Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[plunker]

Jinx said:

plunker said:

What I believe is you don't have sufficiently competant understanding of the fundamental basis for AGW to have any business holding a contrary view. To hold the view that increases in a trace gas can't have a significant effect it's beholding on you to understand the established science that says it does so you can critique it from an informed position, otherwise it's just worthless uninformed opinion of a layman, easy to ignore. The only thing interesting about your oft repeated homespun 'ideas' is the irrationality of your confidence in them in the face of so much science.

I'm sure the German physicists of Einstein's time could easily ignore the worthless opinion of a patent clerk. Doesn't make them correct.
Seriously though plunks - why are you falling for the same old snake-oil -"only the experts" can understand it gumpf?
Heck homeopathy insists trace substances can have mighty effects!

Here cometh Jinx with his small army of strawmen...

Einstein clearly wasn't just a layman expressing uninformed 'opinions' about things he didn't have a good understanding of.

And yes, understanding the scientific basis for CO2 forcing does require a fair bit of expertise, and that's not just an uninformed opinion. I've spent lots of time reading up on it - enough to know that it's well established physics, but also that it's forever beyond my technical skill to understand to a level that would qualify me to critique it. I simply don't have the required scientific grounding that would enable me to get to that level.

[Silver Smudger]

durbster said:

Silver Smudger said:

There is no place in science for scary bias or metaphor - Publishing this imprecise comparison is tabloid-worthy dramatising and exaggerating for rhetorical effect - So politics at best, at worst just propaganda, which is highly frustrating, when what we need is scientific fact.

especially from an outfit that calls themselves 'Scientific' American

The scientific facts are available for anyone to view (including on Scientific American), and have been for years. There are millions of scientific facts about AGW available on Google Scholar.

The science and data has been shared and shown and presented and graphed and explained endlessly, but the existence of these threads is proof that just stating scientific facts is not enough.

Sometimes people need to be shown another way of looking at something before they understand it.

You really think this is a useful way to present information?

Burning a coniferous forest of size X produces the same amount of CO2 as the total of all the fossil fuels being burnt by man.

How big is that fire, a total of all the little explosions in petrol and diesel engines, all the gas jets in the world's central heating boilers, all the coal furnaces heating water for power stations, all the wood burning stoves in summer houses in gardens all added together into one big fire?

Is that fire bigger than Africa?

Why a chose a coniferous forest for this illustration? Why not some other substance that releases less CO2 when burnt?

You could select any substance to burn on your imaginary fire, and then you could have a fire as large or small as you like!

Burn something with large CO2 content = Fire the size of a squirrel
Burn something with tiny CO2 content = Fire the size of the planet

The whole article is pointless and illustrates nothing to anyone, as there is no frame of reference to compare it to.

[plunker]

hairykrishna said:

Jinx said:

I'm sure the German physicists of Einstein's time could easily ignore the worthless opinion of a patent clerk. Doesn't make them correct.
Seriously though plunks - why are you falling for the same old snake-oil -"only the experts" can understand it gumpf?
Heck homeopathy insists trace substances can have mighty effects!

I don't think he said that 'only experts can understand it' though, did he? What he's saying is that some of the criticisms voiced on this thread show that a lot of posters don't understand enough about the thing they're arguing against to have an opinion that's worth listening to.

I'm saying both of those things actually. We may have different levels of 'understanding' in mind but to understand the scientific basis that says increases in a 'trace' greenhouse gas does have significant effect require's a good level of scientific grounding to properly understand imo. I'd need to go back to school and that ain't happening!

[PRTVR]

hairykrishna said:

PRTVR said:

Oh sorry didn't realise I was unworthy to have an opinion on the subject, we can't have alternative ideas can we ?

Opinions uninformed by data are fairly worthless.

