The giveaway, csteele, is in this extract:

“22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint “match” is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases”

This is the spurious nonsense on which you rely to put the case for AGW.

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s leading scientists, considers that observation is the basis of science.

A review of his recent book gives some of his insights:

“The fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated, writes Dyson in his new book Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe, published on Wednesday.

He pours scorn on "the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/14/freeman_dyson_climate_heresies/

Before the disingenuous IPCC put forward the bizarre notion, no scientist would have made a laughing stock of himself by suggesting that models could be used to make predictions, or replace real world observations.

Climate follows natural cycles. It has not been shown that human activity has anything but a trivial, insignificant effect.

Your nonsense paper refers to playing with models as an “experiment”; a new meaning for a previously well established word.

Disgraceful

Leo's link to Dyson's recent book review, published Wednesday, is only 5 yrs old.

We're heading for an ice age - in 1,000's and 1,000's of years time.

hoodathunked

csteele

congratulations! Now you're beginning to get it! The arguement all along has been about the feedback effect and you can now see for youself one of the efforts to justify the use of water vapour in the models. As you can see its not a denial of physics by either side but is, or should be, a matter of checking available evidence against model forecasts.

As for the actual paper note this sentence (as already pointed out by another blogger).. "Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth's atmosphere." Very tentative but about all you can really expect at this stage. I'm indifferrnt to whether its wrong or right but its an indication, nothing more. This is not the solid, hard evidence required to justify trillions of dollars worth of spending to reduce emissions..

Again congratulations.. but as you can see global warming theory is far from being the settled field that it is advertised to be. Leave it with you..

cohenite, is reading comprehension not your strong point? I used 1997, because that was the claim made by Ollier in his article. The claim was based on HADCRUT4, so I used that as well. It doesn’t matter, the trend for GISS and HADCRUT3 is also up over that time period.

I can’t believe you linked to that unpublished manuscript by Stockwell and Cox. It is a complete load of rubbish. I notice that it hasn’t been published in any journal. Presumably they rightly rejected it for being the junk it is. Just have a look at that figure on Page 10. Have you ever seen anything so silly? Stockwell is an ecological modeller, so at least should have some expertise in the area – what made him put his name to this bilge is anyone’s guess. Cox is not even a scientist of any sort, but a lawyer. It is clear from his writing on the web that he understands nothing of statistical techniques and precious little about science. That doesn’t stop him from parading his moronic witterings on the subject for all to see. Sheesh. At least you could find something that made sense, written by people who know something of the subject.

Straight lines are perfectly adequate for asking questions about trends. However, if you want to model a chaotic system to ask where it might be going, you need to understand the underlying drivers and model those. Trying to model based on a series of straight lines like Stockwell and Cox did is just nonsensical. The lines are meaningless with respect to the underlying mechanisms, so any predictions will only be correct by chance. It would be like me predicting temperature will continue to increase by 0.8 C per century on the basis of that is what it has done recently. It would be a meaningless prediction. However, what the underlying mechanisms tell us is that there will still be some more warming due to the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere and if we keep putting more up there it will continue to warm.

Agronomist,

Just to let you know - cohenite is Anthony Cox.

Dear Curmudgeon,

Now that was pretty crude mate, more appropriate for the lesser members of the flock.

I give you a paper as you requested and because it shows due scientific reticience about declaring absolutes you claim “global warming theory is far from being the settled field that it is advertised to be”. You further declare “its not a denial of physics” when that is exactly what it is.

You can not state you accept the planet is experiencing surface warming and not accept there will be an increase in atmospheric moisture without breaking or dismissing a physical law. If you were making the argument for a local area I would listen as drying soils through elevated temperatures may mean there being less moisture to evaporate over land forms but if you take the average global evaporation rate the physics of higher temperatures mean greater levels of atmospheric moisture. Full stop! Unless you are including some form of divine intervention.

I have conceded you are of a more moderate denomination of the denier cohort but even if you don't subscribe to Creationism the basic raising of Christ from the dead still lies outside the realms of physical possibilities.

If you want to persist in taking a faith based approach to addressing the physics of a doubling of CO2 by all means do so but recognise it is not empirical science.

Dear cohenite,

I hardly call it verballing you when you say you accept the GH effect but that it is immeasurable. This can be easily resolved though. Can you tell the assembled audience how much of the 33K the science says the world is warmer than it otherwise would be are you prepared to attribute to the green house gases?

Dear Leo Lane,

The author claims “Furthermore the deep ice cores show a succession of annual layers of snow accumulation back to 760,000 years. In all that time there has been no melting at the surface, despite times when the temperature was higher than that of today.” How do you and he reconcile this?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html