Global warming?

[Coign]

Originally Posted by tw

Yes, a perfect example of cherry picking. Worse, you cannot even summarize what each paper says.

Just clicking through and pulling some of the 117 papers from 2010.

(The whole list is here. http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html )

http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/250912__928051726.pdf

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation
at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is
worse than at the local scale.
However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms.

http://www.bepress.com/spp/vol1/iss1/1/

CONCLUSIONS
Regional patterns of industrialization, land-use change and variations in the quality of temperature monitoring have been shown by several groups of authors to leave significant imprints on climate data, adding up to a widespread net warming bias that may account for as much as half the post-1980 warming over land. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC dismissed this evidence with the claim that “the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant” upon controlling for
atmospheric circulation patterns. This claim was presented without any supporting statistical evidence. The models in this paper implement a reasonable way of augmenting the original regressions with the relevant oscillation data, and the results contradict the IPCC claim. The temperature-industrialization correlations in question are quite robust to the inclusion of standard measures of the effects of atmospheric circulation patterns on temperatures, confirming the
presence of significant extraneous signals in surface climate data on a scale that may account for about half the observed upward trend over land since 1980.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...003.1554v1.pdf

11. Conclusion
The analysis of several records suggests that the IPCC’s claim that humanity is running an imminent danger because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions 22 is based on climate models that are too simplistic. In fact, these models fail to reproduce the temperature patterns and
the temperature oscillations at multiple time scales. (See also Appendixes H, J, X-Z). These models exclude several mechanisms that are likely to aect climate change related to natural temperature oscillations that have nothing to do with man. Indeed, these oscillations, such as a large 60 year cycle, appear to be synchronized with the oscillations of the solar system.
By ignoring these natural mechanisms, the IPCC, also through a questionable choice of data and labels as explained in Section 2, has greatly overestimated the eect of an anthropogenic forcing by a factor between 2 and 3 just to fit the observed global warming in
particular from 1970 to 2000, as the climate model depicted in Figure 11 shows. However, a detailed climatic reconstruction suggests that the phenomenological model depicted in Figures 13 and 15 is more satisfactory and is likely to be more accurate in forecastingclimate change during the next few decades, over which time the global surface temperature will likely remain steady or actually cool.
23

I have to go into a meeting or I would link to the other 10 papers I am continuing to browse through. But click on my link with Cherry Picked papers. Read the references. Read about their submission process. Read their numbers disproving the sources that prove AGW is happening.