get it at all), point out that
increases in government regulation will not solve any given problem
(or that one of the "problems" doesn't exist).

These days, having money trumps having integrity.

One last note: focus on fake "crisis" keeps people from noticing what/where
the real problems are.

I see you actually studied in civics class. Kudos.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Boston, you are refering to the effect on land by ancient civilisations, be it by deforestation, bad agricultural practices that lead to mass erosion and the like.
Do you imply that such changes actualy changed the climate? Very doubtfull and by minuscule amounts if at all. The changes would have to be at afull continental level and in a very short period of time. Both did not happen.

there is no real doubt that ancient civilizations effected there local environment or that deforestation alters rain patterns which in turn effects to some degree temp and yes, IE desertification. The changes were however relatively minor compared to what we are doing no with both methane and co2 pollution just as you suggest.

Originally Posted by hoytedow

When Yellowstone blows, say bye-bye, Boston, cause Denver ain't gonna be no more. Your statement about man's destruction of the environment surpassing that caused by the super caldera is laughable.

a close relative of mine is the USGS team leader at the Yellowstone observatory. Yellowstone will have a short term worldwide effect and a longer term local effect but all in all it would not throw the planet out of equilibrium. The caldera goes off about every half million years or so and looking back through the records there is no long term damage. Rapid global climate change on the other hand along with the eutrophocation of the oceans is however likely to have significantly long lasting effects.

[hoytedow]

It will mainly strip the upper states as far south as eastern Louisianna, according to what I saw on the History(?) Channel.

See also:http://www.earthmountainview.com/yel...ellowstone.htm

[blacksmith]

Thanks!
Unfortunately, they didn't teach me this stuff in civics class.
But it's pretty all pretty obvious if you watch what they do as
opposed to what they say....very seldom (if ever) does one have
anything to do with the other. Their rhetoric is designed to fool
as many people as possible into supporting one faction of the
"big government party over another.

Of course, step back and take a good look and you see that all
factions are implementing policies designed to make people more
enslaved than they were before. Is a person any less a slave to
a government than to a single man? Does it matter which party is
in charge when they ALL do everything possible to control your
actions, your money, and your life? And who can argue that the people
making the laws aren't influenced by the people with unimaginable
amounts of money behind the scenes? (Note: this is often called
"capitalism"...the fact is that it's anything BUT capitalism,
in fact, it's merchantalism, something much different.)

In this country, I know of exactly ONE politician that couldn't be
convicted on charges of treason (of course, he's portrayed as a
nut case" and "radical" for having the gall to imply that government
officials should abide by their oath of office and support the Constitutional
restrictions on government). Unfortunately, too many people who
live out of the taxpayer's pocket are all profiting from the status
quo and are neck deep in the "old boy" network, consequently even the
most blatent crimes seldom make it to the mass media (who are also
part of that network), let alone to court....

Apologies, I didn't join the forum to rant about politics...
Unfortunately though, these days politics is wound up tightly with every
aspect of our lives, and never -ever- with positive results for any
more than a very few people.
Bottom line: the "Global warming" "crisis" is a politician's dream-come-true.
(they hope)

[hoytedow]

Progressives in both major parties have nearly destroyed both parties. I wouldn't trust either party as far as I could throw them. Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see. They are in politics so they can make the rules. Our best interests are not their best interests.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

It will mainly strip the upper states as far south as eastern Louisianna, according to what I saw on the History(?) Channel.

See also:http://www.earthmountainview.com/yel...ellowstone.htm

the largest of the eruptions left ash all the way to the Mississippi but the majority of the damage is mitigated within the first decade or so and that mostly localized to about a five hundred mile radius

I used to be asked countless questions concerning Yellowstone caldera by groups we took out on horseback throughout the greater Yellowstone area, I was also privileged to do fishing guides. Thing is nothing is likely to be quite as catastrophic as another big freeze and that does kinda look like what its leading up to. That or a major extinction event with large areas of desertification.

oh
and the oceans basically dying so the oxygen band will be reduced
that and the near shore environment will also be compromised in that toxic anaerobic algae's will find a great home within the old lungs
nice eh
nothing quite like walking into the garden of Eden
and lighting the place on fire

[Guillermo]

Some global warming alarmists suggest that the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (NATC) or (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) will be disrupted by the melting of the Arctic ice cap, causing an ice age. This is known by scientists to be a bogus scenario.

This has mainly come about due to a general misunderstanding of the NATC and the Gulf Stream.

The simplistic view is illustrated in the first attached figure, which shows the Gulf Stream as a laminar flow and recirculating as a deeper stream as part of the NATC. [http://www.meteo.mcgill.ca/~tremblay...peClimate.ppt]

The actual Gulf Stream and its relation to the NATC is more complex. The Gulf Stream breaks up into various currents once it passes the Grand Banks. The following figures show the subsequent currents and gyres that result [http://kingfish.coastal.edu/gulfstream/p2.htm] “Along the east coast of Florida the current is fed by the Antilles Current, and the flow, now called the Gulf Stream, runs parallel to the coast until reaching Cape Hatteras where it leaves the coast and enters deeper water. While flowing in deep water the Stream often forms large meanders or fluctuations in its path. At approximately 50°W, the Gulf Stream splits into several currents the largest being the North Atlantic Current. The North Atlantic Current then feeds both the Norwegian Current which transports water northward along the west coast of Europe and the Canary Current which flows equator-ward on the eastern side of the Atlantic." See second attached figure.