My opinion is that our fossil fuel usage is causing a temperature rise. Backing this up I see an observed rise in CO2 concentrations. Isotope ratios and simple mass calculations tell me this comes from us burning fossil fuels. About a century of theoretical physics backed up by rigorous measurements, both in the lab and directly in the atmosphere, tells me that this rise significantly changes the atmospheric IR absorption. Calculations tell me that this should lead to a rise in surface temperature. The instrumental temperature record tells me that the surface temperature is rising.

Where does your opinion come from?

From places like the IPCC who have said that the temperature rise has paused, what of all your calculations now, oh sorry I forgot the heat ended up in the deep ocean's, or are we not in a pause then why come up with the missing heat theory, I really wish they would make their minds up, it's almost as if they have to keep the faith regards of facts.

[durbster]

Silver Smudger said:

You really think this is a useful way to present information?

Burning a coniferous forest of size X produces the same amount of CO2 as the total of all the fossil fuels being burnt by man.

How big is that fire, a total of all the little explosions in petrol and diesel engines, all the gas jets in the world's central heating boilers, all the coal furnaces heating water for power stations, all the wood burning stoves in summer houses in gardens all added together into one big fire?

Is that fire bigger than Africa?

Why a chose a coniferous forest for this illustration? Why not some other substance that releases less CO2 when burnt?

You could select any substance to burn on your imaginary fire, and then you could have a fire as large or small as you like!

Burn something with large CO2 content = Fire the size of a squirrel
Burn something with tiny CO2 content = Fire the size of the planet

The whole article is pointless and illustrates nothing to anyone, as there is no frame of reference to compare it to.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're rambling about. The article is simply using something easy to understand to illustrate something. It's directed at people who believe that human activity has little or no impact on the planet.

[plunker]

PRTVR said:

hairykrishna said:

PRTVR said:

Oh sorry didn't realise I was unworthy to have an opinion on the subject, we can't have alternative ideas can we ?

Opinions uninformed by data are fairly worthless.

My opinion is that our fossil fuel usage is causing a temperature rise. Backing this up I see an observed rise in CO2 concentrations. Isotope ratios and simple mass calculations tell me this comes from us burning fossil fuels. About a century of theoretical physics backed up by rigorous measurements, both in the lab and directly in the atmosphere, tells me that this rise significantly changes the atmospheric IR absorption. Calculations tell me that this should lead to a rise in surface temperature. The instrumental temperature record tells me that the surface temperature is rising.

Where does your opinion come from?

From places like the IPCC who have said that the temperature rise has paused, what of all your calculations now, oh sorry I forgot the heat ended up in the deep ocean's, or are we not in a pause then why come up with the missing heat theory, I really wish they would make their minds up, it's almost as if they have to keep the faith regards of facts.

The putative pause is dead dude:

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

From places like the IPCC who have said that the temperature rise has paused, what of all your calculations now, oh sorry I forgot the heat ended up in the deep ocean's, or are we not in a pause then why come up with the missing heat theory, I really wish they would make their minds up, it's almost as if they have to keep the faith regards of facts.

Considering you're regurgitating turbobloke's tired propaganda, are you actually getting your information Pistonheads, rather than the IPCC?

The last sentence is a giveaway.

[Jinx]

plunker said:

Here cometh Jinx with his small army of strawmen...

Einstein clearly wasn't just a layman expressing uninformed 'opinions' about things he didn't have a good understanding of.

And yes, understanding the scientific basis for CO2 forcing does require a fair bit of expertise, and that's not just an uninformed opinion. I've spent lots of time reading up on it - enough to know that it's well established physics, but also that it's forever beyond my technical skill to understand to a level that would qualify me to critique it. I simply don't have the required scientific grounding that would enable me to get to that level.

Unfortunately plunks the scientific basis of CO2 forcing are far and removed from the net effect on climate. The error bars and estimations used to support the "dangerous climate change" meme are wide enough to drive many hydrogen bombs through. So the "well" of established physics has run dry when trying to tie up the absorption of IR via dipole moment changes (note dipole moment changes not necessarily an increase in internal energy) and dangerous AGW.

