FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOAA: April Temperatures Slightly Cooler Than Average for U.S.
May 8, 2009
The April 2009 temperature for the contiguous United States was below the long-term average, based on records going back to 1895, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC.
The average April temperature of 51.2 degrees F was 0.8 degree F below the 20th Century average. Precipitation across the contiguous United States in April averaged 2.62 inches, which is 0.19 inch above the 1901-2000 average.
U.S. Temperature Highlights
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
- April temperatures were near normal across much of the United States. On a regional scale, only the Northeast (above-normal) and the West North Central (below-normal) deviated significantly from normal.
- New Hampshire observed its eighth warmest April, based on data going back to 1895. Unlike much of the Northeast, the Midwest experienced a cooler-than-normal month. From North Dakota southward to Oklahoma, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia, temperature averages were below normal.
- For the year-to-date period, only North Dakota and Washington have experienced notably cooler-than-normal average temperatures. In contrast, much of the South and Southwest regions were above normal. New Mexico had its ninth warmest such period on record.
- Based on NOAA’s Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index, the contiguous U.S. temperature-related energy demand was 2.3 percent below average in April.
U.S. Precipitation Highlights
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
- Above-normal precipitation fell across parts of the Central and South regions, while the West and Northwest regions experienced below-normal precipitation.
- Precipitation was above normal for the contiguous United States. Georgia had its fifth wettest April on record, Kansas and Michigan had their ninth wettest, and Illinois, its tenth. Only seven states were notably drier than normal for April.
- Year to date, the Northeast experienced its fourth driest January-through-April period on record and it was the twelfth driest period for the contiguous U.S.
- By the end of April, moderate-to-exceptional drought covered 18 percent of the contiguous United States, based on the U.S. Drought Monitor. Severe, or extreme, drought conditions continued in parts of California, Florida, Hawai’i, Nevada, Wisconsin, the southern Appalachians, and the southern Plains, with exceptional drought in southern Texas.
About 21 percent of the contiguous United States had moderately-to-extremely wet conditions at the end of April, according to the Palmer Index (a well-known index that measures both drought intensity and wet spell intensity).
Other Highlights
- International Falls, Minn., recorded 125 inches of snow so far this winter season, breaking the previous record of 116 inches set in the 1995-1996 winter season. Another seasonal snowfall record was broken in Spokane, Wash., where 97.7 inches of snowfall broke the old record of 93.5 inches set in 1915-1916.
- About eight percent of the contiguous U.S. was covered by snow at end of April, according to an analysis by the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center. Snow coverage during the month peaked at 30.2 percent on April 6, after a late-season winter storm hit the Midwest and Plains.
- The 263 preliminary tornadoes reported in April was above the three-year average of 200 confirmed tornadoes.
NCDC’s preliminary reports, which assess the current state of the climate, are released soon after the end of each month. These analyses are based on preliminary data, which are subject to revision. Additional quality control is applied to the data when late reports are received several weeks after the end of the month and as increased scientific methods improve NCDC’s processing algorithms.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
Graeme Rodaughan:
I speculate that the underlying psychological motive for AGW Belief is a fear that humans are insignificant and powerless in the face of the forces of nature.
No doubt. And for many, just throw in some postulated evil villians, and selves-as-heroes and we perhaps have the average 6-12 year old’s fantasy life now as perceived “reality”.
This is the URL to the Essex-McKitrick paper “Does a global temperature exist?” A classic.
Ian
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
Steve Hempell (20:58:25) :
This estimation gives the 19th century being ~12% more active than the 18th and the 20th being 21 % more active than the 19th.
Assuming that the time constant of solar influence is short compared to a century [numbers like 5-10 years are brandied around – or otherwise the recent cooling cannot be ascribed to a recent solar downturn], it is not useful to integrate over a century as increased solar input is radiated away over the time-constant. The relevant comparison is for intervals corresponding to the major ‘peaks’, say 30 years long centered on the peaks. The ‘standard’ [and thoughtless] objection is that ‘the oceans are storing all the heat’, but if so, we have to wait many decades before the recent solar downturn is felt.
Integrate over a sliding 30 years and plot that.
I’m working on a politics essay on climate change- I can’t seem to find a single published paper that refutes the publications detailed in the IPCC. I had thought this was an outrageous claim but it appears to be true.
I have turned to these blogs by way of investigation- and you guys don’t even seem to bother with peer reviewed science. All of the posts I have followed here lead to unpublished material. Is this really the case?
Can you please post ANYTHING you have that is published, and clearly refutes that very high levels of CO2 does not equal warmer atmosphere????
