Not necessarily a good result for the anti warmongers.
The notion of “positive feedback” is critical to the AGW predictions of CO2 impact and at least on the “denier” side the debate rages. The study’s model implies a positive feedback effect to model solar interaction, which in turn validates the warmonger’s use of the effect in their models. The good news is that they’ll have to subtract out the solar influence, but what’s left will likely still be considered worth kicking government economic controls into high gear.
From the same link:
“For those wondering how the study bears on global warming, Gerald Meehl, lead author on the study, says that it doesn’t – at least not directly….”
“Not directly” means less than you think, Dave.
Global warming is a religious belief, so actual scientific study is not likely to have much impact.
++ to Leland.
The high priests of AGW have flat-out stated that the PDO/ENSO/Oceanic Cycles are the reason we don’t see so much warming 2000-to-now. But they’re able to ignore the fact that “Cycles” tend to spend at least a teensy slice of their time on the other side of the baseline. Meaning you can’t continue to attribute as much of the warming in the nineties to carbon dioxide since at least some of it had to be warming-due-to-natural-cycles. If the magnitude of the effect of the warming portion of the cycle approaches the magnitude of the cooling cycle – problems.
If they were willing to subtract that, they end up with something that approaches the slope of the rebound from the Little Ice Age established prior to the current kerfuffle.
AGW is kind of like the string theory of earth science.
AGW is more the Lysenkoism of earth science. If you disagree with string theory hardly anyone cares, but with both AGW and Lysenkoism, the respective governments have declared “the science is settled.” (Yes, the Soviets used that phrase.)
Not necessarily a good result for the anti warmongers.
The notion of “positive feedback” is critical to the AGW predictions of CO2 impact and at least on the “denier” side the debate rages. The study’s model implies a positive feedback effect to model solar interaction, which in turn validates the warmonger’s use of the effect in their models. The good news is that they’ll have to subtract out the solar influence, but what’s left will likely still be considered worth kicking government economic controls into high gear.
From the same link:
“For those wondering how the study bears on global warming, Gerald Meehl, lead author on the study, says that it doesn’t – at least not directly….”
“Not directly” means less than you think, Dave.
Global warming is a religious belief, so actual scientific study is not likely to have much impact.
++ to Leland.
The high priests of AGW have flat-out stated that the PDO/ENSO/Oceanic Cycles are the reason we don’t see so much warming 2000-to-now. But they’re able to ignore the fact that “Cycles” tend to spend at least a teensy slice of their time on the other side of the baseline. Meaning you can’t continue to attribute as much of the warming in the nineties to carbon dioxide since at least some of it had to be warming-due-to-natural-cycles. If the magnitude of the effect of the warming portion of the cycle approaches the magnitude of the cooling cycle – problems.
If they were willing to subtract that, they end up with something that approaches the slope of the rebound from the Little Ice Age established prior to the current kerfuffle.
AGW is kind of like the string theory of earth science.
AGW is more the Lysenkoism of earth science. If you disagree with string theory hardly anyone cares, but with both AGW and Lysenkoism, the respective governments have declared “the science is settled.” (Yes, the Soviets used that phrase.)