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Post the proof here then

There's no point in posting further proof - I've already posted examples of evidence that do that but you either fail to understand it, can't be bothered to read it or choose to ignore it.

And apols for not replying to your point referring to the work by Dr Soon but really? Do you know his background?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

So you choose to go with the guy funded by the oil companies vs the thousands of others that aren't...

FWIW here's what I posted again. No viable alternative factor behind the warming and direct causality...

"Seeing as one of your questions seems to be around proof/causality, how about the following. As has been set out before there's a huge amount of data to back this up. It's not just confined to the IPCC work (which in itself is based on thousands of scientific papers so even if you take the view that it's politics you need to consider the supporting info in itself) which basically centre on the 'no plausible alternative cause approach' i.e. whilst volcanoes, the Earth's orbit around the sun, solar radiation changes and things like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation can all affect climate no other cause aside from anthropogenic CO2 can explain the temp changes over the last 150-250 years. The paper below summarises this (it was produced by a group of sceptics who were looking to test analysis):

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Pap...

There's more though - for example a quick rummage through Google Scholar provides papers on direct attribution (or 'causality') studies such as:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC47619...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-01...
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-01...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-01...
https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6316
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1557086
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS102833...

Does that answer your question?"

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 27th April 17:54

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 27th April 17:56

[Silver Smudger]

durbster said:

Silver Smudger said:

You really think this is a useful way to present information?

Burning a coniferous forest of size X produces the same amount of CO2 as the total of all the fossil fuels being burnt by man.

How big is that fire, a total of all the little explosions in petrol and diesel engines, all the gas jets in the world's central heating boilers, all the coal furnaces heating water for power stations, all the wood burning stoves in summer houses in gardens all added together into one big fire?

Is that fire bigger than Africa?

Why a chose a coniferous forest for this illustration? Why not some other substance that releases less CO2 when burnt?

You could select any substance to burn on your imaginary fire, and then you could have a fire as large or small as you like!

Burn something with large CO2 content = Fire the size of a squirrel
Burn something with tiny CO2 content = Fire the size of the planet

The whole article is pointless and illustrates nothing to anyone, as there is no frame of reference to compare it to.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're rambling about. The article is simply using something easy to understand to illustrate something. It's directed at people who believe that human activity has little or no impact on the planet.

You said it was "...a nice and simple visualisation of the amount of CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere..." when it is in fact no such thing - It is an alarmist scare story using an imaginary fire the size of Africa - I cannot visualise anything based on that.

Perhaps someone else here can understand my questions above and can explain them to you?

[PRTVR]

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

hairykrishna said:

PRTVR said:

Oh sorry didn't realise I was unworthy to have an opinion on the subject, we can't have alternative ideas can we ?

Opinions uninformed by data are fairly worthless.

My opinion is that our fossil fuel usage is causing a temperature rise. Backing this up I see an observed rise in CO2 concentrations. Isotope ratios and simple mass calculations tell me this comes from us burning fossil fuels. About a century of theoretical physics backed up by rigorous measurements, both in the lab and directly in the atmosphere, tells me that this rise significantly changes the atmospheric IR absorption. Calculations tell me that this should lead to a rise in surface temperature. The instrumental temperature record tells me that the surface temperature is rising.

Where does your opinion come from?

From places like the IPCC who have said that the temperature rise has paused, what of all your calculations now, oh sorry I forgot the heat ended up in the deep ocean's, or are we not in a pause then why come up with the missing heat theory, I really wish they would make their minds up, it's almost as if they have to keep the faith regards of facts.

The putative pause is dead dude:

The university of East Anglia, what the same place that started climategate, you expect anything coming out of there to have any credence ? Snake oil salesman the lot of them, this is one of the biggest problems for convincing people trust, there is none, from climate through the hockey stick even now they are still at it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/cli...
The guardians of the information appear to follow an agenda which keeps the money coming in, but this is what we come to expect, I find it funny that we are expected to trust them, not to question them just believe.

