Den stora tråden om global uppvärmning/växthuseffekten

Incorrect claim that global warming is mostly natural was based on a study that can’t support that conclusion

DETAILS
Unsupported: The methods of this study, published in the journal GeoResJ, do not provide evidence for its claim that humans are not the primary cause of global warming.

Cherry-Picking: The study relied on several local records of past climate rather than a global compilation, and failed to account for the important difference between local and global temperature change and variability.

REVIEWERS
Chris Brierley - Senior Lecturer, University College London
Patrick Brown - Assistant Professor, San Jose State University
Shaun Lovejoy - Professor, McGill University

Läs här:
https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...sy-john-abbot/

"None of the writers bothered to ask a single other genuine climate scientist for their view on the paper. I asked five. They variously summarised the research as “junk science” and seriously flawed.

Scientists including Dr Gavin Schmidt, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Prof Steven Sherwood, deputy director at the University of New South Wales climate change research centre; and Prof Piers Forster, director of the Priestley international centre for climate at the University of Leeds, have pointed out to me serious flaws and errors in the paper’s methodology."

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...l-junk-science

"There's more to it! Their time axis is off by ~35 years and magnitude is too large by ~10%. So their '20th C' is actually 1845-1965."

https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/s...41454232371200

"The paper is deeply flawed from both the climate science and machine learning perspectives. The most obvious being the most eye-catching claim that equilibrium climate sensitivity is approximately 0.6C, which if true would overturn our understanding of the climate system. However the paper doesn't actually explain how this figure of 0.6C is obtained from a "largest deviation" of 0.2C, it is basically just a hand-wave. Also the largest deviation is not 0.2, this is the largest average (mean absolute) deviation seen in the proxies, and you can have a mean absolute deviation without there being a trend that you could relate to increased GHG concentrations and hence estimate ECS. More importantly, this would give an estimate of transient climate sensitivity, not equilibrium climate sensitivity, and you can't reliably estimate ECS (which is global) from regional or sub-regional proxy records."

https://earthscience.stackexchange.c...elevant-to-glo

"Ultimately, if your naive approach – that completely ignores physics – produces a results that is inconsistent with our understanding of the physical system (suggesting, for example, that it’s almost all natural and that the ECS is about 0.6oC), then it’s much, much more likely that the machine learning algorithm is producing nonsense, than there being something wrong with what is essentially fairly basic physics."

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...ne-unlearning/

Dom sysslar inte med vetenskap. Dom sysslar med kurvanpassning.

Tror mer på 80 studier än på IPCC:s och NOAA:s tweakade siffror där dom inför senaste rapporten "trollat" bort MWP. MWP som det i princip inte var något som helst snack om för tio år sedan.