Ice Cap increase 29%, Reality laughs at Models.

[mvanwink5]

Stubby,
Given that there are ocean cycles 60 years long, is it so hard to believe there are cycles in polar ice? PDO has just turned cold and the AMO is on the verge of turning cold. The model predictions are the arctic region should be ice free, models for complex chaotic systems which the climate is, are notorious for bad predictions. You want to trust them, go ahead, sell your coat.

Are you telling me you actually trust the climate models, models that can't even predict cloud cover?

[ladajo]

With this new data source, they should be able to measure sea ice extent hundreds of years into the past.
Now that will be interesting.

Yes it will. It is sure to upset somebody. Who that is remains to be seen.

[Stubby]

Exactly.

[Stubby]

Stubby,
Given that there are ocean cycles 60 years long, is it so hard to believe there are cycles in polar ice? PDO has just turned cold and the AMO is on the verge of turning cold. The model predictions are the arctic region should be ice free, models for complex chaotic systems which the climate is, are notorious for bad predictions. You want to trust them, go ahead, sell your coat.

Are you telling me you actually trust the climate models, models that can't even predict cloud cover?

Did I say there aren't any cycles?
I said there is relatively little data from Antarctica compared to the Arctic. And the Arctic data trends downward since they have measured ice volumes.

You seem to be extrapolating from those comments.

[mvanwink5]

No need to say more, the models don't take pseudo-cycles into the account and everyone is aware of that (I call them pseudo-cycles because that is the best one can do with chaotic systems, and longer terms it is just guessing). The point has been made that the models are NG, and everyone who is being honest to themselves about it knows too. It would be nice if models could be developed that were useful for chaotic systems, but that is not the case with our science.

[Skipjack]

A few things:
1. People are comparing the SURFACE of the ice cap to the volume of ice. This is a nono. The surface area has increased this year, but not the volume.
2. The ice on water is irrelevant. You should care about the ice on land and that is looking bleak:
http://gizmodo.com/the-antarctic-ice-sh ... 1575164209

[ladajo]

No need to say more, the models don't take pseudo-cycles into the account and everyone is aware of that (I call them pseudo-cycles because that is the best one can do with chaotic systems, and longer terms it is just guessing). The point has been made that the models are NG, and everyone who is being honest to themselves about it knows too. It would be nice if models could be developed that were useful for chaotic systems, but that is not the case with our science.

Chaotic system analysis is about boundaries. We still don't understand the weather boundaries to be making assumptions on between the boundaries behaviours. And in a chaotic system, by definition, one cycle does not look like the rest. There can be trending, but that can be interrupted by an excursion to the boundary. All you really know is that it will stay between the lines. If it goes outside the lines, it is broken or had an external influence.

[JLawson]

A few things:
1. People are comparing the SURFACE of the ice cap to the volume of ice. This is a nono. The surface area has increased this year, but not the volume.
2. The ice on water is irrelevant. You should care about the ice on land and that is looking bleak:
http://gizmodo.com/the-antarctic-ice-sh ... 1575164209

Um, the NYTimes of all places has said that's... kinda bogus.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/ ... blogs&_r=1&

To translate a bit, that means sometime between 200 and 900 years from now the rate of ice loss from this glacier could reach a volume sufficient to raise sea levels about 4 inches (100 millimeters) a century. At that point, according to the paper, ice loss could pick up steam, with big losses over a period of decades.* But in a phone conversation, Joughin said the modeling was not reliable enough to say how much, how soon.

“Collapse is a good scientific word,” he told me, “but maybe it’s kind of a bad word” in the context of news.

And when you consider how the Gawker sites go for sensationalism, they'll push what gets the clicks, regardless of how accurate it is.

And this pretty well sums it up.

Before everyone goes bananas with Global Warming and CO2, etc... please note that this is WEST Antarctica, Not EAST, not LAND MASS. While the Sea Ice shelf is melting and forming new sea ice there are just as important changes to Antarctica that they did not share in this article:

Read ► http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/04/1...

