Usted no se lo cree

Citas destacadas:

Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? It seems that the answer is no.

Fecha de nacimiento:

1932

Formación:

Física

Atribución del calentamiento global:

La temperatura no aumenta

Los modelos climáticos son erróneos porque no reproducen correctamente la temperatura a alturas medias de la troposfera tropical

Otras negaciones:

No se conocen

Posición, Departamento, Universidad:

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester

Think Tanks:

The Heartland Institute

Área principal de conocimiento:

Física de la materia condensada (helio líquido y superconductividad; detección de ondas gravitacionales)

Referencias

David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson and S. Fred Singer (2007) – A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions – International Journal of Climatology doi:10.1002/joc.1651 –  – http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
“Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.”

David Douglass – Sourcewatch, 21/03/2009 – http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Douglass
“Douglass also spoke at a December 2007 Washington DC press briefing organized by S. Fred Singer’s Science and Environmental Policy Project. The event was organized to publicized a paper co-authored by Douglass, Singer and others, which — according to a statement attributed to Douglass — found that «the observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth’s climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic. Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? It seems that the answer is no.».”

Michael E. Mann (2012) – The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines – Columbia University Press – Penn State Earth System Science Center
“It took only a week for other scientists to demonstrate [ref] that the Douglass et al. [2008] (p. 186) Paper’s principle claim arose from a simple misunderstanding of the concept of statistical uncertainty [ref].”

Ben D. Santer et al (2008) – Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere – International Journal of Climatology doi:10.1002/joc.1756 – Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – – 17 authors
“This emerging reconciliation of models and observations has two primary explanations. First, because of changes in the treatment of buoy and satellite information, new surface temperature datasets yield slightly reduced tropical warming relative to earlier versions. Second, recently developed satellite and radiosonde datasets show larger warming of the tropical lower troposphere … Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations.”

Olive Heffernan (2008) – Riddle resolved – Nature Reports Climate Change, 23/10/2008 doi:10.1038/climate.2008.112 – http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0811/full/climate.2008.112.html
“Bringing a variety of independent observational data sets and state-of-the-art climate models to the task, they found that the earlier study, also published in the International Journal of Climatology, reached an incorrect conclusion owing to the use of a flawed statistical test and older observational data. Santer and colleagues were able to reconcile temperature trends in the models with observations by using more appropriate statistical tests, new satellite and weather-balloon data that show greater warming of the tropical lower atmosphere, and improved satellite and buoy data that yielded slightly lower estimates of surface warming.”

Robert J. Allen and Steven C. Sherwood (2008) – Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds – Nature Geoscience 1:399-403 doi:10.1038/ngeo208 – Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University
“Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change.”

Gavin Schmidt – Tropical tropospheric trends again (again) – Real Climate, 12/08/2008 – NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/10/tropical-tropopshere-iii/
“Given the egregiousness of the error in this particular paper (which was obvious to many people at the time), having the initial blog posting up very quickly alerted the community to the problems even if it wasn’t a comprehensive analysis. The time in-between the original paper coming out and this new analysis was almost 10 months. The resulting paper is of course much better than any blog post could have been and in fact moves significantly beyond a simple rebuttal. This clearly demonstrates that there is no conflict between the peer-review process and the blogosphere.”

David H. Douglass and John R. Christy – A Climatology Conspiracy? – American Thinker, 02/12/2009 – Professor of Physics, University of Rochester; Distinguished Professor, Atmospheric Science, the University of Alabama in Huntsville – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html
“Conclusion: On 21 July 2008, Santer hears that his paper is formally accepted and expresses his sincere gratitude to Osborn for «all your help with the tricky job of brokering the submission of the paper to IJoC.» Osborn responds that «I’m not sure that I did all that much.»; On 10 Oct 2008, the Santer et al. paper is published online. Thirty-six days later Santer et al. appears in print, immediately following DCPS, who have waited now over eleven months for their paper to appear in print. The strategy of delaying DCPS and not allowing DCPS to have a simultaneous response to Santer et al. has been achieved.”

Ben Santer (2010) – Open Letter to the Climate Science Community: Response to “A Climatology Conspiracy?” – Real Climate, 03/02/2010 – Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Lab – http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Open_Letter_3_to_Community.pdf
“A paper by D.H. Douglass, J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer, published online in the International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) in December 2007, contained a serious error in a statistical test.1 This error led Douglass et al. to make the incorrect claim that modeled and observed tropical temperature trends “disagree to a statistically significant extent”. These incorrect conclusions received considerable publicity. The nature of the statistical error is clearly explained in a paper my colleagues and I published in the online edition of the IJoC in October 2008.2 The statistical flaw is also explained in readily-understandable terms in the attached “fact sheet” (see Appendix A below).”

D.H. Douglass and R.S. Knox (2012) – Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts – Debunked Levitus et al (2012) + Dana Nuccitelli et al (2012) – Physics Letters A doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2012.02.027 – Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester – http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/PLA_21192_proofs_plusFigs1_2.pdf
“In an earlier study of ocean heat content (OHC) we showed that Earth’s empirically implied radiation imbalance has undergone abrupt changes. Other studies have identified additional such climate shifts since 1950. The shifts can be correlated with features in recently updated OHC data. The implied radiation imbalance may possibly alternate in sign at dates close to the climate shifts. The most recent shifts occurred during 2001–2002 and 2008–2009. The implied radiation imbalance between these dates, in the direction of ocean heat loss, was −0.03 ± 0.06 W/m2 , with a possible systematic error of [−0.00,+0.09] W/m2.”

Dana Nuccitelli et al (2012) – Comment on “Ocean heat content and Earthʼs radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts” – Physics Letters A 376:3466–3468 doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2012.10.010 – Tetra Tech, Inc – 5 authors
“A recent paper by Douglass and Knox (hereafter DK12) states that the global flux imbalance between 2002 and 2008 was approximately −0.03±0.06 W/m2, from which they concluded the CO2 forcing feedback is negative. However, DK12 only consider the ocean heat content (OHC) increase from 0 to 700 meters, neglecting the OHC increase at greater depths. Here we include OHC data to a depth of 2000 meters and demonstrate this data explains the majority of the discrepancies between DK12 and previous works, and that the current global flux imbalance is consistent with continued anthropogenic climate change.”