Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[jimbob]

And on the prospects for nuclear fusion - the IET (former IEE) magazine had an article on this recently

The thrust of the article is that achieving break-even is the easy part - once that happens, the real engineering challenges will have to be solved...

“We could actually build a reactor now, but it would not be economic because whilst the neutrons give up their energy and produce the heat we need to generate steam, they also damage the materials we have available now. The physics of fusion is now well mostly understood and resolved, but what is not resolved is the engineering consequences of generating these neutrons.

“You could build a reactor now with today's materials, but it wouldn't be economic because you would have to build a new reactor or remove and replace to core of the machine within two years. This includes everything inside the plasma chamber; ten billions dollar’s worth of plant.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Where did r-j go? Its alot more fun when the deniers are here Though I cannot tribute with anything myself but I get a good read

 

[r-j]

I'm waiting for the next lull.

 

[aleCcowaN]

This response is not only for you but for all your "me and my forum colleagues " (what are you – a group, a cult?). "Scientist" of whom you blab so much is a concept, a methodology of thinking, a kind of epistemology. A good scientist in biology presented with a discussion on a subject in chemistry might be able to judge how good the science is if he understands the methodology (e.g. chromatography) the type of data support etc. Once Bruckarroo (7802) wrote "we've already heard everything you're likely to say" I immediately understood the scientific level of the "colleagues". Once same (and uke 7806) blabbed about evolution right after you guys claimed one should not make conclusive statements is areas of science he has no expertise in (or are they biologists on the subject of climate?), once you used "strawmanization" and few sentences later claimed that I claimed that you "and others are telling that people are idiots and fakes because they don't think as we do" (if you wont be able to show where I said this you will have to be considered unreliable in quoting others (delicately put), A,B,C of acceptable science), once I had realized all these then I really understood the scientific strength around here. I don't thing you understand why your 2+2 example has nothing to do with scientific theory and debate. And almost lastly, let's talk climate. Relating to my earlier remark, here is a question, that very likely your group has not heard yet: CO2 atmospheric concentration went up from roughly 280 to roughly 380ppm in the last 150 years or so. Also, carbon isotope ratio studies show significant support of a theory claiming major anthropogenic contribution to that. Can you show me where are the results of a set of thermodynamic calculations to show that this increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration matches the global air temperature change (in other words that this CO2 increase alone can account, according to theory, for the temp change observed)? Finally, loyal to our mentor's (Carl Sagan) legacy, I and others, besides our regular work, are struggling for long years now to strengthen the image of science and reputation of the scientific community among the non scientific public (mainly through frontal appearances and also writing). Some of the GW community has caused enormous damage to this image (and definitely not only because of the high profile politician and businessman, fossil fuel hog that used to be AGW movement self appointed (I hope)"representative").

Sorry, halfway I gave up trying to parse your post as it just looked like "he said ... she said" plus scientists can do certain things -sometimes, even science- and you not feeling comfortable with things said here so you are to confront ... the way they are said .

Sorry again, but enough time wasted on something that started with I pointing the immoral behaviour of one ignorant participant in this thread, and you and other chappie trying to make a categorical assertion from it in order to disqualify it. From the very beginning it was simple and brief: saying why it was not immoral nor ignorant what that poster said, and not pursuing your fantastic pseudo-scientist that can say what is enough and what is not about a field that is not his, but most importantly, about a field the pseudo-scientist is perfectly aware he has very little information -and he ignores even the nature of the information he ignores-. And you may reply this with another long-winded mess trying to cover that basic failure (In that case, try to add some deeply offended twists and whatnot to hide you failed in your basic argument).

Summary: yours has been just a verbal exercise from your part and so far it looks pretty clear you have nothing pertinent to say on the subject of this thread.

 

[aleCcowaN]

No effort involved, I do this for fun. I've long thought I had the measure of r-j and nothing that's happened in the meantime has made me any less comfortable with that conclusion.

As those of us unhampered by extremely short-term memories recall that the warm winter East of the Rockies last year was the subject of much comment. Words like "extraordinary" and "remarkable" were bandied about and not just in the media. So r-j's winter cooling trend really wasn't looking good from the start, yet there it was stated out loud. Not, apparently, meant as a joke or irony, but for real.

