Compiled by reader Jimbo
Amazon dry season greener
Amazon dry season browner
Avalanches may increase
Avalanches may decrease – wet snow more though
Bird migrations longer
Bird migrations shorter
Bird migrations out of fashion
Boreal forest fires may increase
Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing
Chinese locusts swarm when warmer
Chinese locusts swarm when cooler
Columbia spotted frogs decline
Columbia spotted frogs thrive in warming world
Coral island atolls to sink
Coral island atolls to rise
Earth’s rotation to slow down
Earth’s rotation to speed up
East Africa to get less rain
East Africa to get more rain – pdf
Great Lakes less snow
Great Lakes more snow
Gulf stream slows down
Gulf stream speeds up a little
Indian monsoons to be drier
Indian monsoons to be wetter
Indian rice yields to decrease – full paper
Indian rice yields to increase
Latin American forests may decline
Latin American forests have thrived in warmer world with more co2!
Leaf area index reduced [1990s]
Leaf area index increased [1981-2006]
Malaria may increase
Malaria may continue decreasing
Malaria in Burundi to increase
Malaria in Burundi to decrease
North Atlantic cod to decline
North Atlantic cod to thrive
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to increase
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to decrease – full pdf
North Atlantic Ocean less salty
North Atlantic Ocean more salty
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decline
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to grow
Plant methane emissions significant
Plant methane emissions insignificant
Plants move uphill
Plants move downhill
Sahel to get less rain
Sahel to get more rain
Sahel may get more or less rain
San Francisco less foggy
San Francisco more foggy
Sea level rise accelerated
Sea level rise decelerated – full pdf
Soil moisture less
Soil moisture more
Squids get smaller
Squids get larger
Stone age hunters may have triggered past warming
Stone age hunters may have triggered past cooling
Swiss mountain debris flow may increase
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease then increase in volume
UK may get more droughts
UK may get more rain
Wind speed to go up
Wind speed slows down
Wind speed to speed up then slow down
Winters maybe warmer
Winters maybe colder
Of course, all of those are written by “experts”?
AGW is an unfalsifiable theory since supposedly it can cause anything. Such theories have no place in Science.
Jimbo, nice job. I could have saved you some time, though…
I was inspired by Numberwatch so added my own finds which do not appear on Numberwatch. The issue with Numberwatch is that many of the links point to news articles and blogs. Warmists us this to dismiss a claim. This is why I decided to seek only peer reviewed research.
The other difference is I tried to focus only on contradictory AND opposite claims.
“Warmists use this……”
Excellent Jimbo! I’m bookmarking this particular post!
You’re right about the warmists using blogs and news releases. Of course, this is intentional, they spew anything and everything they wish in order to scare the pants off of the populace, but when called on it, the response is “Show me a peer-reviewed study that states that!” And, of course they bury the claims as soon as they’re debunked. Is one of the many reasons I like this site so much.
I was inspired to create this list by Numberwatch. I have tried to focus only on peer reviewed materials and added some of my own finds.
Note that ‘Letters’ and other materials such as ‘Correspondence’ are peer reviewed in Nature and Science Mag.
“Malaria in Burundi to decrease”
That claim can be found at science daily which references the peer reviewed study.
This was great and will help in debates. Question: are there contradictory peer reviewed studies on snowfalls in the Rockies? One of the posters on this site, Gates I believe, posted yesterday that “experts” had predicted increasing snowfall amounts in a warming world. But, weren’t they the ones advising Aspen and other ski resorts to plan for less snow. I also recall Senator Boxer’s passionate speeches regarding how global warming would lead to the end of California’s ski industry.
Not only did the Rockies do well but also Scottish and European ski resorts have had a couple of excellent years so far. Sadly crabs died due to cold this January of the coast of the UK. It must be all that catastrophic warm water in our milder winters.
Snowfalls are no longer just a thing of the past. Children now know what snow is. It is no longer a very rare and exciting event. We no longer need virtual snow.
Yes, as I recall, the dreaded warmcold lured the poor crabs in, and like the dastardly humans that cause it, warmcold sprung the trap just when the crabs least expected it.
“Question: are there contradictory peer reviewed studies on snowfalls in the Rockies?”
Take a look through these search results from Google Scholar.
and never forget AGW causes more sex and other goodies.
I’m changing to the warmist/alarmist/liar camp. Maybe i’ll get laid.
Ummmm, wait until you see what passes for female in the leftist greenie camp.
They are the reason alcohol and Viagra was invented. Can you say ‘two bagger’.
I was sitting next to one of those on the plane Monday.
A boatload of important topics that require further investigation.
Science is safe for another few decades.
The next question is-how many tax dollars were squandered on “research” to obtain these opposite “conclusions”?
