<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Climate Research News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateresearchnews.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateresearchnews.com</link>
	<description>Bridging the gap between reality and official science</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:59:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>IAC&#8217;s Scathing Report on the UN IPCC</title>
		<link>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/iacs-scathing-report-on-the-un-ipcc/</link>
		<comments>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/iacs-scathing-report-on-the-un-ipcc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:59:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateresearchnews.com/?p=2483</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices. A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming. It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.</p>
	<p>A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.</p>
	<p>It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.</p>
	<p>The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 &#8211; Sunday Express: <a href="http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642/Climate-change-lies-are-exposed" target="_blank">Climate Change Lies Are Exposed</a></p>
	<p>&#8220;IPCC reports are supposed to be the gold standard account of what is — and is not — known about global warming. The panel boasts that it uses only peer-reviewed scientific literature. But its claims about mountain ice turned out to be anecdotes from a climbing magazine, its claims on the Amazon’s vulnerability to drought from a Brazilian pressure group’s website and 42 per cent of the references in one chapter proved to be to reports by Greenpeace, WWF and other “grey” literature.&#8221; &#8211; Matt Ridley in <a href="http://www.timesplus.co.uk/tto/news/?login=false&amp;url=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article2707618.ece" target="_blank">The Times (£)</a></p>
	<p>&#8220;UN climate change experts have been accused of making &#8216;imprecise and vague&#8217; statements and over-egging the evidence. A scathing report into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called for it to avoid politics and stick instead to predictions based on solid science.&#8221; &#8211; Daily Mail:<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1307446/UN-climate-change-experts-overstated-dangers.html" target="_blank"> UN climate experts &#8216;overstated dangers&#8217;: Keep your noses out of politics, scientists told<br />
</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/iacs-scathing-report-on-the-un-ipcc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Former Guardian Journalist Joins Nature</title>
		<link>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/former-guardian-journalist-joins-nature/</link>
		<comments>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/former-guardian-journalist-joins-nature/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:38:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Alarmism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateresearchnews.com/?p=2480</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David Adam, previously Environment Correspondent at The Guardian, has now joined Nature as Nature op-ed Editor. d.adam@nature.com]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>David Adam, previously Environment Correspondent at The Guardian, has now joined Nature as Nature op-ed Editor. <a href="mailto:d.adam@nature.com">d.adam@nature.com</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/former-guardian-journalist-joins-nature/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Have Disaster Losses Increased Due to Anthropogenic Climate Change?</title>
		<link>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/have-disaster-losses-increased-due-to-anthropogenic-climate-change/</link>
		<comments>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/have-disaster-losses-increased-due-to-anthropogenic-climate-change/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 06:47:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Alarmism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weather]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateresearchnews.com/?p=2470</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New peer reviewed paper: Bouwer, L.M. (in press). Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, doi:10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1 Abstract The increasing impact of natural disasters over recent decades has been well documented, especially the direct economic losses and losses that were insured. Claims are made by some that climate [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>New peer reviewed paper:</p>
	<p>Bouwer, L.M. (in press). <strong>Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change?</strong> Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, <a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1</a></p>
	<p><strong>Abstract</strong></p>
	<p>The increasing impact of natural disasters over recent decades has been well documented, especially the direct economic losses and losses that were insured. Claims are made by some that climate change has caused more losses, but others assert that increasing exposure due to population and economic growth has been a much more important driver. Ambiguity exists today, as the causal link between climate change and disaster losses has not been addressed in a systematic manner by major scientific assessments. Here I present a review and analysis of recent quantitative studies on past increases in weather disaster losses and the role of anthropogenic climate change. <strong>Analyses show that although economic losses from weather related hazards have increased, anthropogenic climate change so far did not have a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.</strong> The observed loss increase is caused primarily by increasing exposure and value of capital at risk. This finding is of direct importance for studies on impacts from extreme weather and for disaster policy. Studies that project future losses may give a better indication of the potential impact of climate change on disaster losses and needs for adaptation, than the analysis of historical losses.</p>
	<p><strong>Capsule summary</strong></p>
	<p>Climate change is often seen as the culprit of increasing economic losses from weather disasters. The scientific literature however shows that there are other causes up to now.</p>
	<p>H/T Roger Pielke Jr&#8217;s Blog: <a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/disaster-losses-and-climate-change.html" target="_blank">Disaster Losses and Climate Change</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/have-disaster-losses-increased-due-to-anthropogenic-climate-change/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Green is the First Socio-Political Movement in Which Every Single Leader and Spokesperson is Filthy Rich&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/green-is-the-first-socio-political-movement-in-which-every-single-leader-and-spokesperson-is-filthy-rich/</link>
		<comments>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/green-is-the-first-socio-political-movement-in-which-every-single-leader-and-spokesperson-is-filthy-rich/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:04:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Alarmism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Funding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateresearchnews.com/?p=2467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great line from the warmist Independent (of all places!) in an article by Julie Burchill about Green Hypocrite Prince (&#8216;Climate Charlie&#8217;) Charles: &#8220;Green is the first socio-political movement in which every single leader and spokesperson is filthy rich.&#8221; The Independent: Julie Burchill: So the Prince of Green Hypocrites is going on tour. Thank God I&#8217;ll be [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Great line from the warmist Independent (of all places!) in an article by Julie Burchill about Green Hypocrite Prince (&#8216;Climate Charlie&#8217;) Charles:</p>
	<p><em>&#8220;Green is the first socio-political movement in which every single leader and spokesperson is filthy rich.&#8221;</em></p>
	<p>The Independent: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/julie-burchill/julie-burchill-so-the-prince-of-green-hypocrites-is-going-on-tour-thank-god-ill-be-abroad-2055351.html" target="_blank">Julie Burchill: So the Prince of Green Hypocrites is going on tour. Thank God I&#8217;ll be abroad</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/green-is-the-first-socio-political-movement-in-which-every-single-leader-and-spokesperson-is-filthy-rich/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NOAA: Russian Heat Wave Not Due to &#8216;Global Warming&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/noaa-russian-heat-wave-not-due-to-global-warming/</link>
		<comments>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/noaa-russian-heat-wave-not-due-to-global-warming/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:48:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weather]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateresearchnews.com/?p=2462</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NOAA on the 2010 Russian Heat Wave (excerpt): Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principal cause for this heat wave. It is not known [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/moscow2010/" target="_blank">NOAA</a> on the 2010 Russian Heat Wave (excerpt):</p>
	<p><em>Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principal cause for this heat wave. It is not known whether, or to what exent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over western Russia for the period since 1900.</em></p>
	<p><em>The indications are that the current blocking event is intrinsic to the natural variability of summer climate in this region, a region which has a climatological vulnerability to blocking and associated heat waves (e.g., 1960, 1972, 1988). A high index value for blocking days is not a necessary condition for high July surface temperature over western Russia&#8212;the warm summers of 1981, 1999, 2001, and 2002 did not experience an unusual number of blocking days.</em></p>
	<p><em>A clear understanding of the causes for the 2010 Russian heat wave is important for informing decision makers and the public on whether they need to transition from a preparedness mode of precautionary responses to an adaptation mode involving investment responses and actions. Our assessment indicates that, owing to the mainly natural cause for this heat wave, it is very unlikely that a similar event will recur next summer or in the immediate future (next decade). Whereas this phenomena has been principally related to a natural extreme event, its impacts may very well forebode the impact that a projected warming of surface temperatures could have by the end of the 21st Century due to greenhouse gas increases.</em></p>
	<p>Watch Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction: <a href="http://climaterealists.com/?id=6173" target="_blank">Russian heat wave due to dramatic changes in solar activity – Interview with forecaster Piers Corbyn</a></p>
	<p>See also: <a href="http://notrickszone.com/2010/08/13/one-of-our-hemispheres-is-missing/" target="_blank">One of Our Hemispheres is Missing</a>:</p>
	<p>The earth’s southern hemisphere is now in the winter season, and it is proving to be a severe one. There have been many deaths of people, animals, fish, and crops. But you haven’t heard about that from the northern hemisphere media.</p>
	<p>As far as the media is concerned, there is no southern hemisphere. All the media coverage is about fires in Russia, Arctic ice melting, glaciers calving icebergs, heat waves on the U. S. east coast, and other “weather” occurrences up north. So let me bring you up to date on the highlights from down south&#8230;&#8230;.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/noaa-russian-heat-wave-not-due-to-global-warming/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Indur Goklany: Global Death Toll From Extreme Weather Events Declining</title>
		<link>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/indur-goklany-global-death-toll-from-extreme-weather-events-declining/</link>
		<comments>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/indur-goklany-global-death-toll-from-extreme-weather-events-declining/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Observations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weather]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateresearchnews.com/?p=2460</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Primer on the Global Death Toll from Extreme Weather Events — Context and Long Term (1900–2008) Trends Background Based on 2000–08 data, extreme weather events are responsible for about 0.05% of all global deaths (31,700 deaths vs. 58.8 million, annually). That is, despite the media attention to such events, extreme weather events have a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><strong>A Primer on the Global Death Toll from Extreme Weather Events — Context and Long Term (1900–2008) Trends</strong></p>
	<p>Background</p>
	<p>Based on 2000–08 data, extreme weather events are responsible for about 0.05% of all global deaths (31,700 deaths vs. 58.8 million, annually). That is, despite the media attention to such events, extreme weather events have a minor impact on global public health.<br />
Long term (1900–2008) data show that average annual deaths and death rates from all such events declined by 93% and 98%, respectively, since cresting in the 1920s (Figure 1). These declines occurred despite a vast increase in the populations at risk and more complete coverage of extreme weather events (Figure 2).</p>
	<p>Read the entire Global Warming Policy Foundation article <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/1378-indur-m-goklany-global-death-toll-from-extreme-weather-events-declining.html" target="_blank">here.</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/indur-goklany-global-death-toll-from-extreme-weather-events-declining/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Not Enough Wind for More Than Half of Britain&#8217;s Wind Farms</title>
		<link>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/not-enough-wind-for-more-than-half-of-britains-wind-farms/</link>
		<comments>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/not-enough-wind-for-more-than-half-of-britains-wind-farms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:02:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wind Power]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateresearchnews.com/?p=2457</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s not exactly rocket science – when building a wind farm, look for a site that is, well, quite windy. But more than half of Britain’s wind farms are operating at less than 25 per cent capacity. In England, the figure rises to 70 per cent of onshore developments, research shows. Experts say that over-generous [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>It&#8217;s not exactly rocket science – when building a wind farm, look for a site that is, well, quite windy.</p>
	<p>But more than half of Britain’s wind farms are operating at less than 25 per cent capacity.<br />
In England, the figure rises to 70 per cent of onshore developments, research shows.</p>
	<p>Experts say that over-generous subsidies mean hundreds of turbines are going up on sites that are simply not breezy enough.<br />
Britain’s most feeble wind farm is in Blyth Harbour in Northumberland, where the nine turbines lining the East Pier reach a meagre 4.9 per cent of their capacity.</p>
	<p>Another at Chelker reservoir in North Yorkshire operates at only 5.3 per cent of its potential, the analysis of 2009 figures provided by energy regulator Ofgem found.</p>
	<p>The ten turbines at Burton Wold in Northamptonshire have been running for just three years, but achieved only 19 per cent capacity.</p>
	<p>Europe’s biggest wind farm, Whitelee, near Glasgow, boasts 140 turbines. But last year they ran at less than a quarter of their capacity.</p>
	<p>The revelation that so many wind farms are under-performing will be of interest to those who argue that they are simply expensive eyesores.</p>
	<p>Full story: Daily Mail.co.uk: <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1303688/More-half-Britains-wind-farms-built-wind.html?ito=feeds-newsxml" target="_blank">More than half of Britain&#8217;s wind farms have been built where there is not enough wind</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/not-enough-wind-for-more-than-half-of-britains-wind-farms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Satellitegate Scandal:  Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful</title>
		<link>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/the-satellitegate-scandal-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful/</link>
		<comments>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/the-satellitegate-scandal-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 07:15:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Average Near Surface Temperature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateresearchnews.com/?p=2455</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[US Government admits global warming satellite sensors “degraded” &#8211; temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in controversy. Top scientists speak out. In an escalating row dubbed ‘Satellitegate’ further evidence proves NOAA knew of these faults for years. World’s top climate scientists and even prior governmental reports cite underfunding and misallocation as [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><em>US Government admits global warming satellite sensors “degraded” &#8211; temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in controversy. Top scientists speak out.</em></p>
	<p>In an escalating row dubbed ‘Satellitegate’ further evidence proves <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA" target="_blank">NOAA </a>knew of these faults for years. World’s top climate scientists and even prior governmental reports cite underfunding and misallocation as the trigger for spiraling satellite data calamities. Key flaws with five satellites undermines global data.</p>
	<p>Most disturbing of all is that it took publication of my article last week to persuade the authorities to withdraw the errant NOAA-16 satellite from service. But as Dr. John Christy indicates, the real Satellitegate is not about one satellite. The scandal is endemic with comparable flaws across the entire network; the scandal is also that it took a tip off from a member of the public and the widespread broadcast of my article before one of the offending junk boxes, NOAA-16, got taken down.</p>
	<p>Readers who missed the details when this sensational story first broke can see here at <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7670/Official-Satellite-Failure-Means-Decade-of-Global-Warming-Data-Doubtful--All-data-taken-offline-in-shock-move" target="_blank">Climatedepot.com</a>.</p>
	<p>Read more: Canada Free Press: <a href="http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26603" target="_blank">Top Climate Scientists Speak out on the Satellitegate Scandal</a></p>
	<p>There was wind of the suspicion that NASA&#8217;s Satellite temperature maps may be nonsense in 2009:</p>
	<p>Pool: <a href="http://www.pool.org.au/text/peter_ravenscroft/the_satellite_temperature_maps_from_nasa_may_all_be_nonsense_here_is_why" target="_blank">The satellite temperature maps from NASA may all be nonsense. Here is why.</a> from Peter Ravenscroft, 20.12.09
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/the-satellitegate-scandal-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Paper: Sea Level Rise Not Accelerating</title>
		<link>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/new-paper-sea-level-rise-not-accelerating/</link>
		<comments>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/new-paper-sea-level-rise-not-accelerating/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:54:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sea Levels]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateresearchnews.com/?p=2453</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research &#8211; Oceans, confirms other studies of tide gauge records which show that there has been no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the past 100+ years, in contrast to statements of the IPCC and Al Gore. Sea levels have been rising naturally since the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>A paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research &#8211; Oceans, confirms other studies of tide gauge records which show that there has been no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the past 100+ years, in contrast to statements of the IPCC and Al Gore. Sea levels have been rising naturally since the peak of the last major ice age 20,000 years ago, and the rate of rise began to decelerate about 8,000 years ago:</p>
	<p>JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JC005630.shtml" target="_blank">VOL. 115, C08013, 15 PP., 2010</a></p>
	<p><strong>Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks<br />
</strong>Authors: Manfred Wenzel, Jens Schröter</p>
	<p><em>The 20th century regional and global sea level variations are estimated based on long-term tide gauge records. For this the neural network technique is utilized that connects the coastal sea level with the regional and global mean via a nonlinear empirical relationship. Two major difficulties are overcome this way: the vertical movement of tide gauges over time and the problem of what weighting function to choose for each individual tide gauge record. Neural networks are also used to fill data gaps in the tide gauge records, which is a prerequisite for our analysis technique. A suite of different gap-filling strategies is tested which provides information about stability and variance of the results. The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration. The regional mean sea level of the single ocean basins show mixed long-term behavior. While most of the basins show a sea level rise of varying strength there is an indication for a mean sea level fall in the southern Indian Ocean. Also for the the tropical Indian and the South Atlantic no significant trend can be detected. Nevertheless, the South Atlantic as well as the tropical Atlantic are the only basins that show significant acceleration. On shorter timescales, but longer than the annual cycle, the basins sea level are dominated by oscillations with periods of about 50–75 years and of about 25 years. Consequently, we find high (lagged) correlations between the single basins.</em></p>
	<p>Note: The 1.56 mm/yr non-accelerating rate of sea level rise would result in sea levels 6 inches higher than the present in 100 years. The oscillations noted in this study correspond to the typical full and half-cycle lengths of the natural Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the natural 60-year climate cycle. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation warm phase has been shown to produce a marked temporary rise in global mean sea levels.</p>
	<p>The Hockey Schtick: <a href="http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/paper-sea-level-rise-not-accelerating.html" target="_blank">Paper: Sea Level Rise Not Accelerating</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/new-paper-sea-level-rise-not-accelerating/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Paper Supports McIntyre &amp; McKitrick&#8217;s Hockey Stick Critiques</title>
		<link>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/new-paper-supports-mcintyre-mckitricks-hockey-stick-critiques/</link>
		<comments>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/new-paper-supports-mcintyre-mckitricks-hockey-stick-critiques/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:46:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paleoclimate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateresearchnews.com/?p=2451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As reported over at Climate Audit, an important study on proxy reconstructions (McShane and Wyner 2010) is to be published in the Annals of Applied Statistics (one of the top statistical journals): A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? It states in its abstract: We find [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>As reported over at <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/14/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/" target="_blank">Climate Audit</a>, an important study on proxy reconstructions (McShane and Wyner 2010) is to be published in the Annals of Applied Statistics (one of the top statistical journals):</p>
	<p><strong>A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?</strong></p>
	<p>It states in its abstract:</p>
	<p><em>We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.</em></p>
	<p>They cite the various M&amp;M articles.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/08/new-paper-supports-mcintyre-mckitricks-hockey-stick-critiques/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
