|
Post by hairball on Jan 15, 2010 5:10:15 GMT
Cosmic rays certainly seem to have decreased this century, but to be honest, we don't even need the Sun. The IPCC came to the "consensus" that it was CO2 because it wasn't anything else. Sad fact of the matter is that the climatologists weren't even looking.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 15, 2010 9:14:25 GMT
You are talking statistical jargon and you are not accurately describing what the real world is doing right now.
Which happens to be the very same "statisitical jargon" that tells us there has been no "statistically significant" warming since 1995.
Using the same logic and statistics I can tell you there is not a statistically significant difference between the trend since 1995 and the long term trend of 0.13 deg per decade.
The average UAH anomaly for 2009 is higher than every year in the 1990s apart from 1998. It's quite possible that 2010 will surpass 1998.
|
|
|
Post by Purinoli on Jan 15, 2010 9:49:01 GMT
You are talking statistical jargon and you are not accurately describing what the real world is doing right now. Which happens to be the very same "statisitical jargon" that tells us there has been no "statistically significant" warming since 1995. Using the same logic and statistics I can tell you there is not a statistically significant difference between the trend since 1995 and the long term trend of 0.13 deg per decade. The average UAH anomaly for 2009 is higher than every year in the 1990s apart from 1998. It's quite possible that 2010 will surpass 1998. Statisticaly speaking, we have a situation like this : 1. 70% of temp sensors were removed, mostly from rural area ( so we measure urban & airports warming) 2. We have Climategate I and every person with at least 3 gray cells in his/her brains doubt in any IPCC alarmic "research" results 3. We have now a Climategate II => manipulation with data coocked by National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. I am waiting now just for Climateg(f)ate III. This last means ( statisticaly significant he he) we have 100% increase of major fraud findings in less than 3 months. I personaly trust ( but not 100%) only Dr.Roy Spencer's satelite data. 90%% trust is just my meteo station on my property ( it is a good one, but not perfect, just enough for me). It shows significant cooling. No doubt. It shows rapid fall in solar irradiation, rapid increase on cloudiness and about 40% increase on precipitations.It showed warming untill 2003.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 15, 2010 10:20:04 GMT
icefisher
Two separate points:
1. While the climate models do not show the same pattern of variability as the earth (probably most of them in AR4 didn't show much ENSO), they do show variability. This variability has been evened out in the most famous IPCC plots. At the more detailed level, Lucia and Gavin Schmidt seem to be at loggerheads arguing whether current temperatures are outside the model envelope when you take into account the actual variability of the models and the expected variability of the climate.
Lucia has taken a dogmatic approach that she *must* start her comparisons from 2001, because this was when the models were started. But she made this choice in about 2007 so it can be argued that she preselected a period that would allow her story to run and run.
2. If the projections do *shoot out* of the 1990 observations, then this doesn't quite indicate that it "presupposes" that 1990s warmth was entirely due to natural variability. What it may indicate is that the timing is wrong.
Models essentially have an in-built sensitivity. That does not mean the model was designed with a particular sensitivity in mind, as models are designed to match currently observed weather and climate. (to explain with an analogy, if you build a chair in your home workshop you don't say "it must be able to bear a weight of 220kg" you simply build something that looks and feels strong enough. But when built, there will be an actual weight range above which the chair may break.)
But it means that given the model design, a certain amount of CO2 forcing will eventually cause a certain amount of warming. Because they may show less variability or different variability, the path they take to this new warmer state will depend on the starting conditions.
So a slow start may mean that the warming is going to take longer, or it may mean that the warming will happen in fits and starts.