Remarkable but not surprising.

r-j has been trying to define a position for him/herself from the very beginning. An ambiguous denier, one of those who chose to deny global warming by "saying" -in fact, this person never says anything- it is happening very slowly, r-j invented to him/herself a past of knowledge about global warming (r-j knew it decades ago and r-j is doing something, meaning a generic had waving telling that when everybody was going he/she was already coming back).

The problem in this thread is the deterioration of the deniers involved. r-j showed that worse than Malcolm were possible. The other ones, mostly sockpuppets of other members -or banned members- only buzz around like a swarm without queen bee.

As threads in this forum have no goal of arriving to any sort of conclusion -in fact, they have no goal at all but satisfying the Lincolnesque "people who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like"-, the swarm competes for kbytes written and complain "this is not the sort of thing we like".

The only thing that bothers me is that the subject is not only "scientific", so to speak, but deeply and essentially numeric and systemic. The characters like r-j (who uses Britannica definitions and links garbage to later add why s/he linked that garbage, when any person with a forefront higher than one inch would structure and express his opinion first and then add the supporting links) have deprived this thread of what is essential to the subject. We have to remember that.

Let's continue the debate around figures, not words. Words are only to describe how deniers operate.

 

[pteridine]

That cuts both ways as the knock on costs of fossil fuels are also not calculated and if they were - coal is more costly than the value it provides.

That the US military is engaged in bio-fuel mass production tech development is very encouraging ...they are the largest single user on the planet and have security issues.

The 'cut both ways' was my point in response to the comments on the evils of fossil fuels and how wonderful all the new technologies are. Everything has consequences. One of the most dangerous proposals was to sequester CO2 as a hydrate in the deep ocean. Fortunately, that has lost its luster.

The US military is looking non-petroleum sources of hydrocarbon fuels. The Fischer-Tropsch based fuels have a chance. Adding biomass to coal gasifiers can mitigate some of the CO2 burden from the final product. Bio-fuels from algae and the like are not produced in enough quantity and require a separate logistics train and equipment modifications. The best use of long-chain esters is to add them to petroleum before refining.

 

[r-j]

Looks like a lull.

The shenanigans with the NOAA data over the last few pages at least proves one thing for certain: if you are suitably selective in your choice of area and time period you can demonstrate any "trend" you fancy.

Not really, because of it's all going up, or down, you can't make it look like it's going the other way. But due to the fact that temperatures naturally fluctuate, and climate (long term change) goes up and down, it is possible to deceive people about trends. The two publications I showed you made that clear. One used too short, the other far too long a period. Neither gives the bigger view of what is happening.

Since nobody bothered to check, I know pixel is having a bit of fun at your expense.

No I'm not.

The thirty year trend for Illinois isn't +.6 per decade.

Yes it is.

That is what makes it so damn funny. Nobody bothered to check.

I checked.

My guess is .

OK stop right there. I asked you what do you do when somebldy won't look at the data? Obviously, you are repeating the same point, and actually trying to be helpful. But clearly I know what the data says. I linked you to it. What you are missing is the real problem isn't the data, it's people refusing to look at it, or disagreeing how to look at it. At which point,. what is the point? If a clear temperature record is now a disputed issue, what is going to matter? Like when I pointed out that based on the hundred years of data, winters have become colder.

The trend for Dec-Feb for the state of Illinois, for 1913-2013 is -.5 (per century)

This, interestingly, is correct.

Of course it's correct, I stated that the winters were getting colder.

But if you set the full range of data (1895-2013) for the per century trend you get a warming of 0.8F per century.

And if you set the start point two hundred years back you can show maybe a whole degree of warming.

Which relates to your comment about making the trend almost anything. None of that tells us if right now the winters are trending down, in Illinois. Which they are.

 

[r-j]

California, Florida, many US regions show a clear trend towards colder winters. The current cold sitting over the US at this very moment (and expected to continue into April), along with the record breaking snow events, and the current snowpack, are not a surprise if you look at the trends in temperature, snowfall and precipitation data.

Other parts of the NH are experiencing the same extended very cold and snowy winter. How can we tell if it's just weather? or a trend in the weather? or a climate change? Those are essential questions that must be answered, and agreed on, if any progress is to be made. Precipitation and temperature are two elements of climate, but even more so of weather.

