Global Warming Scientists Trapped in Antarctic Ice

[GaiaHunter]

"Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming"

But that isn't what is being debated.

What is being debated is "Global warming is caused by CO2 emitted by man and will lead to catastrophic consequences".

How many of those 9136 peer-reviewed authors actually defend that?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Its global warming not global microwave set on high. Haven't ever heard anyone say that global warming removes ice from existence on earth.

Is it equally as ironic when a global warming denier puts a breaks out in a sweat or bitches that its hot in August? Don't overthink now....

Frankly I don't think that I am overthinking, I am just thinking in general.

It is ironic because when it is related to the Arctic, ice free Arctic is the "definite proof" of man made global warming.

It is also ironic because we've been told of dozens of meters of sea level rise, which of course will only happen when almost all ice is gone.

It is also ironic because we've been told that the heat is hiding in the oceans, so one would expect for these new warmer oceans to actually have less ice during Summer than 100 years ago.

 

[Matt1970]

It is ironic because when it is related to the Arctic, ice free Arctic is the "definite proof" of man made global warming.

It is also ironic because we've been told of dozens of meters of sea level rise, which of course will only happen when almost all ice is gone.

It is also ironic because we've been told that the heat is hiding in the oceans, so one would expect for these new warmer oceans to actually have less ice during Summer than 100 years ago.

Only the ice that was over land will raise sea levels when they melt. When ice melts in water it does not raise the level of the water.

 

[ralfy]

But that isn't what is being debated.

What is being debated is "Global warming is caused by CO2 emitted by man and will lead to catastrophic consequences".

How many of those 9136 peer-reviewed authors actually defend that?

Hence, "Related:".

To answer your question, you can probably ask the researcher. The contact information is given in the article.

You can also read the NAS final report on the matter. The link was given earlier in other threads.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Only the ice that was over land will raise sea levels when they melt. When ice melts in water it does not raise the level of the water.

When almost ice is gone means Antarctica, which of course as not been melting and geographic constrains (shaped like a bowl) makes it hard to reach the ocean.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Hence, "Related:".

To answer your question, you can probably ask the researcher. The contact information is given in the article.

You can also read the NAS final report on the matter. The link was given earlier in other threads.

Well.

"1,2-Dichlorohexafluoro-cyclobutane (1,2-c-C4F6Cl2, R-316c) a potent ozone depleting substance and greenhouse gas: atmospheric loss processes, lifetimes, and ozone depletion and global warming potentials for the (E) and (Z) stereoisomers.
Papadimitriou VC, McGillen MR, Smith SC, Jubb AM, Portmann RW, Hall BD, Fleming EL, Jackman CH, Burkholder JB.
Author information
Abstract
The atmospheric processing of (E)- and (Z)-1,2-dichlorohexafluoro-cyclobutane (1,2-c-C4F6Cl2, R-316c) was examined in this work as the ozone depleting (ODP) and global warming (GWP) potentials of this proposed replacement compound are presently unknown. The predominant atmospheric loss processes and infrared absorption spectra of the R-316c isomers were measured to provide a basis to evaluate their atmospheric lifetimes and, thus, ODPs and GWPs. UV absorption spectra were measured between 184.95 to 230 nm at temperatures between 214 and 296 K and a parametrization for use in atmospheric modeling is presented. The Cl atom quantum yield in the 193 nm photolysis of R-316c was measured to be 1.90 ± 0.27. Hexafluorocyclobutene (c-C4F6) was determined to be a photolysis co-product with molar yields of 0.7 and 1.0 (±10%) for (E)- and (Z)-R-316c, respectively. The 296 K total rate coefficient for the O((1)D) + R-316c reaction, i.e., O((1)D) loss, was measured to be (1.56 ± 0.11) × 10(-10) cm(3) molecule(-1) s(-1) and the reactive rate coefficient, i.e., R-316c loss, was measured to be (1.36 ± 0.20) × 10(-10) cm(3) molecule(-1) s(-1) corresponding to a ~88% reactive yield. Rate coefficient upper-limits for the OH and O3 reaction with R-316c were determined to be <2.3 × 10(-17) and <2.0 × 10(-22) cm(3) molecule(-1) s(-1), respectively, at 296 K. The quoted uncertainty limits are 2&#963; and include estimated systematic errors. Local and global annually averaged lifetimes for the (E)- and (Z)-R-316c isomers were calculated using a 2-D atmospheric model to be 74.6 ± 3 and 114.1 ± 10 years, respectively, where the estimated uncertainties are due solely to the uncertainty in the UV absorption spectra. Stratospheric photolysis is the predominant atmospheric loss process for both isomers with the O((1)D) reaction making a minor, ~2% for the (E) isomer and 7% for the (Z) isomer, contribution to the total atmospheric loss. Ozone depletion potentials for (E)- and (Z)-R-316c were calculated using the 2-D model to be 0.46 and 0.54, respectively. Infrared absorption spectra for (E)- and (Z)-R-316c were measured at 296 K and used to estimate their radiative efficiencies (REs) and GWPs; 100-year time-horizon GWPs of 4160 and 5400 were obtained for (E)- and (Z)-R-316c, respectively. Both isomers of R-316c are shown in this work to be long-lived ozone depleting substances and potent greenhouse gases."