So indeed you have a good point when you said to aj:
I would say though that even if you spend more on observations, you *still* need to be able to analyse them and understand them. That is probably the more scientifically (as opposed to politically) important use of models.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 15, 2010 12:34:02 GMT
Still discussing the temperature wiggles, using lies, damn lies and statistics... Anyway, I'd like to throw in another of my personal opinions, of which I have little proof. One of the reasons why the IPCC temperature curves have a rather homogeneous temperature trend is that they might underestimate external forcing mechanisms ("space weather" e.g. solar activity, cosmic ray fluctuations, etc.). I don't believe the hockey stick is a representable temperature record for the last thousand years, because it is probably based on the smoothed average of many temperature proxies (one shows a positive anomaly and another a negative anomaly etc) which have rather large uncertainty. Individual proxies show much more variability, but that can also be explained by the large uncertainties and local effects of course. For me it's hard to believe that the global temperature has been SO constant before the last century, but that's completely intuitive. Possible underestimation of external forcing mechanisms (space weather on climate) is understandable, because recent climate science has been focussing on the internal atmospheric mechanisms, and less on the external ones (i.e. from space). That's not surprizing, because it needs both a detailed understanding of the internal and external variables and the interactions. External variation ("space weather") is better understood by astrophysicists, but they generally have a lack of understanding of the internal climate dynamics, and the interactions between both. Now that a lot of research has been done on internal climate dynamics, and a lot of skeptics are attacking AGW using arguments which focus on the link between space weather and climate, we are already seeing a slow shift towards more interdisciplinary research. A lot of research for example is currently been done on the dynamics of the stratosphere, and troposphere-stratosphere interactions. The stratosphere (and layers above) seems to be much more directly influenced by space weather than the troposphere. It is likely that they will find more space weather - climate relations and that a better estimate can be made of the influence of space weather on the earth's climate. Currently (possibly due to a lack of understanding) the influence is estimated to be very small for known variations. Meanwhile I hope that astrophysicists will improve space weather "forecasts", so that they can be included into a much more complete model of climate. My forecast is that I think the IPCC will generally be downgrading both the uncertainty and the magnitude of CO2 induced warming somewhat, and that it will start upgrading the variation induced by spaceweather, and maybe also slightly by natural internal variability. A completely different discussion, also often found on this forum and at many other places is if we should do something about the warming. This kind of risk assesment is quite beyond my expertise, but nevertheless interesting. AGW is not completely certain, nor are the results of warming on mankind. Also, the warming, for a large part, can not be stopped anymore. A complete focus on absolute CO2 reduction at all costs (without other pollution reduction, which has a much more direct beneficial effect on both us and the environment) might be less beneficial than trying to increase the ability of man kind to cope with all kinds of climate variations. It would be especially nasty if nature decided that after AGW it is time for an ice age . "One of the reasons why the IPCC temperature curves have a rather homogeneous temperature trend is that they might underestimate external forcing mechanisms ("space weather" e.g. solar activity, cosmic ray fluctuations, etc.)."This is probably true but it works in _both_ directions. So there was an underestimate of the external 'forcings' that caused/assisted warming in the last decades of the twentieth century and there is a similar underestimate - of opposite sign - of the effect of the external 'forcings' now. The problem is that the AGW hypothesis is that CO 2 'radiative forcing' is so powerful it overrides all natural 'forcings'. This may be based on the initial underestimate of the external effects. Now these effects are waning or reversing the AGW proponents are left with a " travesty that they cannot explain the cooling."
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 15, 2010 12:48:47 GMT
icefisher Two separate points: 1. While the climate models do not show the same pattern of variability as the earth (probably most of them in AR4 didn't show much ENSO), they do show variability. This variability has been evened out in the most famous IPCC plots. At the more detailed level, Lucia and Gavin Schmidt seem to be at loggerheads arguing whether current temperatures are outside the model envelope when you take into account the actual variability of the models and the expected variability of the climate. Lucia has taken a dogmatic approach that she *must* start her comparisons from 2001, because this was when the models were started. But she made this choice in about 2007 so it can be argued that she preselected a period that would allow her story to run and run. 2. If the projections do *shoot out* of the 1990 observations, then this doesn't quite indicate that it "presupposes" that 1990s warmth was entirely due to natural variability. What it may indicate is that the timing is wrong. Models essentially have an in-built sensitivity. That does not mean the model was designed with a particular sensitivity in mind, as models are designed to match currently observed weather and climate. (to explain with an analogy, if you build a chair in your home workshop you don't say "it must be able to bear a weight of 220kg" you simply build something that looks and feels strong enough. But when built, there will be an actual weight range above which the chair may break.) But it means that given the model design, a certain amount of CO2 forcing will eventually cause a certain amount of warming. Because they may show less variability or different variability, the path they take to this new warmer state will depend on the starting conditions. So a slow start may mean that the warming is going to take longer, or it may mean that the warming will happen in fits and starts. So indeed you have a good point when you said to aj: I would say though that even if you spend more on observations, you *still* need to be able to analyse them and understand them. That is probably the more scientifically (as opposed to politically) important use of models. " Lucia has taken a dogmatic approach that she *must* start her comparisons from 2001, because this was when the models were started. But she made this choice in about 2007 so it can be argued that she preselected a period that would allow her story to run and run."I don't understand this point steve - how does the date one starts to investigate models change the date the models were started at? If you are comparing models of chaotic systems then you have to start at the same time with the same start parameters or there is no true comparison. " But it means that given the model design, a certain amount of CO2 forcing will eventually cause a certain amount of warming. Because they may show less variability or different variability, the path they take to this new warmer state will depend on the starting conditions.