Steve Hempell (20:58:25) :
This estimation gives the 19th century being ~12% more active than the 18th and the 20th being 21 % more active than the 19th.
And think about what your percentages mean. Assume that in the 20th century every year was 0.5 W/m2 higher than in the 19th [a vast overestimate] then your integrated numbers would be 50 W/m2 higher than the 1360*100 W/m2 sum over the century or 0.037% higher…
The math has to be done right.
Snow in the WA Cascade passes tonight and tomorrow. Nice mild November in the Northwest.
So we have a 4.5 billion year old planet and a 13.8 billion year old universe and 10,000 or 12,000years since the last ice age and we are arguing over the significance of 10 or 20 or 30 year trends and calling it science? Are we collectively nuts?
We don’t have enough hard data, and we have not seen all the cycles. This is not science it is speculation. Build a model, load it with all known historical observations, and it can’t duplicate the past let alone predict the future.
How about you all go buy a Davis Weather Station from Anthony and send all observations to him.
Rick,
Forget peer review in the climate sciences, it is corrupted [see the Wegman Report to Congress for proof].
Here is a good starting point: click
Steve Hempell (20:58:25) :
This estimation gives the 19th century being ~12% more active than the 18th and the 20th being 21 % more active than the 19th.
If you calculate the average [corrected] sunspot numbers then they are
18th: 47
19th: 53 (13% higher than 18th)
20th: 62 (17% higher than 19th)
21st: 55 (so far, a meaningless 11% lower than 20th)
A pictoral representation of the 11-yr smoothed corrected SSN is here: http://www.leif.org/research/11-yr-Corr-SSN.png
Steve Hempell (20:58:25) :
The math has to be done right.
Ah, I finally see that you are integrating the excess above 1365.60. That will give you the [almost] correct numbers you gave. I apologize for thinking you integrated all the way from zero.
Anyway, the comment about time-constant still stands.
If you have a temperature series that you trust, try to plot that on top of the TSI curve.
Rick (21:36:34): Your question depends on what you consider “published.” See, I consider anything I post to be published and open to peer review. Perhaps that’s simplistic but I consider it to be far more honest and open than the method of publishing and peer review I see in current scientific publications. Does it not bother you are placing political popularity above actual data?
Rick (21:36:34) :
Nobody had proof for 2000 years that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Yet, the assumption was made that it did.
Just because AGW has a computer model that says that CO2 causes global warming does not mean that thier theory is correct.
But don’t mistake some of us communicating the cooling change we observe amongst ourselves as proof that that is all we care about, or that that is all this blog is about.
You can watch the video Ed Scott posted, then look up the scientist that is behind the theory. There is challenge.
Ed H (19:45:43) :
The days around then at my Davis VantagePro near Concord NH reported:
| 2009-04-24 | 37.2 | 73.7 |
| 2009-04-25 | 44.2 | 90.1 |
| 2009-04-26 | 58.7 | 79.8 |
| 2009-04-27 | 48.9 | 80.1 |
| 2009-04-28 | 48.2 | 92.1 |
| 2009-04-29 | 41.1 | 66.0 |
The dew point was in the 40s, so dry, just barely 90s. Not as hot as it could have been.
Smokey, I have already got that link of another blog- OK, its a useful inclusion on the politics side, but its still not a proper reference I can use in a dissertation.
I have a background in biomedical research. And from my perspective I have four volumes of published papers on one side, and nothing on the other.
I am amazed that all these blogs seem to skip over this fact, because its the deal breaker for me.
OK- in medical research you have instances where commercial pressure leads to publications. But that generally gets refuted *within the published literature*.
Its pretty hard to argue a point academically (well in a college framework anyway) if you have no published material on your side. And on this issue, I would have thought people were scrambling over each other to publish the first definitive refutation of AGW.
For instance, on the thread here doubt has been cast on the various global data sets. This should be a straight forward scientific paper, .ie GISS is wrong because…., so why can’t I find one?
Rick (21:36:34) :
I’m working on a politics essay on climate change- I can’t seem to find a single published paper that refutes the publications detailed in the IPCC. I had thought this was an outrageous claim but it appears to be true.
You might want to checkout the video posted above Ed Scott (19:49:02) : about Miskolczi’s work, but I might suggest a more interesting twist for your paper, given what you’ve already discovered, would be to examine what appears to be a systematic exclusion from employment,funding and publication of scientists who in any way question the prevailing orthodoxy of AGW. I’m not a climate scientist myself, but in pursuing my interest in this question I have come across many references to this phenomenon and while I can’t provide you with links right now, you shouldn’t have much difficulty finding them for yourself.
rbateman (20:32:37) :
Pat (20:23:16) :
“I met someone who was visiting from Australia. He told me of the winds incessantly blowing (Melbourne)…”
There must be another Melbourne; not this one I was born in, and now once again live in, 60 years on.
