Longtime WUWT reader Jimbo writes in Tips and Notes:
The following has been partly referenced and inspired by Numberwatch. The differences between this list and Numberwatch are:
1) I have tried to select my sources only from peer reviewed letters, papers, abstracts, correspondence etc, or from the IPCC.
2) The list contains only research that appears to arrive at contradictory and opposite findings.
3) Items and links in brackets are just for extra information purposes though some are peer reviewed.
4) I have also added many of my own finds to the list.
* Corrections, clarifications and paired, peer reviewed suggestions appreciated.
* Some abstracts provide a link to the full version.
* I am aware of the caveats and uncertainties stated in some of the documents listed below.
“Causes of uncertainty include insufficient or contradictory evidence as well as human behaviour.”
————-
Below are just a few things caused by man-made Global Warming Climate Change Global Climate Disruption Excessive Climate Change Research Funding.
Avalanches may decrease – wet snow more though [?]
Bird migrations out of fashion
Boreal forest fires may increase
Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing
Chinese locusts swarm when warmer
Chinese locusts swarm when cooler
Columbia spotted frogs decline
Columbia spotted frogs thrive in warming world
Coral island atolls to sink [?]
Coral island atolls to rise [? – ?]
East Africa to get more rain – pdf
Gulf stream speeds up a little
Indian rice yields to decrease – full paper
Indian rice yields to increase
Latin American forests may decline
Latin American forests have thrived in warmer world with more co2!
Leaf area index reduced [1990s]
Leaf area index increased [1981-2006]
Malaria may continue decreasing
Malaria in Burundi to increase
Malaria in Burundi to decrease [?]
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to increase
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to decrease – full pdf
North Atlantic Ocean less salty
North Atlantic Ocean more salty
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decline [? – ? – ?]
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to grow [?]
Plant methane emissions significant
Plant methane emissions insignificant
Sahel may get more or less rain
Sea level rise decelerated – full pdf
Stone age hunters may have triggered past warming [?]
Stone age hunters may have triggered past cooling
Swiss mountain debris flow may increase
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease then increase in volume
Wind speed to speed up then slow down
Winters maybe warmer [? – ?]
—END—
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OK, I’ll grant you that the climate scientists may have got:
Amazon dry season, Avalanches, Bird migrations, Boreal forest fires, Chinese locusts swarms, Columbia spotted frogs decline, Coral island atolls, Earth’s rotation, East African rain, Great Lakes snow, Gulf stream speed, Indian monsoons, Indian rice yields, Latin American forests, Leaf area index, Malaria; North Atlantic – cod, cyclones & saltiness; Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, Plant methane emissions, Plants moving uphill, Sahel rain, San Francisco fog, Sea level rise, Soil moisture, Squid size, the climatic effects of Stone age hunters, Swiss mountain debris, UK floods & droughts, Wind speed, and Winter temperatures
but what else have the climate scientists ever
done for usgot wrong?Let us not forget what modern technology has done. Computers, calculators and such. Miraculous tools if only we knew how to use them.
The first reliable instant communication was by electric telegraph. In that far off world of long ago it took people a long time to learn how to use it effectually.
Hence, in the early days: ” And down the wire the message came, he is no better, he is now worse, he is much the same”
The simple fact is until we learn how to use these wonderful toys properly we shall remain as ignorant as we were before: despite vocal protests to the contrary.
Kindest Regards
Thanks for that, it is always useful to have something like this to hand when some Zealot trots out an extreme alarmist position during a debate.
Illustrates pretty well that after decades of research and shedloads of funding they still have no clue.
+1 -1 = 0
The first two I looked at are not contradictory. The two on the columbia spotted frog don’t contradict.One talks about a decline once warming eliminates the moist habitat, the other says that up until the habitat becomes unsuitable due to warming, there is a benefit from the milder winters. In fact, the second paper sums up the two positions very nicely:
“More generally, amphibians and other ectotherms inhabiting alpine or boreal habitats at or near their thermal ecological limits may benefit from the milder winters provided by a warming climate as long as suitable habitats remain intact.”
Have you actually vetted this list, or is this just an exercise in self-flagellation?
A good example of science at its most robust and settled!
With certainty like this, I would hate to see what science may come up with if it was not robust and/or not settled.
Henry, you’ve got to be kidding if you can’t smell the stench of nonsense that billows from this collection…
Henry Holmes says: April 3, 2011 at 1:45 am
I’ve no doubt Jimbo can reply for himself.
But isn’t the point that, armed with a nice computer, healthy funding from the taxpayer and a little imagination, you can come up with “scenarios” showing anything you please?
Pepper liberally with “might” and “could” and “it is feared” and “possibly” and you have a paper ripe for publication in “Nature”, “Science”, “Scientific American” and all the others.
Whole careers have been built on less.
reminds me of an old world war 2 story about how communicatios can be distorted.
Generated message was “Send reinforcements, we are going to advance” After several repetitions the message turned into ” send three and four pence, we are going to a dance”
Henry Holmes
Columbia spotted frogs. I’ll update and correct accordingly. The list I have made will decline and thrive at the same time just as we will get warmer and colder winters. ;O)
——————————
One correction:
North Atlantic cod to decline / North Sea cod decline.