And this of course is the nub of the problem - all models start with the underlying hypothesis that CO 2 _must_ cause warming and little or no acceptance or capability to model other causes.... This just might be the reason that none of them show the extended period of no significant (if any) warming. But yes - we need to continue observations - unfortunately we are NOT continuing observations we are shutting down measuring sites and those that remain - like Darwin - are being 'adjusted' or as in the Russian sites discarded if they don't tell the correct story. So we are left with UAH
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 15, 2010 13:24:35 GMT
nautonnier
You've answered the question. The models were not started with the same start parameters (other than being at approximately the same temperature, I guess).
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 15, 2010 13:59:15 GMT
You are talking statistical jargon and you are not accurately describing what the real world is doing right now. Which happens to be the very same "statisitical jargon" that tells us there has been no "statistically significant" warming since 1995. Using the same logic and statistics I can tell you there is not a statistically significant difference between the trend since 1995 and the long term trend of 0.13 deg per decade. The average UAH anomaly for 2009 is higher than every year in the 1990s apart from 1998. It's quite possible that 2010 will surpass 1998. Statisticaly speaking, we have a situation like this : 1. 70% of temp sensors were removed, mostly from rural area ( so we measure urban & airports warming) 2. We have Climategate I and every person with at least 3 gray cells in his/her brains doubt in any IPCC alarmic "research" results 3. We have now a Climategate II => manipulation with data coocked by National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. I am waiting now just for Climateg(f)ate III. This last means ( statisticaly significant he he) we have 100% increase of major fraud findings in less than 3 months. I personaly trust ( but not 100%) only Dr.Roy Spencer's satelite data. 90%% trust is just my meteo station on my property ( it is a good one, but not perfect, just enough for me). It shows significant cooling. No doubt. It shows rapid fall in solar irradiation, rapid increase on cloudiness and about 40% increase on precipitations.It showed warming untill 2003. Exhibit ARoy Spencer's satellite data shows similar warming over the past 30 years to the surface records. www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/plot/uah/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/trendExhibit BSkeptics claim the surface record shows too much warming. Eg in words quoted above: "1. 70% of temp sensors were removed, mostly from rural area ( so we measure urban & airports warming)", but there are many variations on this claim. ConclusionSkeptics must believe one of two things: a) The surface record shows 0.1C too much warming over the past 30 years (the difference between them and UAH) b) The lower troposphere has warmed more than the surface over the past 30 years. Neither options cast skeptics in a good light. Arguing over 0.1C in the last 30 year is making a mountain out of a molehill, that is neither the make or break of AGW. Yet arguing the lower troposphere has warmed more than the surface in the past 30 years, that has bigger problems yet I hear no skeptics even discussing that implication. What I think is happening is that political ideologues have been attracted to the issue and are engaging in it from a political point of view. These "skeptics" are simply trying to discredit AGW, but don't really care whether their claims actually discredit it or not just as long as it sounds that way. Welcome to politics. They see discrediting the work of certain scientists as a means to discrediting those scientists and therefore discrediting AGW. And that is why they attack the surface records with their innuendo without thinking through the implications.