Please note the Inside LAND MASS is growing getting thicker. Also to note... EAST Antarctica Glaciers ARE growing :63 per cent of glaciers retreated from 1974 to 1990, 72 per cent advanced from 1990 to 2000, and 58 per cent advanced from 2000 to 2010.

Read ► http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpres ... /09/01/stu...

I really love how they can predict such computer models so exactly for the next 200 to 500 and even 1000 years.

Also worth noting: Any loss of sea ice shelf and retreat of the land-mass anchoring ridge (where the glacier ends it's foothold to land) allows the glacier to SPEED up it's movement towards the sea, specially when there is a lot of heavy ice already built up on it!..

I would not be surprised if these losses and followed by massive growth as on the east side of the continent in the next several decades.

File this under "will see"

In the mean time, Colorado got 3 ft. of snow.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/ ... A020140512

And from Down Under...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/he ... 6913708208#

ANTARCTIC sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres.

The National Snow and Ice Data Centre said the rapid expansion had continued into May and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record “by a significant margin’’.

The rest is behind a paywall, darn it.

Computer models for things that can be easily checked, like aerodynamic properties, material properties, flow patterns and the like are one thing. You can check them, you can verify whether they're useful and accurate or not for the purpose they're put to. In all honesty, I think a lot of the models that are being used to tout massive intervention and spending to avoid 'climate change' are optimized for the purpose - which is to persuade the gullible that without immediate expensive action we are DOOMED to death in boiling seas. Give us your money and buy your indulgences now, before the rush!

But they're modeling and forecasting something that will take decades or centuries to occur. They'll be retired and/or long dead before the predictions will be seen as true or false. I admire the attempt, but without any ability to see whether the events predicted as a result of the models will actually occur they're writing science fiction instead of science fact. Pardon - 'speculative fiction'.

When you set a short timeline like "The Arctic will be ice free in 5 years!", you'd better be right. If you're not, you look like an idiot and people won't pay attention to your predictions. But a hundred years out? Hey, you'll be gone. Predict away, and the more attention-getting the prediction the better!

Plus you've got to look at what they're advocating as far as remedies go. Are they throwing money at non-CO2 energy sources that can provide a lot of power? Or are they going for what's 'politically correct' to support - which nuclear power isn't. Are they throwing money at fusion? It doesn't seem like it.

Instead, there's talk of taxes. Massive taxes on CO2, to be given (with just a tiny bit siphoned off, of course, for handling charges) to 'developing countries'. Which will use them for... well, they don't exactly spell that out. Given the current effectiveness of aid programs, I'm dubious about the value of such a transfer. Seems to me we'll have another Lebanon, with Arafat siphoning off billions in aid.

Then there's whether the AGW activists walk the walk. Flying in private jets to exotic places to have Climate Conferences certainly helps with worldwide CO2 emissions, right?

Overall, as you know, I'm skeptical about doom, gloom and catastrophe predicted by computer models. Time will tell - but the hurricanes that were predicted to increase in severity and frequency haven't occurred. So I'm doubtful about a lot of the rest of the predictions, too.

[Skipjack]

A few things:
1. People are comparing the SURFACE of the ice cap to the volume of ice. This is a nono. The surface area has increased this year, but not the volume.
2. The ice on water is irrelevant. You should care about the ice on land and that is looking bleak:
http://gizmodo.com/the-antarctic-ice-sh ... 1575164209

Um, the NYTimes of all places has said that's... kinda bogus.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/ ... blogs&_r=1&

No, that is not what it says. It says that the sea level rise is unavoidable. Only that this "collapse" wont contribute much more to it than the glaciers already do right now.

To translate a bit, that means sometime between 200 and 900 years from now the rate of ice loss from this glacier could reach a volume sufficient to raise sea levels about 4 inches (100 millimeters) a century.

A bit of selective reading there. It would be reaching the threshold where the contribution of the mechanism described in the paper would be MORE than 1mm a year. Also note that this is only one glacier we are talking about here and that it already releases plenty of water into the ocean.