_____________________________
rephelan (20:52:58) asks: “Am I the only one here who suspects that if two brilliant ego-centrics quit sniping at each other and decided to collaborate on just one…”
No, rephelan, you are not the only one.
DJ is there a budget allocation at BOM for time spent in “denier smackdown” across the ocean?
One wonders if the taxpayers of Australia approve of such job activities. Aren’t there problems in Australia that need solving? Cheers
I am going to giggle myself to sleep tonight…
rephelan (20:52:58) :
I already have a cure for cancer. I am a co-inventor of a patent on an anti-cancer drug with two professors from Purdue University. In vitro trialling at Queensland Uni last year demonstrated efficacy against cell lines in prostate, breast, ovarian, Hodgkin’s lymphoma and melanoma. It also works very well against benign prostatic hypertrophy. Next stage is toxicology and human trials. Mode of action is synergistic inhibition of the tNOX molecule on the external membrane of cancer cells by sulforaphane and capsaicin. Until it is commercialised, I recommend that you eat broccoli sprouts, a lot more potent than the mature heads.
Ric Werme (22:16:19) :
That mini heatwave we had in April was made slightly worse by the fact that there was hardly any vegetation to grow in as of that time. As I recall 850mb temps were in the 14-16°C range during the warmer days of that 4 day stretch which would usually only yield highs in the mid 80’s under full sun in a deep-mixed layer/downslope flow regime (which there was). However, without any growth to occur as of that time there wasn’t any evapotranspiration (cooling process) and insolation penetrated directly down to the surface without hindrance from the forest tree canopy (lower albedo). Add that into the fact that the antedecent ground conditions were abnormally dry and there’s your extra 5 degrees that took temperatures into the 89-92 range instead of the expected 84-87 range given the atmospheric profile. I also noted that BUFKIT model temps were running 3-5 degrees cooler than observed temperatures during that warm spell too.
Candidate for Quote of the Week:
“notably cooler-than-normal average temperatures”
Rick (21:36:34) : “I can’t seem to find a single published paper that refutes the publications detailed in the IPCC.”
First, you need to know that a senior author on the first IPCC panel resigned and harshly criticized the IPCC for taking points in published works out of context without allowing the original authors any chance to review before the final report. The IPCC’s “details” were cherry-picked elements that supported their premise.
Further, some statements in IPCC reports are not based on peer-reviewed papers. An important one is the claim that western fossil fuel emissions are the primary source of anthropogentic residual CO2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC Working Group One executive summary included the conclusion: “We calculate with confidence that: …CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect; long-lived gases would require immediate reductions in emissions from human activities of over 60% to stabilise their concentrations at today’s levels…” These calculations were not from peer-reviewed papers, but from the working group itself. Critics raised the question about the source and underlying data of these conclusions and the claim that fossil fuel emissions were the primary source. A definitive rigorous paper that could support the IPCC claim was lacking. Subsequently, a pair of studies were launched regarding the source of anthropogenic CO2, resulting in peer-reviewed papers published in Nature — one in 2000 and another in 2005. The first concluded that Third World home fires was the dominant source of anthropogenic CO2 with Indonesian peat fires a major contributor. The second also concluded most GHGs came from Third World home fires and identified a major concentration from rural China. Neither paper supported the IPCC focus on fossil fuel emissions and so both were ignored. Rick, note: a central IPCC claim unsupported by peer-reviewed studies refuted by two peer-reviewed papers.
The first IPCC Working Group also concluded: “Based on current models, we predict: . . . increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 oC per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years.” Several peer-reviewed papers surrounding the “Fairbridge Curve” of 1976 and subsequent papers used to prove the veracity of Fairbridge’s sea level curve showed periodic rapid climatic changes during the past 6,000 years that had to be greater than 0.5°C per decade to cause relatively rapid sea level changes of greater than two meters.
If you look far enough, you will find strong published articles by leading statisticians that refute the Mann Hockey Stick graph — a feature of the earlier IPCC reports and Al Gore’s film. So strong was the refutation, that the IPCC no longer promotes that graph.