One article that doesn't deny global warming if I'm reading the information correctly, although, not about CO2.

Another one that doesn't deny global climate change (doesn't specify if caused by man or not).

"The role of the UK conservation agencies in protecting river flows

Abstract&#8194; An outline is given of the scale and nature of special wildlife designations in the UK river network, the general approach of the UK conservation agencies to their evaluation and management, and the specific way in which impacts of river flows are handled. The need for a holistic ecological and biodiversity view of water resource impacts on river systems is stressed, within which the specific needs of individual species, such as Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., can be framed. An approach founded on the provision of a natural flow regime within a natural physical channel not only provides the most suitable conditions for characteristic riverine wildlife to flourish but also provides the best local defence against global climate change. Arguments are made for a future focus on the generic evidence base for flow targets and its strengthening through strategic and demonstrably fit-for-purpose research. The practical constraints to an approach based on protection of the natural flow regime are discussed. Ultimately, transparent separation and consideration of what river ecosystems really need, and what can realistically be provided, is the key to shared ownership of the water resource dilemma."

 

[Jaskalas]

But that isn't what is being debated.

What is being debated is "Global warming is caused by CO2 emitted by man and will lead to catastrophic consequences".

How many of those 9136 peer-reviewed authors actually defend that?

Recent Alarmist propaganda regarding 97% does not hold up. They include anyone who accepts basic science, including myself.

Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading
Category 1: 65 <-- Supports "catastrophic" AGW.
Category 2: 934 <-- Supports man-made CO2 has some effect.
Category 3: 2,933 <-- Supports CO2 has some effect.
Category 4: 8,261 <-- No Opinion.
Category 5: 53 <-- Denier.
Category 6: 15 <-- Denier.
Category 7: 10 <-- Denier.
Total: 12,271

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Recent Alarmist propaganda regarding 97% does not hold up. They include anyone who accepts basic science, including myself.

Cook&#8217;s survey not only meaningless but also misleading
Category 1: 65 <-- Supports "catastrophic" AGW.
Category 2: 934 <-- Supports man-made CO2 has some effect.
Category 3: 2,933 <-- Supports CO2 has some effect.
Category 4: 8,261 <-- No Opinion.
Category 5: 53 <-- Denier.
Category 6: 15 <-- Denier.
Category 7: 10 <-- Denier.
Total: 12,271

LoL.

100% of scientists support Climate Change (any change to Earth's climate in the past 4 billion years).

 

[ralfy]

Well.