Read ► http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/04/1...

Please note the Inside LAND MASS is growing getting thicker. Also to note... EAST Antarctica Glaciers ARE growing :63 per cent of glaciers retreated from 1974 to 1990, 72 per cent advanced from 1990 to 2000, and 58 per cent advanced from 2000 to 2010.

Read ► http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpres ... /09/01/stu...

The first link is broken and the second link does not actually say that.

In the mean time, Colorado got 3 ft. of snow.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/ ... A020140512

Happened before, nothing unusual and weather is not climate.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/he ... 6913708208#

ANTARCTIC sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres.

The National Snow and Ice Data Centre said the rapid expansion had continued into May and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record “by a significant margin’’.

This is sea ice, which is irrelevant to sea level rise. It also is surface area and not volume. Surface area can increase and volume can still decrease. The most positive thing, I see about this is that it will increase the albedo effect, which might help lowering temperatures. This would be one mitigating effect predicted by some physicists, I know. It is one of the reasons why I have been rather on the fence regarding climate change.

In all honesty, I think a lot of the models that are being used to tout massive intervention and spending to avoid 'climate change' are optimized for the purpose - which is to persuade the gullible that without immediate expensive action we are DOOMED to death in boiling seas. Give us your money and buy your indulgences now, before the rush!

Unsubstantiated assumption.

Are they throwing money at non-CO2 energy sources that can provide a lot of power? Or are they going for what's 'politically correct' to support - which nuclear power isn't. Are they throwing money at fusion? It doesn't seem like it.

Instead, there's talk of taxes. Massive taxes on CO2, to be given (with just a tiny bit siphoned off, of course, for handling charges) to 'developing countries'. Which will use them for... well, they don't exactly spell that out. Given the current effectiveness of aid programs, I'm dubious about the value of such a transfer.

[/quote]
I do agree with that. It sounds like a socialist type of transfer of wealth. I don't like it either.

My POV is that we absolutely HAVE to invest in nuclear energy (fission and fusion) as it is the only viable long term strategy, global warming or not. Solar and wind are politically correct distractions.
People are scared of nuclear power, when it has killed at most 4,000 people. Meanwhile air pollution kills millions every year, 30,000 in the US alone.
That alone is reason enough for me to get rid of fossil fuels, besides the fact that they are very important raw materials needed for a variety of industrial processes and it is such a waste to just burn them.

[JLawson]

In the mean time, Colorado got 3 ft. of snow.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/ ... A020140512

Happened before, nothing unusual and weather is not climate.

Uh huh. Weather IS climate, oddly enough, when you get enough of it for a long enough time.

In all honesty, I think a lot of the models that are being used to tout massive intervention and spending to avoid 'climate change' are optimized for the purpose - which is to persuade the gullible that without immediate expensive action we are DOOMED to death in boiling seas. Give us your money and buy your indulgences now, before the rush!

Unsubstantiated assumption.

Which is why I said 'I think'. But just think back 15 years or so when this first became a thing, and remember how money's been spent on all sorts of schemes that were supposed to advance 'green' technology - but seems to have just funneled money into failed projects. Lots of money, gone with no accountability. SOMEONE made out like a bandit with Solyndra, right?

Are they throwing money at non-CO2 energy sources that can provide a lot of power? Or are they going for what's 'politically correct' to support - which nuclear power isn't. Are they throwing money at fusion? It doesn't seem like it.

Instead, there's talk of taxes. Massive taxes on CO2, to be given (with just a tiny bit siphoned off, of course, for handling charges) to 'developing countries'. Which will use them for... well, they don't exactly spell that out. Given the current effectiveness of aid programs, I'm dubious about the value of such a transfer.

I do agree with that. It sounds like a socialist type of transfer of wealth. I don't like it either.

