Quote:
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow
Name what specific conclusion of theirs is false. If you cannot.....
|
Fuhgonnesake IN, relax. The links I included (and I am sure I could have found a hundred, as could you) contest the notion (asserted by the IPCC) that the impact of variation in solar radiation is trivial. The links I included suggest that it is significantly greater than CO2.
Quote:
But, really? You couldn't decipher these two graphs? That's quite striking. Why don't you ask a specific question so perhaps we can help you arrive upon the answers you seek?
|
OK. This graph is an interesting representation of interpretive data. Can you explain "modeled forcing response" in two sentences? And if you can, are you pretty certain that the "model" fairly reflects the meaning of the underlying data? I am sure you are aware of the numerous (valid) critiques of the now-infamous "hockey-stick" graph in the earlier IPCC report. I certainly hope this "model" is better than that one.
Further, back in my basic research days, we would always rate any basic science study on the quality of the methods. If we couldn't figure out the methods, we would ignore the conclusion of the study. I think the above graph tests the validity of the forcing model, not the underlying data.
Was I specific enough? did you glance at my earlier references?
----------------
Few problems are so complex that they cannot be substantially clarified by one more cup of coffee
(or a nice cabernet if it is after 5:00)
Moderator in absentia. Return anticipated. Timing somewhat vague.