The third figure (graph) show sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly graphs for five Gulf Stream areas as shown on the map in fourth figure [http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/...ture-sst.html]. Recent SST warming is well below the warming of the 1930’s-1940’s.

Even the science publications which typically are pro-alarmist have recently backed off on this scare scenario:

* Science: “False Alarm: Atlantic Conveyor Belt Hasn't Slowed Down After All” [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...4/5802/1064a]: “A closer look at the Atlantic Ocean's currents has confirmed what many oceanographers suspected all along: There's no sign that the ocean's heat-laden "conveyor" is slowing”

* New Scientist: “No New Ice Age for Western Europe” [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225763.900]: “New measurements have failed to show clear evidence that the current is weakening, and models of the North Atlantic show that a shutdown would not occur in the way oceanographers had expected.”


Cheers

[Guillermo]

Another part of the misunderstanding is the myth that the Gulf Stream heats Europe. A 2006 article by Richard Seager (senior research scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory) in American Scientist (“The Source of Europe's Mild Climate” subtitle “The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth”) [http://www.americanscientist.org/iss...ild-climate/1] provides a good explanation of how the oceans warm the land on the eastern side of the ocean.

“Average January air temperatures are warmer over oceans than they are over land, because the sea retains more summer heat, which can then be released to the overlying air in winter. Sites located close to the coasts thus tend to enjoy mild "maritime" climates. And because prevailing winds over the midlatitudes blow from west to east, coastal areas on the eastern side of ocean basins experience especially mild temperatures. Conversely, the coasts bordering the western side of ocean basins experience winters that are intermediate between typical maritime conditions and the frigid "continental" climates found in interior regions. The difference in January temperatures across the North Atlantic at the latitude of London, for example, amounts to between 15 and 20 degrees Celsius.”


Cheers.

[Guillermo]

And now a last (for today) comment on Boston's posted graph:



The worst manipulation about ice cores data was the arbitrary changing of the age of the gas trapped in the upper part of the cores, where the pressure changes were less drastic than in the deeper parts. In this part of cores taken from Siple, Antarctica, the ice was deposited in the year 1890, and the CO2 concentration in it was 328 ppmv (Friedli et al. 1986, Neftel et al. 1985), and not the 290 ppmv needed to prove the man-made warming hypothesis. The same CO2 concentration of 328 ppmv was measured in the air collected directly from the atmosphere at the Mauna Loa volcano, Hawaii, 83 years later in 1973 (Boden et al. 1990). So, it was shockingly clear that the pre-industrial level of CO2 was the same as in the second half of the 20th Century.

To solve this “problem,” these researchers simply made an ad hoc assumption (may I say a "Trick"?): The age of the gas recovered from 1 to 10 grams of ice was arbitrarily decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped! This was not supported by any experimental evidence, but only by assumptions which were in conflict with the facts. The “corrected” proxy ice data were then smoothly aligned with the direct atmospheric measurements from Mauna Loa.

See attached figure: THE MOTHER OF ALL HOCHEY STICK CURVES

Thus, falsified CO2 “hockey stick curves” were presented in all the IPCC reports and in the “Summary for Policymakers” in 2007. These hockey sticks were credulously accepted by almost everyone, together with other information on greenhouse gases determined in the ice cores, which were plagued by improper manipulation of data, an arbitrary rejection of high readings from old ice, and an arbitrary rejection of the low readings from the young ice, simply because they did not fit the preconceived idea of man-made global warming. It is a habit that become all too common in greenhouse gas and other environmental studies.


Cheers

[hoytedow]

Thanks, Guillermo. Lots of good information, that.

[blacksmith]

Yes, "progressives" of both parties have betrayed their constituancy:
democrat "socialists/leftists" have been betrayed,
republican "conservatives" have been betrayed,
the big "L" Libertarian party is in the process of betraying the Libertarians
(although the small "l" libertarians are still trying to fight the good fight)
and Americans -in general- have had their Constitution all but wiped out by the
people in power (of both parties) who use every possible excuse (and the best propaganda machine
in existance) to sell out their birthright. It's been going on for many decades
but has been moving faster and faster over the last few years. (Possibly because
the new goal is to run, not just the country, but the world in general.)

The bottom line is that money/power is talking. Virtually nobody in big-party politics
has any interest in representing anyone other than those who can route megabucks
and power their way.

This isn't new, it's been done many times in the last century: Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, etc. It's just that now, they're doing it here. Power over people is the focus. When it comes to getting it, anything goes in the book of the
psychotics that work their way up to where they can run the show. (When I was younger, I wondered how that sort of thing happened. Unfortunately we're now getting a good, close up look at the process.)

