|
Post by steve on Jan 14, 2013 7:20:00 GMT
sigurdur, you're missing the point a bit.
This is a paper arguing against "AGW theory", suggesting that if CO2 goes up, the temperature would only go up temporarily. And that their position is supported by the statistical relationship between temperature and CO2 levels.
"AGW theory" includes a range of understanding of the impacts of natural variability, and the "consensus" position is that the natural variability over years and decades is more than significant enough to blow out of the water this paper's idea that ocean heat content and water vapour can be ignored.
But, sigurdur, the points you make do demonstrate that many sceptics who hail this paper as the undermining of AGW theory are shooting themselves in the foot with a Gatling gun because it undermines their own theories more than it undermines AGW.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2013 9:24:08 GMT
It completely ignores physics and just treats the data as a bunch of physics-less numbers. So temperature is just a number rather than a physical quantity and same with CO2 and solar irradiance. If it was possible to determine attribution by merely running a statistical test people would have done this all along. In reality it isn't.
Gee, Socold they did the same thing that the IPCC did in all their Assessment Reports!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2013 10:01:32 GMT
One red flag would be the paper's claim that water vapour and ocean heat content are dependent on temperature, and therefore variations in these two values can be ignored! That's a pretty strong claim to make when there is no real consensus about measurements of water vapour, and the only consensus is that data prior to the 1970s is very poor. Even if the measurements were good, most people here admit, or insist, that ENSO or PDO can affect the evolution of temperature for years to decades. I think the only difference between mine and some of your points of view is that I don't think this is evidence that undermines my expectations about climate sensitivity. So if you have variations of temperature of years to decades caused by ocean cycles, and your dataset is only 140 years long, then ignoring the ocean is just plain stupid. Come on Steve you are sufficiently educated that you should be able to raise your game above that level! Obviously the ability of ENSO or PDO to affect temperatures only for years to decades is potentially irrelevant to a statistical analysis that covers over a century.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2013 10:36:04 GMT
Socold and Steve in particular are giving us an interesting view of how bullshit falls when its it been piled really high! Its like a tall tree being felled by a lumberjack.
First, the tree is done when the saw gets to its mark. Then there is the indeterminable delay followed by a muffled "krak", then the very top of the tree kind of gently shudders and sways, the trunk of the tree often rotates a few degrees at this point, gravity has not yet kicked in. Then its followed by an slow acceleration of the tip of the tree sideways. . . .
|
|