Quote:
Originally Posted by Edi
I see several problems with the stuff in that article. *snip* I am not saying that he is necessarily entirely wrong, but just based on that article, there are gaps in the solar radiation theory you can drive a tank division through. He makes the same mistake he accuses the CO2 crowd of making: He ignores a lot of other factors that have direct impact and then attributes the lot to his own theory. Or then that's a really dumbed down version of what he does.
|
No quibbles here. Those graphs interpolations look overly-convenient, too.
The data do raise real questions though (is El Nino or increased sun activity responsible for the temperature spike in the 1940, or are they related? Where does the CO2 go during cooling?). I'm not saying those questions can't be answered, just that if AGW advocates want to be taken seriously they should supply answers instead of attacking strawmen. (I don't even care if the answers supplied are *wrong*, at least there will be something concrete to address.)
In any case, thanks for your thoughts. You have supplied your answers.
Edit: another set of 'real questions' is raised in Monckton's article here
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...0807/index.cfm. ("GCMs make unphysical assumptions.") Feel free to critique Hafemeister and Schwartz too.
-Max
P.S. Hafemeister and Schwartz do a better job than I had remembered at addressing the sunspot issue. By which I mean at least they acknowledge it exists.