Now this is what I want to see this site produce. Steve has more than showed that the MSM claims are absurd, counteracting them often by using their own piles of crap. At this point, any thinking person knows the MSM produces useless stuff in this area.
But people like R. Gates then claim they want peer-reviewed material…so here it is. What I’d really like to see is a compilation of papers claiming that AGW decreases snowfall. I know they’re out there and not just limited to David Viner’s quote, but most warmists bluff by pulling out the peer-reviewed BS.
And peer review doesn’t mean all that much anyway. I have more first-author peer-reviewed publications than just about any warmist I’ve ever met, and I can tell you that the peer review process is as much about not making enemies and saying the PC things than it is the actual science. Warmists like to appeal to authority, so by that appeal I’m the authority and I’m saying they’re wrong. 😉 Of course, when I say that they change their appeal to “climate scientists”, “total publications”, or “time studying science” rather than first-author journal publications…whatever they want to support their claims I suppose.
And Jimbo, I haven’t looked, but did you post your snow articles on WUWT in the Sierra snow thread?
Remember when they told us about declining snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere was a sign of global warming? Hope the following helps.
“In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring.”
“Due to global warming, the beginning of the snow-accumulating season (the end of the snow-melting season) will occur later (earlier) in most snow regions, and the snow cover will decrease except for very few exceptions. SWE will also decrease in wide areas, but over the cold regions (Siberia and the northern parts of North America), SWE will increase due to increases of snowfall in the coldest season.”
And Steve – you should make a new subsection/info page on this site specifically with contradictory peer-reviewed papers. It’d be a great resource, particularly if the conclusions are 100% opposite and are published at nearly the same time.
The two articles linked for the North Atlantic cod declining/thriving aren’t contradictory.
The paper that says that North Atlantic cod will decline only models cod in the North Sea and finds that they will decline there with climate change. The paper that says that North Atlantic cod will thrive models cod in the North Sea and in several other parts of the North Atlantic. That paper finds that cod will decline in the North Sea, just like the first paper did, and in several other areas.
The difference between the two papers is that the paper that says that cod will increase in numbers looks at changes in cod abundance at multiple locations while the paper that says that cod will decline looks at only a single location.
As you can see from the list there is just so much to choose from anyway. Thanks for clarifying that pair. I may replace it with the following.
Co2 rise more precipitation
Co2 cut more precipitation
I hope you can see that as AGW funding continues we are bound to get contradictory and opposite findings. This has been going on for decades.
“Output from the model suggests that increasing temperatures will lead to an increased rate of decline in the North Sea cod population compared with simulations that ignore environmental change. “
the other abstract:
“There is the distinct possibility that, where seasonal sea ice disappears altogether, cod will cease their migration. Individual growth rates for many of the cod stocks will increase, leading to an overall increase in the total production of Atlantic cod in the North Atlantic.”
This could still be contradictory.
How? The second paper is simply saying that in some areas of the North Atlantic other than the North Sea cod could do better if temperatures increased. It’s not that difficult a concept to understand. In fact a lot of people who don’t believe that global warming is a problem point to the same phenomenon to suggest that global warming would be a good thing for agriculture as it would increase the amount of land that you can farm in northern Canada.
Looking at the North Atlantic getting saltier/fresher papers, I’m not sure that those papers are contradictory either. The paper that is supposed to say that the North Atlantic is getting saltier mentions that the subpolar North Atlantic and and Nordic Seas became fresher between the 1960s and the mid 1990s. This is pretty much the same finding as the paper that is supposed to say that the North Atlantic is becoming fresher.
The difference here is that the paper that says the North Atlantic is getting saltier continues to 2006 and finds that between 1955 and 2006 the saltiness has increased despite being fresher between the 1960s and mid 1990s.
It’s not easy trying to knock the ENTIRE list is it. There is no end of material to increase the list. As you knock I find more, the list just HAS TO GROW.
Don’t you wish the media had your level of scrutiny. We may not have ended up with lists like Numberwatch.
Assuming the selection of examples that I looked at is representative of the list you’ve compiled, it’s a pretty weak list. Spending 10 minutes looking only at the abstracts of the articles from six or seven of your examples it was easy to figure out that the contradictions in the examples were non-existent or minimal at best. You really find it contradictory that different species of birds will respond differently to changes in temperature? How do you manage to cope each year with the fact that some birds fly south for the winter and others don’t (at least in the more northerly part of North America?
If you were actually putting any effort into compiling a list of contradictions in the effects of climate change it would be interesting and fun to put some effort into figuring out why those contradictions exist. Unfortunately, you’re basically throwing crap at the wall and hoping that some of it sticks. If I’m going to waste some time arguing with a climate troll I’ll go find someone who at least makes it interesting and challenging.