[DapperDanMan]

Silver Smudger said:

durbster said:

Silver Smudger said:

You really think this is a useful way to present information?

Burning a coniferous forest of size X produces the same amount of CO2 as the total of all the fossil fuels being burnt by man.

How big is that fire, a total of all the little explosions in petrol and diesel engines, all the gas jets in the world's central heating boilers, all the coal furnaces heating water for power stations, all the wood burning stoves in summer houses in gardens all added together into one big fire?

Is that fire bigger than Africa?

Why a chose a coniferous forest for this illustration? Why not some other substance that releases less CO2 when burnt?

You could select any substance to burn on your imaginary fire, and then you could have a fire as large or small as you like!

Burn something with large CO2 content = Fire the size of a squirrel
Burn something with tiny CO2 content = Fire the size of the planet

The whole article is pointless and illustrates nothing to anyone, as there is no frame of reference to compare it to.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're rambling about. The article is simply using something easy to understand to illustrate something. It's directed at people who believe that human activity has little or no impact on the planet.

You said it was "...a nice and simple visualisation of the amount of CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere..." when it is in fact no such thing - It is an alarmist scare story using an imaginary fire the size of Africa - I cannot visualise anything based on that.

Perhaps someone else here can understand my questions above and can explain them to you?

Have you considered the possibility that it is you that is the problem here. You want the world to be what you believe it to be but when something comes along to challenge that world model your mind rejects it.

The article states that it is trying to put the level of emissions into a context that most people can understand. So on current output they say Africa + 30% as a constantly burning forest fire is equivalent to the fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Now that is a very sobering thought for anyone to read and if it is alarming then maybe that is because it is something to be concerned about.

[PRTVR]

DapperDanMan said:

Silver Smudger said:

durbster said:

Silver Smudger said:

You really think this is a useful way to present information?

Burning a coniferous forest of size X produces the same amount of CO2 as the total of all the fossil fuels being burnt by man.

How big is that fire, a total of all the little explosions in petrol and diesel engines, all the gas jets in the world's central heating boilers, all the coal furnaces heating water for power stations, all the wood burning stoves in summer houses in gardens all added together into one big fire?

Is that fire bigger than Africa?

Why a chose a coniferous forest for this illustration? Why not some other substance that releases less CO2 when burnt?

You could select any substance to burn on your imaginary fire, and then you could have a fire as large or small as you like!

Burn something with large CO2 content = Fire the size of a squirrel
Burn something with tiny CO2 content = Fire the size of the planet

The whole article is pointless and illustrates nothing to anyone, as there is no frame of reference to compare it to.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're rambling about. The article is simply using something easy to understand to illustrate something. It's directed at people who believe that human activity has little or no impact on the planet.

You said it was "...a nice and simple visualisation of the amount of CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere..." when it is in fact no such thing - It is an alarmist scare story using an imaginary fire the size of Africa - I cannot visualise anything based on that.

Perhaps someone else here can understand my questions above and can explain them to you?

Have you considered the possibility that it is you that is the problem here. You want the world to be what you believe it to be but when something comes along to challenge that world model your mind rejects it.

The article states that it is trying to put the level of emissions into a context that most people can understand. So on current output they say Africa + 30% as a constantly burning forest fire is equivalent to the fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Now that is a very sobering thought for anyone to read and if it is alarming then maybe that is because it is something to be concerned about.

Not quite, CO2 is a colourless odourless inert gas, that is important to life on earth as a component of photosynthesis and still the amount added to the atmosphere is a small addition to trace gas in the atmosphere, alarming ? You must be easily scared, perhaps the extra plant growth is an issue to you ? More food better crops, green house growers use CO2 to increase crop yields,
personally I am more worried about the rise in log burners due to worries about power cuts, a few people I know have you them for this reason, what use to be smokeless zones now have the lots of wood burning stoves pumping out their waste .