(Funny, as old as most of these guys are, you'd think that the centuries of fame that they'd get from supporting a policy of individual freedom would outweigh the money and power that they only have a few years left to enjoy, but sure doesn't seem to be the case.)

rant/off
(button isn't working very well today... :-) )

[fasteddy106]

Thanks G, on that note......................click on the image to enlarge

[Boston]

there is no real debate concerning the global current system other than the one presented by the usual suspects



this is also known as the "Guillermo threw up in the sink again scenario"

likely a result of some innocent and well meaning soul pointing out to him that ice permeability actually runs about a thousand years or so behind ice formation.

I did like how in one breath you claim there is no thermohaline deep circulation and in the other you present information supposedly concerning that deep circulation
nice

so
which is it
inquiring minds want to know

soon as you are done with the porcelain Goddess that is

love
B

[fasteddy106]

Odd that the oceanic doomsday scenario didn't occur during the previous well documented times when the Artic Ice Cap virtually disappeared during the summer. But then it wouldn't be the first time that Boston knowingly posted outdated and bogus information.

[fasteddy106]

I enjoyed this article..........


A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

Richard Lindzen is unarguably one of the top meteorologists in the world, with over 200 publications to his name, as well as awards, medals, prizes and is a member of the NAS, AAAS, AGU, AMS. He is The Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his work includes major contributions to our understanding of the Hadley Circulation, small scale gravity waves on the mesosphere, as well as atmospheric tides and oscillations in the tropical stratosphere. From the beginning, he has questioned the claims that there is a crisis due to carbon dioxide emissions, pointing out that even with the poor resolution of ice cores back in the 1980’s it was still evident that there was a lag—as temperatures declined, carbon stayed high for thousands of years, something which didn’t sit well with the idea that carbon had a strong and constant force on the climate.

What follows are his thoughts on the current state of the science. They must make it awkward for those who can’t help themselves but believe in authority. Here’s a man who knows more than most of us could ever hope to, and he clearly doesn’t agree with the theory, and backs up his thoughts by publishing peer reviewed papers. What a dilemma for those who don’t want to think for themselves but hope “authority” will do it for them. Which authority do they follow? Does it all boil down to counting up the PhD’s?


This piece was originally written for the German magazine, Numero, but after soliciting it, they decided against publishing it. Interestingly, they were originally in a great hurry to get it. Apparently their intention was to run it with an opposing piece by Schellnhuber. Schellnhuber backed out, and then so did the magazine. They apparently forgot to mention that to Dr Lindzen until he enquired, which doesn’t seem like a polite way to treat eminent authors.

Was there a good reason for Schellnhuber to back out, or was this a case of another alarmist who won’t debate? And of course, even without Schnellnhuber, the magazine could have printed Lindzens article anyway. How often does the media hold back an alarmist story because they lack a sceptical counterpart?

JoNova


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

Richard S. Lindzen

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.
The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

…implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect…
For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community).

The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does.
It turns out that there is a much more fundamental and unambiguous check of the role of feedbacks in enhancing greenhouse warming that also shows that all models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity. Here, it must be noted that the greenhouse effect operates by inhibiting the cooling of the climate by reducing net outgoing radiation. However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1°C for each doubling of CO2). The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does. This is referred to as a positive feedback. It means that increases in surface temperature are accompanied by reductions in the net outgoing radiation – thus enhancing the greenhouse warming. All climate models show such changes when forced by observed surface temperatures. Satellite observations of the earth’s radiation budget allow us to determine whether such a reduction does, in fact, accompany increases in surface temperature in nature. As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative — strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior. This analysis makes clear that even when all models agree, they can all be wrong, and that this is the situation for the all important question of climate sensitivity.

As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument … shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative
According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86 % of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2°C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. Modelers defend this situation by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming, and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCC’s iconic attribution (Smith et al, 2007). Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged. It should be noted that, more recently, German modelers have moved the date for ‘resumption’ up to 2015 (Keenlyside et al, 2008). Climate alarmists respond that some of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Given that we are in a relatively warm period, this is not surprising, but it says nothing about trends.

“…the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant.”

Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980’s, global cooling in the 1970’s, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more. This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto.
In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake. With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.

References
Barkstrom, B.R., 1984: The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 65, 1170–1185.

Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearsona and S. F. Singer, 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

Keenlyside, N.S., M. Lateef, et al, 2008: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, Nature, 453, 84-88.

Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, accepted Geophys. Res. Ltrs.

Lindzen, R.S., 2007: Taking greenhouse warming seriously. Energy & Environment, 18, 937- 950.

Ramanathan, V., M.V. Ramana, et al, 2007: Warming trends in Asia amplified by brown cloud solar absorption, Nature, 448, 575-578.

Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, and F. J. Wentz, 2008: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, Intl. J. of Climatology, 28, 1703-172

Smith, D.M., S. Cusack, A.W. Colman, C.K. Folland, G.R. Harris, J.M. Murphy, 2007: Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model, Science, 317, 796-799.

Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288

Wong, T., B. A. Wielicki, et al., 2006: Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV Data, J. Climate, 19, 4028–4040.