Getting rid of old stuff

None of the following are warranted in any way. I’m just clearing out some old emails and didn’t want to completely throw them away. This may be only of interest to me, and possibly not even me.

* Spock warns of coming ice age
* Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change – Vasilis Dakos, Marten Scheffer, Egbert H. van Nes, Victor Brovkin, Vladimir Petoukhov and Hermann Held, PNAS, 2008.
* Significant contribution to climate warming from the permafrost carbon feedback Andrew H. MacDougall, Christopher A. Avis & Andrew J. Weaver – Nature, 2012.
*Claim of solar influence is on thin ice: are 11-year cycle solar minima associated with severe winters in Europe? – Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, Jos de Laat, Juerg Luterbacher, William Ingram and Tim Osborn, in Klimazwiebel. Note last para.
* Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 – John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges; Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553.
* Adjustments in the forcing-feedback framework for understanding climate change – Steven C. Sherwood, Sandrine Bony, Olivier Boucher, Chris Bretherton, Piers M. Forster, Jonathan M. Gregory, Bjorn Stevens. BAMS
* Law and Expediency – Bystander.
* Study of massive preprint archive hints at the geography of plagiarism
* Travels in the Alps Volume 2 Chapter 35 by Horace-Bénedict de Saussure.

Meanwhile, above the Franz Senn hut in Austria in September:


8 thoughts on “Getting rid of old stuff”

  1. I like the 2001 paper by Harries et al — probably as direct a measurement of the enhancing greenhouse effect one can hope for. (But it only pertains to clear-sky conditions, and, yes, they have to use a model to account for some atmospheric differences between 1970 and 1997.)

    Other papers (useful in a debate) along similar lines are:

    [Yes, I was sent the Harries paper as “useful for discussion”; thanks for yours. Nowadays, however, I don’t find myself in that kind of debate. People are either like the majority of folk commenting here – largely sane, not in need of that kind of info – or barely capable of admitting the GHE exists – not capable of reading that kind of info -W]

    “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).

    “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007)

    “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)

    “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate,” W.F.J. Evans, Jan 2006

    “A method for continuous estimation of clear-sky downwelling longwave radiative flux developed using ARM surface measurements,” C. N. Long and D. D. Turner, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol 113, D18206, doi:10.1029/2008JD009936, 2008

    “Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models,” Gastineau et al, J Climate, vol 27, 941–957 (2014).


  2. That photograph- am I correct in thinking that is a glacier, and until a few years ago covered the spot the photograph was taken from.

    Hank- here in central Scotland we’ve had a few frosts and a little snow, sufficient to think that it is actually winter, but it yo-yo’s up and down so much – at new year it was 12C, which is at least 6 degrees warmer than normal for the time of year. The jet stream has been doing mad things.

    [The immediate foreground is meadow / marsh. Further back you can see the “first step” about 5 m high. The a km back is the second step, and then glacier -W]


  3. New Climate Change Study Just 400 Pages Of Scientists Telling Americans To Read Previous Climate Change Studies,37761/

    WASHINGTON—Co-authored by several dozen of the nation’s top climatologists, a new climate change study released Wednesday by the U.S. Global Change Research Program reportedly consists of 400 pages in which scientists just tell Americans to read previous climate change studies. “Not sure if you saw this one from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from 2012 about how rising sea levels are putting billions of people in coastal cities at risk, or L.G. Thompson’s 2009 paper on the loss of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, but really, you should check them out,” read the study in part, which is titled “The Global Climate At Risk: A Broad Survey Of Climate Change Reports That We’ve Been Publishing For Decades And That You Should Actually, Seriously Read.” “Look, there are hundreds of studies on Greenland’s rapidly melting ice sheet alone. If you could just skim the abstract of one of those—just one, that’s it—that would be great. They’re all online, and our JSTOR password is USGCRP90, so you can go and check one out right now.” The report is said to conclude with a single exasperated 28-page run-on sentence urging people to “just come on and look at these damn things, for the love of God—what more do you want from us—Jesus, this is ridiculous.”

    [That’s a good one, I shall use it. Shades of -W]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: