Climate Presentation Slides

These are the Powerpoint slides for my Nov. 10 presentation in Phoenix.

The slides are available for download at this link (9.9MB):   Download ppt

A pdf file of the presentation is here (2.7MB):   Download pdf

You can also view a Google docs version of the presentation below, though a bit of the formatting gets screwed up in the translation:   Climate Presentation, online viewer

Sign up here to be notified when I post the video

13 thoughts on “Climate Presentation Slides”

  1. A nice set of work.

    I like the work of Climate Audit and Whats Up with That, but the work would lose most people.

    My eyes caught something on slide 40.

    Different proxies at the margin, but all use a core of 2-3 proxies know to drive hockey stick results

    I would think that “know” should be “known”.


  2. I was wondering if you have the data for the graphs on slide 35. I’d be interested in making a +or- graph of when temperature led co2.


  3. Page 71 of the .pdf: Plant breeding increases the yield of “corn” by genetic improvement. This will be difficult to separate from climatic effects, over time.

  4. I agree with Filbert on corn, but there is historical data on crops from the medieval warm period through today. In the northern hemisphere you could look at where grapes could be grown, ie, England was once a wine producing region. In the southern hemisphere, there is data on elevations were crops were grown by the Incas that led to their rise. In Africa, there is evidence that the Sahara desert had shrunk several times during the warmer times that led to the desert becoming habitable.

    I enjoy doing research on all these areas and would be happy to compile data and sources for you.


  5. Is there any difference between the terms “positive feedback” and “forcing”?

    Some AGW enthusiasts tell me that water vapor, methane and CO2 all cause positive feedback, however
    “only CO2 is forcing”. The implication is that, despite it’s trace percentage in the atmosphere,
    CO2 is considerably more harmful than other GHG’s when it comes to AGW.

    None of these folks seem to be able to clarify the difference between
    positive feedback and forcing. I am left with a vague understanding that “forcing” is like “positive feedback on steroids”.
    Is this correct at all? If so, is there a better way of explaining it?

  6. Nice post

    My only complaint is you should have expanded on the negative feedback case and given examples of how these may exist in nature. Something along the lines of Lindzen & Spencer’s hypotheses & the concept of the earth having a natural thermostat.

  7. Is there any difference between the terms “positive feedback” and “forcing”?

    “Forcing” refers to a direct physical phenomenon that causes a change in (in this case) temperature. “Positive feedback” can be most easily thought of as amplification of a forced effect (effectively increasing the strength of the forcing)

  8. Filbert Cobb:
    Yes, genetics and more CO2 both contribute to increased yield. However, it is possible to do cross sectional studies to determine the impact of CO2. The website has quite a bit of analysis on this by crop type.
    Appears to be safe to say that at least 18% of current production is from increased atmospheric CO2.

  9. John: No, positive feedback isn’t just an amplification of the inputs – it’s a reaction to change in the outputs that drives them further that way. For example, a flame heating up more fuel to the ignition point, so the fire grows larger. It can be balanced by negative feedback, like a damper in a woodstove that reduces the air flow as the fire gets hotter.

    Positive feedback can amplify inputs, but if a system is dominated by positive feedback, it will be inherently unstable – like an out of control fire. The global climate system includes multiple feedbacks, positive, negative, and unknown. Global warming alarmists claim that their computer models show that the positive ones dominate so much that approximately 1 degree worth of temperature increase that comes directly the effect of increased CO2 on radiative heat exchange will be amplified several times by feedback. However, computer models are not reality. It’s impossible to reconcile such dominance by positive feedback with a climate that’s been stable within a few degrees for 8,000 years.

    Positive feedback can be offset by negative feedback – e.g., a wood stove can have a thermostatically-controlled damper that restricts the air as the fire gets hotter. It can also be limited

  10. Hello there… this site wont be required as of today but thanks for your efforts..At least we skeptics dont need to waste valuable time looking at climate sites anymore LOL
    UPDATE2: Response from CRU h/t to WUWT reader “Nev”

    The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

    In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”

    “Have you alerted police”

    “Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken.”

    Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.

    “Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn’t do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago.”

    TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing “hiding the decline”, and Jones explained what he was trying to say….

  11. Hadley is lying. There was no hack.
    I will bet you that some employee on the inside got tired of the bs and decided to let it all hang out.
    AGW is to climate science what Bernie Madoff was to investing.

Comments are closed.