Here is what I find entertaining. They are having trouble nailing down just what happened over the past 10,000 years. Their models are based upon what happened over MUCH longer periods of time. FURTHER, the entirety of future modleing is based upon the feedbacks that they determined from the paleoclimate data that they can't even get to agree.
So the future warming of 3 degrees by 2100 is based upon WHAT??? Am I to believe that their uncertainty over whether the past 10,000 years was warming or cooling would not place doubt on paleoclimate records further back in history???
Am I to believe that they have a firm grasp on the CO2 feedbacks gathered from paleoclimate data, when they can't tell if it was warming or cooling over the past 10,000 year from that same data???
In my opinion, authors justify the statement of hypothesis using data and different models. However, more proxies’ data should be considered for the reconstruction of early-late Holocene temperature records as there is a need to critically re-examine the reconstruction process. Finally, as the temperature data is not clear so the climate model will not produce the correct result even though the models are perfect.
From your link :
" ... "The question is, 'Who is right?'" says Liu. "Or, maybe none of us is completely right. It could be partly a data problem, since some of the data in last year's study contradicts itself. It could partly be a model problem because of some missing physical mechanisms."
Over the last 10,000 years, Liu says, we know atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 20 parts per million before the 20th century, and the massive ice sheet of the Last Glacial Maximum has been retreating. These physical changes suggest that, globally, the annual mean global temperature should have continued to warm, even as regions of the world experienced cooling, such as during the Little Ice Age in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries.
The three models Liu and colleagues generated took two years to complete. They ran simulations of climate influences that spanned from the intensity of sunlight on Earth to global greenhouse gases, ice sheet cover and meltwater changes. Each shows global warming over the last 10,000 years. ... "
This clearly shows what "REAL" climate science has been telling us for many years, but the "ENVIRONMENTALIST" climate science has been dominating the news.
In climate science, it's usually the data that needs to be adjusted. Also, conundrums can be met in climate science by claiming there is none; that both conditions are possible at the same time. Likely because the climate system is complex.
Admitting a model is wrong is very rare which is surprising given the complexity of the system.
Hmm Quote "The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer," Liu says" ------- and he is a scientist?
It is not even always true, as you rise in the thermophere the temperature increases, but because the number of molecules decreases, the heat content also decreases, so therefore an object that is radiating heat, but not receiving much heat through the number of atmospheric molecules would get cooler.
Edit.-- sorry Alph I meant thermosphere (changed now)
Neither. And only a denialist would claim that we have to make such a choice. The idea that realists ignore past climate change is a denialist straw man argument.
Global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
Regarding Kano, what kind of power plant engineer would be so ignorant of basic physics? But I have narrowed down where he must have worked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_d...
KANO "you rise in the troposphere the temperature increases"
No way. ask any pilot who flies at 30,000 feet where it's -30C. BTW, you really need to explain why there is snow on tall mountains
where do you get such misinformation?
Find out why.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140811165812.htm
The dreaded conundrum is this. quote "Data from observation says global cooling.
The physical model says it has to be warming" end quote.
Should we A- throw out & ignore the actual observed data.
Or B- drastically tweak the physical model to make it more closely match observed empirical data.
