tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post8829354204985221522..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Knappenberger's Variation and Lippard's TestMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-6058085475472840062010-01-12T11:38:32.493-08:002010-01-12T11:38:32.493-08:00Michael,
Having read your essay as well as Patric...Michael,<br /><br />Having read your essay as well as Patrick Michaels' a couple points come to mind. First Pat Michaels' is good at what he does. The phrase where he tells his readers that the CRU data showed a warming which is not as great as predicted by models and that they should conclude that the models were merely "a bit enthusiastic about the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide." Is part of an attempt to show himself to be disinterested and reasonable, while painting his opponents as dishonest and partisan. To a person unaware of the cotext of his statements it might seem quite believable. Unfortunately I have read both the testimony that James Hansen made to congress in 1988 and excerpts of that which Patrick Michaels made ten years after. It does seem as though Michaels misrepresented Mr. Hansen's testimony to make his own point of view seem more credible. As such I am not inclinded to take anything Michaels says at face value.<br /><br />I do wish that he would be a bit more specific about what time scale he is speaking of when he says that CRU data for global temperature is lower than models predict. My understanding is that models do not account for ENSO or other cyclical weather patterns, as such the models can not be expected to be accurate over similar time scales. Point being, does his statement have any merit; can we take comfort from this supposed difference?Padraig Tomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06483647257675174364noreply@blogger.com