Once the consequences have happened it's relatively easy to work out the sequence of events that led to them, but predicting that sequence of events and their consequences in advance is a bugger. .

I don't know if you meant to be clever qnd funny there. But the phrase "but predicting that sequence of events and their consequences in advance" is a gem. Certainly predicting things after they have happened is much easier than doing it advance.

Now, you picked a thirty year trend to say Illinois winters are not getting colder. We all knew you would use 30 years (some sort of anecdotal climate law it seems), and everybody accepts that 30 years is enough to say there is a trend.

That being the case, Florida, just as I said, has been getting colder winters (trend). Knowing full well this is true, because I looked at the data first, what does that make all the people who both denied this, and were insulting to boot? It's why I call that behavior unscientific. Just because you "feel it" or "know it" doesn't make it true. It's why I chided the people claiming they knew, because it was obvious they didn't.

 

[Pixel42]

None of that tells us if right now the winters are trending down, in Illinois. Which they are.

You have contradicted yourself in two consecutive sentences.

California, Florida, many US regions show a clear trend towards colder winters.

No they don't. Using all the data available (i.e. since 1895) California shows a very slight warming and Florida no change at all.

ETA: Just out of interest, despite knowing how meaningless the results would be, I did look at the 30 year data for these two states; cooling of just 0.1F and 0.2F per decade. If that's the best evidence you could find to support your claim of colder winters you've got nothing.

Certainly predicting things after they have happened is much easier than doing it advance.

Explaining why things have happened is easier than predicting them in advance.

Now, you picked a thirty year trend to say Illinois winters are not getting colder.

No I didn't. You asserted that Illinois had cooled over the last 30 years, I put the parameters in correctly and proved that the data actually showed a 0.6F per decade increase in temperature. That cannot correctly be called a climate trend (don't be fooled by the tool's use of the term) because (a) the tool does not calculate the statistical significance and (b) a single state is not a large enough area for 30 years' worth of data to show a meaningful trend.

We all knew you would use 30 years (some sort of anecdotal climate law it seems), and everybody accepts that 30 years is enough to say there is a trend.

No they don't. I don't, for one. 30 years of data is just about the minimum that is likely to show a statistically significant trend, provided you're looking at data for the whole world. The smaller the area you're looking at the longer time period you need before you can say that any apparent trend is genuine, i.e. is a change in climate, not just variations in the weather.

IIRC the contiguous US covers less than 10% of the earth's surface, so even its 30 year winter trend (warming of 0.51F per decade) is of debatable significance.

That being the case, Florida, just as I said, has been getting colder winters (trend).

The data does not support this assertion. An assertion of a climate trend based on data from a single state is only likely to be meaningful if the data goes back centuries.

Knowing full well this is true, because I looked at the data first, what does that make all the people who both denied this, and were insulting to boot?

It isn't true, which makes the people who were denying it correct.

It's why I call that behavior unscientific. Just because you "feel it" or "know it" doesn't make it true. It's why I chided the people claiming they knew, because it was obvious they didn't.

What they knew, and you still haven't grasped, is that the data you are using is wholely inadequate to support the assertions you are making. The only person being unscientific here is you.

 

[CapelDodger]

Photovoltaic solar is a bloodbath at the moment (I don't know about solar thermal). There is massive oversupply (Bosch is just leaving after a 2.4-billion Euro loss since 2008)

I keep getting emails at work from receivers auctioning off PV manufacturing lines.

This is to be expected, and will drive the price down, opening more applications for this, and driving the next upswing in the takeup of PV, and with more efficient technologies.

This is capitalism in action. Some new thing proves promising, loads of people pile in, over-production ensues, bankrupcies and fire-sales ensue. Fortunes are lost, but a lot of capital is spent to good purpose. The early history of, for instance, railways is much the same in country after country, and the internet as we know it came out of the dot-con bubble. The solar industry will stabilise and progress, as will all sensible renewables. That's inevitable for all sorts of reasons.

 

[r-j]

It's always a wonderful thing when I predict something, and you don't disappoint.

What they knew, and you still haven't grasped, is that the data you are using is wholely inadequate to support the assertions you are making. .

That is a wholly inadequate post to rebut temperature data.

The only person being unscientific here is you.

Once again, you mistake your opinion about somebody as scientific. It's seems an endemic sickness among those who wish to be viewed as both wise, and scientific, and above all, correct. It doesn't matter what you think, even less what you say. It's science and evidence that matter.

None of that tells us if right now the winters are trending down, in Illinois. Which they are.

You have contradicted yourself in two consecutive sentences.

Just saying something doesn't actually mean anything. If you think somebody is contradicting their very own self, state how this is so. Otherwise, just more opinion, hence worthless.

We all knew you would use 30 years (some sort of anecdotal climate law it seems), and everybody accepts that 30 years is enough to say there is a trend.

No they don't. I don't, for one. 30 years of data is just about the minimum that is likely to show a statistically significant trend, provided you're looking at data for the whole world.

OMG once again my predictions are on the mark. We are arguing over winter temperatures, snow, and you change gears in the middle of the stream.

Once more that anecdote of 30 years appears. But now it isn't any good. . Yet you did use a 30 year period to state Illinois was not cooling. Even when the information you objected to was that the winters there are getting colder (trend) Of course once you saw a century of data did show colder winters (trend) you moved the goal posts. If it had been two hundred years of data, you would insist we need 250 years to now the winter temperatures of Chicago. Wouldn't it be faster to just dismiss all the US data you dislike?

IIRC the contiguous US covers less than 10% of the earth's surface, so even its 30 year winter trend (warming of 0.51F per decade) is of debatable significance.

There we go! Just as I predicted. Once you saw the data, it now means nothing. And of course 10% of the land surface of the world means nothing. If it shows colder winters.

That being the case, Florida, just as I said, has been getting colder winters (trend).

The data does not support this assertion. An assertion of a climate trend based on data from a single state is only likely to be meaningful if the data goes back centuries.

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact I was correct. I knew I was because it was the data that was correct. You made a rookie mistake by not knowing the facts, just like all the other boring experts here who insisted it was about me. It never was. Still isn't.And they are still wrong of course.

Knowing full well this is true, because I looked at the data first, what does that make all the people who both denied this, and were insulting to boot?

It isn't true, which makes the people who were denying it correct.

And yet you still deny. The next batch of record truths are really going to bother you then.

It's like talking to those people who wake me up on Saturday mornings, wanting to tell me all about something. Clutching their books, sure of their truth, they can't fathom how annoying they are.

 

[CapelDodger]

The problem in this thread is the deterioration of the deniers involved. r-j showed that worse than Malcolm were possible. The other ones, mostly sockpuppets of other members -or banned members- only buzz around like a swarm without queen bee.

I've never been much impressed, frankly. Consider how common r-j's current thing is : say something dumb and imprecise, get asked for clarification and some basis, then go into pages of self-justification and data-mining. Hence we arrive at Illinois winters as if it somehow mattered. Which of course it doesn't, as Pixel42 has so succintly laid out. Furcifer, mhaze, Diamond, they stretch all the way back to TitanPoint and it was always the same pattern. That and whining about how they're being disrespected. It's displacement activity.

The only thing that bothers me is that the subject is not only "scientific", so to speak, but deeply and essentially numeric and systemic.

Now it's become observational, which is certainly going to beef-up the scientific understanding of some detailed weather processes but for us mere observers has the "trend" problem - the last few years have been very eventful, but is that chance? An increase in extreme events is predictable but the rate less so. It may not even be relatively linear. So there's more years to wait and see.

Not many for the Arctic Ocean, though, that's for certain. Three years at most to an ice-free summer. That's not scientific, based on figures, it's just bleedin' obvious.

 

[macdoc]

r-j

And of course 10% of the land surface of the world means nothing. If it shows colder winters.

When did Ill suffer such expansion??

Now Canada on the other hand does occupy a sizeable portion of the land surface of the planet and winter average across the entire nation have increased 3.2 degrees in 65 years....that would be C btw

How convenient you ignore the elephant in the room while examining a flea. Deniers do have a problem with the big picture.

it's getting warmer We're responsible.
Deal with it. NOTHING could more clearly demolish your premise about winters getting colder than the Canadian data which you conveniently ignore.
And you wonder why you are becoming a laughing stock at this point.

