Can i please have some references?

There's the Douglass et al. paper on the missing tropical troposphere hot spot:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/1178573...

But it was soundly refuted by Santer et al. a few months later.

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/...

There was McLean et al. which concluded that ENSO could be blamed for a substantial fraction of the recent global warming:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637...

But the conclusion was not supported by their research, and was soundly refuted a few months later by Foster et al.

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan...

A paper by Lindzen and Choi purported to demonstrate that the climate has a strong negative feedback and that climate models are quite wrong in their relationships between changes in surface temperature and corresponding changes in outgoing radiation escaping to space.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2...

But again several months later Trenberth et al. exposed many fatal flaws in Lindzen et al.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/refs/Tre...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010...

That's all the recent published 'skeptic' papers I can recall. All significantly flawed, all refuted a few months later.

As for Portland's references, the first is from 1996 - the UHI effect is well accounted for. Paul B covered the third. The fourth is a regional study, not a global one.

"warming in tropical Southeast Africa during the last glacial termination began to rise ~3000 years before atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations."

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/web/Cohen/pdf/83%20Tier...

Irrelevant to *global* warming. His fifth reference states

"Because of the long-term return intervals and stochastic nature of the occurrence of extreme events, however, it may require substantially more time before a change in frequency can be detected (Free et al., 2004). The lack of detectable trends in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms during the 20th century should not be taken as evidence that further warming will not lead to such changes in the future, particularly as the rate of warming in the 21st century is expected to be several times greater than in the 20th century"

http://www.waterandclimateinformationcentre.org/re...

That's evidence against anthropogenic global warming how exactly?

Amen. Unfortuanely, I know peer reviewed papers and, well, they can be quite boring, so unless you are interested in the topic, they can be hard to follow. BUT, I am with you; I just don't get why people can't wrap thier brains around the "possibility" that something is changing; it's a simple concept that can actually be seen, IF you want to see it. They keep talking about "oh, the temp is the same, or cooler, it might rain a little more..." They clearly don't understand what global warming is. In fact, the term "global warming" is quite misleading. I would like for the nay-sayers to set the politics aside, go to rural/coastal Canada and Alaska (yes, cold places) and talk to the locals whose ancestors have lived there for longer than they can trace and THEN come up w/a reasonable explaintion on what is happening; no it's not all erosion. I've been there, I've seen it. Seriously, if they can do that w/an open mind and give sound answers, then we might get somewhere.

Edit; the youtube stuff?...Rush is an idiot. Nobody ever said it would NOT get cold, PAY ATTENTION, RUSH!....Again, proves he has NO idea what's he's talking about.

Not even a good cover, most alarmist extremist promote themselves as know it alls. Lacking the ability to think on their own just reposting and plagiarizing someones Else's work. Seeing this isn't a real question you can do the footwork...being a real scientist and all.

Good articles in Nature (2005)

WHOI has a study about the MOC

The IPCC has some doubts about CO2 levels and consequential effects

The hydrological cycle is always a fascinating topic whether peered or not.

But to settle things up, most skeptics are also laughing at the alarmist arrogance concerning your so called; accuracy for predictions.

The Chilingar et al. paper that Portland references (#6) is utter drivel. How it made it into the peer-reviewed literature I'll never know.

---------

In fact, looking back at the last several papers authored by Chilingar on climate/GHE, I see he makes the same [basic] mistakes over and over again, but continues to be published. I know the journal (Environmental Geology) isn't high impact in terms of climate science, but why do the editors publish such easily refuted nonsense?

--------

Edit2:

I just came across this little factoid: Upon learning that Chilingar et al. 2007 was to be published, Fred Singer resigned as Advisory Editor of the journal. I guess Singer does still have some credibility.

Sounds like you want to point out who is the best funded. It's no exageration to say that the global warming movement is 100 times better funded than skeptics. It seems the current Australian government loves throwing money at studies that have global warming in them. A study never costs less than a million as it seems their consultants won't get out of bed for less than a million dollars.

Based purely on how many dollars, or how many articles, the warmists are clearly winning and want the global warming movement to go on for as long as possible regardless of what the climate does, but no matter how much funding they get, they can't fix the physics to show that CO2 causes any significant warming.

How often have you heard the tired old line, the models don't predict the warming in the second half of the 20th century using natural factors.

That's it all there is, billions of dollars spent on research and that's the closest thing to scientific evidence that can be produced - the models don't predict warming in the second half of the 20th century using natural factors.

These same models are 100% wrong in predicting 0.3 degrees warming per year after 1998.

I'm sorry, if you want to call this science and turn it into a doomsday cult, don't be too amazed if I seemingly read your mind and know that your are a socialist. You seem to have trouble telling the difference between science and political ideology.

I make references like that on greater than a day-to-day foundation, nonetheless, the men and women I realize who do like hockey best comply with their crew and do not realize it good ample to realize what I imply, They regularly grow to be going "Huh...?" and many times I reference hockey customarily ( It's a laugh to do while gambling basketball in health club ) ** Come on, Viktor! Move to New York!!!

Oh, dear, Portland; sounds good, but if they're all as off-base as this one ...

"3) Kiessling states that "ecologically complex reef systems have been around for hundreds of millions if not billions of years," and that "geologic models of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere suggest that these were much greater during most of earth's history than today," which further suggests that something other than CO2-induced global warming and ocean acidification must have been responsible for their prior "boom and bust" pattern of behavior.

Kiessling, W. 2009. Geologic and biologic controls on the evolution of reefs. Annual Review of Ecological and Evolutionary Systems 40: 173-192. "

Modern corals are Scleractinia, with aragonite skeletons much more vulnerable to ocean acidification than the calcite skeletons of the rugose and tabulate corals that dominated during periods of high CO2.

So this example if anything reinforces concerns about corals today.

1) Urban heat islands effects improperly accounted for by CRI:

Hughes, W.S. and Balling Jr., R.C. 1996. Urban influences on South African temperature trends. International Journal of Climatology 16: 935-940.

2) Elevated Levels of CO2 will be good for agriculture:

Cunniff, J., Osborne, C.P., Ripley, B.S., Charles, M. and Jones, G. 2008. Response of wild C4 crop progenitors to subambient CO2 highlights a possible role in the origin of agriculture. Global Change Biology 14: 576-587.

3) Kiessling states that "ecologically complex reef systems have been around for hundreds of millions if not billions of years," and that "geologic models of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere suggest that these were much greater during most of earth's history than today," which further suggests that something other than CO2-induced global warming and ocean acidification must have been responsible for their prior "boom and bust" pattern of behavior.

Kiessling, W. 2009. Geologic and biologic controls on the evolution of reefs. Annual Review of Ecological and Evolutionary Systems 40: 173-192.

4) Global Warming does not correlate with atmospheric CO2:

Tierney, J.E., Russell, J.M., Huang, Y., Sinninghe, J.S., Hopmans, E.C. and Cohen, A.S. 2008. Northern Hemisphere controls on tropical southeast African climate during the past 60,000 years. Science 322: 252-255.

5) Climate change has not created the predicted crazy weather:

Huntington, T.G. 2006. Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review and synthesis. Journal of Hydrology 319: 83-95.

6) Convection is not accounted for enough in the computer models:

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?cod...

(full article) http://www.springerlink.com/content/vl7536426072q7...

www.climateaudit.com