Here’s a freebie for your list of contradictions…
In some places birds fly south for the winter. In other places the fly north. Clearly climate science is all wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_migration#General_patterns
Less salty covers the period 1965 and 1995
More salty covers the preiod 1955–2006
After 1998 alarm increased about the melting ice in the Northern Hemisphere. Are you telling me that the North Atlantic became less or more salty. Contradictions remain. Even the IPCC admits they exist.
The papers on climate change causing plants to move uphill or downhill also aren’t contradictory. Plants are moving uphill in response to changes in temperature, but are moving downhill in response to changes in water availability. The paper discussing downhill movement of plants in response to climate change doesn’t dispute the prevailing trend of plants moving uphill in response to increasing temperatures. Instead, it is examining why some plant species move downhill, contrary to the general trend.
Did whoever came up with this list even read the abstracts of the papers before they created the list?
Please keep going. I expect you to contradict every single thing I posted. The ones that are left are most probably ROBUST.
The paper discussing downhill movement of plants in response to climate change doesn’t dispute the prevailing trend of plants moving uphill in response to increasing temperatures.
In which direction do you think plants will move after 3 cold winters?
You know the game is up. The scam has been exposed for what it is. As temperatures continue to drop you will have no more excuses. It’s over!
Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent Second Highest on Record
Plants will do what next? After 3 cold winters they know better than you what to do next. AGW is a scam and you know it.
Here is some more stuff for you to ingest.
Antarctica ice growth not linked to ozone
Arctic sea ice may not be in death spiral
Great Barrier Reef booms in warming world
Natural disasters have not been increasing
Worldwide methane concentrations flattening in our warming world?
I suspect that the plant isn’t going to move anywhere. Their roots are going to keep them fixed pretty much in one spot.
What is your retort to what Jimbo and Scott have presented? It seems like they have pretty much skewered what you have recently said in your posts. Please, no insults and name calling, just your answer in a calm rational tone.
Who the heck is this BJ person? I don’t follow all the threads here. :-\ I guess I’m too busy doing my peer-reviewed science. 😉
Actually, that’s sort of true, LOL. Unfortunately, I can’t give my full identity here. I work in an area related to climate science. We’ve recently developed (translation for those not familiar with language in proposals – this means it’s still in development) some instrumentation that might help in the understanding of the indirect effect of aerosols – i.e. cloud feedbacks and such. That’s not what I will use it for, but I can definitely see it going that way.
bj is a new pet of Steve’s. He’s really quite amusing.
Clouds are what kills the models. They can’t bring themselves to understand it is a negative feedback of great strength. I’d be real interested in quantitative assessments of clouds.
We’ll see what happens. Aerosol forcings are an enormous unknown – even in the direct effect! New research has shown that sulfates can actually cause net heating when mixed with soot. Pure ammonium sulfate gives net cooling. Pure soot gives net heating. But a mixed sulfate/soot particle causes even more heating than pure soot! See this reference:
It’s well known that the AGWers are spewing pure supposition when they handwave the cooling in the 1940-1970 being due to aerosol changes. But now, that supposition is even more questionable. In case people are interested, there are two main sources to this uncertainty – (a) the unknown quantities/composition of aerosols at that time (and now impossible to ascertain) and (b) the unknown ability of aerosols to affect AGW even when the aerosol concentration/composition IS known. The above reference is improving ‘b’ but goes to show how little we know about ‘a’…there weren’t single particle mass specs running around back then. Even today, it’s much too large and expensive an instrument for routine deployment.
March 30, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Clouds are what kills the models.
No, it’s not having a Gulfstream too small a yacht that is their big killer turn off.
Good work Jimbo! I seen this posted on NoTricksZone too.
What country would force published scientists to hide their identity? Maybe Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Union. It’s happening here and now. Sad but true.
Scott, BJ as you might imagine is a warmist who posts here from time to time. When pressed to answer a serious question about actual science, he usually is evasive. Sorry I used your name without first getting your permission.
First of all, it may or may not be my real name. 😉
Second, I’m not forced to hide my identity, I choose to. My current employer is very much pro-AGW and I might find myself in need of a job after my current contract expires if they new I was an open lukewarmer. The same goes for religious and even political beliefs.
Obviously “new” is supposed to be “knew”.
Thanks a lot Jimbo!
It’s the theory of everything.
Tell me about typos! I’m the one who invented them.
A new paper from NASA/Ames Lab (will be in GRL) now purports to show that the 2010 drought produced a loss of leaves in the Amazon.
You can’t win with crazed warmists my friend.
Amazon drought may be caused by cleaner air
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,919 other followers