Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I didn't get it anywhere, I just used it as an example of the difference between what wrong could mean. As far as I can tell this paper doesn't claim to invalidate AGW.
That's the proposal anyway to explain the discrepancy between the predicted increase in temperature by the models and the observed increase.
There are other proposals as well, which don't claim the models are invalid.
The difficulty with Dr. Spencer's work (from what I remember anyway it's been a while since I read anything about this and this paper may change that) was that his model was tuned to work for recent history, and that if you tried to go back in time and use the model to "predict" historical climate it came out with incorrect conclusions (whereas the models he is trying to invalidate work). I haven't read the new paper though but the comments I've read seem to have similar criticisms.
|
Ya well the second link I provided suggested at the end of it that that was an arguement against his work. The problem with that argument is that Spencer's data is directly observable wereas any historical data relies on indirect observations.