My POV is that we absolutely HAVE to invest in nuclear energy (fission and fusion) as it is the only viable long term strategy, global warming or not. Solar and wind are politically correct distractions.
People are scared of nuclear power, when it has killed at most 4,000 people. Meanwhile air pollution kills millions every year, 30,000 in the US alone.
That alone is reason enough for me to get rid of fossil fuels, besides the fact that they are very important raw materials needed for a variety of industrial processes and it is such a waste to just burn them.

I agree - we need to be pushing fusion and fission. But it's not happening at a rate that makes me believe the 'powers that be' who are telling us about climate catastrophe believe what they're telling us. Asteroid hitting the earth in 25 years with a Torino Scale number of 7 or higher? Putting their fuzzy asses in real danger? They'd be shoveling money at anyone that could even credibly promise to deflect it.

You don't see that with this 'crisis'. You've gotten celebs spouting how we have '5 years to save the planet', and 'The Science Is Settled!' when people questioned it. And now we're seeing higher-profile scientists going "Hey, wait a second here..."

http://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsso ... e-we-know/

Time will tell - but in five to 10 years, I think AGW's going to go the way of the Dot-com bubble. I could be wrong - but as I said, time will tell. You can only predict catastrophe for so long before people start noticing it's not happening.

[Skipjack]

Uh huh. Weather IS climate, oddly enough, when you get enough of it for a long enough time.

No, weather is not the same as climate.

SOMEONE made out like a bandit with Solyndra, right?

Was a high risk investment, as Wallstreet made many (and failed at even more, hence the bailout). There were others that turned out fine, but you never hear about those on FOX news. Solyndra failed because the Chinese invested EVEN MORE into their solar panel production, which allowed them to undercut Solyndra bidding them out of business. I don't think anyone won anything from all this.

I agree - we need to be pushing fusion and fission. But it's not happening at a rate

I agree with that part. I think that a lot of people live under the delusion that wind and solar can solve our energy problem. They can not, because they are not cheap enough. Unfortunately the left, while having the right intentions is using the wrong means to make this work. They think that via regulation, taxation and most of all education, they can bring about some miracle that will motivate people to switch to electric cars and stop using fossil fuels. This is equally naïve as it is stupid. They need to make electricity and alternatives to fossil fuels more attractive by lowering their cost. For this we need to invest more massively into research. I would say a Manhattan project for fusion and advanced fission with fast tracked regulation and a goal to have something viable within 5 years would be a start. I would use defense money for that actually, since energy problems are the biggest threat to national security. E.g. Russia's oil is giving it power right now. If we had something better and cheaper, it would take that power away from them.

[williatw]

Climate Science: No Dissent Allowed

Award-winning climate modeler experiences “a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy”

An interesting juxtaposition of items appeared in our Inbox today.

First was an announcement that Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, had resigned from the Academic Advisory Council of the U.K.’s Global Warming Policy Foundation. What was surprising about this announcement was that it was just announced a week or so ago that Dr. Bengtsson—a prominent and leading climate modeler and research scientist—was joining the GWPF Council. At that time, there was some wondering aloud as to why Dr. Bengtsson would join an organization that was somewhat “skeptical” when it comes to the projections and impacts of climate change and the effectiveness and direction of climate change policy.

During one recent interview Dr. Bengtsson explained:

I think the climate community shall be more critical and spend more time to understand what they are doing instead of presenting endless and often superficial results and to do this with a critical mind. I do not believe that the IPCC machinery is what is best for science in the long term. We are still in a situation where our knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough. What we need is more basic research freely organized and driven by leading scientists without time pressure to deliver and only deliver when they believe the result is good and solid enough. It is not for scientists to determine what society should do. In order for society to make sensible decisions in complex issues it is essential to have input from different areas and from different individuals. The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.

A good summary of the buzz that surrounded Dr. Bengtsson and his association with GWPF is contained over at Judith Curry’s website, Climate Etc.

So why did Dr. Bengtsson suddenly resign?

Here is the content of his resignation letter, written to GWPF Academic Advisory Council Chairman, Dr. David Henderson:

Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expect[ed] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expect[ed] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

[glad you noticed!—eds]

Under these [sic] situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards

Lennart Bengtsson

This letter is stunning in its candor and shows that that all the conspiring and bullying that the was on full display in the Climategate email release continues unabashedly today.

Aside from a bit of personal embarrassment from particularly bad behavior, by and large the climate science establishment just shrugged its shoulders at the Climategate revelations with a “Yeah, so what?” That’s a fitting response as they seek to control the scientific discourse when it comes to climate change. Group pressure is an effective means of doing so.

What Climategate taught the bully cohort of scientists was they could continue to bully their colleagues, sabotage their publications, and intimidate journal editors with impunity. As evidenced from Dr. Bengtsson’s resignation letter, if it has changed at all, the situation in climate science is worse now than it was before the emails were leaked.

Which leads to this email that we got today from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS):



Anyone thinking that there is an open flow of ideas in climate science is 100 percent wrong

http://www.cato.org/blog/climate-scienc ... nt-allowed

[mvanwink5]

Tools of bullying come with politicizing science. Instead of advancing science by politically directing resources to climate science to clarify what human environment impact might be doing to climate, instead, the science has turned into full blown censorship from those in political Power, the current regime in power (sickening to realize those terms now fit our government). Further, significant resources, truly substantial, has been politically directed to this politically corrupted "green" quest, and as with all political resources, large quantities have been siphoned off into the hands of political cronies (crooks, Madoff's). It is a sick circus.

It boils down to, what problem can be so great and horrendous that it is worth the consequence of getting politics involved?

Government climate science has been so corrupted that no one can trust the results of the pro- climate warming government sponsored science research. Propaganda is too thick. Don't think people can't smell propaganda stench from a mile away.

[JLawson]

You know that '97%' thing? You might be interested in the actual methodology they used on that.

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

And then... there's another analysis where people actually closely examined the methodology.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/13/m ... consensus/

This is an example. It’s one of the 64 papers placed in the highest category (explicitly claiming humans cause 50%+ of recent warming), and it says:

This work shows that carbon dioxide, which is a main contributor to the global warming effect, could be utilized as a selective oxidant in the oxidative dehydrogenation of ethylbenzene over alumina-supported vanadium oxide catalysts. The modification of the catalytically active vanadium oxide component with appropriate amounts of antimony oxide led to more stable catalytic performance along with a higher styrene yield (76%) at high styrene selectivity (>95%). The improved catalytic behavior was attributable to the enhanced redox properties of the active V-sites.

If you don’t know what any of that means, don’t feel bad. The paper is about a narrow chemistry subject which has no bearing on global warming. It’s only relation to climate is that one clause, “which is a main contributor to the global warming effect.” According to Cook et al, that is apparently enough to make it “climate related.” In fact, that’s enough to make this paper one of the 64 which most strongly support global warming concerns.

The paper's at http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleL ... ivAbstract - and it was published in 2003 in 'Green Journal'.

I'm no scientist, but I'm not an idiot. If you're having to grab something which smells a lot like a boilerplate sentence designed to make it acceptable to 'Green Journal' out of a paper that isn't even AGW related to use as part of a '97% say it must be true!' campaign, then I think there's something pretty darn bogus about the whole premise and seriously question the '97%' claim.

[Skipjack]

So, I have been annoyed now with claims of X% here and X% there. So I went and checked it myself. I used the list of climate scientists from Wikipedia (go and update it, if you think someone is missing there, or provide me with a more complete list elsewhere). I discarded all scientists that are dead as they can not give a current up to date opinion based on current data. I looked each one of them up for their stance on the matter. Those that are both supportive of AGW and that at the same time have not said anything contradicting the IPCC, got a + sign. Those that are either critical of AGW in general or just the mainstream an the claims made by the IPCC got a -. Note that this includes people that believe in AGW, but have a different explanation or a differing opinion on the extent of climate change and so on. I even included those that gave somewhat contradictory statements on the matter with the negative group. I did these things to outbalance claims to group pressure on scientists, that might have forced them into contradicting their own opinions at a later state.
For some I was not able to determine their position in the limited time I had. They got a ?.
I put notes next to some of them explaining why I put them into a certain category.