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

Not quite, CO2 is a colourless odourless inert gas, that is important to life on earth as a component of photosynthesis and still the amount added to the atmosphere is a small addition to trace gas in the atmosphere, alarming ?

I know you've been asked already but let's try again because it's interesting: on what basis are you claiming there isn't a problem, when all the evidence - theory and observation - says the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming?

[robinessex]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

Not quite, CO2 is a colourless odourless inert gas, that is important to life on earth as a component of photosynthesis and still the amount added to the atmosphere is a small addition to trace gas in the atmosphere, alarming ?

I know you've been asked already but let's try again because it's interesting: on what basis are you claiming there isn't a problem, when all the evidence - theory and observation - says the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming?

So why no planet Armageddon when the CO2, in the past, was higher? Dinosaurs thrived on it for 50,000,000 years or so! Which it always has been. Opps, nearly forgot. Does it mattered if the planet get a miniscule amount warmer? Question never answered here so far, despite what Durbcter claims, just lots of evasion and blinkers on.



No correlation there !!

Edited by robinessex on Friday 28th April 09:47

[DapperDanMan]

PRTVR said:

DapperDanMan said:

Silver Smudger said:

durbster said:

Silver Smudger said:

You really think this is a useful way to present information?

Burning a coniferous forest of size X produces the same amount of CO2 as the total of all the fossil fuels being burnt by man.

How big is that fire, a total of all the little explosions in petrol and diesel engines, all the gas jets in the world's central heating boilers, all the coal furnaces heating water for power stations, all the wood burning stoves in summer houses in gardens all added together into one big fire?

Is that fire bigger than Africa?

Why a chose a coniferous forest for this illustration? Why not some other substance that releases less CO2 when burnt?

You could select any substance to burn on your imaginary fire, and then you could have a fire as large or small as you like!

Burn something with large CO2 content = Fire the size of a squirrel
Burn something with tiny CO2 content = Fire the size of the planet

The whole article is pointless and illustrates nothing to anyone, as there is no frame of reference to compare it to.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're rambling about. The article is simply using something easy to understand to illustrate something. It's directed at people who believe that human activity has little or no impact on the planet.

You said it was "...a nice and simple visualisation of the amount of CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere..." when it is in fact no such thing - It is an alarmist scare story using an imaginary fire the size of Africa - I cannot visualise anything based on that.

Perhaps someone else here can understand my questions above and can explain them to you?

Have you considered the possibility that it is you that is the problem here. You want the world to be what you believe it to be but when something comes along to challenge that world model your mind rejects it.

The article states that it is trying to put the level of emissions into a context that most people can understand. So on current output they say Africa + 30% as a constantly burning forest fire is equivalent to the fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Now that is a very sobering thought for anyone to read and if it is alarming then maybe that is because it is something to be concerned about.

Not quite, CO2 is a colourless odourless inert gas, that is important to life on earth as a component of photosynthesis and still the amount added to the atmosphere is a small addition to trace gas in the atmosphere, alarming ? You must be easily scared, perhaps the extra plant growth is an issue to you ? More food better crops, green house growers use CO2 to increase crop yields,
personally I am more worried about the rise in log burners due to worries about power cuts, a few people I know have you them for this reason, what use to be smokeless zones now have the lots of wood burning stoves pumping out their waste .

Are you replying to someone else and just quoted me by mistake as your response doesn't correlate with anything I wrote (although we both used CO2)?

[Jinx]

Lotus 50 said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC47619...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-01...
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-01...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-01...
https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6316
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1557086
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS102833...

Page unavailable? Yep that's convinced me.

Oh and quoting wiki for a character assassination of Dr Willie Soon? Poor form dear boy - you may as well quote verbatim desmogblog.
For balance - https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/will...