I am sure there will be other corrections as I am sure there will be additions in the future such as this:
Co2 rise more precipitation?
Co2 cut more precipitation – short term?
I will continue with the list as I find them and make corrections accordingly.
Thanks.
What I would like to know from Warmists is what would falsify the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming?
——————————————–
Anthony,
I think there is a need to have on your Resources page a section called Conflicting Findings which is made up of only contradictory and opposite findings from scientists. This, I believe, does more than anything else to expose this for what it is.
“Hence, in the early days: ” And down the wire the message came, he is no better, he is now worse, he is much the same””
Just in the interests of accuracy, the misquote above appears to be taken from some lines supposedly written by Alfred Austin (although no-one seems to be able to name the poem). It is said to have been written about the Prince of Wales’ illness. The version generally given is:
“O’er the wires the electric message came: he is no better, he is much the same.”
OK, I’m a pedant.
Just look at what part the models have played in many of these projections / scenarios / predictions / forecasts.
Excellent work, Jimbo. No wonder the alarmist side always loses debates.
This is rather brilliant. Lots of useful citations to use in the future.
@Henry Holmes
I would agree that the Frog papers don’t directly disagree, they are talking about different local effects in different locations in Montana.
To me the two papers effectively, collectively, say that the change in snow pack will be negative for amphibians in low lying areas who usually benef from snow pack melt water, yet positive for amphibians in mountain regions with less snow in shorter winters.
The “as long as suitable habitats remain intact.” boilerplate is pretty meaningless though isn’t it?
If the numbers of a wee beasty are going to be used as a proxy for showing a bad thing is happening, should we allow choosing a specfic area and generalising without justification? The first paper got this headline
Climate link to amphibian decline
I had a look but I couldn’t find an example of a contemporary headline for the second benefit effect. But it could have existed and said
“Climate link to amphibian increase”
which would have been equally justifiable using the same logic.
I think this blame list exercise is impressive and useful, although it is worth while thinking about each example and seeing how “fair” the headlines are contrasted. Also useful to think about how the headlines are/were used in the media. I would bet most of the “benefit” stories above had less coverage than the negative effect climate stories.
The funny thing about Albert Einstein is that any one can quote him to further their own particular purpose or agenda, so too can science be used in this way but ultimately there can only be one falsehood in taking an inherently contradictory position in science.
This quote by George Orwell encapsulates the known difficulty of the contradictory and absurd assumptions that even Albert Einstein was faced with.
“Einstein is an analytical mathematician seeking to give a physical interpretation to the conclusions of his mathematical process. In this he is hampered by a load of contradictory and absurd assumptions of the school that he follows, which throws him into all manner of difficulty. Einstein has such a faculty for embracing both sides of a contradiction that one would have to be of the same frame of mind to follow his thought, it is so peculiarly his own. The whole Relativity theory is as easy to follow as the path of a bat in the air at night. ”
“Climate Change” being an antonym is very appropriate (don’t you think?) considering that contradictory and absurd assumptions including faulty predictions play a major part in its own particular purpose and agenda.
It is worthwile noting that the IPCC cannot produce its publications for governments without relying on NON-peer reviewed publications. Yet ‘Warmists’ insist that sceptics only rely on peer reviewed evidence!!!
——————
InterAcademy Council committee Quotes from those working at the IPCC.
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/Comments.pdf
H/t Nofrakkingconsensus
Based partly on the models it’s much worse than we thought!
Amazon drought may be caused by cleaner air
Antarctica ice growth not linked to ozone
Arctic sea ice may not be in death spiral
Fisheries in Australia to thrive? or maybe not.
Great Barrier Reef boomed after bleaching
Natural disasters have not been increasing
Worldwide methane concentrations flattening?
Water scarcity has triggered peace treaties
[See also Geographical perspectives]
Henry Holmes says:
April 3, 2011 at 1:45 am
The first two I looked at are not contradictory….”
Two out of thirty three aren’t as contradictory as supposed? That’s better proof of global warming than the actual computer model prognostications!!!!!
As long as you use words like may, might, should, could, etc…
…you can literally publish anything
Our research shows that one day the moon (may, might, should, could) crash into the earth………
…and pigs might fly
What your list proves, without any doubt, is that the most robust aspect of climate science is it funding levels. None of the contradictory “science” would have been possible without massive infusions of Climate Ca$h (aka your tax dollars) into the government/academic climate science machine.
This is an invaluable list. From the initial pro-AGW’ers replying here you can already tell they don’t want this out there. This is pretty devastating for them. I would nail this list posting for posterity (pending corrections deletions etc). I am sure there could be a very strong media interest in this for articles. Its pretty devastating on the pro-AGW and the media and science journals that support it.
Recommend pasting this list and posting it worldwide. It could be devastating!
This post is a great example of the type of material that should be available in some part of the site (Resources Page?) for easy reference when we are debating the warmers.