Lastly, “peer review” does not carry the strength of verifiable fact. Several peer-reviewed papers cited by the IPCC published in the late 80s and early 90s and public statements made by featured IPCC authors have simply not shown any degree of truth. Famous among these is James Hansen’s testimony to Congress in 1988. In that presentation, Hansen showed climate modeling results that predicted a 1.2°C increase in global temps in 20 years. Here we are more than 20 years later and the global temperature anomaly data is showing only a warmth anomaly of 0.09 – 0.20°C. The present condition also completely refutes the IPCC’s 1991 “prediction” of 0.3°C warming per decade, not just Hansen’s grossly exaggerated predictions.
One does not need peer-reviewed papers to compare statements made in those papers to the reality of present data.
The Miskolczi paper is published in Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, a very obscure journal. There are probably three other papers with such science, all in obscure journals. OK- that in itself is no reason to dismiss something- particularly if the subject matter is similarly obscure- but that is not the case here.
The standard practice in science would be to publish extensions of the work in top shelf journals, once the importance of the work is established. This has not happened- and adds to my suspicions.
If I get up and debate 100s of papers published in Science, Nature and elsewhere without similar material, I’m going to get laughed at- so I’m not going to do it.
I am really disturbed that anyone seriously consider a blog post to be the equivalent of a publication or a peer-reviewed publication? Thats just ridiculous- we don’t get any idea of your qualifications, who you are and who is commenting on your posts- come on… you guys have lost me completely.
If I get the drift of all these blogs right- you are basically saying that there is a conspiracy theory whereby climate scientists are manipulating science, funding and publications on a mass scale.
There is a disconnect in this assumption- where is the proof? Again, its just blog posts. Just like an alternative scientific theory refuting AGW- this would be Noble prize winning, shout from the rooftops, big news.
It doesn’t make any sense to a rational observer. I mean- who wants climate change to happen, not many people- I don’t- so why is this material unpublishable?
Weather report on TV tonight, Camden (A western Sydney suburb) reached 4c this morning, 5c below average. Sydney was at 9c this morning, coldest start to a day since spring. I assume the wetherman is talking about last spring.
Rick: “OK, its a useful inclusion on the politics side, but its still not a proper reference I can use in a dissertation.”
The coat-of-arms and other faux-heraldry probably don’t lend much to the argument, either.
“And on this issue, I would have thought people were scrambling over each other to publish the first definitive refutation of AGW.”
Me too. Funny that. Perhaps it’s because AGW is now collapsing like a house of cards. No point doing the hard graft when we’re just on the cusp of the turning point and any day now the bubble will burst, the rats will jump ship with a last gasp while the edifice crumbles and the game ends. Then it’ll be all over Rover for AGW. Yep. It’s definitely gonna happen.
I wonder if anyone else noticed:
wattsupwiththat (20:10:28) : (May 11)
Thanks Anthony, a lot just made sense when I noticed this. Probably not too difficult to trace an IP address…
Some years back I had a website that was very “anti” our then Prime Minister. I was most entertained to see more hits from official government IP addresses than anywhere else.
Rick (22:23:22),
Something tells me that your arguing is only a tactic. If I’m wrong then I apologize for thinking that. Here is some reading material.
When you’re finished with these citations, get back to me and I’ll provide more:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
– C. R. de Freitas
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
(arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
– J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AGW_hypothesis_disproved.pdf
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
– Lee C. Gerhard
– Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
– V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos
Climate Change Re-examined
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
– Joel M. Kauffman
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1999
– Sherwood B. Idso
Crystal balls, virtual realities and ’storylines’
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
– R.S. Courtney
Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
– R.M. Carter
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
– R.H. Essenhigh
Does human activity widen the tropics?
(arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 200
– Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov
Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
– C.D. Idso [WUWT contributor]
Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 200
– Patrick J. Michaels
Global Warming
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
– W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
– Dennis Ambler
Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
– Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
– Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong
Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
– M. Leroux
Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
(arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 200
– Serge Galam
Global warming: What does the data tell us?
(arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
– E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
– S. Fred Singer
Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
– A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
– Soon, Willie
Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
– Indur M. Goklany [a WUWT contributing author]
Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
– Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
– L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
– Olavi Kamer
Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
– A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
– Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
– Soon, Willie
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 200
– Klaus-Martin Schulte
Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
– Richard S. Lindzen [WUWT contributor]
Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
– Olavi Kärner
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
– S. Fred Singer
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
– Vincent Gray [WUWT contributor]
Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
– Olavi Kärner
The Carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
– N. Calder
The Cause of Global Warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
– Vincent Gray
The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
– Douglas J. Keenan
The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
– David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis
The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
– H. Jelbring
The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
– A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes
The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 199
– Vincent Gray
The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
– William J.R. Alexander
The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
– Wojick D. E.
“The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
– Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf