Sentences with phrase «al paper»

Perhaps while I am waiting for Max to suggest what is missing from the PDO correlation with temperature trends over the last 160 years I may take the liberty of suggesting that in respect of the overall upwards trend in temperature, despite the PDO oscillations [sic], that ENSO asymmetry adequately explains the [slight] temperature increase over that period; see the David Stockwell comment on the McLean et al paper for an overview of such non-linear asymmetry:

David read the whole Polyak et al paper, beyond the abstract which presents their conclusions.

That Steig was a reviewer of O'Donnell et al paper is in clear breach of the AMS regulation regarding the obligation of reviewers...

The trouble is, it's not what the Cook et al paper says (apart from the parenthesis) and it's not what the «rating guidelines» at the Skeptical Science website currently say.

That Steig was a reviewer of O'Donnell et al paper is in clear breach of the AMS regulation regarding the obligation of reviewers, and obviously a very questionable attitude on the editor side:

NB, this is not to say there is no consensus — I'm talking about the consensus as it is invoked by the likes of Davey, which the Cook et al paper tries to establish.

The data presented in this post is supported by the 2012 Levitus et al paper World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0 — 2000...

In the Metzl et al paper for example (your link above), Ocean - atmosphere fluxes differ wildly between models and observations (more than 5 GTc / month, ie 60 Gt / y,) and measurements are made on short periods (less than a decade).

Do Steig and company really not understand this about the O'Donnell et al paper?

The Cook et al paper does not elevate the debate.

Who by the way, were the authors of the Cook et al paper.

It covers this issue, the Raina report and the recent Lau et al paper.

-- the Samanta et al paper, based on a three - month drought response, says not one word about long - term climate change scenarios reviewed in IPCC (but they advertise their analysis as «reject [ing] claims» put forward by the IPCC).

The Samanta et al paper says brown, but in fact their own data (when you dig it out of the supplement) shows green, consistent with (and indeed virtually indistinguishable from) our original findings published in Science (Saleska et al., 2007).

I personally would not have found the Anderegg et al paper that useful for the reasons I have given here:

The Howarth et al paper estimating the climatic impact of shale gas extraction by hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has provoked a number of responses across the media.

The above back and forth between Roger Pielke Jr and Rc (# 18) just illuminated for me one of the significant problems with the Anderegg et al paper.

Thus, the most intriguing idea to me is that the short - term satellite - detected green - up, and the longer term increase in net carbon loss reported in the Phillips et al paper (discussed by Simon Lewis) are not in conflict at all.

It is very clear from the Anderegg et al paper that they were attempting to gauge agreement with option 2B from both the clear language in the paper and any other position was treated as Unconvinced by the evidence (ie.

(This was later noted by Angstrom who identified the actual spectral peaks associated with CO2) The 1981 Hansen et al paper based models on CO2 having an absorptive effect from 7 to 14microns, but since the maximum window of absorption only ranges from 17 to 12.5 microns at the absolute outer limits the 7 to 12.5 microns of the Hansen claim are beyond the absorption limits of CO2.

Today's National Post (financial section) included an article by Terence Corcoran on Amazongate, including an update on the Myeni et al paper fetured March 11 on WUWT AND a slightly edited version of Benny Peiser's submission to the UK Parliamentary Committee

The Miller et al paper was published in June 2014.

And there was soooo much verbiage on the Steig et al paper.

A similar issue arose with the Romps et al paper which generated a lot commentary about the increased risk of fires.

Even if you didn't see the authors say it, the point has been brought up in practically every discussion of the Marcott et al paper, often by the people defending the paper.

The Rosenthal et al paper «Pacific Ocean Hear Content During the Past 10,000 Years» is available free from Science; it offers free registration, with access to publications over a year old.

Re # 81 — Ferdinand, indeed the rate of arctic winter warming from 1920 - 1939 seems equivalent that in the last few decades, as seen in both the Overland et al paper, and the Nansen paper, figure 2.

Re: HaroldW (Nov 8 04:31), The newer Jones et al paper comments on this difference: «An urban - related warming trend of 0.1 C / decade is almost an order of magnitude larger than that given by Jones et al. [1990] and Li et al. [2004b].

Shakun et al paper shows that when you added up all the warming that took place, 93 % of it was due to CO2.

The first issue concerns the robustness of the findings in the Paltridge et al paper.

Best elucidated in the McLean et al paper I showed you.

How impressed are you with the Robinson et al paper included with the Oregon Petition, for example?

RiHo08 it might be news for you, but given Nic Lewis's last post concerning a median value of TCS of 1.3 C per doubling of CO2 (the Otto et al paper), that leads to the conclusion that CO2 IS a control knob of climate, given the rate CO2 levels are rising.

Stepping back a bit from the repeated attempts to post hoc redefine the criteria actually used in the Cook et al paper (absurd), I find it utterly fascinating how stridently any expert consensus on AGW is being denied.

How is it that the conclusions of climate scientists can be called into question as a result of supposedly dubious statistical techniques, but the long history of nonsense from the skeptics, (such as the Robinson et al paper that accompanied the politically motivated Oregon Petition, the corporate funded propaganda campaigns of the Global Climate Coalition, and the recent urban myth that Martian «global warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of climate?

A similar thing happened recently with thr Cook et al paper.

Russ R. - Then perhaps you should actually read the Cook et al paper, paying some attention to the exclusive (i.e., pick only one) and ordered endorsement categories in that methodology.

«Scientists were quick to declare the results of the Turner et al paper, which covered 1 per cent of the Antarctic continent, did not negate a long - term warming because of man - made climate change... «Climate model projections forced with medium emission scenarios indicate the emergence of a large anthropogenic regional warming signal, comparable in magnitude to the late - 20th - century peninsula warming, during the latter part of the current century,» the Turner research concluded.»

That's explicit in the large uncertainty ranges and for example in the discussion of the residual term of Fig. 2e of the Le Quéré et al paper.

'' The Lyman et al paper has been a bit of a stumbling block, something that flew in the face of what we would expect to happen»

The Lyman et al paper...» Yes!

You question the viability of the Jacobson et al paper but viability and consideration of reality has no relevance to the selection of IPCC WG3 scenarios.

I spent the last hour or so porting the Fortran 90 code from the Melvin et al paper to R, but I don't know what values of the variable ssy were used by DO in his fit.

The Jacobson et al paper is a bit dangerous in that the assumptions that you pointed out get glossed over and the practical solutions to what is economically and socially possible get ignored as not meeting the ultimate goal of going completely fossil fuel free for our energy supplies.....................

So a lowering of the tropopause above the poles when the Sun is less active (as implied in the Andersson et al paper) squeezes the air in the tropospheric climate zones towards the equator.

I like the Salzer et al paper because the lead author collected material, visited all the sites, worked up a good bit of new material and is intimately familiar with the whole data set and is aware of its strengths and weaknesses.

The Salzer et al paper represents the summary of all available data and the most complete analysis of it WRT the questions they addressed.

There is a marked difference between trees growing at the upper and lower limits WRT their climatic response as reiterated in the Salzer et al paper.

As for your question about the Salzer et al paper, I think it an excellent piece of work that well summarizes the best current understanding of growth trends in the high elevation bcp stands.

None of this nonsense like with the Cook et al paper where they claim to have made all their data available even though it clearly is not.