[Lotus 50]

Hmm not sure what happened there but for those too lazy to scroll back to the original posting I'll try again and see if the links work properly this time...

Lotus 50 said:

Nope you're wrong again. We have a very clear idea that CO2 is causing the Earth's surface temp to increase and that the impacts of these changes could be significantly damaging although there is uncertainty around the detail and timing of those impacts. In terms of the responses made to them it seems to me that, starting with Mrs T's Conservative Govt, successive governments in the UK have adopted proportionate and sensible responses in the light of those uncertainties.

Seeing as one of your questions seems to be around proof/causality, how about the following. As has been set out before there's a huge amount of data to back this up. It's not just confined to the IPCC work (which in itself is based on thousands of scientific papers so even if you take the view that it's politics you need to consider the supporting info in itself) which basically centre on the 'no plausible alternative cause approach' i.e. whilst volcanoes, the Earth's orbit around the sun, solar radiation changes and things like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation can all affect climate no other cause aside from anthropogenic CO2 can explain the temp changes over the last 150-250 years. The paper below summarises this (it was produced by a group of sceptics who were looking to test analysis):

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Pap...

There's more though - for example a quick rummage through Google Scholar provides papers on direct attribution (or 'causality') studies such as:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC47619...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-01...
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-01...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-01...
https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6316
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1557086
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS102833...

Does that answer your question?

and does anyone really take the 'win £100k' competition seriously?

Edited by Lotus 50 on Friday 31st March 17:09

Edited by Lotus 50 on Friday 31st March 17:10

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

So why no planet Armageddon when the CO2, in the past, was higher? Dinosaurs thrived on it for 50,000,000 years or so! Which it always has been. Opps, nearly forgot. Does it mattered if the planet get a miniscule amount warmer? Question never answered here so far, despite what Durbcter claims, just lots of evasion and blinkers on.



No correlation there !!

Edited by robinessex on Friday 28th April 09:47

And I refer you back once again to my earlier answer...

"Again, read the papers I posted earlier and my replies to your other posts. Yes CO2 levels have been higher so have global temperatures, and for that matter sea levels. Over time CO2 has been shown to increase as a result of temp rises (i.e. follow it) due to other factors (e.g. changes in the Earth's orbit) causing the release of CO2 from biomass etc but has also been shown to lead temp rises as is the case at present. As I've explained before the problem is not that it's going to wipe life off the Earth but it will cause significant impacts to people living in low-lying areas at risk of sea level rise (the last time CO2 levels were the same as they are now sea level was 6-9m higher than it is now - note sea level change lags behind temp changes so the impacts are likely to happen over the next 2-300 years). The other point that may have escaped you is that at the time of the dinosaurs the location of the continents was significantly different so there's a strong chance of comparing apples and pears. If anyone is right up the bloody looney tree it's the person that discounts the vast amount of data and thousands of academic papers that demonstrate the issue and it's potential impacts.

Oh and re your assertion that CO2 levels were higher in the ice-age than they are now, you might want to have a closer look at your second graph (clue Ice age = Pleistocene)"

[Jinx]

Lotus 50 said:

The paper below summarises this (it was produced by a group of sceptics who were looking to test analysis):

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Pap...

Richard Muller was never a sceptic and his daughter certainly was a dyed in the wool believer. As to the paper linked - that just shows the world is warming (no causation) - and the methods used have been criticized as they produce warming when the raw data from certain sites show none.

Lotus 50 said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC47619...
"Using the IF concept we were able to confirm the inherent one-way causality between human activities and global warming, as during the last 150 years the increasing anthropogenic radiative forcing is driving the increasing global temperature, a result that cannot be inferred from traditional time delayed correlation or ordinary least square regression analysis"

Well that's news to the IPCC - AGW cannot have had any effect prior to 1950 due to the small concentrations of additional CO2 prior to that point. shurly some mistake?


I'll read the rest later.