An excerpt:
...If you look at the third graph, you see that there was no warming on the Southern Hemisphere in the last 25 years even though the "global warming theory" and the corresponding models are predicting even faster rise of the tropospheric temperatures than for the surface temperatures. The decadal trend is quantitatively around 0.05 degrees which is noise whose sign can change almost instantly.
Normally, I would think that one should conclude that according to the observations, there is no discernible recent warming on the Southern Hemisphere, and an experimental refutation of a far-reaching hypothesis by a whole hemisphere is a good enough reason to avoid the adjective "global" for the observed warming.
Posts
1 comment:
Hmm. That is very interesting. One thing that strikes me off the top of my head is that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are fundamentally different--the Southern has much less land area than the Northern. Weather-wise, the two hemispheres are also rather separate, in that weather systems (such as tropical storms) do not cross from one to the other, usually. So I do not see a lack of close linkage between the climates of the two hemispheres as necessarily "proof" that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. Do those tropospheric models that predict a global change in climate have different parameters for each hemisphere? (I don't know.)
The climate models are, by necessity, simplifications--as both critics and proponents of AGW would admit. So some lack-of-fit to observations is to be expected. The question, of course, is how much does it take to invalidate a model? There's the rub.
(Note I've started using the handle "Cotinis" in blog posts--a.k.a. Patrick Coin.)
Post a Comment