Questioner wrote:Your projections are the result of curve fitting mostly without reference to any physical mechanisms. You refer to a rebound from the LIA, but you admit this has no physical origin that you can point to.
Questioner wrote:The only physical effect that you allude to is CO2, and you give an estimate of 0.5C for doubling of CO2 produced by Lindzen.
That is a lowball estimate compared to the consensus of 3C which is 6 times larger.
Questioner wrote:For some reason, I "am not authorized to view any of your graphs".
Philip wrote:Mike, I agree there are many reasons to doubt the accuracy of the temperature record, but then again many of the climate datasets are disputed in one way or another. I think the fact that the CRU record shows the 60-year cycles so clearly argues that it is roughly right, even if the increases in the second half of the 20th century are exaggerated. Nonetheless, even by taking it at face value (as in the graph), it still contains no convincing reasons to accept AGW alarmism.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests