Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift
I have to admit that a lot of that paper was over my head. But I found one thing interesting. From the abstract:
and from the conclusions:
One of the frequent criticisms I've seen about AGW and IPCC data analysis is that they used a distorted or too small data set. So, this study, disagreeing with their conclusions, uses a data set from only 24 stations on one landmass!
|
Now how many times is it needed to freeze water to determine that it happens at 0C/32F? Certainly more than once, as long as we don't accept it as a physical law that under the same atmospheric conditions it will always freeze at the same temperature.
What Olavi does, is trying to establish the feedback behavior of the atmosphere in general, not to measure as many trends as possible. The IPCC stance requires a positive feedback to be able to boost the assumed 1.2 degrees sensitivity to CO2 doubling to the 2.5 -4.5 degrees or something like that, required to justify the scaremongering.
Positive feedback means that something is pushing the temp out of equilibrium (persistency) while negative feedback would resist leaving that equilibrium, so the random one dimensional walk would have to show up with persistency to proof that positive feedback or resistancy to refute it.
In his first two papers he investigated the satellite temperature series
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf
But there where issues with these data, one of them that less than 30 years doesn't resemble climate, so he decided to use the longest temperature series available this time. And the outcome every time was resistancy - negative feedback.
So, he did the equivalent of doing three series of measurements the last one with 28 samples to see if water freezes at 0C/32F everytime.
But by all means, highly encouraged, do challenge him, ask his method, get your own station series and replicate the experiment. (Edit: I know he would love to see that happen)
Again if there is no positive feedback there is no catastrophic global warming coming up. That's logic. Logic of which it doesn't matter if it is brought by Kärner, me, or Joseph Stalin or whoever is the worst enemy of mankind.