http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a鈥?/a>
"The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system, specifically the physical reasoning and causal links between longer time-scale modes of internal climate variability and the impact of such modes upon global temperature. Fortunately, climate science is rapidly developing the tools to meet this challenge, as in the near future it will be possible to attribute cause and effect in decadal-scale climate variability within the context of a seamless climate forecast system. Doing so is vital, as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature."
He seems to think the global temperature stopped climbing last decade. So now everyone has to learn a new secret handshake, and the password at the AGW clubhouse has to be changed. He doesn't trumpet the party line, so he is kicked out of the club, right?
He also believes that Co2 is less of a factor.
Or was he never in the club?|||It is great that another scientist is blowing cover, we need more! But sadly the data and the science doesn't really matter any more as it's a political thing! Thankfully Climategate has informed us that accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear 鈥?that warming was only one degree Fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from ground station readings which are inflated due to the 鈥榰rban heat island effect鈥?i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming鈥nd it is these, 鈥榝alse high鈥?ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym 鈥?garbage in, garbage out!|||I can't believe you choose an idiotic answer from the master plagiarizer as best answer. This is why deniers get no respect.
Report Abuse
|||You can't? I believe it. It's Dent - that's what he and his fellow deniers always do. Which you're correct, is why they get no respect.
Report Abuse
|||Another example of shoddy climate science reporting by the Daily Mail, too.
Report Abuse
|||Tsonis is clearly in the AGW club. He at least presents the facts but his conclusions are not very good in my opinion.
I thought this made more sense than his conclusions:
It is not that the real climate system has more internal variability and thus is more sensitive to applied anthropogenic forcings鈥攊t simply is as it is, and we have observed how it has behaved during the past 100 years under increasing anthropogenic influences. But it is that the real climate has more internal variability than the climate models expect and thus the climate models may have the wrong sensitivity (how much the climate will warm when atmospheric carbon dioxide is doubled).|||Dr Tsonis in context, as opposed to a few cherry picked sentences in an unregulated media report...
"We have presented mathematical and physical evidence that support the hypothesis that the occurrence and variability of El Ni~no are sensitive to changes in global temperatures, but not to the actual value of the global temperature. More specifically, our theory suggests that El Ni~no is activated to reverse positive global temperature trends, and La Ni~na to reverse negative trends. This makes global temperature change (which can be a result of natural variability and=or of increased greenhouse gases) an important input into the variability of El Ni~no. Thus, predictions of global temperature trends are of paramount importance to the forecasts of weather patterns during the 21st century."
The above is the actual conclusion by Dr Tsonis from the paper that you refer to. The full paper (not just selected extracts) is here http://mailer.fsu.edu/~jelsner/PDF/Resea鈥?/a>
- - - - - - - -
EDIT:
Thanks Pegminer, I should have read the full Daily Mail article. It appears they are taking extracts, almost at random, from both the 2000 and 2008 papers by Tsonis according to which one appears to validate their claim, thus making it necessary to cross reference with both the full papers.|||He wasn't in MY club, anyway, because he made a glaring error in the first edition of his atmospheric thermodynamics book and then failed to correct it in the second edition, despite being informed of the error.
Still, it's not like the paper is discounting AGW. Perhaps you should look at the conclusions of the paper
"...the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing"
"If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability"
EDIT for Trevor: I think you pulled the wrong paper by Tsonis. Here is a link to the newer one (I'm not sure whether this link will work for everyone)
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0906/20鈥?/a>
No comments:
Post a Comment