 

[lomiller]

The 'cut both ways' was my point in response to the comments on the evils of fossil fuels

Certainly this entire thread is about the very serious problems associated with fossil fuels, but I don't recall anyone anthropomorphizing them the way you suggest. People knowingly pandering and peddling despite knowing the harm they can do can rightly be called evil, and may well have.

how wonderful all the new technologies are. Everything has consequences.

Nor have their been much in the way of un-objective support for alternatives.

It really seems to me you are tying to construct straw men tom rail against rather than having any type of discussion.

 

[lomiller]

But due to the fact that temperatures naturally fluctuate, and climate (long term change) goes up and down

Incorrect.

natural fluctuations do occur but they are weather, not climate. Over longer terms there isn't any know unforced changes. When temperatures go up and down they do so for a reason. The reason for the present warming is human emission of CO2.

it is possible to deceive people about trends.

Indeed it is. deniers do it all the time. There are, however, statistical tests for trends and mathematics is much harder to fool.

But due to the fact that temperatures naturally fluctuate, and climate (long term change) goes up and down, it is possible to deceive people about trends.

But clearly I know what the data says. I linked you to it. What you are missing is the real problem isn't the data, it's people refusing to look at it, or disagreeing how to look at it.

We looked at your links, some were not credible, but most simply didn't say what you claimed they did. Clearly you do not know what the data says. Clearly the problem is not that people won't look. The problem is that you don't seem to notice that the data doesn't support your beliefs.

 

[r-j]

California, Florida, many US regions show a clear trend towards colder winters.

No they don't. Using all the data available (i.e. since 1895) California shows a very slight warming and Florida no change at all.

Like I said, after you see that the winters (now) are trending colder (most of the US), you will move the goalposts, Now, even a hundred years of temperature records means nothing. So of course if the winters are colder, with more snow, and the data shows this clearly, it won't matter to you. The entire corn belt could show a clear trend of colder winters, and the "expert" minds here will say it doesn't mean anything.

Never mind that it was two simple comments that started this entire argument. That "maybe people are sick of the cold winter and don't feel like arguing global warming right now", and my mentioning the fact tjhat since March started it has been unusually cold.in Florida. The unusual cold is now most evident, and not just Florida of course. (record cold in Florida, as well as most of the US this month). I also mentioned winters have been getting colder, which of course was misrepresented as "global temperatures are going down", which would be a global strawman. Par for the course it seems.

After at least one person actually looked at the data, they then dismissed the data, rather than simply being honest and saying I was right. It's OK, nobody expects you to ever admit that you were wrong. Your opinion won't change the facts a bit.

ETA: Just out of interest, despite knowing how meaningless the results would be, I did look at the 30 year data for these two states; cooling of just 0.1F and 0.2F per decade. If that's the best evidence you could find to support your claim of colder winters you've got nothing.

Oh yes, because NCDC records showing that Florida winters are getting colder (trend) does not actually support my comment that Florida winters have been getting colder(trend). Who can argue against your logic?

Certainly predicting things after they have happened is much easier than doing it advance.

Explaining why things have happened is easier than predicting them in advance.
.

Maybe, but I predicted what would happen, and explained it in advance. In regards to the absolute denial of the warming "experts" posting here, when faced with actual data.

Of course the NOAA data that shows Florida is having colder winters doesn't actually mean the winters in Florida are getting colder(trend). It can't mean that. Because that would mean all the insulting deniers here are wrong.

It's like global warming in a nutshell. Because global warming is happening, everything that happens is because of global warming. Nothing can change that. Just like how you know you are right, and nothing will change your mind.

No data can change what you have already decided is true. Like when we see the claim made here that all the scientists agree that winters are warming. How can logic, science and data contend against such an argument?

 

[r-j]

You asserted that Illinois had cooled over the last 30 years

No, what I said was the winters in Illinois are getting colder(trend) with more snow. And that this matches the trend for that area of the US.

Certainly the northeast and northwest US do not show this same trend in the temperature records. Especially New England. Canada also does not show a trend towards colder winters, except for a few small areas, small being a relative term.

As the climate scientists say, global warming does not mean everywhere will get warmer. Some places may very well get much colder. This trend towards colder winters with more snow might be due to the warming, but nobody knows yet. Just as we don't know if a heat wave is due to global warming, or the changes in storm frequency is related. Or the changes in precipitation. Those who claim they know global warming is due to CO2 from mankind, and it will get so much worse, give science a black eye.

Or maybe just themselves a bad name.

Not that there isn't good chance we will see changes brought about by the worlds vast populations, and little doubt that fossil fuels are polluting, that oil wells and coal power plants are disgusting dirty and dangerous. Or that vast increases in CO2 from burning coal and oil and gas might damage the oceans.

That I despise polluting energy (and the people that pollute) doesn't mean I am going to deny data. Or ignore the weather at hand.

But, my opinion is just like yours when it comes to saving the world. Worthless.

 

[Pixel42]

That is a wholly inadequate post to rebut temperature data.

I don't rebut temperature data. I just don't interpret it wrongly, or place significance on cherry-picked data that it does not support.

If you think somebody is contradicting their very own self, state how this is so.

If you can't see for yourself how agreeing that cherry-picking limited areas and time periods does not produce meaningful trends and then asserting as fact, based on very limited cherry picked data, that a particular trend does indeed exist then there really is no hope of educating you.

Once more that anecdote of 30 years appears. But now it isn't any good. . Yet you did use a 30 year period to state Illinois was not cooling.

No I didn't. You asserted that it was warming based on data which didn't actually say what you said it did, I simply corrected you about the data. I would never claim any kind of climate trend based on such narrowly cherry picked data. That is what you have been doing, and I have been patiently trying to teach you why it can't be supported.

I repeat: I am not dismissing the idea that recent unusually cold spells in winter in some parts of the world are the beginning of a trend towards colder winters in some regions. I'm just saying that the data is not sufficient to establish that.

Once you saw the data, it now means nothing.

I already saw the data. It was me that gave you the link to it, remember? I just have enough mathematical knowledge to know how to interpret it correctly.

 

[Pixel42]

As the climate scientists say, global warming does not mean everywhere will get warmer. Some places may very well get much colder. This trend towards colder winters with more snow might be due to the warming, but nobody knows yet. Just as we don't know if a heat wave is due to global warming, or the changes in storm frequency is related. Or the changes in precipitation. Those who claim they know global warming is due to CO2 from mankind, and it will get so much worse, give science a black eye.

To jump from pointing out that we don't know whether certain localised weather variations are due to global warming to claiming that we don't know that global warming is due to CO2 produced by mankind is simply absurd.

We don't know the reason for the local variations for certain, or even that the local variations are statistically significant, because (despite your insistence on interpreting the data in ways it cannot support) the evidence is not conclusive for either. The evidence that global warming is happening, that human activities are responsible for the vast majority of it, and that it will continue is conclusive.

 

[Mikemcc]

...

Once more that anecdote of 30 years appears. But now it isn't any good. . Yet you did use a 30 year period to state Illinois was not cooling. Even when the information you objected to was that the winters there are getting colder (trend) Of course once you saw a century of data did show colder winters (trend) you moved the goal posts. If it had been two hundred years of data, you would insist we need 250 years to now the winter temperatures of Chicago. Wouldn't it be faster to just dismiss all the US data you dislike? There we go! Just as I predicted. Once you saw the data, it now means nothing. And of course 10% of the land surface of the world means nothing. If it shows colder winters. Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact I was correct. I knew I was because it was the data that was correct. You made a rookie mistake by not knowing the facts, just like all the other boring experts here who insisted it was about me. It never was. Still isn't.And they are still wrong of course. And yet you still deny. The next batch of record truths are really going to bother you then.

...

Actually 30 years is a standard observational window, has been for decades.

Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html

Ben Santer and others have explained a number of times that the there is effectively a 17-year mimumum observational period, any less than that and it is difficult to pick out statistical significance.

In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.

...

"Looking at a single, noisy 10-year period is cherry picking, and does not provide reliable information about the presence or absence of human effects on climate," said Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist and lead author on an article in the Nov. 17 online edition of the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres).

...

https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html