|
|
|
Post by Purinoli on Jan 15, 2010 14:59:02 GMT
To Socold : We are again ( as many times) at the problem of starting point. I have checked your link and just made its start at 2001 and it looks like : www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/trend ( some problem in link, but just put 2001 instead of 1979 and you'll see downward trend in the link you gave to me.... I am not a denier, I am opened to every fact, but surely IPCC gurus simply remind me on our chiefs of Comunist Party under rule we lived here for half a century. I never said there was no warming in 20 th century. It was, but I also learned Stephan Boltzman law ( I am chemist, not to mention that Josef Stefan was a Slovenian, lived in Austro-Hungarian Empire at his time....). We have a big problem. Natural variations versus human made climate change. Anthropogenic "pride" is a desease. If we simply compare IPCC predictions from last 20-25 yrs we should already have about 1-2C anomaly. Right now westand at +0.28C. trend? Depends on what is starting point. For last 10 yrs it is surely negative..... Climate change? Yes, sure. It changes all the time, already about 4.5 bln yrs from now. I apologize to you if my post is not touching important professional facts, but can you tell me why rural sensors were removed and sensors in the populated areas and airports remained and are included in computings? And the most important Q : to who can we beleive after Climategate? I can find hundreds of graphs and tables of global warming/coolind right now. All of them come from "highly professional institutions...". I have a strange feeling that cold war was not a win for West but for Comunists. Not to mention polar bears population which has increased about 10 fold from 1950 .....I guess it has nothing or very little to do with Arctic ice conditions but with more food they can find from populated areas....And also Arctic ice ( not to mention Antarctica) is growing for the 3. consecutive year, 1/10 of satelite measuring period.... P.S. I was teached from my Profesors that being sceptic is the first condition for being reliable in science. maybe they were too old fashion for nowadays IPCC harlekins
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2010 15:47:23 GMT
Two separate points: 1. While the climate models do not show the same pattern of variability as the earth (probably most of them in AR4 didn't show much ENSO), they do show variability. This variability has been evened out in the most famous IPCC plots. At the more detailed level, Lucia and Gavin Schmidt seem to be at loggerheads arguing whether current temperatures are outside the model envelope when you take into account the actual variability of the models and the expected variability of the climate. clLucia has taken a dogmatic approach that she *must* start her comparisons from 2001, because this was when the models were started. But she made this choice in about 2007 so it can be argued that she preselected a period that would allow her story to run and run. First of all AR4 isn't relevant to an analysis of failure/success. It is dated 2007 and I am certain they took the opportunity patch their models. The TAR being 8 years old actually has close to a decade of testing under its belt. Lucia isn't being dogmatic here, Lucia is being practical. Gavin is just playing the "moving on" role to a hilt. Its fundamentally intellectually dishonest. The IPCC clearly lays out what variation is included in the models. . . .TSI changes and volcanic changes, complete with a range of climate sensitivities to estimate the effects of these changes. Its quite clear that actual results are outside of that envelope. Producing a model of two that by pure chance had a mythical volcanic eruption in the first 9 years is an intellectually dishonest concealment of model failure. 2. If the projections do *shoot out* of the 1990 observations, then this doesn't quite indicate that it "presupposes" that 1990s warmth was entirely due to natural variability. What it may indicate is that the timing is wrong. Did I say the 1990's warmth was entirely due to natural variation? I think you are just processing a red herring to conceal the failure of the models. Models essentially have an in-built sensitivity. That does not mean the model was designed with a particular sensitivity in mind, as models are designed to match currently observed weather and climate. (to explain with an analogy, if you build a chair in your home workshop you don't say "it must be able to bear a weight of 220kg" you simply build something that looks and feels strong enough. But when built, there will be an actual weight range above which the chair may break.) But it means that given the model design, a certain amount of CO2 forcing will eventually cause a certain amount of warming. Because they may show less variability or different variability, the path they take to this new warmer state will depend on the starting conditions. So a slow start may mean that the warming is going to take longer, or it may mean that the warming will happen in fits and starts. So indeed you have a good point when you said to aj: I would say though that even if you spend more on observations, you *still* need to be able to