Six Random Waves

Merchant of Doubt, Joanne Nova, pounces on the opportunity to raise doubt on whether or not CO2 is causing warming. Jo goes a little crazy with excitement and claims there is no “no man-made effect”; a little awkward given the authors state

This does not rule out a warming by anthropogenic influences such as an increase of atmospheric CO2. Such secular effects could have been incorporated by the DFT, e.g., into the 250-yr cycle obtained from M6, and would then not show up as a discrepancy between SM6 and RM6.

This is similar to the Akasofu Wave theory and just like it, there are several problems:

  • It doesn’t rule out CO2 as a cause of recent warming.
  • The curves do NOT match for the planet, but just some parts of Europe (~2 % of the Earths surface).
  • The curves don’t have a physical explanation. Getting a mathematical formula to match does not automatically mean that the curve has an equivalent natural forces. A curve could be a natural cycle, or it could be several factors all mimicking a cycle.
  • Going backwards in further in time shows the cycles fall apart as shown in the PAGES 2k Temperature Reconstruction

Using math to curve fit temps to 2% of the Earth’s surface, with NO explanation of what the components of the formula represent, is no substitute for the science that studies actual changes in forces (such as the Sun, Aerosols and Greenhouse Gases) that are known to affect the climate. Those studies determine that man-made actives in recent decades are the cause of current warming.

About these ads

Tags:

2 Responses to “Six Random Waves”

  1. Nice One Says:

    Looks like the peoples have Nova covered on this one. Even the denialists are paying out on her for suggesting mathematical cycles with no real-world attribution can replace known forcings.

  2. Marco Says:

    Note that Tamino has had some things to say about this paper, and so did the Rabett. Tamino points out that he can fit random noise on a trend with the same approach, and that Lüdecke et al would thus have to draw the conclusion that random noise is caused by cycles (sic). The Rabett points out that they have used a dataset which has known biases in the past, and that corrections for those biases have been made (but this knowledge is not included). Yet others have pointed out that the one Antarctic core they use is the only one that would fit their curve-fitting excercise. Take another core and it does not fit anymore.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: