I've linked the Berkeley groups results before that provides the most easily understandable demonstration of AGW http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings . They show using their own independent temp data that in the 250 year period from 1750 to 2012, global surface temps very closely follows CO2 levels after subtracting out the effects of volcanic activity. It is a very simple analysis that demonstrates the primacy of greenhouse gases in determining surface temps over the long-term.It is interesting I think to note Judith Curry's dissenting response. Curry has been and I believe still is a participating member of the Berkeley team.Curry: Their latest paper on the 250 year record concludes that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions. In my opinion, their analysis is way over simplistic and not at all convincing . There is broad agreement that greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to the warming in the latter half of the 20th century; the big question is how much of this warming can be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. I don't think this question can be answered by the simple curve fitting used in this paper, and I don’t see that their paper adds anything to our understanding of the causes of the recent warming. http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/29/a-new-release-from-berkele...I find it curious that she rejects the close curve-fitting observed, with the only reason given that she believes it shouldn't work. I hesitate to be overly critical about something stated in a blog, but it certainly sounds in this case that Curry is rejecting statistically significant(and pretty dramatic) correlations only because it doesn't fit her preconceptions.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M