Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
Carl,
My criticism is that the atmospheric physics doesn't support the idea of global warming/cooling through variations in solar output as the publication suggests.
On the question of data where does one draw the line (sorry for pun).
If statistics becomes the central point for argument, then any climate model can be summarily dismissed on those grounds.
My bias against climate deniers (blasted pun again) is the often blatant misinterpretation of data (eg. 1998 cherry picking) to support their views.
Climate scientists use 5 and 10 year moving point averages. There is nothing sinister in the statistics. It is designed to smooth out the noise caused by natural temperature variations.
Steven
|
I never suggested that the physics, as we understand them presently, supported solar driven change via insolation variations. What I was saying is that you have to be careful of how you interpret your data, that your modeling be rigorous and as inclusive of all the variables and data as possible. That's what students need to be taught. To be rigorous in their modeling and interpretations, and to cast critical, but unbiased, eyes over all the science (for or against).
And, when you draw the line, make sure it's not so steep you fall off