analyse them and understand them. That is probably the more scientifically (as opposed to politically) important use of models. Well sure! What needs to be done is first address the hoarding and nepotism issues head on and get some real climate modeling going on as a learning tool. In other words bust up the AGW hegemony. Also, this is from the TAR Figure SPM-10b "From years 2000 to 2100 projections of globally averaged surface temperature are shown for the six illustrative SRES scenarios and IS92a using a model with average climate sensitivity. The grey region marked “several models all SRES envelope” shows the range of results from the full range of 35 SRES scenarios in addition to those from a range of models with different climate sensitivities." Those are supposedly the range of climate models. Do you see a lack of balance there? SRES are emission scenarios under a wide variety of socio/political evolutions. Seems to me to be an inordinate amount of work modeling the managing of people vs learning about the climate. Its difficult to say if the "low warming" model had much natural variation at all instead of a fully ratified, fully effective Kyoto Protocol with a low range climate sensitivity.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2010 16:35:48 GMT
Statisticaly speaking, we have a situation like this : 1. 70% of temp sensors were removed, mostly from rural area ( so we measure urban & airports warming) 2. We have Climategate I and every person with at least 3 gray cells in his/her brains doubt in any IPCC alarmic "research" results 3. We have now a Climategate II => manipulation with data coocked by National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. I am waiting now just for Climateg(f)ate III. This last means ( statisticaly significant he he) we have 100% increase of major fraud findings in less than 3 months. I personaly trust ( but not 100%) only Dr.Roy Spencer's satelite data. 90%% trust is just my meteo station on my property ( it is a good one, but not perfect, just enough for me). It shows significant cooling. No doubt. It shows rapid fall in solar irradiation, rapid increase on cloudiness and about 40% increase on precipitations.It showed warming untill 2003. Exhibit ARoy Spencer's satellite data shows similar warming over the past 30 years to the surface records. www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/plot/uah/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/trendExhibit BSkeptics claim the surface record shows too much warming. Eg in words quoted above: "1. 70% of temp sensors were removed, mostly from rural area ( so we measure urban & airports warming)", but there are many variations on this claim. ConclusionSkeptics must believe one of two things: a) The surface record shows 0.1C too much warming over the past 30 years (the difference between them and UAH) b) The lower troposphere has warmed more than the surface over the past 30 years. Neither options cast skeptics in a good light. Arguing over 0.1C in the last 30 year is making a mountain out of a molehill, that is neither the make or break of AGW. Yet arguing the lower troposphere has warmed more than the surface in the past 30 years, that has bigger problems yet I hear no skeptics even discussing that implication. What I think is happening is that political ideologues have been attracted to the issue and are engaging in it from a political point of view. These "skeptics" are simply trying to discredit AGW, but don't really care whether their claims actually discredit it or not just as long as it sounds that way. Welcome to politics. They see discrediting the work of certain scientists as a means to discrediting those scientists and therefore discrediting AGW. And that is why they attack the surface records with their innuendo without thinking through the implications. You introduce two exhibits that only partially limit some of these variations. The fact is while warming over the past 30 years has been about .8c about 3/4ths of that has been likely due to solar/ocean oscillations since we got .6c out of the 1911 to 1944 warming. So .1 c is a lot, half the difference between oscillations 60 years apart. And that does not even take into account that most of the blink before and after temperature adjustments have been prior to the satellite era. I am not going to suggest that it is likely you can take all the warming away from CO2 and assign it elsewhere; but it does seem within the realm of possibility. After all the other shoe may not have dropped yet with GCRs just now peaking.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 15, 2010 17:20:42 GMT
My point goes above and beyond any choice of starting point. My point is that if the surface records show too much warming due to (here come the buzz words): rural urban airport asphalt ac units, etc, how much can that be given the satellite records show similar warming? My point is simple. Unless we are talking about the possibility of the surface records showing far too much warming, then I don't see the impact it would have. The first IPCC report did not predict we would be 1-2C warmer than we are by now. Which rural sensors were removed? Why shouldn't sensors in urban areas be used? If you are suggesting the surface records might have showed 0.05C too much warming over the past 30 years then to be honest I am not particularly interested as that is within the uncertainty in those records. If you are claiming the surface records could show 0.3C too much warming over the 30 years then I am interested, but first and foremost I am interested in how you would interpret the satellite records showing more warming in the lower troposphere than at the surface if that was the case.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 15, 2010 17:28:10 GMT
Exhibit ARoy Spencer's satellite data shows similar warming over the past 30 years to the surface records. www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/plot/uah/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/trendExhibit BSkeptics claim the surface record shows too much warming. Eg in words quoted above: "1. 70% of temp sensors were removed, mostly from rural area ( so we measure urban & airports warming)", but there are many variations on this claim. ConclusionSkeptics must believe one of two things: a) The surface record shows 0.1C too much warming over the past 30 years (the difference between them and UAH) b) The lower troposphere has warmed more than the surface over the past 30 years. Neither options cast skeptics in a good light. Arguing over 0.1C in the last 30 year is making a mountain out of a molehill, that is neither the make or break of AGW. Yet arguing the lower troposphere has warmed more than the surface in the past 30 years, that has bigger problems yet I hear no skeptics even discussing that implication. What I think is happening is that political ideologues have been attracted to the issue and are engaging in it from a political point of view. These "skeptics" are simply trying to discredit AGW, but don't really care whether their claims actually discredit it or not just as long as it sounds that way. Welcome to politics. They see discrediting the work of certain scientists as a means to discrediting those scientists and therefore discrediting AGW. And that is why they attack the surface records with their innuendo without thinking through the implications. You introduce two exhibits that only partially limit some of these variations. The fact is while warming over the past 30 years has been about .8c about 3/4ths of that has been likely due to solar/ocean oscillations since we got .6c out of the 1911 to 1944 warming. I think you mean .5C perhaps .8f. I completely disagree that 3/4ths of that has been likely due to solar/ocean oscillations. Even if the early 20th century warming was completely natural, that doesn't logically suggest to me that the same magnitude of late 20th century warming must be of the same cause.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2010 17:56:34 GMT
I think you mean .5C perhaps .8f. I completely disagree that 3/4ths of that has been likely due to solar/ocean oscillations. Even if the early 20th century warming was completely natural, that doesn't logically suggest to me that the same magnitude of late 20th century warming must be of the same cause. Hadcrut3 1976 -.254; 1998 +.546; exactly .8c and 1911 -.581; 1944 +.12; .601c both cover an identical number of years and roughly coincide with recognized ocean oscillation switches and consist of the most aggressive interpretation, respectively. Thus when you subtract one from the other you get a residual of .199C which likely is aggressive as well. So if you take .1 off it the residual for 33 years is .099c. . . .lets call it .1c and amount you yourself call "making a mountain out of a molehill" ROTFLMAO! Now you may not believe it but thats a religious experience for you because scientifically you have zero basis for excluding the possibility. Maybe you can do 3 kowtows in honor of its religious status.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Jan 15, 2010 18:22:28 GMT
I think you mean .5C perhaps .8f. I completely disagree that 3/4ths of that has been likely due to solar/ocean oscillations. Even if the early 20th century warming was completely natural, that doesn't logically suggest to me that the same magnitude of late 20th century warming must be of the same cause. Hadcrut3 1976 -.254; 1998 +.546; exactly .8c and 1911 -.581; 1944 +.12; .601c both cover an identical number of years and roughly coincide with recognized ocean oscillation switches and consist of the most aggressive interpretation, respectively. Thus when you subtract one from the other you get a residual of .199C which likely is aggressive as well. So if you take .1 off it the residual for 33 years is .099c. . . .lets call it .1c and amount you yourself call "making a mountain out of a molehill" ROTFLMAO! Now you may not believe it but thats a religious experience for you because scientifically you have zero basis for excluding the possibility. Maybe you can do 3 kowtows in honor of its religious status. Yes, and if you take this and that period and add some, devided by that and that period and subtract some, and let it boil for about 60 years then you will really get something Ok, again, how much of the warming (in degrees C) in the last century is from natural variability, and what are the cycle lenghts you are assuming?
|
|