If historical data-based climate sensitivity estimates are unreliable, then how reliable is a critique based on historical data? Seems to me these authors have fallen into their own pit of questionable reliability. The same considerations they raise can (and should) be raised regarding their own work. Click here for more discussion on this paper.
“We speculate that this could be explained by a deficiency in simulated coupled atmosphere–ocean feedbacks which reinforce the pattern (resembling the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation in some respects) that causes the low EffCS.” click here
“It is simple enough to test out which version of the pre-1980 temperature record is better. The version made by the people who lived through it, or the younger people now who are paid to generate graphs which show a lot of warming. We can compare the two versions vs. historical accounts of ice and other observations.” click here
“When it comes to the Sun’s influence on climate, one conclusion is certain: there is no widespread scientific agreement as to how and to what extent solar activity and its related parameters (i.e., galactic cosmic rays, geomagnetic activity, solar wind flux) impact changes in the Earth’s temperature and precipitation.” click here
“In Norway we find that a majority of the stations show cooling or steady temps for August. These results defy the spectacularly hyped statements we often hear from the Fridays for Future Fanatics (FFFF).” (click here)
Posted in Climate
Tagged climate, Norway