"1,2-Dichlorohexafluoro-cyclobutane (1,2-c-C4F6Cl2, R-316c) a potent ozone depleting substance and greenhouse gas: atmospheric loss processes, lifetimes, and ozone depletion and global warming potentials for the (E) and (Z) stereoisomers.
Papadimitriou VC, McGillen MR, Smith SC, Jubb AM, Portmann RW, Hall BD, Fleming EL, Jackman CH, Burkholder JB.
Author information
Abstract
The atmospheric processing of (E)- and (Z)-1,2-dichlorohexafluoro-cyclobutane (1,2-c-C4F6Cl2, R-316c) was examined in this work as the ozone depleting (ODP) and global warming (GWP) potentials of this proposed replacement compound are presently unknown. The predominant atmospheric loss processes and infrared absorption spectra of the R-316c isomers were measured to provide a basis to evaluate their atmospheric lifetimes and, thus, ODPs and GWPs. UV absorption spectra were measured between 184.95 to 230 nm at temperatures between 214 and 296 K and a parametrization for use in atmospheric modeling is presented. The Cl atom quantum yield in the 193 nm photolysis of R-316c was measured to be 1.90 ± 0.27. Hexafluorocyclobutene (c-C4F6) was determined to be a photolysis co-product with molar yields of 0.7 and 1.0 (±10%) for (E)- and (Z)-R-316c, respectively. The 296 K total rate coefficient for the O((1)D) + R-316c reaction, i.e., O((1)D) loss, was measured to be (1.56 ± 0.11) × 10(-10) cm(3) molecule(-1) s(-1) and the reactive rate coefficient, i.e., R-316c loss, was measured to be (1.36 ± 0.20) × 10(-10) cm(3) molecule(-1) s(-1) corresponding to a ~88% reactive yield. Rate coefficient upper-limits for the OH and O3 reaction with R-316c were determined to be <2.3 × 10(-17) and <2.0 × 10(-22) cm(3) molecule(-1) s(-1), respectively, at 296 K. The quoted uncertainty limits are 2&#963; and include estimated systematic errors. Local and global annually averaged lifetimes for the (E)- and (Z)-R-316c isomers were calculated using a 2-D atmospheric model to be 74.6 ± 3 and 114.1 ± 10 years, respectively, where the estimated uncertainties are due solely to the uncertainty in the UV absorption spectra. Stratospheric photolysis is the predominant atmospheric loss process for both isomers with the O((1)D) reaction making a minor, ~2% for the (E) isomer and 7% for the (Z) isomer, contribution to the total atmospheric loss. Ozone depletion potentials for (E)- and (Z)-R-316c were calculated using the 2-D model to be 0.46 and 0.54, respectively. Infrared absorption spectra for (E)- and (Z)-R-316c were measured at 296 K and used to estimate their radiative efficiencies (REs) and GWPs; 100-year time-horizon GWPs of 4160 and 5400 were obtained for (E)- and (Z)-R-316c, respectively. Both isomers of R-316c are shown in this work to be long-lived ozone depleting substances and potent greenhouse gases."

One article that doesn't deny global warming if I'm reading the information correctly, although, not about CO2.

Another one that doesn't deny global climate change (doesn't specify if caused by man or not).

"The role of the UK conservation agencies in protecting river flows

Abstract&#8194; An outline is given of the scale and nature of special wildlife designations in the UK river network, the general approach of the UK conservation agencies to their evaluation and management, and the specific way in which impacts of river flows are handled. The need for a holistic ecological and biodiversity view of water resource impacts on river systems is stressed, within which the specific needs of individual species, such as Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., can be framed. An approach founded on the provision of a natural flow regime within a natural physical channel not only provides the most suitable conditions for characteristic riverine wildlife to flourish but also provides the best local defence against global climate change. Arguments are made for a future focus on the generic evidence base for flow targets and its strengthening through strategic and demonstrably fit-for-purpose research. The practical constraints to an approach based on protection of the natural flow regime are discussed. Ultimately, transparent separation and consideration of what river ecosystems really need, and what can realistically be provided, is the key to shared ownership of the water resource dilemma."

I don't understand how you are answering your own question.

The author gives details on the data sets that he used and his contact information in the article.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I don't understand how you are answering your own question.

The author gives details on the data sets that he used and his contact information in the article.

The author of this essay links a excel file (http://www.jamespowell.org/resources/Nov2012thruDec2013.xlsx) with the 2258 articles he studied.
These 2 that I quoted are 2 of those peer reviewed articles that the author claims don't deny global warming.

In fact, they don't. They also aren't articles claiming man made CO2 causes global warming.

The first study I quote is the first one (line 2) in the excel file. The second one is in the line 2089 and it is the second one after the only article the author identified as as denying global warming (line 2087 with red background that caught my attention as I was glancing through the file).

I didn't look at all the articles, in fact I read (the abstracts of) the 3 mentioned in this post.

It may be that these 2 articles are the exception amongst the 2258 and all the other 2255 articles clearly say that global warming is caused solely by man emitted CO2.

EDIT: By the way the article following the single "denier" article read as (now I've read 4 articles):

"The role of temperature on treeline migration for an eastern African mountain during the Last Glacial Maximum
F. Saltré, I. Bentaleb, C. Favier, D. Jolly

Abstract
Paleo-data suggest that East African mountain treelines underwent an altitudinal shift during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Understanding the ecological and physiological processes underlying treeline response to such past climate change will help to improve forecasts of treeline change under future global warming. In spite of significant improvements in paleoclimatic reconstruction, the climatic conditions explaining this migration are still debated and important factors such as atmospheric CO2 concentration, the impact of lapse rate decreasing temperature along altitudinal gradients and rainfall modifications due to elevation have often been neglected or simplified. Here, we assess the effects of these different factors and estimate the influence of the most dominant factors controlling changes in past treeline position using a multi-proxy approach based on simulations from BIOME4, a coupled biogeography and biogeochemistry model, modified to account for the effect of elevation on vegetation, compared with pollen, and isotopic data. The results indicate a shift in mountain vegetation at the LGM was controlled by low pCO2 and low temperatures promoting species morphologically and physiologically better adapted to LGM conditions than many trees composing the forest belt limit. Our estimate that the LGM climate was cooler than today&#8217;s by &#8722;4.5 °C (range: &#8722;4.3 to &#8722;4.6 °C) at the upper limit of the treeline, whereas at 831 m it was cooler by &#8722;1.4 °C (range: &#8722;2.6 to &#8722;0.6 °C), suggests that a possible lapse rate modification strongly constrained the upper limit of treeline, which may limit its potential extension under future global warming."

This first look seems to confirm my suspicions that there is a big difference between an article not denying man made global warming and clearly stating global warming is 100% caused by man made activities/CO2.

Remember this essay title: "Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming".

The title kinda make the most distracted believe that 9135 peer review authors actually support that man made CO2 is the cause (only or main) of global warming and that the global warming is bad.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Do you think it a coincidence that the same people with the same brain defect think the earth is 6000 years old and God controls the climate? That would take a pretty big brain defect to deny, it seems to me.

Moonie, you've been obsessing about brain defects way too much for way too long. It's not healthy. Perhaps you should consider setting it aside for a while and start engaging in conversation with people in a more genuine and constructive manner.

 

[bshole]

Is it really science when they predict one thing and then when the exact OPPOSITE thing happens, claim that the OPPOSITE thing was a result of global warming. Do they have any idea how retarded this makes them look?

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2011/01/why-climate-change-reminds-me-of-a-ts-eliot-poem/

Several years back, climate campaigners in Britain, citing the latest warming models, ostentatiously predicted that snowstorms would soon be a thing of the past in Britain, something schoolchildren would read about in history books or hear tales about from their grandparents. Then this fall just past, the British Met Office predicted a 60 to 80 percent change of a warmer-than-average winter this year.
But now Britain is having its second extremely cold winter in a row, with record snowfalls nearly strangling the nation. Oops.

Not to worry. The climateers have swung into action, and have explained why cooling is really warming. Judah Cohen, a private &#8220;seasonal forecaster,&#8221; took to the pages of the New York Times to explain how the warming arctic led to more snowfall over the Siberian land mass, which in turn cooled the air circulating over the northern hemisphere, and there you have it, big cold weather storms in the United States and Europe. Or, as Mr. Cohen puts it, &#8220;the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes.&#8221; (Bryan Walsh at Timemagazine offers a rundown of similar counterintuitive explanations for why warming causes cooling.)

 

[Jaskalas]

Is it really science when they predict one thing and then when the exact OPPOSITE thing happens, claim that the OPPOSITE thing was a result of global warming. Do they have any idea how retarded this makes them look?

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2011/01/why-climate-change-reminds-me-of-a-ts-eliot-poem/

I'm thinking the 90s were fairly snowless for them, and so they chased the weather and called it climate. Now that the weather has changed, their climate "science" continues to chase it. They see something, look for a predetermined answer, and find it.

There are real scientists out there who will denounce the alarmists, but many have been systemically outcast for being contrarian to political objectives. When men like Al Gore or James Hansen run the circus, you had better put on a clown face.

All of this is a distraction and harmful to the discussion. CO2 does have an effect, we just have to figure out what it is sans the propagandists who would give you all the answers regardless of the science.

 

[dainthomas]

Wait, you actually think they forgot water absorbs heat?

Seriously, how much dumber are the climate change denial arguments going to get? This is embarrassing.

Then why are they now claiming that the ocean is absorbing more than they thought it would, and using that as an excuse for how the models are so far off?

 

[bshole]

Then why are they now claiming that the ocean is absorbing more than they thought it would, and using that as an excuse for how the models are so far off?

AND if all that extra heat was really absorbed by the ocean, why did it not affect the rate of sea level rise? That is a pretty nifty trick to heat water and not have it expand.

 

[werepossum]

Recent Alarmist propaganda regarding 97% does not hold up. They include anyone who accepts basic science, including myself.

Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading
Category 1: 65 <-- Supports "catastrophic" AGW.
Category 2: 934 <-- Supports man-made CO2 has some effect.
Category 3: 2,933 <-- Supports CO2 has some effect.
Category 4: 8,261 <-- No Opinion.
Category 5: 53 <-- Denier.
Category 6: 15 <-- Denier.
Category 7: 10 <-- Denier.
Total: 12,271

That is a very important point. My biggest problem with the CAGW crowd is the rampant dishonesty.

The author of this essay links a excel file (http://www.jamespowell.org/resources/Nov2012thruDec2013.xlsx) with the 2258 articles he studied.
These 2 that I quoted are 2 of those peer reviewed articles that the author claims don't deny global warming.

In fact, they don't. They also aren't articles claiming man made CO2 causes global warming.

The first study I quote is the first one (line 2) in the excel file. The second one is in the line 2089 and it is the second one after the only article the author identified as as denying global warming (line 2087 with red background that caught my attention as I was glancing through the file).

I didn't look at all the articles, in fact I read (the abstracts of) the 3 mentioned in this post.

It may be that these 2 articles are the exception amongst the 2258 and all the other 2255 articles clearly say that global warming is caused solely by man emitted CO2.

EDIT: By the way the article following the single "denier" article read as (now I've read 4 articles):

"The role of temperature on treeline migration for an eastern African mountain during the Last Glacial Maximum
F. Saltré, I. Bentaleb, C. Favier, D. Jolly

Abstract
Paleo-data suggest that East African mountain treelines underwent an altitudinal shift during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Understanding the ecological and physiological processes underlying treeline response to such past climate change will help to improve forecasts of treeline change under future global warming. In spite of significant improvements in paleoclimatic reconstruction, the climatic conditions explaining this migration are still debated and important factors such as atmospheric CO2 concentration, the impact of lapse rate decreasing temperature along altitudinal gradients and rainfall modifications due to elevation have often been neglected or simplified. Here, we assess the effects of these different factors and estimate the influence of the most dominant factors controlling changes in past treeline position using a multi-proxy approach based on simulations from BIOME4, a coupled biogeography and biogeochemistry model, modified to account for the effect of elevation on vegetation, compared with pollen, and isotopic data. The results indicate a shift in mountain vegetation at the LGM was controlled by low pCO2 and low temperatures promoting species morphologically and physiologically better adapted to LGM conditions than many trees composing the forest belt limit. Our estimate that the LGM climate was cooler than today’s by &#8722;4.5 °C (range: &#8722;4.3 to &#8722;4.6 °C) at the upper limit of the treeline, whereas at 831 m it was cooler by &#8722;1.4 °C (range: &#8722;2.6 to &#8722;0.6 °C), suggests that a possible lapse rate modification strongly constrained the upper limit of treeline, which may limit its potential extension under future global warming."

This first look seems to confirm my suspicions that there is a big difference between an article not denying man made global warming and clearly stating global warming is 100% caused by man made activities/CO2.

Remember this essay title: "Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming".

The title kinda make the most distracted believe that 9135 peer review authors actually support that man made CO2 is the cause (only or main) of global warming and that the global warming is bad.

Yup, more examples of rampant dishonesty. To a degree I can understand this - studying paleontology for its own sake is surely much more difficult to fund than studying paleontology to save the world - but the level of sophistication can be so bad as to make one wonder if these people are trying to drive people away from believing in CAGW.

Is it really science when they predict one thing and then when the exact OPPOSITE thing happens, claim that the OPPOSITE thing was a result of global warming. Do they have any idea how retarded this makes them look?

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2011/01/why-climate-change-reminds-me-of-a-ts-eliot-poem/

That's the great thing about CAGW - literally everything proves it. Honestly I'm surprised that 100% of scientists haven't adopted the theory since you can never ever be wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

AND if all that extra heat was really absorbed by the ocean, why did it not affect the rate of sea level rise? That is a pretty nifty trick to heat water and not have it expand.

Uhmm, it has. This is the thing about global warming denialism. It is a religion, so no amount of proof can convince you otherwise.

You can choose to accept science or deny it. That says more about you than it does the science. I'm sure you aren't stupid and so your stubborn insistence on believing the earth is flat in this case is baffling.

 

[fskimospy]

Then why are they now claiming that the ocean is absorbing more than they thought it would, and using that as an excuse for how the models are so far off?

Because the exact amount of heat it absorbs is related to a complex system that had a margin of error to it?

It never ceases to amaze me how people on here with no knowledge of climate science are so freely declaring scientists to be stupid, ignorant, etc, despite not even making a cursory attempt to ground their criticisms in knowledge.

I mean did you really think you just uncovered the fact that blew AGW out of the water? (Har) isn't it more likely that any one of the exceptionally well funded climate change denier organizations would have found that?

 

[TerryMathews]

exceptionally well funded climate change denier organizations

Are you implying that the global warming sciences are poorly funded?

 

[fskimospy]

Are you implying that the global warming sciences are poorly funded?

No? I'm saying that if such a massive and obvious hole were present in climate science the denier community would not need to rely on the climate experts on ATPN.

 

[monovillage]

No? I'm saying that if such a massive and obvious hole were present in climate science the denier community would not need to rely on the climate experts on ATPN.

How about you name a couple of those "exceptionally well funded climate change denier organizations" ?

 

[Jaskalas]

By moving this argument to the ocean you hide behind a set of data that is spotty and short term at best, absolute trash at worst. Argo floats only began... in 2003 2007?
We'll need decades before arriving at ANY conclusions.

 

[ralfy]

The author of this essay links a excel file (http://www.jamespowell.org/resources/Nov2012thruDec2013.xlsx) with the 2258 articles he studied.
These 2 that I quoted are 2 of those peer reviewed articles that the author claims don't deny global warming.

In fact, they don't. They also aren't articles claiming man made CO2 causes global warming.

The first study I quote is the first one (line 2) in the excel file. The second one is in the line 2089 and it is the second one after the only article the author identified as as denying global warming (line 2087 with red background that caught my attention as I was glancing through the file).

I didn't look at all the articles, in fact I read (the abstracts of) the 3 mentioned in this post.

It may be that these 2 articles are the exception amongst the 2258 and all the other 2255 articles clearly say that global warming is caused solely by man emitted CO2.

EDIT: By the way the article following the single "denier" article read as (now I've read 4 articles):

"The role of temperature on treeline migration for an eastern African mountain during the Last Glacial Maximum
F. Saltré, I. Bentaleb, C. Favier, D. Jolly

Abstract
Paleo-data suggest that East African mountain treelines underwent an altitudinal shift during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Understanding the ecological and physiological processes underlying treeline response to such past climate change will help to improve forecasts of treeline change under future global warming. In spite of significant improvements in paleoclimatic reconstruction, the climatic conditions explaining this migration are still debated and important factors such as atmospheric CO2 concentration, the impact of lapse rate decreasing temperature along altitudinal gradients and rainfall modifications due to elevation have often been neglected or simplified. Here, we assess the effects of these different factors and estimate the influence of the most dominant factors controlling changes in past treeline position using a multi-proxy approach based on simulations from BIOME4, a coupled biogeography and biogeochemistry model, modified to account for the effect of elevation on vegetation, compared with pollen, and isotopic data. The results indicate a shift in mountain vegetation at the LGM was controlled by low pCO2 and low temperatures promoting species morphologically and physiologically better adapted to LGM conditions than many trees composing the forest belt limit. Our estimate that the LGM climate was cooler than today’s by &#8722;4.5 °C (range: &#8722;4.3 to &#8722;4.6 °C) at the upper limit of the treeline, whereas at 831 m it was cooler by &#8722;1.4 °C (range: &#8722;2.6 to &#8722;0.6 °C), suggests that a possible lapse rate modification strongly constrained the upper limit of treeline, which may limit its potential extension under future global warming."

This first look seems to confirm my suspicions that there is a big difference between an article not denying man made global warming and clearly stating global warming is 100% caused by man made activities/CO2.

Remember this essay title: "Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming".

The title kinda make the most distracted believe that 9135 peer review authors actually support that man made CO2 is the cause (only or main) of global warming and that the global warming is bad.

The argument concerning AGW is not to prove that CO2 is the main cause but to show how high CO2 ppm has a forcing factor on various causes. See the NAS final report for details.

 

[fskimospy]

How about you name a couple of those "exceptionally well funded climate change denier organizations" ?

Heritage foundation, Manhattan Institute, Heartland Institute, etc.

 

[ralfy]

Is it really science when they predict one thing and then when the exact OPPOSITE thing happens, claim that the OPPOSITE thing was a result of global warming. Do they have any idea how retarded this makes them look?

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2011/01/why-climate-change-reminds-me-of-a-ts-eliot-poem/

AGW doesn't necessarily lead to warmer winters but to extremes on both sides.

The point to consider is ave. global temperature anomaly.