Right now it looks like the vast majority supports the IPCC and AGW theory. But I it is not quite the 97% claimed. I get 50 for, 12 against and 12 that are unknown.
Discarding the unknowns for now, I get 80% for and 20% against (remember though that I was very generous with who I put into the negative pot).

Feel free to update the list, but if you do, please provide an explanation as to why a status of a scientist was changed.
Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists



+ supports the mainstream climate models
- Is sceptical of the mainstream climate models, or has said somewhat contradictory statements
? Unknown or does not seem to have an opinion

Myles Allen +
Richard Alley +
Kevin Anderson +
Sallie Louise Baliunas -
Robert C. Balling, Jr - (AGW is real but less severe than the popular consenus)
Edouard Bard ? (from a google translation of his book cover it seems like he is a + but I am not 100% sure).
Richard A. Betts +
Raymond S. "Ray" Bradley +
Keith R. Briffa +
Wallace Smith Broecker +
Harold E. Brooks +
Kenneth Caldeira ? (seems like a +, but also made some either misrepresented or retracted claims to the contrary, so I gave him a ?)
Mark Cane ?
John Raymond Christy - (AGW is real, but overstated by the IPCC and the mainstream)
William Michael Connolley +
Paul Jozef Crutzen +
Judith A. Curry - (I made her a - since she seems to be at least somewhat sceptical, but could equally be a +)
Kerry Andrew Emanuel +
Matthew England +
Inez Fung +
Peter Gleick +
Jonathan M. Gregory +
Joanna Dorothy Haigh +
James Edward Hansen +
Ann Henderson-Sellers ? (not 100% sure, seems to be a plus, but I made her a ?)
John Theodore Houghton +
Philip Douglas Jones +
Jean Jouzel ?
Thomas R. Karl +
Charles David Keeling +
David W. Keith +
Kurt Lambeck ? (probably a +, but not 100% sure)
Professor. Dr. Mojib Latif - (gave contractory statements, gave him a - , when he might actually be a +)
Richard Siegmund Lindzen -
James Ephraim Lovelock +
Syukuro "Suki" Manabe +
Michael E. Mann +
Gerald Allen "Jerry" Meehl +
Patrick J. ("Pat") Michaels -
Dr. Gordon McBean +
John Francis Brake Mitchell +
Mario José Molina ? (could be a +)
Richard A. Muller +
David Parker ?
William Richard Peltier +
Roger A. Pielke, Sr - ( supports AGW but says CO2 is not the main contributor, but other human caused factors)
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert +
Vicky Pope +
Stefan Rahmstorf +
Veerabhadran Ramanathan +
Joseph J. Romm +
William F. Ruddiman - (supports AGW but has alternative explanation)
Dr. Benjamin D. Santer +
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber +
Gavin A. Schmidt +
Stephen E. Schwartz ?
Dame Julia Mary Slingo +
Richard C. J. Somerville +
Susan Solomon +
Thomas Stocker +
Hans von Storch - (contradicting statements, critical of hype and "alarmists" like Mann, but also supports AGW)
Peter A. Stott +
Henrik Svensmark - (supports GW, but contradicts AGW)
Simon Tett ? (supports AGW, but has alternative explanation for the rapidly increasing warming in recent years)
Peter Andreas Thejll +
Lonnie Thompson +
Micha Tomkiewicz +
Kevin Edward Trenberth +
David Vaughan +
Peter Wadhams ?
John Michael Wallace ?
Andrew James Watson ? (probably a + but havent had time to look)
Dr. Andrew J. Weaver +
Penelope Whetton +
Carl Wunsch - (supports GW but expressed sceptizism on the "certainty" some scientists have expressed about AGW and consequences)